United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
EPA9-03-R-00013D
June 2003
Draft Programmatic
Environmental Imoact Statement
-------
APPENDIX G
SOCIOECONOMIC
TECHNICAL STUDIES
-------
APPENDIX G: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA
TABLES
Table G-l
State Cultural Resource Contacts for Kentucky, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia
State Aeencv
Kentucky Heritage Council
University of Kentucky,
Department of Anthropology
Tennessee Department of
Environment and
Conservation
Tennessee Department of
Environment and
Conservation
Div. of Archaeology
Tennessee Historical
Commission
Virginia Department of
Historic Resources
Virginia Department, of
Historic Resources
West Virginia Division of
Culture and History
West Virginia Division of
Culture and History
Contact Person
Mr. David Morgan, SHPO
and Dir. Kentucky
Heritage Council
State Archaeologist
Mr. Ollie Keller, Deputy
Commissioner and SHPO
Nick Fielder,
State Archaeologist
Herbert Harper, Director
H. Alexander Wise, Jr.,
Director
M. Catherine Slusser,
State Archaeologist
Patrick Trader, Senior
Archaeologist
Renay Conlin,
Commissioner
Address l| Teleohone/Fax/Email
300 Washington St.
Frankfort, KY 40601
Lexington, KY 40506-0024
2941 Lebanon Road
Nashville, TN 37243-0435
5103 Edmonson Pike
Nashville, TN 37211-5129
Clover Bottom Mansion
2941 Lebanon Road
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0442
2801 Kensington Avenue
Richmond, VA 23221
2801 Kensington A ve.
Richmond, VA 23219
The Cultural Center
1900 Kanawha Blvd. East
Charleston, WV 25305-0300
Capitol Complex
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
Tel: (502) 564-7005
Email:
dmorgan@mail. state. ky. us
(606) 258-5735
Email: antl31@ukcc.uky.edu
Tel: (615)535-0105
Tel: (615) 741-1588
Fax: (615) 741-7329
Email: nfielder@mail.state.tn.us
Tel: (615)532-1550
Tel: (804) 367-2323
Tel: (804) 367-2323
Fax:(804)225-4261
Email: cslusser@dhr.state.va.us
Tel: (304) 558-0220, ext. 179
Fax: (304) 558-2779
Tel: (304) 558-0200
Sources: U.S. Department of Interior. "National Park Service Homepage." Online, http://www2.cr.nps.gov/shpo/.
July 21, 1999.
State of Tennessee. "Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Homepage." Online.
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/hist/hist.htm. July 21, 1999.
University of Kentucky. Online. http://www.ukv.edu/AS/Anthropologv/Facultv/faculty.htmlffStaff.
July 21, 1999.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
G-l
Draft - December 2002
-------
Socio-Economic Study Category, Appendix G
Study Topic
Post Mining Land Use Study
The Mountaintop EIS Technical Report
Mine Dust and Fumes Study
Blasting-Related Citizen Complaints in Kentucky, West Virginia,
Virginia and Tennessee
Impact of Blasting on Domestic Wells
Workshop on Mountaintop Mining Effects on Ground water
Comparative Study of Structure Response to Coal Mine Blasting -
Non Traditional Structures
Phase I Economics
Phase II Economics
Sensitivity Analysis
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes Related to
Mountaintop Mining
File Date
3/18/2002
6/6/2000
10/09/2001
7/10/2002
6/28/2002
9/14/2000
2/01/2003
3/08/2002
12/12/2001
1/13/2003
8/30/02
These reports are included in the appendix in black and white. Color versions may be viewed on
the following website, http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm
Post Mining Land Use Study by Dr. Charles Yuill, WVU
This study is designed to assess the impacts of historic, current, and potential mountaintop
removal mining on land use and development patterns in West Virginia. This study, along with
other related studies, was designed to answer the following general question:
What are the socio-economic impacts, both positive and negative, associated with
mountaintop mining and valley fills ? These may include values associated with
post mining land use change, removal from market of coal not economically
accessible by other mining methods (and associated takings claims), aesthetics,
tourism, the heritage of mountain residents, and other factors.
More specifically, the EIS Steering Committee wanted this particular study to determine if
changes in land uses following mountaintop mining and reclamation provide marketable lands
beneficial to the coal field region of southern West Virginia. The study concludes:
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
"Significant additional acreages of land with development opportunities and
potentials greater than the potentials that are currently present will result from
reclamation in the potential future mountaintop mining areas." However, the
report adds that, "Development limitations such as poor accessibility and
infrastructure proximity will continue in nearly all of these areas." Regarding the
prospects for future developed land uses, the study concludes that, "Given current
and foreseeable future land use demands, it is unlikely that any more than 2 to 3%
of the future post-mining land uses will be developed land uses such as housing,
commercial, industrial, or public facility development."
The study also indicates the scope of land use changes from past, present and potential coal
mining:
"Almost 88%, or slightly over four million acres were classified as mature forest land with
the diverse mesophytic forest type being most prevalent at almost three million acres of area.
All developed land uses (intensive urban, moderately intensive urban, light urban, populated
areas, major roads, and infrastructure such as power lines) only accounted for 155,000 acres
or roughly three percent of the area. Agricultural land uses were found on approximately a
quarter of a million acres or five percent of the area. Other general land use/ land cover
categories include: shrub land and woodland areas with slightly over 63,000 acres; water/
wetlands with 56,000 acres or one percent of the area; and barren land-mining being 74,000
acres or 1.5% of the study area. The barren land-mining category significantly
underestimates the acreage in mining because it includes only areas that were essentially in
bare or nearly bare soil at the time of image acquisition-so it does not include reclaimed
areas."
The report corrected the underestimated mining category of land use as follows:
"Total identified disturbed acreage (all mining disturbances) = 244,664 acres, 5.01% of
region. Estimate does not include areas that have been fully reclaimed or converted to a
post-mining land use. Current permitted coal mine area in the mountaintop mining region
of West Virginia [is] 247,364 acres. Of the total permitted area in the region, over one
quarter is in mountaintop mines-the remaining are contour mines, surface areas impacted
by underground mines, and coal preparation and cleaning facilities that often contain very
large coal waste disposal areas."
The report shows that 91% of the permitted area had a pre-mining land use of various types of forest
cover, with 68% of the proposed post-mining land use area comprising various types of forest cover
or wildlife habitat. The report projected from 56,000 to 228,000 acres affected due to potential
future mountaintop removal (does not include projections of future contour mining).
However, the reader must be cautioned on the use of specific study data regarding future land use
impacts due to MTM/VFoperations. The future proj ected mining data provided in the study is based
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
on GIS data generated by the "Phase I Economic" study, which was not designed for siting purposes.
The Phase I study was also subsequently determined to have limitations because the data did not
necessarily represent potential future mining sites and the model was insensitive to localized land
uses and mining engineering assumptions. The portions of the study that are not based
The Mountaintop EIS Technical Report - by the Mountaintop Technical Team
This study was designed to determine how coal recovery at proposed mine sites would be impacted
if valley fills were prohibited in intermittent and perennial stream segments. Use of alternative
methods to mine available coal were analyzed. This studyand other related studies were designed
to answer the following general question:
If regulatory action limits mountaintop mining and/or associated valley fills, what
impacts would the possible alternative mining methods have on environmental and
socio-economic resources?
Specifically, for this particular study, the EIS Steering Committee wanted to know the impacts to
coal recovery by limiting valley fill construction to ephemeral stream segments. The study
concludes:
Of the ten mines examined, coal recovery would be reduced by 78%, if the altered
economics of revised mine configurations are not considered. The coal recovery
from these sites would be reduced by 86%. A combination underground/contour
mine with a coal processing facility was also examined, and the study determined
that recovery of coal from this complex is completely infeasible if fills would be
restricted to ephemeral streams. Adding the reductions for this eleventh facility, the
total coal recovery (compared to the original mine plan recovery) is reduced by over
92%.
The limiting factor of this study was the relatively small sample size.
Mine Dust and Blasting Fumes Study by Dr. Lloyd English, WVU
The study was designed to determine if blasting was causing measurably higher concentrations of
dust and fumes outside of the permit area. The study was performed primarily because of public
comments and concerns raised during EIS scoping meetings that dust from mine blasts was a
significant problem and a health risk to people living in communities adj acent to mountaintop mines.
The study concluded that dust and fume emissions from blasting pose no potential health problems
outside of the mine area. Visible and measurable fugitive dust—a quality of life issue—rarely
migrated more than 1000 feet from the actual blast.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
The limiting factor of this study is the relatively small sample size and the ability to capture/measure
the dust and gas fumes emanating from the blast.
Blasting-Related Citizen Complaints in Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee by
OSM
This survey was adapted for the EIS from a nationwide study of citizens' blasting complaints, The
report characterized the nature of the complaints and responsive actions of the regulatory
authorities. The survey characterized the nature, number, and disposition of the complaints within
the EIS study area.
The survey found 'annoyance' is the most common blasting complaint, followed by damage and
water concerns. Dust, fumes, and flyrock were of much less concern. None of the complaints
concerned injury to a person, and only one complaint investigation substantiated property damage.
Regulatory authorities most often cited coal operators for record-keeping violations.
The limiting factor of the survey is reliance on available regulatory authority records as opposed to
site-specific investigations to discern if allegations were legitimate or complaints were appropriately
investigated.
Impact of Blasting on Domestic Wells by Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc
The study was designed to investigate possible effects of mining operations on groundwater quality
and supply in domestic wells. OSM performed this study to supplement existing studies to ascertain
whether blasting operations were having a profound affect on domestic wells and groundwater
sources.
Consistent with earlier U.S. Bureau of Mines research, the study found few changes in the water
quality and well yield data that could be directly attributed to blasting. Water quality parameters
changed slightly over time, but seem to be unrelated to blasting. The report concluded changes were
likely the result of sensor drift and mixing of the water in the well due to pump cycling. Well yield
and water level remained constant.
The limiting factor of this study is that only one of the original ten wells could be monitored over
entire study period.
Comparative Study of Structure Response to Coal Mine Blasting - Non Traditional Structures
by Aimone Martin & Associates
The objective of this study was to observe the response characteristics of atypical (e.g., mobile,
earth, log, adobe homes) residential structures to blast-induced ground vibration and airblast. The
response of these type home to blasts were compared to findings from existing research to determine
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
if the atypical residential structures are afforded the same level of protection as typical residential
structures (e.g., frame, masonry, etc. homes) under the existing OSM rules. OSM performed this
study to supplement current research. The findings are relevant to scoping issues suggesting that
large scale blasting conducted as part of mountaintop mining was damaging homes and other
structures.
The study concluded that most of the structures responded in a similar way to structures in earlier
blasting studies. The structural response (i.e. the amplification of vibrations within a man-made
structure as the result of induced ground vibrations) was greater in earth, masonry structures, and
two-story camp homes than traditional structures. When these structures are present near coal mine
blasting, lower site-specific vibration and airblast limits (provided for in the OSM regulations) may
be prudent.
Phase I Economics by Resource Technology Corporation
The study was designed to determine the effects on coal resource recovery from limiting valley fills
to certain size watersheds (35, 75, 150, and 250 acres). The study was designed to ascertain the
economic effects of various actions and alternatives under consideration to restrict the valley fills.
This phase of the study examined the effects on coal resource recovery related to available valley
fill disposal sites. The study was also designed to aid in the cumulative impact analysis by
identifying areas that could be affected by future MTM/VF construction.
The study concluded that there would be a 17, 23, 46, and 77 percent reduction in coal resources
extracted if fills were limited to 250-, 150-, 75-, and 35-acre watershed scenarios, respectively.
While the study addressed the questions posed, the EIS Steering Committee found limitations with
the study.
Valley fills locations used in the study exceeded the watershed size thresholds established by the
study (i.e. fills were placed in watersheds greater than the scenario limits). The Phase I study fill
locations were inconsistent with basic engineering principles and typical mining practice to locate
fills in valleys as opposed to on hillsides. The impacts to coal resources that may be recovered by
future contour mining (as opposed to mountaintop removal) were not considered due to the applied
slope-steepness criteria.
Further, the Phase I study relied on consideration of future mining based on areas where past mining
had not occurred. A number of the potential mining sites utilized in the Phase I analysis have
subsequently been determined to have been mined, consequently overestimating the available future
resource for the Phase I scenarios. The study attempted to take into account mining engineering
considerations such as overburden ratios, the volume of resource block, topography, etc., to assess
resource recovery feasibility. However, the computer model was not designed, nor did the data
exist, to account for every critical mining engineering factor, such as coal quality, mineral and
surface ownership conflicts, and other very site-specific elements.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
The Steering Committee consequently found that the site-specific results of the Phase I Economics
study have limitations and should not be relied on to be representative of potential future mining and
fill areas or precise with respect to production change estimates. Methodology, assumptions, and
data limitations were presented in a public meeting with stakeholders in Charleston, West Virginia
in November 2002 in preparation for the sensitivity analysis described below in the Phase II
Economic Study synopsis. Despite the study limitations, the computer modeling clearly indicates
a trend related to reduction in available valley fill storage and the amount of coal reserves
recoverable. The study illustrates, from a regional modeling perspective, that restricting valley fills
to small watersheds would commensurately restrict mining feasibility and minimizes full resource
utilization.
Phase II Economics by Hill and Associates
This study was designed to utilize the results of the Phase I economics study; i.e., what impacts will
valley fill restrictions and the reduced ability to recover mine coal resources have on coal prices,
coal production, electricity generation/pricing, mining employment, and tax losses. The production
reduction numbers generated by the Phase I Economics Study of RTC (described above) were input
with Hill and Associates proprietary information and models. The Phase II Economic Study
projected that, overall, the price of coal would continue to fall in the study area and fill placement
restrictions would raise the price of coal by approximately $2.50-$3.50 under the most restrictive
scenario (fills limited to 3 5-acre watersheds) over the base case "no constraints" scenario. However,
in most situations the restriction would change the price of coal to less than one dollar per ton. The
most restrictive scenario would, under the worst condition, cause up to a 20 percent reduction in
direct coal mining employment in the region. The total electricity generated in the region would also
be affected by fill restrictions. Under the most restrictive scenario, electricity production would be
reduced by 11 percent over the base scenario. Generally, electricity production reduction would
range from 2 to 6 percent in most years, because of the restrictions. The price of electricity would
continue to rise approximately 1 to 2 percent across the scenarios; the impacts due to restrictions will
have little effect on price.
Because the Phase II Economic Study used the results of the Phase I Economic Study, the study
results also have limitations. The EIS Steering Committee sanctioned a sensitivity study by Hill and
Associates to evaluate these limitations. The sensitivity study was designed to determine how
results of the initial Phase II study would change if a different set of Phase I assumptions and inputs
were used. Modeling inputs, drawn from mining experience were used to indicate the direction and
the magnitude of Phase II study output change resulting from adjusted sensitivity inputs.
In the original Phase II study, no adjustments in costs were made to reflect changes in material
handling and haulage methods resulting from fill restrictions. The costs were also not adjusted to
reflect the reality that fill restrictions would likely necessitate a change from large mining equipment
to smaller equipment. A shift from fewer larger fills to many smaller fills would require
construction costs for additional sediment ponds-not part of the initial Phase II assumptions.
Finally, the initial modeling runs in the Phase II Economic Study did not project an increase the
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
required return on investment (ROI) capital, which was estimated to be as high as 20%percent. This
unwillingness to invest, because of perceived increased risk, occurs largely due to regulatory
uncertainty. These factors were used in adjusting the modeling sensitivity runs to reflect higher
mining costs and lower mine capacity and reserve recovery.
The sensitivity runs confirmed earlier results indicating that coal production was sensitive to lower
reserve recovery due to smaller fills. Production decreased by approximately 20 percent over the
initial study results. The price of coal was somewhat sensitive to the model assumption adjustments,
reflected by approximately $2.00 more per ton under the most restrictive scenario over the base
scenario. This impact is double that of the original Phase II run for the same scenario. The change
in ROI had very little impact on the results.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes Related to Mountaintop Mining by Gannett
Fleming, Inc
The purpose of the study was to evaluate what, if any, demographic changes can be observed in
communities located adjacent to large-scale mountaintop mines. The study concluded that
population, family income, and levels of employment have declined since the 1970's. Personal
accounts by a sample of residents attributed these changes with the onset of mountaintop mining;
however, the control areas where no mountaintop mining occurred showed some similar
demographic shifts. Therefore, the limitations of the study are that the conclusions of demographic
shifts due to mining are based on perception. The shifts may actually be attributable in part or more
directly related to complex Appalachian societal, generational, economic, governmental, and quality
of life issues and factors.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
LAND USE ASSESSMENT
MOUNTAINTOP MINING IN WEST
VIRGINIA
DRAFT REPORT
-------
LAND USE ASSESSMENT
MOUNTAINTOP MINING IN WEST VIRGINIA
DRAFT REPORT
PREPARED BY:
Charles Yuill
West Virginia University
Natural Resource Analysis Center
Davis College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Sciences
Agricultural Sciences Building
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 - 6108.
February 2002
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Introduction 1
Background - Land Use in the Mountaintop Mining Region
Of West Virginia 4
Existing Land Use / Land Cover 4
Land Use / Land Cover Change 6
Extent of Mining and Land Use / Land Cover 9
Current Mining - Land and Land Use 9
Land Use and Development in the Mountaintop Mining Region of
West Virginia 13
Mining Regulations and Post-mining Land Use 13
Land Use Planning in the Mountaintop Mining Region 16
Regional Patterns and Trends in Land Use and Development 18
Development Potentials and Restrictions, Mining, and Present
Development Patterns 26
Other Land Use Development Issues in the Region 28
Land Use Planning and Decision Making for Specific Mine Sites 31
Assessment of the Potential Land Use Impacts of Future Mountaintop
Mining in West Virginia 37
Summary of Potential Future Mountaintop Mining
Land Use Impacts 42
Literature Cited 44
Figures 47
-------
Introduction
Scope
This study was conducted to examine land use issues associated with mountaintop
mining in southern West Virginia - the mountaintop-mining region of the state. For this
study, the mountaintop-mining region is defined as the fourteen county area illustrated in
Figure 1. These fourteen counties represent counties that historically have contained
mountaintop-mining operations and / or have coal reserves that are suitable for recovery
with future mountaintop mining. Also for this study:
Land use is defined as a purposeful intended use of the land - e.g. commercial
forestry or outdoor recreation.
- Land cover is defined as the physical component of the land - e.g. mature trees or
grassland.
Land use / land cover is an approach to classification of land use and land cover
that considers both perspectives within a single classification framework.
Mountaintop mining is defined as a surface mining method that is designed to mine
multiple seams of coal by mining either parallel to or cross mountain ridges - removing
all of the coal in and above a base coal seam. The mining method generally results in the
following conditions:
Complete or near-complete removal of a mountaintop resulting in significant
quantities of spoil material which must be returned to the mined area as
backstacked fill or placed in adjacent valley fills.
Efficient recovery of the coal reserves in and above the base coal seam.
Because of the above, the resulting mines are generally significantly larger than
with the various forms of contour mining that are practiced in the steep slope
mining region of southern West Virginia.
The overall goal of the study was to identify and assess the major land use impacts of
current and potential mountaintop mining in the region. To meet this goal, the study was
structured with the following components:
Current land use / land cover (lu / Ic) patterns in the region to establish baseline
land use conditions in the region.
- General historic land use / land cover trends.
The contributions of past and current coal mining in determining land use and
land cover patterns in the region.
- The roles various land use programs and regulatory controls contribute to land use
development on mountaintop mines, as well as the region in general.
-------
- Characterization of development patterns, opportunities, and limitations in the
region to place land use opportunities and problems associated with mountaintop
mining in a larger regional perspective.
- Identification of current land use / land cover patterns and conditions in areas with
potentials for future mountaintop mining to assess potential land use impacts of
future mountaintop mining in the region.
Discussion of a few case studies to identify the conditions that contribute to the
development of both typical and atypical land uses on mountaintop mines.
The Study Area
The fourteen county study region comprises part of the Appalachian Plateau,
which is a maturely dissected plateau characterized by high hills, sharp ridges, and
narrow valleys. Exceptions are portions of the Kanawha River Valley and Teays Valley,
which have expanses of open relatively level floodplain lands. Local relief in the region
exceeds 2,000 ft along the New River Gorge, but is generally much less. Surface drainage
is generally dendritic, with associated environmental problems related to flooding, soil
erosion, and mass wasting (land slides). The major land cover is mature forestland
(generally greater than 80 years of age) which resulted from forest regeneration after
extensive clear-cutting during the early 20th century with patchy younger forests, which
resulted from agricultural land abandonment during much of the mid-part of the century.
Most of this forest area is classified as diverse/mesophytic forest with additional areas of
mountain hardwoods, mixed oaks, cove hardwoods and floodplain forests. The major
watersheds of the region include: Tug Fork, the Lower and Upper Kanawha, the Lower
and Upper Guyandotte, New, Gauley, Coal, Elk, Big Sandy, and Twelvepole Creek
watersheds.
Since the time of European settlement during the 18th century, development has
been focused primarily along major rivers and tributaries. Beginning in the mid 19th
century, development became more and more dispersed and distributed throughout the
entire region, resulting in one of the most rural populations of anywhere in the United
States - even to this day. Major present-day communities in the region include:
Charleston, South Charleston, Dunbar, Nitro, Beckley, Mt Hope, Welch, Logan, and
Summersville. Numerous smaller towns and communities are scattered throughout the
region, generally located on river and tributary floodplains. Present-day population
densities range from fewer than 40 persons per square mile in portions of Boone, Lincoln,
and Mingo Counties to between 1,500 and 3,500 persons per square mile in portions of
Charleston and other communities in the Kanawha Valley. Land that was level enough
for agriculture was generally cleared, especially in the stream valleys and on ridge tops.
Most of this agricultural land has since been abandoned or converted to other land uses.
Most slopes were logged repeatedly. However, the region is presently almost 88%
forested.
-------
Mining in the Region
The mountaintop mining study area is comprised of two major coal areas - the
Allegheny - Kanawha and New River - Pocahontas areas. Within these areas the major
coalfields include the Gauley - Greenbrier, New River, Pocahontas, Williamson, Logan,
Kanawha, and Elkins coal fields. Beginning in 1817, the Kanawha coalfields were one of
the leading coal producing and consuming areas in the country - surpassed only by
Mercer County, Pennsylvania (Workman 1994). Nearly all of this early mining was deep
or underground mining. By the Civil War, there were over forty companies operating in
this region - Kanawha, Lincoln, Boone, and Clay Counties. The northern portion
(Braxton and Webster Counties) of the region began to be developed after the Civil War,
and extensive mine development began in the New River area beginning in the 1870's. It
was the incremental development of the railroads that provided most of the impetus for
coal mine development in these areas. Prior to World War II, the predominate method of
coal removal in the study area was underground mining. Beginning in the 1940's, contour
strip mining, which can be practiced on very steep terrain began to be utilized in the
region. Contour surface mining consists of removing overburden material from above the
coal seam or seams starting at the outcrop (where the coal seam daylights on the ground)
and proceeding around the hillside. Prior to contemporary mining regulations, the
overburden was generally cast down the hillside. Today regulations mandate that the
overburden is initially stacked and then replaced with successive cuts, with the resulting
reclamation approximating the original terrain of the land, though there are provisions for
placing portions of the resulting overburden into constructed valley fills.
Mountaintop Mining. First demonstrated in 1967, early mountaintop mining was initially
merely an extension of contour mining. Series of contour cuts were developed to encircle
the mountain ridge proceeding toward the center of the mountain. The entire mountaintop
might have been removed or the topmost portion of the mountain might have been left
resulting in a partial "apple core" landform pattern where coal removal was not
completed. Auger mining was often utilized to remove the coal that remained under the
topmost portions of the mountain ridge. This method of mining had a number of
disadvantages, including: increasing overburden depths to retrieve additional coal
resulting in increasingly poor mine economics (discouraging coal removal at the ridge
tops); a lack of sufficient room for backfilling of the mined areas resulting in numerous
valley fills around the ridge; and the need for extensive erosion and sedimentation control
systems because of the vast areas of land that were disturbed at the same time.
Most modern mountaintop mining generally involves some form of cross-ridge
mining (Skelly and Loy 1983). With this form of mining, series of benches (active coal
recovery areas) are aligned perpendicular to the long axis of the mountain ridge and
mining advances along the ridgeline, usually from one end of the mountain to the other.
This method has a number of important advantages over earlier forms of mountaintop
mining. These advantages include: consistent economics over the life of the mine;
backstack (backfill) space is provided in closer proximity to the active mining area
resulting in concurrent mining and reclamation; and the need to numerous valley fills is
reduced because of improved backstack potentials. In general terms, the following are
-------
generally recognized attributes of mountaintop mining as it has been practiced in
southern West Virginia:
- Mountaintop mining has allowed for the recovery of coal that would be difficult
to recover with other mining methods;
Extraction costs are reduced because of the simultaneous extraction of coal from
multiple coal seams;
Mountaintop mining is used to permit efficient handling of overburden with
mountaintop mining regrading provisions allowing for some overburden disposal
into hollows or valleys resulting in additional spoil storage space for effective
mining to the lowest recoverable coal seam; and
- The technique has created large valley fills and significantly altered the
topographic configuration of the original mountain terrain above the lowest mined
coal seam (Resource Technologies Corporation 2000) throughout much of the 14
county mountaintop mining region of southern West Virginia.
Background - Land Use in the Mountaintop Mining
Region of West Virginia
Existing Land Use / Land Cover.
Table 1 summarizes current land use / land cover in the study area. These results
were derived from classification of recent Landsat satellite data (1994- 1995 initial dates
and 2000-2001 update dates). The satellite data were classified, mosaiced and converted
to a GIS (geographic information system) coverage for analysis and display. Figure 2
presents a map of current land use / land cover that was derived from that same
classification effort. The land use / land cover classes that were utilized were selected to
provide the greatest amount of meaningful detail about the area yet be efficiently
obtainable using remote sensing.
These classification results confirm the forested / lightly developed character of
the mountaintop mining region. Almost 88%, or slightly over four million acres were
classified as mature forestland with the diverse mesophytic forest type being most
prevalent at almost three million acres of area. All developed land uses (intensive urban,
moderately intensive urban, light urban, populated areas, major roads, and infrastructure
such as power lines) only accounted for 155,000 acres or roughly three percent of the
area. Agricultural land uses were found on approximately a quarter of a million acres or
five percent of the area. Other general land use / land cover categories include: shrub land
and woodland areas with slightly over 63,000 acres; water / wetlands with 56,000 acres
or one percent of the area; and barren land - mining being 74,000 acres or 1.5% of the
study area. The barren land - mining category significantly underestimates the acreage in
mining because it includes only areas that were essentially in bare or nearly bare soil at
the time of image acquisition - so it does not include reclaimed areas. So subsequent
mined area acreage estimates were developed using other methods.
-------
Land Use Data and Methods. Landsat satellite data from two different time
periods were utilized for this classification. Various date mid-1990's data that had been
previously classified to identify the major forest / natural land types in the area provided
the basis for this analysis. Leaf-off various date years 2000 / 2001 imagery were utilized
to augment this classification with greater detail and a more up-to-date classification for
the developed land use / land cover classes. Details concerning the natural land cover
classes can be found in the WVU - NRAC, 2001 WVGAP Final Report. The developed
land use classes that were utilized are described below.
- Intensive urban - areas where a majority of the land surface is impervious
covered by buildings or surface paving - includes city and town centers.
Moderately intensive urban - areas where approximately half of the land area is
impervious - primarily includes town centers and areas adjacent to city centers.
Table 1. Current land use/land cover in the West Virginia mountaintop-mining
region, WVU-NRAC classification.
Cover Type
Major power lines
Major roads
Populated areas
Light intensity urban
Moderate intensity urban
Intensive urban
All developed
Planted grassland
Conifer plantation
Row crop agriculture
Pasture/grassland
All agriculture
Shrubland
Woodland
All shrub land/woodland
Floodplain forest
Cove hardwood forest
Diverse/mesophytic hardwood forest
Hardwood/conifer forest
Oak dominant forest
Mountain hardwood forest
Mountain hardwood/conifer forest
Mountain conifer forest
All forest
Surface water
Forested wetland
Shrub wetland
Area (Acres)
16,191
2,794
19,450
75,645
19,584
21,330
154,994
1,201
204
3,127
241,589
246,120
46,451
16,880
63,332
31,367
414,186
2,930,112
52,387
391,735
463,760
1,022
81
4,284,651
53,084
1,185
1,303
Percent
0.33
0.06
0.40
1.55
0.40
0.44
3.18
0.02
0.00
0.06
4.95
5.04
0.95
0.35
1.30
0.64
8.49
60.05
1.07
8.03
9.50
0.02
0.00
87.82
1.09
0.02
0.03
-------
Herbaceous wetland
All water/wetland
Barren land - mining, construction
All barren/other
TOTAL
968
56,540
73,499
73, 499
4,879,135
0.02
1.16
1.51
1.51
100.00
Light intensity urban - areas where less than half of the land area is impervious
but impervious areas still cover a significant amount of the area - includes rural
communities and small town centers.
- Populated areas - areas with mixed land cover that has significant amounts of
development in checkerboard patterns with significant population densities -
includes suburban and lightly populated residential areas.
- Major roads - includes primarily highways and interstate highways.
Major power lines - includes primarily high voltage power lines.
The basic method that was utilized for satellite data classification was based on
unsupervised cluster labeling (ISOCLUSS classification with cluster separation and
aggregation) using over 10,000 aerial and ground sample points that had been
previously classified as part of an earlier project. Unsupervised cluster labeling is a
proven technique for developing regional land cover classifications from satellite
data. It must be noted that there are certain limitations in this classification. It
certainly underestimates areas in very small communities and other dispersed
developed areas. This is due to many of these developed areas being under heavy
forest cover or in agricultural areas, and were not detected, and as such were placed
into other land use classes. Other methods were utilized in later analyses to better
estimate the number of locations of populated places in the region.
The results of a second land use / land cover classification that was available are
summarized in Table 2 and Figure 3. These results are from the National Land Cover
Dataset (NLCD) that is available for West Virginia (USGS 2000). These results are
close to the results that were achieved by the WVU - NRAC classification. However,
the results from the WVU classification were focused on in this report because they
were developed using classification and intensive accuracy assessment methods that
were designed to specifically respond to local vegetative, development, and
topographic conditions throughout the region. The NLCD dataset was developed
using methods more suitable to wide-area regional assessment requirements.
Land Use / Land Cover Change
Table 3 presents general land use / land cover changes for the study area
examining three different time periods - 1950, 1976, and current conditions. Four general
land use / land cover classes were utilized because class aggregations were required to
-------
make the data that were available for the different time periods comparable. These results
indicate the following general patterns of land use change in the region:
- The acreage of developed area increased from 42,533 acres in 1950 to 154, 966
acres currently. This acreage probably does not include much of the dispersed
developed that dominates the region.
Agricultural acreages decreased from almost a million acres in 1950 to 188,000
acres in 1976 and increased from 1976 to current time to 246,000 acres. Much of
this acreage is actually due to coalmine reclamation that converted areas from
forestland to grassland / pasture.
Forest areas increased from under four million acres in 1950 to almost 4.5 million
acres in 1976 and then fell to under 4.3 million acres currently.
Table 2. Current land use/land cover in the West Virginia mountaintop-mining
region, EPA MRLC/NLCD classification.
Cover Type
Low intensity developed
High intensity developed
All developed
Hay, pasture, grass
Row crops
Mixed pasture, low intensity agriculture
All agriculture
Conifer forest
Mixed forest
Deciduous forest
All forest
Palustrine forested wetland
Palustrine shrub/scrub wetland
Palustrine emergent wetland
Other palustrine wetland
Open water
All water/wetland
Barren - quarry and mining
Barren - transitional
All barren/other
TOTAL
Area (Acres)
51,780
9,885
61,665
101,733
52,213
101,958
255,904
111,027
466,961
3,872,449
4,450,436
1,133
1,236
1,221
3,027
44,341
50,957
52,146
7,769
59,916
4,878,878
Percent
1.06
0.20
1.26
2.09
1.07
2.09
5.25
2.28
9.57
79.37
91.22
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.91
1.04
1.07
0.16
7.23
100.00
-------
Table 3. Summary Land Use Statistics for the West Virginia Mountaintop Mining Region.
Land Use area (acres) percentage
developed
agricultural/open
forest
disturbed (includes
some mining)
Land Use Changes
developed
agricultural/open
forest
disturbed
1950
42,533
950,135
3,873,619 4
3,015
1950-1976
92,933
-763,772
576,961
84,583
1976 Present
135,566 154,966
188,363 246,082
,450,580 4,284,141
85,598 73,502
area (acres)
1950
0.9
19.5
79.4
0.5
1976
2.8
3.9
91.2
1.8
Present
3.2
5.0
87.8
1.5
1976-Present 1950-Present
19,501
57,719
-166,439
-12,096
112,433
-706,503
412,522
72,488
- Current loss of forestland is due to patterns in mine reclamation converted land
from forest to open - grassland / pasture and to new urban development in the
region.
- Disturbed areas increased from just over 3,000 acres in 1950 (indicating low
amounts of surface mining) to a high of 85,000 acres in 1976 and over 73,000
acres currently. Again this acreage does not reflect mined areas so much as it
indicates areas mined areas that were unvegetated in those time periods.
Land Use / Land Cover Change Data and Methods. The data that were assembled for
this assessment were obtained from a couple of different data sources. 1950 data were
obtained from detailed paper maps that were compiled during a four-year land cover-
mapping project that was completed by the U.S. Forest Service for West Virginia. These
data were published in 1950. The data had been previously digitized on a ISminute
quadrangle map basis by WVU - NRAC. A seamless dataset for the mountaintop mining
study area was developed by mosaicing the individual maps and removing numerous
map-to-map discrepancies that were observed. The 1976 data were the available were
USGS GIRAS land use data that were digitized by USGS from 1976 vintage 1:48,000
scale aerial photography. A seamless data set of the 1976 date data set for the study area
was developed by mosaicing the individual 1:100,000 quadrangle maps that form the
base for this mapping and then removing map to map inconsistencies that were detected.
The current land use data were again the results of the WVU - NRAC satellite data
classification effort. These data were developed by mosaicing the data that were
developed on a large watershed / ecological areas basis with potential applicability at
1:24,000 scales and larger.
-------
Extent of Mining and Land Use / Land Cover
A separate estimation of the extent of mining as a separate land use / land cover
class was developed because the land use classification that was developed by WVU or
the classifications that were available from other sources are generally felt to significantly
underestimate mined areas by placing reclaimed areas into other land use / land cover
categories such as grassland / pasture and forest. Table 4 and Figure 4 present the results
of this mapping compilation. This was an attempt to compile the best available data
sources for the mined areas that were identified; cross reference the different data
sources; and then check the compiled data using sources such as current aerial
photography. Cross-referencing and checking were utilized to remove duplication and
rectify discrepancies between the different data sets. It is recognized that differences in
the data sets that were utilized (e.g. aerial photography vs. satellite data vs. field sketch
mapping) potentially does reduce the utility and comparability of these data. However, a
compilation of the best available data did seem to be the most efficient method for
developing an extent of past mining assessment for the study area. This assessment
potentially does, again, underestimate the area of past mining because the majority of the
data sources that were utilized potentially did not capture mined areas that had little or no
physical evidence that mining had taken place. This was generally due to reclamation or
natural regeneration of forest cover over the mined areas.
Extent of Past Mining Methods and Results. Table 4 lists the major data sources that
were tabulated. New photo-interpretation of color infrared aerial photography and SPOT
panchromatic satellite data (fall 2000 dates) was completed to verify or rectify
inconsistencies in the other data sources.
Results of this compilation indicated that over 244,000 acres or approximately 5%
of the area contained evidence as having been disturbed by past or current mining. This
indicates that mining related land uses are the second most prevalent land use / land cover
in the region - after forestland. This total includes a number of different mine types -
unreclaimed abandoned mines, unreclaimed mines with forfeited bonds, reclaimed mines
(where the resulting post-reclamation land use allowed for identification and delineation),
and active mines. Again it is probable that significant mined areas were undetected by the
various data sources, as well as subsequent checking and verification. However, Figure 4
mapping results could be combined with Figure 2 to develop a more realistic indication
of the importance of past and current in the land use / land cover of the region.
Current Mining - Land and Land Use
Current mining was examined focusing on permit data rather than physical
evidence of past or current mining. Permits were utilized as an indicator of current
mining activities because permits contain land in three different conditions - areas that
have been mined and reclaimed awaiting bond release, areas that are actively being
mined, and areas that potentially will be mined in the near future.
-------
Current Mining Permits Methods and Results. Table 5 presents a number of different
summary statistics for current mining in West Virginia and the mountaintop-mining
region. These data were obtained from two different data sources:
Surface and deep mine permit records from WVDEP that were available in digital
form in various WVDEP databases.
- Digitized permit boundaries that are being digitized by WVU-NRAC under
contract to WVDEP.
Table 4. Extent of Past Mining Disturbances in the West Virginia Mountaintop
Mining Region
Total identified disturbed acreage (all mining disturbances) * = 244,664 acres
5.01% of region
Data Sources:
1. Photointerpretation of 1997 West Virginia digital ortho quarter-quadrangles by
WVU-NRAC.
2. Photo interpretation of 2000 SPOT panchromatic imagery by WVU - NRAC.
3. Automated classification of Landsat TM data for 1994, 1995, and 2000-year
dates.
4. Landsat satellite data (year 2000) NDVI classification by Tennessee Valley
Authority.
5. Photointerpretation of West Virginia digital ortho quarter-quadrangles by
WVDEP - TAGIS.
6. West Virginia Abandoned Mined Land Inventory - WVDEP.
7. West Virginia DEP files - bond forfeiture sites.
* Estimate does not include areas that have been fully reclaimed or converted to a post-
mining land use.
10
-------
Table 5. Current Mining Permits - Summary Statistics for the West Virginia
Mountaintop Mining Region.
1. Current permitted coal mine area in West Virginia 307,802 acres
2. Current permitted coal mine area in the mountaintop
mining region of West Virginia 247,364 acres
3. Current permitted mountaintop-mining area in the 65,354 acres
mountaintop mining region of West Virginia**
4. Average area for current mountaintop mining permits 585 acres
5. Average area of 20 largest current mountaintop permits 1728 acres
6. 100 largest area permits in West Virginia
40 are mountaintop mining permits
60 are deep mine and coal processing complexes (surface acreage only -
underground mined acreage is not included.
** Figure includes currently permitted mountaintop mines that have active / inspected by
WVDEP. Does not include new permits where mining has not been initiated.
These results indicate that almost three-quarters of the total coal mine permit area
for West Virginia is in the fourteen mountaintop-mining region. Of the total permitted
area in the region, over one quarter is in mountaintop mines - the remaining are contour
mines, surface areas impacted by underground mines, and coal preparation and cleaning
facilities that often contain very large coal waste disposal areas. The results also indicate
that the average permitted mountain area is almost 600 acres and the average area for the
twenty largest mountaintop mine permits is 1,728 acres. This pattern indicates a tiering
pattern in the size of West Virginia mountaintop mines - with a number of mines in the
400 - 700 acre range and a relatively small number of very large mountaintop mines. For
comparison purposes, in examining the 100 largest permit areas for West Virginia, it was
found that 60 of these areas are actually deep mine and coal processing complexes and 40
are mountaintop mines.
Table 6 presents pre-mining land uses for the current mountaintop mining permit
areas. Figure 9 presents a map of current mountaintop mining permits in the region.
11
-------
These data were developed by overlaying 1976 and 1995 land use / land cover data (used
as a pre-mining estimate) with the permit boundaries that were digitized by WVU-NRAC
under contract to the WVDEP. These results show that the majority of the pre-mining
permit areas are forested (app. 92%) and almost 5% were previously disturbed mined
areas. The remaining areas include small amounts of shrubland, woodland, power lines
and light intensity urban development (small populated areas). Table 7 shows the
proposed post-mining land uses for the same permit areas. These data were obtained from
WVDEP digital permit data files. This table indicates a minor shift in land use between
the pre-mining and proposed post-mining land use conditions. Almost 50% of the
proposed post mining land uses include forms of open land including hay / pasture,
animal grazing, and some additional open-land in combined / multiple use areas
(generally a combination of forest and open land areas). Most of the remaining area is
proposed for various forestry related land uses (over 50%), with less than 2% of the total
area proposed for new residential / housing and public service / public use (infrastructure
development) land uses.
Table 6. Pre-mining Land Uses in Current Mountaintop Mining Permit Areas.
Land Use %
Shrubland 0.97
Woodland 0.32
Major Power Lines 0.32
Light Intensity Urban 0.32
Pasture / Grassland 0.97
Barren Land - mining, construction 4.85
Cove Hardwood Forest 16.50
Diverse / Mesophytic Hardwood Forest 60.19
Hardwood / Conifer Forest 0.97
Oak Dominant Forest 9.39
Mountain Hardwood Forest 5.18
Total Acreage 65,354 acres
12
-------
Table 7. Proposed Post-mining Land Uses** in Current Mountaintop Mining
Permit Areas
Land Use Percentage of permitted area
Forest / wildlife 36%
Commercial woodland 5%
Woodland 27%
Hay / pasture 20%
Animal grazing / pasture 4%
Combined (multiple land uses) 7%
Residential / housing <1%
Public Service / public use <1%
** Land use categories utilized by WVDEP in describing proposed post-mining land uses
in mining permits.
Land Use and Development in the Mountaintop Mining Region
Mining Regulations and Post-mining Land Use
The Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) is the source
of the rules and regulations that must be followed when planning and implementing post-
mining land uses on mountaintop mined lands. In general terms, SMCRA provisions are
designed to minimize the environmental and health and safety effects of surface coal
mining. One of the most important provisions of SMCRA, in terms of how steep slope
mining is practiced through most of southern West Virginia, relate to the general
requirement that disturbed lands be reclaimed to approximate original contour (AOC)
(OSMRE 1999). However, when Congress passed SMCRA, it did allow for exemptions
to AOC in situations where excess post mining spoil may be present or where beneficial
post mining land uses would compensate for the potential adverse impacts of not
returning the land to AOC, such the number and size of valley fills that are required for
disposal of the excess spoil that is generated when AOC is not desirable.
AOC requirements are addressed in the regulations, in terms of methods and
allowances for disposal of excess spoil material, in three general areas:
13
-------
- Excess spoil disposal requirements for steep slope contour mines in conditions
where spoil material swell results in post mining material volumes exceeding the
volumes needed for return the post mining topography to approximate original
contour. There are detailed procedures for determining the amounts of material
that must be backfilled to achieve AOC and how much material can be placed into
valley fills. Highly detailed specifications for the construction of such fills are
also included.
- Excess spoil disposal requirements for steep slope mountaintop mines where spoil
material swell results in material volumes that exceed the volumes needed for
return to AOC. Again, there are very specific detailed procedures for determining
the amounts of backfill (backstacking on mountaintop mines) material vs. the
amount of material that can be placed into valley fills.
- Excess spoil disposal requirements for steep slope mountaintop mines where
alternatives to AOC might be warranted when beneficial post mining land uses
would result from the proposed mining and reclamation. The legislative intent of
these provisions relate to certain post mining land uses compensating for the
negative impacts of not returning the land to an AOC condition. For example, the
regulations could be used for creating relatively level, stable, flood hazard free
land capable of supporting development types that require such land for
successful development - residential, industrial, agricultural, or public facility
development. It is the excess spoil material requirements that relate to post mining
land use planning and development that most critically relate to mountaintop mine
post mining land use planning and implementation.
In passing SMCRA, Congress did foresee that the land use provisions could be
utilized merely as a method for circumventing AOC requirements and not as a device
for improved land use and economic development in the region, as the Act intended.
Congress, therefore, provided specific guidance for using the land use exceptions for
potentially ensuring that economic or public benefits actually result from the planned
reclamation post mining land uses. Three general sets of requirements were provided:
1. The post mining land use must provide for equal or better economic or public use
of the land compared to the pre-mining land use.
2. The specific land use types that actually would require modifications to AOC to
be successfully implemented - industry, commercial, agriculture, residential, and
public facility, including public recreation development. Other potential land uses
did not qualify for consideration for AOC exemption, at least based on land use.
3. Specific criteria for plan development by the mining companies and plan review
by the relevant regulatory agencies. Included are the requirements that:
a. The proposed land use is compatible with adjacent land uses;
b. It is an attainable land use according to market, need, and other socio-
economic data;
c. The required public and / or private investment is present;
d. Public agency support / cooperation is evidenced for all land uses
requiring some form of public involvement;
14
-------
e. The required mining / reclamation plan that is required in mine permitting
and monitoring procedures specifically considers the planned post mining
land use; and
f. The reclamation / land use plan be developed by professionals using
appropriate professional standards.
The OSMRE codified these requirements through the regulations that have
been developed and revised over time (since app. 1978) to implement these
provisions from SMCRA. For a review of these regulatory provisions see
OSMRE 1999. The regulations have been modified and adjusted over time always
considering the initial intent of the AOC and land use provisions of SMRCA - the
exemptions from AOC due to the planned post mining land use are permitted only
where beneficial post mining land uses actually result and compensate for not
returning the land to AOC. Two guiding principles have played significant roles
in how the relevant regulatory provisions have been developed and interpreted by
OSMRE.
1. A post mining land / AOC variance will not be approved when the
proposed land use can be achieved without waiving the AOC
requirement. The only exceptions are when significant public benefits
or economic benefits will result from the development. Over the years
this provision has been interpreted very differently when considering
land uses such as agriculture, pastureland, and wildlife habitat.
2. In cases where the AOC exemption is required for implementing the
proposed post mining land use, the post mining land use must always
offer a net benefit to the public or to the economy of the locale or
region. Again, there have been different interpretations of this provision
over time. At a minimum, it appears that currently the proposed post
mining land use can be similar to the pre-mining land use only if the
reclamation results in site improvements that enhance to post mining
land use.
It appears that current interpretations of these provisions can allow for AOC
exemptions for the following land uses:
Forestry - managed forest lands are generally allowed.
Agriculture - allowed though low intensity agricultural uses such as grazing and
pastureland are not encouraged.
Fish and wildlife habitat - generally not allowed except in cases when serving as
an adjunct to other land uses such as recreation.
Public facilities - are generally allowed.
Commercial - generally allowed.
Industrial - generally allowed.
Residential - generally allowed.
15
-------
West Virginia implements these provisions with the West Virginia Surface Coal
Mining Act and the regulations that have been promulgated to support that Act. These
provisions generally mirror the provisions of the Federal Act and regulations. However,
until recently there were a couple of key areas in which West Virginia's implementation
of the regulations somewhat diverged from Federal interpretations on how the regulations
should be implemented. From the early 1980's until the mid- 1990's, West Virginia
appeared to be more willing to accept less intense land uses such as fish and wildlife
habitat, pasture land, and grazing as post mining land uses suitable for AOC variances for
mountaintop mining. As such, mountaintop mining AOC variances appeared to be
provided somewhat matter-of-factly, rather than after careful consideration of the above
AOC / land use provisions. This has changed over the last couple of years, and West
Virginia is now rigorously subjecting post mining land use plans to the above evaluation
criteria.
In addition, until recently, review of proposed post mining land use plans was
primarily a part of the permit review processes that are utilized by the West Virginia
Division of Environmental Protection. As such, in many instances proposed post mining
land use reviews often only anecdotally considered the requirements related to land use
compatibility and need, land use feasibility and economics, and economic and public
benefits that can realized by the locale and region from implementation of the potential
land use. To compensate for this acknowledged shortfall in post mining land use review,
the West Virginia Legislature enacted Senate Bill 681 in 1999. This bill established the
West Virginia Office of Coalfield Community Development (OCCD) within the West
Virginia Development Office. The bill also established the requirement that coal
operators (with operations above a prescribed minimum annual production) prepare
Community Impact Statements, that detail their operations describing the location, extent,
duration and impacts of the mines on the land use and economics of the surrounding area.
The OCCD then prepares Coalfield Community Development Statements for the mines
and the potentially impacted communities. These statements include locale specific and
regional land use and infrastructure development strategies, so that the land use and
economic impacts of the mining and subsequent reclamation can be incorporated into
regional community and economic development efforts. An initial Coalfield Community
Development Statement is under preparation and a number of affected coal operations
have prepared and submitted their initial Community Impact Statements.
Land Use Planning in the Mountaintop Mining Region
In West Virginia, land use planning can be performed by municipalities, counties,
and consortiums such as city / county combinations (any incorporated public entity has
the power to plan). State and Federal agencies also conduct land use planning efforts in
the state. However, these efforts generally only involve lands that the agencies control or
manage, or only indirectly impact land use through activities such as road and
infrastructure construction. As in other states, enabling legislation provides the basis for
this local planning activity. In typical fashion, city and regional plans are constructed to
implement the community's land use and development goals and visions for the future.
16
-------
These plans can also provide the basis for plan implementation using devices such as
zoning and subdivision regulations.
Historically, there has not been a strong consensus for planning or plan
implementation throughout most of West Virginia. This is certainly true for the
mountaintop-mining region. Table 8 summarizes plan and plan implementation activities
for the mountaintop-mining region.
Table 8. Extent of Land Use Planning in the West Virginia Mountaintop Mining
Region
Planning
Land Use Controls Municipalities with Planning
Boone
Braxton
Clay
Fayette
Kanawha
Lincoln
Logan
McDowell
Mingo
Nicholas
Raleigh
Wayne
Webster
Wyoming
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes (limited)
yes (limited)
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
Madison
none
none
Fayetteville, Oak Hill
Charleston, S. Charleston
Montgomery, St. Albans,
Hamlin, West Hamlin
none
none
Williamson
Summersville, Richwood
Sophie, Beckley
Seredo
Webster Springs
Mullens, Oceana
, Nitro,
Dunbar
This table indicates that there is a consensus for local planning in the three more
heavily developed counties in the region - Fayette, Kanawha, and Raleigh Counties, but
not in a majority of the region. However, there are various levels and forms of planning
and plan implementation in a number of cities and municipalities in the region.
Because Federal and State governments control mining and reclamation
(including post-mining land use planning), local communities (even those with planning)
do not really have any direct control over post-mining land use planning and reclamation.
However, post-mining land use compatibility with community zoning or subdivision
ordinances is be required or at least considered during permit review. Local plan and
ordinances may also be considered during WVDEP's review of the mining permit and
proposed post-mining land use plans.
17
-------
Local communities cannot develop or implement plans or ordinances that conflict
with Federal and state activities related to post-mining land use review and control.
However, though it has not been done on a widespread basis, local communities can use
their planning and plan implementation to potentially limit mining in certain locations
(such as special-use zones). Inclusion of mining related concerns in local communities
planning or plan implementation ordinances, at least may require that some form of
coordination or cooperation be required in the development of post-mining land use
plans.
Regional Patterns and Trends in Land Use and Development
Land Use Development Opportunities in the Region. An analysis of region-wide land
development potentials, limitations, and demands was completed to develop a broader
context in which to assess land use needs, potentials, and demands for mountaintop
mining sites for supporting various forms of development. This larger context is
necessary for assessing the roles that mountaintop mine post-mining land use has, is, and
can assume in determining regional land use development patterns. This larger context is
important for addressing a number of important land use / development issues. For
example:
Conventional assessments indicate that much of the development that has
occurred in the region has occurred on land that is often unsuitable for
development (such as on floodplains and on unstable difficult to develop steep
slopes);
- Reclaimed mountaintop mining sites have been and can continue to be a source of
land that is more developable than adjacent un-mined areas; and
Reclaimed mountaintop mine sites are often situated to be of limited development
value because of poor transportation and infrastructure access even when the
resulting land has high physical development potentials.
The first aspect of establishing this context was development and application of a
regional land development potentials analysis analysis that considered mined and non-
mined areas throughout the entire region. To accomplish this, a development / growth
model was selected and adapted for use in the study area. Such growth models are often
utilized to explain current development patterns and predict or determine the potential
patterns and impacts of future development. A review of potentially relevant growth
models revealed that a model referred to as the Clarke Urban Growth Model (CUGM)
has been utilized in range of urban, suburbanizing, and rural settings - making it suitable
for application in the Mountaintop Mining Study Area. The model has been used by a
variety of agencies and organizations to examine land use development and potential
development patterns in varying landscape conditions - coastal California, eastern
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Michigan, and South Carolina (USGS 2001). The model has
also been adapted for use in areas undergoing rapid growth, as well as areas undergoing
minimal or no measurable growth. Rather than determining or predicting future growth
18
-------
rates, the model examines potential development and landscape patterns independent of
potential growth rates or trends instead relying physical and socio-economic landscape
attributes.
Regional Development Potentials Methods and Results Models such as Clarke Model
assume that growth patterns are determined by a combination of factors that encourage
and factors that inhibit potential new development. The model is landscape based and
does not consider socio-economic factors such as ownership parcel size, presence of
willing landowners, zoning, and other governmental / regulatory factors that also can
determine development pattern.
As implemented for this project, the model required development of a number of
spatial data sets that represent the major development encouraging and inhibiting factors
that have been identified for use in this study. Table 9 summarizes the parameters that
were selected for inclusion in this analysis and Table 10 summarizes the results of the
analysis placing the resulting development potentials values into five levels ranging from
highest development potentials to highly restricted development potentials. Figure 5
presents the results of this analysis as a map.
The parameters that are included were selected because they appear to be the
significant determinants of current development patterns as well as future development
potentials. This analysis is not development specific but rather addresses any
development opportunity that might require some level of investment or ongoing
maintenance or management. This can range from relatively un-intense development
such as managed forest or timberland to more intensive land uses such as housing or
public infrastructure development.
Data Development.
Opportunities for development
o Proximity to paved roads - measured using proximity analysis for a GIS
coverage of major paved roads in the region. High, medium, and poor
proximity levels were utilized based on distance.
o Proximity to infrastructure - measured using a GIS coverage of power
lines and other major utilities. High, medium, and poor proximity levels.
Does not include site-specific data such as proximity to local sewer and
water service.
o Proximity to existing development. Existing development is nearly always
a source for new development. High, medium, and low levels were
utilized using the Existing Development GIS coverage that was derived
from the regional Land use / Land cover map.
Constraints to development
o Steep and unstable slopes - a 30% cutoff was arbitrarily established with
slopes > 30% classified as steep and slopes < 30% classified as more
developable. USGS digital elevation models (OEM's) were utilized for
19
-------
this classification. A mosaiced 30-meter DEM was developed for the
study area.
o Poor / unstable soils - NRCS STATSGO data were used to identify areas
with high amounts of unusable / unstable soils. A 50% or greater cover of
poor soils cutoff was utilized.
o High flood potentials - USGS DEM data were utilized to map areas with
high flood potentials using a method developed by WVU-NRAC for
mapping potential floodplains based on terrain. Flood potential areas were
mapped for all major perennial streams using a stream coverage that was
developed from existing USGS data and mosaiced for the entire study
area.
o Proximity to mining related problems - proximity to abandoned mine
health and safety and environmental problems was measured using
distance from identified problems from the WV AML Inventory.
Table 9. Development Potentials Analysis Parameters
Opportunities for Development Parameters
1. Proximity to paved roads / accessibility
2. Proximity to utilities and infrastructure / accessibility
3. Proximity to existing development
Constraints to Development Parameters
1. Steep and unstable slopes >30%
2. Poor / unstable soils
3. High flood potentials
4. Proximity to mining related environmental problems and hazards
5. Proximity to other environmental problems and hazards
6. Land ownership that prevents / limits development opportunities
Table 10. Development Potentials Based on Proximity to Infrastructure,
Anticipated Costs and Legal Restrictions in the West Virginia Mountaintop Mining
Region.
Development Potential Area (acres) Percent of Region
Highest 1,357,703 27.8
Moderate 1,005,914 20.Ł
20
-------
Limited
Severely limited
Highly restricted
Surface water
760,600
537,519
1,169,903
46,626
15.6
11.0
24.0
1.0
o Proximity to other health and safety and environmental problems -
CERCLIS, RCRA, TRIS, and other potential problem sites were mapped
from existing USEPA data and distance to the sites measured.
o Land Ownership - public land ownership patterns that essentially take
land out of consideration for future development were mapped and
identified as significant development constraints.
The data were combined through map overlay using a non-weighted overlay
scheme. This approach was judged to be the simplest and most unbiased. The raw results
included a numeric range in which the absolute numeric values really did not have any
intrinsic meaning or significance. The resulting numeric range was divided into five
equal levels according the numeric values and not the percentage of area in each class to
determine area percentages of the region in each of the five development potentials
classes. The results indicate that over 1.3 million acres or 28% of the land in the region
were placed into the highest category that was judged to be land with some opportunity
for development - though some development restrictions might be present (e.g. unstable
soils). An additional 20% of the region was placed into a moderate development
potentials category indicating development potential with potentially significant
development restrictions (e.g. flood potentials). The remaining three classes - limited,
severely limited, and highly restricted, represent areas where development restrictions
generally far outweigh the development opportunities that are present.
These results indicate that though much of the undeveloped land in the region has
limited development potentials, there is a significant supply of undeveloped developable
land - though moderate development restrictions may need to be addressed in developing
a majority of these areas (e.g. flood protection or special methods for steep slope
conditions). Almost 50% of the region has limited development potentials due to the
presence of what are often multiple severe development restrictions.
Regional Development Restrictions. Results from the previous analysis represented a
balancing of development opportunities and development constraints. This analysis was
completed to isolate only the factors that present severe limitations or constraints for
development in the region - not balancing these factors with other positive development
factors. This analysis better represents actual difficulties that may be encountered when
developing areas in the region. The factors in this analysis were slightly modified from
the factors included in the previous analysis. This analysis did not exclude publicly
owned or managed areas so that those areas might be included in the analysis, and it did
exclude currently developed areas from consideration for future development assuming
21
-------
that current development precluded these areas from being considered for new
development - though this is often not the case. Table 11 and Figure 6 present the results
of this analysis.
Table 11. Development Restrictions Analysis
Area classified as having
severe restrictions for development 1,918,141 acres 39.7% of the West Virginia
Mountaintop Mining Region
Restrictions to Development Parameters
1. Steep and unstable slopes >30%
2. Poor / unstable soils
3. Flood potentials
4. Proximity to mining related environmental problems and hazards
5. Proximity to other environmental problems and hazards
6. Existing developed areas - unavailable for future development.
Again, a simple map overlay operation using the previously described data that
had been developed for this project was utilized. Rather than place the results into a five
level range, the results were presented as the presence of severe restrictions for
development vs. presence of less severe restrictions for development. The area that was
classified as having severe restrictions for development was isolated according to the
following criteria:
Presence of steep or unstable slopes - > 30% slopes plus soils with high potentials
for slope failure and slides, or
- High flood potential areas, or
Close proximity to mining and other health and safety and environmental
problems - < .10 mile proximity, or .25 mile proximity in combination with any
other factors, or
Existing development.
The results of this analysis indicate that almost 40% of the region has severe
restrictions for new development. The remaining 60% may have significant
development restrictions that were judged to be not as severe as the parameters
identified as severe.
22
-------
County Patterns in Development Restrictions and Potentials. Table 12 summarizes
regional development potentials on a county basis. These results indicate that the supply
of both high development potential and highly restrictive potential land varies
significantly throughout the study area on a county basis. For example, Nicholas,
Raleigh, and Wayne Counties have significantly more land in the high and moderate
Table 12. Development potentials analysis by county (in acres).
County
High
Potential
Moderate
Potential
Limited
Potential
Severly
Limited
Potential
Highly
Restrictive
Potential
Boone
Braxton
Clay
Fayette
Kanawha
Lincoln
Logan
McDowell
Mingo
Nicholas
Raleigh
Wayne
Webster
Wyoming
44,299
74,754
30,821
174,105
229,339
109,141
39,418
64,162
45,250
128,637
177,968
143,297
38,458
58,442
55,984
81,536
45,397
92,786
130,626
55,432
50,618
77,667
55,066
91,971
74,056
76,216
46,663
72,215
63,249
64,277
44,340
48,609
82,192
29,939
55,243
69,935
55,986
57,672
42,818
34,264
43,559
68,734
Totals
1,358,091
1,006,233
760,855
55,145
42,014
39,485
27,735
50,943
20,769
49,313
49,352
42,306
37,402
24,710
17,668
35,405
45,428
537,675
102,391
61,873
58,138
79,149
82,511
62,724
94,713
79,308
70,985
97,416
66,417
51,109
189,490
73,851
1,170,077
development potentials categories than in the severely limited and highly restricted
classes. Mingo, Wyoming, Logan, and Boone Counties, on the other hand, have
significantly more area in the severely limited and highly restricted classes than in the
more favorable development potentials classes. As such, it is apparent that the impacts of
developable and undevelopable land supplies are differentially felt throughout the
mountaintop-mining region.
Table 13 presents county summaries for the development restrictions analysis that
was summarized earlier. Again, it is apparent that a pattern of potential development
restrictions varies in the region with counties such as Boone and Logan having
significantly more of their area with severe physical limitations for new development.
23
-------
Table 13. Development restrictions in the mountaintop mining region by county.
County
Boone
Braxton
Clay
Fayette
Kanawha
Lincoln
Logan
McDowell
Mingo
Nicholas
Raleigh
Wayne
Webster
Wyoming
TOTAL
Area (acres)
Potentially Limited Severe Physical
137,743
258,770
161,833
287,718
349,235
212,742
91,169
146,587
92,617
310,629
251,116
261,469
234,469
163,573
2,959,670
Limitations
184,089
71,465
58,038
139,782
233,066
67,893
200,228
195,001
178,150
107,733
138,237
65,903
121,165
157,391
1,918,141
Development Potentials and Restrictions and Flood Hazard Potentials. The impact of
floodplains in providing land that would otherwise be developable (e.g. low slopes,
proximity to infrastructure, developable soils, etc.) was examined. Table 14 summarizes
the development potentials for floodplains in the study area. Floodplains were delineated
using topographic data ( landforms, slope, stream proximity, etc.) for all perennial
streams in the study area. Approximately 434,000 acres were identified as being
floodplain / riparian areas with potential flood hazard potentials. Table 14 indicates that
except for potential flood hazards, that these floodplain / riparian areas include a great
deal of land that is otherwise suitable for development. These are many of the areas that
have been historically where development in the region has occurred.
Table 14. Development potentials in floodplains/ riparian areas in the
mountaintop mining region.
Development Potential Riparian Area (Acres)
High 197,185
Moderate 63,391
Limited 40,447
Severely limited 26,272
Highly restricted 67,579
Water 39,746
24
-------
Table 15 summarizes development restrictions for the same floodplain / riparian area. If
flood hazard potential is identified a critical development limiter then the entire 434,000
acre area should be regarded as unsuited for development. However, much of the existing
highways, utility and development infrastructure is actually present in these areas.
Table 15. Development restrictions in floodplain / riparian areas in the
Mountaintop mining region.
Development Restrictions Riparian Area (Acres)
Potentially less severe restrictions 263,193
Severe physical restrictions 170,754
Mining and Development Potentials and Restrictions. Mine permit areas were
combined with the development potentials and restrictions analyses that are summarized
above to examine mine sites relative to the landscape in general. Simple map overlays of
mine permit areas and Figure 5 and 6 results were utilized to complete this analysis. The
results of this analysis are presented in Table 16. The first part of the table shows that
Table 16. Development Potentials and Restrictions Associated With Existing Permit
Areas in the West Virginia Mountaintop Mining Region.
Development Potential % of Area
Highest 23.17
Moderate 20.71
Limited 18.14
Severely Limited 14.89
Highly Restrictive 22.89
Surface Water 0.21
Restrictions for Development % of Area
Potentially Less Severe 40.53
Severe Physical Restrictions 59.47
nearly 25% of all mining permits occur in areas with the highest development potential
while 40% occur in areas with severely limited or highly restricted development
potentials. Perhaps more significant is the bottom of the table, which indicates that almost
60% of all mining permits are in areas with severe physical restrictions for most types of
development. As such, in many of these areas, the post-mining reclamation conditions
that may result after mining can serve to improve the development potentials or reduce
25
-------
the severity of the development restrictions in these areas by reducing slopes, improving
surface drainage, or improving soil and slope stability conditions.
Development Potentials and Restrictions, Mining, and Present Development
Patterns.
The current land use and land cover map that was developed for the study area
potentially under-represents the potential exposure of many residents of the mountaintop
mining region to both restricted (and potentially unsafe) development conditions and to
past and current mining. This is due to the highly dispersed pattern of residential
development that occurs through most of the region. This results in many small
residential areas being classified as other land uses (e.g. forest land) when using data
sources such as satellite data for the land use / land cover classification. To compensate
for this, an additional assessment of residential patterns in the region was completed
using mapping of populated places rather than land use areas.
For this analysis, populated places are defined as any places in which it appears
that there are two or more inhabited structures. This approach should better capture the
dispersed development patterns of the region by considering the unincorporated small
mountain and valley communities that dominate the region along with the larger
municipalities, towns and cities.
Populated Places Mapping and Analysis.
Populated places were initially identified and mapped using an available USGS
data set that mapped populated places using the above definitions. This data set was
combined with another data set of known cities, towns, and municipalities. These data
were also then cross-referenced with the urban and other developed areas that were
identified as part of the land use / land cover mapping effort. The resulting mapping was
verified using comparison with recent aerial photography to document the present-day
existence of these small communities and residential areas. When no trace of an area
could be observed it was eliminated from the database. The resulting database also
contains a category called historic places - older communities for which current-day
habitation could not be verified using aerial photography or other maps such as county
highway maps or the West Virginia Gazetteer. These areas are included separately. The
result of this data collection was a more complete view of residential development
patterns in the region. This pattern is presented in Figure 7.
Populated Places and Development Potentials and Restrictions
The results of a comparison of populated places and development potentials and
restrictions are presented in Table 17. Results in the top portion of the table indicate that
the majority of existing small communities and residential areas do occur in areas with
high and moderate development potential and only a small fraction of areas occur in areas
with severely limited or highly restricted development potentials. This logically follows
because the development potentials criteria weigh factors such as transportation and
infrastructure accessibility - which intrinsically are attributes of most developed areas.
More revealing is the bottom portion of the table, which indicates that when considering
26
-------
development restrictions only, almost 60% of these areas are in areas with severe
physical restrictions for development primarily including steep unstable slopes and areas
with severe flooding potentials.
Table 17. Development Potentials and Restrictions Associated with Populated
Places in the Mountaintop Mining Region of West Virginia.
Development Potential Populated Places
Highest
Moderate
Limited
Severely limited
Highly restricted
Current
1077
108
75
37
97
Historic
29
16
7
14
31
Current
73
8
5
3
7
% Historic %
1.5
<1
<1
<1
1.5
Development Restrictions
Populated Places
Current Historic
Number % Number %
Severe physical restrictions 876
Potentially less severe
Restrictions 548
57.6 36
35.7 71
2
4.7
Populated Places and Proximity to Mining
Populated places were evaluated in terms of proximity to mining for past mining,
mountaintop mining permits, and all mining permits (Table 18.). This proximity analysis
could be utilized as surrogate for assessing the impacts of mining on residential areas and
small communities in the region. The results show that 99% of the populated places in the
region are within two miles of one or more past mining features and almost 88% percent
are within /^ mile of one or more mining features. Past mining proximity was determined
by map overlay of mining features (Figure 4) and populated places (Figure 7). This result
clearly indicates the pervasive importance of past mining in the lives of residents in the
region, due and the close proximity of past mining features and many of these small
communities.
27
-------
Mountaintop mining permits present a very different pattern with only 18% of the
identified populated areas occurring within two miles of one or more permits and under
5% occurring within one half mile. All mining permits present a different pattern with
55% of residential places within two miles of a current mining permit and less than 20%
within one half mile of a current mining permit. This pattern clearly illustrates the
separation of current mountaintop mining permits and most residential areas. This is due
to mountaintop mining permits generally occurring on large unbroken ridge tops, where
there is minimal or no existing residential development. Mining permits in general can
occur throughout the landscape because they include contour surface mines, as well as
deep mines and coal cleaning and handling facilities that often are found adjacent to
roads and railroads in the stream and river valleys.
Table 18. Proximity of Existing Populated Places to Mining in West Virginia
Mountaintop Mining Region
Extent of Mining
Past mining
Mountaintop mining permits only
All mining permits
Distance From
Mining (mi)
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
Populated
Number
1255
1366
1414
63
136
253
271
481
774
Places
Percent
87.9
95.7
99.0
4.4
9.5
17.7
19.0
33.7
54.2
Analysis limited to existing populated places only (Not including historic).
Percentage refers to percentage of all existing populated places in the mountaintop region
Other Land Use Development Issues in the Region.
Public lands and public land demands. A variety of public agencies and organizations
own or manage land throughout the region. These agencies extend from local municipal
governments (app. 100+) to Federal and state agencies that control significant amounts of
land. Table 19 summarizes land holdings for the major public land owner/ managers in
the region. It does not include smaller municipal and county public lands including
schools, parks, public buildings, and facilities such as fire houses and police stations.
These areas tend to be relatively small and located within existing developed areas.
28
-------
Table 19 indicates that there are almost 300,000 acres of public lands in the study
area. The major land owner / management types include wildlife management areas
(WVDNR), The U.S. Forest Service forest lands, U.S. Department of Interior national
recreation areas, and state parks and forests. The state of West Virginia and West
Virginia University are also minor landowners in the region.
Table 19. Public Lands Stewardship in the West Virginia Mountaintop Mining
Region.
Owner
Private (inholding in public areas)
Recreational Lake
National Recreation Area - USD1
National Forest -USFS
National Forest Wilderness Area - USFS
State of WV
West Virginia University
WVDNR State Parks
WVDNR State Forests
Wildlife Management Areas - WVDNR
Area (ha)
24,592
3,818
23,838
34,774
1,399
36
216
8,836
10,292
54,978
Area (acres)
60,767
9,433
58,905
85,926
3,457
90
533
21,833
25,431
135,851
(Land stewardship within 14 county Mountaintop Removal study area)
Recreation. Public land needs and demands are very heavily tied to recreation
development in the region. There are certainly localized demands for public lands for
uses such as schools, community parks, and other public facility developments. However,
the acreage requirements for most of this development are minimal, and will be linked to
existing community locations in most cases. Table 20 presents a compilation of the major
demands for public lands in the region that have been identified by various Federal and
state agencies. This table shows significant differences between counties in the region in
the need / demand for hunting and fishing, water recreation, and special needs recreation
areas - facilities that generally require large areas.
Table 20. Demand / Need for Public Land in the Mountaintop Mining Region of
West Virginia.
Boone
Braxton
Clay
Fayette
Kanawha
Lincoln
Hunting/Fishing* Water Recreation* Special Access /Needs*
medium
medium
medium
medium
high
high
medium
medium
medium
medium
high
medium
Recreation
low
medium
low
medium
medium
high
29
-------
Logan
McDowell
Mingo
Nicolas
Raleigh
Wayne
Webster
Wyoming
high
medium
medium
low
medium
high
low
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
high
medium
low
medium
medium
medium
low
low
medium
high
low
medium
Region-wide High Priority Needss
Hiking trails
Swimming facilities
Picnic areas
Bicycle routes
Playgrounds
Playgrounds / courts and sports fields
Community and neighborhood parks
*West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Capital Improvements Plan - 1998.
**West Virginia State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan - 1997.
Non-recreation Needs. The most critical major non-recreation needs include land for
new public water service and sewer facilities. In the study region, the most pressing needs
are in Wyoming, McDowell, Mingo and Lincoln Counties. Five of the fourteen counties
have less than 40% of the residents serviced by public water and seven counties have less
than 30% of residents served by public sewers. Additionally identified needs include
additional land for new and replacement schools, public health facilities, and public
service buildings.
Land Use and Development Needs / Priorities in the Region. Future land use
development needs are difficult to estimate for the study region because it is anticipated
that the majority of the region will continue to loose population or current population
levels will remain static. Population projections (U.S. EPA 1998) for current conditions
to 2010, estimate that only Raleigh County will have a significant demand for new land
use development based on anticipated population growth. This demand is estimated to
range between six and sixteen square kilometers of required new development for the
ten-year time period. Kanawha County is also expected to require new land for urban
30
-------
expansion. However, much of this area is actually due to shifting development patterns
rather than new growth. Projections indicate between sixteen and thirty new square
kilometers of new urban land uses will be potentially developed in Kanawha County
between 2000 and 2010. The other counties in the study area will require insignificant
acreages for the new development that is anticipated during the ten year 2000 to 2010
time period.
Land Use Planning and Decision Making for Specific Mine Sites
General Background. On most land, land use decision-making is at least in part, a
response to one or both of the following questions:
1. What is the optimum or at least desirable land use(s) for a given site or parcel of
land?
2. What sites might be identified that are optimal or suitable for particular land uses
of interest in a given region or locale of concern? (Skelly and Loy 1981)
Asking the questions together about a particular site or sites is often the concern of
public planning and development organizations. Asking the questions together allows
such organizations to develop plans that may address land use development and land
protection comprehensively - considering the potential utility of any parcel of land within
a context of also considering a larger public good. This type of land use decision-making
is generally undertaken in order to:
- Take stock of a region's resources and developable land for activities such
as economic development planning;
- Establish a data base for making regional growth and land protection
decisions including potential public investments; and
Provide a defensible base for potential public involvement in growth
guidance or development through planning or regulation.
Such land use decision-making is generally undertaken within the contexts of various
public planning and economic development activities where overall regional economic
development and environmental protection are the focus. Asking the same questions
separately, land owners, managers, developers and even mining companies are often
interested in determining suitable land uses for specific parcels of land rather than
searching for parcels suitable for development of specific land uses. As such,
organizations such as land development companies, economic development agencies, and
other development interests are generally concerned with finding and implementing
feasible land uses for specific parcels. The context for such land use decision-making is
generally focused on identifying site-specific rather than regional development potentials.
In fact, throughout much of Appalachia, it is obvious that many times these questions
are not asked, or if asked, are not correctly answered. This is evidenced in the large
percentage of Appalachia's historic, as well as, recent development that has occurred in:
areas where access and development amenities are poor; areas with potential
31
-------
environmental hazard situations (e.g. floodplains); areas with steep slopes or unstable
soils presenting slide prone conditions; and, in areas with potentially valuable
environmental resources resulting in destruction or degradation to many potentially
valuable regional landscape resources such as scenic areas, wildlife habitats, and rare
landscapes such as wetlands.
There are three general land use planning principles, which if adhered to by public
and private development interests alike, will improve opportunities for avoidance of the
above conditions through the landscape in general, as well as, specifically for reclaimed
mine sites. These principles are:
1. Development should be discouraged in areas with significant resource
preservation or protection values;
2. Development should be discouraged in areas with significant natural or man-
made hazards present that cannot be reasonably abated or corrected; and
3. Development should be encouraged in areas best suited for it given the range of
physical, contextual, and location parameters that can determine the desirability
of a given land use or land uses.
Methods for Land Use Decision Making. Land use decision making often involves
various forms of land use suitability analysis or development suitability, which present
general planning frameworks based on the concept of determining what parts of the
landscape in a given area are most capable of supporting one or more proposed land uses.
Such land uses can include housing, wildlife, agriculture, recreation, and intensive
development such as industry. This involves identifying the relevant natural and
developed landscape features are for a given land use and how they can be managed or
utilized to support the proposed land use. Land use suitability methods can range from
very complex / systematic approaches to approaches that may be more informal and even
anecdotal. The landscape characteristics used to determine suitability are often derived
from: physical factors such as soils, slope, geology, hydrology, and climate;
social/economic factors such as on-site and adjacent land uses, legal restrictions,
proximity to and availability of utilities and infrastructure, land ownership; and the
presence of potential problems / hazards such as high noise areas, air pollution patterns,
potential flood problems, and other natural and manmade hazards. Typically included
secondary factors often include:
Vegetation and wildlife resources
Cultural resources - on-site and adjacent
- Visual / scenic amenities
Therefore, in general terms, land use suitability factors generally include:
- On-site physical factors such as topography and soils;
Site context including accessibility, utilities, and adjacent land uses; and
Avoidance of environmental problems that may prove costly to overcome;
32
-------
General Land Use Selection Considerations for Coal Mined Lands. In examining the
above, as well as the previously discussed post-mining regulatory provisions, it becomes
apparent that mining companies, land owners, and the public (adjacent land owners,
people in the locale and region, local and regional governments) may have very different
sets of objectives when viewing the land use potentials for particular mine sites. For
example, mine operators often may be most interested in the following:
- Efficiently satisfying post-mining land use regulatory requirements with
the least amount of risk;
Ensuring that satisfying other permit requirements (e.g. for soil protection
and erosion control) are linked to post-mining land use development
efforts for operational and economic efficiency;
If the operator owns the surface rights to the land, the operator may also
be interested in maximizing return on the investment associated with
reclamation.
Landowners may be interested in considerations such as potential economic return
or at least ensuring that the post mining land use reclamation does not reduce the value of
the surface of the land after coal recovery and reclamation have been completed.
Likewise, the previously discussed post-mining land use regulations were developed and
implemented because the "public" may be interested in the following aspects of post-
mining land use planning and development:
- Ensuring that post-mining land uses potentially minimize potential off-site
damages and maximize public benefits; and
- Ensuring consideration of public land use and economic development
priorities and needs by participating in the post-mining land use decisions
that are made.
The same general approaches that have been developed for determining land use
suitabilities for non-mined areas can and have been applied to post-mining reclamation
land use planning for coal-mined areas throughout Appalachia. However, this can
generally only be accomplished with the recognition that many of these mine sites may
have characteristics that are somewhat unique to mined areas and are typically not
encountered on most non-mined sites that are being planned for a given land use or land
uses. Such conditions can include:
- Decreased soil stability due to expansive backfill areas;
- Decreased topsoil productivity due to disturbances encountered during
mining, storage, and reclamation;
Poor proximity to transportation and infrastructure systems due to many
surface mines being located away from existing development; and
- Presence of adjacent mining related health and safety and environmental
problems that may stem from other mining that was completed prior to
implementation of modern reclamation standards.
33
-------
A comprehensive review of methods and criteria for land use decision-making for
coal mined lands in central Appalachia was completed for this project. These results are
summarized in the following table. The references utilized for constructing the table are
included in the bibliography of this report.
Table 21. Post-mining Land Use Mine Site Requirements / Needs (Summary of
current literature and regional expert opinion)
General Requirements
Post-mining Land Use
Agriculture (cropland)
Agriculture (pasture)
Forestland / fish and wildlife
Commercial woodland
Residential / housing
Industrial / commercial
Public facilities
Agriculture (cropland)
Agriculture (pasture)
Forestland / fish and wildlife)
Commercial woodland
Residential / housing
Industrial / commercial
Public facilities
Agriculture (cropland)
Agriculture (pasture)
Forestland / fish and wildlife
Commercial woodland
Residential / housing
Available water Suitable
Area
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
Suitable Soil
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
Site
Accessibility
3
3
3
O
1
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
Proximity to
Infrastructure/
Utilities
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
Site shape /
Configuration
1
2
3
2
2
Non-severe
Terrain / Slope
1
O
3
3
2
1
2
Overburden
Stability
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
Surrounding
Land Use
Compatibility
3
3
2
O
1
34
-------
Industrial / commercial 112
Public facilities 111
1 = high degree of influence
2 = moderate degree of influence
3 = low degree of influence in most cases
There are also numerous specific requirements that have been identified that can
relate to the feasibility of various more intensive land uses. Examples of such specific
requirements follow.
Commercial forest land
i. Determine feasibility based on site size, location, and markets
ii. Careful placement of overburden materials on the surface
iii. Reducing compaction during regrading and revegetation
iv. Using tree compatible ground covers during the early stages of
reclamation revegetation
Industrial / commercial development
i. Determine feasibility based on site size, location and available
infrastructure
ii. Careful regrading to develop relatively flat surface configurations
iii. Develop areas of suitable size and configuration
iv. Careful / well planning spoil replacement
1. Uniformity in materials replacement patterns
2. Constructed internal drainage systems
3. Prepared surface material replacement allowing for fine
regrading, construction, and revegetation
Row crop agriculture
i. Determine feasibility based on site size, location, and markets
ii. Careful placement of overburden materials
iii. Regrading gently sloping terrain insuring suitable drainage, slopes,
and accessibility for required agricultural machinery.
iv. Careful / well planned spoil replacement at the surface
1. Uniformity in materials replacement
2. Augmented topsoil replacement and productivity
improvement
Such detailed criteria can be developed to evaluate or plan any potential post-
mining land use.
Reclaimed Mine Land Use Development Case Studies Developing reclaimed mined
sites for various land uses is not a recent concept. Though a majority of reclaimed mine
sites in southern West Virginia have been reclaimed to pasture / grassland, wildlife
35
-------
habitat, and forestry, there are examples of reclaimed and abandoned coal mine sites
being reclaimed to more intensive land uses. Many of these sites include reclaimed
mountaintop mining sites. For example, Green (1976) and Skelly and Loy (1981) list
examples of developed land uses on reclaimed mines. Examples are included in the
following table.
Table 22. Examples of developed post mining land uses from the study area.
Land Use
Location
Commercial / Institutional
Airport
Airport
High school and Vocational School
Athletic Complex
Consolidated High School
High School
Housing
Planned Community
Residential Subdivision
Residential Subdivision
Residential Subdivision
Residential Subdivision
Williamson
Logan
Welch
Welch
Coal City
Raleigh County
Ward
Beckley
Corrine
Rush Creek
Peach Creek
Recreation / Open Space
Hunting club
Agriculture
Orchard
Orchard
Truck Farm
Summersvillle
Buffalo
Buffalo
Ward
More recently, there are a number of examples of reclaimed mountaintop and
contour mines that have been reclaimed to various developed land uses in the 14 county
study region. Some of the more noteworthy examples of such developments include the
following:
Economic Development
1. Mingo County Wood Products Industrial Park (wood processing industrial
facility) - Hobet #7 / Arch Minerals Site.
2. Mountain Greeneries, LLC (plant nursery) - Mount Olive - Fayette County.
36
-------
3. Mingo County Redevelopment Authority Industrial Park (industrial park) -
Mingo County.
4. Mingo County Fish Hatchery (fish raising facility) - Pigeon Creek, Mingo
County.
5. Ragland Truck Farm (farm products) - Ragland, Mingo County.
6. Columbia Wood Mill (timber processing facility), Craigsville, Nicholas County.
Institutional and Recreation Development
7. Mt. Olive Correctional Facility (prison) - Fayette County.
8. Southwestern Regional Jail (regional correctional facility) - Logan County.
9. McCoy Hatfield Trail - Boone, Lincoln, Logan, Mingo, Wayne and Wyoming
Counties - extensive regional trail system involving numerous reclaimed mine
sites.
10. Beckley Recreational Complex (sports field complex) Raleigh County.
11. Twisted Gun Golf Course - Gilbert, Mingo County.
Other Land Uses
12. Calvin, Nicholas County - high quality hay land, forage, and pasture land
development.
13. McDowell County - Virginia Energy Company - agriculture, pasture, outdoor
recreation, and home site development.
14. Yolyn, Logan County - mixed development including aquatic wildlife habitat,
pasture and grassland, fruit trees.
15. Bluestone Mining Site - Wyoming County - commercial forestry.
Assessment of Potential Land Use Impacts of Future
Mountaintop Mining in West Virginia
Resource Technologies Corporation (RTC 2000, 2001) recently completed a
study that was designed to estimate the effects of various valley fill restrictions on the
quantity of coal potentially available for mountaintop mining operations in West
37
-------
Virginia. That study generated a number of potential future mountaintop mining
scenarios based on the various levels of mining that can take place under different sets of
environmental constraints that can potentially limit the use of mountaintop mining
methods. These constraints mostly relate to changes in mining as available drainage basin
areas become more restrictive for mining and valley fill construction. These limitations
also relate to the pattern that as drainage basin limitations become more severe (for
mining / backstacking spoil, and valley fill construction), the area available for mining
and reclamation becomes more limited using mountaintop mining methods. The
constraints reflect different interpretations of environmental parameters such as
ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial stream definitions and typical headwater
watershed areas for various types of streams. These scenarios were utilized to estimate
the potential impacts of future mountaintop mining in the study region using the RTC
study generated GIS maps of areas potentially available for future surface mining based
on this set of scenarios reflecting the different levels of potential environmental
constraints. These scenarios are summarized below:
1. Unconstrained mountaintop mining - all areas suitable for future mountaintop
mining will be mined using mountaintop-mining methods.
2. Slight constraints - composite 250-acre drainage areas are available in each
headwater watershed for mining and reclamation.
3. Moderate constraints - 150-acre areas are available in each watershed for mining
and reclamation.
4. Severe constraints - 75-acre areas are available for mining and reclamation.
5. Most constrained - only 35 acre areas are available in each headwater watershed
for mining and reclamation.
The detailed GIS based analysis procedures and databases were utilized to develop
region-wide maps of the resulting mountaintop mining mineable areas and relate those
areas to current land use and residential patterns. These maps and supporting statistics
form the basis for the analyses that follow.
Impact on current land uses. Table 23 summarizes current land use / land cover in these
potential future mountaintop mining areas. As would be anticipated, these breakdowns
reflect the land use and land cover patterns that are present in the landscape types that are
suitable for future mountaintop mining - high forested ridges and steep slopes. There are
therefore, few expected impacts on land uses such as medium and high intensity
development, wetlands, or agricultural lands because these land uses were either
precluded from mountaintop mine development or occur in areas with no potential for
mountaintop mining (e.g. in the stream and river valleys). Instead, the major impacts will
be felt on various types of forest lands, areas already impacted by past mining, shrublands
and woodlands, and to a lesser extent in lightly developed areas and pasture / grasslands.
It is therefore, the conversion of mature forested land to other land use / land covers that
is anticipated to be the major land use impact of mining under any of the future mining
scenarios.
38
-------
Table 23. Current Land Use in Potential Mountaintop Mining Areas from Future
Mining Scenarios (in acres).
Land Cover / Land Use
Unconstrained
Developed
Major power lines
Populated areas
Light intensity urban
Moderate intensity urban
Intensive urban
Agriculture
Row crops
Conifer plantation
Pasture / grassland
Shrubland / woodland
Shrubland
Woodland
Forested
Floodplain forest
Cove hardwood forest
Diverse mesophytic forest
Hardwood / conifer forest
Oak forest
Mountain hardwoods
Mountain hardwoods / conifers
Mountain conifers
Water / wetlands
Surface water
Forested wetland
Shrub wetland
Herbaceous wetland
Other
Barren / disturbed land
Total
595
161
1,250
262
360
84
6
3,592
2,679
302
431
35,671
135,372
2,180
14,188
23,612
353
173
726
64
73
163
5,825
228,117
Future Mining
Slight
Constraints
595
161
1,250
262
360
84
6
3,597
2,679
302
431
35,671
135,832
2,196
14,214
23,612
353
173
726
64
73
163
5,825
228,625
Scenarios
Moderate
Constraints
552
133
1,016
247
316
82
5
3,167
1,905
250
424
26,842
108,437
2,043
11,587
17,563
345
183
587
61
48
66
4,627
180,482
39
-------
Table 23. (continued)
Land Use / Land Cover
Developed
Major power lines
Populated areas
Light intensity urban
Moderate intensity urban
Intensive urban
Agriculture
Row crops
Conifer plantations
Pasture / grassland
Shrubland / woodland
Shrubland
Woodland
Forested
Floodplain forest
Cove hardwood forest
Diverse mesophytic forest
Hardwood / conifer forest
Oak forest
Mountain hardwood forest
Mountain hardwoods/ conifers
Mountain conifers
Water / wetlands
Surface water
Forested wetland
Shrub wetland
Herbaceous wetland
Other
Barren / disturbed land
Total
Severe
Constraints
280
90
216
197
301
81
29
2,488
1,088
88
284
15,423
69,450
1,507
8,553
11,160
350
173
243
24
56
60
2,699
115,199
Most
Constrained
129
26
576
55
106
55
0
2,016
563
41
99
4,133
34,148
948
4,454
6,724
348
181
145
34
54
44
1,162
55,727
*Acreage totals do not represent all past and current mining - only areas that were
barren for the 1994,1995, and 2000 satellite imagery. These totals underestimate total
previously mined acreage in the potential mountaintop mining areas.
**Future mining scenarios were developed by other mountaintop mining economic
impact background studies. Acreages represent the acreages available for future
40
-------
mountaintop mining with increasing constraints on backstack spoil material
placement and valley fill construction (see Resource Technologies Corp., 2000)
***Summation inconsistencies represent rounding errors in calculations.
Impact on existing small communities. Table 24 summarizes the relationships between
these potential mining areas and existing populated places in the region. The potential
future mining areas data were combined with the populated places data (Figure 7) to
complete this analysis. Simple GIS data overlays were utilized to combine the data.
These results do indicate a pattern of potentially close proximity between existing
populated places (the rural population in the region) and many of the areas suitable for
future mountaintop mining. Resulting proximity values range from over 500 populated
Table 24. Potential impacts of future mining scenarios on existing populated places
(number of populated places).
Constraints within mine area Vz mile 1 mile 2 miles
or less or less or less
unconstrained 42 222 320 536
minor constraints 42 222 320 536
moderate 35 205 306 524
constraints
severe constraints 23 146 248 476
most severe 6 95 183 389
constraints
places which may be within two miles of potential mining for the unconstrained scenario
to a low of six areas that could be directly impacts by mining with the most constrained
scenario. These results do indicate a pattern of significantly differing impacts on existing
populated areas with each of the future mining scenarios. In summary, these results
indicate that:
Significant numbers of rural residents may be impacted by future mountaintop
mining in terms of the potential impacts that are felt due to close mine proximities
(noise, roadway traffic and congestion, temporary land use incompatibility).
Significant numbers of rural residents may be within two miles or less of potential
future mountaintop mining.
- The various levels of constraints for potential future mining do strongly impact
the proximity of rural residents to potential mining areas with the unconstrained
41
-------
and slight constraints scenarios impacting almost double of number of populated
areas than the most constrained scenario.
Summary of Potential Future Mountaintop Mining Land Use Impacts
It is anticipated that the potential land use related impacts of future mountaintop
mining will be most strongly felt in three general areas:
Loss and conversion of existing land use / land covers;
Temporary and permanent impacts on small communities and dispersed
residential areas in the region; and
- Provision of new land uses and land use opportunities.
Loss and conversion of existing land use / land covers.
1. Future mountaintop mining under all of the future mining scenarios will
significantly reduce mature forestland acreages in southern West Virginia - at
least for the near term. The estimated acreages of lost forestland range from over
200,000 acres for the unconstrained scenario to just over 50,000 acres for the
most constrained mining scenario.
2. Re-disturbance of previously mined areas is the second-most likely land use
conversion. Acreages range from over 6,000 acres for the unconstrained scenario
to nearly 2,000 acres for the most constrained scenario. Reclamation and post-
mining land use potentials of these previously mined areas will be greatly
improved in nearly all cases because of the improvements that are required in
remining previously mined areas.
3. Future mountaintop mining will permanently impact only minor acreages of light
intensity development, infrastructure such as power lines, and agricultural and
pasture lands.
Temporary and permanent impacts on small communities.
1. Future mountaintop mining may impact numerous existing small communities
and other populated places due to close proximities between mining and the
communities. Impacts will include noise, dust, added vehicular traffic, etc. Such
impacts can be regarded as temporary land use incompatibility impacts.
2. Potential permanent impacts will likely include some resident population
relocation due to close proximities of people and potential future mining. For
example, 222 populated places are .5 miles or closer to potential future mining
areas and nearly 100 are .5 miles or closer even under the most constrained
mining scenario. These small communities would be likely impacted by any
potential future mountaintop mining.
42
-------
Provision of new land uses and land use opportunities.
1. Most potential future mountaintop mining areas will be reclaimed to various
forest cover related land uses- e.g. intensive forest and woodland management,
recreation, and wildlife management. It is likely that current reclamation
requirements will cause greater post-mining forested acreages to be managed for
intensive woodland development than at present due to AOC / land use
provisions, often resulting improved site topography (for management) and
accessibility with reclamation. This is due to the refocusing of the AOC / post
mining reclamation provisions in West Virginia granting AOC variances only in
improved / more developed land use conditions.
2. Agricultural land uses will likely account for the next greatest acreage of post-
mining land uses - potentially emphasizing specialized crops, row crops, animal
production, aquaculture, etc., to utilize potential AOC / land use exemptions.
3. Given current and foreseeable future land use demands, it is unlikely that any
more than 2 to 3% of the future post-mining land uses will be developed land uses
such as housing, commercial, industrial, or public facility development. However,
significant acreages of land suitable for developed post-mining land uses will
result from future mining under all of the mining scenarios.
4. Significant additional acreages of land with development opportunities and
potentials greater than the potentials that are currently present will result from
reclamation in the potential future mountaintop mining areas in all of the future
mining scenarios. Much of the acreage available for future mountaintop mining is
in areas with current severe development restrictions (over 55% of the future
potential mountaintop mining acreage). Development restrictions will be reduced
on the majority of the reclaimed sites with implementation of current reclamation
standards and practices. Development limitations such as poor accessibility and
infrastructure proximity will continue in nearly all of these areas.
5. Land use plans for current and future potential mountaintop mining sites will be
developed and evaluated with greater emphasis on locale and regional land use
and economic development needs and potentials. This is due to amended review
procedures and changes in the mountaintop mining regulations in West Virginia.
The requisite mine site land use and community impact studies will potentially
result in improved integration of post-mining land use plans and regional
economic and infrastructure development activities throughout the mountaintop-
mining region.
43
-------
6. Recent regulatory changes will continue to result in greater placement of spoil
materials in backstack areas rather than in valley fills. This actually may reduce
future land use opportunities on many mountaintop sites, when compared with
previous mountaintop mining practices, which resulted in flatter land because
greater amounts of spoil material, were placed in valley fills. However, the land
use potentials of such sites will still be greater than with pre-mining conditions
due to required site regrading, stabilization, and revegetation, as well as the
presence of new roads and infrastructure features that may remain after mining.
Literature Cited
Bogner, Jean and Alan Perry. 1977. Integrated Mined-Area Reclamation and Land Use
Planning. Energy and Mineral Resources, Argonne National Laboratory - Prepared for
US Geological Survey.
Burley, Jon B (ed.). 2000. Environmental Design for Reclaiming Surface Mines. Mellen
Press, Emsworth ME.
Candau, Jeannette. 2000. The Clarke Urban Growth Model. University of California.
Santa Barbara. Unpublished manuscript.
Greene, Benjamin. 1976. Restoring Grossly Disturbed Land to Agricultural and Other
Uses. Northern Branch of the American Society of Agronomy Annual Meeting, July.
Morgantown, WV.
Grim, Elmore. 1974. Environmental Protection in Surface Mining of Coal. EPA,
Washington, D.C.
Harbridge House, Inc. 1979. Postmining Alternative Land Use Evaluation Methodology.
OSMRE -NTIS. Washington, D.C.
Kentucky Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 2001. Post
Mining Land Use. Unpublished url - /dsmremapl3/post_miningland_use.htm.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 1999. Post mining Land use.
USDI OSMRE, Washington, DC. October. Unpublished report.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 1998. Draft Report. An
Evaluation of Approximate Original Contour and Postmining Land Use in West Virginia.
November. Washington, DC.
44
-------
Penn State University. 1998. Chapter 5 - Land Use Planning. Handbook of Mining and
Reclamation. Pennsylvania State University. State College PA.
Penn State University. 1998. Chapter 14 - Revegetation. Handbook of Mining and
Reclamation. Pennsylvania State University. State College PA.
Resource Technologies Corporation. 2000. Phase 1 - Mountaintop Mining Economic
Background Study. Unpublished. September 13.
Resource Technologies Corporation. 2001. Unpublished data - statistical summaries and
maps for areas suitable for future mountaintop mining under various future mining
scenarios. February.
Skelly and Loy. 1981. A Land Use Decision Methodology for Mined Lands in
Appalachia. Appalachian Regional Commission. Washington, D.C.
Skelly and Loy. 1984. Environmental Assessment: Head-of-hollow Fill and Mountaintop
Removal Mining - Final Report. USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Skelly and Loy. 1983. Demonstration of Cross-ridge Mountaintop Mining. USDI Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C.
USDA Forest Service 1996. Ecological Subregions of the United States. USDA Forest
Service, Washington, D.C.
USGS. 2000. National Land Cover Dataset for West Virginia - version 3. (Digital GIS
data). USGS Sioux Falls, SD.
West Virginia Development Office. 1993. West Virginia State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan. Charleston, WV.
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. 1996. Commercial Forestry as a Post-mining
Land Use. Powell River Project Series. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. 1997. Stabilizing Reclaimed Mines to Support
Buildings and Development. Powell River Project Series. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,
VA.
West Virginia Development Office. 1997. West Virginia State Economic Development
Plan. Charleston, WV.
West Virginia Development Office. 2000. EDA Program Narrative - Office of Coalfield
Development (unpublished). Charleston, WV.
45
-------
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection. 2001. Unpublished mining permit
data, digital map data, and permit summary statistics. WVDEP, Charleston WV.
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection. 2000. AOC and Excess Spoil
Material - Chapter 29 West Virginia Coal Mine Permitting Handbook. Charleston, WV.
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection. 2000. An Evaluation of Future
Mining Island Creek Watershed, (unpublished), Charleston, WV.
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 1997. Capitol Improvements Plan. Elkins,
WV.
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection. 2000. Postmining Land Use -
Chapter 30 West Virginia Coal Mine Permitting Handbook. Charleston, WV.
West Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association. 2000. Making the Most of
Reclaimed Mined Land. Green Lands. Vol 30. no. 4.
West Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association. 2000. Post Mining Land
Use. Green Lands vol. 30. no 3.
West Virginia University - Natural Resource Analysis Center. 2001. GAP Analysis for
West Virginia - Draft Final Report. Morgantown, WV. September.
Workman, Michael, Paul Salstrom and Philip Ross. 1994. Northern West Virginia Coal
Fields Historical Context. Institute for History of Technology and Industrial Archeology
Technical Report 10. Morgantown, WV.
46
-------
Report Figures.
47
-------
Hancock
Page 1 of 1
Brooke
Ohio
Marshall
Wet/el
Tyler Ma"°n Preslon
Reasants {
Doddridg^arr'son
Ritchie
Morgan
Mn
Barbour Tucker Grant
Braxtor
Oay / \ Webster
ummers Monroe
Mercef
Hampshire
Jefferson
Hardy
Study Area Outline
Study Area Counties
West Virginia Counties
10 D )u :ij Mites
file://C:\mtop%20pdAmntop\Appendix%20G%20Socioeconomic\Post%20Mining%20Land%20Use%20Assessment\figures\figure 5/20/2003
-------
Page 1 of 1
• ^t - ' •" ^
- Kanawha
1
Logan
'lingo.
Study ATM Outline
Study .Area Counties,
Land Use/Land Cover
J^H Cove hardwood forest
FIoodplam terrti
Drve»e/nne«ophytic hardwood forest
10 20 MiloB
Populatad aiea • mned land eovaf
L^it !nt«ntity urban
Moderate Intensity urban
Intensive urban
B
Oak dominant far*sl
Mountain hardwood forest
a Mountain hardwootf conifer fcrext
. . ._ _
Forested w*tl«nd
Shr ub wrtand
Surface water
SrlruUand
Major powerline
Row crop tgriculturt
Pasture/grassland
I Barren land - mining, construction
3 Planted grassland
file://C:\mtop%20pdAmntop\Appendix%20G%20Socioeconomic\Post%20Mining%20Land%20Use%20Assessment\figures\figi... 5/20/2003
-------
Page 1 of 1
I | Study Area Counties
n Study Area Outline
Land Use/Land Cover
d| Open water
Low intensity developed
| High Intensity developed
Hay. pasture, grass
Row crops
Mixed pasture, low intensity ag
^B| Comtar rarest
I Mixed forest
Barren - quarry areas
Barren - transitional, clear cut
Palustnne forested
Palustnne shrub, scrub
Palustrine emergent
file://C:\mtop%20pdAmntop\Appendix%20G%20Socioeconomic\Post%20Mining%20Land%20Use%20Assessment\figures\figi... 5/20/2003
-------
Page 1 of 1
^| Study Area Counties
Study Area Outline
Extent of Minmg
^^| Past/existing mining
| | Won mining
file://C:\mtop%20pdAmntop\Appendix%20G%20Socioeconomic\Post%20Mining%20Land%20Use%20Assessment\figures\figi... 5/20/2003
-------
Page 1 of 1
Study Area Counties
Study Area Outline
Development Potential
0 10 20 Miles
| Moderate
Limited
Severely limited
Highly restricted based on land ownership or severe environmental problems
Surface water
file://C:\mtop%20pdAmntop\Appendix%20G%20Socioeconomic\Post%20Mining%20Land%20Use%20Assessment\figures\figi... 5/20/2003
-------
Page 1 of 1
] Study Area Counties
l~l Study Area Outline
Development Restrictions
| | Potentially less severe restrictions
||| Severe physical restrictions for development
10 20 Miles
file://C:\mtop%20pdAmntop\Appendix%20G%20Socioeconomic\Post%20Mining%20Land%20Use%20Assessment\figures\figi... 5/20/2003
-------
Page 1 of 1
| | Study Area Counties
| ] Study Area Outline
Populated Places
• Current
Historic
file://C:\mtop%20pdAmntop\Appendix%20G%20Socioeconomic\Post%20Mining%20Land%20Use%20Assessment\figures\figi... 5/20/2003
-------
Page 1 of 1
10 0 10 Miles
Stewardship
Federal
National Paris Service
HH Forest Service
State
HB W,V- Div. of Natural Resources
West Virginia University
Pnvate.'OthiM
Private
Private in holding * Ndliortal Forest
Private in holding • Other
Study Ana Counties
Study Area Outline
file://C:\mtop%20pdAmntop\Appendix%20G%20Socioeconomic\Post%20Mining%20Land%20Use%20Assessment\figures\figi... 5/20/2003
-------
Page 1 of 1
i | Study Area Counties
Study Area Outline
Mountaintop Mining Permits
file://C:\mtop%20pdAmntop\Appendix%20G%20Socioeconomic\Post%20Mining%20Land%20Use%20Assessment\figures\figi... 5/20/2003
-------
Mountaintop EIS
Technical Report
by the
Mountaintop Technical Team
Team Members
Charles Sandberg Office of Surface Mining
Barry Doss Coal Industry
Dr. Erkan Esmer Coal Industry
Joe Ross WVDEP
John Morgan Morgan Worldwide
Ken Eltschlager Office of Surface Mining
Mike Superfesky Office of Surface Mining
-------
Executive Summary
During December 1999, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM), in cooperation with other federal and state
agencies developed a work plan for comparing different mining and reclamation scenarios of mountaintop
removal surface coal mining operations in West Virginia. The purpose of the comparisons was to evaluate
the impact that limiting valley fills to ephemeral streams would have on coal resource recovery. The results
of the comparisons will be included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by a settlement
agreement arising from the July 1998 Bragg v. Robinson litigation concerning mountaintop mining and
associated valley fill construction in West Virginia.
An engineering team (Team) consisting of representatives from OSM, the West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP), Industry, and the Plaintiffs completed the evaluation. The Team first
selected 14 proposed mine sites which were a representative sample of proposed mining sites in West
Virginia and provided the permit applicants with a backfill template. The backfill template was designed
to approximate the results that would be expected under the (then pending) Consent Decree AOC/Backfill
Optimization Model. That model generally results in more spoil material being returned to the mined area
and the tops of the valley fills being constructed higher than the lowest coal seam being mined. The Team
requested the applicants to redesign their mine proposals so that the proposed valley fill toes were no closer
than 100 feet from the beginning of an intermittent stream (i.e. completely within the ephemeral stream).
When possible, the applicants in consultation with WVDEP established the ephemeral limit points. The
Team received redesign proposals for 11 mines sites (10 surface mines and 1 refuse disposal impoundment).
The team critically reviewed each of the redesign proposals in order to assure the redesigns were objective
and consistent with the stated purposes of the workplan, the backfill template, and the associated
instructions. Once the Team was satisfied that these requirements were met, it requested the applicants to
provide the estimated tonnage of coal reserves that could be extracted not only by the initially proposed
mining method, but by alternative methods as well.
The Team did not request nor evaluate any of the economic information provided verbally by some of the
applicants, nor was this information used in reaching the Team's conclusions.
Limiting valley fills to the ephemeral streams resulted in significant or total loss of the coal resource for 9
of the 11 mine sites when compared to the original mine site plans. All of the coal resource was lost for 6
of the 11 mine sites. By restricting fills to the ephemeral streams, the total coal recovery is estimated at 18.6
million tons, a 90.9 percent reduction. The original estimate was 186 million tons. The team noted that
even if smaller fills could be constructed, they would impact nearly every available valley, possibly
increasing the overall environmental impact.
-------
Mountaintop Mining Technical Team Report
Background
A settlement agreement in West Virginia involving litigation over mountaintop mining and associated valley
fills (Bragg v. Robertson) required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the issues. As part
of the EIS effort, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in cooperation with other federal and state agencies
developed a work plan for comparing different mining and reclamation scenarios of mountaintop mining.
The purpose of the comparisons was to evaluate the impact that the different scenarios would have on coal
resource recovery. As a result of the subsequent decision by the federal judge in the case, the workplan was
revised to evaluate what the impact of limiting valley fills to ephemeral streams would have on coal resource
recovery.
Between January and May 2000, an engineering team (Team) consisting of representatives from OSM, the
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), the West Virginia Coal Industry, and the
Plaintiffs in the case completed the evaluation.
Methodology
The Team established a mine selection process, agreed upon the definition "ephemeral streams," and
developed a procedure to gauge the impact of limiting fills to ephemeral streams on existing mine
applications. The Team selected mines from pending applications in the five main mining regions. The
geographic and geologic differences throughout West Virginia delineated the five main mining regions. In
turn, each area was predisposed to different mining methods. The end result was a selection of mines
representing various mining methods taking place in different geographic and geologic settings. The Team
chose 14 pending surface mine applications submitted by coal companies who agreed to participate in the
evaluation. Because of the possible impact of the ephemeral stream limit for refuse fill permits, the Team
included one refuse fill in the evaluation.
Next, the Team developed a template for configuring the backfill and the valley fills for the 14 selected mine
applications (see Attachment A). The backfill template required additional fill to be placed above the lowest
coal seam, resulting in more backfill being returned to the mountain. Although not equivalent, the
requirements of the backfill template exceeded the fill optimization requirements of the Consent Decree
AOC Process template (also known by the working title of "AOC Plus") at the time of the study. It also
approximated the results that may be expected under the Consent Decree AOC Process template.
The first step of the analysis was to obtain information from the pending applications concerning coal
tonnage, overburden volumes, and numbers and sizes of valley fills. This provided the base information
for each analysis. (This information is listed as Scenario 1 in the attached tables.) The second step was to
ask the applicants to use the template to revise their original applications, limiting valley fills to the
ephemeral stream, but using every available hollow as a disposal site. (Scenario 2 in the tables). In most
cases, the revisions yielded a spoil imbalance. In some cases, applicants submitted information from
original applications because ephemeral points were above the coal seam to be mined. The last step of the
analysis was to estimate the coal tonnage which could be extracted from the site by alternative mining
methods, using every available hollow as a disposal site, but limiting the fills to the ephemeral stream. The
applicants were asked to consider all mining methods, including mountaintop removal, area mining, contour,
highwall miner, augering, and underground mining.
Each applicant developed the plans for these evaluations independently. The Team reviewed the evaluations
-------
to assure that all possible fill sites were analyzed, the evaluations represented the maximum coal recovery,
the evaluations met Attachment A backfill requirements, and the applicants had limited the fills to the
ephemeral zone. The completed tables for each mine are attached.
The limits of the ephemeral stream (and therefore the beginning of the intermittent stream) were established
using WVDEP procedures, "Guidance for Delineation of Ephemeral/Intermittent Streams," dated October
26, 1999 (included in Attachment D). The Team considered the state guidance document to be consistent
with the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) definitions of ephemeral and
intermittent streams. A separate team, led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), field verified the
ephemeral reach for five of the fourteen sampled sites during February and March 2000. Maps indicating
the team's results are attached and identified as Attachment E. Only three of the five companies whose sites
were field verified ultimately submitted data for this study.
Team Evaluation Process
During March and April 2000, the Team met with several of the participating companies to discuss their
progress in completing the two scenarios. In addition, the Team reviewed the analyses and maps of those
companies that had completed both scenarios. In every case, the Team believed the companies had indeed
used every available fill site, established appropriate ephemeral limits, and met the backfill requirements
of the template. Furthermore, for those sites where the USGS team had field verified the ephemeral points,
the differences between the team's findings and the company's finding were insignificant. In all but one
case, the USGS team's findings were generally consistent with the company's ephemeral limits in the field.
Results
The Team received data on ten surface mines and one refuse fill. The data as received is attached in tabular
form (Attachment C). Summary discussions for each of the sites precede the tables (Attachment B). For
the refuse fill, the reported coal production is from the underground mine that would generate the refuse.
Table 1 of this report summarizes the data from the sites.
Conclusion
In nearly every valley reviewed, the lower end of the ephemeral stream was very high in the valley. This
resulted in very small fills or no room for any fill. One site had been significantly impacted by underground
mining, resulting in a much lower ephemeral point. Therefore, the coal recovery proposed in the original
plan was not impacted. Still, even when using every available fill site, there was a major reduction in the
total amount of excess spoil that could be placed in these fills. The reduction of available fill volume
resulted in a significant reduction in coal resources recovered. The original plans for the 11 sites reviewed
would have produced 186 million tons of coal. By restricting fills to the ephemeral streams, the total coal
recovery is 16.8 million tons, a 90.9 percent reduction.
-------
TABLE 1
MINE
"A"
"E"
"F" #
"G"
"L"
"P" #
"Q"
"R" #
"S"
"U"
«Y" **
TOTAL
FINAL EXCESS SPOIL
Scenario 1
31,400,000
31,900,000
24,700,000
38,900,000
577,000
10,600,000
95,400,000
35,100,000
12,000,000
81,200,000
81,500,000
411,877,000
Scenario 2
3,100,000
3,600,000
5,700,000
33,700,000
0
0
51,400,000
5,600,000
9,500,000
3,500,000
31,900,000
144,900,000
NUMBER OF FILLS
Scenario 1
2
4
7
2
5
3
11
5
10
7
1
55
Scenario 2
0
2
2
1
0
0
17
7
8
5
45
87
TONS OF COAL
RECOVERED
Scenario 1
24,700,000
4,000,000
7,100,000
3,100,000
980,000
2,600,000
9,300,000
4,200,000
2,500,000
17,600,000
110,000,000
186,080,000
Scenario 2
4,800,000
350,000
1,400,000
0
0
0
8,400,000
0
1,900,000
0*
0
16,850,000
ECONOMIC
VIABILITY
##
No
No
No
No
No
No
Questionable
No
Yes
No
No
% COAL
LOST
81
92
81
100
100
100
10
100
22
100
100
90.9%
* Due to toxic nature of top seam, entire resource lost as acid material cannot be put in valley fill.
# Ephemeral Point Field Verified
** Refuse fill
## As determined by the applicant
-------
ATTACHMENTS
-------
Attachment A
NOTES:
1) 2H:1V SLOPE BETWEEN TERRACES (BENCHES)
2) 50' VERTICAL (MAX.) BETWEEN TERRACES
3) TERRACES 20' WIDE
4) ASSUME ALL BACKFILLED SURFACES ARE LEVEL
\
SET TOE OE
VALLEY EILL
100' UPSTREAM
OE INTERMITTENT/
EPHEMERAL STREAM
ALL SPOIL ON THIS SIDE OE THE OUTCROP OE THE
"LOWEST SEAM TO BE MINED IS BACKEILL
Determine initial backfill volume and configuration by placing spoil in the mined area to the configuration shown. Spoil is
to be placed until the width of the top of the backfill is no greater than 100 feet or until the height of the backfill reaches the
maximum elevation of original ground in the permit area.
Set the toe of all valley fills at a point 100 feet horizontally from the intermittent and ephemeral stream intersection.
Calculate the additional height (H) of valley fill required. H equals 50 % of the difference in elevation from the top of the initial
backfill to the average coal seam elevation. H is added to the average coal seam elevation to determine the top of fill elevation.
Place spoil in the valley fill up to the (Average coal seam elevation + H) elevation.
Place additional spoil in the mined area adjacent to all valley fills. The toe of the spoil will be offset 25 feet from the outcrop line
projected upward. Spoil will be placed upward until the width of the top of the backfill is no greater than 100 feet or until the
height of the backfill reaches the maximum elevation of original ground in the permit area.
Please note: This template is for Mountaintop Mining EIS evaluation purposes only. This template does not represent the WV-DEP
position on Approximate Original Contour.
-------
Attachment B
Individual Mine Summaries
Mine A Summary
Mine A as originally planned was a combination mountaintop and contour mine with highwall mining
planned. This original plan included two valley fills and would have recovered 24.7 million tons of clean
coal. The requirement to limit fills to the ephemeral stream resulted in a contour mine with highwall mining
and NO valley fills with the recovery of 4.8 million clean tons; an 80.6% reduction of recoverable reserves.
Excess spoil storage was only available by hauling up-hill and stacking on an existing reclaimed valley fill.
Mine E Summary
Mine E is contour mining, and is not feasible due to slope of the original ground (Highwall Reclamation).
Coal seams are not conducive to auger or highwall mining due to low thickness and cost of washing
produced coal.
Capital expenditures for the mine are not feasible due to minimal recoverable reserves.
Mine F Summary
Mine F is a contour/highwall mining operation with limited point removal areas. The site is adjacent to an
inactive site that currently has some disturbed area associated with it. Scenario 1 represents a current
SMCRA application that has been revised from the original submittal to provide less stream impacts by
using the reasonable portions of the fill minimization guidelines of the new AOC policy. The main seams
of removal are Stockton and Coalburg. Minor additional tonnage is taken from the No. 6 Block, No. 5
Block, and Clarion seams. Some areas above the mine permit have been previously surface mined in the
upper seams and have small fills in the heads of the hollows.
Scenario 1 is designed for removal of 7.06 million recoverable surface and highwall mining tons at a cost
comparable to the current coal market. Scenario 2 allows for the removal of 1.39 million tons at a
significantly increased cost. This represents a reduction of 5.67 million tons, an 80 % reduction in reserves.
Scenario 2 uses the available fill space in fills 4 and 5, plus hauls an additional 2.56 million cubic yards to
the adjacent mined area in order to mine the estimated 1.39 million tons. It is important to note that this
mine as revised in Scenario 2 is not feasible and would not be permitted or started in this market or
foreseeable near term market. It would take estimated revenue of over $30 per ton to justify Scenario 2.
The ephemeral stream ending points for use in Scenario 2 were obtained from the OSM/EPA teams that
recently visited the site. In five of the seven fills, the ephemeral portion of the stream was near or above
the Middle Coalburg seam level, making the fills spatially and economically impossible. The ephemeral
stream ended low enough in fill 4 to allow a small fill. Fill 5 was not affected since the stream was totally
ephemeral due to stream loss from previous underground mining.
-------
Mine G Summary
Scenario 1
Mine G as originally planned consists of mountaintop removal of one knob, and area mining (up to
centerline of ridge) of a second knob. A total of eight distinct seam horizons were to be mined across the
ridge. No contour, highwall mining, or augering was proposed. Permit area is steeply sloped with a
maximum depth of cover of nearly 400 feet.
The original project proposed to recover 3.1 million tons of saleable coal and would generate roughly 64
mmcy of (loose) spoil. Just over 60% of this spoil was excess and proposed for disposal in two adjacent
valley fills. The requirement to limit valley fills to ephemeral stream reaches resulted in the complete loss
of one fill site, and a reduction in storage capacity at the second site of 55%. A third fill site was evaluated,
but rejected due to its small volume, inaccessibility, and stability concerns. Even with super-elevation of
the remaining valley, a 30% deficit in excess storage capacity resulted. Thus by mountaintop removal
method, a 100% reduction in recoverable reserves would occur.
Scenario 2
Contour mining, outside the confines of a valley fill site, was not deemed practical due to difficulties
associated with blasting in steep slopes (65%-80%) and the inability to conduct stable backfilling. Deep
mining of any remaining seams was ruled out as none of the eight coal seams consistently averaged 36" or
greater in thickness. Augering and highwall mining were rej ected both due to the inability to create contour
benches and due to the lack of sufficient seam thickness.
Contour and cross-ridge mining adj acent to valley fill site 2 was felt to be the only remaining option. It was
estimated that through super-elevation of the fill site and backfilling per the prescribed criteria, a total of
25.5 mmcy of (loose) spoil storage could be made available. After correcting for bulking factor and strip
ratio, this implies roughly 1.2 mm tons of saleable product could be extracted.
Scenario 2 would result in a loss of just over 60% of the reserve base.
The applicant submits, however, that mining and reclamation of the eight coal seams, which have an average
depth of cover in excess of 300 feet, within a mineral removal area of about 75 acres, would not be possible
without significant rehandling of materials. This lack of operation room and associate rehandling would
result in production costs significantly above expected market realizations (currently at $23.50 to $24.00
per ton).
Mine L Summary
Mine Lisa contour surface permit in the Coalburg seam. The contour cut is currently being permitted to
approximately 13:1 strip ratio, with highwall mining to follow. Total tons estimated recoverable, as
permitted, are approximately 978,000 tons with required initial excess spoil storage area of 1,807,988 cu.
yds. None of the proposed valley fills occupy watersheds of 250 acres or greater. As the
ephemeral/intermittent stream contact occurs at or above the Coalburg seam outcrop, it is not possible to
-------
build any hollow fills if only the ephemeral stream can be utilized. Such a restriction would result in a loss
of 100% of estimated reserves for this permit.
Mine P Summary
Mine P is a combination contour and point-removal surface mine permit in the 5-block seam.
Approximately 2,628,672 tons of strip and highwall mining reserves are estimated recoverable. The average
ratio of cubic yards of O.B. to ton of coal is approximately 12:1, with an estimated initial excess spoil of
11,943,289 cubic yards. None of the designed valley fills were 250 acres or larger. Requiring valley fills
to be confined to the ephemeral stream results in storage capacity of only 82,589 cubic yards. Only 31,500
tons would be recoverable under this scenario. However, due to economic considerations, this reserve
would probably not be mined, so the effective loss of reserves is 100%.
Mine O Summary
Mine Q proposes a combination of mountaintop/area mining, contour mining, and mining with a highwall
miner. Four major coal horizons will be mined with a total of eight individual seams being mined. Several
of the seams have been previously mined by contour and underground mining methods. The mine plan
includes eleven (11) valley fills and would recover 9.3 million tons of coal. The in-site ratio is
approximately 14:1.
Limiting mining and spoil placement to areas above the ephemeral stream limit and placement of spoil in
all available hollows result in a spoil imbalance of 21.7 million cubic yards. (It should be noted that the
mining area was slightly reduced in this scenario.) The spoil imbalance should be slightly greater if mining
of all areas proposed in the permit application was evaluated.
The company re-evaluated the mining plan with the fills limited to the ephemeral limits. This scenario
results in the recovery of 8.4 million tons of coal. Although this results in a reduction of only about 2
million tons of reserves, the company states that is doubtful that this scenario could fully be implemented.
Reasons stated for doubts about implementation:
(a) amount of pre-law contour mining on old rim cut benches;
(b) increased mining costs; and
(b) spoil placement requirements would possibly "spoil bound" operation.
Mine R Summary
Mine R was originally planned as a combination mountaintop, area, and contour mine with no augering
proposed. All of the mineral removal area is classified as re-mining since the entire site has previously been
extensively contour mined and augered. The plan included five (5) valley fills and would have recovered
approximately 4.2 million tons of coal. The in-situ strip ratio is approaching 20:1.
As shown by the provided analysis, mining of this area if limited above the ephemeral point will not be
economically feasible. By using the guidelines for this exercise, there is an imbalance of roughly 30 mm
-------
cubic yards of spoil. Attempting to re-balance the mining area is not feasible. Significant contour/augering
in the 3, 4, and 5 seams (as well as excessive deep mining in the 3 seam) has already taken place. Surface
mining above those areas would result in unacceptable strip ratios.
Deep mining of the 4 seam would be questionable due to the close proximity of the underlying 3 seam.
Deep mining of the 5 seam could be considered, but only about 10% of the tonnage originally proposed to
be mined by the mountaintop method might be recoverable. There is approximately 1,150,300 tons of in-
place coal within the 5 seams. Assuming a 55% mining recovery and a 35% reject, it is estimated 411,200
saleable tons of 5 seam coal could be deep mined. This compares very unfavorably to the 41,186,000 tons
proposed by the area mine.
The mineability of the 5 seam coal by underground methods, however, is presently impeded by several
factors:
(a) the small reserve block size (<500,000 tons);
(b) lack of preparation facility (closest plant 30+ miles);
(c) presumed restrictions on constructing new coal refuse facility;
(d) unfavorable economy of scale due to lack of complimentary reserves.
In short, it is unlikely the deep mine block would "stand alone" as recoverable given today' s economic and
market conditions.
Mine S Summary
Mine S as originally planned was a combination mountaintop and contour mine with auger mining planned.
This original plan included 10 valley fills and would have recovered approximately 2.5 million tons clean
coal. The requirements to limit the fills to the ephemeral stream resulted in the following:
(a) eliminated 2 fills;
(b) reduced the recoverable reserves to approximately 2 million tons, or a 20% reduction in recoverable
reserves; and
(c) eliminated the planned mountaintop and the highest seam and changed it to contour and highwall mining.
Mine V Summary
The company needs to store 110,000,000 tons of coarse and fine refuse from processing its reserves. These
coal reserves are from two (2) large deep mines and a possible small contour strip mine. An impoundment
was designed to store this amount of refuse in the same watershed that the prep plant and mine was located
at. This was done in an effort to provide the most technically sound and environmentally friendly facility
to disturb as few watersheds as possible. It required 1.6 miles of haulroad construction at a cost of
$1,300,000.00. The site preparation cost was about $500,000.00 for a total initial construction cost of
$1,800,000.00. Thus, the initial construction cost per ton of refuse was $0.016.
A refuse disposal system was developed for the post-Haden scenario. Forty-five (45) fills were designed
within 100 feet of intermittent streams in every hollow, on all of the lands owned by the company. It will
require one bridge and 30.2 miles of road construction and unnecessary environmental damage to every
watershed on the company's property. It costs approximately $500,000 to build diversion ditches and
-------
sediment ponds per refuse facility area. The bridge to transport refuse over the railroad tracks to some of
these disposal areas will cost approximately $2,000,000. Road construction, at the site, to date has cost
approximately $800,000/mile. Thus, initial construction costs are as follows:
Site Preparation: 45 @ $500,000/site = $22,500,000
Bridge Construction: = $ 2,000,000
Road Construction: 30.2 miles @ $800,000/mile = $24.160.000
Approximate Total = $48,660,000
Furthermore, these facilities can only store approximately 43,000,000 tons of refuse. Therefore, just the
initial construction cost per ton of refuse of $1.13 will make coal mining and processing unfeasible. Stability
analysis of these fills, show that because they are placed on such steep terrain, they are not stable. Their
factor of safety against static failure is 1.34, whereas, it is 1.08 against dynamic failure. The factors of
safety required by MSHA and WVDEP are 1.5 and 1.2 respectively. Since these factors of safety are
inadequate and unsafe per criteria required by state and federal governments, they cannot be built. Thus,
it makes the mine complex unfeasible, since refuse cannot be disposed of due to the Haden decision.
10
-------
Mine Tables
Attachment C
MINE: "A"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden)
(OB + IB)
2. Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
3. Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times
(BF)
4. Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) (cu.yds )
5. Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
6. Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds.)
7. Final volume of backfill (cu.yds.)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9. Number of fills
10. Volume of excess spoil in each fill (cu.yds.)
Fill 1
Fill 2
1 1 . Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
12. Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu.yds.)
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill 1
Scenario 1
455,738,815
25%
569,673,815
467,476,644
102,196,875
31,363,469
538,310,049
24,675,018
10
2
27,794,097
8,392,291
19,401,806
114
193
809.8
1018.7
3,569,382 excess
Scenario 2
12,362,512
25%
15,453,140
12,362,512
3,090,628
3,090,628
12,362,512
4,791,500
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Applicable
REASON
Ephemeral point is above the crop of coal. No fill possible.
11
-------
MINE: "A"
Fill 2
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Ephemeral point is above the crop of coal. No fill possible.
% Acre
51.1%
43.3%
5.6%
0%
% Ton
98.9%
Incl. In mtn-
top
1.2%
0%
% Acre
0%
21.6%
27.5%
50.9%
% Ton
0%
29.7%
20.4%
49.9%
12
-------
MINE: "F"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden )(OB
+ IB)
2. Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
3. Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times
(BF)
4. Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) (cu.yds )
5. Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
6. Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds.)
7. Final volume of backfill (cu.yds.)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9. Number of fills
10. Volume of excess spoil in each fill (cu.yds.)
Fill 1
Fill 1A
Fill 2
Fill 2A
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
1 1 . Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 1A
Fill 2
Fill 2A
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
12. Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 1A
Scenario 1
67,159,576
30
87,307,449
49,531,066
37,776,383
24,655,893
62,651,556
7,063,006
6
7
24,655,893
2,238,028
576,650
3,255,838
331,260
3,312,378
12,844,929
2,096,810
23.45
7.58
38.12
5.27
25.73
80.45
20.40
176.59
60.83
Scenario 2
15,933,045
30
20,112,960
12,782,356
7,930,602
5,672,938
15,040,022
1,392,516
5
2
3,115,073
0
0
0
0
0
1,018,263
2,096,810
23.40
20.40
13
-------
MINE: "F"
Fill 2
Fill 2A
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu.yds.)
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill # 1
Fill#lA
Fill #2
Fill #2A
Fill #3
Scenario 1
209.73
70.90
121.84
228.00
119.10
Scenario 2
76.25
119.10
Not Applicable
REASON
Ephemeral stream ends above mine contour cut
Ephemeral stream ends 60' below Coalburg outcrop
Ephemeral stream ends above mine contour cut
Ephemeral stream ends near Coalburg outcrop
Ephemeral stream ends 60' above Coalburg outcrop
MINE: "F"
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Scenario 1
% Acre
15%
85%
0
0
% Ton
21%
57%
22%
0
Scenario 2
% Acre
12%
88%
0
0
% Ton
31%
58%
11%
0
14
-------
MINE: "G"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden) (OB
+ IB)
2. Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
3. Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times (BF)
4. Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) (cu.yds )
5. Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
6. Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds.)
7. Final volume of backfill (cu.yds.)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9. Number of fills
10. Volume of excess spoil in each fill (cu.yds.)
Fill 1
Fill 2
11. Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
12. Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu.yds.)
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill 1 & 2
Scenario 1
51,600,000
25%
64,400,000
25,500,000
38,900,000
38,900,000
25,500,000
3,100,000
8
2
39,100,000
4,500,000
34,600,000
32
125
Scenario 2
51,600,00
25%
64,400,000
25,500,00
38,900,000
33,700,000
30,700,000
~
~
1
15,300,000
-
15,300,000
~
53
86
285
200,000 excess storage
—
18,400,000 deficit storage
REASON
No access to toe area due to WV turnpike
Small fill volume (0.9mm) to face area and # of benches (10)
Stability borderline at toe with +/- 20% slopes
15
-------
MINE: "G"
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Scenario 1
% Acre
100%
% Ton
100%
Scenario 2
% Acre
0
% Ton
0
16
-------
MINE: "L"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden)
+ IB)
(OB
2. Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
3. Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times (BF)
4. Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) ( cu.yds )
5. Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
6. Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds.)
7. Final volume of backfill(cu.yds.)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9. Number of fills
10. Volume of excess spoil in each fill(cu.yds.)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
11. Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
12. Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu.yds.)
Scenario 1
6,374,857
120%
7,649,828
5,841,840
1,807,988
576,098
7,073,730
978,000
5
2,366,501
171,407
551,848
757,700
757,700
127,846
2.55
6.89
9.38
4.01
2.55
32.07
39.01
55.87
15.65
32.07
Scenario 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not Applicable
17
-------
MINE: "L"
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill # 1
Fill # 2
Fill # 3
Fill # 4
Fill # 5
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
REASON
Ephemeral zone located at or above seam proposed to be mined
Ephemeral zone located at or above seam proposed to be mined
Ephemeral zone located at or above seam proposed to be mined
Ephemeral zone located at or above seam proposed to be mined
Ephemeral zone located at or above seam proposed to be mined
MINE: "L"
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Scenario 1
% Acre
100%
% Ton
100%
Scenario 2
% Acre
0
% Ton
0
18
-------
MINE: "P"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden) (OB
+ IB)
2. Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
3. Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times (BF)
4. Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) (cu.yds)
5. Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
6. Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds)
7. Final volume of backfill (cu.yds)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9. Number of fills
10. Volume of excess spoil in each fill (cu.yds.)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
*Fill 4
11. Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
12. Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu.yds.)
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Scenario 1
23,971,230
125%
29,964,038
18,020,749
11,943,289
10,606,601
19,357,437
2,628,672
1
3
11,012,792
6,480,931
1,864,143
2,667,718
0
40.92
16.61
21.39
46.32
31.25
37.98
0
Scenario 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
82,589
N/A
82,589
N/A
0
1. 46 & 1.24
20.51 & 9.11
0
Not Applicable
REASON
Ephemeral zone located at or above seam proposed to be mined
Fill volumes to small to support any surface mining activities
worthy of any financial investment
Ephemeral zone located at or above seam proposed to be mined
19
-------
MINE: "P"
Fill 4
15. Tonnage w/ losses
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
2 Gas wells + "E" Point C coal burns
2,629,000
31,500*
MINE: "P"
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Scenario 1
% Acre
100%
% Ton
100%
Scenario 2
% Acre
0%
% Ton
* Scenario 2 reserves should be considered "zero" as it is economically infeasible to construct the small valley
fills for such small tonnage.
20
-------
MINE: "Q"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden) (OB
+ IB)
2. Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
3. Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times (BF)
4. Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) (cu.yds)
5. Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
6. Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds)
7. Final volume of backfill (cu.yds)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9. Number of fills
10. Volume of excess spoil in each fill (cu.yds)
Fill 1
Fill 1A
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
Fill?
Fill 7A
Fill 7C
Fill 7D
Fill 7E
Fill 7F
Fill 7G
Fill 7H
Fill 8
Fill 9
Fill 10
Scenario 1
133,694,419
25%
167,118,024
71,768,341
95,349,683
95,448,606
71,768,341
9,269,323
11
72,235,241
360,840
0
2,503,164
3,202,391
1,611,428
2,664,755
12,308,235
33,461,735
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,119,157
2,415,196
6,140,609
Scenario 2
112,282,436
25%
140,353,045
64,698,907
75,654,138
51,358,847
88,994,198
8,380,016
17
56,503,152
363,840
6,920,711
3,145,338
3,767,438
1,810,210
2,167,610
0
0
9,245,603
312,268
1,789,743
1,099,779
870,468
902,612
2,767,839
4,542,669
3,879,469
9,472,824
21
-------
MINE: "Q"
Fill 1 1
11. Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 1A
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
Fill?
Fill 7A
Fill 7C
Fill 7D
Fill 7E
Fill 7F
Fill 7G
Fill 7H
Fill 8
Fill 9
Fill 10
Fill 1 1
12. Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 1 A
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
Fill 7
Scenario 1
3,344,731
245
6
0
14
16
10
7
43
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
15
24
16
939
34
0
41
52
67
141
169
240
Scenario 2
3,444,731
239
6
25
14
16
10
7
0
0
34
3
12
10
9
7
14
18
15
23
16
916
34
45
41
52
67
141
0
0
22
-------
MINE: "Q"
Fill 7A
Fill 7C
Fill 7D
Fill 7E
Fill 7F
Fill 7G
Fill 7H
Fill 8
Fill 9
Fill 10
Fill 1 1
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu.yds)
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
Scenario 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
45
47
53
0
Scenario 2
80
17
71
56
45
32
41
50
45
46
53
Not Applicable
REASON
23
-------
MINE: "Q"
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Scenario 1
% Acre
yes
yes
yes
no
% Ton
*
*
*
*
Scenario 2
% Acre
*
*
*
no
% Ton
*
*
*
*
* Not reported
24
-------
MINE: "R"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden) (OB
+ IB)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times (BF)
Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) (cu.yds)
Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds)
Final volume of backfill (cu.yds)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9.
10
Number of fills
Volume of excess spoil in each fill (cu.yds.)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
11
Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
12
Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Scenario 1
75,050,426
138%
103,569,588
68,741,822
34,827,766
—
—
4,186,044
3
5
35,115,484
3,164,172
20,210,841
2,930,953
6,484,611
2,324,907
24.19
86.26
24.57
36.74
17.06
189.48
176.68
97.19
Scenario 2
75,050,426
138%
103,569,588
67,333,957
36,235,631
5,576,589
68,313,689
0
7
6,363,702
1,651,046
A. 439,148
B. 2,171,732
1,303,475
11,188
782,887
3,226
7.52
A. 3.58
B. 20.16
3.94
0.80
4.23
0.47
101.15
A. 26.75
B. 33.77
25
-------
MINE: "R"
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
Fill?
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu.yds.)
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill 4
FillS
Scenario 1
78.18
89.08
N/A
Scenario 2
56.17
11.98
49.88
14.85
29,538,895
REASON
Not economical to construct
Not economical to construct
MINE: "R"
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Scenario 1
% Acre
97
3
% Ton
97
3
Scenario 2
% Acre
-
-
% Ton
-
-
26
-------
MINE: "S"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden) (OB
+ IB)
2. Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
3. Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times (BF)
4. Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) (cu.yds)
5. Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
6. Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds)
7. Final volume of backfill(cu.yds)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9. Number of fills
10. Volume of excess spoil in each fill (cu.yds)
Fill 1
Fill 2
Fill 3
Fill 4
Fill5
Fill 6
Fill 7
FillS
Fill 9
Fill 10
1 1 . Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
Fill 3
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
Fill 7
Scenario 1
32,256,300
30
9,676,890
30,513,370
11,963,750
11,963,750
30,513,370
2,480,560
4
10
11,964,144
2,656,048
155,759
224,321
927,778
786,625
389,978
1,092,950
1,176,741
2,985,194
1,568,750
37
3.2
5.25
14.94
8.36
6.94
11.48
Scenario 2
18,706,800
30
5,612,040
16,578,848
7,738,952
9,547,799
16,578,848
1,944,000
4
8
9,547,799
0
155,759
224,321
927,778
786,625
389,978
1,092,950
2,985,194
2,985,194
0
0
3.2
5.25
14.94
8.36
6.94
11.48
27
-------
MINE: "S"
Fill 8
Fill 9
Fill 10
12. Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
Fill?
Fill 8
Fill 9
Fill 10
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu.yds.)
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill 1
Fill 10
Scenario 1
9.96
21.26
13.7
158.7
23.2
18.86
42.61
29.18
22.8
28.64
25
68.23
75.35
543,930
Scenario 2
9.96
21.26
0
0
23.2
18.86
42.61
29.18
22.8
28.64
25
68.23
0
Not Applicable
REASON
Located in intermittent stream
Located in intermittent stream
28
-------
MINE: "S"
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Scenario 1
% Acre
80
20
0
0
% Ton
74
20
6
0
Scenario 2
% Acre
90
10
0
0
% Ton
84
7
9
0
29
-------
MINE: "U"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden)
+ IB)
(OB
2. Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
3. Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times (BF)
4. Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) (cu.yds)
5. Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
6. Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds)
7. Final volume of backfill (cu.yds)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9. Number of fills
10. Volume of excess spoil in each fill (cu.yds)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
Fill 7
11. Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
Fill 7
12. Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 2
Scenario 1
215,517,000
25%
287,356,000
188,429,000
98,927,000
81,155,824
206,026,000
17,629,000
5 major horizons
7
95,466,247
7,020,200
24,737,800
19,272,200
22,057,549
2,174,198
3,326,600
16,877,700
40.36
98.72
72.51
64.95
22.10
30.62
93.63
171.80
224.70
Scenario 2
0
3,486,702
197,088
2,273,176
67,636
257,683
—
—
691,119
4.17
16.72
3.46
11.54
—
—
9.75
85.30
16.72
30
-------
MINE: "U"
FillS
Fill 4
FillS
Fill 6
Fill?
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu. yds)
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill 1
Fill 2
Fill 4
Fill 5 & 6
Fill 7
Scenario 1
210.00
189.90
83.70
74.60
191.10
Scenario 2
43.34
68.16
—
—
40.99
Not Applicable
REASON
Too small
Too small
Too small
Fill won't fit above intermittent stream
Too small
MINE: "U"
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Scenario 1
% Acre
95%
5%
0
0
% Ton
95%
3%
2%
0
Scenario 2
% Acre
0
% Ton
0
MINE: "V"
1. Bank cu. yds. (Overburden plus Interburden )(OB
+ IB)
2. Bulking factor (Swell-Shrinkage) (%) BF
3. Total spoil material TSM (OB+IB) Times (BF)
4. Initial spoil in backfill (BKF) ( cu.yds )
5. Initial excess spoil (TSM-BKF) (cu.yds)
Scenario 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Scenario 2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
MINE: "V"
6. Final volume of excess spoil yds (cu.yds.)
7. Final volume of backfill(cu.yds.)
8. Clean, recoverable (tons)
a. Number of seams mined
9. Number of fills
10. Volume of excess spoil in each fill(cu.yds.)
Fill 1
Fill 1-45
11. Acreage of footprint of each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 1-45
12. Contributing drainage each fill (acres)
Fill 1
Fill 1-45
13. Spoil Imbalance (cu.yds.)
14. Fills not feasible (List as applicable)
Fill #1-45
Scenario 1
NA
NA
110,000,000
1
81,480,000
Scenario 2
NA
NA
0
45
31,850.000
Not Applicable
REASON
All smaller fills were unstable (Toes on steep slopes) Cost
prohibitive-Requires bridge, 30.2 miles of additional haul roads
32
-------
MINE: "V"
Mine Characteristics
Mountaintop
Contour
(Including multiple cuts, point removal)
Highwall miner/auger
Underground
Refuse Disposal
Scenario 1
% Acre
NA
NA
NA
90
100
% Ton
NA
NA
NA
90
100
Scenario 2
% Acre
NA
NA
NA
0
0
% Ton
NA
NA
NA
0
0
33
-------
Attachment D
US Geological Survey Report
Prepared by:
U.S. Geological Survey 304-347-5 130x225
11 Dunbar Street Jim Eychaner
Charleston, West Virginia 25301 eychaner~usgs.gov
Introduction: The mountaintop mining engineering team will be receiving and reviewing alternative mine
plans for a series of sites, assuming that excess spoil can be placed only in ephemeral stream reaches. The
team needs to know the boundary between ephemeral and intermittent flow in each drainage at 3-7 mine
sites. The legal definitions of stream categories suggest the boundary is the highest point in a stream channel
that contains water on a dry day during the wet season. Anyone who can walk along a stream channel could
find the place.
Problem: In humid climates like West Virginia, ephemeral streams, in general, drain the highest and smallest
headwater basins, intermittent streams generally drain the slightly larger basins next downstream, and
perennial streams drain still larger basins.
Stream categories are defined in the federal SMCRA regulations (30 C.F.R § 701.5):
Ephemeral stream means a stream which flows only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate
watershed or in response to the melting of a cover of snow and ice, and which has a channel bottom that is
always above the local water table.
Intermittent stream means (a) a stream or reach of a stream that drains a watershed of at least one square
mile, or (b) a stream or reach of a stream that is below the local water table for at least some part of the year,
and obtains its flow from both surface runoff and ground water discharge.
Perennial stream means a stream or part of a stream that flows continuously during all of the calendar year
as a result of ground-water discharge or surface runoff
These definitions, which draw on many decades of hydrological experience, differ first by describing when
flow is present. Field determinations on this basis generally require observations at many sites over an
extended time, which would be expensive. The definitions also describe interactions between surface and
ground water, which could be more useful for field identification of the point at which an ephemeral stream
becomes intermittent or perennial.
An intermittent stream obtains its flow from both surface runoff and ground water discharge, and therefore
the channel is below the local water table for at least some part of the year. The channel elevation does not
change, of course. This definition recognizes that the local water table rises and falls during the year. When
the water table adjacent to the stream is above the stream channel, the intermittent stream will have
continuous base flow. In contrast, the channel of an ephemeral stream is above the local water table even
during the season when the water table is at maximum elevation; the ephemeral stream does not have any
base flow.
34
-------
The problem of identifying the boundary between ephemeral and intermittent flow thus becomes one of
identifying the intersection of the channel bottom with the local water table, when the water table is at its
maximum. Similarly, the boundary between intermittent and perennial flow is at the intersection of the
channel bottom with the local water table, when the water table is at its minimum.
In southern West Virginia, ground-water recharge rates generally are greatest between December and April,
when trees and other vegetation are dormant. Water table elevation is greatest during March and April.
Recharge rates decrease and the water table begins to decline when the forest begins to leaf out in late April
and May. Water levels in wells in the study area commonly begin to decline in April, but the change is small
compared to May and June. Minimum water levels in wells occur between June and November, but
temporary increases can occur any time during that period.
Approach to be Followed by the Ephemeral Field Team
An ephemeral stream goes dry when there has been no recent rain or snow melt, even during the wettest
time of the year. An intermittent or perennial stream continues flowing on dry days because ground water
sustains it. The boundary between ephemeral and intermittent flow is the place where the ground water table
meets the bed of the stream. The ephemeral part of the stream is uphill from this boundary, and the
intermittent part is downhill. We are interested only in streams that have not been changed by mining uphill
from the boundary.
To find the boundary, choose a dry day in February, March, or April when the ground is not frozen.
Searching downhill along a stream channel is best. Look for the highest point where water is pooled or
ground water is entering the stream channel. Expect the ground to be moist, soft, or muddy near the
boundary. If water is standing or flowing on the land surface, even over bare rock, you are downhill from
the ephemeral part. You may find part of the stream with no visible flow at the surface, even though both
higher and lower parts of the stream are flowing. The ephemeral part is above the highest part that is
flowing.
Choose the lowest point that is clearly dry along the channel. Dig a hole in the streambed, about a foot deep.
If water stands in the hole within a few minutes, you are at the boundary. If the hole remains dry, move
downhill and try again, but stay above any standing or flowing water.
The most important observation is that water is flowing in a channel on the land surface. Any observation
of shallow ground water in a nearby hole supports th surface observation , but is of secondary importance.
This process will be repeated in each valley within the permit area on the five selected sites. The ephemeral
stream limit will be located using GPS units and the location transferred to maps developed for each site.
In addition, the team will locate the point in each valley at which the stream slope becomes 10 % or less.
(The Norris Method). This point will also be transferred to the map for the site.
35
-------
Office of Mining and Reclamation
#10McJunkinRoad
Nitro, West Virginia 25143-2506
Phone: 304-759-0510
Fax: 304-759-0528
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
Cecil H. Underwood
Governor
Michael C. Castle
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Rocky Parsons
Joe Parker
Permit Supervisors
Permit Review Team
Inspection and Enforcement Supervisors
Inspectors
John C. Ailes
October 26, 1999
Guidance for Delineation of Ephemeral/Intermittent Streams
A Guidance document for the delineation of Ephemeral/Intermittent Streams
has been developed to conform with the Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated
October 20, 1999 pertaining to buffer zones and water quality standards for
intermittent streams and is effective immediately.
As stated in the procedure, it applies to structures for both pending
applications and issued permits in order to delineate ephemeral/intermittent
streams. Please ensure that all applicants and permittees receive a copy of this
guidance document.
Please note that the field evaluation is conducted jointly by applicant and agency. If you
have any questions pertaining to the guidance document, contact Lewis Halstead, Charlie Sturey
or Ken Politan.
JCA:sl
36
-------
Division of Environmental Protection
OFFICE OF MINING AND RECLAMATION
SERIES: PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE
SUBJECT: Guidance for Delineation of Ephemeral/Intermittent Streams
For Purposes of the Memorandum Opinion and Order of
October 20,1999
DATE.- October 26,1999
Introduction
This guidance is being developed to conform with the Memorandum Opinion and Order of
October 20, 1999 pertaining to buffer zones and water quality standards for
intermittent/perennial streams.
Definitions
The Federal SMCRA definition of ephemeral stream which means "a stream which flows only
in direct response to precipitation in the immediate watershed or in response to the melting of a
cover of snow and ice, and which has a channel bottom that is always above the local water
table" and wet weather streams defined in 46CSR1-2.22 "as streams that flow only in direct
response to precipitation or whose channels are at all times above the water table" are
synonymous.
Intermittent streams are defined in part, in 38CSR2-2.69, as "a stream or reach of a stream that
is below the local water table for at least some part of the year, and obtains its flow from both
surface runoff and groundwater discharge".
Intermittent streams are defined in 46CSR1-2.9 as those streams which have no flow during
sustained periods of no precipitation and which do not support life whose life history requires
residence in flowing waters for a continuous period of at least six (6) months.
Ordinary high water mark as defined in 33 CFR 329.11 is the line on the stream bank
established by the fluctuation of water levels and indicated by physical characteristics such as
clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in soil characteristics, destruction or
limits of terrestrial vegetation, and the presence of litter and debris.
Rationale
If a buffer zone waiver was requested in the application, the presumption is that the proposed
fills, refuse facilities, sediment control facilities and ponds ("structures") are in intermittent or
perennial streams, unless clearly documented in the application.
The procedure below applies to structures for both pending applications and issued permits. It
will be utilized to determine the local water table in order to delineate the point between
37
-------
of the Director, that each structure is not located in an intermittent / perennial streams.
Procedure
Step 1. The applicant may utilize information contained in the application to demonstrate that
the structure is not in the intermittent stream. If the data in the application shows stream flow
(not direct response to precipitation) within the footprint of the structure, then it is in
intermittent reaches of the stream. However, if the data in the application contains no
documentation that the stream channel within the footprint of the structure is ephemeral, the
applicant must proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Field Evaluation (conducted jointly by applicant and agency).
Delineate the upper most extent of the ordinary high water for each stream channel within the
footprint. Locate this point on a map and provide sufficient supporting documentation.
Begin walking downstream, until pooled or flowing water is observed in channel within the
footprint. Locate this point on a map and provide sufficient supporting documentation.
Dig a hole, preferably 12 inches or deeper, in the streambed outside the area of the pool to see if
water is entering the hole, this should be apparent within a few minutes. If not, repeat process
down stream until local water table is established or outside the buffer zone area. If no
consensus can be reached between applicant and agency proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. A biological survey using the "single habitat EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol"
must be conducted for the footprint of the structure. If the footprint of the structure is void of
indications of aquatic life then the area is deemed to be an ephemeral reach of the stream.
However, if there is evidence of aquatic life present in the stream that requires less than six
months of water flow to complete its life cycle, then the section of stream is deemed to be
intermittent.
38
-------
MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILL
TECHNICAL STUDIES
STUDY OF FUGITIVE DUST AND FUMES
by
Lloyd M. English
and
YiLuo
Department of Mining Engineering
College of Engineering and Mineral Resources
West Virginia University
-------
ABSTRACT
We find no indication that there are any significant health risks due to exposure when no
personnel are in close proximity to the blast zone. This is the standard procedure for safety
purposes anyway. A common safety zone for large blasts from which all personnel are excluded
is a 2,000-ft radius. As blasts grow smaller, the required safety zone also shrinks. But even
within 1,000 feet, measurements of adverse levels are infrequent and of short duration.
This investigation is concerned with fugitive dust and fumes, meaning that which escapes
the confines of the mining property. This investigation indicates that these emissions present no
potential health problem for the following reasons.
• No event produced any harmful levels of any duration at distances exceeding 1,000 feet,
except one measurement of 3.6 ppm NC>2 at 1251 feet.
• This measurement, and all others were of very short duration.
• Fugitive emissions are those that leave the property; if the property boundary is closer
than 2,000 feet, persons within this area are evacuated.
Quality of life issues other than health, that is the enjoyment of life and the potential of reducing
that enjoyment, is harder to define because of its very subjective nature. Photographs of dust
settling out of blasting clouds do not show significant deposition beyond 1000 feet. When
viewed alongside the fact that four-wheel drive vehicles can produce 75 pounds of fugitive dust
per mile traveled on a dirt road (Hesketh, 1983), and that many county roads in the vicinity of a
surface mine are unpaved, blasting would appear to be an unlikely source of significant dust at
off-site locations.
Dust and fume emissions from 11 blasting events at three mines were measured, 10 of
which were useable. Both respirable and non-respirable dust was measured, as well as nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), nitric oxide (NO), carbon monoxide (CO), and ammonia (NH3). Nitrogen
dioxide, total dust, and respirable dust were measured at 10 points for each event; the remaining
fumes were measured at only one. At four events, settled dust at the monitoring stations was
caught on filter paper and photographed.
Results are consistent, but the statistical correlations are not all good. The suspected
primary reason for poor correlations is the inability to account for wind velocity and direction
across the measurement sites close to ground level. Surprisingly, the best average correlation
(r = 0.86) was an inverse relationship between NO2 and humidity. The CO and NH3 highs were
also a surprise. Topographical constraints, although expected, were worse than expected.
Topographical constraints were such that all sites were within 1900 feet, with an average
distance of 943 feet. This was actually a fortuitous turn of events because of the very low levels
of anything that were detectable as the stations approached 2000 feet.
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The investigators received a substantial amount of help from a number of organizations
and individuals that enabled us top accomplish far more than originally planned. It also enabled
us to stretch our budget dollars substantially.
The Office of Surface Mining supported a trip for the primary investigator to Gillette,
Wyoming, where a conference was held on blasting fumes. This trip provided a substantial
insight on explosive fumes that would have been available in no other way. One of the
cooperating companies also underwrote a trip to talk to a number of experts investigating
explosive fume emissions, and this also was a great aid in performing this work.
Rich Mainaro, James Roland, Steve Page, and John Organiscak of the NIOSH research
facility in Bruceton, Pennsylvania, provided us with substantial background information on the
measurement of fumes and dusts. This information enabled us to avoid a number of
instrumentation mistakes we might have otherwise made, and pointed the most reasonable
directions for us to proceed, given budget and time constraints.
In particular, the authors would like to express thanks to Ken Eltschlager who made his
substantial expertise and experience available to us at all times, and also reviewed the rough draft
of this manuscript, capturing a number of typographical and referential errors for us in the
process.
Above all, credit must be given to the cooperating mining companies who granted us free
access to their facilities and operations and provided us with information. They did so in a spirit
of cooperation and in agreement that this information was worth pursuing and potentially useful,
regardless of the outcomes. Cooperation such as this is what enables us to reach beyond theory
and into practicality, which does not always agree with the theoretical. Our special thanks goes
to these companies who were willing to take risks to advance the state of knowledge about
mining and blasting.
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Acknowledgments iii
1.0 Introduction and Background 1-1
1.1 Problem Statement 1-1
1.2 Literature Search 1-1
1.3 Fume and Dust Standards 1.3
1.4 Familiarization Trip 1.4
1.5 Wyoming Seminar 1.18
2.0 Experimental Approach 2-1
2.1 Parameters 2.1
2.2 Experimental Protocol 2.1
2.2.1 Anticipated Difficulties 2.1
2.2.2 Method 2.2
2.3 Equipment 2.5
3.0 Cooperating Mine Descriptions 3-1
4.0 Field Measurements 4-1
4.1 Preliminary Familiarization Trip 4-1
4.2 Field Measurements 4-7
4.2.1 Event A0622 4-9
4.2.2 Event A0727 4-16
4.2.3 Event B0602 4-25
4.2.4 Event B0619 4-34
4.2.5 Event B0620 4-41
4.2.6 Event B0627 4-48
4.2.7 Event B0816 4-53
4.2.8 Event C0712 4-62
4.2.9 Event C0714 4-71
4.2.10 Event C0726 4-80
5.0 Discussion 5-1
5.1 Viewing the Data by Relative Location 5-3
5.1.1 Relative Locations Mapped by True North 5-3
5.1.2 Relative Locations Mapped by General Wind Direction 5-11
5.2 Assessing the Data by Distance 5-17
5.3 Assessing the Data by Comparison of Individual Events 5-28
5.3.1 Powder Factor 5-28
5.3.2 Weight of Explosives 5-32
5.3.3 Humidity 5-36
IV
-------
5.3.4 Summary of Correlations 5-40
5.4 Visual Dust 5-42
5.5 Measurement Durations 5.48
5.6 Conclusions 5.58
6.0 Recommendations 6-1
6.1 A Word About Approach 6-1
6.2 Recommendations for Future Work 6-4
6.2.1 Information to Obtain 6-4
6.2.2.1 Blasting-Related Information 6-4
6.2.2.1 Non-Blasting Related Information 6-5
6.2.2 Potential Methods 6-5
7.0 Bibliography and References 7-1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1.1 Particle Suspension Velocities 1.2
Familiarization Trip Photographs 1.6 4 to 1.17
Figure 2.1 Ideal Experimental Layout 2.4
Equipment Illustrations and Specifications 2.6 through 2.13
Figure 2.2 Photograph of Assembled Monitoring Station 2.14
Figure 4.1-1 Event 0531 map 4.2
Event A0531 Photographs1 4.3 to 4.5
Event A0622 Sketch of Surface Area 4.10
Event A0622 Photographs 4.11 to 4.13
Event A0622 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.14 to 4.15
Event A0727 Sketch of Surface Area 4.17
Event A0727 Photographs 4.18 to 4.22
Event A0727 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.23 to 4.24
Event B0602 Sketch of Surface Area 4.26
Event B0602 Photographs 4.27 to 4.31
Event B0602 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.32 to 4.33
Event B0619 Sketch of Surface Area 4.36
EventB0619 Photographs 4.37 to 4.38
Event B0619 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.39 to 4.40
Event B0620 Sketch of Surface Area 4.42
Event B0620 Photographs 4.43 to 4.45
Event B0620 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.46 to 4.47
Event B0627 Sketch of Surface Area 4.49
Event B0627 No Photographs 4.50
Event B0627 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.51 to 4.52
Event B0816 Sketch of Surface Area 4.54
Event BOS 16 Photographs 4.55 to 4.59
Event B0816 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.60 to 4.61
Event C0712 Sketch of Surface Area 4.63
Event C0712 Photographs 4.64 to 4.68
Event C0712 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.69 to 4.70
Event C0714 Sketch of Surface Area 4.72
Event C0714 Photographs 4.73 to 4.77
Event C0714 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.78 to 4.79
Event C0726 Sketch of Surface Area 4.81
Event C0726 Photographs 4.82 to 4.85
Event C0726 Event Maps of Measurement Values 4.86 to 4.87
Figure 5.1 All Sites by North 5.4
Figure 5.2 All Sites by North, Observation Points Excluded 5.5
lNote: Because it is desirable to keep the photographs of blasting events together in
sequence to aid sequential viewing, the standard practice of placing figures after the first page
that cites them was not followed.
VI
-------
Figure 5.3 All Sites by North, Monitoring Stations Only 5.6
Figure 5.4 All Sites by North, Total Dust at Monitoring Stations 5.7
Figure 5.5 All Sites by North, Respirable Dust at Monitoring Stations 5.8
Figure 5.6 All Sites by North, NO2 at Monitoring Stations 5.9
Figure 5.7 All Sites by North, NO2 at Monitoring Stations, Zeros Eliminated 5.10
Figure 5.8 All Sites by Wind Direction 5.12
Figure 5.9 All Sites by Wind Direction, Total Dust at Monitoring Stations 5.13
Figure 5.10 All Sites by Wind Direction Respirable Dust at Monitoring Stations 5.14
Figure 5.11 All Sites by Wind Direction NO2 atMonitoring Stations 5.15
Figure 5.12 All Sites by Wind Direct! on NO2 atMonitoring Stations, Zeros Eliminated 5.16
Figure 5.13 Station Measuremen Values, All Values Plotted 5.18
Figure 5.14 Total Dust vs. Distance 5.20
Figure 5.15 Respirable Dust vs. Distance 5.21
Figure 5.16 NO2 vs. Distance 5.22
Figure 5.17 NO2 vs. Distance, Zeros Eliminated 5.23
Figure 5.18 Main Station Maximum Values, NO and Dust 5.26
Figure 5.19 Main Station Maximum Values, CO and Ammonia 5.27
Figure 5.20 Event Average Values vs. Powder Factor, Dust 5.29
Figure 5.21 Event Average Values vs. Powder Factor, Fumes 5.30
Figure 5.22 Event Average Values vs. Powder Factor, Correlations 5.31
Figure 5.23 Event Average Values vs. Explosive Weight, Dust 5.33
Figure 5.24 Event Average Values vs. Explosive Weight, Fumes 5.34
Figure 5.25 Event Average Values vs. Explosive Weight, Correlations 5.35
Figure 5.26 Event Average Values vs. Humidity, Dust 5.37
Figure 5.27 Event Average Values vs. Humidity, Fumes 5.38
Figure 5.28 Event Average Values vs. Humidity, Correlations 5.39
Figure 5.29 Visual Dust, Event A0727 5.43
Figure 5.30 Visual Dust, Event B0816 5.44
Figure 5.31 Visual Dust, Event C0714 5.45
Figure 5.32 Visual Dust, Event C0726 5.46
Time Curves for NO2 Detection 5.49 through 5.54
Time Curves for CO Detection 5.55 and 5.56
Time Curves for Ammonia and NO Detection 5.57
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Threshold Limit Values (TLV s) as set by the American Council of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, 2000 1.4
Table 3.1 Comparison of Cooperating Mining Sites 3.2
Table 5.1 Accounting of Data Collection Points 5.1
Table 5.2 Correlations: Dust and Fumes vs. Powder Factor 5.40
Table 5.3 Correlations: Dust and Fumes vs. Explosive Weight 5.41
Table 5.4 Correlations: Dust and Fumes vs. Humidity 5.41
Table 5.5 Summary of collected data 5.57
Vlll
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Problem Statement
A question has been raised about the impact of fugitive fumes and dust generated by
blasting at Mountain-Top Removal (MTR) sites upon the quality of life in the surrounding area.
Is it substantial (i.e., is there a health impact), and/or is it a significant nuisance affecting
enjoyment of daily living? A lot of emotion has surrounded this issue, and yet surprisingly little
data exists that addresses either topic; one could almost say no data. Complaints exist, but there
is no real way do correlate these complaints to any specific levels of dust, of fumes, of the size of
the explosive shot, nor anything else. There is no current way to determine which complaints are
supportable and which are not. If the history of blast vibration complaints made versus those
substantiated by vibration monitoring is any indication, the proportion of legitimate complaint is
probably very low. But — how far can fugitive emissions be expected to travel and at what
concentrations, anyway?
1.2 Literature Search
The literature search was disappointing, to say the least. In fact, the PI considered
redoing the entire literature search from scratch until attending the Gillette, Wyoming, seminar
on blasting fumes (see section 1.3). There is no available literature on the fume and dust content
of moving clouds generated by surface blasting. There is some on the total content of fumes
generated by blasting, but none on the content of visible clouds, and none on the dust content of
the same clouds. The literature encountered was primarily aimed at identifying noxious airborne
elements, on preventing such airborne contamination, and making measurements of them. Even
the measurement information was of little use. It was primarily directed at making long-duration
exposure measurements in a workplace, not the assessment of emissions from a single event.
1.1
-------
Critical Freestream Velocities
for Particle Suspension
Even so, some information is useful as background and for comparative purposes. Figure
1.1 shows the relative size of dust particles carried suspended in air vs. wind velocity and
particle density. At lower velocities, particles would
drop out of the airstream at calculable settling
velocities. (To be strictly correct, the word
"velocity" should really be "speed.") The graph
readily shows that very small particles do not require
much air speed to remain in suspension (1.00 ft/sec
equals 0.682 miles/hour). However, there is no real
way to use this information in a blasting event. Dust
particles are imparted an undefined quantity of
momentum by the blast, and initially the air and gases
containing the dust is very turbulent. Also, if the dust
cloud is heavy enough it will show some gas-like
properties. In still air, the particles will diffuse rather
than drop straight down, as this graph would imply.
This phenomenon may be seen in the cast blast
100
o
(U
•>
6 30
'O 20
_p
-------
sources. Of particular interest is their citing EPA's emissions study showing that automobiles
unpaved roads may produce up to 75 pounds of fugitive dust per vehicle mile traveled (VMT).1
The EPA developed an emission factor for vehicles on unpaved roads:
E= 36S -
365
Where E = Ib of fugitive emissions / VMT
s = silt content of road surface material, %
S = average vehicle speed, mph
w = mean annual number of days with 0.01 in. or more of rainfall
Hesketh and Cross also cite an expert as stating that this equation might be modifiable for trucks
on haul roads by pro-rating for truck tire surface. They cited no numbers for blasting.
1.3 Fume and Dust Standards
Numerous standards exist for fumes and dusts according to the environment, the work
being performed, the governing agency, and more. These standards frequently vary. In fact,
while the current American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) sets the
TLV for carbon monoxide at 25 ppm, 30 CFR 75.322 sets it at 50 ppm for underground coal
mines. Since the ACGIH is the most frequently cited and used set of standards in the United
States, those standards are used as a basis for comparison in this study.2 For this study, the
substances of interest include nitrous oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide
(CO), ammonia (NH3), and dust. Table 1.1 lists the current (year 2000) exposure limits foer
these substances as set by the ACGIH.
^Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," U.S. EPA #AP - 42 with supplements,
February 1976.
2In fact, the carbon monoxide discrepancy used for this illustration results from an
unfortunate line in 30 CFR that refers directly to the 1972 version of the ACGIH standards; thus
those levels have become fixed in law and 29 years of increased understanding of chemical
substances has gone unrecognized by federal law in this particular application.
1.3
-------
Substance
Nitrous Oxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Ammonia
Dust (PNOC)f
Quartz
TWAa
(ppm or mg/m3)
50 ppm
3 ppm
25 ppm
25 ppm
10 mg/m3 (Eg,Ih)
3 mg/m3 (E,R)
0.05 mg/m3
STELb / Cc
—
5ppm
—
35 ppm
I
—
TLV Basis
Reproductive; blood;
neuropathy; asphyxiation
Irritation; pulmonary edema
Anoxia; CVSd; CNSe;
reproductive
Irritation
Lung
Lung
Silicosis; pulmonary function;
pulmonary fibrosis; cancer
Table 1.1 Threshold Limit Values (TLV s) as set by the American Council of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, 2000
a: TWA - Time Weighted Average
b: STEL - Short Term Exposure Limit
c: C - Ceiling Limit
d: CVS - Cardiovascular System
e: CNS - Central Nervous System
f: PNOC - Particulates Not Otherwise Classified (insoluble)
g: E - particulate matter containing no asbestos and <1% crystalline silica
h: I - inhalable fraction
i: R - respirable fraction
1.4 Familiarization Trip
The investigators made a trip in December of 1999 to observe a blast and obtain a feel for
the distances and terrains involved. The following pages of photographs document that visit.
Several major insights were gained on this visit.
There are three blasts in the following photographs. The first eight pages (pictures
labeled DecBCast_xx) are of a major cast blast taken fro a distance of approximately 2,000 feet.
The wind was very slight and to the left of the pictures at the blast initiation, and to the right for
the last several pictures. The wind was primarily still for the majority of the pictures, which also
meant for the majority of the cloud life. The pit is toward the right of the pictures. This shot
1.4
-------
produced a very visible fume cloud. Items to notice in the pictures include:
• The dust cloud issued primarily from the cast material, which was cast substantially to
the right.
• The fume cloud issued primarily from the shot location and did not move with the dust
cloud.
• The wind died and the cloud did not move. (Contrast this to the shovel shot pictures
following.)
• The cloud thinned out and became very diffuse, with the fumes intermingling, and when
it did move, it moved toward the pit.
• If this had been an instrumented shot, it is unlikely that we would have obtained any
measurements. The cloud did not travel to any spot where our devices might have been
set.
This visit underscored the difficulties we had already anticipated regarding the forecast of wind
velocity and locating adequate sites for instrumentation.
The photographs labeled DecBCush_xx are of a trim shot on a contour bench in excess of
2500 feet from our location (the same spot we photographed the cast shot from, but 90° to the
right). Although we had light-to-no wind, the cloud travel from this shot indicates substantial air
movement just /^ mile away at the same approximate elevation. There are no apparent fumes in
this cloud.
Finally, the photographs labeled DecBShov_xx are of a shovel production shot a bit
further to the right on the same bench as the trim shot. Both dust and fumes are apparent. From
the pictures, it appears that the fumes traveled further and faster than the dust. This was not the
case with the cast blast.
The immediate impact of this familiarization trip was to impress us with the variations
inherent in surface blasting. At the same mining site where we could expect similar conditions,
at spots withing 2500 feet of each other where weather variations would not be expected, we saw
three very different clouds, one of which probably would not have reached our instrumentation.
1.5
-------
Cast Shot
Cast Shot - 1
Cast Shot - 2
Cast Shot - 3
-------
Cast Shot
Cast Shot - 4
Cast Shot - 5
Cast Shot - 6
1.7
-------
Cast Shot
Cast Shot - 7
Cast Shot - 8
Cast Shot - 9
-------
Cast Shot
Cast Shot- 10
Cast Shot - 11
Cast Shot - 12
1.9
-------
Cast Shot
Cast Shot- 13
Cast Shot - 14
Cast Shot- 15
1.10
-------
Cast Shot
Cast Shot- 16
Cast Shot- 17
Cast Shot- 18
1.11
-------
Cast Shot
Cast Shot- 19
Cast Shot - 20
Cast Shot - 21
1.12
-------
Cast Shot
Cast Shot - 22
Cast Shot - 23
Cast Shot - 24
1.13
-------
Cushion Shot
Cushion Shot - 1
Cushion Shot - 2
Cushion Shot -
1.14
-------
Shovel Shot
Shovel Shot - 1
Shovel Shot - 2
Shovel Shot -
1.15
-------
Shovel Shot(cont'd)
Shovel Shot - 4
Shovel Shot - 5
Shovel Shot - 6
1.16
-------
Shovel Shot(cont'd)
Shovel Shot - 7
Shovel Shot - 8
Shovel Shot - 9
1.17
-------
1.5. Wyoming Seminar
The PI attended a blasting seminar in Gillette, Wyoming, January 12-13, 2000. In
conjunction with this seminar, on the 11th and again on the 13th of January, 2000, the PI was
given a tour of the area around the Eagle Butte Mine, where much of the current controversy
about NOx and post-blast emissions has centered in Wyoming. The Eagle Butte Mine in
Wyoming is directly beside the major highway into Gillette and very close to a housing
subdivision. This subdivision frequently finds itself in the path of the fume clouds from the
adjacent mine. If the wind is in the right (or, more to the point, wrong) direction, the lay of the
land is such that the clouds are funneled directly toward this subdivision. Most of the
subdivision has been bought by the mining company, but there are still a few residents there
fighting the mining company over this issue. This has been the focal point for much of the
current western controversy.
The blasting seminar on January 12th and 13th in Gillette, Wyoming, focused on the
NOx generation from blasting. This seminar seemed likely to provide information that would be
useful in our investigation of fugitive fumes and dust from mountain-top removal blasting, and
the principal investigator's (PI) visit was sponsored by the office of surface mining. The trip
was substantially informative, especially from the perspective of determining what is not known.
This seminar was established specifically to address this problem; there were no technical papers
nor research papers presented. Rather it was a collection of experts from the mining industry,
the explosive providers, government agencies, consultants, and the public who were brought
together to address this specific issue. Presentations were intended to establish the state-of-the-
art in the understanding and mitigation of fume clouds, and included a fair amount of anecdotal
information as well. A number of issues and perspectives were immediately noticeable.
The seminar in Wyoming was an opportunity to determine exactly what the state of the
art is insofar as fugitive fume analysis, monitoring, and control is. Although the technical
blasting techniques are the same in the east and the west, there are a number of substantial
differences in MTR blasting from that done in Wyoming, as highlighted during the conference:
+ Wyoming charges are larger than for MTR (Up to 8,000,000 Ibs vs. 500,000 to 1,000,000
Ibs. with the average MTR round being smaller).
1.18
-------
4 In the west, there is a direct correlation to cloud size versus charge size, other factors
remaining equal.
4 Wyoming terrain is relatively flat, whereas MTR occurs in rugged terrain; also the west
is primarily open plain whereas the east is totally forested. Lrge differences in air
turbulence and directional changes may be expected.
4 On average, territory around the Wyoming sites are sparsely populated (with exceptions),
while there are more residents around MTR sites.
4 There is currently a high level of interest and emotion surrounding the issue in Wyoming,
whereas the issues around MTR revolve more about damage to the environment and
ecosystems and until recently has not received much public attention.
These differences need to be considered when applying the Wyoming experience to our
evaluation of MTR fugitive fume issues. Keeping these differences in mind, and others, is
essential to determining which western experiences are applicable in the east.
The problem is undefined.
It was quite surprising to find out that no experts in attendance had any concrete evidence
concerning the actual noxious gas levels in the visible clouds. Their relative concentrations
remain unidentified. The associated impacts of various NOx levels as presented by the EPA at
the seminar include:
ppm Exposure time Impact
0.1 - 0.8 Not given Increased permeability (in vitro)
0.4 Not given Asthmatic reaction
1.0 2 hours Increased airway resistance
Decreased T lymphocytes, NK cells
1.5 3-15 minutes Bronchospasm
Increased airway resistance
2.0 10 minutes Decreased ciliary beat frequency
Increased airway resistance
5.0 10-15 minutes Impaired gas transport
Decreased lung compliance [compressibility]
Increased airway resistance
25.0 Not given Immediate pulmonary edema
200 1 minute Death
As can be seen from the above listing, exposure may lead to significant consequences, including
death. However, there is no current knowledge of the concentrations of NO2 to be found within
1.19
-------
a visible cloud. Although these clouds may be quite compelling in appearance, large and a very
deep rusty-brown fading to red and then yellow, no-one has any correlation as to appearance
versus concentration. Intuitively on would think that a cloud that visible would contain more
than 200 ppm (0.02%), but there is no evidence of death or serious health impairment. Several
industry personnel present stated (to me, in response to questioning) that they have driven
through, walked through, and even worked in such clouds without any impact to health.3 This
anecdotal evidence would indicate concentrations substantially less than 200 ppm if the above
table is accurate.
Nor is there other field evidence. The region around the mines contains substantial
wildlife. On this visit I observed a small herd of mule deer feeding on mining property between
two surface operations, and I am told other wildlife is abundant. While mule deer may be large
enough (and perceptive enough) to observe an approaching cloud and avoid it, the same is not
true of smaller wildlife — rabbits, ground squirrels, birds, etc. There are no reports of dead
wildlife being found in the wake of any of these clouds (nor has anyone admitted overtly
searching for any). Given the level of emotional involvement of some of the attending groups,
one would have to assume that any such discovery would have been given considerable
attention.
In essence then, this is an undefined problem. There are no known concentration data, no
real evidence of health damage, death, or even temporary impairment, only anecdotal incidents
that cannot be weighed without some sort of official and scientific assessment. The current
status is that strong debate and substantial activity is revolving around an issue that has not been
truly defined.
No previous real attempt to define the issue has been made. One monitoring study was
done, but not in such a manner as to define cloud concentrations. Six recording monitors were
established at points of potential public access and run 24 hours per day for 30 days. The intent
was to use blasting, weather, and wind records to determine sources when the monitors noted
any concentrations of NOx. After 30 days, 5 monitors showed nothing, one monitor showed a
brief exposure to 1 ppm. A professor from the University of Wyoming (Merl F. Raisbeck,
DVM, PhD) stated that he tried to make such measurements about 15 years ago, but was able to
3This is not to say no impact; several did describe watering eyes, some burning, and some labored
breathing; they also said such effects disappeared immediately when no longer exposed to the cloud.
1.20
-------
find nothing.
No recommendations for measurements were made, and no effort is ongoing. NIOSH in
Pittsburgh, through the work of Richard Mainero and James Rowland, is pursuing work on
blasting fumes, but on a laboratory basis. This would provide information on total NOx's
produced by an explosion under predetermined conditions of confinement, but would provide no
dispersion or diffusion information. They have no, and at this time were preparing for no, field
work. Most of the approaches discussed at this seminar were aimed at determining the total
quantity of NOx generated by blasts; even the proposed monitoring attempts as described had
this end as a goal. No discussion was made of assessing dispersion or diffusion, except for the
guest speaker who discussed computer modeling.
Since actual levels of NOx are not known, discussions revolved around reducing or
eliminating them. NOx's occur when blasting is inefficient, and most of the meeting was spent
discussing causes of inefficiency and efficiency improvement.4 There was limited discussion
about reducing fumes by introducing another chemical into the ANFO or emulsion to act as an
excess oxygen scavenger, which would reduce the produced NOx's. (There was no discussion
of the fact that this approach could well elevate levels of ammonia.)
There was a limited discussion of things that might be done to treat the cloud itself.
There was discussion of treating the surface of the site to be blasted. For example, what about a
substance spread on the blast site prior to blasting that would react with NO2? One person did
mention the possibility of wetting the location down. (This may not be possible since this could
damage the blasting circuit, electrical or nonel.) An aerosol might be developed that could be
sprayed or released in a fume cloud. There might be artificial means of increasing dispersion
rates. The meeting disbanded with no concrete suggestions or direction established.
Meeting Notes
What follows are summaries of some of the Pi's notes taken during the meeting. Certain
items were repeated numerous times, such as the assumed causes of inefficient blasts and red
4Efficient blasting may reduce the problem, but the view as expressed tended to overlook
the fact that blast efficiency is the goal of every explosives engineer, fume issues aside.
Efficiency is an economic issue.
1.21
-------
smoke, so the original notes are very repetitive.
James Roland III — NIOSH — A paper in the handout, but no handout of the talk.
As fuel oil goes up, CO goes up
As fuel oil goes down, NOx goes up.
As water content increases, so does NOx
Tried using Schedule 80 steel pipe (strong) vs. galvanized pipe (weak) for lab testing:
Loss of velocity in galvanized pipe
Little change in CO, but dramatic increase in NOx
Thus deviation from 6% FO, loss of confinement, and water contamination all contribute
to NOx.
Rich Mainero — NIOSH
Common exposure standards for 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week:
NO — 25 ppm NO2 — 1 ppm
Therefore concentrate on NO2
Water stemming lowered all NOX, but NO more than NO2
Rock dust and sodium bicarbonate also lowered NOx's.
2. Ricky Vance — Nelson Brothers
Causes of NOx:
Environmental Primer size
Water Timing
Geology Sleep time
Confinement
Competency (of rock)
Application
Powder factor
Hole diameter
Hole depth
Burden & spacing
Initiation type
Product
Product sensitivity
Loading contamination
AN prill quality
Density and reactivity
Additives
1.22
-------
Worst blend for producing NOx — 50/50 ANFO/emulsion
Conclusions as to major causes:
Groundwater contamination
Effective diameter (De)being reduced by product being driven into cracks and fractures
Critical diameter and sensitivity — dropping below both because of loss in De
This is a problem with detonation becoming deflagration
Smaller holes lead to a smaller detonation front and less prill consumption within the
detonation zone; is consumed by deflagration after the detonation front passes.
Q & A Session
ANFO/emulsion blends do not stratify with extended sleep time because of emulsion viscosity.5
Critical diameter of 40/60 is smaller than that of emulsion alone. (This underscores the
importance of the stratification question.)
Correlation with explosive gas products versus theoretical models:
CO, CO2 — Good correlation with theory
NO, NO2 — poor correlation individually, but good correlation as a total
Jim Armstrong — Apogee Scientific — Measuring plumes
Good idea: tethered balloon system (Out of our budget range)
Used tracers for back-calculation to quantity generated. No mention of forward calculation for
concentration (downstream).
A number of instruments were discussed in overview. Unfortunately, NOx's fall in a range
difficult for most of them to measure accurately. The exception, and a good candidate for
us to examine, are:
Differential Optical Adsorption Spectroscopy (DOAS) — in the UV range
Use photogrammetry for estimating plume volumes
(Both of these were subsequently determined to be infeasible for us.)
Q & A Session
Armstrong's recommendations:
At first, big jumps are better than small steps (in instrument resolution)
Try a number of methods — don't place all eggs in one basket
5I later debated this point with the speaker. These were laboratory tests, and he conceded that field
conditions may not be a match.
1.23
-------
Minimize dust visual impact by looking at cloud vertically instead of horizontally.
Cloud color is not an indicator of concentration (this was repeated by several persons)
Sun angle, brightness, cloud cover, background, visible light path, etc, all change color
(It seemed obvious that this had been a topic discussed before; our own field work
verified this.)
William R. Monnett — McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc.
There is a lack of ability to calculate the NO to NO2 conversion process
Discussed "puff models (not useful to our application)
EPA Representative
Presented an interesting argument that the Cx/Nx ratio should be constant for any point in the
cloud; therefore C, easier to measure, could be used to determine N.
Richard Turcotte — ICA/Orica.
Stated NOx problem is not in the chemistry, it is in the sensitivity
Stephen Burchell — Nelson Brothers
NOx causes: (note repetition)
Ground conditions
Soft materials
Water saturation
Ground easily compressed and deformed (not like ours in WV!)
Application
Large number of holes
Multiple rows — up to 5 (seems low to me)
Higher powder factor
Long delay times — often as long as 2 seconds. Typically use detonating cord,
therefore down-hole delays can be long also.
Product formulation and quality
Results:
Considerable and repetitive stresses on undetonated holes
Large fractures produced around undetonated holes
Wet conditions make this worse
Product is being driven into fractures
The explosive environment is already poor without these additions
Holes [may] drop below critical diameter
Detonation becomes deflagration
Det cord shocks the explosive column, injects gases into it while it is waiting for detonator.
One cure: product with smaller critical diameter Dc
1.24
-------
Emulsion, Dc<= 1.25"
50/50 blend, Dc = 2.55"
30/70 blend, Dc = 3.05"
Recommendations:
Ground conditions:
Dewater
Learn more about the local ground conditions
Application:
Avoid close burdens and spacings
Avoid excess confinement [this seems to be contradictory]
Avoid large numbers of rows
Avoid initiation systems that disrupt the columns
Product:
Load emulsions for increased sensitivity and smaller critical diameter
Q & A Session
ANFO is less likely to go into cracks than emulsion: "60/40 is like a solid, 40/60 is like a liquid"
Seismic velocity is around 2000 fps or less
1 st row damages ground for 2nd row
Suzanne Wuerthele — EPA
Most available data comes from case histories and accident reports
T1/2 of NO2 in air is about 35 hours
1 ppm =1.88 mg/m3
Vapor density = 1.58
Odor threshold = 0.1 to 10.0 ppm
Acts on hemaglogin in the same fashion as CO
Welders have high exposure to NO2
It "solubilizes" — ie, is soluble in water
Government Limits:
EPA NAAQS 0.05 - 0.09 [A TLV with a range???]
NIOSHSTEL(15min.) 1 ppm
EPA significant harm level (1 hour) 2 ppm
OSHA PEL (8 hour) 3 ppm
OSHASTEL (15 minutes) 5 ppm
NIOSHIDLH 20 ppm
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard
STEL = Short Term Exposure Limit
PEL = ? I assume this is equivalent to TWE or Time Weighted Exposure
IDLH = Immediate Danger to Life and Health
1.25
-------
A risk analysis was promised, but not given. A list of risks was presented without statistical or
mathematical analysis.
Liz Vandel — Kennecott Energy
Holding a blast for the proper wind direction has taken as long as two weeks.
Donnie Fullenwinder — Powder River Coal
"We overfuel to ensure that the product has enough fuel."
Q & A Session
Kennecott warns all persons within a 5-mile radius before blasting
Hole liners — time consuming, need extra labor, they twist and hang up, create cut-offs; best
avoided whenever possible
Another perspective: Holes squeeze as they stand. Liners hang up, but you don't know it until
you load and then the liner rips. They lost 13 of 122 holes, and the shot smoked anyway.
(The holes were 105-107 feet long on a 20 degree angle.)
Aforementioned public area monitoring attempt: one person said monitors were "as close as
three miles" while another said within 800 or 900 feet on 1-90. There were 11 mines in
the area.
Initiation systems: consensus — det cord
Move is to lower grain det cords to minimize shock and gas
At the end — a citizen mentioned a red-cloud study performed by New Mexico Tech in
1995 in conjunction with the Research Study Center for Energetic Materials. ("Chemical
Kinetics " NFS grant CTS - 9417526.) This study measured levels of 64 ppm at the heart of
a surface blastO. This raises some interesting questions:
1. This study was to find out more about the explosive reaction itself. Therefore
these sensors were placed very close to the blasts (one blast destroyed 2 of 3
sensors). Therefore it isn't really applicable to blasting plumes.
2. If these sensors measured 64 ppm very close to a detonation's ground zero,
what would the concentration be after it travels and disperses, even a little bit?
Eg, a doubling of cloud diameter cubes the volume, resulting in a concentration of
4 ppm (assuming, of course, uniform diffusion). Even with non-uniform
dispersion, the concentration will diminish at an inverse-exponential rate.
1.26
-------
3. It is interesting that no one mentioned this report until a citizen brought it up at
meetings end, yet several of the speakers were familiar with it after it was brought
up.
At the end of the seminar the PI was able to arrive at three conclusions:
1. The literature search's results were, in fact, accurate. There were no materials published on
fugitive emissions from blasting clouds.
2. The primary source of NOx fumes appears to be blasting inefficiency.
3. Blasting conditions in the east are much more favorable:
Better confinement due to substantially stronger strata
Less "sleep time" in the holes, even the larger blasts
Smaller blasts, and therefore better control over them.
1.27
-------
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
2.1 Parameters
The goal is to obtain adequate data to objectively assess the quantities of dust and fumes
escaping the mine property, and identify if these levels constitute either a health risk (as defined
by existing regulations) and/or a nuisance. The focus will be blasting. Originally, time and
resources permitting, we had hoped also to obtain some limited measurements of drilling,
hauling, and casting operations. Time and resources did not allow us to do this. Therefore, the
decision was made to obtain measurements for:
• Nitrogen Dioxide
• Nitrous Oxide
• Carbon Monoxide
• Ammonia
• Total Dust
• Respirable Dust
2.2 Experimental Protocol
2.2.1 Anticipated Difficulties
The major anticipated problem was wind and weather. Fume and dust clouds have not been
studied in this manner before. Although a couple of attempts have been made, all failed because of
the inability to predict the cloud path. Until more is known, it is not permissible to "chase" a cloud,
because we do not wish to expose any investigators to the cloud. Forecasting wind direction is more
than strictly "weather forecasting." Even without change in the prevailing winds, local ground
features such as ridges, pits, tree lines, etc., make ground level wind more turbulent and less
predictable than that on a bare, flat surface. This difficulty was addressed on a site-by-site basis.
A lesser problem is the magnitude of the constituents of interest. Since this type of
2.1
-------
investigation has not been done before, we did not know for sure what target range to design our
sensors for. Since all of the anecdotal evidence we obtained indicated that the levels of toxic gases
would be very low, we used monitors for low-level measurement, ones that cover official TLV
ranges. This meant if higher levels were encountered we ran the risk of poisoning the sensors. This
did not happen. Dust is less of a problem; dust collectors can cover a wide range of exposure limits
without difficulty.
Coordination was another difficulty. With 17 different sensing units distributed (two multi-
units at the main station and three single-sensing/pumping units at each of five other locations) over
a broad area, coordinating the timing of unit operation is important, especially with the dust sensors.
Therefore all of the pumping units obtained not only may be programmed to turn themselves on and
off at predetermined times, and the gas units have time-based data-logging capacity. In practice,
it turned out to be unrealistic to program the dust pumps ahead of time, so everything was turned
on at the latest possible minute.
2.2.2 Method
The data collection effort has been designed to obtain the maximum quantity of data with
the minimum number of instruments. A primary measurement station was established that produced
the greatest quantity of information on a real-time basis. Measurements included total dust, NO,
NO2, NH3, and CO. Every attempt was made to position this station so that the primary blasting
cloud would pass over it.
If terrain permitted, two wings of instrument stations were established, one each to the right
and left of the main station. Each of these stations contained three instruments: one for total dust,
one for respirable dust, and one real-time data-logging NO2 gas monitor. Our original hope was that
if our main station is positioned correctly, these stations would give us an idea of the lateral
dispersion and/or diffusion. If the main cloud passed to the right or left, all gas quantities could still
be determined by correlation. The laws of diffusion indicate that the various gases should be
uniformly dispersed. Thus the quantity of any gas at any station could be determined by:
2.2
-------
Concentration (A/CU,
Concentration Gas,.. = =^— x (Concentration
IJ Concentration (NO2)base
where i = specific gas of interest
j = location]
When conditions permitted, one station containing the same set of monitors will be established on
the anticipated direct flow direction line from the base station. If the chosen direction of flow was
close to accurate, it provided information on attenuation along the axis of cloud travel. Figure 2.1
shows an ideal station layout.
Other data collected included:
4 Topographic map of site
4 Mine map of site
4 Information on blast size and design
4 Relative position of all units as determined by GPS
4 Photographic images of the blast
During the performance of the project, the NO2 sensor on the main station never operated reliably
enough to trust any ratio calculations performed with them. There were indications, such as the
similarity of time-histories of the other gases, to indicate that this as a reasonable assumption.
Also, we expected difficulty in situating our stations in an ideal fashion because of terrain,
but we under-estimated that difficulty. An examination of the maps in section 4 shows that on
occasions we approached that configuration, but did not exactly match it. And more often we just
had to accept what man and nature provided.
A final comment: This is a "quality-of-life" study. We have little interest in the total
quantities created by an individual blast, as seems to be the focus of much of the Wyoming effort.
We are interested in it only so far as it will help us determine concentrations of constituents in lateral
movement of the cloud. This study has no agenda; we do not wish to prove these clouds "good"
or "bad." We hope only to obtain real data that can be used to understand what is occurring in this
phenomenon.
We would also like to note that this study touches on a lot of other interesting issues that are
tempting to follow, such as improving blast design, researching dust and fume mitigation techniques,
2.3
-------
Anticipated
Wind
Direction
Q Respirable Dust Pump
D Total Dust Pump
O NO2 Sensor, Logging
Real-Time Data-Logging
Dust Pump
(•IP Multiple Gas Sensor,
Real-time Data-Logging
for NO, N02, NHg.CO
and more. But since the resources available for this study are limited we must stick to the original
scope of work: Is it harmful? Does it impact the quality of life?
Figure 2.1 Ideal Experimental Layout
1. Determine most likely direction for cloud travel
2. Distances to be governed by site layout and requirements.
"Beta's" and "R's" to be as close to equal as possible
R = radii from station to blast center, beta = angle between radii
3. Establish base station A
Real-time dust monitor, data logging
Total dust
Dust distribution over time
Real time gas monitor, data logging
Monitor NO, NO2, NH3, CO
4. Establish wing stations C
Total dust
Respirable dust
NO2 data logger, concentration vs. time
5. Establish down-wind station B
Total dust
Respirable dust
NO2 data logger, concentration vs. time
2.4
-------
2.3 Equipment
The following pages are excerpts from the product literature for the instruments that we used,
providing specifications and basic overview information. Selection was based on the lowest
thresholds available, by unit capability, and ultimately by cost. Dust units from SKC enabled us to
program the units and download operational data. Although the gas units from Quest were not
programmable, they did have the capacity to store and download data. More importantly, the Quest
Multi-Log unit enabled the use of four toxic sensors, whereas competing four sensor units were
limited to two toxic and two non-toxic gases.
We considered more sophisticated units, even remote gas sensing technologies. The original
proposal called for gas chromatography and "one or two" blasts to be monitored. When we found
out (thanks to an extended discussion with experts at NIOSH) that chromatography was not a
reasonable option, we elected to use electro-chemical sensors and make more mine visits. For the
information required, these units provided the best combination of accuracy and economy.
The final photograph in this section is of an assembled monitoring station. The dust pumps
are housed in a sturdy plastic housing, with tubes leading out side. A pole is mounted on the case
to suspend the dust cyclone and filter and the total dust filter above ground level. The NO2 monitor
is also hung here, housed in a protective foam rubber covering. Finally, crepe paper streamers are
attached as a visual indicator of wind velocity.
2.5
-------
AirChek 2000
The AirChek™ 2000 with patented internal flow sensor brings advanced electronic flow control to air
sampling from 5 co 3000 ml/min. This new technology allows the user co program a desired flow rate with
an accuracy of ± 5% using the three-button keypad or a PC with optional DataTrac^ 2000 Software; no
tools needed. The internal flow sensor measures flow directly and acts as a secondary standard, constandy
maintaining the flow rate. Flow can be calibrated by the user to an external primary standard and adjusted.
The flow setting, achieved immediately at start-up, is automatically corrected far variations in temperature
and pressure by built-in sensors. The AirChek 2000 samples up to eight hours on one battery charge.
Easy Three-button Programmability
Using the simple three-button keypad, set How rate and run-time without
screwdrivers. A convenient cimed shutdown feature allows you to set the
AirChek 2000 to run from 1 to 999 minutes.
Sampling Parameters at the Touch of a Button
Easily scroll through sampling parameters including time, flow rate, ait volume, atmo-
spheric pressure, and battery status.
CalChek™ — Direct Communication to a Primary Standard
Automatically calibrate your AirChek 2000 sample pump (v. 2.59 or higher) to a desired flow using the
CalChek feature with CalChek Communicator and a DC-Lite Calibrator. CalChek provides complete
calibration rlexibility with wo calibration options:
Single Point quickly verifies flow before and after sampling
"•un "*»•• Multiple Point corrects across a range of flows (750 to 3000 ml/mini after
maintenance or to meet calibration requirements for quality programs
For complete documentation of" calibration and sampling history, use DataTrac 2000 Software (v. 3.59 or higher).
PC Programmability
Program the AirChek 2000 with a PC using DataTrac 2000 Software.
> Program a complete running sequence, even at
different flow rates.
> Program delayed start, timed shutdown, or
perform sequential sampling.
> Save an AirChek 2000 program in pump
memory for later use.
> Download CalChek calibration data from pump
to PC for complete documentation.
> Download sampling data to a PC for a complete history of exposure monitoring.
> Create a complete report, save to a Die, and import into a word processing
document, or print a hard copy.
2.6
-------
AirChek 2000
> Wide flow range - 5 to 3000 ml/min
• The AirChek 2000 is the best choice for most
sampling applications; low flow range of 5 to 500
ml/min requires an easy-to-use low tlow adapter kit.
(Low flow does not include some electronic
readout options.)
> Security system protects data
• Security code requirement minimizes accidental
changes and maintains sample validity
> Automatic features maintain sample
integrity
• Auto shut-off with low battery or restricted flow
• Adiustable flow fault shutdown from 5 seconds to
4 minutes with a PC and DacaTrac 2000 Software
• Auto-restart from flow fault attempted every 5
minutes for i maximum of 10 dmes
• Run-time data stored in memory
> Intrinsically safe
• Versatile for all industries and safe in explosive
environments: (JL and cUL Listed
> Large, easy-to-read LCD displays:
Flow rate
Temperature
1 Battery status
' Time-of-day
1 Run-cime
1 Atmospheric pressure
1 Volume
1 Flow fault
3n n n
u u u
> Automatically corrects for temperature
and atmospheric pressure
> Multi-tube sampling feature
• Optional multiple adjustable low flow holders i
allow simultaneous 2-, 3-, or 4- tube sampling
> Lightweight, with water-resistant case i
• Lightweight (22 oz)
• RFI/EMI-shielded. impact-resistant case
- Covers protect ports from water
• CE-approved
> Lithium backup battery
• Internal lithium battery preserves data when the
battery pack is removed
>• Real-time clock
• Displays 12-hourstandardor24-hourmilitarytime
> CalChek — Direct communication4 to a
primary standard
• Fast &. easy calibration without manual
adjustments
Performance Profile
Flow range:
Compensation range:
Accuracies:
Battery Charge
Level Indicator:
Temperature range:
Run-time:
Timer Display Range:
Time Display:
Flow Fault:
s
Battery Pack:
Size:
Weight:
RFI/EMI Shielding:
Intrinsic Safety:
750 to 3000 mUmm
(5 to 500 mL'min requires optional
low flow adapter kit)
3000 mUmin at 15" water back pressure
2500 m L/min at 20" water back pressure
2000 mL/min at 30" water back pressure
750 mL'min at 40" water back pressure
Timing: 1 min/month @ 25 C
Atmospheric
Pressure: ± 0.3" Hg
Flow Rate: ± 3% of setpoint after calibration to
desired flow
Icon displays at lull, mid. and low charge
Operating: 32 to 113 F (0 to 45 C)
Charging: 32 to 113 F (0 to 45 C)
Storage: -4 to 113 F (-20 to 45 C)
With battery pack, run-time is 10 hrs for 2000 ml/min
and up to 30 inches back pressure.
1 to 9999 minutes (6.8 days). It the run-time exceeds
6.8 days, the timer display rolls over to 1. Times
greater than 9999 minutes are only displayed on a PC
using DataTrac 2000 software.
Time-of-day in hours and minutes (12- or 24-
hour clock) with AM and PM indicators.
If How drops by more than 5%, pump stops and
holds historical data. Auto-restart attempted every
5 minutes up to 10 times.
Removable battery pack with rechargeable NiCad
battery. 4.8 V x 2.0 Ah. Optional removable battery
pack with rechargeable NiMH battery. 4.8 V x 4.0 Ah.
5.6x3x2.3 (14.2x7.6x5.8 cm)
22 oz (624 gm)
RFI/EMI-shielded case, CE-approved
UL and cUL Listed
2.7
2.7
-------
Cyclones Used With AirChek 2000
GS Respirable Dust Cyclone
Meets ACG1H Sampling Criteria
> Prevents static collection
effects
> 2.75 L/min flow rate provides
greater sensitivity and
sampling accuracy
> Meets ACGffl sampling criteria |
for respirable dust I
> Tangential inlet design decreases
particle impaction
> Eliminates ambient wind speed and
orientation effects
> Designed to overcome problems
with the Dorr-Oliver cyclone
GS Cyclone Superior Performance
With low mean bias and higher flow rare requirements, the GS Cyclone
provides better sampling accuracy and greater sensitivity when compared
to the performance or other cyclones at the same cut-point. Furthermore,
the multiple inlet GS Cyclone overcomes sampling problems that have
been reported with the single inlet Dorr-Oliver cyclone.
The Multiple Inlet GS Cyclone
The GS Cyclone is a 10 mm lightweight conductive plastic unit that holds
3. standard 3-picce cassette with filter for the collection of respirable dust
particles. The GS Cyclone's removable cassette adapter securely holds the
filter cassette in place during sampling. Designed to meet die ACGIH/
CEN/ISO curve, the GS Cyclone has a 50% cut-point of 4.0 ^m (bias
widiin ISO/NIOSH requirements) at 2.75 L/min.*
* Calibrated at UK. Health ana Safely Lafiorawry and University oi Minnesota {wind tunnel).
GS Cyclone's Unique Design
* Conductive plastic construction
prevents static collection problems with
charged particles
• Tangential inlets lessen sampling errors that
can occur when particles impact on the wall of
the cyclone opposite the inlet
* Multiple inlets eliminate sensitivity co wind
velocity and user orientation to the contaminant
Ca*«*it» Outrtr
CuMlt* fling iflMOM)
CJUMMMIOW
(25 or 37 mmj
2.8
-------
FEATURES
SafeLog 100
Single Gas Portable Monitor
Selection of ten different
interchangeable sensors
Quest Smart Sensor
Technology:
• CO, H2S. 0,. NH3. Cl,.
HCN. SO2. NO. N02. "ETO
• On-board memory contains
sensor specific data
• Automatic sensor recognition
Datalogging extended memory
capacity:
• Over 60 hours at one minute
sample intervals
• Download via an RS-232
interface
Real-time clock and date
stamps all data & alarm
occurrences
• Parallel Printer
Supported by QuestSuite™ for
Windows software
Ease of operation via over-
sized four button key pad
Large four digit display with
backlighting
Simple zero and calibration
functions
Piercing two tone horn and
flashing bright LED alarms
Powered by a single, user
replaceable. 9 volt battery.
No tools required.
RFI/EMI Resistant
Lightweight and extremely
rugged impact resistant ABS
housing
Quest Quality, Performance
and Dependability
The Quest SafeLog TOO is an extremely
rugged, lightweight personal single gas
datalogging monitor. Designed for
today's demanding work environments.
the unit features a large four digit dis-
play with backlighting and pulsating
warning horn and visual alarms.
The SafeLog TOO is protected in an
impact resistant ABS housing to take
the punishments of real life work condi-
tions. The unit is powered by a user
replaceable 9 volt battery that will sup-
ply approximately WO hours of continu-
ous operation.
User flexibility is as simple as selecting
from ten different interchangeable elec-
trochemical sensors to meet your spe-
cific application requirements. Quest
smart sensor technology includes auto-
matic sensor recognition and on-board
memory which contains specific sensor
identification: alarm set points, calibra-
tion data and temperature compensation
information that can travel with the sen-
sor from one unit to another.
.SafeLog 100
PEAK
LVL
8.8:8.8
RUN
CM.
TV?!? STEU HI
LO BAT
The SafeLog 100 measures gas concen-
tration at one sample per second.
Featuring an extended memory capacity,
it dataiogs 60 plus hours (continuous or
multiple sessions) of 1 minute historical
data including the high level for the
minute, STEL, TWA and temperature.
The real-time 24-hour clock times and
date stamps all data and alarming
events. All recorded information can be
easily transferred to a printer or comput-
er for record keeping and further data
manipulation. In addition, the SafeLog
100 is uniquely supported by
QuestSuite™ for Windows, a totally inte-
grated data analysis software package.
All unit operations are easily employed
through an oversized 4 - button keypad.
Once the unit is activated, it automatical-
ly conducts a brief function self check
and then proceeds to the run mode.
Zeroing and calibration are only a button
away. This translates into uncomplicat-
ed, but very reliable instrument opera-
tion so the user can concentrate on
other matters at hand.
2.9
-------
SafeLog 100
In addition to having an Ingress
Protection (IP54) rating and offering
excellent Radio Frequency Interference
(RF1) and Electromagnetic Interference
(EMI) protection, the SafeLog 100 was
designed to meet or exceed internation-
ally recognized approvals. Necessary
requirements for today's gas monitoring
applications.
Combining the above with Quest proven
quality, performance and dependability
makes the SafeLog 100 the right choice
for your single gas monitoring needs.
SPECIFICATIONS
Size:
4.5" x 3.0" x 1.5"
(11.4 cm x 7.6 cm x 3.8 cm)
Weight:
8.8 ounces (250 g)
Power:
9 volt alkaline battery
Sensors:
Electrochemical
Battery Life:
100 hours
Measurement:
Continuous (1 sample/second)
Display:
4 digit backlit LCD
Alarms:
Pulsating dual tone and flashing LED.
Remote alarm jack
Alarm Thresholds:
High level, High level pre-alarm (through
QuestSuite™ only), Low level (02 only),
STEL, TWA, Low battery
Memory:
Over 60 hours at 1 minute sample
intervals
Output:
Jack for data output
Serial and Parallel
Operating Safety Chirp Indicator:
User has choice of ON/OFF
Temperature Range:
-10 to 40°C (14 to 104°F) operating
-15 to 60°C (5 to 140°F) storage
Humidity Range:
0 to 99% relative humidity, non-
continuous, non-condensing
15 to 90% relative humidity, continuous,
non-condensing
Ingress Protection Rating:
Certified to IP54
Intrinsic Safety:
UL cUL Class I. II & III. Division 1,
Groups A thru G. EEx (European)
RFI/EMI Protection:
Special shielded case and internal circuit
protection meets or exceeds ANSI
Standard C95.1-1982 and EN50082-2
Sensor Specifications:
Gas
Oxygen O2
Carbon Monoxide CO
Hydrogen Sulfide H2S
Chlorine CI2
Hydrogen Cyanide HCN
Ammonia NH3
Sulphur Dioxide SO2
Nitric Oxide NO
Nitrogen Dioxide NO2
Ethylene Oxide ETO
Range
0-30%
0-999 ppm
0-500 ppm
0-20 ppm
0-50 ppm
0-50 ppm
0-50 ppm
0-1 00 ppm
0-50 ppm
0-20 ppm
Resolution
0.1%
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
1 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
2.10
-------
HAZ-DUST II
HAZ-DUST II Real-time Personal Dust Monitor
The HAZ-DUST II real-time personal dusr. monitor, with internal sampling pump, datalogger, and communi-
cations software, uses near-forward light scattering technology to measure airborne dust parncie concentration.
Unique signal processing internally compensates for noise and drift, while allowing high resolution, low
detection limits, and excellent baseline stability.
> Instantaneous readings in mg/nr1
• The HAZ-DUSTII uses optical light scattering to
calculate and display airborne dust concentrations
immediately and continuously when activated;
real-time data reported in mg/mj
> Displays TWA, STEL, min, and max levels
• Instantaneous readouts of all data on the 4-line
backlit LCD
> High sensitivity — 0.01 to 200 mg/m3
• Selectable dual-range feature for measurement
between 0-20 or 0-200 mg/m3 with an ultimate
sensitivity down to 0.01
> Compact and lightweight
• Small and lightweight, 3.5 x 9 x 2.5 inches (8.9 x
22.9 x 6.4 cm), 3 Ibs (1.4 kg), the rechargeable
NiCad battery, electronics, and datalogger arc
enclosed in a compact case that attaches to a
worker's waist
> True breathing zone measurements of
ji»haiahi«»1 thoracic, and respirable dust
• Attach the miniature sensor to a worker's pocket or
collar for true breathing zone measurements: unique
sensor design allows interchangeable sampling heads
to collect concurrent filter samples
> Four-key programmable operation
* Access features and programming options through
easy menu selection
> Displays respirable, thoracic, or
inhaiahi* particalate mass
• Respirable displayiscalibratedusingArizonaRoad
Dust (ARD) and compared to i sample using
NIOSH Method 0600 for respirable dust (accuracy
± 10%); menu-select alternate displays of either
thoracic or inhalabie paniculate mass on the LCD
> User-selectable
audible alarm
• Preset internal
alarm alerts the
user of
approaching
threshold limits
> True Breathing Zone
Measurements
2.11
-------
HAZ-DUST II
SPECIFICATION
Calibration
RANGE
NIOSH 0600 with ARD
Accuracy
Precision
.^^••,—^•••i —
Sensing range
0.01 to200msz/mj
Particle size range
0.1 to 10 urn Respirable
0.1 to 50 urn Thoracic
0 1 to 100 urn Inhaiable (IOM)
Recording time
second, minute and 10 minute averages
1.5 to
PM
Memorv
Locations
21. 2 00 data points
Up to 999 storage locations
Output
RS-
Operating temperature
_^_•^^—• mm^^~•.^•^^^MB.I*^^—^^
Humiditv range
32 to 120 F (0 -50 C
IMI ^—^^ ii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiHiiiiiBii^^
95% non-condensina
Batterv
Batterv' life
Charsing time
8 hours
8 hours
Size
9 x 3 5 x 2.5 in (22.9 x 8.9 x 6.4 cm)
Weiaht
3 Ibs. (1.4kg)
2.12
-------
MultiLog 2000
SPECIFICATIONS
The "Industrial Hygiene" selection is the
most advanced level and, in addition to
ail the features supplied in the Basic
Mode, this mode displays average level,
TWA, peak values, STEL, and peak STEL
for all installed sensors.
The MultiLog 2000 has an extended
memory capacity for storing information
while in the RUN mode. The user can
select logging intervals from a wide time
history selection. For example, the unit
will log for 78 hours at one minute inter-
vals. There are three ways of logging;
summary data for the session, continu-
ous, or action level triggered. You can
retrieve logged information by sending
the data to a computer via a serial RS-
232 interface or to a printer via a parallel
interface.
Choice of three long lasting interchange-
able power supplies including standard
user replaceable Alkaline batteries, or
rechargeable Nickel Cadmium and
Nickel Metal Hydride battery packs. The
battery pack can be changed in a haz-
ardous environment and the recharge-
able packs can be rapidly recharged in
less than two hours.
For remote sampling applications, the
optional sample draw pump will draw a
sample in excess of 50 feet and uses the
unit's electronics to sense a flow restric-
tion. Dedicated confined space kits are
available to enhance your specific gas
monitor applications.
Several notable standard features
include automatic one button calibration,
password protection, and an intelligent
zero function that prevents the user from
zeroing in a contaminated environment.
Supported by the totally integrated data
analysis software. QuestSuite'" for
Windows, the MultiLog 2000 is the
answer to your rigorous portable multi-
gas data logging requirements today
and into the future.
Sensor Specifications:
Size:
6.9" x 3.4" x 2.0"
(17.5 cm x 8.6 cm x 5.1 cm)
Weight:
22 ounces (0.6 kg)
Power:
Alkaline battery pack (uses two
replaceable "C" cells) or
rechargeable Nickel Cadmium
or Nickel Metal Hydride battery
packs
Battery Life:
16 hours with alkaline. Minimum
10 hours with the NiCad or
NiMH battery packs
Display:
Two line alphanumeric back
lighted LCD
Alarms:
Pulsating dual tone and flashing
visual alarms
Alarm Thresholds:
High level. High level pre-alarm
(through QuestSuite7" only),
Low level (O2 only), STEL,
TWA. Low battery
Operating Safety Chirp
Indicator:
User has choica of ON/OFF
and frequency of occurrence
Sensors:
Combustible gases/methane
••(eatalytic diffusion type), oxygen
and toxic electrochamieal gas
sensofS' ...
Sensor Specifications:-
Sensor Configurations:
Oxygen and Combustibles, and
up to two toxic gases, or oxy-
gen or combustibles and up to
three toxic gases, or up to four
toxic sensors simultaneously
Measurement:
Continuous (one sample/sec-
ond)
Data Logging:
78 hours at one minute sample
intervals: summary, continuous
or level triggered. Serial RS-232
interface. Battery backed up
memory (via lithium battery)
Temperature Range:
-10 to 40SC (Uto 104°F)
operating
-15to60°C(5to 140"F)
storage
Humidity Range:
0 to 99% relative humidity,
non-continuous, non-
condensing
15 to 90% relative humidity,
continuous, non-condensing
Ingress Protection Rating:
Certified to IP54
Intrinsic Safety:
UL. cUL. Class I, II & III. divi-
sion 1. Groups A thru G, EEx
(European)
RFI/EMI Protection:
Special shielded case and
internal circuit protection meets
or exceeds ANSI Standard
C95.1-1982andEN50082-2
Gas
Combustible Gases
Range
0- 1 00% LEL or
0-5.0% by volume CH4
Gas
Oxygen O2
Carbon Monoxide CO
Hydrogen Sulfide H2S
Chlorine CI2
Hydrogen Cyanide HCN
Ammonia NH3
Sulphur Dioxide SO2
Nitric Oxide NO
Nitrogen Dioxide NO2
Ethylene Oxide ETO
Range
0-30%
0-999 ppm
0-500 ppm
0-20 ppm
0-50 ppm
0-50 ppm
0-50 ppm
0-100 ppm
0-50 ppm
0-20 ppm
Resolution
0.1%
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
1 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
2.13
-------
I Respirable Dust Cyclone j
NO2 monitor with protective sleeve
Wind Streamers
Tubing to dust pumps in case
D
Instrument case and
protective housing
Five-foot pole for monitors,
filters, and streamers
>
2.14
-------
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS
All of the cooperating mines were located in south-western West Virginia in different
counties. All were mountain-top removal operations, and all three mines belonged to different coal
operating companies. Probably most important for this study, each was distinctly different in its
production characteristics.
All three mines provided maximum access to their operations and gave full cooperation. The
investigators were permitted to choose the blasting events to monitor and choose how and where to
locate their monitoring equipment. It is unusual for researchers to receive such a free hand at mining
facilities, but these mining operations deemed the work to be important enough to facilitate our
activities and permit us to perform our tasks as we though best.
Table 3.1 following provides a basic comparison of these mining sites.
i.l
-------
Mine A
MineB
MineC
Annual Production Tonnage
Approximate Burden Moved,
yd3/year
Approximate Number of
Production shots per year
Approximate Weight of
Explosives Used per Year, Lbs
Primary Excavation Method
2,000,000 tons
20,000,000 to
24,000,000 yd3
260
14,400,000 Ibs
Front-End Loader
Scraping
5,500,000 tons
60,000,000 yd3
300
64,000,000 Ibs
85% Dragline & Shovel
15% Front-End Loader
800,000 tons
8,000,000 to
10,000,000yd3
>240
6,000,000 Ibs
Front-End Loader
Scraping
Table 3.1 Comparison of Cooperating Mine Sites
3.2
-------
4.0 FIELD MEASUREMENTS
Field measurements were made over the spring and summer of 2000. Miners vacation
stopped most mining activities, and therefore most field work, in the first two weeks of July,
three weeks at one mine.
4.1 Preliminary Familiarization Trip
A trip to mine A on May 31 was the first one where measurements were taken, and it was
the one where lessons in application and equipment usage were learned. It was originally hoped
that this data would be useable in the pool of overall information for the project, but too many
errors occurred to be comfortable with the values obtained, at least those that were obtained.
Figure 4.1-1 shows the layout of the blasting arrangement. It was a three-bench contour
blast that was close to the top of the ridge. The stations were selected with regard to the
prevailing wind, and one was placed on the ridge behind, but close to, the blast. This latter
station was situated here in case material or fumes were thrown up and behind the blast. Pages
4.3 through 4.5 are the photographs of the blast. In a close examination of photo A0531_12 one
can see one of the measurement stations just below and to the right of the picture center. In the
next picture the blast initiation can be seen, and the following five photographs show the cloud
development and movement. It is clear, especially in photo A0531_18, that the bulk of the cloud
moved down the valley behind the trees. There were no locations suitable for measurement
stations in the valley. Only stations 3 and 5 and the main station were exposed to any fumes or
dust, and that was quite minimal, especially station three. The station placed on top of the ridge
behind the blast recorded nothing at all. More importantly, immediately after the blast the crew
returned to work. The driver in the backhoe in photo A0531_25 had not been told to wait until
we recovered our equipment. He drove past all measurement stations while they were still in
operation. It is highly likely that the bulk of any measured dust and any CO detected by the
main station would have been the result of this machine's passing rather than the blast. It would
not
4.1
-------
Event A0531
1000
500
0 -
-500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
Figure 4.1-1
4.2
-------
Event A0531 - 1
Event A0531 -2
Event A0531 -3
4.3
-------
Event A0531 -4
Event A0531 -5
Event A0531 -6
4.4
-------
Event A0531 -7
Event A0531 -8
.
' •
-.v U>«.* >••'•*&«.. > •
Event A0531 -9
4.5
-------
have been possible separate the dust, although it would have been possible to separate the CO
according to the time of detection. But this was just one of many lessons learned on this trip.
We had originally hoped to control the running time on all of our instruments. The dust
pumps are all programmable, and we set them to start 30 minutes before the blast. (The main
station and the gas detectors all record real-time data, so setting the start time was not crucial on
them.) After all of our stations were set and we were ready for the blast, we were told that the
shot initiation time had been moved up an hour. We then had to quickly return to each station
and reprogram the pumps. At this point we still hoped to let each pump run two hours, but
subsequently the reality of moving equipment after the shot eliminated that as a possibility.
Even if it hadn't been for the backhoe, traffic on the pit floor would still have raised dust that
would have reached the measurement stations. It became obvious that instruments would have
to be set and turned on just before the blast, and turned off as soon after the blast as possible.
This represented a major change to our original plans.
We had originally hoped to photograph the cloud resulting from the blast from two
different angles approximately 90° apart and try to determine cloud size from the opposing
pictures. In practice we found that the cloud appearance will change according to viewing angle
relative to sunlight, according to the background behind the cloud (which will always differ
when shooting from opposing angles), and even with different exposure settings on the camera.
Later on, we found out that clouds passing overhead could change the appearance of the blast
plume. These effects are especially noticeable with regard to colors within in the plume and
when the plume becomes diffuse and thin.
Initially we had hoped for the possibility of recording two blasts on the same day. The
length of time required for data down-loading, site evaluation, and equipment movement and re-
setup demonstrated that this would only be possible if the two blasts were on the same property
and had a minimum time window of four hours between them. Travel time between mines, even
relatively close mines, was too great. Also, since most mines try to set off their major blasts
during shift change, so even two on one site was not possible.1
Finally, no matter how much practice one has in the laboratory, it is not the same as using
equipment in the field. On this trip we learned about mistakes easily made in equipment set-up
JIn addition, if a mine did have several shots in one day, the extra shots were normally
"utility shots," events that are smaller and drilled shallower than standard production shots.
4.6
-------
and programming. And it was our first actual experience in determining how difficult
determining average wind direction was going to be. Wind directions on the ridge, in the valley,
and at the observation site were all different, at least what minimal wind there was. We had
anticipated this difficulty, but this experience verified these concerns.
4.2 Field Measurements
A simple system was set up for identifying the blasting events from their data record
names. Illustrated simply:
B 06 02 x
Mine
designation
number-
A A A A
ition
• I I—
Month of
observation—I
x --a, b, c, etc if more
than one blast was monitored
in a day (not needed)
Day of
observation
Thus event B0602 was a blast that was monitored at mine B on June 2nd. (The year 2000 is
implicit since this was a single-season research effort.)
The following ten sections summarize each successful set of blast measurements made
and contain photographs of all but one (event B0627). We did not keep records of all attempts,
but this represents about half of all visits made. Reasons for failure to collect data during
unsuccessful visits include:
Lack of any adequate site to locate instruments. This was the most common reason. If the
prevailing wind direction was moving from the site directly over an adjoining valley, and
there were no roads or other development for access close to the shot in the valley,
measurements could not be made. Setting up within forested area would certainly yield
biased or altered data.2 As it was, we had difficulty achieving the distances we had
initially wanted to maintain between the stations and the shot.
Change in weather during or after set-up. Twice we had all instruments set and ready to go, and
2These sites may be more reasonable to try in a larger project that could provide a greater
quantity of data points for statistical validity. However, for a limited number of data points, the
trees represent an insulating barrier that can not be correlated to open-air measurements and thus
are an additional unquantifiable variable.
4.7
-------
just before the shot the wind changed direction, in one case by 180° when a weather front
moved in. Even if there had been time to relocate, in both cases the new wind direction
was toward an area where there were no adequate areas to reset the stations.
Rain. Our gas detectors are exposed to the elements and are not water-proof. We did take
measurements in light drizzle or intermittent rain, but not in steady rain. Also, it was our
feeling that such weather would reduce the levels of dust and fumes in the plume, and the
data pool would be too small to be able to separate out precipitation impacts.
Severe weather. Twice, blasts were postponed indefinitely due to lightening in the area.
4.8
-------
4.2.1 Event A0622
Weather
Observations: 79°F, 73.0% relative humidity, partially cloudy
Wind: 7.5 mph
Blasting Data
Time of ignition:
Strata blasted:
Hole Diameter:
Hole Depth:
Number of holes:
Stemming used:
Explosive types used:
Weight of explosive used:
Weight of explosive used per hole:
Cubic Yardage Moved:
Powder Factor:
1309hrs
Sandstone and shale
7.785"
70'
76
13' of drill cuttings
ANFO, Trojan C-20 1-lb primer, nonel
78,052 Ibs
1,026 Ibs
63,840 yd3
1.22
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum: 0.09 mg
Respirable Dust Maximum: 0.11 mg
NO2 high: 0.4 ppm
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure: 1.0 min
Duration of maximum dust exposure: Not detected
Main Station Data
NO High:
CO High:
NH3 High:
Dust:
0.6 ppm
5 ppm
7 ppm
Not detected
4.9
-------
Event A0622
1000
-500
500
-------
Event A0622-1
Event A0622 -2
Event A0622 -3
4.11
-------
Event A0622 -4
Event A0622 -5
Event A0622 -6
4.12
-------
Event A0622 -7
Event A0622 -8
4.13
-------
Stations
N
N
A
f Station ID J
Oust
N
A
NO2 Hiflh
ppm (parts per million)
N
A
:; r
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.14
-------
Total Dust Concentration
fmg/rn3!
Dust Concentration
N
N
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.15
-------
4.2.2 Event A0727
Weather
Observations: 88°F, 48.0% relative humidity, sunny and clear
Wind: 6.6 mph
Blasting Data
Time of ignition:
Strata blasted:
Hole Diameter:
Hole Depth:
Number of holes:
Stemming used:
Explosive types used:
Weight of explosive used:
Weight of explosive used per hole:
Cubic Yardage Moved:
Powder Factor:
1453 hrs
Sandstone and shale
7.825"
103', 86', 71', and 67'
10, 12, 12, and 14, respectively
13' of drill cuttings
ANFO, 1.25 cast primers, nonel
58,164 Ibs
1,212 Ibs
46,224 yd3
1.26
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum: 0.23 mg
Respirable Dust Maximum: 0.17 mg
NO2high: 1.4ppm
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure: 2.00 min
Duration of maximum dust exposure: 2.44 min
Main Station Data
NO High:
CO High:
NH3 High:
Dust:
48.7 ppm
694 ppm
168 ppm
64.92 mg/m3
4.16
-------
h-
CM
0)
LJJ
o
S
o
g
3
•9
xis distances are feet from the point of the blast nearest the main measurement'station
(0,0)
4.17
-------
Event A0727-1
Event A0727 -2
Event A0727 -3
4.18
-------
Event A0727 -4
Event A0727 -5
Event A0727 -6
4.19
-------
Event A0727 -7
Event A0727 -8
Event A0727 -9
4.20
-------
Event A0727 -7
Event A0727 -8
Event A0727 -9
4.21
-------
Event A0727-10
Event A0727-11
Event A0727-12
4.22
-------
Stations
N
A
N
A
f Station ID 1
023
AOT2?
R (hist
N
NO2
N
4
0 ' 1
ppm (parts per million)
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.23
-------
Total Dust Concentration
N
[mg/n^J
1 SB
0 '"*W
A0727
I mg/m3 I
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.24
-------
4.2.3 Event B0602
Weather
Observations: 94°F, 40.8% relative humidity, clear and sunny
Wind: 8.2 mph
Blasting Data
Time of ignition:
Strata blasted:
Hole Diameter:
Hole Depth:
Number of holes:
Stemming used:
Explosive types used:
Weight of explosive used:
Weight of explosive used per hole:
Cubic Yardage Moved:
Powder Factor:
1538hrs
Sandstone and shale
9"
53'
126
12' drill cuttings
ANFO 60/40, Pentex 3/4-lb primers, nonel
192,270 Ibs
1,526 Ibs
154,583yd3
1.24
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum:
Respirable Dust Maximum:
NO2 high:
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure:
Duration of maximum dust exposure:
0.48 mg
0.34 mg
2.2 ppm (main station)
1 min
0.37 min
Main Station Data
NO High:
CO High:
NH3 High:
Dust:
20.7 ppm
780 ppm
28 ppm
47.67 mg/m3
4.25
-------
>
to
a\
|= 1000
o
CD
fa
o
O.
g_'
o
Ł•
cr
500
s: o
S-
fa
ft
-
3
|- -500
CD
fa
ft
fD
-1000
Event B0602
High knob,
being removed
Large,
wide
haulrobd
Steep access
road past 6th station
Level pit floor
Exposed on three sides:
drop-off on south, east, north
highwall on east
Approx. wind direction
B
Observation
point .
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
JO
"o
-------
Event B0602 - 1
Event B0602 - 2
Event B0602 - 3
4.27
-------
Event B0602 - 4
Event B0602 - 5
Event B0602 - 6
4.28
-------
Event B0602 - 7
Event B0602 - 8
Event B0602 - 9
4.29
-------
Event B0602- 10
Event B0602 - 11
Event B0602- 12
4.30
-------
Event B0602- 13
Event B0602- 14
Event B0602- 15
4.31
-------
Stations
f Station ID J
N
A
N
Dust
5 C
ppm (parts per million)
N
N
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.32
-------
tlWft
Total Dust Concentration
fmg/rn3!
-I SB «C t> K* 'CKK
Dust Concentration
I mg/m3 J
C "I
N
N
i
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.33
-------
4.2.4 Event B0619
Weather
Observations: 74°F, relative humidity 86.0%, cloudy with intermittent drizzle
Wind: 4.9 mph
Blasting Data
Time of ignition:
Strata blasted:
Hole Diameter:
Hole Depth:
Number of holes:
Stemming used:
Explosive types used:
Weight of explosive used:
Weight of explosive used per hole:
Cubic Yardage Moved:
Powder Factor:
1531hrs
Shale and sandstone
9"
54'
120
11' drill cuttings
ANFO 60/40, 3/4-lb cast primers, nonel
191,011 Ibs
1,592 Ibs
150,000yd3
1.27
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum: 0.10 mg
Respirable Dust Maximum: 0.12 mg
NO2high: 1.4ppm
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure: 4 min
Duration of maximum dust exposure: 0
Main Station Data
NO High:
CO High:
NH3 High:
Dust:
9.8 ppm
88 ppm
11 ppm
0.23 mg/m3
4.35
-------
U)
O
o
O.
r4-
O
'-b
r-K
fa
3
fa_
3'
3
fa
r4-
OJ
O
500
-600
-1000
-1500
EventB0619
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
-------
Event B0619- 1
EventB0619-2
EventB0619-3
4.37
-------
EventB0619-4
EventB0619-5
EventB0619-6
4.38
-------
Stations
N
A
Total
N
A
Station ID
:rati}» ftu-st
N
A
ppm (parts per million)
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.39
-------
Total Dust Concentration
fmg/rn3!
-P •"•"
N
. isec. .-.see- tan
BMJ
Dust
N
fmg/n^l
032
' 61 44
-'IS: VK,
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.40
-------
4.2.5 Event B0620
Weather
Observations: 105°F (approx 85 in shade), 54.0% relative humidity, sunny and clear
Wind: 1.0 mph
Blasting Data
Time of ignition:
Strata blasted:
Hole Diameter:
Hole Depth:
Number of holes:
Stemming used:
Explosive types used:
Weight of explosive used:
Weight of explosive used per hole:
Cubic Yardage Moved:
Powder Factor:
1532hrs
Sandstone and shale
10.625"
67'
253
16' drill cuttings
ANFO 50/50, 3/4-lb pentex primers, nonel
669,863 Ibs
2,648 Ibs
492,207 yd3
1.36
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum: 0.09 mg
Respirable Dust Maximum: 0.10 mg
NO2high: 3.6ppm
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure: 4 min
Duration of maximum dust exposure: 0
Main Station Data
NO High: 1.6ppm
CO High: 20 ppm
NH3 High: 25 ppm
Dust: 0
4.41
-------
CM
CD
O
CO
-------
Event B0620 - 1
Event B0620 - 2
Event B0620 - 3
4.43
-------
Event B0620 - 4
Event B0620 - 5
Event B0620 - 6
4.44
-------
Event B0620 - 7
Event B0620 - 8
4.45
-------
Stations
N
A
Total
N
[ Station ID J
N
A
NO2 High
ppm (parts per million)
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.46
-------
Total Dust Concentration
fmg/rn3!
N
Dust Concentration
N
4
fmg/m3]
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.47
-------
4.2.6 Event B0627
Weather
Observations: 77°F, 83.0% relative humidity, cloudy, intermittent rain
Wind: 2.3 mph
Blasting Data
Time of ignition:
Strata blasted:
Hole Diameter:
Hole Depth:
Number of holes:
Stemming used:
Explosive types used:
Weight of explosive used:
Weight of explosive used per hole:
Cubic Yardage Moved:
Powder Factor:
1125hrs
Sandstone and shale
10,625"
92'
346
12.5' of drill cuttings and #57 crushed limestone
ANFO 50/50, optimizer 3/4-lb primers, nonel
1,159,517 Ibs
3,351 Ibs
1,018,624 Ibs
1.14
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum: 0.15 mg
Respirable Dust Maximum: 0.12 mg
NO2 high: 0.5 ppm
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure: 1 min
Duration of maximum dust exposure: 0
Main Station Data
NO High: 0
CO High: 2 ppm
NH3 High: N/A
Dust: 0
4.48
-------
VO
1500
O
OJ
1000
tr
rt>
T3
o.
r+
O
>-t>
r-K
1
wa
r-K
r-K
I
3'
3
>-i
|
3
«j
o
JO
"o
500
Event B0627
Observation point
(on top of spoil pile)
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
-------
No Photographs
For Event B0627
4.50
-------
Stations
Tola?
N
N
Station ID
1';-
Dysl Conccntoafion
0 ^5
NO2 High
ppm (parts per million)
^^*«'
-'Vf- -»«>
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.51
-------
N
Total Dust Concentration
mg/m3
..J-ŁiO .'fflK
05'I
N
4
fmg/rn3!
.'SHI ."«X 49S
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.52
-------
4.2.7 Event B0816
Weather
Observations: 90°F, 52.0% relative humidity, sunny and clear
Wind: 5.2 mph
Blasting Data
Time of ignition:
Strata blasted:
Hole Diameter:
Hole Depth:
Number of holes:
Stemming used:
Explosive types used:
Weight of explosive used:
Weight of explosive used per hole:
Cubic Yardage Moved:
Powder Factor:
1531hrs
Sandstone and shale
10.625"
58'
118
11' drill cuttings
ANFO 60/40, pentex 3/4-lb primers, nonel
287,930 Ibs
2,440 Ibs
198,730yd3
1.45
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum: 0.66 mg
Respirable Dust Maximum: 0.10 mg
NO2 high: 0.8 ppm
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure: 2 min
Duration of maximum dust exposure: 0
Main Station Data
NO High:
CO High:
NH3 High:
Dust:
6.5 ppm
196 ppm
68 ppm
15.95mg/m3
4.53
-------
Axis distances are feet from the point of the blast nearest the main measurement station (0,0)
4.54
-------
Event BOS 16- 1
Event BOS 16-2
Event BOS 16-3
4.55
-------
Event BOS 16-4
Event BOS 16-5
Event BOS 16-6
4.56
-------
Event BOS 16-7
Event BOS 16-8
Event BOS 16-9
4.57
-------
Event BOS 16- 10
Event BOS 16- 11
Event BOS 16- 12
4.58
-------
Event BOS 16- 13
Event BOS 16- 14
Event BOS 16- 15
4.59
-------
N
i
Station
N
i
Total
f Station ID 1
N
Eventi&SHi
ttirel;
N
A
NO2 Hi-fh
1 ppm (parts per million)
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.60
-------
N
4
Tofaf Dust Concentration
fmg/rn3!
Dust
I mg/m3 I
*'i OCi
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.61
-------
4.2.8 Event C0712
Weather
Observations: 89°F, 62.0% relative humidity, sunny and clear
Wind: 0.0 fpm
Blasting Data
Time of ignition:
Strata blasted:
Hole Diameter:
Hole Depth:
Number of holes:
Stemming used:
Explosive types used:
Weight of explosive used:
Weight of explosive used per hole:
Cubic Yardage Moved:
Powder Factor:
1520hrs
Sandrock and shale
7.875"
53'
105
8' drill cuttings
ANFO, Austin 3/4-lb primers, nonel
85,156 Ibs
81 libs
70,490 yd3
1.21
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum: 0.13 mg
Respirable Dust Maximum: 0.15 mg
NO2 high: 0.5
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure: 1 minute
Duration of maximum dust exposure: 0
Main Station Data
NO High:
CO High:
NH3 High:
Dust:
0.7 ppm
3 ppm
N/A
15.87mg/m3
4.62
-------
>
4^
ON
Event C0712
Level pit floor
(saddle in
ridgelme)
500
1000
-------
Event C0712- 1
EventC0712-2
EventC0712-3
4.64
-------
EventC0712-4
EventC0712-5
EventC0712-6
4.65
-------
EventC0712-7
EventC0712-8
EventC0712-9
4.66
-------
Event C0712- 10
Event C0712- 11
'
Event C0712- 12
4.67
-------
Note gas cloud at bottom
of freshly blasted pit
4.68
-------
N
1
Stations
Station ID
J
N
A
EventCO?12
N
i
C0711
Qirct
N
4
EvcntCOflS
NO2 High
ppm (parts per million)
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.69
-------
N
C0712
Total Dust Contcentroti-on
I mg/m3 J
N
4
Event COT 12
C-oncentrfttiefi
mg/m3
C 2$
072
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.70
-------
4.2.9 Event C0714
Weather
Observations: 89°F, 36.0% relative humidity, scattered clouds
Wind: 2.8 mph
Blasting Data
Time of ignition:
Strata blasted:
Hole Diameter:
Hole Depth:
Number of holes:
Stemming used:
Explosive types used:
Weight of explosive used:
Weight of explosive used per hole:
Cubic Yardage Moved:
Powder Factor:
1456 hrs
Sandrock and shale
7.825"
57'
120
8' drill cuttings
ANFO, Austin 3/4-lb primers, nonel
99,465 Ibs
829 Ibs
82,080 yd3
1.21
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum: 0.38 mg
Respirable Dust Maximum: 0.21 mg
NO2 high: 4.2 ppm
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure: 4 min
Duration of maximum dust exposure: 0
Main Station Data
NO High: 4.7 ppm
CO High: 8 ppm
NH3High: 13 ppm
Dust: N/A
1.71
-------
O
O
10
g
o o o g o
T— T
Axis distances are feet from the point of the blast nearest the main measurement station (0,0)
1.72
-------
Event C0714- 1
EventC0714-2
EventC0714-3
1.73
-------
EventC0714-4
EventC0714-5
EventC0714-6
1.74
-------
EventC0714-7
EventC0714-8
EventC0714-9
1.75
-------
Event C0714- 10
Event C0714- 11
Event C0714- 12
1.76
-------
Event C0714- 13
Event C0714- 14
1.77
-------
Stations
EventC0714
f Station ID J
N
4
N
4
EveniC0714
Bust
EvtntCOf14
NO2 High
ppm (parts per million)
N
4
N
4
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
1.78
-------
Event Ct>714
Total Dust
2 :>i' f \
Img/rn3!
N
4
400 i s*J ->x» t.sta Ji«
Dust
fmg/m3]
N
4
!HB ;«B
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
1.79
-------
4.2.10 Event C0726
Weather
Observations: °F, cloudy
Wind:
Blasting Data
Time of ignition: 1627 hrs
Strata blasted: Shale
Hole Diameter: 7.825"
Hole Depth: 57'
Number of holes: 72
Stemming used: 10' drill cuttings
Explosive types used: ANFO, Austin 3/4-lb primers, nonel
Weight of explosive used: 60,900 Ibs
Weight of explosive used per hole: 846 Ibs
Cubic Yardage Moved: 49,248 yd3
Powder Factor: 1.24
Event Summary Data for Satellite Stations
Total Dust Maximum: 0.29 mg
Respirable Dust Maximum: 0.10 mg
NO2 high: 0.8 ppm
Duration of maximum NO2 exposure: 2 min
Duration of maximum dust exposure: 0
Main Station Data
NO High: 15.6 ppm
CO High: 54 ppm
NH3 High: N/A
Dust: N/A
4.80
-------
<0
CM
O
O
LU
Axis distances are feet from the point of the blast nearest the main measurement station (0,0)
4.81
-------
Event C0726 - 1
Event C0726 - 2
Event C0726 - 3
4.82
-------
Event C0726 - 4
Event C0726 - 5
Event C0726 - 6
4.83
-------
Event C0726 - 7
Event C0726 - 8
Event C0726 - 9
4.84
-------
Event C0726- 10
Event C0726 - 11
4.85
-------
Staftons
N
A
0 1C* '
N
A
f Station ID 1
5 12 9 J*3
«-
N
A
High
ppm (parts per million)
N
4
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.86
-------
Total Dust
N
4
fmg/rn3!
W»'i
Oust Concentration
*<Ł. !S
A 73 1 ,15
N
A
I mg/m3 I
Note: All axis are feet distance from point of blast nearest to main measurement station (0,0)
4.87
-------
5.0 DISCUSSION
The results may viewed in various fashions, and here we have tried to present the
information in as broad a manner as possible. A visual representation of shot-and-measurement
layouts helps provide a feel for what was actually occurring in the field. Statistical analyses of
the chosen parameters versus distance provide a view of what happens as the plume travels as
well as helping to quantify the observations in a logical fashion. Similar statistical analyses of
the chosen parameters versus individual blasting events provides yet another way of observing
the same data, but versus differences in the events themselves rather than by distance. In our
investigation we have a data pool often events with 1, 5, or 6 values available for each of several
variables of interest. These are:
Measured
Variable
Total Dust
Respirable Dust
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrous Oxide
Carbon Monoxide
Ammonia
Where measured
Satellite stations, main station
Satellite stations
Satellite Stations, main Station
Main Station
Main Station
Main Station
Number of data points
available per event
6
5
6
1
1
1
Table 5.1. Accounting of data collection points
Thus for distance variables (dust, fume concentration, etc.) we have 50 or 60 data points to
assess; for blasting variables (powder factor, weather, etc.) there are 10 data points. Of course,
this is with all instruments running properly. In the course of the investigation there were times
when some instruments failed to perform as expected. The largest single disappointment was the
failure to obtain good NO2 data at the main station. We never were able to properly balance the
MultiLog unit with the NO2 sensors. Two items need discussion here before viewing the
measurement data: wind velocity and sample weighing results.
5.1
-------
Wind velocity1 proved to be very difficult to determine with any precision, or even with
much confidence in the general direction. We originally expected difficulty with this
determination, but field experience demonstrated it to be most troublesome. On one blasting
location, on the drilled, explosive-loaded portion only, it was possible to measure wind
directions over a +200° spread depending upon where the investigator stood. It was possible to
stand in one spot and measure a 90° variation over a 10-minute period. Similar variations in
speed were also measurable. Then, at the measuring stations, it was frequently possible to
determine different values for each. The assumption is, of course, that this was all due to terrain.
Still, the investigators could frequently judge a general direction to expect a cloud to travel in.
In every case we attempted to locate the main station so that it would intercept the main body of
the cloud from the blast. On occasions we missed (which always resulted in a total miss by all
stations), but frequently we managed to come very close. In the end, we used the orientation of
the main station from the blast site as the best indicator of primary wind direction, and then made
adjustments if needed based on our observation of cloud travel direction.
Dust sampling cassette weights were determined by standard procedure, but to 0.01
milligram rather than 0.001 milligram. The equipment we had available was purchased in line
with the original dust measurement standards and for this kind of initial investigation was quite
adequate. We had some wider-than-expected variation in the control cassettes that we used (we
weighed and assembled our own). Even with dessication, the control filters occasionally had
more pre- and post-measurement variation than the active sample filters. These variations were
small enough to be negligible, but where monitors recorded close to zero dust this infrequently
resulted in a slight negative dust reading. We reported these and all dust weights as calculated.
Remember, for calculation and analysis, velocity is a vector consisting of both
magnitude and direction. Thus use of the term velocity implies consideration of both wind
direction and wind speed.
5.2
-------
5.1 Viewing the Data by Relative Location
The positions of the monitoring stations, the observation points, and the corners of the
shot being fired were all determined by use of a hand-held global positioning (GPS) unit. These
points were then used to map all of the locations, with the point of the shot closest to the main
monitoring station serving as the origin for the plot maps, or "ground zero."
5.1.1 Relative Locations Mapped by True North
Figure 5.1 is a map of all surveyed points. Because the observation points tended to be at
greater distances from the blasts and in directions that were not chosen for monitoring
considerations but for viewer safety, another map was generated that eliminated the observation
points (Figure 5.2), leaving the shot area corners and the station locations. Even this is a bit
confusing because of some shot layouts. (The two points at approximately -3100, -500 are the
corners of a dragline cast shot). So we also generated a map of monitoring locations only
(Figure 5.3). This map also has labeled which monitoring units were located on which sites. A
number of things may be noticed in this figure.
These stations were all set as closely as possible to the expected down-wind directions
for the blasting events. The map clearly shows that the most expectable wind direction was from
the south-east, and the least expectable from the south-west. There were both north winds and
south winds, the former being somewhat surprising and possibly a phenomena due to ridge-and-
valley configuration. The maximum station distance from the blast was 1903 feet, and the
minimum 228 feet, with an average station distance of 943 feet. While these distances were
closer than originally desired, it was a fortuitous occurrence due to the rapid fall-off in dust and
fume concentrations versus distance. Because of public complaints we had originally expected
to see substantial values at 2,000 feet and beyond.
Figures 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 show the measured values for total dust, respirable dust,
nitrogen dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide adjusted for zero values, respectively. These maps also
have 500-foot and 1000-foot radii drawn on them as a visual aid. With the exception of a couple
of outliers, the decline in values is quite noticeable.
5.3
-------
4000
3000
2000
1000
(V
0)
-1000
-2000
-3000
All Surveyed Sites
Station, Observation, and Blast Points
x
Xj
Figure 5.1
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Feet
5.4
-------
2000
1500
1000
500
0)
0)
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
N
A
-4000 -3000
Surveyed Sites
Observation Points Excluded
-2000
x
x
X
x
X
X
X X
X
-1000 0
Feet
1000
Figure 5.2
2000
3000
5.5
-------
1500
1000
500
Monitoring Station Locations
0)
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
4
X
2 3
M
x
4
x
X
XX
Station Distances from Blast
Average: 943
Std. Dev: 444
Maximum: 1903
Minimum: 228
X
v
.X.
,
X XM X
"
X
X
•< MH
X< ._ 5
' X ,
5 4
X
X X
4
x
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500
IT' * -7
Figure 5. 3
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Feet
5.6
-------
1500
1000
500
0)
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
Total Dust at Monitoring Stations
r
j
4
k
j i i 1
i 0.04 i 0-tW 1 !
1 XI x 0.07 0.09 i i
1 1 V V ! i
-K ^ ----- -0.01 : !
X------^. • '"' X i |
O.UE---. -D.OO !
I /'\ 0.04°$<^ X tj?
0.08-' OJS'.JMK' Q.66 \ 000 !'X I
y o.OsC u.u4^ • c "UP,-9 v x - x i
V- NX'v^' V,'"00a. .---.--O.jO ri^n ^ :
.'x- X. -' ^ -. .- xv1 x n nq :
.'-. -^-i,'-' ~~-s n f 1 u'Uci
I / I/ 0.38^ ^ X X 0 te |
! j > • -^ f X , xx ' 1< n n"r !
I f' j, >< -^ ^ X 'T- 4;^ !
• •' o 1#--| -0-04 I i
\ ', M^f x • !
! \ 500 fl .-'''""^p< / ! j
"%-'^ ;
I 1000 ft ^-' I i
i i 0.08 ! !
1 1 X 1 !
•a« : i
0.10-0.01 ' ' i T7,^,r0*; A
vx vx i ±'igure5.4
I I 0.05 i i
I ix I)
! i • • ! ! ! I ! I ! !
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Feet
5.7
-------
1500
1000
500
0)
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
Respirable Dust at Monitoring Stations
1
J
si
k
1 1 - -f- 1 i
I 0.04 I R;0^ i i
1 XI x 0.02 0.08 i I
i 1 v V1 ! i
-K ^ v 0.05 :
x- -----.. . ••" x i
--''" °^9^^. fi02 I
i x'| O.O&OG"- 'x o'lo I
i y>- { n .j n v xXr • ^ Ly . 1 U j
y'0^ Mfcojj w\ ^ ^ i
r "-"S*-./ V^'tl.OK .X'-U..rl4 ri'in x : i
.'x- X. -' ^ -sx xv1 U. IU x n n, ; i
/ |/ ^ 0,,^ X^ X ^
I ,' I.' X X ' X X 0.08 i
j i --X-* ' : SV i
; ; . aO#^j 0,03 j j '* l
I ,\ Xd,ii ,; I
i ^ i ' ^*O n ic r i !
1 \ 500 fl _,' °^< / ! !
\ " " " ' • -^J.' / • i
i(3So.07 ' "Q'11 i
I 1000ft ^-' I i
i i 0.09 ! !
1 1 X 1 !
003 i !
.SV" , ;
. 1 i U . 1 2
X X i Figure 5. 5
.UD i i
I ix I)
-, \ •: > I : > \ ; ': ': I
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Feet
-------
1500
1000
500
NO2 Highs at Monitoring Stations
0)
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
N
X
o
X^
V"
-K
0
"V
°4
x
0 0
4.2
X
X
X
X;
x>
X Q
0.8
x
0.5
0 X
x; ;
'"'" /o
0.9
X
0 0.4
X X
*
1.4
X
0.7
Figure i».e>
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Feet
5.9
-------
1500
1000
500
NO2 Highs at Monitoring Stations
Zero Values Eliminated
0>
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
N
3.6
X
-" 0,5
X
0.7 "-
X v^
4.2
X 0.7,
:! as
=<; X
-0.5
X 0.5 ,
X /
0.3
X
0.9
X
0.4
X
1.4
X
0.4
iO.3
ix
0.9 i
X 0|.B
X 0.7
i X
Figure 5.7
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Feet
5.10
-------
The extra graph for NO2 values was to see what the data looked like if the very high
number of stations that read no NO2 emissions were eliminated. (A similar approach was used
for all variables in section 5.3.) It is not easy to tell which stations were in the cloud but
registered no NO2, and which registered zero because they were bypassed by the cloud. The
"correct" zeros — those that were in the cloud — may be inferred by comparing dust
measurements at the same station locations, but this would be inexact at best. Looking at both
graphs is a visual aid. We also treated each grouping, with and without zeros, statistically.
Correlations generally improved.
5.1.2 Relative Locations Mapped by General Wind Direction
The best way to compare data from different events is to place them on a uniform basis
for comparison. Since we always strived to place the main station directly downwind of the
blast, the line connecting the closest point of the blast with the main station should provide a
basis of comparing blasts in the same direction of cloud travel. So as another visual aid, we
rotated all of the maps so that line connecting these points would fall on the x-axis, and the main
station location would have a y-value of zero. The result of these rotations is shown in Figure
5.8. All of the monitoring stations fall within an approximate 90° arc drawn from the closest
point of the blast and centered on the x-axis. Figures 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.12 reproduce the total
dust, respirable dust, nitrogen dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide adjusted for zero values given
earlier, but now on a uniform direction basis.
5.11
-------
1000---
5QO-
0)
Measurement Station Locations
Standardized Direction (see inset)
Point of blast closest
to main measurement station.
All direct lines between
the main stati on and the
closest point of the blast
(chart origin) have been
rotate d to fo 1 1 ow th e X- axi s .
500
1000
1500
2000
Feet
Figure 5.8
2500
3000
3500
4000
5.12
-------
1000-- -
Total Dust at Monitoring Stations
500--
0)
-500--
-Tooe-
O.OB
-O.DO
0.30
'§11?
0.09
0.66
0.07
0.04
0.00
-1500 ( -h
0
0.12< 0.03 ni,
Q..10 QdJ
I 0.2B.05
0.16 0.29JL04 °f):]t|Ej °'11 i
0.09 ({|J)9 .0.04 '
O.CJ4
0.09
0.08
_-ODQ
500
0.03
0.10
0.08
d.04
0.09
0.07
0.05
All direct lines between
the main station and the
closest point of the blast
(chart origin) have been
rotated to follow the X-axis.
Figure 5.9
1000
1500
2000
Feet
2500
3000
3500
4000
5.13
-------
1000—i-
Respirable Dust at Monitoring Stations
500-
u_
-1500
0.05
0.12
1106
0.34
0.15 \
0.04 \
"°02
0.02
004
0.00
0.08
°-09
M3
| ' ' 0.1D.10 ;i
0.06 0-10P.07 °f|3 0.12 ;'
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.11 0.09
0.05
0.21
0.10
0.05
0.08
°-05
All direct lines between
the main station and the
closest point of the blast
(chart origin) have been
rotated to follow the X-axis.
Figure 5. 10
500 1000
1500
2000
Feet
2500 3000 3500 4000
5.14
-------
JJOOO-
NO2 Highs at Monitoring Stations
3.6
0.3
500-
0>
' °-5 °-5 \
"X- Jh5 °7 ''<•
1AJ 0 '
0.3'S 0 n
4...3 1 0 °...
1 0 0
0.8'jO
/OJ4 0.8
o| °o
-500--
.10 0.9
0.9
1.4
All direct lines between
the main station and the
closest point of the blast
(chart origin) have been
rotated to follow the X-axis.
0.6
-1600--
OTT
Figure 5.11
-1500
500
1000
1500
2000
Feet
2500
3000 3500
4000
5.15
-------
lOQQ-r
5QO-
0)
0)
^600-
-1500
NO2 Highs at Monitoring Stations
Zero Values Disregarded
3.6
0,5
fl).5
.
-4.2 I
,t)4
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.5 \
•«.
0.7 \
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.71
1.4
All direct lines between
the main station and the
closest point of the blast
(chart origin) have been
rotated to follow the X-axis.
Figure 5.12
500
1000
1500
2000
Feet
2500
3000
3500
4000
5.16
-------
5.2 Assessing the Data by Distance
Although the results from statistical analyses it is still of value to look at the data in this
fashion. The trends all follow the expected patterns, that is decreasing with distance from the
blast location. Total dust decreases more rapidly than respirable dust, as one would expect based
on Stoke's Law. The same is true of NO2 concentrations. But there are enough exceptions and
variations that individual correlation coefficients are not good. There are a lot of variables in
operation in the dispersion/dilution process of the blast cloud that are not easily measurable, nor
statistically isolatable without a substantially larger pool of information and data. We have just 5
individual data for each contaminant at each often individual blasting events, a very limited data
pool. The primary parameters that most logically could improve the correlations are 1) a reliable
way to include and account for wind velocity, and 2) develop a method to account for not only
the distance from the blast site but the lateral off-set from the line of wind direction. We have
not found a way to obtain data good enough for the first, and we do not have enough data for the
second. When one considers that wind velocity is probably the largest single controlling
variable, the correlations with the data we do have become interesting, indeed.
The over-all evidence is clear. Substantial quantities of dust and fumes just do not travel
very far from the blasting sites. If we had been able to place the majority of our instrumentation
at 1,500 to 2,000 feet away or more as was our original intent, we may not have been able to
obtain many measurable results at all. Viewed in this light, the limited station placement options
presented to us by the terrain was a fortuitous situation that provided more data than we
otherwise would have acquired.
Figure 5.13 is a very busy graph showing all of the data obtained at the monitoring
stations. With the exception of a couple of outliers, the trend of lesser values as distance
increases is clearly visible. (One point for total dust, 0.66 mg at 750 feet, is off of the chart.) All
of these values are examined individually in subsequent figures.
Two fits were found for each set of data, a linear best-fit, and then the best fit model was
selected from several different options. These included the following:
5.17
-------
0.6 ,
0.3 S
Oft
6ft
3
Q
t 0.2 S
0,1 I
0 !
tj:
•43,1
All
500^
r™*;
3
1000
Feet
1500
Total E -•• NO2
O.
CM"
O
z
2000
5.18
-------
1. Linear: ,
y = a + bx
2. Quadratic: ; = a + bx + CX
3. Power Law: y = a + Xb
4. Geometric Series: y ~ ax
5. Logarithmic: y = a + b In (x)
6. Yield-Density Model (Harris): y -
„ . L -. C
1. Saturation Growth Rate Model: y =
After examining all four data sets with all 6 models, it was found that the Harris Yield-Density
model fit best, if not superbly (note the fit on respirable dust). Figures 5.14 through 5.17 show
the data, the linear fit, and the Harris Yield-Density model fit for total dust, respirable dust,
nitrogen dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide adjusted for zero values, respectively.
A word of caution about comparing blasting events: Each blasting event is truly unique.
No two blasts have the same quantity of explosives, the same number of holes, the same depth of
drilling, the same drilling diameter, and, most importantly, the same geology. All of these would
have to be equivalent for the shots to be equivalent. Even at one mine where the same drill is
used, on a long contour repeating the same pattern, depth, and charging procedures, there is still
the ever-changing stratigraphy. The spacing may be close, but not precisely the same. The holes
will have slight deviations. And more. Then for measurements at a distance, there is the
changing weather, including wind, on top of everything. In other words, it is very difficult to
combine information from different blasts and be sure that "apples and apples" are being
compared.
5.19
-------
Total
0-4
0,3
Q
_
*•*
O
0.2
0 1
-0.1
500
1500
f
5.20
-------
0.6
0.4
u
"O
® 0.2
Ł2
(8
OL
«T
©
Of
0 1
-0.1
500
10DO
ft
1500
5.21
-------
a.
CL3
f™~
,2
-I—'
S
o
o
500
1000
ft
1500
:
i." i ^ s.,IJ ":* ..! i *., ;
5.22
-------
a,
t
.2
1!
*Ł
a?
o
O
1000
ft
1600
5.23
-------
Summarizing the linear fits and the best fits:
Total Dust:
y = 0.188 - 0.0000989 x r = 0.558
y = r = 0.703
t Of . n 1 eo —0.687
Respirable Dust:
y = O.H3 - 0.0000356 x r = 0.270
y = r = 0.303
**A ff . 1 A i — 0.144
Nitrogen Dioxide:
y = 0.701 + 0.000338 x r = 0.210
y = r = 0.811
' i^» n . it n. -.0.114
Nitrogen Dioxide Adjusted for Zero Values:
y = 1.38 + 0.000569 x r = 0.355
y = r = 0.918
tA n . 1 o f ..0.0489
Note the substantial improvement in the correlation factor made in the nitrogen dioxide fit
resulting from neglecting the zero values.
The main station values provide a single data point for each parameter per event. Thus
there is no real way to compare them versus distance because of the various differences between
5.24
-------
blasting events. None-the-less, figures 5.18 and 5.19 show these values, with the individual
events labeled on graphs. These graphs provide a couple of unexpected surprises. The dust
concentrations shown in Figure 5.18 for events A0727 and B0602 are quite high, but they are
maximums not average exposures. While it would be easy to count these as anomalous, event
A0727 also had a very high NO concentration — almost triple the second highest reading.
Looking at figure 5.19, these same two sites show anomalously high readings for CO. Taken in
conjunction, it is apparent that these high readings are not instrument aberrations. Quite possibly
a portion of the blasting cloud reached these sites relatively undiffused and undispersed. This
conjecture is strengthened by the stations' close proximity to the blast, 550 feet and 460 feet,
respectively. Given the turbulent and chaotic nature of a blasting cloud as compared to, say, a
stack plume, this is probably reasonable.
5.25
-------
Dust
;TI
60
O.
Ł1
O
Z 30
*t
E
15
200'
600
800
Feet
1200
1400
1600
•HB
5.26
-------
900
800
700
iS.600
Q.
§ 5-00
I
C 400
C
O 300
200
Carbon
C.
400
it:
600
eoo
Feet
1200
1400 1600
M co
NH3
5.27
-------
5.3 Assessing the Data by Comparison of Individual Events
Up to this point, all of the data have been combined and looked at as a body. There are a
number of things that are unique to each individual event and would impact all of the monitoring
station readings in similar fashion. Some of them are not easily quantifiable, such as geology,
spacing irregularities, accrued damage from adjacent, prior shots. Others are difficult to assess
in a useful fashion, such as weather (wind velocity in particular), adjacent terrain, and so forth.
And there are differences that are well quantified, including powder factor, total weight of
explosives used, delay pattern, and more. Here we have examined the individual events versus
powder factor, weight of explosives used, and humidity. The values for each variable were
averaged for each event.
As discussed on page 5.11 concerning NO2, there were stations with zero values for total
dust, respirable dust and for NO2. Also as discussed, it is difficult or impossible to separate the
legitimate zeros, ie those in the cloud path, from those that were zero because they were outside
of the cloud path. Therefore all three values were averaged both ways, with and without zeros,
for all events. Thus there are six sets of data for each variable examined, with 10 points in each
set. Then each set was analyzed for best fits using the same 7 models used in section 5.5, and the
correlation for each method was determined. Finally, the correlations were compared.
5.3.1 Powder Factor
Figure 5.20 shows total and respirable dust versus powder factor, and Figure 5.21 shows
NO2 versus powder factor. Any potential trend is not obvious. Figure 5.22 compares the
correlations, and it is easily noticeable that the best is for respirable dust vs. powder factor, and
the worst is total dust vs. powder factor, more than a little surprising. However, eliminating the
zero values from the total dust data elevates it to second-best. Eliminating the zeros from the
respirable dust data actually worsens the correlations!
5.28
-------
0 3
Oi
E
if2
VS.
I T * - V
C 1 : •'•,.-•••••
•
-------
I.E
0 E
vs. Factor
1.28 13 1 35 1.4 J.46
Powder Factor
5.30
-------
Correlations
vs,
as
OB
0,6
0.1
0,3
0.2
01
S
i::;;,..""""*1'-11-- iKfeSt, =»,**•" *''
'i:«sri;:i*
Ceo
5.31
-------
5.3.2 Weight of Explosives
Figures 5.23 and 5.24 compare total dust, respirable dust, and NO2 versus the total weight
of explosives used.1 Once again, there is no real visible trend. A look at the correlations justifies
this initial opinion; the correlations are very poor. The respirable dust correlations are the best,
the NO? the worst.
1 We originally wanted to separate this category into two parts, shots of less than
500,000 pounds, and shots of more than 500,000 pounds. As it turned out, only two of the
measured events would have fallen into the second category, and such a division would not have
been meaningful.
5.32
-------
€4
C 1
C 1
Dust vs.
3.2 3.4 D:S 0 3
Explosive Weigh!. 10*Glbs
5.33
-------
1 4
E
o.
_
f-4
O
Fumes vs.
3.2
0.4 05 B.B
Expo-sive Weig?t. 10ftf Its
5.34
-------
OS
os
07
OS
OS
04
0,1
02
ot
Lin
Correlations
and vs.
„
5.35
-------
5.3.3 Humidity
This correlation was run primarily because the investigators expected to see a correlation
with dust, especially on those days where a higher humidity was associated with precipitation.
Not only does Figure 5.26 not show such a correlation, the high dust measurements were taken
on the second most humid day. The real surprise was Figure 5.27, NO2 versus humidity. Even
though several experts assured the investigators the weather would have no impact on NO2, the
trend in Figure 5.28 is clear and strong, an inverse relationship between the fumes and the
humidity. The comparison of correlations in Figure 5.28 is superb for NO2, especially with the
zero values removed. The correlations for dust are uniformly bad (except for one quadratic fit
which is most likely an artifact).
This deviation from common knowledge highlights the lack of work in the area of
transient blasting fumes. The experts are most likely right if one is discussing the initial quantity
of fumes generated by the blast. However, they have no experience in identifying changes that
occur after initial generation as the fume cloud travels, and do not make allowances for it beyond
recognizing the dispersion and diffusion occur. Even the conversion rate of NO to NO2 is not
well quantified, especially in regard to ambient conditions, although the process is well known.
5.36
-------
Dust vs.
Oi
•
Q.3 C4 O.S C6 D.T 0.3
HurndiHy. %
5.37
-------
1 4
E
o.
0
vs. Humidity
Q.3 3.4 04 OS 0.?
Reialive HumdiSy %
5.38
-------
Ofl
Oi
D7
D6
DJ
C2
01
0
Lin
Correlations
vs.
X Jr „:•'
_••'•>•" '•:•-:
„•*" ,-* .?•*",•••"
p.J- ^.•'•^y-''
Sec
5.39
-------
5.3.4 Summary of Correlations
The following tables (5.2 through 5.4) summarize all of the correlations illustrated in the
graphs. For each variable, the correlations themselves are analyzed at the bottoms of the tables,
listing the best, the worst, and the standard deviation of the correlations. This is a different way
of examining the correctness of the correlation values themselves. The tighter the spread, the
more valid those correlations are likely to be for that data set; the wider the spread, the less valid.
It is worth noting that the values for NO2 without zeros change to an average correlation of 0.726
with a standard deviation of 0.017 (2.31%) if the growth model is neglected.
[Linear
[Quadratic
Power
Geometric
Exponential
Logarithm
|Yield-Density
(Growth
1 Total Dust, I! llResp. Dust, | | NO2,
0 values 0 values 0 values
HkrerarHprl llRpsp Dust II rHsrerarrlprl II NO, II rHsrerarrlprl
0.2547
0.2694
0.2577
0.2657
0.2622
0.2520
0.2697
0.2226
0.5556
0.5916
0.5849
0.5998
0.5934
0.5475
0.6335
0.6249
0.6910
0.8199
0.6128
0.6482
0.6316
0.6736
0.7697
0.5394
0.4410
0.5702
0.3946
0.4245
0.4115
0.4260
0.5138
0.3479
0.4863
0.6270
0.4335
0.4047
0.4175
0.5008
0.3803
0.3953
0.3434
0.4506
0.3226
0.3010
0.3106
0.3538
0.2931
0.3051
Best Correlation 0.2697 0.6335 0.8199 0.5702 0.627 0.4506
Avg. Correlation 0.257 0.591 0.673 0.441 0.456 0.335
Standard Deviation 0.014 0.028 0.083 0.065 0.076 0.048
Std. Dev. as % Avg: 5.56% 4.71% 12.32% 14.82% 16.68% 14.29%
Table 5.2 Correlations: Dust and Fumes vs. Powder Factor
5.40
-------
Linear
Quadratic
power
[Geometric
Exponential
Logarithm
[Yield-Density
[Growth
1 Total Dust, I! llResp. Dust, | | NO2,
0 values 0 values 0 values
HkrerarHprl llRpsp Dust II rHsrerarrlprl II NO, II rHsrerarrlprl
0.3449
0.3524
0.2534
0.3292
0.3429
0.2686
0.3785
0.1718
0.2439
0.4082
0.0453
0.6293
0.2230
0.0511
0.0405
0.1005
0.3395
0.7135
0.5905
0.2538
0.3735
0.5580
0.6100
0.6326
0.4458
0.7467
0.6449
0.1597
0.4751
0.6252
0.6560
0.6724
0.0666
0.3413
0.0405
0.2537
0.0593
0.0447
No Fit
0.1246
0.0844
0.4526
0.1392
0.1704
0.0763
0.1394
0.1368
0.1084
Best Correlation
Avg. Correlation
Standard Deviation
Std. Dev. as % Avg:
0.3785
0.305
0.064
21.04%
0.6293
0.218
0.197
90.27%
0. 7135
0.509
0.154
30.17%
0. 7467
0.553
0.176
31.84%
0.3413
0.133
0.110
82.50%
0.4526
0.163
0.113
69.23%
Table 5.3 Correlations: Dust and Fumes vs. Weight of explosives, 106 Ibs
Linear
Quadratic
Power
[Geometric
[Exponential
Logarithm
[Yield-Density
[Growth
1 Total Dust, I! llResp. Dust, | | NO2,
0 values 0 values 0 values
disregarded || Resp. Dust || disregarded || NO, || disregarded
0.1158
0.1201
0.1230
0.1010
0.1150
0.1256
0.1208
0.1319
0.1934
0.1934
0.1949
0.1859
0.1934
0.1960
0.1939
0.1959
0.2618
0.6310
0.1664
0.1919
0.2408
0.1854
0.3743
0.0744
0.2294
0.2323
0.2365
0.2102
0.2286
0.2391
0.2319
0.2457
0.6959
0.7362
0.7347
0.7078
0.7404
0.7214
0.7441
0.0634
0.7671
0.8293
0.8493
0.7255
0.8310
0.8039
0.8566
0.8430
Best Correlation
Avg. Correlation
Standard Deviation
Std. Dev. as % Avg:
0.1319
0.119
0.009
7.15%
0.196
0.193
0.003
1.55%
0.631
0.266
0.160
60.12%
0.2457
0.232
0.010
4.18%
0. 7441
0.643
0.220
34.16%
0.8566
0.813
0.043
5.24%
Table 5.4 Correlations: Dust and Fumes vs. Humidity
5.41
-------
5.4 Visual Dust
It is hard to quantify the impact of dust as a nuisance. This is a subjective criterion based
upon personal expectations. What bothers some may not bother others. It was not until relatvely
late in the investigation that the investigators decided to try to record, if not measure, the visual
impact if the passing of blasting clouds.
Complaints about blasting dust center around the residual dust left behind after the clouds
pass. They normally involve things like having to wash cars, rewash laundry, the coating that
they leave upon structures, and so forth. At four events, we placed white filter papers exposed
on the ground beside all monitoring locations. After the blast, these filters were sealed with clear
tape, placed into holders, and photographed under the same conditions. Figures 5.29 through
5.33 show those photographs. The main station filter paper at event A0727 was place to close to
a highwall and was buried by 5 to 10 pounds of dirt that slipped because of blast vibration.
These photos indicate that the heaviest visible dust deposits occurred on filters within
1000 feet of the blast, and frequently not then. The exceptions are stations 2 and 3 for event
C0714, which show some speckling, Of the five filters beyond 1000 feet, only these showed
dust, and these were light amounts. Station 1 for this event, at 228 feet the closest station of any
blast, actually caught some large pieces physically thrown from the blast.
On caveat is that some of the dust caught may have come from local activities other than
blasting. There is truck traffic in the area as the workers finish final preparations and depart the
area. The investigators set out these filters at the last possible minute, but in order to control the
timing as much as possible we, too, frequently had to travel by truck between stations. We took
as much care as possible. If such impacts were made on the measurements, they would be
conservative errors; in other words, they can only adversely affect the filters, not favorably.
5.42
-------
. <' •
r\f\f
Main
A0727
Louilion:
I ML-;ilr >n
5.43
-------
L0L:iu.,,, Main
B0816
Event:
hVYVVVVY1'
^ A AA A AA A/
Lacaiinn:
I 1C .11 I-H I
Lucnli on
4
I... .'..I M
-------
Main
Eve ill:
C0714
. ,',', , .'/-, -/,''
f\t W VA./\/\A/V\J
1
•,.• -•-.
Locution
.•••.'••..-
1
'/''./-«•*—"-*"v*v"'
1 million:
I iiL.iln.iri.
5.45
-------
Main
C0726
Event:
! HI.id!on: •*
Location: 2
3
KXXXXXXX
)QOQ(xxxx:
XXXXXX)
ZS
5.46
-------
Page intentionally blank
5.47
-------
5.5 Measurement Durations
The nine pages that follow (5.48 through 5.56) show the durations of the measurements
indicating the presence of fumes. Pages 5.48 to 5.53 are graphs from every montitoring station
that recorded nitrogen dioxide. With the exception of stations 2 and 4 at event B0602, all of the
events are of very short duration, usually less than two minutes. Event B0602 stations 2 & 4
show longer and more frequent exposures, but at levels less than 1 ppm (pages 5.48 and 5.49).
The highest single measurement, 4.2 ppm at event C0714 station 1, the peak was for one
measurement cycle only (1 minute duration), followed immediately by a reduction to below 1
ppm (page 5.51). Page 5.53 shows a sample illustrating a main station NO2 measurement and
why we were reluctant to use them. Even though the highs tended to be in accordance with
highs from neighboring stations, the unstable baseline with the frequent less-than-zero readings
indicated a problem with the unit we were never able to define or correct.
Pages 5.54 and 5.55 are graphs of carbon monoxide readings. Five events had main
station readings of 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9 ppm, respectively, only one of those is reproduced here for
purposes of illustration. Once again, although the readings are high in several cases, they are of
exceptionally short duration.
Finally, page 5.56 provides one graph each of an ammonia reading and a nitric oxide
reading. These readings tended to follow the form of the other fumes where they occurred as can
be seen by comparing these two graphs with the carbon monoxide graphs from the same events.
No readings indicate the possibility of prolonged exposure to unhealthy levels of fumes.
Those readings that are high enough to be concerned for long-term exposure are of very brief
duration, in the neighborhood of one minute.
5.48
-------
2.0ppm
I.Oppm
O.Oppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sampfe per Division
Event AO627a (Station #1)
2:53.52 PM 3:18:S2 PM
Logged between 7/27/OO 2:28:52 PM and 7/27/OO 3:22:3O PM at O:O1 :OO intervals
•I MO2 STEU • NOZ TWA •§ Special
1 .Oppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event AO622a (Station #4)
O.Oppm
A
12:22:16 PM 12:47:16 PM 1:12:16 PM
Logged between 6/22/OO 11 :S7:16 AM and 6/22/OO 1:21:2S PM at O:O1 :OO intervals
NOZ STEL
NOZ TWA
Special
1 .Oppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event B0816a (Station
O.Oppm
3:25:33 PM 3:3O:33 PM 3:35:33 PM 3:4O:33 PM
Logged between 8/16/OO 3:2O:33 PM and 8/16/OO 3:43:42 PM at O O1 :OO Intervals
NOZ STEL
NOZ TWA
Special
2.0ppm
I.Oppm
O.Oppm
Session #3 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BO6O2a (Station #2)
jŁ
3:24:O2 PM 3:49:O2 PM
Logged between 6/2/OO 2:59 O2 PM and 8/2/OO 4:O1 31 PM at O:O1 OO intervals
NOZ STEL
NOZ TWA
Special
5.48
5.49
-------
3.Gppm
2.Oppm
1 .Oppm
O.Opprn
#7 Nitrogen O/OA-/C/O Chart with f Sample per Division
Event BO6023 (Station
3:13:02 PM 3:38:02 PM
Logged between 6/2/OO 2:48:O2 PM and 6/2/OO 3:58:16 PM at O:O1 :OO Intervals
N02 STEL
N02TWA
Special
Session #11 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BO6O2a (Station #5}
1 .Oppm
O.Oppm
2:11:OSPM 3:O1:OSPM 3:S1:O6PM
Logged between 6/2/OO 1:21 O6 PM and 6/2/OO -1:23 O2 PM at O.O1 :OO Intervals
N02 STCL
N02 TWA
Special
1 .Oppm
Session #4 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BO619a (Station
O.Oppm
3:04:1S PM 3:29:1GPM 3:54:16 PM 4:19:10 PM
Logged between 6/t9/OO 2:39:1 S PM and 6/19AX> 4:34:17 PM at O:O1 :OO Intervals
NO2 STEL
N02 TWA
Special
Session
Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event B0619a (Station #3)
O.Oppm
3:18:12 PM 3:43:12 PM 4:O8:12 PM 4:33:12 PM
Logged between 6/19/OO 2:53:12 PM and G/19/OO 4:38:O8 PM at O:O1 :OO Intervals
NO2 STEL
NO2 TWA
Special
5.49
5.50
-------
Session
2-Oppm
1 Oppm
O.Oppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BO619a (Station #4)
3:OO:31 PM 3:25:31 PM 3:SO:31 PM
Logged between 6/19/OO 2:35:31 PM and 6/19/OO 4:O3:51 PM at O:Ot:OO intervals
NOZ STEL
NOZ TWA
Special
Session #13 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event B0619a (Station #5)
1
O.Oppm
2:53:22 PM 3:18:22 PM 3:43:22 PM 4:OS:22 PM
Logged between 6/19/OO 2:28:22 PM and G/19/OO 4:14:27 PM at DO! :OO intervals
NOZ STEL
NOZ TWA
Special
Session ff1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event B0620a (Station
2.0ppm
1 Oppm
O.Oppm
2:57:5O PM 3:22:5O PM 3:47:5O F
Logged between 6/2O/OO 2:32:SO PM and 6/2O«XJ 3:47:57 PM at O:O1 :OO intervals
NOZSTEL
N02 TWA
Special
1 .Oppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BO627a (Station #1}
O.Oppm ' ••••••••
11:25:46 AM 11:50:48 AM
Logged between 6/27/OO 11 :OO:46 AM and O/27/OO 11:53:48 AM at O.O1 :OO Intervals
NOZ SIEL
NOZ TWA
Special
5.50
5.51
-------
1 .Oppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event COT12a (Station #2}
tXOppm
A
3:33:14 PM 343.14PM 3:53:14 PM 4:O3:14 PM
Logged between 7/12/OO 3:23:14 PM and 7/12/OO 4:12:39 PM at O:OI:OO Intervals
NOZ STEL,
NOZ TWA
Special
LOppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event CO712a (Station
CXOppm
A
3:21:46 PM 3:46:46 PM 4:11:46 PM
Logged between 7/t2/OO 2:5B:46 PM and 7/1Z/OO 4:1 4:OO PM at O:O1 :OO Intervals
Hoy STEL
NOZ TWA
Special
Session if 2 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event CO712a (Station #5)
3:1S:07PM 3:4O:O7 PM 4:O5:O7 PM
Logged between 7/12/OO 2:SO:O7 PM and 7/12AW 4:19:44 PM at O:O1 :OO intervals
» N02STEL • N02 TWA
Special
5-Opprn
*4.0ppm
S.Oppm
2.0ppm
I.Oppm
O Oppm
Session nt Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event CO714a (Station #1)
2:38:14 PM 3:O3:14 PM 3:28:14 PM
Longed between 7/14/OO 2.13:14 PM and 7/1 4/OO 3 34:1S PM at O:O1 ;OO Intervals
NOZ Hi
IMOZ STEL
MOZ TWA
Special
5.51
5.52
-------
1 .Oppm
Session #2 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event C0714a (Station #2}
O.Oppm
2:44:24 PM 3:O9:24 PM
Logged between 7/14/OO 2:19:24 PM and 7/14/OO 3:24:52 PM at OO1 .OO Intervals
N02 STEL
N02 TWA
Special
1 .Oppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event CO714a fStation #3}
O.Oppm
A
2:46:41 PM 3:11:41 PM
Logged between 7/14/OO 2:21:4t PM and 7/14/OO 3:2O:O2 PM at O O1 :OO Intervals
N02 STEL
NO2 TWA
Special
1 .Oppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event CO714a (Station #4)
O.Oppm
2:48:OO PM
3:13;OOPM
Logged between 7/14/OO 2:23:OO PM and 7/1-VOO 3:14.O9 PM at O:O1 :OO Intervals
MOZ STEL
N02 TWA
Special
LOppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event CO726a (Station #1)
O.Oppm
4:22:16 PM 4:32:16 PM
Logged between 7/26/OO 4:12:18 PM and 7/26/OO 4:3S:24 PM at O:O1 :OO Intervals
N02 STEL
N02TWA
Special
5.52
5.53
-------
:1.0ppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event COrZGa (Station #4)
O.Oppm
A
4:37:04 PM 4:47:O4 PM 4:57:O4 PM
Logged between 7/26/OO 4:17:O4 PM and 7/2S/OO 5:O1 OS PM at O Ol :OO intervals
NO2 STFL
IMO2 TWA
Special
1 .Oppm
O.Oppm
Session #1 Nitrogen Dioxide Chart with 1 Sample per uivision
Event CO726a (Main Station)
I
n
ft rr r * i w LJ nnrr "? >
1 1 * .*
4:19:59 PM 4:28:19 PM 4:36:39 PM 4:44:59 PM
Logged between 7/26TOO 4:11:49 PM and 7A26/OO 4:52:19 PM at OOO:1O Intervals
N02 Hi
N02 STEL
NOZ TWA
Special
Example of bad main station output for- nitrogen dioxide.
Even though the highs are in the expected range, the inconsistencies
In the bar;ciine mak.e this data suspect.
5.53
5.54
-------
Session m Carbon Monoxide Chart with 1 Samp/e per Division
Event AO627a (Main Station)
7OOppm
=«OOppm
BOOppm
4OOppm
3OOppm
200ppm
1OOppm
Oppm
I
I
2:45:36 PM 3:O2:t6 PM 3;1 8;56 PM
Logged between 7/27/OO 2:29:O6 PM and 7/27/OO 3:25:26 PM at O:OO:1O Intervals
CO STEL
Special
Sess/on #1 Carbon Monoxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BO6O2a (Main Station}
ippm
750ppm
BOOppm
25Oppm
Oppm
3:23:58 PM 3:4O:3B PM
togged between 8/2/OO 3:O7:2B PM and e/2/OO 3:SO:59 PM at O:OO: 10 Intervals
CO STCI-
Speclal
Session #2 Carbon Monoxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BO62Oa (Main Station)
lOppm
Oppm i
.
h 1
J
*^P1
258O9PM 3:14:49 PM 3:31:29 PM 3:48:O9 PM
Logged between 6/2O/DO 2:41 :39 PM and 6/2O/OO 4:OO:59 PM at O OO 1 0 Intervals
CO STEL
Speclal
Session #3 Carbon Monoxide Chart with 2 Samples per Divisior
Event BOS19a (Main Station)
1OOppm
i: 7Sppm
SOppm
2Sppm
Oppm
I CO Hi
3:05:47 PM 3:39:O7 PM 4:12:27 PM
Logged between 6/19/OO 2:32:47 PM and 6/19/OO 4:21:27 PM at O OO 10 intervals
CO STEL
5.54
Special
5.55
-------
s
2-dppm
I.Oppm
O.Oppm
ess/on #7 Carbon Monoxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BO627a (Main Station)
11:21:10 AM 11:38:20 AM 1 1 55.OO AM
Logged between 6/27/OO 11:OS:1O AM and 6/27/OO 12:O1.5O PM at O:OO:1O Intervals
CO STEL.
Special
Session #1 Carbon Monoxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BO816a (Main Station)
ZOOppm
lOOppm
Oppm
-100ppm
3:23:39 PM 3:31:50 PM 3:4O:19 PM 3:48:39 PM
Logged between 8/16/OO 3:15 29 PM and 8/1S/OO 3 SO O1 PM at O:OO:1O IntervBte
Special
GGppm
: SOppm
Sess/o/7 #f Carbon Monoxide Chart with 1 Sanipl& per Division
^ve/?f CO72Ga (Main Station)
30ppm
ZOppm
I Oppm
Oppm
4:19:59 PM 4:28:19PM 4:36:39 PM 4:44:S9 PM
Logged between 7/26/OO 4:11:49 PM and 7/26AX3 4:52:19 PM at OOO IO intervals
CO TWA
Special
5.55
5.56
-------
el 7Sppfn
g-
ISOppm
125ppm
lOOppm
7Sppm
SOppm
25ppm
Oppm
-25ppm
Session #1 Ammonia Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event AO627a (Main Station)
2:45:36 PM 3:O2:16 PM 3:18:56 PM
Logged between 7/27/OO 2:29:OS PM and 7/27/OO 3:25:26 PM at O OO 1O intervals
NH3 STEU
NH3TWA
Special
Compare form of curve to same event curve for carbon monoxide.
3Oppm
2Oppm
10ppin
Oppm
Session #1 Nitric Oxide Chart with 1 Sample per Division
Event BOGO2a (Main Station)
3:23:58 PM 3:4O:38 PM
Logged between 6/2/OO 3:O7:28 PM and e/2AXJ 3:5O:59 PM at O:OO:1O Intervals
Special
Conpare form of curve to same event curve for carbon monoxide.
5.56
5.57
-------
5.6 Conclusions
Dust and fume emissions from 11 blasting events at three mines were measured, 10 of
which were useable. Both respirable and non-respirable dust was measured, as well as nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), nitric oxide (NO), carbon monoxide (CO), and ammonia (NH3). Nitrogen
dioxide, total dust, and respirable dust were measured at 10 points for each event; the remaining
fumes were measured at only one. At four events, settled dust at the monitoring stations was
caught on filter paper and photographed. Results are consistent, but the statistical correlations
are poor. The suspected primary reason for poor correlations is the inability to account for wind
velocity across the measurement sites close to ground level. Surprisingly, the best correlation (r
= 0.86) was an inverse relationship between NO2 and humidity. The CO and NHa highs were
also a surprise. Topographical constraints, although expected, were worse than expected.
Topographical constraints were such that all sites were within 1900 feet, with an average
distance of 943 feet. This was actually a fortuitous turn of events because of the very low levels
of anything that were detectable as the stations approached 2000 feet.
The basic results are presented in Table 5.5:
Dust, Respirable::
Dust, Total:
Nitrogen Dioxide:
Nitric Oxide:
Carbon Monoxide:
Ammonia:
Max:
Max over
Max:
Max over
Max:
Max over
Max:
Max over
Max:
Max over
Max:
Max over
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
ft:
ft:
ft:
ft:
ft:
ft:
0.34 mg
0.21 mg
0.66 mg
0.10 mg
4.2 ppm
1.0 ppm
48.7 ppm
9.8 ppm
780 ppm
88 ppm
168 ppm
25 ppm
Min
Min
Min
Min
Min
Min
Min:
Min over
Min:
Min over
:
over 1000 ft
.
over 1000 ft
.
Min over
:
Min over
1000 ft:
1000 ft:
0 ppm
: 0 ppm
0 ppm
: 0 ppm
2 ppm
1000 ft:
0 ppm
1000 ft:
Omg
Omg
Omg
Omg
2 ppm
0 ppm
Table 5.5 Summary of collected data
(Compare these to the ACGIH TLV's in Table 1.1)
5.58
-------
Maximum measurements were of very short duration. Even where measurements
exceeded thresholds for the workplace, they were 1) of exceptionally short duration and 2)
located within a zone where no individual would be permitted during blasting. There were some
equipment difficulties, the primary one being the failure to achieve proper operation of the main
station NC>2 monitor. Therefore the ratio calculations that we had anticipated being able to do
are not possible. Still, where the main station is close to another monitoring station and the
distances are equivalent, inferences may be made.
We find no indication that there are any significant health risks due to exposure to large
blasts when no personnel are in close proximity to the blast zone. This is the standard procedure
for safety purposes anyway; as the blasts become smaller, the safety zone may decrease.
Vibration limitation requirements result in very small blasts when as the distance to off-site
structures is reduced . Even within 1,000 feet of a large blast, measurements of adverse levels of
fumes and dusts are infrequent and of short duration.
This investigation is concerned with fugitive dust and fumes, meaning that which escapes
the confines of the mining property. This investigation indicates that these emissions present no
potential health problem for the following reasons.
• No event produced any harmful levels of any duration at distances exceeding 1,000 feet,
except one measurement of 3.6 ppm NC>2 at 1251 feet.
• This measurement, and all others were of very short duration.
• Fugitive emissions are those that leave the property; if the property boundary is closer
than 2,000 feet, persons within this area are evacuated.
Quality of life issues other than health, that is the enjoyment of life and the potential of reducing
that enjoyment, is harder to define because of its very subjective nature. Photographs of dust
settling out of blasting clouds do not show significant deposition beyond 1000 feet.
5.59
-------
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 A Word About Approach
When is enough enough? Buried in this cliche is a very real problem. Just because it is
possible to measure something, or measure it more accurately, does not mean it is best to do so.
There were a lot of expectations coming into this project, not all of them reasonable. Would we
be able to determine dispersion and diffusion factors? Could we pick out the quartz? Could we
separate the gases? Some of these expectations were ours, some from others. Limiting factors
on these expectations were resources: time, manpower, budget. Ultimately, of course, multiple
times, we had to return to two basic controlling guidelines: What was the scope of work, and
what were the resources? The two questions in the scope of work were to determine if
hazardous levels of dust and fumes traveled far enough from the blast site, and if they
represented an annoyance that impacted the quality of life. The first is a simple yes-or-no
question, not requiring information in enough detail to model. Simply put, has a threshold been
crossed? The second is a value judgement, much more difficult to answer and even more
difficult to obtain objective input for. And the budget was $63,000.
For much of my professional life I have used Occam's Razor1 as a guide. When I share
this with someone, the most frequent response I receive is, "Ah, yes, the Law of Parsimony!"
This is absolutely wrong, but understandable since many references themselves make the same
mistake, especially internet sources. The difference is crucial. The Law of Parsimony (also
known under several other names) states that when multiple explanations are available for a
cause or event, the simplest is most likely true and should be used. Occam's Razor states, "Thou
shalt not multiply complexities unnecessarily," an instruction to avoid adding unnecessary
components. The first is a statement about the nature of reality, the second is a directive
governing the observer's behavior.
In the scientific and engineering community there is a great tendency to use tools just
known as Ockham's Razor — first expressed circa 1358.
6.1
-------
because we have them. Why measure to an inch when we can measure to a micron? Why weigh
an once when we can weigh a microgram? And more. The broad general assumption is that
more information is better. If this information cannot be used now, perhaps in the future. But by
analogy, it is easily seen not to be the case. Does an individual buying a fifty-foot piece of rope
really need to know that it is 50.002364 feet long? No. Does the mechanical engineer really
need to know that the piston is 5.0000±0.0001 inches? Yes. So the answer is based on a need to
know, the application, and the question to be answered.
I have seen more than one project where basic information, the really important stuff,
was lost in a flood of extraneous information. (And don't forget that added resources were
expended to obtain that extraneous information.) The resulting clutter of data can bury or
obscure the simple underlying principle. There is so much to look at that the simple
relationships just aren't discernable. This is especially true in initial work. Often orders-of-
magnitude for variables of interest are not even known, and thus a good choice of instruments is
difficult. In practice, budget withstanding, the "best" instruments are chosen. However, in a
case such as this, a "tape-measure" approach is best; obtain a general measurement as a starting
point. A decision on whether a micrometer, a vernier, or a theodolite is needed can be made
afterwards with some assurance. This is the situation we found ourselves in for this project.
Occam's Razor has long been an indispensable item tool in my toolbox. If an approach,
an instrument, or a technique does not add either understanding or increased accuracy to the
answer, I do not use it. What is the point of creating a differential model if the rate functions that
should drive it are not known? It helps me avoid this tendency to over-use tools, especially
mathematics, when the underlying principles are neither defined nor understood. Many models
are created that do not produce useable output for this reason.
So was Occam's Razor used here? First, limited funding meant limited instruments.
Either we could learn a lot about a single point, or learn less about multiple points. Knowing
that we would have difficulty in placing a single point in context, we chose to measure multiple
points. With the uncontrolled variables of weather, wind speed and direction, shot confinement
and efficiency, and more, it would have been impossible to place one point in context, and it
would have been at least difficult and probably impossible to compare two points from two
different shots in any meaningful way with all of those variables operating. Multiple points at
least provided multiple measurements within each blasting event. In this initial investigation of
6.2
-------
an eastern blasting cloud we did not even know what magnitudes to expect, an important
criterion for selecting instrument sensors. None of the experts we consulted could even suggest
a starting point. So we opted to purchase as many basic instruments as we could afford that had
the option of changeable sensors. For determining station locations, what accuracy was needed?
Again, with the distances involved, with the rapid changes of terrain within the measurement
areas, and with the variations in plume movements that we expected, we decided that surveying-
precision and the attendant cost and labor involved were not warranted, especially in light of the
time available for station set-ups. Global Positioning Surveys would be adequate; measurement
errors are a small fraction of the distances involved. (We were also fortunate in that the
government ended GPS scrambling just weeks before our first field trip.) How do we measure
the impact of dust on the quality of life? In other words, with real data, weights-and-measures,
just how would one judge these dust weights or size distributions as perceived nuisances? Late
in the project we decided that nuisance essentially meant visible dust (health is another matter, of
course). After all, this is the basis of most dust complaints. Therefore we decided to set up large
filter papers to collect dust and actually see what the dust deposition looked like. And there are
other examples as well. The point is that a simple question was asked about a phenomenon that
has not really been investigated before, and ultimately we translated a limited budget and a very
specific question in the most useful approach possible. Occam's Razor pointed the most direct
path.
This is a very detailed explanation to arrive at the next point I wish to make. We strongly
recommend that a similar but much broader approach be used in any follow up activity. For
example, the largest variables of concern are time, wind, and distance. Rather than setting up six
more sophisticated instruments, setting up fifty or a hundred simpler instruments in a plume
path. This would add immensely to the ability to define the plume, whereas a couple of detailed
points would not This approach would require a lot of sensors, and a field team, not just two
investigators in a single vehicle. But this approach could very well help produce data leading to
the definition of dispersion and diffusion factors. It is our current belief that each individual
shot is so unique that it will be very difficult to combine individual data points from different
blasting events in a meaningful, trustworthy way without a substantial database. Comparing
dispersions, however would be easier. It would take a large number of stations to do this.
Fortunately, personal monitoring devices would be accurate enough to do this and represent a
6.3
-------
real value over research-level instruments. In this case the difference between 2. 4 and 2.8
milligrams or parts per million is important. The difference between 2.44 and 2.46 probably is
not; it is the difference of moving a station 20 or 30 feet one way or another, or difference
turbulence makes in moving one portion of a cloud this way or that.. More than one individual
expressed concern when we indicated that we were using personal monitoring devices instead of
research-level instruments. However, these instruments are accurate enough to entrust
individual safety and health to them and have thus already passed regulatory scrutiny for
accuracy within their stated limits. And the required added research is still in the mode of
having to measure fifty-foot pieces of rope.
6.2 Recommendations for Future Work
This investigation gives an insight into the hazards and nuisances to be expected from
blasting. It is based on a small number of blasts, ten, and data points, six per blast, plus a
photographic record. It is enough to show that fugitives from blasting are minimal, but not
enough to accurately define cloud movement, dispersion, or diffusion of clouds from blasting.
Additional work needs to be done
6.2.1 Information to Obtain
6.2.1.1 Blasting-Related Information
More information points need to be obtained, and not only more blasting events, but
more data points per event. More information on wind velocity needs to be obtained. The
strong correlation between fumes and humidity indicates that there may be greater weather
impacts than originally suspected; data needs obtained under a wider range of weather
conditions, including extreme cold, heavy precipitation, and stronger winds. None of the
measured events occurred during a wind strong enough to move a blasting cloud at a high
velocity.
6.4
-------
6.2.1.2 Non-Blasting Related Information
To answer the quality-of-life issue regarding fugitive emissions for residents near MTR
blasting (or all MTR operations for that matter), the dust in these residential areas needs to be
assessed by source. In other words, the dust that does exist needs to be identified by source:
What comes from mining operations, and what comes from local road traffic and agricultural and
recreational activities. (Several times during this investigation, the PI observed local residents
running on the back roads and trails on ATV's, twice trespassing on mine property.)
6.2.2 Potential Methods
If the investigators had this work to perform again, they would make at least two
substantial changes.
First, we would use helium balloons to determine wind direction. Such balloons would
be relatively inexpensive, and if launched from a blast site would travel in the same direction as
the average cloud movement until an altitude was reached that was above ground effects.
Launching of several balloons from different locations or from one spot at different times would
identify local variations.
Second, we would make much fuller use of the large filter disks to catch settled dust.
These are inexpensive, and a large number could be place in the area of expected cloud travel.
The use of a GPS system greatly simplifies locating them in relation to the blast site. With some
advance design work, perhaps a better way to use these filters, or an alternative method for
obtaining the same information might be developed. An adhesive surface sounds attractive, but
we tried them and they were disappointing; once a thin covering develops, subsequent dust does
not adhere.
We are of the opinion that this work is still at the level where there is a larger payback for
using more less expensive monitors than fewer more expensive ones. Ultimately, the success of
any follow-up work will depend upon having many more points at many more events. Specific
recommendations would include:
• The use of more dust pump placed more broadly around the blast, covering a larger area.
• The use of more gas monitors, not only at more sites, but more per site to cover more
gases. (Our experience is that the individual monitors were more dependable than the
6.5
-------
larger multi-gas unit.)
Use of a method to measure the visual impact of settled dusts, and using this method as
broadly as possible.
Use the same methods around other dust sources, such as haul roads, drilling, draglines,
etc. It is important to map these values over distance, not just to find single-point values.
Use the same methods off-site in the area of received complaints.
Use the same methods off-site and in an area substantially removed from MTR mining,
but with similar roads and similar agricultural and recreational activity.
Use the same methods during weather extremes.
6.6
-------
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
References
1. ACGIH. (1999). Particle Size-Selective Sampling for Paniculate Air Contaminants (J. H.
Vincent, Ed.) (p. 252). Cincinnati: Author.
2. ACGIH. (2000). TLVs andBEI's (p. 192) [Abbreviated reference]. Cincinnati: Author.
3. ACGIH Committee on Industrial Ventilation. (1991). Guide for Testing Ventilation
Systems (p. 34). Cincinnati: ACGIH.
4. Centers for Disease Control (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health).
(1999). Collection of publications. Respirable coal dust - surface mining. CDC (Year is
assumed, not given).
5. Conti, R. S., Cashdollar, K. L., & Liebman, I. (1982, March). Improved optical probe for
monitoring dust explosions. Review of Scientific Instruments, 53(3), 311-313.
6. Cooper, P. W. (1997). Explosives Engineering (p. 460). Wiley-VCH.
7. Dowding, C. H. (1985). Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control (p. 297). Evanston,
Illinois: Northwestern University.
8. Hesketh, H. E., & Cross, F. L. J. (1983). The environment and energy handbook series
(H. E. Hesketh, Ed.) (p. 145). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers.
9. Hesketh, H. E., & Mainiero, R. J. (1997, February 2-5). A technique for measuring toxic
gases produced by blasting. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique. Reno, Nevada: National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health.
10. Lawrence, L. D. (1997). A study onpost blast generation of nitrogen dioxide.
[Incomplete reference information]. International Society of Explosives Engineers.
11. Litton, C., & Page, S. J. (1994). Letter to editor on coal proximate analysis correlations
with airborne respirable dust and spontaneous combustion temperature. Fuel, 73(8),
1369-1370.
12. Mody, V., & Jakhete, R. (1988). Dust Control Handbook (p. 203) [Reprint Edition].
Westwood, New Jersey: Noyes Publications.
7.1
-------
13. NIOSH. (1994). NIOSHManual of Analytical Methods, 4th Ed. (M. E. Cassinelli & P. F.
O'Connor, Eds.) (p. NA) [DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 94-113 (August 1994)]. United
States Center for Disease Control.
14. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement. (1999, 30/11). Air quality.
Available: www.wrcc.osmre.gov/BlkMsaQ&A/air_quality.htm.
15. Page, S. J., Organiscak, J. A., & Quattro, J. (1993). Coal proximate analyses correlation
with airborne respirable dust. Fuel, 72(7), 965-970.
16. Page, S. J., & Organiscak, J. A. (1995, November). Taming the dust devil. Engineering
and Mining Journal, pp. 30-WW - 31-WW.
17. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Research and Development). (1996).
Research Report. EPA/600/R-95/115. U. S. Government Printing Office.
18. Zimmer, R. A., & Lueck, S. R. (1986). Investigation of Quartz Dust Sources and Control
Mechanisms on Surface Coal Mine Operations (U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines No. Contract No. J0348032). Pittsburgh: Bureau of Mines.
7.2
-------
Blasting-Related Citizen Complaints in
Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and
Tennessee
{tc Ml "Blasting Related Citizen
ComplaintsJMountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
Environmental Impact Statement
{tc Ml "Mountaintop Environmental Impact Statement
Segment}
July, 2002
Kenneth K. Eltschlager, Mining Engineer
Office of Surface Mining
Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center
3 Parkway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
(412)937-2169
-------
Introduction
{tc \12 "Introduction}
Blasting complaints continue to be the most common type of complaint to the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) and the state regulatory authorities (RA). Citizens
and citizen's groups have expressed concern for many years that the various regulatory
authorities do not serve the interests of the citizens on blasting damage complaints. As a result,
in FY 1999, the OSM Executive Council formed an OSM blasting team to conduct a national
study. The study was designed to identify blasting trends in the regulatory program states. The
survey did not assess the technical merits of the investigations.
The study entailed collecting and analyzing readily available data in Federal and State files on
citizen's complaints related to surface coal mine blasting. For the purpose of the mountaintop
mining environmental impact statement, 708 complaints from West Virginia, Kentucky,
Virginia, and Tennessee were extracted from the national study. The national study tabulated
1,317 complaints, with 338 complaints at one surface mine in Pennsylvania.
Background
{tc \12 "Background}
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) requires the prevention of
injury to people and damage to public and private property outside the permit area when blasting
at surface coal mines. The regulations specifically address the adverse effects of blasting, which
include ground vibrations, air blast and flyrock. In addition to setting limits, the regulations
also give the RA the latitude to lower to limits to ensure the prevention of damage on a case-by-
case basis.
However, people often feel their house shake and hear rattling caused by blast-induced ground
and air vibration levels well below those levels necessary to cause damage to structures. To
some people the blasts are annoying. Other citizens "feel" the blasting and are afraid that the
blasting is doing or will do damage to their home. Damage is sometimes alleged as blasting
events cause citizens to look more closely at their home after they feel it shake. Many times the
cracks were preexisting as documented in preblast surveys and are the result of construction
methodology, ageing or environmental factors. Furthermore the citizens can rarely identify a
specific blast that resulted in specific damage. In the experience of OSM and the RAs, damage is
rarely found where blasting vibrations are kept within the regulatory limits.
The investigation of a blasting complaint requires personnel with technical training in blasting,
seismology, acoustics and construction engineering. Any or all of these disciplines may be used
depending on the type of complaint. For example, an annoyance complaint would not require
specialized training in construction engineering. But the better trained investigators are more
capable of discussing the impact of blast induced vibrations on houses in terms the homeowner
understands.
-------
The study was limited to data readily available in the complaint files, frequently only the written
response back the citizen. No evaluation of the adequacy of the RA complaint review were
undertaken. However notes were made on the RA review methodology
Complaint Study Data
{tc \12 "Complaint Study Data}
The study gathered data in three general categories: 1) the reason of the complaint; 2) the
methods of investigation used in the resolution; and 3) the resolution of the complaint. The
following blasting complaint data was distilled from the national study for the mountaintop
mining EIS study area for the period 7/98 to 6/99. Table 1 shows the number of complaints by
state within the study area. These complaints may have been related to annoyance, damage, fear
of damage, well damage, flyrock, dust, noise, blasting schedules, preblast surveys, warning
signals, access control to the blast site, record keeping, signs, advertisements, etc. Some
complaints may be from the same person numerous times.
Table 1. Summation of all the complaint.
State
Kentucky
West Virginia
Virginia
Tennessee
Total
Blasting Related
Complaints
263
352
87
6
708
The following general observations are made from the national data minus the one Pennsylvania
mine. Eliminating the one Pennsylvania mine keeps the data from being strongly skewed to one
state.
1. The study area accounted for 72% of the complaints. If the one mine in Pennsylvania is
considered, the study area accounted for 54% of the complaints.
2. The greatest number of complaints were lodged in West Virginia (40%) and Kentucky (27%).
Virginia and Tennessee followed with 9% and 1%, respectively.
Reasons for the Complaints
-------
{tc \13 "Reason for the complaint.}
The reason for a complaint or type of complaint determines the level of investigation necessary
to resolve the complaint. For example, a damage claim warrants a review of the structure where
the damage is alleged and an annoyance complaint does not. Table 2 shows the complaints by
type. Consolidated in Table 2 are the other types of complaints not pertinent to the issues of
damage or injury such as record keeping, advertisements, schedules, warning signals, signs,
access control, pre-blast survey offerings. These were not issues identified during scoping of the
EIS. Some complaints listed multiple types, i.e. annoyance and damage and resulted in counting
one complaint in more than one category, thus the total complaint types (960) will exceed the
number of complaints filed (708).
Table 2. Distribution of the complaints by type (Appendix A).
Complaint Type
Dust and Fumes
Flyrock
Annoy ance/noi se
Water Quantity /Quality
Structure Damage
Other
Total
WV
11
5
278
38
85
10
427
KY
9
7
177
44
110
31
378
VA
9
3
75
8
38
8
141
TN
0
0
4
6
3
1
14
Total
29
15
534
96
236
50
960
The following general observations are made from the study area data. Since some complaints
cited more than one area of concern, the reported percentages are based on the number of
individual complaints (708). Therefore the percentages will add to more than 100%.
1. Annoyance/noise, which relate to concerns for excessive vibration (house shaking), fear of
damage, startle, irritation, etc. accounted for 75% of the complaints in the four state area. This
percentage is high, because anyone alleging damage or water problems was generally annoyed.
2. Alleged damage to structures (residential dwellings) accounted for 33% of the complaints.
Damage allegations include interior cracks, foundation cracks, concrete floor cracks, brick
veneer cracks, roof leaks, door misalignments, windows, personal property, etc.
3. Alleged complaints of damage to domestic water well systems accounted for 14 percent of the
complaints. Most of the concerns focused on changes in the quantity or quality of well water.
4. Complaints of excessive dust and fumes accounted for 4 percent of the complaints. Dust from
blasting travels off site to cover cars, houses, laundry, etc. If fumes drift off site they may cause
respiratory problems.
-------
5. Complaints of flyrock accounted for 2 percent of the blast related citizen complaints. Flyrock
is any material that leaves the permit area either through the air or along the ground. Flyrock has
the greatest potential for causing damage to property and injury or death to persons who reside
near the mining areas.
6. Other types of complaints accounted for 7%. Mostly these are administrative type complaints
pertaining to preblast surveys, blasting schedules, record keeping, advertisements, warning
sienals etc
signals, etc.
Methods Of Investigation Used In The Resolution of Complaints
{tc \13 "Methods of investigation used in the resolution}
When a complaint is received, the RA locates the house relative to the mine and decides if a
violation has been committed. Often, the investigator is the mine inspector who is intimately
familiar with the mine and surrounding areas. Sometimes a blasting specialist is involved. The
investigation can be a simple compliance check of records and vibration levels for annoyance
complaints or a more detailed investigation for damage complaints.
The RA can use some or all of the following investigative procedures to help resolve the
complaint.
1. Document the location of the complainant relative to the mine,
2. Review blast records for the period relative to the complaint,
3. Observe and document the alleged damage,
4. Compare alleged damage to the condition of the structure as documented in a pre-blast
survey,
5. Document the location of flyrock,
6. Estimate the maximum ground vibrations at the complainant's house for the claim period,
7. Conduct monitoring with blasting seismographs,
8. Require the mine operator to conduct monitoring with a blasting seismograph,
9. Perform regression analysis techniques on the blast vibration data,
10. Conduct structural response monitoring,
11. Conduct hydrologic review.
For compliance checks, the investigator does not always document the exact location of the
house relative to the mining. For administrative type complaints, locations may not be needed
either. Thus in review of responses back to the citizen, conclusive data on the number of houses
within !/2 - mile of the permit area were not always available. Based on the survey, Table 3 is a
summary of houses within /^-mile.
-------
Table 3. Houses within /^-mile of the
Kentucky
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
W/in Vi-mile
83
0
45
18
146
Outside /^-mile
43
6
15
91
155
permit area.
Unknown
137
0
27
243
407
Total
263
6
87
352
708
Likewise, for preblast survey documentation, the investigator reviews the survey if a damage
claim was filed. No review of the preblast survey is required for an annoyance complaint.
Therefore the true number of surveys conducted at residences within /^-mile of the permit is
unknown. Table 4 is a summary of the available data for preblast surveys.
Table 4. Availability of preblast surveys.
Kentucky
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Preblast
Survey
15
0
9
9
33
No Preblast
Survey
95
6
22
58
181
Unknown
153
0
56
285
494
Total
263
6
87
352
708
Appendix B shows the items reviewed for each complaint by the RA as outlined in the response
back to the homeowner. The following general observations are made from the data.
1. Blast logs at the mine were reviewed in response to almost all the complaints within each
state.
2. The average number of investigative proceedures used to resolve annoyance or damage
complaints were in 4.3 in Tennessee, 1.6 in Kentucky, 1.1 in Virginia and 0.9 in West
Virginia.
3. Dust or fumes investigations only resulted in a review of the blast records relative to the
complaint period.
4. 54 out of 96 water complaints resulted in hydrology investigations.
5. Flyrock resulted in review of the blast logs and observation of the alleged damages in
almost all 15 occurrences.
These data reflect information contained in the response letter sent to the citizen. The RA may
have looked at more information than reported. But it does indicate that the citizens may feel
they are not getting a thorough review based on the RA's response.
Resolution of the complaint
-------
{tc \13 "Resolution of the complaint}
Each complaint warrants a written response that outlines the finding of the investigation.
Depending on the type of complaint, the letter can be simple (for a annoyance complaint that
discusses compliance with the rules) or complex (if all of the items discussed in methods of
investigations are used). Ultimately, either action or inaction must be substantiated. When
action is taken, the types of violations to be issued and the mitigative measure to be taken should
be discussed.
The following general observations are made from the data on violations written as a result of
the complaint investigation (Appendix C). Often more than one violation was written as a result
of an investigation.
1. 36 violations were issued in Kentucky in response to 23 of 263 complaints (9%).
2. 17 violations were issued in Virginia in response to 12 of 87 complaints (14%).
3. 44 violations were issued in West Virginia in response to 30 of 352 complaints (9%).
4. Zero violations were issued in Tennessee in response to 6 complaints.
5. Flyrock was the only substantiated cause of damage to homes (2 - Kentucky, 1 -
Virginia).
6. West Virginia found 1 case of damage to a water supply.
7. Most of the violations were for exceeding vibration limits or inadequate records.
8. West Virginia issued one violation for dust off the permit.
Almost all the violations issued were unrelated to the original complaint allegation. Data were
scarce or non-existent for cases of damage, whether the complainant was compensated or
whether the insurance company was involved.
Lastly the date of the written response back to the citizen was compared to the date the
complaint was received. Timely responses are generally viewed as a positive factor when
providing a public service but may not necessarily be the most thorough. Each RA had the
following average response time for each complaint:
1. Kentucky 46 days
2. Tennessee 109 days
3. Virginia 25 days
4. West Virginia 16 days
West Virginia had the quickest response time and Tennessee had the slowest. From the number
of investigative procedures used to resolve a complaint as discussed above, the time to resolve
the complaint is inversely proportional to the number of procedures used to resolve the
complaint. In other words, the response time was quickest for the RAs who used the least
investigative procedures to resolve a complaint and lowest for the RA that used the most
procedures to resolve the complaint. This suggests a trade off exists between timeliness and
quality.
-------
Discussion of the Data{tc \12 "Discussion}
Dust and Fumes
{tc \13 "Dust and Fumesl
The data do not indicate that excessive dust and fumes are a significant problem with a
complaint percentage of only 4 percent. One violation was written during the study period on
this issue.
Fumes are either nitrogen dioxide or carbon monoxide. Nitrogen dioxide is visible as an
orange/brown cloud that moves away from a blast area and can cause health problems at low
concentrations (2 ppm). Any visible cloud may be dangerous. Carbon monoxide is colorless
and is dangerous at concentrations of 500 ppm in confined spaces. Generally, coal mine blasts
do not occur in confined places.
Dust from blasting is more of a nuisance than a health risk at coal mines. To date, no study has
identified dust from mining to be in quantities large enough to be a health concern. However,
the dust can soil houses, laundry, cars, swimming pools, etc. While no OSM rules on dust exist,
the RAs sometimes use their state rules on air quality. The one violation written for dust was for
depositing spoil off the permit area.
Flyrock
Complaints of flyrock, material traveling through the air or along the ground outside the permit
area, makes up 2 percent of the blasting complaints. Flyrock has the greatest potential for
causing death and injury to persons as well as damage to private property. No allegations of
injury occurred during the study period. Three violations were written during the study period
for damage from flyrock. However, since flyrock is such a dangerous occurrence, the regulatory
authorities frequently find and take action even before a complaint is lodged. Therefore, the
actual number of events are probably higher than found during this complaint review.
The primary cause of flyrock is inadequate blast design, failure to pay attention to detail when
loading blast holes or changing geology. Proper supervisory controls, training of blasters (both
certified blasters and the blasting crew) and the establishment of set procedures are the best
methods to eliminate flyrock. To protect the public, the blaster is responsible for clearing the
blast area (any place flyrock might be expected) prior to the detonation. RAs have the authority
to suspend or revoke the license of any certified blaster who causes flyrock off the permit area.
Water Well Quantity and Quality
Fourteen percent of the complaints in the study area were related to domestic water wells. One
violation was written during the study period on this issue.
Scientific studies have determined that there is an extremely low probability of causing damage
-------
to a domestic water well by blasting activities associated with mining, quarrying or road
construction. When a water well is damaged by mining activity, quarrying or road construction,
it is almost always caused by an interruption of the aquifer—either by draining the aquifer, or
cutting off the recharge to the aquifer as a result of the mining excavation. Problems with the
quality of well water are almost always the result of an increase in dissolved solids at the well
from groundwater percolating through the rubble zone of the backfill area.
Annoyance
Complaints of annoyance accounts for a over 75 percent of the complaints in the study area. No
violations were written during the study period on this issue.
Annoyance includes, startle, noise, fear of damage, "blasting too hard", objects moving on
shelves, windows rattle, "frightens the children", etc. SMCRA does not allow OSM to regulate
or prevent annoyance. Peoples' homes may be shaken by the blasting, which is annoying to
most people. However, while blast-induces vibrations do shake houses, vibrations may not lead
to property damage.
Both ground vibrations and air vibrations cause homes to shake. Ground vibrations enter a
house through the ground and airblast through the roof or building side. As a result, the house
will respond or shake. A typical house will respond 1 to 3 times the ground vibration level.
The higher shaking is caused when the vibration frequency of the ground matches the natural
frequency of the house, causing it to resonate. The natural frequency of typical homes is 4 to 12
Hertz. In other words, when the frequency of the incoming vibrations match the natural
frequency of the house, the house will "ring," much like an opera singer can vibrate a glass with
her voice. The greater the difference in frequencies between the vibration of the ground and the
house, the less the house responds. This significantly impacts people's perception of a blast. It
also explains why the same vibration will cause a complaint at one house but not the neighbors
(i.e. the neighbor's house has a different natural frequency).
Complaints of annoyance can stem from the lack of communication between the coal operators
and the citizens in the community. A well-implemented public relations program sometimes
significantly reduces complaints. OSM's experience is that the coalfield citizens typically desire
more information from the regulatory authority and the mine operator. The regulations require,
at a minimum, information notices to citizens such as blasting warning signs and warning
signals, pre-blasting surveys, pre-permit public involvement and a comment period for the
citizen to express their concerns.
Some operators and regulatory authorities hold public meetings in order to involve the public
and inform them on what they can expect to experience when living near a mining operation.
This includes a dialog on blasting and the possible effects on the community. Exchanges of
information prior to mining and blasting may reduce the number of annoyance complaints.
-------
Structure Damage
Allegations of blast damage to property were lodged in 33% of the complaints. No violations
were written during the survey period on damage other than flyrock.
Property damage could be broken windows, cracked walls, broken bricks, wall separations,
doors sticking, chimney cracks, foundation cracks, driveway cracks, roof leaks, etc. When
damage is alleged, the regulatory authority is required to evaluate the damage potential.
Scientific investigations by various investigative groups, including the U. S. Bureau of Mines,
has related the occurrence of damage at typical structures to the intensity and frequency of blast-
induced vibrations. The data collected by the Bureau of Mines shows that no damage1
(threshold, minor or major) is expected at ground vibration levels at or below 0.5 in/s. Within a
95-percent confidence interval, major damage is not expected below about 2.34 in/s; nor is minor
damage below about 1.80 in/s. Airblast damage below 134 dB has never been documented.
These observations pertain to typical residential structures of 1-2 stories.
While the regulations specify various methods to show compliance, they also allow the RAs to
reduce the ground vibration and airblast levels when blasting activity may impact structures.
This permits the RA to protect homes regardless of their age, construction methodology or
quality of materials. For example, the regulatory limits at a typical home may not be appropriate
for a historic structure where the walls and ceiling are made of plaster. Since no violations of
damage were found, none of the RAs established a lower ground vibration or airblast level in
response to a complaint.
The level of documented effort in addressing the complaint is reflected in the number of
investigative procedures used by the RA. Some RAs simply respond back to citizens that the
mine was in compliance and that damage was not caused by the blasting. While, the study did
not entail appropriateness of the responses, the review team felt that more of the RA responses
could have expounded on the level of investigation. This would serve the citizens better and
bolster their confidence in the RA.
Conclusions
Both SMCRA and the OSM regulations make it clear that people must be protected from injury
and private property must be protected from damage when blasting at surface coal mines.
Furthermore, the rules provide for citizens to be part of the regulatory process by requiring RAs
1 There are three classifications of damage-Threshold -Loosening of paint, small plaster
cracking at joints, lengthening of old cracks. M/'wor-Loosening and falling of plaster, fall of loose
mortar, hairline to 3-mm wide cracks. Mq/or-Cracks of several mm in walls, structural
weakening, fall of masonry. (U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507)
10
-------
to respond to allegations of improper activities or complaints. This survey identified trends in
blasting-related citizen complaints based on readily available data.
Based upon the results of the survey, annoyance is the most common citizen complaint about
blasting, followed by damage and water concerns. Dust, fumes and flyrock were of much lesser
concern. None of the complaints concerned injury to a person. The survey did not attempt to
discern if allegations were legitimate or appropriately investigated by the RAs.
Usually, a citizen complaint can be resolve in a short time. However there are cases where a
complainant may file repeated complaints and the investigation may remain open for an
extended period. The survey did reveal that the RAs conducting the most in-depth investigation
took the longest to respond on their findings and resolve the complaint. While quality of the
investigation is important, the response timeliness is essential too.
Most of the violations found during the complaint investigations were related to record keeping
and exceeding vibration limits. The only substantiated occurrences of damage to homes were
from flyrock.
Ultimately the gauge of success in resolving citizen complaints is in the response back to the
citizen. Complaints need to be addressed in a timely and sound manner. If the blasting data is
verified and adequately compiled, a conclusive, defensible decision on the disposition of the
complaint can be made. A good report that clearly describes the findings will show the
complainant the level of effort expended in the investigation, boost their confidence in the
reviewer and provide adequate information by which the complainant can go for a "second
opinion" if they are uncertain of the findings. While the RAs may look at the appropriate
technical items, this survey found that blasting complaint report improvements could be made in
describing the effort expended and justifying the conclusions made as a result of an
investigation.
11
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPLAINT TYPE BY REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Appendix Headings:
RA - Regulatory Authority
Rec ID - Record identification number
Annoy/Noise/Vib/Fear - Complaint of Annoyance, noise, vibrations or fear of damage from
blasting
Damage - Complaint alleging damage from blasting
Dust/Fumes - Complaint of either dust or fumes
Flyrock - Complaint of flyrock off the permit area
Water Quality/Quantity - Complaint of change in domestic water supply
Other - Blasting related complaints not in one of the above categories
12
-------
APPENDIX B
INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT BY REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Appendix Headings:
RA - Regulatory authority
ID - Record identification number
Blast Record - Blast records reviewed
Docum. Dam. - Documented the alleged damage
Comp. To PBS - compared alleged damage to the preblast survey
Est. PPV - estimated the peak particle velocity at the residence
Est. PPV to BOM - Compared the estimated PPV to damage criteria of the US Bureau of Mines
Cond. Seis. Mon. - RA conducted seismic monitoring in response to the complaint
Req. Seis. Mon. - Required the mine operator to conducted seismic monitoring in response to
the complaint
Regress. Analysis - RA conducted regression analysis of the blast log and seismic data
Structure Response - Structure vibrations were measured in response to the complaint.
Hydro. Rev. - Hydrology review of water complaint
13
-------
APPENDIX C
MTR BLASTING COMPLAINTS, VIOLATIONS ONLY
Appendix Headings:
RA - Regulatory Authority
ID - Record identification number
Violation Description - Description of the violations issued in response to the complaint
Annoy/Noise/Vib/Fear - Complaint of Annoyance, noise, vibrations or fear of damage from
blasting
Damage - Complaint alleging damage from blasting
Dust/Fumes - Complaint of either dust or fumes
Flyrock - Complaint of flyrock off the permit area
Water - Complaint of change in domestic water supply
Other - Blasting related complaints not in one of the above categories
Blast Cause - Blasting caused the alleged damage
14
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Office of Surface Mining
Impact of Blasting on Domestic Wells
Executive Summary
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (DBS&A) was contracted by the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to design and initiate a long-term study to investigate
possible effects of mining operations on groundwater quality and supply in domestic wells. The
study was conducted between November 2000 and December 2001 and consisted of four field
data collection periods and subsequent data analysis.
During each of the monitoring periods, field personnel attempted to collect data deemed
necessary to determine effects of mining operations on nearby domestic wells, including
vibration/blasting, water quality, and well yield data. Data from the initial monitoring period are
the most complete. Unforeseen issues in data collection and removal of sites from the study for
various reasons resulted in progressively less complete data sets in each of the remaining data
collection periods, and during the final period, only one site of the original ten selected could be
monitored.
Vibration data became more sparse as the study progressed because mine blasting was
conducted at increasingly larger distances from the study sites, compared to the distances
involved during the initial monitoring period. Ground movements produced by blasting activities
were attenuated by the greater distances and were in many instances not strong enough to
trigger the seismographs, indicating little vibratory effect in the ground surrounding the wells.
Few changes that could be directly attributed to a blast event were observed in the water quality
and well yield data collected. Water quality parameters did change slightly over time during
measuring periods, but these changes seem to be unrelated to blasting, but rather a result of
sensor drift and mixing of the water in the well due to pump cycling. Well yield and water level
remained in a constant range throughout each individual monitoring season.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Blasting impact on wells\ExecSum-Wells-4-23-02.doc 1 05/06/03 11:08 AM
-------
Comparative Study of Domestic
Water Well Integrity to
Coal Mine Blasting
Summary Report
Prepared for
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
June 28,2002
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
6020 Academy NE, Suite 100 • Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Table of Contents
Section Pa9e
1. Introduction 1
2. Occurrence of Groundwater 2
3 Site Selection and Descriptions 4
4. Monitoring Methodsand Training 10
4.1 DomesticWell Water Quality Monitoring 11
4.2 DomesticWell Yield and Discharge Monitoring 12
4.3 Vibration Monitoring 13
4.4 Training 15
5. Results 17
5.1 Vibration Datafrom Blasting 17
5.2 Water Quality and Well Yield Data 20
6. Summary and Conclusions 27
References 28
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Study Area 5
2 Typical Terrain at Investigation Sites 7
3 Typical Blasting Activities 8
4 Typical Mining Scenario 9
5 Transducer Placements 14
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2QQ2\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
-------
Daniel B, Stephens & Associates, Inc,
List of Tables
Table
1 MonitorWell Identifiers
2 Quarterly Monitoring Activities in Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia
Page
6
18
3 Water Quality Sample Inventory 21
4 Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analyses, Initial Quarterly Monitoring Event 22
5 Resultsof Field Turbidity Monitoring 24
List of Appendices
Appendix
A Vibration Monitoring Methods and Results
B Laboratory Analysis Results
C Graphs of Quarterly Monitoring Data
P:\9290\S ummaryR[rt.4.2002\Rna!.6-20Q2\GSMStudyTFJ28,doe
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
1. Introduction
The Appalachian coal region in the southeastern portion of the United States has been an
important source of coal since it was first mined in the mid-1800s. Even after extensive mining,
this region today still accounts for approximately 40 percent of total US. coal production
(USGS, 1999). Surface coal mining is an important economic resource for residents of the
Appalachian region and an important source of energy for the United States. However, many
people living close to active mining operations believe that mining activities, such as blasting to
remove overburden, adversely affect their well's yield and water quality.
To date, few studies have been performed looking at the possible effects of mining on domestic
well water quality and quantity. Accordingly, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSMRE) contracted with Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (DBS&A) to
design and initiate a long-term study to investigate whether coal mining operations located close
to domestic wells have caused or will contribute to the loss, diminution, or degradation of
groundwater supplies and/or negatively affect domestic wells and their ability to supply water.
The scope of work for this study included:
• Selecting suitable sites
• Equipping the selected wells with monitoring instruments
• Collecting data during an initial monitoring period
• Training state employees to collect monitoring data during the study
To ascertain the induced effects of blasting and pumping vibrations from nearby coal mining
sites on domestic well integrity, water quality/chemistry, and well yield, DBS&A designed and
initiated a quarterly monitoring program for domestic wells located near active mining operations
in a tri-state (Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky) area. Following a discussion of
groundwater conditions in the study areas (Section 2), this report describes the monitoring
program, including site selection and descriptions (Section 3) and monitoring methods used
(Section 4). The results obtained over the year of monitoring are discussed in Section 5.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
2. Occurrence of Groundwater
Groundwater in Appalachian coal country is obtained from sedimentary rocks, glacial deposits,
and alluvial fill. Most of the groundwater found in the sedimentary, coal-bearing rocks occurs in
nearly vertical fractures and joints and along bedding planes. Some of these fractures are
undoubtedly tectonic in origin and exhibit a regional pattern, but most of the fractures are more
localized in nature and are the result of lateral stress relief associated with natural topographic
development. The fractures tend to form networks that exhibit some of the characteristics of a
water table aquifer, including:
* Water levels that respond to rainfall within 24 hours
• Water levels that do not respond to changes in atmospheric pressure
• Pumping rates (during pump tests) that decrease as the drawdown increases even
though the power supply remains constant
A fracture system may not have a large lateral extent, but may form small sub-systems. In a
study looking at blasting effects on groundwater supplies in Appalachia, Robertson et al. (1980)
found that during pump tests, wells located 35 to 65 feet from the pumped wells exhibited more
drawdown than observation wells only 10 feet away, while in other wells, no response to
pumping was observed.
Coal-bearing strata found throughout the Pennsylvanianand Permian strata are very brittle and
have a low tensile strength and, therefore, extensive vertical fracturing. Coal seams may act as
conduits through which water from the overlying units can move downward to deeper units
(Robertson et al., 1980). Groundwater is often associated with coal seams because (1) the high
degree of fracturing in these strata increases the chances that water will move vertically from
the surface to depth and (2) coal seams are often underlain by low-permeability plastic clays,
causing groundwaterto perch in the coal strata.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Wells constructed in Appalachiafor industrial and municipal purposes may provide large yields,
but domestic wells commonly have yields of 1 gallon per minute or less. This is due to many
factors, including:
• Well locations selected based on convenience of access and proximity to the residential
dwelling it will serve rather than sound geologic evidence
• Poor design, construction, and completion
• Inadequate formation transmissivity
• Inadequatewell maintenance
Wells in the hollow valleys generally produce more water than those located near the tops of the
hill. This is because the water table tends to mimic local topography, with recharge areas at the
high points and groundwater moving toward discharge points in the valley (Robertson et al.,
1980).
Groundwater in Appalachia tends to be high in manganese and iron and often exceeds
regulatory limits for turbidity. Often, water in wells has higher dissolved oxygen than formation
water, resulting in a reddish tint as ferrous iron is oxidized in the well. Iron-consuming bacteria
may also be found in well water and, if so, contribute to the reddish color and unpleasant odor.
The pH of the groundwater is relatively neutral, ranging between 6 and 8 (Robertson et al.,
1980).
Pi\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
3. Site Selection and Descriptions
The domestic wells used in this study were selected by Office of Surface Mining (OSM) officials,
with input by Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky state officials based upon current and past
complaint information. To identify suitable sites that meet the study criteria, state
representatives were to review sites and:
• Identify mine sites that would be blasting at least once a day
• Contact the individual coal mines to determine their blasting schedules.
• Find at least one, and preferably two, domestic well near each mine.
• Contact with the owners of the domestic wells to request and secure their participation in
the study.
• Complete a nomination package that provides the location of the well site, the five most
recent blast logs with plotted blast locations, pictures of the well installation, any
technical reports done on the site, and anticipated dates of blasting near the wells.
Based on the nomination packages provided by the state representatives, five mine sites were
selected for this study: one site in Virginia and two sites each in Kentucky and West Virginia
(Figure 1, Table 1). At each of the sites in Kentucky and West Virginia, at least two domestic
wells were selected for monitoring after OSM officials secured right-of-entry agreements from
the individual homeowners. Only one domestic well suitable for this study was identified at the
Virginia site. The wells selected represent a range of well construction types and proximity to
surface coal mining operations. The ages of the wells were not determined, but it is assumed
that the wells were completed when the homes were first occupied.
Blasting had been occurring near all of the sites for a significant time prior to the arrival of
monitoring personnel and the installation of monitoring equipment. The data collected represent
only a small amount of time compared to the total amount of time the well has been within the
range of influence of an active mining/blasting operation.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Rnal.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc 4
-------
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Table 1. MonitorWell Identifiers
State
Virginia
Kentucky
West Virginia
County
Wise
Letcher
Perry
Mingo
Site ID
VA-1
KY-1
KY-2
WV-1
WV-2
Well ID
Well-1
Well-1
Well-2
Well-l
Well-2
Well-3
Well-l
Well-2
Well-l
Well-2
Well owner
Hylton
Banks
Ratliff
G. Hurley
Sumner
A Hurley |
L. Dean Sr.
L. Dean Jr.
G. Abbott
D. Abbott
The study sites were typical of Appalachian coal country, where residents live within hollows
below coal outcrops, which generally exist where the slopes are steepest. Within the hollows,
residential sites are typically founded on valley alluvial fills and glacial deposits comprising
cobbles, gravels, and sands with some clay. Wells can penetrate sandstone formations that
may be recharged by water moving through naturally occurring fractures in the upper elevation
coal seams and porous rock units.
The domestic water wells at all the study sites are drilled within hollows at elevations far below
mining activity. The photographs in Figure 2 show the typical terrain at all the sites investigated.
Mining activity takes place beyond the ridgeline (shown at the top of each photograph) at the
head of the hollow in which the houses are located. The ridgeline between the head of the
hollow and the mining operations is formed of overburden fill (waste rock). Blasting activities
take place within sandstone and shale formations along mountain contours and across the
mountaintop (full mountaintop removal) (Figure 3). Rock blasting along contours produces
blasting bench faces directed away from the hollow (Figure 4) or toward the hollow. At the
Virginia study site, mountaintop removal has left a pinnacle cf rock that rises above the
surrounding mining operations upslope and below the waste rock ridgeline (Figure 3a). A
typical mining scenario encountered at each site is shown in Figure 4.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
-------
2!a. VfCTI of a holliW in Kentucky.
2!b. View of a hollow in West Virginia.
jf
Daniel B. Stephens &. Associates, Inc.
OSM WELL STUDY
Typical Terrain at Investigation Sites
Figure 2
-------
3a. Final stages of mountain top removal in
Virginia.
Mountain top blasting in Perry County,
Kentucky.
3b, Contouring overburden blasting in Perry
County, Kentucky.
3d. Contour blasting at a mine in Letcher
County, Kentucky.
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
OSM WELL STUDY
Typical Blasting Activities
Figure 3
-------
mountain
top blasting
Blast site
Ridge line
Mountain top
• Head of hollow
domesticwaterwell
T . „ -PSMWEJ_LS 'UQY
Typical Mining Scenario
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Figure 4
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
4. Monitoring Methods and Training
Upon completion of site selection, collection of field data began. Fieldworkand instrumentation
was conducted in two phases. Phase I took place during a three-week period in the Fall-Winter
2000 season and involved an intensive commitment to field instrument installation and data
collection over four consecutive days of blasting at each site. Phase II involved the collection of
data during the subsequent three seasons.
During Phase I, prior to the start of monitoring at each site, representatives of DBS&A and
Aimone-Martin Associates (subcontractor to the project) met with mining operations personnel
to obtain blasting information and general information on the anticipated locations of blasting
during the monitoring phase. Representatives of DBS&A and Aimone-Martin Associates also
visited individual homeowners to assess the nature of complaints regarding well responses to
blasts and pumping vibrations (if any), to obtain previous water quality data for the domestic
wells (if available), and to obtain well construction details (if available).
Following the initial meetings, a DBS&A hydrogeologistaccessedthe domestic wells at the sites
to equip them with continuous water quality and well yield monitoring instrumentation. All
instrumentation (seismic, water quality, and well yield monitoring instruments) was calibrated,
tested, and quality-control checked prior to installation and the initiation of monitoring. During
the Fall-Winter2000 four-day monitoring event, DBS&A personnel measured turbidity and well
yield, collected groundwater samples for laboratory analysis, and collected and analyzed data
from the field instruments. In addition, state personnel were trained in the use of field data
acquisition systems and retrieval of data so that they could collect data during subsequent
monitoring events.
Each state agency assigned an employee to perform the following activities:
• Contacting mine officials and well owners and coordinating blasting and monitoring
efforts at each site
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
10
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
• Field calibrating, testing, and installing the monitoring instruments
• Initiating continuous monitoring at each site (well yield, water quality, and vibration)
during the monitoring period
• Collecting pre- and post- blast turbidity readings at a point between the well and the
pressure tank of each residence with the use of a portable turbidimeter
• Downloading all water quality, well yield, and vibration data from dataloggers and
transferring the data to DBS&A and Aimone-Martin Associates
• Removing all instrumentation from the well sites and preparing them for storage or
shipment to DBS&A or the next monitoring site
Specific methods for each of the types of monitoring are described in Sections 4.1 through 4.3.
The training conducted for state personnel is described in Section 4.4.
4.1 Domestic Well Water Quality Monitoring
The water quality of the individual domestic wells was evaluated using both field monitoring
equipment and laboratory analysis. Field water quality monitoring was conducted prior to,
during, and after a series of blasts at the five study sites.
Field water quality monitoring was conducted using electronic sensors (EC-Campbell Scientific
CSI-247, pH-lnnovative SensorsM11) connected to a Campbell Scientific21X datalogger. The
datalogger allowed for automated measurement at a frequency of the operator's discretion. The
sensors (temperature, pH, and electrical conductivity [EC]) were installed in each well below the
water level. If it was not possible to place the sensors in a particularwell, they were inserted in
a flow-through cell extending from a discharge line between the well and the pressure tank at
the ground surface. Additionally, the turbidity of the domestic well water was measured at the
surface using a Hach2100P portable turbidimeter.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Firial.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
11
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
During the initial monitoring period (Fall-Winter 2000), water quality samples were collected
from each of the individual domestic wells for laboratory analysis of total aluminum, iron,
manganese, sulfate, total dissolved solids, and total suspended solids (TSS). At each well,
samples were collected from faucets connected to the pressure tanks. The water quality
samples were collected in laboratory-supplied containers, immediately preserved on ice in an
insulated cooler with full chain-of-custody documentation, and shipped to Inter-Mountain
Laboratories, Inc. in Farmington, New Mexico for analysis. A duplicate sample analysis was
conducted at the KY-1 Well-2 site.
4.2 Domestic Well Yield and Discharge Monitoring
In order to determine the effects of mine blasting on the normal usage of the individual study
wells, DBS&A and state personnel monitored variations in well yield by continuously monitoring
volumetric flow and water level in the individual domestic wells before, during, and after blasting
events. For the purposes of this study, well yield is defined as the volumetric flow rate of water
from the well during a pumping cycle. Monitoring of well yield helps determine whether blasting
affects the ability of a well to produce water at a reliable rate. A decrease in well yield could be
due to blasting or other causes such as compaction of the material surrounding the well,
changes in the fracture size or occurrence, deterioration of the well due to age, improper
maintenance, and/or biological or mineral fouling. In order for this study to identify changes due
to blasting, an acute change would have to be associated to a blast during a monitoring event.
Well yield was monitored using a Controlotron 101 On flow meter installed on the pipe between
the well and the pressure tank. The Controlotron is equipped with an internal datalogger that
was programmed to record data at approximately the same interval as that cf the Campbell
equipment (Section 4.1). Wells were also equipped with water level sensors (Druck 150 psi
pressure transducers) connected to a Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger to record water levels
(pressure head) within the wells at specified time intervals.
Continuous measurements of well yield and water levels were obtained for a period beginning
one day prior to blasting and ending approximately one day following the tests. The durations of
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Rnal.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc 12
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
the pre- and post-blast monitoring periods were adjusted slightly, depending on the degree of
water level fluctuations observed in each well.
4.3 Vibration Monitoring
Ground motions adjacent to nine domestic water wells (ten during the initial monitoring period)
were recorded during blasting events to determine the ground motion variation with depth below
the ground surface. At each well selected for study, one tri-axial transducer was buried 0.42
foot from the surface near each wellhead. A second transducer was buried at depth, as outlined
below:
• At three sites the second transducer was placed at depths between 9 and 20 feet in
either an abandoned well casings (two sites) or a hand-dug well (one site).
• At four sites, an attempt was made to hand-dig holes as deep as possible to record
ground motions. At most of these sites, however, the subsurface soils contained large
gravels and cobbles, making it difficult to dig holes deeper than 3.5 feet from the surface.
• At two sites, it was not possible to dig into the ground any deeper than 0.42 foot from the
surface. Therefore, no second transducer was used at these sites.
Figure 5 shows the locations of transducers placed in or adjacent to wells. Transducers placed
in abandoned wells were either grouted in place or encapsulated in crushed stone. Those
placed within the ground adjacent to wells were tamped with pressure to ensure good coupling.
Blasting-type seismographs manufactured by LARCOR of Dallas, Texas were used to monitor
ground motions near wells. Sensors were embedded in epoxy within a watertight housing for
long-term survivability. The sensors were attached to the housing using 50-foot cables aligned
with the vertical transducer for ease of inserting at depth. Airblast was recorded using the
surface seismograph.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
13
-------
VA-1
KY-1
weM1
well 2
KY-2
well 1
well 2
11 0.42 ft. I
11 0.42 ft.
1.1ft.
3.5ft.
WV-1
).42ft. I
| 2ft.
11 0.42ft.
20ft.
11 Sin.
11 0.42ft.
2.4ft.
9.5ft.
wv-2
well 1
well 2
11 0.42ft.
0.42ft.
•
+ 9ft.
11 0.42ft.
OSM WELL STUDY
Transducer Locations within oi
Adjacent to Wells
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
5-29-02 JN 9290
Figure 5
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
The following settings were used:
• Ground trigger level
• Air trigger level
• Sample rate
• Record length
• Range
• Lowest velocity detected
4.4 Training
0.02 inch per second (ips)
125 decibels (dB)
1248 sam pies per second
5 to 10 seconds
2.5 ips
0.005 ips
During the initial Fall-Winter 2000 m nitoring p riod, the following state personnel from
Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia were trained by DBS&A personnel to conduct the
remaining three seasons of monitoring for the OSM well study:
• Leslie Bright, a geologist with the Division of Mined Land Reclamation, Department of
Mines Mineral and Energy in Virginia
• Darcy White, Assistant Chief with the Office of Explosives and Blasting in West Virginia
• Ralph King, a Staff Scientist III with the Office of Surface Mining in Kentucky
These personnel were trained in the following tasks:
• Programming and data collection using the Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger and a
laptop computer
• Wiring, calibrating, installing, and maintaining the Innovative Sensors MM downhole pH
sensor
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
15
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
* Wiring, calibrating, installing, and maintaining the Campbell Scientific CSI-247 downhole
EC sensor
• Wiring and placement of the two Druck pressure transducers
• Calibrating and using the HACH 21 OOp turbidimeter
• Installing, programming, and collecting data from the Controlotron 101Cnflow meter
• Using and calibrating the YSI-63 handheld pH, specific conductance, and temperature
meter
Where applicable, the personnel were also trained in special procedures required at some of the
sites (i.e., flow-through setups at the VA-1 Well-l and KY-2Well-2 locations).
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-20Q2\OSMStudyTF_628.doc 16
-------
Daniel B, Stephens & Associates, Inc.
5. Results
During each of the monitoring events, field personnel attempted to collect all three categories of
data, including vibration/blasting data, water quality data, and well yield data. Throughout the
study, wells were dropped from the monitoring program for various reasons. For example, the
Kentucky sites were flooded before the second monitoring event, compromising the wells. The
West Virginia sites were not monitored during the fourth quarter because blasting activities
occurred too far from the well sites, and the Virginia site was dropped prior to the third
monitoring event for the same reason, as well as discontinued use of the well due to hookup of
the residence to a municipal water supply. Further details regarding the reasons for removing
wells from the study are outlined in Table 2.
5.1 Vibration Data from Blasting
Ground motions adjacent to nine domestic water wells were recorded during blasting events to
determine the ground motion variation with depth below the ground surface. Full waveform
vibration data and summary tables are shown in Appendix A for all blast events that were
recorded.
Detailed blasting records were available only during the Fall-Winter 2000 monitoring period.
Hence, this data set is the most complete, with 54 shots recorded at nine wells. As the study
continued mine blasting was being conducted at farther distances from the wells, and as a
result, many mine blasts did not trigger the seismographs.
The maximum ground motion recorded during the study was 0.125 ips. The Fall-Winter 2000
data set shows average near-surface (0.42 foot) and at depth (from 1.1 to 20 feet) peak particle
velocities (PPV) of 0.043 ips and 0.033 ips, respectively. In the Spring of 2001 as mining
progressed away from the well site, the average PPV values decreased to 0.038 ips and 0.029
ips for the near-surface and at depth locations, respectively. In the Fall of 2001 ground motion
was measured at the surface only and averaged 0.026 ips. In no case did the average ground
motions at depth exceed those measured at the surface.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Firial.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
17
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Table 2. Quarterly Monitoring Activities in Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia
State
Virginia
Kentucky
West Virginia
Site ID
VA-1
KY-1
KY-2
wv-1
WV-2
Well ID
Well-1
Well-1
Weil-2
Well-1
Well-2
Well-3
Well-1
Well-2
Well-1
Well-2
2000
FWQ, WY,
LWQ. V
FWQ, WY,
LWQ, V
FWQ, WY,
LWQ, V
V
FWQ, WY,
LWQ, V
FWQ, WY,
LWQ
FWQ, WY,
LWQ,V
FWQ, WY,
LWQ, V
FWQ, WY,
LWQ, V
FWQ.WY,
LWQ.V
Spring
2001
FWQ.WY
FWQ
FWQ
FWQ, WY, V
FWQ, WY, V
FWQ.V
FWQ, WY,V
Fall
2001
...
V
V
—
...
WY
...
Winter
2001
...
...
...
FWQ
FWQ, V
...
Comments
Resident on city water (third quarter) and no longer
using well; dropped from study
No access to wells due to flooding from sediment
pond overflow (second quarter); site dropped from
study
No access to wells due to flooding from sediment
pond overflow (second quarter); site dropped from
study
Well used only for vibration monitoring during initial
monitoring period {well was dry).
Data not received (third quarter); residents refused
access (fourth quarter)
Data not received (third quarter); residents refused
access (fourth quarter)
West Virginia state personnel not on-site to
supervise monitoring (third quarter)
West Virginia state personnel not on-site to
supervise monitoring (third quarter)
West Virginia state personnel not on-site to
supervise monitoring (third quarter); blasting took
place too far away from site (fourth quarter)
West Virginia state personnel not on-site to
supervise monitoring (third quarter); blasting took
place too far away from site (fourth quarter)
00
FWQ = Downhole field water quality parameter monitoring
WY = Well yield monitoring
LWQ = Laboratory water quality monitoring
V = Vibration monitoring
— = No monitoring conducted; see Comments column for
explanation
P:\9290\S ummaryRpt.4-2002\Final .6-2002\T2_MtrgActv.doc
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Frequencies at the PPV also tended to decrease with depth as the degree of confinement
increased. Similarly, average frequencies decreased with successive monitoring periods. The
average frequencies near the ground surface and at depth in 2000 were 17.5 Hz and 14.8 Hz.
In the Spring of 2001, an average surface frequency of 18.8 Hz was measured. The ground
motion data at depth fell within the resolution of the instrumentation and frequencies could not
be reliably calculated.
The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) frequency is a measure of the predominant frequency over
the entire waveform and indicates the frequency containing most of the ground motion energy.
In contrast, the frequency at the PPV (or peak frequency) is the frequency calculated from the
zone-crossings for the cycle containing the PPV. Average values for PPV and frequency at the
PPV by well site, as well as dominant waveform frequency obtained from the FFT are plotted on
Figures 1 through 5 in Appendix A. The decrease in ground motion with depth is shown in
Figure 1 (Appendix A) for the Fall-Winter 2000 monitoring season and Figures 2 and 3
(Appendix A) for 2000 and Spring 2001 combined. The linear trend for the averaged combined
data is:
V (average) = -0.0015 D +0.0421
0)
where V = the average PPV
D = the burial distance
The correlation coefficient (R2) for the data is 0.38.
The average decrease in ground motion velocity was 0.0015 ips per foot below the ground
surface, dependent on geology and coupling. Individual well site rates are provided in Figure 1
in Appendix A. For well-coupled burial depths (2 feet and below), this rate ranges between -
0.002 and -0.0026 (the negative indicating a decrease with depth) ips per foot of burial. The
best-fit trend line giving the decrease in frequency at the PPV with burial depth, shown in Figure
4 of Appendix A is:
F (average) = -0.232 D + 16.7
(2)
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-200a\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
19
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
where F = the average peak frequency
D = the burial distance
Figure 5 of Appendix A shows the relationship between peak particle velocity and frequency at
the peak for 2000 data, plotted on the OSM blasting level chart (1986).
It is difficult to distinguish the frequency differences between surface and buried ground
motions. All data fell between 5.4 Hz and 34.1 Hz
5.2 Water Quality and Well Yield Data
As was the case with vibration monitoring, the data sets for field and laboratory water quality
and well yield were most complete for the initial monitoring period. Analytical reports from water
quality sampling and time-series graphs showing the results of downhole and well yield
monitoring are included as Appendices B and C, respectively.
During the Fall-Winter 2000 monitoring event, water samples were collected from wells at each
of the study sites prior to and after blasting (Table 3), and the results of the analyses are
summarized in Table 4. Generally, parameters were stable throughout the monitoring period
and showed no effects from blasting, as exemplified by the KY-1 Well-1 site. However, iron and
TSS concentrations measured prior to and after blasting differed significantly in many wells
(Table 4). It is theorized that these differences were caused by the stirring of sediments and
sloughing of scale from both normal well operation and the introduction of monitoring
equipment. Laboratory analysis was not performed during any of the subsequent monitoring
events.
The dates and times of blasting events were placed on time-series graphs of data collected from
field water quality monitoring, allowing identification of any changes in any of the parameters
related to blasting (Appendix C). Throughout the study, where data are available, well yield and
water level trends remained unchanged due to blasting. For example:
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc 20
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Table 3. Water Quality Sample Inventory
Note: All samples analyzed by Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc. of Farrnington, New Mexico
* Duplicate analysis performed on sample
State
Virginia
Kentucky
West Virginia
Site ID
VA-1
KY-1
KY-2
WV-1
WV-2
Well ID
Well-1
Well-1
Well-2
Well-1
Well-2
Well-3
Well-1
Well-2
Well-1
Well-2
Pre-Test
Date
11/06/00
11/09/00
11/09/00
Sample ID
Boggs 1
Ratliffe 1
Banks 1a
Post-Test
Date
11/18/00
11/18/00
11/18/00
Sample ID
Boggs 2
Ratliff 2
Banks 2
Well not sampled
11/18/00
11/20/00
11/26/00
11/26/00
12/04/00
L_ 12/04/00
Sumner 1
Hurley #1
Dean 1-1
Dean 2-1
Abbott 1-1
Abbott 2-1
11/25/00
11/25/00
12/4/00
12/4/00
12/7/00
12/7/00
Sumner-2
Hurley-2
Dean 1-2
Dean 2-2
Abbott 1-2
Abbott 2-2
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Rnal.6-2002\T3_WQSmpllnvntry.doc
21
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Table 4. Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analyses, Initial Quarterly Monitoring Event
State
Virginia
Kentucky
West Virginia
Site ID
VA-1
KY-1
KY-2
WV-1
wv-2
Well ID
Well-1
Well-1
Well-1 Dup
Well-2
Well-1
Well-2
Well-3
Well-1
Well-2
Well-1
Well-2
Date
1 1/06/00
11/18/00
11/09/00
11/18/00
1 1/09/00
1 1/09/00
11/18/00
Concentration (mg/L)
General Parameters
IDS
1,740
1,710
274
260
272
448
430
TSS
19
9
3
21
10
4
14
Sulfate
991
955
72
72
72
109
108
Total Metals
Aluminum
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.07
Iron
17.7
0.03
3.48
24.8
3.34
4.17
5.71
Manganese
1.10
0.88
0.44
0.35
0.42
0.36
0.42
Well not sampled
11/18/00
1 1/25/00
11/20/00
11/25/00
11/26/00
12/04/00
1 1/26/00
12/04/00
12/04/00
12/07/00
12/04/00
12/07/00
250
250
700
650
400
380
320
280
180
140
160
130
<2
103
22
26
75
<2
7
<2
<2
6
58
35
7
5
36
37
145
144
109
109
7
<5
15
12
<0.05
0.06
<0.05
<0.05
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0,05
<0.05
<0.05
20.8
67.0
12.9
14.7
28.4
5.42
4.62
1.84
0.89
0.34
16.4
5.16
0.89
3.86
1.51
1.46
1.00
0.85
0.39
0.24
0.10
0.03
0.55
0.07
(O
FO
mg/L = Milligrams per liter
IDS = Total dissolved solids
TSS = Total suspended solids
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002M4_LabWQRslts.doc
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
• The well yield from VA-1 Well-1 remained between 8 and 10 gallons per minute (gpm)
during the entire Fall-Winter2000 monitoring period, unaffected by blast timing. When
VA-1 Well-1 was monitored again in Spring 2001 the well yield was in the same range.
• Where well yields were erratic, such as in KY-1 Well-2 during the Fall-Winter 2000
monitoring period, the erratic behavior did not correspond to the blast timing.
• Water level changes in wells, if any, were very regular and predictable and were related
to household schedules, During periods of high water use for activities such as bathing
and washing dishes, the pump cycles more often, resulting in a short-term lowering of
the water level in the well. WV-2 Well-2 is a good example of these types of water level
changes.
Field water quality parameters remained in similar ranges throughout the study (Table 5). The
data from the downhole sensors fall into three categories:
• Very little change in measured parameters. A good example of this result can be seen
in the temperature, pH, and EC data for WV-1 Well-1 during the Winter 2001 monitoring
period, which remained nearly unchanged throughout the monitoring period.
• Spikes in measured parameters related to household schedules. For instance, during
the Fall-Winter 2000 monitoring, VA-1 Well-l showed spikes in temperature related to
ground water being brought into the well during high use periods of the day.
• Sensor drift. Fouling of the instrument in the well can cause a gradually drifting data
trend, or sensor drift. The slowly rising pH in well WV-2 Well-1 over the Spring 2001
monitoring period is a prime example of sensor drift. The continually increasing pH trend
in this well is not disrupted by the blasts.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-20Q2\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
23
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Table 5. Results of Field Turbidity Monitoring
Pagel of 3
II Site
VA-1 Well-1
KY-1 Well-l
Date
11/05/00
11/05/00
11/05/00
11/06/00
11/06/00
11/07/00
11/07/00
11/07/00
11/07/00
11/08/00
11/08/00
11/09/00
11/09/00
11/09/00
11/09/00
11/09/00
11/09/00
11/09/00
11/09/00
11/10/00
11/10/00
11/10/00
11/11/00
11/11/00
11/11/00
11/09/00
11/10/00
11/12/00
11/13/00
11/13/00
1 1/1 3/00
11/14/00
11/15/00
11/16/00
11/16/00
11/17/00
1 1/1 7/00
Time
15:45
15:50
15:59
09:20
09:40
09:40
10:00
10:15
16:01
05:49
06:04
08:30
09:00
13:58
16:14
16:30
16:43
16:52
17:00
15:20
15:35
15:45
13:54
14:46
15:50
13:58
13:00
16:00
09:53
10:14
16:45
12:59
11:00
09:53
11:35
11:55
12:52
Turbiditv
30.9
61.1
54
30.2
22.7
34.6
30.5
27.7
29.4
38.7
11.3
25.9
23.4
17.7
39.1
61
61.5
46.1
40.1
26.9
25.8
39.8
30.5
68.4
18.3
17.7
>1.000
192
NA
26.3
23.9
23.2
43.8
24.2
21.2
90.9
31.9
P:\9290\SummaryRpU-2002\Rnal.6-2002\T5_FieldMsrmnts.doc 24
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Table 5. Results of Field Turbidity Monitoring
Page 2 of 3
Site
KY-1 Well-2
KY-2 Well-2
KY-2 Well-3
WV-1 Well-1
WV-1 Well-2
Date
1 1/09/00
11/09/00
Time
11:25
11:30
Turbidity
2.59
2.34
11/09/00 13:30 13
11/10/00 11:38 5.28
11/12/00 I 09:03 I 177
11/12/00 12:30 170
11/13/00
11/13/00
11/14/00
11/15/00
11/16/00
11/16/00
11/17/00
11/17/00
11/19/00
11/20/00
11/22/00
11/25/00
11/20/00
11/20/00
11/22/00
11/25/00
11/26/00
11/27/00
11/27/00
11/28/00
11/28/00
1 1/29/00
11/29/00
10:08
16:40
13:10
10:55
09:58
11:36
12:03
12:52
14:15
17:10
09:45
18:50
14:55
17:20
09:25
17:50
16:00
12:57
13:30
12:54
13:29
11:24
12:40
12/02/00 I 10:40
12/02/00 I 12:10
1 1/26/00
1 1/27/00
1 1/27/00
11/28/00
11/28/00
1 1/29/00
16:00
12:58
13:32
12:50
13:24
11:22
20.3
7.59
20.9
2.64
24.2
20.1
2.78
0.99
19
24
56.5
101
2.82
8.1
4.22
60.6
29.80
54.1
30.2
67.9
58.2
54.8
45.2
17.9
25.8
58
29.2
60.2
35.6
37.8
6.48
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\T5_FieldMsrmnts.doc 25
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Znc.
Table 5. Results cf Field Turbidity Monitoring
Page 3 cf 3
Site
WV-1 Well-2 (cont.)
WV-2 Well-1
WV-2 Well-2
Date
1 1/29/00
12/02/00
12/02/00
12/03/00
12/04/00
12/05/00
12/03/00
12/04/00
12/05/00
Time
12:30
10:40
12:10
12:40
11:50
Turbiditv
9.3
9.22
11.1
2.28
3.45
11:30 I 9.69
12:45
11:50
81.6
39.9
11:30 I 45.2 II
PA9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Rnal.6-2002\T5_FieldMsrmnts.doc 26
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
6. Summary and Conclusions
DBS&A was contracted by the OSMRE to design and initiate a long-term study to investigate
possible effects of mining operations on groundwater quality and supply in domestic wells. The
study was conducted between November 2000 and December 2001 and consisted of four field
data collection periods and subsequent data analysis.
During each of the monitoring periods, field personnel attempted to collect data deemed
necessary to determine effects of mining operations on nearby domestic wells, including
vibration/blasting, water quality, and well yield data. Data from the initial monitoring period are
the most complete. Unforeseen issues in data collection and removal of sites from the study for
various reasons resulted in progressively less complete data sets in each of the remaining data
collection periods, and during the final period, only one site of the original nine selected could be
monitored.
Vibration data became more sparse as the study progressed because mine blasting was
conducted at increasingly larger distances from the study sites. Ground movements produced
by blasting activities were attenuated by the greater distances and were in many instances not
strong enough to trigger the seismographs, indicating little vibratory effect in the ground
surrounding the wells. No adverse impacts to domestic water wells from surface coal mine
blasting were measured during this study. This lack of impact is valid for peak surface ground
motions that fall within 0.125 ips (the maximum ground motion recorded at the surface during
the study).
Few changes that could be directly attributed to a blast event were observed in the water quality
and well yield data collected. Water quality parameters did change slightly over time during
measuring periods, but none of these changes seem to be related to blasting, but appeared
instead to be the result of sensor drift and mixing of the water in the well due to pump cycling.
Well yield and water level remained in a constant range throughout each individual monitoring
season.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
27
-------
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
References
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1999. Coal resource assessment in the northern and central
Appalachian coal region. USGS Fact Sheet 115-99. October 1999.
Office of Surface Mining. 1986. Federal RegisterCite: 51 FR 19444(19461).
Robertson D.A., J.A. Gould, J.A. Straw, and M.A. Dayton. 1980. Survey of blasting effects on
ground water supplies in Appalachia. Prepared by Philip R. Berger & Associates,
Bradfordwoods, Pennsylvania. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. November 1980.
P:\9290\SummaryRpt.4-2002\Final.6-2002\OSMStudyTF_628.doc
28
-------
Appendix A
Vibration Monitoring
Methods and Results
-?:-4i
c ** *
"m^
-------
Ground Motions Measurements Adjacent to Domestic Water Wells
Ground motions adjacent to nine domestic water wells were recorded during blasting events to
determine the ground motion variation with depth below the ground surface. At each well
selected for study, one tri-axial transducer was buried 0.42 ft. from the surface near each
wellhead. A second transducer was buried at depth.
Two abandoned well casings and one hand-dug well were used to place transducers at
depths between 9 and 20 ft. At four wells, an attempt was made to hand-dig holes as deep as
possible to record ground motions. At most sites, the subsurface soils contained large gravels and
cobbles, making it difficult to dig holes deeper than 3.5 ft. from the surface. At two sites, it was
not possible to dig into the ground any deeper than 0.42 ft from the surface. Therefore, no second
transducer was used at these two wells,
During the initial monitoring period in 2000, detailed information on the blasting
activities were obtained from the mine operators. The distances from the blasting site to the wells
ranged 1293 ft. to 5140 ft. away and averaged 2607 ft. Charge weights used for blasting ranged
from 126to 2076 Ibs. per 8 ms (rnilliscondj delay. The scaled distances ranged from 56 to 343
ft./lbs.1/2.
Seismograph Equipment
Blasting-type seismographs, manufactured by LARCOR or Dallas, Texas, were used to monitor
ground motions near wells. Sensors were embedded in epoxy within a water-tight housing for
long-term survivability. Fifty-foot cables were used and attached to the housing aligned with the
vertical geophone for ease of inserting at depth. Airblast was recorded using the surface
seismograph.
Figure (1) shows the locations of geophones placed in or adjacent to wells. Geophones
placed in abandoned wells were either grouted in place or encapsulated in crushed stone.
Geophones placed within the ground adjacent to wells were tamped with pressure to ensure good
coupling.
The following settings were used:
Ground trigger level
Air trigger level
Sample rate
Record length
Range
Lowest velocity detected
0.02 ips
125dB
1248 samples/sec.
5 to 10 sec,
2.5 ips
0.005 ips
Results
Vibration Data from Blasting
Full waveform vibration data are shown in Volume II for all blast events that were recorded.
Tables (1) through (4) summarize the seismographs data recorded during fall-winter 2000, spring
2001, fall 2001, and winter 2001, respectively. Peak particle velocity (PPV), in ips (inches per
-------
second), the frequency at the PPV, in Hz (Hertz), and the airblast, in dB (decibels) are given.
Detailed blasting records were available only during the fall-winter 2000 monitoring period.
Hence, Table (1) provides information on distances from the blast to the seismographs,
maximum pounds per 8 ms delay and scaled distance. This data set is the most complete with 54
shots recorded at nine wells. Subsequent monitoring periods were not as complete due to the loss
of in Kentucky site KY-1 and Virginia as previously explained, Difficulties fielding equipment
contributed to smaller data sets in the 2001 monitoring periods. Additionally, mine blasting was
being conducted at farther distances from the wells during 2001, compared to the distances
involved during the initial 2000 monitoring period, as mining moved away from the study sites.
As such, many of the mine blasts did not trigger the seismographs.
The extensive 2000 data set shows average near-surface (0.42 ft.) and at depth (from 1.1
to 20 ft.) peak particle velocities (PPV) of 0.043 ips and 0.033 ips, respectively. In the spring of
2001 as mining progressed away from the well site, the average PPV values were 0.038 ips and
0.029 ips for the near-surface and at depth locations, respectively. The maximum ground motion
recorded at the surface was 0.125 ips. In the fall of 2001, only surface measurements were taken.
These averaged 0.026 ips, less than the average in 2000. In all cases, a decrease in average
ground motions with depth was measured. In no case did ground motions at depth exceed those
measured at the surface.
Frequencies at the PPV also tended to decrease with depth as the degree of confinement
increased. Similarly, average frequencies decreased with successive monitoring periods. The
average frequencies near the ground surface and at depth in 2000 were 17.5Hz and 14.8 Hz. In
the spring of 2001, an average surface frequency of 18.8 Hz was measured. The ground motion
data at depth fell within the resolution of the instrumentation and frequencies could not be
reliably calculated.
Average values for PPV and frequency at the PPV by well site are given in Tables (5)
through (8). The dominant waveform frequency obtained from the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
is also shown. The FFT frequency is a measure of the predominant frequency over the entire
waveform and indicates the frequency containing most of the ground motion energy. In contrast,
the frequency at the PPV (or peak frequency) is the frequency calculated from the zone-crossings
for the cycle containing the PPV.
Data contained in these tables are plotting in Figures (1) through (5).The decrease in
ground motion with depth is shown in Figure (1) for the initial monitoring season (2000) and
Figures (2) and (3) for 2000 and spring 2001 combined. The linear trend for the averaged
combined data is
V (average) = -0.0015 D+0.0421 ( )
where V is the average PPV, in ips, and D is the burial distance, in ft. The correlation coefficient
(R2) for the data is 0.38. The best-fit line through the data indicates that an average decrease in
ground motion velocity of 0.0015 ips occurs per foot of depth below the ground surface. The rate
of decrease is dependent on geology and coupling. Individual well site rates are given in Figure
(1). For well-coupled burials depths (2 ft. and below), this rate ranges between -0.002 and
-0.0026 (the negative indicating a decrease with depth) ips per ft. of burial.
-------
0.10
0.08
O
3
w
I 0.06
O
Q
§ 0.04
O
OL
CD
HI
CD
2
w
a
0.02
0.00
10
DEPTH OF BURIAL (ft)
• VA-1
• KY-1welM
KY-1weM2
AKY-2welM
• WV-1 welM
OWV-1 well 2
»WV-2welM
-0.0026
20
Figure (1)
Average ground motion velocity versus depth of burial for fall-winter 2000 data
showing the rate of decrease in ground motion velocity with depth
O
3
g
o
o
a
z
3
K
W
CD
W
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
a FALL-WINTER 2000
o SPRJNG 2001
10
DEPTH OF BURIAL (ft)
20
Figure (2)
Average ground motion velocity versus depth of burial for fall-winter 2000 and
spring 2001
-------
0.10
jn
c
o
O
LLI
o
g
O
OL
O
LLI
(5
Ł
LLI
0.06
0.04
0.02 -
0.00
V =-0.00150+0.0421
R2 = 0,38
10
DEPTH OF BURIAL (ft)
20
Figure (2) Average ground motion velocity versus depth of burial for fall-winter 2000 and
spring 2001
0.
0.
UJ
<
o
m
O
UJ
30
25
20-
15-
* 10
LLI
UJ
5-
F=-0.232 D + 16.7
R2 = 0.06
10
DEPTH OF BURIAL (ft)
20
Figure (4) Average peak frequency versus depth of burial for fall-winter 2000 and
spring 2001
-------
OSM safe blasting limits for structures (solid
• Ground Surface FEE
o Depth
100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
Figure (5) Peak particle velocity versus peak frequency for 2000 data
The best-fit trend line giving the decrease in frequency at the PPV with burial depth,
shown in Figure (4), is
F (average) = - 0.232 D + 16.7 ( )
where F is the average peak frequency, in Hz, and D is the burial distance, in ft.
Figure (5j shows the relationship between peak particle velocity and frequency at the
peak for 2000 data, plotted on the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) blasting- level chart (1986).
It is difficult to distinguish the frequency differences between surface and buried ground
motions. All data fell between 5.4 Hz and 34.1 Hz
VibrationData from WellPumping
Well pumping did not produce detectable ground motions. The geophone placed in WV-1 well 2
at 20 ft. depth did not trigger during the 2000 monitoring period. All other geophones at depth
were placed in dry (abandoned) wells or in the ground near the pumping well. It is expected that
ground water pumping may produce localized ground motions that are well below the detectable
limits of blasting seismographs. Hence no motion data was recorded.
References
Office of Surface Mining, (1986) Federal Register Cite: 51FR 19444 (19461)
-------
Table Summary of shot records and vibration and airblast monitoring at wells during the fall and winter of 2000
Well
location
KY-1
welM
KV-1
well 2
KV-2
well 1
KV-2
well 2
wv-1
well!
wv-1
well 2
wv-2
well 1
wv-2
well 2
Shot
Date
11/6/00
1 1/7/00
1 1/8/00
1 1/9/00
11/10/00
11/11/00
1 1/1 3/00
11/14/00
11/15/00
11/16/00
11/16/00
11/17/00
11/17/00
11/13/00
11/14/00
11/15/00
11/16/00
11/16/00
11/17/00
11/17/00
11/20/00
1 1/20/00
11/20/00
11/21/00
11/21/00
11/21/00
11/22/00
11/20/00
1 1/20/00
11/21/00
1 1/21/00
11/21/00
11/21/00
1 1/22/00
1 1/27/00
11/28/00
11/29/00
1 1/30/00
1 1/27/00
11/28/00
11/39/00
1 1/30/00
12/4/00
1Z/4/00
12/5/00
12/5/00
1Z/5/00
12/6/00
12/6/00
12/7/00
12/5/00
12/5/00
12/6/00
12/7/00
Time
16:57
16:41
16:45
12:55
13:20
14:46
16:04
16:18
11:49
9:07
16:00
12:15
12:34
16:04
16:18
11:49
9:07
16:00
12:15
12:34
13:03
16:08
16:45
14:37
15:35
16:43
10:13
10:32
16:09
14:38
15:35
16:41
16:43
10:14
16:56
17:03
9:51
11:53
16:01
17:05
9:56
11:58
12:23
17:01
13:05
16:51
16:52
12:22
16:4B
12:13
12:05
16:53
16:50
12:13
Distance
(«)
1293
1380
1293
1380
1353
1298
4800
5000
2020
5140
2240
1B30
2020
4760
4880
2200
5020
2420
1720
2310
2000
2010
2380
2110
1560
3720
1960
4640
1810
1960
1740
3B10
2500
2210
2500
2230
4300
3880
2600
2310
3960
3980
1710
2240
2440
2070
2520
2460
1560
2460
2520
2130
1630
2520
Charge
Weight per
Delay
(Ib)
337
361
361
313
361
361
684
936
828
1026
414
936
1044
684
936
828
1026
414
936
1044
274
495
211
274
211
807
678
1B3
495
274
211
808
209
678
1037
126
2076
2076
1037
126
2076
2076
481
415
973
625
901
901
452
793
973
625
452
793
Distance
(ft/lb10)
70.4
72.6
68.1
78.0
71.2
68,3
183.5
163.4
70.2
180.5
110.1
598
62.5
182.0
159.5
76.5
156.7
118.9
56.2
71.5
120.8
90.3
163.8
127.5
107.4
131.0
75.3
343.0
81.4
118.4
119.8
134,0
172.9
84.9
77,6
198.7
94,4
85.2
80.7
205.8
86.9
87.4
78,0
110.0
78.2
82.8
84.0
82.0
73.4
87,4
80.8
85.2
76,7
89.5
GROUND MOTION AND AIRBLAST
UNIT
1181
1181
1181
1181
1181
1181
804
804
804
804
804
804
804
849
849
849
849
849
849
849
849
849
849
849
849
349
849
804
804
804
804
804
804
804
1782
1782
1782
1782
1780
1780
1780
1780
1782
1782
1782
1782
1782
1782
1782
1782
1779
1779
1779
1779
Peak
Particle
Velocity
(In/sec)
0.04
NO
0.045
0.055
0.055
0.045
0.030
0.025
0,055
0.020
0.025
0.025
0.065
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.025
0.025
0.025
0,04
0.025
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.045
0.045
0.030
0.02
0.035
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.07
NO
0.055
0.065
0.095
0.020
0.090
0.070
0.125
0.085
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.085
0.035
0.030
0.030
0.060
0.020
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
12,8
TRIGGER
13.4
19.6
13.8
8.9
24.3
13.4
20.4
10.6
10.8
12.1
6.0
21.3
16.0
11.9
17.6
11.6
20.4
18.9
6.7
23.2
28.4
32.0
14.2
2B.4
8
14.6
16
16
13.4
14.6
21,3
11.1
11.1
TRIGGER
14.2
13.4
11.9
14.6
14.6
14.2
18.9
24.3
28.4
22.2
34,1
25.6
19.6
20.4
18.9
32
24.3
16.5
Airblast
(dB)
118
117
119
118
126
100
106
112
106
110
110
120
<100
106
112
100
106
110
118
114
119
100
114
110
100
110
100
120
118
116
110
110
114
117
110
110
122
114
110
112
112
112
116
116
112
112
114
106
117
116
117
110
AT DEPTH
Geophone
Depth
(")
1 1
3.5
2.4
9.5
UNIT
1180
1180
1180
1180
1180
1180
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
853
853
853
853
853
853
853
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
Peak
Particle
Velocity
(In/sec)
0,04
0.02
0.04
0.045
0.055
0.045
NO
0.020
NO
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.060
0.025
l_ °-025
0.035
0.02
0.025
0.02
0.035
0.025
0.02
NO
NO
0.025
NO
0,025
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
11.9
15
13.8
19,6
13.8
9.1
TRIGGER
16
TRIGGER
14.2
15
11.6
7.1
22.2
12.8
11.1
20.4
11.1
15
7.8
5.9
16.5
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
12.1
TRIGGER
5.4
NOT MONITORED
20
200
90
1781
1781
1781
1781
1779
1779
1779
1779
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
0.065
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.025
NO
0.015
0.015
0.07
0.045
0.03
0.035
NO
0.015
0.06
0.025
16.5
13.1
13,4
13.8
10.8
TRIGGER
23.2
21.3
25,6
15.5
TRIGGER
21.3
22,2
18.9
NOT MONITORED
-------
Table Summary of vibration and airblast monitoring at wells during the spring of 2001
KY-1
KY-2
WV-1
well 1
WV-1
well 2
WV-2
well 1
WV-2
well 2
GROUND MOTION AND AIRBLAST
UNIT
Peek
particle
Velocity
(In/sec)
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
Airblast
(dB)
AT DEPTH
Geophone
Depth
(«)
UNIT
Peak
Velocity
(In/sec)
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
resident on cltv water- no lonaer usina well
site flooded from sediment pond overflow - no access to wells
seismographs did not trigger for 15 shots (trigger level not indicated)
4/3/01
4/3/01
4/3/01
4/4/01
4/5/01
4/6/01
4/6/01
4/9/01
4/9/01
4/10/01
4/10101
4111/01
4/12/01
4/12/01
4/13/01
4/2/01
4/3/01
4/3/01
4/4/01
4/5/01
4/6/01
4/6/01
4/9/01
4/10/01
4/11/01
4/12/01
4/12/01
4/12/01
4/13/01
4/16/01
4/18/01
4/18/01
4/19/01
4/19/01
4/16/01
4/18/01
8:41
13:51
17:06
11:20
10:34
10:22
15:43
12:41
16:35
15:45
16:53
9:57
10:37
12:22
10:30
8:38
13:48
17:03
11:18
10:31
10:19
15:40
12:39
15:42
9:54
10:35
12:20
17:02
10:27
16:50
16:51
16:54
8:55
16:52
16:49
16:50
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1779
1781
1781
1781
1781
1781
1779
1779
0.03
0.03
0.025
0.05
0.055
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.025
0.045
0,035
0.025
0.035
0.03
0.035
0,025
0.035
0.025
0.045
0.080
0.055
0.055
0.035
0.035
0.005
0.030
0.030
0.025
0.040
0.075
0.035
0.03
0.035
0.025
0.035
0.025
12.1
15
10.8
12.8
16
12.1
13.8
14.2
12.8
142
13.4
8.6
11.6
14.2
11.9
15.5
14,2
13.1
11.9
14.2
13.8
14,6
13.1
18.2
12.8 '
14.2
13.4
12.8
32
10.8
22.2
24.3
12.4
30.1
25.6
114
110
114
110
106
106
112
114
110
116
100
116
114
114
112
114
110
118
110
106
106
114
116
118
119
119
116
118
114
110
116
106
110
106
112
118
2.0
20.0
9.0
na
1782
—
0.025
12.4
TRIGGER
1782 0.045
1782
1782
1782
1782
1782
, 1782
1782
1782
17S2
1782
1782
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1782
1782
1782
1782
1782
1780
1780
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.03
NO
0.04
0.035
NO
0.03
0.03
0.03
NO
NO
0.005
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.005
0.005
0.005
NO
0.005
NO
0.04
NO
0.025
0.025
NO
0.03
NO
,T
12.4
13.4
15.5
TRIGGER
13.8
14.2
TRIGGER
13.8
12.4
12.1
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
22.2
TRIGGER
10.4
22.2
TRIGGER
34.1
TRIGGER
not
available
-------
Well
location
VA-1
KY-1
KY-2
well 2
KY-2
well 3
Shot
Date
Time
UNIT
Peak
^Sclly
(in/sec)
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
Alrblast
(dB)
Geophone
Depth
(ft)
resident on city water - no longer using well
Peak
.|T Particle
Velocity
(In/sec)
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
site flooded from sediment pond overflow - no access to wells
9/21/01
9/24/01
9/25/01
3/25/01
9/21/01
9/22/01
14:25
13:53
12:37
15:44
10:32
11:43
809
809
809
809
813
813
0.020 I 14.2
0.030
0.030
0.025
0.03
0.02
14.6
11.6
23.2
9.4
16.5
125
100
<100
116
118
106
NOT MONITORED
NOT MONITORED
-------
Table Summary of vibration and airblast monitoring at wells during the winter of 2001
Well
location
VA-1
KY-1
KY-2
wv-1
well I
WV-1
well 2
WV-2
well 11
WV-2
well 2
Shot
Date
Time
GROUND MOTION AND AIRBLAST
UNIT
Peak
Particle
Velocity
(in/sec)
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
Airblast
(dB)
AT DEPTH
Geophone
Depth
(ft)
UNIT
Peak
Particle
Velocity
(in/sec)
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
resident on city water- no longer using well
site flooded from sediment pond overflow • no accessto wells
seismographs did nottrlqqer for 15 shots (trigger level not Indicated)
well not monitored -transducer at depth missing (NOTHING IN BUDROW'S NOTES!!)
12/4/01
12/5/01
12/5/01
16:44
16:46
16:50
1769
1769
1769
0.033
0.033
0.053
13.4
15.5
16
106
110
114
20.0
1905
1905
1905
NO
NO
NO
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
well not monitored
well not monitored
-------
Table Average ground motion, airblast and frequency values for wells measured during the fall of 2001
SITE
VA-1
KY-1
KY-2
WV-1
WV-2
WELL
welM
welH
well 2
well-1
well-2
well 3
welM
well 2
well 1
well-2
FALL 2001
Surface
Peak Particle Peak
Velocity Frequency
(ips) (Hz)
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
resident on city
I
.... .1 Peak PŁ
Airblast 1 Veloc
(dB) | (ips
At Depth
irticle Peak I FFT
:ity Frequency I Frequency
) (Hz) | (Hz)
water - no longer using well
site flooded from sediment pond overflow - no access to wells
deep transducer cable cut
0.026 15.9
0.025 13.0
8.7
NA
114
112
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
NA not available; data within the resolution of the seismograph and frequencies cannot be reliably calculated
-------
VA-1
11 0.42ft.
1.1ft.
KY-1
well 1
well 2
11 0.42 ft.
BY 5 in.
v 3.5ft.
i' 2.4 ft.
Figure 1 Geophone locations within or adjacent to wells
-------
well 1
well 2
11 0.42ft.
I 0.42ft.
9.5ft.
wv-1
well 1
well 2
I 0.42ft.
I 0.42ft.
w 2ft.
20ft.
Figure 1 (cont.)
-------
wv-2
well 1
well 2
11 0.42ft.
I 0.42ft.
i 9ft.
Figure I (cont.)
-------
Volume II
•
Full Waveform Vibration Data
-------
FALL-WINTER 2000
-------
Hylton Well
File:01181062.DTB Event Number: 062 Date: 11/06/2000 Time: 16:57
Acoustic Trigger: 126dB Seismic Trigger: 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s SerialNumber: 1181
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A) 118 dB @ 2.1 Hz
(0.16Mb 0.0023psi 0.0160kPa)
Radial (R): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @21.3Hz
Vertlcal(V): 0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 12.8Hz
Transverse(T): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 10.6Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
iSeisznic Scale:
0.20in/s (0,050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
v-1
R
CalOK
CalOK
Cal OK
Cal OK
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
Acoustic (A)
1.94 Hz
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V)
(R)
4.63 Hz
Vertical (V)
12.00 Hz
Transverse (T)
11.63 Hz
1.21EHb02
2.41KH)1
2.4IE+01
2.41E+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 1.00
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Hylton Well
26 in. deep
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R): 0.03in/s 0,762mm/s @ 11.1 Hz
Vertical^: 0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 11.9Hz
0.508mm/s @ 20.4Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
\,
CalOK
,'•1
"\ /
\/
CalOK
Is
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
11.63 Hz 11.94 Hz 9.44 Hz
2.10E+OI 2.11 +OI
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz,)
10
Frequeney__(Hz)
-------
Hylton Well
26 in. deep
File: 01180001.DTB Event Number: 001 Date: 11/07/2000 Time: 16:41
Acoustic Trigger: 142dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s SerialNumber: 1180
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R): Q.Ql5'rn/s 0.381mm/s @ 11.9Hz
Vertical (V): 0.02in/s O.SOSmm/s ® 15.0Hz
Transverse (T): O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @ lO.OHz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
Cal OK
CalOK
2s
3s
4s
% __&.
7s
"8s"
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial («) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.19 Hz 7.00 Hz 1.88 Hz
I-7' +01 1.77E+01 I.?: +01
10
Jlraqiiency (Hz)
10
Frcauencv
100
0
10 100
. .Jirequency^I 12)
-------
Hylton Well
File: 01181063.DTB Event Number: 063 Date: 11/08/2000 Time: 16:45
Acoustic Trigger: 126dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 1 181
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A) 117 dB @ 2.9 Hz
(0.14Mb0.0020psi0.0140kPa)
ladial (R):0.025in/s 0.635mtn/s @ 12.4Hz
Vertical (V): 0.045in/s 1.143mm/s @ 13.4Hz
rransverse (T): 0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 8.2Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TiweLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
'w
•xjy-^YflA/vv^A/^v.-"
CalOK
CalOK
~s /
V
Gal OK
Cal OK
... .
Is
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.38 Hz 5.06 Hz 3.94 Hz 10.88 Hz
I.40E+02 3.06E+01 3.06! H)l 3.06E+OI
0
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz|
10 100
Frequency (H/)
-------
HyltonWell
26 in. deep
File:01180002.DTB Event Number: 002 Date: 11/08/2000 Time: 16:45
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 1180
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @9.4Hz
Vertiad(V): 0,04in/s 1.016tnm/s @ 13.8Hz
Transverse (T): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ I1.6Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
R
Cal OK
T
Os
2.59H+0 1
is
3s _
Cal OK
\/
Cal OK
5s"
" 6s"
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
5.94 Hz 9.75 Hz 10.75 Hz
2.59E+01 2.59E+01
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Hylton Well
File: 011
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 119dB @ 6.5 Hz
(0.18Mb 0.0026psi 0.01 SOkPa)
Radial (R) 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 8.2Hz
Vertical (V): 0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ I0.6Hz
1.397mm/s @ 19.6Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8,500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Satanic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Tims Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
Cal OK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
1.. _.._
5s
6s
1
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.19 Hz 2.00 Hz 8.63 Hz 4.69 Hz
i.86E+01 2.03E+OI 2.03E+01 2.03E+01
10
frequency (Hz)
0 i 1
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (I Izj
10 100
Frequency (FIz)
-------
Hylton Well—
26 in. deep
File: Oil 80003.DTB Event Number: 003 Date: 11/09/2000 Time: 12:55
Acoustic Trigger: 142dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s SerialNumber: 1180
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial ($: 0.045in/s 1.143mm/$ @ 19.6Hz
Vertical (V).-0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 6.4Hz
Transverse(T): 0,02in/s 0,508mm/s @ 26,9Hz
Graph Information
Ctiraticn: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seisnic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1,270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
R
CalOK
Gal OK
CaiOK
A
s Is 2s
1.83
0
R
-(-0 1
r
]
adial (R)
5.06 Hz
1
if" Iff
A A "
1
1
Freauei
1
P
0
icv(Hj
4s__
5s
6s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
4.56 Hz 1.88 Hz
1.83E+OI
1.831 -K)1
JO
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Hylton Well
Fil :01181066.DTB Event Number: 066 Date: 11/10/2000 Time 13:20
Acoustic Trigger: 126 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s0.508mm/s Serial Number: 1181
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 118 dB @ 4.6 Hz
(0.16Mb 0.0023psi 0,0160kPa)
ladial (R).0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 18.2Hz
Vertical<(V): 0.055in/s 1.397mm/s @ 13.8Hz
Transverse (T): 0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 14.6Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/dlv) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 see intervals
CalOK
X/
Cal OK
/
w
CalOK
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
-i
7s
8s
CalOK
x /
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
4.81 Hz 10.06 Hz 9.88 Hz 9.88 Hz
i.SOE+01
0
3.00E+01
3.00E+OI
3.00E+01
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency__CHzJ
10
Frequency (1
-------
Hylton Well
26 in. deep
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R): 0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 12.4Hz
Vertical(V): O.OSin/s 1.27mm/s @ 14.6Hz
Transverse (7): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 8.2Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Tims Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
R
CalOK
Cat OK.
Is
2s
F
Radial (R)
9.88 Hz
!.9C
0
fOI
]
1
1
1
1
10
?requency (Hz
4s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
11.69 Hz 10.13 Hz
2.90 fOl 2.90E+OI
10
Frequency (Hz)
100 °1
-------
Hyllton Well
26 in. deep
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R): 0.045in/s 1.143mm/s @ lO.OHz
Vertical(V): 0.045in/s J.143mm/s @9.1Hz
Transverse (T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ lO.SHz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
0.20in/s (0,050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Tims Lines at: l.QQ sec intervals _
Cal OK
CalOK
A
CaJOK
Is
—i, -
5s
6s
7s
Ss
J.61R+OI
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
6.00Hz 5.94 Hz 6.13 Hz
5.61E+01 5.61 -1-01
0
1 10
Frequency (Hz)
100 °1
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
-------
Hylton Well
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (ft: 126 dB @ 5.5 Hz
(0.42Mb 0.0061psi 0.0420kPa)
Radial (R):0,035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 11.6Hz
Vertical (V): 0.04Sin/s 1.143mm/s @8.9Hz
Transverse (T;.-0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @11.3Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
126dB 0.40Mb (O.lOOMb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
Acoustic (A)
1.75 Hz
Radial (R)
6.13 Hz
Vertical (V)
5.88 Hz
9.94E+01
5.37 tOl
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
5.37E+01
Transverse (T)
6.38 Hz
5.37E+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
0
1 10 100 °1 10 100
--. Frequency (IIz) __ Erequem:y_..(.HZ) __.
-------
Banks Well
File: 00804032.DTB Event Number: 032 Date: 11/13/2000 Time: 16:04
Acoustic Trigger: 126dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 804
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 100 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.02Mb 0.0003psi 0.0020kPa)
Radial(R):0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @24.3Hz
Vertical(V): Q.Ql5in/s 0.38lmmJs @O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 18,2Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK.
\/
CalOK
•'\
\/
Cat OK
\ /'
Cal OK
I
Cs
Is
2s
....3s
4s
__5s
6s
7s
8s
Acoustic (A)
1.00 Hz
J.63E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
6.44 H z 4.31 Hz 6.56 Hz
3.17LtOI 3.17E-I-OI 3.171 tOl
1 10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Banks Well
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 106 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0,0040kPa)
Radial (R): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 8.3Hz
Vertical (V):Q.Q\5ml$ 0.381mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (T):Q.Q25in/$ 0.635mm/s @ 13.4Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mrn/s/div)
Time lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
\/
CalOK
-v /
\/
Cal OK
CalOK
Os
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.50 Hi 6.50 Hz 1.63 Hz 9.56 Hz
3.01E+01 2.83 (-01 2.83 H)1 2.83 (-01
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Banks Well
3.5 ft. deep
File: 00809081.DTB Event Number: 081 Date: 1 1/14/2000 Time: 15:15
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 809
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R) :0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 16.0Hz
Vertical (V):0m'm/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (7): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
R
CalOK
CalOK
A
, .v-^yv
s
LSI
0
^01
1
y/W "V". •'V1--'""
Radia
6.44
u
r "V\(M '! |
........
Freque
2s
3s
_4s
.L
5s
'6s-
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
> Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
9.75 Hz 10.25 Hz
2.5IE+01 2.51E+OI
10
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
_Frequency_(Hz)
-------
Banks Well
(no depth)
File: 00804042.DTB Event Number: 042 Date: 1 1/15/2000 Time: 11:49
Acoustic Trigger: 126dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 804
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 112dB @ 2.1 Hz
(0.08Mb 0.0012psi O.OOSOkPa)
Radial (R): 0.055i»/s 1.397mm/s @20.4Hz
Vertical (V): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ll,9Hz
Transverse (T;.-0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @7.0Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.2QMb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: WO sec intervals
Cal OK
Cal OK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.13 Hz 6.25 Hz 2.50 Hz 6.44 Hz
,.99E+01 8.31E+01 8.31E+0 1 8.31E+01
10
Frequency (Hz^
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (1 Iz)
-------
Banks Well
File: 00804045.DTB Event Number: 045 Date: 11/16/2000 Time: 09:07
Acoustic Trigger: 106dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 804
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (ft. 106dB@O.OHz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
Radial (R): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 10.6Hz
Vertical(V): 0.015'm/s 0.381mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 16.0Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
R
CalOK
\/
Cal OK
\/
Cal OK
x/
Cal OK
is
3s
4s
5s"
6s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 6.44 Hz 11.38 Hz 11.88 Hz
2.22E+01 2.03E+01 2.03E+01 2.02 i+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency. (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency_(Hz)
-------
Banks Well—
3.5 ft. deep
File: 00809083.DTB Event Number: 083 Date: 11/16/2000 Time: 09:06
Acoustic Trigger: 142dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 809
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (B) :0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Vertical(V): 0.01 ids 0.254mm/s @O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.01in/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Graph Information
Duration; 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050m/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at; 1.00 sec intervals^
CalOK
R
CalOK
V
CalOK
Os
Is
3s
4s
5s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (Kl vertical (v) Transverse (T)
6.44 Hz' 10.19 Hz 10.38 Hz
-.19EH)1 2.19E+01 2.19E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Banks Well
File: 00804048.DTB Event Number: 048 Date: 11/16/2000 Time: 16:00
Acoustic Trigger: 106dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 804
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 110 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0,06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Badial(®. 0.025in/s 0.63Smm/s @ lO.SHz
Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0,508mm/s @ 1I.6Hz
Transverse (7): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 13.8Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
feiszziLc Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
R
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
3.94E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.56 Hz 7.25 Hz 12.56 Hz 6.56 Hz
3.65E+01 3.651 +01 3.65E+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (I Iz)
100
10 100
Frequency (I Iz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Banks Well
File: 00809084.DTB Event Number: 084 Date: 11/16/2000 Time: 15:59
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 809
Amplitudes and Frequencies
R'adial(R):0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ IS.OHz
ertical (V): Q.Q\5in/s 0.381 mm/s @ O.OHz
'ransverse (T): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK.
CalOK
CalOK
Is
s_ _3s
6s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
7.19 Hz 11.56 Hz 6.56 Hz
.37 i-Ol 3.37E+OI 3,37 -01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (I Iz)
10 10
Frequency_XH/.)
-------
Banks Well
File: 00804056.DTB Event Number: 056 Date: 11/17/2000 Time: 12:15
Acoustic Trigger: 106 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 804
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 110 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Radial ($ :0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 12.1Hz
Vertically); O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @O.OHz
Transverse(T): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ O.OHz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0,050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1,270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
r- -V*
Is
4s
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
/"
\ /
CalOK
j .
5s
6s
7s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.25 Hz 9.44 Hz 2.63 Hz 6.30. Hz
I.50E+OI I.77E+01 1.77E+01 1.77 +01
0, -
10 100
frequency (Hz)
10 100
. Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Banks Well
3.5 ft. deep
File: 00809085.DTB Event Number: 085 Date: 11/17/2000 Time: 12:14
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 809
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial <Ł) :0.02in/s O.S08mm/s @ 11.6Hz
Vertical 00:Qtt\™Js 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse(T): 0.0 lin/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Graph Tnformation
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mtn/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time lines at: WO sec intervals
Gal OK
CalOK
Is
2s
L
4s
CalOK
/\
5s
6s
7s
8s ""
..89E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
5.75 Hz 9.94 Hz 9.50 Hz
1.8 K)l 1.89 +01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Freuuenev (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz) _
-------
Banks Well
File: 00804058.DTB Event Number: 058 Date: 11/17/2000 Time: 12:34
Acoustic Trigger: 106dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 804
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 120 dB @ 2.0 Hz
(0.20Mb 0.0029psi 0.0200kPa)
Radial (R): 0.065in/s 1.651mm/s @6.0Hz
Vertical(V): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 12,4Hz
Transverse (T): 0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 15.0Hz
Graph Information
Duration: O.OOOsecTo: 8.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seisnic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
/\
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
2s
3s
4s
6s
7s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Transverse (T)
2.13 Hz 6.31 Hz 6.50 Hz
.54E+02 1.32E+02 1.32 -02 1.32| KQ2
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10 ""Too °i
Frequency (Hz).
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Banks Well
3.5 ft. deep
File: 00809086.DTB Event Number: 086 Date: 11/17/2000 Time: 12:33
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 809
Amplitudes and Frequencies
radial (R): 0.06in/s 1.524mm/s @7.1Hz
Vertical (V): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 8.8Hz
rransverse (T): 0,03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 13.4Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
4s _
5s
6s
7s
8s
+02
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
6.38 Hz 2.44 Hz 6.44 Hz
1.371 t-02 1.3-/K+02
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
-------
RatliffWell
(surface - no airblast)
File: 00849025.DTB Event Number: 025 Date: 11/13/2000 Time: 16:04
Acoustic Trigger: 126 dB Seismic Trigger: 0,02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A); <100 dB
Radial ft):0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @21.3Hz
\Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 26.9Hz
'Transverse (T):Q.025\n/s 0.635mm/s @ 20.4Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: \ .00 sec intervals
CalOK
Cal OK
CalOK
CalOK
Os
Is
2s
3s
7s
8s
Acoustic (A)
0.00 Hz
).OOLH)0
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
21.94 Hz 13.13 Hz 11.56 Hz
1.651 ^01 1.65E+01 1.65E-tOl
0
Frequency (Hz)
1(30
10 100
Frequency (FŁz)
10 100
Frequency (FŁz)
10 100
Frequency (Hx)
-------
RatliffWell
29 in. deep
File: 00849025 .DTB Event Number: 025 Date: 11/13/2000 Time: 16:04
Acoustic Trigger: 126 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
ladial (R) .-0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @21.3Hz
rertical (V): 0,02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 26-9Hz
"ransverse (T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 20-4Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: LOO sec intervals
R
CalOK
CalOK
A
T
Jls"""
..65F.+OI
2s
4s
7s
8s
CalOK
A
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
22.94 Hz 13.13 Hz 11.56 Hz
1.651 tOl 1.65E-.tol
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
RatliffWell
File: 00849026.DTB Event Number: 026 Date: 11/14/2000 Time: 16:18
Acoustic Trigger: 126 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 106 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
Radial^ 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 13.1 Hz
Vertical (T),-0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ J9-6Hz
Transverse (T): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 16.0Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Satanic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time lines at 100 sec intervals
CalOK
/\
R
CalOK
CalOK
. \
, ' \
CalOK
Os
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 9.25 Hz 15.19 Hz 15.38 Hz
6.03E+00 3.m>01 3.11E+01 3.111 (-01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
RatliffWell
29 in. deep
File: 00853078.DTB Event Number: 078 Date: 11/14/2000 Time: 16:18
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 853
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R): 0,025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 12.8Hz
Vertical(?9.-0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ 14.6Hz
Transverse (T):Q.Q2in/s 0.508mm/s @ 16.0Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: _1.00 sec intervals
Cat OK
CalOK
CalOK
T
3s
4s
5s
7s
8s
2.711 tOl
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box. Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
9.25 Hz 15.31 Hz 9.56 Hz
2.7IE+OI 2.7IE H)I
10
Frequency (I Iz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
-------
RatliffWell
File: 00849027.DTB Event Number: 027 Date: I I/I 5/2000 Time: 11:49
Acoustic Trigger: 126 dB Seismic Trigger: 0,02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Icoustic (ft: 112 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.08Mb~0.0012psi O.OOSOkPa)
ladial (R): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 12.1 Hz
vertical(V): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 15.5Hz
Transverse (T): 0,04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 11.9Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
T±weLines at: WO sec intervals
—i
i—i
V
Cal OK
Cal OK
Cal OK
fe
.
2s_.
3s
5s
7s
8s
Acoustic (A)
2.19 Hz
5.54E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
9.06 Hz 13.94 Hz 9.50 Hz
2.62 H)I 2.61 tol 2.62E+01
'1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)_ .
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
RatliffWell
29 in. deep
File:00853079.DTB Event Number: 079 Date: 11/15/2000 Time: 11:48
Acoustic Trigger: 142dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 853
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R).• 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 13.4Hz
Vertical (V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 15.5Hz
Transverse (T): 0.035in/s 0.8S9mm/s @ ll.lHz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (l,270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
Cat OK
/•>
CalOK
Os
"LIs
3s
4s
5s___
7s
8s" ~
:,7or+oi
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
9.06Hz 2.50 Hz . 9.50 Hz
2.70 F i-O I 2.70E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
. Frcqiicncy_(Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
RatliffWell
File: 00849028.DTB Event Number: 028 Date: 11/16/2000 Time: 09:07
Acoustic Trigger: 106 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 100 dB @ O.OHz
(0.02Mb O.OOOSpsi 0.0020kPa)
Radial (R): 0.025in/s Q.635mm/s @ 17.6Hz
Vertical(V).- 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 19.6Hz
Transverse(T): 0.025in/$ 0.635mm/s @ 18.2Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Tin&Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
Cal OK
/\
V
Cal OK
Cal OK
Cal OK
Os
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
"7s"" "
8s
Acoustic (A)
2.00 Hz
1.37E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
13.75 Hz 13.75 Hz . 15.50 Hz
2.00 i H)I 2.00E+01 2.00E+01
JjlMWrU
10 100
. Frequcncy-(Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
RatliffWell
29 in. deep
Amplitudes and Frequencies
\adial (R): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ 20.4Hz
rertical (V): Q.Q\5'm/s 0.381mm/s @ 16.5Hz
"ransverse fl):0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @20.4Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Ems Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
2s
7s
_8s_
.19Et01
0
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
7.75 Hz 13.81 Hz 13.88 Hz
I.19E+01 1.19 K)l
. Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency. (Hz)
-------
RatliffWell
File: 00849029.DTB Event Number: 029 Date: 11/16/2000 Time: 16:00
Acoustic Trigger: 106 dB Seismic Trigger: 0,02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 106 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
.Radial (B) :0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 11.6Hz
Vertical(V):Q.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ 19.6Hz
Transverse (7): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 17.0Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Tims Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
/'"'-.
I
-.—,«1/V«.,v/v'i «..-•• -
CalOK
Os
2s
3s
-5s
7s
8s
Acoustic (A)
1.56 Hz
3.12E+OI
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
14.88 Hz 15.44 Hz 15.00 Hz
1.97E+01 I.97E+01 I.97E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
Oi V 10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
RatliffWell
File: 0085308 l.DTB Event Number: 081 Date: 11/16/2000 Time: 15:59
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s SerialNumber: 853
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ ll.lHz
Vertical (V): 0.01 in/s 0.254mm/s @ 14.6Hz
transverse (T): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ 17.0Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TnaeLines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
V
CalOK
/\
CalOK
0s
Is
4s~
5s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
10.75 Hz 15.75 Hz 9.56 Hz
.20F.+01 1.2(1 i-Ol 1.201 tOl
10
Frequency (Ik)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 110 dB @ 10.2 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Eadiul 09:0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 20.4Hz
Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @20.4Hz
Transverse(T): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 15.5Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (O.OSOMb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Ene lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
Cal OK
Cal OK
Cal OK
Is
_2s
!3s
I
5s
6s
-is
.8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.81 Hz 10.06 Hz 14.81 Hz 13.50 Hz
'•27 i-Ol 1.22E+01 1.22K+01 1.22E+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
RatliffWell-
29 in. deep
File: 00853082.DTB Event Number: 082 Date: 11/17/2000 Time: 12:14
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 853
Amplitudes and Frequencies
ladial(R):QQ \5\nls. 0.38Imm/s @ 22.2Hz
'ertical (V): Q.Q\5Ms 0.381mm/s @ 15.5Hz
Transverse (7?: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ IS.OHz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Satanic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
A
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
"4s " 5s "
.6s. _
i
7s
33 (01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
7.25 Hz 10.13 Hz 7.88 Hz
1.33E+01 1.3-1+01
_ Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
RatliffWell
File: 00849034.DTB Event Number: 034 Date: 11/17/2000 Time: 12:34
Acoustic Trigger: 106dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 118dB @ 2.0 Hz
(0.16Mb0.0023psi O.OI60kPa)
Radial Q$ 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @21,3Hz
Vertical (V):Q.Q25in/s 0.635mm/s @20.4Hz
Transverse (T): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 18.9Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
-2s-
3s
-4s
7s
Ss
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.13 Hz 6.25 Hz 16.06 Hz 14.50 Hz
.32 H)2 2.54 +01 2.54 H)l 2.54E+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (FIz)
10 JOO
Frequency (Ffe)
-------
RatliffWell
29 in. deep
File: 00853083.DTB Event Number: 083 Date: 11/17/2000 Time: 12:34
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0,02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 853
Amplitudes and Frequencies
0.889mm/s @ 7.8Hz
Vertical (V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 22.2Hz
rransverse (T): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 12.4Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0,050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s(1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
Cal CK
Is
2s
4s
5s
6s"
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
6.25 Hz m 2.50 Hz 9.94 Hz
1.48 tOI ~"2.48 t-01 2.48F+OI
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
G. Hurley Well
File: 00849036.DTB Event Number: 036 Date: 11/20/2000 Time: ) 3:03
Acoustic Trigger: 120dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A) 114 dB @ 2.6 Hz
(0.10Mb O.OOlSpsi O.OlOOkPa)
Radial^. 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @11.3Hz
Vertical (V): 0.02Sin/s 0.635mm/s @ 6,7Hz
Transverse (T): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ 8.6Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
R
~v«\
CalOK
Cal OK
Cal OK
Is
2s"
3s
4s
6s
1
7s
8s
I.90E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 18.19 Hz 5.81 Hz 6.50 Hz
1.48E+01 1.48E+01 1.43E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
G. Hurley Well
9.5 ft. deep
File: 00809090.DTB Event Number: 090 Date: 11/20/2000 Time: 13:03
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 809
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Radial (R): O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @O.OHz
Vertical (V): 0.02Sin/s 0.635mm/s @ 5.9Hz
Transverse (T): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 9.1 Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
T
Os
CalOK
V
Is
2s
3s
4s
.5s
_6s
7s
8s
L56E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
6.56 Hz 5.88 Hz 6.19 Hz
1.56E+OI 1.56E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
G. Hurley Well
File: 00849037.DTB Event Number: 037 Date: 11/20/2000 Time: 16:08
Acoustic Trigger: 120 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 119dB @ 3.3 Hz
(0.18Mb0.0026psi O.OlSOkPa)
Radial (R): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @23.2Hz
Vertical (V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 19.6Hz
Transverse (7): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @23-2Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 J&z intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
3s
.4s—
Kc
6s
._ _ .&
8s
Acoustic (A)
1.00 Hz
5.49E+OI
6S_.._ . . Ji» 3* ::._ -<-X . —
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.94 Hz 4.88 Hz 6.50 Hz
1.52E+01 1.521 H)I 1.52E+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
.Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
G. Hurley Well
9.5 ft. deep
File: 0080909l.DTB Event Number: 091 Date: 11/20/2000 Time: 16:08
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s0.508mm/s Serial Number: 809
Amplitudes and Frequencies
tadial (R): 0.0 15in/s 0.381mm/s @ O.OHz
Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 16.5Hz
Transverse (T): O.Olids 0,254mm/s @ O.OHz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
3s
5s
"6s"
7s
8s
..63E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
3.13 Hz 3.13 Hz 3.38 Hz
I.63E+01 1.6? +01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
G. Hurley Well
File: 00849038.DTB Event Number: 038 Date: 11/20/2000 Time: 16:45
Acoustic Trigger: 120 d.B Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 849
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 100 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.02Mb 0.0003psi 0.0020kPa)
Radial (R): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ 24.3Hz
Vertical (V): O.OHn/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @28.4Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s(1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Os
„ 2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
8s
Acoustic (A)
2.25 Hz
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
18.94 Hz 9.81 Hz 27.06 Hz
6.93E+00 6.93EKH) 6.93E H)0
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)_
10 100
.Frequency (Hzj
10
Frequency (Hz)_
-------
Sumner Well
5 in. (surface only)
File: 00804072.DTB Event Number: 072 Date: 11/20/2000 Time: 10:32
Acoustic Trigger: 120dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 804
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): lOOdB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.02Mb 0.0003psi 0.0020kPa)
-Radial (K):0.02in/s O-SOSmnWs @ 14.6Hz
Vertical (V): O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @ O.OHz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at 100 sec intervals
A
CalOK
\/
CalOK
CalOK
"\
CalOK
Is
J8s
2S 3s 4s _ §s 6s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.06 Hz 13.63 Hz 1.94 Hz 9.44 Hz
1.1<_:+OI 1.22H-01 1.22EH)1 1.22E+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 i an
Frequency (I Iz)
..Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz.)
-------
Sumner Well
5 in. (surface only)
File: 00804075.DTB Event Number: 075 Date: 11/20/2000 Time: 16:09
Acoustic Trigger: 120 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mra/s Serial Number: 804
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 120 dB @ 2.9 Hz
(0.20Mb 0.0029psi 0.0200kPa)
Radial (R): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 16.0Hz
Vertical(V): Q.Q3'm/s 0.762mm/s @ 7.4Hz
Transverse (T): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @7,5Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 8.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08ram/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1,00 sec intervals
V
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s"
4s
6s
7s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 4.81 Hz 3.31 Hz 3.44 Hz
I.05E+OI 2.60E+01 2.60E+01 2.60 +0)
0
1 10 100
Frequency (I I/.)
10 100
Frequency (Hz).__.
10
Frequency.(Hz)
10 10
Frequency (H/)
-------
SPRING 2001
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. surface
File:DlSAP001.DTB Event Number: 001 Date: 4/3/01 Time: 08:41
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Icoustic (A): 114dB @ 2.3 Hz
(0.10Mb 0.0015psi O.OlOOkPa)
Radial (R):0.03in/s 0,762mm/s @ 12.1 Hz
vertical (V):Q.Ql5in/s 0.381mm/s @ 16.0Hz
Transverse(T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 13.8Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Acoustic (A)
2.94 Hz
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V)
12.06 Hz 3.63 Hz
Transverse(T)
12.06 Hz
1.34E+01
2.49E+01
r
2.49 tol
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
2.49E+01
r
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 110dB@ 1.3Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Radial (R) :0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ IS.OHz
Vertical (V):Qti\5inls 0.381mm/s @ 24,3Hz
Transverse (T):O.Q25in/s 0.635mm/s @ IS.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0,000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1 .OOsec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
&
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 12.56 Hz 2.69 Hz 12.56 Hz
2.71 1+01
0
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)'
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File:DlSAP003.DTB Event Number: 003 Date: 4/3/01 Time: 17:06
Acoustic Trigger: 1
14dB Seismic Trigger. 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
4coustic (A): 114 dB @ 2. 1 Hz
(0.10Mb 0.0015psi O.OlOOkPa)
Radial (R): 0.015in/s 0,381mm/s
Vertical (Y) : Q.Q\in/s 0.254mm/s
@ 14,6Hz
@ O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ lO.SHz
CalibrationDate (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/1 1/22
\A j
f \ ortitn i i-1 >-i i 1 i.
V^ w w u • LT*
r
s
i i i
I
is 2s 3s 4s
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
_ /\
\/
CalOK
/\
\y
CalOK
/\
i i i i i
5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A)
2.13 Hz
Radial (R)
12.31 Hz
5.50E+01 2.18E+01
1
I
10 100 °
Frequency (Hz)
I
m.
10
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
3.44 Hz 12.25 Hz
2.1i +01 2.18 ;+d
i
j. 'ml rfL
100 °1 10 100 ° 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hx)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File: D 1SAP004.DTB Event Number: 004 Date: 4/4/01 Time: 11:20
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 78
Amplitudes and Frequencies
4coustic (A): 110dB @ 1.7 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Radial (R):Q.05in/s 1.27mm/s @ 12.8Hz
Vertical(V): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ 15.0Hz
Transverse(T): Q.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 13.8Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To:9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1 .OOsec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.63 Hz 12.81 Hz 1.94 Hz 13.31 Hz
6.25 +-01 6.25E+01
t.79E+01
r i
6.25 fOl
r
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File: D1SAP006.DTB Event Number: 006 Date: 4/5/01 Time: 10:34
Acoustic Trigger: 1
14dB Seismic Trigger. 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
tcoustic (A): 106dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
ladiat (R) : 0.055in/s 1.397mm/s @ 16.0Hz
'ertical (V): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @21.3Hz
rransverse (T): 0.045in/s 1.143mm/s @ 12.4Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/1 1/22
"A
—-^j^l^r^v^^l^jV^^^^
V _ „__ , _
T
~A/VWjvv\^AA/VWsA/v\/WWwv^v~'^n^^'-'
i . . i i
"— inr1"
t
i is 2s 3s 4s
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
/\
-^ " " \y •
CalOK
/\
\/
CalOK
/\
\y
CalOK
_ /\
\/
1 1 _._.!_. . 1 . . . 1
5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.44 Hz 13.13 Hz 1.75 Hz 13.1 9 Hz
3.42!
0
3+01 7.75
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
+01
; I
10
Frequency (Hz)
7.791 +01 7.79E+01
100 31 10 100 °1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
File: D1SAP007.DTB
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
Event Number: 007 Date: 4/6/01 Time: 10:22
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Triggej 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequenci
Acoustic (A): 106 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
Radial (R): 0.05in/s 1.27mm/s @ 12.1Hz
Vertical (V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 14,2Hz
'iTransverse(T): 0.05in/s 1.27mm/s @ 12.1J
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/1 1/22
-
•A
es Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
flz 0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
: Cal OK
R /V
:
-V
V
CalOK
/\
: " \/
CalOK
/\
1 1 j |
\y
i i i i ... i
i Is 2s 3s 4s 5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.13 Hz 12.69 Hz 12.81 Hz 12.69 Hz
7.13E+01 7.61E+01
i I rt k
n " "wkv^i^k*^^, nNrW
7.61E-HH 7.611 1-01
J[ [ I
^_
1 10 100 °1 10 100 "1 10 100 "1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File:DlSAP009.DTB Event Number: 009 Date: 4/6/01 Time: 15:43
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Icoustic (ty 112dB@1.9Hz
(0.08Mb 0.0012psi O.OOSOkPa)
ladial (R): 0.055in/s 1.397mm/s @ 13.1 Hz
vertical (V): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 10.2Hz
Transverse(T): 0,06in/s 1.524mm/s @ 13.8Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.38 Hz 11.75 Hz 12.25 Hz 12.81 Hz
.25E+01 4.68E+01 4.68 K>1 4.68L+01
r
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File:DlSAP019.DTB Event Number: 01 9 Date: 4/9/01 Time: 12:41
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 114dB @ 1.4 Hz
(0,10Mb O.OOlSpsi O.OlOOkPa)
ladiaKR): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 17.0Hz
Vertical (V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 13.4Hz
FVawsverse (7): 0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/1 1/22
"" lv\vV"
1 ^ __
^^~v^-
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0,20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
v
CalOK
/\
CalOK
'..._. /\
5 Is 2s 3s 4s
Fourie
Acoustic (A)
1.56 Hz
I.95E+01 3.161
r
°1 10 100 °
Frequency (Hz)
r Analysis (Am
Radial (R)
12.13 Hz
i+Ol
5s
plitude Sj
3.16:
|iuL||AL|L|i|
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
\y
CalOK
/\
\/
6s 7s 8s 9s
pectrum- Box Window)
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
12.63 Hz 12.63 Hz
3+01 3. 1C +01
10 ion c 10 ice
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File:DlSAP020,DTB Event Number: 020 Date: 4/9/01 Time: 16:35
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 110 dB @ 1.8 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
iRadial(R): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 12.8Hz
IVerticd(V): O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
'.Transverse(T): O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time lines at: \ .00 sec intervals
CalOK
A
:/
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.00 Hz 12.94 Hz 2.00 Hz 12.94 Hz
-11E+01 I.8IE4O1 1.81E+01 1.8IE+OI
r
o —
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File: D1SAP021.DTB Event Number: 021 Date: 4/10/01 Time: 15:45
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 116dB@ 1.4 Hz
(0.12Mb O.OOHpsi 0.0120kPa)
Radial (R): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ IS.OHz
Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 9.3Hz
Transverse (T): 0.045in/s 1.143mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0,20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
•R
-V
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
5s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.50 Hz 3.00 Hz 2.81 Hz 2.50 Hz
3.2CH-01 3.26E+01 3.26E+01
7.81E+01
r
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File:DlSAP022.DTB Event Number: 022 Date: 4/10/01 Time: 16:53
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 100dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.02Mb 0.0003psi 0.0020kPa)
tadiat (R): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 13.4Hz
vertical (V):0,0l5in/s 0.381mm/s @ 13.8Hz
Transverse (T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 16.5Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TnaeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
~R
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Acoustic (A)
1.19 Hz
1.72E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
12.75 Hz 12.69 Hz 13.44 Hz
5.10E+01 5.10E+01 5.10E+OI
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
O,1-
10
Frequency (Hz)_
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File:DlSAP040.DTB Event Number: 040 Date: 4/11/01 Time: 09:57
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Icoustic (A): 116 dB @ 5.6 Hz
(0.12Mb 0.0017psi 0.0120kPa)
Radial (R): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ lO.SHz
'Sertjcal (V): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @9.3Hz
Transverse (T): 0.02Sin/s 0.635mm/s @8,6Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
-A
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
JL3
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V)
1.31 Hz 11.94 Hz 2.31 Hz
2.76E+01 2.76E+OI
Transverse(T)
3.44 Hz
'.09E+01
2.76E+OI
r
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File:DlSAP042.DTB Event Number: 042 Date: 4/12/01 Time: 10:37
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
4coustic (A): 114dB@ 10.4Hz
(0.10Mb O.OOlSpsi O.OlOOkPa)
Kadialfi) 0.03Sin/s 0,889mm/s @ 11.6Hz
Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 12.1Hz
Transverse (T): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 11.1 Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
feLsnic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
-V
-T
CalOK
Os
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
9s
8.38E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V)
1.00 Hz 77.56 Hz 2.6BHz
5.02E+01 5.02E+01 5.021
Transverse (T)
11.75 Hz
10
Freaiiency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz\
10
Frequency (Hz\
10
Frequency (FIz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File:DlSAP043.DTB Event Number: 043 Date: 4/12/01 Time: 12:22
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 114 dB @ 1.1 Hz
(0.10Mb O.OOlSpsi O.OlOOkPa)
^Radial (R) :0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Vertical(V): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ll,6Hz
Transverse(7); 0,02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 13.8Hz
(Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
-V
-T
CalOK
CalOK
is
2s
3s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
12.81 Hz 3.50 Hz 12.81 Hz
3.5; +01 3.52E+01 3.521+01
r
Acoustic (A)
1.00 Hz
I.40E+02
r
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Sr. shallow
File:DlSAP046.DTB Event Number: 046 Date: 4/13/01 Time: 10:30
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Icoustic (A): 112dB @ 4.2 Hz
(0.08Mb 0.0012psi O.OOSOkPa)
Radial (R): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 11.9Hz
Vertical (V): O.Q15in/s 0.381mm/s @ 16.5Hz
transverse (T): 0.0\5in/s 0.381mm/s @ 15.5Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
.Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
-A
CalOK
n
CalOK
-V
-T
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
12.88 Hz 2.56 Hz 12.94 Hz
3.5*0+01 3.591 H)I 3.59E+01
Acoustic (A)
1.06 Hz
.OIE+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dear Sr. deep
File:DlDAP003.DTB Event Number: 003 Date: 4/3/01 Time: 08:40
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 114dB @ 3.8 Hz D
(0.10Mb 0,0015psi O.OlOOkPa) A
Radial (R);0.02in/s 0.508mm/s (
5} 16.0Hz \:
\Vertical(V): O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @O.OHz Si
'.Transverse (T):Q.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 12.4Hz °-
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/1 1/22 ^
:A /\ „ .
-R
V
:T j ^-^
j j j
\J
1 1
3s is 2s 3s 4s 5s
Graph Information
umtion: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
caustic Scale:
!OdB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
usmic Scale:
20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
ime Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
/\
v J
CalOK
/\
X/
CalOK
/\
\y
CalOK
/\
V7
I 1 I I
6s 7s 8s 9s _j
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.88 Hz 13.63 Hz 3.88 Hz 12.06 Hz
J.79E+01 2.4
°1 10 100 °
Frequency (Hz)
b+OI 2.
WmL-
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
*1E+01 2.41E-K)!
1 ;
°1 10 100 °1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
DearSr. deep
File: D1DAP004.DTB Event Number: 004 Date: 4/3/01 Time: 13:50
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0,025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Icoustic (A): 106dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
Radial (R):0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ IS.OHz
Vertical (V): O.OlinJs 0.254ram/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ IS.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic. Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) S.OSmm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
-\
CalOK
CalOK
/\
CalOK
JZs.
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 12.75 Hz 3.94 Hz 12.56 Hz
2.5SE+01 2.581 H)l 2.511 +01
.94E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
DearSr. deep
File:DlDAP005.DTB
Event Number: 005 Date: 4/4/0 1 Time : 1 1 : 1 9
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0,635rnm/s Serial Number: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequenci
Acoustic (A): HOdB @ 2.1 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa
Radial ($ 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 13,4Hz
Vertical (V): Q.Q15in/s 0.381mm/s @ 16.01-
Transverse(T): 0.045in/s 1.143mm/s @ i:
(Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
:
-A __,
" Xr1-1"
:
-V
:
es
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
) Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
[z Seismic Scale:
UHz 0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: WO sec intervals
,-r— < ,
-' ' HL, '
Js IB 2s 3s 4s 5s
CalOK
V J
CalOK
/\
\/
CalOK
/\
\y
CalOK
/\
\y
6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R)
1.69 Hz 13.31 Hz
3.73E+01 6.281 toi
"J
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.69 Hz 12.88 Hz
6.28E+01 6.2JLt01
I
A,
°1 10 100 °1 10 100 "1
Frequency (Hz.) Frequency ,(Hz)
:J
A r
10 100 °- 10 ioo
Frequency .(Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
DearSr. deep
File: D1DAP006.DTB Event Number: 006 Date: 4/5/01 Time: 10:33
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0,635mm/s SerialNumber: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Icoustic (A): 106dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
ladiat (R): 0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 13.8Hz
7ertical (V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @21.3Hz
Transverse(T): O.OSin/s 1.27mm/s @ IS.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To:9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 13.25 Hz 14.81 Hz 13.13 Hz
7.64 t01 7.64E+01 7.64 H)I
.84E+01
r
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (FŁz)
100
10
Frequency (FŁz)
-------
West Virginia
Dear Sr. deep
File: D1DAP007.DTB Event Number: 007 Date: 4/6/01 Time: 10:21
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0,635mm/s SerialNumber: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 106 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
ladial ft):0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 14.6Hz
^/•fica/^.-O.OlSin/s 0.381mm/s @ 17.0Hz
Transverse (T): 0.05in/s 1.27mm/s @ 12,4Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd) : 2000/1 1/22
V__
s
i.681
C
i i -i
i i
Is 2s 3s 4s 5s
Fouriei
Acoustic (A)
1.06 Hz
>oi 7.6 1;
I
M
10 100 U
Frequency (Hz)
r Analysis (Amplituc
Radial (R)
12.75 Hz
_+01
-vvu| L_ ,
10 LOO
Frequency (Hz)
Graph Information
Duration: 0. 000 sec To: 9. 500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
^ " \y •
CalOK
/\
\/
CalOK
/\
\/
CalOK
/\
\/
J J \ \
6s 7s 8§ 9s
e Spectrum - Box Window)
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
12.06 Hz 12.75 Hz
7.61E+01 7.61E+01
0,vAJ\Aww^ o^LlL^.
U1 10 100 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
•
-------
File: D1DAP008.DTB EventNumber: 008 Date: 4/6/01 Time: 15:42
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 110dB @ 2.7Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
JhdiaK® 0.05in/s 1.27mm/s @ 13.4Hz
Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 18.9Hz
Transverse (T):Q.06in/s 1.524mm/s @ 13.4Hz
CalibrationDate (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0,050Mb/div)
SSLSOLS Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
-A
CalOK
-V
-T
CalOK
CalOK
3s
4s
8s
.3s
Acoustic (A)
1.94 Hz
5.02E4.,.
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
12.75 Hz 12.13 Hz 10.19 Hz
4.061 H)1 4.06E+01 4.06E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dear Sr. deep
File:DlDAP015.DTB Event Number: 015 Date: 4/9/0 Time: 12:40
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
4coustic (A): 114dB @ 1.5 Hz
(0.10Mb 0.0015psi O.OlOOkPa)
Radial (R): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ IS.SHz
Vertkal(V): O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse(T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 12.4Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0,050in/s/div) S.OSmnVs (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.50 Hz 14.00 Hz 13.06Hz 12.38Hz
8.89E+01 2.36E+OI 2.36E+01 2.36E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dear Sr. deep
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 116 dB @ 1.6 Hz
(0.12Mb 0,0017psi 0.0120kPa)
Radial (R):0.04m/s 1.0l6mm/s @ 13.8Hz
Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0,508rom/s @9.3Hz
Transverse(T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 12.8Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration; 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0,050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0,20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
Ts
Ss
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
15.31 Hz 2.75Hz 13.00Hz
2.05 -KM 205 +01 2.09E+01
Acoustic (A)
2.19 Hz
'•49E+01
0
1 10
Frequency (Hz}
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
DearSr. deep
File: D1DAP017.DTB Event Number: 017 Date: 4/10/01 Time: 16:52
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): lOOdB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.02Mb 0.0003psi 0.0020kPa)
tadial (R): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 17.0Hz
Vertical (V):Q.Qlm/s 0.254mm/s @O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
-Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1. OOsec intervals
CalOK
-A
rtj\/v\/VVV\AA'Vvrt"'™""'-"""'^""-'r-
CalOK
-V
-T
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.13 Hz 13.44 Hz 13.19Hz 12.81 Hz
.591 tOI 4.09LHM 4.04E+01 4.09E+01
1 10
Frequency (Hz)
100
°r" "10
100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (H/)
100
0L=
10
Frequency (Hz,)
100
-------
File:DlDAP026,DTB Event Number: 026 Date: 4/12/01 Time: 10:36
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 114dB@ lO.OHz
(0.10Mb O.OOlSpsi O.OlOOkPa)
ladial (R):0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 13.4Hz
'^ertical (y):Q.O\5in/s 0.381mm/s @ 12.8Hz
transverse (T): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 13.8Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
n flMln ,j II,fl
• "Wflj V
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
3s
6s
7s
8s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 10.88 Hz 10.69 Hz 11.63 Hz
5.24E+01 5.24E+CU 5.24" +01
.83B+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
-------
West Virginia
DearSr. deep
File: D1DAP027.DTB Event Number: 027 Date: 4/12/01 Time: 12:21
A ustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0,025in/s 0,635mm/s SerialNumber:
Amplitude
4coustic(A) 114dB@
(O.lOMbO
Radial^): 0.015in/s 0.
Vertical (V): 0.0 15in/s C
Transverse (T): 0,03in/s
Calibration Date (yyyy/n
^
;s and Frequencies Graph Information
1.3 Hz Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
0015psi0.0100kPa) Acoustic Scale:
381mm/s @ 20.4Hz 120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
,381mm/s @8.6Hz Seismic Scale:
0.762mm/s @ 12.4Hz 0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
nm/dd): 2000/11/22 Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
iA jiX^~\_ j-, j-n , , — , /\
" W^fv1 V,__/ ^ ^ "•'-r \/
CalOK
* /\
V
CalOK
/ /\
; Is 2s
Acoustic (A)
1.00 Hz
.24E+02
°1 10
Frequency (Hz)
\/
CalOK
/\
V
I I I 1 I I I
3s 4s 5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
15.1 3 Hz 3.75 Hz 12.75 Hz
3.39E+OI 3.35>_tOI 3.39E+01
100 °1 10 I.Of. °1 10 100 °1 10 100
Frequency (FIz) Frequency (Efz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dear Sr. deep
File: D1DAP028.DTB Event Number: 028 Date: 4/13/01 Time: 10:29
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB SeismicTrigger:0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 112dB @ 5.0 Hz
(0.08Mb 0.0012psi O.OOSOkPa)
Radial (R):0.0l5in/s 0.381mm/s @ 17.6Hz
Vertical(V): 0.01 in/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse(T): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 12.1Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
120dB 0.20Mb (0,050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.13 Hz 13.00 Hz 2.50 Hz 12.94 Hz
).31 +01 3.55 (-01 3.5f +01 3.55 H)l
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 10(
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP005.DTB Event Number: 005 Date: 4/3/01 Time: 08:38
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 114 dB @ 5.4Hz
(0.10Mb 0.0015psi O.OlOOkPa)
Radial (R):0,025in/s 0.635mm/s @ IS.SHz
Vertical(V): 0,01 in/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @20.4Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0,050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5,08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.94 Hz 11.94 Hz 20.13 Hi 15.19 Hz
5.82E+01 I.99E+01 1.9SE+01 1.991 H)1
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100 1
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP007.DTB Event Number: 007 Date: 4/3/01 Time: 13:48
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0,635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 110 dB @ 1.6 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Radial (R): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Vertical (V):Qti\'wl$ 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse(T): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @22,2Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0,050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1. OOsec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
/WH^WWV\AA^A/v^^"~''™n
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
8s
9s
Acoustic (A)
1.00 Hz
5.27E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
13.19 Hz 2L.69HZ 16.56 Hz
2.82E+01 2.82 :+01 2.82 +01
O1
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 118dB @ 3.8 Hz
(0.16Mb 0.0023psi 0.0160kPa)
Radial (R): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 13.1Hz
Vertical(V): O.Olin/s 0.254mni/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (7}; 0,015in/s 0.381mm/s @ S.SHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mrn/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
Is
6s
7S
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.06 Hz 12.81 Hz 3.63 Ife 7.56 Hz
S.64E+01
2.07E+01
2.07
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
tol
2.07
1-01
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP010.DTB Event Number: 010 Date: 4/4/01 Time: 11:18
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 110dB @ 2.0 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Radial (R): 0.045in/s l,143mm/s @11.9Hz
vertical(V):Q.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ lO.OHz
Transverse (T):Q.Q2mJs 0.508mm/s @21,3Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.06 Hz 13.25 Hz 21.06 Hz 16.00 Hz
3.66E+OI 5.81 +01 5.8IE+01 5.81 tfll
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP01 l.DTB Event Number: 01 1 Date: 4/5/01 Time: 10:3 1
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0,025m/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequenci
Acoustic (A): 106 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
iRatBal(R):QM\nls 2.032mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Vertical(V): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 18.2H
'.Transverse (T): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 17.6
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/1 1/22
~A , , ,_, ,
V
r ^^
i i
es Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
z feisnic Scale:
Hz 0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
^^ - \y
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
/\
\/
s Is 2s 3s 4s 5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysi
Acoustic (A) Radiji
1.00 Hz 13.0<
i.23E+01 1.06E+02
r r
i L y jjiii i /s i
0 NillL^^ 0JvU
s (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
il (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
jHz 21.81 Hz 13.19 Hz
I.06E+02 1.06E+02
IWL ^xv\ll , ^.^AMA/il^
1 10 100 Ul 10 100 "1 10 100 ul 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File:D2SAP012.DTB Event Number: 012 Date: 4/6/01 Time: 10:19
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
[caustic (A): 106dB @ 0.0Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
ttfdra/(R): 0.055in/s 1.397mm/s @ 13.8Hz
'ertical(V): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @24.3Hz
^ansverse (T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ IS.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000111/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
9.28E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.06 Hz 12.88 Hz 21.94 Hz 12.94 Hz
5.99E+01 5.99E+01 5.99E+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File:D2SAP013.DTB Event Number: 013 Date: 4/6/01 Time: 15:40
Acoustic Trigger: 1
14 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 114dB @ 6.4 Hz
(0,10Mb 0.0015psi O.OlOOkPa)
Jladial (R): 0.05in/s l,27mm/s @
Vertical (V):O.Q3m/s 0.762mm/s
13.4Hz
@ 19.6Hz
Transverse W; 0.055in/s 1.397mm/s @ 14.6Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/1 1/22
:
:*
— -W\/\/V
i
. n . n/^lA.
A Yl
.
Jl^MJW-
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5,08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TiweLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
w \y -
CalOK
~\/
CalOK
"V V V- /^
;
— ^
-
3s
nJU, A.,
1 1 J
i
Is 2s 3s 4s
V
CalOK
_ /V
\/
i i j_.. i. _ .. i
5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A)
1.94 Hz
Radial (R)
12.94 Hz
6.38E+01 4.52E+01
0
I
11
UL^
10 100 °
Frequency (Hz)
•
1
AH
10
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
20.13 Hz 12.81 Hz
4.52E+01 4.52E+01
. I
' 1 '
100 1 10 100 "1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Az)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP016.DTB EventNumber: 016 Date: 4/9/01 Time: 12:39
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Triggei 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 116dB @ 9.3 Hz
(0,12Mb 0.0017psi 0.0120kPa)
Radial (R): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 14.6Hz
Vertical (V): O.Q25Ms 0.635mm/s @ 19.6Hz
jTmnsverse(T):O.Q35in/s 0.889mm/s @13.1Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd); 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
feismc Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5,08mm/s (l,270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
-V
CalOK
CalOK
Ds
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
8.08E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.50 Hz 12.38 Hz 20.38 Hz 12.88 Hz
3.141 H)1 3.141 +01 3.141 H)I
0
10
Frequency (Hz)
JDO
Frequency (Hz)
ID
Frequency (Hz)
100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File:D2SAP018.DTB Event Number: 018 Date: 4/10/01 Time: 15:42
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 118dB @ 6.4 Hz
(0.16Mb 0.0023psi 0.0160kPa)
Radial (R): 0.03in/s 0,762mrn/s @ 10,8Hz
Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 17.0Hz
Transverse (T): 0.035in/s 0.889mnVs @ 18.2Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse
1.00 Hz 15.63Hz 2.88 Hz 15.38 Hz
!.9' +OI 4.27E+01 4.27E+01 4.27E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
VL
i wlX«*a^~*i
10 IOC
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP024.DTB Event Number: 024 Date: 4/11/01 Time: 09:54
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 119dB @ 7.4 Hz
(0.18Mb 0.0026psi O.OlSOkPa)
jRadial («): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OHz
Vertical(V): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse(T): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @ O.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
-A
CalOK
CalOK
-V
CalOK
CalOK
-T
)s
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Acoustic (A)
1.31 Hz
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V)
3.56 Hz . 2.25 Hz
Transverse (T)
2.25 Hz
7.84E+01
5.77E+00
5.77E+I
5. 71 i-OO
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
Jl 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP025.DTB Event Number: 025 Date: 4/12/01 Time: 10:35
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 177$
Amplitudes and Frequencies
caustic (A): 119dB @ 10.6 Hz
(0.18Mb 0.0026psi O.OlSOkPa)
\adial (R) 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 12.8Hz
'ertical (V): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @7.1Hz
"ransverse (T): O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @O.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1. OOsec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
R
-V
CalOK
CalOK
Ts~
"3s-
"5s
6s
Acoustic (A)
1.00 Hz
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
11. 56 Hz 11. 75 Hz 10.94 Hz
3.84LH)J 3.84EH)1 3.84E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Ffz)
10 100
Frequency (FIz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP026.DTB EventNumber: 026 Date: 4/12/0 Time: 12:20
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 116dB@ 1.1 Hz
(0.12Mb O.OOlVpsi 0.0120kPa)
tadiat (R) 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 14.2Hz
Vertical (V): 0,02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 16.5Hz
rransverse(T):Q.Ql5inJs 0.381mm/s @21.3Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9,500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
feLsnic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time lines a?: 1,00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
l.OOHz 12.69 Hz 22.13 Hz 16.56Hz
.S3E+02 3.3fl tOI 3.37E+01 3.3; I +01
J\ 10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Az)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP027.DTB Event Number: 027 Date: 4/12/01 Time: 17:02
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0,635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 118 dB @ 3.1 Hz
(0.16Mb 0.0023psi 0.0160kPa)
Radial (R): 0.025in/s Q.635mm/s @ 13.4Hz
7erticat(V):O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (T): Q.Qlin/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mnVs (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
A
CalOK
-V
CalOK
CalOK
7s
8s
9s
Acoustic (A)
1.50 Hz
>.53E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
12.38 Hz 2.94 Hz 15.50 Hz
1.53E+01 1.53ŁH)J 1.53R+01
in
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
inn
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz) |
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. surface
File: D2SAP030.DTB Event Number: 030 Date: 4/13/01 Time: 10:27
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequenci
icoustic (A): 114dB@2.5Hz
(0.10Mb O.OOlSpsi O.OlOOkPa)
Radial (R):0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 12.8Hz
vertical (7): 0.0l5in/s 0.381min/s @23,2H
transverse (T):0. 01 5in/s 0.381mm/s @ 19.
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd) : 2000/1 1/22
^ jAn I ..fl AlAfl ^J~~>~^-,
»
AA/W\J
f
3
.18E-
°1
'Vv^ V v
i ~n . i i
es Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
z Seismic Scale:
6Hz 0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
^ " " \/ '
Cal OK
/\
\/
CalOK
/\
V
Gal OK
/\
\y
is 2s 3s 4s 5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysi
Acoustic (A) Radia
1.06 Hz 12.88
H)2 4.66E+01
\
L • L
'm^ ,AI
s (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
1 (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
Hz 2.56 Hz 2.50 Hz
4.66E+01 4.63 fOl
r
L_- ^iWu_ nAi\wL_
10 100 1 10 100 ul 10 100 " 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. deep
File: D2WAP005.DTB Event Number: 005 Date: 4/3/01 Time: 17:03
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1780
Amplitudes and Frequem
icaustic ft): 117dB@3.9Hz
(0.14Mb 0,0020psi O.OUOkP;
?«<#«/ (R): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OH
vertical (V):Q.QQ5in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OI
Transverse (T): 0.005in/s Timelines at: 1. 00 sec intervals
Cal OK
\/
Cal Low
/\
X/
Cal OK
/ /\
-•--•• \/
Cal Low
:._ /\
x/
5 Is 2s 3s
4s 5s
6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R)
2.06 Hz 3.50 Hz
'.12 ,+01 1.23 KM
1.23
1,
liltoLi^
i'l ''MT'rW^WTWW A
° 10 100 °1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
3.00 Hz 2.06 Hz
3+01 I.23E+01
10 100 °1 10 10(
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. deep
File: D2WAP01 l.DTB Event Number: 011 Date: 4/10/01 Time: 15:42
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Triggei 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 780
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Icoustic (A): 117dB @ 6,4 Hz
(0.14Mb 0.0020psi O.OKOkPa)
0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OHz
.005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OHz
Transverse(T): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
-V
CalLow
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 2.50 Hz 3.00 Hz 2.56 Hz
1.29LH)1 1.29E+01 1.251+01
.1.02E+OI
1 10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. deep
File: D2WAP032.DTB Event Number: 032 Date: 4/11/01 Time: 09:54
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mnVs Serial Number: 1780
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 118 dB @ 7.5 Hz
(0.16Mb 0.0023psi 0.0160kPa)
Radial '(R)[ 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @ O.OHz
Vertlcd(V): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @ O.OHz
Tmmverse(T): 0,005in/s 0.127mm/s @ O.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd); 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (O.OSOin/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Cal Low
2s
3s
4s
5s
7s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.31 Hz 2.31 Hz 2.38 Hz 2.06 Hz
1.71E+01 .71 fOl 1.7IE+01
J\ 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (FIz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. deep
File: D2WAP033.DTB Event Number: 033 Date: 4/12/01 Time: 10:34
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1780
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 117dB @ 11.1 Hz
(0.14Mb 0.0020psi 0.0140kPa)
Radial (R): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OHz
Vertical(V): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OHz
Transverse(T): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd); 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050iii/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
-V
Os
Gal Low
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 1.94Hz 5.25Hz 3.00 Hz
2.10E+01 2.10E+OI 2.10E+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Dean Jr. deep
Amplitudes and Frequencies
(coustic (A): 117dB @ 3.1 Hz
(0.14Mb 0.0020psi O.OMOkPa)
ladial (R): 0.005in/s 0.1Z7mm/s @O.OHz
Vertical (V); 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OHz
Transverse (T): 0.005in/s 0.127mm/s @ O.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000secTo: 9.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
Cal Low
4s
6s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.88 Hz 3.13 Hz 3.19 Hz
Acoustic (A)
1.44 Hz
5.88E+00
5.88E+00
5.88E+00
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Abbott 1 shallow
File:AlSAP016.DTB Event Number: 016 Date: 04/16/2001 Time: 16:50
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (ft: 1 lOdB @ 1.8 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Radial (R): 0.065in/s 1.651mm/s @28.4Hz
Vertical(V): 0.075in/s 1.905mm/s @ 32.0Hz
Transverse (7): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 12.8Hz
Calibration Bute (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mtn/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
p ^fwWYVfcVW
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Cal OK
I
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7SL_
8s
9s
.14E+(
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.69 Hz 21.63 Hz 14.00 Hz
3.48 H)l 3.48E+01
10
Frequency (Hzj
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Abbott 1 deep
File: A1DAP004.DTB Event Number: 004 Date: 4/16/01 Time: 16:50
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0. 025in/s 0,635mm/s Serial Number: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequent
Acoustic (A) 1 10 dB @ 3.2 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kP
Radial (R): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 26.9H
Vertical (F):0.04in/s 1.016mm/s @ 22.21
Transverse (T): Q.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 25
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/1 1/2;
^
— 'w*Ht-^*-
r
*~^IWV*'
s
3.71E+C
0
i i i
is 2s 3s
Fourier Analy
Acoustic (A) Rad
1.56 Hz 13.
11 2.K t01
cies Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9. 500 sec
*) Acoustic Scale:
z 120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
iz Seismic Scale:
6Hz 0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
j Time Lines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
/\
\/
CalOK
/\
\y
CalOK
/\
Ny
i 1 i i i
4s 5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
sis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
ial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
94 Hz 14.63 Hz 14.81 Hz
2.10E+OI 2.1C t01
10 100 °1 10 100 "1 10 100 "1 10 100
Frequency (Hz.) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Abbott 1 shallow
File: A1SAP026.DTB Event Number: 026 Date: 4/18/01 Time: 16:51
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 78
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 116 dB @ 2.8 Hz
(0.12Mb O.OOlVpsi 0.0120kPa)
?a
-------
West Virginia
Abbott
1 shallow
File:AlSAP027.DTB Event Number: 027 Date: 4/18/01 Time: 16:54
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 106 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
ladial (R): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 19.6Hz
Vertical(V): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @22.2Hz
transverse (T): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ 12.8Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd) : 2000/1 1/22
v
»
i
Graph Information
Duration: 0. 000 sec To: 9. 500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
/\
V '
CalOK
/\
\/
CalOK
A
/ \
CalOK
\y
i Is 2s 3s 4s 5s
6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A)
1.06 Hz
Radial (R)
15.06 Hz
.88E+01 1.68E+01
I
WL
°1 10 100 °
Frequency (Hz)
I
will.
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
7.13 Hz 14.75 Hz
1.681 K)I 1.68E+01
r r
-------
West Virginia
Abbott 1 deep
File: A1DAP006.DTB Event Number: 006 Date: 4/18/01 Time: 16:51
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0,635mm/s Serial Number: 1782
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A) 117 dB @ 3.3 Hz
(0.14Mb 0.0020psi 0.0140kPa)
Radial (Zy :0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 10.4Hz
vertical (T/'0.015m/s 0.381mm/s @21.3Hz
rransverse(T):0,0\in/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd) : 2000/1 1/22
^
,.,. AH ,— Lj-T_^j-i_r-
v u
_J ! r^
•VJT-1
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Tims lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
. „ /\
\/ '
CalOK
/\
\/
CalOK
J
1 1 1..
is 2s 3s 4s
\/
CalOK
/\
\/
i i i i j
5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A)
1.44 Hz
Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
8.25 Hz
4.47E+OI 1.37E+01
I
1
i ' ' 'P'VUmHlmilriUi f\
10 100 U1
Frequency (Hz)
; |
m
10
24.13 Hz 8.56 Hz
1.37E+01 1.37E+01
-
L vlil :ML
100 °1 10 100 °1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
File:AlSAP028.DTB
West Virginia
Abbott 1 shallow
EventNumber: 028 Date: 4/19/01
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s
Amplitudes and Frequencie
Acoustic (A): 110dB @ 3.1 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Radial (R): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 24,3Hz
}Vertical(V); 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @ 28.4IL
Transverse (T): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @23.2H
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/1 1/22
:
\
I
i-^
Time: 08:55
SerialNumber: 1781
s Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
i Seismic Scale:
[z 0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5 .08mm/s ( 1 .270mm/s/div)
Time lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
V
CalOK
/\
\/
CalOK
5
j i i i
Is 2s 3s 4s
i . . ._ j
5s 6s 7s
\y
CalOK
/\
\/
i 1
8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial
(R) Vertical (V)
1.06 Hz 15.13 Hz 23.63 Hz
k62E+01 2.561 i-OI
°-
1
11 - ,. Lilt
2.56 tOI
-
I 1 1 ~ ft II ill
10 100 °1 10 100 "1 10
Frequency (Hz,) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Transverse (T)
14.81 Hz
2.56 H)I
r
li ivWL
100 °1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Abbott 1 deep
File: A1DAP007.DTB Event Number: 007 Date: 4/19/01 Time: 08:55
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1782
Amplitudes ;
icoustic(A): 110dB@5.f
(0.06Mb 0.00
Radial (R):Q.Qlin/s 0.254r
Vertical C^;0.025in/s 0.6
Transverse (T): O.Olin/s 0.
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm
I
md Frequencies Graph Information
' Hz Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500sec
09psi 0.0060kPa) Acoustic Scale:
nm/s@O.OHz 120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
35mm/s @ 22.2Hz Sfeismic Scale:
254mm/s @ O.OHz 0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
/dd): 2000/1 1/22 Tone Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
Vx1 — • \/
CalOK
/\
CalOK
' AW - /\
JllM* " \y
CalOK
/\
i i
3 Is 2s
V
! 1 1 1 1 1 1
3s 4s 5s 6s 7s 8s 9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
2.94 Hz 5.13 Hz 23.56 Hz 15.06 Hz
i.041 sol
^L
°1 10 10
Freaucncy (Hz)
1.37 fOI 1.37E+01 I.37E+01
r r
-Ik JiiJii
0 ° 10 100 °1 10 100 °1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Abbott 1 shallow
File: A1SAP033.DTB Event Number: 033 Date: 4/19/01 Time: 16:52
Acoustic Trigger: 114 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s SerialNumber: 1781
Amplitudes and Frequencies
[caustic (A): 106dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
ladial (R): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 9.4Hz
^ertical (V):0.025m/s 0.635mm/s @22.2Hz
rransverse (T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 12,4Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0,20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050m/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: ^.00 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
J-S
"5s-
9s
Acoustic (A)
1.94 Hz
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical (V)
3.94 Hz 24.75 Hz
Transverse (T)
3.31 Hz
I.91E+01
1.91E+01
r
1.91E+OI
1.91t+0i
in 100
Frequency (FIz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Abbott 2 shallow
File: A2NS4020.DTB Event Number: 020 Date: 4/16/01 Time: 16:49
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger D.025in/s 0.635mm/s Serial Number: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 112dB @ 2.5 Hz
(0.08Mb 0.0012psi O.OOSOkPa)
Aadial (R): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @30.1Hz
Vertical(V): 0.03iii/s 0.762mm/s @ 39.3Hz
Transverse(T): 0.035in/s 0.889mm/s @30.1Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalQK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
Is
2s
3s
4s
5s
6s
7s
8s
9s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.75 Hz . 14.63 Hz 14.50 Hz 29.19 Hz
1.55E+01 1.55EHH 1.55E+01
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hi.)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Abbott 2 deep
File: A2SP4017.DTB EventNumber: 017 Date: 4/16/01 Time: 16:45
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB Seismic Trigger: 0.025in/s 0,635mm/s Serial Number: 1780
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A) 110 dB @ 2.6 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Radial (R):0,005in/s 0.127mm/s @O.OHz
Vertical(V): O.OOin/s 0,00mm/s @ O.OHz
Transverse (7): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @34.1Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: WO sec intervals
CalOK
Cal Low
CalLow
CalOK
Is
Ss
fis
7s
8s
9s
Acoustic (A)
1.69 Hz
U6E+Q1
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Radial (R) Vertical Transverse (T)
1.50 Hz 0,00 Hz 3.25 Hz
1.11E+01 1.11E+01 1.11E+01
'\ 10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
West Virginia
Abbott 2 shallow
File: A2NS4072.DTB Event Number: 072 Date: 4/18/01 Time: 16:50
Acoustic Trigger: 114dB S ismic Trigger 0.025in/s 0,635mm/s SerialNumber: 1779
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 118dB @ 3.3 Hz
(0.16MbO,0023psi0.0160kPa)
Radial (R): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @25.6Hz
vertical(T?: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @28.4Hz
Transverse (T): 0,02in/s 0.508mm/s @28.4Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/11/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 9.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Satanic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (l,270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 1.00 sec intervals
CalOK
-A
CalOK
JJ
q
CalOK
CalOK
2s
3s
5s
7s
8s
9s
'.42E+OI
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
3.00 Hz 26.44 Hz 14.75 Hz 8.25 Hz
I.28E+OI 1.2SI -M)l 1.28E+OJ
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
-------
FALL 2001
-------
Kentucky
Sumner
Amplitudes and Frequencies
caustic (A): 125dB@5.5Hz
(0.34Mb 0.0049psi 0.0340kPa)
R'adial(R):0.02in/s O.S08mm/s @ 14.2Hz
'ertical (V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @7.0Hz
^ransverse (T): 0.02in/s 0,508mm/s @20,4Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 4.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
125dB 0.36Mb (0.090Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 0.50sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
OOs
O.SOs
l.OOs
1.50s
2.00s
2.50s
3.50s"
4.00s
4.50s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.25 Hz 2.Is Hz 2.88 Hz 3.00 Hz
,44E+01 3.54E+01 3.54E 101
ifl 1.00
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
3.54E+01
r
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Kentucky
Sumner
File:608@@144.DTA Event Number: 144 Date: 9/24/01 Time: 13:53
Acoustic Trigger: 120 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 809
Amplitudes and Frequencies Graph Information
Icoustic (A): 1 00 dB @ 0.0 Hz Duration: 0. 000 sec To: 4 . SOOsec
(0.02Mb 0.0003psi 0.0020kPa) Acoustic Scale:
Radial (R):0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @4.0Hz 120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Vertical (V):O.Q2in/s 0.508mm/s @4.1Hz SsLsaLc Scale:
Transverse (T): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 14.6Hz 0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Tims Lines at: 0.50 sec intervals
^
CalOK
/\
V '
CalOK
CalOK
r
V
CalOK
/\
,00s 0.50s I.OOs 1.50s 2.00s 2.50s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spec
Acoustic (A) Radial (R)
1.00 Hz 2.13 Hz
I.95E+00 2.62E+OI 2.62 H)l
°1 10 100 °1 10 100 °
Frequency (Hz) Freauencv (Hz)
3.00s 3.50s 4.00s 4.50s
trum - Box Window)
Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.88 Hz 15.25 Hz
2.62E+01
10 100 C 10 10I
Freauencv (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
-------
Kentucky
Sumner
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): <100dB
Radial (R): 0.015in/s 0.381mm/s @ 6.8Hz
Vertical(V): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 2.8Hz
Transverse (7): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 11.6Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 4.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
feisnic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TimeLines at: 0.50 sec intervals
Acoustic (A)
0.00 Hz
Radial (R)
1.63 Hz
Vertical (V)
1.75 Hz .
Transverse (T)
2.75 Hz
).OOE+00
3.4? (-01
3.4; HOI
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
3.4s E -
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 IX
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Kentucky
Sumner
File: 608@@146.DTA EventNumber: 146 Date: 9/25/01 Time: 15:44
Acoustic Trigger: 120dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0,508mm/s Serial Number: 809
Amplitudes and Frequencies
caustic (A): 116dB@ 1.5 Hz
(0.12Mb 0.0017psi 0.0120kPa)
W*a/(R): 0,015in/s 0.381mm/s @34.1Hz
'ertical (V): O.Olin/s 0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Vawsvme (T): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @23.2Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0,000sec To: 4.500sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5,08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 0.50 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
OOs
0.50s
I.OOs
1.50s
2.00s
2.50s
3.00s
3.50s
4.00s
4.50s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.88 Hz 20.00 Hz 15.38 Hz 13.75 Hz
9.951 1-00 9.95 LH)0 9.95LI-00
.OOE+01
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Kentucky
Hurley
File: 813@@065.DTA Event Number: 065 Date: 9/21/01 Time: 15:20
Acoustic Trigger: 120dB Seismic Trigger :0.02in/s0.508mm/s Serial Number: 813
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 118dB @ 6.7 Hz
(0.16Mb 0.0023psi 0.0160kPa)
Radial (R):Q.Q3in/s 0.762mm/s @ 9.4Hz
Vertical(Y): Q,Q\5in/s 0.381mm/s @34,lHz
Transverse(T): 0.03in/s 0.762mm/s @ 23.2Hz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 4.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0,050in/s/div) 5.08mnVs (1.270mm/s/div)
Timelines at: 0.50 sec intervals
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
CalOK
.OOs
0.50s
1,00s
1.50s
2.00s
2.50s
3.00s
3.50s
4.00s
4.50s
1.54E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 3.25 H2 3.25 Hz 3.25 Hz
2.47t.+01 2.47E+01 2.47E+01
0
1 10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Kentucky
Hurley
Amplitudes and Frequencies
icoustic (A): 106 dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb 0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
ladial (R): 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s @ 16.5Hz
0,254mm/s @O.OHz
0.254mm/s @ O.OHz
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 4.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Tone Lines at: 0.50 sec intervals
Cal Low
OOs
0.50s
T OOs
1 SQs
200s
J\
Cal OK
Cal Low
Cal OK
1.50s
-1IKK
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum- Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.25 Hz 1.75 Hz 1.50 Hz 2.00 Hz
64E+00 1.2f i+Ol I.26E+01 1.2( +01
1 10
Frequency (Hz)
100
in
Freapency (Hz\
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
-------
WINTER 2001
-------
Dean Jr. Well - surface transducer
File: 01769224.DTB Event Number: 224 Date: 12/04/2001 Time: 16:44
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 1769
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 106dB @ 0.0 Hz
(0.04Mb0.0006psi 0.0040kPa)
Radial (R) 0.0325in/s 0.8255mm/s @ 13.4Hz
Vertical (V): 0.025in/s 0.635mm/s @ 19.6Hz
Transverse (T): 0.0325in/s 0.825Smm/s @ 18.9Hz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/09/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 4.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
feismc Scale:
0.20in/s (O.OSOin/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 0.50 sec intervals
R
CalOK
CalOK
Cal OK
CalOK
O.OQs
0.50s
1.50s
2.00s
2.50s
3.00s
3.50s
4.00s
4.50s
Fourier Analysis \Ampfffude Spectrum - Box Window/
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
i.OOHz 13.13 Hz 17.00 Hz 13.13 Hz
2.36E+01 6.76E+01 6.76E+01 6.76E+01
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Dean Jr. ^ ell - surface transducer
File: 01769229.DTB EventNumber: 229 Date: 12/05/2001 Time: 16:46
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0.02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 1769
Amplitudes and Frequencies
4coustic (A): 110 dB @ 3.8 Hz
(0.06Mb 0.0009psi 0.0060kPa)
Radial (R): 0.03in/s 0,762mm/s @ 12.1 Hz
Vertical (V).-0.0125in/s 0.3175mm/s @ IV.OHz
Transverse (T;.-0.0325in/s 0.82SSmm/s @ IS.SHz
Calibration Date (yyyy/mm/dd); 2000/09/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000 sec To: 4.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
feianic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
TiiaeLines at: 0.50 sec intervals
CalOK
/
CaiOK
CalOK
CalOK-
.OOs
0.50s
I.OOs
1.50s
T.Q01 2.50s
3.00s~
,3.50s
4.00s
4.50s
5.91E+01
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.00 Hz 11.38 Hz 2.88 Hz 13.25 Hz
3.89 ,401 3.89E+01 3.89E+01
10 100
Frequency (Hz)
10 100
Frequency^Hz)
10
Frequency (I lz
-------
Dean Jr. Well - surface transducer—-
File: 01769230.DTB Event Number: 230 Date: 12/05/2001 Time: 16:50
Acoustic Trigger: 142 dB Seismic Trigger: 0,02in/s 0.508mm/s Serial Number: 1769
Amplitudes and Frequencies
Acoustic (A): 114dB @ 1.6 Hz
(0.10Mb O.OOlSpsi O.OlOOkPa)
Radial (R) :0.0525in/s l,3335mm/s @ 16.0Hz
Vertically): 0.0325in/s 0.8255tnm/s @ lO.OHz
Transverse(T): 0.0375in/s 0.9525mm/s @ I4.6Hz
Calibration Dale (yyyy/mm/dd): 2000/09/22
Graph Information
Duration: 0.000sec To: 4.500 sec
Acoustic Scale:
120dB 0.20Mb (0.050Mb/div)
Seismic Scale:
0.20in/s (0.050in/s/div) 5.08mm/s (1.270mm/s/div)
Time Lines at: 0.50 sec intervals
A- ._.' \ ,
l^-^ "
V
CalOK
~\
\/
CalOK
/'x
\ / '
Cal OK
\/
CalOK
\
.OOs
0.50s
l.OOs
__2.DOs
2.50s
3.00s
4.00s
4.50s
Fourier Analysis (Amplitude Spectrum - Box Window)
Acoustic (A) Radial (R) Vertical (V) Transverse (T)
1.50 Hz 16.25 Hz 2.88 Hz 16.25 Hz
5.81 +01 1.10E+02 1.10E+02 1.10 +02
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency.. (Hz)
100
10
Frequency (Hz)
-------
Appendix B
Laboratory Analysis
Results
-------
JLnrd
Inter-Mountain laboratories, ioc
Phone (505) 326-4737 Rx (505)325-4182
2506Wsst Main Street, Farmington.NM 87401
Date:
Client:
Lab ID:
Project:
11/29/00
Daniel B. Stephens
0300W04998 - 5000
Norton, VA
Dear Client:
The samples were received for analysis at Inter-Mountain Laboratories (IML),
Farmington, New Mexico. Enclosed are the results of these analyses.
Comment:
Analytical results were obtained by approved methods. Sample analyses were
obtained within the method specific holding times. Practical Quantitation Limits
(PQL's) are based on method requirements, and any dilutions necessary
to maintain proper method response without matrix interference.
If you have any questions, please call me at (505) 326-4737.
IML-Farmington, NM
-------
JL/TXL
Inter-Mountain laboratories inc
Ftaie (505) 326-4737 Fax (505)3254182
Client: Daniel B. Stephens
Project: Norton.VA
Sample ID: RATLIFFE 1
Lab ID: 0300W04998
Matrix: Water
Condition: Cool/Intact
2506West Main Street, Famiii^on, NM 87401
Date Received: 11/10/00
Date Reported: 11/29/00
Date Sampled: 11/09/00
Time Sampled: 1115
IttEt
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids * Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
448
4
109
<0.05
4.17
0.36
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
2
2
5
0.05
0.02
0.01
EPA 160.2 11/13/00 1455 FP
EPA160.2 11110100 1455 KA
EPA300.0 11/29/00 0900 KA
EPA200.7
EPA200.7
EPA200.7
11/22/00 1447 WL
11/22/00 1447 WL
11/22/00 1447 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
EPA - "Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environments Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-11 I- May, 1994.
Reviewed By:
-------
InxJL
inter«Mountoin laboratories, inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 EK (505) 325-4182
Client: Dan ielB. Stephens
Project: Norton,VA
Sample ID: BANKS 1
Lab ID: 0300W04999
Matrix: Water
Condition: Cool/Intact
- **=.- .--. - j
: P^fSHISiB5
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Ifti^ifert -"" " " " -""" "' - "- "•
9tfiiŁ'>:-'iMt --• ' - - U»K- " ?QL.
274 mg/L 2
3 mg/L 2
72 mg/L 5
<0,05 mg/L 0.05
3.48 mg/L 0.02
0.44 mg/L 0.01
2506V\fet Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Date Received: 11/10/00
Date Reported: 11/29/00
Date Sampled: 11/09/00
Time Sampled: 1355
- _H!l!!=y!!5lS
:Dsie intt.
EPA160.2 11/13/00 1455 FP
EPA 160.2 11/10/00 1455 KA
EPA 300.0 11/29/00 0900 KA
EPA200.7 11/22/00 1450 WL
EPA200.7 11/22/00 1450 WL
EPA200.7 11/22/00 1450 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
EPA - "Methods for the^itermination of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
Reviewed By:
-------
imJl
Inter-Mountain laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505) 32S4737 Fax (505) 325-4182
Client: Daniel B. Stephens
Project: Norton.VA
Sample ID: BOGGS1
Lab ID: 0300W05QOO
Matrix: Water
Condition: Cool/Intact
2506 Wsst Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Date Received: 11/10/00
Date Reported: 11/29/00
Date Sampled: 11/06/00
Time Sampled: 0930
General Parameters
Solids-Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
-POL.
1,740
19
991
<0.05
17.7
1.10
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
2
2
5
0.05
0.02
0.01
EPA 160.2
EPA 160.2
EPA 300.0
EPA200.7
EPA200.7
EPA 200.7
11/13/00 1455 FP
11/10/00 1455 KA
11/29/00 0900 KA
11/22/00 1459 WL
11/22/00 1459 WL
11/22/00 1459 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methods for Chei
EPA - "Mtfthodsrfcv ttv
Reviewed By:
I Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
ilnation of Metals in Environmental Samples"-Supplement I-600/R-94-11 I- May, 1994.
-------
JL/rvJL
Inter*Mountain Laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 KK (505) 3254182 Quality Control Report 2506West Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Duplicate Analysis
Client:
Project:
Sample ID:
Lab ID:
Matrix:
Condition:
'.: L ~ T '. i.-.-'L.'. !""~: •!•!'''!! !•: •f'1 \
Daniel B. Stephens
Norton.VA
BANKS 1
0300W04999
Water
Cool/Intact
iSf-r': •« = --::•:-..•. f ', -,„•; V Jiff ?•<+,-. , i VW/ffmgjUggf)? V.r«4 i!*!
h
-------
JU7\i
Inler- Mountain
Laboratories, Inc.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Client/Project Name ,
Dv7"^ "^ ( Ob»VH O3fi\ jV^
Sampler: (Signature)
Sample No./
Identification
l4\V-{(p 1
TW^s \
"baa^ 1
"\^"u
~^\
"\,
X
Date
ulUoo
\ _
>x\
; /P
^^
Time
ijtc
13S5
5€'^O
j
^\
^^
'X
Chain
Project Location
>4 •"%->, 'J
/ / ANALYSES / PARAMETERS
II f
of Custody Tape No.
\\jfv
Lab Number
fa/Qf9?JT
/
^
^\,
"x^
\
RetinquisKed byn*fSf^natureL? ,nef^^f^"'m — "~x
Relinquished byi (Signature) "'''
Relinquished by: (Signature) ^^JJ^Lii
Matrix
u^,%/
U^aV f
X,
"\^
Dale/ Time
/mo /c/s
Date Time
Date Time
^
Inter-Mountain LaboraPrk
555 Absaraka 1633 Terra Avenue 1701 Phillips Circle x-~_
Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 Gilette, Wyoming 82718
Telephone (307)674-7506 Telephone (307)672-8945 Telephone (307)682-8945
No. of ^""^
Containers
C^
Ł
K
k
X
i
i **^
\j~^ ^
*s»j' L.—
X
V
X
/
-
•
/ Remarks
•K-
y
C^
\^
\
\
VIA
»^«« ~~r-
\
\
Received by: (Signature) Date Time
Received by: (SignltuW Date Time
Repelved bjf laboratory: (Signature) /? t^te,. Time
s^vjnc '
W \ '~
a ) G Vn^4
isOffV/est Main Street 1 1 183 State Hwy. 30 t W W W *»
Farmington, NM 87401 College Station, TX 77845
Telephone (505) 326-4737 Telephone (979) 776-8945
-------
JLmJl
Inter-Mountain laboratories. Inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 Fax (505) 3254182
2506 West Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
December 7,20 00
Todd Stein
Daniel B. Stevens Consulting
6020 Academy Rd. NE, Suite 100
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Mr. Stein:
Enclosed please find the reports for the samples received by our laboratory for
analysis on November 21,2000.
If you have any questions about the results of these analyses, please don't
hesitate to call me at your convenience.
Thank you for choosing I ML for your analytical needs!
WilliamLipps
Assistant Lab Marfager/IML-Farmington
Enclosure
xc: File
-------
imJl
lnter*Mountoin laboratories, Inc.
Fhcne (505)326-4737 Fax (505)325-4182
2506 West Main Stree(,Farrnington,NM 87401
DANIEL B. STEVENS
Case Narrative
On November 21,2000, four water samples were submitted to Inter-Mountain
Laboratories- Farmingtonfor analysis, The parameters performed on the
samples are indicated on the accompanying Chain of Custody.
It is the policy cf this laboratoryto employ, whenever possible, preparatory and
analytical methods which have been approved by regulatory agencies. The
methods used in the analysis of the samples reported herein are found in: EPA:
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWWV - EPA/600/4-
79-020 - March 1983, "Methods for the Determination of Metals in
Environmental Samples". Supplement I-6QQ/R-94-111 -May, 1994.
If there are any questions regarding the information presented in this report
package, please feel free to contact us at your convenience.
William Lipps
Assistant Lab M
ger/IML-Farmington
-------
iml
Inter*Mountciin laboratories, inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 fix (505) 325-4182
Client:
Project:
Sample ID:
Lab ID:
Matrix:
Condition:
Daniel B. Stephens
Norton.VA
Boggs2
0300W05150
Water
Intact
2506V\fest Main Street, Farrnington, NM 87401
Date Received: 1121/00
Date Reported: 12/05/00
Date Sampled: 11/18/00
Time Sampled: 1515
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids-Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
1,710
9
955
<0.05
0.03
0.88
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
10 EPA 160.1 11/22/000930 FP
2 EPA160.2 11/17/000900 KA
5 EPA 300,0 12/01/00 1339 KA
0.05
0.02
0.01
€PA 200.7
EPA200.7
EPA 200.7
12/05/00 1344 WL
12/05/00 1344 WL
12/05/00 1344 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methodsfor Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)"- EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
EPA-"MethodsfortheJ}etermination of Metals in EnvironmentalSamples"- Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May. 1994.
Reviewed By:
-------
imJL
lnter«Mountoin laboratories, Inc.
Ftae (505) 3264737
Project:
Sample ID:
Lab ID:
Matrix:
Condition:
., 325-4182
a'niel B. Stephens
Norton.VA
Ratliff2
0300W05151
Water
Intact
2506 West Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Date Received: 11/21/00
Date Reported: 12/05/00
Date Sampled: 11/18/00
Time Sampled: 1425
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
iron
Manganese
430 mg/L
14 mg/L
108 mg/L
0.07 mg/L
5.71 mg/L
0.42 mg/L
10 EPA160.1 11/22/00 0930 FP
2 EPA 160.2 11/17/00 0900 KA
5 EPA300.0 12/01/00 1406 KA
0.05 EPA 200.7
0.02 EPA200.7
0.01 EPA200.7
12/05/00 1347 WL
12/05/00 1347 WL
12/05/00 1347 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
EPA - "Methodsfor the.Oetermination of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
Reviewed By:
-------
JLmi
Inter.Mountain laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505 326-4737 Fax (505) 325-41 82
Client: Daniel B, Stephens
Project: Norton.VA
Sample ID: Banks 2
Lab ID: 0300W05152
Matrix: Water
Condition: Intact
I :--^PWN* - -•"" fc- . -/:-;uMfc
General Parameters
Solids -Total Dissolved 260 mg/L
Solids - Total Suspended 21 mg/L
Sulfate 72 mg/L
Total Metals
Aluminum
-------
inrd
Inter.Mountain Laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505)3264737 RK (505)3254182
Client: Dan ielB. Stephens
Project: Norton,VA
Sample ID: Sumner 1
Lab ID: 0300W05153
Matrix: Water
Condition: Intact
2506 West Main Street, FaimJngton,NM 87401
Date Received: 11/21/00
Date Reported: 12/05/00
Date Sampled: 11/18/00
Time Sampled: 1605
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved 250
Solids - Total Suspended <2
Sulfate 7
Total Metals
Aluminum <0.05
Iron 20.8
Manganese 0.89
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
10 EPA 160.1 11/22/00 0930 FP
2 EPA 160.2 11/17/00 0900 KA
5 EPA 300.0 12/01/00 1425 KA
0.05 EPA200.7 12/05/00 1353 WL
0.02 EPA200.7 12/05/00 1353 WL
0.01 EPA200.7 12/05/00 1353 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methods for Chemiqal Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
EPA - "Method^ fprth.e C^'terrhi nation of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May. 1994.
Reviewed By:
/
-------
Client/Project Name
Sampler: (Signature)
*\
Sample No J
Identification
w
; s
.Received by: (Signature)
Received by: (Signature)
Received by laboratory: (Signature)
* " ^
Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc. N
o o o co a
SSSAbsaraka 1633 Terra Avenue 1701 Phillips Circle 2506 West Main Street 1 1 183 State Hwy. 30
Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 Gillette, Wyoming 82718 Farmington, NM 87401 College Station, TX 77845
Telephone (307) 674-7506 Telephone (307) 672-8945 Telephone (307) 682-8945 Telephone (505) 326-4737 Telephone (979) 776-8945
Date Time
Date Time
Date Time
* . *'
-------
JLnrd
Phone (505) 326-1737 Fax (505) 325-4182
Inter.Mountoin laboratories, Inc.
2506 West Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Date:
Client:
Lab ID:
Project:
12/12/00
Daniel B. Stephens
0300W05218
Norton, VA
Dear Client:
The samples were received for analysis at Inter-Mountain Laboratories (IML),
Farmington, New Mexico. Enclosed are the results of these analyses.
Comment:
Analytical results were obtained by approved methods. Sample analyses were
obtained within the method specific holding times. Practical Quantitation Limits
(PQL's) are based on method requirements, and any dilutions necessary
to maintain proper method response without matrix interference.
If you have any questions, please call me at (505) 326-4737.
William Lipps
IML-Farmington, NM
-------
imL
Inter.Mountain Laboratories, inc
Ftoie(505 3244737 Rax (505) 3254182
1 " Daniel B. Stephens
dent:
Project:
Sample ID:
Lab ID:
Matrix:
Condition:
Norton ,VA
Hurley #1
0300W05218
Water
Intact
2606 West Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Date Received: 11/22/00
Date Reported: 12112/00
DateSampled: 11120100
Time Sampled: 1418
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
700 mgIL
22 mgIL
36 mgIL
<0.05 mgIL
12.9 mg/L
1.51
10 EPA 160.1 11/29/001200 KA
2 EPA 160.2 11/28/001200 KA
5 EPA300.0 12/05/00 1002 KA
0.05 EPA200.7 12/05/00 1416 WL
0.02 EPA200.7 12/05/00 1416 WL
0.01 EPA200.7 12/05/00 1416 WL
Reference: EPA - "Me1
EPA - "I
Reviewed By:
Is for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)"- EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
for (he(Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
-------
JLnrxJL
inrw-Mountain
Laboratories,. Inc.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Item/Project Name
Project Location
/ ANALYSES/PARAMETERS
^7%
ampler: (Signature}
Chain of Custody Tape No.
Sample No^
kfentfffcation
Lab Number
ribtquiahod by: (Signature)
Date Tlnrw Received by: (Signature!
dlnqufehed by; (SiQnalore)
Inter-Mountain Laboratories Jn.
o
1701 Riillips Circle
GMtette, W/om&ig 82718
Telephone (SOT) 682-6945
O
11183 State Hwy.30
CcHege Station, TX 77845
TeJephone {973J 776-8945
06 West Pjtein Street
rmiogton, NW 87401
Telephorw (505) 325-4737
555 Absaraka
Sheridan. WyomJng 82801
f3O7) 674-7506
a
1633 Terra Avenue
Shefidan, Wyoming 32801
Telephone (307} 672-894S
-------
Inter-Mountain laboratories, inc.
Phone (SOS) 326-4737 Rax (505) 3254182
2506 West Main Street, Farmington,NM 87401
Date:
Client:
Lab ID:
Project:
12/15/00
Daniel B. Stephens
0300W05257 - 60
Norton, VA
Dear Client:
The samples were received for analysis at Inter-Mountain Laboratories (IML),
Farmington, New Mexico. Enclosed are the results of these analyses.
Comment:
Analytical results were obtained by approved methods. Sample analyses were
obtained within the method specific holding times. Practical Quantitation Limits
(PQL's) are based on method requirements, and any dilutions necessary
to maintain proper method response without matrix interference.
If you have any questions, please call me at (505) 326-4737.
William Lipps
IML-Farmington, NM
-------
Inter^Mountoin Laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 Fax (505)325-4182
Daniel B. Stephens
Client:
Project:
Sample ID:
Lab ID:
Matrix:
Condition:
Norton,VA
Sumner-2
0300W05257
Water
Intact
2506 West Man Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Date Received: 11/28/00
Date Reported: 12/15/00
Date Sampled: 11/25/00
Time Sampled: 1800
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
250
103
6
0.06
67.0
3.86
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
10 EPA 160.1 11/29/00 1200 KA
2 EPA160.2 12/01/00 1130 KA
5 EPA300.0 12/06/00 1018 WL
0.05 EPA200.7 12/06/00 1356 WL
0.02 EPA200.7 12/06/00 1356 WL
0.01 EPA200.7 12/06/00 1356 WL
Reference: EPA • "Methods for Chei
EPA - "Methfods far th
Reviewed By:
Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
rminatior of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
-------
intes-'Moontoin laboratories, inc.
Phone (505} 326-4737 Fax (505) 3254182
Client: Daniel B. Stephens
Project: Norton, VA
Sample ID: Hurley-2
Lab ID: 0300W05258
Matrix: Water
Condition: Intact
.• V: •fff^:Mj^^,^-Jf:^-;^^:-'.:Ł&i^^^
"7 . \ >;:: :> :3BjiJ3H&$?$&''®& & "If
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved 650
Solids - Total Suspended 26
Sulfate 37
Total Metals
Aluminum <0.05
Iron 14.7
Manganese 1.46
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
2506 \Atest Main Street, Formington, NM 87401
Date Received: 11/28/00
Date Reported: 12/15/00
Date Sampled: 11/25/00
Time Sampled: 1900
.SIKr'HS- •lO^'v" ;l:": '•' '?r;- "?:.••'•;'. . -.-. ::A^illif:: "•• .. J
=il:SliE;^ft fevtliSb:! . ']: : ": • '•; Wlftiii!/. ; • 'Sipf V -i '.iftii.:: :.'•:
10 EPA160.1 11/29/00 1200 KA
2 EPAJ60.2 12/01/00 1130 KA
5 EPA300.0 12/06/00 1018 WL
0.05 EPA200.7 12/06/00 1359 WL
0.02 EPA 200.7 12/06/00 1359 WL
0.01 EPA 200.7 12/06/00 1359 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methods for Chemj
EPA-"MettlbdsferJhe
Reviewed By:
il Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)"- EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
lination of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
-------
JLXTXL
Inler.Mountoin laboratories, Inc.
Pho
ne (505) 326-4737 Fax (505) 325-4182
Client: Daniel B. Stephens
Project: Norton,VA
Sample ID: Dean 1-1
Lab ID: 0300W05259
Matrix: Water
Condition: Intact
2506West Main Street, Farmington.NM 87401
Date Received: 11/28/00
Date Reported: 12/15/00
Date Sampled: 11/26/00
Time Sampled: 1615
: "" -fffffOImm _T_~= _ _5-- _- = -. ~_"; - - "= - - - " _ - - ":-_-_ n™™*?^ •
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
400
75
145
0.07
26.4
1.00
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
10
2
5
0.05
0.02
0.01
EPA160.1
EPA160.2
EPA300.0
EPA200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA200.7
11/29/00
12/01/00
12/06/00
12/06/00
12/06/00
12/06/00
1200 KA
1130 KA
1018 WL
1402 WL
1402 WL
1402 WL
Reference: EPA-"MethodsforChemicalAnalysisofWaterandWastes(MCAWW)" -EPA/600/4-79-020- March, 1983.
EPA - "Method^fo.rjhe O^teijninatlon of Metals in EnvironmentalSamples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
Reviewed By:
-------
JLnrxJL
Inter-Mountain laboratories. Inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 Fax. (505) 3254182
~1=---- Daniel B. Stephens
Client:
Project:
Sample ID:
Lab ID:
Matrix:
Condition:
Norton.VA
Dean 2-1
0300W05260
Water
intact
2506 West Main Street,Farmingfon, NM 87401
Date Received: 11/28/00
Date Reported: 12115WO
Date Sampled: 11/26/00
Time Sampled: 1620
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids- Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
320
7
109
<0.05
4.62
0.39
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
10
2
5
0.05
0.02
0.01
EPA 160.1
EPA 160.2
EPA 300.0
EPA200.7
EPA200.7
EPA200.7
11/29/00 1200 KA
12/01/00 1130 KA
12/06/00 1018 WL
12/06/00 1410 WL
12/06/00 1410 WL
12/06/00 1410 WL
Reference: EPA- "Methods for Critical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
EPA - "Mqthtxto for thiŁ Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples"-Supplement! -600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
Reviewed By:
-------
DANIELB. STEPHENS ASSOCIATES.INC.
Chain of Custody
To:
r- - Mr,u.fvWir> i-Q Vif> TcArt hŁ ^
._ Date
_ Client
ProjectNo.
Relinquished by
\\7.,L
Sent by: ^ Fed Ex
Purpose of Shipment
Possible Contaminants
DHL D Other
Item
No.
Sample No.
Analysis to be Done
Sample
Container
Comments
s,
^J^
\L
\U3S-16C
Q
,
o
fr.~ M
M
\ it is
V)
Date Received
by
Received the above articles in good condition
Except as noted ,
DBS4A FomiNo.095
-------
JLml
Inter-Mountain laboratories. Inc.
Phone (505) 326.4737 Fax. (505) 3254182
2506 West Mil Street, Farnii^m, NM 87401
Date:
Client:
Lab ID:
Project:
12/20/00
Daniel B. Stephens
0300W05356 - 59
Norton, VA
Dear Client:
The samples were received for analysis at Inter-Mountain Laboratories (IML),
Farmington, New Mexico. Enclosed are the results of these analyses.
Comment:
Analytical results were obtained by approved methods. Sample analyses were
obtained within the method specific holding times. Practical Quantitation Limits
(PQL's) are based on method requirements, and any dilutions necessary
to maintain proper method response without matrix interference.
Ifyou have any questions, please call me at (505) 326-4737.
O
^^yy
William Lipps j \
IML-Farmington, NM
-------
I/nJL
Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 fax. (505) 326-4182
Client:
Project:
Sample ID:
Lab ID:
Matrix:
Condition:
Daniel B. Stephens
Norton.VA
Dean 1-2
0300W05356
Water
Intact
2506West MainStreet.Farmington, NM 87401
Date Received: 12/05/00
Date Reported: 12120100
Date Sampled: 12/04/00
Time Sampled: 1305
--
; POL
Init,
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
380
<2
144
<0.05
5.42
0.85
mg/L
mg/L
nng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
10 EPA160.1 12/08/00 1600 FP
2 EPA 160.2 12/06/001100 KA
5 EPA300.0 12/06/00 1018 KA
0.05 EPA200.7 12/19/00 1437 WL
0.02 EPA200.7 12/19/00 1437 WL
0.01 EPA 200.7 12/19/00 1437 WL
Reference: EPA- "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
EPA-"Metljoe|sfor/tfiespetermlnation of Metals in Environmental Samples"- Supplement I- 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
Reviewed By:
-------
JLnrvJL
Inter.MountQJn laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 Fax (505) 325-4182
Client: Daniel B, Stephens
Project: Norton,VA
Sample ID: Dean 2-2
Lab ID: 0300W05357
Matrix: Water
Condition: Intact
fe"i ':"^'^^^S' • ;. •'•? '• ; 'id$fey '
i?«.' ' , ' t5!'',J5i^BBBpw ''.''' •" •Ł'•/• c-.^ '•
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
iron
Manganese
^^il^^&^^^iS/^M.^:^ " '
' ' •W^SW'6-';-:-^''WwPf,1i':|.vvS','«*''i*'t. ;' 1 'ttj '">'-.' ?.'l'J*ffl''P'''!«'"l?''f'i''!rW*' • -
280 mg/L 10
<2 mg/L 2
109 mg/L 5
<0.05 mg/L 0.05
1.84 mg/L 0.02
0.24 mg/L 0.01
2506 West Main Steel; Farmington, NM 87401
Date Received: 12/05/00
Date Reported: 12/20/00
Date Sampled: 12/04/00
Time Sampled: 1324
'' ;'|/fri>''v>';- , >' • " Analysis \ ' '
•'•'• '!!s'P»Mll?i"1, ' '.a'WpW ^T'.j'W1 ,'f *™fr<.
EPA160.1 12/08/00 1600 FP
EPA 160.2 12/06/00 1100 KA
EPA 300.0 12/06/00 1018 KA
EPA200.7 12/19/00 1445 WL
EPA200.7 12/19/00 1445 WL
EPA200.7 12/19/00 1445 WL
Reference: EPA- "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
EPA - "Metftflds for the^etermination of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
Reviewed By:
-------
JLml
Inter.Mountain Laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 Fax (505) 325-4182
Client: Daniel B. Stephens
Project:
Sample ID:
Lab ID:
Matrix:
Condition:
Norton.VA
Abbott 1-1
0300W05358
Water
Intact
2506V\fest Main Steel; Farmington, NM 87401
Date Received: 12/05/00
Date Reported: 12120100
DateSampled: 12/04/00
Time Sampled: 1240
Init.
General Parameters
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
180 mg/L
<2 mg/L
7 mg/L
<0.05 mg/L
0.89 mg/L
0.10 mg/L
10 EPA 160.1 12/08/00 1600 FP
2 EPA 160.2 12/06/001100 KA
5 EPA300.0 12/06/00 1018 KA
0.05 EPA200.7 12/19/00 1448 WL
0.02 EPA 200.7 12/19/00 1448 WL
0.01 EPA200.7 12/19/00 1448 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methods for ChemicaLAnalysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
EPA - "MethtfdsTftSrVrei De>Łrmir\Btion of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
Reviewed By:
-------
iml
Phone (505) 326-4737 Fax (505) 325-4182
Client: Daniel B. Stephens
Project:
Sample ID:
Lab ID:
Matrix:
Condition:
Norton,VA
Abbott 2-1
0300W05359
Water
Intact
inter«MountQin Loborotories. Inc.
2506Wfest Main Street, Farrnington.NM 87401
Date Received: 12/05/00
Date Reported: 12/20/00
Date Sampled: 12/04/00
Time Sampled: 1245
General Parameters
Solids-Total Dissolved
Solids- Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
160
58
15
<0.05
16.4
0.55
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
10
2
5
0.05
0.02
0.01
€PA 160.1
EPA 160.2
EPA300.0
EPA200.7
EPA 200,7
EPA200.7
12/08/00 1600 FP
12/06/00 1100 KA
12/06/00 1018 KA
12/19/00 1451 WL
12/19/00 1451 WL
12/19/001451 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methodsfor Chei
EPA - "Me
Reviewed By:
I Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
Jnation of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
-------
DANIEL B. STEPHENS & ASSOCIATES INC
Chain cf Custody
To:
Sent by: ffl Fed Ex D DHL, D Other
Purpose of Shipment
Possible Contaminants
Date
Client
-s
Relinquished by
Item
No.
Sample No.
Analysis to be Done
Sample
Container
Comments
"
-------
I/TXi
lnter*MountGio laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505) 326-4737 Fax (505) 325-4182
2506 West Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Date:
Client:
Lab ID:
Project:
1/25/01
Daniel B. Stephens
0301W00307 - 08
Norton, VA
Dear Client:
The samples were received for analysis at Inter-Mountain Laboratories (IML),
Farmington, New Mexico. Enclosed are the results of these analyses.
Comment:
Analytical results were obtained by approved methods. Sample analyses were
obtained within the method specific holding times. Practical Quantitation Limits
(PQL's) are based on method requirements, and any dilutions necessary
to maintain proper method response without matrix interference.
If you have any questions, please call me at (505) 326-4737.
William Lipps
IML-Farmington,
-------
JLnrxJl
Inter.Mountoio Laboratories, Inc.
Phone (505) 3264737 RK (505) 3254182
Client: Daniel B. Stephens
Project: Norton,VA
Sample ID: ABBOTT 1-2
Lab ID: 0301W00307
Matrix: Water
Condition: Cool/Intact
".?:' ".'.: r^'-l. .';•;•;••; ' , ' • • ''••"" '• '
||;''.:;.J?^-5'Jf^|^j^i0j»r|-|.': : ":/.Ł•?
General Parameters
Solids -Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iran
Manganese
•" lll^i^MilS^i^ii^flli^^
• ">"' 'ISI^if ;|l8ttl^fell!iwiHfe^^^^^^^f JIW
140 mg/L
6 mg/L
<5 mg/L
<0.05 mg/L
0.34 mg/L
0.03 mg/L
2506 West Main Street, Farmlngton.NM 87401
Date Received: 01/11/01
Date Reported: 01/25/01
Date Sampled: 12/07/00
Time Sampled: 1813
fc^t ?';'^"- '^f^^^-'^r^^^^^^^^'
10 EPA 160.1 01/15/01 1000 FP
2 EPA 160.2 01/12/01 0820 KA
5 EPA 300.0 01/11/01 0941 KA
0.05 EPA200.7 01/25/01 1204 WL
0.02 EPA200.7 01/25/01 1204 WL
0.01 EPA 200.7 01/25/01 1204 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methods for Chei
EPA - "Metho45'%>th<
Reviewed By:
Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW)" - EPA/600/4-r9-020 - March, 1983.
nation of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
-------
imJL
Inter.Mouolciin Loborotorics, Inc.
Phone (505J 326-4737 Fax. (505) 326-41 82 2506W=st Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Client: Daniel B, Stephens
Project: Norton.VA
Sample ID: ABBOTT 2-2 Date Received: 01/1 1/01
Lab ID: 0301WQ0308 Date Reported: 01/25/01
Matrix: Water Date Sampled: 12/07/00
Condition: Cool/Intact Time Sampled: 1620
C?:K-;;-i'r''-';;f^rg^r-;' -'•..:
General Parameters
Solids -Total Dissolved
Solids - Total Suspended
Sulfate
Total Metals
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
130 mg/L 10 EPA160.1 01/15/011000 FP
35 mg/L 2 EPA 160. 2 01/12/010820 KA
12 mg/L 5 EPA 300.0 01/11/010941 KA
<0.05 mg/L 0.05 EPA200.7 01/25/011207 WL
5.16 mg/L 0.02 EPA200.7 01/25/011207 WL
0.07 mg/L 0.01 EPA 200.7 01/25/01 1207 WL
Reference: EPA - "Methods for
EPA-
Reviewed By:
ical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAVWV)"- EPA/600/4-79-020 - March, 1983.
termination of Metals in Environmental Samples" - Supplement I - 600/R-94-111 - May, 1994.
-------
i/nl
Inter-Mountain laboratories* Inc
Ffane (505) 326^1737 Fax (505) 325-4182
Client: Daniel B. Stephens
Norton.VA
Quality Control Report
Duplicate Analysis
2506 West Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
r 1 WJVWl. t-m^ft *v**f w.-m
Sample ID: ABBOTT 2-2
Lab ID: 0301W00308
Matrix: Water
Condition: Cool/Intact
§:gJ|Jl«m^::-: '
Solids - Total Dissolved
Solids- Total Suspended
Sulfate
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
\-:;'®;"r;^?8IE
130
35
12
<0.05
5.16
0.07
W^1''l-'1^'''i^H^^^'''''v'*^^^'J
-------
Appendix C
Graphs of Quarterly
Monitoring Data
Psf^1
-------
Appendix C1
Fall-Winter 2000
-------
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Well Yield
SiteVA-1 Well-l
Fall-Winter 2000
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast Shot Blast
1
* <•
i
l
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
11/05/00
11/06/00
11107100
11/08/00
11109100
11/10/00
11/11/00
11/12/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\boggsflow_novOO.xls Tab Ftow
-------
Water Level
SiteVA-1 Well-1
Fall-Winter 2000
30
25
20
o
XI
15
110
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
11/05/00
11/06/00
11/07/00
11108100
11109100
11/10/00
11111/00
11/12/00
S-.\prajects\9290\sheets\Boggs\21x\Boggs21X_novOO,xlsTab Stage
-------
Well EC
SlteVA-1 Well-1
fall-Winter 2000
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
?
"5 120°
o
1
3: 1000
O
lil
800
600
400
200
0
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
11/05/00
1106100
11/07/00
11108100
11/09/00
11/10/00
11/11/00
11/12/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Boggs\21x\Boggs21X_novOO.xls Tab ec
-------
Water Temperature
SiteVA-1 Well-1
Fall-Winter 2000
30
25
20
O
o
I
I
15
10 !
5 I
0 L
11105100
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
11106100
11/07/00
11108100
11109100
11/10100
11/11/00
11/12100
S:\prajects\9290Vsheets\Boggs\21 x\Boggs21X_novQO.xls Tab Temp
-------
10
9.5
Water pH
SiteVA-1 Well-1
Fall-Winter 2000
8.5
&
7.5
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
11/05/00
Shot Blast Shot Blast
Shot Blast Shot Blast
1
Shot Blast Shot Blast
1
11/06/00 11/07/00
11106100
11109100
11110100
11111/00
11119100
S:\projects\929Q\sheets\Boggs\21x\Boggs21X_novOO.xls Tab ph
-------
26
Well Yield
Site KY-1 We 11-I
Fall-Winter 2000
24-1
22
20-
18-
16-
I 1
O)
I 124
U.
Shot Blast
Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast
11/12/00
11/13/00
11/14100
11/15/00
11116100
11/17100
11S8/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\banks\1010\banksflow.xls
-------
30
Water Level
Site KY-1 We 11-I
Fall-Winter 2000
25
20
•o
w
1
•8 15
•5
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
0
11/13/00 11113100 11/14/00 11/14/00 11/15/00 11/15/00 11/16/00 11/16/00 11/17/00 11/17/00 11/18/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\banks\21x\BANKS21X_novOO.xls Tab Stage
-------
Well Yield
Site KY-1 Wei I-2
Fall-Winter 2000
26-1
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
Q.
0J
11/09/00
Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast
11/10/00 11/11/00 11/12/00 11/13/00 11/14/00 17/15/00 11/16/00 11/17/00 11/18/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\ratliff\1Q10\ratliffflow.xls
-------
Water Level
Site KY-1 Wei I-2
Fall-Winter2000
30
25
•a
to
c
re
o
20
15
5 10
CO
Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast
I 1 I II 1
-------
26
24
22
20
18
16
Well Yield
SiteKY-2Well-2
Fall-Winter 2000
a
ut
10-
0
11/19/00
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
11/20/00
11/21/00
11/22/00
1 1123100
11/24/00
11/25/00
11126100
S:\projects\929Q\sheets\sumner\1Q1Q\SumnerFlow.xls
-------
25
Water Level
Site KY-2Well-2
Fall-Winter 2000
30
20
•o
M
C
s
0)
>
o
.Q
« 15
I
0)
OU0
oho
1
i.
Ł 10
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
iJ I
0
11119100
11/20/00
11/21/00
11122100
17/23/00
11/24/00
11125100
11/26/00
11127100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Surnner\21x\SUMNER21X_novOO.xls Tab Stage
-------
30
Water Temperature
Site KY-2 Well-2
Fall-Winter 2000
25
20
O
o
5
o
a
0)
15
10
0
11/19/00
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
11120100
11121100
11/22/00
11/23/00
11124100
11/25/00
11726700
11/27/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Sumner\21 x\SUMNER21X_novOO.xls Tab temp
-------
10
9.5
9
8.5
a
^ 7.5
u>
(0
•o
I 6.5
w
a 6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
Water pH
Site KY-2 Well-2
Fall-Winter 2000
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
11/19/00
11/20/00
11121100
11122100
11/23/00
11124100
11/25/00
11/26/00
11/27/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Sumner\21x\SUMNER21X_novOO.xls Tab PH
-------
26
24
22
20
18
16
IE"
1 14
n
LL
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
11114/00
T
Well Yield
SiteKY-2Well-3
Fall-Winter 2000
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
11/16/00
11/18/00
11/20/00
11/22/00
1 1124100
M126100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Huriey\1010\HurleyFlow.xls
-------
Water Level
Site KY-2 Wett-3
Fall-Winter 2000
30
25
0)
o 20
•o
in
re
o
o
15
10
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
0 L-
11/14/00
11/16/00
11/18/00
11/20/00
11/22/00
11/24/00
11/26/00
S:\Projects\929Q\sheets\hurley\21x\Hurley\HllRLEY21X_novOO.xls Tab Stage
-------
Well Yield
Site WV-1 Well-1
Fail-Winter 2000
^u
24
22
20
18
16
j 14
flj
5 12
o
u.
10
8
6
4
2
0
Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast
1
^
4
h
<
»
r 1
r
4
4
4
4
4
(
» ^
1 4
^
* 4
, ^
fr ^
j
>
1 1
^
)
]
k
4
4
»
4
4
II
••••
•
4
4
•I
^
^ 1
1
•
4
<
> 1
••I
^ ^
••
11/26/00
11727700
11/28/00
11/29/00
11/30/00
12/01/00
12103100
S:\projects\9290\stieets\Dean l\1010\Dean1flow.xls
-------
30
25
Water Level
Site WV-1 Well-1
Fall-Winter 2000
8 20
C
s
o
"
jg,
"3
15
0
11/26/00
Shot Blast
1
Shot Blast Shot Blast
Shot Blast
1
11/27/00
11/28/00
11/29/00
11/30/00
12/01/00
12102100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Dean 1\21x\Oean121X_novOO.xls Tab Stage
-------
Well EC
Site WV-1 Well-1
Fall-Winter 2000
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
o
Ł.
o
w
1000
800
600
400
200
Shot Blast
Shot Blast Shot Blast
1 1
Shot Blast
1
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Dean 1\21x\Dean121X_novOO.xls Tab EC
-------
25 !
Water Temperature
Site WV-1 Well-1
Fall-Winter 2000
30
20
O
o
Ą
f 15
0>
a
01
10
Shot Blast
1
Shot Blast Shot Blast
1 1
Shot Blast
1
0
11/26/00
11/27/00
11128100
11129100
11130100
12/01/00
12102100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Dean 1\21x\Dean121X_novQO.xls Tab temp
-------
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
w" 7'5
I 7
T3
| 6.5
CO,
* 6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
Shot Blast
1
Water pH
SiteWV-1 Well-l
Fall-Winter 2000
Shot Blast Shot Blast
1 1
Shot Blast
1
11/26/00
11127100
11/28/00
11/29/00
11/30/00
12/01/00
12/02/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Dean 1\21x\Dean121X_novOO.xls Tab PH
-------
Well Yield
Site WV-1 Well-2
fall-Winter 2000
^o
24
22
20
18
16
1 14
n
D)
I12
i
50
8
6-
4-
2 -
0-
11/2
Shot
4
1
6/00
t,
r
1
I
»<
»
»i
t)
;]
:<
4
r
»
1
4
.<
1
M
Blast
I
M
1/27/00
4
;i
!|
M
ll
N
,;
Shot Blast
<
4
,]
1-
,4
1
'(
r
H
11/28/00
't
i.
1
»
'<
Shot Blast
4
it
^
4
II
i*
1 r
:<
!
i
;)
M
^
11129100
>!
^
Shot Blast
t
4
11/30/00
1
4 »
r
12/01/00 12102100 1210
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Dean2\1010\Dean2flow.xls
-------
25
Water Level
SiteWV-1 WeII-2
Fall-Winter 2000
30
20
0)
W
o
1
5
0)
Ł 10
i
15
Shot Blast
1
Shot Blast Shot Blast
1 1
Shot Blast
1
0 : —
11/26/00
11127100
11/28/00
11/29/00
M130100
12101100
12102100
12103100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Dean 2\21x\DEAN221X_novQO.xls Tab Stage
-------
2200
Well EC
Site WV-1 Site-2
Fail-Winter 2000
2000
1800
1600
1400
-y 1200
.c
E
-S 1000
O
LU
800
600
Shot Blast
Shot Blast Shot Blast
Shot Blast
1
400
200
0
1 1/26/00
11/27/00
11/28/00
M129100
11/30/00
12/01/00
12/02/00
12/03/00
S:\projects\92SO\sheets\Dean 2\22x\OEAN221X_novOO.xls Tab EC
-------
Water Tem peratu re
Site WV-1 Weli-2
Fall-Winter 2000
30
25
20
10
Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast Shot Blast
: ! 1 1 1 I
r
u
a
0)
0
11125100 M127100 11128100 11/29/00 11130100 12/01/00 12/02/00 12103100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Dean 2\21x\DEAN221X_novOO.xls Tab temp
-------
I
to
•a
|
2.
i
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7'5
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5 :
11126100
Shot Blast
1
Water pH
Site WV-1 Well-2
Fall-Winter 2000
Shot Blast Shot Blast
1 !
Shot Blast
11127100
11/28/00
11129100
11/30/00
12/01/00
12/02/00
12103100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Dean 2\21x\DEAN221X_novOO.xls Tab PH
-------
26
24
22
20
18
16
"c"
| 14
CO
3
3 12
iZ
10
8
6
4
2
Well Yield
Site WV-2 Welf-1
Fall-Winter 2000
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts
II
II
j
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
II I
12/02/00
12/03/00
12/04/00
12105100
12/06/00
12/07/00
12/08/00
S :\projects\9290\sheets\abbot1 \1010VAbbott1 flow.xls
Note: 0.001=0
-------
Water Level
SiteWV-2Well-l
Fall-Winter2000
30
25
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
1
20
0)
o
15
I
s
0)
i
10
0 !
12/01/00
12102100
12103100
12/04/00
12105100
12106100
12/07/00
12108100
S:\prajects\9290\sheets\abbot 1\21x\Abbott121X_decOO.xls Tab Stage
-------
Well EC
Site WV-2 Well-1
Fall-Winter2000
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
E
•§ 1200
o
"I
3: 1000
O
lif
800
600
400
200
0
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
ii
1
12/01100
12/02/00
12/03/00
12104100
12105100
12106100
12/07/00
12108100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\abbot 1\21x\Abbott121X_decOO.xls Tab EC
-------
Water Temperature
Site WV-2 Well-1
Fall-Winter 2000
30
25
20
O
o
U
15
u
10
0
12101100
12102100
12103100
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
11
12104100
12105100
12106100
12/07/00
12108100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\abbot1\21x\Abbott121X_decOO.xtsTabTemp
-------
10.00
9.50
9.00
8,50
8.00
'E
7.00
n 6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4,00
3.50
12/01100
12102100
12103100
Water pH
SiteWV-2 Well-l
Fall-Winter 2000
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
12104100
12105100
12106100
12/07/00
12/08/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\abbot 1\21 x\Abbott121X_decOO.xls Tab pH
-------
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
n
O)
10
a
6
4
2
0
12/03/00
Well Yield
Site WV-2 Welt-2
Fall-Winter 2000
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
12/04/00
12/05/00
12/06/00
12/07/00
12/08/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\abbott2\1010\abbott2flow.xls
Note: 0.001=0
-------
25
Water Level
Site WV-2 Well-2
Fall-Winter 2000
30
0)
20
ID
I
+J
o
« 15
*
0)
fl)
Ł 10
(D
3
Shot Blast
Shot Blast Shot Blast
Q ;
12/01/00
12/02/00
12/03/00
12104100
12/05/00
12106100
12/07/00
12108100
S:\projects\929Q\sheets\Abbott 2\21x\Abbott221X_decOO.xls Tab Stage
-------
1600
Well EC
Site WV-2 Well-2
Fall-Winter 2000
2200
2000
1800
1400
E
-5 ^200
o
— WOO
(J
UJ
800
600
400
200
0
72/07/00
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
11
1 1
j
12102100
12/03/00
12104100
12105100
12/06/00
12107100
12108100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Abbott 2\21x\Abbott221X_decOO.xls Tab EC
-------
30
25
Water Temperature
Site WV-2 Wei I-2
Fall-Winter 2000
20
O
o
Ą j
1 15 !
I |
Shot Blast
Shot Blast Shot Blast
! 1
lo
0
12/01/00
12/02/00
12103100
12/04/00
12/05/00
12/05/00
12/07/00
12/08/00
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Abbott 2\21x\Abbott221X_decQQ.xls Tab temp
-------
10.00
9.50
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
(A
4pJ
'E
^E
m
i 6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
12/0
Water pH
SiteWV-2Well-2
Fall-Winter 2000
Shot Blast
11
Shot Blast Shot Blast
1
J
12/02/00
12103100
12/04/00
12105100
12/06/00
12107100
12108100
S:\projects\9290\sheets\Abbott 2\2fc\Abbott221X_decOQ.xls Tab PH
-------
Appendix C2
Spring 2001
-------
26
24
22
20
18
16
Well Yield
Site VA-1 Wel!-1
Spring 2001
3/15/01
3/16/01
3/17/01
3118/01
3/19/01
3/20/01
3/21/01
-------
E
•8
o
o
UJ
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
200
000
800
600
400
200
0
Well EC
SiteVA-1 Well-l
Spring 2001
3/13/01
3/14/01
3115/0
3116/01
3117101
3/18/01
3119101
3/20/01
3121101
-------
Water Tem peratu re
SiteVA-1 Well-l
Spring 2001
30
25
20
o
Ą
3
•*-•
s
a 15
0)
3
i
10
0
3713701
3114101
311510^
3116/01
31/7/01
3/18/01
3/19/01
3/20/01
3/21/01
-------
Water pH
Site VA-1 Well-1
Spring 2001
9.5
9
8.5
a
7.5
'I 7
6.5
I
Q
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3113101
3/14/01
3/15/01
3/17/01
518/01
3119701
3/20/01
3/21/01
-------
Water Level
Site KY-2Well-2
Spring 2001
30
25
o
=
to
c
ra
01
o
«
0)
S!
e
5
20
15
10
0
5131101
611101
6/2/01
6/3/01
6/4/01
6/5/01
6/6/01
6/7/01
-------
Well EC
Site KY-2Well-2
Spring 2001
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
n
o
O
w
5/31/01
6/1/01
612101
6/3/01
6/4/01
6/5/01
616101
6/7/01
-------
Water Temperature
Site KY-2 Well-2
Spring 2001
30
25
20
o
I
•5 15
^
0>
a
E
0)
10
0
5131/01
611101
6/2/01
6/3/01
6/4/01
6/7/01
-------
Water pH
Site KY-2Well-2
Spring 2001
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
3
IU
J5 6.5
3-
o- 6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
5/31701
611101
612101
6/3/01
6/4/01
675701
6/6/01
6ff/01
-------
Water Level
SiteKY-2Well-3
Spring 2001
30
25
u
= 20
tn
c
n
o
"» 15
0)
n
10
0
5131/01
6/1/01
6/2/01
6/301
614101
615W
6/6/01
-------
Well EC
S/feKY-2Well-3
Spring 2001
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
E
•§ 1200
o
o
HI
1000
800
600
400
200
0
5/31/01
611101
6/2/01
673701
674701
6/5/01
6/6/01
-------
Water Temperature
SiteKY-2Well-3
Spring 2001
30
25
20
o
4->
2
Q. 15
E
0)
oi
•s
10
0
5731/01
6/3/01
6/4/01
6/5/01
616101
-------
10
9.5
9
8.5
a
7.5
**
'E
3
T! 7
n
•o
n 6.5
(0
I 6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
Water pH
SiteKY-2Well-3
Spring 2001
5Y31/01
6/1/01
6/2/01
6/3/01
6/4/01
6/5/01
6/6/01
-------
Well Yield
SiteVW-1 Well-l
Spring 2001
26
24
22
20
18
16
"c*
1 14
re
3
7 12
_o
LL
10
0
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts
III 1 1 11
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
H i
4/2/01 4/3/01 4/40 4/5/01 4/6/01 4/7/01 4/8/01 4/9/01 4/10/014/11/01^12/014^13/0141141014/15/014/16/014/17/014/18/01
-------
Water Level
SiteWV-1 We 11-I
Spring 2001
30
25
o
= 20
w
c
to
0)
« 15
I
"5
o>
10
n
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
1 11 I i
Shot Blasts S hot Btasts Shot Blasts
0
4/1/01 4/2/01 4/3/01 4/4/01 4/5/01 4/6/01 4/7/01 4/8/01 419101 4/10/01 4/11/01 4/12/01 4/13/01 4/14/01
-------
E
•a
o
_c
E
O
m
2000
1800
600
400
200
000
800
600
400
200
0
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts
1 44 4 1 44
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
4
4 4 444 1
4/1/01 4/2/01 4/3/01 4/4/01 4/5/01 4/6/01 4/7/01 4/8/01 4/9/01 4/10701 4/11/01 4/12/01 4/13/01 4/14/01
-------
Water Temperature
SiteWV-1 Well-1
Spring 2001
30
25
20
O
S_
o»
0)
a
E
0)
15
10
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
1 11 1
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
i 1 Hi 1
411101 4/2/01 4/3/01 414101 415101 416101 417101 4/8/01 4/9/01 4110101 4/11/01 4112101 4/13/01 4114101
-------
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
Water pH
SiteWV-1 Well-l
Spring 2001
42
'E
3
"S
(0
•o
•OL-
I 6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts
I il I 1 U
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
1 1111 I
4/1701 4/2/01 4/3/01 4/4/01 4/5/01 4/6/01 4/7/01 4/8/01 4/9/01 4/10701 4111/01 4/12701 4/13/01 4/14/01
-------
Well Yield
Site WV-1 Well-2
Spring 2001
24
22
20
18
16
| 14
a
o>
I 12
u_
10
8
6
4
2
0
Shot Blasts
1
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
u.
1 1 1 1 U 1
h
413101 4/4/01 4/5/01 4/6/01 4/7/01 4/8/01 4/9/01 4/10701 4/11701 4/12701 4/13/01 4/14/01 4/15/01 4/16/01 4/17/01
-------
Water Level
SiteWV-1 Well-2
Spring 2001
30
25
20
en
c
Q>
O
o>
0)
0)
15
jjj 10
I
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
0
4/2/01 4/3/04 4/4/01 4/5/01 4/6/01 4/7/01 478701 4/9/01 4/10/01 4111/01 4112701 4/13/01 4/14/01 4/15/01 4/16/01 4/17/01
-------
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Well EC
Site WV-1 Well-2
Spring 2001
o
-C
E
o
W
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
II I ! II
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
I 1 I IU 1
4/3/01 4/4/01 4/5/01 4/6/01 4/7/01 4/8/01 419m 4/1 Of 01 4111/01 4/12701 4/13/01 4/14/01 4/15/01 4/16/01 4/17/01
-------
Water Temperature
Site WV-1 Well-2
Spring 2001
30
25
20
O
15
O
a
E
a
10
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
Jl J 1 IJ
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
1 I I Hi I
0
4/3/01 4/4/01 4/5/01 4/6/01 4/7/01 4/8/01 4/9/01 4/10/01 4/11/01 4/12/01 4/13/01 4/14/01 4/15/01 4/16/01 4/17/01
-------
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
Water pH
Site WV-1 Well-2
Spring 2001
.<5 6.5
J2-
I 6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
U I I U
Shot Blasts Shot Blasts Shot Blasts
1 1 1111 1
4/3/01 4/4/01 4/5/01 4/6/01 4/7/01 478/01 4/9/01 4/10701 4111/01 4112701 4/13701 4/14/01 4/15/01 4/16/01 4117/01
-------
30
Water level
SiteWV-2 Well-l
Spring 2001
25
0)
o
•§ 20
in
c
o
(D
15
10
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
1
Shot Blasts
1 1
0
4/16/01
4117701
4/18/01
4119101
4120101
-------
.o
73
o
O
w
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Shot Blast
1
Well EC
Site WV-2 We 11-I
Spring 2001
Shot Blast
Shot Blasts
1 I 1
4/16/01
4117/01
4110/01
4119101
4/20/01
4/21101
-------
Water Temperature
SiteWV-2Well-l
Spring 2001
30
25
20
o
*-.
Ł
n 15
o>
a
E
a>
10
Shot Blasts
Shot Blasts
1
i
Shot Blasts
1 1
0
4/16/01
4/17/01
4/18/01
4/19/01
4/20/01
4121101
-------
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
•» 7-5
<+*
'E
3
m
T3
J5 6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
Water pH
Site WV-2 Well-1
Spring 2001
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
Shot Blasts
4116/01
4/17/01
4118/01
4/19/01
4/20/01
4121101
-------
26
24
22
20
t8
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
4116101
Well Yield
Site WV-2 Wei I-2
Spring 2001
_o
u.
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
4/17/01
4118101
4119101
4120101
4/21/01
-------
Water Level
Site WV-2 Well-2
Spring 2001
30
25
o>
o
3
•o
VI
2
o
0)
0)
a)
CO
20
15
10
0
4/16/01
Shot Blast
411 7701
Shot Blast
4/18/01
4/19701
4/20/01
4/21/01
-------
Water Temperature
Site WV-2 Wei I-2
Spring 2001
30
25
20
O
o
15
0)
a.
Ł
4)
10
0
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
4/16/01
4/17/01
4118/01
4119701
4/20/01
4/21/01
-------
Water pH
SiteWV-2 Well-2
Spring 2001
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
Ł7.5
'c
3
•D 7
n
-a
J5 6.5
in
I e
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
Shot Blast
Shot Blast
4/16/01
4/17/01
4110/01
4/19/01
4120101
4/21/01
-------
'Sf?
Appendix C3
Fall 2001
'f/^
]:rm
'•:>.•«<• tts
Vv.vSih,*!
•• -'Kfr' S
«*;«
-------
Well Yield
Site WV-2 WelM
Fall 2001
26
24
22
20
18
16
"c"
1 14
to
o
LL
12
10
6
4
I
0
10125101 10126101 10127101 10128101 10129104 10130101 10131101 11/1/01
11/2/01
11/3/01
11/4/01
-------
Appendix C4
Winter 2001
-------
Water Level
SiteWV-1 Well-l
Winter 2001
30
25
at
o
=
u>
c
n
0)
o
J3
20
15
-------
Well EC
Site WV-1 Well-1
Winter 2001
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
E
.o
"5
o
O
111
12/4/01
1215101
12/6/01
12/7/01
-------
Water Temperature
Site WV-1 Weli-1
Winter 2001
30
25
20
o
2
0)
a
I
15
10
0
12/4/01
12/5/01
12/6/01
12/7/01
-------
Water pH
Site WV-1 Well-1
Winter 2001
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
a 7-5
•^
c
3
TJ 7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
ra
T3
w
12/4/01
12/5/01
12/6/01
12/7/01
-------
Water Level
Site WV-1 Well-2
Winter 2001
30
25
0)
o
3
•a
tn
c
ra
o
.a
a>
a>
20
15
Q)
0)
I
10
Shot Blast
Shot Blasts
1
1
0
1214101
1275701
12/6/01
12/7/01
-------
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
?
•% 1200
o
.c
E
.3- 1000
O
w
800
600
400
200
0
Shot Blast
1
Well EC
Site WV-1 Well-2
Winter 2001
Shot Blasts
1
12/4/01
12/5/01
E/6/01
12/7/01
-------
30
Water Temperature
Site WV-1 Well-2
Winter 2001
25
20
O
o
0)
15
O
a
E
0)
Shot Blast
Shot Blasts
1
1
10
-------
Water pH
Site WV-1 Wei I-2
Winter 2001
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
S" 7.5
'c
3
•S 7
ffl
•D
= c c:
eo 6.5
4^
>W-
I c
a 6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
Shot Blast
1
Shot Blasts
1
12/4/01
12/5/01
12/6/01
12Y7Y01
-------
Workshop on Mountaintop Mining
Effects on Ground Water
Charleston, West Virginia
May 9, 2000
Background Information
About the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), in cooperation with the State of West Virginia, are preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to consider developing agency policies, guidance,
and coordinated agency decision making processes to minimize, to the maximum extent
practicable, the adverse environmental effects to waters of the United States and to fish
and wildlife resources from mountaintop mining operations, and to environmental
resources that could be affected by the size and location of fill material in valley fill sites.
The draft EIS will be released for public comment during the summer of 2000. The final
EIS is slated for completion by January 2001.
Early in 1998, the four Federal agencies now involved in the EIS formed a work group
and agreed on a series of priority areas where more information and analysis would assist
them in regulating the effects of valley fills associated with coal mining operations.
Study plans were adopted and funded for undertaking valley fill inventories in West
Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia; for assessing the stability of valley fills; and for
assessing the potential for downstream flooding from these mining operations. The
agencies also placed priority on studying the impacts of valley fills on aquatic habitat; on
surveying and evaluating mitigation practices being employed in West Virginia and
neighboring Appalachian Coalfield States; and on evaluating how to better coordinate the
Federal regulatory programs. These studies were underway or in the planning stages
when the Bragg v. Roberston settlement agreement was reached in December 1998.
With the decision to prepare an EIS, the agencies brought the coordination of these
technical studies under the scope of the EIS, and broadened state participation. The
expanded network of agencies has now examined the studies initiated in 1998 and has
modified those study plans to make them more useful for the EIS. Additional work plans
responding specifically to the EIS mandate have also been drafted.
Team leaders have been selected among the participating agencies for each of the
technical study areas, which are listed below. The team leaders worked with a team
representative of the expertise of each agency to develop a work plan. The work plans
reflect what the agencies believe should be studied, and are subject to revision as work
progresses and new insights are gained.
-------
EIS Technical Study Areas:
?? Future Mining
?? Fill Stability
?? Mining and Reclamation Technology
?? Flooding Potential
?? Fill Hydrology
?? Streams
?? Fisheries
?? Wetlands
?? Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement
?? Terrestrial Ecology
?? Soil Quality and Forest Productivity
?? Socioeconomic
?? Mine Dust and Blasting Fumes
?? Landscape Ecology/Cumulative Effects
Background on Workshop on Mountaintop Mining Effects on Ground Water
Initially, the priority EIS Technical Study Areas all focused on impacts of mountaintop
mining and valley fills on surface water and watershed resources and the EIS Steering
Committee placed the issue of mountaintop mining/valley fill effects on ground-water
resources outside the scope of this EIS. However, the EIS Steering Committee
subsequently concluded that the National Environmental Protection Act requires that the
issue of impacts on ground water be addressed in some way in order to properly complete
the EIS. Therefore, the EIS Steering Committee directed the development of a forum to
consider the state-of-knowledge on the potential impacts of mountaintop mining with
valley fills on ground-water resources and determine if these potential impacts were of
sufficient concern to warrant additional study within the scope of the EIS.
The workshop was managed for the EIS Steering Committee by Mr. Mike Robinson of
the Office of Surface Mining. Technical program chair was Mr. Jim Eychaner of the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) from Charleston, West Virginia. USGS provides objective
scientific information to Department of Interior regulatory agencies. Workshop logistics,
facilitation, and documentation were overseen by Mr. Carey Butler, an employee of WPI,
which is a not-for-profit environmental consulting firm affiliated with Virginia Tech
University.
The forum leaders gathered a planning committee that included representatives of the
Office of Surface Mining, Region HJ of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
USGS, the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, the West Virginia
Mining and Reclamation Association, and the West Virginia Coal Association. The
committee developed the concept for a one-day workshop with the following objectives:
-------
Workshop Objectives
Identify potential impacts of mountaintop mining on ground-water quality and
quantity
Review existing knowledge and ongoing research that applies to mountaintop
mining effects on ground water. Identify knowledge gaps
Review and assess the public comments concerning mountaintop mining impacts on
ground water received during the EIS Scoping Process
* Identify potential technical and policy actions in light of workshop findings for
further consideration during the EIS process
The committee invited a group of individuals knowledgeable on the subject of surface
mining and ground water to debate the current science and develop recommendations on
the issue for the EIS Steering Committee. Additionally, the workshop would consider the
twelve public comments received during the EIS scoping process. The workshop was
held on May 9, 2000 in the meeting room of the West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection in Nitro, West Virginia.
The workshop agenda, meeting participants, and the public comments received that
concerned ground-water issues are included as attachments to this background paper.
Attachments:
Workshop Agenda
Meeting Participants
Public Comments
-------
Workshop on Mountaintop Mining (MTM)
Effects on Groundwater (GW)
Charleston, WV
May 9, 2000
Workshop Objectives
1. Identify potential impacts of MTM on GW quality and quantity
2. Review existing knowledge and ongoing research that applies to MTM effects on
GW. Identify knowledge gaps
3. Review and assess the public comments concerning MTM impacts on GW
received during the EIS Scoping Process
4. Identify potential technical and policy actions in light of workshop findings for
further consideration during the EIS process
Workshop Agenda
0800 Introduction and Workshop Objectives; Review of Public Comments
0815 Presentation on GW aspects of MTM (Jim Eychaner, USGS): Overview
presentation to provide participants with a common understanding of issues under
investigation More detailed presentations will follow. All speakers will assume
that participants have a general understanding of groundwater hydrology and
MTM operations. Suggested topics include:
- Pre-mining GW hydrology and chemistry
- GW flow through rock fractures
- Blasting; magnitude, proximity, chemistry, immediate and delayed effects
- GW flow through unconsolidated material
- GW monitoring plans and data
0900 Open Discussion: Have we identified all the potential effects?
0915 Presentation on Mining Operator Requirements and Permit Applications (Tom
Galya, WVDEP): Present the federal and state permit application requirements
relevant to GW effects. Discuss how this information is typically obtained.
Suggested topics include:
- Pre-mining baseline data and analysis
- GW monitoring plans and implementation
- Post-mining closure data and analysis (including time frame since closure)
1000 Open Discussion: Do we understand current operator requirements and
limitations?
1015 Break
-------
Detailed Topical Presentations- The following presenters will deliver a brief (10 to 15
minute) discourse on the topic including what is known, where uncertainty exists,
the potential effects on GW quantity and quality, conceivable actions to reduce
the uncertainty, and conceivable regulatory changes that would mitigate the
effect. Each presentation will be followed by a brief discussion period for the
group to add additional information or debate the science and recommendations
1030 Public Concerns of MTM Effect on GW (Rick Eades, WVCAG): Opportunity for
selected participants) to comment on the public perspective concerning MTM
effects on GW and opportunities to mitigate these effects.
1100 GW flow through rock fractures (Mark Kozar, USGS): Effect of MTM induced
fracture on aquifer hydrology
1130 Blasting (Jay Hawkins, OSM): magnitude in MTM operations, unspent explosive
material, fracture, effects on well integrity, transient effects on water quality,
delayed effects
1200 Lunch
1300 GW flow through unconsolidated material pavid Wunsch, KGS): GW flow
through MTM backfill and valley fills, water quality and quantity
1330 GW Chemistry Effects (Bob Evans, OSM): effects of MTM disturbance on
chemistry throughout the aquifer and watershed
1400 GW Monitoring (Bob Evans, OSM): Federal and state specific requirements
(WV, KY, VA, TN) and their effectiveness
1430 Break
1445 Open Discussion on Regulatory Enhancements (Facilitator): What should be
required by regulation to address the potential effects compared to what is
currently required and what has been received in past applications. Where are the
gaps in required data and analysis to make protective decisions on a permit
application? Is all the required information necessary?
1530 Summarize Proceedings (Facilitator): Present summary recorded throughout day
organized in the following format:
- Potential effect on GW quantity and/or quality
- Recommendations for additional study
- Recommendations for regulatory enhancement
- Comments
1600 Open Discussion on Recommendations (Facilitator)
-------
1645 Final Comments and Next Steps
1700 Adjourn
Workshop Logistics
The workshop will be held in the training room of WVDEP office in Nitro, WV on May
9, 2000. Please be there sufficiently early so that we may start promptly at 0800.
A proceedings will be prepared to capture the presentations, conclusions, and
recommendations of the workshop for the EIS Steering Committee and the public.
Please provide any prepared remarks in MS Word or simple text format and any
presentation material in MS Powerpoint or other electronic format.
POC for comments, concerns, or logistical needs: Carey R. Butler, PE, WPI, (304) 598-
9383, x!5, carey butler@mt.wpi.org
-------
WORKSHOP ON MOUNTAINTOP MINING EFFECTS ON GROUNDWATER
MAY 9, 2000
Perspective/
Affiliation
Phone
Email
Mailing Address
PARTICIPANTS
Rick Eades
John C. Hemple
Tom Galya
Nick Schaer
Bob Evans
Jay Hawkins
Mark Kozar
Randy Orndorff
Jim Eychaner
Bruce Leavitt
Ron Mullennex
Dave Johnson
Pam Carew
Lynn D. Haynes
David Wunsch
Dawn Moore
WVCAG
EEI Geophysical
WVDEP
WVDEP
OSM
OSM
USGS
USGS
USGS
Industry
Industry
KYSMRE
KYSMRE
VA DMME/DMLR
KGS
WVGES
(304) 346-5891
(304) 338-6920
(304) 759-0510
(304) 759-0510
(412) 937-2895
(412) 937-2127
(304)347-5130x228
(703) 648-4316
(304)347-5130x225
(724) 228-7385
(540) 322-5467
(502) 564-2340
(502) 564-2340
(540)523-8179
(606) 257-5500
(304)347-5130x285
Wvcag@newwave.net
Johncave@aol.com
Tgalya@mail.dep. state. wv. us
Nschaer@mail.dep. state. wv. us
Bevans@osmre.gov
Jhawkins@osmre.gov
Mdkozar@usgs.gov
Rorndorf@usgs.gov
Eychaner@usgs.gov
Bkleavit@bellatlantic.net
Ron.Mullennex@mma1 .com
Dave. Johnson@mail. state, ky. us
Pamela. Carew@mail. state, ky. us
ldh@mme. state, va. us
Wunsch@kgs.mm.uky.edu
Damoore@usgs.gov
1324 Virginia St. East, Charleston, WV 25301
PO Box 47, Dailey, WV 26259
10 McJunkin Road, Nitro.WV 25143
525 Tiller St., Logan WV 25601
3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220
3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220
11 DunbarSteet, Charleston, WV 29301
926A National Center, Reston, VA 20192
11 DunbarSteet, Charleston, WV 29301
2776 S-Bridge Road, Washington, PA 15301
PO Box 848, Bluefield, WV 24605
#2 Hudson Hollow, Frankfort, KY 40601
#2 Hudson Hollow, Frankfort, KY 40601
PO Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, VA 24219
228 MMRB, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
11 DunbarSteet, Charleston, WV 29301
-------
WORKSHOP ON MOUNTAINTOP MINING EFFECTS ON GROUNDWATER
MAY 9, 2000
Perspective/
Affiliation
Phone
Email
Mailing Address
FACILITATORS
Carey Butler
Mike Waldon
Sandy Vilar
NETL/WPI
WPI
WPI
(304)598-9383, x1 5
(540) 557-6080
(304)598-9383, x10
Carey_butler@mt.wpi.org
Mike_waldon@wpi.org
Sandy_vilar@mt.wpi.org
3606 Collins Ferry Road, Suite 202 Morgantown, WV 26505
2000 Kraft Drive, Blacksburg.VA 24060
3606 Collins Ferry Road, Suite 202, Morgantown, WV 26505
OBSERVERS
Dan Sweeney
Gary Bryant
Dave Vande Linde
Rodney Woods
Mike Robinson
Dave Hartos
Les Prether
Cindy Tibbott
Ben Greene
Bill Raney
Jason Bostic
Kenneth Johnson
George Gunn
Doug Growitz
EPA, Philadelphia
EPA, Wheeling
WVDEP
Corps
OSM
OSM
OSM
FWS
WVMRA
WVCA
WVCA
Consol/Pitt
OSM
OSM-HQ
(215)814-5731
(304) 234-0230
(304) 759-0510
(513)684-6212
(412) 937-2882
(412) 937-2909
(412) 937-2825
(814)234-4090x226
(304) 346-5318
(304)342-4153
(304)342-4153
(412) 831-4524
(304)347-7158
(202) 208-2634
Sweeney.dan@epa.gov
Bryant.gary@epamail.epa.gov
Dvandelinde@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Rodney.l.woods@lrdor.usace.army.mil
Mrobinso@osmre.gov
Dhartos@osmre.gov
lprether@osmre.gov
Cindy_tibbott@fws.gov
wvmra@wvmra.com
braney@wvcoal.com
JdBostic@aol.com
kenjohnson@consolenergy.com
Ggunn@osmre.gov
Dgrowitz@osmre.gov
1650 Arch St., Philadelphia, PA 19013
1060 Chapline St., Wheeling, WV 26003
10 McJunkin Road, Nitro, WV 25143
PO Box 1159, Cincinatti, OH 45201-1159
3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220
3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220
3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220
315 S Allen St., State College, PA 16801
1624 Kanawha Blvd. E., Charleston, WV 25311
1301 Laidley Tower, Charleston, WV 25301
1301 Laidley Tower, Charleston, WV 25301
1800 Washington Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15241
1027- Virginia St. East, Charleston, WV 25301
1951 Constitution Ave. NW Rm 203, Washington, DC 20240
-------
Public Comments from the EIS Scoping Process Concerning Groundwater
As a result of the public outreach efforts of the EIS scoping process, 641 different people
provided comments at the public meetings and 95 comment letters were received.
Comments desribed economic and social impact concerns; policy and regulatory review
issues; EIS process questions; and a broad range of environmental impacts asociated with
mountaintop mining/valley fill operations. The twelve comments that pertained to
impacts on groundwater are presented below.
"Flattening a mountaintop and filling a valley will cause unknown changes to the
hydrologic cycle. We don't know if valley fills cause increased flooding or increased
drought. No one knows if a filled valley will recharge groundwater at the same rate than
if its left with its original topography and plant cover. "
"Entire aquifers have disappeared with the heavy mechanization of the coal industry.
Our region once had wonderful and productive artesian wells, absolutely everywhere
throughout the region."
"There has been no scientific study done addressing how this type of work effects the
health of the aquifer. By eliminating these ephemeral and perennial streams, and their
associated wetlands, there must be direct effects on the seasonal recharging of the
aquifer."
"We were informed by a DEP geologist that our well water had a very high sodium
content. The origin of the sodium was traced up to the mouth of Beech Fork which
directly feeds from the coal prep plant and the mountaintop mine operation.... We would
like to see further studies done to help determine the cause of this problem and hopefully
keep it from happening in the future. "
"From what I have seen in my 28 years of mining experience, the valley fills created due
to surface mining makes the downstream more productive for aquatic life because the
valley fills act as water reservoirs and provides a reliable stream of water downstream -
without valley fill the stream might dry up in extremely dry weather. "
"Blasting methods utilized at MTR sites include the use of large amounts of ammonium
nitrate and diesel fuel. There is scant data on the effects of these chemicals on springs,
wells, or other water resources. "
"The drinking water hazard due to nitrates from the use of ammonium nitrate blasting
should be studied and appropriate recommendations considered in the study report. "
"Please pay particular attention to the fact that much of southern WV is already
underlain by extensive deep mines, which may lead to a greater risk of blasting damage
to groundwater flow and quality, over a larger region. "
-------
"Research is needed into the effects ofMTR blasting on groundwater hydrology and
quality...This problem is only exasperated by the fact that many of the MTR areas are
underlain with extensive old mine works. In addition, this same region is peppered with
thousands of active natural gas wells. Does MTR blasting have any negative effects on
natural gas wells? "
"The Fish and Wildlife (Service) estimates that 31% of the Mud River headwaters are
currently filled! How much is too much, what are the cumulative effects on water quality,
aquifer recharge, and surface water flow. "
"Does hazardous waste & petroleum product storage and/or spills effect ground or
surface water? "
"The EIS should determine to what extent hazardous materials, tank farms, dumps, etc.,
may pollute ground or surface water. "
-------
Workshop on Mountaintop Mining
Effects on Ground Water
Charleston, West Virginia
May 9, 2000
Workshop Proceedings
Welcome and Introductions
Mr. Mike Robinson, Chief, Program Support Division, Office of Surface Mining,
Pittsburgh PA
Mr. Robinson, a member of the EIS Steering Committee, opened the workshop by
welcoming the participants and thanking them for their participation and effort to prepare
for the meeting. He provided the background of the EIS on Mountaintop Mining with
Valley Fills and described how the EIS Steering Committee structured the EIS into
Technical Study Areas. He also noted that initially, the potential impact of mountaintop
mining and valley fill on ground water was not identified as a major concern and how
ground water studies generally take a great deal of time and money to complete. He
pointed out that the EIS Steering Committee knew that they had neither the necessary
time nor funding to complete a major study on ground water issues and chose to focus
their limited resources on the highest priority concerns. However, he noted that the EIS
Steering Committee had subsequently concluded that the EIS could not be properly
concluded without reviewing the issue of ground water impacts from surface mining
operations. He asked for the workshop participants to combine their formidable
knowledge and experience on the workshop subject and identify any technical needs that
the EIS Steering Committee should consider for additional study or effort to adequately
understand the potential impacts of mountaintop mining and valley fills on ground water
resources.
Workshop Objectives
Mr. Carey Butler, WPI
Following Mr. Robinson's remarks, Mr. Butler took charge of the workshop and
introduced the workshop objectives. These objectives are provided below:
1. Identify potential impacts of mountaintop mining with valley fills on ground
water quality and quantity
2. Review existing knowledge and ongoing research that applies to mountaintop
mining effects on ground water. Identify knowledge gaps
-------
3. Review and assess the public comments concerning mountaintop mining impacts
on ground water received during the EIS Scoping Process
4. Identify potential technical and policy actions in light of workshop findings for
further consideration during the EIS process
Mr. Butler also presented his perspective on the key factors for a successful workshop.
These included remaining focused on the technical issues and staying clear of value
judgments. He expressed the opinion that rendering value judgments are in the domain
of government officials and the public and that this group should provide the best
technical basis for such judgments. He also asked, in the interest of a timely meeting,
that the group to distinguish those technical issues that are vital to good decisions in the
EIS process from the many interesting but non-essential issues of ground water science.
Mr. Butler presented a summarized listing of the twelve public comments for use by the
workshop participants throughout the day. These are presented below:
Summary of Public Comments Regarding Ground water Issues
(the number of public comments in the summarized group appear in parentheses):
- Unknown changes to the hydrologic cycle (quantity) and water quality of the
regional aquifer from filling headwater valleys (4)
- Loss of the aquifer resources due to mining (1)
- Valley fills provide a reliable source of water that enhances downstream
productivity (1)
- Blasting shock and chemistry effects aquifer quality (2)
- Blasting shock in undermined areas effects aquifer quantity (2)
- Hazardous materials from mining operations effect ground water quality (2)
Ground-water Aspects of Mountaintop Mining
Mr. Jim Eychaner, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Mr. Eychaner provided the keynote presentation to summarize the effects of mountaintop
mining on ground water. He presentation is included as an appendix to this proceedings.
In his presentation he outlined the effects in terms of ground water quantity or quality,
transient or long-term effects, and immediate or delayed effects. His discussion covered
four distinct ground water settings including fracture flow system before mining,
intergranular flow system of spoil after mining, fracture flow system after mining and the
transient effects of blasting.
He drew largely from the Kanawha-New River Basin Study Unit of the National Water
Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). The Kanawha-New River NAWQA Program
studies the 12,223 square miles drained by the Kanawha-New River in the Appalachian
Mountains of West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The Kanawha-New River is
one of 59 hydrologic systems being studied by the NAWQA Program. The purpose of
-------
these studies is to describe the status and trends in the quality of ground- and surface-
water resources and understand the natural and human factors that affect these resources.
He presented preliminary findings of the Kanawha-New River Study that included 30
wells on the Appalachian Plateau and another 28 wells near reclaimed surface mines. He
noted that none of the reclaimed surface mines were near areas that have been subject to
mining of the same scale of current mountaintop mining operations. He noted that a
report was due to be published soon containing the results of the study and that
information about the report could be found at the following URL:
http://wv.usgs.gov/nawqa
Mr. Eychaner also referenced the 1980 study by Berger and Associates that studied
blasting effects on ground water from four sites in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
Ohio. The study noted visible water quality changes immediately after blasting near test
wells and that turbidity was the most common citizen complaint in the study. He also
noted that turbidity samples collected in the study were only collected after 300 minutes
of continuous pumping, which makes the results of limited value when considering
residential well applications.
Mr. Eychaner led a workshop discussion on the potential effects of mountaintop mining
with valley fills on ground water. During this discussion, Bruce Leavitt commented that
researchers have been looking for many years at the hydrology of fill material in the
context of acid mine drainage from surface mines. He continued that there should be
essentially no difference with a mountaintop mining fill and that these studies should be
useful to the EIS conclusion on ground water effects. Mr. Eychaner stated that where the
water in the fill discharges from the fill is equivalent to a spring but the residence time in
the fill is reduced when compared to the original undisturbed aquifer system.
Jay Hawkins responded to a question by John Hemple regarding seasonal patterns from
fill material by suggesting the large storage capacity of a valley fill could reduce peak
flow and maintain low-flow above pre-mining discharge levels. Mr. Eychaner remarked
that the effect on drought flow is being studied for the EIS. He said that with the addition
of fill, small stream low-flow levels are over an order of magnitude greater than before
the fill is added and that these data have been provided to the EIS team although he had
not seen it published anywhere. He continued that for a flood-flow study, they
established stream discharge gauging stations downstream of fill sites and below control
sites with no fills. The data were normalized by dividing discharge by drainage area
upstream of the gauge site and found that peak discharge is reduced below the mined
(and filled) sites.
-------
Mining Operator Requirements and Permit Applications
Dr. Tom Galya, West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
Dr. Galya presented the requirements for a state surface mining permit that are relevant
to ground water effects. The outline of his presentation is provided below and the
complete presentation is included as an appendix to this proceedings. Dr. Galya also
provided a copy of the complete permit application requirements (MR-4) that are
likewise included in the appendix.
SMCRA Permit Application
- Data, Maps, and Analysis is Provided by the Permittee
- Permit Area Geology Data
- Permit Area Hydrology Data
- Baseline Ground Water
- Baseline Surface Water
- PHC, HRP, and CfflA Assessments
- SMCRA and NPDES Compliance Monitoring
- During Mining Ground Water Monitoring Plan
- During Mining Surface Water Monitoring Plan
- Post-Mining Water Discharge Quality
- Post-Mining Closure
- Phased Bond Release
NPDES Permit Application
- Ground Water Protection Plan
The areas of the application that require ground water relevant data are Section 1,
Geologic Information, of the MR-4 Permit Application with specific information for:
- Drill Hole Data with stratigraphic data and acid-base accounting of seams and
overburden
- Geologic Cross Sections
- Hydrogeologic Maps
- Geologic Description of the Permit and Adjacent Area, and
- Anticipated Impacts on Geology and Hydrology of the Permit Area
Section J of MR-4, Hydrologic Information, requires:
- Inventory of Ground-water Users
- Baseline Surface-water Chemistry Data
- Baseline Ground-water Chemistry Data
- Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) of the Proposed Operation, and
- Hydrologic Reclamation Plan (HRP)
The state law requires the Director of the Division of Environmental Protection to
prepare a Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHIA) to determine whether the
-------
proposed operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic
balance outside the permit area.
Dr. Galya went on to describe the three phases of bond release after post-mining
reclamation that require operators to provide data to validate that the mining operation
has met the requirements of the permit application. Dr. Galya also described the Ground
water Protection Rules for Coal Mining Operations contained in Title 38 Series 2F of the
West Virginia Code. The law requires a Ground water Protection Plan to receive an
NPDES Permit for the operation.
The discussion following the presentation several issues were raised. The first centered
on the adequacy of guidance and the ability of mine permit applicants to submit sufficient
baseline data of consistent quality for the state regulators to perform a consistent review
and discern all the possible impacts in the CHIA. The group noted that in some cases,
private well owners are unwilling to permit access to their ground water wells to obtain
baseline data and Rick Eades suggested proposed a public education component to
encourage their participation. Nick Schaer commented that the term "reasonably
foreseeable use" is not well defined.
Representatives from Kentucky and Virginia noted that their regulations and experience
are similar and suggested that they were also similar in Tennessee. Dave Johnson noted
that Kentucky did a field study of 25 permit applications to determine if data in the
applications were accurate. He said the results were varied and that they are now doing
training of consultants and field personnel. He also noted that a problem in Kentucky is
that a person reviewing a permit may not have experience in all the areas to conduct a
thorough review of the application. Lynn Haynes said that a review team approach is
used in Virginia. Nick Schaer commented that West Virginia processes about 50 permits
each year. Bob Evans said that Tennessee uses a similar process but they usually require
seasonal data rather than six months, which should better define the complete
hydrogeological range.
Public Concerns of Mountaintop Mining on Ground Water
Rick Eades, West Virginia Citizen's Action Group
Mr. Eades talked from a written set of comments that are included in the appendix. He
began his presentation by stating the opinion that "citizens are concerned that these
(ground water) issues are not addressed, or inadequately addressed, in the largest study
ever undertaken to determine environmental impacts from MTR (mountaintop removal)
mining. Despite written and verbal requests to EIS overseers, citizens are unaware of
meaningful studies to address these concerns." He then listed seven areas of concern that
are outlined below. [Facilitator's note: as Mr. Eades written notes were not provided to
the workshop participants during the meeting, it is not clear that all the concerns detailed
in his notes were given adequate treatment during the workshop.]
-------
- Valley fills (Insufficient effort to study the effects on ground water with
monitoring wells during the EIS)
- Water supply wells proximal to blasting
- Permanent ground water storage loss in interburden/coal units
- Ground water loss or impacts below the lower-most bench (up to 600+ feet
removed in some areas
- Guidance for determining the point of origin of intermittent streams (versus
ephemeral)
- Ground water chemistry
- The basis hydrogeologic regime represents a high degree of complexity
Mr. Eades expressed the concern that citizen's are questioning the lack of commitment of
resources, for example money for monitoring wells, to gain direct measurement to assess
these potential environmental impacts. He continued by stating the use of indirect
(anecdotal) evidence to characterize hydrogeologic impacts has the potential to miss real
long-term effects of mountaintop mining. He concluded by stating that the citizen's he
represents have a very low degree of confidence in the EIS to adequately characterize
ground water impacts from mountaintop mining and would like to have as many
resources devoted to ground water monitoring as have been allocated to study economic
impacts.
In the discussion that followed, Bill Raney asked "what is the difference between mining
now and mining in the 1980's." Mr. Eades replied that mined out areas are now in much
thicker strata and cover larger areas, sequencing of blasts has evolved, and there is
continual subsidence. John Hemple added the Berger and Associates study (on blasting
near wells) is a start, but today's blasting areas are larger, and changes in blasting
threaten to open previously sediment-blocked fractures.
There was a general discussion of drilling wells through spoil material. David Wunsch
noted that he has done a lot of study in this area and creating stable deep wells in spoil
material is very difficult. Rodney Woods expressed the opinion that it must be difficult
to find a contractor who will take the risk of drilling such a well with the high potential
for losing drill bits in deep spoil.
Effect of Mountaintop Mining Induced Fracture on Aquifer Hydrology
Mark Kozar, USGS
Mr. Kozar gave a presentation entitled, "Age of Ground water in the Kanawha-New and
Allegheny-Monongahela River Basins." In this presentation, he gave the results of
chlorofluorcarbon (CFC) dating of water samples taken from wells in these regions to
determine water age. CFC dating is a result of the relatively recent appearance of CFC
in the atmosphere and, therefore, the know time (1940's) in which this tracer was
introduced into ground water recharge zones. He noted that the age of water in hilltop
wells of the Kanawha-New River Basin averages about 19 years of age while water in
-------
hillside and valley wells averages 29 and 42 years, respectively. He went on to note that
the younger age in of ground water in mined areas may indicate increased ground water
flow velocities due to enhance permeability. He suggested that this factor should be
reflected in ground water models and regulations designed to protect ground water in
fractured bedrock aquifers of the region.
The group discussion that followed centered on whether or not longer ground water travel
times would be realized. John Hemple asked if Mr. Kozar's conclusion means that
removing the recharge area might lengthen the recharge time. David Wunsch stated that
fractures are dynamic and many quickly become filled with mud. Bruce Leavitt
commented that not all material is placed in the valley; much of the material is placed
back on the bench in back stacks. Jay Hawkins mentioned that there are studies on the
issue of recharge in mined areas that were conducted in Ohio.
Blasting in Mountaintop Mining
Jay Hawkins, Office of Surface Mining
Mr. Hawkins presented a report entitled, "Impacts of Blasting on Domestic Water Wells"
that drew from both his personal research and the research of others. His complete
presentation is included in the Appendix. Mr. Hawkins researched the effects of blasting
from 1994 to 1995 when he worked for the Bureau of Mines. He reported the
preliminary results of his study of a study in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania with similar
topographic characteristics to a mountaintop mining operation in southern West Virginia
but on a smaller scale. The study included instrumented logging of several nested wells
to examine the effects of blasting on water levels and aquifer characteristics both in the
horizon of the coal seam being mined and the next lower coal seam that represented the
first yielding unit below the water-table aquifer.
According to Mr. Hawkins, the blasting ranged from 50 to 100 holes with approximately
60 feet of overburden initially at a range of about 900 feet from the wells. He reported
that there was no observable ground-water fluctuations that could be attributed to the
blasting with monitoring covering up to 20 minutes after the blasts. Mr. Hawkins also
reported that in this study, there were no observable changes in the aquifer characteristics
identified by the slug tests and constant-discharge well tests that were conducted before
and after the blasting. He noted that eventually, pumping of the mine pit and
encroachment of the highwall toward the wells dewatered the water-table aquifer.
Mr. Hawkins also discussed three other published studies how blasting affects domestic
water wells including D.A Roberson (1988), D.E. Siskind and J.W. Kopp (1987), and
J.A. Kipp and J.S. Dinger (1991). His report on these studies is detailed in his
presentation.
He concluded that depending on well construction, lithologic units encountered, and
proximity to the blasting, some of the larger blasting shots could act as a catalyst for
-------
some well sloughing or collapse. However, he added, the well would have to be
inherently weak to begin with and that smaller blasting shots are not likely to cause these
effects. He also concluded that minor water fluctuations from blasting may cause short
term turbidity increases but should not pose long-term water quality problems. He did
allow that the issue of residual nitrates from blasting as a source of ground water
contamination has not been adequately addressed and may need further study.
In the discussion that followed, John Hemple agreed that larger shots could trigger a well
to slough and cited an anecdote of a well that became contaminated with fecal coliform
after nearby blasting. Dave Johnson commented that, in his experience, most complaints
are from people in valleys, while mining is occurring nearby at higher elevations. Mr.
Hawkins listed four relevant questions regarding blasting as (1) the nitrates issue, (2)
pre-blast well testing of yield, (3) water quality testing and a number of samples (6-12)
taken over a year, and (4) regulated scaled distances and peak-particle velocities. He also
commented that blasting should be avoided on days with temperature inversions as this
would reduce the public perception of damage by eliminating the shock wave reflected
off the inversion. Mike Robinson commented that the Office of Surface Mining does
have a complaint group and is considering funding a study. Jim Eychaner stated that they
normally see small nitrate values in domestic wells.
Ground-water Flow through Unconsolidated Materials
David Wunsch, Kentucky Geological Survey
Mr. Wunsch reported on a comprehensive study of ground water flow through
unconsolidated materials that was conducted at the Star Fire Tract in eastern Kentucky.
He stated that there is a higher conductivity for ground water in coal seams and cited a
recent dissertation, which is being published by the Kentucky Geological Survey. He
discussed a well design for use in fill material that has an increased probability of
remaining intact as the fill material shifts and settle. He noted the following issues that
should be considered, (1) comparing bench-scale studies with field observations, (2) spoil
settlement, and (3) establishing GIS databases.
The complete report on the Star Fire Tract is available from the Kentucky Geological
Survey using the hyperlink in the citation below:
Report of Investigations 6 (series 11), Design, Construction, and Monitoring of the
Ground-Water Resources of a Large Mine Spoil Area: Star Fire Tract, Eastern
Kentucky, by David R. Wunsch, James S. Dinger, and Page B. Taylor, 1992, 16 p.
-------
Ground-water Chemistry Effects and Ground-water Monitoring
Bob Evans, Office of Surface Mining
Mr. Evans prepared presentations with great detail on each of these subjects but was
allowed only ten minutes to quickly summarize his points so the group could move on to
summarizing ground water issues raised during the workshop and developing
recommendations.
Mr. Evans highlighted several actions that could be taken to reduce the uncertainty of
operators and regulators on ground water issues in mining permits. These are
summarized below:
- Conduct field studies of existing mining operations to relate site geochemistry to
post-mining water quality
- Better establish the ground water flow paths through mine backfills and valley
fills
- Enhance the experiential knowledge base of reviewers and permit preparers
through standardization of testing methods, databases, field studies, etc.
- Establish post-mining water quality from backfills and valley fills to validate PHC
predictions
- Develop electronic data submission/storage requirements for submission of
geologic and hydrologic data.
Mr. Evans pointed out the crosswalk he prepared between federal regulations and the
regulations of West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky for Ground water Baseline
Requirements and Ground water Performance Monitoring Plans.
The workshop participants expressed their appreciation for the obvious hard work Mr.
Evans had put into his presentations and asked that both presentations be included in the
workshop proceedings. These presentations are included in the appendix.
Facilitated Open Discussion
Mr. Butler facilitated an open discussion of the group toward a set of recommendations
regarding additional scientific study or regulatory enhancements necessary to identify and
protect against the potential detrimental effects of mountaintop mining on ground water
resources. He organized the discussion around five major technical areas that had been
addressed during the day. They were:
1) Baseline Hydrology Assessment
2) Fracture Hydrology (long-term effects)
3) Blasting (short-term or transient effects)
4) Fill Hydrology
5) Aquifer Resource Issues
-------
Mr. Butler then added bulleted sub-items that were discussed during the day and asked
the group to add to or modify the bulleted lists until they were satisfied. Then for each
technical area the group was asked to identify thoughts or suggestions that had been
heard during the day that would contribute to either improved science or enhanced
regulations regarding mountaintop mining and the potential effects on ground water.
Finally, the group was asked to synthesize from those thoughts and ideas a specific list of
essential recommendations for additional scientific study or regulatory modifications to
address the uncertainties of mountaintop mining effects on ground water.
Under science issues, the group was asked to consider whether there was sufficient
scientific knowledge to be sufficiently predictive regarding potential effects of
mountaintop mining on ground water. Under regulatory issues, the group was asked to
consider if existing permitting regulations required sufficient data of the right type and
quality to render an adequate decision regarding the potential effects of mountaintop
mining on ground water. Under each topic below, the area issues are listed under the
main technical area heading followed by comments and recommendations (italicized) to
address key areas of uncertainty in both Science and Regulation.
1) Baseline Hydrology Assessment
- Adequacy of Requirements
- Adequacy of Application Information
- Adequacy of Review
Science no comments or recommendations
Regulation
Standardization of Permit Review Electronic Data Submission
Technical Audits- QA/QC
Depth of well water, seasonality Policy for measured well yield
determination
Variability among states
Sampling plans
There was substantial discussion among the workshop participants on the value and
meaning of well yield testing required by permit applicants. The group considered
several issues including how many wells are needed, which is dependent on the
methodology of geostatistics that is considered appropriate for the circumstances. The
group also considered if it was adequate to simply measure water levels at a single
moment or if more data were necessary to account for daily and seasonal patterns of
consumption and recharge. Finally, the group discussed whether or not the state should
require the applicant to drill wells as part of pre-application monitoring.
David Wunsch commented that we want the application and decision to be based on
sound science and not just "feel good" application of the regulations. He noted that
-------
Kentucky is developing a database of wells that are useful for monitoring. Tom Galya
noted that decisions regarding how many wells to use and where they are located is
determined at the pre-permit meeting. Dave Vande Linde stated that West Virginia is
moving to a tiered review process where initial data is reviewed and decisions are made
about additional monitoring or adding wells. Mr. Vande Linde also noted that West
Virginia is implementing a random technical review of permits for quality assurance and
quality control purposes.
The group endorsed two recommendations in the interest of improving the baseline
hydrology assessment during the permitting process. First, the group recommended
moving to an electronic data submission process as recommended by Bob Evans during
his presentation. This will improve the standardization of permit application review and
quality assurance audits. Second, the group recommended establishing a regulatory
policy for measured flow in terms of obtaining accurate discharge and stream yield
measurements.
Second, the group recommended establishing a regulatory policy for measured flow.
Discharge reported for either pumped wells or streams typically has been an estimate
with no supporting documentation, in contrast to chemical analyses that are supported by
detailed QA plans. The group recommended that all flows reported to WV DEP be
measured using an identified method appropriate to the situation.
2) Fracture Hydrology (long-term)
- Aquifer Dewatering
- Recharge
Science
USGS Work Improved Conceptual Models
Ohio Study
KY thesis
Regulation no comments or recommendations
The group recommended that the conceptual model for flow through fractured bedrock be
improved by considering the greater age of ground water as presented by Mark Kozar
earlier in the workshop. Jim Eychaner further commented that we need to improve the
science, through observations that can lead to improved models, before we propose any
changes to the regulations.
-------
3) Blasting (ST/Trans lent)
- Well Integrity
- Water Quality
Science
Berger Study Nitrates
Montana work New Study in PA
Turbidity/Total Suspended Solids
Regulation
Monitoring Wells in Valleys
Max Peak Particle velocity
Pre-blasting survey (WV Law)
Under the topic of science, the group addressed the question of whether the Berger and
Associates 1980 study is still adequate considering the increased magnitude of blasting
operations in mountaintop mining. Jay Hawkins commented that vertical shock is not
necessarily of concern because the mine operator tries not to break the coal bed when
blasting. Mr. Hawkins also commented that he does not think nitrate contamination of
ground water from blasting operations is a problem. However, he continued, this
potential impact has not been well studied.
Tom Galya stated that analysis for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is not currently
required. Nick Schaer added that many labs perform the TSS protocol as part of other
laboratory tests. Dr. Galya proposed that TSS be made part of the standardized suite of
analyses and reports required with permit applications.
Jay Hawkins commented that a proper pre-blasting survey could help define the potential
effects of a blasting operation and limit potential liability for all parties. JAick Eades
stated that it is part of the law in West Virginia but, in actuality, these studies are very
limited in scope.
The group endorsed recommendations for study on the issue of nitrates from blasting as a
potential ground water contamination source, support for the potential new study on
blasting effects at a mining site in Pennsylvania identified by Jay Hawkins, and adding
TSS to the standard list of analyses for ground water samples. The group also endorsed
including monitoring wells in valleys adjacent to mountaintop mining sites in the
monitoring plan, review limiting maximum peak-particle velocity of blasting operations,
and raising the regulatory rigor of pre-blasting surveys.
-------
4) Fill Hydrology
- Recharge
- Well Dewatering
- Storage Capacity (seasonal)
- Equilibrium Chemistry (water quality)
- Monitoring
Science
Star Fire Tract Conclude Star Fire Tract residual studies
ODEX drilling
USGS work at monitored sites Enhancements to USGS work (chemistry)
Regulation no comments or recommendations
The discussion under this topic considered the potential for significant differences
between fills constructed from sandstone and shale overburden. Jim Eychaner suggested
this was an area for additional study and that the improvements in science would be
reflected in better permit reviews. The group identified two immediate opportunities for
improving the science of fill hydrology. The first is to conclude many of the unfinished
topical studies at the Star Fire Tract and the second is to enhance the current USGS study
by increasing the chemical analyses that are being conducted.
5) Aquifer Resource
- Relative productivity of perched aquifers and fills
- Effect on regional ground water aquifer from filling headwater streams
Science
Ballard Site Recharge Mass Balance
Regulation no comments or recommendations
The group identified the need for development of water budget (mass balance) estimates
for both pre- and post-mining conditions. Rick Eades stated that the Ballard site study
will include the performance of a recharge mass balance. Jay Hawkins commented that
this information is generally well known but the studies have not been collected and
integrated.
Reuben Gillispie (reubengillispie@wvdhhr.org) noted that the state does not specify a list
of significant aquifers. Instead, a vague definition is applied on a case-by-case basis.
Bob Evans said that if the aquifer is designated as a sole-source aquifer, then EPA will
not allow any activity that threatens the aquifer. The CFfJA, he said, requires you to
determine if there will be damage to the aquifer off-site. Despite this discussion, the
group did not endorse any recommendations regarding naming significant aquifers or the
CFfJA.
-------
Workshop Conclusion
The workshop was concluded following the open discussion and development of
recommendations. Recommendations will be forwarded to the EIS Steering Committee
for consideration.
Attachments:
Workshop Agenda
Meeting Participants
Public Comments
Presentations:
Eychaner
Galya
Eades
Kozar
Hawkins
Wunsch
Evans (2)
Ground Water Monitoring
Ground Water Geochemistry Effects
-------
Effects of Mountaintop Coal
Mining on Ground Water
Jim Eychaner
USGS
Charleston WV
-------
Mountaintop Coal Mining
• Ground Water Issues
- Water Quantity
- Water Quality
• Timing of effects
- Transient or Long-Term
- Immediate or Delayed
-------
Ground Water Settings
Fracture flow system before mining
Granular flow system after mining
Fracture flow system after mining
Transition: Blasting
-------
Before Mining
Layered sandstone, shale, coal
- Near horizontal
- Well cemented (carbonate & silicate)
Steep topography
-Relief 600-1,200 ft
- Ridge spacing 1,000 - 6,000 ft
Dendritic drainage network
-------
Geohydrology before mining
L- .d Colluvium and alluvium
^M Coal
I I Sandstone
S3 Shale
Regional flow, 100's to 1,000's of years
-------
Fracture Network
A blanket of fractures draped across the
topography
- Stress-relief fractures
- High-angle joints and faults
- Bedding-plane separations
- Coal seams
Permeability decreases with depth
How do discrete fractures connect?
-------
Ground-Water Flow
Scale of aquifer segment
- Ridge to valley
- Along valley
- Deep aquifers
Seasonal recharge via soil, alluvium
Apparent age of water
- Hilltops 13 yr, Hillsides 29 yr, Valleys 42 yr
- Effects of individual-fracture paths
-------
Well characteristics
6 inch diam, 80-200 ft deep, 20-40 ft casing
Half at base of slope close to stream
Submersible or jet pump, 5-10 gpm
Pump cycles every few minutes when used
New wells have concrete pad, casing grout
?WL/?T < 7 ft/mm or 1 ft/10 sec
-------
Water Quality—Kanawha NAWQA
• Appalachian Plateau survey - 30 wells
- Shallow domestic wells in good condition
- Bacteria, major constituents, nutrients, trace
elements, pesticides, volatiles, radon, CFC age
• Mining survey - 28 wells, not MTM
- Reclaimed surface coal mines, similar wells
- Major constituents, nutrients, trace elements,
radon, CFC age
-------
Appalachian Plateau, 30 wells
• More dilute Ca(HCO3)2 near ridges, tending
to NaHCO3 or NajSC^ in valleys
• Fe exceeds SMCL in 40%, Mn in 57%
• Rn: median 300 pCi/L, >95% < 4000
• Total N: median 0.29 mg/L, 90% < 1.0
• Detected CS2, CHC13, or benzene in 20-40%
• Fecal bacteria absent, Pesticides rare
-------
Granular flow system
In backcast or valley fills
Permeability horizontal or angle of repose
Coarse zones by design or chance
Pyritic spoil high and dry in backcast
-------
Geohydrology ~ spoil on bench
-------
Granular flow - hydraulics
• Thin saturated zone above coal pavement
(backcast) or former valley (valley fill)
• Stable water table after a few years
• Recharge: increased infiltration, fractures
• Discharge: to streams, fractures
• Residence time decreased
• Permanent through-flowing system
-------
Granular flow - chemistry
• Geochemistry of new rock-water
interactions ~ What is on the flow path?
• TDS, SO4 increase, variable by site
• TDS gradually decreases as exposed
minerals react
• Difficult to install wells
-------
Fracture system after mining
• Fractures above highwall drain to new base
• Fractures below water table can recharge
• Progress of effects depends on
- Specific fracture connections and flow paths
- Residence time in each fracture
- Geochemistry along each path
-------
Geohydrology ~ Valley Fill
-------
Effects on existing wells
• Upslope wells can go dry
- Water-level trend one way for days, weeks
- Effects depend on distance
• Downslope, cross-slope well effects are
more subtle
- Multiyear lag possible
-------
Berger & Associates (1980)
• Studied blasting effects on ground water
• Four study sites in WV, PA, OH
- New observation wells
- Repeated pump tests as mining approached
- Periodic chemistry samples
• Specific capacity constant or increased
-------
Near reclaimed mines - NAWQA
• 28 wells, complete reclamation 2-12 yr
• Effects seen within 2000 ft H, 150 ft deep
• Increased: SO4, Fe, Mn, TDS, turbidity
• Decreased: pH, Rn
• Total N: median 0.38 mg/L, 86% < 1.0
• Apparent age unchanged, median 28 yr
• Mixed residence time on multiple paths
-------
Blasting — The Transition
• Effects result from vibration magnitude,
frequency spectrum, and duration
• Objective: shatter rock to allow removal
- Grid of shot holes, charged with ANFO
- Optimize design on spacing, charge, delay
• Objective: minimize off-site effects
• Scale exceeds that of 1980
-------
Transient effects on wells
• Water-level surge
- Compression wave, f >1 hz, could produce
surge ? A/A0 * Height of water column
-?WL/?T>1 ft/s possible
- Surging could continue for the duration of the
blast wave train
- Compare pumping: ?WL/?T < 1 ft/10 sec
- Effect observed in earthquakes
-------
Transient effects (2)
Turbidity transient possible
- Visible water quality change immediately after
blast shock felt by citizen
- Is the science credible?
- Most common citizen complaint in 1980 study
- Turbidity samples in 1980 were collected only
after 300 minutes of continuous pumping.
-------
Principal Unknowns
Pre-mining flow details
Lag time, long-term chemistry near large
fills (fracture system)
Variability of flow in large fills of different
construction
Duration of chemical effects (granular)
Transient water levels and turbidity
-------
WORKSHOP ON MOUNTAINTOP MINING EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER
REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE PERMIT MINE APPLICATIONS RELEVANT TO
GROUND WATER EFFECTS.
SMCRA PERMIT APPLICATION
O DATA, MAPS, AND ANALYSIS IS PROVIDED BY THE PERMITTEE
O PERM IT AREA GEOLOGY DATA
O PERMIT AREA HYDROLOGY DATA
- BASELINE GROUND WATER
- BASELINE SURFACE WATER
O PHC, HRP, AND CHIA ASSESSMENTS
O SMCRA AND NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING
- DURING MINING GROUND WATER MONITORING PLAN
- DURING MINING SURFACE WATER MONITORING PLAN
O POST-MINING WATER DISCHARGE QUALITY
O POST-MINING CLOSURE
- PHASE BOND RELEASE
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
O GROUND WATER PROTECTION PLAN
T.Galya, WVDEP, Nitro,WV
5/9/00
-------
WORKSHOP ON MOUNTAINTOP MINING EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION- SECTION I, MR-4 PERMIT FORM
SECTION I PROVIDES:
• DRILL HOLE DATA
> STRATEGRAPHIC DATA-38CSR2 §3.23A2
> ACID-BASE ACCOUNTING OF SEAM AND OVERBURDEN DATA- 38CSR2 §3.23 and
§3.23.f. 1
• GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS - 38CSR2 §3.23A and §3.23.f.4
. HYDROGEOLOGIC MAP - 38CSR2 §3.23.b
• GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION OF THE PERMITAND ADJACENT AREA
> STRATRGRAPHY - 38CSR2 §3.23.a.2
> STRUCTURE -38CSR2 §3.23.b
• ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF THE PERMITAREA -
38CSR2 §3.23.f.5
-------
21
Section I:
Geologic Information
NOTE: The geologic information being required shall address both the areal and structural geology and related
information of both the proposed permit and adjacent areas down to and including the deeper of either the
stratum immediately below the lowest coal seam to be mined, or any aquifer which may be adversely
impacted below the lowest coal seam to be mined.
1-1. Provide the following information for all coal seam(s), rider(s), and/or refuse to be mined,
mtnn.kpilpfl nr affpp.tprl by flip prnpnsprl nppratinn
COAL, RIDER
SEAM(S) A.ND/OR
COAL REFUSE
(USGSNAME)
THICKNESS
(INCHES)
SULFUR FORMS (Yo)
ORGANIC
PYRITIC
SULFATE
TOTAL
NOTE: Acid-producing coal seams include but are not limited to the Waynesburg, Washington, Freeport, Sewickley,
Redstone, Pittsburgh, Kittanning, Elk Lick, Peerless, No. 2 Gas, Upper Eagle, No. 5 Block, and Stockton
Lewiston.
1-2.
Is gravity discharge anticipated from a proposed underground mine or augering area?
OYes O No O N/A
ii— —ii i^_ __ii
If yes, and coal seams are defined as acid-producing, provide site-specific data demonstrating that
the seams to be mined are no acid-producing or iron-producing in the location of the proposed
mine. Identify as attachment 1-2
1-3.
Is coal fly ash usage proposed?
\\ Yes |[~~|| No
If Yes, provide analysis to show its chemical properties. Identify as
attachment 1-3
1-4.
Is coal processing refuse disposal proposed?
P| Yes p| No
If Yes, provide overburden analysis to show its chemical properties.
Use attachment 1-11
-------
22
1-5. Are durable rockfills proposed?
Yes n No
If Yes, provide slake durability analysis. Use attachment I-11
1-6. Does the applicant request a waiver of the requirement to provide certain geologic information?
| | yes | | No
If Yes, address A. and B. below:
A. Check the type of waiver requested:
Results of test borings as requested in 1-1 1.
|| || Engineering properties of soft rock for underground mines as requested in 1-12,
B. Provide the specific source of existing equivalent information available upon which the
request for waiver is based. Identify as attachment 1-6
[-7. Provide certified geologic cross-sections which include the following: Identify as attachment 1- 7
A. Nature and depth of the various strata or overburden including geologic formation names
and/or geologic members as described by the U.S. Geological Survey or other published
geologic reports;
B. Presence of any known structural features such as faults, fractures, anticlines, synclines,
and monoclines;
C. Depth of weathering identified during exploration and drilling;
D. Nature and thickness, in inches, of all coal or rider seams above and immediately
below the proposed coal seam(s) to be mined;
E. Nature and thickness of the stratum immediately beneath the lowest coal seam to be
mined;
F. Vertical distribution of aquifers and the name(s) of the stratum (or strata) in which the
water is found. For each aquifer system, show the seasonal fluctuations in head and
general water quality information. Also, provide appropriate cross-referencesto the
detailed water quality information under the baseline ground water information section;
and
G. Denote any potentially acid-producing materials, topsoiling, and durable materials.
-------
MR-4, SECTION I, GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
1-7. PROVIDE CERTIFIED GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONS WHICH INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
F. VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF AQUIFERS - 38CSR2 §3.23.c
• FOR EACH AQUIFER SYSTEM:
> NAME(S) OF THE STRATUM (OR STRATA) IN WHICH WATER IS FOUND
- SHOWTHE SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONS IN HEAD- 38CSR2 §3.22.6.3
AND§3.23.c
- GENERAL WATER QUALITY INFORMATION- 38CSR2 §3.22.b.1
- PROVIDEAPPROPRIATE CROSS-REFERENCES
• DETAILED BASELINE GROUND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION-38CSR2 §3.22.b.2
-------
23
[-8. Provide a certified geohydrologic map identifying the following:
NOTE : Proposal map can be utilized only if this additional information does not make the map difficult to read.
A. Locations (latitude and longitude) and elevations of all bore holes and sampling sites;
B. All mineral croplines and the strike and dip of the coal to be mined;
C. Existing or previous surface mining limits with their permit numbers;
D. Location and extent of known workings of any underground mines and auger mined
areas, including mine openings to the surface. Label these openings as to whether they
are currently discharging water or are known to have discharged water in the past;
E. Areal extent of aquifers with the name(s) of the stratum (or strata) in which the water is
found and show the anticipated direction of water movement;
F. Location and depth of all oil and gas wells, and their Office of Oil and Gas permit
numbers, for all wells which are within the proposed mining limits (surface or
underground) and/or within 1000 feet of the proposed permit boundary;
G. Presence and attitude of any known structural features such as faults; axial traces of
synclines, anticlines, and monoclines; and any recognized fracture patterns of lineament
traces;
H. Location of geologic cross-section(s).
1-8. Provide a detailed geologic description of the permit and adjacent areas which include the
following: Identify as attachment 1-9.
A. Stratigraphic and lithologic descriptions of the area to be affected by mining;
B. Hydrogeologic setting including the areal and vertical distribution of all aquifers;
seasonal differences in head; the name(s) of the stratum (or strata) in which the water is
found; and the availability, movement, quality, and quantity of ground water flow in all
aquifer units;
C. Structural geology of the coal seam and the strata to be affected by mining both in the
permit and adjacent areas, including faults, folds, fracture and lineament traces, and
regional and site specific strike and dip;
D. Geochemical character of all strata and coal to be disturbed by mining and the potential
of this strata for generating acid, alkaline, or iron-laden drainage;
E. Depth and degree of weathering of area strata and the effects this weathering has on the
physical and geochemical properties of the overburden proposed for disturbance;
F. Effects of fracturing and weathering on the extraction of coal and the hydrologic regime;
-------
MR-4, SECTION I, GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
1-9. PROVIDE A DETAILED GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION OF THE PERMIT AND ADJACENT AREAS
WHICH INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
B. HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
• AREAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALL AQUIFERS-38CSR2 §3.2c
• VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALL AQUIFERS-38CSR2 §3.2c
• SEASONAL DIFFERENCES IN HYDROSTATIC HEAD-38CSR2 §3.22.5.3
• THE NAME(S) OF THE STRATUM (OR STRATA) IN WHICH WATER IS FOUND
• AVAILABILITY OF GROUND WATER FLOW IN ALL AQUIFER UNITS-38CSR2
§3.22.c.3
HYDROGEOLOGYOF GROUND WATER FLOW IN ALL AQUIFER UNITS
> QUALITY OF GROUND WATER FLOW- 38CSR2 §3.22.b.2
> QUANTITY OF GROUND WATER FLOW-38CSR2 §3.22.b.3
-------
24
G. Anticipated impacts of all proposed and existing operations on the geology and
hydrology of the area, including impacts resulting from multiple seam mining and
subsidence;
H. For underground mining operations (including auger mining) indicate whether or not
there is the potential for gravity discharge(s) and the anticipated quantity and quality of
the discharge(s) from each potential discharge site. For non-gravity discharge situations,
indicate the potential for seepage along the outcrop barrier and the potential hydraulic
head which might result in the underground workings. Indicate if the potential discharge
will require chemical treatment.
I-10. Complete Geologic Borehole Log for all test borings and coreholes in the proposed permit and
adiacent area. Use attachment 1-10
1-1 1. Provide a statement of results of the test borings or core samples for the proposed permit and
adiacent areas. Use attachment 1-11.
1-12. Provide for room and pillar mining operations the thickness and analyzed engineering properties
of clays or soft rock in the stratum immediately above and below each coal seam to be mined.
Identify as attachment 1-12
1-13. Will topsoil substitute be utilized?
Yes n No
If Yes, include analysis of original topsoil, topsoil substitute, and appropriate certifications.
Demonstrate that the proposed substitute material is of sufficient quantity and equally suitable for
sustaining vegetation as the existing topsoil and the resulting soil medium is the best available in
the permit area to support vegetation. Identify' us attachment 1-13
-------
GEOLOGIC BOREHOLE LOG
Attachment 1-10
Page of
Company Name
Surface Elevation
SAMPLE
NO.
DEPTH
FROM
SURFACE
(f«t)
THICKNESS
OF
STRATUM
(feet)
Location: Hole Number
Quadrangle
I rttitmle
Longitude Driller
Date Drilled
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
-------
OVERBURDEN SAMPLE ANALYSIS
Company Name
Attachment 1-11
Mine Name
Page of
Sampling Point_
Laboratory Name
(Reference to Lithologic Log)
Sample
I. D.
No.
Elevation
Top of
Stratum
(ft/msl)
Unit
Thickness
(Feet)
Material
Paste
pH
Total
Sulfur
(%)
Pyritic
Sulfur
(%)
*
Potential
Acidity
*
Neutralize
Potential
*
Net Excess
or
Deficiency
**
Fizz
Rate
***
Color
Slake Durability
Index (SDI)
* Units in tons of CaCOS equivalent per 1000 tons of material
**Units:
0 = None
I = Slight
2 = Moderate
3 = Strong
***MunselI Color Chart
-------
WORKSHOP ON MOUNTAINTOP MINING EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION- SECTION J, MR-4 PERMIT FORM
SECTION J PROVIDES:
INVENTORY OF GROUND WATER USERS -38CSR2 §3.22. b.1
BASELINE SURFACE WATER CHEMISTRY DATA- 38CSR2 §3.22.c
• BASELINE GROUND WATER CHEMISTRY DATA- 38CSR2 §3.22.b
PHC (PROBABLE HYDROLOGIC CONSEQUENCES) OF PROPOSED OPERATION
38CSR2§3.22.b.4
HRP (HYDROLOGIC RECLAMATION PLAN) - 38CSR2 §3.22.f AND §3.22.b.4
-------
25
Section J: Hydrologic Information ,
IJ-1. Identify on the PROPOSAL MAP all surface water and ground water bodies on the proposed
permit area, adjacent areas and areas over the proposed mineral extraction.
J-2. Provide a Ground Water Inventory on the proposed permit area, adjacent areas and areas over the
proposed mineral extraction. Use attachment J-2
J-3. Provide Baseline Surface Water Quality and Quantity information for the proposed permit area,
adjacent areas and areas over the proposed mineral extraction. Use attachments J-3A and B
J-4. Provide Baseline Ground Water Quality and Quantity information for the proposed permit area,
adjacent areas and areas over the proposed mineral extraction. Use attachment J-4A andB
J-5. Are there significant aquifers on the proposed permit area, adjacent areas and/or areas over the
proposed mineral extraction?
[TJ Yes [Tj No
If Yes, provide a description to include discharge rates or usage and depth to water under
seasonal conditions. Identify as attachment J-5
J-6. Provide a statement describing the Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) of the proposed
mining operation, with respect to the hydrologic balance, on the permit area, adjacent areas, and
over the proposed mineral extraction. The statement must provide the following information:
Identify as attachment J-6.
WATER QUANTITY:
• Whether the proposed operation may result in water supply diminution or interruption for
any ground or surface water source currently being used for domestic, agricultural,
industrial, or any other legitimate purpose;
• Potential impact the proposed operation will have on flooding or streamflow
alteration, including channel scouring and dewatering of streams;
• Whether the proposed operation will disturb aquifers that significantly insure water use;
• Potential effects of the proposed operation on ground and surface water availability.
WATER QUALITY:
• Whether the proposed operation may result in water supply contamination for any
underground or surface water source currently being used for domestic, agricultural,
industrial, or any other legitimate purpose;
• Whether acid or toxic forming materials are present which could result in the
contamination of surface or ground water;
• Potential impact the proposed operation will have on sediment yield;
• Potential impacts resulting from increases in total hot acidity, total suspended solids,
dissolved solids, and other important water quality parameters.
-------
26
GRAVITY DISCHARGE/OUTCROP SEEPAGE;
• Potential for gravity discharge from the underground workings during and after
mining, the potential impacts resulting from the complete failure of the outcrop barrier,
and the formation of outcrop seepage faces. (Provide calculations)
1-7. Does the PHC indicate that a currently used or significant ground water resource is likely to be
contaminated, diminished., or interrupted?
n Yes |Q] No
If Yes, provide the following information. Identifi as attachment J- 7
A. Identify the alternative water souree(s) and provide a detailed description of any aquifer,
developed or undeveloped, proposed as an alternative water source;
• If the alternative source(s) is developed , show the location on the proposal map
using designation AW-1, AW-2, etc.
• If the alternative source(s) is undeveloped, provide proposed plans and
specifications.
B. Provide water quality and quantity data demonstrating its suitability for the identified
use(s).
J-8. Does the PHC indicate that a currently used or significant surface water resource is likely to be
contaminated, diminished, or interrupted?
Yes P| No
If Yes, provide the flood flows, base flows, and other characteristics to fully evaluate such
probably hydrologic consequences as water availability and suitability for both the pre mining
and postmining land use in order to plan remedial and reclamation activities. Identifi as
attachment J-8
J-9. Is a waiver of ground water monitoring requested?
Q Yes
If Yes, identify each individual water-bearing stratum for which a waiver is requested and
demonstrate by use of the PHC determination and other available baseline hydrologic and
geologic information that the particular water-bearing stratum is not one which serves or may
potentially serve as a significant aquifer or one which ensures the hydrologic balance within the
cumulative impact area.
If No, provide letter(s) of permission to monitor domestic water supplies proposed as
monitoring sites. Identifi as attachment J-9
NOTE : The ground water and surface water monitoring plans are to be included in Section U of this
application.
-------
27
J-10. Provide copies of original laboratory data sheets for the surface water and ground water baseline
monitoring sites. Identify as attachment J-10
1-11. Provide a hydrologic reclamation plan in the form of maps and/or narrative which describes the
steps to be taken to minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance within the permit and
adjacent areas; to prevent material damage outside the permit area; to met applicable federal and
state water quality laws and regulations; and to protect the rights of present water users. The
plan shall include: Identify as attachment J-I I
A. Preventive and remedial measures to avoid acid or toxic mine drainage;
B. Measures to assure the protection of the quality and quantity of surface and ground water
systems;
C. Measures to be taken to prevent, to the extent possible, contributions of suspended solids;
D. Measures to control drainage and, if needed, a description of the water treatment
facilities;
E. Measures to be taken to restore, enhance, protect, or replace the approximate premining
recharge capacity (underground operations do not need to respond to this subpart);
F. Measures to be taken to prevent, control, or mitigate the adverse impacts of gravity,
seepage, or pump discharges from underground mines and/or augering, if applicable; and
G. Restore, protect or replace the water supply of present water users in accordance with
section 24 of the Act.
H. Preventive and remedial measures to prevent any other potential adverse hydrologic
impacts identified in the PHC.
-------
GROUND WATER INVENTORY
Attachment J-2
*D = DOMESTIC I = INDUSTRIAL P = POTABLE (Drinkable) O = OTHER
NAME
ADDRESS
WELL
(*)
SPRING
(*)
-------
BASELINE SAMPLING SITE DESCRIPTION
26
SURFACE WATER
Attachment J-3A
SAMPLING
SITE
DESCRIPTION
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
ELEVATION
-------
BASELINE SURFACE WATER ANALYSIS
Attachment J-3B
Page.
of
Company Name:
Mine Name:
Laboratory Name:.
Sample
I.D.
No.
Date
Sampled
PH
Flow
cfs
or
gpm
Total Hot
Acidity
ppm
CaCO3
Mineral
Acidity
ppm
CaCO3
Total
Alkalinity
ppm
CaC03
Total
Fe
ppm
Total
Mn
ppm
TSS
ppm
TDS
ppm
Spec.
Cond.
Hmhos
S04
ppm
Al
ppm
-------
BASELINE SAMPLING SITE DESCRIPTION
GROUND WATER
Attachment J-4A
SAMPLING
SITE
DESCRIPTION
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
ELEVATION | SOURCE/
AQUIFER
-------
BASELINE GROUND WATER ANALYSIS
Attachment J-4B
Page.
of
Company Name:
Mine Name:
Laboratory Name:.
Sample
I.D.
No.
Date
Sampled
PH
Flow
gpm or
depth to
water (ft)
Total Hot
Acidity
ppm
CaC03
Mineral
Acidity
ppm
CaC03
Total
Alkalinity
ppm
CaCO3
Total
Fe
ppm
Total
Mn
ppm
TSS
ppm
TDS
ppm
Spec.
Cond.
lamhos
SO4
ppm
Al
ppm
Other
-------
BASELINE SAMPLING SITE DESCRIPTION
GROUND WATER
Attachment J-4A
GW-1
GW-2
GW-3
GW-4
Benlah Justice-Drilled
Well- 100'+ deep
James 9nLth
Wade Canada,Sr.-Drilled
Well- 102' deep
James Bailey-Drilled
Well-831 deep
37" 40' 35"
37" 40' 13"
37" 41' 49"
37" 41' 37"
82° 08' 37"
82" 07' 01"
82° 06' 36"
82" 07' 37"
950'
965'
950'
975'
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
-------
BASELINE GROUND WATER ANALYSIS
Attachment J-4B
Tage
of
Company Name
Mine Name:
Laboratory: ,1
White Flame Rncrirv. Inc.
Surface Mine No. 9
& M Monitoring, Inc.
Sample
I.I). No.
(AV-2
(;\V-2
<;\\ 2
<;\v-2
<;w-2
(;\v-2
Date
Sampled
1 0/30/96
11/13/96
1 2/20/%
01/31/97
02/14/97
03/05/97
pll
6.30
6.90
6.70
6.80
7.20
7.00
How
gpm or
depth to
water (I'D
„_
__
..
._
Tolal 1 lot
Acidity
ppm
CaOW
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mineral
Acidity
ppm
C'aCO.1
._
__
Total
AILllmily
ppm
CitC'0.1
78.00
75.00
143.00
71.00
64.00
71.0(1
Total l-'c
ppm
6.23
S.39
3.52
22.63
0.043
4.44
Total Mn
ppm
1.22
0.63
0.55
0.64
0.70
0.85
I SS ppm
134.00
42.00
42.00
2.00
26.00
18.00
IDS
ppm
_
_
..
Spec.
fond. S
-------
Workshop on Mountaintop Mining effects on Ground water
CH/A-The Director shall perform a separate CHIA (reference in
CSR2 38 3.22d) for the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) of each permit
application. The evaluation determines whether the proposed
operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the
hydrologic balance outside the permit area.
A. Determine whether the hydrologic assessment of the CIA
indicates that the addition of the impacts of the proposed
operation to those of the other Anticipated Mining operations
may cause material damage to the hydrologic balance
outside the permit area.
B, Acknowledgment of hydrologic concerns in the PHC and
HRP, and discuss rationale for inclusion of each concern
addressing each significant ground water (aquifer) use.
C. Develop indicator parameters to monitor ground water
quality and quantity in order to evaluate potential adverse
effects upon significant aquifer uses.
D. Determinethe material damage criteria that will be used to
identify impacts to significant aquifer uses.
- Water quality
- Water quantity
E. Selection and establishment of Threshold impact
assessment-monitoring sites in the CIA.
1. Selection of Threshold impact sites where impacts are
to be assessed; sites located on CIA map.
-------
48
Section U: Water Monitoring Plan
U-l. Provide a surface water monitoring plan to include the following: Identify as attachment U-l
A. Monitoring site locations;
B. Quality and quantity parameters; and
C. Sampling and reporting frequency.
(NOTE: Attached Surface Water Analysis Form is lo be completed and submitted to DEP as required).
U-2. Provide a ground water monitoring plan to include the following, if applicable:
Identify as attachment U-2.
A. Monitoring site locations;
B. Quality and quantity parameters; and
C. Sampling frequency.
(NOTE: Attached Ground Water Analysis Form is lo be completed and submitted lo DEP as required).
-------
WORKSHOP ON MOUNTAINTOP MINING EFFECTS
ON GROUND WATER
PHASE I BOND RELEASE
o RAWWATER DATA IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PHASE I RELEASES. MINIMUM, ONE (1) SAMPLE PER DRAINAGEAREA
o WHERE NO CHEMICALTREATMENT HAS BEEN USED DURING THE LAST 12 MONTHS
> RAW WATER NOT REQUIRED
o WHERE CHEMICALTREATMENT HAS BEEN USED DURING THE LAST 12 MONTHS
> SIX MONTHLY SAMPLES OF RAWWATER MUST BE COLLECTED AND ANALYZED SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE EFFLUENT LIMITS SET FORTH IN THE NPDES PERMIT, AS WELL AS THE SMCRA REGRADING
REQUIREMENTS
o WHERE CHEMICALTREATMENT B CURRENTLY BEING USED OR IS NEEDED TO MEETTHE EFFLUENT LIMITS AT THE
OUTLET
> PHASE I RELEASE WILL NOT BE GRANTED
o PHASE I BOND RELEASE MAY BE GRANTED WITH CHEMICALTREATMENT IF THE PERMITTEE COMPLIED WITH
STIPULATIONS IN 38CSR2 §12.2.e OF THE REGULATIONS
-------
WORKSHOP ON MOUNTAINTOP MINING EFFECTS
ON GROUND WATER
PHASE II BOND RELEASE
o ALL ITEMS MUST BE ADDRESSED IN PHASE I PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION FOR PHASE II BOND RELEASE
* A ONE YEAR HISTORYOF RAWWATER SAMPLES TAKEN AT INTERVALSSET FORTH IN THE NPDESAND MEETING
APPLICABLE EFFLUENT LIMITS OF NPDES PERMIT.
o ALL SAMPLING MUST BE DONE FOR CONSECUTIVE PERIODS THROUGHOUT THE REQUIRED DURATION
• DMR'S SHOWING THE OUTLET MEETS EFFLUENT LIMITS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS RAWWATER EVEN IF THERE B NO
CHEMICAL TREATMENT.
o PERMITWILL BE REQUIREDTO ABANDON A STRUCTURE AND/OR TO OBTAIN PHASEII BOND RELEASE
-------
WORKSHOP ON MOUNTAINTOP MINING EFFECTS
ON GROUND WATER
PHASE III BOND RELEASE
. MUST HAVE ACTIVE NPDES PERMIT COVERING ARTICLE 3 SMCRA PERMITTHAT ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE
CURRENT CONDITIONS
. MUST BE MODIFIED TO DELETE ANY OUTLETS WHERE ANY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED. FALL
DRAINAGE STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN REMOVEDJHEN AN APPROVED STORM WATER PERMIT IS NECESSARY.
. MUST BE FIVE YEARS AFTER LAST AUGMENTED SEEDING AND NOT LESS THAN TWO YEARS AFTER REMOVAL OR
BREACHING OF ANY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
> THE EXCEPTION IS LIGHT INDUSTRY FOR THE POST MINING LAND USE
RAWWATER FROM THE PERMITTEDAREA MUSTMEETTHE EFFLUENT LIMITS SET IN THE NPDES PERMIT
> RAWWATER DOES NOT SHOWANY ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE HYDROLOGIC BALANCE
-------
West Virginia
Surface Mining Reclamation
Regulations
West Virginia
Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation
Act
Office of Explosives and Blasting
Bureau of Environment
Division of Environmental Protection
1999
-------
38CSR2
3.2 La, If the Director if unable to
determine whether the proposed operation is
located within the boundaries of any of the lands
described in paragraph {I}, subsection (d), section
22 of the Act, or closer than the limits provided in
paragraph (4), subsection (d)» section 22 of the
Act, the Director shall transmit a copy of the
relevant portions of the permit application to the
appropriate Federal, State or local government
agency for a determination or clarification of the
relevant boundaries or distances. The agency
shall make such determinations within thirty (30)
days of receipt of the Director's request. The
Director may extend the response period by thirty
(30) days upon written request.
3,2Lb. When the Director receives any
request for determination of valid existing rights
on lands within the area of jurisdiction of the
National Park Service or the U, S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, a notification shall be made to
the appropriate agency, and they shall have thirty
(30) days in which to respond. The Director may,
upon written request, extend the response period
by an additional thirty (30) days.
32I.e. Where the proposed operation
would include Federal lands within the boundaries
of any national forest when the applicant seeks a
determination that mining is permissible under
paragraph (5), subsection (d), section 22 of the
Act, the applicant shall submit a permit
application to the field office of the Federal Office
of Surface Mine Reclamation and Enforcement
with a request that such determinations be made.
_3.22. Hydrologic Information.
3.22.a, PHC. Each permit application
shall, in addition to the requirements of the Act,
contain a statement describing the probable
hydrobgic consequences (PHC) of the proposed
mining operation, with respect to the hydrologic
balance, on both the permit area and adjacent
areas. The statement shall be based on base line
information developed from sampling and analysis
of surface and groundwater at monitoring sites
established both on the permit area and adjacent
areas. Sampling and analysis shall be performed
in accordance with methods approved by the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement. The longitude, latitude and
elevation shall be given for each of the monitoring
sites. Mathematical modeling techniques may be
used to aid in the development of the required
information. The PHC determination shall include
find ings on: whether adverse impacts may occur
to the hydrologic balance; whether acid-forming
or toxic-forming materials are present that could
result in the contamination of surface or ground*
water, and whether the proposed operation may
proximately result in contamination, diminution or
interruption of an underground or surface source
of water within the proposed permit or adjacent
areas which is used for domestic, agricultural,
industrial, or other legitimate purpose; and what
impact the proposed operation will have on:
3.22.a.l. Sediment yield from the
disturbed area;
3.22.aJ2. Acidity, total suspended and
dissolved solids, and other important water quality
parameters;
alteration;
3.22.a.3. Flooding or stream flow
3.22.a.4. Ground-water and surface-
water availability; and
3.22.a.5» Other characteristics as
required by the Director.
3.22.b. Base Line Ground Water
Information. Each application for a permit shall
contain:
3.22.b.l. The location, ownership,
and use (if any) of known existing wells, springs,
and other groundwater resources including
discharges from other active or abandoned mines
on the proposed permit area and adjacent areas in
sufficient numbers to allow the applicant to make
a reasonable approximation of the base line
33
-------
38CSR2
ground water conditions and use;
3.22.b.2. Water quality analysis
including, at a minimum, total dissolved solids,
alkalinity, acidity, sulfates, specific conductance,
pH, total iron and total manganese. Correlation
data from other monitoring sites within the general
area of the proposed mining operations may be
accepted; provided, that a limited number of
validation samples from the permit area may be
required; provided further, that in areas where
prior mining experience has shown acid
production to be a possibility, or in acid producing
seams in areas with no prior mining history, site
specific water sampling and analysis data shall be
required;
3.22.b.3. For significant aquifers,
groundwater quantity descriptions including
discharge rates or usage and depth to water under
seasonal conditions in each water-bearing stratum
above the coal seam and each potentially impacted
stratum below the coal seam. Where deemed
appropriate and feasible by the Director the
operator may calculate water usage for water
status discharge determinations; and
3.22.b.4. If the determination of the
probable hydrologic consequences (PHC)
indicates that a currently used or significant
groundwater, resources is likely to be
contaminated, diminished, or interrupted,
additional information shall be provided as
necessary to fully evaluate such probable
hydrologic consequences as water availability and
suitability for both the premining and postmining
land use in order to plan remedial and reclamation
activities such as alternative water sources.
3.22.C. Base Line Surface Water
Information. Each application for a permit shall
contain:
3.22,c.l, The name, location,
ownership, and description of all surface water
bodies on the permit area and adjacent areas;
3.22.C.2. Water quality descriptions
including information on total suspended solids.
total dissolved solids, specific conductance, pH,
acidity, alkalinity, sulfates, total iron and total
manganese sufficient to demonstrate seasonal
variations; provided, that correlation data from
other monitoring which does not include one or
more of the above parameters may be accepted;
provided further, that a limited number of
validation samples may be required. In areas
where prior mining experience has shown acid
production to be a possibility, or in acid producing
seams in areas with no prior mining history, site
specific water sampling and analysis data shall be
required;
3-22.C.3, Water quantity descriptions
including information on seasonal flow rates,
variation, and usage; and
3.22.C.4. If the determination of the
probable hydrologic consequences (PHC)
indicates that a currently used or significant
surface water resource (including all lightly
buffered streams) is likely to be contaminated,
diminished, or interrupted, additional information
shall be provided on the flood flows, base flows,
and other characteristics or information as
necessary to fully evaluate such probable
hydrologic consequences as water availability and
suitability for both the premining and postmining
land use in order to plan remedial and reclamation
activities such as alternative water sources,
3.22.d, The applicant submit with
the application all available data and analysis
described in subdivisions 3,22.b and 3.22.C of this
subsection for use in preparing the cumulative
hydrologic impact assessment (CHIA).
3.22.6. The Director shall perform a
separate CHIA for the cumulative impact area of
each permit application. This evaluation shall be
sufficient to determine whether the proposed
operation has been designed to prevent material
damage to the hydrologic balance outside the
permit area.
3.22.f. Each permit application shall
34
-------
38CSR2
contain a hydrologic reclamation plan. The plan
shall be specific to the local hydrologic
conditions. It shall contain in the form of maps
and descriptions the steps to be taken during
mining and reclamation through bond release to
minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance
within the permit and adjacent areas; to prevent
material damage outside the permit area; to meet
applicable Federal and State water quality laws
and regulations; and to protect the rights of
present water users. The plan shall include the
measures to be taken to:
3.22,f,!, Avoid acid or toxic
drainage;
3,22.f>2. Prevent, to the extent
possible using the best technology currently
available, additional contributions of suspended
solids to streamflow;
3.22.f.3. Provide water treatment
facilities when needed:
3.22.f 4. Control drainage;
3.22.f.5, Restore, protect, or replace
water supply of present waterusers in accordance
with section 24 of the Act. The plan shall
specifically address the potential adverse
hydrologic qonsequences identified in the PHC
determination and shall include preventive and
remedial measures; and
3.22.f6. Rasters approximate
premining recharge capacity provided that
underground mining operations are exempt from
this requirement
3.22.g. Each applicationforapermitshall
contain a surface water monitoring plans basedon
the PHC determination and base line hydrologic
and geologic information. These plans shall
identify monitoring site locations, quantity and
quality parameters, sampling frequency, and
describe how the data will be used to determine
the impact of the operation on the hydrologic
balance both on the permit area and adjacent
areas. Monitoring sites shall be located in the
surface water bodies such as streams, lakes, and
impoundments that are potentially impacted or
into which water will be discharged at both
upstream and downstream locations from the
discharge. Monitoring parameters shall include
but are not limited to total dissolved solids or
specific conductance corrected at 25'C total
suspendedsolids, flow measurements, pH, acidity,
alkalinity, total iron and total manganese. The
aeLscticn of these parameters must be based on
current and approved postmining land uses and all
hydrologic balance protection objectives.
3.22.h. Each application forapermitshall
contain a ground water monitoring plan for all
significant groundwater resources provided that
monitoring shall not be required if the applicant
can demonstrate that the aquifer is not one which
significantly ensures the hydrologic balance
within the cumulative impact area as provided in
subdivision 14,7,c of this rule. The decision of
need will be based on the PHC determination and
base line hydrologic and geologic information
gathered both on and off the mine site. These
plans shall identify monitoring site locations
(latitude, longitude, and ground level elevations),
quantity and quality parameters to be monitored,
sampling frequency and duration, and describe
how the data will be used to determine the impact
of the operation on the hydrologic balance both an
andofftheminesite. Monitoring parameters shall
include, but are not limited to, total dissolved
solids or specific conductance corrected at 25 °C,
pH, acidity, alkalinity, total iron, total manganese,
and water levels or discharge rates. The selection
of these parameters must be based on current and
approved postm in ing land uses and all hydrologic
balance protection objectives.
3.22.i. If the PHC indicates that adverse
impact may occur to the hydrologic balance cr
that acid forming or toxic forming material is
presentthat may result in contaminationof surface
cr groundwater supplies, then additional
information supplemental to that required in
subdivisions 3.22.b and 3 »22,c, of this subsection
shall be provided to evaluate such probable
35
-------
38CSR2
hydrologicconsequencesandtoplan remedial and
reclamation activities.
3.23. Geology. Each application fora permit
shall contain the following geologic and related
information:
3 ,23 .a. Geologic cross sections, maps or
plans of the proposed permit area and adjacent
areas, prepared by or under the direction of and
certified by a person approved by the Director.
When required by the Director, test borings or
core samplings shall be analyzed to determine the
following information:
3. 23. a. 1, The locations (latitude and
longitude) and elevations of all bore holes;
3.23 ,a,2. The nature and depth of the
various strata or overburden including geologic
formation names and/or geologic members;
323,a,3, The elevation location of
subsurface wafer, if encountered, and its quality;
3.23.a.4. The nature and thickness of
any coal or rider seams above the seam to be
mined;
3.23. a.S. The nature of the stratum
immediately beneath the coal seam to be mined;
3.23. a6. All mineral crop lines and
the strike and dip of the coal to be mined, within
the area of land to be affected;
3,23.a,7. Exiiingorprevious surface
mining limits; and
3.23.a.8. The location and extent of
known workings of any underground mines,
including mine openings to the surface,
3.23 .b. Information concerning the areal
and structuralgeology ofboth the proposed permit
and adjacent areas, down to the deeper of either
the stratum immediately below the lowest coal
seam to be mined
-------
38CSR2
shall be kept confidential and not a matter of
public record;
3.23.f2. Premining overburden
samp i ing and analysis or previous experience and
correlation data, shall be made a part of each
permit application for all acid-producing seams.
Overburden sampling and analysis is to be
performed in accordance with standard procedures
set fcrfh in Environmental Protection Agency
Manual No. 600/2-78-054 (Field and Laboratory
Methods Applicable to Overburdens and
Minesoils) or other methods approved by the
Director,
3.23.f.3. Forstandardroomand pillar
mining operations, the thickness and engineering
properties of clays or aft rock such as clay shale,
if any, in the stratum immediately above and
below each coal seam to be mined;
3.23.f.4. Cross sectional or area!
maps illustrating faults, crop lines, dip/strike,
synclines, anticlines and other known geologic
structural features which have a bearing on the
extraction of the coal and/or the hydrologic
regime. The maps shall be accompanied by a
detailed description of the illustrated data
including a brief description of the degree of
fracturing and weathering noted during the
exploration drilling if it is believed to have a
potential influence on the extraction of the coal
and/or the hydrologic regime;
3.23,f.5. An explanation of the
anticipated potential impacts of the proposed
mining operationonthehydrology and geology of
the area; and
3.23.f.6. jQnapplicantmaybegranted.
a waiver for the requirements of paragraphs
3.23.fl and 3,23. f3 of this subdivision oniy after
the Director finds in-writing that the collection and
analysis of such data is unnecessary becauseother
equivalent information exists and is available to
the Director, provided, that in areas where mining
history has shown acid production to be a
possibility, or in acid producing seams in areas
with no prior mining history, site specific
overburden sampling and analysis data shall be
required.
324. Protection of Adjacent Operations.
Surface mining activities shall be designed to
protect disturbed surface areas, including spoil
disposal sites, so as not to endanger any present or
future operations of eithersurfaceor underground
mining activities.
3.25. Transfer, Assignment or Sale of Permit
Rights and Obtaining Approval; Sale, Conveyance
or Assumption of Control or Ownership of an
Operation.
3.25.a The Director may grant written
approval of the transfer, assignment or sale of a
permit under the following terms and conditions:
3.2S.al. The applicant shall
affirmatively demonstrate to the Director that a
bond in the full amount of that required for the
permit will be kept in full force and effect before.
during, and after the transfer, assignment, or sale.
3.25,0.2. Theapplication for transfer,
assignment, or sale, shall set forth on forms
prescribed by the Director, the information
required in paragraphs I. through 6,, subsection a.
section 9; and paragraph 9. subsection a. of
sacticn 9, subsections d. and f of section 9;
paragraph 10., subsection a of section 10; and
paragraph 5. subsection b ofsection ] 8 of the Act
and subdivisions 3.1,a, 3.1.b, 3,l.c, 3,l.d» 3.1.1,
3.1 ,j, and3.1.k of this rule.
3.25 .a.3. The applicant for transfer,
assignment or sale of a permit shall, upon filing of
the application with the Director, give notice of
the filing in a newspaper of general circulation in
the locality of the operation. The notice shall be
in the form of a legal advertisement containing
information as sef forth on forms provided by the
Director, the name and address of the original
permitteeandthe permit number and shall pro vide
for a thirty (3 0) day commentperiod. Any person
whose interests are or may be adversely affected,
37
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
HYDROLOGIC PROTECTION
REGULATIONS
November 1,1998
Bureau of Environment
Divison of Environmental Protection
-------
38CSR2F
TITLE 38
LEGISLATIVE RULES
OFFICE OF MINING AND RECLAMATION
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SERIES 2F
GROUNDWATERPROTECTIONRULES COALMINING OPERATIONS
$38-2F-l. General.
1.1. Scope. — These . rules establish a
series of practices for the protection of groundwa-
ter which are to be followed by any person who
conducts coal mining operations subject to the
provisions of W. Va. Code §22-12-1 et seq. and
subject to regulation under W. Va. Code §22-3,
and/or under W.Va, Code §22-11, as it relates to
coal mining operations.
1.2. Authority. •- W.Va. Code§22-12-5,
1.3. Filing Date. ~ May 13, 1994.
1.4. Effective Date. - June 1, 1994.
§38-2F-2. Definitions. As used in these rules,
unless used in a context that clearly requires a
different meaning, the term:
2.1. Act means the West Virginia Groundwa-
ter Protection Act, W. Va. Code §22-12-1 et seq.
2.2. Coal Mining Operation means any
facility or activity which falls within the defini-
tion of "surface mine," "surface mining," or
"surface mining operations" set forth in W. Va.
Code§22-3-(3)(u),
2.3. Contaminant means any material in a
solid, liquid or gaseous state that has the potential
to cause contamination.
2.4. Contamination means any man-made or
man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical,
biological, or radiologicalintegrity of the ground-
water, resulting from activities regulated under
this rule, in excess of existing groundwater qual-
ity, unless that activity or site has: (1) been
exempted pursuant to subsection 5(h) of the Act;
(2)has been granted a deviation or variance from
existing quality as provided for in the Act; or (3)
is subject to an order, permit, or other regulatory
action that requires restoration or maintenance of
groundwater quality at a different concentration
level.
2.5. Director means the Director of the
Division of Environmental Protection or the
Director's authorized designee.
2.6. Groundwatermeans the water occurring
in the zoneof saturationbeneaththe seasonalhigh
water table, or any perched water zones.
2.7. Impoundment means an area which is a
natural topographic depression, man-made exca-
vation, or diked area that is designed or improved
in such a manner so as to hold an accumulationof
contaminated surface runoff, process wastewater,
product, or sewage, or any other liquid substance
that could contaminate groundwater.
2.8. Liner means a continuous layer of natu-
ral or man-made materials beneath and on the
sides of an area which restricts the downward or
lateral escape of contaminants.
2.9. Permit means any license, certification,
registration,permit, or any other approval granted
by an agency authorized to regulate coal mining
facilities or activities which may have an impact
on groundwater.
2.10. Practice means any action which is
protective of groundwater.
2.11, Secondary Containment means utilizing
dikes, berms, synthetic or natural liner systems,
-------
38CSR2F
double-walled containment vessels, or any
combinationthereofto prevent contaminants from
accidentally discharging into the environment.
2.12. Exempted coal mining operations
means those operations subject to the exemption
set forth in W. Va. Code, §22-12-5(h), and which
are of an earth disturbing nature resulting from
and directly related to coal extraction. Exempted
coal mining operations include: coal and slurry
impoundments; refuse areas and on-sitehaulways.
§3S-2F-3, Groundwater Protection Plans and
Practices for Coal Mining Operations.
3.1. Hydrologicand water quality protection
practices established under the authority of W.
Va. Code §22-1! or W. Va. Code §22-3 and the
legislative rules promulgated thereunder, were
enacted in part to protect ground water and are
hereby incorporated by reference into this rule.
3.2. All coal mining operations which are not
subject to the exemption set forth in subsection
(h), Sections of the Act, shall conductgroundwa-
ter protection practices, and prepare and imple-
ment groundwaterprotectionplans, as set forth in
this mle. All exempted coal mining operations
must conduct groundwater protection practices
consistentwithW. Va. Code§22-l 1-let seq, and
W. Va. Code §22-3-1 et seq. Exempted opera-
tions are not subject to the existing quality or to
the related provisions of subsections (f) and (g),
Section 5 of the Act. Further, exempted opera-
tions are not subject to water quality standards
promulgated by the Environmental Quality Board
pursuant to the Act. Such operations shall none-
theless be designed, constructed, operated, main-
tained, and closed in such manner as to reasonably
protect groundwater fern contamination.
3.3. Groundwater Protection Plans.
3.3.a. Each groundwater protection plan
shall at a minimum contain the following:
3.3.a.l. An inventory of all opera-
tions and activities that are not exempted opera-
tions and may reasonably be expected to contami-
nate groundwater, and an indicationof the current
existence of and the potential for groundwater
contamination. These include, but are not limited
to, evaluation of materials handling areas, loading
and unloading areas, equipment cleaning, mainte-
nance activities,pipelines carrying contaminants,
sumps and tanks containing contaminants.
3.3.a.2. A description of new and/or
existing controlsoractivitiesto protect groundwa-
ter fton the identified potential contamination
sources.
3.3.a.3. Schedulesandproceduresfor
employee training addressing the prevention of
groundwater contamination.
3.3.a.4. Provisionsfor inspections to
be conducted by the operator at least every six (6)
months to ensure that all elements of the coal
mining operation's groundwater protection pro-
gram are in place, properly functioning, and
appropriately managed.
3,3,a.5. Groundwater monitoring
proceduresas deemed appropriate for the facility
and/or as required by the Director.
3.3a.6. A discussion of all informa-
tion reasonably available to the facility/activity
regarding existing groundwater quality at, or
which may be affected by, the site.
3.3.b. Within one year of the effective
date of these rules all existing non-exempt coal
mining operations shall complete and Implement
a groundwater protection plan; provided, that the
groundwater protection plan shall be included
with any new permit application submitted under
W. Va. Code §22-3 or W. Va. Code §22-11,
ninety (90) days or later afterthe effective date of
these, rules or with any permit renewal applica-
tion submitted one (1) year or more after the
effective date of these rules; provided, further,
thatthe Directormay waive the requirement for a
groundwater protection plan for an operation
which has been granted Phase II bond release in
accordance with W. Va. Code §22-3, if he finds
that such is not necessary for the purposes of the
-------
38CSR2F
Act.
3.3.C, The groundwater protection plan
may be integrated with the statement of probable
hydrologic consequences and the hydrologic
reclamation plan required by W. Va. Code §22-3
and rules promulgated pursuant thereto.
3.3. d. A copy of the gro undwater protec-
tion plan shall be kept on-site, or at the operator's
nearest readily accessible office, and shall be
made available for review by the Director upon
request. A copy or copies of the plan shall be
provided for Division review and/or files upon
request by the Director.
3,3 ,e, The Director may require modifi-
cation to groundwater protection plans to assure
adequateproteaion of groundwater. Further, the
Director may during review of a groundwater
protection plan require such other information as
he reasonably needs to evaluate the plan.
3.3.f In addition to the basic groundwa-
ter protection plan requirements, each plan shall
address the specific requirements set forth in
subsections 5 and 6 of this section to the extent
the operation includes such areas or features.
3.3.g. Adherence to a groundwater pro-
tection plan does not relieve the facility/activity of
any obligation to comply with any other state,
federal or local rule, regulation, law or act.
3.4. Groundwater Protection Practices for
Non-Coal Loading and Unloading Areas; Distri-
bution and Bulk Facilities.
3.4.a. Loading and unloading stations
includingbut not limitedto areas used to load and
unload drums, trucks, and radicals shall have spill
prevention and control facilities and procedures,
as well as secondary containment if appropriate or
if otherwise required. Spill containment and
cleanup equipment shall be readily accessible.
3.4.b. Distribution facilities and bulk
containers shall be designed/installed in such a
manner so as to prevent spills and leaks from
contaminating groundwater.
3.5. Groundwater Protection Practices for
Pipelines, Ditches, Pumps, and Drums.
3.S.a. Pipelines conveying materials
which have the potential to contaminate ground-
water shall preferentially be installed above
ground.
3.S.b. Ditches shall not be installed as
primary conveyances for materials which have the
potential to contaminate groundwater unless
provided with appropriate liners.
3.5.C. Pumps and ancillary equipment
(e.g., valves, flanges,filters, condensate lines and
instrumentation)handling materials that have the
potential to contaminate groundwater shall be
selected and installed to prevent or contain any
spills or leaks.
3.5.d. Drums, containing materials that
have the potential to contaminate groundwater,
shall be stored so that spills and leaks are con-
tained. Measures shall be taken to control drum
deterioration and/or damage due to handling.
3.6. Groundwater Protection Practices for
Sumps and Tferks.
3.6.a. Above-ground storage tanks shall
have secondary containment that is appropriate
consider ing the potential to contaminate ground-
water. Such secondary containment shall be
adequately designed and constructed to contain
the materials for a time sufficient to allow re-
moval and disposal without additionaleontamina-
tion of groundwater, but in no case will that time
be less than seventy-two (72) hours.
3.6.b. Underground tanks containing
materialswhich have the potential to contaminate
groundwater shall be designed, constructed, and
operated utilizing leak detection or secondary
containment, or other appropriate controls that are
capableofpreventinggroundwater contamination
3.6.c. New tanks containing materials
-------
38CSR2F
that have the potential to contaminate groundwa-
ter may only be installed underground for overrid-
ing safety, legal, security, or fire protection con-
cerns.
3.6. d. Sumps containingmaterialswhich
have the potential to contaminate grouncfwafer
shall be designed, constructed, and operated
utilizing leak detection or secondary containment,
or other appropriate controls that are capable of
preventing groundwater contamination.
3.6.e. Secondary containment is not
required for sumps and tan ks used only as second-
ary containment for other facilities.
§38-2F-4. Monitoring.
4.1. Pwsuant to W. Va. Code §22-3 and W.
Va. Code §22-11, the Directormay require place-
ment and maintenance of a reasonable number of
grcundwatentonitoringstations(such as piezom-
eters, monitoringwells, or springs) at coal mining
operations in order to monitor for groundwater
contamination and water levels. Existing facili-
ties not currentlymonitoringgroundwatershalldo
so if required by the Director.
4.2. In addition to the base line groundwater
information required by CSR 38-2-3.22 and
monitoringrequiredby CSR 38-2-14,7, the D irec-
tor may require such other base line data and
monitoring as he determines appropriate to meet
the requirements of these . rules or the Act. A
waiver of groundwater monitoring granted under
CSR3 8-2-14.7(c) may operate as a waiver for the
purposes of these . rules and the Act if, in addi-
tion to the demonstration required by CSR 3 8-2-
14.7(c), the applicantdemonstratesandthe Direc-
tor finds in writing that monitoring is not neces-
sa/y for the purposes of the Act or these rules.
4.3. Groundwatermonitoringstations shall be
located and maintained, or drilled, constructed,
and maintained in a manner that allows accurate
determination of groundwater quality and levels,
and prevents contamination of groundwater
through the finished well hole or casing.
4.4. Groundwatermonitoringstations shall be
designed and installed in accordancewith applica-
ble rules promulgated pursuant to the Act.
4.5. All groundwater monitoring stations
shall be accurately located, utilizing latitude and
hagicude, by surveying or other acceptabfe
means, and the coordinatesshall be included with
all data collected.
4.6. Data Management- The Directormay at
his discretion require submittal of any or all
groundwatermonitoringdata collectedin associa-
tion with a regulated activity, and may further
specify an electronic format in which the data is
to be submitted.
§3S-2F-5. Fees.
5.1. Coal mining operations shall be subject
to the fee scheduleand fee payment requirements
as set forth in CSR 47-55-1 et seq. Failure to
remitfees when and as due is a violation of these
rules.
§3S-2F-6. Prohibitions.
6.1. It shall be unlawful for any person,
unless an authorization has been issued by a
groundwater regulatory agency, to deliberately
allow crude oil, or any petroleum product derived
from crude oil, or septage, or natural gas, or salt
water, or any chemical mixture which may con-
taminate groundwater to escape from any well,
pipeline, impoundment, storage tank, treatment
unit, equipment, or storage container, or to delib-
erately allow such materials to flow onto or under
the land surface in a manner that could contami-
nate groundwater.
Note: 47CSR11 requires all spills and
accidental dischargesto be reported by calling
1-800-642-3074.
§38-2F-7. Enforcement.
7.1. Any person who violates the Act or these
rules shall be subject to applicable civil and
criminal penalties, injunctive relief, enforcement
-------
38CSR2F
j orders, and procedures as set forth in section 10 of
the Act.
7.2. The appeal and review procedures set
forth in section 11 of the Act shall be applicable
to actions arising under these rules.
7.3. Civil penalties for violations of these
rules shall be assessed by the Director in accor-
dance with CSR 47-56.
7.4. Violations by a coal operator, arising
from acts or omissions subject solely to these .
rules or the Act, shall not be counted toward a
pattern of violations or in determining the history
of violations pursuant to W. Va. Code §22-3, and
rules pursuant thereto.
§38-2F-8. Remediation.
8.1. For all non-exempt coal mining opera-
tions, The Director may conduct or order other
persons to conduct remedial actions which are
\ appropriate to the t^pe and extent of contamina-
tion, and which are subject to applicable permit
conditions and variances and deviations from
existing water quality and water quality standards
that are allowed under the Act. The Director
encourages agreements for investigation and
cleanups in appropriate cases.
8.2. The use of permanent solutions to the
maximum extent practical to correct groundwater
contamination is preferred.
8.3 Cleanup actions shall not rely primarily
on dilution and dispersion of the substance if
active remedial measures are technically and
economically feasible, as determined by the
Director. Natural attenuation of groundwater
contaminationmay be an appropriateremediation
response,
8.4 Adequate groundwater monitoring shall
be conductedto demonstrate control and contain-
ment of the substance. The Director shall specify
which parameters should be monitored in a reme-
^) dial operation. The ground water monitoring must
continue until results assure adequate remedial
action was taken.
8.5. In addition to any required remediation,
the Director may order the facility or activity to
mitigate or compensate for the loss aEbeneficial
use of groundwater, or for any significant adverse
impact to groundwater.
§38-2F-9. Applicability ofRequirements.
9.1. The Director may, to the extent autho-
rized by the Act, waive some or all of the require-
ments of this rule upon determiningin writing that
such requirements are not necessary to protect
groundwater from contamination.
|38-2F-10. Appropriateness Study,
10.1. TheEnvironmentalProtectionAdvisory
Council shall conduct a study and report back to
the Joint Committeeon Government and Finance
on or before November 1, 1995. The study shall
be an evaluation of the appropriateness and effec-
tiveness of these rules and shall include any
recommendations, modifications, or alternatives
thereto.
-------
CODE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Chapter 22 - Articles 1,4,11,12,13, and 14
Chapter22B - Article 1
June 10,1994
Bureau of Environment
Division of Environmental Protection
..iW-Z'j-.
-------
concurrence of such designated agencies or political subdivisions, as appropriate, are hereby
authorized to be groundwater regulatory agencies for purposes of regulating such facilities or
activities to satisfy the requiranents of this artide. In addition, the department of agriculture is
hereby authorized to be the groundwater regulatory agency for purposes of regulating the use
or application of pesticides and fertilizers. Where the authority to regulate facilities or activities
which may adversely impact groundwater is not otherwise assigned to the division of
environmental protection, the department of agriculture, the bureau of public health or such
other specifically designated agency pursuant to any other provision of this code, the division
of environmental protection is hereby authorized to be the groundwater regulatory agency
with respect to such unassigned facilities or activities. The divisioi of envircnnental
protection shall cooperate with the department of agriculture and the bureau of public health,
as appropriate, m the regulation of such unassigned facilities or activities,
(c) Within one year of the effective date of this article, the department of agriculture,
bureau of public health and division of environmental protection shaH promulgate m
accordance with the provisions of chapter twenty-nine-a of this code such legislatne rules as
maybe necessary to implement the authority granted them by this article.
(d) Groundwater regulatory agencies shdll develop groundwater protection practices to
prevent groundwater contamination from facilities and activities within their respective
with this article. Such practices shall include, but not be limited to,
criteria related to facility design, operationalmanagement , closure, remediation and monitoring.
Such agencies shall issue such rules, permits, policies, directives or any other appropriate
regulatory devices, as necessary, to implement te requirements of this article.
-------
(e) Groundwater regulatory agencies shall rake such actim as may be necessary to
assure that fcUife or activities within their respective jurisdictions maintain and protect
groundwater at existing quality, vfrse the existing qualify is better than that required to
maintain and protect the standards of purity and quality promulgated by the board to support
the present and future beneficial uses of the state's groundwater.
(f) Where a person establishes to the director that (1) the measures necessary to
preserve existing qualify are not 10000103% feasible or eocnatically practical and (2) a change
m groundwater quality is justified based upon economic or societal objectives, the director may
alow for a deviation from such existing quality. Upon the
-------
(g) Should the approval required m subsection (f) of this ssctdcn be granted allowing
for a deviatLcn from existing quality, the groundwater regulatory agencies shall take such
alternative action as may be necessary to assure that facilities and activities within their
respective jurisdictions maintain and protect the standards of purity and quality prrrul^tBd by
fte board to support the present and future beneficial uses for that groundwater. In
maintaining and protecting such standards of the board, such agencies shall establish
preventative action limits which, once reached, shall1 require action to ccntcoL a source of
ocntaninaticn to assure that such standards are not violated. The director shall provide
guidelines to the groundwater regulatory agencies with respect to the establishment of such
preventative action limits,
(h) Subsections (e). (f) and (g) of this section do no' apply to coal em-action and earth
disturbing activities directly involved m coal extraction that are subject to either or both article
three or eleven of this chapter. Such activities are subject to aH other provisions of this
article.
(i) This article is not applicable to groundwater within areas of geologic formations
which are site specific to:
(1) The production or storage zones of crude oil or natural gas and which are utilized
for tie exploration, development or production of crude oil or natural gas permitted pursuant
to articles six, seven, eight, trine or ten of this chapter, and
(2) The injection zones of Class n or HI wells permitted pursuant to the statutes and
rules governing tineundergroundinjectioii control program.
10
-------
Public Concerns of MTR Mining Effects on Groundwater
Presented by: Ride Eades, Hydrogeologist,WV Citizen Action Group
Presented to: EE3 Steering Committee Workshop Participants
May 9,2000
Key GW Issues ~ Citizens are concerned that these issues are not addressed, cr inadequately
addressed, in the largest study ever undertaken to determine environmental impacts from MTR
mining. Despite written and verbal requests toEIS overseers, citizens are unaware cf meaningful
studies to address these concerns.
1. Valley fills (one of the most controversial aspects of MTR mining)
a. No wells planned or in use to measure GW fluctuations, flow rates, or chemistry
b. No cluster wells to measure communication of VF GW with aquifers beneath the valleys
c. Settlement issues, sorting and eventual discrete plugging and channeling cfGW;
potential for time delayed slope stability issues at discrete discharge points
d. Residence rime and chemistry -variatiais, seasonally
c. Potential N Nbypassing"of surface water monitoring points, by GW discharge from VFs via
subsurface pathways (seasonal considerations and chemistry impacts on GW and
streams)
2. Water supply wells proximal to blasting
a. No studies using supply wells (or uniformly constructed monitoring wells) with
continuous chart recorders for water level fluctuations; while simultaneously using
seismographs to correlate ground vibrations to measured G Wfluctuations; proximal to
actual blasting (at various distances, and considering different stratigraphicsettings)
b. GW chemistry of wells ii deeper strata possibly sourced fcoti old deep mines, and
blasting induced subsidence effects on turbidity, flcw,GW storage, delayed responses of
subsidence
c. Domino effect of potentially less recharge through sealed fractures after blasting on
lowermost bench (function of high volume dust, rnechanicaL corpaction); or conversely,
GW quality and turbidity issues if dust is mobilized via blasting- fracture planes (near
term impacts)
3. Permanent GW 'storage loss in interburden/coal units (up to 600+ feet removed in some
areas)
a No monitoring of multiple units throughout sequence to be mined , prior to MTR;
baseline on C Win various inlerbureten units and coal seams, storage, estimated
discharge to streams on dry seasonal periods
b. Concern over claims that no water is in storage (from dry blast hole drilling), given that
blasting in higher units could have dewatered lower ones
c. Without an estimate of this loss, the future environmental inpacts on stream flows
(derived from GW contributions in various basins) cannot be understood
d. If diminished GW contribution to streams in dry seasonal periods, and thereby lower
stream flow, existing waste loading rates could lead to surface water degradation
{collateral damage to environment ficon decreased GW storage and discharge to streams)
-------
4 GVY loss or impacts below the lowermost bench
a. Per blasting concerns above, dewateringof 'lower strata is a concern via induced or
enhanced fractures
b. Blasting induced subsidence, wen time delayed could alter GW in lower coal seams,
both in terms of availability and quality
c. Recharge may not be occurring, if fine grained participate or dust and equipment
operation arc scaling fractures
5. Guidance for determining the point of origin of intermittent streams (v. ephemeral)
a. Given the Hadcn ruling on buffer zones,all parties need to develop usable methods for
delineating the point within a valley where a stream changes ftrm ephemeral to
intermittent; the EIS isn't likely to identify changes in these delineations relative in the
context of recent droughts
b. MTR and removal of GW within interburden and coal seams could result in less GW
discharge and changing of the pint <±origin of intermittent streams (see lack of baseline
GW information above); also relative toun-mincd basins in the downdip direction
6. CW chemistry
a. Application rates, and fate and transport of chemicals and fertilizers used in rcscedLag
areas (during contemporaneous reclamation and for post milling applications) need to be
determined or estimated
b. The potential esists for spills or discharges of various other chemicals of concern,
including fuels, waste oils, dcgrcascrs, etc.; the fate of these in terms of GW is unclear
7, The basic hydrogeolagie regime represents a high degree of complexity
a. Any usefu 1 study of GW conditions should span at least one hydrologicyear
b. The droughty of 1987,1988, 1998, and 1999 have to be accounted for in some capacity
c. The behavior of VFmaterial as a pseudo-aquifer is a "wildcard" in the long term
d, subsidence in lower stratigraphic zones may be enhanced by MTR mining; enhanced
fractures could contribute to discrete zones of weakness (relative to heterogeneous
materials, material strength/competency variaticns, fracture frequency and aperture); so
that subsidence could be a significant long term collateral impact of MTR mining in
terms of GW availability and quality.'
Summary statements:
CLtiaais are concerned that the above items are not being direcily addressed in the EIS.
Citizens are question ing the lack of commitment of resources (moneyfor monitoring wells, etc.)
to gain direct measurement to assess these potential environmental impacts.
The impacts suggested above seem to represent reasonable concerns.
In instances where indirect evidence (anecdotaldata from stream measurements) Js being used to
characterize hydroge^logic impacts, the potential to miss very real and very significant long-term
effects of MTR on groundv/ater further concerns citizens.
In. summary, citizens have a very low degree
-------
tience for a changing world
Age of Ground Water in the
Kanawha-New and Allegheny-
Monongahela River Basins
West Virginia District USGS-WRD
National Water Quality Assessment
Mark D. Kozar, Hydrologist
-------
Introduction
t Wells were sampled for chlorofluorocarbons
(CFC's) from the Appalachian Plateaus Physio-
graphic Province within the Kanawha-New and
Allegheny-Monongahela River Basins of West
Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.
t Wells sampled were primarily domestic
homeowner and small public supply wells.
t CFC data was used to compute the age of the
ground water in the wells sampled.
-------
CFC Ground Water Age Datin
t Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) were devel-
oped in the 1930's.
t CFC production and use has steadily in-
creased since they were developed.
t First detectable concentrations of CFC's in
the atmosphere occurred around 1940.
t CFC' s can be used to date ground water.
-------
Henry's Law
t Cj = Kh x Pj where
t Cj is concentration in equilibrium with air
in pm/kg (picomoles per kilogram.
t Kh is the Henry's Law constant, and
t Pj is the partial pressure of a gas in air. P} is
expressed as a volume fraction in parts per
trillion (pptv).
-------
Topics of Discussion
t How Old is Ground Water in the Kanawha-
New and Allegheny-Monongahela River
Basins?
t What Factors Affect the Age of Ground
Water in the region?
t How does mining affect age of ground
water in fractured bedrock aquifers?
-------
Age of Ground Water in the
Kanawha-New River Basin
t Water from hilltop wells ranged from 11 to
19 years and averaged 13 years in age.
t Water from hillside wells ranged from 10 to
42 years and averaged 29 years in age.
t Water from valley wells ranged from 19 to
>57 years and averaged 42 years in age.
-------
Explanation
Ground-water Flow
I I Colluvium and alluvium
Coal
';--.-'>l Sandstone
HI Shale
Compressional Stress
[ensile
Fractures Resultant Stress
Compression
Fractures
mm
^•^ j\ ' ' • ' f • ' * * * j_ ^_'_•.•- ]•, '.•. -y-, -TV
Figure 3. Revised conceptual model of ground-water flow in an Appalachian Plateaus fractured-bedrotk aquillr
including apparent age uf ground water (Modified from Wyrick and Borchers, fig. 3.2-1, 1981 and
Kozar, 1998).
-------
Age of Ground Water in mined areas
of the Kanawha-New River basin
t Hilltop wells could not be located for
sampling as that portion of the hydrologic
flow system typically is disturbed.
t Water from hillside wells ranged from 10 to
47 years and averaged 27 years in age.
t Water from valley wells ranged from 4 to
>58 years and averaged 32 years in age.
-------
Age of Ground Water in mined areas
of the Allegheny-Monongahela basin
t Water from hilltop wells could not be
located in that portion of the hydrologic
flow system which typically is disturbed.
t Water from hillside wells ranged from 11 to
57 years and averaged 30 years in age.
t Water from valley wells ranged from 13 to
>57 years and averaged 29 years in age.
-------
Factors Affecting Age of Ground
Water in the Region
t Topographic Setting (Water from valley
wells is oldest, from hilltop wells is
youngest, and from hillside wells is
intermediate in age).
t No other factors including well depth, well
yield, length of casing, water level, and
distance from recharge area were found to
be correlated with ground water age.
-------
Possible Factors Affecting Age
of Ground Water in Mined Areas
t Lack of distinct topographic effects in the
Allegheny-Monongahela basin may be due
to lower relief and/or rolling topography.
t Surface mining may have altered normal
ground-water flow patterns.
t Younger age of ground water in mined areas
may be reflective of increased ground-water
flow velocity due to enhanced permeability.
-------
What this Means
t Ground water in the region is much older
than previously thought.
t Ground-water travel times within the region
are therefore much longer than previously
thought.
t Surface mining may alter natural ground-
water flow processes resulting in increased
ground-water flow velocitiy (younger age).
-------
Implications and Applications
t Conceptual models of ground water flow in
fractured bedrock aquifers of the Appalachian
Plateaus need to be revised based on the
information revealed by CFC age dating.
t Regulations designed to protect ground water
resources must address longer travel and residence
times for ground water in fractured bedrock
aquifers of the region.
-------
Future Considerations
t Additional data is needed to understand
ground-water flow and age of ground water
in deeper portions of the Appalachian
Plateaus aquifers, especially in fractured
bedrock below ridge tops.
t CFC data is also needed in areas of active
surface and underground mining, especially
in hilltop settings.
-------
Impacts of Blasting on Domestic Water Wells
Jay Hawkins
Workshop on Mountaintop Mining Effects on Groundwater
May 9,2000
Opening Statement:
I'm going to cover two areas of the impacts of blasting on domestic wells and associated
aquifers. First, I will discuss my personal experiences with researching this problem.
Second, I will review the studies of others on the subject. Then, I will summarize
some thoughts and give some points for discussion.
I. My research. - I used to work at the U.S. Bureau of Mines researching ground and
surface water problems related to surface and underground mining.
A. At the request of Mike Smith, District Mining Manager in the Hawk Run
Office of the PADEP, I began looking at the blasting problem early in 1994. I
shut the work down at the end of 1995 because of my departure from the
Bureau. Many of you know that the Bureau was eliminated in 1996. During the
short period of research, I did manage to instrument a few shots and conduct
several aquifer tests, before, between, and after the blasts.
Incidentally, I have recently had discussions with the PADEP on the initiation of
a new study on the impacts of blasting on ground water and wells.
My study site was in Clearfield Co. Pennsylvania (Fig 1), a mountaintop job,
similar topography to southern VW. Numerous well nests were completed
across the site with 4 to 6 wells at each nest (Fig 2). Here are the well nests.
The area that I will show data from is this nest here and the mining was
initiated in this area.
B. Monitoring of Blasts was the first part of the study-
1. Wells were instrumented with pressure transducers wired to data loggers.
2. The wells initially instrumented included (Fig 3)
a. One well was completed similar to domestic water wells, i.e. an
open borehole drilled to the top of the seat rock of the mined coal
seam with 20 feet of casing installed at the top. This represented
the water-table aquifer.
b. A second well was completed to the first coal seam below the one
being mined (~60 feet). The well was cased all the way down with
an open interval at the lower coal seam and the immediate roof
rock. The remainder of the hole was properly grouted. This
represented the first yielding unit below the water-table aquifer.
-------
Figure 1
if'
•ll
*t
Figure 2
PEDA Kauffman Site Layout With Selected Borehole and Monitoring Well Locations.
-------
3. The monitoring interval was every 15 seconds. Before, during, and
for 15 to 20 minutes after the blast.
4. The shots ranged from 50 to 100 holes with approx. 60' of
overburden.
5. The blasting was initially 900-1000 feet from the wells.
6. The graphs of the water level monitoring (figs. 4-6) show no
noticeable ground-water level fluctuations that could be attributed to the
blasting. The scale for observing changes was 1/100th of a foot. The
blasting for the first 2 graphs occurred at about 15 minutes. The blasting
occurred at about 5 to 7 minutes.
C. Aquifer testing was also conducted to determine impacts of blasts.
1. Types of tests: 1) Slug injection (falling-head test), 2) Slug withdraw,
and Single well constant-discharge testing.
2. Conducted prior to the first shot, between shots, and after the shots.
Some testing was performed after the pit was opened. But the well that
was completed like a domestic well was eventually dewatered by the
pumping at the open pit.
3. Results: No observable changes due to blasting were noted.
However, expected seasonal variations are seen.
4. Other wells across the site and further away were also tested with
similar results.
D. These results are very, very preliminary:
1. Blasting caused no noticeable water table fluctuations and the
hydraulic conductivity was unchanged.
2. The pumping of the pit and encroachment of the highwall toward the
wells dewatered the water table aquifer.
Results of Other Studies (published).
A. D.A. Roberson (1988) - Summarized two studies.
A study tested wells 150 feet from a blast. Scaled distance of 30 which is fairly
high. Wells exhibited no quality or quantity impacts. Blast pressure surges
ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 feet. (Montana). Not everything can be translated from
this study to West Virginia, because the ground water hydrologic systems in
Montana are radically different.
-------
Conceptual Diagram of the Blasting Study
6D
Figure 3
Not to Scale
Figure 4
-------
Figure 5
Ule I I 6D Throughou I
a Blast
i I i ' i i i i i ri | i i M i i i i i | i i i | i i i i i i . .
0.00 B.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Time in Minutes
Figure 6
-------
The other study (the Berger Study) observed ground-water impacts from
manmade stress-release caused the rock mass removal during mining,
but nothing from the blasting. The water quality and water levels were
unaffected by the blasting. The "opening up" of the fractures lowered
the ground-water levels by increasing the storage or porosity This work
was conducted in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
B. D. E. Siskind and J. W. Kopp (1987) - Based on the Berger work.
Looked at 36 case histories. Vibration levels up 2 in/S.
The well yield and aquifer storage improved as the mining neared the wells,
because of the opening of the fractures from loss of lateral
confinement, not blasting. This is similar to how stress-relief fractures
form.
At one site the process was reversed after the mine was backfilled. They
conjectured that the fractures closed back up or "fines" clogged the
fractures. In my experience, it is doubtful the fractures clogged that
quickly with fines. Ground water in the Appalachian Plateau moves
very slowly and seldom carries anything but the finest suspended
solids. It is more likely the fractures were recompressed.
They stated that blasting may cause some temporary (transient) turbidity
similar to those events that cause turbidity without blasting.
Such as:
1. natural sloughing off inside of the well bore due to inherent rock
instability. This can be accelerated by frequent over pumping.
And is common to wells completed through considerable
thickness of poorly consolidated and/or highly fractured
claystones and shales.
2. significant rainfall events. The apertures of the shallow fractures
that are intersected by a domestic well are commonly highly
transmissive, thus will transmit substantial amounts of shallow
flowing and rapidly recharging water. This water will commonly
be turbid and can enter the well in high volumes. I have recorded
water-level increases in the wells I was studying by over 50 feet
in less than one hour from a large rainfall event. The lack of
grouting of the near surface casing (~20 feet) commonly allows
this to happen. Also, if the top of the well is not grouted properly
surface water can enter along the side of the casing and flow
down the annulus.
-------
Table 1
Figure 7
-------
Siskind and Kopp (1987) recommended the use of well screens to prevent
the sloughing of the well bore.
C. J.A. Kipp and J. S. Dinger (1991)
They recorded what they called "blasting shadows" in the shallow water
table wells (70 and 71) and not in the deeper wells (80) accessing
confined units (fig 7).
They said that "the shots were extremely strong". They don't say how close
the blasting was to the wells.
Based on their graph the water level spikes ranged from about 0.2 feet to
nearly 1.4 feet. Greater water level changes will be observed for the
normal pumping of a domestic well or from infiltrating precipitation.
General Discussion:
1. Depending on the well construction, lithologic units encountered, and proximity to
the blasting, I believe that some of the larger shots could act as a catalyst for some
well sloughing or collapse. However, the well would have to be inherently weak to
begin with. The small to moderate shots have not shown these to impact wells.
2. The minor water fluctuations attributed to blasting may cause a short term turbidity
problem, but do not pose any long term problems. This fluctuation would not cause
well collapse, as fluctuations from recharge and pumping occurs frequently.
3. Long term changes to the well yield are more likely due to the opening of fractures
from loss of lateral confinement. Short term dewatering of wells is caused by the
opening of the fractures creating additional storage. A longer term dewatering is
caused by encroachment of the highwall and pumping of the pit water. The pit acts
like a large pumping well.
4. I do not believe that long term water quality problems will be caused by blasting
alone. With the possible exception of the introduction of residual nitrates, from the
blasting materials, into the ground water system. The question arises what levels of
nitrates are being seen in domestic wells hydrologically connected to a site? How
long does it take before they are gone or return to baseline concentrations? I
personally believe that natural attenuation will take care of most of the nitrites with
in a short distance of the source over a short period of time.
5. Most of the long term impacts on water quality are due to the mining (the breakup of the
rocks). The mechanisms of these changes (via pyrite oxidation) are well known.
They increase the dissolved solids component especially sulfate, iron, manganese,
aluminum, and sometimes sodium. Occasionally, other minor metals show up.
-------
Where Do We Go From Here?
The nitrates question may need to be answered.
Perhaps pre-blast surveys of wells need to be conducted. This would include at least:
•Well testing. I recommend both a wet and dry season tests.
•Visual inspection with a borehole camera to determine the integrity of the well bore
and the delivery system.
Water quality testing, 6 to 12 monthly samples. Both the wet and dry season need to be
characterized.
Perhaps some maximum particle velocity or scaled distance needs to be established for
well protection. For example, the Bureau of Mines stated particle velocities over 2.0 in/sec
are likely to cause structure damage. Perhaps a scaled distance of 50 per shot delay, as
suggested by the Bureau of Mines would work.
Restrict blasting on days with temperature inversions. The air blast tends to reflect off of
the inversion and appear worse on these days.
Some earthquakes have been shown to impact shallow ground-water flow in the
Appalachian Plateau. An earthquake of 5.2 (which is fairly large) occurred in 1998 near
Jamestown Pennsylvania. It is believed that it may have increased the hydraulic
conductivity of certain units and dewatered some ridge top wells. However, an earthquake
of this magnitude is much much larger than any shot for MTM would be. A rough
equivalency for a magnitude 1.0 earthquake is 200,000 pounds of explosive per delay. A
magnitude 5.0 earth quake is roughly 10,000 times greater than a 1.0 earthquake.
-------
Figure 8
Hydrographs of wells 70,71 and 80 showing the
effects of blasting.
After Kipp and Dinger (1991)
-------
-------
-------
-------
1600
, A'
ACTIVE PIT
1400'-^
LONG FORK
HOLLOW FILL
DRAGLINE PAD
BLAST-CAST SPOIL
1200'
1000'
ELEVATION
100 SCALE
ffffffffffffff
mmmwm
1000'
-------
HIGHWALL CAST
BLASTING
PAVEMENT ROCK OF NO. 7 COAL
-------
-------
-------
-------
c
t *i , :M|
-------
-------
HIGHWALL CAST
BLASTING
' *>J I IIII— d
:5S^ :PAVEMENT ROCK OF NO,>
-------
"vol/vo
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Precipitation and Well Hydrographs
for Monitor!nq Wells 6,9, and 11
itoring Wells 6,9,
May16-June19,1991
2.0 -
-? 1.5-
1.0-
0.5 -
1134-
li. 11Z8 -
1126 -
XX
-------
-------
-------
Saturated Thickness in Monitoring Wells
in June 1991
ltel/\ Wuct'tt Ova ltt>llt>H' I //A
n ,-// in
4
6
7
10
14
Stttitntti'fl
//m A//('V\
24.5
23.7
27.1
37,1
38.0
H ittt'i-
l.fi'\*(ifii>n
1,128.4
1,121.6
1,059.5
1,048.8
1,123.0
n=5
range=23.7 38 0
median=27.1
mean =30.1
\[><>il Interior " c//>
Well ID
2
3
5
8
9
11
12
13
Saint titi'tl
ltiichHtf\\
21.0
10.1
23.1
10.6
9.5
17.6
16.7
14.7
Water
Elev(ttion\
1,132.ol
1,131.6
1,132.4
1,131.1
1,130.4
1,135.3
1,133.1
1,131.5
n=8
range=9.5 23.1
rnedian=15.7
mean=1 5,4
-------
Hydraulic Conductivity in Monitoring Wells,
Measured by Slug Tests
Well No.
MW4
MW5
MW7
MW8
MW9
MW10
MW12
WIW 13
MW 14
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
7.0 x 10-5
>8.2 x 10-4
2.0x10-5
>7.3x 1Q-4
4.0x10-5
>9.0x 10-4
4.0 x 10-4
>5.8 x 10'4
2.0 x 104
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/sec)
2.0 x 10-6
>2.7x105
8.0 x 10"6
>2.4x10-5
1.0x10-6
>2.9x10-5
1.0 x 10-5
>1.9 x 10-5
8.0 x 10-6
-------
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF MINE SPOIL (CM/S
WUNSCH AND DINGER (1994)
OERTEL AND HOOD (1983)
2.0 x E-5 to >9.0 x E-4
4.6 x E-5 to 2.1 x E-2
HERRING AND SHANKS (1980)
4.6 x E-5 to 4.8 x E-2
-------
Mass-balance calculations:
Qt = Qpo + Qcb + (Qsp - Qcb) + Qlf
where:
Qt = measured total mine discharge at Long Fork flume
Qpo - measured discharge of the pond overflow
Qcb = measured discharge from Chestnut Branch
Qsp = measured discharge at Spring Gap Spring
Qlf = calculated total mine discharge at Long Fork Spring
-------
Pond
Overflow
Ground-water
flow
Impermeable
boundary
Direction of flow is
uncertain near the
active mining area
-------
Digital Terrain Model Showing the Bedrock
Topography Buried Beneath the Spoil
Interior Buried Plateau
Long Fork Valley / Spring Gap Valley
•
T
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
N = 5
14 SP1
LOCATION
minimum maximum median
-------
-------
-------
Table 6. Saturation indicics Tor selected minerals shown
in log IAP/K using the model PHREEQE (Parkhurst and
others, 1980). IAP= ion activity product, K= equilibrium
constant.
Well #: Calcite Dolomite Gypsum Chlorite
MW#2 -0.3618 -0.8095 0.0116 -10.9561
MW#3
MW#4
MW#5
MW#6
MW#7
MW#8
MW#9
MW#10
MW#12
MW#13
MW#14
SP1
-0.2230
-1.2823
-0.2750
-1,5691
-0,2747
-0.0049
-0.2792
-0.4647
-0.5093
-0.2738
-0.4078
-4.5345
-2.4520
-0.6151
-2,4945
-0.6708
-3.0704
-0.3551
-0.1510
-0.5369
-0.8510
-0.9636
-0.7338
-0.8301
-9.0036
-4.9492
0.0364
-0.8279
-0.0378
-0.8140
0,0095
0.0754
-0.0681
-0.1012
0.1195
0.1251
-0.0217
-0.4288
-0.0336
-10,8265
-15.3130
-10.2089
-17.2109
-7.3621
-7.8246
-9.2461
-10.3842
-12.3585
-11.3047
-9.9278
-34.2911
-11.5458
-------
STAR FIRE SPOIL WELLS
W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 WU SP1
MONITORING WELLS AND SPRING
-------
-------
-------
Jjjfc N
S
' 3. " I-
^/'f^K^vx
%.|^<^
/^f-^^^aags^
-------
-------
-------
Lf,
-------
-------
Typical Monument
Class AA Concrete
0.65'
Painted Surface
0.5" Braided
Steel Re-Bar
Spoil
4.75' Average
-------
-------
Settlement Along Traverse B
9/95 through 10/96
Monuments
4/96-10/96
-------
Settlement Along Traverse C
9/95 through 10/96
Monuments
9/95-4/96 •4/96-10/96
-------
Dissected, Coal-Bearing Strata
in the
Appalachian Coal Field
-------
-------
1375
1Z75
1175
1D7&
975
875
775
Star Fire Site
SITE #1
SITE
21
O ITCT 4f^ --a l
til 1 1 ?f,i _^-r- al
„:-- ' A '
-------
Conceptual Model of Ground-Water Flow
1,375
1,276
1,175
$ 1,076
Minimal Recharge/
High Surface Runoff Site
No.1
Area of
Maximum Recharge
No. 2
Discharge
Zone
Site
No. 4
Site
No. 3
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Runoff
Feet
Ground-Water Flow/Recharge
-------
\a t a. IK O; • so.j t
Nla. UCOj s
\a.( I
-------
Ground Water Monitoring
Roberta. Evans, Hydro log 1st
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation & Enforcement
Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center
3 Parkway Center
Pittsburgh, PA
M ay 9,2000
-------
I
Ground Water Baseline Monitoring
Requirements
OSM /TN 30 CFR 780.21 (b)(1) GROUND WATER BASELINE REQUIREMENTS
Regulations
Location and Ownership
Seasonal Variation
Usage of Ground Water in
Permit and Adjacent Area
Water Quality Parameters
Approximate Rates of
Discharge or Usage of
Supplies
Depth to Water in the Coal
Seam and each water-
bearing stratum above and
potentially impacted
stratum below
KY
405 KAR
8:030 -Section 14(2)
8:030 -Section 14(3)
8:030 - Section 14{2)
8:030 -Section 14(3)
8:030 -Section 14(2)
8:030 -Section 14(3)
VA
4 VAC 25-1 30
780.21(b)(1)
780.21(b)(1)
780.21(b)(1)
780.21(b)(1)
780.21(b)(1)
780.21(b)(1)
wv
Title 38 CSR 2
Section 3.22.b(1)
?
Section 3.22.b(1)
Section 3.22.b (2)
Section 3. 22. b (3)
Section 3, 22. b (3)
-------
Ground Water Performance
Monitoring Regulations
OSM
GROUND WATER P
/TN 30 CFR 780.21(i)
ERFORMANCE MONITORING PLANS
Regu lations
KY
405 KAR
VA
4 VAC 25-130
WV
Title 38 CSR 2
Based on PHC and analysis
of all baseline hydrologic,
geologic information
8:030 -
Section 14(2)
780.21(b)(1)
Section 3.22.H
Monitoring of suitable
parameters
8:030 -
Section 14(2)
780.21(b)(1)
Section 3.22.h
Identify parameters to be
monitored, sampling
frequency, and site locations
8:030 -
Section 14(3)
780.21(b)(1)
Section 3.22.H
Describe how the data will be
used to determine the
impacts of the operation
upon the hydrologic balance.
8:030 -
Section 14(2)
780.21(b)(1)
Section 3.22.h
Monitoring must be
submitted to the RA every 3
months foreach monitoring
location
8:030 -
Section 14(3)
780.21(b)(1)
Section 3.22.h
-------
Where Doss Uncertainty Exist?
Establishing natural variability in quality /
quantity to use in impact determinations
Establishing all parameters that may be affected
Sample locations /sample collection /sample
handling /sample analysis
Variability in comfort levels of the reviewers
Differences between States, e.g. representative
wells/springs, spoil wells, etc.
Differences in acid base accounting analysis,
presentation, and interpretation
-------
Potential Effects on Ground Water
Quantity and Quality
Inproper sample site locations could lead to late
detection of impacts.
Inproper sample collection, handling, and
analysis can provide a poor basis for comparing
the "during mining" to the "baseline" (ambient)
conditions.
Incomplete user surveys might not establish all
parameters that may be affected.
Differences in acid base accounting analysis,
presentation, and interpretation can lead to
inconsistencies in PHC predictions.
-------
Conceivable Actions to Reduce
the Uncertainty
+ Enhance the experiential knowledge base of
the reviewers and permit preparers through
standardization of testing methods, databases,
field studies, etc.
+ Establish postmining water quality from
backfills and valleyfills to validate PHC
predictions.
* Develop electronic data submission /storage
requirements for submission of geologic and
hydrologic data.
-------
Ground Water Geochemistry Effects
Robert S. Evans, Hydrologist
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation & Enforcement
Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center
3 Parkway Center
Pittsburgh, PA
May 9, 2000
-------
Techniques Used to Predict
Postmining Water Quality
Acid Base Accounting
* Volume Weighted
• Siderite Modified Testing
Recharge to the fill areas
• Quality and quantity of the ground water
recharge to the fill areas
Adjacent Existing Mining Operations
• Water quality from backfills and valley fills
* Requires demonstration that operations
are similar in topography, geology,
hydrology, mining methods and age, etc.
-------
Overburden Geochemistry and
Postmining Water Quality
»WV broken into two coal coalfields based on
coal quality
* Northern coalfield overall has higher potential
acidity (sulfur) and frequently higher neutralization
potential (more limestones).
* Southern coalfield overall has lower potential
acidity (sulfur) and lower neutralization potential
(more sandstones).
* Acid Base Accounting studies conducted in
hydrologic and geologic conditions representative
of the Northern coalfield and provides relationship
between mining methods, overburden
geochemistry, and post mining water quality.
-------
West Virginia Coalfields
GEOLOGIC MAP OF WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA GEOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC SUKVKY
Hubert B. Erwin,
1963
rat* all. ynr. •»». tl|r- H11*"^ I -1';-, .T'
-1^ ^stiiNui ftf FKii- rimi, Mnefc i.fc--.. »ed Urpj-
-,,„.-.. ^h^^.UU.Zrr-
-------
Characterization of Ground Water
Quality Impacts
Northern coalfields-generally understood that sites
with higher sulfur levels that have acid discharges can
have severe acid drainage problems unless
substantial alkaline material exists on site.
Southern coalfields-generally thought that sites with
lower sulfur levels would likely have alkaline
discharges; but without significant alkaline material
can result in acidic discharges.
Sulfates, total dissolved solids, specific conductance,
and metals frequently increase as a result of mining.
Recharge to stress relief systems frequently changed
spoil water storage and discharges.
-------
Ground Water Impacts-
Watersheds
Recharge of spoil water to streams frequently
increase sulfate, total dissolved solids, specific
conductance in receiving streams especially during
low flow as a result of increased base flow.
Metals may increase in the receiving stream but
frequently decline after mining and reclamation are
completed.
-------
Conceivable Actions to Reduce
the Uncertainty
Field studies of existing mining operations to
relate geochemistry to postmining water
quality.
Better establish the ground water flow paths
through mine backfills and valley fills.
-------
Example Ground Water
Chemistry: Aquifers
Valley Fill Water Quality
4000 T '• r200
3000
o
oJ 2000
a.
OT
§1000
10
LF-17 912
913 19-A 8-A
Sample Sites
SO4 ^ Spec. Cond.
Net Alk • Flow (gpm)
9-A
-------
Example Ground Water Chemistry:
Aquifers
Valley Fill Water Quality
20
15
10
0)
200
o
-1-150
100
+ 50 <
+ 0
LF-17 912
913 19-A
Sample Sites
8-A 9-A
-50
^j
TFe
TMn
Net Alk
Flow (gpm)
-------
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STRUCTURE RESPONSE TO
COAL MINE BLASTING
Prepared for
Prepared by
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contract No. CTO-12103
C. T. Aimone-Martin
Aimone-Martin Associates, LLC
M. A. Martell
Aimone-Martin Associates, LLC
L. M. McKenna
Northwestern University
D. E. Siskind
DESA, Inc.
C. H. Dowding
Northwestern University
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative
Kenneth K. Eltschlager
February 2003
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT 1
INTRODUCTION 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4
PROJECT APPROACH 5
SITE AND STRUCTURE SELECTION 5
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURES 6
Pre-manufactured Trailer Structures 8
Mine Camp Structures 9
Log Structures 10
Masonry and Earth Structures 11
Wood-frame Structures 12
INSTRUMENTATION 12
Polarity Testing of Velocity Geophones 13
Sensor Locations within Structures 13
RESULTS 14
Mine Site Characteristics 15
Ground Vibrations and Airblast Measurements 15
Ground Vibration Attenuation Plots 15
Airblast 16
Frequency Content of Ground Motions 16
Measuring Frequencies 16
Measured Vibration Amplitudes and Frequencies 17
-------
Page
Summary of Findings 17
Structure Response 18
Time History Comparisons: Structure Response Relative to 19
Ground Motions and Air Overpressures
Ground motion versus lower structure response 20
Lower structure response versus upper structure response 20
Ground and air pressure time histories relative to upper 20
structure response
Mid-wall and upper structure response to air pressure 21
Summary of Findings 22
Correlating Structure Response to Ground Motions and 22
Air Pressures
Structure response to ground vibrations 23
Structure response to airblast overpressures 24
Summary of Findings 25
Fundamental Frequency Analysis: Natural Frequencies and 25
Structure Damping
Natural Frequency of Structures 25
Structure Response Based on Ground Motion FFT Analysis 26
Verification of Spectral Analysis Ability of Seismic Data 27
Analysis Software
Damping of Structure Motion 28
Summary of Findings 29
Amplification Factors 29
Summary of Findings 3 0
11
-------
Relative Displacements and Calculated Strains
Summary of Findings
Non-blasting Sources of Structure Vibrations
Household Activities
Wind
Summary of Findings
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
TABLES
FIGURES
Page
30
33
33
33
33
34
34
36
36
38
47
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX III
APPENDIX IV
APPENDIX V
Structure Layouts and Photographs 68
Instrumentation Locations 101
Blast Data, Ground Vibrations, Airblast, and Structure 115
Vibration Response Summaries by Site
Typical Waveform Time Histories 131
FFT Frequency Correlation Plots 146
ADDENDUM I
ADDENDUM II
Direct Measurement of Crack Response of Four
OSM Study Structures
Guidelines for Measuring and Evaluating
Structure Response
in
-------
ABSTRACT
Whole structure and mid-wall responses of 25 structures to surface coal mine blasting were
characterized. Eighty-nine blasts were conducted at 11 mine sites throughout the U.S. to
measure blast-generated dynamic response of atypical structures found in the proximity of
surface coal mining. Atypical structures selected for this study include log-type, manufactured
(single wide and double wide trailers), "mine camp"-type, adobe, and stone. Traditional acoustic
microphones, tri-axial (ground) and single component (structure) velocity transducers were used
to record airblast, ground motions, and structure response time histories with a common time
base. The relative responses of selected "atypical" structures to blast vibrations and non-blasting
causes of structural stress, including natural forces, environmental effects, and human habitation,
are compared.
Data analyses for blast-induced motions were conducted to:
• compare vibration time histories in terms of velocity and calculated displacement within
structures relative to ground excitations,
• evaluate the influence of air overpressures on structure response,
• evaluate response frequencies to determine natural frequencies and damping
characteristics,
• determine structure response amplification of ground motions, and
• compute differential displacements of construction components and corner motions to
estimate global or gross structure strains.
Corner and mid-wall motions from blasting were compared to motions induced by
normal household activities and external forces such as wind. In addition, wall crack deformation
responses to environmental changes, human-induced vibrations and blasting were measured in
four of the structures in a parallel study.
Amplitudes of ground vibrations measured at structures ranged from 0.02 to 1.25 inches
per second (in/sec). Scaled distances ranged from 22.9 to 340.0 ft/lb1/2.
The amplifications of ground motions measured in upper structure corners varied by type
of structure as well as for certain structures within each design type. Corner responses of log and
wood-frame structures fell below values reported in U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507. For two
structure designs (two-story log and two-story stone), amplifications greater than 4 were
measured when excited by ground motions with predominant frequencies of 4 to 7 Hz.
Little difference in horizontal time histories between lower floor and ground motion
responses were noted for all structure types with the exception of trailers without wood-frame
add-ons. Single and double wide trailers produced wall base motions greater than exterior ground
motions.
Trailer whole structure and mid-wall motions duplicated airblast time histories. Peak
structure responses occurred within the airblast phase rather than within the ground motion
phase, particularly when airblast exceeded 116 decibels. Mid-wall motions showed both high
-------
frequency and low frequency characteristics for specific structures while trailer mid-walls tended
to respond only at high frequencies. One-story camp and log structures and massive stone,
concrete block and adobe structures did not respond to airblast.
Whole structure natural frequencies averaged 6.0 Hz. Mid-walls averaged 8.4 and 13.8
Hz in the transverse and radial walls, respectively. These values fell below those reported by the
U.S. Bureau of Mines in RI 8507. Mid-wall motion frequencies duplicated low frequencies of
the upper corner and also carried a high-frequency component. However, the range in data in
this study corroborated U.S. Bureau of Mines findings.
Damping values fell well within the range reported in previous studies of 2 % to 10% of
critical. Trailer transverse wall damping averaged 9.5% while log and trailer structures exhibited
the highest whole structure (upper corner) radial damping of 9.7% and 9.6%, respectively. The
least damped structure type was the two-story stone and measured 3.9% of critical.
Wall strains calculated from gross and mid-wall differential displacement were less than
20 |i-strains for wall bending. The maximum calculated in-plane tensile wall strain was 133.1 |i-
strains and is well below cracking thresholds of 300 to 1000 |i-strains for plaster and wallboard.
Structure response to non-blasting events was measured. Human-induced whole structure
responses up to 0.51 in/sec and mid-walls up to 2.14 in/sec were measured and are equivalent to
ground vibration amplitudes of 0.28 in/sec for single wide trailers and 0.11 in/sec for double
wide trailers and one-story adobe. Wind gusts generated air pressures that resulted in detectable
levels of structure shaking and mid-wall responses in trailers up to 0.1 in/sec
Direct measurements of crack response were made for four structures. Addendum lisa
report describing the measurement techniques and summarizing the long term (environmental)
and transient (blast vibration) changes in crack width. Addendum II outlines protocols for
implementing many of the measurement and analytical procedures described in this report.
INTRODUCTION
Explosives are used to break rock overlying a coal seam. The rock can be broken in
place (conventional blasting) or broken and partially displaced into the adjacent pit (cast
blasting). In any blast, the majority of energy is spent breaking rock. The balance of energy
-------
emanates from the site into the environment as either seismic or airblast energy. Once blasted,
all the rock is moved to expose the coal for mining.
Ground vibrations and airblast leaving the mine eventually arrive at adjacent properties.
The energy is then transmitted into the buildings. In turn the buildings respond or shake. If
ground vibrations and /or airblast are strong enough, the building may be damaged. The Office
of Surface Mining (OSM) and other regulatory agencies limit the amount of energy received at
the building regardless of how blasting is being conducted at the mine.
Based on the research conducted to date, damage to buildings has never been observed
below ground vibrations of 0.5 in/sec or airblasts of 140 decibels. Federal regulations allow
limits up to a maximum vibration of 1.0 in/sec (between 301 to 5000 feet) and 134 decibels,
respectively. At these limits, no damage is expected but we acknowledge that hairline cracking
of plaster is possible under certain site or building conditions. The intent of the regulatory
scheme, as outlined in the preamble to the federal rules and the development of a blasting plan, is
for the coal mine permittee and the regulatory authority to tailor the allowable limits based on the
site specific need to prevent damage to occupied dwellings. The regulatory authority is
responsible for lowering the limits if necessary to prevent damage
People inside buildings can feel the structure shake and hear bric-a-brac rattle at ground
vibrations and airblast as low as 0.04 in/s and 100 decibels, respectively. Citizens often begin
noticing normal house changes, such as cracks in walls, and blame the changes on the vibrations
they feel. To some, any type of environmental vibration is intrusive and disturbing. Since low
level blasts will annoy some people, complaints are common.
The part of any residential structure most susceptible to blast induced vibrations is the
superstructure or portion above ground level. Research over the years has defined the structure
response characteristics of "typical" one and two story residential structures. OSM has built their
regulations around this research since the majority of structures near coal mines are residential.
Occasionally, structures are found near the mine that do not fall into the "typical"
category or may not have been included in the body of data on which the rules were founded.
Such structures may include pre-fabricated houses, trailers, log homes, sub-code homes and
adobe structures. This study measures the response characteristics of these "untypical"
structures to blast induced ground vibration and airblast and compares motion characteristics to
those of "typical" structures studied by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (U.S.B.M) and others in
establishing the widely adopted safe level blast vibration criteria in the U.S. As such, field
measurements and analyses were made to duplicate those conducted by past researchers.
U.S.B.M. research primarily considered traditional wood frame housing. Therefore, it was the
goal of this research to extend the understanding of similarities and differences in dynamic
response between traditional wood-frame constructions and non-traditional type structures.
The motivation for this study began because of blast-related complaints from residences
living near surface coal mines, despite an industry-wide adherence to safe blasting criteria
prescribed for the coal mining industry. Limited investigations of blast complaints conducted by
government officials revealed that certain structure types may respond to blasting vibrations in
-------
unique and unusual ways. Currently there is no uniform approach or guidelines available to
investigate the uniqueness in structure response. Therefore this study was initiated to address two
issues. The first was to characterize the response to blasting in various types of structures that are
unlike those types that have been previously studied. The second was to develop a methodology
to investigate and evaluate structures by placing traditional vibration instrumentation within
structures in a manner to address uniqueness.
An important objective was to compare the responses of this study data to the data
previously obtained by the U.S. Bureau of Mines as a measure of uniqueness for all structures
studied. Finally, this study provided the opportunity for government personnel (GP) to take part
in structure instrumentation and analysis of response data. This on-site training process is
valuable to enhance understanding and confidence that GP require when investing blast-related
complaints.
It is not the intent of this study to evaluate and compare the influence of blast design on
ground motion and airblast excitations as a source of vibration response of structures.
Furthermore, this study did not address wall cracking. No observations of crack extensions were
made during structure response monitoring. Therefore, no conclusions have been made regarding
the potential of specific ground motions and airbast excitations to induce cosmetic cracks in
structures. Furthermore, there are no correlations of structure response with cracking potential.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research project was sponsored and supported by the Department of Interior Office of
Surface Mining (OSM) with the cooperation of state regulatory agency personnel. The
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative was Kenneth K. Eltschlager. The authors
acknowledge the generous assistance of Mr. Eltschlager.
The study was possible with the assistance and cooperation of many homeowners, mine
operators, engineering consultants, and graduate students at Northwestern University and New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. Special thanks are due to the following state
regulatory personnel for coordination of project activities in their respective states:
Alabama - John Cranor
Indiana - Steve Weinzapfel
Kentucky - Ralph King
New Mexico - Mike Rosenthal
Ohio - Mike Mann
Pennsylvania - Bill Schuss
Tennessee - Dennis Clark
Virginia - Don Carter
-------
PROJECT APPROACH
Ground motion, airblast, and structural response data from surface coal mining blasting
were collected at eleven mining sites. Structures instrumented in this study were selected to
represent the range of structures found in the proximity of surface coal mining with focus on
those not previously studied by the U.S. Bureau of Mines during structure response studies.
These designs included pre-manufactured trailers, log, earth and stone, and mine "camp". Time-
correlated measured responses include those of whole structure, mid-wall, and selected structural
components. Responses include those from human activities, environmental effects, and surface
mine blasting.
A crack response study, supported by Northwestern University, was conducted in parallel
to the structure response study within structures possessing a representative hairline drywall,
plaster or concrete block crack. Transient displacements of the crack from blasting were
compared to static crack movement produced from long-term changes in environmental climate
conditions. Results of this crack study are found as an Addendum I to this report and titled
"Direct Measurement of Crack Response Study of Four OSM Study Structures". The monitoring
of existing cracks within selected structures was neither part of the scope of work for this project
nor was it required by the Office of Surface Mining. However, it was felt that a crack study,
would provide another basis for understanding the manner in which structures respond to human
habitation, environmental effects and blasting.
SITE AND STRUCTURE SELECTION
Eleven coal mining sites were selected by OSM based on recommendations of state
personnel. These states included Virginia, Kentucky (two sites), West Virginia (two sites),
Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico (representing Native American Indian
lands), and Indiana. State blasting specialists nominated coal mines, based on structure
uniqueness.
Criteria for the selection of structures had to satisfy study objectives and facilitate project
tasks within limited time constraints and resources. These criteria included structure uniqueness,
the proximity of the structures to the mine blasting site(s), willingness of home owners to
cooperate on the project, and availability of a significant number and intensity (e.g. amplitudes
of ground vibrations and airblast) of planned mine blasts to ensure measurable structure
response, and the cooperation and assistance of the mine operators.
Specific selection criteria for structures included the following:
• Structure uniqueness
A minimum of one "atypical" structure was needed at each mine. At some sites, traditional
wood-frame structures were selected based on availability and satisfaction of all other criteria.
Incorporation of a limited number of traditional word-frame structures provided a basis of
comparison responses with those of previous research and those of unique structures selected at
the same mine site.
-------
• Proximity to an active surface coal mining operation
To satisfy project objectives, sufficient blast-induced ground vibration and airblast energy was
necessary to produce measurable vibrations and structure response. Therefore, the blast site
distance to structures and the explosive charge weights (e.g. maximum charge weight detonated
on one delay or within an eight millisecond, ms, delay interval) were important parameters to
consider in site and structure selection. It was important that at least five blasts be detonated
during the week monitoring to facilitate scheduling constraints and instrumentation
requirements. Mine operations generating significant levels of ground vibrations (e.g., averaging
0.25 inches per second, or in/sec) and airblast (in excess of 115 dB) over a wide range of scaled
distance factors were considered to be sufficient for the structure response study. Coordinating
project logistics around five planned mine blasts one to two months ahead of site arrival
provided challenges that were overcome by the cooperation of mine operators.
• Cooperation of the homeowner
Owners of structures that satisfied the criteria were provided written documentation describing
the study. Home owners willing to participate were asked to sign a right of entry (required by
OSM) and a release of claims (required by the contractor).
• Cooperation of the mine operator
Site scheduling was dependent on mine blasting activities near the homes. Mine operators were
contacted by agency personnel and the contractor to coordinate study activities during specific
weeks. Additionally, mine operators were requested to supply information on the location of
blasts and proposed charge weights. In cases where five blasts were not possible during one
week, an attempt was made to separate large blasts into smaller blasts or provide a few single
hole detonations. In a few cases, less than five blasts were provided. However, redundancy in
structure types among sites and greater numbers of blasts at other sites provided a sufficiently
large data base to meet study objectives.
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURES
Structures were characterized and construction details were documented in a number of
ways. Photographs were taken of each structure exterior and interior as well as the foundation
(for non-slab foundations and where access was available). Specific attention was given to the
type of foundation support. Laser-level surveys were conducted to establish floor elevations for
all structures and room dimensions were measured with a laser rangefmder. This information
was used to assess the overall condition of structures that might be a function of foundation
support, distribution of structure load, as well as unusual structure loads or other construction
details.
Appendix 1 provides detailed documentation of each structure. Included are scaled room
layouts and photographs of various features. Room measurements were necessary to compute
gross strains within structure walls.
-------
Table 1 presents general construction details of all structures in this study. Structures are
identified by state and location in the order in which they appear in Appendix I.
Structure designs include the following categories:
• pre-manufactured trailers constructed as single wide, double wide, and wood-frame add-
on support by concrete masonry units (CMU, or cinder blocks),
• log structures - one and two story traditional natural log and two story prefabricated,
manufactured log structures with vaulted ceiling living areas
• mine "camp dwellings" constructed of wood frames with diagonally sheathed walls and
foundations of perimeter CMUs and interior log poles
• masonry and earth - construction includes CMU's, field stone and adobe, and traditional
adobe
• traditional wood-frame structures - including one, two, and three story (cantilevered)
designs
A brief description of each structure is given below. For clarity the following designations were
used in identifying the structure category:
T - trailer S - single-wide trailer
C - camp SA - single-wide trailer with add-on
L - log D - double wide trailer
E - masonry and earth IS- one story
W - wood frame 2S - two story
3 S - three story
The designations following the structure category used to identify the states and mines (in
alphabetical order) are:
AL - Alabama
IN - Indiana
KYI - Kentucky site 1
KY2 - Kentucky site 2
NM - New Mexico
OH - Ohio
PA - Pennsylvania
TN - Tennessee
VA - Virginia
WV1 - West Virginia site 1
WV2 - West Virginia site 2
-------
If two structures of the same category and design were selected, the following identifier was
used:
A - first structure of category and design
B - second structure of same category and design
Pre-manufactured Trailer Structures
Pre-manufactured trailers ranged from small, single wide units 64 ft. long by 14 ft. wide
to large double wide trailers 74 feet long by 28 feet wide. Single wide trailers with wood frame
add-ons were 54 to 46 ft. in length and 24 to 26 ft. wide. All trailer interior walls, with the
exception of one double wide, were constructed of wood fiberboard coated with a thin layer of
plaster compound. All walls were covered with wallpaper or wood paneling.
One double wide trailer possessed a recently constructed wood frame and drywall interior
wall separating the dining area from the kitchen parallel to the "marriage" wall (e.g. long trailer
axis). This was the only trailer founded on a full basement.
All other trailers rested on piers of unmortared concrete blocks that were leveled with
wood wedge shims. Pier support geometries for single wide and double wide trailers are shown
in Figure 1. Some trailers were fastened to the ground using perimeter hurricane strapping shown
in Figure 2. Concrete blocks were stacked singly or in pairs and placed beneath steel beams as
shown. Wood shims were placed between the pier and trailer beams in all cases. Piers for one
trailer were supported on poured concrete pads. The remaining trailer piers were founded directly
on the soil.
A number of piers were tilted from a vertical line and not aligned normal to the steel
beams. Tilting piers are shown in Appendix I for all trailers with the exception of TD-TN (Note,
TD-PA is founded on a full basement). Tilting results from eccentric loading about the pier
support.
TS-KY2 is a single wide trailer with interior paneled walls. The single CMUs were configured
as shown in Figure 1 (a). No hurricane strapping was used.
TS-IN is a single wide trailer with a small room addition at the east end founded on a stack of
single CMUs configured as shown in Figure 1 (a). Hurricane strapping was used and all interior
walls were paneled.
TS-AL is a single wide trailer with hurricane strapping. Double concrete piers support beams as
shown in Figure 1 (a). Interior walls were either paneled or papered.
TS-OH is a single wide trailer with loose hurricane strapping. The trailer was built into a
hillside and supported by varying pier heights ranging from a single half-block to a double set of
five blocks in the configuration shown in Figure 1 (a). Interior walls were either paneled with
wood or covered with wallpaper.
-------
TSA-VA is a single wide with a wood frame add-on along the entire back of the house. The
original trailer section is supported with double CMU piers while the wood frame add-on is
supported by a conventional CMU perimeter wall. A one by eight sill plate supports floor joints
and does not support the trailer section cross members. All interior walls have wallpaper
covering or were paneled. No hurricane strapping was used.
TSA-KY2 is a single wide with a wood frame add-on along the entire front of the structure. A
CMU wall exists around the entire perimeter. Beneath the trailer section, it serves as a skirt.
Beneath the addition, it supports the frame. All interior piers were double concrete blocks. The
wood-frame section is not supported with a perimeter wall and supported only with double
concrete blocks. The support configuration is generalized in Figure 1 (b). No hurricane strapping
was used.
TD-WV2 is a two-year old double-wide trailer. The support configuration is generalized in
Figure 1 (c) with one single width stack of CMUs placed along the "marriage" wall beam. The
piers were founded on poured concrete pads. Standing water from a bathroom water leak was
noted under the northwest corner of the trailer. No hurricane strapping was used and all walls
were covered with vinyl wall covering.
TD-TN is a two-year old double wide trailer with hurricane strapping. Double CMU piers were
used in the corners and along the "marriage" wall beam. Single CMU piers used for all other
beams along the perimeter as shown in the configuration of Figure 1 (b). All interior walls have
wallpaper covering.
TD-PA is a double wide trailer with a full basement constructed of CMUs. The center steel
beam carrying the "marriage" wall was cut to accommodate the stairway into the basement from
the laundry room. This main beam is supported by steel posts, spaced on!2 foot centers along the
trailer long axis. CM walls support cross-beams. All interior walls were wallpapered. The
newly constructed wood-frame wall between the kitchen and the dining area is completed with
dry wall.
Mine Camp Structures
Mining camp houses ranged in age from 50 to 100 years old and construction widely
varies. Exterior walls were constructed with two by fours placed at right angles to current wood
frame construction practices. Shown in Figure 3, the four inch dimension of the studs is oriented
parallel to the wall. Diagonal exterior boards complete the framing. Traditional camp houses in
central Appalachia are supported on interior log poles, many of which are founded directly on
bedrock. Others are supported on both logs and CMU piers. Floor joists rest on perimeter walls
without sill plates and are randomly located rather than uniformly spaced. Other mine camp
structures are supported on a mix of wood poles and concrete blocks or bricks. Perimeter
foundations comprise a variety of fieldstone, CMUs, and poured concrete with rectangular wood
post framing. A number of camp structures have been renovated by replacing stone foundations
and adding modern wood-frame rooms.
-------
C1S-AL is a one story mining camp structure approximately 55 years old. The frame
construction rests on a CMU perimeter wall and interior piers of unmortared single concrete
blocks or clay bricks. The interior walls of the house were paneled with a wood product. The
living room has new sheet rock walls.
C1S-VA is a one-story structure built in 1945. The home is founded on bedrock using wood log
posts. The exterior perimeter wall is constructed partly of field stones (front of the house) and
cement block at the rear of the structure. Irregularly spaced floor joints do not form any
particular pattern and rest directly on top of the perimeter concrete blocks with a sill plate formed
of concrete. A number of log posts were found to be loose and not tied to the floor joists. All
interior walls were paneled.
C2S-KY1A is a two-story camp home built in the early 1900's. Interior walls were plaster on
lath covered with paneling throughout the house. Basement ceiling joists vary in spacing and
were supported by log posts. Discontinuous two by eights were used to support the joists in
many places. Basement walls were formed using field stone and mortar.
C2S-KY1B is a two-story camp home built in the 1950's with two additions. The rear addition
forms the kitchen and a bathroom and a recent addition forms the living room. The older section
of the structure is founded on a full basement while the additions are built upon a crawl space.
The structure is supported with a perimeter concrete block wall and interior supports of many
varieties. Interior supports include unmortared concrete block piers, wood posts, table legs, and a
steel jack. Interior walls were newly constructed drywall or paneling.
Log Structures
The five log homes in this study were constructed of horizontally laid logs fitted together
by one of the three techniques: the saddle lock-notch, notched and scribed, and butt-jointed.
Figure 4 shows the three types of log fittings used to construct the homes. Four of the structures
combine corner notching, either the saddle lock-notch or notched and scribed, and the log weight
is used to form stable structures. The remaining house was built using butt-joints throughout the
structure. At the structure corners, log ends were nailed perpendicular to each other. The butt-
joint combined with the log weight formed a stable structure.
The logs with a saddle lock-notch were stacked such that they do not rest against each
other except at the notch leaving a crack or "chink" of one inch or more visible between the logs.
Chinks allow for warping and expanding. The chinks were filled or caulked with a plaster or
mud material. Scribing a log is the terminology used to describe fitting the entire length of the
log to match the shape of one log to another. Scribed logs were notched at each end and a tongue
or groove is cut from notch-to-notch the length of the log. The tongue and groove serves as a
means of tightly fitting the logs together. The butt-joint technique does not require notching to
stabilize the logs. Two logs were joined by placing one log perpendicular to one end of the other
log and nailing the two together. The normal stabilization method for butt-jointed logs involves
drilling vertically through the stacked logs of a wall and driving rebar down through the drilled
hole to stabilize the wall.
10
-------
L1S-OH is a one story log cabin with a full CMU block wall basement. The structure is 40 years
old. Walls comprise hand-crafted milled logs, approximately nine inches in diameter, were
notched and scribed.
L1S-WV1 is a one-story primitive handcrafted log cabin constructed more than 100 years. The
construction is called primitive because the bark was not removed from the logs. The original
part of the structure was built from hand-hewn logs that were saddle lock-notched and
horizontally stacked. The chink was caulked with a mud or plaster type material. The logs were
approximately six inches in thickness with additional six inches of framing on the inside for a
total wall thickness of 12 in. Interior walls have a plaster finish. The original cabin sits on
concrete piers at the corners. A concrete block foundation was added under the front porch of
the cabin and under an addition at the rear.
L2S-TN is a two-story handcrafted cabin built using a butt-joint technique for the wall
construction and corners. The logs were railroad cross ties cut six inch by six inch square and
joined end-to-end with length of a wall with a two by six board nailed along the top of the joined
cross ties. The cabin walls stand only under the weight of the logs. No vertical structural supports
or ties (e.g., rebar) were used to vertically tie logs together. The foundation comprises a CMU
perimeter wall and interior block piers forming a two to three foot crawl space founded directly
on bedrock.
L2S-OH is a modern mill-log custom home designed and built by the owner. It is approximately
2 years old with a full cinder block basement. The vaulted ceiling in the living and dining rooms
were constructed with roof trusses and exposed beams and rafters. A partial second floor is
designed over one-half of the structure.
L2S-WV2 is constructed from a log home kit with modern mill-logs, a vaulted ceiling with
exposed breams, rafters and trusses. A partial second floor is constructed over one-half of the
structure. The structure is founded on a crawl space with a cinder block perimeter wall and
interior piers of concrete block. A single post supports a balcony and the roof beam overlooking
the living area.
Masonry and Earth Structures
Masonry and earth structures include concrete block, stone, and adobe brick (stabilized
from hardened soil blocks, baked in the sun) faced with stucco. Three structures falling in this
category were located in New Mexico. Consistent with construction practices in the southwest,
houses were founded on concrete slab or directly on the ground with stone perimeter beams
supporting bearing walls.
E1S-NMA is a one-year old cinder block building founded on a reinforced eight-inch thick
concrete slab.
E2S-NM is a two story stone (field rock with cement joint grout) structure built in 1880 with
interior adobe walls. The stone exterior walls comprise two layers of sandstone block and mortar
11
-------
without wood framing or a bond beam to tie the exterior stone walls together. The mansard roof
rafters rest on two, two by eight inch headers lying on top of the stone walls. There are no nailed
connections between the roof and the structure wall. Interior walls on the first floor are covered
with structural plaster. Exterior stone and interior adobe walls rest on a rock wall foundation.
E1S-NMB is a 17-year old single story traditional adobe structure. Exterior walls were covered
with stucco while interior walls comprise exposed adobe bricks. The house is founded on a four
inch concrete slab.
Wood-frame Structures
Wood-frame structures represent "typical" construction akin to structures previously
selected by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. All wood-frame structures were founded on full
basements.
W1S-IN is a one-story wood-frame structure with a full basement of CMU wall construction
built in the 1950s.
W1S-PA is a newly constructed one-story wood-frame house with a full basement of CMUs.
W2S-IN is a house that was recently purchased by the mining company prior to mining through
the property. It has a concrete block full basement and a partially completed attic. The structure
age is unknown.
W3S-WV1 is a three-story structure founded on a concrete slab. The first story, constructed of
CMUs, serves as a shop. The second and third stories were of wood-frame construction of
perimeter dimensions four feet wider than the first floor.
INSTRUMENTATION
Whole structure and mid-wall responses were recorded with single axis velocity
transducers attached to four-channel blasting seismographs manufactured by LARCOR, of
Dallas, Texas. A connector interface box linked transducers to the seismograph, which allowed
the air channel to be employed to record velocity. Three seismographs, one exterior (master) and
two interior (slaves), were daisy-chained together to record ground and structure motions with a
common time base. The master was set on trigger mode and the two slaves were set on manual
mode. When triggered, the master unit sent a one-volt spike to the slave units to simultaneously
start data recording. A tri-axial transducer buried in the ground and microphone recorded three
components of ground motion and airblast at each structure exterior.
Interior transducer output was amplified by a factor of 2 (e.g., lowest detection level of
0.005 inches per second, in/sec All three seismographs were programmed to record 6 to 12
seconds of event time at a sample rate of 512 per second. The master unit was programmed to
trigger at a ground particle velocity of 0.02 to 0.03 in/sec and the maximum range for all units
varied from 2.5 to 10.0 in/sec depending on blast-to-structure distance and gain selected.
12
-------
Polarity Testing of Velocity Geophones
Polarity was checked for each geophone prior to deploying instruments in the field. When
evaluating differential motions between the ground and structures, it is important to document
the polarity of the geophones. For instance, polarity for a vertical sensor normally produces a
positive phase first motion. If the polarity of a structure-mounted vertical sensor is such that the
first motion is negative while a ground motion sensor vertical component produces a positive
first motion, it is likely that the structure sensor polarity is reversed.
Polarity becomes critical when measuring and comparing relative motions between the
ground and upper portions of structures, particularly when differential displacements are to be
calculated in order to estimate gross structure strains and in-plane wall strains. If sensors are
mismatched, differential displacements may be over two times greater than displacements for a
common polarity.
Sensor Locations within Structures
Typical instrumentation placements for many of the structures are shown in Figures 5 and
6. Horizontal sensor orientations for common polarity are found in Figure 7. The radial
alignment of sensors placed in the ground and within structures was directed along the long axis
of each structure. Efforts were made to place the ground R component in the same direction as
positive (inward) wall and structure motions. Sometimes the position orientation of the radial
ground sensor was placed in a direction opposite to that of the structure or mid-wall orientation.
This opposite polarity was easily recognized and compensated during analysis.
Specific locations of exterior and interior geophones, and the seismograph unit serial
number to which they were connected, are illustrated in the structure plans in Appendix II.
Interior sensors SI and S2 consisted of four single-component velocity transducers, three
mounted to record horizontal motions and one mounted to record vertical motion. A sensor
cluster (two horizontal and one vertical) was placed at the first floor structure corner base (SI)
and a duplicate cluster (S2) was placed at the highest point of the same corner. Motions recorded
at SI and S2 were used to measure the whole structure response to blasting. Mid-wall response
was measured using a third horizontal sensor, placed at or near the middle of each conjoined wall
(shown as wall 1 and wall 2). At SI and S2, the R sensor was aligned with the longest axis of the
structure and T with the shortest axis, as shown in Figure 5 (b). The vertical, V, sensor was
placed on either wall. Figure 6 shows a typical instrumentation set up for a one-story mining
camp structure
Other instrumentation layouts, specific to a unique construction type, did not adhere to
the typical layout shown in Figures 5 and 6. In most cases, the lower structure vertical response
reflected the ground vertical vibrations. Therefore, in some structures the vertical component
normally placed at the lower was placed on a ceiling or other more useful locations. Sometimes,
motions between two or more construction components were monitored. Special layouts were
used for double wide trailer TD-TN (where opposite sides of the "marriage" wall were
13
-------
instrumented), single wide trailers TS-AL and TS-OH (measuring torsional motions at opposite
ends of the trailer), and between two different construction types in TSA-VA. Motions were also
measured in log structures along the "great" wall at the end of a vaulted ceiling room by placing
single transducers at the roof peak, L2S-TN, L2S-OH, and between the roof beam, rafters and
center post, L2S-WV2. In two structures, the vertical motions of the ceiling were measure (E2S-
NM, TS-IN) rather than wall vertical motions.
RESULTS
The focus of this study was to characterize the response of atypical structures to blasting
vibrations and airblast generated from surface coal mines. The uniqueness of structure design
was addressed by comparing vibration response characteristics with characteristics measured by
the U.S. Bureau of Mines and others during previous studies using traditional design structures.
A total of 25 structures were selected for this study at 11 mine sites. Twenty-one
structures represented non-traditional designs and four structures comprised traditional wood-
frame construction. Ninety-nine mine blasts were conducted during response measurements and
2824 velocity time-histories were recorded and analyzed.
The results of this study are organized in two sections. The first section illustrates the
characteristics in mine site blast vibration and airblast generation and attenuation. The second
section provides the results of structure response, comparing the relative whole structure and
mid-wall motions as well individual structure response relative to external ground vibrations and
air overpressures. The response of structure motions relative to ground motions were evaluated
in terms of amplification factor as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (Siskind, et al, 1980a)
and compared to amplification factors found for traditional structures. Fundamental (or natural)
structure frequencies and damping characteristics were evaluated for structures only when
significant ground motion and air overpressure intensities were generated. Maximum gross
structure and wall strains were calculated based on whole structure differential displacements
and mid-wall displacements integrated from velocity time histories. Lastly, the influence of
airblast on certain airblast-sensitive structure designs was evaluated.
In each evaluation, data processing and analysis procedures are explained. Data are
summarized in table format and selected data are plotted in figures for comparisons. All sensor
records are available in electronic format
Summary tables for all sites are given in Appendix III. Data in these tables include the
following:
• Blast date and time
• Maximum charge weight per delay and blast-to-structure distance
• Calculated scaled distance (square- and cube-root)
• Ground motion and airblast measurements
maximum velocity for each of the three components of ground motions
(T, transverse, V, vertical and R, radial)
14
-------
peak particle velocity (PPV, in in/sec), the highest of three components
peak frequency (Hz) for three components (zero-crossing frequency)
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) predominant frequency (Hz) for three components
airblast, in decibels (dB)
• Whole structure response, single components
maximum velocity (in/sec), peak (zero crossing) frequency (Hz), and
FFT frequency (Hz) for the R, V, and T components at either
SI (lower corner) and S2 (upper corner)
SI (lower corner) and S2 (upper peak or highest point in the structure)
SI (lower wall) and S2 (upper wall) for interior or exterior walls
a variety of locations throughout the structure for conjoined components
• Mid-wall response, single components
maximum velocity (in/sec), peak (zero crossing) frequency (Hz) and FFT
frequency (Hz) for the radial (R) and transverse (T) walls
Mine Site Characteristics
Table 2 summarizes the ranges in values for blast-to-structure distances, maximum
charge weight per delay and square root scaled distance factors. The total number of mine blasts
and number of structures instrumented per site are given. Scaled distance factors ranged from 23
ft/lbs1/2 in New Mexico to 340 ft/lbs1/2 at Kentucky site 2. Blast-to-structure distances ranged
from 570 ft. in Ohio to 9219 ft. in Indiana. The maximum charge weight detonated per delay
among all sites was 13,047 Ibs. in New Mexico while the smallest of 126 Ibs. was used in
Indiana and West Virginia site 1.
Ground Vibrations and Airblast Measurements
Ground Vibration Attenuation Plots
Attenuation plots of peak particle velocity versus square root scaled distance (SRSD) are
shown in Figure 8 for all blast data. Figures 9 and 10 are attenuation plots for surface coal mine
sites by state. Best-fit lines (50-percentiles) through site data with a sufficient range in scaled
distance and a statistically significant data set to allow trend analysis are shown in Figure 9.
Included in Figures 9 through 10 is the best-fit line given in Report of Investigation (RI) 8507 by
the U.S. Bureau of Mines (Siskind, et al. 1980a) for the maximum horizontal component of
ground motion for all coal mine data. Equations and correlation coefficients (R2) for these lines
are found in Table 3. The equations were fit to the PPV. Data for sites included in Figure 10
were not correlated. This is because either data represented a narrow range in blast-to-structure
distances and charge weights, the data was highly scattered, or a limited number of blasts were
conducted to produce a significant data set for correlation purposes.
Central Appalachia data in Figure 10 show a clustered set of similar scaled distances in
Virginia and in West Virginia at site 2. Blasting at the remaining sites was conducted at various
scaled distances in a number of different compass directions from structures. As such, data trends
are not apparent and a narrow spread in ground motion values was recorded below 0.1 in/sec
(98.5% of the data fell below 0.1 in/sec).
15
-------
Interestingly, the New Mexico site generated data for both unconfined (casting) and
highly confined (pre-split) as shown in Figure 9. The data fell with two distinct groups and the
effects of greater confinement provided by pre-splitting blasting techniques resulted in far higher
ground motion amplitudes compared to those produced from casting blast at a given scaled
distance. Charge weights per delay for pre-splitting averaged 300 Ibs/delay and for casting blasts,
charge weights averaged 13,000 Ibs/delay.
Equations describing the attenuation of ground motions, shown in Table 3, are compared
with those provided by the U.S. Bureau of Mines for surface coal mines (Siskind, et al., 1980a).
Site-specific data presented in the current study show a good degree of data correlation for the
Alabama, Indiana, and New Mexico sites and scaled distance slope exponents (-b) ranging from
-1.34 in Indiana to -2.22 in Alabama. The intercept or source term, 'a', varies from 64 in
Indiana for highwall blasts with high relief (e.g. long delay periods along the face) to 5448 in
New Mexico for highly confined pre-split blasts. The source term is a good indicator of
explosive energy coupling at the blast site. Average values for data parameters 'a' and 'b' are
slightly higher than values reported for coal mine data by the U.S. Bureau of Mines summarized
in RI 8507, where 'b' is -1.52 and 'a' equal to 119 for all components of ground motion. This
difference may indicate the presence of higher attenuating geologies at the current study sites in
comparison with the U.S.B.M. sites.
Airblast
Airblast overpressure attenuation is given in Figure 11 for cube root scaled distance
(CRSD) showing 50-percentile best-fit lines. Table 4 summarizes the best-fit equations in
comparison with equations given by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (Siskind, et al, 1980b). The U.S.
Bureau of Mines equation for highwalls shows a source term 'a' of 0.146 and 'b' equal to -
0.823, R2 of 0.77. The data for all sites compare favorably with past U.S. Bureau of Mines data.
Frequency Content of Ground Motions
Measuring Frequencies
Previous research has produced frequency-based velocity data without a clear definition
of frequency or methods used to calculate frequencies. Frequency components of a vibration are
equally important as the particle velocities. When the intent is to evaluate damage potential, the
entire time history, or all frequency component, is an important factor to consider.
Frequency is most reliably computed by applying the Fourier frequency function, or FFT
(Fast Fourier Transform), to transform the ground motion time histories (time domain) into the
frequency domain. In this manner, the distribution of frequency content can be compared based
on relative intensities of ground motion at specific frequencies, and predominant frequencies can
be easily identified.
In contrast, the "zero-crossing" method has been widely adopted by industry for
determining and reporting a single frequency value at the peak velocity of ground motions
16
-------
measured in three directions (R, T, and V), or the PPV. Current industry practices employ this
"zero-crossing" frequency at the PPV to determine compliance with frequency-based limits
(referred to henceforth as the peak frequency). A problem arises when the peak frequency occurs
in a complex vibration time history containing a variety of frequencies and amplitudes. If the
peak velocity occurs early in the time history within the high frequency components (e.g. above
20 to 30 Hz), the zero-crossing method may result in a frequency well above the natural
frequency range of residential structures, even if the entire time history contains a strong low-
frequency component. This peak frequency may not represent the frequency at which the
maximum vibration energy is transferred into the structure. Most seismograph analysis software
provides a means to plot the "zero-crossing" frequency for every peak contained within the time
history. In this respect, the vibration energy contained over all frequencies can be evaluated with
respect to potential structure response.
Measured Vibration Amplitudes and Frequencies
Peak particle velocity (PPV) data versus frequency are plotted in Figures 12 and 13. The
upper bounds are shown for safe level blasting criteria recommendations reported in U.S. Bureau
of Mines RI 8507 (Siskind, et al, 1980a) and Office of Surface Mining (1983). Frequency in
Figure 12 is the peak frequency at the PPV while in FigurelS, it is the predominant frequency
calculated from the power spectrum of the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).
Table 5 summarizes site-specific differences in frequency ranges calculated by the "zero-
crossing" (Z.C.) and FFT methods. In all cases, with the exception of Tennessee, Z.C.
frequencies at the PPV are higher at the upper end of the range compared with the FFT method.
The change in the highest frequency within the range is most dramatic at five sites (Kentucky 1,
New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky-2, and Indiana) with upper Z.C. frequencies from 18 to 34 Hz
and upper FFT frequencies less than 20 Hz. The remaining sites did not show such a large
difference. The Tennessee site FFT frequencies actually increased over the Z.C. frequency. This
increase is probably because the structure foundations rests directly on bedrock and measured
ground motions were recorded within the thin, overlying soil layer where high frequencies were
preserved.
Since the FFT method accounts for the entire wave train, it is preferred for structure
response analysis. FFT is closely related to response spectra of ground motions and are
employed to calculate structural natural frequencies and damping from structure motions.
Summary of Findings
These observations serve to illustrate a number of important points as follows:
Different site characteristics, particularly structure site geology and blast-to-structure
distance, produced different frequency content. Structure distances ranged from 570 ft. to
6280 ft. from the blasting. Certain structures such as those in Tennessee were founded
directly on bedrock while others (in New Mexico) were founded on thick soils. Sites with
different foundation materials produced a spread in ground motion frequencies while
17
-------
sites with similar geology produced a concentration of data within a narrow frequency
range.
• At all but one mine site, FFT frequencies fell below "zero-crossing" frequencies and
within the natural frequencies of structures for walls (12 to 20 Hz) and superstructures (5
to 10 Hz) reported by Dowding (1996)
• The Z.C. method employed to calculate frequencies were generally above those
computed using the FFT method when only the peak velocities were analyzed.
• Frequencies calculated using the FFT method is a better indicator of the natural
frequency of a specific site.
• Airblast attenuation was similar to that observed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
• Peak particle velocities for Appalachian coal mines were consistently below mean values
predicated by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in RI 8507 for all coal mines with the exception
of Pennsylvania. This is because mining in Appalachia is conducted at elevations higher
than those of structures and well behind slope berms. As a result, PPV values are highly
attenuated.
• Pre-split blasting consistently shows PPV values well above the mean for coal mining in
RI8507.
Structure Response
The measured response of structures to blasting vibrations and airblast are important to
assess damage potential to individual components of the building. The amount of structure
shaking is a function of the amplitude and frequency content of external ground velocity and
airblast overpressure and the natural frequency and damping characteristics of the structure.
Horizontal components of ground velocities are often amplified in structures while the highest
structure velocities are measured when the ground frequency occurs at or within the structure's
natural frequencies. The amplification of structure response relative to external ground vibrations
is an important factor when assessing blast damage potential.
Two modes of structure vibrations occur during blasting and are referred to as mid-wall
and whole structure responses. Mid-wall response is the motion of individual components such
as wall, floors and ceilings, where motions are perpendicular to the plane of the building
component. Mid-walls generally respond at high frequencies and tend to rattle windows and
loose objects attached to walls. Resulting bending strains tend to be the greatest when the walls
respond at their natural frequencies.
Whole structure response is vibration of the entire structure frame, measured at an outside
corner, resulting in distortions, or racking, in walls. At low frequencies and high amplitudes of
ground motions, whole structure deflections produce wall shear strains that, in turn, may be
18
-------
potentially damaging. Structure deflections are measured in terms of differential displacements
between the upper and low (ground) corners in structures.
Time History Comparisons: Structure Response Relative to Ground Motions and Air
Overpressures
Structural response (SR) to ground velocity and air pressure (airblast) are shown for (S2)
upper structure corner locations or wall peaks, in rooms with vaulted ceilings and (SI) lower
structure corners, at the base of the first floor wall, and mid-walls in Appendix IV. Ground
velocities (GV) and air pressure (AP) are shown for comparisons. Peak values for velocities and
airblast are provided. Superimposing excitation and structure response waveforms provides a
visual means of evaluating the energy transferred into the structures over time. It further allows
visual evaluation of structure or mid-wall free response after passage of the ground and air
pressure pulses. Horizontal components of velocity were selected for comparisons. The
maximum structure velocity in either the radial or transverse component is shown in Appendix
IV figures, depending on the peak occurring within the structure.
Vertical components were only evaluated for manufactured (trailers) structures where
structure response vertical motions were amplified. For all other structure designs, negligible
differences among the lower and upper structure responses relative to ground vertical motions
could be detected. Vertical structure motions within most structures duplicated ground vertical
components in frequency, amplitude, and phase.
All vibrations are plotted in terms of velocity, in inches per second (in/sec). Vertical
scales are not given and may vary between figures. However, among waveforms being compared
in any one figure, constant vertical scales are used. Air pressure (AP) vertical scales are
consistent among all plots.
Waveform time histories are expanded in time to illustrate similarities or differences in
amplitudes, frequencies, and phases. Phase refers to the positive and negative pulse shapes
forming the sinusoidal characteristics of a waveform. Vibrations of structures that are well-
coupled to the ground may show good time history in-phase match with ground motions.
However, when ground motion exhibit frequencies close to the natural frequency of the
structure, structure vibrations are amplified and exhibit a near 90-degrees phase shift from the
forcing or excitation motions
Structure designs used for comparisons include manufactured (trailers), log, camp, earth,
stone, and masonry. Responses of standard wood-frame structures are not shown as responses
do not show uniqueness beyond what other structure studies show.
Figure IV-1 compares ground motions with those at the structure base (SI). Figure IV-2
shows comparisons between SI and S2, the upper structure response. In Figures IV-3 through
IV-6, ground and S2 motions are compared relative to air pressure time histories. Air pressure
time histories are plotted with mid-wall and S2 structure responses in Figures IV-7 through IV-
10 to show the airblast effects of whole structure and wall responses.
19
-------
Ground motion versus lower structure response: Lower structure horizontal responses (SI)
are generally equal to or lower in amplitude than the same component of ground motion for all
structure design with the exception of trailers. Trailer structure base motions for single wide and
double wide trailers shown in Figure IV-1 (a) can exceed those of the ground except in the case
of trailers with wood-frame add-ons (TSA-KY2). This is observed also for camp structures to a
less extent in Figure IV-l(d). One-story traditional log structure base response given in Figure
IV-l(b) and earth, stone, and masonry structures shown in Figure IV-l(c) often fell well below
motions in the ground.
Vertical components of ground and SI velocities are superimposed in Figure IV-l(e) to
show the amplification of vertical motions in single and double wide trailers. Vertical trailer
responses are amplified because trailers are not coupled to the ground and are free to bounce.
Furthermore, the tendency of trailers to rotate around the long axis (radial direction) in the
transverse directions can often translate a portion of this response in the vertical direction,
resulting in higher vertical response than would be predicted by ground motions. This type of
structure response is unique to trailers and was not measured in other structure designs
Lower structure response versus upper structure response: Differential horizontal motions,
or the difference between upper structure response, S2, and lower structure response, SI, induce
whole structure strains in walls from racking distortions. Computing differential displacements,
by first integrating the velocity time histories and subtracting SI from S2 over time, allows the
best estimation of strains.
A visual comparison of relative horizontal motions between the upper (S2) and lower
(SI) walls of structures is shown in Figure IV-2. A good agreement of velocity time histories for
most structure designs exists with the exception of log structures, shown in Figure IV-2 (b), and
the two-story camp structure (C2S-KY1 A) in Figure IV-2(d). All trailer motions showed good
phase agreement (e.g. time history peaks and troughs matched in frequency). Motions in adobe
(E1S-NMB) and concrete block (E1S-NMA) structures given in Figure IV-2 (c) show good
phase agreement and amplification of SI motions in the upper structure (at S2). The two-story
stone structure (E2S-NM) did not show good phase matching.
Log structures, regardless of design, do not show similar upper and lower structure
responses. Motions do not match in peaks while two-story designs show amplification of the
upper response that is absent in one-story designs. This is to be expected because log structures
are not constructed with a frame and the upper and lower horizontal log members move
independently.
Ground and air pressure time histories relative to upper structure response: Upper structure
(S2) response relative to ground motions and air pressure (or the pressure equivalent of airblast)
are shown in Figures IV-3 through IV-6. Structures used to illustrate air pressure effects were
subjected to airblast levels at or above 116 decibels (dB) (with the exception of camp structure
C2S-KY1 A). Single wide trailer responses (Figure IV-3) are less sensitive to ground vibrations
than to airblast pressures. The airblast phase of structure response shows higher S2 amplitudes
than for the ground motions phase for trailers TS-KY2, TS-IN, and TSA-KY2 with a wood-
frame add-on. Airblast influence is not as apparent in double wide trailer TD-WV2 because the
20
-------
instruments used to measure whole structure response were placed along the interior center
(marriage) wall. Note that the ground and S2 responses are approximately 90-degrees out of
phase (where structure peaks lag behind peak in the ground motion) indicating that the
deformation response of the structure is at a maximum.
Airblast excitation of whole structure response is apparent in the two-story log structures
shown in Figure IV-4 (L2S-WV2 and L2S-TN) and is not as noticeable in one-story log, camp,
earth, and masonry structures. The two-story stone structure E2S-NM, shown in Figure IV-5,
was responding at the natural frequency by the time that the air pressure arrived and shows not
additional response. This is evidence again by the phase shift in S2 response relative to the
ground motion.
Mid-wall and upper structure response to air pressure: Mid-wall and upper structure (S2)
motions shown in Figures IV-7 through IV-10 are compared with airblast arrival. Mid-wall
motions show both high frequency and low frequency characteristics for log, camp, earth, stone,
and masonry structures while trailer mid-walls responded only at high frequencies. Of the log
structures for which mid-walls were measured, only L2S-OH mid-wall duplicated the low
frequency peak S2 response. This is because the wall measured was the "great wall' in the living
room with a vaulted ceiling containing a massive stone chimney. Therefore, the mid-wall and
upper peaks tended to move as one unit. This response was also observed in the two-story stone
structure E2S-NM in Figure IV-9. The absence of high frequency components in the upper story
mid-wall shows the strong influence of the whole structure motions on the massive stone mid-
wall, indicating that the mid-wall moved in concert with the structure and not independently.
The one-story log structure L1S-WV1 did not show detectable mid-wall response to
airblast (Figure IV-8). Similarly, the influence of air pressures is not significant for earth, stone
and masonry mid-walls given in Figure IV-9. One-story adobe and concrete block structures also
showed a correspondence in motions between upper structure and mid-walls. However E1S-
NMB responded with both high and low frequencies.
Trailer mid-wall response is similar to the low frequency whole structure response with
high frequencies superimposed. The large difference in exterior wall mid-wall response from S2
response for TD-WV2 given in Figure IV-7 is because S2 was measured on an interior wall and
mid-wall response is shown for an exterior wall.
The mid-wall response of the one-story camp structure in Figure IV-10 is typical of
motions for loose surface covering such as wood paneling in a thin-walled structure. In this case
the mid-wall shows a large amplification over the upper structure response because of the loosely
nailed paneling on this exterior wall to which the motion sensor was attached. The mid-wall
response therefore is not necessarily true mid-wall response but rather the response of the
material covering the wall. It is indicative, however, of rattling of objects on or adjacent to
walls.
21
-------
Summary of findings
• Lower corner horizontal responses for single wide and double wide trailers and camp
structures exceeded ground velocities for similar components Single wide trailer with
wood frame add-ons do not show this behavior.
• The lower horizontal corner response in log, earth, and masonry structures are equal or
less than external ground motions.
• Trailers exhibited amplification of vertical ground velocities. Vertical structure response
was less than external vertical vibration for all other structure designs.
• Upper (S2) and lower (SI) corners move in phase for trailers and one story camp, earth,
stone, and masonry construction. Log structure corner motions are highly random and
out of phase because they lack the frame support provided in other structure designs. Two
story stone and camp structures show similar characteristics to log designs.
• The influence of airblast on whole structure response, for airblast of 116 dB and above, is
clearly measured for trailers and two-story log structures. Earth, masonry and camp
designs do not clearly show structure response to airblast.
• Mid-walls respond at high frequencies relative to whole structure responses. However,
for log, camp, earth, stone, and masonry structures, mid-walls carried additional low
frequencies associated with whole structure responses. Mid-walls did not respond to
airblast in one-story log, earth, masonry, and two-story stone structures. Airblast effects
are readily measured in mid-wall of all trailers, with both high and low frequency (whole
structure) components, and camp structures.
• Loose construction components and wall covering, such as paneling, can create high mid-
wall motions that are not associated with structure response.
Correlating Structure Response to Ground Motions and Air Pressures
Whole structure (S2) and mid-wall responses were plotted against PPV and maximum
airblast overpressure to compare the relative influences on structure response. Depending on
structure design, the maximum structure responses will fall within the ground motion phase or
airblast phase of structure response. For instance, trailer are sensitive to airblast and many of the
peak velocities contained within the mid-wall time histories occur simultaneously with the
airblast arrival (airblast phase) rather than during the passage of the ground motion wave (ground
phase). Other structures show a greater sensitivity to ground motions and relatively little
response to air pressures.
Maximum velocities within the upper structure (corner or peak measured at S2) and mid-
wall time histories were plotted against the respective excitation driving the peak (e.g. peak air
22
-------
pressure or peak ground motion). Only horizontal components in the transverse, T, or radial, R,
directions are considered.
Best-fit equations of structure response versus PPV for each structure design are
presented in Table 6 to be consistent with RI 8507. Earlier discussions showed the importance of
the entire excitation wave train. Thus these equations should not be used to predict structure
response motion.
All equations were forced through the origin with a y-intercept value of '0'. A positive
y-intercept at x = 0 is meaningless as it is not possible to measure a structure response without a
positive driving force. A negative y-intercept is feasible in the case where a threshold force is
necessary to measure a response. Although comparing this threshold among structures may be of
interest, it was not a necessary component of response and therefore not measured. For
comparisons with U.S. Bureau of Mines structure response equations given in RI 8507, positive
y-intercepts were necessary to compute in some cases, but are not shown in Table 6.
Structure response to ground vibrations: Ground motion-induced peak structure responses
are compared in Figures 14 and 15 for whole structures and mid-walls. Upper corner peak
motions in Figure 14 show that only two structure designs (one-story log and earth, stone, and
masonry) were subjected to peak ground motions greater than 0.40 in/sec. By comparing the data
in Figure 14 with Figure 35 in RI 8507, it is apparent that atypical structure responses fall with
the range of U.S. Bureau of Mines data.
However, the response of the two-story stone structure within a narrow range of ground
motions from 0.21 to 0.45 in/sec shows amplifications above those exhibited by other structures
within the same PPV range. The stone structure response can be explained by two factors. The
unusual construction does not include an upper bond beam along the top of the walls. As such,
the stone structure is free to respond without typical wall constraints. The second factor is that
the ground frequency matched the natural frequency of the structure (about 4 Hz).
Mid-wall responses are shown for all structures in Figure 15. The mid-wall response of
the stone structure is well above other structure designs. This is because the mid-walls did not
move independently of the whole structure and amplified the 4 Hz ground vibrations. Mid-wall
horizontal motions fall within the range of mid-wall responses reported in RI 8507 Figure 33.
Trailers are unique in that they have large ratios of transverse to radial wall dimensions.
Figure 16 shows that the mid-wall responses in all trailers fall within two trends. Trailers tend to
"rock' along the long axis and whole structure responses are far larger in the transverse direction
than in the radial direction. As stated previously, mid-walls carry the same motion carried by the
whole structure. Hence, transverse mid-walls in trailers respond to this higher transverse motion.
Best-fit lines for one and two-story whole structure horizontal corner responses are given
in Figure 17. Equations in Table 6 for these lines (given for all structures) show a large
difference in slopes averaged for all structures. The one-story slope coefficient of 0.63 agrees
with U.S. Bureau of Mines data fit for one-story wood frame structures (0.56 slope). Although
the two-story slope of 1.43 falls above the 0.55 slope reported in RI 8507 for coal mine data,
23
-------
two-story whole structure responses fall within U.S. Bureau of Mines measurements when
quarry and iron mine data are included.
Structure response to airblast overpressures: Airblast induced whole structure and mid-wall
responses are shown in Figures 18 and 19. Earth, stone, and masonry structures did not respond
to airblast over the ranges measured. All peak structure responses occurred strictly in the ground
motion phase. Log structures exhibited little whole structure responses and no air-blast induced
mid-wall responses.
The greatest airblast sensitivity existed in trailers for both mid-wall and whole structure
responses. The large population of airblast-induced data for trailers indicates that the majority of
the peak structure responses tended to fall within the airblast phase as opposed to the ground
motion phase. Wood-frame and camp structures exhibited some sensitivity to airblast relative to
ground motion. A comparison of mid-wall motions shows approximately 1.3, 1.8 and 2.9 times
greater air-induced motions relative to ground-induced motions among trailers, wood-frame, and
camp structure, respectively.
The unusual trailer and wood frame response to airblast (shown grouped within the
ellipse in Figure 18) were recorded during an 11.6 Hz airblast pulse. The airblast frequency
precisely matched the detonation time equal to the 67 ms front row delays plus the arrival time
between holes spaced 21 feet apart, adding a 19 ms inter-hole travel time (21 ft. divided by the
speed of sound in air around 1100 ft.). The inverse of 0.086 ms pulse beat is a strong 11.6 Hz
that matched the power spectrum peak. This unusual airblast frequency is shown in Figure IV-7
for structure TS-IN and the response of the mid-walls and, to some degree, the whole structure,
is evident.
Whole structure (racking) airblast responses in this study were very close to previous
U.S. Bureau of Mines studies and recent measurements by Siskind (2002). The envelope of
maximum response shown in Figure 18 is 77 in/sec/psi for well-confined blasts and 155
in/sec/psi for unusually high frequency airblasts. Historical U.S. Bureau of Mines and values
provided by Siskind (2002) for equivalent type airblasts were 42 and 135 in/sec/psi, respectively.
With the high variability of airblast characteristics and hence responses, these results can be
considered equivalent and normal.
Airblast and vibration guidelines can be compared. The racking response maximum value
of 155 in/sec/psi and regulatory limits of 132 dB for a 2-Hertz system (0.0129 psi), gives a
maximum structure response of 2.06 in/sec. This is consistent with the U.S. Bureau of Mine's
worst case vibration criteria of 0.50 in/sec and 4.0 amplification factor, which yields a maximum
structure response of 2.0 in/sec. The maximum air-blast induced structure response measured in
this study was 0.52 in./sec.
In contrast to whole structure response, mid-wall responses to airblast shown in Figure 19
are higher than historical values, specifically for the trailer type structures. This study's worst
case envelope for mid-wall responses was 442 in/sec/psi. The historical U.S. Bureau of Mines
value was about 319 in/sec/psi, but did not include trailers. This study's results, exclusive of
24
-------
trailers, found a maximum of 266 in/sec/psi that is fairly close to the U.S. Bureau of Mine's
value.
Summary of findings
• Whole structure and mid-wall peak responses induced by ground motions for all
structures fell within data provided in U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507.
• Ground motion-induced whole structure response for one-story structures agrees with
U.S. Bureau of Mines data fit for one-story wood frame structures. Two-story structure
response falls above structure response reported in RI 8507 for coal mine data and within
U.S. Bureau of Mines measurements when quarry and iron mine data are included.
• Earth, stone, and masonry structures did not response to airblast pressures while log
structures produced measurable mid-wall responses and low whole structure responses.
• Trailers showed the highest whole structure and mid-wall responses to airblast with
envelopes of 155 in/sec/psi and 442 in/sec/psi., respectively. Envelopes for other
structure are 77 in/sec/psi and 266 in/sec/psi. These envelopes agree with historical U.S.
Bureau of Mines data for non-trailer structures and are within normal ranges.
Fundamental Frequency Analysis: Natural Frequencies and Structure Damping
The natural frequency of each structure design was estimated using three methods. The
first two methods were used to compute the natural frequencies during free response, when
ground motions arrested, and during ground motion activity, when structure response peaks were
90-degrees out of phase with the ground motion peaks. The third method employed FFT
analysis to calculate the predominant frequency of motion in structures when there was no free
response. Calculating predominant frequencies using FFT analysis to estimate structure
frequency response is desirable because blasting seismograph software easily accommodates this
analysis. Isolating and computing natural frequencies over the response portion of structures that
truly represents free response is often time consuming and requires experience. Therefore, a
comparison of free response natural frequencies to FFT predominant frequencies is given herein
to determine if using FFT analysis provides a good measure of structure free response.
Natural Frequency of Structures
Natural frequencies in structures can be observed either during free vibrations, when
ground motions have ended, or during ground motions, producing a near-perfect sinusoid
response, symmetrical about the time history x-axis and containing one single frequency. In the
later case, structure vibration peaks will show a 90-degree phase angle shift from the ground
motion (excitation) peaks, as described by Crum (1997) and predicted by theory (Harris, 2001).
Examples of waveform time histories showing natural frequencies produced in the second floor
upper corner and mid-wall during ground motions are given in Figures 20 (a) and (b). The
ground motions are 90-degrees out of phase within the mid-wall and upper structure motions
25
-------
beyond the time marked by the vertical dashed lines. Just beyond this time the natural frequency
can be measured. It should be pointed out that only two structures, TD-WV2 and E2S-NM,
exhibited natural frequency response during ground motion activity.
Figure 20 (c) illustrates free response of an upper corner once ground motions have
arrested and before arrival of the airblast. The structure response in this region, between 3.5 sec.
and 6 sec., is 4.0 Hz. True free response measurements are often difficult to detect and analyze
in the absence of ground motions and before the arrival of the airblast pulse. If the airblast
arrives before ground motions arrest, free response may not be detected. The majority of
structures exhibited this form of free response for natural frequency measurements. However, a
sufficient number of structure responses in which ground motions could be isolated from airblast
influence to obtain reliable free response measurements.
Table 7 shows the natural frequencies computed during the response phase shift from
ground motions for E2S-NM (two-story stone structure) and TD-WV2 (double wide trailer). The
4.0 Hz stone structure radial and transverse mid-wall sensors were located on the first and second
floors, respectively. The transverse S2 sensor placed in the 7.0 Hz double wide trailer was
located along the marriage (center) wall and the radial sensor was placed on the outside wall,
center at the structure peak. Both mid-walls were placed on outside walls. Within each structure,
the frequency responses in mid-walls and the whole structure were identical, indicating that mid-
walls do not respond independently but rather with the upper structure. Table 8 summarizes
structure free response frequencies, calculated using the FFT of the time history after the ground
motion has arrested. Data from structure response given in Table 3 from U.S.B.M RI 8507 for
wood-frame structures are provide for comparison. Whole structure free response data for all
structure and all sites compare well with U.S.B.M. data. Mid-wall response data may not
compare because the U.S.B.M placed mid-wall sensors on the wall facing the blasts to capture
air pressure effects. Therefore orientations could not be verified and mid-wall response data are
averaged for both T and R directions.
Structure Response Based on Ground Motion FFT Analysis
Appendix V contains plots of relative amplitude from FFT analysis for S2 and MW as
well as predominant frequencies of structure response compared to the dominant FFT
frequencies of ground motions. Data are grouped by responses for radial, R, and transverse, T,
walls to demonstrate that R and T frequencies are different for most structures.
Plotting structure response FFT frequencies based on relative amplitude from spectral
analysis is a good means of identifying specific structures that respond at a unique and consistent
frequency, regardless of ground motion amplitude and airblast levels. This further serves to
illustrate how structures may amplify ground motions if the predominant ground frequency is
close to the natural frequencies of the whole structure or mid-walls.
Figure V-l through V-4 show relative amplitudes plotted against FFT predominant
frequency at the upper structure (S2) and mid-walls (MW) for T and R walls. These peaks do
not necessarily correlate with the averages given in Table 8 for all structures within each
category as they represent the strong, dominating frequency for a single structure within the
26
-------
design category. For instance, in Figure V-l (a), the single, strong peak at 3.8 Hz represents the
predominant upper structure motion in TS-OH while all other single-wide trailers responded at
higher frequencies. Whole structure double-wide trailer responses (TD-WV2 and TD-PA) shown
in Figure V-l (b) are centered at 7.2 Hz. Trailers with wood-frame add-ons responded at 4.4 Hz
and 7.7 Hz.
Other dominating T frequencies are observed for all log structures, between 6.1 and 6.4
Hz, for designs with vaulted ceilings at 8.3 Hz, and earth, stone, and masonry structures,
centered at 4.0 Hz. Camp and wood-frame structures show various amplitudes at a variety of
frequencies that are not centered on one value.
Radial structure and wall motions show some predominance at 6.6 Hz for single-wide
trailer TS-OH. Earth, stone, and masonry and log structures show central R frequencies similar
to those in the T direction while camp and wood-frame structure show some focus between 6 to
7 Hz.
In Figures V-5 through V-8, T and R upper structure frequency responses are plotted
against ground motions in terms of peak FFT frequencies. Data in Figure V-5 and V-7 indicate
that single-wide and double-wide trailer structure frequencies do not correlate with ground
motion frequencies for the same component. Response frequencies vary for whole structure and
mid-walls. Wood-frame add-on trailers and log structures show a uniform behavior in response
frequencies over a wide range of ground motion frequencies. Mid-walls tend to respond at
frequencies higher than the upper structure. This is also observed for T walls for wood-frames
structures in Figure V-6 (d).
Therefore, regardless of ground motions frequencies, structure frequencies were low and
structures tended to respond at their natural frequencies. Trailers are an exception where
structure frequencies highly varied.
Verification of Spectral Analysis Ability of Seismic Data Analysis Software
When using FFT methods to calculate frequency content, a question always arises
regarding the computation schemes used in computing the power spectrum. The ability of
computations to resolve the peak or predominant frequency in a spectral plot is a function of the
number of data in the time history (record length) and sample rate (number of data points). The
longer the record length, the more data are contained in the time history, and the frequency
intervals become smaller. When only a small segment of the waveform (e.g. containing the
natural frequency) is used in the FFT analysis, frequency intervals may become large, on the
order of 0.5 to 1 Hz. Resolving the dominant frequency within + 0.2 Hz may not be possible and
the true peak may be missed.
Spectral plots using two softwares are compared in Figure 21 for the upper corner
transverse response for TS-OH given in (a). Spectral plots using Seismograph Data Analysis
2000 v. 6.2.3 from White Industrial Seismology, Inc., and NUVIB (Huang, 1994) for various
record length segments shown in Figure 21 (a) are given in Figures 21 (b) through 21 (d).
Although the frequency intervals are not the same for each record length selected, the
predominant frequencies calculated by each methods are in good agreement as follows:
27
-------
Predominant frequency in Hz
White software NUVIB
Entire waveform 3.75 3.72
Segment 1 4.00 4.00
Segment 2 3.75 3.72
Damping of Structure Motion
Structure damping near the natural frequency or during free responses was computed.
Damping is the structure's resistance to movement and causes the structure to return to its resting
position in a harmonic sinusoid. The harmonic vibration peaks decay in a well-defined
exponential function from a maximum value, PI, according to the following:
-Ł- (100%) (1)
where (3 is the damping coefficient, PI and Pm+i are the successively peak amplitudes where PI >
Pm+i and PI is usually taken as the peak "free" response after the ground vibration has ceased.
Pm+i is any peak following PI, "m" cycles later in time. The damping coefficient is defined as the
percentage of critical damping, where perfect damping is 100%. A perfectly damped system
(such as a well-coupled geophone) is one that responds exactly the same as the driving force. On
the other hand, at 0% damping, a structure would resonate and never stop vibrating. Values for
successive damped peaks in the time history used to calculate (3 are illustrated in Figure 20 as PI
and P2.
Damping in structures is low as it takes many oscillations for a structure to complete
moving. Dowding (1985) reports damping for residential structures in the range of 2 % to 10%
of critical.
Damping terms were computed for structures that exhibited response peaks out of phase
from ground motions, shown in Table 7, and for structures that exhibited free response after
ground motions arrested, summarized in Table 9. Based on the data in Table 9, trailer transverse
mid-walls showed the greatest damping (9.5% of critical). Log and trailer structures exhibited
high damping in the radial structure peaks (9.7% and 9.6%, respectively). The least damped
structure type was the earth, stone, and masonry structures with a 3.9% average damping term
(the CMU block structure, E1S-NMA, did not show free response and therefore damping could
not be computed). High damping in trailer and log structures can be explained by the
unconstrained nature of construction components that do not effectively transmit frequencies.
CMU piers supporting trailers are not mortared while logs are not nailed together to form a solid,
supporting mass. Structure response amplitude may be high in such structures, but they quickly
dampen due to the lack of structure bonding.
28
-------
Summary of Findings
• Whole structure and mid-wall natural frequencies were determined for free response
motions. Whole structures averaged 6.0 Hz and mid-wall averaged ranged from 8.4 to
13.8 Hz. U.S. Bureau of Mines whole structure natural frequencies range 7.1 to 7.8 Hz
and mid-walls averaged 16.4 Hz.
• Average damping for all structure was 7.8% for whole structure vibrations and ranged 7.3
% to 6.2 % for mid-walls. Average damaging values found by the U.S. Bureau of Mines
ranged 4.4 % to 5% for whole structures and 1.8 % to 2.3 % for mid-walls.
• FFT methods are the best way to predict dominant frequencies.
• Structures tended to response at their natural frequencies with the exception of trailers.
Structure vibration frequencies in trailers are highly varied and often respond at
frequencies higher than their natural frequency.
• Log and trailer structures are more highly damped because of their lack of structure
bonding.
Amplification Factors
Time-correlated amplifications of ground motions within structures were computed in
terms of an amplification factor (AF) defined by Siskind et al. (1980) and explained by Crum
(1997). AF is defined as
V
where S2 peak is the maximum velocity of the upper structure and V is the velocity of the ground
motion for the same component at the corresponding moment of time or immediately preceding
the time at the peak S2 motion. AF values were also computed using peak mid-wall responses
relative to V in the ground.
Whole structure and mid-wall amplifications were determined from superimposed
velocity time histories as shown in Figure 22 for the upper structure relative to ground velocity.
Plots of AF for whole structure responses are plotted for predominant FFT ground motion
frequencies in Figures 23 through 27. For ground motion FFT frequencies greater than 7. 1 Hz,
the mean AF is 1.7 with a maximum of 3.3. At 7.1 Hz and below, the mean AF is 2.2 with a
maximum of 5.0. Amplification factors greater than 3 were associated with ground motion
frequencies between 4.0 and 7.1 Hz.
29
-------
In U.S.B.M RI 8507, typical whole structure amplification factors are reported to be 1.5
with 4.0 being the highest value. The greatest values occurred at ground motion frequencies
between 5 and 12 Hz. The U.S.B.M. study did not include sites with ground motion frequencies
less than 5 Hz and included ground motions up to 85 Hz. In the current study, the average site
ground motion frequency was 9.6 Hz with 28% of the sites exhibiting ground motion dominant
frequencies of 5 Hz or less. It is reasonable to conclude that the U.S.B.M. data did not include
AF greater than 4 because ground motion frequencies did not fall within the lower ranges of
structure natural frequencies included in the current study.
Amplification plots by structure show that the two-story stone and two-story camp
structures show the highest average amplification factors because structure natural frequencies
matched those of the ground. The 4-Hz stone structure (E2S-NM) was subjected to six blasts
with an average ground motion frequency of 4 Hz. One single two-story camp structure, with a
natural frequency response of 6.1 Hz, was subjected to five blasts with ground motions averaging
6.4 Hz.
Summary of Findings
• Time correlated amplification factors (AF) ranged from 0.4 to 5. The U.S. Bureau of
Mines calculated AF from 1.5 and 4.0.
• The highest AF values were observed for the two-story stone and two-story camp
structures where the ground vibration frequencies matched the natural frequency of the
structures. Log and one-story earth and masonry structures exhibited the lowest values of
AF. Amplification factors in trailer were 4.0 and less.
• The highest amplification factors occurred when ground motion predominant frequencies
matched structure natural frequencies.
Relative Displacements and Calculated Strains
Previous studies involving crack observations during blasting have shown that a strong
correlation exists between peak particle velocity and blast-induced threshold wall damage
(Nicholls, et al., 1971; Siskind, et al., 1980; Stagg, et al., 1984). Studies that included dynamic
strain gage instruments mounted on walls have produced limited insight to threshold strains that
cause wall cracking. This is because changes in crack lengths and widths for blasting events are
similar for time periods when no blasting took place. Furthermore, it is not possible to anticipate
the wall locations that cracking will take place such that strain gages can be strategically placed.
Only two studies are notable. Wiss and Nicholls (1974) measured failure strains in
gypsum wallboard during blasting and found new cracks formed during a maximum dynamic
wall strain of 1010 |i-strains. Critical tensile failure strains in gypsum wallboard are given in RI
8507 by Siskind, et al., 1980. Openings along butt joints and new cracks appeared during
blasting events at failure strains in excess of 300 to 400 |i-strains. Strains associated with mortar
30
-------
joint cracking during blasting were measured in excess of 300 |i-strains (Edwards and
Northwood, 1960; Northwood, etal., 1963).
Differential structure displacement time histories were computed by integrating velocity
traces and used to compute the maximum differential whole structure strains. Peak or maximum
differential displacements, A8max, between the upper and lower structure motions were used to
determine global wall shear strains, y, and maximum wall bending strains, e. A schematic
showing displacement and global shear strain is given in Figure 28. Note that the sensors
mounted on the radial walls (the wall of the shortest overall structure lateral dimensions)
measure gross structure motions in the transverse direction. Similarly, the transverse sensors
measure motions in the radial walls.
Maximum differential displacements were computed by subtracting time-correlated
displacement time histories measured at SI (lower structure corner) from S2 time histories
(upper structure corner). Since the polarity of the transducers was known, the resultant
displacements were automatically accounted. Thus the relative displacement was obtained by
simple subtraction. However only the absolute values are reported.
The maximum global structure shear strain of the wall, y, is computed using the peak or
maximum differential displacement divided by the wall height as follows
(3)
where L is the wall height in inches and A8max is in inches. Therefore y is given as |i-in./in. or |i-
strains.
The in-plane tensile wall strain, ŁL, is related to the gross structure shear strain for the
same wall being affected by the motions. The maximum in-plane strain, eL(max), is aligned along
a 45 degree diagonal as shown in Figure 28, where 6 = 45° is the direction of the maximum
strain. The solution for in-plane tensile strains can be found in basic mechanics textbooks and
eL(max) is given as
eL(max) = Ymax sin 6 cos 6 (4)
which reduces to
eL(max) = (0.5) ymax
when 6 = 45° and eL(max) is one-half of the gross structure strain, y. Global or overall in-plane
tensile strains are critical to threshold wall cracking potential.
Maximum wall bending strain, s, given by Dowding (1985)
31
-------
for a fixed-fixed response system, where d is the wall thickness divided by two, in inches, and e
is given as |i-in./in. or |i-strains. For a fixed-free structure, bending strain is computed as
* (6)
where A8'max is now the maximum resultant wall displacement (assumed to be located at the
mid-wall) calculated as
=S - I ^2 + Sl I (7}
ax °mw ^ '
where Smw is the peak mid-wall displacement and S2 and SI are the time-correlated upper and
lower corner displacements.
Calculated in-plane tensile strains and wall bending strains are summarized by structure
design in Table 1 1 . Average and maximum values are reported. Figures 29 (a) and (b) show
examples of differential displacements (in terms of absolute values) calculations for the E2S-NM
two-story stone structure in the radial and transverse directions, respectively. These
displacements, given in inches, represent the average measurements for this structure during the
study. Velocity time histories at the upper (S2) and lower (SI) structure corners were integrated
and the resulting displacement time histories are subtracted (S2 - SI) to obtain the differential
wall shear displacements. The absolute value of S2 - SI is shown to readily display the
maximum value of A8max.
Maximum calculated in-plane tensile strains and maximum calculated wall bending
strains are shown in Figures 30 and 3 1 plotted against maximum ground motion for the same
component. The largest in-plane tensile strains shown in Figure 30 were calculated from time-
correlated differential displacements in the second story of the stone structure (E2S-NM).
Motions in the radial direction resulted in a maximum calculated in-plane tensile strain of 1 13.1
|l-strain in the transverse wall. The second story transverse wall produced a maximum calculated
bending strain of 46.6 |i-strain, assuming a fixed-free model of bending and is shown in Figure
3 1 at a PPV of 0.46 in/sec. The fixed-free model for structure E2S-NM is justified based on the
absence of a top plate or beams affixed to the stone exterior walls to render the upper structure
rigid. Calculated strains in the stone structure are below levels measured during previous
research on mortar joint cracking during blasting.
One- and two-story log structures carry large strains due to their natural flexibility
supplied by the individual wood members. Radial motions produced transverse wall peak strains
of 95.5 and 66.6 |i-strain for one- and two-story log structures, respectively. Mid-wall strains
were relative small for two-story structures and among the highest for one-story designs.
Depending on the quality of wood, failure strains for logs can range from 7000 to 20,000 |i-strain
32
-------
(USDA, 1999). Therefore, calculated strains produced by blasting during this study are far below
those strain levels that could possibly cause cracks in log walls.
Calculated strains produced in trailers, camp, wood-frame, concrete block, and adobe
structures were as high as 12.5 |i-strains for gross structure shear (for which the highest was
computed for wood frame types) and less than 9.2 |i-strains for all bending wall strains. Strains
calculated for the one-story cinder block structure for radial and transverse in-plane strains fell
below those calculated for wood frame structures. Cinder block wall strains are well below
critical failure strains.
Summary of Findings
• Peak in-plane tensile strains calculated from whole structure differential displacements
were 113.1 |i-strain in the two story stone structure. A value of 95.5 |i-strain was
computed for a one-story log structure. For all other structures, whole structure wall
strains were less then 40 |i-strain.
• Peak calculated mid-wall bending strains were the greatest in the two-story stone
structure with a value of 46.4 |i-strains. Bending strains for all other structures were less
than 26 |i-strain.
• In some structures, ground velocities may compare to structure response at SI. Therefore,
ground velocities may be used to evaluate response in structures expect in the case of
trailers where SI does not match ground velocities.
Non-blasting Sources of Structure Vibrations
Household Activities
Structure responses to non-blasting events are shown in Table 12 for seven structures. A
comparison of non-blasting event responses are shown in Table 13 compared with the maximum
whole (upper) structure and mid-wall velocities recorded during blasting. It was not difficult to
generate structure motions during normal household activities within trailers and wood frame
structures. Structure responses from household activities were equal to those produced during
blasting in the single wide trailer, TS-IN.
The more massive masonry and earth structures did not significantly respond during non-
blasting influences. Therefore, responses shown in Table 12 are very low in amplitudes. Log and
camp structures were not included in these tests.
Wind
Table 14 summarizes whole structure and mid-wall maximum velocities and strains for
three trailers that responded to significant wind gusts traveling between 12 and 32 miles/hour.
The maximum upper structure (S2) velocity and calculated whole structure strains (ymax) are
33
-------
given for the T and R components or walls. Note that the upper structure response for the given
component drives the shear strains in the opposing wall as previously described. For instance,
the 0.055 in/sec maximum velocity recorded at S2 in the T direction produced an estimated 3.5
|i-strains of shear in the radial wall.
Upper structure transverse (S2) and mid-wall responses (both T and R walls) for air
pressures (AP) from blasting and wind gusts are compared in Figure 32 for single wide trailer
TS-KY2. Wind gusts are not efficient driving forces compared with blasting to excite significant
structure responses. However wind gusts can generate air pressures that result in detectable
levels of structure shaking and mid-wall responses up to 0.1 in/sec.
Summary of Findings
• Whole structure trailers motions from household activities were measured equal to
motions induced from blasting. Mid-wall responses were general equal to or less than the
responses from blasting. Structure responses from household activities in earth, stone and
masonry structures were far lower and in some cases barely detectable in comparison
with blasting responses.
• Trailer structure responses to wind gusts produced whole structure motions that were
generally one-half of the motions generated during blasting.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Predominant frequencies of the ground motion time histories, as estimated from the power
spectrum computed using FFT methods, tended to produce frequencies below those computed
using the zero-crossing method computed at the PPV. The upper end of the frequency range
using the zero-crossing at the PPV was 16 to 32 Hz compared to a 7 to 20 Hz from the power
spectrum. In all cases except one site, FFT frequencies fell below zero-crossing frequencies. The
exception was the Tennessee site in which structure were founded directly on bedrock.
2. Fourier transforms are preferable in structure response analysis to determine predominant
excitation frequencies as the entire waveform is involved in the process.
3. Structure response relative to ground motions and airblast was evaluated by comparing
horizontal time histories among the ground, lower structure (SI), upper structure (S2), and the
mid-walls. Little difference between lower floor response and ground motions were noted for all
structure types with the exception of trailers in the vertical direction. Single and double wide
trailers produced wall base motions greater than exterior ground motions. In the case of trailers,
wall base motions should to be instrumented in order to compute differential wall displacements.
For other structure designs for which the foundations are coupled to the ground, exterior ground
motions may be used to estimate lower structure horizontal responses.
4. Whole structure motions, as indicated by the best-fit slope of upper structure response versus
PPV, were the highest in the two story stone (3.22) and camp (2.70) structures. Trailers, one-
34
-------
story wood frame, and log structures responded similarly with slopes of 1.29, 1.30, and 1.54,
respectively. Other one story structures (log, earth and masonry) exhibited structure responses
less than ground motions.
5. The greatest mid-wall responses, as indicated by the best-fit slope of mid-wall response versus
PPV, were measured in log structures possessing "great walls" (2.98) and camp structures (2.58).
Responses were similar for trailers (2.09) and wood frame (2.09) mid-walls
6. The influence of airblast over 116 decibels on the upper structure (S2) and mid-wall responses
were observed for trailers. Whole structure and mid-wall motions duplicated airblast time
histories and peak structure responses occurred within the airblast phase rather than within the
ground motion phase. Mid-wall motions show both high frequency and low frequency
characteristics for specific structures while trailer mid-walls tended to respond only at high
frequencies. Upper (second story) mid-walls and upper structure corners move as one unit in
most two story structures studied. In a number of cases, mid-wall responses duplicate airblast
waveform signatures. Structure types that clearly did not show a response after the air pressure
pulse arrival include one-story camp, log structures, and massive stone, concrete block and adobe
structures.
7. Average values for natural frequencies of mid-walls and whole structures in both the radial
and transverse directions fell below those reported by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in RI 8507. An
average of 18 Hz for mid-wall (no specific component) is reported in RI 8507. Dowding (1996)
reported mid-wall frequencies between 12-20 Hz. Whole structure natural frequencies are
reported to range 5 to 10 Hz. Data in this study corroborate these whole structure findings.
8. Damping characteristics during free response were evaluated for all structures. The greatest
damping in mid-walls was found for the transverse direction in trailers equal to 9.5% of critical.
Log and trailer structures exhibited the highest whole structure radial damping of 9.7% and
9.6%, respectively. The least damped structure type was the two-story stone that responded with
an average damping of 3.9%. Values for damping fall well within those reported in the range of
2 % to 10% of critical by Dowding (1985).
9. Amplification factors varied by type of structure as well as for certain structures within each
design type. These observations may be compared with those from U.S. Bureau of Mines RI
8507 where the maximum values were 4 for structure corners. Corner responses of log and
wood-frame structures fell below RI 8507 values. Out of this study of 25 atypical structures
chosen for their unusual character, only two structure designs displayed amplifications greater
than 4. These included the two story stone and two story camp structures with upper structure
motions amplified by 5.0 and 4.6, respectively. These values can be attributed to the fact that
these structures were vibrated at or near their natural frequencies of 4 to 7 Hz.
10. In-plane tensile wall strains calculated from gross structure differential displacements were
below cracking thresholds of 300 to 1000 |i-strains for plaster and wallboard. Calculated wall
bending strains were less than 20 |i-strains. Bending is generally not a concern for damage
potential to structures. Whole structure strains are most important when assessing structure
response.
35
-------
11. Peak structure velocities induced in these atypical structures by occupant-induced motions
were found to vary among structures by type and distance between the source and measuring
transducer. Habitation excitations that generated structure responses were primarily door and
window closings. Those structures with low-mass walls (e.g., trailers) responded more than did
structures with more massive walls to similar activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Time histories collected during this study of 25 atypical structures should be electronically
archived for future access and analysis. They represent an unusually rich source of data that
included ground motions as well as structural and crack responses.
2. The crack measurements presented in Addendum I to this study involved monitoring crack
displacements, demonstrating that inexpensive techniques can be used to measure both long-term
(environmental or weather-induced) and transient (blast induced) changes in crack widths, when
conditions allow, to supplement traditional structure response techniques.
3. For atypical structures, time-correlated ground motion and structure velocity responses could
be measured with systems similar to those employed in this study if conducted as outlined in
Addendum II. Whole structure response motions should be measured at the top and bottom wall
corners of uniform construction. Mid-wall response as well as crack deformations can be
measured as additional options.
REFERENCES
Crum, S.V., 1997, House Responses from Blast-Induced Low Frequency Ground Vibrations and
Inspections for Related Interior Cracking, U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining
Report, Contract No. 143868-PO96-12616.
Dowding, C.H., 1996, Construction Vibrations., Prentice Hall.
Edwards, A. T., T. D. Northwood, 1960, Experimental Studies of the Effects of Blasting on
Structures, The Engineer, v. 210.
Huang, F., 1994, NUVIB (Northwestern University Vibration Analysis Software), ver. 1.01,
Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Nicholls, H.R., C.F. Johnson, and W. I. Duvall, 1971, Blasting Vibrations and Their Effects on
Structure, U.S. Bureau of Mines Bull. 656.
Harris, C. M., 2001, Harris' Shock and Vibration Handbook, McGraw-Hill.
36
-------
Northwood, T. D., R. Crawford, and A. T. Edwards, 1963, Blasting Vibration and Building
Damage, The Engineer., v. 15, No. 5601.
Siskind, D.E, 2002, personal communication.
Siskind, D.E., M. S. Stagg, J. W. Kopp, and C. H. Dowding, 1980a, Structure Response and
Damage Produced by Ground Vibration From Surface Mine Blasting, U.S. Bureau of Mines RI
8507.
Siskind, D.E., V. J. Statura, M. S. Stagg, and J. W. Kopp, 1980b, Structure Response and
Damage Produced by Airblast from Surface Mining, U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8485.
Stagg, M.S., D.E. Siskind, M. G. Stevens, and C. H. Dowding, 1984, Effects of Repeated
Blasting on a Wood-Frame House, U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8896.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999, Wood Handbook - Wood as an Engineering Material.
General Tech. Rep FLP-GTR-113. Madison, WI. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory.
Wiss, J.F. and H.R. Nicholls, 1974, A Study of Damage to a Residential Structure from Blast
Vibrations, ASCE, New York.
37
-------
Table 1 Summary of construction types
Category
pre-
manufactured
trailers
mine camp
log
earth, stone,
and masonry
wood-frame
Structure
type
single wide
single wide
add-on
double wide
single-story
two-story
one-story
two-story
one story
cinder block
two-story
historic stone
one-story
adobe
one-story
two-story
three-story
cantilever
Site
KY2
IN
AL
OH
VA
KY2
VW2
TN
PA
AL
VA
KYI
KYI
OH
VW1
TN
OH
WV2
NM
NM
NM
IN
PA
IN
WV1
Designation
TS-KY2
TS-IN
TS-AL
TS-OH
TSA-VA
TSA-KY2
TD-WV2
TD-TN
TD-PA
C1S-AL
C1S-VA
C2S-KY1A
C2S-KY1B
L1S-OH
L1S-WV1
L2S-TN
L2S-OH
L2S-WV2
E1S-NMA
E2S-NM
E1S-NMB
W1S-IN
W1S-PA
W2S-IN
W3S-VW1
Structure
no strapping
strapping
strapping
strapping
add-on
original trailer
add-on
original trailer
center wall
center wall
basement
first floor
first floor
first floor
first floor
second floor
first floor
second floor
basement
first floor
historic log
cabin
first floor
second floor
loft
first floor
second floor
west wall
center post
second floor
loft
ground floor
first floor
second floor
first floor
basement
first floor
first floor
basement
first floor
garage
first floor
second floor
Wall
height
(in)
94
90
94
94
94
82
94
94
94
104
117
84
86
82
92
92
94
94
91.6
90.4
78
111.5
93.5
great-wall
282 in.
mid-wall
at 144 in.
from base
82
94
286
82
120
108
90
114
92.4
96
102
90
96
101
94
52
Wall
thickness
(in)
4
4
6
6
5
4
4
4
6
4
8
4
8
2
4
4
5.5
5.5
9
9
12
6.75
6.75
7
7
8
8
8
8
24
15
10
8
6
6
8
6
8
5
5
Overall
house
dimensions
(ft x ft)
65x14
64x14
72x16
73x15
54 x 14
54x12
56x12
56x12
64x28
74x28
48x24
50x27
34x28
28x28
48x29
29x16
38x23.5
24x26
29x25
37x25
46x30
60x40
37x30
70x32
40x22
66.5x35
35x30
42x16
42x20
42x20
Maximum
differential
elevation
(in)
3.9
3.8
2.8
3.5
3.3
8.2
2.4
1.8
3.8
4.0
7.4
5.1
3.3
3.7
5.9
3.5
2.0
2.7
1.7
5.0
3.1
3.7
3.2
Nm
1.9
Nm - not measured
38
-------
Table 2 Site information
Site
Alabama
Indiana
Kentucky - 1
Kentucky - 2
New Mexico
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia - 1
West Virginia - 2
Number of
Structures
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of Blasts
4
16
7
7
6
23
4
3
6
5
8
Blast-to-
Structure
Distance
(ft)
852-1520
816-9219
1830-5140
1510-4600
2095-5565
570-6280
1390-1510
1225-6110
1212-1390
4640-2240
1610-2670
Charge Weight
per Delay
(Ibs)
280-550
126-1712
404-1044
183-808
300-13047
284-4130
612-486
885-2809
313-361
126-2076
415-973
Square-Root
Scaled Distance
Factor
(ft/lbslfl)
36-86
44-223
60-184
68-340
23-278
25-268
58-68
34-149
64-77
78-215
76-118
Table 3 Ground motion attenuation equations from Figure 9
Site
Alabama
Indiana
Ohio
New Mexico - casting
New Mexico - pre-split
U.S Bureau of Mines
coal mine data*
Equation
[a (D/W1/2) "bl
958 (D/W1/2) ~2-22
64 (D/W1/2)-°4
231 (D/W1/2) -L67
256 (D/W1/2) 'LyJ
5448 (D/W1/2) ~2m
133 (D/W )"' (maximum horizontal)
119 (D/W1/2) 'L52 (all components)
Correlation
Coefficient
(R2)
0.97
0.91
0.75
0.98
0.90
* U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507 (Siskind, et al, 1980a)
39
-------
Table 4 Airblast overpressure attenuation equations
Site
All sites
Coal mine data for highwalls *
Coal mine data for coal parting *
Equation
[a (D/W1/3) ~bl
0.35 (D/W1/3) -°'95
0.146(D/W1/3)^'823
49.6 (D/W1/3) ~L62
Correlation
Coefficient
(R2)
0.45
0.77
0.50
* U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8485 (Siskind, et al, 1980b)
Table 5 Comparisons of two methods used to determine frequencies: zero-crossing and
FFT methods
Site
Range of Frequencies (Hz)
Measured at the PPV
using zero-crossing
method
Calculated using FFT
method
Sites with the great change in frequency between the two methods
Kentucky - 1
New Mexico
Alabama
Kentucky - 2
Indiana
9-22
4-18
10-34
18-30
3 -28
6-7
4-8
8-17
15-19
2-19
Sites with little change in frequency between the two methods
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia - 1
West Virginia - 2
Tennessee
4-24
8-22
7-23
11 - 16
7- 19
10-32
3-18
7-20
6-20
11-14
6-16
12-35
40
-------
Table 6 Best fit equations relating structure response in terms of whole structure and mid-wall
motions to ground motions and air overpressures for different structure designs
Driving
force
peak particle
velocity
ground
motion
PPV
airblast
AP
Response
whole structure
WQR — v * PPV
mid-wall
MWR = a * PPV
whole structure
WSR = a * AP
mid-wall
MWR = a * AP
Structure design
trailers
log
earth, stone, and
masonry
log
earth, stone, and
masonry
trailers
Stories or
component
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
R
T
R
T
R
T
R
T
R
T
1
R
T
R
T
R
T
Best fit equation
slope (a)
0.66
0.45
1.54
0.91
3.22
1.30
2.70
0.63
1.43 (1)
1.32
2.09
1.90
2.98
2.58
2.25
1.83
2.08
1.52
1.24 (1)
28.9
206.1
155.4
120.0
131.0
175.0
213.6
Correlation
Coefficient
(R2)
0.64
0.91
0.84
0.76
0.42
0.88
0.73
0.45
0.75
0.86
0.73
0.80
0.94
0.87
0.98
0.92
0.67
0.90
0.83
0.51
0.52
0.55
0.67
0.95
0.74
0.70
(1) excluding the historic stone structure response
41
-------
(L)
00
(L)
s
:_
O
O
O
t/i
O
C
O
00
(L)
"I
(L)
^
O
13
o
t«
-4—»
'6
(L)
O
O (L)
00 g
S o
1
(L)
Hi /*-"
-i-H ^
60 g
i—i O
p5 u
•i a-
S P
s .a
a* §
||
T3 O
O
60
S P
ctf
fin
fin
Ł
m
(L)
O
JZ
(N
O
(N
as
as
oo
in
'
as
oo
Os
O
(N
o
0
OS
oo
(N
(N
(N
^^
f —
oo
IT)
(N
(N
(N
^^
f —
IT)
ol
(N
w
r-
o
o
r-
so
r-
as
o
o
0
IN
so
r-
r-
Os
oo
r-
so
O
SO
O
O
O so
so
O
oo
O
so ^
O so
IN
ON
ON
§
1)
t«
O
o>
S/j
«
S
«
I
(N
Q
H
(N
-------
Table 8 Average and range (minimum to maximum) of natural frequencies computed during
free response after ground motions have arrested
Design
Trailer
Log
Earth, stone, and masonry
Camp
Wood-frame
Average for all structures
U.S.B.M. RI 8507 (Table 3)
Transverse (Hz)
whole structure
6.9(3.5-13.5)
6.5(6-8)
4.4(4-4.8)
5.3(3-7.5)
7.6 (3 - 13)
6.1
7.1 (4- 10)
mid-wall
9.5(4.3-29.3)
15.8(8-24)
4.3(3.8-4.8)
3.4(3-3.8)
8.9(4- 13.5)
8.4
Radial (Hz)
whole structure
6.3 (4.3-6.8)
6.4 (5 - 7.5)
4.3(4-4.5)
6.9(6.5-7.5)
Nd
6.0
7.8(4- 11)
mid-wall
19.9(6-29)
13.8(6-27.5)
4.3(3.8-4..5)
6.9(6.5-7.5)
23.9(22-25.5)
13.8
16.4 (8.3 -36)(1)
(1) The U.S.B.M. instrumented only the mid-wall facing the blast to measure air pressure effects
Table 9 Average damping coefficients for free response computed in Table 7
Design
Trailer
Log
Earth, stone, and
masonry(1)
Camp
Wood-frame
Average for all sites
U.S.B.M. RI 8507
(Table 3)
Transverse (% of critical)
whole structure
8.9
8.5
3.9
9.2
8.2
7.7
5.0
mid-wall
9.5
8.5
6.4
6.2
5.8
7.3
2.3
Radial (% of critical)
whole structure
9.6
9.7
6.6
5.5
Nd
7.9
4.4
mid-wall
8.7
6.8
8.7
8.2
8.5
8.2
1.8
Nd - not detected
(1) excluding CMU block structure
Table 10 Amplification factors
Design
Trailers
Log
Earth, stone, and
masonry
Camp
Wood-frame
Description
Single-wide
Double-wide
Add-on
One story
Two story
One story
Two story
One story
Two story
One story
Two story
Three story
Time-correlated Amplification Factors
average
1.0
2.4
1.9
1.4
2.1
1.1
3.5
2.1
3.3
1.7
1.3
1.6
minimum-maximum
1.0-3.6
1.1-4.0
0.4-3.3
0.4-3.0
0.9-3.0
0.6-1.6
1.7-5.0
1.5-3.5
1.5-4.6
1.0-2.5
1.1-1.5
1.3-1.9
43
-------
Table 11 Blast-induced strains for the radial, R, and transverse, T, walls
Design
Trailer
Log
Earth,
stone,
and
masonry
Camp
Wood-
frame
single wide
double wide
add-on
one -story
two-story
cinder block
adobe
2-story stone
one -story
two-story
one -story
two-story
In-plane tensile strains(1)
(|l-strains)
Average (maximum)
R
5.0(23.5)
3.5 (33.2)
8.0 (30.0)
2.7(41.7)
3.0(24.5)
7.4(10.4)
4.2 (4.9)
49.0 (98.9)
11.6(27.4)
2.9 (6.6)
11.0(39.4)
2.0(15.2)
T
6.7(38.3)
8.9(23.4)
4.9(10.1)
4.8 (95.5)
4.1 (66.6)
11.6(13.4)
3.9(7.3)
55.1 (113.1)
9.5(18.7)
1.7(13.2)
12.5(33.7)
2.7(13.7)
Wall bending strains
(|l-strains)
Average (maximum)
R
1.5(11.5)
9.2(18.9)
0.9(3.9)
10.5(13.3)
0.2(1.6)
Na
8.8(12.1)
5.2(18.3)(2)
4.5 (8.0)
0.03(1.4)
5.2(13.0)
Na
T
2.9 (25.7)
1.8(16.0)
6.0(11.1)
8.9(15.5)
Na
3.6(11.7)
5.1 (9.0)
18.9(46.6)(3)
5.4 (9.2)
0.1 (0.3)
3.1 (9.6)
7.5 (13.0)(3)
(1) Note that the wall being strained is 90-degrees from the motion sensor recording velocity (e.;
the radial sensor records motion of the transverse walls while the transverse sensor records
motion of the radial wall)
(2)
(3)
first floor
second floor
Na - no sensor used in this location
44
-------
Table 12 Structure responses to non-blasting activities
Structure
Design
single
wide
trailer
Double
wide
trailer
one- story
wood
frame
two- story
wood
frame
one- story
earth,
stone,
and
masonry
two- story
earth,
stone,
and
masonry
Designation
TS-IN
TD-PA
W1S-IN
W2S-IN
E1S-NMA
E1S-NMB
E2S-NM
Activity
shut north bedroom door
child running
close north window
shut room closet door
children playing in family
room
shut family room outside door
shut west bedroom door
slam west bedroom door
shut west bathroom door
shut exterior kitchen door
close west bedroom window
jump in bedroom
chair fall back in dining room
shut front door
walk in living room
child bouncing a ball in living
room
jump in living room
running down stairs
drop sofa end in living room
close kitchen window
shut garage door
shut patio door
bump wall with shoulder
bump wall with a broom
Backhoe dropping flagstone
near house
Maximum velocity (in/sec)
upper structure
response
R
0.10
0.04
0.51
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.16
0.20
0.06
0.15
0.02
0.05
0.065
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
T
0.06
0.02
0.40
0.50
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.10
0.30
0.12
0.15
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.12
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
mid-wall response
R
0.98
0.07
1.08
0.78
0.14
0.70
0.17
0.49
0.50
0.23
0.16
0.16
0.06
1.58
0.38
0.38
Na
Na
0.08
0.02
0.01
Na
T
0.29
0.13
0.42
0.74
0.10
0.22
0.34
1.46
2.14
0.34
0.74
0.42
0.09
0.14
0.17
0.10
Na
0.03
0.07
0.15
0.14
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.03
Na - no mid-wall sensors mounted
45
-------
Table 13 Comparison of structure responses for household activities with blasting
Structure
designation
TS-IN
TD-PA
W1S-IN
W2S-IN
E1S-NMA
E1S-NMB
E2S-NM
Structure response velocity (in/sec)
Maximum from household activities
whole structure
R
0.51
0.20
0.065
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.05
T
0.40
0.30
0.10
0.06
0.02
0.12
0.04
mid-walls
R
1.08
0.50
1.58
Na
Na
0.08
Na
T
0.42
2.14
0.14
Na
0.03
0.07
0.03
Maximum from blasting activities
whole structure
R
0.52
0.19
0.82
0.24
0.66
0.15
1.52
T
0.41
0.20
0.55
0.25
0.31
0.22
1.24
mid-walls
R
1.24
1.08
0.16
Na
Na
0.27
0.63
T
0.64
0.535
0.15
Na
0.78
0.305
2.64
Na - sensor not mounted in location
Table 14 Velocities and calculated strains in trailers produced by wind for wind speeds
ranging from 12 to 32 miles/hour
Structure
Design
Single
wide
trailer
Double
wide
trailer
Designation
TS-KY2
TS-AL
TD-PA
Component
or wall
T
R
T
R
R
T
R
T
Maximum
upper
structure
response
(in/sec)
0.055
0.035
0.040
0.025
0.010
0.030
0.005
0.010
Whole
structure
transverse
shear strain
(|l-strains)
1.5
3.5
1.2
3.4
Na
Na
1.1
1.0
Maximum
mid-wall
response
(in/sec)
0.090
0.055
0.060
0.060
0.030
Na
0.010
0.025
Mid-wall
bending
strains
(|l-strains)
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.8
1.8
1.6
0.6
0.3
Na - strain could not be computed as sensors were not placed in lower corners or not on radial
mid-walls
46
-------
I double concrete
I block pier
I single block pier
•B-
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 1 Three generalized trailer pier support system layouts (a) for single wide trailers using
single stacked CMUs, and double wide trailer supports (b) using single and
double CMUs beneath three axis beams (c) four rows of double CMUs
Figure 2 Hurricane straps required by building code in states in which trailer were selected for
the study in Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, and Indiana
47
-------
\
\
\
\
\
\
two by four
stud framing
exterior diagonal
sheeting
top view of wall
exterior sheeting
two by four studs
interior drywall
or paneling
Figure 3 Details of mining camp wall structure
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4 Three types of log fitting (a) saddle lock-notched with spacing between the logs
for chinking, (b) notched and scribed, and (c) butt-jointed.
48
-------
ceiling
\ MID-WALL 2
SEISMOGRAPH 2
SEISMOGRAPH 1
(a)
walM
wall 2-
S2
S1
Master (exterior)
(b)
Figure 5 Typical instrument layout showing (a) SI and S2 interior velocity sensors used to
measure whole structure and mid-wall vibrations (b) location of exterior master
seismograph showing orientations of the radial (R) and transverse (T) components
49
-------
(a)
midwall exterior
Kitchen
TV Area
Entry and Laundry
Bath
Closet
Open area
Bedroom
Bedro
c.mpu«.r,r..
*
• 1
Sitting Room V
Bedroom
C1S-AL
S1 and S2
midwall
I
5ft.
(b)
Figure 6 Instrumentation layout for mining camp structure C1S-AL
50
-------
transverse, T, wall
radial, R, wall
R positive
direction
tri-axial ground
motion geophone
R and T positive
motion inward
section view R and T walls
Figure 7 Convention used for radial, R, and transverse, T, geophone orientations
51
-------
10.00
-52
"c
O
o
LU
>
LU
_l
O
a:
<
a.
LU
Q_
1.00
0.10
0.01
• all site data
USBMRI8507
10
100
SCALED DISTANCE (D/W) (ft/lb)
1000
Figure 8 Attenuation plot of maximum ground vibrations for all data
10.00
o
o
LU
>
LU
_l
O
a:
<
a.
LU
a.
1.00
0.10
0.01
10
• Alabama
O Indiana
» Ohio
D New Mexico - cast
O New Mexico - pre-split
USBMRI8507
100
SCALED DISTANCE (D/W1/2) (ft/lb1'2)
1000
Figure 9 Attenuation plots of maximum ground vibrations separated by site (regression
equations shown in Table 3)
52
-------
10.00
o
o
LLJ
LLJ
O
1.00
0.10
0.01
X
X
V
X»
A
X
A
v-i •
I
^
— C
ipr
^
i~
(
— x
0
-OT>
i
g
s>,
>
^
4
)—
-o
CH
00
i
S,
__l
X
*Q^ . n
^ n ^ u
X V.
r o A v
rn
OCD ™
• O • O
*k
"%
x
>* ^
•
o
•
A
•
O
A
Kentucky - 1
Kentucky - 2
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
West Virginia
West Virginia
Virginia
USBM RI850"
Q
>
-1
-2
10
100
SCALED DISTANCE (D/W1'2) (ft/lb1'2)
1000
Figure 10 Maximum ground vibrations for clustered and uncorrelated data
0.1000
HI
a:
3
(0
(0
HI
a:
a.
in
HI
CO
00
in
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
all site data
USBM Rl 8485
10
151 dB
100
CUBE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE (D/W1'3) (ft/lb1'3)
131 dB
70
00
CO
Q.
00
111 dB
91 dB
1000
Figure 11 Airblast overpressure attenuation for all data (airblast in dB = 20 log [overpressure in
psi] + 170.8)
53
-------
10
5
o
LLI
o
<
0.
0.1
0.01
u.s
OSI
^*
^^
Bureau of Mines safe level blasting criteria from Rl 8507
i/l surface coal mine regulation Chart Option
— ^
^^^
^^f^
•
•*
•
<
o
»»
»
>
)
r
X
4
A
/
•
^
<
•
»
^ ^7
^ ^
•
o
0
iŁ
*
X
s
o
O
x,
» •
*;
I
•
O
<
<
•*
I'l
^f
_*- ^ —*^^
^^" ^
^ o
O ^* Q O
o ^,o^^)te
*$ ° ^
1 x • o
* X 5 ^9^ n
v>J
O 4
-H4-
^Jt^,
X*)K
*•«
F
k*
P
>•
(tin
X
X
(
*
x 1*
W^
x^1
-0
5^
%
y^t
4
P
^ <,
q
X
y
k \
U
^
>
-------
1.8
1.6
1.4
$ 1.2
0) „
(ft 1
o
at 0.8
ro
a)
Q- 0.6
0.4
0.2
A
n o
oo. o
u CD
a _ o
° °
o
o
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Peak particle velocity (in/sec)
• trailers
Ocamp
D wood frame
O log
A two-story stone
O earth and
masonry
1.2
1.4
Figure 14 Ground motion-induced whole structure response
'o'
Ol
Ol
c
g.
Ol
^
m
01
Q.
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
n
*
^
*
0
o
n
^
^A*"^
A ;fi D ^
Ł& °* 4
«^Sr* •: .•
• trailers
Ocamp
D wood frame
A log
» two-story stone
o earth and
masonry
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Peak particle velocity (in/sec)
0.8 0.9
1.0
Figure 15 Ground motion-induced mid-wall response
55
-------
0.5
0.4
•Hi
Ł 0.3
0)
(/)
o
Q.
TO
O
Q.
0.2
0.1
MWR = 2.09 PPV R2 = 0.73
• transverse
o radial
MWR = 0.71 PPV R2 = 0.85
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Peak particle velocity (in/sec)
0.5
Figure 16 Ground motion-induced mid-wall responses for trailers
0.9
0.8
0.7
o
-------
1.4
1.2
_ 1-0
8
(A
(1)
(A
I
0.8
One
Q) 0.6
s
0.4
0.2
0.0
• trailers
Olog
Ocamp
D wood frame
155 in/sec/psi
subjected to unusual
11.6 Hzairblast
frequencies
77 in/sec/psi
0.001 0.002
0.003 0.004 0.005
Peak air pressure (psi)
0.006 0.007 0.008
1.4
1.2
.E 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Figure 18 Airblast-induced whole structure response
442 in/sec/psi
x
x
X'D
/ 266 in/sec/psi
• trailers R
* camp R
• wood frame R
O trailers T
O camp T
D wood frame T
Figure 19 Airblast-induced mid-wall response
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Peak air pressure (psi)
57
-------
ground
upper structure S2 —
-2
-2
-0.2
(a)
(b)
ground
upper structure S2
free response
4Hz
2 3
TIME (sec)
(c)
Figure 20 Natural frequency response for stone structure E2S-NM (a) whole structure
and (b) mid-wall horizontal structure response compared with ground motions;
(c) whole structure free response in trailer structure TS-OH prior to airblast
arrival at 4.7 seconds.
58
-------
300
(a)
200-
Q.
E
ro
o: 100-
sesimograph software
NUVIB
sesimograph software
NUVIB
160
v
•a
a.
w
I
120-
80-
40-
\ 'r
4 8
Frequency (Hz)
(c)
sesimograph software
NUVIB
4 8
Frequency (Hz)
(d)
12
16
Figure 21 Upper corner transverse response FFT plots for trailer TS-OH response shown in (a),
comparing the FFT power spectrum using two different software for (b) the entire
time history, (c) segment 1 free response only, and (d) segment 2.
59
-------
-0.8
ground
upper structure S2
0.4
nr
0.8
\
1.2
Time (sec)
nr
1.6
Figure 22 Selection of peaks S2 and V for calculating amplification factors AF
o
<
o
o • o
o <
o o 0 o o
Or, O
• single wide
o double wide
o single wide add-on
• °! •
10 15
FFT GROUND FREQUENCY (Hz)
20
25
Figure 23 Amplification factor versus FFT ground frequency for all trailers
60
-------
o
LL
|3
O
LL
O O
O
0 0 °
• one story log
o two story log
o
i
o
o
• .t
5 10 15 20
FFT GROUND FREQUENCY (Hz)
25
Figure 24 Amplification factor versus FFT ground frequency for all log structures
cc
o
o
I'
o
I2
<
o
o
o
9
o
• concrete block
o adobe
o two-story stone
10 15
FFT GROUND FREQUENCY (Hz)
20
25
Figure 25 Amplification factor versus FFT ground frequency for all earth and masonry structures
61
-------
a:
o
o
I'
o
• one story camp
o two story camp
10 15
FFT GROUND FREQUENCY (Hz)
20
25
Figure 26 Amplification factor versus FFT ground frequency for all camp structures
o
O
LL
|2
<
• one story wood frame
n two story wood frame
o three-story canteliver
% •
10 15
FFT GROUND FREQUENCY (Hz)
20
25
Figure 27 Amplification factor versus FFT ground frequency for all wood-frame structures
62
-------
AS
y
; /
I/
(a)
W
e
(c)
8L
A5
/ S2
S1
S2
*
MW
/ /
(d)
angle between S1 and S2
sum of all strain components along
the wall diagonal
differential displacement
Figure 28 Global structure strains for (a) in-phase and (b) out-of-phase structure motions;
in-plane tensile wall strains are defined in (c), and wall bending strains are shown
in(d)
63
-------
0.030
0.000 -
-0.030
S2 radial displacement (in.)
10
12
14
0.030
0.000
-0.030
S1 radial displacement (in.)
10
12
14
0.03
SOUTH wall absolute value of differential displacement = 0.021 84 in.
wall height = 1 98 in. In-plane tensile strain = 55.1 |a-in./in.
0 1
10 11 12 13 14
(a)
Figure 29 (a) Example calculations for whole structure differential displacement (absolute
values) time history for the radial direction (transverse wall) of structure E2S-NM
64
-------
0.030
0.000
-0.030
S2 transverse displacement (in.)
10
12
14
0.030
0.000
-0.030
S1 transverse displacement (in.)
-*fvY*f}f}l\/^f^^
10
12
14
0.03
EAST wall absolute value of differential displacement = 0.019406 in.
wall height = 198 in. In-plane tensile strain = 49.0 n - in./in.
10
12
TIME (sec.)
14
(b)
Figure 29 (b) Example calculations for whole structure differential displacement (absolute
values) time history for the transverse direction (radial wall) of structure
E2S-NM
65
-------
*
3
S§
RJ .—
5 E
_o ~-
ro
o
E
3
E
'x
100
80
60
40
20
C»
• transverse direction (radial wal
o radial direction (transverse wal
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Maximum ground motion for the same component (in/sec)
1.4
Figure 30 Calculated in-plane tensile strains versus peak particle velocity
5
4-1
O)
120
100
80
60
40
x
re
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Maximum ground motion for the same component (in/sec)
1.4
Figure 31 Calculated wall bending strains versus the corresponding peak particle velocity
for all horizontal components
66
-------
0.15
3
o
Q.
Q.
co
v
Q.
0.1
0.05
52 in/sec/psi
• Blasting (T)
o Wind (T)
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Maximum air pressure (psi)
0.01
n:
-------
APPENDIX I
Structure Layouts and Photographs
68
-------
-0.35 0.0
Master Bedroom
1.75 0.65
Entry
-0.85
Bath
-0.35 1.2 I 195 2'15
TV Room
Kitchen
-0.35 -0.05 -0.05 1.95
5.35 3.05
Bedroom
6.1
3.6
2.45
I
5.05 6.45
Bedroom
2-75 3.05
N
TS-KY2
10ft.
69
-------
TS-KY2
0.8 1.7
Den
-0.3 1.5
0.1 0.0
Bedroom
0.9
1.1 1 —
0.6
Bath
0.7
-0.1 0.2
Bedroom
0.8 0.8
single wide trailer
-1.0 -°-4
Living room
1.3 °-6
•V
-1.5 -1-1
Kitchen
0.0
0.6 -1.2
O
o
-------
-0.4 0.0 0.5
Kitchen Living Room
1.0 0.6
Bedroom
-0.4
1.1
Bath
-0.2
-1.3 -1.7 -1.0 _10
1.0
0.0
Bedroom
0.5 y
-1.4
-0.5 0.0
Master
Bedroom
•±1
-0.8 -0.7
-0.8 -0-5
Bath
-1.0 -1.2
N
TS-AL
10ft.
TS-AL single wide trailer
71
-------
2.0 1-2
Master Bedroom
2.1 1.9
0.2
Kitchen
-1.7 -1.8
0.1 0.0
Living Room
0.8 -0.1
0.0 -0.7
Bedroom
Bath
0.0 0.4
-1.4 -1.4
N
TS-OH
10ft.
72
-------
TS-OH
wide
N
-1)3
-1.1
0.3
Bedroom
-1.2
Closet
-0.1 0.8
Master Bedroom
0.0 0.5 °'8
-°-3
Bedroom
1.5
Bath
J
Kitchen
-2.0 -1.6
\
0 \
TV Room
o _.,
1.5 0.4
Entry room
2.2 1'8
TSA-VA
5ft.
single
trailer
TSA-VA single wide add-on
73
-------
2.4 -2.1
Bedroom
-2 -1.9
1.8 0.4
Bedroom
2.7 1.4
Bath
-0.1 -0.2
0.8
0.2
4.4
-0.7
Kitchen
-0.6
2.9
Living Room
4.8
-1.3
-2 -3.4
Bedroom
0.2 0.4
4.9 3.4
Bedroom
0.0 0.5
N
TSA-KY2
10ft.
TSA-KY2 single wide add-on
74
-------
0.55 o.
75
Master Bedroom
0.65 -0
-0.05 °-06
Bath
0.65 0-35
.15
Closet
Entry
1.05 -0.1
Main Entry Room
-0.1 -0.45
0.0 1.13
Kitchen
0.0 0.0
-0.1
Dining
Area
-0.1 0.0
0.15 -0.05
Bedroom
-0.05
-0.05
0.15 0.25
Bath
0.25 °-66
0.15 0.65
Bedroom
1-«
| Closet
0.05 1-65
Living room
0.45 1.9
N
TD-WV2
10ft.
TD-WV2 double wide trailer
75
-------
-0.1
-0.4
Office
-0.2
-0.1
-0.3 -0.3
Bath
0.1 -0.15 •°-2
-1.1
-1.1
-0.6 °-1 I -0.9 -1.0
Entry
^^~
-0.2 0.4
-0.3
nn
Office
0.1
-0.1
-1.0
-1.?
Kitchen Office
-0.1 -0.3 | -0.8 -0.8
-0.2
Work Area
0.7
0.4
0.8
Entry
0.4
0.3 0.3 _02 -0.3
Office Bath
0.4 0.4 -0.2 -0.5
<^ TD-TN
M
10ft.
TD-TN double wide trailer
76
-------
Bath
Laundry
Closet
Master Bedroom
Dining Area
Computer Area
Bath
Living Room
Bedroom
Closet
Closet
Bedroom
N
TD-PA
5ft.
PD-PA double wide trailer with full basement
77
-------
Kitchen
Entry and Laundry
Sitting Room
-1.7 0.2
N
0.3 0.1
Open area
Computer Area
C1S-AL
5ft.
C1S-AL camp house
78
-------
Closet
-2.5
-3.4
Bedroom
-1.8
-0.15
Bedroom
Bath
1.1
N
-0.7
0.55
0.1
-6.3
-2.0
Kitchen
-2.5
-2.0
-1.3
-1.4
Dining Room
-0.6
-1.6
-0.35
-0.1
0.0
Living Room
-0.1
Laundry
C1S-VA
5ft
C1S-VA camp house
79
-------
C1S-VA (cont.) camp house
80
-------
Front porch
-1.2
-0.6
Living Room
-1.7
0.1
-1.6
0.4
Kitchen
0.5
-1.3
0.5
first floor
-0.5
TV Room
0.9
-1.8
-0.4
-3.7
0.8
Dining Room
-2.2
-4.2
Bath
(rear of house)
N
C2S-KYA Two story camp house
-3.6 -2.0
Bedroom
-3.1 -0.5
-1-8 4.1
Bedroom
-0.1 -0-3
-1.9 -1'4
Bedroom
-1.4 -1.6
o -2.1
Bedroom
-0.9 -1.9
second floor
C2S-KY13
5ft.
81
-------
Closet
Master Bedroom
Entry Room
0.0
Stairway
Living Room
Bath/ Laundry
N
Kitchen
first floor
C2S-KY1 b
5ft.
-1.6 -1.9
Bedroom
-0.8
-0.9
-0.2 -1-3
Bedroom
-1.4
o.o Stairway
N
second floor
C2S-KY1b
5ft.
C2S-KY1B Two story camp house
82
-------
C2S-KY1B Two story camp house
83
-------
-1.1 -1.0
Bath
-0.2 0.9
-2.0
1.6
Kitchen
0.6
-1.1
Master bedroom
-2.1
-2.1
4
N
-0.6
-0.5
tf
N
1.6
0.3
-0.4
0.0
basement
-0.6 -0.1
Dining area
0.0
Living room
0.7
L1S-OH
5ft.
-1.0
-0.7
L1S-OH
5ft.
L1S-OH Traditional log house
84
-------
BHI^^^^MHH
Li
L1S-OH (cont.) Traditional log house
85
-------
.00
-0.9
o.o
-0.5
Front Porch
2.6 -6.6
Living room
3.3 -5.7
^1.75
Bedroom
-1.7
1.0
Kitchen
1.1 -1.4
-0.8
0.4
Bath
-0.3
N
L1S-WV1
5ft.
LS1-WV1 Historic log structure
86
-------
1.9
1.5
1.3
Bath/laundry
0.4
0.9
0.9
1.2
-0.1
Master Bedroom
1.3
0.7 0.5
-0.1
Kitchen/Dining
-1.2
0.9
0.9
Living Room
o.o
N
first floor
L2S-TN
10ft.
1.1
-0.3
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.4
-0.3
0.4
N
second floor
L2S-TN Two-story log house
L2S-TN
10ft.
87
-------
L2S-TN (cont.) Two-story log house
88
-------
Kitchen
Stairway
Great Room
first floor
Bath
Sitting Room
0.3
0.7
Landing
Stairway
N
second floor
L2S-OH
5ft.
L2S-OH Two-story log house
89
-------
Living Room
Stairway
Closet
Master Bedroom
Dining room
Kitchen
-0.8 .0.4
Laundry
Bath
N
first floor
L2S-WV2
5ft.
Open to Living Room below
Stairway
Bedroom
Den
Bath
Closet
Closet
Bedroom
,N
second floor
L2S-WV2 Two-story log house
L2S-WV2
5ft.
90
-------
L2S-WV2 Two-story log house
91
-------
-0.5
-0.1
0.4
Storage
-0.6 -0.6
-1.0
Shop (open area)
o.o
-0.5
-1.0
0.6 0.7
Office
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bath
0.4
0.6
0.7
Entry
0.3
0.5
N
E1S-NMa
10ft.
E1S-NMA Concrete block structure
92
-------
walls 2 ft. thick
-1.8
Bedroom
-1.3
-1.8
Bedroom
-2.6
Stairway
walls 2 ft. thick
-0.8
-0.9
-1.0
-1.6
Hall
Sin.
adobe
interior
walls
walls 2 ft. thick
-1.1
1.9
Living room
-0.6
-1.1
-0.9
-1.5
Dining room
0.0
0.1
-1.4
walls 2 ft. thick
0.3
Kitchen
0.3
Porch
1.1
0.5
2.4
-0.1
Entry
0.7
Bath
0.0
Laundry
«=•
N
first floor
E2S-NM Two-story stone house
E2S-NM
5ft.
93
-------
-1.1 ~1'1
Attic
-1-3 -1.3
-0.5 °-8
Landing
0.8
Stairway
0.5 -0.6
Office
0.2 -1'3
walls 2 ft. thick
second floor
N
E2S-NM
5ft.
E2S-NM (cont.) Two-story stone house
94
-------
Garage
0.4
0.0
-0.2 0.1
-0.5 -1.1
Bedroom
-0.1 -1.4
-1.2 -0.9
Office
-1.6 -2.0
Entry
Cold/dry
Storage
Laundry
1.1
-0.1 -1-1
Master Bedroom
-0.4 -1.1
Closet
Bath
Master Bath
-0.9
-0.7 -0.8
Kitchen
-0.5 -0.9
-0.1
0.0
Dining Area/
Living Room
-0.2
N
Patio
E1S-NMb
10ft.
E1S-NMB Traditional adobe house
95
-------
2.2
1.1
Living Room
0.0
-1.3
Bedroom
Kitchen
1.6
1.6
Bedroom
Hall
0.6
Storage
0.3
-1.2
Bath
-1.2
N
W1S-IN
5ft.
W1S-IN Wood-frame house
96
-------
Closet
0.1
Master
Bedroom
0.1
1.6
0.9
Master
Bath
Bath
-1.4
0.6
Living Room
-0.3
Stairway
-0.3 0.3
Bedroom
0.3 -0.6
N
0.0
Closet
-1.1
Bedroom
-1.6 -0.7
0.6
Kitchen
-1.1 -1.3
Garage
W1S-PA
10ft.
W1S-PA Wood-frame house under construction
97
-------
Bedroom
Closet
Bedroom
Bath
Hall
Kitchen
Living Room
N
W2S-IN
5ft.
W2S-IN Wood-frame house
98
-------
N
first floor
W3S-WV1
5ft.
Living Room
Kitchen
Bedroom
Stairwell
Bath
Closet
Master
Bedroom
N
second floor
W3S-WV1
5ft.
Closet
Stairway
Attic
Closet
W3S-VW1
N
third floor
5ft.
W3S-WV1 Three-story cantilever house
99
-------
W3S-WV1 (cont.) Three-story cantilever house
100
-------
APPENDIX II
Instrumentation Locations
101
-------
Radial
Transverse
Vertical
Mid-wall (R)
TSA-VA
single-wide and
wood-frame add-on
V(up)
ground
1769
mid-wall
1050
S1 -lower corner 1050
S2 - upper corner 1010
S2 = upper corner
(single-wide) 950
to blasting
N
Radial
Transverse
Vertical
Mid-wall (R)
C1S-VA
single-story wood-post
camp house
V(up)
ground
1770
u
S1 - lower corner 930
S2 - upper corner 1258
mid-wall
1258
N
to blasting
102
-------
Radial
Transverse
Vertical
Mid-wall (R or T)
C2S-KY1A
2-story, wood post
camp house
S2 - upper corner
second floor 1050
mid-wall 1010
nn
S1 - lower corner
first floor 1010
mid-wall 1050
I
N
V(up)
ground
1770
to blasting
Radial
Transverse
Vertical
Mid-wall (R)
C2S-KY1B
2-story, wood frame
wood-post and CMU support
mid-wall 930
a
S2 - upper corner, ,—
second floor 930 • i
/2
2-story
section
C
S1 - lower corner,
first floor 1258
mid-wall 1258
(up)
ground
1679
N
to blasting
103
-------
Radial
Transverse
Vertical
Mid-wall (R or T)
TS-KY2
single-wide,
CMU support
u
mid-wall 1050
S1 - lower corner 1050
S2 - upper corner 1010
mid-wall
1010
to blasting
ground
1770
N
\
CH Radial
I I Transverse
I | Vertical
Q Mid-wall (R or T)
TSA-KY2
single-wide, add-on
wood frame, CMU support
S1 -lower corner 1258
S2 - upper corner 930
IZ
mid-wall 930
n
N to blasting
ground
1769
mid-wall
1258
V(up)
r
104
-------
CH Radial
I I Transverse
B Vertical
Q Mid-wall (R or T)
W3S-WV1
3-story, slab floor, wood
frame, upper floors cantilevered
mid-wall 1258
u LJU
c
S1 - lower corner,
first floor
1258
first floor
S2 - upper corner, B *
third floor L
930
P
Crack monitoring v*->1
gage [
third floor
V(up)
ground
* 1769
mid-wall 930
N
dl Radial
I I Transverse
EH Vertical
EH Mid-wall (R or T)
L1S-WV1
one-story log cabin
wood post
V(up)
ground
1770
mid-wall 1010
mid-wall
1050
S1 - lower corner 1010
S2 - upper corner 1050
\.
to blasting
105
-------
EH Radial
I I Transverse
| | Vertical
Q Mid-wall (R or T)
TD-WV2
double-wide
CMU support
mid-wall 930
U
S1 - lower corner 930
S2 -upper corner 1258
R V(up) ground
« • 1769
-i IT
mid-wall
1258
I
to blasting
N
EH Radial
I I Transverse
I—I Vertical
1010
1010 (beam)
S1 - lower and
S2 - upper
Center post
second floor
east wall 1010
west side
1050
rafter
L2S-WV2
2-story log
perimeter wall and
CMU support with mortar
V(up)
ground
1770
to blasting
N
106
-------
1010
Verticals
1050
on ceiling and 11^ Center wall section view looking east
adjacent wall
\
TD-TN
double-wide
CMU support
with strapping
EH Radial
I I Transverse
O Vertical
Q Mid-wall (R or T)
(west side)
mid-wall (bathroom) CH
mid-wall^ 1010
1050
Center (main joint) wall
X
(east side)
Horizontals
wall top and bottom
on centerline wall
(back-to-back) with
identical polarity
V (up)
1770 T t
ground
\"
to blasting
CH Radial
I I Transverse
H Vertical
Q Mid-wall (R)
L2S-TN
log structure
CMU support
second floor
first floor
Wall at roof
Peak 930
mid-wall
930
lower corner at
roof line 930
mid-wall
1258 r
S1 - lower corner
1258 n
ground
1769
to blasting
V(up)
107
-------
CH Radial
I I Transverse
I | Vertical
Q Mid-wall (R or T)
C1S-AL
camp house
CMU interior and
exterior; slab add-on
mid-wall 930
n
S1 - lower corner 930
S2 - upper corner 1258
R
mid-wall 1258
V(up)
ground
-r 1770
N
to blasting
• Radial
I I Transverse
Q Vertical
Q Mid-wall (T)
TS-AL
single-wide
CMU support with
exterior straps
* 0V (up)
R ground
mid-wall 1050 U UlZ
S2 - upper corner
bathroom 1050
S2 - upper corner
kitchen 1010
E mid-wall 1010
T 1769
I
to blasting
108
-------
Q 3-component transducer
L1S-OH
log structure,
poured concrete
basement floor/walls
S1 - lower corner 919
S2 - upper corner 1906
N
to blasting
V(up)
ground
914
CH Radial
I I Transverse
B Vertical
Q Mid-wall (R)
TS-OH
single-wide trailer
CMU piers with
exterior straps
ground
WEST
S2 - upper corner
bathroom 930
Lf
EAST
S2 - upper corner
bedroom 1258
To blasting
109
-------
CH Horizontal (R)
I I Horizontal (T)
Q Vertical
I I Horizontal
1010 T
1010 T D
1050 R
T 1050
SEwall
r
1010 T (top) R Q 1050
1010T(base)
ground
R • 1010
Southeast wall
Centerline SE wall
NE corner
L2S-OH
log structure,
poured concrete
basement
floor/walls
To blasting
v/
INSTRUMENT LOCATIONS
on plan view
110
-------
CH Radial
I I Transverse
| | Vertical
rn Mid-wall (R or T)
mid-wall
1258
S1 - lower corner 930
S2 - upper corner 1258
Zl
n
V(up)
mid-wall 930
TD-PA
double-wide
concrete block basement
N
^ to blasting
dl Radial
I I Transverse
Q Vertical
Q Mid-wall (R or T)
mid-wall
1906
Zl
W1S-PA
Wood-frame
Concrete block basement
S1 - lower corner 1770 (vertical on
ceiling)
S2 - upper corner 1906
n
mid-wall 1770
N
/,
to blasting
1050
ground
V(up)
r
-------
Radial
Transverse
Vertical
Mid-wall (R or T)
E1S-NMB
Adobe
S1 -lower corner 1050
S2 - upper corner 1906
n nn
N
mid-wall
1050
mid-wall 1906
ground
1769
to blasting
V(up)
—f
iund I T
PJ*O T
Radial
Transverse
Vertical
Mid-wall (R or T)
V(up)
mid-wall
1st floor 1258
S1 - lower corner
1st floor 1258 (vertical on ceiling)
S2 - upper corner
2nd floor 930
E2S-NM
Two-story stone
adobe interior
walls on flagstone
wall footings
ground
1770
mid-wall
2nd floor 930
to blasting
N
112
-------
3-component transducer
E1S-NMA
Concrete Block
on 6 in. slab
V(up) R
•
T I ground 110°
to blasting
I
S1 - lower corner 784
S2 - upper corner 787
mid-wall 705
Radial
Transverse
Vertical
Mid-wall(RorT)
W1S-IN
Wood-frame
Concrete block basement
V(up)
T
ground
1769
mid-wall
1258
ri
mid-wall 930
S1 -lower corner 1258
S2 - upper corner 930
to blasting
N
113
-------
I I Radial
I I Transverse
| | Vertical
rn Mid-wall (R or T)
TS-IN
Single-wide
trailer
to blasting
mid-wall
1010
V(up)
ground
1770
T
n n
mid-wall
1050
S1 -lower corner 1050
S2 - upper corner 1010
CH Radial
I I Transverse
O Vertical
r-| Mid-wall (R or T)
W2S-IN
Wood frame
Concrete block
basement
mid-wall [
high 1258 •
mid-wall l
low 930
S1 -lower corner 1258
S2 - upper corner 930
n n
mid-wall
930
to blasting
N
1769
V(up)
114
-------
APPENDIX III
Blast Data, Ground Vibrations, Airblast, and
Structure Vibration Response Summaries by Site
115
-------
ill
Eisl
ill
ill
Eisl
ill
ill
Eisl
ill
Eisl
ill
ill
116
-------
Structure
TS-IN
Shot
Date and Time
08/18/01
12:55
08/18/01
17:33
08/19/01
13:27
08/19/01
16:23
08/19/01
17:27
08/20/01
9:30
distant mine
08/20/01
12:30
08/20/01
12:44
distant mine
08/20/01
16:05
08/21/01
9:52
08/21/01
17:37
08/22/01
15:00
distant mine
08/22/01
17:30
08/23/01
12:58
distant mine
08/23/01
13:00
08/23/01
17:40
08/24/01
12:12
08/24/01
15:48
08/24/01
16:50
distant mine
08/24/01
17:58
Unit
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
Structure
Location
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE nail
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE nail
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEuall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE wall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE wall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEwall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE wall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEwall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEwall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE wall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEwall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEwall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE wall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEwall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE wall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE wall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEwall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NE wall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEwall
Eside
N corner
NWwall
N corner
NEwall
Placement of
Transducer(s)
ground
SllV-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1|V-celing|
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SllV-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-nail
S2
mid-wall
ground
SllV-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SllV-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SllV-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SllV-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SllV-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SllV-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SllV-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
Distance
(ft)
1968
1355
1837
3379
9025
unknown
3480
unknown
844
991
2146
unknown
2660
unknown
1202
920
1595
816
unknown
816
Charge
Weight/Delay
lib)
781
451
584
451
1712
unknown
451
unknown
150
240
1051
unknown
1051
unknown
301
447
330.5
125.5
unknown
128.5
Scaled
Distance
(Mb")
70.4
63.8
76.0
159.1
218.1
163.9
68.9
64.0
66.2
82.1
69.3
43.5
87.7
72.8
72.0
Scaled
Distance
Ift/lb1")
214.2
177.1
220.2
441.5
756.3
454.7
159.1
159.8
211.6
262.2
179.7
120.6
231.1
163.2
162.0
Indiana
Peak
Particle
Velocity
(in/sec)
0.2475
0.275
0.1575
0.0525
0.0375
0.0225
0.0725
0.025
0.265
0.215
0.2175
0.025
0.1125
0.0325
0.2675
0.38
0.1275
0.225
0.0425
0.215
T
(in/s)
0.2475
0.295
0.31
0.555
0.1575
0.165
0.23
1.02
0.15
0.14
0.18
0.74
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.375
0.0375
0.04
0.045
0.065
0.0225
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.0725
0.095
0.115
0.345
0.025
0.035
0.04
0.1975
0.165
0.26
0.84
0.1375
0.175
0.21
1.16
0.2175
0.215
0.24
0.8
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.035
0.1125
0.095
0.17
0.155
0.505
0.0325
0.045
0.05
0.045
0.165
0.15
0.195
0.78
0.37
0.34
0.405
1.24
0.095
0.11
0.435
0.18
0.2075
0.105
0.32
0.135
0.0425
0.06
0.07
0.065
0.215
0.14
0.26
0.16
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
7.5
4
4
17
18.2
11.6
8
25.6
9.1
6.5
8.2
21.3
12.8
15
10.6
21.3
7.3
7.5
3.2
19.6
4.8
4.8
4.7
5.5
13.4
15
11.6
23.2
5.4
5.6
5.4
12.1
10.2
12.1
23.2
19.6
11.6
16
25.6
11.6
4.7
5.9
18.2
5.7
5.1
5.5
5.5
7.6
9.8
11.6
12.1
18.2
4
4.5
4.9
18.2
11.6
16
12.1
25.6
12.1
13.4
8.8
18.2
12.8
13.4
32
10.6
12.8
13.4
21.3
12.8
4.2
4.6
4.6
4.8
14.2
9.8
16
8.5
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
3.4
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.9
6.7
6.7
21.6
3.1
3.1
3.1
21.2
13.2
8.8
8.8
19.3
2.5
4.3
4.2
20.6
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.9
13.8
10.6
10.5
20.9
4.9
4.8
4.9
10.5
4.7
4.7
19.2
11.1
11.6
11.7
26.4
3.1
3.3
3.3
12.9
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.6
3.1
3.1
10.4
10.4
21.2
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.9
10.1
12.3
12.3
20.0
12.0
5.9
5.9
19.4
3.5
3.5
21.7
10.6
10.6
10.8
39.5
11.0
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
12.2
11.3
11.3
11.4
V
(in/s)
0.2025
0.79
0.36
0.14
1.12
0.42
0.083
0.74
0.2
0.05
0.69
0.1
0.025
0.16
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.0725
0.52
0.09
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.245
0.71
0.35
0.1325
1.23
0.33
0.125
0.94
0.33
0.0075
0.02
0.01
0.08
0.54
0.15
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.1775
1.01
0.33
0.2775
1.28
0.61
0.1275
0.95
0.3
0.1625
0.64
0.26
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.1525
0.49
0.18
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
18.2
16
25.6
25.6
15
19.6
15
12.8
18.2
21.3
16
16
18.2
16
17
41
18.2
13.4
21.3
36.5
16
18.2
21.3
15
21.3
15
15
5.3
14.2
15
13.4
4.6
28.4
12.8
13.4
15
21.3
12.8
17
51.2
15
17
36.5
15
15
5.2
16
13.4
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
3.5
16
17
10.8
15.6
17.8
9
9.7
17.8
21.3
13.44
13.8
8.5
14
17.6
3.2
16.4
3.1
18.9
15.4
19
4.9
15.5
4.9
32.9
15.1
10.6
8.81
11.9
20.44
15.6
13.38
4.7
16.3
16
16.3
4.69
18.3
4.8
40.3
16.2
20
7.8
16.3
12.2
40.31
10.9
14.2
10.4
15.2
22.3
4.9
11.4
13.2
9.3
R
(in/s)
0.2025
0.23
0.45
0.275
0.275
0.155
0.475
0.205
0.1575
0.1
0.465
0.18
0.0525
0.075
0.175
0.11
0.0325
0.035
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.035
0.025
0.0575
0.065
0.24
0.085
0.015
0.01
0.045
0.01
0.015
0.265
0.185
0.5
0.255
0.215
0.15
0.575
0.2
0.215
0.45
0.306
0.0225
0.015
0.035
0.01
0.095
0.1
0.12
0.0275
0.025
0.07
0.025
0.2675
0.135
0.525
0.225
0.38
0.33
0.64
0.52
0.12
0.11
0.17
0.88
0.225
0.145
0.2
0.62
0.0375
0.035
0.04
0.05
0.215
0.145
0.21
0.5
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
6.7
6.2
3.9
7.1
16
10.2
8.5
11.1
12
4.3
25.6
11.1
12.8
11.1
28.4
11.6
4.1
4.5
7.7
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.9
3.5
13.4
11.1
25.6
11.6
5.6
5.4
9.8
17
10.6
36.5
11.1
13.4
10.6
28.4
14.2
11.1
28.4
13.4
4.8
5.3
5.6
4.7
13.4
6.9
12.1
4.5
4.6
5.1
5.6
15
10.6
32
10.6
16
10.6
18
11.1
17
14.2
15
23.2
17
11.6
13.4
25.6
4.9
5.2
5
5.5
14.2
12.1
12.1
18.2
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
3.6
3.6
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.7
6.7
13
3.5
10.7
26.4
10.8
4.6
4.6
8.8
13.6
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.3
2.9
2.9
3.1
2.9
18.9
10.4
10.5
12.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.1
4.9
17.6
10.6
4.7
10.6
11.9
12.3
26
12.3
3.5
3.7
3.31
13
4.63
4.6
4.5
4.6
2.9
2.9
10.4
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.9
12
10.3
43
10.3
12.1
12
5.9
12.2
14.9
10.4
10.4
32.4
10.6
9.8
9.81
27.1
4.9
4.9
5
4.9
11.3
11.8
12
12
Airblast
«IB)
120
123
118
114
110
<100
117
<100
119
124
121
<100
116
100
121
124
122
114
nd
114
117
-------
Indiana (cont.)
W1S-IN
W2S-IN
08(18(01
17:33
08119(01
13:27
08119(01
16:43
08119(01
17:27
08COI01
9:30
distant mine
08(20(01
12:33
08(20(01
12:41
distant mine
08120101
16:02
08121101
9:48
08121101
17:33
08C2W
17:30
08123(01
13:00
08(23(01
17:30
08(24(01
12:10
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
SE corner
SE corner
Ewal
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewal
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SW corner
SW corner
Swall
SW corner
Wwall
SW corner
SW corner
Swall
SW corner
Swall
SW corner
SW corner
Swall
SW corner
Swall
SW corner
SW corner
Swall
SW corner
Swall
ground
S2 lower corner
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S2 lower corner
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S2 lower corner
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S2 lower corner
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S2 lower corner
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
Sl(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
Sl(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
Sl(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
Sl(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
Sl(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
Sl(V-crack)
at crack
S2
mid-wall
ground
Sl(V-crack)
at crack
S2-second floor
base wall kit
ground
Sl(V-crack)
at crack
S2-second floor
base wall kit
ground
Sl(V-crack)
at crack
S2-second floor
base wall kit
1439
1906
3438
9219
unknown
3540
unknown
1035
1122
2209
2081
3730
4163
3358
451
584
451
1712
unknown
451
unknown
150
240
1051
1051
301
447
300,5
67,8
78,9
1619
222,8
166,7
84,5
72,4
68,1
64,2
215,0
196,9
193,7
188,0
228,5
449,2
772,6
462,6
195,1
180,9
217,8
205,2
557,6
545,6
502,3
0,2325
0,1825
0,0575
0,0375
0,0225
0,0675
0,025
0,21
0,19
0,1625
0,3
0,07
0,0725
0,0625
0,2325
0,26
0,23
0,47
0,1825
0,205
0,145
0,29
0,055
0,06
0,075
0,21
0,0375
0,055
0,075
0,12
0,0225
0,03
0,03
0,035
0,0675
0,08
0,08
0,22
0,025
0,04
0,05
0,05
0,2025
0,225
0,165
0,465
0,19
0,255
0,15
0,545
0,1625
0,285
0,305
0,68
0,28
0,18
0,25
0,84
0,0575
0,045
0,065
0,06
0,045
0,065
0,045
0,055
0,055
28,4
28,4
6,4
18,2
16
25,6
6,4
14,2
25,6
19,6
8,8
18,2
3,3
3,6
4,7
12,8
4,4
4
4,6
4,5
25,6
12,8
9,4
17
5
5
5,4
12,8
25,6
14,2
7,1
16
13,4
19,6
7,5
15
23,2
25,6
6,7
14,2
17
8,8
9,8
17
14,2
12,1
13,4
15
11,1
12,1
23,2
10,6
19,6
3,7
3,7
6.6
16,8
10,4
10,4
3,6
10,9
4,3
7,2
7,2
7,2
2,5
2,5
4,1
15,9
3,1
3,1
3,1
3,1
19,0
3,5
6,9
10,4
4,9
5,0
4,9
4,9
11,4
11,4
5,0
22,4
10,9
10,9
3,2
15,4
3,4
3,4
3,4
15,8
13,5
5,6
5,6
13,3
12,4
12,4
7,3
15,0
15,0
7,3
5,1
5,1
5,1
0,16
0,18
0,18
0,09
0,12
0,13
0,0325
0,04
0,04
0,015
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,035
0,06
0,05
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,12
0,13
0,13
0,125
0,12
0,12
0,105
0,13
0,14
0,225
0,23
0,2
0,0425
0,06
0,03
0,045
0,06
0,05
0,045
0,06
0,05
36,5
32
36,5
32
32
32
25,6
15
18,2
8,5
9,8
5,2
15
9,1
21,3
6
16
14,2
25,6
42,6
17
23,3
6,2
25,6
25,6
32
36,5
32
32
36,5
28,4
28,4
25,6
28,4
36,5
36,5
36,5
6,63
34,9
34,8
10,2
10,2
10,2
13,9
7,4
7,4
2,31
8,4
8,4
5,7
3
3,1
13,8
10,4
10,4
5,2
4,8
5
7,8
22,3
22,3
10,1
10,7
10,7
9,8
12,4
12,4
30,1
21,5
13,4
28
43
12,4
25,8
14
25,8
29,2
31,3
29,1
0,18
0,13
0,51
0,205
0,1325
0,135
0,44
0,285
0,0575
0,04
0,135
0,08
0,02
0,025
0,075
0,055
0,0075
0,025
0,03
0,025
0,05
0,035
0,19
0,06
0,0075
0,02
0,025
0,025
0,21
0,125
0,485
0,2
0,175
0,1
0,82
0,155
0,1425
0,115
0,365
0,2
0,3
0,14
0,23
0,24
0,07
0,04
0,06
0,05
0,045
0,0725
0,045
0,045
0,05
0,055
0,0625
0,045
0,06
0,05
0,065
28,4
6,2
13,4
6,7
6,9
12,1
8
8,8
14,2
7,3
15
8,8
15
7,5
10,6
9,4
5,2
3,8
3,6
4,9
13,4
3,4
12,1
9,8
5,3
4,6
6
5,8
19,6
9,4
14,2
9,8
21,3
8,5
12,8
8,8
12,1
2,8
12,8
8
15
11,6
16
12,1
21,3
16
16
11,1
25,6
15
14,2
28,4
16
12,8
18,2
12,1
23,2
10,2
18,2
3,8
6,4
6,4
6,44
3.1
3,31
9,3
9,9
8
7,1
7,2
7,2
4,1
4,1
8,4
8,4
2,9
2,9
2,9
2,9
23,5
2,8
10,8
10,4
4,8
4,9
4,9
4,9
10,7
4,6
10,8
10,7
11,3
7,2
11,1
7,2
3,8
3,8
10,8
3,8
13,56
13,4
13,6
13,4
15,4
13
14,8
7,9
14,8
15,3
14
25,8
7,6
15,3
12,9
12,8
7,6
7,6
12,8
117
112
110
<100
116
100
118
121
117
126
110
106
114
118
-------
Kentucky Site 1
Structure
C2S-KY1A
C2S-KY1B
Shot
Date and
Time
11/13/2000
16:01
11/H/2000
11/15/2000
11:18
11/16/2000
9:01
11/16/2000
16:00
11/11/2000
signature
holes
12:15
11/11/2000
12:3«
11/13/2000
11/H/2000
16:20
11/15/2000
11:50
11/16/2000
9:01
11/16/2000
16:00
11/11/2000
signature
holes
12:15
11/11/2000
12:3«
Unit
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1769
SOI
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
Structure
Location
NE corner
NE corner
Euall
NE corner
Nuall
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
Euall
NE corner
Nuall
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
Euall
NE corner
Nuall
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
Euall
NE corner
Nuall
SE comer
SE corner
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
SE corner
Euall
SE corner
Euall
Placement of
Transducers)
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
Distance
TO
4800
2020
2240
2020
5000
2020
5140
2240
1830
2020
Charge
Weight/Delay
(Ib)
684
828
414
1044
936
828
1026
414
936
1044
Scaled
Distance
(Mb's)
183.5
70.2
NOT
110.1
NOT
62.5
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
163.4
70.2
160.5
110.1
59.8
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
62.5
Scaled
Distance
(ftllb"1)
546.0
215.6
TRIGGERED
301.2
TRIGGERED
132.0
TRIGGERED
TRIGGERED
TRIGGERED
TRIGGERED
TRIGGERED
512.3
215.6
510.8
301.2
187.5
TRIGGERED
TRIGGERED
TRIGGERED
TRIGGERED
199.6
Peak
Particle
Velocity
(Msec)
0.030
0.025
0.025
0.045
0.025
0.055
0.020
0.025
0.020
0.065
T
(inls)
0.020
0.015
0.035
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.075
0.030
0.015
0.025
0.060
0.025
0.045
0.025
0.025
0.060
0.025
0.030
0.090
0.010
0.015
0.050
0.020
0.020
0.045
0.015
0.035
0.035
0.090
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
23.2
17.6
16.5
6.4
19.6
13.4
10.2
8.5
24.3
15.0
14.6
4.5
23.2
13.4
13.1
9.1
7.0
14.6
7.0
11.6
8.3
11.9
5.0
8.5
11.3
11.6
10.8
6.6
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
21.3
3.8
19.6
3.8
3.0
3.0
10.9
3.9
14.8
3.6
3.7
3.7
1.8
6.8
9.6
6.0
6.4
7.8
6.3
10.5
9.6
6.1
7.4
7.4
7.2
9.8
6.2
6.3
6.3
V
(inls)
0.015
0.040
0.020
0.020
0.040
0.040
0.015
0.040
0.020
0.045
0.015
0.020
0.020
0.025
0.040
0.040
0.005
0.020
0.020
0.015
0.020
0.020
0.015
0.025
0.040
0.040
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
28.4
20.40
25.6
22.2
11.9
13.1
16.5
11.3
FFT
Frequency
(H:)
21.4
19.2
21.6
2.5
29.2
9.8
2.9
3.6
14.8
2.9
2.5
13.3
13.0
13.1
10.1
14.3
11.0
2.4
6.4
R
(inls)
0.030
0.020
0.015
0.045
0.025
0.025
0.045
0.055
0.025
0.015
0.025
0.040
0.040
0.020
0.020
0.070
0.075
0.070
0.055
0.050
0.170
0.140
0.125
0.020
0.015
0.060
0.050
0.050
0.025
0.025
0.080
0.060
0.050
0.020
0.065
0.060
0.130
0.230
0.205
Peak
Frequency
(H:)
22.2
17.6
20.4
21.3
18.20
12.80
5.50
8.3
222
18.2
4.9
6.6
19.6
8.3
17
13.8
7.3
8.1
20.4
6
8.8
7.1
7.5
15
13.8
13.4
8
7.3
11.9
7.5
10.4
8
12.4
14.6
9.1
5.6
7.5
6.5
6.3
FFT
Frequency
(H:)
18.9
29.3
6.5
19.0
12.9
4.3
4.4
4.4
2.4
4.4
4.5
4.5
2.0
6.5
6.4
9.4
6.8
6.8
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.5
11.0
6.8
6.8
7.1
7.0
10.9
7.5
7.5
5.8
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.4
Airblast
(dB)
106
112
110
121
106
112
106
110
110
120
119
-------
KentuckeySite2
Structure
TS-KV2
TS1-KV2
Shot
Date and
Time
11/20/2000
9:20a
11/20/2000
16:09p
11/21/2000
14:40
11/21/2000
15:35
11/21/2000
16:43
11/21/2000
16:46
11/22(2000
10:14
11/20/2000
9:19
11/20/2000
10:33
11/20/2000
12:25
11/20/2000
13:05
11/20/2000
16:10
11/20/2000
16:47
11/21/2000
14:39
11/21/2000
15:36
11/21/2000
16:42
11/21/2000
16:44
11/22/2000
10:14
Unit
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1770
1050
1050
1010
1010
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
1769
1258
1258
930
930
Structure
Location
NW corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Wwall
NW corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Wwall
NW corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Wwall
NW corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Wwall
NW corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Wwall
NW corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Wwall
NW corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Wwall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Ewall
Placement of
Transducer(s)
ground
S1
mid- wall
S2
mid- wall
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wal
S2
mid-wal
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wal
S2
mid-wal
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wal
S2
mid-wal
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wal
S2
mid-wal
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wal
S2
mid-wal
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wal
S2
mid-wal
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wal
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
Distance
(ft)
2570
1510
1670
1810
3710
2520
2300
2410
4600
3100
2180
1770
2500
1920
1700
3770
2460
2170
Charge
WeightlDelay
(Ib)
183
495
274
211
807
209
678
183
183
234
274
495
211
274
211
808
209
678
Scaled
Distance
(ftllb15)
190.2
67.9
100.9
124.6
130.6
174.3
88.3
178.2
340.0
202.7
131.7
79.6
172.1
116.0
117.0
132.6
170.2
83.3
Scaled
Distance
(Mb1")
453.9
191.3
257.6
304.6
399.4
425.4
262.4
425.2
811.6
504.0
336.3
224.2
420.7
296.2
286.1
405.7
415.3
247.5
Peak
Particle
Velocitv
(inlsec)
0.025
0.090
0.055
0.035
0.035
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.020
0.025
0.080
0.040
0.080
0.070
0.050
0.080
0.040
0.052
T
(inls)
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.045
0.090
0.085
0.145
0.155
0.040
0.065
0.120
0.135
0.015
0.030
0.050
0.125
0.020
0.020
0.025
0.035
0.035
0.030
0.040
0.070
0.030
0.015
0.020
0.050
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.055
0.040
0.025
0.020
0.065
0.015
0.025
0.025
0.030
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.270
0.080
0.155
0.205
0.600
0.030
0.025
0.035
0.055
0.080
0.105
0.150
0.070
0.130
0.180
0.050
0.045
0.065
0.125
0.050
0.025
0.035
0.085
0.020
0.110
0.150
0.265
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
21.3
25.6
28.4
17.6
7.3
7.2
6
25.6
8.2
7.8
7.8
26.90
13.40
12.10
24.3
16.5
15
13.1
20.4
21.3
25.6
20.4
25.6
18.2
22.2
22.2
11.1
20.4
4.4
5.3
18.9
18.200
15.000
6.2
17
21.3
4.600
4.6
13.8
21.3
3.8
3.7
18.2
23.2
5.2
5
20.4
25.4
12.4
5.2
17.6
20.4
4.6
4.7
22.2
4.6
4.6
22.2
4.9
4.1
10.6
18.9
4.5
4.4
16.5
4.6
4.2
13.4
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
15.4
15.63
18.1
31
4.8
7
7
7
23.3
7.44
7.7
7.7
5.50
7.44
7.44
29.3
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.56
21.4
14.8
15.1
13.1
15.13
15
9.13
9.31
18.5
4.38
4.4
4.4
17.5
4.5
4.5
16
20.9
4.25
4.25
12
18
4.38
4.38
4.38
17
4.9
4.94
22.75
17.4
4.600
4.44
4.44
17.8
4.31
4.31
18.25
4.44
4.44
17.7
4.3
4.31
4.31
16
4.5
4.5
4.5
14.56
4.31
4.4
4.31
V
(inls)
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.055
0.080
0.100
0.035
0.060
0.080
0.030
0.040
0.040
0.020
0.020
0.040
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.020
0.020
0.040
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.050
0.040
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.015
0.040
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.040
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.020
0.030
0.060
0.040
0.010
0.040
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.020
0.020
0.040
0.020
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
18.2
8.2
7.6
16
27
13.8
13.40
14.2
22.2
16.5
14.2
9.6
21.3
17.6
28.4
18.9
21
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
2.13
4.88
7.9
7.9
18
7.63
8?
6.75
6.90
8?
2.5
14.4
4.13
15.1
3.5
15.63
9.25
14.8
8.4
16.7
13.13
16.6
3.2
4.5
4.38
4.5
7.75
7.7
7.75
14.8
14.5
17.8
4.2
4
8.38
4.44
4.44
2.5
2.56
15.6
15.6
14.9
4.3
4.44
R
(inls)
0.025
0.015
0.060
0.025
0.060
0.065
0.140
0.085
0.055
0.040
0.100
0.055
0.035
0.030
0.46
0.045
0.035
0.020
0.095
0.055
0.040
0.025
0.090
0.035
0.025
0.015
0.115
0.030
0.040
0.015
0.035
0.010
0.050
0.020
0.050
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.030
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.150
0.020
0.080
0.065
0.140
0.090
0.040
0.015
0.040
0.010
0.050
0.025
0.130
0.030
0.400
0.060
0.055
0.360
0.065
0.550
0.050
0.030
0.065
0.035
0.080
0.025
0.075
0.020
0.040
0.030
0.115
0.030
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
30.1
24.3
24.3
16.5
9.1
7.8
19.6
8
18.2
12.8
21.3
12.8
16.00
13.10
26.9
13.80
20.4
18.9
21.3
18.9
25.6
25.6
24.3
17.6
9.6
13.1
23.2
14.2
21.3
17
14.2
18.2
17.6
14.2
17.6
18.2
13.1
13.8
13.1
19.6
4.8
7.4
7.5
19.6
8.2
8.2
6.3
24.3
19.6
14.2
22.2
7.7
10.2
14.2
16.4
18.2
6.8
10.6
7.5
16
17.6
9.4
6.8
13.4
21.4
20.4
13.4
13.4
23.2
8.6
9.4
10.2
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
15.38
15.3
18.4
14
3.38
7
26.8
7
4.31
3.94
17.3
18.13
8.00
12.30
28.9
9
2.88
2.13
18.6
17.7
15
15
14.9
15
14.1
6.75
24.7
19.3
16.63
6.25
12.4
6.25
17.8
6.44
13.13
6.44
16.5
4.13
12
4.13
16.13
4.4
10.63
5.88
18.9
6.6
6.6
6.63
17.13
4.6
12.75
6.25
17.8
4.38
8.56
4.4
4.3
16.75
4.5
5.94
6.5
4.44
16.9
6.7
6.7
6.7
17
15.13
12.5
6.44
18.8
6.75
6.7
6.75
Airblast
(dB)
106
118
118
117
110
112
114
100
100
110
119
122
106
118
116
110
110
114
120
-------
New Mexico
Structure
E1S-NHB
E2S-NH
Shot
Date and Time
06/22/01
14:20
cast
6/26/2001
3:57
cast
6/28/2001
3:03
pre-split
7/3/2001
1:48
pre-split
07/05/01
3:04
cast
07/17/01
12:51
cast
07/23/01
11:22
pre-split
07/26/01
11:04
pre-split
07/26/01
2:55
cast
06/22/01
14:20
07/05/01
3:04
07/17/01
12:51
07/23/01
11:22
06/26/01
11:04
06/26/01
2:55
Unit
1769
1050
1050
1906
1906
1769
1050
1050
1906
1906
1769
1050
1050
1906
1906
1769
1050
1050
1906
1906
1769
1050
1050
1906
1906
1769
1050
1050
1906
1906
1769
1050
1050
1906
1906
1769
1050
1050
1906
1906
1769
1050
1050
1906
1906
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
1770
1258
1258
930
930
Structure
Location
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
SE corner
SE corner
Ewall
SE corner
Swall
Placement of
Transducers)
ground
81
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
81
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
81
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
81
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
81
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
81
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
81
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
81
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
81
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
ground
S1(V-celing)
mid-wall
S2
mid-wall
Distance
(ft]
5333
5186
4816
4478
4941
4606
4621
5565
4593
3978
3458
2991
2943
3975
2876
Charge
Weight/Delay
|lb)
13047
1708
300
300
9591
11183
300
600
7455
13047
9591
11183
300
300
7455
Scaled
Distance
Ift/lb1s|
46.7
125.5
278.1
258.5
50.5
43.6
266.8
2272
53.2
34.8
35.3
28.3
169.9
229.5
33.3
Scaled
Distance
|ft/lb"]]
227.3
434.9
720.8
670.2
233.3
206.6
691.6
661.2
235.8
169.5
163.3
134.2
440.5
594.9
147.7
Peak
Particle
Velocity
(in/sec)
0.1625
0.0125
0.05
0.05
0.135
0.1425
0.0725
0.105
0.105
0.2575
0.31
0.46
0.23
0.2525
0.21
T
fin's]
0.1125
0.11
0.135
0.185
0.0125
0.01
0.02
0.045
0.05
0.06
0.075
0.075
0.05
0.055
0.06
0.06
0.135
0.11
0.17
0.2
0.1425
0.105
0.22
0.305
0.0575
0.065
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.075
0.09
0.09
0.105
0.09
0.165
0.165
0.1875
0.19
0.39
0.61
1.36
0.3
0.24
0.57
1.09
0.33
0.35
1.24
2.64
0.15
0.19
0.48
1.09
0.2525
0.26
0.97
1.64
0.21
0.23
0.59
1.28
Peak
Frequency
(Hz]
4.7
4.8
4.8
9.4
12.1
6.5
18.2
3.6
4.4
4.3
4.4
3.6
3.8
4
4
5.2
5
6.2
8.8
8.2
5.9
7.7
8.2
4.8
4.1
5
7.3
3.8
3.69
4.1
4.1
5.2
5.6
6.7
7.3
7.1
4.5
19.6
4.4
4.3
8.2
4.5
4.6
4.9
6.5
5.3
4.2
4.1
3.3
3.5
4.5
4.4
3.8
3.8
4.5
3.9
5.8
5.3
4.6
4.5
FFT
Frequency
(Hz]
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
11.2
3.6
4.2
4.2
4.1
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
7.3
7.3
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
3.7
4.0
3.7
3.7
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.3
3.9
4.0
12.9
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
8.4
4.1
4.3
4.3
V
fin's]
0.0875
0.09
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.025
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.103
0.09
0.11
0.1
0.11
0.14
0.0475
0.06
0.06
0.035
0.03
0.04
0.070
0.08
0.1
0.1725
0.47
0.25
0.1375
0.46
0.22
0.225
0.5
0.31
0.1725
0.21
0.24
0.1425
0.23
0.16
0.1075
0.24
0.18
Peak
Frequency
(Hz]
5.8
3.94
9.4
18.2
3.1
4.5
4.8
3.1
6
6.5
7.1
6.4
10.6
9.8
4.7
5.3
5.6
5.4
6.5
6.9
19.6
8.2
9.8
8
11.1
8
10.2
15
9.1
7.7
9.4
12.1
5.2
6.2
5.8
5.8
6.9
7.1
11.1
7.3
13.4
FFT
Frequency
(Hz]
6.56
6.5
3.94
7.44
7.5
7.44
3.38
4.38
3.63
3.38
3.13
3.25
5.2
8.3
8.3
7.25
7.25
7.25
4.56
3.13
4.75
4
3.7
4.1
8
8
8
7.4
9.2
4.13
6.94
17.6
17.9
3.94
3.9
3.94
4
4
7.13
7.2
3.94
7.2
.8.1
8.44
8.4
R
fin's]
0.163
0.13
0.245
0.19
0.013
0.01
0.025
0.015
0.043
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.085
0.045
0.055
0.055
0.133
0.105
0.255
0.165
0.123
0.115
0.275
0.15
0.073
0.07
0.125
0.085
0.105
0.105
0.165
0.13
0.073
0.055
0.19
0.075
0.258
0.22
0.41
0.72
0.31
0.26
0.45
0.59
0.46
0.38
0.63
1.52
0.23
0.26
0.44
1.03
0.183
0.21
0.35
0.71
0.188
0.16
0.32
0.82
Peak
Frequency
(Hz]
6.2
5.5
4.6
5.9
8.8
16
9.8
4
4.1
5.3
4.8
4
4.4
4.4
4.3
10.6
5.3
10.6
7.1
4.4
3.9
7.3
5
4.1
3.8
5.1
4.3
4
4
5.2
4.1
8.5
5.8
11.1
5.1
5.5
5.1
8.2
5.9
12.1
11.1
11.6
5
3.9
4.1
4.5
4.8
4.3
3.7
4.4
4.3
4
4.4
5
4.4
7.5
7.5
6.7
6.2
FFT
Frequency
(Hz]
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.7
16.7
3.8
4.6
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.6
4.3
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.8
8.1
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.4
4.5
8.2
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
Airblast
|dB]
128
112
100
100
117
116
110
106
120
131
117
119
110
106
122
121
-------
122
-------
Ohio
Structure
L1S-OH
Shot
Date and
Time
03/1501
12:32
03/1601
14:42
03/19/01
11:53
03/19/01
15:42
03/20/01
13:03
03/20/01
15:45
03/21/01
16:02
03/22/01
16:16
03/23/01
16:06
03/23/01
16:23
03/24/01
14:02
03/26/01
14:41
03/26/01
16:10
03/27/01
14:36
03/27/01
16:02
03/28/01
14:32
03/28/01
16:23
03/29/01
14:32
03/29/01
16:08
03/30/01
14:38
3/31/2001
14:38
4/2/2001
13:40
04/02/01
15:54
04/03/01
13:36
04/03/01
15:04
Unit
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
914
919
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
914
919
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
914
919
1906
Structure
Location
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NW comer
NWbase
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NW comer
NWbase
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW comer
NWbase
NWtop
NW corner
NWbase
NWtop
Placement of
Transducer(s)
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
ground
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
ground
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
ground
living room
living room
Distance
(ft)
5120
570
580
600
610
640
4900
4900
4300
5000
5100
4020
5160
3970
5300
3900
5540
5420
4790
3650
4790
Charge
Weight/Delay
(Ib)
748
539
306
286
294
304
2694
3254
504
3408
2026
NO
NO
832
4130
546
2056
696
2056
NO
NO
2618
1030
848
1161
Scaled
Distance
(ft/lb"!)
187.2
24.6
33.2
35.5
35.6
36.7
94.4
85.9
191.5
85.6
113.3
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
139.4
80.3
169.9
116.9
147.8
122.2
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
105.9
149.3
125.3
140.6
(Mb1")
565.3
70.2
86.2
91.2
91.9
95.4
353.1
331.6
541.5
333.2
404.1
428.4
322.5
486.7
417.9
441.0
436.8
394.3
475.4
386.5
456.8
Peak
Particle
Velocity
(in/sec)
0.0375
1.17
1.25
0.73
1.13
0.68
0.078
0.06
0.0375
0.095
0.0975
0.05
0.1
0.0425
0.055
0.03
0.075
0.0425
0.0825
0.04
0.0775
T
(in/s)
0.0375
0.015
0.02
1.17
0.51
0.455
1.25
0.54
0.485
0.73
0.225
0.45
1.13
0.41
0.505
0.68
0.263
0.36
0.078
0.0375
0.06
0.06
0.0225
0.04
0.0375
0.015
0.015
0.095
0.05
0.055
0.0975
0.055
0.06
0.05
0.015
0.065
0.1
0.0525
0.065
0.0425
0.0175
0.0475
0.035
0.03
0.0125
0.02
0.075
0.0425
0.115
0.0325
0.02
read
0.0825
0.0325
0.035
0.04
0.0125
0.02
0.0775
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
17
15.5
12.8
00 0
LL.L
23.2
21.3
18.9
18.2
8.9
23.2
25.6
7.6
24.3
24.3
8
23.2
23.2
9.4
16.5
11.3
8.6
16
14.2
11.1
16.5
15
14.6
15.5
12.4
8.6
13.4
12.8
10.2
19.6
17.6
10.2
13.4
12.4
8.9
16.5
17
bad data
10
10.2
bad data
16.5
15.5
12.1
13.4
13.1
8.2
14.6
11.9
cannot read
16.5
14.6
12.4
19.6
14.2
12.4
17
10.8
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
16.9
17.0
8.5
12.8
12.8
8.5
11.5
11.0
7.8
18.3
7.8
8.0
18.3
26.8
8.3
17.8
23.0
6.9
13.8
13.6
8.4
17.6
4.9
8.1
16.8
17.0
8.4
14.1
3.1
8.3
12.5
12.6
8.5
20.6
13.5
8.3
9.3
9.3
8.5
11.4
11.5
9.3
9.3
17.0
11.5
8.0
9.3
9.3
8.0
15.8
7.8
18.3
12.0
10.3
20.1
17.4
8.3
18.3
10.4
V
(in/s)
0.0125
0.0175
0.035
0.56
0.41
0.68
0.38
0.41
0.565
0.26
0.175
0.225
0.32
0.2675
0.385
0.245
0.175
0.275
0.0375
0.035
0.06
0.035
0.025
0.04
0.0075
0.0175
0.035
0.0325
0.06
0.095
0.03
0.0475
0.1
0.0225
0.0275
0.04
0.0325
0.0475
0.095
0.025
0.0275
0.03
0.04
0.0075
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.0325
0.06
0.0175
0.0175
0.02
0.03
0.055
0.0325
0.0225
0.025
0.035
0.075
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
8.3
11.3
13.4
24.3
30.1
36.5
26.9
22.2
30.1
21.3
18.9
34.1
28.4
18.9
18.2
25.6
00 0
LL.L
17.6
17.6
12.4
14.2
13.5
12.8
10.8
18.2
12.1
15.4
9.3
11.1
12.8
12.8
10.8
12.8
23.2
10.6
10.6
11.1
10.4
12.8
19.6
11.9
8
8.2
21.3
15
16.5
14.2
11.2
11.9
9.4
12.1
28.4
15
15.5
28.4
25.6
26.9
25.6
12.1
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
1.9
8.5
8.5
25.3
25.5
25.8
25.1
12.5
12.5
14.8
18.8
25.5
17.8
27.0
13.3
17.8
17.8
27.5
12.9
12.6
14.0
17.4
8.4
8.5
10.5
11.0
14.2
5.5
8.8
8.3
4.0
12.4
12.6
20.1
11.3
8.3
10.0
9.9
9.3
7.8
8.1
8.6
9.0
2.0
8.3
16.0
8.6
9.3
8.5
4.0
7.8
17.8
14.5
14.5
19.8
19.8
19.8
10.4
10.8
R
(in/s)
0.03
0.015
0.02
1.06
0.57
0.455
0.88
0.48
0.385
0.49
0.2425
0.32
0.72
0.36
0.31
0.68
0.38
0.17
0.055
0.04
0.06
0.0525
0.0325
0.06
0.0175
0.015
0.02
0.075
0.0475
0.095
0.0625
0.0375
0.07
0.0425
0.0175
0.045
0.065
0.035
0.075
0.0225
0.015
0.055
0.035
0.015
0.0075
0.015
0.045
0.04
0.09
0.0425
0.03
0.0575
0.03
0.045
0.0275
0.0175
0.02
0.0775
0.065
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
15.5
17.6
13.4
17
30.1
I
18.2
14.2
8.6
16.5
17.6
I.I
20.4
25.4
17.6
18.9
222
8.6
14.2
11.3
9.4
14.6
12.8
7.1
14.6
14.6
10.4
13.8
8.5
1.5
12.1
11.9
7.6
17.6
13.4
9.8
13.1
4.1
8.8
13.8
20.4
5.1
5.5
17.6
32
13.8
11.1
10.8
8.6
10
5.6
13.8
13.4
10.4
18.2
24.3
13.8
12.1
9.3
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
15.8
15.5
8.1
12.8
24.9
1.3
13.5
12.0
8.3
14.5
14.0
8.3
14.3
26.8
8.5
10.4
10.0
8.4
11.0
6.9
8.0
4.8
4.8
8.1
15.4
15.0
8.4
4.8
4.8
8.1
1.3
3.4
9.1
13.8
11.4
8.3
16.3
3.3
8.3
15.4
14.8
14.8
4.8
15.9
16.0
9.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
15.3
3.9
15.3
15.0
8.3
11.3
19.0
8.3
10.4
8.0
Airblast
(dB)
112
129
126
120
124
119
112
116
112
122
122
114
114
112
112
110
110
122
106
114
114
123
-------
Ohio(cont)
L2S-OH
03/16/01
14:43
03/19/01
11:53
03/19/01
15:42
03/20/01
13:03
03/20/01
15:45
03/21/01
16:02
03/22/01
16:16
03/23/01
16:06
03/23/01
16:23
03/24/01
14:02
03/26/01
14:41
03/26/01
16:10
03/27/01
14:36
03/27/01
16:02
03/28/01
14:32
3/28/2001
16:23
03/29/01
14:32
03/29/01
16:08
03/30/01
14:38
03/31/01
14:38
04/02/01
13:40
04/02/01
15:54
04/03/01
13:36
04/03/01
15:04
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
1770
1010
1010
1050
1050
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
So. Corner
NEwall
SE wall
SE wall
SE wall
ground | 1860
=upper(T) A=VT=lower
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
qround
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper (T) A=V T=lowe
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
ground
=upper(T) A=VT=low€
V=base (R)
R=upper A=V T=rafter
V=midwall (R)
1830
r
1830
r
1790
r
1800
r
5180
r
5180
r
4550
r
5280
r
5410
r
4510
r
5550
r
4190
r
5470
r
r
5600
r
4040
r
5840
r
3750
r
5670
r
5790
r
5050
r
3770
r
5040
r
539
306
286
294
304
2694
3254
504
3408
2026
284
1360
832
4130
NO
2056
696
2056
366
2394
2618
1030
848
1161
80.1
104.6
108.2
104.4
103.2
99.8
90.8
202.7
90.4
120.2
267.6
150.5
145.3
85.1
TRIGGER
123.5
153.1
128.8
196.0
115.9
113.2
157.4
129.5
147.9
229.0
272.1
278.3
269.7
268.2
373.3
350.5
572.9
351.8
428.6
687.4
502.1
446.5
341.9
441.5
456.9
460.4
525.3
424.9
421.2
501.2
399.2
480.7
0.34
0.213
0.185
0.235
0.2
0.085
0.0475
0.0425
0.0775
0.07
0.03
0.035
0.0775
0.0875
0.0875
0.0525
0.075
0.0425
0.0475
0.085
0.09
0.045
0.1
0.06
0.165
0.33
0.213
0.16
0.23
0.173
0.11
0.21
0.1675
0.145
0.29
0.165
0.105
0.19
0.085
0.045
0.11
0.0475
0.07
0.0025
0.03
0.0775
0.165
0.0575
0.125
0.0175
0.03
0.0275
0.065
0.0575
0.035
0.0875
0.135
0.0875
ND
0.145
0.0285
0.04
0.075
0.115
0.02
0.03
0.0475
0.085
0.085
0.17
0.0725
0.09
0.045
0.04
0.1
0.11
5.5
20.4
5.8
18.2
7.7
7.7
12.8
8.5
7
16.5
8.3
7.4
16
19.6
6.4
10.6
8.9
5.8
6
NO
6.9
18.9
NO
13.8
6
NO
6.1
9.8
NO
15.5
14.2
NO
10.4
8.5
NO
7
16.5
NO
11.6
9.1
NO
4
7.3
NO
7
18.9
NO
10.8
7.5
NO
5.5
20.4
NO
13.4
4.1
NO
6.4
4.9
NO
5.5
13.8
NO
7.3
18.2
NO
11.9
10.2
NO
10
4.5
4.5
6.0
7.5
7.6
7.4
9.4
9.4
6.0
7.6
7.6
7.6
9.6
9.7
5.7
6.3
5.9
6.3
5.3
DATA
5.3
17.8
DATA
5.9
5.5
DATA
5.5
9.8
DATA
6.2
17.8
DATA
6.6
6.6
DATA
6.6
20.0
DATA
6.2
3.6
DATA
5.8
3.6
DATA
5.8
16.6
DATA
6.3
9.1
DATA
6.1
20.0
DATA
6.1
3.9
DATA
6.1
3.6
DATA
6.2
10.1
DATA
5.9
17.0
DATA
6.0
9.8
DATA
5.9
0.2525
0.3
0.21
0.2
0.23
0.14
0.0875
0.1
0.07
0.1275
0.13
0.13
0.105
0.13
0.09
0.045
0.05
0.04
0.025
0.03
0.0175
0.02
0.0325
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.015
0.01
0.025
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.0275
0.06
0.025
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.0125
0.01
0.0225
0.03
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.03
0.03
0.04
28.4
25.6
30.1
24.3
25.6
28.4
24.3
6.7
25.6
30.1
21.3
21.3
21.3
11.3
21.3
18.9
25.6
25.6
6.8
16.5
19.6
NM
23.2
20.1
13.8
13.4
22.2
NM
4.4
NM
19.6
NM
11.9
11.6
10.8
14.2
14.2
17.6
13.8
10.8
22.2
nm
19.6
NM
5.3
13.1
26.9
30.1
15
23.2
26.9
16
7.8
26.5
27.0
26.0
28.0
17.4
22.9
6.0
6.5
21.4
7.6
21.8
17.6
6.0
17.6
25.8
6.3
12.4
17.5
17.4
13.5
18.9
5.1
5.2
3.9
17.5
13.1
NM
3.5
3.4
20.0
20.0
9.5
9.4
9.5
9.5
16.5
16.6
9.5
9.5
26.8
18.5
7.6
NM
3.8
6.7
26.0
14.4
17.3
17.3
12.9
13.0
0.34
0.29
0.24
0.52
0.525
0.21
0.205
0.235
0.44
0.565
0.185
0.15
0.245
0.43
0.535
0.235
0.21
0.165
0.395
0.375
0.2
0.14
0.115
0.25
0.365
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.105
0.14
0.0475
ND
0.045
0.12
0.0425
ND
0.015
0.055
0.07
ND
0.085
0.155
0.07
ND
0.07
0.16
0.03
ND
0.02
0.035
0.035
ND
0.04
0.09
0.07775
ND
0.05
0.11
0.0675
ND
0.1
0.145
0.05
ND
0.095
0.13
0.0525
ND
0.035
0.1
0.0725
ND
0.08
0.14
0.0425
ND
0.02
0.045
0.03
ND
0.05
0.085
0.0675
ND
0.07
0.15
0.09
ND
0.06
0.18
0.045
ND
0.045
0.11
0.0925
ND
0.07
0.2
12.8
5.5
7.3
6
5.8
15
6.4
7.7
6
7.8
5.9
7.5
6
6.6
8
15.5
6.9
8.1
6.6
5.8
18.9
5.7
9.4
7
9.8
15.5
6.3
14.2
5
9.4
14.2
6.8
11.6
17.6
20.4
17
12.4
5.3
11.1
12.8
8
11.9
17.6
13.4
17
12.1
7.5
11.1
17
9.6
12.1
8.3
8.6
10.2
8.5
6.9
10.8
18.2
12.8
14.6
9.6
8.2
11.3
17
8.5
14.2
11.6
7
9.8
11.1
5.9
11.3
15.5
8.3
12.8
18.9
11.3
15
14.6
9.3
12.4
6.5
6.0
5.3
6.3
6.3
5.3
6.0
5.0
5.8
5.8
5.8
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.0
19.1
7.6
5.4
6.0
6.0
19.4
5.8
11.0
6.3
11.3
11.0
6.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
18.8
5.0
11.8
18.4
6.7
15.9
2.9
6.4
6.4
11.8
6.6
11.4
18.8
6.3
16.0
12.0
6.7
6.7
20.0
7.8
11.2
3.4
3.3
11.3
3.4
6.4
6.4
19.3
6.1
15.9
12.0
6.4
11.8
1935.0
7.2
12.0
4.9
4.9
4.9
3.5
6.5
11.5
12.0
5.4
12.0
18.8
6.3
14.4
12.0
6.6
12.0
121
116
110
114
110
110
112
110
120
117
110
117
112
112
106
110
106
110
112
120
106
114
110
124
-------
Ohio (cent.)
TS-OH
03/16/01
14:43
03/19/01
11:53
03/19/01
15:42
03/20/01
13:03
03/20/01
15:45
03/21/01
16:02
03/22/01
16:16
03/23/01
16:06
03/23/01
16:23
03/24/01
14:02
03/26/01
14:41
03/26/01
16:10
03/27/01
14:36
03/27/01
16:02
03/28/01
14:32
03/28/01
16:23
03/29/01
14:32
03/29/01
16:08
03/30/01
14:38
3/31/2001
14:38
04/02/01
13:40
04/02/01
15:54
04/03/01
13:36
04/03/01
15:04
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
1769
930
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
1769
930
1769
930
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
930
1258
1258
1769
930
1769
930
930
1258
1258
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW comer
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW comer
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
NW corner
west midwall
SE corner
east midwall
ground
R, A(V), T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R,A(V),T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R,A(V),T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R,A(V),T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R,A(V),T
V
R, A(V), T
V
ground
R, A(V), T
V
R, A(V), T
V
ground
R, A(V), T
ground
R, A(V), T
ground
R, A(V), T
V
R, A(V), T
V
ground
R, A(V), T
V
R, A(V), T
V
ground
R, A(V), T
ground
R, A(V), T
ground
R, A(V), T
ground
R, A(V), T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R, A(V), T
ground
R,A(V),T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R,A(V),T
ground
R,A(V),T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R,A(V),T
ground
R,A(V),T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R,A(V),T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R,A(V),T
V
R,A(V),T
V
ground
R, A(V), T
ground
R, A(V), T
V
R, A(V), T
V
1560
1550
1570
1550
1580
5630
5730
5840
5900
6040
6280
6040
6170
5510
5500
539
306
286
294
304
2694
NO
NO
3408
2026
NO
NO
NO
4130
NO
2056
NO
2056
NO
2394
2618
1030
1161
67.2
88.6
92.8
90.4
90.6
108.5
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
98.2
129.7
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
TRIGGER
91.8
TRIGGER
133.2
TRIGGER
138.5
TRIGGER
123.4
120.6
171.7
NO TRIGGER
161.4
192.1
230.5
238.7
233.5
235.4
405.7
381.8
462.7
368.8
476.2
495.1
452.7
448.9
546.9
524.5
0.1825
0.1675
0.155
0.2
0.165
0.05
0.0475
0.04
0.0775
0.095
0.103
0.030
0.055
0.035
0.0475
0.1825
0.14
0.27
0.16
0.28
0.21
0.155
0.145
0.2
0.145
0.175
0.235
0.145
0.135
0.16
0.05
0.075
0.085
0.0475
0.135
0.135
0.0375
0.11
0.155
0.06
0.175
0.075
0.065
0.155
0.075
0.053
0.110
0.035
0.023
0.08
0.06
0.0375
0.155
0.22
0.035
0.035
0.04
0.0475
0.06
0.06
8.2
5.3
5.6
10.4
4.3
4.1
9.1
6.7
6.3
8.3
7.1
6.3
10.4
4.5
5.9
10.4
5.8
5.8
7.8
3.5
5.8
11.3
3.8
8.6
8.2
4.3
5.6
8.3
4
5.2
8.8
4.5
3.7
8.5
3.7
5.4
5.3
3.9
7.7
12.1
9.6
11.3
11.6
9.3
11.1
6.5
4.1
5.1
10.8
3.7
5.0
6.6
4.0
5.3
9.6
4.0
5.1
10.4
3.7
5.1
7.0
4.0
5.4
3.3
3.6
5.3
10.0
3.8
5.4
10.0
3.6
3.3
8.9
3.8
5.4
8.9
3.8
3.3
3.9
3.8
5.6
3.5
3.9
5.3
12.5
4.1
5.6
10.0
3.9
5.5
0.1775
0.3
0.16
0.14
0.33
0.17
0.055
0.32
0.28
0.1125
0.45
0.26
0.065
0.26
0.17
0.025
0.14
0.07
0.025
0.07
0.09
0.02
0.12
0.08
0.02
0.09
0.07
0.0175
0.08
0.1
0.018
0.090
0.090
0.008
0.03
0.04
0.0125
0.08
0.13
0.015
0.09
0.08
0.0175
0.16
0.09
39.3
8.8
12.8
30.1
10.4
11.6
25.6
9.3
8.5
42.6
8.8
8.1
51.2
9.3
8.1
12.4
11.3
7.8
12.4
11.3
10.2
4.1
11.6
10.4
11.6
11.1
10.8
12.1
10.8
8.9
16
9.8
10.2
6.8
13.4
14.2
14.6
8.6
10
18.9
12.1
12.4
12.8
10.8
12.4
5.5
9.1
5.3
28.0
9.3
14.3
5.9
9.3
6.8
8.9
9.5
7.9
6.5
10.0
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.4
4.1
6.6
5.3
3.8
10.1
8.8
9.1
10.0
9.1
8.9
9.9
9.1
9.0
9.5
9.0
4.0
11.4
6.6
3.9
3.9
7.6
12.4
10.1
14.9
12.5
10.1
12.7
0.1725
0.15
0.29
0.16
0.295
0.1675
0.2
0.29
0.155
0.17
0.1525
0.165
0.18
0.135
0.145
0.2
0.235
0.225
0.205
0.225
0.165
0.21
0.225
0.16
0.175
0.0375
0.065
0.075
0.065
0.065
0.045
0.08
0.14
0.08
0.095
0.04
0.06
0.09
0.045
0.07
0.0775
0.095
0.1
0.11
0.105
0.095
0.13
0.125
0.13
0.135
0.103
0.130
0.135
0.115
0.120
0.030
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.090
0.110
0.090
0.090
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.040
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.055
0.06
36.5
5
22.2
5.2
8.6
25.6
6
17.6
6.4
6.1
10.8
7.2
7.6
7.1
7.7
12.8
6.4
6.1
6.6
6
11.3
7.2
24.3
7.4
7.4
11.1
7
6.6
7
7.1
2.8
5.1
18.9
5.2
17.6
10
7
14.2
7.2
13.1
6.8
7.6
7.1
6.5
7
7.5
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.7
8.3
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.3
2.7
6.8
6.3
6.8
7.3
7.5
7
6
6.8
6.9
11.3
9.3
13.1
8.1
8.2
10.8
7.2
21.3
6.7
7.3
4.3
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
8.6
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
7.8
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
6.7
6.6
6.7
8.0
10.1
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
3.4
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
10.5
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
9.0
9.0
8.9
9.0
8.9
9.0
8.9
9.0
8.9
8.9
3.5
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.7
3.5
6.7
3.6
3.6
3.7
12.3
6.6
6.6
6.4
6.6
12.4
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.5
123
4
118
112
116
112
110
120
119
112
106
106
114
122
106
110
125
-------
tatil
Mfc
Sal
Sal
Sill
Sal
Sill
Sal
M
Sill
Sill
126
-------
II
II
i
i
i
i
i
i
127
-------
Structure
TSA-VA
C1S-VA
Shot
Date and
Time
11/06/00
15:58
11/07/00
15:41
11/08/00
15:46
11/09/00
11:56
11/10/00
12:21
11/11/00
13:49
11/06/00
15:58
11/07/00
11/08/00
15:46
11/09/00
11:56
11/10/00
12:21
11/11/00
13:49
Unit
1769
1050
1050
1010
950
1769
1050
1050
1010
950
1769
1050
1050
1010
950
1769
1050
1050
1010
950
1769
1050
1050
1010
950
1769
1050
1050
1010
950
1770
930
1513
1258
1258
1514
1770
1770
930
1513
1258
1258
1514
1770
930
1513
1258
1258
1514
1770
930
1513
1258
1258
1514
1770
930
1258
1258
1514
Structure
Location
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NW corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NW corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NW corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NW corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NW corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NW corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
NE corner
Nwall
NE corner
Placement of
Transducers)
ground
SI
mid-wall
S2
S2
ground
SI
mid- wall
S2
S2
ground
SI
mid- wall
S2
S2
ground
SI
mid- wall
S2
S2 (3-component
ground
SI
mid- wall
S2
S2 (3-component
ground
SI
mid- wall
S2
S2 (3-component
ground
SI
SI (3-component
S2
mid- wall
S2 (3-component
ground
ground
SI
SI (3-component
S2
mid- wall
S2 (3-component
ground
SI
SI (3-component
S2
mid- wall
S2 (3-component)
ground
SI
SI (3-component
S2
mid- wall
S2 (3-component)
ground
SI
S2
mid- wall
S2 (3-component)
Distance
(ft)
1213
1300
1213
1300
1273
1212
1390
1360
1370
1375
1375
Charge
Weight/Delay
(Ib)
337
361
361
313
361
361
337
361
313
361
361
Scaled
Distance
(ftllb112)
66.1
68.4
63.8
73.5
67.0
63.8
75.7
NOT
71.6
77.4
72.4
72.4
Scaled
Distance
(ftllb"3)
174.6
182.9
170.7
191.8
179.1
170.6
200.1
TRIGGERED
191.4
202.2
193.5
193.5
Peak
Particle
Velocity
(inlsec)
0.050
0.030
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.060
0.045
0.045
0.060
0.060
0.045
T
(inls)
0.050
0.040
0.070
0.080
0.030
0.030
0.080
0.085
0.045
0.045
0.110
0.135
0.045
0.050
0.080
0.105
0.045
0.040
0.120
0.130
0.055
0.060
0.090
0.100
0.045
nm
0.040
0.070
0.060
0.045
0.040
0.040
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.025
0.035
0.035
0.065
0.060
0.035
0.045
0.060
0.600
0.045
0.055
0.090
0.080
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
11.9
7.2
8.3
8.9
9.8
7.40
7.50
7.80
9.10
7.20
8.10
8.5
6.8
6.1
6.8
6.4
9.4
8.3
9.8
7.3
12.8
8.1
7.7
6.8
23.2
14.6
10.8
8.6
8.6
8.000
7.4
7.7
7.8
19.6
15.5
5.8
16.5
15.5
19.6
10.6
16
10
7.8
18.2
9.1
8.5
7.5
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
4.88
6.75
6.75
6.75
9.13
7.50
7.50
7.50
9.63
7.00
7.00
6.94
9.13
7.13
7.5
7.5
9.75
7
7.13
7.13
5.88
6
7.38
7.38
9.75
4.75
10.31
10.25
11.75
5.63
5.25
5.69
7.13
19.88
2
7.63
7
7.63
11.5
10.38
5.5
10.5
10.38
5.88
5.880
5.88
6
V
(inls)
0.050
0.080
0.080
0.060
0.015
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.080
0.100
0.060
0.045
0.080
0.080
0.085
0.050
0.080
0.100
0.075
0.060
0.080
0.080
0.075
0.035
nm
0.045
0.060
0.050
0.035
0.060
0.055
0.060
0.055
0.045
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.050
0.035
0.040
0.040
0.060
0.045
0.045
0.060
0.060
0.060
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
11.6
12.8
10.8
13.4
8.6
8.60
14.60
12.40
11.30
12.8
6.8
8.2
7.2
8
11.1
15.5
11.1
10.6
9.8
11.6
10
9.8
14.2
19.6
24.3
24.3
16.5
22.2
14.2
17.6
13.8
14.6
12.4
14.2
13.4
21.3
20.4
21.3
222
7.1
19.6
8.8
9.3
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
12
12
12
11.75
8.5
7.63
7.63
7.88
11.88
11.88
11.88
8.94
8.5
8.25
8.25
8.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
7.13
6
6.13
6.13
6.38
5.38
23
23
23
5.5
5.63
5.63
5.63
5.63
7.88
8.13
7.88
8.88
7.88
5.5
25.25
11.75
5.63
5.5
5.88
6
5.88
5.88
R
(inls)
0.035
0.040
0.145
0.070
0.080
0.020
0.025
0.125
0.045
0.070
0.045
0.050
0.135
0.065
0.065
0.050
0.045
0.245
0.085
0.100
0.030
0.050
0.190
0.075
0.090
0.045
0.055
0.375
0.090
0.105
0.035
nm
0.035
0.070
0.190
0.060
0.040
0.045
0.040
0.060
0.195
0.055
0.035
0.055
0.035
0.070
0.275
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.065
0.310
0.065
0.045
0.070
0.090
0.450
0.085
Peak
Frequency
(Hz)
12.1
8.3
18.2
10.8
10.6
9.6
9.40
18.90
8.80
8.90
10.80
11.10
18.90
9.30
8.9
10.8
15.5
18.2
8.3
8.3
13.1
14.2
17
8.2
9.1
9.4
8.5
7.7
7.8
7.8
23.2
10.6
7.8
9.8
9.1
17.6
17
8.2
8.6
9.6
8.2
19.6
22.2
18.2
8.3
11.1
14.6
222
15.5
9.3
7.7
7.8
9.6
9.6
14.6
7.2
9.6
7.6
FFT
Frequency
(Hz)
8.25
8
20.13
9.25
9.25
8
8.13
9.25
9.25
9.25
8.88
8.88
21.63
9.00
8.94
8.25
8.13
8.25
8.13
8.19
7.75
7.13
21.13
9.63
9.63
6.25
6.13
21.25
6.13
6.38
10.31
10.25
10.13
10.31
10.25
5.63
4.88
5.63
7.06
7.13
5.63
2
22.38
10.38
7.63
12.63
7
9.63
5.5
10.5
10.38
10.5
10.5
5.75
5.88
6.13
10.63
5.88
Airblast
(dB)
119
117
119
119
119
128
118
116
116
119
126
128
-------
Stink
line
Unit
Win
Ptaffllol
tee
m
Mm
Pel
Mtle
o*
Peik
Eiwl
BII
Eiwl
Eiwl
Eiwl
Eiwl
129
-------
West Virginia Site 2
Structure
Shot
Date and
Time
Unit
Structure
Location
Placement of
Transducer(s)
Distance
Charge
WeightlDelay
Scaled
Distance
Scaled
Distance
Particle
Velocity
Peak
Frequency
FFT
Frequency
Peak
Frequency
FFT
Frequency
Peak
Frequency
FFT
Frequency
(ft™)
(inlsec)
(Ms)
(Hz)
(Hz)
(Hz)
(inls)
(Hz)
NW corner
Wwall
mid-wall
0.49
7.25
Nwall
mid-wall
25.0
1769
415
118.3
0.06
0.055
0.05
25.6
16.5
Wwall
mid-wall
0.115
mid-wall
12(5/2000
2600
263.0
0.05
15.5
0.05
Wwall
mid-wall
0.11
13.8
N end-middle
14.25
mid-wall
12(5/2000
1769
2230
261.4
0.06
13.8
15.56
Wwall
mid-wall
N end-middle
0.135
15.3
11.9
11.6
mid-wall
NW corner
ground
16:55
N end-middle
Wwall
mid-wall
N end-middle
15.1
0.03
Nwall
mid-wall
0.055
NW corner
ground
N end-middle
12.8
14.8
0.025
Wwall
mid-wall
Nwall
mid-wall
11.3
NW corner
N end-middle
0.175
Wwall
mid-wall
0.255
Nwall
mid-wall
NW corner
Wwall
mid-wall
13.1
Nwall
mid-wall
11.5
NW corner
ground
upper corner/beam
0.155
13.1
8.13
0.19
11.9
air channel
vertical on rafter
all horizotnal
1050
air channel
7.44
NW corner
ground
415
all horizotnal
upper corner/beam
0.055
0.04
0.055
air channel
vertical on rafter
25.6
all horizotnal
1050
air channel
0.04
19.56
NW corner
all horizotnal
air channel
vertical on rafter
10.8
all horizotnal
1050
air channel
12(5/2000
2110
84.4
0.05
0.025
0.05
15.6
all horizotnal
air channel
vertical on rafter
6.75
all horizotnal
air channel
12(5/2000
2550
264.6
0.015
30.1
4:55
all horizotnal
air channel
vertical on rafter
1050
west wall/first floor
0.055
19.6
11.9
air channel
2510
260.5
0.025
0.02
13.1
0.025
15.1
all horizotnal
air channel
vertical on rafter
1050
west wall/first floor
0.045
10.6
0.04
11.6
6.25
12.3
air channel
452
75.7
0.09
0.09
15.5
15.31
15.5
4:52
all horizotnal
upper corner/beam
0.11
11.3
6.44
air channel
vertical on rafter
1050
west wall/first floor
0.135
12.4
12.5
air channel
NW corner
ground
25.6
upper corner/beam
0.035
0.045
0.035
air channel
vertical on rafter
1050
west wall/first floor
0.045
28.4
0.035
12.8
1050
air channel
130
-------
APPENDIX IV
Typical Waveform Time Histories
131
-------
Appendix IV contains typical ground motion, airblast, and time-correlated structure response
time histories. Data for specific shots were selected based on the largest airblast and significant
ground motion amplitudes resulting the in highest structures responses. These are considered to
be representative "worst case" shot records in this study.
Peak velocities are provided for each waveform. In the case of superimposed waveforms, the
range in velocities provided refers to the peak velocity for each waveform. For clarification, the
reader is directed to Appendix III.
The following table summarized the structure designation, shot data and time for selected time
histories:
Structure
Design
Trailer
Log
Earth and
masonry
Camp
Designation
TS-KY2
TS-IN
TD-WV2
TSA-KY
TS-OH
L2S-WV2
L2S-TN
L2S-OH
L1S-WV1
L1S-OH
E1S-NMA
E1S-NMB
E2S-NM
C1S-VA
C2S-KYIA
Shot date
11/21/00
8/20/01
12/06/00
11/21/00
3/28/00
12/06/00
12/15/00
3/16/01
1 1/29/00
3/16/01
7/26/01
7/26/01
7/26/01
11/11/00
11/15/00
Shot time
15:35
12:30
16:52
14:39
16:23
16:52
12:05
14:43
17:02
14:42
14:55
14:55
14:55
13:49
11:48
132
-------
ground
base structure S1
TS-KY2
*&V*&e<>~*
-------
E1S-NMA
0.33 - 0.275 in/sec
ground
base structure S1
E1S-NMB
0.105 -0.09 in/sec
E2S-NM
0.23-0.21 in/sec
1.5
I
2
Time (sec)
2.5
(c)
ground
base structure S1
C1S-VA
0.055 - 0.045 in/sec
C2S-KY1A
V^^it^^^/^^^
0.025 - 0.02 in/sec
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (sec)
(d)
Figure IV-1 (cont.) Horizontal components of ground motion and lower structure for (c) earth
and masonry and (d) camp structures
134
-------
ground
base structure S1
TS-IN 1.04-0.055 in/sec
TS-OH 0.08-0.0175 in/sec
^^^<^^^
TD-WV2 0.12-0.065 in/sec
0.5
1
Time (sec)
1.5
(e)
Figure IV-1 (cont.) Vertical components of ground motion and lower structure for (e) single and
double wide trailers
135
-------
TS-KY2
TD-WV2
TSA-KY2
LS2-WV2
L1S-WV1
base structure S1
upper structure S2
0.115-0.08 in/sec
0.215-0.175 in/sec
0.15-0.105 in/sec
I
0.5
I
1
Time (sec)
(a)
I
1.5
0.52 - 0.24 in/sec
-^^^C^^^T^^f^
0.035 - 0.025 in/sec
L1S-OH
0.51 - 0.455 in/sec
0.5
I
1.0
Time (sec)
1.5
(b)
Figure IV-2 Horizontal components of lower and upper structure response for (a) manufactured
and (b) log structures
136
-------
E1S-NMA
0.315-0.275 in/sec
base structure S1
upper structure S2
E1S-NMB
0.165-0.09 in/sec
0.59 - 0.23 in/sec
1.5
r
2
Time (sec)
(c)
2.5
base structure S1
upper structure S2
C1S-VA
0.08 - 0.055 in/sec
C2S-KY1A
——-^^^^^
0.03 - 0.025 in/sec
0.5
I
1
Time (sec)
1.5
\
2
(d)
Figure IV-2 Horizontal components of lower and upper structure response for (c) ) earth
and masonry and (d) camp structures
137
-------
ground
upper structure S2
TS-KY2
0.03 - 0.02 in/sec
117dB
TS-IN
0.115-0.0725 in/sec
117dB
-^MAW^^
TD-WV2
0.215-0.085 in/sec
117dB
TSA-KY2
0.15 -0.08 in/sec
118dB
4
Time (sec)
Figure IV-3 Horizontal components of ground motions and upper structure response and air
overpressures for manufactured structures
138
-------
L2S-WV2
ground
upper structure S2
120 dB
0.145-0.125 in/sec
L2S-OH
L1S-WV1
121 dB
0.52 - 0.34 in/sec
116dB
•iW/^^
0.045 - 0.03 in/sec
L1S-OH
—«w*ttH*
129 dB
1.17-0.455 in/sec
*t^*Vo
T
2
nr
4
T
6
Time (sec)
Figure IV-4 Horizontal components of ground motions and upper structure response and air
overpressures for log structures
139
-------
ground
upper structure S2
123dB
E1S-NMB
120dB
0.165-0.105 in/sec
l^ f\/\f*nnl\wfif™^
E2S-NM
122 dB
2
I
4
Time (sec)
\
6
Figure IV-5 Horizontal components of ground motions and upper structure response and air
overpressures for earth, masonry, and stone structures
140
-------
ground
upper structure S2
C1S-VA
126 dB
0.08 - 0.045 in/sec
C1S-KY1A
112dB
0.03 - 0.02 in/sec
r
o
nr
2
nr
4
Time (sec)
Figure IV-6 Horizontal components of ground motions and upper structure response and air
overpressures for camp structures
141
-------
mid-wall
upperstructure S2
TS-KY2
117dB
0.125- 0.03 in/sec
TS-IN
117dB
0.295-0.215 in/sec
TSA-KY2
118dB
n r
2 4
Time (sec)
T
6
Figure IV-7 Horizontal components of upper structure and mid-wall responses and air
overpressures for manufactured structures
142
-------
mid-wall
upper structure S2
L1S-WV1
120 dB
0.72 - 0.145 in/sec
0.525 - 0.52 in/sec
116 dB
0.085 - 0.045 in/sec
. | I u.U8t> - u.U4t> m/sec
WJ^^
\
2
\
4
\
6
Time (sec)
Figure IV-8 Horizontal components of upper structure and mid-wall responses and air
overpressures for log structures
143
-------
mid-wall
upper structure S2
E1S-NMA
123dB
120dB
rf^vAi^ Afy-\iui/vi
0.19 -0.165 in/sec
E2S-NM
122dB
i i r
246
Time (sec)
Figure IV-9 Horizontal components of upper structure and mid-wall responses and air
overpressures for earth and masonry structures
144
-------
C1S-VA
mid-wall
upper structure S2
126dB
0.45 - 0.08 in/sec
C2S-KY1A
r
o
T
2
Time (sec)
112dB
4
Figure IV-10 Horizontal components of upper structure and mid-wall responses and air
overpressures for camp structures
145
-------
APPENDIX V
FFT Frequency Correlation Plots
146
-------
IZUU
1000
g 800
0_
g
< 600
3
g 400
200
n
• S
on
•
•
•
•
r? O
*} • Q
2
«W
tP. °".** „ °" ° ^° °° o °
Q 800
0.
10 15 20 25
FFT frequency (Hz)
(a)
10 15 20 25
FFT frequency (Hz)
g 2000
K
_l
Q.
150°
3
15 20
FFT frequency (Hz)
(b)
Figure V-l Trailer responses for (a) single-wide, (b) double-
wide and (c) wood frame add-on structures in the
transverse direction
(c)
147
-------
1000
UJ
0 800
1—
a.
S
2 6°°
3
g 40°
200
^
^
%•
|I4U o
V*V^ o
* • --^ n
L»i * «
• |VjV • o •
0 5 10 15 20 25
FFT frequency (Hz)
(a)
1000
g 800
I—
0_
< 600
p
5
^
200
0
o
o
o.o
A O Q
..o * • *"o IP
•• • 0
• S2
OIMW
30
• S2
OIMW
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
FFT frequency (Hz)
DUUU
4500
4000
m 3500
Q
J 3000
0.
s
< 2500
< 2000
i
111
01 1500
1000
500
• S2
O
OIMW
O
O
O
•
% °
• °
—
*B o
• o
ft
*• * *
35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3
FFT frequency (Hz)
(b)
1000 -
m
Q 800
t
i
< 600
>
3
% 400
200 -
• S2
O
OIMW
0
O
_ O
• 0
• • ° ° °
0 Q
• O Q
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
FFT frequency (Hz)
(c) (d)
Figure V-2 Transverse structure response for (a) log (b) earth and masonry, (c) camp, and (d) wood-frame structures
148
-------
1200
1000
UJ
0 800
1
1200
B 800
0.
<
UJ
F
3
400
o
8
15 20
FFT frequency (Hz)
10
15 20
FFT frequency (Hz)
25
30
35
(a)
(b)
UJ
Q 800
_
0.
UJ
"J 400
Figure V-3 Trailer responses for (a) single-wide, (b) double-
wide and (c) wood frame add-on structures in the
radial direction
15 20
FFT frequency (Hz)
(c)
149
-------
1000
III
Q 800
H
Q_
HI
1
[JJ 400
200
o
g
• o
U ;^0
• S2
OMW
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
FFT frequency (Hz)
(a)
1000
111
Q 800
t
a!
s
>
3
Ł 400
200
o
•
0
• 0
o
o
o S
0 *. 0 °
o •*% % o
% *
• S2
OMW
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
FFT frequency (Hz)
zouu
2000
111
Q
t
J 1500
S
111
>
5 1000
V
500
0
•
^
^
o
0*
0*
o
• S2
OMW
35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
FFT frequency (Hz)
(b)
izuu •
1000
QJ
Q 800
t
Q.
S
< 600
1—
g 400
200
0
o
.
8a
if o
• 0 Q
"« o°'
^*^ o
35 0 5 10 15 20 25
FFT frequency (Hz)
30
35
• S2
OMW
3
(c) (d)
Figure V-4 Radial structure response for (a) log (b) earth and masonry, (c) camp, and (d) wood-frame structures
150
-------
"o o o
aP— CD °2
rtW
f9 ® °** o 06* o
N 25
u
§ 20
I
t 15
u.
i
o 10
10 15 20 25
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
(c)
Figure V-5 Trailer responses for (a) single-wide, (b) double-
wide and (c) wood frame add-on structures for the
transverse component
151
-------
I
tlM
|
o 10
&
*
• •*** ««• ~
10 15 20 25
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
(a)
10 15 20 25
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
« 20
o-
Ł
t 15
10 15 20 25
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
(b)
10 15 20 25
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
30
I25
u
§ 20
o-
t 15
f
Structui
0
5
O
%
0 .0. •
V
o * •'• 8
• S2
OMW
03 -
30
7T 25
u
S 20
t 15
u_
0>
3
^ 10
4=
tf)
5
n
• S2
oitnw
n
0 0° o 0
0 °
0
•• V • • •
o • • -
•* "b *
(c) (d)
Figure V-6 Transverse structure response for (a) log (b) earth and masonry, (c) camp, and (d) wood-frame structures
152
-------
30
TT 25
u
|20
o-
Ł
t 15
Ł
3
g 10
5
o
0
o °o
o
„
/8 ' ° '•
• 0
•
9
o
O*W Q~
.8 •
» • !• * •
X
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
• S2
OMW
03
30
|25-
U
| 20
o-
Ł
t 15
at
3
o 10
3
3)
5
n .
• S2
OMW
o'fe
0
00 00
• ^
•
tf •• ° •
0
35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
« 20
o-
Ł
t 15
U.
Ł
« 10
(a)
10 15 20 25
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
(c)
(b)
Figure V-7 Trailer responses for (a) single-wide, (b) double-
wide and (c) wood frame add-on structures for
the radial component
153
-------
s; 20
D"
Ł
t 15 H
o
°0>0
10 15 20
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
^ 20
CT
Ł
t 15
10 15 20 25
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
(a)
(b)
a 20
CT
Ł
t 15 H
o
••
10 15 20
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
20
o 10
10 15 20 25
GV FFT frequency (Hz)
(c) (d)
Figure V-8 Radial structure response for (a) log (b) earth and masonry, (c) camp, and (d) wood-frame structures
154
-------
.RESOURCE TECHNOLOGES CORPORAHON
P.O. Box 242, Slale College, Pa 16804-0242 Phone: 814 237-4009 Fax: 237-1769
248 East Calder Way, Suite 302
Effect of Various Valley Fill Restrictions
on the Quantity of Coal Potentially Available for Mining
Introduction
Phase One of the Environmental Mountain Top Removal/Valley Fill (MTR/VF) Impact Technical
Study was designed to estimate the effect of various valley fill restrictions on the quantity of coal
potentially available to conduct mountain top removal operations and other types of mining
throughout the state of West Virginia. The study also correlated the results in West Virginia to
surface mining areas in Kentucky and Virginia. The estimations are based on a Geographic
Information System (GIS) model developed by Resource Technologies Corporation (RTC) using
Maplnfo Professional and Vertical Mapper by Marconi that relies upon the following GIS data sets:
• Regional coal information maintained in the GIS including:
Coal Seam Elevation
• Coal Seam Thickness
Topographic information from the United States Geological Survey's National
Elevation Data set (NED).
. Drainage basin polygons developed by RTC and the West Virginia University,
Department of Resource Management (250, 150,75, and 35-acre basin coverage).
For this phase of the study, mountain top removal operations are defined as:
Surface mining operations designed to mine multiple seams of coal by mining cross
ridge: removing all seams of coal overlying a base seam. The base seam is exposed
(outcrops) above drainage along the sides of the mountain. Stratigraphically higher
seams of coal overlay the base seam. These seams may also outcrop along the sides
of the mountain.
. By mining an entire area, across a ridge line, from coal outcrop to coal outcrop, the
mountain top technique results in the:
Complete removal of a mountain top or portion of a mountain top.
Exploitation of all or nearly all seams of coal overlying and including the
base seam within the mining area.
• Generation of significant quantities of unconsolidated spoil that must be
either returned to the mined area as backfill or placed in adjoining valleys as
valley fill.
To assist in defining the technique, various advantages and disadvantages of the technique are
summarized as follows:
5/7/3 Final page 1
-------
ce Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Mountain top mining is typically used to allow economic recovery of thin coal that
is marginally mineable using other methods.
. By mining multiple seams simultaneously, the operations are designed to minimize
stripping ratios and thus reduce extraction costs. Seams that are individually
uneconomic to recover (too thin or underlying too much overburden) may be
economically captured by mountain top removal operations.
Multiple seam mining enables the operator to blend various coals to create
marketable fuel products. This permits the economic recovery of some coal that may
be individually uneconomic to exploit.
. Mountain top mining is also used to permit more efficient handling of overburden.
Initial overburden is cast into hollows or valleys, creating room for effective mining
at the seam level. Subsequent overburden can then be more efficiently handled and
back-stacked on mined out portions of the mountain.
The technique creates large valley fills and destroys the original contours and
integrity of the original mountain structure above the base seam.
Phase One of the Economic Impact Technical Study was originally designed to estimate the
effect of various valley-fill restrictions on the amount of coal potentially available to conduct
mountaintop removal operations throughout the state of West Virginia. The estimations were based
on a Geographic Information System (GIS) model developed by Resource Technologies Corporation
(RTC) . The production of the Phase output, The steering committee determined that a further effort should
undertaken to provide more specific output and to use more defined input data. As detailed in the paragraphs
below the steering committee identified six issues to be addressed in the expanded effort. In addition, the
steering committee desired to use the GIS output for examination of geospacial environmental concerns. This
report and the associated data files are result of the expanded effort.
Specific Issues and Procedures Requirements identified by the Steering Committee:
The application of the model and a review of its output permitted the technical staff and steering
committee to reconsider and refocus model requirements and expectations:
1. There are additional new data sets available which not available when the modeling effort was
planned and executed. The use of these data may affect the conclusions. These data sets include:
a. Digital elevation data sets with increased accuracy
b. Polygons showing areas of deep mine depletion
c. Polygons showing areas of surface mine depletion
d. Polygons showing area of surface disturbance
e. Polygons showing existing permitted valley fills
f. Polygons showing existing Mountaintop Removal sites
g. Polygons showing proposed Mountaintop Removal sites
h. Geologic data from Kentucky and Virginia
i. Revised coal outcrop, elevation and thickness from RTC efforts
5/7/3 Final page 2
-------
ce Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
2. There is a need to apply the procedure consistently to all "potential" mining types and coal
sources including:
a. Contour strip, highwall auger, conventional auger, and deep mining coals within the
study area but not selected as potential mountain top sites
b. Contour strip, highwall auger, conventional auger, and deep mining coals within the
mountaintop areas that may become available for mining as mountain top sites are
reduced or eliminated by increasing valley fill restrictions
c. Contour strip coal that could augment mountain top recovery from seams below the base
seam of the MTR site but still are above drainage. Coal to be exploited only to the extent
that there is "excess fill space" available in each restrictive scenario.
3. There is a need to apply the procduere or account for the procedure on coals which may become
available from Kentucky and Virginia.
Based on recent discussions with the EIS steering committee (Office of Surface Mining and West
Virginia DEP) a number of issues are to be addressed by rerunning the GIS model using revised procedures and
accessing new data. The new runs will permit estimating on a smaller region basis, more accurate allocation
of past depletion, a more equal treatment of Kentucky and Virginia coal, and more consistent input concerning
alternative coal sources: auger, contour strip, highwall, and deep mining. The following paragraphs address
each issue independently:
Issue #1: Receipt of recently available new data indicates that the earlier procedure used by RTC
may overestimate the quantity of remaining coal resources that could potentially be
exploited via mountain top removal procedures. This issue has yet to be proven. The
committee requires RTC to develop a procedure to consider the now available site-specific
estimates of coal depletion. This effort is intended to better assess the impact of identifiable
previous mining on Mining Resource and Related Valley Fill Area (MRRVF) coal resource
estimations. Specifically, the procedure is to use site-specific historic mining information
(coal depletion) for mines occurring since 1980 (deep mines) and since 1982 (surface mines)
rather than the regional allocation of depletion by seam currently used. OSMRE, EPA,
WVGES, and WVU have provided polygon data concerning the post 1980 mining
information. Regional allocation of pre-1980/1982 mining will still be applied to the tonnage
estimates.
Originally, regional allocation of coal depletion was chosen because of the absence of accurate
statewide historic mining location information. "Mining Resource Areas" were selected
assuming a virgin coal situation. Possible future coal production was reduced by subtracting
a prorated portion of the regional historic production from the future coal production
estimates. (This was completed by seam by county using Division of Labor and Industry
annual reports. Seam names were normalized to standard US Bureau of Mines Bituminous
numerical seam codes.)
By postulating virgin coal, it was assumed that the errors of commission would equal the
errors of omission; that is, there would be just as many over-estimates as under estimates and
on a statewide or regional basis the overall estimate would be acceptable. It was decided that
5/7/3 Final page 3
-------
ce Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
this procedure would 1) remove any bias in the selection of potential "Mining Sites" and 2)
allow the model to select potential "Mining Sites" based on unbiased stripping ratios. This bias
was perceived to stem from the imperfect nature of the known historic mine maps. Using
"virgin" coal allowed for the selection of all possible sites. Regional depletion allowed for the
reduction in coal to be produced. Given the data available at the time, the committee agreed
to this procedure. It must also be noted that the original intention of the effort was to model
the likely proportionate loss of coal related to fill restrictions and not the prediction of actual
sites and tonnages of coal to be produced.
Since the project was initiated, OSMRE has reviewed and accepted polygonal GIS data
(WVGES) depicting depletion of sections of certain seams of coal (Coalburg, Stockton, Five
Block) from deep mining activities in the MTR region. OSMRE has also accepted maps of
surface mine permits dated from 1980 to date and polygons depicting surface disturbance
related to mining from current USGS topographic maps. The committee requires that RTC
use these data to further improve estimates of the available coal tonnages delineated by the
RTC GIS model. This revised procedure will require rerunning the model following the
depletion of specific seams of coal as identified by the new information:
a. Polygons of active surface mining permits and prior disturbed areas will be used to
remove specific sites from consideration prior to model site selection by stripping
ratio. It will assumed that currently active, permitted mine sites will be handled by
some form of exception or "grand fathering" as related to some form of fill
restrictions. Tonnage related to these specific sites can be reintroduced to the
economic model based on legal and economic assumptions not related to the GIS.
b. Polygons of deep mining depletion will be used to remove specific seam segments
from the data-set prior to model site selection by stripping ratio.
c. Pre 1980 deep-mined coal will be subtracted from the tonnage results following site
selection - the same procedure used to date. Pre 1982 surface mined coal will be
subtracted from the tonnage results following site selection - the same procedure
used to date.
d. All previous selection procedures concerning Mountaintop Mining Sites (stripping
ratios, above drainage, crop to crop coal, minimum tonnage, etc.) will still be
implemented.
Note that the polygons of surface mines and disturbed areas do not identify specific seams
mined. It will be assumed that the disturbance removed the top seams and as a result the site
is removed as a potential MTR location - the site will fail by the stripping ratio test. There is
no accurate way to ascertain the specific seam exploited at these sites nor is there a method
to quantify the amount of coal removed at these locations.
Issue #2: Given the recent availability of new data the original procedure used by RTC may
overestimate the quantity of remaining fill sites. Like issue #1, this issue has yet to be
proven. Similar to the coal portion of the model, the model assumed universal availability of
valley sites for fills. As was discussed in the preliminary report, there was no measure
available other than site-specific analysis to ascertain which among valleys "technically"
5/7/3 Final page 4
-------
ce Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
available would be practically available. The existing model makes no such differentiation.
OSM now has available polygon coverage of existing fill sites (post 1982 polygons and pre
1982 point of base of toe). The committee requires that RTC use these data to remove valleys
from the universe of fill sites available.
For the previous effort, RTC used the most recent DEM (30 meters) topographic data available
to estimate overburden quantity and fill capacity. Presumably the DEM data captures
topographic modifications caused by all but the most recent fills and overburden removal
operations. Therefore, the RTC fill and overburden calculations may only be out of date at
these recent locations. However, an examination of the polygon data provided by OSMRE
shows that many of the existing fills are less than 50 acres. These small fills may not be
accounted for in the DEM data. Additionally, OSMRE requires that RTC use the newer
WNED data for the topographic base. This is the topographic base now being used by other
researchers concerned with the project.
To satisfy the committee's request, RTC proposes that the elevation base used for the model
be compared to the fill inventory. If there are significant changes warranted, RTC will use the
polygon map to modify the DEM model used to calculate overburden generated and fill space
available.
Issue #3: The model should provide tonnage estimates of coal and the effect on likely production
of surface mineable coal not included in the identified mountaintop resource areas. It is
necessary to identify additional tons, acres, and fill for coal that has not heretofore been
included in the analysis. This would permit the research team to develop a "consistent" picture
of the effect of fill restrictions across mining types and regions. The effort is needed since
there appears to be no way to correlate the results of the MTR resource areas to non-MTR
(contour only) areas. The areas that do not contain MTR sites are topographically and
structurally different than those that do contain MTR sites. For example, the topography may
be less steep, the hollows may be less deep, the drainage patterns may be different, and the
coal may have greater or lessor dip. Analysis of these areas and comparison of the results to
the MTR resource areas would prove useful to the economic and ecologic impact estimations.
To complete this effort, RTC will use outcrop maps and WNEDs to estimate virgin coal
amenable to 12:1 contour (surface coal) and mining. The coal will be depleted by 1) polygons
of mining activity and 2) regional depletion algorithms(same as currently used on MTR
resource areas). Fill polygons will be constructed for surface contour operations. The model
will be used to analyze the loss of resources related to increasing fill restrictions related to
constrained drainage basin sizes. The model will identify potential non-mountaintop
"mineable" coal resources as follows:
• Contour Mining: minimum 12 inch thickness, 80% recovery, maximum 12:1
overburden/coal ratio (bey/recoverable tons), maximum above seam slope of 33
degrees (no stable backfill possible), and a minimum recoverable clean tons for
operation of 500,000.
• Highwall Mining: on selected stable contour benches wider than 120 feet, minimum
of 42 inch thickness, 33% recovery, and a minimum recoverable clean tons for
operation of 250,000.
5/7/3 Final page 5
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Conventional Auger: on selected stable contour benches averaging 120 feet,
minimum 24 inch thickness, 33% recovery, and a minimum recoverable clean tons
for operation of 100,000.
• Underground Mining: an in-place reserve block exceeding 3,000,000 tons (main
seam), minimum 36 inch thickness, 40-60% mining recovery, 35% prep loss, and a
minimum recoverable clean tons for operation of 750,000, multiple seams at least 100
vertical feet separation. The deep tonnage estimates are seen as "residual" to the
MTM Contour, and Highwall, and Auger coal estimates.
Issue #4: Capture surface mineable coal below the "base seam" of the MTR resource areas. As
discussed by the committee, it would be useful to identify additional tons, acres, and fill for
coal which was not captured by the MTR exploitation. This effort would assume
"maximization" of fill space utilization at each MTR site. Coal would be added to potential
production to the extent the fill could handle overburden (spoil) generated by exploiting
additional coal. Coal would be added to the remaining production as coal is sterilized through
the scenarios as by using outcrop maps and DEMS to estimate virgin coal amenable to 12:1
mining. The coal tonnage would be depleted as follows by: 1) assessing polygons of mining
activity and 2) by the regional depletion algorithms(same as currently used on MTR resource
areas). The model will be used to "integrate" the below-base seam coal into each scenario.
Issue #5: Capture surface mineable coal which could be alternatively mined at the MTR resource
areas if MTR is no longer amenable as an extraction technique. The preliminary modeling
and data production for this has been completed under the existing contract. The model will
inventory alternative potential production from coal removed from the inventory of potential
mountain sites by the regulatory scenarios as follows:
• Contour Mining: minimum 12 inch thickness, 80% recovery, maximum 12:1
overburden/coal ratio (bey/recoverable tons), maximum above seam slope of 33
degrees (no stable backfill possible), and a minimum recoverable clean tons for
operation of 500,000.
• Highwall Mining: on selected stable contour benches wider than 120 feet, minimum
of 42 inch thickness, 33% recovery, and a minimum recoverable clean tons for
operation of 250,000.
Conventional Auger: on selected stable contour benches averaging 120 feet,
minimum 24 inch thickness, 33% recovery, and a minimum recoverable clean tons
for operation of 100,000.
• Underground Mining: an in-place reserve block exceeding 3,000,000 tons (main
seam), minimum 36 inch thickness, 40-60% mining recovery, 35% prep loss, and a
minimum recoverable clean tons for operation of 750,000, multiple seams at least 100
vertical feet separation.
Issue #6: Apply West Virginia results to Eastern Kentucky and northwestern Virginia coal fields.
Two options are available:
5/7/3
Final
page 6
-------
ce Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Apply some statistical or geostatistical measure to estimate Kentucky and Virginia
from West Virginia research.
• Map Kentucky and Virginia Coal fields and apply the same modeling procedure used
in West Virginia to the Kentucky and Virginia situation.
Concerning the first option: A statistical measure based on tons per acre, fills per basin, fills
per ton, topographic province, drainage basin characteristics, (average slopes, streams per
square mile, etc.) or other characteristic(s) may be useful and efficient to compare/correlate
West Virginia results to the other states.
The WVU, Hill and Assoc. and RTC team strongly believes that mapping the KY and VA
resources could prove expensive and time consuming. The technical team is therefore
proposing instead, that topographic, hydrologic, structural, geomorphologic, and/or coal
geology correlations (between regions of West Virginia and similar regions in the adjoining
states) be used to estimate the effects of drainage basis restrictions on coal production in these
states. This will allow the modeling to take advantage of the extensive research completed in
West Virginia and maintain some control of budget and schedule. The project team will use
all available information to analyze and compare regions and subregions in West Virginia to
find correlations between regional topography, regulatory changes and changes in predicted
coal production. These correlations will be used to predict similar changes in similar
provinces in Kentucky and Virginia.
Concerning the second option, OSMRE now has available incomplete KYGS Geologic data
concerning specific eastern seams. The data is for five primary eastern Kentucky coal seams.
In a two phase process:
1) RTC can examine this data to determine compatibility with the model. The data will
also be examined to determine the depth of coverage and the ultimate utility to the
model process. To estimate the total tonnage of coal available and to select sites by
cumulative stripping ratio criteria, RTC will be required to estimate the depth and
thickness of the "less important" seams as they relate to the mapped primary seams.
Stratigraphic interval and thickness will have to be estimated from available
information. (Much of the effort required to construct the West Virginia coal GIS
data base was expended on the interval and thickness estimation from divergent
sources of data. In the case of the West Virginia data, the EIS project has benefitted
from this effort without contributing to its cost.)
2) If the data are compatible and useful, RTC can then estimate the time and cost
necessary to process the model in a similar fashion to the procedures used in West
Virginia.
An initial task would be a trial effort which may or may not result in a complete
mapping/modeling effort.
OSM may be able to produce VA Geologic data concerning specific Virginia seams. Like
the Kentucky situation, if this data is available, RTC will examine it to determine
compatibility with the model. Like the Kentucky data, the Va data could also be examined to
5/7/3 Final page 7
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
determine the depth of coverage and the ultimate utility to the model process. If the data is
compatible and useful RTC can then estimate the time and cost necessary to process the
model.
This second option is really a two phase effort in itself. The first phase of which could take 3
to 4 weeks. Following the initial study RTC would report to the Project manager concerning
the usefulness of proceeding with the Kentucky and Virginia mapping effort and would
propose a budget and time frame. This effort could prove expensive and long.
Recommendation concerning Issue# 6: Based on conversations and planning efforts involving the
research team, option 1 (Issue #6 (a) is the option being proposed for this effort. The effort will
involve team members from RTC, OSMRE, WVDEP, WVU, EPA, and Hill and Associates. RTC will
act as host and moderator of the effort. RTC will produce a brief report covering the results of the
investigation and the recommendations. Following acceptance of the report by the committee and
project manager, RTC will implement the estimating procedures and provide the output by county and
HUC region to Hill and Associates and WVU.
Based on recent discussions with OSM and WV DEP personnel, the following process1 will be tested,
presented to the panel and used as appropriate:
1) Empirical data will be collected as follows:
a) The volume of excess spoil generated per unit weight of coal surface mined can
be calculated for West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia using existing fill inventories
and related historic coal production by mine. This approach uses empirical data to
compare the amount of excess spoil generated per ton of coal surface mined in
sections or topographic/mining provinces of West Virginia to that mined in Kentucky
and in Virginia. Surface mine production statistics are maintained by mine by the
each state's Property and Severance Tax Departments and the Office of Surface
Mining and Reclamation and Enforcement. OSM has developed an GIS inventory
of "as-built" fill polygons. The GIS information includes the permit number for each
fil polygon. The procedure will develop an empirical base to relate fill to coal by
region and by state. The development of the "base" must also address the varying
state requirements which were applied to the fill construction and mining process as
well as the changing fill structure requirements over time. This data may also be used
to estimate differences in economic stripping ratio.
b) General topographic information such as average slope, number of mountain peaks
per unit area, number of streams per unit area, tons of surface mineable coal per unit
area, etc. will be examined.
c) The GIS will be exercised to use this information to demarcate the "boundaries"
of topographic/mining/fill regions.
1 Paraphrased from efforts written by M. Robinson, OSM. and reviewed during December 5, 2001, 8:30 am
phone conversation including: J. Kern, D. Van DeLinde, Paul Rothman, G.Blaylock, Dave Hartos, and Thomas
Mastrorocco.
5/7/3 Final page 8
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
2) The quantity of spoil produced per unit area is related to the tonnage of coal produced per
unit area. Unit are si related to the topography of overlying overburden. The quantity of coal
relates to the aggregate volume of multiple coal seams likely to be recovered by surface
mining methods. The amount of spoil returned to the mined area is affected by operational
techniques and topography. Assuming similar operational techniques, the amount of spoil
material returned to the mined area is greater in less steep areas than in steep areas. The excess
spoil per unit area produced in West Virginia or sections of West Virginia will be compared
to excess spoil per unit area ratio in Virginia and Kentucky (or multiple regions in Kentucky).
The empirical fill data developed above will used to test and adjust these correlations.
Adjustments to the detailed analysis of production-reduction in West Virginia can then be
made by applying a ratio of Kentucky/Virginia excess spoil per unit area numbers to West
Virginia excess spoil per unit area numbers.
For example: If the excess spoil per unit number in West Virginia is 10,000 cubic yards per
acre and 8,000 yards per acre in Kentucky, the production-reduction percentage in West
Virginia is reduced by 80 percent in Kentucky. And so, if under the 150-acre limit scenario,
the production-reduction is 26 percent in West Virginia, Kentucky's production-reduction
number for the 150-acre scenario is 26 percent times 80 percent, which equals to 20.8 percent.
These percentages will be adjusted based on the empirical information, particularly the fill
inventory. The process may follow the following procedure:
1. For the MTM/VF polygons identified by RTC, calculate the affective average
aggregate coal thickness (or volume or tonnage) per unit area under the unconstrained
scenario.
2. For the MTM/VF study area in West Virginia, calculate the average slope. If
warranted, in lieu of the entire West Virginia study area calculate the average slope
for the MTM polygons and adjacent area.
3. The average slope calculated in step 2 represents the base slope. It will be assumed
that the ratio of bulked spoil returned versus bulked spoil not returned used by RTC
in West Virginia (i.e. the 65 / 35 ratio) depends on base slope. Adjustments to this
ratio based on lesser or greater slopes, if warranted will be applied to Kentucky (or
regions in Kentucky) using a similar method. Mining experts should be consulted to
determine what constitutes a reasonable adjustment.
4. Based on OSM's review of AOC and excess spoil placement in Virginia, a
combination of topography and on-bench storage allows 85 percent of the bulked
spoil material to returned on the mine site or existing benches. And so, in lieu of
doing a detailed slope analysis, an 85/15 ratio should be used.
5. Using KYGS and VPI, information, the average aggregate thickness of coal (coal
volume or tonnage) per unit area will be calculated for cumulative MTM polygons
in Kentucky and Virginia. In the case of Kentucky, the average aggregate thickness
can be done regionally if slope regions are identified.
Summary of Data Sources
5/7/3 Final page 9
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Coal Data (Issue #1)
Seamless, statewide GIS coverages for each named seam in the state have been developed by RTC
under contract with the State of West Virginia, Department of Tax and Revenue. Seamless digital
GIS coverage means the coal is mapped in a single projection as a continuous layer, regardless of
political boundaries.
Sixty-one named seams are maintained, the thirty-one seams in southern West Virginia available
for mountain top removal mining are used in this study. Statewide seam name correlations were
developed using the West Virginia Geologic Survey (Blake) revised stratigraphic nomenclature.
Each seam is portrayed by four statewide seamless 30-meter grid coverages: elevation, thickness,
sulfur and BTU. Relating the coal elevation coverages with statewide NED coverages creates
overburden and outcrop grids. More than 300,000 data points are used to develop the coal grid
coverages. These coverages are updated annually. Updates include new data collected by the
Department of Tax and revue from tax returns and tax appeals and geologic map revisions produced
by the West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey. Permission for the use of these data for the
purpose of conducting this study was obtained from the West Virginia Department of Tax and
Revenue.
Sources for the data points include:
United States Geological Survey
• West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey Coal Elevation and Outcrop
Quadrangle Maps
• West Virginia Mine Map Index
County geologic reports
• Coal mine permit documents (West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection)
Coal property owner and coal mine operator annual tax returns including drill core
logs, geologic maps, and mine plans
• U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency reports identifying coal
sources
Other public and private data sources
Average resolution of the coal occurrence data points is five miles. Data can be significantly denser
for some seams in some regions and less dense for other seams in other areas of the state. Specific
elevation attributes are included in approximately 24,000 of the points. Elevation is inferred from
another 40,000 ± points (i.e., surface mine locations, drift mine entries, 1/9 quad sampling from
WVGES structure/contour geological maps).
The elevation points were used to interpolate the statewide elevation grid for each individual coal
seam. Limits or bounds of the interpolation were developed for each seam by known mapped
features such as the Eastern Front of coal occurrence. The elevations of seams represented with only
sparse data were developed from known intervals with underlying and overlying seams with dense
data points: reference datum seams. Nearest neighbor and inverse distance weighting were used to
develop the grid coverages within the interpolation bounds.
5/7/3 Final page 10
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Subtracting the coal elevation from the surface NED grid created coal occurrence and overburden
grids. Negative cells (cells where the interpolated coal is above the surface elevation) are converted
to null value. The result is a series of grids showing the outcrop pattern of the coal along the basic
topographic patterns of the state. The coal occurrence is used to remove interpolated data cells from
the thickness and coal characteristic grids. In 1998, an initial series of seam occurrence, thickness,
and quality maps were produced. Various geologists and coal operators familiar with coal
operations throughout the state reviewed the maps. Interpolation bounds were modified and new
data points were added based on these reviews. This data was used to revise the map output. The
revised set of maps was subj ected to public scrutiny by way of their use for tax assessment purposes.
As a result, where appropriate, interpolation bounds have been modified and new data points have
been added to again revise and correct the map output. This is an annual correction process and has
been completed twice.
Surface Elevation Data
Elevation data for the entire Mountain Top/Valley Fill study area was purchased from the EROS
Data Center. The National Elevation Data set is designed to provide national elevation data in a
seamless form with a consistent datum, elevation unit, and projection.
Drainage Basin Polygons (Issue #2)
RTC and the West Virginia University, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, using
Arclnfo and the NED of the study area, developed various size drainage polygons. The drainage
basin polygons represent the disturbed area due to mining within a watershed. Starting with the
NED grid, a succession of ArcGrid functions were used to create grids that lead to the watershed
polygons:
Flow direction: Creates a flow direction grid that represents which direction water would
flow out of each NED cell.
Flow accumulation: Creates a grid that counts how many cells are 'upstream' of each cell
using the Flowdirection grid. Each cell is assigned the value of the number of cells
upstream.
Convert to point coverage: Create a point coverage of cells from the Flowaccumulation grid
that has the value within the size range of the watershed of interest. For example, to create
the 150 acre drainage basins, if the cells of the NED were one square acre, then all the cells
that have a Flowaccumulation value of 150 would be converted to a point. These points
represent the outlet of a 150-acre watershed. For the MTR process a range of values had to
be used because not every watershed had exactly the correct number of cells. A range of
100-200 acres was used for the 150-acre scenario.
Watershed: Creates a watershed boundary polygon starting at the point coverage and draws
the boundary based on the flow direction grid.
For example, the 150-acre drainage coverage created for the West Virginia Study Area contained
22,174 polygons varying in size from 99.96 acres to 199.96 acres with a mean of 141.17 acres. A
portion of this coverage is shown in Figure 1. In Figure 1, the individual drainage basins are shown
5/7/3 Final page 11
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
as they overlay the natural topography with red being a ridge top and blue being a streambed. As
shown in the figure, the basins vary somewhat in size and define watersheds.
Figure 1: 150 acre disturbed area coverage over NED.
Summary of Procedures
Mine Site Identification (Issue #1)
To more efficiently allocate computer processing time, subsets of the statewide coal coverages were
created. These subset grids (thickness and elevation for each seam at each potential mountain top
mining site) included only coal that occurred above drainage.
Converting the grid extent of the coal into polygons created a set of outcrop polygons. A polygon
represents the extent of each individual block of coal, as shown in Figure 2. The process resulted
in the creation of more than 2232 irregular shaped polygons involving 31 seams in the MTR/VF
section of the state. Polygons ranged in size from less than one acre to more than 30,000 acres.
Polygons less than 5 acres were eliminated as too small to be included in the study.
5/7/3
Final
page 12
-------
ce Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Figure 2: Coal Seam Polygons (Black)
Using the GIS, thickness grids and overburden grids for each seam were sampled by the polygons.
Coal volume and overburden volume for each coal polygon were calculated. Coal volume was
calculated from the thickness grids as cubic meter inches and converted to tons. Overburden volume
was calculated as the total cubic meter feet of material overlying the top of the coal, excluding
overlying coal volume, to the surface and converted to cubic yards. Because the overburden grids
were developed from the NED and the elevation maps, the shape of the mine site was taken into
account.
Concentric polygons were identified, as shown in Figure 3. Each polygon represents an individual
seam at a higher elevation at a multi seam location. Before any environmental or further economic
considerations were applied, a total of 647 polygon sets were created. The number of seams in each
set varied from one to 7. The polygons and related data for each concentric set were stacked in order
of elevation with lowest being the bottom of the stack. Two checks were completed at this point:
1) were the seams in strati graphic sequence, and 2) did the size of the polygon decrease with
elevation (as the higher seams were identified up the mountain). The lowest seam polygon was
designated as the site identifier. Concentric seams were identified by the base seam and a sequence
number suffix.
5/7/3
Final
page 13
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Figure 3: Concentric Coal Outcrop Polygons
Cumulative overburden was calculated for each coal polygon in each set. The calculations were
developed from the highest seam to the lowest seam in each set. Cumulative and individual
stripping ratios were calculated from the same data sets. A stripping ratio is calculated by dividing
cubic yards of overburden by tons of recoverable coal. Recoverable coal is calculated at 70% of in-
place coal. Thus, a data set was created for each mountain top area. An example of the calculations
is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Example of Calculations of Coal Tons and Stripping Ratios
Seam
Surface
Seam 6
Seam 5
Seam 4
Seam 3
Seam 2
Seam 1
Area
(ac)
250
400
1200
1500
1700
2000
Elev. (ft)
1,675
1,560
1525
1500
1450
1400
1300
Thick.
(in)
36
24
20
52
68
30
Tons
945,000
1,008,000
2,520,000
8,190,000
12,138,000
6,300,000
Cumulative
Tons
945,000
1,953,000
4,473,000
12,663,000
24,801,000
31,101,000
Cumulative
Overburden
45,173,000
66,469,000
111,642,000
222,155,000
343,747,000
658,347,000
Stripping
Ratio
48 :1
34 :1
25 :1
18 :1
14 :1
21 :1
*A11 data used on this table is for illustrative purposes only
This table demonstrates the concept of 'Best in Stack.' Notice how the stripping ratio, it is a
cumulative stripping ratio, changes as more seams are added to the mountain top mine. The Seam
1 has a stripping ration of 21:1 while the next seam up has a stripping ration of 14:1. Using Seam
1 as the base seam would fail this site because the stripping ratio is too high. For this reason the
Seam 2 is used as the base seam; it has enough tons of coal and it has an acceptable stripping ratio.
The GIS model was used to identify sets that could technically support mountain top removal coal
mining operations. The selection of sites was based on the following assumptions:
5/7/3
Final
page 14
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
• A site must encompass a minimum of 600,000 short tons of recoverable clean coal
from a recovery rate of 70%. No maximum limit was set.
• The delineated site must have a stripping ratio (cubic yards of
overburden/interburden spoil to tons of recoverable coal) below:
Statewide: 15:1
• McDowell, Raleigh, and Wyoming Counties: 20:1
• All identified coal blocks are above the mean regional base drainage level.
• All identified base seam coal exceeds 12 inches in thickness.
All sites must contain at least two seams.
• Coal located within incorporated towns is not considered as mineable.
• Polygons representing mining since 1981 removed from mineable coal.
After identification of potential sites, the calculated tonnage of mineable coal is
depleted via a 100-year historic production by seam. This reduction for previous
"un-locatable" mining is allocated by county, prorated by the proportion of acres of
the seam contained in the site to the acres of the same seam in the county. The
mined tonnage is doubled to account for sterilization and under-reporting.
Counties are used as units to accumulate coal and basin statistics.
Mountain top areas satisfying the above criteria were selected. A total of 510 mountain top area
polygon stacks were identified (Figure 4). The polygons representing the model mountain top areas
were compared to the location of existing or pending mountain top mines. Model polygons captured
or surrounded more than 90% of the identified existing permitted mountain top mines.
Figure 4: Mine sites in the Mountain Top Area
Valley Fills (Issue #2)
The valley fills are an integral part of the MTR process. The above steps were used to identify
possible MTR sites based on technical mine selection criteria (an unconstrained environmental
5/7/3
Final
page 15
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
scenario). The valley fill analysis introduces environmental constraints on the site selection process.
Four scenarios were analyzed: 250 acre disturbed areas, 150 acre disturbed areas, 75 acre disturbed
areas, and 35 acre disturbed areas. The disturbed area encompasses both the mine and the fill area.
A MTR site passes when there is enough volume available in the potential fill sites surrounding a
mine site to accommodate the excess spoil generated from the mining operation per scenario.
Excess spoil is the spoil that is not back filled on the mine site. To calculate excess fill the original
overburden is expanded by 25% to represent swell. Sixty-five percent of the swollen spoil is back
filled and 35% needs to be deposited in valley-fills. The process used to find the available volume
in the fills surrounding a mine site is described below.
A buffer of 3,000 feet was constructed around the base polygon. This buffer represents a limitation
on fill haulage distance. Adjacent 250, 150, 75, and 35 acre disturbed area polygons (produced by
the process described above) were selected for each mountain top buffer area. To be selected the
polygons had to touch the mountain top area.
The GIS was used to split-off those portions of the drainage polygons outside of the 3,000 foot
buffers, portions overlapping the mountain top mine polygon, and portions across major highways.
Polygons containing incorporated towns, federal and state parks, schools and cemeteries were
eliminated from the data set as well.
Each fill was assigned an elevation of the associated base seam plus 50 feet. This elevation was
used to replicate the back stacking of fill over the mined out area. The GIS was used to calculate
the volume of fill space available between the land surface and the elevation of the polygon. In
addition, the length, height, lowest elevation, and the slope of the ground surface were obtained for
each fill polygon. The volume of each polygon was modified to account for the 27-degree slope of
the fill toe (Figure 5).
50' above of base seam
Ridge Line
Toe
Disturbed Area
I
| Fill Area
Plan View
A1
Base Seam
27 degree max
....-Fill Volume ,,.-
^^^•^^^^•B^^B7 '•'* N
-••"" x
\
50 foot above seam
Profile View
Figure 5: Fill Geometry
The volume in the fills surrounding a mine site was summed to produce the total spoil
accommodation space for the mine. This value was compared to the estimate of valley fill to be
generated by exploiting the coal. If the available fill space (volume in cubic yards available in
valleys to receive fill) exceeded the valley fill to be generated by the potential mine, the site was
identified as capable of supporting mountain top removal operation. If the site failed, the database
5/7/3
Final
page 16
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
for the mountain top area was reprocessed using the next higher seam as a base, enlarging the
available fill spaces, raising the fill elevation (and thus the available volume), and decreasing the
quantity of coal and fill to be stored. In most cases, retreating to the next higher seam was not an
option, since the only way to obtain a suitable overall stripping ratio was usually to include the basal
coal seam. This process was completed for each mine site at each scenario.
Figure 6 shows a MTR/VF mining site. The dark grey area within the red lines represents the entire
area of potential mining activity. The dotted purple polygons represent potential fill areas selected
to meet the 250-acreage limitation. (Note that not ALL potential or available fill space is required
to satisfy the excess spoil demands.)
Figure 6: A mining area with fills
Table 2 summarizes the change in relative fill space availability as the drainage basin limitations
become more restrictive. Figure 7 displays the mine site and the 21 fill sites.
Table 2: Summary of changes in fills space availability as shown in the Example Site.
Fill Site # (clockwise
from top in Figure 6)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Maximum Fill area in acres per scenario
250
62
118
102
97
44
30
150
38
51
150
62
118
102
97
44
30
150
38
51
75
26
59
41
38
13
6
75
10
17
35
13
28
18
17
8
6
35
8
11
5/7/3
Final
page 17
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Fill Site # (clockwise
from top in Figure 6)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Maximum Fill area in acres per scenario
250
18
24
123
132
41
17
122
84
71
19 121
20 71
21 133
Total 1 ,899
Average 86
150
18
24
123
132
41
17
122
84
71
121
71
133
1,799
82
75
2
4
52
56
11
2
46
38
33
46
33
58
741
34
35
r
z.
i
24
26
8
2
21
18
16
21
16
27
365
17
5/7/3
Final
page 18
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
?5D Acre Maximum
M.IMH In
olUasm Included
In MTIt Mine Slle
FID I ill awn
150 Acte Maximum
Drainage Dasin Invalveme-itf
Poitlnn of Basin Inrluded
in Ml K Mine Site
ffllUnnl drawn In scale]
'Ti Atn.1 MaKimum
II raiiiii ge Da»n Involvement
—p=~i^P»nlnii nf BasJu Inctutjcd
ei \ in N1TTC Mine Sile
(nils not d rawn to sralej
8-4
,*Y4
-^P""
'"^
3S Acre Uaxl mum
Bdsln liivufwvmuiil
'"Portion nfDasiri Included
In UTfi Mine Site
Figure 7: Change in fills between scenarios
Table 2 and Figure 7 show that as the drainage basin limitation becomes more severe, the available
fill space is constrained. In the 250-acre scenario, there are 21 potential fill sites available. These
sites offer nearly 1,900 acres of potential fill area. In this scenario, the largest site can provide
approximately 150 acres of fill space; the smallest potential fill site has 18 acres of space. The 35-
acre scenario, in contrast, still shows 21 potential fill sites, however, they provide only 365 acres
of potential fill space, with the largest at 35 acres and the smallest at two acres.
The following images (Figures 8-11) show another mountain top removal possibility. In this case,
where the fills are drawn to scale the number of fill sites changes as the environmental scenario
changes. In the more severe cases there are more fill sites available, but less total volume. At the
250 acre scenario, one large fill my encompass two or three hallows, while at the 35 acre scenario
each hollow will have a separate fill.
5/7/3
Final
page 19
-------
ce Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Figure 8: 250 acre scenario with 21 possible fill sites.
Figure 9: 150 acre scenario with 21 possible fill sites.
5/7/3
Final
page 20
-------
ce Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Figure 10: 75 acre scenario with 37 possible fill sites.
Figure 11:35 acre scenario with 49 possible fill sites.
5/7/3
Final
page 21
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Summary of Results
The quantity of available fill volume is calculated for all potential mountain top mining areas
identified in West Virginia. Available fill volume is used to determine the viability of each selected
mining operation, i.e., if there is sufficient space to receive the valley fill generated by the model
mine then the tonnage of coal available at the site is counted in the regional totals. This calculation
is made for each selected mountain top mining area for each scenario. The procedure provides an
estimate of coal obtainable at each mountain top mining site and thus the entire state. Previous
production and current permitted production was subtracted from the coal available from each seam
after the calculation of stripping ratios. There are no existing digital maps to accurately deplete all
historic coal resources at specific sites before 1981. Therefore, the stripping ratios were calculated
based on estimated tonnages of virgin coal. Tonnages for each seam were reduced for final
reporting by depleting a prorated share of all known historic production within the municipal district
and all existing permitted production by specific site through 1999.
As shown below in Figure 12 and Table 3, the addition of drainage basin size limitations for land
disturbance significantly affects the total quantity of coal which may potentially be produced by
mountain top removal operations.
Relative change in coal tonnage per scerario
100
90
.
.5 80 -
'ro
I 70
ra
o
O
a 60
50
40
30
20
Unconstrained
250 Acre 150 Acre
Disturbed Area Size
74 Acre
35 Acre
Figure 12: Potential Coal Available
Table 3: Overview of Effect of Basin Constraint
Total Tons
Unconstrained
1,111,223,494
% Change from Unconstrained
250 Acre
919,512,131
-17.25%
150 Acre
852,829,517
-23.25%
75 Acre
600,324,203
-45.98%
35 Acre
252,053,489
-77.32%
As shown above, imposing size limitations even at 250-acre drainage basin size reduces available
coal by nearly 20%. Potential tonnage is further reduced at the 75-acre drainage basin limitation.
5/7/3
Final
page 22
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
This is because a significant portion of a 75-acre drainage basin is included in the mine itself and
thus is not available for fill. In addition, as the fill space size is reduced (the potential fill site is
moved up the valley toward the mine site), the height of the toe is reduced. The space available is
shallower and no longer capable of storing large quantities of fill. However, at the 75-acre level
some new small hollows with some capacity for fill are now available. These hollows were the
lateral sides of the larger fill area developed for the 150 and 250-acre scenarios.
As shown in Table 3, available tonnage is severely limited at the 35-acre level. More significantly
than in the 75-acre scenario. A large portion of a 35-acre drainage basin is included within the mine
itself and thus is not available for fill. In addition, the remaining space available tends to be very
shallow and not capable of storing significant quantities of fill.
It must be emphasized that the GIS model includes all available fill sites, regardless of ownership
or other environmental and cultural conflicts. Many of the sites would not necessarily be chosen
in the real world mine planning process. This factor tends to create an overestimation of the sites
and thus the tonnage available. It is thought that this factor becomes more significant as the
drainage basin constraint is made more severe. In the 35-acre case, nearly all available space is
being used to sustain the residual production. In the 250 and 150-acre scenarios, less than 10% of
the available space is actually used for valley fill.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) commissioned a study with
selected mine operators to assess the impact of drainage basin limitations on potential coal
production at specific mine sites. This effort resulted in similar predictions of coal loss at the all
restriction levels. Although the results were similar there are some distinct differences between the
methods:
The GIS model selects all possible sites to deposit fill. Some of these sites may be
inappropriate for numerous reasons unidentified in the GIS database. These fill sites
may not have been selected during the empirical study. In the large drainage basin
scenarios, there is generally enough excess fill capacity available in numerous sites
that differences in selection criteria are not a factor. At the smaller drainage basin
level, additional fill sites identified through the GIS (and discounted in the empirical
study) may offer enough space to satisfy the fill requirements.
• The GIS uses all potential fill sites, regardless of size. Numerous small fill sites may
divide enough available space to keep marginal mine sites in the study.
• The GIS treats all potential fill sites equally, regardless of distance from the actual
spoil production. The GIS criterion is that the fill sites are within 3,000 feet of the
mine site. The GIS mine site may be thousands of acres; fill generation may actually
occur significantly further than 3,000 feet from the GIS fill site. In the empirical
study, the mine sites are most likely smaller subsets of the GIS mountain top mine
areas. As a result, the empirical study mine sites may not be contiguous or have
large enough fill sites to be feasible. This factor can only be exacerbated at the 35-
acre basin level.
The empirical study can be seen as starting from the same topographic and coal base
as the GIS study. Because the study is based on real world conditions such as land
5/7/3 Final page 23
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
ownership, mine planning requirements, coal transport requirements, etc., the
empirical study can only add constraints to the selection and percent use constraints.
The empirical study by definition cannot add potential fill sites to the selection
process. Because the GIS study is based on decreasing the size of fills to fit into
drainage basin constructs, the addition of criteria can only exacerbate the coal loss.
These factors do not invalidate the GIS study. The portion of the study was designed to examine
the statewide effect of fill space limitations on the quantity of coal available for mining. The GIS
study was not designed to provide site specific mine planning. Site-specific mine planning will
always reduce the results of a GIS study of this scope. The GIS study does provide solid evidence
concerning the trend of coal reduction resulting from the environmental limitation.
A data file, by potential mountain top site, listing: tons, sulfur, volatility and Btu by seam and county
name was provided to Hill and Associates for econometric modeling purposes and is included in the
Appendix I. Each polygon is a separate record in the data file. The sites are located in 14 counties
and involve 31 different named coal seams. Gannet Flemming, another contractor to the EPA on
the MTR/VF project received map layers of each scenario for their analysis. Their analysis relies
on the amount of area that is disturbed by the MTR process. Mine site, fill site and alternative
mining (discussed below) polygons were included.
Fill Site Optimization (Issue #2)
After an examination of the results, it was observed that for most passing MTR sites there was an
overabundance of fill volume: more fill space than spoil. Another section of the Environmetnal
Impact Statement for MTR/VF relies on the map footprints of the mine sites and fills. An
overabundance of fill sites would lead to a larger disturbed area than necessary. For this reason RTC
used two separate methods to optimize the fill space (Table 4). The first method used the biggest
fills first. The second method placed fill in the head of each fill and moved out until the excess spoil
was accommodated. Polygons for these two scenarios were delivered to Gannet Flemming for use
in their analysis.
Biggest to Smallest
The biggest to smallest method utilizes the fills with the largest volume capacity first until all spoil
is accommodated. This scenario simulated dumping spoil into the biggest fills around a mine site
until all of the spoil is deposited. This means some of the smaller fills around the mine site were not
used if they were not needed.
Use a Little of each Fill
The many little fills method places spoil in each available fill, moving concentrically outward until
all spoil is accommodated. In this scenario spoil was deposited equally in each fill around the mine
site. This simulates placing a spoil in the headwaters of each fill.
Table 4: Fill Optimization Results
| Original Fill Acres] Biggest to Smallest Acres] Many Little Acres
5/7/3 Final page 24
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
35 Acre Scenario
75 Acre Scenario
150 Acre Scenario
250 Acre Scenario
43,270
105,862
187,882
247,764
15,076
38,693
64,291
74,111
27,013
60,173
86,434
103,749
Notice that both methods lead to a much smaller disturbed area than using all possible fills.
Surprisingly, the biggest to smallest method is considerably smaller than the many little acres. This
is because the many little acre method used fill space near the mine site where there is little volume.
The biggest to smallest method used the entire original fill, so it went further out into the valley for
more volume.
Alternative Mining Sources (Issue #3, Issue #4, Issue #5)
The entire mountain top region was analyzed with respect to strip mining, auger mining and deep
mining. These types of mining augment the total amount of coal that can be mined in each mountain
top scenario. When a mountain top mine fails, alternative mining sources are implemented. The
tonnage for each type of alternative mining changes with each scenario because the alternative
mining methods are implemented in areas where a mountain top site cannot be used. For example,
there is more coal mined with alternative methods in the 35-acre scenario than in the 250-acre
scenario. This is because alterative mining methods were used at MTR sites that were included in
the 250 acres scenario but failed in the 35-acre scenario.
Strip Mining
The GIS was used to identify possible strip (contour) mining locations throughout the entire state
for the 31 coal seams investigated. Criteria included 12 inch coal thickness, a 12:1 stripping ratio,
maximum surface slope of 33 degrees, 80% recovery and 500,000 in-place tons. After discussions
with the steering committee's coal industry representative, Barry Doss, strip mine sites within 200
feet horizontally and 100 feet vertically were combined. This leads to more sites reaching the
500,000 ton criteria. The result is 'snakes' around mountain sides (Figure 13).
5/7/3
Final
page 25
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Figure 13: Strip (Blue) and Auger (Black) Mining
Auger Mining
Auger mining was analyzed everywhere where a viable strip operation was identified (the strip mine
is used as the bench for the auger mining). Highwall mining and conventional auger mining was
combined into one step as per discussions with Barry Doss. To mimic auger mining the GIS was
used to calculate the tonnage of coal 600 feet into the mountain at a 35% recovery rate. The site had
to have at least 250 ,000 clean recoverable tons and be 24 inches thick (Figure 13).
Deep Mining
The GIS also was used to simulate deep mining the entire state (Figure 14). A deep mine site had
be below 200 feet of overburden, above the regional groundwater table, have coal at least 36 inches
thick, and 750,000 clean tons at a recovery rate of 40% and prep loss at 35%. Previous deep mining
polygons from the OSMRE were removed for the possible identified deep mines. Seams had to
have 100 ft of interburden between them to be mined. For example, if seam 1 was 75 feet above
seam 2 and seam 2 was 75 feet above seam 3, seams 1 and were mined, but seam 2 was not mined.
5/7/3
Final
page 26
-------
ce Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Figure 14: Deep mine (Red) with strip and auger mining
Figure 15 and Table 5 show the total tons available when using all mining types.
2,000,000,000
1,750,000,000
1,500,000,000
1,250,000,000 -
I/)
g 1,000,000,000
750,000,000 -
500,000,000
250,000,000 -
0
Unconstrained
Potential Coal Available
250 Acre
150 Acre
Scenario
75 Acre
35 Acre
•Mountain Top • Strip A Auger X Deep
-Total
Figure 15: Tons per Mining Type
Table 5: Coal available (Tons)
Unconstrained
250 Acre
150 Acre
75 Acre
35 Acre
Mountain Top
1,111,223,494
919,512,131
852,829,517
600,324,203
252,053,489
Strip
121,992,908
126,112,714
126,112,714
138,018,552
150,609,016
Auger
64,368,028
66,179,035
66,179,035
68,994,421
74,098,458
Deep
644,800,391
654,725,113
656,815,960
674,484,688
724,357,250
Total
1,942,384,821
1,766,528,993
1,701,937,226
1,481,821,865
1,201,118,213
5/7/3
Final
page 27
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Correlation between West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia (Issue #6)
The relative effects of the environmental restrictions on coal mining in West Virginia were applied
to Kentucky and Virginia on a countywide basis. Because an extensive coal database was not
available in Kentucky or Virginia the GIS analysis was not appropriate. Similar attributes had to
be found between the counties of all three states to apply the results from West Virginia to the other
two states. Attributes investigated included number of mountain tops, average slope of the
topography, variance of slope, number of streams, and stream segment length. The reasoning behind
this analysis is that counties with comparable features would have similar results with respect to
MTR/VF environmental restrictions. For example, a county in Kentucky with the same number of
mountain tops as a county in West Virginia may be expected to lose the same percentage of
mineable coal between environmental scenarios.
To find the appropriate attribute to use as the link between the states, a correlation between the
physical landscape of West Virginia and the MTR/VF results had to found. After many attempts
to find an empirical relationship, the best relationship found that explains coal reduction between
environmental scenarios is Landscape Slope Variance Coefficient. Landscape Slope Variance
Coefficient represents the amount of change in the slope of the mountains per county. This factor
had the highest positive correlation with respect to the MTR/VF scenario results. This implies that
counties in Kentucky and Virginia with similar slope variance coefficients as counties in West
Virginia would have the same relative changes in MTR/VF results as West Virginia.
Conclusions
As environmental constraints become more restrictive the amount of mountain top mining coal is
severely limited. Strip, auger and deep mining can augment mountain top losses due to regulations,
but only on a limited basis; the mountain top mining methods dominates the potential coal tonnage
available in West Virginia. The results of the relative changes in mountain top mining in West
Virginia due to regulations may be applied to Kentucky and Virginia on a countywide basis.
5/7/3 Final page 28
-------
Technologies Corporation
www.rersourcetec. com
Appendix I: Results reported to Hill and Associates
5/7/3 Final page 29
-------
Final Report
Contract No. 68-R3-01-04
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Project: Economic Impact of Mountain Top Mining and Valley Fills
Environmental Impact Statement
Contractor: Hill & Associates, Inc.
OMB Clearance No. for Progress Reports: 2030-0005
Date: December 12, 2001
I. Background
This work was performed to provide assistance required by the U.S. EPA Region III to
support the development of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to assess
the impacts of mountaintop mining and valley fill practices in sub-regions of West
Virginia, eastern Kentucky and Virginia, as defined by the EIS Steering Committee.
In December 1998, Federal agencies and environmentalists agreed to a partial settlement
of a lawsuit by the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and several coal field residents
against the WV Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Under the agreement, the EPA, the Office of Surface Mining, the
Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with WVDEP,
agreed to develop a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to assess the impacts
of mountaintop mining and valley fill (MTM/VF) practices in Appalachian coal fields
and to evaluate a range of changes to regulatory requirements and practices.
This work is part of a three-phase study to evaluate the economic impacts of regulatory
changes for the mining industry. Phase 1 examines the impact of proposed regulatory
changes on the amount of mineable coal reserves. Phase 2 uses these results to estimate
the market impacts on coal prices, coal production, electricity generation and electricity
pricing. Phase 3 addresses the total direct and indirect impact on the economies of the
three eastern states included in the study.
Work on Phase 1, under a separate EPA contract, was performed by Resources
Technology Corporation (RTC) of State College, Pennsylvania, to calculate coal reserves
in West Virginia and the impacts of any regulatory restrictions on the amount of coal
mineable with mountaintop mining and valley fill techniques. After completion of their
West Virginia analysis, RTC extended their effort to include the coal reserves in eastern
Kentucky and in Virginia and above-drainage reserves outside of mountaintop mineable
sites. The portion of RTC's results which pertained to mountaintop mining sites became
input to the effort by Hill & Associates, Inc. (H&A) of Annapolis, Maryland, which is the
-------
subject of this Final Report for the Phase 2 work. H&A analyzed the implications of
those regulatory restrictions on the markets for coal mined in West Virginia, eastern
Kentucky and Virginia, as well as the implications on coal and electricity prices.
II. Methodology
In this study, H&A used its proprietary database of coal mine operations and costs, its
integrated Coal Forecasting System and National Power Model, data produced by RTC as
described above, and its professional expertise in coal and energy markets to conduct the
analysis of regulatory impacts on the selected coal markets and energy prices. H&A
produced a baseline forecast with its models for each year in the period 2001-2010. This
same time period then was again forecasted for each scenario of potential MTM/VF
regulation. It is important to note that this current work includes the impacts of only one
variable, the restriction of valley fill watershed size. Any other potential changes to the
economics of surface mining in the study area are not included in this study.
II. A. Assumptions
The baseline forecast was under an assumption of pre-lawsuit status quo with regard to
Central Appalachian mining regulations. However, changes in utility plant air emission
regulations were allowed to occur according to the scenario approved by the EIS Steering
Committee. These changes include the implementation of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ground-level ozone and for fine particulate matter. Specifically, the
modeling assumed the following post-1998 structure of air emission environmental
regulation of electric power plants:
• Title IV Phase II SO2 and NOX standards starting in 2000
• EPA 19-state (formerly 22-state before court relief granted for MO, WI and
GA) NOX SIP Call effective in 2005 (assuming further delay beyond 2004)
• NAAQS fine particulate standards represented as 50% reduction in SC>2 from
Phase II levels beginning in 2008
• No CC>2 limits during the time frame of this study
Holding this year-by-year pattern of air emission regulations consistently the same across
mining scenarios, H&A conducted an assessment, across four alternate mining regulatory
scenarios, of changes from the base case in supply conditions in five mining sub-regions
of West Virginia, four sub-regions of eastern Kentucky, and one region representing
Virginia. Those sub-regions are shown in the figure below:
-------
Figure 1 - Sub-Regions of the Study (With Power Plants)
Coopel
River
The four alternate scenarios in addition to the Base Case are:
• Limiting valley fills to 250 acres watershed size
• Limiting valley fills to 150 acres watershed size
• Limiting valley fills to 75 acres watershed size
• Limiting valley fills to 35 acres watershed size
Using the supply changes provided by RTC from Phase 1, H&A then modeled the coal
and electricity market implications of the four alternate regulatory scenarios using its
integrated Coal Forecasting System and National Power Model.
RTC provided H&A with a database, which contained an estimate of recoverable coal
reserves for each potential mountaintop removal site in West Virginia. In situations
where a given site was mineable across a county boundary, the amount of coal in each
county was calculated separately. RTC also provided an estimate of how much these
reserves would be reduced for each of the four restricted mining scenarios.
In order to apply these numbers from RTC to H&A's existing database of coal
production, reserves and mining costs, we calculated the percentage reduction for each
mining case on a county by county basis. We then adjusted the reserves and production
figures in our supply database downward by the same percentages, on a county by county
basis in West Virginia. H&A did not interview individual coal producers to ascertain
their estimates of reserve reductions on specific properties. The following table shows
-------
the calculated reduction percentages by West Virginia county. It shows the remaining
fraction of each county's surface reserves after portions are rendered unmineable by the
proposed MTM/VF restrictions.
Table 1 - West Virginia County Reduction Impact
COUNTY
BARBOUR
BOONE
BRAXTON
CLAY
FAYETTE
GREENBRIER
KANAWHA
LINCOLN
LOGAN
MCDOWELL
MERCER
MINGO
NICHOLAS
POCAHONTAS
RALEIGH
RANDOLPH
SUMMERS
UPSHUR
WAYNE
WEBSTER
WYOMING
STATE
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
Remaining Fraction of Surface Reserves
(Not Rendered Unmineable by MTM/VF)
250 Acre 150 Acre 75 Acre
1.000
0.995
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.913
0.128
0.766
1.000
1.000
0.786
0.994
1.000
0.380
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.332
1.000
0.633
1.000
0.922
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.913
0.128
0.554
1.000
1.000
0.781
0.976
1.000
0.380
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.332
1.000
0.663
1.000
0.703
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.415
0.111
0.272
0.850
1.000
0.505
0.801
1.000
0.380
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.332
1.000
0.633
35 Acre
1.000
0.277
1.000
0.602
0.118
1.000
0.119
0.075
0.088
0.360
1.000
0.218
0.390
1.000
0.182
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.247
0.797
0.073
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that deep-mineable coal reserves were not
affected by the hypothetical mining restrictions. However, in practice, deep mines in the
study region typically feed raw production to a preparation plant for cleaning, and the
reject material is often deposited in a nearby valley. The EIS Steering Committee
instructed that coal refuse disposal associated with deep mining is not a part of this study.
RTC did not have the same detailed mapping capability in Kentucky and Virginia as it
did in West Virginia. Therefore, RTC compared the topography in the coal producing
counties of those states to the counties in West Virginia and supplied H&A with a table
of comparable counties. H&A used these comparisons and made the same
production/reserve reductions for counties with similar slope characteristics. The
-------
following table shows the coal producing counties in Virginia and Kentucky and the
counties in West Virginia with similar topographic characteristics.
Table 2 - Similar Eastern Kentucky and Virginia Counties
County
Bell
Breathitt
Clay
Dickenson
Floyd
Harlan
Jackson
Johnson
Knott
Knox
Laurel
Lawrence
Lee
Leslie
Letcher
Magoffin
Martin
McCreary
Morgan
Owsley
Perry
Pike
Pulaski
Rockcastle
Whitely
Buchanan
Lee
Russell
Scott
Tazewell
Wise
State Similar WV County
KY Braxton
KY Webster
KY Wayne
VA Webster
KY Clay
KY McDowell
KY Raleigh
KY Wayne
KY Boone
KY Fayette
KY Raleigh
KY Wayne
KY Raleigh
KY Boone
KY McDowell
KY Kanawha
KY Lincoln
KY Raleigh
KY Wayne
KY Nicholas
KY Clay
KY Mingo
KY Raleigh
KY Fayette
KY Raleigh
VA Boone
VA Raleigh
VA Nicholas
VA Fayette
VA Nicholas
VA Nicholas
At the sites where RTC determined that mountaintop mining would not be feasible in the
four restricted cases, RTC also calculated the tonnage of coal reserves that could be
recovered by three other methods including: continuous-miner deep mine, contour strip,
auger/highwall miner. These reserves were "added back" to the supply database as
possible new mines. The hypothetical opening of these mines was delayed two years to
account for engineering and permitting.
The mining cash operating costs on a per ton basis for active mines in our original
database were held constant as the production and reserve values were reduced for each
scenario. For the reserves that could be recovered by other methods, we assigned the
average costs for active mines for each type of mining in each county.
-------
In order to compare mining regulatory scenarios on both a risk-adjusted basis as well as
an unadjusted basis, H&A ran two separate versions of the Base Case. One Base Case
version used a "standard" 10% Return on Investment (ROI) criterion for investment in
new coal mining capacity, while the other Base Case version used the same 15% ROI
criterion that the MTM/VF regulation-affected scenarios used to reflect higher capital
investment risk under a more aggressive regulatory environment.
II.B. The Models
The flow diagram in Figure 2 summarizes the actual modeling system that H&A uses to
develop coal demand, supply and price projections, along with the electricity generation
and electricity pricing associated with these coal projections.
Figure 2
Hill and Associates, Inc.
Electric Generation, Coal and Emissions Forecasting System
Strategies for
• SO2
•N°x
• Participates
GDP
Weather
Electric Intensity
ational Power ModeF
• Dispatch Economics
• 90+ Control Areas
Seasonal/TOD Prices, Flow & Gen.
Regional Emission Limits
• SO2, CO2, NO
Transmission
i-Directional Simultaneous Flows
Seasonal Limits
Time-of-Day Rates
Generation
Cost Supply
Models
New Build
Gas & Oil
Forecast
Coal Plant Energy Demand
Unit Info
Transp. Rates
Compliance
Costs
Coal Supply Curves
Cash Cost by Mine
All Regions
By Coal Type
Utility Fuel
Economics Model
• Fuel Switching
Clean-up Equip Choices
Allowance Tradi
This system is a combination of two primary models, the Utility Fuel Economics Model
(UFEM) and the National Power Model (NPM). The UFEM determines optimal fuel
choices as well as optimal environmental clean-up equipment selection at each utility
coal-fired plant in the nation, while the NPM determines optimal dispatch of all electric
generating plants (both coal and non-coal) on the electric grid.
-------
By looping back and forth between these two models in a circular fashion for each year
under a specific set of environmental rules, an overall converged optimization is reached
in which the fuel and clean-up choices at each coal plant are dependent, in part, upon the
plant's amount of dispatch while that dispatch is simultaneously determined, in part, by
the costs and emissions from those fuel-related choices. The primary usefulness of this
modeling approach for this current project lies in the fact that all U.S. plants are
considered simultaneously in competition with each other both for their coal supply and
for their competitive dispatch on the electric grid. The summation of individual plant
fuel demands results in a total of coal demand for each specific region's coal.
Additionally, since we have each plant's most likely decision on the installation of
environmental clean-up equipment (and have used an estimate of the costs associated
with installing and operating such equipment in obtaining that likely decision), the final
converged optimization result contains the plant-by-plant building blocks from which we
can sum each sub-region's total of capital expenditures by utilities for environmental
clean-up equipment. Those totals by sub-region are reported by year as results from this
study.
During specific runs of the modeling system, as the National Power Model dispatches all
the plants in the U.S. simultaneously by time-of-day and season, the coal-fired plants are
competing against each other and against other generating plants such as gas-fired,
nuclear, hydro, etc. Depending upon which environmental limits are in effect in each
area of the country for the year being modeled, more or less power will be required from
individual coal-fired plants, and these requirements are then translated into specific types
of coal demand in the Utility Fuel Economics Model. The aggregated total tonnages for
each coal type then become the basis for that scenario's coal forecast. To this electric
utility basis are added independent projections of industrial steam coal use and exports of
steam coal. The resultant totals by coal type determine the market clearing price for each
coal as prices "float" against each other from their respective cost-supply curves.
II.C. Mining Cost-Supply Curves
Inside the UFEM model, the supply curves relating mining costs to production capacity
were built up from mine-by-mine estimates of cash operating costs for all currently
operating mines in the country. The cash operating costs used in the model's supply
curves are defined as including the following components: labor, materials and supplies,
trucking to the prep plant or load-out, preparation costs (including loading), Black
Lung/Reclamation taxes, mine overhead charge, division overhead charge, pension
contribution, property tax, severance tax, and royalties.
Much of the information on costs, qualities and reserves was taken from the detailed
county-by-county studies of coal supply that Hill & Associates, Inc. has been publishing
for more than 15 years. Within our proprietary database, costs for all active mines were
estimated by entering mine specific data into computer models developed by Hill &
Associates. MSHA databases provided information on active mines, production,
employees and manhours worked, from which we calculated productivity. This base was
-------
supplemented with information from mine interviews concerning work schedules,
equipment, percentage of washed coal and trucking distances. In instances where
trucking distances were not obtained by interviews, the distance was measured between
the mine and the preparation plant via the most logical road using a computer-mapping
program. Costs for potential mines on undeveloped properties were estimated by looking
at costs of comparable active operations located nearby.
In the current version of the UFEM model, we have more than 100 separate sub-types of
coal including 12 in West Virginia, 9 in eastern Kentucky and 5 in Virginia. For
example, southern West Virginia mid-Btu near-compliance coal originating on the CSX
railroad is a unique coal type with its own cost-supply curve separate from that same coal
originating on the Norfolk Southern railroad.
Although Hill & Associates considers their individual mining cost curves (by specific
type of coal) to be highly proprietary, we include in Figure 3 below a composite
generalized curve for West Virginia for purposes of understanding in this report. The
figure will be referenced in the methodology discussion that follows.
Figure 3
Generic WV All Mines Cost Curve
30
O
O
_c
en
CO
O
50 100 150
C u m u la tiv e C a p a c ity (M M T P Y)
200
-------
Each step on each mining cost-supply curve represents one mine with its own individual
characteristics. It is this fact that allows us to incorporate the results of Phase 1 of the
overall EIS study (the work by Resources Technology Corporation) into the H&A
modeling system to differentiate between the separate MTM/VF regulatory scenarios. In
particular, although RTC's results are not property-specific, the relative amount of coal
made unmineable (or shifted to a higher-cost mining technique with less recovery) in
each county under each MTM/VF scenario can be reduced to a percentage impact for that
county.
Since we know the location of each mine and its characteristics, we can take each surface
mine in a county and apply the county's percentage reduction impact to that mine's
capacity and reserves (including, where appropriate, adding back a smaller higher-cost
step into the mining cost-supply curve from which that mine was taken if the MTM/VF
reduction could partially be replaced with another type of mining). Spreading the
county's aggregated reduction percentage across all surface mines in the county does not
exactly match what would happen in the real world where a true mountain top mining
project might be more heavily affected while a small contour mining operation might
escape totally unaffected. However, for the purposes of determining coal price and
tonnage impacts on multi-county sub-regions of the affected states, it is believed that this
methodology provides virtually identical results to what would be obtained if we had
exact property-specific match-ups from Phase 1 of the overall EIS study. Although
modeling, by its nature, establishes some industry-typical behavior patterns and decision
rules, we would expect in the real world that some mines would be better prepared than
others to adapt to any new regulations.
It is important to note that both the current production capacity and the reserves were
reduced in this study by the appropriate county's reduction percentage. This implies a de
facto assumption that any MTM/VF restrictions would be applied with no "grandfather"
provisions exempting existing operations. In other words, existing operations that would
violate the scenario's interpretation of MTM/VF rules would have their production
capacity (in the modeling) immediately reduced, as well as having their reserves reduced
for supporting future production. A methodology of reducing only reserves and leaving
existing capacity intact (effectively grandfathering existing operations) could have been
used, but one methodology or the other was required to be chosen for a single study, and
the EIS Steering Committee chose the one equally affecting both reserves and existing
capacity. The real world impact of the mining restrictions during the first year might be
muted somewhat, compared to our modeling results, due to the fact that some operations
have established fills and pre-stripped some amount of overburden for future mining.
The mine-by-mine nature of the steps on the model's mining cost curves serves a second
purpose in this project. After the converged optimization is achieved between the UFEM
and NPM models for any given year for a specific scenario, the final total amount of coal
taken from each supply curve is used to determine which steps (or individual mines)
produced coal in that model run, and which did not. As an output function, then, the
supply curves are "broken apart" after the run, and the mines actually producing are
-------
summed by their type of mining (surface versus deep) and their sub-region of location.
Thus, the tonnage results included later in this report are obtained by this summation
(across several cost-supply curves) of the mines from a particular sub-region that actually
produced coal in that year's model run for that scenario.
Since each coal type represented by a mining cost-supply curve has its own final market
clearing price after the model run is done, a weighted average price calculation can be
performed for each sub-region's coal production during the summation procedure
described above. It is important to note that the modeling approach used in this study
yields short-term market clearing prices for new business at the margin, and it does not
include any averaging into the results of older long-term contracts which may be "out of
market."
In addition, since we know the very specific type of mining such as longwall mining or
continuous miner sections for each step (or individual mine) on the cost-supply curve, we
can use our knowledge of typical manning tables for each type of mine to estimate the
direct coal mining employment in each sub-region during the summation process
described above for mines that actually operated during the model convergence runs.
Future manning levels at coal mines were estimated by using the active production and
productivity rates as reported by MSHA for surface and deep mines in the study area.
The total number of production employees at active surface and deep mines was divided
by the actual tonnage produced to determine ratios. These were then used as multipliers
and were applied to the tons of production that were predicted by the model for the future
years.
The values shown in the tables represent production employees only and do not include
prep plant and mine office personnel. On the average, surface mines increase
employment by 3.9 percent for the non-production tasks, including mine office staff, prep
plant and "yard workers." For deep mines, the average is 10.5 percent. The overall
average is 8.2 percent for deep and surface mining. In addition, some state labor statistics
for "coal industry employment" include non-mining personnel involved in transportation,
marketing and support services. None of these categories are included in the direct
production employees reported in the results of this study.
II.D. Electricity Input/Output
On the electricity side, the NPM model works in a similar fashion with electric dispatch
cost curves instead of mining cost curves. However, while the UFEM's mining cost
curves stay relatively static during the modeling of any one year in a scenario (they do
change across years as described later), the NPM's dispatch cost curves are very fluid
during one year's looping between the models, changing with each loop as the coal-fired
plants enter the electricity model with sometimes significantly different costs and
emission rates due to their fuel and clean-up choices in each loop. Figure 1 above shows
not only the sub-region definitions, but also the major coal-fired utility plants within each
region. The electricity outputs from the NPM model include not only the megawatt-
hours from coal-fired plants, but also the generation from all generators in the sub-region.
10
-------
Wholesale electricity prices reported as output from the NPM model are really the
"lambda" costs for each control area (basically, each utility) in the model. This lambda
cost is defined as the dispatch cost of the very last plant that dispatched (i.e. the highest-
cost plant that actually ran in that time-of-day period) within that control area. If the
highest-cost power actually used for that time period happens to be wheeled power
imported from a neighboring utility, then that cost of imported power is the lambda cost
reported out as "wholesale electricity price" for that time-of-day and season for that
control area.
Since the study sub-regions were defined around coal production, it turns out that some
of them have no generating facilities in the sub-region. For this reason, some sub-regions
will show electricity "results" in later sections of this report that stay uniformly at zero.
Obviously, there still exists a price for electricity for those regions (although not a
megawatt-hours of production number). However, we opt to report the "raw" weighted
averages of electricity price from generators for the Phase 2 results, leaving it to the
expertise of Phase 3 modelers to impute an electricity price from surrounding areas for
those that show zero.
II.E. New Capacity Additions
Finally, we turn now to the methodology by which new capacity, both for coal mining
and for electric generation, is added in the modeling. With regard to coal productive
capacity, each cost step on the mining cost-supply curves has a "tons per year" new
capacity number associated with it, as well as an amount of "additional" reserves that are
associated with that new capacity (where that new capacity would be based on newly
developed reserves). For many lower-cost steps, one or the other of these amounts (or
both) have a zero value in the model because we believe that no new capacity can be built
at that cost level or no new reserves are available to be developed at that level.
The real meaning behind those "new" mining capacity numbers (and associated reserves,
in some cases) is important. In a few instances, this new capacity is actually associated
with the specific mine whose cash operating cost was the basis for building that step into
the curve. For those instances, our estimate is that the particular mine in question has the
appropriate coal reserves available and the ability to expand their production at the same
cost level at which they are now operating.
More often, this new capacity is not associated with that mine but rather represents the
"step-out" capacity (at a cost increase) for another mine that is lower on the cost-supply
curve. In other words, the lower-cost existing mine may have the opportunity to purchase
or lease adjacent reserves that are not as geologically favorable for economic mining as
those of their existing operation (or the step-out reserves may require longer haulage to a
preparation plant at increased cost, for example). For this reason, the mining cost-supply
curve has this higher cost step with zero initial capacity, but non-zero latent expansion
capacity, lying "on top of the step for the other, higher-cost existing mine which just
11
-------
happens to have the same cash operating cost as would be incurred with these other
reserves.
In the UFEM model, the market clearing price for any coal is determined by the
relationship between the final converged demand for that coal and the cost-supply curve
for that coal. Referring to Figure 3 above, this is demonstrated by the vertical solid line
(representing a hypothetical 170 million ton demand against the "generic WV all mines
cost curve") which intersects the curve and generates the horizontal dotted line that goes
to the left and hits the Y-axis at a "market clearing" coal price of something under $30
per ton.
This market clearing price is reported from the model as the coal's price except in
instances where there is extreme shortage of the coal in question. If the competitive
balance point for demand is so large compared to available capacity that it is effectively
beyond the right-hand edge of the cost curve, then there is no "intersection" of demand
with the curve. In that case, the reported price is set at a "net-back" value representing
the highest value that some potential purchaser would actually be willing to pay (if more
of that coal were available) in order to avoid some other costs such as installing a
scrubber or purchasing another coal at high delivered cost. A real-world example of this
netback phenomenon occurred in mid-2001 when Powder River Basin coal, whose cash
operating cost does not exceed, say, $4.00 per ton, was selling in the marketplace for
$12.00-$14.00 per ton. The coal was truly "worth" that to some buyers who could avoid
paying $50.00 per ton for eastern coal in the very tight market.
For any point (or mine) on the curve to the left of the solid vertical "demand" line in
Figure 3, the vertical distance down from the dotted line to the point (or mine) measures
the cash "margin" that is available to that mine at that market clearing price. (We avoid
the word "profit" here since the capital investment in the original mine is being ignored,
and we are dealing only with cash operating costs.) For instance, referring to Figure 3
above, the mines falling between 160 and 170 mmtpy on the X-axis are just barely below
the dotted line and may be making a cash "margin" of only $l-$2 per ton to cover their
capital investment plus true profit. On the other hand, all of the mines below, say, 100
mmtpy will be experiencing a cash "margin" of several times that amount. For any
particular mine, this larger cash "margin" may not only cover capital recovery
(depending on the investment cost in that mine), but may be generating a Return on
Investment (ROI) in excess of 10%. It is important to remember that Figure 3 is an
illustrative generic curve and that the actual curves used in the modeling are much more
definitive by type of coal instead of simply "all WV."
Now all of the pieces start coming together with regard to the addition of new capacity
into the mining cost curves. During the running of the UFEM model for any given year
in a scenario, a check is made of this cash "margin" for every point on every curve.
When the margin is sufficient to meet or exceed the criterion ROI for the expansion
capital investment in that particular scenario, then that step's latent "new capacity" is
brought into the curve at that specific cost level, effectively expanding the horizontal
span, or capacity, of that step.
12
-------
However, the model imposes an overriding limit in each area (the "Area Limit") to avoid
the situation where a price spike could trigger more capacity investment (in the model)
than could be realistically accommodated in the real world. The model starts at the lower
end of the curve (where cash "margin" is the greatest for any equilibrium price) and
brings on the economically justified new capacity additions until the overriding "Area
Limit" is reached. After that point, cost steps are not allowed to expand (in this particular
year), even though the criterion ROI would be exceeded for that mine to expand. It is
important to note that the overriding limit frequently is not reached even with fairly high
prices because there is little expansion capability at the lower cost levels on the left side
of the curve - Most of the undeveloped capacity occurs at higher cost levels.
In the modeling, we assumed that the initial year in which valley fill restrictions are first
imposed (2002 in these scenarios) would be a "regrouping" year in which coal producers
would concentrate on adjusting to the new rules at their existing operations and would not
invest in ROI-driven capacity expansion for new operations inside the study area. Our
primary rationale was that producers would take a "wait and see" attitude to let things
"settle down" under new rules before they replaced their lost capacity. A secondary
rationale was that at least a portion of any new replacement capacity would need to go
through the design, engineering, permitting and construction procurement process, and all
of this takes time.
One additional wrinkle in the methodology reflects the fact that there exists a very real
"lag time" between the perceived need for new capacity investment and the point in time
where that capacity is actually available. That lag time may be on the order of 1-3 years,
but is somewhat offset by anticipation among the producer community (i.e. plans and
permits may be preliminarily started with an eye toward rising prices). For this reason,
the model uses a one-year delay in bringing on new capacity. In other words, the cash
"margin" test described above actually uses the equilibrium price from last year's
converged solution to bring on the new capacity instead of the price emerging out of this
year's solution.
The bottom line is that, in the model, there is a "balancing act" occurring which mirrors
what happens in the real world. In this balancing act, any "shortening" of a mine curve
(due to exhaustion of reserves at individual mines, for example, or due to MTM/VF
reductions to capacity) will likely lead to somewhat higher prices as demand hits
"higher" on a shorter curve. These higher prices, in turn, cause more steps on the cost
curve to "see" an acceptable ROI, leading to capacity expansion for that step if any is
available. The concept of this "balancing act" is important to understanding some of the
results presented later in this report.
There are two other secondary methods by which capacity is added into the mine curves
within the model. First, one of the inputs to the model is an assumption of future
productivity growth for each of the more than 100 types of coal. In these runs, a
productivity gain of 3% per year, somewhat lower than the historic average due to
tougher mining conditions, was assumed for all of the Central Appalachian area. This is
13
-------
important to capacity since, at a mine producing 1.0 million tons per year (mmtpy) and
experiencing a 10% gain in tons per man-hour, the mine either could produce 1.1 mmtpy
with the same workforce after the gain or could lay off approximately 9% of its
workforce ( 1/110% = 91% ) and produce the same 1.0 mmtpy with fewer workers. In
the first case, we have a productivity-induced capacity increase. One of the model inputs
involves our projection of what proportion of productivity gain goes toward capacity
increase versus workforce reduction and, although the calculations are somewhat
complicated, it works out that less than half of the productivity gain is going toward
capacity in the model runs.
Second, there is a well-established pattern in the coalfields of mines that are running at
their maximum capacity making small capacity gains (usually through equipment
upgrades) even if the true ROI economics are not there to justify this "smaller than major
expansion" level of capital investment. Accordingly, we have a test in the model that
determines if a step was 100% used in the previous year and has at least 7 years of
reserve life remaining. If both of these conditions are met, then the mine capacity is very
slightly "stretched" for that step on the order of l%-2% to reflect this real-world
phenomenon.
Both of these secondary capacity effects (productivity and "stretch") are allowed to occur
before the economic "margin" test is made for bringing on major new expansion capital
at a mine. The net effect is that a small amount of the "major capital" capacity expansion
may be forestalled by the lesser amount of "creep" in capacity that occurs due to
productivity gains and the "stretch" described above.
Since a major purpose of the study is to provide information for projecting economic
differences between the separate scenarios modeled, we would like to know how much
more or less capital is invested in new mining capacity for each scenario. We accomplish
this by carefully tracking the exact type of mining for each new capacity addition brought
on at each step on the mine cost curves. We then apply our estimate of capital investment
per annual ton of new capacity (for that specific type of mining) to the total expansion
tonnage of that type brought on in the model run. Our capital estimates are based on
interviews with equipment manufacturers and coal producers as well as on published
information regarding capital expenditures for new coal mines. Finally, we sum up these
capital dollars across the different mining types and report the result by year by sub-
region for each MTM/VF scenario.
On the electricity side, the NPM model brings on new baseload capacity in a manner very
similar to the "margin" test procedure described for the UFEM model above. That is,
since the NPM model is driven by dispatch bid costs (the major component of which is
fuel cost for a coal-fired plant), a test is made against that dispatch bid cost. Whenever
the wholesale price of electricity in a control area (most generally, a single utility) as
measured by lambda cost exceeds the anticipated dispatch bid cost for a new gas-fired
combined cycle ("new CC") plant by a large enough "margin" to generate a criterion
10% ROI, then a new CC plant is built in that control area.
14
-------
New peaking capacity is brought on automatically in the NPM model to satisfy a classical
"reserve margin" calculation for each control area. In the model runs, we used a 10%
reserve margin criterion which is somewhat lower than the historic regulated 15%
required by many public utility commissions but is obviously higher than levels that
currently exist in some portions of the country
Because new coal-fired plants were not considered a serious option over the past several
years, the model has been set up to "automatically" bring on only gas-fired new capacity.
However, in recent times the consideration of new coal-fired capacity (either expansion
or grass-roots) has resurfaced. For this reason, in model runs for clients over the past
year or so (until we build a module for actually making economic trade-offs between gas-
fired and coal-fired new capacity), we simply add by hand a selected few coal plants in
the model in control areas where new coal plants would be most likely. We spread these
new coal additions across the next decade timed to the model's signals that new capacity
is needed. Those coal-fired by-hand additions are entered in the appropriate year before
the model does its calculations of the need for the model-generated new gas-fired
capacity. One of those hand-entered coal-fired facilities shows up in year 2009 in the VA
sub-region in the results of new generating capacity shown later in this report.
III. Results
For both versions of the base case and for each of the four alternate mining regulatory
scenarios (six cases in total), this study has generated model outputs for each year of the
2001-2010 period. These outputs form the basis for H&A's projections under each
scenario for each year for the following variables:
Coal tonnage
Direct coal employment
Mine capacity capital expenditures
Average coal price, fob mine
Megawatt-Hours of generation
Average wholesale price (lambda costs) of electricity
Environmental clean-up equipment capital expenditures for utilities
Electricity capacity investments by type (construction, equipment, etc.)
Major coal mine operating costs by category
Average U.S. wholesale price (lambda costs) of electricity
Except for the U.S. wholesale price of electricity and the major coal mine operating costs
by category, all of these variable outputs are provided by study sub-region.
Although much of the detail by sub-region is primarily needed for EIS Phase 3 modeling
(outside of this study) of total direct and indirect economic impact on the economies of
the states being studied, those detailed results are presented in their entirety for the reader
in the Appendices to this report. The Appendices are organized in the same order as the
15
-------
list immediately above. (Appendix A contains coal tonnage information, Appendix B
coal employment numbers, etc.) All coal-production related parameters are reported by
surface mining versus deep mining within each sub-region.
The remainder of this section of the report will focus on highlighting selected results,
especially at a more aggregated level where appropriate, and providing descriptive and
interpretive analysis of their meaning in the context of overall impacts of potential
MTM/VF restrictions.
III.A. Coal Tonnage
Figure 4 presents a graph of the projected total coal tonnage by year from all of the
MTM/VF directly-affected regions covered in this study. The numbers behind this graph
are presented in the bottom section of Table A-l in Appendix A.
Figure 4
260,000
240,000
O
O 220,000
O
^ 200,000
(0
C 180,000
0
I™ 160,000
140,000
Total Tons-All Study Regions
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
•BASECASE-15%ROI
•75-ACRECASE
•250-ACRECASE
•35-ACRECASE
-0-150-ACRECASE
-•- BASE CASE -10%RO
There are several issues that arise from considering this graph. First, the general
downward trend of total tonnage from the study region under all cases is a result we see
across many modeling projects for different clients inside Hill & Associates. It is a
reflection of the continuing economic and environmental adjustment of the coal
16
-------
marketplace that has been occurring over the past few years in which Powder River Basin
(PRB) coal from Wyoming has been gaining in market share while Appalachian coals in
general have had declining market share. This is exacerbated toward the end of the 10-
year study period by the fact that significant blocks of higher-quality Central Appalachian
reserves are starting to be exhausted. The better-quality coals in this region are slowly
but surely being mined out.
It is not the purpose of this MTM/VF study to delve into the general trend of PRB coal
supplanting Appalachian coal - there are several good studies from government sources
and from consultants covering that topic. Rather, it is sufficient here to note the trend and
the fact that it will, of course, have a general bearing on this study since a higher level of
demand over the decade of study would necessarily place more strain on the coal supply
system from the area that may be restricted to some degree by MTM/VF regulations.
Second, consider the two versions of the Base Case (the top two lines through most of the
graph). For the years 2002-2005 the 15% ROI Base Case and the 10% ROI Base Case
fall virtually on top of each other so that there appears to be only one line and, in fact,
there is only a miniscule difference between the graphs for those years. The reason for
this congruence between the two cases in the first few years lies in the somewhat
complicated real-world "balancing act" (discussed in the "Methodology" section above)
in which capacity is both leaving and entering the mining cost-supply curve
simultaneously. By examining the detailed model working files for each of the runs
represented by a single point on the graph above, we have determined that for years
2001-2004, the entire region is expanding as fast as it can under the "Area Limits" which
are determined by the amount of new expansion that an area of the coalfields can absorb
in one year, given the labor force, transportation capabilities, etc. of the area.
During this early period, there is enough expansion capacity in the "lower" area of the
curve(s) that the "Area Limit" is reached before either the 15% ROI or the 10% ROI
limiting factor becomes controlling. In other words, all of the steps that are expanding
until we reach the "Area Limit" are above 15% ROI, so that both the 10% and the 15%
ROI criteria are met. Thus, both ROI cases experience the same capacity expansion and
virtually identical model results.
Then, in 2005 enough of the low-cost steps have exhausted their low-cost reserves so that
the "Area Limit" starts falling first between the 15% ROI threshold and the 10% ROI
threshold and eventually higher than the 10% threshold. From this point forward, two
things happen. First, we start seeing significantly more productive capacity available in
the case where new investment needs only a 10% ROI. Since this tends to "flatten" the
cost curve and "stretch" it to the right (imagine this happening to Figure 3), the market
clearing price for coal will tend to be lower in the 10% ROI case as compared to the 15%
ROI case, and the tonnage actually produced at this lower price will be somewhat higher
in the 10% case.
The second thing that happens as the "Area Limit" begins falling above one or both of the
ROI limiting factors is that the actual cost curves in the 10% and 15% cases will start
17
-------
diverging from each other in shape and level as more production is drawn from one than
the other and more capacity is added (at different spots on the curve) to one versus the
other. This second factor is important because a particular expansion that was economic
under the 10% rule but not under the 15% rule is still available for expansion in a later
year on the 15% curve as economics change over time. Thus, we frequently see some
degree of "catching up" by the disadvantaged case in our model runs. This phenomenon
does show up in Figure 4 above as we see the difference between the two versions of the
Base Case going as high as 25 million tons in 2008 but then shrinking (the "catching up"
phenomenon) down to roughly 5 million tons in 2010.
A very interesting indirect effect of possible MTM/VF restrictions becomes apparent as
we consider the 25 million ton differential between the two versions of the Base Case in
2008. Remember that the setup assumptions included a likely EPA-mandated cut of 50%
in Clean Air Act Phase 2 sulfur emission levels for year 2008, driven by the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for fine (2.5 micron) particulate matter. The indirect
effect of the MTM/VF restrictions is that, to the extent that this aggressive changing of
the mining rules does cause the coal mining investment community to perceive higher
levels of investment risk and require a higher ROI, then the modeling results indicate that
the production responsiveness of this high-quality portion of the coal industry (Central
Appalachia produces almost all of the compliance coal from the eastern U.S.) is fairly
severely dampened by the higher risk perception.
In other words, under "standard" investment perceptions in the Appalachian coalfields,
the cut in allowed sulfur emissions along with the associated increase in demand for
higher-quality, low-sulfur coals would ordinarily cause a surge in new capacity
investment and associated economic development in Central Appalachia. However,
given the three-way interplay between Appalachian coal mining costs, Powder River
Basin coal mining costs and the utilities' costs of installing new scrubbers, it turns out
that this stimulus toward new mining capacity in Central Appalachia is highly vulnerable
to perceptions of investment risk. This is illustrated in the 2008 portion of the bar graph
shown below in Figure 5.
18
-------
Figure 5
Total Capacity Add-lns -All Study Regions
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
DBASE CASE-15% ROI
D75-ACRECASE
I250-ACRE CASE
I35-ACRE CASE
Q150-ACRECASE
DBASE CASE-10% ROI
This bar chart presents the tonnage version of the capacity additions which are reflected
in dollar investment numbers in the formal study output deliverable in Appendix C, Table
C-l. The left bar of each year's set is the 15% ROI Base Case, and the bar to the far right
of each year's set is the 10% ROI Base Case. In support of the discussion above, we see
for 2008 that in the case where only a 10% ROI is required for new coal mining
investment, approximately 21/2 times as much new capacity is installed. The numbers in
Appendix C in Table C-l indicate that the capital required for these two tonnage bars are
roughly $320 million and $800 million, respectively (constant 2001$).
An additional point to note from Figure 5 is the substantial differentiation in year 2002
between the Base Case(s) on the one hand (about 19 million tons of new capacity) and
the MTM/VF-affected cases (3-4 million tons) on the other hand. This is a direct result
of the assumption, discussed in Section II.E above, of a "regrouping" by coal producers
in the initial year of imposition of MTM/VF restrictions. In other words, during this
initial year "regrouping" period, no ROI-driven major capital expansions are occurring in
the MTM/VF-affected cases, and the 3-4 million tons of increased capacity comes totally
from the productivity and "stretch" increments described in Section II.E above.
To some extent, the non-expansion in 2002 in the MTM/VF-affected cases may be
causing somewhat higher expansion in later years (higher than what would have
happened in the same case in those later years without the early-year reluctance to
invest). Experience in running the H&A models has shown that a constraint such as this
one-year "regrouping" non-expansion often results in a "pent-up" pressure which is
released when the constraint is released. The exception to this rule is the situation where
19
-------
a constraint of this type persists long enough for the competitive sources of supply (other
coal fields) to over-expand and drive down overall prices on a sustained basis. However,
this takes a few years to accomplish.
Turning now to the actual MTM/VF restricted cases in the tonnage production graph of
Figure 4 near the start of this "Results" section, we see that all of the regulation-affected
cases fall fairly uniformly below the Base Case(s), with the exception of the 75-Acre
Case which will be discussed as a special situation later in this section. The fairly
immediate separation between the curves in year 2002 is a function of three factors:
(1) the assumption that any valley fill restrictions in a scenario are imposed
instantaneously in 2002, (2) the "no grandfathering of existing operations" assumption
discussed in Section II.C above, and (3) the one-year "regrouping" period during which
no new ROI-driven capacity expansions occur as producers adjust to the new rules (as
discussed in Section II.E above). Changing any one of these assumptions could have an
impact on the timing and amount of separation between the curves, but the size of such
an impact is uncertain without re-running the models because of the complicated
interaction between "shortening" of the mine cost curves, price increases, ROI-driven
capacity expansion, exhaustion of reserves at certain individual mines and competitive
response from other coal fields such as the Powder River Basin and the Illinois Basin.
Table 3 below presents a brief synopsis (excluding the 75-Acre Case) of the general
impact of the various levels of MTM/VF restriction as compared to the Base Case(s).
Table 3
Summary of Tonnage Impacts
(Excluding 75-Acre Case)
Time Period
Case
Total Study Region Annual
Tonnage Loss vs. Base Case
2001 - 2005 250-Acre/150-Acre Cases
35-Acre Case
2006 - 2007 250-Acre Case
150-Acre Case
35-Acre Case
2008 250-Acre/150-Acre Cases
35-Acre Case
2009 - 2010 250-Acre/150-Acre Cases
35-Acre Case
12-13 million tons (5% of Total Produc.)
40 - 45 million tons (20% of Total Produc.)
3 - 8 million tons (2%-3% of Total Produc.)
8-12 million tons (3%-5% of Total Produc.)
25 - 30 million tons (10%-15% of Total Produc.)
12-48 million tons, depending on which Base Case
(5%-20% of Total Produc.)
16-55 million tons, depending on which Base Case
(7%-23% of Total Produc.)
8 - 20 million tons (4%-10% of Total Produc.)
17-30 million tons (8%-15% of Total Produc.)
20
-------
One of the more interesting results, easily observable in Figure 4, is that the 250-Acre
and ISO-Acre Cases fall virtually on top of each other except for a little separation in the
2006-2007 period. For this reason, the table above presents both of these cases as one
entity for the other time periods. The primary reason for these congruent results is the
similarity in the amount of reserve diminution for these two cases in the RTC results
from Phase 1 of the EIS support work.
Until Phase 3 of the EIS support studies is completed, we cannot answer just how
substantial is the impact of the tonnage loss shown in Table 3. However, by way of
benchmark comparison, the lower end of this market loss (5%-10%) is about the impact
on the nation-wide coal market that the Ozone/Fine Particle rules of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards are projected to have. The upper end of the above market
loss (40%-50%) is the projected nation-wide coal market loss if Kyoto-based "Global
Warming" CC>2 limits are imposed in the U.S.
Referring back to Figure 4, we see that the 75-Acre Case does not seem to fall cleanly
into this neat hierarchical pattern (at least not in selected years). What happened - Why
does this case bounce around so erratically?
The answer again involves this somewhat complicated real-world "balancing act"
(discussed in the "Methodology" section above) in which capacity is both leaving and
entering the mining cost-supply curve simultaneously. It was mentioned earlier that
some of the reserves in Central Appalachia are becoming low enough that they will start
being exhausted within the 10-year study period. In one respect, we might consider the
35-Acre Case, in which substantial reserves have been rendered unmineable, as simply
accelerating that situation so that the graph of the 35-Acre Case in Figure 4 immediately
starts out (in 2002) already on that lower track that the other cases eventually reach near
the end of the study period. On this lower track, there simply are not enough expansion
reserves available at low enough cost levels (either because they were initially sterilized
in the 35-Acre Case by MTM/VF regulations or because they are exhausted through
production in the other cases) to keep the total market tonnage up above 200 million
annual tons.
Now consider the 75-Acre Case which falls on the "knife-edge" between the upper track
and the lower track discussed above. The amount of reserves made unmineable in the 75-
Acre Case is not so large as to immediately throw it into the same situation as the 35-
Acre Case where, from the very beginning, there are not enough expansion reserves to
keep up. Rather, there are just enough expansion reserves to respond to price signals
exceeding the ROI investment criterion, but these reserves (as well as the non-expansion
reserves supporting existing capacity) have been cut very thin by the MTM/VF rules.
Thus, many steps on the mining cost curve(s) have their reserves exhausting fast and
furiously after the first two or three years. As so many reserves exhaust rapidly, strong
price signals are sent for expansion; so strong, in fact, that quite a lot of new capacity
surges in, and the tonnage curve actually bends upward momentarily.
21
-------
However, both the expansion reserves and the reserves supporting existing capacity are
again so thin due to the MTM/VF regulations that they continue to exhaust at a fast and
furious pace, driving productive capacity down again. As the cycle repeats, strong price
signals spur another big surge in expansion which turns the production tonnage curve
upward again, only to have it sag the next year as thin reserves race toward exhaustion.
Finally, there is enough exhaustion that the case becomes very similar to the 35-Acre
Case where there simply are not enough expansion reserves to keep up, even for one
year.
In summary, this is analogous to an attempt to fill a wooden trough with water by pouring
in large bucketfuls, but there are many small holes in the sides of the wooden trough.
With each bucketful poured in, we can momentarily raise the trough's water level, but it
quickly runs back out of the holes. After a while, the reservoir from which we are
drawing the bucketfuls becomes lower and lower, so that eventually we can only draw
half-bucketful s or quarter-bucketful s. At the end of the day, we simply cannot overcome
the outflow but can only slow down the continuing drop in water level.
There are two ways to look at this type of "knife-edge" effect. One way is to dismiss it as
a modeling phenomenon and say that if we had chosen a slightly different ROI threshold
for this case or had used 80 acres as the criterion instead of 75 acres, then we might very
easily have fallen on one side or the other of the "knife-edge." The other approach (and
the one we prefer) is to recognize that the model is telling us something. There is, in fact,
a zone in here somewhere (that we have bracketed with the span of scenarios) where the
market signals can get somewhat erratic because there is just enough resource in the
producer segment of the coal industry to respond to price signals, albeit inadequately.
III.B. Coal Prices
Having discussed price signals at some length, let's turn our attention to the actual price
outputs from the models that correspond to the tonnage results. Figures 6a and 6b below
presents the weighted average prices for the coal totals of Figure 4. Again, it is important
to note that these are short-term market clearing prices for new business and do not
include any older "out of market" contract prices.
22
-------
Figure 6a
36.00 -,
34.00
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00 -|
20.00
Weighted Avg. Coal Prices - All
Study Regions (Full Scale)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
• BASE CASE-15% ROI
• 75-ACRECASE
• 250-ACRE CASE
• 35-ACRECASE
1 50-ACRE CASE
BASE CASE - 1 0% ROI
Figure 6a is presented on a scale of $20 to $36 per ton in order to show that the fall from
the "once-in-a-quarter-century" market of 2001 is likely to be two to three times as large
as the price differentials between the various MTM/VF scenarios. However, it should be
noted that the reason for the large initial drop on the graph is due to the fact that the mid-
2001 market was operating near the far right-hand edge of the cost curves. Referring
back to Figure 3 from the "Methodology" section of this report, we can see that if we are
very near the right-hand edge of the curve, then we can experience prices that are quite
high. However, since the curve is so steep here, even a small increase in capacity lower
on the curve (as producers attempt to produce more to take advantage of high prices) can
"stretch" the curve to the right enough to cause a dramatically large drop in market
clearing price. In other words, on a steep curve it does not take much horizontal
movement to slide down a long way vertically.
On the other hand, the price differentials between the MTM/VF scenarios are occurring
down on the flatter portion of the Figure 3 curve and represent perhaps more significant
tonnage impacts. We see this on a gross scale by considering that the tonnage differences
discussed above between scenarios is often on the order of 15-50 million annual tons, and
this magnitude of tonnage is associated with price differentials in the $2.50-$3.50 per ton
range. This means that we are operating on a less steep portion of the curve where large
horizontal capacity movements correspond to lesser vertical movements in cost.
23
-------
In order to focus on the subject of this study, Figure 6b is presented as identical to Figure
6a except that the scale is limited to $21 to $29 per ton to more easily visualize the
roughly $2.50-$3.50 differences between scenario results.
Figure 6b
29.00
Weighted Avg. Coal Prices - All
Study Regions (Reduced Scale)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
• BASE CASE- 15% ROI
• 75-ACRECASE
• 250-ACRE CASE
• 35-ACRECASE
• 150-ACRECASE
• BASE CASE - 1 0% ROI
As we would expect, the prices shown in Figure 6b are almost exactly the inverse of the
tonnage graph of Figure 4. That is, the lowest prices generally occur for the least
restricted Base Case(s) where the tonnages from Figure 4 are higher. However, as the
"catching up" phenomenon occurs (see earlier discussion), we would expect to see some
crossing over of the prices as the relative shortness of supply for the more restricted cases
eventually sends some pretty strong price signals. In fact, we see a very clear trend that
the largest coal price differentials between scenarios occur immediately after the
implementation of MTM/VF restrictions, and then these differences attenuate over time
as the "catching up" phenomenon occurs. As discussed earlier, the 2008 "bump" in the
graph is a measure of the coal marketplace response to the PM2.5-driven cut in SC>2
limits.
It is significant to note that despite (1) continuing productivity gains, which serve both to
lower individual points on the Figure 3 cost curve and also to stretch the entire curve to
the right, and (2) lower overall tonnages in later years, which means demand crosses
farther to the left on the Figure 3 cost curve, we still see prices in Figure 6b holding
relatively flat in the second five years of the study period. This is an indication of fairly
strong prices (compared, say, to other areas of the coalfields) due to shortness of supply,
24
-------
even in the Base Case(s) which experience some reserve exhaustion near the end of the
10-year study period.
Finally, as we would expect, the 10% ROI Base Case prices are lower than the 15% ROI
Base Case prices since there is more capacity expansion and therefore more supply in the
supply/demand balance in the 10% case.
III.C. Coal Mining Employment
Before we leave the coal side of the results discussion, a couple of comments about the
direct coal employment tables in Appendix B are appropriate. First, these "direct"
employment numbers are very narrowly defined as really directly "in the mine"
employees and would need a scale-up factor of perhaps 2.0 to match up with the
officially reported state "coal mining employment" numbers. For example, we are
showing an all-region total of 17,845 "direct" employees for 2001 in Appendix B, but
Hill & Associates' own monthly short-term coal outlook lists official state coal mining
employment numbers for July 2001 of approximately 3,900 for northern West Virginia,
12,100 for southern West Virginia, 12,500 for eastern Kentucky and 5,600 for Virginia.
This total of more than 34,000 "official" coal mining employees for one summer month
is roughly twice our modeling estimate of "direct" coal mining employees average for the
year.
Second, although the last year of the study period shows a maximum "direct"
employment loss of a little over 1,000 employees, the loss of employment in some mid-
years can exceed 3,500 employees (e.g. comparing the 75-Acre Case with the 10% ROI
Base Case for year 2008).
HID. Electricity Generation Within the Study Region
Turning now to the electricity results from the integrated coal and electricity modeling
system, Figure 7 below presents the electricity produced from the total study region under
each scenario. The numbers behind this graph are presented in the bottom section of
Table E-l in Appendix E.
25
-------
Figure 7
45,000,000
44,000,000
43,000,000
42,000,000
41,000,000
40,000,000
39,000,000
38,000,000
Total Electricity Production - All Study Regions
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
• BASECASE-15%ROI
• 75-ACRE CASE
• 250-ACRE CASE
• 35-ACRECASE
-0-150-ACRECASE
-•- BASE CASE -10%ROI
Two things are immediately apparent from Figure 7. First, there is a very loose general
correlation with the coal results, in that the less restricted cases (the Base Cases and the
250-Acre Case) with their generally lower coal prices tend to be the ones showing higher
electricity production, while the more restricted cases such as the 35-Acre Case with
higher coal prices show lower electricity generation. Second, the electricity results are
definitely NOT an exact mirror image of the coal results.
Upon reflection, this second point is not at all surprising. The coalfields included in the
study region do, of course, supply the electric generating plants sitting on top of the coal,
but they also supply many other electric generating stations outside of the study region.
The issue of who wins and who loses the dispatch wars on the electric grid is an
extremely complicated one and is one of the primary reasons why we run an integrated
coal and electricity modeling system. There are many thresholds at individual generating
stations where a change in coal prices for a certain quality of coal can result in the
decision to install a scrubber, for example, and burn high-sulfur Pennsylvania or Ohio
coal.
Particular differences between the electricity production graph of Figure 7 and the coal
production graph of Figure 4 include the following:
26
-------
• Unlike the coal results, the electricity results do not show the largest
spread between scenarios immediately after the MTM/VF rules are
implemented. Rather, the largest spread of electric generation across
scenarios occurs after four or five years.
• The biggest sensitivity for electric generation appears to occur in response
to the 19-State SIP Call for NOX in 2005, while the coal tonnage maximum
sensitivity seems to be oriented around the PM2.5-driven 862 cuts in
2008.
• While the absolute magnitude of coal tonnage impacts can be as high as
20%-25% of total production (see Table 3 above) and more typically runs
a spread of 8%-15% difference between the most-restrictive and least-
restrictive cases in most years; the electric generation spreads are more in
the 2%-6% range in most years, going only to a maximum of about 11%
of total production in 2005.
• The 250-Acre and 150-Acre Cases do not fall on top of each other in the
electricity graph. Rather, the 250-Acre Case shows substantially higher
electricity generation inside the study region than the 150-Acre Case for
some of the mid-years and late-years.
• There appears to be significantly more cross-over between the scenarios in
the electricity results. That is, the scenarios do not line up monotonically
from least restrictive to most restrictive as they seem to do for coal
tonnage (except for the 75-Acre Case in the coal results).
In summary, while we have both coal production and electricity production that can shift
"just over the border" outside the study region and therefore not be included in the results
reported here, there are generally wide quality differences between Pennsylvania/Ohio
coal, for example, and Central Appalachian coal that limit the amount of direct
substitution without equipment or allowance costs. Thus, the coal results tend to be more
directly related to the severity of MTM/VF restriction. On the other hand, electricity as a
product is so extraordinarily homogeneous that the shifting of power generation across
the study region's border is a significant factor that disrupts the direct relationship
between coal supply reduction and electric generation within the study region.
III.E. Electricity Prices
Figures 8a and 8b presents the model output electricity prices associated with the
generation discussed above. The numbers behind the graph are shown in the bottom
section of Table F-l in Appendix F.
27
-------
Figure 8a
Avg. Wholesale Electricity Price - All
Study Regions (Full Scale)
29.00
27.00 -
25.00 -
23.00 -
21.00 -
19.00 -
17.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
• BASECASE-15%ROI
•75-ACRE CASE
• 250-ACRECASE
• 35-ACRECASE
-B-150-ACRECASE
-•- BASE CASE -10%ROI
Figure 8a is presented on a scale of $17.00 to $29.00 dollars (constant 2001$) per
megawatt-hour. This illustrates that the size of the electricity price drop that will
accompany the expected coal market "bust" following the current "once-in-a-quarter-
century" market boom is several times larger than the electricity price sensitivity to the
MTM/VF scenarios.
In order to focus on the topic of this study, Figure 8b is identical to Figure 8a except that
the scale is reduced to $19.00 to $23.00 per megawatt-hour.
28
-------
Figure 8b
23.00
22.50
22.00
Ł 21.50
I 21.00
Ł 20.50
20.00
19.50
19.00
Avg. Wholesale Electricity Price • All
Study Regions (Reduced Scale)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
• BASECASE-15%ROI
• 75-ACRECASE
• 250-ACRECASE
• 35-ACRECASE
-B-150-ACRECASE
-•—BASE CASE-10% ROI
Even on this scale, it is evident that the electricity prices are quite insensitive to the
MTM/VF restrictions, showing differences of only l%-2%, or 3% at the maximum. This
is a simple mechanical function since the models solve for the market clearing price
(lambda cost) of electricity for each "control area" (most generally, a single utility). This
mirrors the real world in which only one lambda cost exists at any one time in a
competitive section of the transmission grid. Since this lambda cost is defined as the
dispatch bid (assumed to be actual variable dispatch cost in the model) of the very last, or
highest-cost, generator to be dispatched in any time period, that generator may or may not
be affected by the price of coal from the MTM/VF study region. In fact, that last
generator may be a gas-fired plant in some time periods.
Thus, while we may be calculating a weighted average of AEP and APS prices for the
WV_N (northern West Virginia) sub-region, for example, each of those utilities span
areas and generators outside of the study area as well as inside. Accordingly, the effects
of MTM/VF restrictions are greatly diluted as we consider the wholesale price of
electricity on the competitive transmission grid.
It is important to note that wholesale electricity prices, as modeled by lambda costs, may
not be reflective of retail electricity prices, especially in a regulated electric utility
environment. In particular, consider the hypothetical situation where a gas-fired plant is
the "last" plant dispatched, and its dispatch cost is determining the price of electricity.
Theoretically, we might raise the cost of many coal-fired plants lower on the dispatch
cost curve and thereby substantially reduce the profitability of those coal plants (and
29
-------
perhaps the total utility) operating against the electricity price still being established by
the gas-fired plant. The model would still yield the same lambda cost of the "last"
generator, but the utility might very well file for a regulated rate increase due to higher
average costs and reduced overall profitability of its entire portfolio of generators.
The overall U.S. average wholesale electricity price (lambda cost) for each scenario,
needed by the anticipated model to be used in EIS support Phase 3, is listed in Table J-l
in Appendix J.
III.F. Capital Expenditures at Electric Plants
Table G-l in Appendix G shows that, in general, there is no significant difference across
MTM/VF scenarios in capital expenditures for environmental clean-up equipment at
coal-fired generating plants. The one exception is in year 2004 when all of the MTM/VF
restricted scenarios spend about $15 million (constant 2001$) more than the level of $18-
$19 million in the Base Case(s).
Detailed examination of the plant-level model output reveals that this additional $15
million dollars is due to the fact that one large plant grouping in the model, Units 1-3 at
AEP's John E. Amos Plant, only partially scrubs (about 55%) in the Base Case(s) in
2004. In other words, at the coal prices in the Base Case(s), the best economics are to
install scrubbing on only 55% of that unit grouping, and the remainder remains
unscrubbed. However, at the coal prices of each of the MTM/VF restricted cases, the
best economics are to install 100% scrubbing at this unit grouping at the correspondingly
higher capital cost.
Turning to capital expenditures for new generating capacity, we see from Tables H-l in
Appendix H that the models call for new capacity only in the Virginia sub-region of the
study area. Summation across the years reveals that the total capital investment (constant
2001$) across the entire 10-year period is about $1,160 million for New Combined-Cycle
gas-fired baseload units, plus about $300 million for New Gas-Turbine peaking units and
around $700 million for a new coal-fired generating station. This $2.2 billion capital
investment adds about 3400 MW of baseload capacity and roughly 1200 MW of peaking
capacity.
Finally, the model anticipated to be used in EIS support Phase 3 requires a one-time
breakdown of major coal mine operating costs by category. Those numbers are presented
in Table 1-1 in Appendix I.
30
-------
APPENDICES
Table A-1
Total Tons - Surface and Deep Mines Combined
ProductionTons (000)
Region
KY1
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY2
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY3
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY4
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvc
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
WVE
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
37,850
37,850
37,850
37,850
37,850
37,850
2001
49,100
49,100
49,100
49,100
49,100
49,100
2001
1,690
1,690
1,690
1,690
1,690
1,690
2001
90
90
90
90
90
90
2001
31,460
31,460
31,460
31,460
31,460
31,460
2001
890
890
890
890
890
890
37,112
37,112
36,193
36,235
35,210
33,392
2002
46,844
46,844
42,903
42,903
42,746
41,361
2002
1,575
1,575
1,708
1,708
1,708
1,668
2002
120
120
81
81
81
51
2002
29,662
29,662
30,761
30,761
28,545
22,375
2002
658
658
864
864
864
864
36,823
36,823
36,774
36,764
34,894
27,389
2003
46,224
46,074
42,522
42,482
42,880
40,668
2003
1,407
1,407
1,552
1,552
1,675
1,672
2003
50
50
90
80
30
41
2003
30,302
30,447
30,520
30,520
25,300
22,724
2003
679
679
679
679
823
884
33,002
33,002
33,701
33,661
31,764
25,152
2004
46,608
46,599
42,398
43,177
43,419
42,055
2004
1,406
1,406
1,357
1,531
1,562
1,429
2004
0
0
0
0
0
41
2004
30,078
30,018
27,994
29,272
24,905
22,994
2004
699
699
699
699
699
843
31,176
31,422
31,964
31,855
29,911
24,414
2005
40,984
41,518
43,787
43,426
42,577
43,418
2005
1,114
1,114
1,084
1,064
1,073
1,098
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
28,493
26,772
23,996
23,946
23,585
22,210
2005
648
720
720
720
720
713
33,170
32,007
30,886
30,769
26,389
24,519
2006
32,500
33,638
34,633
34,093
36,946
36,341
2006
844
1,035
825
995
1,005
1,108
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
33,809
32,447
28,024
28,024
27,747
23,031
2006
739
740
740
740
740
724
33,894
33,767
29,025
28,803
26,460
22,649
2007
36,086
35,576
31,040
30,769
32,564
33,160
2007
1,020
1,023
999
1,003
993
1,132
2007
0
0
0
0
0
40
2007
23,213
21,555
32,083
32,093
31,807
10,814
2007
761
761
761
761
761
734
41,195
35,551
29,686
29,498
25,917
26,140
2008
34,865
35,765
33,043
31,944
30,616
29,975
2008
665
993
1,003
1,114
1,124
1,072
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
23,099
16,371
16,982
17,705
19,847
1 1 ,092
2008
782
782
782
782
782
745
33,984
31,630
31,040
30,731
27,287
27,617
2009
28,029
27,881
27,504
25,817
24,684
23,527
2009
1,077
1,104
1,134
1,136
1,146
912
2009
0
40
40
40
40
40
2009
12,488
13,869
15,033
14,478
13,850
8,837
2009
1,004
1,004
1,004
943
1,004
895
29,059
26,355
25,977
26,092
23,130
23,034
2010
23,534
27,768
23,835
23,319
26,238
21,542
2010
1,106
1,106
1,136
1,207
1,186
982
2010
40
41
41
41
41
41
2010
13,676
18,263
11,166
10,831
10,130
8,495
2010
1,026
1,026
1,026
1,025
1,026
844
31
-------
Table A-1 (cont.)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2010
WVN
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvs
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvsw
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIWV
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All E. KY
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
VA
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All Regions
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
35,080
35,080
35,080
35,080
35,080
35,080
2001
5,750
5,750
5,750
5,750
5,750
5,750
2001
61,190
61,190
61,190
61,190
61,190
61,190
2001
134,370
134,370
134,370
134,370
134,370
134,370
2001
88,730
88,730
88,730
88,730
88,730
88,730
2001
27,200
27,200
27,200
27,200
27,200
27,200
2001
250,300
250,300
250,300
250,300
250,300
250,300
39,019
39,019
35,767
35,667
35,308
34,958
2002
5,413
5,413
5,238
5,308
5,238
4,499
2002
62,379
62,379
58,800
58,790
55,018
45,891
2002
137,131
137,131
131,429
131,389
124,971
108,586
2002
85,651
85,651
80,885
80,927
79,745
76,472
2002
28,032
28,032
26,463
26,463
26,802
26,775
2002
250,814
250,814
238,777
238,779
231,518
211,833
42,631
42,631
38,943
38,943
38,945
38,965
2003
4,431
4,431
3,211
3,251
3,703
3,417
2003
55,381
55,381
53,326
53,216
47,253
40,083
2003
133,423
133,568
126,678
126,608
116,024
106,074
2003
84,503
84,353
80,938
80,878
79,479
69,769
2003
29,777
29,777
27,643
27,643
28,498
27,722
2003
247,703
247,698
235,258
235,128
224,000
203,565
44,639
44,639
43,151
43,222
43,244
43,244
2004
1,849
1,849
1,159
1,159
1,882
1,233
2004
58,943
58,923
51,634
47,398
43,721
32,996
2004
136,208
136,128
124,638
121,749
114,451
101,311
2004
81,016
81,008
77,456
78,369
76,745
68,677
2004
28,625
28,516
29,980
30,031
30,141
29,178
2004
245,849
245,651
232,074
230,150
221,338
199,165
46,765
46,765
45,479
45,479
47,417
47,581
2005
1,477
1,477
838
838
1,530
553
2005
66,136
66,682
51,662
51,052
51,096
33,663
2005
143,518
142,415
122,695
122,035
124,348
104,720
2005
73,273
74,053
76,835
76,345
73,561
68,930
2005
22,886
23,013
27,182
27,390
26,690
26,032
2005
239,677
239,481
226,711
225,770
224,598
199,682
48,120
48,241
47,120
47,120
49,297
50,099
2006
1,117
1,117
788
788
1,190
513
2006
53,564
50,323
54,304
50,086
40,508
40,485
2006
137,349
132,868
130,977
126,758
119,482
114,852
2006
66,513
66,680
66,343
65,857
64,340
61,967
2006
23,265
23,929
23,020
23,027
23,551
21,416
2006
227,127
223,477
220,340
215,642
207,374
198,235
47,144
47,147
46,842
46,842
49,118
50,098
2007
1,127
1,127
788
788
1,221
529
2007
50,552
46,895
38,060
41,243
52,699
45,606
2007
122,798
117,484
118,534
121,727
135,606
107,781
2007
71,000
70,367
61,064
60,576
60,017
56,981
2007
24,662
25,132
24,702
24,768
25,090
24,089
2007
218,460
212,983
204,300
207,071
220,713
188,852
46,330
44,586
43,016
43,016
44,566
47,175
2008
1,064
1,064
685
365
1,252
539
2008
69,764
56,022
42,529
44,652
39,828
45,100
2008
141,038
118,824
103,993
106,520
106,274
104,651
2008
76,725
72,310
63,732
62,556
57,656
57,186
2008
22,212
23,123
23,818
23,772
24,269
23,788
2008
239,975
214,257
191,543
192,847
188,199
185,625
41,430
40,898
42,515
42,495
43,851
45,025
2009
544
544
185
185
1,283
550
2009
65,887
50,730
42,354
44,252
41,437
45,194
2009
121,352
107,044
101,090
102,353
101,424
100,500
2009
63,090
60,655
59,718
57,723
53,157
52,095
2009
21,061
22,491
22,174
21,961
21,735
21,300
2009
205,504
190,191
182,983
182,038
176,315
173,895
42,893
41,454
41,380
41,379
42,943
39,467
2010
554
554
185
185
1,314
560
2010
57,483
46,768
46,852
45,551
41,014
44,152
2010
115,633
108,066
100,608
98,971
96,426
93,519
2010
53,739
55,270
50,989
50,658
50,595
45,599
2010
22,254
23,071
22,729
22,116
22,367
22,086
2010
191,626
186,407
174,326
171,744
169,388
161,203
32
-------
Table A-2
Total Tons - Surface Mines Only
ProductionTons (000)
Region
KY1
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY2
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY3
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY4
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvc
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
WVE
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
17,410
17,410
17,410
17,410
17,410
17,410
2001
19,470
19,470
19,470
19,470
19,470
19,470
2001
1,020
1,020
1,020
1,020
1,020
1,020
2001
80
80
80
80
80
80
2001
23,230
23,230
23,230
23,230
23,230
23,230
2001
630
630
630
630
630
630
19,041
19,041
16,935
16,925
15,865
13,370
2002
19,130
19,130
15,784
15,784
15,576
13,370
2002
819
819
952
952
952
912
2002
120
120
81
81
81
51
2002
22,290
22,290
23,585
23,585
21,369
15,196
2002
391
391
596
596
596
596
18,258
18,258
17,523
17,513
15,378
7,502
2003
16,819
16,819
14,819
14,779
14,336
1 1 ,405
2003
644
644
788
788
901
898
2003
50
50
90
80
30
41
2003
22,580
22,726
23,035
23,035
17,753
15,177
2003
401
401
401
401
545
607
14,578
14,578
14,972
14,932
13,034
5,915
2004
13,982
13,982
12,796
13,370
12,935
8,824
2004
634
634
603
778
778
635
2004
0
0
0
0
0
41
2004
21,868
21,868
20,478
21,273
16,854
14,943
2004
411
411
411
411
411
555
13,329
14,078
13,457
13,348
10,100
4,087
2005
12,010
13,544
12,664
12,235
9,617
7,876
2005
331
331
300
300
300
294
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
22,748
21,088
16,634
16,584
16,223
14,243
2005
350
422
422
422
422
415
13,415
13,659
13,230
13,195
7,720
3,366
2006
1 1 ,897
12,698
10,218
9,677
9,746
7,002
2006
50
221
30
201
201
294
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
28,961
27,432
23,282
23,282
22,461
17,675
2006
431
432
432
432
432
415
13,735
13,740
1 1 ,498
1 1 ,398
6,821
3,143
2007
12,575
12,080
9,427
8,967
8,535
6,456
2007
201
205
201
205
205
314
2007
0
0
0
0
0
40
2007
18,704
16,575
27,092
27,093
26,814
5,666
2007
442
442
442
442
442
415
14,421
12,587
9,649
9,591
6,104
2,486
2008
10,314
13,024
8,397
8,217
8,187
6,349
2008
30
205
205
316
316
254
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
16,971
12,646
13,313
13,651
15,742
4,219
2008
453
453
453
453
453
415
11,951
10,910
8,275
8,226
4,996
1,575
2009
11,194
11,277
7,663
7,493
8,435
6,456
2009
312
336
336
338
338
144
2009
0
40
40
40
40
40
2009
7,305
1 1 ,090
1 1 ,903
1 1 ,450
10,375
4,045
2009
664
664
664
604
664
555
9,717
9,103
7,339
7,299
3,830
1,689
2010
10,361
10,283
7,606
7,536
8,031
7,157
2010
338
338
338
409
409
214
2010
40
41
41
41
41
41
2010
8,548
15,559
8,232
7,876
7,185
3,522
2010
677
677
677
676
677
495
33
-------
WVN
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvs
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvsw
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIWV
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All E. KY
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
VA
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All Regions
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
Table A-2 (cont.)
2001
1,480
1,480
1,480
1,480
1,480
1,480
2001
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
2001
27,730
27,730
27,730
27,730
27,730
27,730
2001
54,280
54,280
54,280
54,280
54,280
54,280
2001
37,980
37,980
37,980
37,980
37,980
37,980
2001
8,330
8,330
8,330
8,330
8,330
8,330
2001
100,590
100,590
100,590
100,590
100,590
100,590
2002
1,175
1,175
1,293
1,193
833
483
2002
1,223
1,223
1,048
1,118
1,048
308
2002
30,668
30,668
26,780
26,770
22,392
13,177
2002
55,747
55,747
53,303
53,263
46,239
29,761
2002
39,110
39,110
33,752
33,742
32,474
27,702
2002
7,737
7,737
8,043
8,043
8,341
8,007
2002
102,594
102,594
95,098
95,048
87,054
65,470
2003
517
517
296
296
298
318
2003
1,078
1,078
191
231
338
318
2003
27,159
27,159
24,962
24,852
18,259
10,665
2003
51,736
51,882
48,885
48,815
37,193
27,086
2003
35,770
35,770
33,220
33,160
30,645
19,847
2003
7,855
7,855
7,851
7,851
8,150
7,333
2003
95,362
95,507
89,956
89,826
75,988
54,266
2004
144
144
215
286
308
308
2004
328
328
21
21
328
328
2004
29,650
29,650
24,608
20,372
16,047
4,472
2004
52,401
52,401
45,734
42,362
33,949
20,606
2004
29,193
29,193
28,371
29,080
26,746
15,415
2004
7,412
7,412
7,964
7,954
7,731
6,421
2004
89,006
89,006
82,068
79,395
68,426
42,442
2005
72
72
134
134
93
256
2005
339
339
21
21
339
339
2005
32,438
32,787
23,805
23,145
20,425
1,859
2005
55,947
54,708
41,015
40,305
37,501
17,112
2005
25,669
27,952
26,421
25,883
20,018
12,257
2005
7,287
7,390
7,488
7,406
6,453
5,246
2005
88,903
90,050
74,924
73,594
63,972
34,615
2006
133
254
134
134
274
276
2006
349
349
21
21
349
349
2006
17,345
17,362
21,123
16,903
6,085
2,067
2006
47,218
45,828
44,992
40,772
29,601
20,782
2006
25,362
26,578
23,478
23,074
17,667
10,662
2006
7,101
7,616
7,451
7,160
7,109
4,391
2006
79,681
80,022
75,920
71,005
54,377
35,835
2007
275
277
275
275
134
277
2007
359
359
21
21
359
359
2007
12,020
12,031
6,377
6,372
9,631
4,241
2007
31,801
29,684
34,207
34,202
37,380
10,958
2007
26,512
26,025
21,127
20,570
15,560
9,954
2007
7,551
7,642
7,375
7,122
6,424
4,166
2007
65,864
63,350
62,709
61,894
59,364
25,078
2008
216
216
215
215
214
256
2008
370
370
21
21
370
370
2008
23,483
17,377
9,971
9,161
8,604
3,648
2008
41,492
31,061
23,971
23,500
25,381
8,908
2008
24,765
25,815
18,251
18,123
14,606
9,089
2008
5,947
6,562
6,436
6,396
6,201
3,472
2008
72,204
63,438
48,658
48,019
46,188
21,469
2009
377
448
235
215
277
215
2009
380
380
21
21
380
380
2009
24,205
17,141
10,121
9,046
7,259
2,784
2009
32,931
29,723
22,944
21,335
18,954
7,979
2009
23,457
22,563
16,314
16,097
13,809
8,215
2009
7,039
7,649
6,912
6,729
5,410
3,381
2009
63,427
59,935
46,170
44,161
38,173
19,576
2010
470
471
466
465
468
466
2010
390
390
21
21
390
390
2010
20,778
15,495
10,806
8,883
5,092
1,944
2010
30,863
32,592
20,201
17,921
13,812
6,816
2010
20,456
19,765
15,325
15,284
12,311
9,101
2010
7,446
7,185
6,856
6,670
4,753
3,285
2010
58,765
59,542
42,382
39,875
30,876
19,202
34
-------
Table A-3
Total Tons - Deep Mines Only
ProductionTons (000)
Region
KY1
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY2
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY3
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY4
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvc
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
WVE
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
20,440
20,440
20,440
20,440
20,440
20,440
2001
29,630
29,630
29,630
29,630
29,630
29,630
2001
670
670
670
670
670
670
2001
10
10
10
10
10
10
2001
8,230
8,230
8,230
8,230
8,230
8,230
2001
260
260
260
260
260
260
18,071
18,071
19,258
19,310
19,345
20,022
2002
27,714
27,714
27,119
27,119
27,170
27,991
2002
756
756
757
757
757
757
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
7,372
7,372
7,176
7,176
7,176
7,178
2002
267
267
267
267
267
267
18,565
18,565
19,251
19,251
19,516
19,887
2003
29,405
29,255
27,703
27,703
28,544
29,263
2003
762
762
763
763
773
773
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
7,721
7,721
7,484
7,484
7,547
7,547
2003
278
278
278
278
278
278
18,425
18,425
18,729
18,729
18,731
19,237
2004
32,626
32,617
29,602
29,807
30,485
33,231
2004
773
773
753
753
784
794
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
8,210
8,150
7,516
7,999
8,051
8,051
2004
288
288
288
288
288
288
17,848
17,344
18,507
18,507
19,811
20,328
2005
28,974
27,973
31,123
31,191
32,960
35,542
2005
783
783
784
763
773
803
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
5,744
5,684
7,362
7,362
7,362
7,967
2005
298
298
298
298
298
298
19,755
18,349
17,656
17,574
18,670
21,154
2006
20,603
20,940
24,415
24,416
27,200
29,339
2006
793
813
794
794
803
813
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
4,848
5,015
4,741
4,741
5,286
5,357
2006
308
308
308
308
308
308
20,159
20,027
17,527
17,405
19,639
19,506
2007
23,511
23,497
21,613
21,803
24,030
26,704
2007
818
819
798
798
788
818
2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
4,509
4,980
4,990
5,000
4,993
5,148
2007
319
319
319
319
319
319
26,774
22,965
20,037
19,908
19,813
23,654
2008
24,552
22,741
24,646
23,727
22,429
23,626
2008
634
788
798
798
808
818
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
6,128
3,726
3,670
4,054
4,104
6,873
2008
329
329
329
329
329
329
22,032
20,720
22,765
22,505
22,292
26,042
2009
16,835
16,604
19,841
18,324
16,249
17,070
2009
765
768
798
798
808
768
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
5,184
2,779
3,130
3,028
3,475
4,792
2009
339
339
339
339
339
340
19,342
17,252
18,637
18,793
19,300
21,345
2010
13,172
17,486
16,229
15,783
18,208
14,385
2010
768
768
798
798
778
768
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
5,128
2,704
2,934
2,955
2,945
4,974
2010
349
349
349
349
349
349
35
-------
WVN
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvs
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvsw
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIWV
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All E. KY
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
VA
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All Regions
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
Table A-3 (cont.)
2001
33,600
33,600
33,600
33,600
33,600
33,600
2001
4,540
4,540
4,540
4,540
4,540
4,540
2001
33,460
33,460
33,460
33,460
33,460
33,460
2001
80,090
80,090
80,090
80,090
80,090
80,090
2001
50,750
50,750
50,750
50,750
50,750
50,750
2001
18,870
18,870
18,870
18,870
18,870
18,870
2001
149,710
149,710
149,710
149,710
149,710
149,710
2002
37,844
37,844
34,474
34,474
34,474
34,474
2002
4,189
4,189
4,189
4,189
4,189
4,191
2002
31,711
31,711
32,020
32,020
32,625
32,713
2002
81,384
81,384
78,127
78,127
78,732
78,825
2002
46,541
46,541
47,133
47,185
47,271
48,769
2002
20,295
20,295
18,419
18,419
18,461
18,768
2002
148,220
148,220
143,679
143,731
144,464
146,363
2003
42,114
42,114
38,647
38,647
38,647
38,647
2003
3,353
3,353
3,020
3,020
3,365
3,099
2003
28,221
28,221
28,364
28,364
28,995
29,418
2003
81,687
81,687
77,793
77,793
78,831
78,988
2003
48,733
48,583
47,718
47,718
48,833
49,922
2003
21,922
21,922
19,792
19,792
20,347
20,389
2003
152,341
152,191
145,302
145,302
148,012
149,300
2004
44,496
44,496
42,936
42,936
42,936
42,936
2004
1,521
1,521
1,139
1,139
1,553
905
2004
29,293
29,273
27,026
27,026
27,674
28,525
2004
83,807
83,727
78,905
79,387
80,502
80,704
2004
51,823
51,814
49,085
49,290
49,999
53,262
2004
21,213
21,104
22,016
22,078
22,411
22,757
2004
156,843
156,645
150,005
150,755
152,912
156,723
2005
46,693
46,693
45,345
45,345
47,325
47,325
2005
1,138
1,138
818
818
1,191
214
2005
33,698
33,894
27,857
27,907
30,671
31,804
2005
87,571
87,707
81,680
81,730
86,847
87,608
2005
47,604
46,101
50,414
50,462
53,543
56,673
2005
15,599
15,624
19,695
19,985
20,237
20,786
2005
150,775
149,431
151,788
152,177
160,627
165,067
2006
47,987
47,987
46,987
46,987
49,022
49,822
2006
768
768
768
768
841
164
2006
36,219
32,961
33,181
33,182
34,423
38,418
2006
90,131
87,040
85,985
85,987
89,881
94,070
2006
41,151
40,102
42,865
42,783
46,673
51,305
2006
16,165
16,314
15,569
15,867
16,442
17,025
2006
147,447
143,455
144,420
144,637
152,996
162,400
2007
46,869
46,869
46,567
46,567
48,984
49,822
2007
768
768
768
768
862
170
2007
38,532
34,864
31,683
34,872
43,068
41,365
2007
90,997
87,800
84,327
87,526
98,226
96,824
2007
44,488
44,342
39,938
40,006
44,457
47,027
2007
17,112
17,491
17,328
17,646
18,667
19,923
2007
152,596
149,633
141,592
145,177
161,349
163,774
2008
46,114
44,370
42,801
42,801
44,352
46,919
2008
694
694
664
344
883
170
2008
46,281
38,644
32,558
35,492
31,225
41,452
2008
99,546
87,763
80,022
83,020
80,893
95,743
2008
51,960
46,494
45,480
44,432
43,050
48,098
2008
16,265
16,561
17,382
17,376
18,068
20,315
2008
167,771
150,819
142,885
144,828
142,011
164,156
2009
41,053
40,451
42,281
42,281
43,574
44,810
2009
164
164
164
164
903
170
2009
41,681
33,589
32,232
35,206
34,179
42,409
2009
88,421
77,321
78,147
81,018
82,470
92,520
2009
39,633
38,092
43,404
41,626
39,348
43,880
2009
14,022
14,842
15,262
15,232
16,325
17,919
2009
142,077
130,256
136,813
137,877
138,143
154,319
2010
42,423
40,983
40,914
40,914
42,475
39,001
2010
164
164
164
164
924
170
2010
36,705
31,274
36,046
36,668
35,922
42,209
2010
84,770
75,474
80,407
81,050
82,614
86,703
2010
33,283
35,505
35,664
35,374
38,285
36,498
2010
14,808
15,886
15,873
15,446
17,613
18,800
2010
132,861
126,865
131,945
131,869
138,512
142,001
36
-------
Table B-1
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
Base Case -10% ROI
Region Mining Type
KY_1 Deep
KY_1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY_2 Deep
KY_2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY_3 Deep
KY_3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY 4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV C Deep
WV C Surface
WV_C Total
WV E Deep
WV E Surface
WV_E Total
WV N Deep
WV_N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV_S Surface
WV_S Total
WV SW Deep
WV_SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
VA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1608
975
2583
2467
1044
3511
67
48
116
0
8
8
656
1266
1922
24
17
41
2701
51
2752
373
72
445
2612
1497
4109
4142
2075
6217
6366
2903
9269
1658
455
2113
12166
5434
17600
2003
1652
942
2595
2617
941
3558
68
38
106
0
3
3
687
1284
1971
25
17
42
2996
24
3020
298
64
362
2374
1404
3778
4337
1925
6262
6380
2793
9173
1795
463
2259
12513
5181
17694
2004
1640
844
2484
2904
790
3693
69
37
106
0
0
0
731
1244
1974
26
18
44
3162
8
3169
135
19
155
2449
1567
4017
4612
1671
6283
6503
2856
9359
1728
437
2166
12843
4965
17808
2005
1588
775
2363
2579
676
3255
70
20
89
0
0
0
511
1314
1825
27
14
41
3311
4
3316
101
20
121
2805
1758
4563
4237
1470
5707
6756
3110
9866
1225
430
1654
12217
5010
17227
2006
1758
780
2538
1834
669
2503
71
3
74
0
0
0
431
1686
2118
27
19
46
3405
8
3413
68
21
89
3045
954
3999
3662
1452
5114
6977
2688
9665
1271
419
1690
11910
4559
16469
2007
1794
799
2593
2092
693
2786
73
12
85
0
0
0
393
1091
1484
28
19
47
3346
16
3362
68
21
90
3339
669
4008
3959
1504
5463
7175
1817
8991
1351
446
1796
12485
3766
16251
2008
2383
839
3222
2185
544
2729
56
2
58
0
0
0
543
990
1533
29
20
49
3328
13
3341
62
22
84
4059
1231
5291
4624
1385
6009
8022
2275
10297
1267
351
1618
13914
4011
17925
2009
1961
694
2655
1498
629
2127
68
18
87
0
0
0
453
420
872
30
32
62
2975
22
2997
15
22
37
3709
1273
4983
3527
1341
4869
7182
1769
8951
1063
415
1478
11772
3526
15298
2010
1716
562
2278
1167
585
1752
68
20
88
0
2
2
447
493
940
31
32
63
3069
28
3097
15
23
38
3253
1127
4380
2951
1169
4120
6815
1703
8518
1102
439
1541
10868
3311
14179
37
-------
Table B-2
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
Base Case- 15%ROI
Region Mining Type
KY_1 Deep
KY 1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY_2 Deep
KY 2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY_3 Deep
KY 3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY 4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV_C Deep
WV C Surface
WV_C Total
WV E Deep
WV E Surface
WV_E Total
WV_N Deep
WV N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV S Surface
WV_S Total
WV SW Deep
WV SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1608
975
2583
2467
1044
3511
67
48
116
0
8
8
656
1266
1922
24
17
41
2701
51
2752
373
72
445
2612
1497
4109
4142
2075
6217
6366
2903
9269
1658
455
2113
12166
5434
17600
2003
1652
942
2595
2604
941
3545
68
38
106
0
3
3
687
1292
1980
25
17
42
2996
24
3020
298
64
362
2374
1404
3778
4324
1925
6249
6380
2802
9182
1795
463
2259
12499
5190
17689
2004
1640
844
2484
2903
790
3693
69
37
106
0
0
0
725
1244
1969
26
18
44
3162
8
3169
135
19
155
2448
1567
4015
4611
1671
6283
6495
2856
9352
1719
437
2156
12825
4965
17790
2005
1544
819
2363
2490
767
3256
70
20
89
0
0
0
506
1216
1722
27
18
45
3311
4
3316
101
20
121
2823
1779
4601
4103
1605
5708
6768
3037
9805
1227
436
1663
12098
5078
17176
2006
1633
794
2427
1864
716
2580
72
13
85
0
0
0
438
1596
2034
27
19
46
3405
15
3420
68
21
89
2755
955
3710
3569
1524
5093
6693
2606
9299
1284
449
1733
11547
4579
16125
2007
1782
799
2582
2091
664
2755
73
12
85
0
0
0
434
966
1400
28
19
47
3346
16
3362
68
21
90
3013
669
3682
3946
1475
5422
6890
1692
8582
1384
451
1835
12221
3618
15838
2008
2044
731
2775
2024
704
2728
70
12
82
0
0
0
329
735
1063
29
20
49
3191
13
3204
62
22
84
3379
908
4288
4138
1447
5585
6990
1697
8687
1294
387
1681
12422
3531
15952
2009
1844
632
2476
1478
634
2112
68
20
88
0
2
2
238
643
881
30
32
62
2903
26
2930
15
22
37
2982
894
3877
3390
1288
4679
6169
1618
7787
1136
451
1587
10695
3358
14052
2010
1535
526
2061
1556
580
2136
68
20
88
0
2
2
231
907
1138
31
32
63
2941
28
2968
15
23
38
2776
848
3624
3160
1128
4288
5994
1838
7832
1224
424
1648
10378
3390
13767
38
-------
Table B-3
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
250-Acre Case
Region Mining TV
KY_1 Deep
KY_1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY 2 Deep
KY_2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY 3 Deep
KY 3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY 4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV_C Deep
WV_C Surface
WV_C Total
WV_E Deep
WV_E Surface
WV_E Total
WV N Deep
WV_N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV S Surface
WV_S Total
WV_SW Deep
WV SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1714
944
2657
2414
887
3300
67
56
124
0
5
5
630
1343
1973
24
29
53
2471
59
2530
373
62
435
2633
1347
3980
4195
1891
6086
6130
2840
8970
1491
473
1964
11816
5205
17021
2003
1713
895
2608
2466
829
3295
68
47
114
0
6
6
658
1311
1969
25
17
42
2759
16
2775
269
11
280
2381
1265
3646
4247
1776
6023
6091
2621
8712
1606
463
2069
11944
4861
16804
2004
1667
840
2507
2635
747
3382
67
36
103
0
0
0
669
1175
1844
26
18
44
3054
11
3065
101
1
103
2261
1277
3537
4369
1623
5991
6111
2481
8592
1796
470
2266
12276
4574
16849
2005
1647
779
2427
2770
743
3513
70
18
87
0
0
0
655
965
1621
27
18
45
3222
8
3230
73
1
74
2321
1282
3603
4487
1540
6027
6297
2275
8572
1586
442
2027
12370
4257
16627
2006
1571
770
2341
2173
603
2776
71
2
72
0
0
0
422
1358
1780
27
19
46
3337
8
3345
68
1
70
2764
1138
3902
3815
1374
5189
6620
2524
9144
1214
440
1654
11649
4338
15986
2007
1560
667
2227
1924
556
2480
71
12
83
0
0
0
435
1589
2024
28
19
47
3310
16
3326
68
1
70
2682
342
3023
3554
1235
4790
6523
1968
8491
1366
435
1801
11444
3638
15082
2008
1783
558
2342
2193
495
2689
71
12
83
0
0
0
324
785
1108
29
20
49
3069
13
3081
59
1
60
2836
534
3370
4048
1066
5114
6317
1352
7669
1363
380
1743
11727
2798
14525
2009
2026
482
2508
1766
452
2218
71
20
91
0
2
2
275
702
977
30
32
62
3019
14
3033
15
1
16
2865
543
3408
3863
956
4819
6203
1292
7495
1169
408
1577
11236
2656
13891
2010
1659
433
2092
1444
449
1893
71
20
91
0
2
2
251
485
736
31
32
63
2921
27
2949
15
1
16
3202
596
3798
3174
904
4078
6421
1142
7563
1219
404
1623
10813
2451
13264
39
-------
Table B-4
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
150-Acre Case
Region Mining Type
KY_1 Deep
KY 1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY_2 Deep
KY 2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY_3 Deep
KY 3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY 4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV C Deep
WV C Surface
WV_C Total
WV_E Deep
WV E Surface
WV_E Total
WV_N Deep
WV N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV S Surface
WV_S Total
WV SW Deep
WV SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1719
943
2661
2414
887
3300
67
56
124
0
5
5
630
1343
1973
24
29
53
2471
55
2526
373
66
439
2633
1347
3980
4199
1891
6090
6130
2840
8970
1491
473
1964
11821
5204
17025
2003
1713
895
2608
2466
829
3294
68
47
114
0
5
5
658
1311
1969
25
17
42
2759
16
2775
269
14
282
2381
1261
3641
4247
1775
6022
6091
2619
8710
1606
463
2069
11944
4857
16801
2004
1667
839
2506
2653
782
3435
67
46
113
0
0
0
704
1222
1925
26
18
44
3054
15
3069
101
1
103
2261
1067
3327
4387
1667
6054
6145
2323
8468
1802
469
2271
12334
4459
16793
2005
1647
773
2420
2776
718
3494
68
18
86
0
0
0
655
963
1619
27
18
45
3222
8
3230
73
1
74
2325
1248
3573
4491
1509
6000
6302
2239
8540
1608
437
2045
12401
4185
16586
2006
1564
767
2332
2173
571
2744
71
12
83
0
0
0
422
1358
1780
27
19
46
3337
8
3345
68
1
70
2764
910
3675
3808
1350
5158
6620
2296
8916
1237
422
1660
11665
4069
15733
2007
1549
661
2210
1940
529
2469
71
12
83
0
0
0
436
1589
2025
28
19
47
3310
16
3326
68
1
70
2965
342
3307
3561
1203
4763
6808
1967
8775
1391
420
1811
11759
3590
15349
2008
1772
555
2327
2112
485
2596
71
19
90
0
0
0
351
805
1156
29
20
49
3069
13
3081
31
1
32
3097
491
3588
3954
1058
5013
6577
1329
7906
1362
377
1739
11894
2764
14658
2009
2003
480
2482
1631
442
2073
71
20
91
0
2
2
268
675
943
30
28
58
3019
13
3031
15
1
16
3133
489
3622
3705
944
4649
6465
1206
7670
1166
397
1563
11336
2547
13882
2010
1673
431
2103
1405
445
1849
71
24
95
0
2
2
253
464
717
31
32
63
2921
27
2949
15
1
16
3254
488
3741
3148
902
4050
6473
1013
7486
1181
394
1574
10802
2308
13110
40
-------
Table B-5
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
75-Acre Case
Region Mining Type
KY_1 Deep
KY 1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY_2 Deep
KY 2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY_3 Deep
KY 3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY 4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV_C Deep
WV C Surface
WV_C Total
WV_E Deep
WV E Surface
WV_E Total
WV N Deep
WV N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV_S Surface
WV_S Total
WV SW Deep
WV SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1722
881
2602
2418
878
3296
67
56
124
0
5
5
630
1223
1853
24
29
53
2471
42
2513
373
62
435
2681
1134
3815
4207
1820
6027
6179
2490
8669
1495
492
1987
11880
4802
16683
2003
1737
820
2557
2540
816
3357
69
53
122
0
2
2
663
1029
1692
25
26
51
2759
16
2775
299
20
319
2431
936
3367
4346
1691
6038
6176
2027
8204
1655
481
2136
12178
4200
16377
2004
1667
753
2420
2713
760
3473
70
46
116
0
0
0
707
977
1684
26
18
44
3054
16
3071
138
19
158
2318
866
3183
4450
1559
6009
6243
1896
8139
1832
456
2288
12525
3911
16436
2005
1763
583
2346
2933
566
3500
69
18
87
0
0
0
655
934
1590
27
18
45
3356
5
3362
106
20
126
2578
1098
3676
4765
1167
5933
6722
2077
8798
1630
381
2011
13118
3625
16742
2006
1662
449
2111
2421
575
2996
71
12
83
0
0
0
461
1299
1760
27
19
46
3476
16
3492
75
21
95
2875
326
3201
4154
1036
5190
6914
1681
8595
1288
419
1708
12356
3136
15492
2007
1748
402
2150
2139
504
2642
70
12
82
0
0
0
437
1563
2000
28
19
47
3476
8
3484
77
21
98
3639
525
4165
3957
918
4875
7658
2137
9795
1478
379
1857
13093
3434
16527
2008
1763
360
2123
1996
483
2479
72
19
91
0
0
0
356
918
1273
29
20
49
3162
13
3174
79
22
100
2779
465
3244
3831
862
4693
6404
1436
7840
1420
366
1786
11656
2664
14319
2009
1984
295
2279
1446
498
1944
72
20
92
0
2
2
299
601
900
30
32
62
3093
16
3109
80
22
103
3029
385
3414
3502
815
4317
6531
1056
7588
1260
319
1579
11293
2190
13483
2010
1718
226
1944
1620
474
2094
69
24
93
0
2
2
252
412
664
31
32
63
3012
28
3040
82
23
105
3184
267
3451
3407
726
4134
6561
763
7324
1370
280
1650
11338
1769
13108
41
-------
Table B-6
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
35-Acre Case
Region Mining Type
KY_1 Deep
KY 1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY_2 Deep
KY 2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY_3 Deep
KY 3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY_4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV_C Deep
WV C Surface
WV_C Total
WV_E Deep
WV E Surface
WV_E Total
WV_N Deep
WV N Surface
WV_N Total
WV_S Deep
WV S Surface
WV_S Total
WV SW Deep
WV SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1782
751
2533
2491
773
3264
67
54
121
0
3
3
630
889
1519
24
29
53
2471
28
2499
373
18
391
2688
713
3401
4340
1580
5921
6186
1677
7863
1522
472
1994
12048
3730
15778
2003
1770
435
2205
2604
668
3273
69
53
122
0
2
2
663
888
1551
25
30
54
2759
18
2776
276
19
295
2468
573
3041
4443
1159
5602
6190
1527
7717
1659
433
2092
12292
3118
15410
2004
1712
349
2061
2958
521
3478
71
37
108
0
2
2
707
874
1582
26
26
52
3054
16
3071
81
19
100
2385
227
2612
4740
909
5650
6253
1164
7416
1862
379
2241
12855
2452
15307
2005
1809
241
2050
3163
465
3628
72
17
89
0
0
0
700
828
1528
27
18
45
3356
15
3372
19
20
39
2669
99
2768
5044
723
5767
6771
981
7751
1679
309
1989
13494
2013
15507
2006
1883
199
2081
2611
413
3024
72
17
90
0
0
0
467
1035
1502
27
18
45
3530
16
3547
15
21
35
3194
122
3316
4566
629
5195
7233
1211
8445
1337
259
1596
13136
2100
15236
2007
1736
185
1921
2377
381
2758
73
19
91
0
2
2
448
332
780
28
18
46
3534
16
3550
15
21
36
3521
240
3761
4185
587
4773
7546
628
8174
1587
246
1832
13318
1461
14779
2008
2105
147
2252
2103
375
2477
73
15
88
0
0
0
608
249
857
29
18
47
3350
15
3366
15
22
36
3688
186
3874
4281
536
4817
7690
490
8180
1613
205
1818
13584
1231
14815
2009
2318
93
2411
1519
381
1900
68
8
77
0
2
2
423
239
662
30
26
56
3188
13
3201
15
22
37
3766
138
3904
3905
485
4390
7422
438
7860
1395
199
1595
12723
1122
13844
2010
1900
100
1999
1280
422
1703
68
13
81
0
2
2
431
208
639
31
25
56
2791
27
2819
15
23
38
3743
92
3836
3248
537
3785
7011
376
7387
1468
194
1662
11728
1107
12834
42
-------
Table C-1
Mine Capacity Capital Expenditures
Million Dollars
Region
KY1
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY2
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY3
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY4
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvc
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
WVE
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2008 2009
2010
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.33
33.33
5.09
4.95
2.72
2.49
2002
67.08
67.08
12.60
12.60
12.30
12.29
2002
0.79
0.79
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.34
2002
0.74
0.74
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
2002
8.37
8.37
7.17
7.17
6.69
0.66
2002
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
13.01
13.01
27.10
27.03
16.12
9.42
2003
45.89
42.89
34.51
34.30
33.19
31.83
2003
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.33
0.33
2003
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.36
0.00
0.00
2003
11.56
11.56
12.15
12.15
12.04
7.55
2003
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.18
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
68.35
71.18
54.21
54.21
54.52
79.48
2004
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.41
2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
14.41
13.29
14.47
14.47
10.45
10.27
2004
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
11.34
0.17
3.77
3.77
31.42
25.60
2005
0.70
0.70
38.50
39.96
80.17
59.95
2005
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
2005
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2005
88.19
65.01
4.65
5.13
12.14
0.97
2005
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.27
17.59
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.45
2006
0.70
0.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2006
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
2006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2006
83.51
70.13
96.36
96.42
70.47
53.47
2006
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.20
1.05
31.01
0.00
0.00
31.30
0.00
2007
39.17
53.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2007
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.14
0.14
0.10
2007
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2007
0.18
0.43
40.28
40.28
66.64
0.52
2007
0.40
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.21
178.48
70.50
51.85
51.70
1.63
99.52
2008
79.52
21.67
68.61
31.92
0.00
0.00
2008
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
2008
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
2008
68.97
0.43
0.27
0.27
0.69
43.08
2008
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.21
0.00
0.00
47.09
49.09
31.66
40.68
2009
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
1.50
2009
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
2009
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2009
0.42
0.42
0.26
0.52
0.68
0.52
2009
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
2010
0.00
21.12
0.00
0.00
39.18
0.00
2010
0.14
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
2010
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
2010
0.40
62.96
0.49
0.48
0.66
0.48
2010
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.38
0.40
0.22
43
-------
WVN
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvs
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvsw
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIWV
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All E. KY
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
VA
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All Regions
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
Table C-1 (cont.)
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
145.99
145.99
30.85
30.85
30.85
30.85
2002
0.19
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
55.12
55.12
11.35
11.35
9.84
8.70
2002
210.09
210.09
49.79
49.79
47.80
40.63
2002
101.94
101.94
18.10
17.96
15.43
15.14
2002
67.73
67.73
19.34
19.34
19.35
16.77
2002
379.76
379.76
87.23
87.09
82.58
72.54
2003
144.44
144.44
141.15
141.15
141.15
141.15
2003
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
2003
12.82
12.82
27.14
26.45
3.65
15.00
2003
169.20
169.20
180.82
180.13
157.22
164.23
2003
59.01
56.01
62.19
61.82
49.64
41.58
2003
40.88
40.88
44.45
44.45
45.70
43.94
2003
269.09
266.09
287.46
286.40
252.56
249.75
2004
78.27
78.27
145.22
145.22
145.22
145.22
2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
2004
102.78
102.38
49.37
13.86
48.59
6.80
2004
195.84
194.32
209.44
173.93
204.64
162.81
2004
68.74
71.57
54.42
54.42
54.73
79.89
2004
8.33
8.33
53.69
53.55
52.59
53.49
2004
272.91
274.22
317.55
281.90
311.96
296.19
2005
77.52
77.52
79.27
79.27
148.57
148.57
2005
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
2005
219.00
218.00
75.72
105.64
147.83
82.94
2005
385.23
361.05
160.02
190.42
309.06
232.89
2005
12.24
1.07
42.47
43.93
111.78
85.74
2005
6.82
6.82
6.97
12.57
12.57
12.57
2005
404.29
368.94
209.46
246.92
433.41
331.20
2006
37.61
37.61
52.32
52.32
54.27
82.27
2006
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
2006
61.61
5.09
128.16
128.05
88.42
188.29
2006
183.25
113.35
277.22
277.17
213.68
324.37
2006
18.50
1.34
0.21
0.21
0.20
16.65
2006
7.06
7.05
7.18
7.33
7.33
12.93
2006
208.81
121.74
284.61
284.71
221.21
353.95
2007
22.30
22.33
1.60
1.60
9.75
10.32
2007
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.14
2007
126.88
124.58
11.14
81.88
241.63
148.55
2007
149.90
147.86
53.40
124.14
318.95
159.74
2007
40.32
84.64
0.08
0.14
31.44
0.10
2007
12.51
24.56
30.75
31.31
59.92
63.21
2007
202.73
257.06
84.23
155.59
410.31
223.05
2008
43.74
14.31
20.54
20.54
0.48
19.76
2008
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.14
2008
416.55
199.99
146.14
123.36
0.32
179.12
2008
529.78
215.25
167.33
144.55
2.42
242.31
2008
258.05
92.17
120.51
83.62
1.63
99.53
2008
13.15
13.15
13.50
7.90
8.05
14.30
2008
800.98
320.57
301.34
236.07
12.10
356.14
2009
0.00
0.00
7.07
7.07
9.25
0.00
2009
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.14
2009
1.61
0.41
49.47
54.70
39.85
12.82
2009
2.55
1.35
57.18
62.67
50.71
13.69
2009
0.00
0.00
47.09
49.12
32.77
42.18
2009
8.05
8.53
8.05
8.02
8.26
8.40
2009
10.60
9.88
112.32
119.81
91.74
64.27
2010
46.66
16.93
3.92
3.92
5.89
0.03
2010
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.14
2010
1.35
14.99
83.45
14.43
34.75
0.17
2010
48.95
95.42
88.26
19.21
42.25
1.04
2010
0.14
21.17
0.05
0.02
39.20
0.34
2010
7.90
24.27
9.58
8.26
23.08
14.67
2010
56.99
140.86
97.89
27.49
104.53
16.05
44
-------
Table D-1
Average Coal Prices
(Constant 2001 Dollars per Ton, Fob Mine)
Region
KY1
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY2
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY3
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY4
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvc
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
WVE
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
35.22
35.22
35.22
35.22
35.22
35.22
2001
35.02
35.02
35.02
35.02
35.02
35.02
2001
34.27
34.27
34.27
34.27
34.27
34.27
2001
34.88
34.88
34.88
34.88
34.88
34.88
2001
34.75
34.75
34.75
34.75
34.75
34.75
2001
35.77
35.77
35.77
35.77
35.77
35.77
25.49
25.49
27.22
27.22
27.63
29.23
2002
25.27
25.27
27.00
27.00
27.36
28.87
2002
24.31
24.31
26.19
26.19
26.63
28.39
2002
25.17
25.17
26.85
26.85
27.16
28.54
2002
25.38
25.38
26.96
26.96
27.54
29.27
2002
26.11
26.11
27.61
27.62
27.95
29.50
25.06
25.05
25.87
25.88
26.70
27.73
2003
24.70
24.70
25.44
25.44
26.21
27.25
2003
23.73
24.82
24.65
24.65
25.44
26.47
2003
24.30
24.29
25.01
25.02
25.78
26.85
2003
25.10
25.09
25.97
25.97
26.91
27.79
2003
24.81
24.81
25.57
25.58
26.01
26.58
24.73
24.74
25.31
25.51
26.14
27.37
2004
24.13
24.15
24.67
24.83
25.40
26.74
2004
24.18
22.89
23.49
23.74
25.20
25.53
2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.07
2004
24.56
24.57
25.19
25.46
26.22
27.29
2004
23.40
23.40
23.62
23.87
24.37
25.40
23.57
24.02
24.81
24.80
24.38
26.20
2005
23.02
23.44
24.14
24.13
23.79
25.61
2005
21.44
21.84
22.73
22.69
22.27
24.12
2005
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2005
23.58
23.95
24.73
24.70
24.37
25.82
2005
22.24
22.48
23.04
23.07
22.97
23.85
23.78
24.76
24.39
24.37
25.64
25.72
2006
23.54
24.49
23.86
23.87
25.17
25.20
2006
23.62
22.69
21.85
22.18
24.65
23.54
2006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2006
23.51
24.49
24.16
24.13
25.56
25.32
2006
22.54
22.97
22.58
22.57
23.30
23.22
25.24
25.27
25.14
25.02
24.29
26.36
2007
24.77
24.79
24.83
24.68
23.97
25.81
2007
22.95
23.07
23.05
22.88
22.03
24.07
2007
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.35
2007
24.78
24.94
24.72
24.63
23.75
25.81
2007
23.24
23.17
23.13
23.17
22.28
23.53
22.47
23.68
24.52
24.60
24.74
24.99
2008
22.30
23.38
24.15
24.30
24.45
24.71
2008
19.44
23.25
21.62
23.94
23.98
22.23
2008
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2008
21.23
22.42
23.32
23.44
23.53
23.81
2008
22.52
23.06
23.38
23.48
23.38
23.26
23.79
25.53
25.08
24.63
25.89
25.12
2009
23.81
25.37
24.80
24.58
25.71
25.11
2009
21.69
23.39
23.07
22.20
23.88
22.00
2009
0.00
25.46
24.75
24.53
25.63
25.19
2009
22.59
24.09
23.70
23.20
24.29
23.69
2009
24.10
24.97
23.60
23.29
23.87
23.22
25.77
25.11
26.45
26.53
26.54
26.71
2010
25.50
24.64
26.17
26.24
26.07
26.47
2010
23.40
22.70
24.00
24.01
23.81
26.08
2010
25.57
24.58
26.03
26.17
26.08
26.50
2010
24.54
23.77
25.03
25.04
24.96
25.29
2010
25.99
25.72
26.21
25.87
25.44
26.42
45
-------
WVN
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvs
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvsw
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIWV
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All E. KY
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
VA
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All Regions
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
Table D-1 (cont.)
2001
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
2001
34.22
34.22
34.22
34.22
34.22
34.22
2001
34.09
34.09
34.09
34.09
34.09
34.09
2001
34.48
34.48
34.48
34.48
34.48
34.48
2001
35.09
35.09
35.09
35.09
35.09
35.09
2001
36.44
36.44
36.44
36.44
36.44
36.44
2001
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
2002
24.92
24.92
26.55
26.56
26.79
28.22
2002
24.84
24.84
26.39
26.41
26.91
28.15
2002
24.68
24.68
26.31
26.31
26.84
28.39
2002
24.91
24.91
26.54
26.54
26.99
28.51
2002
25.35
25.35
27.08
27.08
27.47
29.02
2002
27.17
27.17
28.92
28.92
29.56
31.03
2002
25.31
25.31
26.99
26.99
27.45
29.01
2003
23.33
23.33
24.38
24.39
24.81
25.28
2003
24.70
24.69
24.99
25.03
25.78
26.72
2003
24.39
24.39
25.21
25.21
26.01
26.89
2003
24.23
24.22
25.13
25.14
25.80
26.49
2003
24.84
24.85
25.62
25.62
26.41
27.42
2003
26.64
26.64
27.52
27.53
28.28
29.21
2003
24.73
24.73
25.58
25.59
26.33
27.18
2004
22.66
22.66
22.86
23.10
23.71
24.65
2004
24.50
24.50
24.50
24.75
25.75
27.21
2004
23.98
23.99
24.46
24.69
25.38
26.75
2004
23.68
23.68
24.07
24.31
24.93
25.97
2004
24.38
24.37
24.93
25.10
25.70
26.95
2004
26.09
26.10
26.53
26.78
27.39
28.52
2004
24.19
24.19
24.67
24.90
25.53
26.68
2005
21.78
22.03
22.56
22.60
22.42
23.08
2005
23.13
23.56
23.86
23.82
23.97
26.12
2005
22.57
22.99
23.82
23.77
23.41
25.34
2005
22.52
22.86
23.53
23.51
23.22
24.41
2005
23.23
23.66
24.40
24.39
24.01
25.79
2005
25.00
25.43
25.89
25.85
25.62
27.69
2005
22.97
23.35
24.11
24.09
23.76
25.31
2006
22.03
22.44
22.14
22.15
22.67
22.54
2006
23.37
24.30
23.51
23.47
25.41
25.55
2006
22.90
23.88
23.32
23.34
24.88
24.79
2006
22.75
23.50
23.07
23.07
24.12
23.91
2006
23.66
24.59
24.08
24.08
25.35
25.38
2006
25.40
26.31
25.77
25.74
27.24
27.31
2006
23.29
24.13
23.66
23.66
24.86
24.73
2007
22.71
22.64
22.68
22.73
21.82
22.99
2007
24.91
24.87
24.49
24.41
23.97
26.16
2007
24.31
24.48
24.34
24.10
23.31
25.21
2007
23.78
23.82
23.78
23.71
22.87
24.23
2007
24.97
25.00
24.95
24.81
24.08
25.99
2007
26.75
26.95
26.78
26.56
25.66
27.60
2007
24.50
24.58
24.49
24.37
23.52
25.19
2008
21.42
21.96
22.29
22.38
22.25
22.20
2008
21.28
22.49
23.23
23.16
23.65
24.05
2008
21.03
22.27
23.21
23.32
23.55
23.82
2008
21.20
22.18
22.85
22.96
23.00
23.09
2008
22.37
23.53
24.28
24.43
24.57
24.79
2008
23.23
24.48
25.48
25.61
26.08
24.88
2008
21.76
22.88
23.65
23.77
23.88
23.84
2009
22.95
23.80
22.70
22.40
22.79
22.30
2009
22.54
24.24
23.70
23.18
24.35
23.94
2009
22.32
24.05
23.86
23.33
24.40
23.76
2009
22.58
23.97
23.35
22.92
23.68
23.09
2009
23.77
25.42
24.92
24.56
25.76
25.06
2009
24.64
26.56
26.38
23.76
27.01
24.05
2009
23.15
24.74
24.23
23.54
24.72
23.80
2010
24.46
24.21
24.88
24.46
23.85
24.40
2010
24.55
23.88
24.52
24.63
24.94
25.24
2010
24.29
23.65
24.84
24.93
24.85
25.03
2010
24.40
23.91
24.89
24.76
24.43
24.80
2010
25.60
24.82
26.26
26.33
26.23
26.58
2010
26.73
26.14
25.15
25.66
25.11
25.31
2010
25.01
24.45
25.33
25.34
25.06
25.38
46
-------
Table E-1
Megawatt-Hours of Generation
Region
KY1
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY2
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY3
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY4
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvc
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
WVE
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
WVN
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
2,123,435
2,123,435
2,123,435
2,123,435
2,123,435
2,123,435
2001
323,925
323,925
323,925
323,925
323,925
323,925
2001
675,656
675,656
675,656
675,656
675,656
675,656
2001
3,055,270
3,055,270
3,055,270
3,055,270
3,055,270
3,055,270
2001
21,530,733
21,530,733
21,530,733
21,530,733
21,530,733
21,530,733
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
2,128,837
2,128,837
2,128,837
2,128,837
2,128,837
2,128,837
2002
374,160
374,160
374,160
374,160
374,160
300,289
2002
711,542
711,542
711,542
711,542
711,542
610,306
2002
3,084,117
3,084,117
3,089,002
3,089,002
3,089,002
3,089,979
2002
21,835,448
21,835,448
21,594,004
21,593,990
21,765,769
21,413,446
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
2,134,238
2,134,238
2,134,238
2,134,238
2,134,238
2,134,238
2003
424,395
424,395
424,395
424,395
424,395
424,395
2003
680,236
680,236
599,116
599,116
599,116
599,116
2003
3,112,963
3,112,963
3,112,963
3,112,963
3,112,963
3,112,963
2003
21,669,331
21,669,331
21,512,683
21,512,683
21,468,335
21,478,832
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
2,139,640
2,139,640
2,139,640
2,139,640
2,139,640
2,139,640
2004
474,629
474,629
474,629
474,629
416,285
403,319
2004
587,926
587,926
587,926
587,926
587,926
570,163
2004
3,107,471
3,107,471
3,107,471
3,107,471
3,107,471
3,107,471
2004
21,550,402
21,547,871
21,502,314
21,502,314
21,358,253
20,370,008
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,145,041
2005
423,534
423,534
423,534
423,534
423,534
0
2005
590,798
573,229
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2005
3,136,002
3,136,002
3,136,002
3,136,002
3,136,002
3,136,002
2005
21,846,927
21,851,469
21,741,207
21,725,959
21,377,274
19,297,988
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,150,443
2006
447,754
447,754
447,754
447,754
438,972
0
2006
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2006
3,164,533
3,164,533
3,164,533
3,164,533
3,164,533
3,164,533
2006
20,397,537
19,403,986
21,775,492
19,391,344
19,334,547
18,765,704
2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
2,155,394
2,155,394
2,155,394
2,155,394
2,155,394
2,155,394
2007
461,457
461,457
0
461,457
472,038
0
2007
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2007
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
2007
19,737,796
19,742,119
19,708,842
19,700,787
19,780,646
19,188,656
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2008
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
2008
18,842,834
18,830,782
18,834,237
18,836,945
18,832,432
18,419,165
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2009
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
2009
18,764,416
18,829,724
18,834,237
18,837,703
18,744,684
18,419,283
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2010
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
2010
18,701,353
18,830,612
18,705,238
18,707,946
16,775,490
16,444,314
47
-------
Table E-1 (cont.)
WVS
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvsw
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIWV
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All E. KY
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIVA
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
Total Study
BASE CASE- 10%ROI
BASE CASE- 15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
25,261,659
25,261,659
25,261,659
25,261,659
25,261,659
25,261,659
2001
2,447,360
2,447,360
2,447,360
2,447,360
2,447,360
2,447,360
2001
14339034
14339034
14339034
14339034
14339034
14339034
2001
42,048,053
42,048,053
42,048,053
42,048,053
42,048,053
42,048,053
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
25,631,107
25,631,107
25,394,548
25,394,534
25,566,313
25,113,731
2002
2,502,997
2,502,997
2,502,997
2,502,997
2,502,997
2,429,126
2002
14505891
14505891
14516621
14516621
14516621
14675818
2002
42,639,995
42,639,995
42,414,166
42,414,152
42,585,931
42,218,675
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
25,462,530
25,462,530
25,224,762
25,224,762
25,180,414
25,190,911
2003
2,558,633
2,558,633
2,558,633
2,558,633
2,558,633
2,558,633
2003
15134866
15134866
14684765
14684765
14560432
14478391
2003
43,156,029
43,156,029
42,468,160
42,468,160
42,299,479
42,227,935
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
25,245,799
25,243,268
25,197,711
25,197,711
25,053,650
24,047,642
2004
2,614,269
2,614,269
2,614,269
2,614,269
2,555,925
2,542,959
2004
14777414
14778080
15029789
14803602
14861643
14723506
2004
42,637,482
42,635,617
42,841,769
42,615,582
42,471,218
41,314,107
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
25,573,727
25,560,700
24,911,432
24,896,184
24,547,499
22,468,213
2005
2,568,575
2,568,575
2,568,575
2,568,575
2,568,575
2,145,041
2005
15868486
14833424
14835977
14835977
14835977
14444301
2005
44,010,788
42,962,699
42,315,984
42,300,736
41,952,051
39,057,555
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
23,596,293
22,602,742
24,974,248
22,590,100
22,533,303
21,964,460
2006
2,598,197
2,598,197
2,598,197
2,598,197
2,589,415
2,150,443
2006
15023574
15023532
15015167
15027638
14626314
14626314
2006
41,218,064
40,224,471
42,587,612
40,215,935
39,749,032
38,741,217
2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
22,966,089
22,970,412
22,937,135
22,929,080
23,008,939
22,416,949
2007
2,616,851
2,616,851
2,155,394
2,616,851
2,627,432
2,155,394
2007
15363931
15472500
15364766
15366843
15745919
15484538
2007
40,946,871
41,059,763
40,457,295
40,912,774
41,382,290
40,056,881
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
22,071,127
22,059,075
22,062,530
22,065,238
22,060,725
21,647,458
2008
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2008
16455296
16455296
16458321
16891178
16909042
16458935
2008
40,648,057
40,636,005
40,642,485
41,078,050
41,091,401
40,228,027
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
21,992,709
22,058,017
22,062,530
22,065,996
21,972,977
21,647,576
2009
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2009
17368707
18355939
18215708
16761105
18358965
17360325
2009
41,483,050
42,535,590
42,399,872
40,948,735
42,453,576
41,129,535
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
21,929,646
22,058,905
21,933,531
21,936,239
20,003,783
19,672,607
2010
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2010
18552755
18294427
18979464
18482256
18979464
18656337
2010
42,604,035
42,474,966
43,034,629
42,540,129
41,104,881
40,450,578
48
-------
Table F-1
Weighted Average Wholesale Electricity Price (Lambda Cost)
(Constant 2001 Dollars per MWHr)
Region
KY1
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY2
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY3
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY4
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvc
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
WVE
BASE CASE - 10% ROI
BASE CASE - 15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRE CASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
25.86
25.86
25.86
25.86
25.86
25.86
2001
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
2001
25.87
25.87
25.87
25.87
25.87
25.87
2001
28.40
28.40
28.40
28.40
28.40
28.40
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
18.17
18.17
18.42
18.42
18.46
18.75
2002
18.17
18.17
18.42
18.42
18.46
18.75
2002
18.17
18.17
18.42
18.42
18.46
18.75
2002
20.32
20.32
20.32
20.32
20.32
20.46
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
17.68
17.68
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.62
2003
17.64
17.64
17.43
17.43
17.43
17.61
2003
17.68
17.68
17.46
17.46
17.46
17.62
2003
20.75
20.75
20.50
20.50
20.51
20.58
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
17.67
17.68
17.60
17.58
17.42
17.73
2004
17.67
17.68
17.59
17.58
17.42
17.71
2004
17.67
17.68
17.60
17.58
17.42
17.73
2004
20.19
20.19
20.18
20.15
20.21
20.24
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
18.69
18.62
18.83
18.81
18.61
18.97
2005
17.65
17.61
17.80
17.79
17.67
0.00
2005
18.69
18.62
18.83
18.81
18.61
18.97
2005
22.02
21.42
21.43
21.42
21.42
21.58
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
19.14
18.59
18.36
18.79
18.58
18.45
2006
18.14
17.59
17.39
17.79
17.58
0.00
2006
19.15
18.59
18.36
18.79
18.58
18.45
2006
21.48
21.48
21.48
21.48
21.48
21.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
18.71
18.69
18.86
18.62
18.43
18.54
2007
17.73
17.74
0.00
17.69
17.51
0.00
2007
18.71
18.69
18.86
18.62
18.43
18.54
2007
21.48
21.52
21.48
21.48
21.48
21.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
20.34
20.64
20.71
20.59
20.74
20.65
2008
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2008
20.34
20.64
20.71
20.59
20.74
20.65
2008
22.13
22.42
22.61
22.26
22.34
22.53
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
20.78
20.82
20.90
21.00
20.84
20.83
2009
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2009
20.78
20.82
20.90
21.00
20.84
20.83
2009
22.99
22.73
22.74
23.02
22.94
22.93
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
21.49
21.98
21.73
21.58
21.86
21.72
2010
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2010
21.49
21.98
21.73
21.58
21.86
21.72
2010
23.05
23.08
23.07
23.04
23.07
23.06
49
-------
Table F-1 (cont.)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
WVN
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvs
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvsw
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIWV
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All E. KY
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIVA
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
Total Study Area
BASE CASE-10% ROI
BASE CASE-15% ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
26.79
26.79
26.79
26.79
26.79
26.79
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
26.96
26.96
26.96
26.96
26.96
26.96
2001
25.64
25.64
25.64
25.64
25.64
25.64
2001
29
29
28.66
28.66
28.66
28.66
2001
27.46
27.46
27.46
27.46
27.46
27.46
19.44
19.44
19.70
19.70
19.72
20.02
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
19.51
19.51
19.74
19.74
19.76
20.04
2002
18.17
18.17
18.42
18.42
18.46
18.75
2002
20
20
20.36
20.36
20.37
20.53
2002
19.71
19.71
19.87
19.87
19.89
20.14
18.97
18.97
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.91
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
19.15
19.15
18.94
18.94
18.94
19.09
2003
17.67
17.67
17.46
17.46
17.46
17.62
2003
21
21
20.39
20.39
20.4
20.5
2003
19.59
19.59
19.35
19.35
19.35
19.48
18.98
18.99
18.91
18.89
18.72
19.10
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
19.10
19.11
19.04
19.01
18.87
19.21
2004
17.67
17.68
17.60
17.58
17.42
17.73
2004
20
20
20.12
20.1
20.15
20.23
2004
19.38
19.38
19.33
19.30
19.23
19.49
20.00
19.93
20.14
20.12
19.94
20.45
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
20.22
20.08
20.30
20.28
20.13
20.61
2005
18.52
18.45
18.66
18.64
18.46
18.97
2005
22
21
21.47
21.46
21.44
21.69
2005
20.76
20.45
20.61
20.60
20.49
20.92
19.90
19.63
19.37
19.75
19.62
19.59
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
20.11
19.89
19.64
19.99
19.88
19.86
2006
18.97
18.42
18.19
18.62
18.41
18.45
2006
21
21
21.41
21.44
21.51
21.5
2006
20.54
20.37
20.17
20.44
20.38
20.40
19.75
19.73
19.82
19.67
19.53
19.66
2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
19.99
19.98
20.05
19.92
19.80
19.92
2007
18.54
18.52
18.86
18.46
18.26
18.54
2007
22
22
21.55
21.49
21.4
21.57
2007
20.46
20.49
20.56
20.42
20.31
20.49
20.60
20.75
20.83
20.66
20.78
21.79
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
20.82
20.99
21.09
20.89
21.01
21.90
2008
20.34
20.64
20.71
20.59
20.74
20.65
2008
22
22
22.67
22.27
22.37
22.59
2008
21.35
21.58
21.71
21.44
21.55
22.11
21.80
21.97
21.82
21.90
21.85
21.98
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
21.97
22.08
21.95
22.06
22.01
22.12
2009
20.78
20.82
20.90
21.00
20.84
20.83
2009
23
23
22.82
22.99
23.03
22.97
2009
22.35
22.34
22.27
22.39
22.39
22.41
22.52
22.94
22.73
22.58
22.98
22.81
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
22.60
22.96
22.78
22.65
22.99
22.85
2010
21.49
21.98
21.73
21.58
21.86
21.72
2010
23
23
23.23
23.14
23.26
23.21
2010
22.76
23.01
22.93
22.81
23.06
22.96
50
-------
Table G-1
Utilities' Environmental Clean-Up Capital Expenditures
(Constant 2001 Dollars)
Region
KY1
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY2
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY3
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
KY4
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvc
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
WVE
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001
2002 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2002 2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002 2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,371,246
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,877,843
16,877,843
16,877,843
16,877,843
16,877,843
16,877,843
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002 2003
2002 2003
2002 2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,
6,
6,
6,
6,
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
720,191
720,191
720,191
720,191
720,191
6,371,246
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
7,410,199
7,410,199
7,410,199
7,410,199
7,452,999
7,915,047
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2010
2010
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,410,199
7,410,199
7,410,199
7,410,199
7,452,999
7,915,047
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
-------
WVN
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvs
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
wvsw
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
AIIWV
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All E. KY
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
VA
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
All Regions
BASE CASE -10%ROI
BASECASE-15%ROI
250-ACRE CASE
150-ACRECASE
75-ACRE CASE
35-ACRE CASE
2001
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table G-1 (cont.)
2003 2004 2005
2006
2007
2008
0 18,675,821 21,263,721
0 19,812,967 21,604,468
0 34,476,811 27,818,454
0 33,304,565 27,434,487
0 35,224,441 27,517,336
0 36,333,508 18,898,112
2003 2004 2005
000
000
000
000
000
000
2003 2004 2005
000
000
000
000
000
000
2003 2004 2005
0 18,675,821 28,673,921
0 19,812,967 29,014,668
0 34,476,811 35,228,653
0 33,304,565 34,844,687
0 35,224,441 34,970,336
0 36,333,508 26,813,158
2003 2004 2005
0 0 6,720,191
0 0 6,720,191
0 0 6,720,191
0 0 6,720,191
0 0 6,720,191
0 0 6,371,246
2003 2004 2005
0 0 5,784,523
0 0 5,458,247
0 0 5,581,295
0 0 5,581,295
0 0 5,354,984
0 121,153 4,563,160
2003 2004 2005
0 18,675,821 41,178,634
0 19,812,967 41,193,105
0 34,476,811 47,530,138
0 33,304,565 47,146,172
0 35,224,441 47,045,510
0 36,454,660 37,747,564
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
110,240
0
0
110,134
7,455
2006
0
110,240
0
0
110,134
7,455
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
2007 2008
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2007 2008
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2007 2008
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
0 43,012,286
2007 2008
0 16,877,843
0 16,877,843
0 16,877,843
0 16,877,843
0 16,877,843
0 16,877,843
2007 2008
0 28,658,885
3,594 11,802,724
111,617 28,658,885
111,617 15,501,091
3,594 29,000,638
0 21,586,819
2007 2008
0 88,549,014
3,594 71,692,853
111,617 88,549,014
111,617 75,391,220
3,594 88,890,767
0 81,476,948
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
-------
.0
1
Rl Rl Rl Rl
T-00 "3-00
S
g
1
in in in in
S
g
s
g
in in
s
g
300 000 000 000 000 000
300 000 000 000 000 000
300 000 000 000 000 000
3 O O O O O
•T CM' CM' CM' CM'
-------
Table 1-1
Major Coal Mine Direct Operating Costs by Category
For Entire Study Area
Deep Mines Surface Mines
$/Ton $/Ton_
Labor $6.24 $4.30
Materials/Supply $3.79 $8.36
Trucking $1.12 $1.58
Coal Washing $2.90 $0.40
54
-------
Table J-1
Average U.S. Wholesale Electricity Price (Lambda Cost)
(Constant 2001 Dollars per MWHr)
Base-10% ROI
Base-15% ROI
250-Acre
150-Acre
75-Acre
35-Acre
2001
37.25
37.25
37.25
37.25
37.25
37.25
2002
22.54
22.54
22.63
22.63
22.64
22.78
2003
22.44
22.44
22.33
22.33
22.34
22.40
2004
22.32
22.32
22.24
22.25
22.26
22.27
2005
23.11
23.06
23.09
23.10
23.07
23.27
2006
22.22
22.19
22.12
22.19
22.17
22.20
2007
22.32
22.33
22.36
22.28
22.12
22.30
2008
23.15
23.30
23.40
23.34
23.41
23.36
2009
23.51
23.65
23.66
23.64
23.64
23.58
2010
24.00
24.12
24.12
24.06
24.12
24.15
55
-------
Final Report
Contract No. CT212142
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining
Project: Coordinated Review of Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
EIS Economics Studies
Contractor: Hill & Associates, Inc.
Date: January 13, 2003
I. Background
The purpose of this study is to provide support, through funding by the Office of Surface
Mining (OSM), for the multi-agency Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental
Impact Statement (MTM/VF EIS) Steering Committee in performing a coordinated
review of prior economics studies done during the development of the MTM/VF EIS.
Early in 2002 the Steering Committee determined that the prior work done for Phase I of
the economic impacts studies had problems which resulted in substantial limitations on
its use in further analysis. Since that work was used as input for the coal and electricity
markets modeling of Phase II, the results of this economic modeling were deemed
questionable.
This current study seeks to answer the question "In what direction and by approximately
what magnitude would the economic modeling results of Phase II change if a different
set of Phase I inputs, drawn from on-the-ground, real-world mining experience to date,
were used?" Since it is specifically defined as a true sensitivity study, this current work
is carefully designed to change nothing from the previous work except the modeling
inputs that were considered to have problems from the previous Phase I work. Since it
was not known exactly how these inputs would be changed until partially through the
project, all work was done with step-by-step close review and coordination by the OSM
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR), with EIS Steering Committee
concurrence at certain key decision points.
It is important to note that this work was commissioned solely as a sensitivity study. It
does not attempt to cover all of the scenarios of the previous work. Nor does it provide
all of the market interpretations in the earlier study. Rather, it is designed to point
directions and very rough magnitudes of output change resulting from input change.
As with the previous work, all coal tons (and related parameters) in this report are
steam coal tons (arising from the modeling of the steam coal markets) and do not
include about 40 million annual tons of metallurgical coal produced in the region.
Since the vast majority of these met coal tons are produced by underground mining,
which is assumed unaffected in this study, the various impacts of valley fill restrictions
on coal tonnage are the same without including the met coal tonnage.
-------
Although this report is intended to effectively communicate the sensitivity results on a
stand-alone basis, it is expected that most readers will have read the earlier report (see
draft MTM/VF EIS, Appendix G), dated December 12, 2001, (under EPA Contract No.
68-R3-01-04) which is the comparison basis for the sensitivity work. In particular, this
current report does not attempt to capture all of the explanatory detail concerning the Hill
& Associates market models that was included in the earlier report. However, where
necessary to interpret the new results from the sensitivity model runs, the same previous
mining cost curve logic will be used and even extended in this report.
Since this study is presenting sensitivity results compared to previous work, it will be
necessary frequently to refer to that earlier work. Throughout the remainder of this
report, the words "old," "previous," and "earlier" when applied to computer model runs
or their results will indicate that we are talking about the work done during 2001 under
EPA Contract Number 68-R3-01-04 and included in the report dated December 12, 2001.
II. Methodology
Work under this contract was broken into four segments:
A. During the initial segment of work, a "kickoff' meeting was held in Charleston,
West Virginia, on October 17, 2002, to present to stakeholder representatives an
overview of the previous economic impact work and the limitations of the
analyses and results. Representatives from the environmental community, the
coal mining industry, academia and various governmental agencies were in
attendance. Although feedback was solicited at this meeting, a combination of
confidentiality considerations and complexity of the presented material resulted in
a lack of detailed quantitative suggestions for adjusting the modeling input
parameters for any subsequent modeling.
B. In anticipation of this lack of detailed feedback in a large group setting
instantaneously after being exposed to the analytical methodology, the second
segment of work involved follow-up meetings with various stakeholder
representatives. Reflecting the diversity of attendees at the original "kickoff
meeting, we held follow-up discussions with members of the environmental
community, representatives from academia, governmental agency personnel, and
technical representatives from the coal mining industry. In the case of coal
mining industry representatives, these follow-up meetings were held one company
at a time under strict confidentiality agreements since it was necessary to discuss
extremely detailed mining costs, which are among the most competitively
sensitive pieces of information in the industry. Results from these follow-up
meetings are reported later in this report on a non-confidential aggregated basis.
C. The third segment of work involved the actual re-running of the economic market
models using the same setup as the 2001 earlier project except for the more real-
-------
world oriented front-end input related to indications of reserve, capacity and cost
impacts of valley fill limitations derived from stakeholder discussions.
Stakeholder information was synthesized and interpreted base upon Hill &
Associates professional experience to create new input assumptions as described
further in this report. The resultant new modeling outputs, and their comparison
to the earlier results, form the heart of the "Results" section of this report.
D. The final work segment of this contract involved interpretation and presentation
of the sensitivity results in this report format.
II. A. Modeling Scenarios
Due to time and budget limitations, the sensitivity modeling was limited to 20 single-year
convergences of the Hill & Associates modeling system. (The reader is referred to the
earlier report in Appendix G of the MTM/VF EIS for a full discussion of how these
models work.) Originally, this contract effort envisioned two selected scenarios, each
containing ten consecutive years parallel to selected scenarios from the previous work.
Each of the 10-year scenarios would test different sets of changes in the input parameters,
with those sets of changes designed from the Hill & Associates synthesis of stakeholder
input.
However, the MTM/VF EIS agencies decided that the 20 single-year model convergences
(which must be run consecutively, in a calendar sense, because the models accumulate
effects such as clean-up equipment installation and mine reserve depletion from one year
to the next) would be best spread over three scenarios as follows:
Scenario #1: A 10-year model run (2002 - 2011) with valley fills limited to 75-acre
watershed size. All parameters remained the same as earlier 75-acre runs
except for the specific reserve, capacity and cost input changes for surface
mines to replace the previous Phase I parameters.
Scenario #2: A 5-year model run (2002 - 2006) with valley fills limited to 250-acre
watershed size. Again, all parameters remained the same as earlier 250-
acre runs except for the specific reserve, capacity and cost input changes
for surface mines to replace the previous Phase I parameters.
Scenario #3: Another 250-acre watershed size 5-year run (2002 - 2006), but with the
valley fill restrictions phased in over the first three years instead of
occurring instantaneously in the first year. Also, the required discounted
cash flow return on investment (ROI) necessary to cause new mining
capacity to be built was raised from 15% to 20% to reflect the growing
reluctance to invest under the changing valley fill/watershed rules. Thus,
this third scenario has two additional sensitivities included: the phase-in
of valley fill restrictions and the "reluctance-to-invest" higher required
ROI.
-------
The rationale behind the definition of these scenarios, along with the specifics of the
input parameter changes, is included in the "Results" section below.
However, it is important to carefully note at this point that ALL of these model runs
continue to assume that deep-minable coal reserves will be totally unaffected by the
valley fill restrictions. Hill & Associates was specifically instructed by the EIS Steering
Committee not to include any impacts on existing deep mining (i.e., it is "grandfathered")
or on future new deep mining. This "simplifying assumption" was deemed necessary in
order to make the economic studies portion of the EIS consistent with the other portions
of the overall EIS, which do not include any deep mining impacts. Hill & Associates was
asked to include the statement in this report that the EIS agencies note that this
[assumption of no deep mining impacts] is not a statement of policy, but merely an
assumption to clearly isolate the effects of surface mining restrictions.
Despite this rationale for the assumption, we must point out that this methodology of
assuming absolutely no impact on deep mining DOES have a significant impact on the
modeling results and their interpretation. Overall regional economic impacts will depend
largely on loss of total coal production plus the related employment loss. Since deep
mined tonnage is a larger portion of total production in Central Appalachia than is surface
production, any impacts on deep mined tonnage may affect the total of production even
more than impacts on surface tonnage. Furthermore, since deep mining is more labor
intensive than surface mining, ignoring deep impacts has even a larger impact on
employment results than on tonnage. Thus, the apparent impacts of the new fill
placement restrictions (under an assumption of no deep mining impacts) appear less
significant than they would if this larger, more labor-intensive segment of total
production were assumed to be affected in these model runs.
While we are mentioning items that are not included in this analysis, we note that this
work does NOT analyze or interpret results of the injunction to preclude issuing CWA
Section 404 permits for valley fills imposed on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Huntington District by the Federal District Court in West Virginia which, at the time of
this writing, has effectively stopped the issuance of CWA Section 404 permits for valley
fills (Rivenburgh v. Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, also known as "Haden II").
Nor does this current work consider or include "stream mitigation" costs that may be
imposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to attain Clean Water Act Section
404 (CWA 404) authorization. Both the injunction and CWA 404 mitigation costs would
likely have a significant effect on coal mining viability in the study area. However, it is
beyond the scope of this contract to consider these input variables.
The method of presenting and interpreting the scenario results will be to graph them,
along with the corresponding scenario results from the previous work on the same axes,
and then to note the differences between the graphs as reflecting the sensitivity to
changing the input parameters. In other words, the original 75-acre modeling results will
be plotted alongside the new 75-acre results, and we can see the amount of change caused
by the revised inputs.
-------
In all cases, the original baseline forecast at 15% required ROI, which matches all
scenarios except Scenario #3 above, is also included on the graphs. This Base Case was
specified by the EIS Steering Committee to represent pre-restriction conditions for
Central Appalachian surface coal mining. Thus, the report allows comparison of
production changes from the Base Case for "Old" and "New" modeling runs (e.g., "Old"
75-acre tonnage loss versus "New" 75-acre tonnage loss, or "Old" 250-acre to "New"
phased in 250-acre).
III. Results
Since the new model runs do, in fact, produce all of the detailed data output for each year
as did the previous model runs from the earlier work in 2001, similar detailed Appendices
are contained in this report. Obviously, where a scenario stops after 5 years, the
appropriate appendix table will simply have blanks for the second 5 years of the 10-year
general project time horizon.
Figure 1 presents the mining sub-regions of the study area. The detailed data results in
the Appendices are organized around these sub-region definitions, with totals at the
bottom of each table. As the map shows, there are five mining sub-regions in West
Virginia, four in eastern Kentucky and one in Virginia.
Figure 1 - Sub-Regions of the Study (With Power Plants)
Kammer
tchell
Pleasant:
Willow Island
Coopel
River
-------
However, despite the inclusion of this sub-regional detailed output in the Appendices, the
remainder of the commentary in this report will focus on the much more generalized
sensitivity directions and rough magnitude of output changes (due to the changed inputs)
for the total study area.
III. A. Findings from Individual Stakeholder Meetings
Shortly after the initial "kickoff meeting of this project, a team of technical specialists
from Hill & Associates made separate visits to individual coal mining companies to
research actual "on-the-ground" impacts experienced and projected due to valley fill
restrictions. Coal producers representing approximately 60% of the affected surface mine
tonnage in southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky were visited.
Since these meetings were to be held under strict confidentiality agreements, some
concern was expressed at the initial "kickoff meeting in Charleston, WV, regarding
whether bias might exist in the quantitative information that would be conveyed in these
meetings. As a design safeguard against any possible bias, the Hill & Associates team
adopted the following three-pronged cross-check of the quantitative information obtained
on the visits to coal producing companies:
1. Using mining engineering, geological and financial analysis expertise from
members of the interview team, we asked very detailed questions about the sub-
pieces of the numbers presented to validate information. For example, if a higher
cost of mining was presented under a valley fill restriction, we asked for the sub-
pieces of that higher cost and engaged in detailed discussion of why a particular
sub-piece of cost, such as transportation of overburden to an alternate disposal
area, would be that high and how it was calculated or measured. We would not
leave this detailed questioning of sub-pieces until we felt we understood the
numbers and that they "rang true" with our expertise and past experience.
2. Where an "after valley fill restriction" number was presented, we would ask to
examine the exact corresponding "before valley fill restriction" number and
compare the two. This allowed us to examine original monthly mine cost sheets,
for example, or reserve calculations from periods before the mine had to be
reconfigured to accommodate the loss of particular valley fills. In this manner,
we could easily determine that the same methods of measurement and calculation
were used for both the current numbers and the historic numbers.
3. After examining in detail a particular property that had been prepared for
presentation to us to illustrate the valley fill restriction impacts, we would then
ask to see actual data on another random unprepared property that was not as
strongly affected by the valley fill restrictions. Often, this required the staff at the
coal producing company to pull maps, mine cost sheets, reserve calculations, etc,
from filing cabinets in adjoining rooms to get all of the information on this
-------
random other property (that we often pre-selected before the visit, based upon our
knowledge of the mines of the company).
This three-pronged, cross-check approach allowed us to examine all quantitative
information from several different directions and test whether there appeared to be any
bias (no matter how unintentional) in the numbers. In no case did we see any bias in the
numbers, and we concluded our series of mine visits with a very strong feeling that we
were given exactly the same internal costs and reserve/capacity numbers that the coal
producers themselves were using to make operational decisions and capital investment
decisions.
Furthermore, although each coal producing company has its own unique procedures and
measurement techniques (which cause some differences in the meaning and interpretation
of any single number), we came away with the conclusion that each producer with whom
we had discussions was using technically appropriate and reliable methods of measuring
and calculating their costs and capacities and of estimating their reserves. It was our task,
not theirs, to adjust all of these numbers onto a common basis and to synthesize them into
a set of parameters to use as new modeling inputs affecting reserves, capacities and
mining costs at different types of mines under various valley fill restriction levels.
Stakeholder Feedback
General qualitative findings from our stakeholder interviews include:
• Careful review of numerous mining property maps at each of several coal
producing companies supports a conclusion that there is much more difference
between the topography of eastern of Kentucky and the topography of southern
West Virginia than our earlier work assumed. Generally, the eastern Kentucky
surface mining properties have smaller, but more numerous, valleys (including
smaller watershed drainage) than do the southern West Virginia properties. This
is important because a 250-acre watershed valley fill limitation affects many
surface properties in West Virginia but extremely few in eastern Kentucky.
However, below about 100-acre watershed size, the number of affected eastern
Kentucky properties rises dramatically. Thus, even for the same type of surface
mine using similar equipment, the model should use different reserve, capacity
and cost adjustments in eastern Kentucky than those used in southern West
Virginia (with Virginia being more similar to eastern Kentucky). In addition to
geologic and topographic causes, these differences appear also to be related to
variable mineral and surface ownership patterns across state lines and the size of
remaining reserve blocks.
• We received strong input from the mining community that it is an egregious
mistake to ignore impacts of the valley fill limitations on deep mines, especially
new ones. First many deep mines are co-dependent on related surface mines for
quality blending requirements and even economic averaging arrangements.
-------
Eliminating or reducing the surface mining has a direct impact on the viability of
the deep mining in these instances. Second, the typical reject rate in Central
Appalachia from a wash plant associated with a deep mine is about 50%. Thus,
for every one ton of coal mined, one ton of refuse is placed in a valley fill or
related impoundment. In fact, the valley fills associated with wash plant refuse
are generally among the larger valley fills associated with coal mining (with
generally larger watershed) but are fewer in number than surface mining valley
fills. Third, the construction of a new deep mine involves other valley fill issues.
Often, a new deep mine is accompanied by a new wash plant with a new valley
fill for refuse. Plus, in order to "face up" the entrances to the new deep mine, a
new valley fill for the mine entrance is typically needed. Collectively, industry
representatives commented that it was disingenuous to think that any valley fill
restrictions related to surface mining refuse would not be very quickly extended to
deep mining refuse.
During our stakeholder interviews, selected environmental community
representatives expressed concern over the fact that the methodology of these
economic studies does not include "ecological economics," which consider the
"total cost of mining" as it is defined by many in the environmental community.
Factors such as "loss of communities" and "value of the ecosystems services lost"
are not being monetized into the hard dollar economics, in their view. One
environmentalist commented that as long as studies such as these continue to rely
on "the inadequacies of old-school economics" which deal only with whether the
coal can be economically extracted, many in the environmental community would
consider the approach to be patently absurd. In a telephone conversation, the
opinion was expressed that "reducing this [study] to simple economics is a terrible
injustice to the long-term health of our environment and life as we know it."
While we at Hill & Associates are familiar with the concept of including
"externality costs" (a monetary value assigned to some environmentally-desired
outcome) in economic calculations, we indicated in our discussions with the
environmental community representatives that we always perform our economic
analyses according to the more classical, or traditional, methodology.
During discussions with mining company representatives, input on the "reluctance
to invest" issue was elicited in a manner carefully structured to avoid biasing the
answers. Neutral questions were posed about the capital allocation to company
projects (or, in the case of smaller companies, discussions centered on dealings
with lenders who finance their new mining capacity projects). For instance, a
neutral question would be raised such as "If you had a new mine project that
could be designed to fit within these new valley fill restrictions and still show
good economics by hitting your classical ROI target rate (but not way above it),
would the decision-making process be the same today as it was 3 or 4 years ago?"
In almost every case, a negative response occurred, ranging from "We know not
to even submit one that is not significantly better than our traditional ROI 'hurdle'
rate - It wouldn't get approved," to the more succinct "Our management
definitely requires a risk premium to invest in this area today," to the even more
-------
concise "I'm trying to figure out what kind of work I'll be doing after we close
down all these mines." Our conclusion was that there is clearly developing a
definite reluctance to invest in this area, due to the perception of a hostile
regulatory environment. This conclusion was instrumental in designing a portion
of Scenario #3 described above.
Now we turn to the more quantitative findings from our stakeholder interviews. The
previous study's methodology focused on county-level reduction percentages, with all
surface mines in a given county reduced (in the modeling) by the same percentage both
for reserves and for annual production capacity. Furthermore, no cost increases at
individual mines were included in the previous study when the mining techniques were
changed for the residual mining after the county-wide reduction percentage was applied.
Although there was a recognition that costs at the residual mine would likely increase due
to less efficient mining methods extracting remaining reserves and associated equipment
costs, Steering Committee members indicated that no real research into this issue had yet
been accomplished and there was no quantitative basis (at the time the previous modeling
was started) for establishing a reliable estimate of individual cost increases.
By contrast, the individual stakeholder interviews of this current study resulted in
recognition that (1) instead of applying reduction percentages by county, more realistic
reductions for reserves and capacity would occur by type of mining (i.e., dragline mines
experience one level of reduction, shovel & truck mines another reduction, front end
loader operations yet another, etc.), (2) there should be different reduction percentages
for reserves and capacity within each mine type category since reserves are generally
reduced more than is the annual production capacity, and (3) cost increases at the residual
mine (after reductions) occur and are easily quantified based on recent experience under
existing CWA 404 250-acre watershed restrictions.
With regard to "1" above, it is important to note that the modeling approach is still
"generic" in applying reduction factors to all members of a mining type group, but the
new grouping definitions (by mine type) are more homogeneous than the previous
grouping of various surface mine types in the same county. Thus, although any generic
factor approach is almost guaranteed to be a little too high or too low at any selected
point, the amount of these individual point errors (from reality) is much smaller when the
grouping class is more homogeneous.
With regard to "3" above, the cost increases arise from two factors. First, depending on
the mine type, actual changes and/or additions of equipment are often necessary as
certain portions of the coal become unminable. The changed or added equipment raises
the cost of mining (i.e., if it didn't, then the original mine plan would have utilized this
approach). Second, even with the same type of equipment, the mix of less-expensive
versus more-expensive operations often changes dramatically under the valley fill
restrictions. For example, the amount of inexpensive "dozer push" may be reduced while
the amount of higher-cost truck haul to a more distant site may be increased as the toe of
a valley fill is designed higher up the valley to limit the amount of watershed. Relatively
speaking, sites previously designed to use draglines were impacted the most; shovel jobs
-------
were impacted to a lesser degree; and properties utilizing front-end loaders were
impacted to even less.
Reduction percentages and cost increases for each mine type are not presented in this
report since that would violate our confidentiality agreements in those cases where there
are only one or two mines in a category within a state. Rather, statewide aggregated
numbers including all mine types are presented, even though separate factors for each
mine type were applied. These statewide aggregations are further combined into
averages for the total study area. To compare the amount of change in results from
earlier inputs versus those used in this study, the aggregated averages for the total study
area from the previous work will also be presented.
Mining Cost Adjustments
As previously mentioned, Hill & Associates did not increase individual mine costs (for
residual mining after reserve and capacity reductions) in the earlier modeling scenarios of
valley fill restrictions. The Steering Committee agreed that not enough data existed to
accurately quantify those cost changes at that time. However, in this study, interviews
with mining companies in Central Appalachia provided data indicating ranges of cost
increases for compliance when valley fill restrictions are put in place. The costs increase
for the following reasons:
Increased Trucking Distances
As the size of the fills is restricted and more fills are used, trucking distances to
disposal areas increase.
Loss of Less-Expensive Dozer Push Yards
Many of the surface mines in West Virginia and Kentucky are designed to
maximize the amount of overburden material that can be pushed directly into
valley fills with bulldozers. This type of mine design takes advantage of the fact
that pushing rock with a bulldozer is much less expensive than picking it up and
moving it in rock trucks.
The material that can be moved with bulldozers is located on the flanks of the
valley fills. As the fill size is decreased, the linear distance along the sides of the
fills is decreased; less of the total material can be directly pushed into the fill and
must be trucked.
There are two ways that valleys can be filled - from the top down or from the
bottom up. The state of West Virginia is now considering a change in the mining
law to eliminate the option of filling valleys from the top. If this legislation were
to pass, no companies would be able to push material in from the sides. However,
in these scenarios, we assume that producers will still be able to fill in the more
economic manner.
10
-------
Inability to use Larger Equipment
The valley fill restrictions reduce the amount of minable reserves available on
most properties. In both the 250- and 75-acre cases, the active draglines would be
idled and mining conducted by smaller equipment — either a shovel or front-end
loader spreads. The cost to move a cubic yard of material with a shovel is more
expensive than to move a cubic yard of material with a dragline. Likewise, costs
are even greater to move overburden with front-end loaders. Furthermore, the
smaller equipment cannot extract coal available deeper in the hillside, and fixed
costs must be spread over a smaller number of tons. Therefore, as equipment size
is decreased, both the variable cost per ton and the fixed cost per ton tend to
increase.
Construction of Additional Sediment Control Ponds
As companies replace fewer larger fills with many smaller fills, sediment control
ponds must be constructed to control runoff in each additional watershed affected
by the fills.
The following table shows the weighted average cost increases for surface mines by state.
Table 1
Weighted Average Surface Mine Cost Increases
Region
West Virginia
Eastern Kentucky
Virginia
Total Study Area - New
Total Study Area - Old
250 Acre Case
12.8%
2.2%
0.0%
7.7%
0.0%
75 Acre Case
25.1%
4.6%
1.3%
13.7%
0.0%
Reserve Reductions
In the original study, RTC provided a spreadsheet to Hill & Associates with estimates of
recoverable reserves for the unrestricted case and each of the restricted valley fill
scenarios for each of the counties in West Virginia. Hill & Associates then applied the
percentage reductions to all surface mine properties on a county-by-county basis. The
following table shows the percent reserve reduction by state that resulted from our
adjustments on the basis of mine type for the new modeling runs.
11
-------
Table 2
Weighted Average Surface Mine Reserve Reductions
Region
West Virginia
Eastern Kentucky
Virginia
Total Study Area - New
Total Study Area - Old
250 Acre Case
32.3%
5.0%
0.0%
21.7%
17.3%
75 Acre Case
63.4%
15.2%
10.0%
45.0%
46.0%
Capacity Reductions
In the original study, Hill & Associates assumed, on average, that the capacity to produce
coal would be reduced by the same proportion as the reserve reductions of each scenario.
In this set of model runs, the production capacity was not reduced by nearly as much as
the reserves. Using information from stakeholders, we used our professional judgment to
derive the applied adjustments. Overall, the life of the mine is more strongly affected
than is capacity.
Table 3
Weighted Average Surface Mine Capacity Reductions
Region
West Virginia
Eastern Kentucky
Virginia
Total Study Area - New
Total Study Area - Old
250 Acre Case
37.9%
0.0%
0.0%
20.4%
17.3%
75 Acre Case
50.8%
10.0%
5.0%
31.6%
46.0%
Without careful reflection, these tables can be misleading. In particular, comparing the
"New" with the "Old" for the total study area indicates that the reserve and capacity
reductions are only modestly higher in the "New" 250-acre setup and are actually
somewhat lower in the "New" 75-acre case. However, this aggregated total does not
capture the fact that the reductions were more uniformly distributed across any individual
mine curve in the "Old" modeling runs. For the purposes of this discussion, the generic
12
-------
mining cost curve used in the previous study is presented below to explain some
modeling parameters.
Figure 2
Generic WV All Mines Cost Curve
30
o
O
CO
O
50 100 150
Cumulative Ca p a c ity (MM TP Y)
200
For example, a large dragline mine with low cash costs per ton is very low on the cost
curve. A much smaller contour stripping operation (using front end loader equipment) is
typically in the middle of the curve or even toward the upper portion. In the original
study, as long as both of these mines were in the same county, they would both have the
same reduction factors applied to them. Thus, the impacts tended to be distributed across
the entire curve in the previous study.
Now, however, the dragline operation in this current study will have much larger
reduction factors (determined for the entire class of dragline operations) applied to it,
while the front end loader operation's reduction factors will be smaller. Thus, the impact
of the "average" reductions shown in Table 1 above tend to fall more heavily on the
lower cost side of the curve in the "New" runs of this study. That is important because it
13
-------
steepens and "raises" the curve more than in the "Old" runs, which makes the coal
generally less competitive in the economic marketplace.
In addition to this rise in the upper part of the curve due to the "horizontal" compression
(in a graphical sense in Figure 2) of capacity lower in the curve, these "New" runs have
an additional vertical rise (in the graph) of certain points, due to the cost increases of the
affected surface mines. Again, these cost increases will fall more heavily on the lower
portion of the curve, since the dragline and shovel & truck types of mines tend to fall in
this portion, and they experience higher cost increases than the "averages" shown in
Table 1.
Because of the shifts, the upper portion of the curve (where demand crosses the curve and
determines the market clearing price for the coal) can easily be raised an additional
$4.00-$5.00 per ton for a West Virginia cost curve in the "New" 75-acre case. This rise,
coupled with the "horizontal capacity compression" induced rise in the curve (which can
add another few dollars), can easily make the coal much less competitive in the energy
marketplace compared to other coals such as foreign coal imported into the U.S., Powder
River Basin coal, or even compared to gas-fired electricity generation.
It is important to note that although costs at the upper portion of the mining cost curve
can rise by several dollars per ton, this does not necessarily mean that coal prices will rise
that much. In fact, demand tends to slide to the left (on a steeper, raised version of Figure
2) to a new competitive "balance point" that may still be a couple of dollars higher, but it
is at a lower total of produced tonnage. Thus, there is a trade-off between lost tonnage
and higher prices (due to higher costs) until a new market equilibrium point is reached.
State Comparisons
In the original study, RTC did not have detailed coal seam databases for Virginia and
Kentucky, like the one used to calculate reserves in West Virginia. Therefore, RTC made
comparisons of topography, slopes and drainage patterns in each of the coal-producing
counties for eastern Kentucky and Virginia and selected the county in West Virginia that
most closely resembled these characteristics. Hill & Associates then used this table of
comparable counties as a guide to make reductions of surface reserves in Kentucky and
Virginia counties. As an example, if the RTC listing showed that the topographic
characteristics of Pike County, Kentucky resembled those in Mingo County, West
Virginia - more than it did any of the other county in West Virginia, then Hill &
Associates applied the same percentage reductions to Pike County that were used for
Mingo County.
In this sensitivity analysis, Hill & Associates made adjustments to the Virginia and
eastern Kentucky mines in our database according to information gathered during mine
visits with producers. In addition, we weighed the adjustments with information from the
OSM valley fill inventory conducted by various state agencies as part of the draft
MTM/VF EIS.
14
-------
In Kentucky, most of the valley fills are 100 acres or less. Only a few of the surface
mines have large valley fills. We assumed that only the largest mines in Kentucky (i.e.,
those that produce over 1.5 million annual tons) would have significant impacts in the
250-acre scenario. Impacts to mines producing less than 1.5 million tons in Kentucky
had only slight adjustments for cost, capacity and reserves at the 250-acre level. The
smaller mines began to feel impacts as valley fills were restricted to 75 acres of
watershed.
In Virginia, valley fills are even smaller than in eastern Kentucky. The surface mines
there are smaller than those in other parts of Appalachia, produce less excess spoil and
have more options for spoil placement other than stream valleys. Most of the spoil
material is back hauled to the mining pit or placed at sites that were mined prior to
SMCRA, thus requiring fewer valley fills. Also, very few mines in this area are able to
use cast blasting to move overburden.
III.B. Results of the Sensitivity Modeling
75-Acre Case Production Shifts
The 75-acre case sensitivity to the new inputs (i.e., Scenario #1 defined above) results are
shown on Figure 3. This figure graphs the total tons by year from the entire study region
for the "Old" and the "New" 75-acre runs, as well as showing the pre-lawsuit status quo
Base Case for comparison.
Figure 3
260,000
240,000
S" 220,000
o
o
"JJJ" 200,000
c
f. 180,000
160,000
140,000
Total Tons-All Study Regions
(75-Acre Case Comparison)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
• BASE CASE
— A- 75-ACRE OLD
•75-ACRE NEW
15
-------
As indicated in the legend, the top line is the Base Case, the dashed line is the "Old" 75-
Acre Case, and the bottom line is the "New" 75-Acre Case. Three things are
immediately apparent from the graph.
First, the new adjusted model inputs (for surface mining only) cause the total production
from the study area (including both surface and deep tons) to drop below the Base Case
more than the "Old" 75-Acre results. Instead of falling a somewhat erratic 10-20 million
annual tons below the Base Case (see the report from the previous study in the MTM/VF
EIS Appendix G for a description of the causes behind the erratic "bouncing" of the
"Old" results), the "New" case tends to be a somewhat more consistent 30-40 million
annual tons below the Base Case. As the general decline of Central Appalachian tonnage
in all cases continues (due to the declining reserve base in the region) from roughly 250
million annual tons through the 200 million annual level, this valley fill restriction impact
represents approximately 15%-20% of the total production from the area.
Second, the amount of "bouncing" in the curve is somewhat less in the "New" case. This
indicates that as price signals from the marketplace show a need for investment in new
capacity, there is simply less available from which to draw, and we see less of the "surge
that cannot be sustained" phenomenon than in the "Old" case.
Third, the last two or three points on the "New" graph appear to establish a significant
trend heading substantially lower than the other two cases. This is probably due to
exhaustion of the "mid-cost" deep reserves within ten years. To be sure, the deep
reserves are exhausting at about this same rate in all the cases (including the Base Case)
since the bottom section of Appendix Table A-3 shows that deep production is relatively
unchanged across all of the cases. However, in both the Base Case and the "Old" 75-
Acre case, there are more expandable surface reserves at lower segments of the cost
curve (since costs were not raised in these cases) that can come on and effectively
"mask" or "offset" some of the impact of exhausting deep reserves. Thus, we conclude
that as deep reserves exhaust (in all cases), the overall tonnage impact will be more
apparent in the "New" cases (with their raised surface mine costs) than it will be in the
comparison cases where there is still some latent surface expansion available at lower
cost levels.
Remember that the deep tons are assumed to be totally free from the effects of valley fill
restrictions in these runs. If valley fill restrictions apply to deep mining, then a steep drop
in annual production is likely to start in earlier years than shown in the graph. The fact
that deep mined tonnage is staying basically at its Base Case level is the primary reason
in the "New" model runs that the overall tonnage drop is not much larger than 40 million
annual tons.
Also, since deep mining is more labor intensive than surface mining, the employment
levels shown at the bottom of Appendix Table B-6 for the "New" 75-Acre case would
drop much lower if deep mining is affected by valley fill restrictions. In the model runs,
16
-------
it is largely the fact that deep mining stays roughly at its Base Case levels that keeps the
employment levels from falling more rapidly.
With regard to the third point noted above from Figure 3, we are faced with the question,
"Why is the deep mining reserve base exhausting (in all cases) so rapidly?" The fact is
that some 20% or more of existing capacity in any year expires when many small mines
(and even some larger ones that have been producing for a while) simply run out of
economically minable reserves. In other words, one out of every five points on the
mining cost curve of Figure 2 disappears every year and must be replaced to maintain
production levels. In these "New" model runs, the cost increases and reserve reductions
for surface mines (especially at the more economic low end of the curve) generally price
new replacement surface capacity too high to be developed. However, the deep mining
expansion potential has remained the same in all cases, and it tends to be utilized (in all
cases) at about the same rate until it begins to be exhausted.
Table 4 below presents the actual amount of new deep mine capacity added each year in
the "New" 75-acre runs of the model. The table also presents the total amount of deep
production for each year that capacity expansion is listed, along with estimates of the
amount of refuse material that is going into valley fills due to this deep mined tonnage.
Table 4
New Deep Mine Capacity Added, Compared to Total Deep Production
"New" 75 Acre Case
(Million Annual Tons)
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Lb / cu ft
Tons / cu yd
New Deep
Kentucky
8.21
10.22
12.41
10.29
19.57
23.02
10.82
43.54
32.69
100
1.35
New Deep
West Virginia
13.12
20.30
29.45
34.44
41.36
43.92
17.19
41.33
41.56
100
1.35
New Deep
Virginia
2.71
2.72
2.95
3.10
8.05
7.27
4.99
8.00
7.87
Cross-Year Total
100
1.35
New Deep
Tot. Study Area
24.04
33.24
44.81
47.83
68.98
74.21
33.00
92.87
82.12
501.10
100
1.35
Deep Production
Tot. Study Area
147.18
158.03
154.88
140.71
152.77
150.07
135.25
127.08
106.84
1,272.81
100
1.35
Refuse
Million Cu Yds
Refuse
Million Cu Yds
Refuse
Million Cu Yds
Refuse
Million Cu Yds
Refuse
Million Cu Yds
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
6.08
7.57
9.19
7.62
14.50
17.05
8.01
32.25
24.21
9.72
15.04
21.81
25.51
30.64
32.53
12.73
30.61
30.79
2.01
2.01
2.19
2.30
5.96
5.39
3.70
5.93
5.83
Cross-Year Total
17.81
24.62
33.19
35.43
51.10
54.97
24.44
68.79
60.83
371.19
109.02
117.06
114.73
104.23
113.16
111.16
100.19
94.13
79.14
942.82
17
-------
During each single-year model run, the model tests each point on the mining cost curve to
see if the cash margin (of market clearing price above that mine's cost) is large enough to
earn the required ROI for that scenario. If so, then that point on the curve (that mine or
reserve) is free to add capacity at the annual level possible for the property's expansion.
The model output captured in Table 4 indicates that there is sufficient economically
expandable deep capacity (since no valley fill impacts on deep mines are assumed) to
bring on the annual new capacities shown. Thus, we conclude that the expansion of
capacity by new deep mines (in all cases, including the Base Case) has major influence
on the total tonnages presented. In fact, in years 2010 and 2011, total production in the
"New" 75 acre case (including both surface and deep production) has dropped to 160
million annual tons or lower, so that brand new deep mine capacity in each of those years
represents more than half of the total.
The top section of Table 4 shows that the grand total of newly constructed deep mine
capacity over the multi-year period is over 500 million annual tons. At that point, the
annual rate of new deep capacity expansion slows down as rapid exhaustion of the
economic reserves occurs. It is important to note that it is the economic reserves that are
exhausting. Central Appalachia still has huge amounts of coal in the ground at this point,
but it cannot be mined at cost levels that are competitive with other fuels. Simply stated,
the mining costs of remaining reserves are above viable development levels.
The bottom section of Table 4 indicates that the new deep mine capacity brought on in
the model runs results in approximately 371 million cubic yards of refuse that must be
placed in valley fills or impoundments. The total for all deep production (from both
existing and new mines) approaches 1 billion cubic yards of refuse. These results are
presented to highlight the magnitude of the assumption that deep mines are unaffected by
the valley fill restrictions.
The bottom line is that expansions of new capacity into the mining cost curves are very
sensitive (reflecting the real world condition) to costs of mining. Raising surface mine
costs has priced them out of providing new capacity, but leaving deep mining costs
unaffected (in the modeling) allows the deep mining to expand as rapidly as it did in the
Base Case. This continues with lowest cost mines depleting reserves first, until few
minable reserves remain to develop. This appears to happen in the last two or three years
of the "New" 75 acre runs
250-Acre Cases Production Shifts
The 250-acre sensitivity cases (Scenarios #2 and #3 defined above) are shown on Figure
4. This figure presents results of the 250 Acre phase-in of restrictions case (including
higher ROI) in the bottom graphed line; the "New" 250-Acre Case in the next-to-bottom
line; the "Old" 250-Acre Case in the dashed line; and the unrestricted Base Case in the
top line.
18
-------
260,000
240,000
O 220,000
O
o
^ 200,000
c
P. 180,000
160,000
140,000
Figure 4
Total Tons-All Study Regions
J250^cre^»^omflari^n)^
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
BASE CASE
250-ACRE NEW
-Q- 250-ACRE OLD
— •— 250-ACRE PHASE
Not surprisingly, since Tables 2 and 3 above show a relatively stronger change in inputs
compared to the old cases for the 250-acre scenarios, this graph shows generally more
separation of the "New" 250-acre cases from the "Old" results than we observed in
Figure 3 for the 75-acre comparison. In general, a 10-15 million ton impact in the "Old"
case (below Base Case levels) has now grown to 20-30 million annual tons below the
Base Case, and even 40 million tons under higher ROI constraints in the "250-Acre
Phase" case (Scenario #3).
An interesting and unexpected result of these sensitivity runs is that the "New" 250-acre
cases and the "New" 75-acre case all fall surprisingly close to each other at roughly 30-
40 million tons below the Base Case. This level is basically at, or even below, the
previous study's most restrictive 35-acre case. It is surprising that the "New" 250-acre
cases are so strongly affected that they are driven down to this level. The inclusion of
cost increases in these runs at the residual (after valley fill reductions) mines is the most-
likely driving force.
Basically, once surface mining costs are driven high enough that very little new surface
capacity can be added (this happens even in the 250-acre cases), then the deep mining
properties have trouble bringing on enough new economic capacity to replace all of the
annual exhaustions. This occurs even though it was assumed in these runs that each deep
mine's reserves, capacity and cost are totally unaffected by the valley fill restrictions. If
19
-------
even small deep mine impacts from the new valley fill restrictions occur, it is Hill &
Associates' opinion that even faster and larger drops in total production undoubtedly
would occur, causing higher economic distress in the region.
Although the focus of this report is specifically set at the more generalized level of
considering total area results, it is interesting to briefly note a couple of fairly predictable
sub-segment results. First, if we were to plot state totals (which we do not since this
sensitivity report is focused more generally), we would see that West Virginia is much
more affected than eastern Kentucky or Virginia in all of the "New" cases (see state-by-
state totals in Appendices A, B and D). This is a very predictable result from the state-
level inputs shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 above. If much higher cost increases and
reserve/capacity reductions are input for West Virginia, then it is not surprising to see
much higher output impacts in the model runs for this state.
Second, the same principle applies to results for surface mining compared to results for
deep mining. We have already commented above on the fact that deep mining
production stays relatively the same across all of the scenarios. Another way to look at
this is that basically all of the 40 million ton annual drop in production comes in the
surface tonnage (again, see the detailed segmented results in Appendices A, B and D).
As noted above, this is not surprising since all of the input cost increases and
reserve/capacity reductions were applied to surface mines only. Thus, if we were to plot
surface and deep results separately (which we do not, because of the more general focus
of this sensitivity study), we would see virtually all of the impacts showing up in the
surface plot (actually, in the West Virginia surface plot).
Coal Price Impacts Within The Study Area
Figures 5 and 6 present weighted average coal price graphs, in a manner similar to the
above tonnage production graphs, for the 75-acre cases and the 250-acre cases,
respectively. It is critical to note that these graphs are showing only prices for the
geographical area of this study. Any indirect impacts of pulling up prices from other
coal-producing regions are not included in this analysis.
Both of the figures below use the same horizontal axis which goes through 2011, even
though none of the 250-acre cases were run out through this final year. Of course, the
purpose of presenting both sets of results on identical axes is to allow more direct visual
comparison as the reader views both sets of graphs.
20
-------
Figure 5
Weighted Avg. Coal Prices All Study Regions
(75-Acre Case Comparison)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
• BASE CASE —A— 75-ACRE OLD
.75-ACRE NEW
Figure 6
Weighted Avg. Coal Prices All Study Regions
(250-Acre Case Comparison)
36.00
34.00
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
• BASE CASE
• 250-ACRE NEW
— Q— 250-ACRE OLD
—• 250-ACRE PHASE
21
-------
In general for most years, the "New" case prices in both sets of graphs gain
approximately $2.00 per ton over the unrestricted Base Case. This compares to the
typical "less than a dollar" differentials of the "Old" cases. In other words, price impacts
have more than doubled in most years using the new model inputs of this study.
A dollar or two shift may not appear significant, given normal fluctuations in the Central
Appalachian coal markets. The key is that a sustainable, systemic couple of dollars
occurring at the point where demand crosses the cost curve can result in large production
tonnage impacts. Figure 2, the generalized mine cost curve, illustrates that the middle
portion of the curve is relatively "flat." Only a small change in the vertical value of
dollars per ton at this point pushes substantial production above the market-clearing price
for economical mining operations. Even when valley fill restrictions raise the curve and
make it somewhat steeper, it is still flat enough in the first several years to see this
phenomenon of smaller price increments associated with larger tonnage decreases.
However, if the curve is shortened year after year and additional low-cost reserves are
unavailable to replenish the curve, then eventually demand crosses the curve nearer to its
right-hand edge where it is much steeper and mining becomes uneconomical. This
appears to occur in Figure 5 (the 75-acre comparisons) in the year 2011. As mentioned
earlier, the model indicates that replacement reserves are nearing exhaustion by this last
year of the runs. It is not so much that the area is running totally out of coal - There is
still plenty of it in the ground. But the area is running out of economic coal. There is
insufficient coal that can be mined at the $24-$26 level necessary to be competitive, even
at zero cash margin.
IV. Conclusions
In summary, the following findings were obtained in this sensitivity study:
• The new realistic inputs cause a larger impact of valley fill restrictions than that
observed in the prior study. This new impact reaches roughly 20% of total area
production, even under the assumption that deep mines and their associated wash
plants are unaffected. This impact is similar to, or below, the most restrictive 35-
Acre Case of the previous study.
• Surprisingly, the 75 acre and 250 acre "New" cases show impacts of similar
magnitude, primarily due to surface mine costs in both cases rising high enough to
cross a threshold where new surface capacity is basically uneconomic to develop.
• Topography differences between southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky
are large enough that a valley fill watershed limit of 250 acres falls much more
heavily on West Virginia. As that limit drops below about 100-acre watersheds,
significant numbers of eastern Kentucky surface mines are also affected, but by a
22
-------
lesser amount so that overall impacts are still predominantly located in West
Virginia.
Under the assumption that both existing and new deep mines are totally
unaffected by valley fill restrictions, a very large amount of new deep capacity
continues to come on year-by-year in the "New" modeling runs (as it does in the
Base Case). The total new deep mine capacity across 10 years in the "New" 75
acre case exceeds 500 million tons beyond that existing today. Since new deep
mines often require new wash plants with new valley fills, the assumption of "no
deep mining impacts" is a very critical and pivotal assumption. In fact, the results
of these economic studies are unreliable if deep mines will be affected.
Weighted average coal price for the total study area in the "New" runs is
generally $2.00 per ton higher than the pre-lawsuit Base Case, compared to the
previous study's result of generally less than a dollar over Base Case. However,
in the last year of the full 10-year "New" 75-acre case, there is a significant
upswing in coal prices, indicating the likelihood that the reserves available to
replace reduced tonnage are running out.
A definite "reluctance to invest" is developing in the study area due to uncertainty
and the perception of a hostile regulatory environment. However, raising the
required ROI for new investment to 20% showed only marginal impact in the
250-acre scenarios. Increased ROI did outweigh the "3-year phase-in" of
restrictions, causing the "250-Acre Phase" case tonnage to fall below the "250-
Acre New" levels even in the first three years of phase-in.
23
-------
Table A-1
Total Tons - Surface and Deep Mines Combined
Production Tons (000)
KY2
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY3
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY4
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvc
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
WVE
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
37,850
37,850
37,850
37,850
37,850
37,850
2001
49,100
49,100
49,100
49,100
49,100
49,100
2001
1,690
1,690
1,690
1,690
1,690
1,690
2001
90
90
90
90
90
90
2001
31,460
31,460
31,460
31,460
31,460
31,460
2001
890
890
890
890
890
890
37,112
36,193
35,914
36,065
35,210
36,637
2002
46,844
42,903
45,180
45,180
42,746
45,771
2002
1,575
1,708
1,690
1,690
1,708
1,690
2002
120
81
80
80
81
80
2002
29,662
30,761
24,259
23,295
28,545
24,692
2002
658
864
847
847
864
847
36,823
36,774
34,876
35,027
34,894
34,848
2003
46,074
42,522
46,092
45,689
42,880
46,795
2003
1,407
1,552
1,670
1,670
1,675
1,680
2003
50
90
40
40
30
40
2003
30,447
30,520
20,831
20,607
25,300
20,377
2003
679
679
847
847
823
847
33,002
33,701
33,122
33,013
31,764
33,166
2004
46,599
42,398
48,356
47,683
43,419
49,201
2004
1,406
1,357
1,529
1,529
1,562
1,436
2004
0
0
40
40
0
40
2004
30,018
27,994
19,938
19,467
24,905
18,117
2004
699
699
645
645
699
786
31,422
31,964
31,512
32,197
29,911
31,524
2005
41,518
43,787
45,080
46,759
42,577
44,510
2005
1,114
1,084
1,136
1,136
1,073
986
2005
0
0
40
40
0
40
2005
26,772
23,996
20,039
15,242
23,585
14,198
2005
720
720
645
786
720
645
32,007
30,886
30,637
30,929
26,389
30,471
2006
33,638
34,633
32,806
32,242
36,946
31,826
2006
1,035
825
1,087
1,066
1,005
986
2006
0
0
10
10
0
10
2006
32,447
28,024
16,862
14,502
27,747
10,120
2006
740
740
645
645
740
645
33,767
29,025
26,460
29,056
2007
35,576
31,040
32,564
33,026
2007
1,023
999
993
1,097
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
21,555
32,083
31,807
9,591
2007
761
761
761
646
35,551
29,686
25,917
29,483
2008
35,765
33,043
30,616
32,004
2008
993
1,003
1,124
986
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
16,371
16,982
19,847
9,594
2008
782
782
782
787
31,630
31,040
27,287
30,190
2009
27,881
27,504
24,684
26,019
2009
1,104
1,134
1,146
1,117
2009
40
40
40
40
2009
13,869
15,033
13,850
7,812
2009
1,004
1,004
1,004
847
26,355
25,977
23,130
28,538
2010
27,768
23,835
26,238
27,728
2010
1,106
1,136
1,186
1,087
2010
41
41
41
40
2010
18,263
11,166
10,130
8,058
2010
1,026
1,026
1,026
845
26,264
2011
24,161
2011
996
2011
50
2011
10,469
2011
896
24
-------
2001 2002
2003
Table A-1 (cont.)
2004 2005 2006 2007
2008 2009 2010 2011
WVS
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvsw
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
AIIWV
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All E. KY
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
VA
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All Regions
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
35,080
35,080
35,080
35,080
35,080
35,080
2001
5,750
5,750
5,750
5,750
5,750
5,750
2001
61,190
61,190
61,190
61,190
61,190
61,190
2001
134,370
134,370
134,370
134,370
134,370
134,370
2001
88,730
88,730
88,730
88,730
88,730
88,730
2001
27,200
27,200
27,200
27,200
27,200
27,200
2001
250,300
250,300
250,300
250,300
250,300
250,300
39,019
35,767
35,149
35,149
35,308
35,149
2002
5,413
5,238
4,610
5,292
5,238
4,004
2002
62,379
58,800
57,515
53,179
55,018
44,657
2002
137,131
131,429
122,379
117,762
124,971
109,349
2002
85,651
80,885
82,865
83,016
79,745
84,179
2002
28,032
26,463
26,395
26,395
26,802
26,758
2002
250,814
238,777
231,640
227,173
231,518
220,286
42,631
38,943
37,973
37,973
38,945
38,074
2003
4,431
3,211
2,574
3,731
3,703
2,605
2003
55,381
53,326
48,722
44,181
47,253
39,086
2003
133,568
126,678
110,946
107,339
116,024
100,988
2003
84,353
80,938
82,678
82,427
79,479
83,363
2003
29,777
27,643
27,666
27,666
28,498
27,837
2003
247,698
235,258
221,291
217,431
224,000
212,188
44,639
43,151
41,392
41,392
43,244
41,392
2004
1,849
1,159
663
1,476
1,882
743
2004
58,923
51,634
51,006
45,899
43,721
41,078
2004
136,128
124,638
113,643
108,878
114,451
102,115
2004
81,008
77,456
83,047
82,265
76,745
83,843
2004
28,516
29,980
29,163
29,375
30,141
29,737
2004
245,651
232,074
225,852
220,518
221,338
215,695
46,765
45,479
45,101
43,121
47,417
45,101
2005
1,477
838
352
773
1,530
342
2005
66,682
51,662
43,514
34,685
51,096
38,426
2005
142,415
122,695
109,651
94,607
124,348
98,712
2005
74,053
76,835
77,769
80,132
73,561
77,061
2005
23,013
27,182
26,932
27,215
26,690
27,081
2005
239,481
226,711
214,352
201,954
224,598
202,853
48,241
47,120
48,831
44,855
49,297
48,831
2006
1,117
788
302
403
1,190
302
2006
50,323
54,304
38,411
33,758
40,508
38,833
2006
132,868
130,977
105,051
94,162
119,482
98,731
2006
66,680
66,343
64,540
64,247
64,340
63,293
2006
23,929
23,020
23,103
22,921
23,551
22,710
2006
223,477
220,340
192,693
181,330
207,374
184,734
47,147
46,842
49,118
49,732
2007
1,127
788
1,221
308
2007
46,895
38,060
52,699
44,940
2007
117,484
118,534
135,606
105,217
2007
70,367
61,064
60,017
63,178
2007
25,132
24,702
25,090
25,970
2007
212,983
204,300
220,713
194,365
44,586
43,016
44,566
47,806
2008
1,064
685
1,252
158
2008
56,022
42,529
39,828
39,597
2008
118,824
103,993
106,274
97,941
2008
72,310
63,732
57,656
62,473
2008
23,123
23,818
24,269
26,307
2008
214,257
191,543
188,199
186,720
40,898
42,515
43,851
44,069
2009
544
185
1,283
308
2009
50,730
42,354
41,437
38,630
2009
107,044
101,090
101,424
91,666
2009
60,655
59,718
53,157
57,365
2009
22,491
22,174
21,735
23,293
2009
190,191
182,983
176,315
172,324
41,454
41,380
42,943
39,926
2010
554
185
1,314
308
2010
46,768
46,852
41,014
31,195
2010
108,066
100,608
96,426
80,332
2010
55,270
50,989
50,595
57,392
2010
23,071
22,729
22,367
23,237
2010
186,407
174,326
169,388
160,960
44,660
2011
348
2011
12,208
2011
68,580
2011
51,472
2011
23,722
2011
143,774
25
-------
Table A-2
Total Tons - Surface Mines Only
Production Tons (000)
Region
KY1
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY2
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY3
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY4
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvc
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
WVE
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
2001
17,410
17,410
17,410
17,410
17,410
17,410
2001
19,470
19,470
19,470
19,470
19,470
19,470
2001
1,020
1,020
1,020
1,020
1,020
1,020
2001
80
80
80
80
80
80
2001
23,230
23,230
23,230
23,230
23,230
23,230
2001
630
630
630
630
630
630
2002
19,041
16,935
16,850
17,001
15,865
16,940
2002
19,130
15,784
18,289
18,289
15,576
18,206
2002
819
952
946
946
952
946
2002
120
81
80
80
81
80
2002
22,290
23,585
17,183
16,220
21,369
17,612
2002
391
596
585
585
596
585
2003
18,258
17,523
15,701
15,761
15,378
15,360
2003
16,819
14,819
16,413
16,169
14,336
16,522
2003
644
788
926
926
901
926
2003
50
90
40
40
30
40
2003
22,726
23,035
13,465
12,412
17,753
13,011
2003
401
401
585
585
545
585
2004
14,578
14,972
15,190
15,200
13,034
15,073
2004
13,982
12,796
15,129
14,919
12,935
14,978
2004
634
603
784
784
778
681
2004
0
0
40
40
0
40
2004
21,868
20,478
12,144
10,066
16,854
10,323
2004
411
411
383
383
411
524
2005
14,078
13,457
14,322
14,372
10,100
13,770
2005
13,544
12,664
14,253
14,615
9,617
12,755
2005
331
300
391
391
300
231
2005
0
0
40
40
0
40
2005
21,088
16,634
11,731
9,860
16,223
5,890
2005
422
422
383
524
422
383
2006
13,659
13,230
13,680
13,740
7,720
13,277
2006
12,698
10,218
11,923
10,988
9,746
10,693
2006
221
30
342
322
201
231
2006
0
0
10
10
0
10
2006
27,432
23,282
12,182
9,820
22,461
5,390
2006
432
432
383
383
432
383
2007
13,740
11,498
6,821
12,076
2007
12,080
9,427
8,535
10,601
2007
205
201
205
342
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
16,575
27,092
26,814
5,244
2007
442
442
442
383
2008
12,587
9,649
6,104
9,693
2008
13,024
8,397
8,187
10,100
2008
205
205
316
231
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
12,646
13,313
15,742
4,624
2008
453
453
453
524
2009
10,910
8,275
4,996
8,505
2009
11,277
7,663
8,435
9,942
2009
336
336
338
362
2009
40
40
40
40
2009
11,090
11,903
10,375
5,107
2009
664
664
664
585
2010
9,103
7,339
3,830
7,032
2010
10,283
7,606
8,031
8,298
2010
338
338
409
362
2010
41
41
41
40
2010
15,559
8,232
7,185
5,555
2010
677
677
677
583
2011
7,515
2011
9,275
2011
433
2011
40
2011
7,837
2011
634
26
-------
2001 2002 2003
Table A-2 (cont.)
2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
WVN
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvs
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvsw
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
1,480
1,480
1,480
1,480
1,480
1,480
2001
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
2001
27,730
27,730
27,730
27,730
27,730
27,730
1,175
1,293
1,351
1,351
833
1,351
2002
1,223
1,048
1,202
1,117
1,048
592
2002
30,668
26,780
25,324
20,989
22,392
12,446
517
296
533
533
298
633
2003
1,078
191
362
392
338
392
2003
27,159
24,962
18,830
10,489
18,259
9,537
144
215
282
282
308
282
2004
328
21
302
242
328
382
2004
29,650
24,608
17,098
8,199
16,047
7,515
72
134
282
282
93
282
2005
339
21
302
242
339
292
2005
32,787
23,805
10,377
8,209
20,425
6,749
254
134
282
282
274
282
2006
349
21
302
242
349
302
2006
17,362
21,123
9,696
7,942
6,085
6,343
277
275
134
282
2007
359
21
359
302
2007
12,031
6,377
9,631
5,523
216
215
214
252
2008
370
21
370
152
2008
17,377
9,971
8,604
4,613
448
235
277
464
2009
380
21
380
302
2009
17,141
10,121
7,259
5,070
471
466
468
463
2010
390
21
390
302
2010
15,495
10,806
5,092
5,007
604
2011
342
2011
4,789
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2011
AIIWV
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
54,280
54,280
54,280
54,280
54,280
54,280
55,747
53,303
45,645
40,261
46,239
32,585
51,882
48,885
33,774
24,410
37,193
24,159
52,401
45,734
30,209
19,172
33,949
19,026
54,708
41,015
23,075
19,117
37,501
13,596
45,828
44,992
22,846
18,669
29,601
12,700
29,684 31,061 29,723
34,207 23,971 22,944
37,380 25,381 18,954
11,734 10,166 11,528
32,592
20,201
13,812
11,911 14,205
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
All E. KY
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
VA
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All Regions
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
37,980
37,980
37,980
37,980
37,980
37,980
2001
8,330
8,330
8,330
8,330
8,330
8,330
2001
100,590
100,590
100,590
100,590
100,590
100,590
39,110
33,752
36,166
36,316
32,474
36,172
2002
7,737
8,043
8,229
8,229
8,341
8,289
2002
102,594
95,098
90,040
84,806
87,054
77,046
35,770
33,220
33,079
32,896
30,645
32,848
2003
7,855
7,851
7,998
7,998
8,150
7,998
2003
95,507
89,956
74,851
65,303
75,988
65,004
29,193
28,371
31,143
30,943
26,746
30,772
2004
7,412
7,964
7,675
7,806
7,731
7,866
2004
89,006
82,068
69,027
57,921
68,426
57,664
27,952
26,421
29,006
29,419
20,018
26,797
2005
7,390
7,488
7,534
7,856
6,453
7,582
2005
90,050
74,924
59,616
56,392
63,972
47,975
26,578
23,478
25,955
25,060
17,667
24,212
2006
7,616
7,451
7,564
7,564
7,109
7,111
2006
80,022
75,920
56,365
51,292
54,377
44,023
26,025
21,127
15,560
23,019
2007
7,642
7,375
6,424
6,840
2007
63,350
62,709
59,364
41,593
25,815
18,251
14,606
20,025
2008
6,562
6,436
6,201
6,465
2008
63,438
48,658
46,188
36,656
22,563
16,314
13,809
18,849
2009
7,649
6,912
5,410
6,699
2009
59,935
46,170
38,173
37,076
19,765
15,325
12,311
15,732
2010
7,185
6,856
4,753
6,236
2010
59,542
42,382
30,876
33,879
17,263
2011
5,469
2011
36,937
27
-------
Table A-3
Total Tons - Deep Mines Only
Production Tons (000)
2008 2009 2010
2011
KY2
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY3
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY4
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvc
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
WVE
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
20,440
20,440
20,440
20,440
20,440
20,440
2001
29,630
29,630
29,630
29,630
29,630
29,630
2001
670
670
670
670
670
670
2001
10
10
10
10
10
10
2001
8,230
8,230
8,230
8,230
8,230
8,230
2001
260
260
260
260
260
260
18,071
19,258
19,064
19,064
19,345
19,698
2002
27,714
27,119
26,891
26,891
27,170
27,565
2002
756
757
745
745
757
745
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
7,372
7,176
7,075
7,075
7,176
7,080
2002
267
267
262
262
267
262
18,565
19,251
19,175
19,266
19,516
19,487
2003
29,255
27,703
29,679
29,520
28,544
30,273
2003
762
763
745
745
773
755
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
7,721
7,484
7,366
8,196
7,547
7,366
2003
278
278
262
262
278
262
18,425
18,729
17,932
17,813
18,731
18,093
2004
32,617
29,602
33,228
32,764
30,485
34,223
2004
773
753
745
745
784
755
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
8,150
7,516
7,794
9,401
8,051
7,794
2004
288
288
262
262
288
262
17,344
18,507
17,191
17,824
19,811
17,754
2005
27,973
31,123
30,827
32,144
32,960
31,755
2005
783
784
745
745
773
755
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
5,684
7,362
8,308
5,382
7,362
8,308
2005
298
298
262
262
298
262
18,349
17,656
16,957
17,188
18,670
17,194
2006
20,940
24,415
20,883
21,255
27,200
21,133
2006
813
794
745
745
803
755
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
5,015
4,741
4,680
4,682
5,286
4,730
2006
308
308
262
262
308
262
20,027
17,527
19,639
16,979
2007
23,497
21,613
24,030
22,426
2007
819
798
788
755
2007
0
0
0
0
22,965
20,037
19,813
19,790
2008
22,741
24,646
22,429
21,904
2008
788
798
808
755
2008
0
0
0
0
20,720
22,765
22,292
21,685
2009
16,604
19,841
16,249
16,077
2009
768
798
808
755
2009
0
0
0
0
17,252
18,637
19,300
21,506
2010
17,486
16,229
18,208
19,430
2010
768
798
778
724
2010
0
0
0
0
18,749
2011
14,886
2011
563
2011
10
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
4,980 3,726 2,779 2,704
4,990 3,670 3,130 2,934
4,993 4,104 3,475 2,945
4,347 4,970 2,705 2,502
2007 2008 2009
319
319
319
262
329
329
329
262
339
339
339
262
2010
349
349
349
262
2,632
2011
262
28
-------
2001 2002 2003
Table A-3 (cont.)
2004 2005 2006
WVS
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvsw
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
AIIWV
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All E. KY
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
VA
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All Regions
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
33,600
33,600
33,600
33,600
33,600
33,600
2001
4,540
4,540
4,540
4,540
4,540
4,540
2001
33,460
33,460
33,460
33,460
33,460
33,460
2001
80,090
80,090
80,090
80,090
80,090
80,090
2001
50,750
50,750
50,750
50,750
50,750
50,750
2001
18,870
18,870
18,870
18,870
18,870
18,870
2001
149,710
149,710
149,710
149,710
149,710
149,710
37,844
34,474
33,798
33,798
34,474
33,798
2002
4,189
4,189
3,408
4,175
4,189
3,412
2002
31,711
32,020
32,191
32,191
32,625
32,211
2002
81,384
78,127
76,734
77,501
78,732
76,764
2002
46,541
47,133
46,699
46,699
47,271
48,007
2002
20,295
18,419
18,167
18,167
18,461
18,468
2002
148,220
143,679
141,600
142,367
144,464
143,240
42,114
38,647
37,440
37,440
38,647
37,440
2003
3,353
3,020
2,212
3,339
3,365
2,212
2003
28,221
28,364
29,892
33,692
28,995
29,549
2003
81,687
77,793
11, Ml
82,929
78,831
76,829
2003
48,583
47,718
49,599
49,531
48,833
50,515
2003
21,922
19,792
19,669
19,669
20,347
19,840
2003
152,191
145,302
146,440
152,128
148,012
147,184
44,496
42,936
41,109
41,109
42,936
41,109
2004
1,521
1,139
361
1,234
1,553
361
2004
29,273
27,026
33,908
37,700
27,674
33,563
2004
83,727
78,905
83,434
89,706
80,502
83,089
2004
51,814
49,085
51,904
51,321
49,999
53,071
2004
21,104
22,016
21,488
21,570
22,411
21,871
2004
156,645
150,005
156,825
162,597
152,912
158,031
46,693
45,345
44,819
42,839
47,325
44,819
2005
1,138
818
50
531
1,191
50
2005
33,894
27,857
33,137
26,476
30,671
31,678
2005
87,707
81,680
86,576
75,490
86,847
85,117
2005
46,101
50,414
48,762
50,713
53,543
50,263
2005
15,624
19,695
19,398
19,359
20,237
19,499
2005
149,431
151,788
154,736
145,562
160,627
154,878
47,987
46,987
48,548
44,572
49,022
48,548
2006
768
768
0
161
841
0
2006
32,961
33,181
28,715
25,815
34,423
32,490
2006
87,040
85,985
82,205
75,493
89,881
86,030
2006
40,102
42,865
38,584
39,187
46,673
39,082
2006
16,314
15,569
15,539
15,358
16,442
15,599
2006
143,455
144,420
136,328
130,038
152,996
140,711
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
768
768
862
6
694
664
883
6
164
164
903
6
2007 2008 2009
164
164
924
6
2010
6
2011
34,864 38,644 33,589 31,274
31,683 32,558 32,232 36,046
43,068 31,225 34,179 35,922
39,417 34,984 33,560 26,188
2007 2008 2009 2010
87,800 87,763 77,321 75,474
84,327 80,022 78,147 80,407
7,419
2011
98,226 80,893
93,482 87,775
82,470
80,138
82,614
68,421 54,376
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
44,342 46,494 38,092 35,505
39,938 45,480 43,404 35,664
44,457
40,159
2007
17,491
17,328
18,667
19,130
43,050
42,448
2008
16,561
17,382
18,068
19,841
39,348
38,516
2009
14,842
15,262
16,325
16,593
38,285
41,660
2010
15,886
15,873
17,613
17,000
34,209
2011
18,253
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
149,633 150,819 130,256 126,865
141,592 142,885 136,813 131,945
161,349 142,011 138,143 138,512
152,772 150,065 135,248 127,082 106,837
29
-------
Table B-1
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
Base Case
Region Mining Type
KY 1 Deep
KY_1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY 2 Deep
KY 2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY 3 Deep
KY_3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY 4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV C Deep
WV C Surface
WV_C Total
WV_E Deep
WV E Surface
WV_E Total
WV N Deep
WV N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV_S Surface
WV_S Total
WV_SW Deep
WV SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1608
975
2583
2467
1044
3511
67
48
116
0
8
8
656
1266
1922
24
17
41
2701
51
2752
373
72
445
2612
1497
4109
4142
2075
6217
6366
2903
9269
1658
455
2113
12166
5434
17600
2003
1652
942
2595
2604
941
3545
68
38
106
0
3
3
687
1292
1980
25
17
42
2996
24
3020
298
64
362
2374
1404
3778
4324
1925
6249
6380
2802
9182
1795
463
2259
12499
5190
17689
2004
1640
844
2484
2903
790
3693
69
37
106
0
0
0
725
1244
1969
26
18
44
3162
8
3169
135
19
155
2448
1567
4015
4611
1671
6283
6495
2856
9352
1719
437
2156
12825
4965
17790
2005
1544
819
2363
2490
767
3256
70
20
89
0
0
0
506
1216
1722
27
18
45
3311
4
3316
101
20
121
2823
1779
4601
4103
1605
5708
6768
3037
9805
1227
436
1663
12098
5078
17176
2006
1633
794
2427
1864
716
2580
72
13
85
0
0
0
438
1596
2034
27
19
46
3405
15
3420
68
21
89
2755
955
3710
3569
1524
5093
6693
2606
9299
1284
449
1733
11547
4579
16125
2007
1782
799
2582
2091
664
2755
73
12
85
0
0
0
434
966
1400
28
19
47
3346
16
3362
68
21
90
3013
669
3682
3946
1475
5422
6890
1692
8582
1384
451
1835
12221
3618
15838
2008
2044
731
2775
2024
704
2728
70
12
82
0
0
0
329
735
1063
29
20
49
3191
13
3204
62
22
84
3379
908
4288
4138
1447
5585
6990
1697
8687
1294
387
1681
12422
3531
15952
2009
1844
632
2476
1478
634
2112
68
20
88
0
2
2
238
643
881
30
32
62
2903
26
2930
15
22
37
2982
894
3877
3390
1288
4679
6169
1618
7787
1136
451
1587
10695
3358
14052
2010
1535
526
2061
1556
580
2136
68
20
88
0
2
2
231
907
1138
31
32
63
2941
28
2968
15
23
38
2776
848
3624
3160
1128
4288
5994
1838
7832
1224
424
1648
10378
3390
13767
30
-------
Table B-2
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
250-Acre Old Case
Region Mining Typ
KY_1 Deep
KY 1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY 2 Deep
KY 2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY_3 Deep
KY_3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY_4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV C Deep
WV C Surface
WV_C Total
WV E Deep
WV_E Surface
WV_E Total
WV_N Deep
WV_N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV S Surface
WV_S Total
WV SW Deep
WV SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1714
944
2657
2414
887
3300
67
56
124
0
5
5
630
1343
1973
24
29
53
2471
59
2530
373
62
435
2633
1347
3980
4195
1891
6086
6130
2840
8970
1491
473
1964
11816
5205
17021
2003
1713
895
2608
2466
829
3295
68
47
114
0
6
6
658
1311
1969
25
17
42
2759
16
2775
269
11
280
2381
1265
3646
4247
1776
6023
6091
2621
8712
1606
463
2069
11944
4861
16804
2004
1667
840
2507
2635
747
3382
67
36
103
0
0
0
669
1175
1844
26
18
44
3054
11
3065
101
1
103
2261
1277
3537
4369
1623
5991
6111
2481
8592
1796
470
2266
12276
4574
16849
2005
1647
779
2427
2770
743
3513
70
18
87
0
0
0
655
965
1621
27
18
45
3222
8
3230
73
1
74
2321
1282
3603
4487
1540
6027
6297
2275
8572
1586
442
2027
12370
4257
16627
2006
1571
770
2341
2173
603
2776
71
2
72
0
0
0
422
1358
1780
27
19
46
3337
8
3345
68
1
70
2764
1138
3902
3815
1374
5189
6620
2524
9144
1214
440
1654
11649
4338
15986
2007
1560
667
2227
1924
556
2480
71
12
83
0
0
0
435
1589
2024
28
19
47
3310
16
3326
68
1
70
2682
342
3023
3554
1235
4790
6523
1968
8491
1366
435
1801
11444
3638
15082
2008
1783
558
2342
2193
495
2689
71
12
83
0
0
0
324
785
1108
29
20
49
3069
13
3081
59
1
60
2836
534
3370
4048
1066
5114
6317
1352
7669
1363
380
1743
11727
2798
14525
2009
2026
482
2508
1766
452
2218
71
20
91
0
2
2
275
702
977
30
32
62
3019
14
3033
15
1
16
2865
543
3408
3863
956
4819
6203
1292
7495
1169
408
1577
11236
2656
13891
2010
1659
433
2092
1444
449
1893
71
20
91
0
2
2
251
485
736
31
32
63
2921
27
2949
15
1
16
3202
596
3798
3174
904
4078
6421
1142
7563
1219
404
1623
10813
2451
13264
31
-------
Table B-3
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
250-Acre New Case
Region Mining Type
KY_1 Deep
KY_1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY_2 Deep
KY_2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY_3 Deep
KY_3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY_4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV_C Deep
WV_C Surface
WV_C Total
WV_E Deep
WV_E Surface
WV_E Total
WV_N Deep
WV_N Surface
WV_N Total
WV_S Deep
WV_S Surface
WV_S Total
WV_SW Deep
WV_SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1697
939
2636
2393
1032
3425
66
56
122
0
5
5
621
974
1596
23
29
52
2423
62
2484
303
71
374
2645
1309
3954
4156
2032
6188
6016
2444
8460
1471
484
1956
11643
4960
16603
2003
1707
872
2578
2641
921
3562
66
55
121
0
3
3
647
772
1419
23
29
52
2672
26
2698
197
21
218
2481
1038
3519
4414
1850
6264
6020
1886
7906
1601
472
2073
12035
4208
16243
2004
1596
842
2438
2957
849
3806
66
46
113
0
3
3
685
699
1385
23
17
40
2923
16
2939
32
18
50
2776
946
3722
4619
1740
6360
6440
1696
8136
1758
453
2211
12818
3889
16707
2005
1530
792
2322
2744
799
3543
66
23
89
0
3
3
731
675
1406
23
17
40
3177
16
3194
4
18
22
2771
578
3349
4340
1616
5956
6708
1304
8011
1568
445
2013
12616
3365
15980
2006
1509
760
2269
1859
667
2526
66
20
86
0
1
1
408
703
1111
23
17
40
3433
16
3449
0
18
18
2472
538
3010
3434
1448
4882
6336
1292
7628
1221
446
1667
10990
3186
14176
32
-------
Table B-4
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
250-Acre Phase-In Case
Region Mining Type
KY_1 Deep
KY 1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY_2 Deep
KY 2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY 3 Deep
KY_3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY 4 Deep
KY_4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV C Deep
WV_C Surface
WV_C Total
WV_E Deep
WV E Surface
WV_E Total
WV_N Deep
WV N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV_S Surface
WV_S Total
WV SW Deep
WV_SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
VA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1697
948
2644
2393
1032
3425
66
56
122
0
5
5
621
924
1545
23
29
52
2423
62
2484
372
66
437
2645
1070
3715
4156
2040
6197
6084
2150
8234
1471
484
1956
11711
4675
16386
2003
1715
875
2590
2627
907
3534
66
55
121
0
3
3
721
711
1432
23
29
52
2672
26
2698
297
23
320
2786
573
3359
4408
1839
6247
6499
1362
7861
1601
472
2073
12508
3673
16181
2004
1585
843
2428
2916
837
3753
66
46
113
0
3
3
828
579
1407
23
17
40
2923
16
2939
110
14
124
3074
454
3528
4568
1729
6296
6959
1080
8039
1766
461
2226
13292
3269
16561
2005
1586
795
2381
2861
820
3681
66
23
89
0
3
3
470
569
1040
23
25
48
3043
16
3059
47
14
62
2246
454
2700
4513
1641
6154
5830
1079
6909
1565
464
2028
11908
3183
15091
2006
1530
763
2293
1892
612
2503
66
19
85
0
1
1
408
568
976
23
17
40
3163
16
3179
14
14
29
2208
439
2647
3488
1395
4882
5816
1053
6870
1204
446
1651
10508
2894
13403
33
-------
Table B-5
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
75-Acre Old Case
Region Mining Type
KY_1 Deep
KY 1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY 2 Deep
KY_2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY 3 Deep
KY_3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY_4 Deep
KY 4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV_C Deep
WV C Surface
WV_C Total
WV E Deep
WV_E Surface
WV_E Total
WV N Deep
WV_N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV S Surface
WV_S Total
WV_SW Deep
WV SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1722
881
2602
2418
878
3296
67
56
124
0
5
5
630
1223
1853
24
29
53
2471
42
2513
373
62
435
2681
1134
3815
4207
1820
6027
6179
2490
8669
1495
492
1987
11880
4802
16683
2003
1737
820
2557
2540
816
3357
69
53
122
0
2
2
663
1029
1692
25
26
51
2759
16
2775
299
20
319
2431
936
3367
4346
1691
6038
6176
2027
8204
1655
481
2136
12178
4200
16377
2004
1667
753
2420
2713
760
3473
70
46
116
0
0
0
707
977
1684
26
18
44
3054
16
3071
138
19
158
2318
866
3183
4450
1559
6009
6243
1896
8139
1832
456
2288
12525
3911
16436
2005
1763
583
2346
2933
566
3500
69
18
87
0
0
0
655
934
1590
27
18
45
3356
5
3362
106
20
126
2578
1098
3676
4765
1167
5933
6722
2077
8798
1630
381
2011
13118
3625
16742
2006
1662
449
2111
2421
575
2996
71
12
83
0
0
0
461
1299
1760
27
19
46
3476
16
3492
75
21
95
2875
326
3201
4154
1036
5190
6914
1681
8595
1288
419
1708
12356
3136
15492
2007
1748
402
2150
2139
504
2642
70
12
82
0
0
0
437
1563
2000
28
19
47
3476
8
3484
77
21
98
3639
525
4165
3957
918
4875
7658
2137
9795
1478
379
1857
13093
3434
16527
2008
1763
360
2123
1996
483
2479
72
19
91
0
0
0
356
918
1273
29
20
49
3162
13
3174
79
22
100
2779
465
3244
3831
862
4693
6404
1436
7840
1420
366
1786
11656
2664
14319
2009
1984
295
2279
1446
498
1944
72
20
92
0
2
2
299
601
900
30
32
62
3093
16
3109
80
22
103
3029
385
3414
3502
815
4317
6531
1056
7588
1260
319
1579
11293
2190
13483
2010
1718
226
1944
1620
474
2094
69
24
93
0
2
2
252
412
664
31
32
63
3012
28
3040
82
23
105
3184
267
3451
3407
726
4134
6561
763
7324
1370
280
1650
11338
1769
13108
34
-------
Table B-6
Direct Coal Employment - (Number of Employees)
75-Acre New Case
Region Mining Type
KY 1 Deep
KY 1 Surface
KY_1 Total
KY 2 Deep
KY 2 Surface
KY_2 Total
KY 3 Deep
KY 3 Surface
KY_3 Total
KY 4 Deep
KY 4 Surface
KY_4 Total
WV_C Deep
WV C Surface
WV_C Total
WV E Deep
WV E Surface
WV_E Total
WV_N Deep
WV N Surface
WV_N Total
WV S Deep
WV S Surface
WV_S Total
WV_SW Deep
WV SW Surface
WV_SW Total
ALLEKY Deep
ALLEKY Surface
ALL E. KY Total
ALLWV Deep
ALLWV Surface
ALLWV Total
ALLVA Deep
ALLVA Surface
ALLVA Total
ALLREG Deep
ALLREG Surface
ALLREG Total
2001
1819
972
2791
2609
1102
3711
60
60
120
1
5
6
724
1322
2046
23
31
55
2410
69
2479
404
71
475
2732
1405
4137
4489
2139
6627
6293
2899
9192
1538
488
2026
12319
5526
17845
2002
1753
945
2698
2453
1027
3480
66
56
122
0
5
5
621
992
1613
23
29
52
2423
62
2484
303
35
338
2646
695
3341
4273
2032
6305
6016
1812
7829
1498
488
1986
11787
4333
16120
2003
1734
852
2586
2694
927
3622
67
55
122
0
3
3
647
747
1394
23
29
52
2672
32
2704
197
23
220
2455
541
2996
4496
1836
6332
5994
1372
7366
1616
472
2088
12106
3680
15786
2004
1610
836
2446
3046
842
3888
67
40
107
0
3
3
685
585
1270
23
25
48
2923
16
2939
32
23
55
2746
438
3184
4723
1721
6444
6410
1087
7497
1793
464
2257
12926
3272
16198
2005
1580
760
2340
2826
712
3538
67
14
81
0
3
3
731
328
1058
23
17
40
3177
16
3194
4
17
22
2648
394
3042
4473
1488
5961
6584
772
7355
1577
447
2024
12634
2706
15341
2006
1530
746
2276
1881
600
2481
67
14
81
0
1
1
412
298
710
23
17
40
3433
16
3449
0
18
18
2814
370
3183
3478
1360
4838
6683
718
7401
1226
420
1645
11387
2497
13884
2007
1511
687
2198
1996
595
2591
67
20
87
0
0
0
378
291
668
23
17
40
3496
16
3512
0
18
18
3350
321
3671
3574
1302
4876
7247
662
7910
1536
404
1939
12357
2368
14725
2008
1761
558
2319
1949
565
2515
67
14
81
0
0
0
433
256
689
23
25
48
3384
15
3399
0
9
9
3109
268
3377
3778
1137
4915
6949
573
7522
1595
381
1976
12322
2091
14413
2009
1930
490
2420
1431
556
1986
67
21
89
0
2
2
232
275
507
23
29
52
3100
27
3127
0
18
18
2980
295
3274
3428
1069
4497
6335
643
6978
1305
395
1700
11068
2108
13176
2010
1914
414
2328
1729
458
2188
64
21
86
0
2
2
214
301
515
23
29
52
2809
27
2836
0
18
18
2324
291
2614
3708
896
4603
5369
666
6035
1340
368
1708
10417
1929
12347
2011
1669
443
2112
1325
516
1841
50
26
76
1
2
3
225
436
661
23
32
55
3122
36
3157
0
20
20
653
278
932
3045
987
4032
4023
802
4825
1451
323
1774
8519
2111
10630
35
-------
Table C-1
Mine Capacity Capital Expenditures
Million Dollars
Region
KY1
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY2
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY3
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY4
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvc
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
WVE
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
33.33
5.09
1.26
1.26
2.72
0.54
2002
67.08
12.60
4.94
4.94
12.30
3.78
2002
0.79
0.39
0.09
0.09
0.39
0.09
2002
0.74
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
2002
8.37
7.17
1.29
0.19
6.69
1.23
2002
0.42
0.42
0.12
0.12
0.42
0.12
2003
13.01
27.10
7.06
7.06
16.12
7.06
2003
42.89
34.51
60.97
56.58
33.19
60.97
2003
0.11
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.20
2003
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2003
11.56
12.15
6.52
22.56
12.04
5.96
2003
0.38
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
2004
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
71.18
54.21
82.60
58.00
54.52
82.60
2004
0.21
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
13.29
14.47
9.28
24.25
10.45
9.08
2004
0.38
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
2005
0.17
3.77
0.00
0.00
31.42
0.00
2005
0.70
38.50
0.17
0.17
80.17
0.17
2005
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
2005
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2005
65.01
4.65
10.98
0.48
12.14
10.78
2005
0.38
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
2006
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2006
0.70
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.00
0.17
2006
0.21
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
2006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2006
70.13
96.36
0.15
0.57
70.47
0.52
2006
0.38
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
2007
31.01
0.00
31.30
0.00
2007
53.53
0.00
0.00
15.36
2007
0.10
0.08
0.14
0.00
2007
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2007
0.43
40.28
66.64
0.36
2007
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.00
2008
70.50
51.85
1.63
67.88
2008
21.67
68.61
0.00
2.62
2008
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
2008
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2008
0.43
0.27
0.69
12.82
2008
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.00
2009
0.00
47.09
31.66
14.76
2009
0.00
0.00
1.08
0.17
2009
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
2009
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2009
0.42
0.26
0.68
0.36
2009
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.00
2010
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2010
21.12
0.00
39.18
57.78
2010
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.00
2010
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
2010
62.96
0.49
0.66
0.28
2010
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.00
2011
0.42
2011
0.17
2011
0.00
2011
0.00
2011
0.24
2011
0.00
36
-------
2001 2002 2003
Table C-1 (cont.)
2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
WVN
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvs
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvsw
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
AIIWV
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All E. KY
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
VA
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All Regions
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
145.99
30.85
8.89
8.89
30.85
8.89
2002
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
55.12
11.35
3.07
2.68
9.84
1.25
2002
210.09
49.79
13.37
11.88
47.80
11.49
2002
101.94
18.10
6.30
6.30
15.43
4.42
2002
67.73
19.34
9.16
9.16
19.35
9.16
2002
379.76
87.23
28.83
27.34
82.58
25.07
144.44
141.15
124.02
124.02
141.15
124.02
2003
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2003
12.82
27.14
0.00
35.22
3.65
0.00
2003
169.20
180.82
130.54
181.80
157.22
129.98
2003
56.01
62.19
68.03
63.64
49.64
68.23
2003
40.88
44.45
34.00
34.00
45.70
36.83
2003
266.09
287.46
232.57
279.44
252.56
235.04
78.27
145.22
124.94
124.94
145.22
124.94
2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
102.38
49.37
134.05
128.80
48.59
127.42
2004
194.32
209.44
268.27
277.99
204.64
261.44
2004
71.57
54.42
82.60
58.00
54.73
82.60
2004
8.33
53.69
44.66
44.66
52.59
44.24
2004
274.22
317.55
395.53
380.65
311.96
388.28
77.52
79.27
126.36
57.06
148.57
126.36
2005
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
2005
218.00
75.72
45.54
0.21
147.83
29.72
2005
361.05
160.02
182.88
57.75
309.06
166.86
2005
1.07
42.47
0.17
0.17
111.78
0.17
2005
6.82
6.97
7.04
7.04
12.57
7.04
2005
368.94
209.46
190.09
64.96
433.41
174.07
37.61
52.32
127.05
57.19
54.27
127.05
2006
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
2006
5.09
128.16
0.75
6.55
88.42
105.64
2006
113.35
277.22
127.95
64.31
213.68
233.21
2006
1.34
0.21
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.17
2006
7.05
7.18
7.05
7.05
7.33
7.05
2006
121.74
284.61
135.17
71.53
221.21
240.43
22.33
1.60
9.75
27.96
2007
0.14
0.00
0.55
0.00
2007
124.58
11.14
241.63
183.83
2007
147.86
53.40
318.95
212.15
2007
84.64
0.08
31.44
15.36
2007
24.56
30.75
59.92
73.64
2007
257.06
84.23
410.31
301.15
14.31
20.54
0.48
22.60
2008
0.14
0.00
0.55
0.00
2008
199.99
146.14
0.32
65.13
2008
215.25
167.33
2.42
100.55
2008
92.17
120.51
1.63
70.50
2008
13.15
13.50
8.05
18.05
2008
320.57
301.34
12.10
189.10
0.00
7.07
9.25
0.00
2009
0.14
0.00
0.55
0.00
2009
0.41
49.47
39.85
0.00
2009
1.35
57.18
50.71
0.36
2009
0.00
47.09
32.77
14.93
2009
8.53
8.05
8.26
1.44
2009
9.88
112.32
91.74
16.73
16.93
3.92
5.89
0.00
2010
0.14
0.00
0.55
0.00
2010
14.99
83.45
34.75
0.00
2010
95.42
88.26
42.25
0.28
2010
21.17
0.05
39.20
57.78
2010
24.27
9.58
23.08
8.74
2010
140.86
97.89
104.53
66.80
160.31
2011
0.00
2011
0.00
2011
160.55
2011
0.59
2011
9.70
2011
170.84
37
-------
Table D-1
Average Coal Prices
(Constant 2001 Dollars per Ton, Fob Mine)
2008 2009 2010
2011
KY2
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY3
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY4
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvc
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
WVE
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
35.22
35.22
35.22
35.22
35.22
35.22
2001
35.02
35.02
35.02
35.02
35.02
35.02
2001
34.27
34.27
34.27
34.27
34.27
34.27
2001
34.88
34.88
34.88
34.88
34.88
34.88
2001
34.75
34.75
34.75
34.75
34.75
34.75
2001
35.77
35.77
35.77
35.77
35.77
35.77
25.49
27.22
27.66
27.97
27.63
28.89
2002
25.27
27.00
27.43
27.73
27.36
28.68
2002
24.31
26.19
26.64
26.95
26.63
27.91
2002
25.17
26.85
27.26
27.53
27.16
28.48
2002
25.38
26.96
27.85
28.09
27.54
29.07
2002
26.11
27.61
28.21
28.50
27.95
29.46
25.05
25.87
27.00
27.20
26.70
27.54
2003
24.70
25.44
26.60
26.79
26.21
27.16
2003
24.82
24.65
25.82
26.00
25.44
26.42
2003
24.29
25.01
26.23
26.34
25.78
26.76
2003
25.09
25.97
27.32
27.62
26.91
28.08
2003
24.81
25.57
26.72
26.83
26.01
27.02
24.74
25.31
26.36
26.57
26.14
26.96
2004
24.15
24.67
25.74
26.00
25.40
26.38
2004
22.89
23.49
24.63
24.90
25.20
25.27
2004
0.00
0.00
25.04
25.27
0.00
25.73
2004
24.57
25.19
26.72
26.90
26.22
27.31
2004
23.40
23.62
25.10
25.10
24.37
25.41
24.02
24.81
25.47
26.46
24.38
26.14
2005
23.44
24.14
24.96
25.88
23.79
25.57
2005
21.84
22.73
23.61
24.59
22.27
24.14
2005
0.00
0.00
24.54
25.37
0.00
25.08
2005
23.95
24.73
25.63
26.80
24.37
26.45
2005
22.48
23.04
24.23
25.12
22.97
24.88
24.76
24.39
26.37
26.42
25.64
26.37
2006
24.49
23.86
25.91
26.00
25.17
25.95
2006
22.69
21.85
24.30
24.44
24.65
24.09
2006
0.00
0.00
25.50
25.60
0.00
25.53
2006
24.49
24.16
26.08
26.31
25.56
26.42
2006
22.97
22.58
24.32
24.66
23.30
24.04
25.27
25.14
24.29
26.47
2007
24.79
24.83
23.97
26.02
2007
23.07
23.05
22.03
24.22
2007
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2007
24.94
24.72
23.75
26.51
2007
23.17
23.13
22.28
23.95
23.68
24.52
24.74
25.33
2008
23.38
24.15
24.45
24.91
2008
23.25
21.62
23.98
22.07
2008
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2008
22.42
23.32
23.53
24.03
2008
23.06
23.38
23.38
23.53
25.53
25.08
25.89
27.09
2009
25.37
24.80
25.71
26.75
2009
23.39
23.07
23.88
24.87
2009
25.46
24.75
25.63
26.69
2009
24.09
23.70
24.29
25.11
2009
24.97
23.60
23.87
25.23
25.11
26.45
26.54
26.95
2010
24.64
26.17
26.07
26.41
2010
22.70
24.00
23.81
24.42
2010
24.58
26.03
26.08
26.36
2010
23.77
25.03
24.96
25.19
2010
25.72
26.21
25.44
25.85
35.82
2011
34.76
2011
33.47
2011
34.40
2011
33.54
2011
33.48
38
-------
wvs
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvsw
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
AIIWV
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All E. KY
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
VA
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All Regions
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
Table D-1 (cont.)
2001
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
2001
34.22
34.22
34.22
34.22
34.22
34.22
2001
34.09
34.09
34.09
34.09
34.09
34.09
2001
34.48
34.48
34.48
34.48
34.48
34.48
2001
35.09
35.09
35.09
35.09
35.09
35.09
2001
36.44
36.44
36.44
36.44
36.44
36.44
2001
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
34.91
2002
24.92
26.55
27.22
27.36
26.79
28.28
2002
24.84
26.39
27.24
27.45
26.91
28.30
2002
24.68
26.31
27.03
27.35
26.84
28.38
2002
24.91
26.54
27.26
27.51
26.99
28.51
2002
25.35
27.08
27.51
27.82
27.47
28.76
2002
27.17
28.92
29.64
30.01
29.56
30.97
2002
25.31
26.99
27.62
27.92
27.45
28.90
2003
23.33
24.38
25.45
25.51
24.81
25.59
2003
24.69
24.99
26.40
26.48
25.78
27.23
2003
24.39
25.21
26.43
26.57
26.01
27.20
2003
24.22
25.13
26.26
26.39
25.80
26.77
2003
24.85
25.62
26.75
26.94
26.41
27.30
2003
26.64
27.52
28.78
28.85
28.28
29.27
2003
24.73
25.58
26.76
26.91
26.33
27.31
2004
22.66
22.86
24.40
24.46
23.71
24.80
2004
24.50
24.50
26.57
26.34
25.75
27.74
2004
23.99
24.46
25.87
26.09
25.38
26.62
2004
23.68
24.07
25.48
25.61
24.93
26.00
2004
24.37
24.93
25.96
26.21
25.70
26.59
2004
26.10
26.53
27.57
27.85
27.39
28.30
2004
24.19
24.67
25.93
26.13
25.53
26.55
2005
22.03
22.56
23.55
24.45
22.42
24.08
2005
23.56
23.86
25.91
26.52
23.97
26.71
2005
22.99
23.82
25.05
26.10
23.41
25.73
2005
22.86
23.53
24.54
25.46
23.22
25.08
2005
23.66
24.40
25.14
26.10
24.01
25.78
2005
25.43
25.89
27.15
28.29
25.62
27.76
2005
23.35
24.11
25.09
26.09
23.76
25.71
2006
22.44
22.14
23.55
23.99
22.67
23.28
2006
24.30
23.51
26.82
26.34
25.41
26.81
2006
23.88
23.32
25.84
25.85
24.88
25.80
2006
23.50
23.07
24.81
25.03
24.12
24.61
2006
24.59
24.08
26.10
26.18
25.35
26.12
2006
26.31
25.77
28.30
28.33
27.24
28.30
2006
24.13
23.66
25.66
25.85
24.86
25.58
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
24.87 22.49
24.49 23.23
23.97 23.65
27.15 25.26
24.24
23.70
24.35
26.11
2007 2008 2009
24.48 22.27
24.34 23.21
23.31 23.55
25.64 24.19
24.05
23.86
24.40
25.76
23.88
24.52
24.94
25.93
2010
23.65
24.84
24.85
25.41 34.65
35.33
2011
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
23.82 22.18
23.78 22.85
22.87 23.00
24.64 23.30
23.97
23.35
23.68
24.97
2007 2008 2009
25.00 23.53
24.95 24.28
24.08 24.57
26.20 25.06
25.42
24.92
25.76
26.90
23.91
24.89
24.43
24.45
2010
24.82
26.26
26.23
26.64 35.28
32.41
2011
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
26.95 24.48
26.78 25.48
25.66 26.08
27.92 25.32
26.56
26.38
27.01
27.39
26.14
25.15
25.11
27.74 40.17
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
24.58 22.88
24.49 23.65
23.52
25.59
23.88
24.18
24.74
24.23
24.72
25.94
24.45
25.33
25.06
25.71 34.72
39
-------
Table E-1
Megawatt-Hours of Generation
Region
KY1
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY2
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY4
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvc
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
2007
2007
0
0
2007
2008
2008
0
0
2008
2009
2009
0
0
2009
2001
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
323,925
323,925
323,925
323,925
323,925
323,925
374,160
374,160
374,160
374,160
374,160
374,160
424,395
424,395
424,395
424,395
424,395
424,395
474,629
474,629
474,629
416,285
416,285
474,629
423,534
423,534
0
0
423,534
0
447,754
447,754
0
0
438,972
0
2006
675,656
675,656
675,656
675,656
675,656
675,656
71 1 ,542
71 1 ,542
711,542
711,542
711,542
610,306
680,236
599,116
599,116
599,116
599,116
599,116
587,926
587,926
587,926
587,926
587,926
587,926
573,229
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2007
461,457
0
472,038
0
2007
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2008
0
0
2008
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2009
0
0
2009
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2010
2010
0
0
2010
KY3
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
2,123,435
2,123,435
2,123,435
2,123,435
2,123,435
2,123,435
2,128,837
2,128,837
2,128,837
2,128,837
2,128,837
2,128,837
2,134,238
2,134,238
2,134,238
2,134,238
2,134,238
2,134,238
2,139,640
2,139,640
2,139,640
2,139,640
2,139,640
2,139,640
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,155,394
2,155,394
2,155,394
2,155,394
2,121
2,121
2,121
2,121
,634
,634
,634
,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2010
0
0
2010
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
2011
0
2011
2011
2011
0
2011
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
WVE
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
3,055,270
3,055,270
3,055,270
3,055,270
3,055,270
3,055,270
3,084,117
3,089,002
3,088,025
3,088,513
3,089,002
3,089,002
3,112,963
3,112,963
3,112,963
3,112,963
3,112,963
3,112,963
3,107,471
3,107,471
3,107,471
3,107,471
3,107,471
3,107,471
3,136,002
3,136,002
3,136,002
3,136,002
3,136,002
3,136,002
3,164,533
3,164,533
3,164,533
3,164,533
3,164,533
3,164,533
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
3,194,070
2009
2010
2011
3,194,070 3,194,070
3,194,070 3,194,070
3,194,070 3,194,070
3,194,070 3,194,070 3,194,070
WVN
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
21,530,733 21,835,448 21,669,331 21,547,871 21,851,469 19,403,986 19,742,119 18,830,782 18,829,724 18,830,612
21,530,733 21,594,004 21,512,683 21,502,314 21,741,207 21,775,492 19,708,842 18,834,237 18,834,237 18,705,238
21,530,733 21,564,015 21,512,683 21,385,248 18,920,144 18,744,508
21,530,733 21,482,364 21,512,683 21,370,064 18,922,311 18,746,741
21,530,733 21,765,769 21,468,335 21,358,253 21,377,274 19,334,547 19,780,646 18,832,432 18,744,684 16,775,490
21,530,733 21,459,256 21,444,980 20,394,415 19,469,692 18,792,819 21,084,586 18,830,553 16,766,117 16,854,873 18,784,214
40
-------
2001
2002
2003
Table E-1 (cont.)
2004 2005 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
wvs
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvsw
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All WV
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All E. KY
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All VA
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
Total Study
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
25,261,659
25,261,659
25,261,659
25,261,659
25,261,659
25,261,659
2001
2,447,360
2,447,360
2,447,360
2,447,360
2,447,360
2,447,360
2001
14,339,034
14,339,034
14,339,034
14,339,034
14,339,034
14,339,034
2001
42,048,053
42,048,053
42,048,053
42,048,053
42,048,053
42,048,053
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
25,631,107
25,394,548
25,363,582
25,282,419
25,566,313
25,158,564
2002
2,502,997
2,502,997
2,502,997
2,502,997
2,502,997
2,502,997
2002
14,505,891
14,516,621
14,517,088
14,516,613
14,516,621
14,732,526
2002
42,639,995
42,414,166
42,383,667
42,302,029
42,585,931
42,394,087
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
25,462,530
25,224,762
25,224,762
25,224,762
25,180,414
25,157,059
2003
2,558,633
2,558,633
2,558,633
2,558,633
2,558,633
2,558,633
2003
15,134,866
14,684,765
14,780,537
14,655,901
14,560,432
14,608,611
2003
43,156,029
42,468,160
42,563,932
42,439,296
42,299,479
42,324,303
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
25,243,268
25,197,711
25,080,645
25,065,461
25,053,650
24,089,812
2004
2,614,269
2,614,269
2,614,269
2,555,925
2,555,925
2,614,269
2004
14,778,080
15,029,789
14,861,134
15,023,069
14,861,643
15,094,332
2004
42,635,617
42,841,769
42,556,048
42,644,455
42,471,218
41,798,413
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
25,560,700
24,911,432
22,090,369
22,092,536
24,547,499
22,639,917
2005
2,568,575
2,568,575
2,145,041
2,145,041
2,568,575
2,145,041
2005
14,833,424
14,835,977
14,835,320
14,643,307
14,835,977
14,294,018
2005
42,962,699
42,315,984
39,070,730
38,880,884
41,952,051
39,078,976
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
22,602,742
24,974,248
21,943,264
21,945,497
22,533,303
21,991,575
2006
2,598,197
2,598,197
2,150,443
2,150,443
2,589,415
2,150,443
2006
15,023,532
15,015,167
14,626,314
14,626,314
14,626,314
15,271,373
2006
40,224,471
42,587,612
38,720,021
38,722,254
39,749,032
39,413,391
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
22,970,412
22,937,135
23,008,939
24,312,879
2007
2,616,851
2,155,394
2,627,432
2,155,394
2007
15,472,500
15,364,766
15,745,919
15,801,842
2007
41,059,763
40,457,295
41,382,290
42,270,115
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
22,059,075
22,062,530
22,060,725
22,058,846
2008
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2008
16,455,296
16,458,321
16,909,042
15,729,417
2008
40,636,005
40,642,485
41,091,401
39,909,897
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
22,058,017
22,062,530
21,972,977
19,994,410
2009
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2009
18,355,939
18,215,708
18,358,965
17,392,978
2009
42,535,590
42,399,872
42,453,576
39,509,022
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
22,058,905
21,933,531
20,003,783
20,083,166
2010
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2,121,634
2010
18,294,427
18,979,464
18,979,464
18,297,452
2010
42,474,966
43,034,629
41,104,881
40,502,252
0
2011
59239
2011
22,071,746
2011
2,121,634
2011
19,430,942
2011
43,624,322
41
-------
Table F-1
Weighted Average Wholesale Electricity Price (Lambda Cost)
(Constant 2001 Dollars per MWHr)
Region
KY1
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY2
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY3
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY4
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvc
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
WVE
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
25.86
25.86
25.86
25.86
25.86
25.86
2001
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
2001
25.87
25.87
25.87
25.87
25.87
25.87
2001
28.40
28.40
28.40
28.40
28.40
28.40
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
18.17
18.42
18.50
18.52
18.46
18.91
2002
18.17
18.42
18.50
18.52
18.46
18.91
2002
18.17
18.42
18.50
18.52
18.46
18.91
2002
20.32
20.32
20.32
20.32
20.32
20.47
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
17.68
17.47
17.76
17.69
17.47
17.80
2003
17.64
17.43
17.74
17.67
17.43
17.78
2003
17.68
17.46
17.76
17.69
17.46
17.80
2003
20.75
20.50
20.54
20.52
20.51
20.64
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
17.68
17.60
17.50
17.94
17.42
17.89
2004
17.68
17.59
17.50
17.92
17.42
17.87
2004
17.68
17.60
17.50
17.94
17.42
17.89
2004
20.19
20.18
20.36
20.34
20.21
20.28
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
18.62
18.83
19.29
19.07
18.61
19.46
2005
17.61
17.80
0.00
0.00
17.67
0.00
2005
18.62
18.83
19.29
19.07
18.61
19.46
2005
21.42
21.43
21.67
21.58
21.42
21.76
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
18.59
18.36
18.65
18.53
18.58
18.75
2006
17.59
17.39
0.00
0.00
17.58
0.00
2006
18.59
18.36
18.65
18.53
18.58
18.75
2006
21.48
21.48
21.57
21.52
21.48
21.61
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
18.69
18.86
18.43
18.71
2007
17.74
0.00
17.51
0.00
2007
18.69
18.86
18.43
18.71
2007
21.52
21.48
21.48
21.61
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
20.64
20.71
20.74
20.95
2008
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2008
20.64
20.71
20.74
20.96
2008
22.42
22.61
22.34
22.87
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
20.82
20.90
20.84
21.28
2009
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2009
20.82
20.90
20.84
21.28
2009
22.73
22.74
22.94
23.03
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
21.98
21.73
21.86
21.98
2010
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2010
21.98
21.73
21.86
21.98
2010
23.08
23.07
23.07
23.19
2011
0
2011
0
2011
23.33
2011
0.00
2011
23.34
2011
24.19
42
-------
Table F-1 (cont.)
WVN
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvs
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvsw
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
AIIWV
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All E. KY
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
AIIVA
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
Total Study Area
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
2001
26.79
26.79
26.79
26.79
26.79
26.79
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
26.96
26.96
26.96
26.96
26.96
26.96
2001
25.64
25.64
25.64
25.64
25.64
25.64
2001
28.66
28.66
0.00
28.66
28.66
0.00
2001
26.84
26.84
26.84
26.84
26.84
26.84
2002
19.44
19.70
19.77
19.79
19.72
20.18
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
19.51
19.74
19.80
19.82
19.76
20.18
2002
18.17
18.42
18.50
18.52
18.46
18.91
2002
20.33
20.36
20.37
20.38
20.37
20.56
2002
19.71
19.87
19.92
19.93
19.89
20.24
2003
18.97
18.75
19.05
18.98
18.75
19.09
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
19.15
18.94
19.20
19.14
18.94
19.25
2003
17.67
17.46
17.76
17.69
17.46
17.80
2003
20.64
20.39
20.47
20.44
20.40
20.57
2003
19.59
19.35
19.56
19.50
19.35
19.62
2004
18.99
18.91
18.80
19.25
18.72
19.26
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
19.11
19.04
18.96
19.35
18.87
19.36
2004
17.68
17.60
17.50
17.94
17.42
17.89
2004
20.15
20.12
20.29
20.30
20.15
20.30
2004
19.38
19.33
19.34
19.60
19.23
19.61
2005
19.93
20.14
20.74
20.51
19.94
20.93
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
20.08
20.30
20.87
20.66
20.13
21.04
2005
18.45
18.66
19.29
19.07
18.46
19.46
2005
21.44
21.47
21.73
21.67
21.44
21.81
2005
20.45
20.61
21.11
20.95
20.49
21.24
2006
19.63
19.37
19.73
19.63
19.62
19.81
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
19.89
19.64
19.99
19.90
19.88
20.07
2006
18.42
18.19
18.65
18.53
18.41
18.75
2006
21.43
21.41
21.59
21.54
21.51
21.64
2006
20.37
20.17
20.52
20.44
20.38
20.60
2007
19.73
19.82
19.53
19.67
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
19.98
20.05
19.80
19.92
2007
18.52
18.86
18.26
18.71
2007
21.58
21.55
21.40
21.62
2007
20.49
20.56
20.31
20.50
2008
20.75
20.83
20.78
20.92
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
20.99
21.09
21.01
21.20
2008
20.64
20.71
20.74
20.95
2008
22.48
22.67
22.37
22.80
2008
21.58
21.71
21.55
21.82
2009
21.97
21.82
21.85
22.26
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
22.08
21.95
22.01
22.38
2009
20.82
20.90
20.84
21.28
2009
22.83
22.82
23.03
23.11
2009
22.34
22.27
22.39
22.64
2010
22.94
22.73
22.98
23.07
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
22.96
22.78
22.99
23.09
2010
21.98
21.73
21.86
21.98
2010
23.19
23.23
23.26
23.28
2010
23.01
22.93
23.06
23.12
2011
24.81
2011
0
2011
23.34
2011
24.71
2011
23.33
2011
24.28
2011
24.45
43
-------
Table G-1
Utilities' Environmental Clean-Up Capital Expenditures
(Constant 2001 Dollars)
Region
KY1
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY2
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY3
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
KY4
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvc
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
WVE
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
2001 2002 2003
2004
2005 2006 2007
2008 2009 2010 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
7,410,199
7,410,199
7,253,680
7,253,680
7,452,999
7,253,680
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
16,877,843
16,877,843
16,877,843
16,877,843
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
0
2011
0
2011
0
2011
0
2011
0
2011
0
44
-------
2001 2002
WVN
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvs
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
wvsw
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
AIIWV
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All E. KY
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
VA
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
All Regions
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
75-ACRE NEW
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
209,349
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table G-1 (cont.)
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
19,812,967
34,476,811
30,237,152
30,237,152
35,224,441
36,333,508
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
19,812,967
34,476,811
30,237,152
30,237,152
35,224,441
36,333,508
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004
19,812,967
34,476,811
30,237,152
30,237,152
35,224,441
36,333,508
2005
21,604,468
27,818,454
16,343,055
16,364,661
27,517,336
18,899,356
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
29,014,668
35,228,653
23,596,735
23,618,341
34,970,336
26,153,035
2005
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
6,720,191
2005
5,458,247
5,581,295
5,145,852
4,988,509
5,354,984
4,715,135
2005
41,193,105
47,530,138
35,462,777
35,327,041
47,045,510
37,588,361
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006
110,240
0
7,448
7,448
110,134
0
2006
110,240
0
7,448
7,448
110,134
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2007
3,594
111,617
3,594
0
2007
3,594
111,617
3,594
0
2008
43,012,286
43,012,286
43,012,286
25,050,168
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2008
43,012,286
43,012,286
43,012,286
25,050,168
2008
16,877,843
16,877,843
16,877,843
16,877,843
2008
11,802,724
28,658,885
29,000,638
29,000,638
2008
71,692,853
88,549,014
88,890,767
70,928,648
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2011
0
2011
0
2011
0
2011
0
2011
0
2011
0
2011
0
45
-------
omo
omo
vo
BbB Bb
-------
Table 1-1
Major Coal Mine Operating Costs by Category
For Entire Study Area
(Numbers Do NOT Include Any New Costs Increases for Sensitivity Runs)
Deep Mines Surface Mines
$/Ton $/Ton
Labor $6.24 $4.30
Materials/Supply $3.79 $8.36
Trucking $1.12 $1.58
Coal Washing $2.90 $0.40
47
-------
Table J-1
Average U.S. Wholesale Electricity Price (Lambda Cost)
(Constant 2001 Dollars per MWHr)
2011
75-ACRE NEW 37.25 22.82 22.45 22.35 23.40 22.45 22.46 23.48 23.85 24.24 25.23
BASE CASE
250-ACRE OLD
250-ACRE NEW
250-ACRE PHASE
75-ACRE OLD
2001
37.25
37.25
37.25
37.25
37.25
2002
22.54
22.63
22.65
22.66
22.64
2003
22.44
22.33
22.41
22.40
22.34
2004
22.32
22.24
22.30
22.28
22.26
2005
23.06
23.09
23.36
23.33
23.07
2006
22.19
22.12
22.40
22.36
22.17
2007
22.33
22.36
22.12
2008
23.30
23.40
23.41
2009
23.65
23.66
23.64
2010
24.12
24.12
24.12
48
-------
Final Case Studies Report on
Demographic Changes { TC \n "}
Related to Mountaintop Mining Operations
Carcassonne, Kentucky {TC \12 "}
August 2002
Prepared By:
Q Gannett Fleming
-------
Final Case Studies
Report on
Demographic Changes
{TC Ml "}
Related to Mountaintop
Mining Operations
August 2002
-------
-------
Carcassonne, Kentucky{TC \12
-------
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
-------
0
2
r
e
P
a
r
e
-------
B
y
Gannett Fleming
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. METHODOLOGY 2
A. CASE STUDY AREA SELECTION CRITERIA 2
1. Case Study Areas 2
2. Case Study Communities 3
B. CENSUS DATA DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 3
C. COMMUNITY NARRATIVE INTERVIEWS 4
1. Individual/Family Context 5
2. Quality of Life 5
4. Public Relations 5
5. Decision to Leave 6
D. ADDITIONAL DATA 6
1. School Enrollment 6
2. Property Transfer 6
III. CASE STUDY AREA SELECTIONS 7
A. CASE STUDY AREAS AND COMMUNITIES 7
1. Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV 7
2. North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV 8
3. Hardee District, Mingo County, WV 8
4. Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY 9
5. Control Area - District One, Wyoming County, WV 9
B. CASE STUDY COMMUNITIES 9
IV. CENSUS DATA DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 10
A. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 11
1. Total Population Growth Trends 11
2. Population Density 12
3. Age Group Distribution 12
4. Gender Composition 13
5. Household Formation Trends 14
6. Race 15
B. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 16
C. PLACE OF WORK 16
D. EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATION STATUS 17
1. Employment by Industry Type 17
2. Economic Base Analysis 18
3. Employment by Occupation Type 20
4. Civilian Labor Force Status 20
-------
E. INCOME LEVELS 21
F. POVERTY STATUS 23
G. DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY 23
V. COMMUNITY NARRATIVE SUMMARIES 28
A. Werth, Hamilton District, Nicholas County, West Virginia 28
1. Social Community 29
2. Physical & Economic Community 30
3. Companies and Communities 33
4. Summary and Community Future 33
B. KYLE, NORTH ELKIN DISTRICT, MCDOWELL COUNTY, WEST
VIRGINIA 34
C. NAUGATUCK, HARDEE DISTRICT, MINGO COUNTY,
WEST VIRGINIA 34
D. SCARLET, HARDEE DISTRICT, MINGO COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA . . 35
1. Social Community 36
2. Physical and Economic Community 38
3. Companies and Communities 39
4. Summary and Community Future 41
E. CARCASSONNE, BLACKEY DIVISION, LETCHER COUNTY, WEST
VIRGINIA 42
1. Social Community 42
2. Physical and Economic Community 44
3. Companies and Communities 45
4. Summary and Community Future 46
F. SUPERIOR BOTTOM, WEST VIRGINIA 46
1. Social Community 46
2. Physical and Economic Community 47
3. Companies and Communities 48
4. Summary and Community Future 48
G. BLAIR, WEST VIRGINIA 49
1. Social Community 49
2. Physical and Economic Community 51
3. Coal Companies and Communities 52
4. Summary and Community Future 53
VI. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DATA 54
1. Absentee Ownership 54
2. Stewardship Of The Land 55
A. WERTH, HAMILTON DISTRICT, NICHOLAS COUNTY,
WEST VIRGINIA 56
B. KYLE, NORTH ELKIN DISTRICT, MCDOWELL COUNTY, WEST
VIRGINIA 56
C. NAUGATUCK, HARDEE DISTRICT, MINGO COUNTY,
WEST VIRGINIA 56
D. SCARLET, HARDEE SUBDIVISION, MINGO COUNTY,
-------
WEST VIRGINIA 57
E. CARCASSONNE, BLACKEY DIVISION, LETCHER COUNTY,
KENTUCKY 57
F. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITIES 57
1. Superior Bottom, West Virginia 57
2. Blair, West Virginia 57
VII. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT DATA 58
A. WEST VIRGINIA 58
B. KENTUCKY 58
VIII. SUMMARY DISCUSSION 59
A. COMMON THEMES 59
1. Social Community 59
2. Displacement 60
3. Community Facilities 62
4. Physical and Economic Community 63
5. Employment and Place of Work 64
6. Assistance Income 65
7. Physical Shifts 65
8. Company and Community 66
9. Community Future 67
B. INCONSISTENCIES 68
1. Social Community 69
2. Displacement 69
3. Community Facilities 69
C. PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMUNITY 70
1. Employment and Place of Work 70
2. Assistance Income 70
3. Physical Shifts 70
4. Company and Community 71
5. Community Future 72
IX. CONCLUSIONS 72
Attachment 1. Case Study Photographs
Attachment 2. Community Narratives (Interview Transcripts)
-------
LIST OF TABLES:
Table 1 - Case Study Communities and Respective Census Divisions by Decennial
Census
Table 2 - Population Trends
Table 3 - Population Density Trends
Table 4 - Gender Distribution Comparison Trends
Table 5 - Total Household Formation Trends
Table 6 - Family and Nonfamily Household Formation Trends
Table 7 - Average Household Size Trends
Table 8 - Distribution of Race by White and Black/African American
Table 9 - Educational Attainment Trends for Person 25 Years and Over, 1980 and 1990
Table 10 - Workers 16 Years and Over by Place of Work - State and County Level
Table 11 - Mining Employment Trends, Total Persons Employed Age 16 Years and Over
Table 12 - Location Quotient Analysis
Table 13 - Industry Sectors by Zip Code, 1997
Table 14 - Civilian Labor Force Trends for Persons 16 Years and Over
Table 15 - Per Capita Income Growth
Table 16 - Median Household Income Growth
Table 17 - Median Family Income Growth
Table 18 - Percent of Total Households Receiving Social Security Income
Table 19 - Percent of Total Household Receiving Public Assistance Income
Table 20 - Poverty Status Trends
Table 21 - Werth, WV Property Ownership Data
Table 22 - Kyle, WV Property Ownership Data
Table 23 - Naugatuck, WV Property Ownership Data
Table 24 - Scarlet, WV Property Ownership Data
Table 25 - Carcassonne, KY Property Ownership Data
Table 26 - Superior Bottom, WV Property Ownership Data
Table 27 - Blair, WV Property Ownership Data
Table 28 - West Virginia Total Enrollment by District
Table 29 - Letcher County, Kentucky Total Enrollment
Table 30 - Carcassonne Area Elementary School Enrollment
-------
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1 - McDowell County, WV, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census Subdivision
Boundaries
Figure 2 - Mingo County, WV, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census Subdivision Boundaries
Figure 3 - Nicholas County, WV, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census Subdivision Boundaries
Figure 4 - Wyoming County, WV, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census Subdivision Boundaries
Figure 5 - Letcher County, KY, 1980, 1990, 2000 Census Subdivision Boundaries
Figure 6 - County Population Trends, 1980, 1990, and 2000
Figure 7 - County Subdivision Population Trends, 1980, 1990, and 2000
Figure 8 - Growth Rate Trends, 1980 - 2000
Figure 9 - Net Migration Trends, 1990-1997
Figure 10 - School Age Group Trends
Figure 11 - Young Adult Age Group Trends
Figure 12 - Mature Age Group Trends
Figure 13 - Senior Age Group Trends
Figure 14 - Male and Female Growth Rate Trends, 1980-2000
Figure 15 - Employment Trends by Industry Sector
Figure 16 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, West Virginia, 1980
Figure 17 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, McDowell County,WV,
1980
Figure 18 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Mingo County, WV, 1980
Figure 19 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Nicholas County, WV, 1980
Figure 20 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Wyoming County,WV, 1980
Figure 21 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Kentucky, 1980
Figure 22 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Letcher County, KY, 1980
Figure 23 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, West Virginia, 1990
Figure 24 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, McDowell County,WV,
1990
Figure 25 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Mingo County, WV, 1990
Figure 26 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Nicholas County, WV, 1990
Figure 27 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Wyoming County,WV, 1990
Figure 28 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Kentucky, 1990
Figure 29 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Letcher County, KY, 1990
Figure 30 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, West Virginia, 2000
Figure 31 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, McDowell County,WV,
2000
Figure 32 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Mingo County, WV, 2000
Figure 33 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Nicholas County, WV, 2000
Figure 34 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Wyoming County,WV, 2000
Figure 35 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Kentucky, 2000
Figure 36 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Letcher County, KY, 2000
Figure 37 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, West Virginia, 1980
Figure 38 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, McDowell County ,WV, 1980
Figure 39 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Mingo County, WV, 1980
Figure 40 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Nicholas County, WV, 1980
-------
Figure 41 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Wyoming County, WV,
1980
Figure 42 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Kentucky, 1980
Figure 43 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Letcher County, KY, 1980
Figure 44 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, West Virginia, 1990
Figure 45 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, McDowell County,WV, 1990
Figure 46 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Mingo County, WV, 1990
Figure 47 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Nicholas County, WV, 1990
Figure 48 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Wyoming County, WV,
1990
Figure 49 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Kentucky, 1990
Figure 50 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Letcher County, KY, 1990
Figure 51 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, West Virginia, 2000
Figure 52 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, McDowell County,WV, 2000
Figure 53 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Mingo County, WV, 2000
Figure 54 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Nicholas County, WV, 2000
Figure 55 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Wyoming County, WV,
2000
Figure 56 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Kentucky, 2000
Figure 57 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Letcher County, KY, 2000
Figure 58 - Employment Trends by Occupation Type
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to evaluate what, if any, demographic changes can be observed in
communities located adjacent to large-scale mountaintop surface mining operations. The
demographic evaluations presented herein for these communities were based on three decades of
census data (i.e., the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses) in order to assess the demographic
trends that have occurred over time: "prior to the introduction of surface mining operations into the
case study community (i.e., 1980)," "during mountaintop surface mining (i.e., 1990)," and "after
mountaintop surface mining (i.e., 2000)," respectively.
Analysis of available U.S. Census data and personal accounts collected from residents in selected
communities were used to identify socioeconomic shifts over a three decade period. Supplemental
information was also collection to assist in the evaluation. The following are the selected case study
areas.
• Hamilton District, community of Werth, Nicholas County, WV
• North Elkin District, community of Kyle, McDowell County, WV
• Hardee District, community of Naugatuck, Mingo County, WV
• Hardee District, community of Scarlet, Mingo County, WV
Blackey Division, community of Carcassonne, Letcher County, KY
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area.
Generally, the census data supports the personal accounts of social and economic shifts within the
areas of study. Also, the high occurrence of similar experiences in four different communities
adjacent to large-scale surface mining operations supports some correlation between the
socioeconomic trends observed and the presence of surface mining.
Census data demographics were studied for three time periods: 1980 U.S. Census presenting data
from 1970-1979 or the "pre-mining period"; 1990 U.S. Census presenting data from 1980 - 1989,
or the "during-mining period"; and the 2000 U.S. Census presenting data from 1990 - 1999 or the
"post-mining period". Various social and economic demographics were analyzed, such as
population, income, and employment. Hamilton District in Nicholas county was the only district
that had an employment trend that would be expected; an increase for the during mining condition
and a decrease for the after mining condition. Employment increased during mining in two of the
four case study magisterial districts and decreased after mining in two of the four case study
magisterial districts, but not the same two. The control district did not experience an increase in
employment in the during mining condition but experienced a decrease in employment in the after
mining condition. The number of persons working in their resident county increased in Hamilton
district for the during mining condition, this was the only district where this occurred.
Unemployment did not decrease in any of the case study areas for the during mining condition.
Per capita income increased during mining in only one of the case study magisterial districts. Per
capita income decreased after mining in one of the case study magisterial districts and in the control
district. This income increase during mining and decrease after mining was not in the same district.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 1
-------
Real growth in median household income decreased in double digits in all case study areas as
compared to a four and a half increase nationally.
For most of the case study areas, the number of persons receiving public assistance did not decrease
in the during mining condition. Public assistance decreased in one of the case study districts and in
the control district in the during mining condition. The number of persons living in poverty did not
decrease in the during mining condition in any of the case study districts or the control.
Educational attainment, persons receiving high school or college degrees, increased in the during
mining and after mining conditions for all case study areas and the control area with one exception.
High school diploma attainment did not increase in the Blackey Division in the during mining
condition although college degree attainment increased.
The North Elkin District is the only case study area with a notable black/African American
population. It does not appear that the economic conditions for residents of this district improved
in the during mining condition. Large percentage point increases in poverty levels were experienced
in McDowell County and the North Elkin district. Employment did not increase nor did income
increase in this district during mining. One of the topics evaluated in this study is whether there are
indications of greater relocations or displacement in non-white racial areas. A sample of property
ownership data from the North Elkin District did not display a pattern of large-scale purchase of
properties by extraction or land holding companies. However, a sample of property ownership data
from Superior Bottom another racially integrated community shows a 52 percent shift from private
ownership to land holding company ownership.
Population decreased in all of the case study areas during mining and after mining. The number of
students enrolled in public school districts decreased in all of the case study areas including the
control area. The senior age group is comprising an increasing percentage of the total population
within each of the study areas. Population, gender and age group trends indicate a less stable and
increasingly elderly population.
These trends were apparent in the personal accounts of the residents. In each of the communities
for which interviews have been collected, residents cited similar economic, physical and social
impacts related to surface mining. When asked about benefits from the presence of surface mining,
the only benefit consistently mentioned was jobs. The creation and retention of, equitable jobs was
the most important economic factor tying the communities to the surface mining industry. Each of
the families interviewed was either supported by the mining industry at one point or had an
immediate family member who was. The overall decline in employment and specifically the decline
in mining related employment in the study areas highlights the importance of local j ob opportunities.
Discussion of quality of life impacts within interviews centered around physical changes to the
community and individual properties and social shifts, such as changes in population and personal
relationships. Some physical changes were mentioned by residents of all communities such as,
occurrences of disruptive dust, deteriorated ground water and changed wildlife habitat associated
with the presence of surface mining. A few residents cited positive changes but most cited negative
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 11
-------
changes.
...[the mountaintops] basically, for a period of time, become grasslands. Which for
the all the vegetation that comes is good for the animals and the birds and
environment... for them to prosper. I think this "Keep West Virginia Green"; the
coal miners did not fall short in returning their areas to green."
(resident of Werth, WV)
"I am talking about rock, slate, goobs- probably a little coal - anything that they, dirt,
anything that they would dig up on top of the mountain, when it rained it came
down...It filled up the creeks. It filled up the creek beds and the creek would be
wandering around and basically make into a swamp." (resident of Werth, WV)
"I'm not against mining whatsoever, it's just that those of us that feel the effects of
the damages and things like that. You know, they need to take care of us. Do
something to prevent further damage, to keep us safe..." (Past Resident of Scarlet,
Mingo County, WV)
While these physical impacts were not universally reported by every resident, they were consistently
reported across communities and they contributed to some residents' decisions to leave their
communities.
Residents from each of the communities, described close-knit and intimate social structures, often
based around one or two extended families. The residents reported that the predominate change to
social community was the loss of population. With the notable exception of one community, this
population loss was directly attributed by residents to the presence of surface mining. In addition,
property ownership records support this finding in three communities in which coal and land holding
companies have purchased large percentages of land in the community. Each of these three
communities had distinct individual experiences surrounding these significant population shifts;
however, one common theme which emerged was the negative impacts population shifts of this scale
can have on close-knit community structures. Few of these residents felt that their community was
likely to recover and rebuild the same type of social networks and relationships that they once had.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 111
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This study endeavors to evaluate and describe the socioeconomic changes to adjacent communities,
families and individuals from the presence of large-scale surface mining within or adjacent to a
community. A review of the "pre-mining", "during-mining" and "post-mining" socioeconomic
conditions is evaluated.
The methodology section defines how mining conditions were determined and describes the method
and criteria for case study selection. The methodology for the census data evaluation, collection of
community interviews and supplemental data collection are also described in section two.
The selected case study areas and communities are defined and described in section three.
Photographs of the case study areas are presented in an attachment to this report. The results of the
census data evaluation are presented in section four.
Interviews with current and previous property owners and their family members were conducted.
These interviews allowed individuals to express their personal and family experiences related to the
presence of large-scale surface mining in their communities over time. These interviews are
summarized within section five. The interviews are fully transcribed and included as an attachment
to this report. The purpose of this effort is to supplement existing data within the EIS, and to
provide a first-hand description of community life adjacent to large-scale surface mining. It is
recognized that this is a limited sample, and therefore any conclusions drawn must take the sample
size into consideration. The focus of the community narrative portion of the report is to present
common themes and points of difference rather than analyze each interview in detail.
The results of the property ownership evaluation are presented in section six. The results of the
school enrollment data evaluation are presented in section seven.
A review of other available studies and reports concerning the socioeconomic impacts on
communities, families and individuals was conducted to aid in understanding the socioeconomic
trends over time and the themes presented in the individual interviews. These studies and reports
include social analysis of family and community structures in rural Appalachia, discussions of
socioeconomic impacts related to large-scale community change and other sources of discussion on
community impacts from surface mining. A summary of the findings of data collection efforts and
the review of other relevant sources is presented in section eight. Conclusions of the demographic
evaluation are presented in section nine.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
-------
II. METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to evaluate what, if any, demographic changes can be observed in
communities located adjacent to large-scale mountaintop surface mining operations. The
demographic evaluations presented herein for these communities were based on three decades of
census data (i.e., the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses) in order to assess the demographic
trends that have occurred over time: "prior to the introduction of surface mining operations into the
case study community (i.e., 1980)," "during mountaintop surface mining (i.e., 1990)," and "after
mountaintop surface mining (i.e., 2000)," respectively.
A. CASE STUDY AREA SELECTION CRITERIA
1. Case Study Areas
In order to study demographic changes that can be associated with the introduction of surface
mountaintop mining operations, a search for six case study areas was conducted based upon specific
selection criteria. Case study areas were required to lie within the project study areas of West
Virginia, Kentucky and/or Virginia.
One of the case study area was selected as a control area. The control area is defined as an area
which is similar in demographics, geography and economic resources but within which very little
or no significant surface mining has taken place within the time period identified in the study. The
control study area provides a baseline for comparison of demographic changes identified in the
remaining case study areas.
The intent of the selection criteria is to identify case study areas which best fit the timing of mining
(prior to surface mining - 1970 to 1980, during surface mining - 1980 to 1990, and after surface
mining - 1990 -2000) and to eliminate potential case study areas whose demographic components
were likely shifted by other factors. These criteria were evaluated:
Availability of census data for demographics of interest (i.e., population, education levels,
income, unemployment levels)
• Consistent size and orientation of the census county subdivisions. For example, the 1980,
1990 and 2000 data need to be reflective of the same geographic area.
Timing of Mining. The case studies should be representative of areas for which large-scale
surface mining did not occur in the vicinity until the 1980s and ceased to occur in the 1990s.
• Level of underground mining. Timing of underground mining, closure of underground
mines. The case studies should be areas for which deep mine closures are not prevalent in
the "during mining" period.
The following factors were also used to screen out potential case study areas. These factors were
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 2
-------
evaluated to assess the degree to which the demographic changes would most likely be attributed
to other variables instead of the introduction of large-scale surface mining into the area during the
three-decade study period.
• Major Infrastructure Investment
Transportation/Access
Communication/Utilities
Educational System e.g. expanded university system
• Natural Disaster (e.g., flood)
• Major Economic Investment
Major Employer other than surface mining
Economic Resources or Market (e.g., tourism trade) other than surface mining
The above criteria were reviewed using available state mining permit data, U.S. Census Bureau data
and mapping and historic mapping. For the purposes of this report "Major" is defined as beyond
the scale of investment made in similar communities, and representing a change of considerable
magnitude when compared to historical investment within the area.
2. Case Study Communities
From within the selected case study areas, communities were selected to collect first-hand accounts
of community life adj acent to large-scale surface mining over time. The communities were selected
based upon the following criteria in order of importance:
• Proximity to large-scale surface mining;
• Relative size and economic base of the community; and
Timing of mining criteria established for case study area selection.
These criteria were established so that residents within selected communities would have
experiences relevant to the study, the community would be minimally influenced by other economic
factors, and where possible conclusions could be compared to the demographic analysis of the larger
case study area.
B. CENSUS DATA DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Census data were collected for the case study areas on the county subdivision level (magisterial
district). Descriptive statistics were performed on select demographic parameters.
An historical trend analysis of the population was developed for the study period using the total
population counts from the decennial censuses. This information is presented in tabular and
graphical formats, and is compared to the population trends experienced at the county and state
levels. The population characteristics include age, gender, race, density, family type and household
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 3
-------
type.
Data were inventoried to characterize occupation types and industry sectors and includes an
employment status comparison of males to females ages 16 and over. The major (i.e., 2-digit SIC
or NAICS codes) industry sectors were used to determine changes over time in the total number of
persons employed. Employment rate trends were inventoried and compared to regional trends,
including the county and state.
Median income levels were compared for each period: before, during and after-mining and real
income growth was evaluated. The U.S. Census provides a variety of income level parameters that
can be used to measure the affluence of the local population. Specifically, median family income,
median household income and per capita income levels were inventoried for each decennial census
period and adjusted for inflation. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis' Consumer Price Index
(CPI) was used to adjust the various 1970, 1980 and 1990 income levels to the most current dollar
value. The adjusted values demonstrate whether the case study areas experienced real growth in
income.
The decennial census data also provides data on the number of persons receiving their income from
social security, unemployment compensation, welfare or other public assistance. A historical
analysis was performed to measure the change in the number of persons receiving income from
these sources. This information provides insight on the trends associated with the case study area's
retired population and the number of persons dependent on public assistance services.
The incomes of families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below poverty
by comparing their total income to a cutoff or poverty threshold. The U.S. Census Bureau
determines the poverty status for all persons in an area. The poverty status for each study area was
inventoried and compared with the poverty status for the county and state. These values are
presented in tabular and graphic formats.
C. COMMUNITY NARRATIVE INTERVIEWS
Personal accounts were collected through interviews to highlight the human aspects and quality of
life impacts of large-scale mountaintop mining. A goal of the study was to collect five personal
interviews per community.
The interviewed residents were selected at random according to the following procedure:
1. Parcel identification numbers for the selected community were identified based on county
tax records.
2. A computer program written in the Microsoft Visual Basic programming language was used
to randomly select 6 parcel numbers per case study area.
3. A review of tax records for the randomly selected parcel identification numbers was done
to identify the current owner(s), and most recent private owner(s).
4. If the most recent date that the property was owned by a private individual(s) is earlier than
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 4
-------
1980, then no interview was conducted for that parcel.
5. If individuals selected for interviews could not be located or did not wish to be interviewed,
the process described above beginning with the selection of a randomly selected parcel
number(s) was repeated until five interviews were conducted for each of the five case study
areas.
Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed to ensure accuracy. The identities of all of the
interviewed residents have been kept anonymous and no names or contact information are included
in the demographic study report. Prior to the interview, the nature of the interview, the use of the
information being collected and the scope of the interview were discussed with each resident.
A predetermined series of questions provided the framework for each interview to ensure a
reasonable level of consistency. These questions are outlined below:
1. Individual/Family Context
Please tell me a little bit about yourself and your family.
What are your connections to this area? When did you/your family first arrive and from where?
2. Quality of Life
Did you observe or experience changes in quality of life related to community resources (schools,
public services or natural resources) within the three time periods?
Was the community impacted by a change in population or shift in local demographics?
What is it about this particular community that you like? Has that changed?
Was there a change in your perspective regarding the future of the community? And did this relate
to the presence of surface mining in any manner?
What have been the benefits from the presence of surface mining for your community?
4. Public Relations
What public information was available to you/the community regarding the introduction/activities
of surface mining?
Were public relations between the community and the surface mining company continued beyond
initial contact? In what circumstances?
5. Decision to Leave (for residents who left the community)
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 5
-------
What were the primary factors in your decision to do so?
How did you feel about your decision to leave?
To what area did you move, and why?
Did you receive any assistance in relocating?
D. ADDITIONAL DATA
1. School Enrollment
School enrollment (grades K-12) data were gathered from local education entities (e.g., school
districts, state education agencies). Enrollment data reflect community resource impacts and school
closures as a function of displacement. Data were predominately collected at county and state-level
school district and board of education offices. Enrollment data for each of the case study areas were
collected for the periods before, during and after mining conditions where available. This
information is presented in tabular and graphic formats to measure and illustrate changes in local
school enrollments over time.
2. Property Transfer
Property ownership records were collected to document property ownership trends and population
displacement. Data were collected from county tax assessors' offices for a series of randomly
selected tax parcel numbers. The identified tax parcels were a representative group of properties
from the selected area in which the community narratives were gathered, including those parcels
owned by the interview residents. The record of last sale was identified for each property within the
representative sample of no more than 25 properties. From card files, the following property
transaction information was gathered: who sold the property, who purchased the property and when
the purchase was made. Where available, the amount of purchase was also noted. As with the
community narratives, the personal ownership information has been kept anonymous, and the parcel
tax identification numbers are not included in the report. Individual owners are not named, but they
are categorized as "individual owner," "land holding company," "mineral extraction company" or
"other". "Other" may include public agencies such as a municipality or school district, or private
entities such as a church or fellowship hall. The real estate transfer data are presented in tabular and
graphic formats to illustrate changes in property ownership patterns over time.
III. CASE STUDY AREA SELECTIONS
A. CASE STUDY AREAS AND COMMUNITIES
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 6
-------
The U.S. Census Bureau County Subdivision was selected as the smallest geographic unit for the
case study areas based upon availability of census data across a three-decade time period. Data for
smaller geographic areas, such as the Census Tract, were not consistently available for 1980 census
data within the project study area. A review of available mining permit and mapping data revealed
that very few census county subdivisions sufficiently met the selection criteria. Based upon this
review, a total of five county subdivisions were chosen which best fit the selection criteria, one of
which was selected as the control area. This was one less case study area then the project goal of
six. Within the five selected county subdivisions, a total of five case study communities were
identified. Two of the case study communities were located in the same county subdivision and no
case study community was selected within the county subdivision identified as the control area.
The following are the selected case study areas.
• Hamilton District, community of Werth, Nicholas County, WV
• North Elkin District, community of Kyle, McDowell County, WV
Hardee District, communities of Naugatuck and Scarlet, Mingo County, WV
• Blackey Division, community of Carcassonne, Letcher County, KY
• District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area
Table 1 illustrates the relationship between the case study areas (county subdivisions) and the case
study communities. A brief description of each selected case study area and case study community
in regards to the selection criteria is provided below.
1. Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV
Within the Hamilton District portion of Nicholas County there are few significant areas of
employment generation or large-scale investment. Summersville, the County seat of Nicholas
County, lies to the south of this area and Interstate 79 lies to the north. The majority of surface
mining (63 percent of permits) began in the 1980s and ended in the 1990s. An additional 23 percent
of surface mining permits were issued during the 1970s and had either been completely released or
had reached a level of reclamation by the 1990s. Underground mining activity through the three-
decade period was minimal relative to other areas in the region, and underground mine closures were
not significant during the "during-mining" period of the 1980s. U.S. Census data are available for
the three-decade period for Hamilton District.
Community: Werth, WV
The community of Werth is within approximately two miles of a 100 + acre surface mine lying to
the North and West. Mine permit information and mapping made available by the state of West
Virginia website indicate that this site is currently being reclaimed to forest land, and fish and
wildlife habitat. In addition to the above mentioned surface mine site, another surface mine which
was completely bond released by the early 1990s lies along the North side of Route 55 approaching
the community. The community of Werth itself has an estimated population of less than a few
hundred people and only one other significant employer in the immediate area.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
-------
2. North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV
This portion of McDowell County has few significant employment centers. The largest employment
center in McDowell County, Welch, is not included in the North Elkin District. There is no
large-scale infrastructure, such as an Interstate highway, in this District. Of the total surface mining
permits 39 percent fit exactly within the criteria established for timing of mining, and 65percent of
all surface mining permits had reached at least some phase of release by the date of this report. Of
the total 57 underground mining permits in the District, none of the permits ended in the 1980s.
This total number of underground mining permits is within a similar range of underground mining
activity in other selected case study areas. U.S. Census data were available for the three-decade
period for North Elkin District.
Community: Kyle, WV
State permit data indicate a surface mine about 3/4 of a mile southwest of the community. While
the permit for this 486 acre mine was revoked in 1993, the West Virginia Office of Surface Mining
field office in Welch, WV confirms that prior to being revoked, the status of this mine was "Phase
3 -Released" indicating active mining in the 1980s. The community consists of less than 100 homes
and a church along the highway, and down in a valley.
3. Hardee District, Mingo County, WV
Overall, Hardee District had fewer numbers of surface mining permits than other areas; however,
of those permits just under half (42percent) fit the criteria for timing of mining. In addition,
underground mining permits were minimal and activity on these permits is on-going, therefore, not
impacting demographic shifts within the three-decade period. US Route 119 crosses a portion of
the Hardee District; however, the largest employment center within the immediate region,
Williamson, does not lie within the Hardee District. U.S. Census data were available for the three-
decade period for Hardee District.
Community: Scarlet, WV
The community of Scarlet is located adj acent to four permits for surface mines which total more than
1000 acres, and list mountaintop removal, auger, contour and area mining. Each of these permits was
first issued in the 1980s and are currently listed as in some phase of reclamation. The community
of Scarlet is entirely residential and has an estimated population of less than 100.
Community: Naugatuck, WV
Within a few miles of Naugatuck to the northeast, there are several surface mining permits which
total approximately 900 + acres. These sites list issue dates in the 1980s and had reached at least
Phase 1 or 2 Release by the 1990s. The community of Naugatuck has a small commercial area and
a population of a few hundred homes.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
-------
4. Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY
This portion of Letcher County has few significant employment centers and no large-scale
infrastructure investments. Whitesburg, the Letcher County seat and the area's largest economic
center, south of the Blackey District. Of the total surface mining permits 38percent fit exactly
within the criteria established for timing of mining. Available data did not permit analysis of the
number of underground permits which were completed in the 1980s; however, the total number of
underground mining permits was within a similar range of underground mining activity in other
selected case study areas. U.S. Census Bureau data are available for the three-decade period for
Blackey District.
Community: Carcassonne, KY
Available Kentucky mining permit data indicate several surface mining permits immediately
surrounding the community of Carcassone, all closed by the date of this report. Further visual and
anecdotal evidence indicates that surface mining occurred in the 1980s and were reclaimed in the
1990s. The community of Carcassonne has an estimated population of less than 100 and no
commercial areas.
5. Control Area - District One, Wyoming County, WV
Within this area of Wyoming County there are few surface mining permits, a total of eight permits
within the three-decade time period. As with other areas in southwestern West Virginia,
underground mining was on-going during this period and Wyoming County had a total of 47
underground mining permits which is in the middle of the range of underground mining activity for
the selected case study areas. In addition, there are no significant economic centers or major
infrastructure within the District One area. Wyoming County is similar to the selected case study
areas in its population demographics and economic base. For example, the 1990 per capita income
of Wyoming County is between that of McDowell and Nicholas Counties as shown in Table III.P.3
of the EIS. Therefore, District One fits within the criteria of a control in that the primary
characteristic which differs between it and the selected case study areas is the presence of significant
large-scale surface mining.
B. CASE STUDY COMMUNITIES
Each of the above selected communities met the criteria identified regarding presence of large-scale
surface mining within or adjacent to the community and lie within an area also being evaluated as
part of the demographic analysis presented in Section IV. While the overall county subdivision area
demographic analysis focused on the pre, during and post-mining periods of 1970-1980,1980-1990
and 1990-2000, the presence of surface mining adj acent to interview communities do not necessarily
fit within these time frames. The community interviews are samples of personal and family
experiences, therefore, the focus was the selection of communities where surface mining may have
played a role in the socioeconomics of the community. The dates in which mining occurred was a
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
-------
secondary concern to the adjacency and the completion of the full pre-mining to post-mining cycle.
The extent to which surface mining may have played a role in the socioeconomics of the community
was defined by proximity of surface mining to the community and scale of the surface mining.
The common theme between the communities is their proximity to large-scale surface mining. The
majority of the communities are small, with a total population no larger than 500 families, with the
exception of Naugatuck. Scarlet could be characterized as a more traditional hollow settlement, to
some scale isolated and geographically located in a ravine between mountain hillsides. Werth, Kyle
and Carcassonne are also traditional family settlements but were developed predominately along
either bottom land or hillside land along a road corridor.
In addition to the five study communities, a small number of interviews were collected as
supplemental accounts in Blair, WV and Superior Bottom, WV. A summary of these interviews are
also presented. Both Blair, WV and Superior Bottom, WV are presented as additional examples
of communities with large-scale surface mining immediately adjacent to the community; however,
surface mining is on-going in these communities. Therefore, since Blair and Superior Bottom are
currently still within a during-mining phase, these areas do not fit the selection criteria.
IV. CENSUS DATA DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The purpose of this section is to use census data to evaluate what, if any, demographic changes can
be observed in the selected census county subdivisions. Census data for the demographic
evaluations were collected for three distinct time periods (i.e., the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial
censuses) to assess trends that have occurred over time: "prior to the introduction of surface mining
operations into the case study community (i.e., 1980)," "during mountaintop surface mining (i.e.,
1990)," and "after mountaintop surface mining (i.e., 2000)," respectively. The case study areas and
their respective census divisions for which the 1980, 1990, and 2000 census data were collected are
shown in Table 1. Figures 1 through 5 illustrate the location of these case study communities in
relation to the census divisions within which they are located.
The North Elkin Magisterial District, which is a county subdivision of McDowell County, West
Virginia is presented in Table 1. Prior to 1990, the North Elkin District consisted of three individual
county subdivisions—Adkin District, Elkhorn District, and the North Fork District. In addition,
the North Elkin District boundary changed between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. Specifically, a
portion of the Browns Creek District (McDowell County, WV) was annexed to the North Elkin
District. Figure 1 illustrates the boundary. While this annexation caused the North Elkin District's
total land area to increase from 122.1 square miles to 130.3 square miles, it is perceived not to have
produced any significant impacts on the outcome of this study.
Figure 2 depicts the Hardee Magisterial District, a county subdivision of Mingo County, West
Virginia. Figure 3 depicts the Hamilton Magisterial District; a subdivision of Nicholas County, West
Virginia. The communities of Naugatuck and Scarlet are located in the Hardee Magisterial District,
while the community of Werth is located in the Hamilton Magisterial District, West Virginia.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 10
-------
The District 1 Magisterial District, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia, was selected as the
control area for the descriptive statistics analysis. District 1 is an area having similar demographics,
geography, and economic resources as the other case study area census divisions (i.e., North Elkin,
Hardee, and Hamilton Districts, and Blackey Division), but has experienced little or no significant
surface mining activity within the 1980, 1990, and 2000 time periods. The control area provides a
baseline of demographic comparisons identified in the five case study communities. As illustrated
in Figure 4, District 1 was (i.e., 1980 and 1990 Censuses) wholly comprised of the Barkers Ridge
and Slab Fork Districts.
The following sections presentthe descriptive statistical analysis performed for the study area states,
counties, and county subdivisions. The 1980 and 1990 census data presented herein for the North
Elkin District and District 1 represent, where feasible, the total census enumerations for their
respective historic subdivision boundaries (e.g., the 1980 census population counts for the Adkin,
Elkin, and Northfork Districts were summed to represent the total population counts for the North
Elkin District).
A. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
1. Total Population Growth Trends
Table 2 details the 1980, 1990, and 2000 total population enumerations and growth trends for the
study area states, counties, and subdivisions. All of the case study areas experienced varying rates
of population decline over the 1980 to 2000 census period.
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the population trends experienced at the county and subdivision levels,
respectively. McDowell County, from 1980 to 1990, experienced the largest percentage decrease
(-29.4 percent) , followed by Wyoming (-19.5 percent), Letcher (-12.0 percent), Mingo (-9.6
percent), and Nicholas (-4.8 percent). Except for Mingo County, the population declines in the
study area counties slowed during the 1990 to 2000 Census period. McDowell County, however,
continued to experience the largest percentage decrease (-22.4 percent), followed by Mingo (-16.3
percent), Wyoming (-11.3 percent), Letcher (-6.4 percent) and Nicholas (-0.8 percent).
Most of the study area county subdivisions experienced somewhat similar population trends as their
respective counties; whereby, the rate of population decline was lower during the 1990 to 2000
census period compared to the 1980 to 1990 census period. Exceptions, however, are noted for the
Hardee and Hamilton Districts; whereby, their rates of population decline increased from -10.5
percent to -13.2 percent, and -1.0 percent to -4.7 percent, respectively.
Figure 8 provides a comparative illustration of the percentage change in population enumerated for
each study area and their respective county and state. This figure depicts that the largest percentage
decrease in population occurred during the 1980s for the majority of the study areas. Exceptions
to this trend are noted for the Hardee and Hamilton Districts. On a county basis, the largest
percentage decrease in population occurred during the 1980s for all counties except for Mingo
county. West Virginia as a whole had a greater decrease in population during the 1980s, while
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 11
-------
Kentucky as a whole had a greater decrease in population during the 1990s.
In general, the population decreases experienced by the study area counties and their respective
subdivisions may, in part, be associated with their respective out-migration trends. For example,
from 1990 to 1997 the net domestic migration values as enumerated by the Census Bureau for the
study area state and counties (Figure 9) closely resemble the population trends presented in Table
2 during the 1990 to 2000 census period. Therefore, it is highly probable, that the large population
decreases experienced by the study area jurisdictions during the 1980s may have, in part, been
caused by an increase in their net out-migration patterns, in other words, people left the area.
2. Population Density
Table 3 provides a historic comparison of population densities (persons per square mile) for the
study area states and counties, and their respective study area subdivisions. Except for Kentucky,
all surveyed jurisdictions experienced an overall decrease in their respective population densities
over the 1980 to 2000 Census period.
At the county level, the largest numeric decreases in population density values over the 1980 to 2000
Census period were experienced by McDowell (-42.2), Mingo (-21.4), Wyoming(-20.6), and Letcher
(-16.0) Counties, while Nicholas County experienced only a slight decrease (-2.5). At the county
subdivision level, the North Elkin District experienced the largest numeric (-44.1) decrease in
population density value followed by the District 1 (-23.2), Hardee (-11.6), and Hamilton (-1.2)
Districts. These trends are reflective of the population trends shown in Table 2.
3. Age Group Distribution
An examination of age structure is of interest in demographic analysis because human behavior is
related to life cycles. For example, increases in the school-age population affect the demand for
educational services
Persons 20 to 44 years (i.e., young adult age group) of age represent the group most eligible for
marriage and most frequently engaged in new household formations. This is also the prime
childbearing age group. Therefore, any decline or imbalance in the number of persons within this
age category will directly impact the birth rate. Furthermore, this age group represents the basic
segment of the population that comprises the local labor force and the group most frequently
engaged in home buying or building activities.
The mature age group, is comprised of persons ranging from 45 to 64 years of age, and tends to be
more settled and at the height of their earning power. Persons 65 years of age and older (i.e., senior
age group) are generally characterized as having (1) a limited purchasing power, (2) an increased
demand for health and public transit services, and (3) are increasingly dependent on fixed income
sources, such as social security, pensions, and/or public assistance.
Age level data (i.e., absolute number of persons ages 0-85 and over) were collected from the 1980,
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 12
-------
1990, and 2000 Censuses for the study area states, counties, and their respective subdivisions. These
data were then categorized into the four age groups and subsequently calculated as percentage
distributions to represent the population age composition for each census year. Figures 10 through
13 illustrate the age group trends by study areas during the 1980 to 2000 time period.
As illustrated in Figure 10, all study area jurisdictions experienced declines in their school age
populations over the 1980 to 2000 Census periods. These trends are indicative of the population
declines experienced over the 1980 to 2000 census periods.
Figure 11 demonstrates that all study area jurisdictions, except for District 1, experienced increases
in their young adult populations during the 1980s, which may have resulted from the shift (i.e.,
aging) of the 1980 school age group into the young adult age group. Supporting this aging trend is
the fact that from 1990 to 2000, all study area jurisdictions experienced a decrease in their young
adult populations, which likely resulted from a combination of the population declines and aging
trends.
Figure 12 clearly demonstrates that the mature age group was the fastest growing segment of each
study area's population during the 1990 to 2000 period. In fact, McDowell County and the North
Elkin District rebounded from their young adult population declines during the 1980s. These trends
are, again, indicative of an aging population.
Figure 13, demonstrates that in all study areas, the senior age group is comprising an increasingly
larger percentage of the total population.
4. Gender Composition
The distribution of males and females in an area directly impacts future family formation patterns
and subsequent birth rates. Traditionally, a higher proportion of females is considered more
favorable to maintain a stable population. Table 4 shows the male to female ratio trends (i.e., 1980,
1990, and 2000) for the study area states, counties, and subdivisions. Values greater than 1.0
indicate that males outnumber females.
Except for the Hamilton District, the majority of the study areas populations consisted of more
females than males [Other exceptions are noted for the 1980 Census where the number of males
exceeded the number of females in the Hardee District (1.01) and Letcher County (1.15)]. While
the majority of the study area jurisdictions experienced population decreases, Figure 14 illustrates
that the majority of the study area jurisdictions experienced a greater decrease in the number of
males than females over the 1980 to 2000 period (Exceptions to this trend are noted for the Hamilton
and District 1 subdivisions). The overall trends presented in Table 4 and Figure 14 indicate that the
majority of the study area jurisdictions are achieving a favorable mix of males to females which,
again, is vital to stabilizing the study areas' population declines.
5. Household Formation Trends
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 13
-------
A household, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, consists of people who occupy a housing unit.
A house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit when
it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters; that is, when the occupants do
not live and eat with any other persons in the structure and there is direct access from the outside
through a common hall. A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated
people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share a housing unit. A
person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as
partners or roomers, is a also considered as a household. The count of households excludes group
quarters.
The Census Bureau defines two major types of households: "family" and "non-family." A family
is a group of two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or
adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are
considered as members of one family. A non-family household consists of a householder living
alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people
to whom he or she is not related.
Changes in the number and types of households depend on population growth, shifts in the age
composition of the population, and the decisions individuals make about their living arrangements.
Demographic trends in marriage, cohabitation, divorce, fertility, and mortality also influence family
and household composition. Additionally, changes in norms, values, laws, the economy, and
improvements in the health of the elderly over time can influence people's decisions about how they
organize their lives. The effects of these trends and individual decisions produce aggregate societal
changes in household and family composition.
Raw household data (i.e., total households, total family households, and total non-family
households) were collected from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses for the study area states,
counties, and respective subdivision areas. The total number of family and non-family households
were then calculated as a percentage of the total number of households enumerated for each census
period. These enumerations are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5 demonstrates the percent change in the number of total households for each study area
jurisdiction during the 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 periods. During the 1980 to 1990 period, the
North Elkin District experienced the largest percentage decrease (-24.0 percent) in the number of
total households, followed by McDowell County (-19.6 percent), District 1 (-11.6 percent),
Wyoming County (-8.1 percent), the Hardee District (-7.5 percent), Letcher County (-2.8 percent)
and Mingo County (-0.6 percent). In contrast, the Hamilton District was the sole county subdivision
that experienced a percentage increase (8.7 percent) in the number of total households, followed by
the 5.9 percent increase experienced by Nicholas County. These percentage increases exceeded the
percentage increase experienced statewide (0.4 percent). Kentucky posted the largest percentage
increase in household formations with 9.2 percent.
From 1990 to 2000, McDowell County experienced the largest percentage decrease (-13.0 percent)
in the number of total households, followed by the North Elkin District (-3.4 percent), District 1 (-
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 14
-------
3.5 percent), and Wyoming County (-0.3 percent). The remaining study area jurisdictions
experienced increases in their respective number of total households. However, the percentage
increases enumerated for the Hamilton (3.2 percent) and Hardee (1.6 percent) Districts were less
than the percentage increase experienced statewide (6.9 percent). Likewise, the percentage increases
enumerated for Letcher County (3.7 percent) and the Blackey Division (1.6 percent) were
significantly lower than the percentage increase experienced by Kentucky (15.3 percent).
Table 6 demonstrates the family and non-family growth trends experienced by the study area states,
counties, and county subdivisions over the 1980 to 2000 period. As shown, all jurisdictions
experienced similar trends; whereby, the proportion of family households decreased while the
proportion of non-family households increased over the 1980 to 2000 census periods. These trends
are identical to the national level trends; whereby, the percentage of family households decreased
from 73.9 percent in 1980, to 70.8 percent in 1990, to 68.8 percent in 2000, and the percentage of
non-family households increased from 26.1 percent in 1980, to 29.2 percent in 1990, and to 31.2
percent in 2000.
Similar to nationwide trends, the household sizes for the study area states, counties, and subdivisions
are decreasing. Table 7 presents the average household sizes (i.e., number of persons per household)
for each study area jurisdiction during the 1980, 1990, and 2000 census periods. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, "changes in fertility, marriage, divorce, and mortality, have all contributed to
declines in the size of the American household"(Fields 2001).
6. Race
As presented in Table 8, the 1980,1990, and 2000 Census enumerations show that an overwhelming
majority of the residents surveyed within the study area jurisdictions considered themselves to be
white. Exceptions are noted, however, for McDowell County and the North Elkin District; whereby,
the number of whites during all three census periods was proportionally lower than the remaining
study area jurisdictions. Moreover, the percentage of whites in the North Elkin District was lower
than the percentage of whites in McDowell County for all three census periods. These trends
suggest that the North Elkin District has one of the highest concentrations of minorities in
McDowell County.
B. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Educational attainment is of primary importance to the general welfare and economic vitality of a
local area. Skills and abilities required to compete in the labor market are acquired through the
educational process. These skills, in turn, provide a degree of economic security for the individual
and tend to benefit the overall economic and employment conditions of a local area.
Educational attainment data were obtained from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses for those
persons 25 years and over. These raw data were then used to determine the percentage of persons
who attained a high school level education (i.e., 12 years of education) and those who attained a
college level education (i.e., 13 years and over). Table 9 presents the educational attainment trends
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 15
-------
for the study area states, counties, and subdivisions.
Within each study area jurisdiction, the majority of persons age 25 years and over obtained a high
school level education for all census periods. From 1980 to 2000, the educational attainment levels
for jurisdictions in West Virginia increased, while those in Kentucky decreased slightly. However,
in both states, the proportion of persons obtaining a college level education increased significantly.
These trends indicate that the education levels for the study area jurisdictions are improving.
C. PLACE OF WORK
Place of work data were gathered from the 1980,1990, and 2000 Censuses for the study area states,
counties and subdivisions to establish trends in the daily migrations of the local workforce. This
information will indicate the daily commuting patterns as being within or outside the worker's place
of residence.
As shown in Table 10, the majority of the study area jurisdictions' workers age 16 years and over
indicated they worked in their resident counties during the 1980 through 2000 census periods.
However, between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of those who worked in their resident counties
steadily declined while the proportion of those who worked outside their resident counties increased.
The trends in the number of workers who worked outside their state of residence reveal that large
changes occurred in most of the study area jurisdictions. In Wyoming County, for example, the
number of residents who worked outside the state of West Virginia increased from 45 to 145, or by
222 percent, over the 1980 to 1990 period. Likewise, the number of District 1 residents (Note, the
place of work trends for District 1 were calculated by combining the 1980 and 1990 values
enumerated for the Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork Districts) who worked outside West Virginia
increased from 25 to 80, or by 220 percent, during this same period. The North Elkin District also
experienced a substantial shift in commuting patterns; whereby, the number of resident workers
working outside West Virginia increased from 56 to 123, or by 120 percent. Other study areas, such
as the Hamilton District and Nicholas County also experienced notable increases in the number of
resident workers who were employed outside West Virginia. West Virginia, as a whole, experienced
a 31 percent increase in the number of workers employed outside its borders between 1980 and
1990.
These place of work trends suggest that the local labor force has been impelled either by their own
choosing (e.g., change of residence or employment) or by some change in the local labor market to
seek employment opportunities located outside of their state or county of residence.
D. EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATION STATUS
An analysis of the local occupation types and industry sectors provide insight to the structure of the
local economy and the changes that it has gone through between the 1980 and 2000 census periods.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 16
-------
Employment data were collected from the 1980,1990, and 2000 censuses to characterize occupation
types and industry sectors within which the local population (i.e., persons 16 years and over) is
employed for the study area states, counties, and subdivisions. These raw data were then used to
express the percentage of total persons employed (i.e., persons 16 years and over) in each industry.
1. Employment by Industry Type
The "Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, and Mining" industry served as the largest sector of
employment for all study area jurisdictions as enumerated by the 1980 Census, see figures 15
through 22. However, this industry was not the largest sector on a state wide basis for either West
Virginia or Kentucky. Both the 1990 and 2000 Census figures show a significant decrease in the
percent of total workers employed by this sector. The 1990 Census, unlike the 1980 Census,
reported the "Mining" industry separate from the "Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries" sector (Note,
for comparison with the 1980 data, the 1990 data for these two industry sectors were combined).
As illustrated in Figure 16, the mining industry comprised the majority of the workforce employed
by the "Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, and Mining" sector. Moreover, the same trend possibly
holds true for the 1980 Census data, because 1980 employment data collected from the U.S. Bureau
of Economic Analysis for the study area counties show the majority of workers were employed by
the "Mining" industry. Therefore, as demonstrated in Table 11, the majority of job losses
experienced in the "Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, and Mining" sector was mainly due to the
employment decreases in the mining industry.
Figure 15 also demonstrates that all of the study area jurisdictions experienced increases in the
percentage of total persons employed in the "Professional and Related Services" industry sector over
the 1980 to 2000 period. (Note: the "Professional and Related Services" figures recorded for the
2000 Census period were derived by adding the amount of individuals engaged in "Professional
Services" and "Social Services"). Other service industry sectors, such as "Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate," also posted increases in the percentage of total persons employed within each study
area jurisdiction. These statistics typify the national employment trends; whereby, the service
sectors are employing a greater share of the nation's labor force than non-service industry sectors
such as agriculture, mining, and manufacturing.
Figures 16 through 36 provide a more detailed representation of the distributions of employment by
industry for each study area state, and county for the time period of 1980 to 2000.
2. Economic Base Analysis
There are a variety of techniques for conducting an economic base analysis. The objective of all
economic base analyses is to identify the economic sectors that bring income into a local economy
from outside the economy. These sectors are variously named "export base" or "basic industries".
Manufacturing, tourism, and raw materials production are all economic sectors that typically sell
much of their output to persons and firms outside of the local economy. Such sales bring money into
the local economy, providing for spending on products and services produced both within and
outside of the local economy.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 17
-------
One way to identify industries that form an economy's economic base is to examine each industries
"location quotient". A location quotient is a ratio that compares an industry's share of local
employment at the local level with the same industry's share of employment of the larger economy
(typically the nation or the state).
A location quotient of one reflects a condition in which the share of employment in the industry is
the same at the local and reference level. A location quotient greater than one indicates that the
industry employs a larger share of local employment than it does at the reference level.
Interpretation of location quotients requires the following assumptions: labor productivity, total
employment rates, and demand patterns are the same in the local economy and the reference
economy; and the reference economy is on net self-sufficient (it produces what it consumes, and
consumes what it produces). Under these conditions, a location quotient of one for an industry (say,
health services) suggests that the local economy is producing health services at the same rates as
the reference economy and is therefore producing exactly enough health services to meet local
demand—no more and no less. A location quotient greater than one suggests that the local economy
is producing more than enough health services to meet local demand; persons from outside the local
economy may be coming to this area for health services. The "excess" health services is essentially
a net export from the local economy and a source of outside income.
A location quotient analysis requires employment data that records employment by place of work
and by industry. These data are available at the county level through the Census Bureaus's "County
Business Patterns" informational series, through the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and through
the state departments of labor. The county is the finest level at which such data are available, as
well as the smallest level that areas in the study area could in any way be considered "economies".
The County Business Patterns data were used because they provide the most consistent (across
states) data at the most detailed industry disaggregations.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 18
-------
The formula used to calculate the LQ ratio for each industry is as follows:
LQ;= E; - ENi
E E
'N
Where:
E = Total local employment
E; = Total local employment in industry i
EN = Total regional employment
ENi = Total regional employment in industry i
Interpreting the calculated LQ ratios is simple because only three general outcomes are possible.
These are as follows:
LQ < 1.0 = All Employment is Non-Basic: A LQ that is less than one suggests that local
employment is less than was expected for a given industry. Therefore, that industry is not even
meeting local demand for a given good or service. Therefore, all of this employment is considered
non-basic by definition.
LQ = 1.0 = All Employment is Non-Basic: A LQ that is equal to one suggests that the local
employment is exactly sufficient to meet the local demand for a given good or service. Therefore,
all of this employment is also considered non-basic because none of these goods or services are
exported to non-local areas.
LQ > 1.0 = Some Employment is Basic: A LQ that is greater than one provides evidence of basic
employment for a given industry. When an LQ > 1.0, the analyst concludes that local employment
is greater than expected and it is therefore assumed that this "extra" employment is basic. These
extra jobs then must export their goods and services to non-local area which, by definition, makes
them basic sector employment.
Using industry sector employment data from the 1990 Census, the LQ analysis was applied to the
study area county subdivisions to identify any specializations in their respective economies. These
"local economies" were compared to their respective states (i.e., West Virginia and Kentucky),
which represent the "reference economies." Table 12 presents the results of this analysis. These
results suggest that all of the subdivisions specialize in the mining industry. Moreover, the degree
to which each subdivision specializes in this industry is high, given the level it exceeds one. Based
on this assumption, the Blackey Division's economy is more highly specialized in the mining
industry than the other subdivisions.
A closer examination of local economic activity may be obtained by analyzing data from the U.S.
Census Bureau's County Business Patterns database. County Business Patterns is an annual series
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 19
-------
that provides subnational economic data by industry. The series is useM for studying the economic
activity of small geographic areas, such as zip codes areas. Table 13 presents the 1997 County
Business Patterns information collected for the selected zip codes for the communities ofNaugatuck,
West Virginia, and Carcassone, Kentucky (The zip code fo Kyle, WV, was not included in the
County Business Patterns database). As shown in Table 13, Naugatuck had a total of five
establishments; two of which were in the mining industry sector and employed the largest volume
of persons (500-999 employees). Carcassone had four establishments; none of which were in the
mining industry.
3. Employment by Occupation Type
Figures 37 through 58 illustrate the occupation types within which the study areajurisdictions' labor
forces are employed during the 1980 through 2000 periods. The overall trends show a shift from
a "blue collar" to a "white collar" workforce; whereby, the proportion of persons employed in the
"Precision Production Craft, and Repair Occupations;" and "Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers"
decreased, while the proportion of persons employed in the "Managerial and Professional
Occupations;" "Technical, Sales, and Administrative Support Occupations;" and "Service
Occupations" increased.
The increases within the white collar occupations were, however, mixed. For example, according
to the 1990 Census, the county-level growth in the percentage of persons employed within the
"Managerial and Professional Occupations" exceeded the growth experienced by the study area
county subdivisions; thereby, suggesting the majority of the county-level growth occurred outside
the study area subdivisions. However, data from the 2000 Census shows that this trend disseminated
between 1990 and 2000 as most county subdivisions recorded levels of growth similar to that at the
county level. This data suggests that these case study jurisdictions are growing at a pace similar to
neighboring communities.
4. Civilian Labor Force Status
Civilian labor force data for persons 16 years and over were collected from the 1980,1990, and 2000
Censuses and was used to calculate the unemployment rate trends as shown in Table 14. As shown,
the unemployment rates forthe study area states, counties, and subdivisions increased over the 1980-
1990 period; thereby, reflecting a decline in the number of local employment opportunities.
Moreover, the 1980 and 1990 unemployment rates for the study area counties and subdivisions
exceeded-and in some cases far exceeded-the unemployment rates enumerated for their respective
states, which suggests the local economic conditions were more severe than their states as a whole.
The greatest unemployment rate increases were posted by McDowell County and its North Elkin
District where from 1980 to 1990, their unemployment levels rose from 13.9percentto28.2percent,
and from 15.3 percent to 28.2 percent, respectively. Other notable increases in unemployment rates
were experienced by Mingo County (11.3 percent to 18.4 percent) and its Hardee District (9.9
percent to 22.9 percent); and Wyoming County (10.2 percent to 19.7 percent) and District 1 (12.4
percent to 20.1 percent).
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 20
-------
Between the period of 1990 and 2000, unemployment rates in the all jurisdictions surveyed began
to noticeably decrease. In some cases, such as those in McDowell County's North Elkin District,
the Hardee District of Mingo County, and the Blackey Division of Letcher County (KY), the
unemployment rate tumbled over 15 percent between 1990 and 2000. The sharp declines
experienced during this decade contributed to an overall decline in unemployment rates between
1980 and 2000.
E. INCOME LEVELS
The analysis of income levels over time allows us to assess how rich (or poor) an area is compared
to others around it, as well as to determine if an area has been growing richer or poorer over time.
Income statistics are grouped into three main categories by the U.S. Census Bureau and are defined
as follows:
Per Capita Income - Calculated by dividing the aggregate income for persons 15 years and
over by the total number of persons in the group.
Median Family Income - A median income value representing family household units.
Median Household Income - The median income value representing all households.
The income values reported for these three categories represent the total money income received by
persons in the calendar year preceding the census (e.g., 1999 for 2000). Total money income, as
defined by the Census Bureau, is the sum of amounts reported separately for income sources such
as wages and salaries; non-farm self-employment; farm self-employment; interest, dividends, and
rentals; Social Security; unemployment compensation; welfare or other public assistance; and all
other income sources.
The total money income reported to the Census Bureau is gross income (i.e. prior to any subtractions
for taxes, social security, or any other payroll deductions). Items such as receipts from the sale of
property (unless for the purpose of an ongoing business enterprise), gifts, inheritances, or tax refunds
are included in this figure.
Because of inflation an area of declining real income may appear to have growing incomes, based
on the raw census-reported money income values. To adjust for inflation and demonstrate the real
growth in income values, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics's Consumer Price Index (CPI) was
used to inflate the total money income values from one census to the next (e.g., 1990 values inflated
to 2000 dollars).
The 1979, 1989, and 1999 per capita, median household, and median family income growth trends
for the United States, study area states, counties, and subdivisions are shown in Tables 15 through
17. As shown in Table 15, the 1989 reported per capita incomes appear to exceed the 1979 reported
per capita incomes. But when the 1979 per capita incomes are inflated to 1989 dollars, the real
growth in per capita income levels decreased for all study area counties and subdivisions; thus,
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 21
-------
demonstrating the reported 1979 per capita income levels failed to match the increases in the cost
of living (i.e., amount of money needed to buy the goods and services necessary to maintain a
specified standard of living). Additionally, income figures for 1989, when inflated to 1999 dollars,
also fail to match or exceed the 1999 reported figures. These calculations show that income in the
study areas continues to increase at a slower rate than the cost of living. Similar trends were also
experienced by all study area jurisdictions for their respective median household and median family
income levels.
The assessment of how rich or poor the study area jurisdictions are may also be characterized by
analyzing the trends in the percentage of total households receiving social security and public
assistance income for the reporting periods of 1979 through 1999.
Social Security, for example, provides a base level of income for most retired people and represents
a fixed income with which senior age persons rely on to support their standard of living.
Communities experiencing an increase in the number of senior age persons will experience an
increase in the number of households receiving Social Security payments; possibly, producing a
stabilizing effect on a community's overall upward mobility and affluence.
Public assistance income is provided to qualified low-income persons or families to assist in meeting
their basic survival needs. The number of households receiving public assistance provides a
measure of how poor a community may be. Typically, an increase in the number of households
receiving public assistance indicates an increase in the number of low-income persons or families.
Data regarding the total number of households receiving social security and public assistance income
were collected from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses for the study area states, counties, and
subdivisions. These data represent the total number of households that reported receiving social
security and public assistance income in the calendar year preceding the census (e.g., 1999 for
2000). These raw data were then used to calculate the percentage of the total number of households
receiving such incomes. The results are shown in Tables 18 and 19.
As shown in Table 18, the majority of the study area jurisdictions experienced an increase in the
proportion of households receiving social security income payments each Census year. The North
Elkin District and McDowell County had the largest share of their total households receiving social
security income payments in both 1989 and 1999. These trends are reflective of the age group
trends discussed in Section A.3.
Table 19 shows that all study areas experienced increases in the proportion of households receiving
public assistance income over the 1979 and 1989 Census reporting periods. Moreover, the
percentage of households receiving public assistance in study area counties and subdivisions far
exceeded the percentage of households receiving public assistance at the state levels. However, this
trend reversed in the 1999 Census reporting period as all jurisdictions recorded a decrease in the
percentage of households receiving public assistance. In some cases, such as the Blackey Division
in Lethcher County (KY), and the Hardee District in Mingo County (WV), the percentage of
households receiving public assistance decreased by over 11 percent.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 22
-------
F. POVERTY STATUS
Poverty is one of the key statistical tools used to characterize a population. The U. S. Census Bureau
uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who
is poor. If a family's total income is less than the Census Bureau's pre-established poverty-level
threshold, then that family, and every individual in it is considered poor. The poverty thresholds do
not vary geographically, but they are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.
The official poverty definition counts total money income before taxes and does not include capital
gains taxes and noncash benefits (e.g., public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).
Table 20 presents poverty levels as measured by the percent of persons living in households with
an income below the poverty level. All study area jurisdictions, except for Kentucky, experienced
an increase in the proportion of the persons whose income is below the poverty threshold during the
1979 and 1989 census reporting periods. The largest percentage point increases were experienced
by McDowell County (14.2), and the Hardee (12.8) and North Elkin (12.7) Districts. More
importantly, however, is that the percentage point increases of all study area counties and
subdivisions exceeded the percentage point increases experienced by their respective states.
Moreover, the poverty levels in the study areas were considerably higher than the state levels, both
in 1979 and in 1989.
On the other hand, the 1999 Census reporting period shows that nearly every study area jurisdiction
experienced a decrease in the percent of persons living in households with an income below the
poverty level. The largest decrease was recorded in the Hamilton District (10.8 percent decrease)
followed by the Blackey Division (9.3 percent). Additionally, between 1989 and 1999 nearly every
jurisdiction reported a percentage point decrease that was greater than their respective state levels.
G. DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
The following presents a summary of demographic changes in the format of questions with yes or
no answers per case study area.
Did employment increase in 1990 as compared to 1980 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes)
• District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did employment decrease in 2000 as compared to 1990 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 23
-------
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (Yes)
Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (No)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (Yes)
Did real per capita income increase in 1990 as compared to 1980 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did real per capita income decrease in 2000 as compared to 1990 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (Yes)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (No)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (Yes)
Did the number of persons working in their resident county increase from 1980 to 1990?
• Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (No)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did the number of persons working in their resident county decrease from 1990 to 2000?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (Yes)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (Yes)
Did unemployment decrease in 1990 as compared to 1980 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (No)
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 24
-------
• District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did unemployment increase in 2000 as compared to 1990 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
Blackey District, Letcher County, KY (No)
• District One District, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did educational attainment increase in 1990 as compared to 1980 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (Yes)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (Yes)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes for college), (No for high school)
• District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (Yes)
Did educational attainment increase in 2000 as compared to 1990 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (Yes)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (Yes)
Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes)
• District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (Yes)
Did population increase in 1990 as compared to 1980 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (No)
• District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did population decrease in 2000 as compared to 1990 for each study area?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (Yes)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (Yes)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes)
• District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (Yes)
Did non-white race increase in 1990 as compared to 1980 for each study area?
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 25
-------
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
• Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (Yes)
Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did non-white race increase in 2000 as compared to 1990 for each study area?
• Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (Yes)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
Blackey District, Letcher County, KY (No)
District One District, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did the number of miners increase during mining (1990)?
Nicholas County, WV (No)
McDowell County, WV (No)
Mingo County, WV (Yes)
Letcher County, KY (No)
• Wyoming County, WV (No)
Did the number of miners decrease in the after mining case study condition (2000)?
Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
McDowell County, WV (Yes)
Mingo County, WV (Yes)
Letcher County, KY (Yes)
Wyoming County, WV (Yes)
Did the number of persons receiving public assistance decrease in 1990?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (Yes)
Did the number of persons receiving public assistance increase in 2000?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 26
-------
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (No)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did the number of persons receiving social security income decrease in 1990, as compared to 1980?
• Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
• Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (Yes)
• Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did the number of persons receiving social security income decrease in 2000, as compared to 1990?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (Yes)
• Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (Yes)
Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (No)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did poverty status decrease in 1990, as compared to 1980?
Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (No)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No)
Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (No)
Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (No)
District One, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (No)
Did poverty status decrease in 2000, as compared to 1990?
• Hamilton District, Nicholas County, WV (Yes)
North Elkin District, McDowell County, WV (No )
• Hardee District, Mingo County, WV (Yes)
Blackey Division, Letcher County, KY (Yes)
District One District, Wyoming County, WV as the Control Area (Yes)
V. COMMUNITY NARRATIVE SUMMARIES
This section of the report summarizes all the interviews collected to date in each of the case study
communities, Werth, WV, Kyle, WV, Naugatuck, WV, Scarlet, WV, and Carcassonne, KY. In
addition, interview summaries are included for Superior Bottom, WV and Blair, WV. Each
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 27
-------
communities' interviews are summarized with selected discussion and quotations taken from
multiple interviews from that community. The discussion is organized into three main aspects of
community life (social, physical and economic) and the future of each community.
A. WERTH, HAMILTON DISTRICT, NICHOLAS COUNTY,
WEST VIRGINIA
The community of Werth, WV currently consists of approximately 20 homes strung along Route 55
about one hour northeast of Charleston. Unlike many of the other communities in which interviews
were collected, Werth at one time was home to a large employment generator other than the coal
industry - the Ely Thomas saw mill. Residents reported varying employment benefits and reliance
upon the mill; however, the mill itself was reported by several residents as one of the largest of its
kind in the Eastern United States. The saw mill closed in the 1950s. Another distinguishing factor
is that Werth is not concentrated in an isolated hollow or along a stream corridor, but rather along
a county road between the county seat, Summersville, and points north and west. Werth lies just
a few miles from Highway 19 which, according to residents, was completed in approximately 1975.
Existing Lumber Yard on Site of Ely Thomas Saw Mitt
By varying accounts surface mining came into the Werth community area in the 1950s. At that point
in time, the saw mill had reportedly already burned and been shut down; therefore, prior to surface
mining the community was employed in a variety of manners including lumber, underground coal
mining and farming. Residents report that Werth was a small, incorporated community of many
families and some businesses, largely focused around the saw mill. Residents interviewed could not
universally recall exactly when surface mining began in the Werth area; however, reports ranged
from 1945 to the early 1950s.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
28
-------
1. Social Community
Nearly all of the interviewed residents in Werth indicated a sense of community based upon heredity
of land and family and neighbor ties to the area. Feelings expressed regarding any sense of social
community by the residents in Werth were less fervent and less focused on a sense of social structure
and support within the Werth area than in some other communities. Werth was described as a nice
place to live, to hunt and to farm. One resident stated that they moved to Werth because, "I always
liked elbow room."
With the introduction of surface mining in the Werth area, residents reported little or no change in
the social aspects of the community. Declining population in the area since the 1950s was believed
to be linked to closure of the mill and the industry-wide decline in mining employment. Population
shifts were a result of families and young, employment-age family members leaving the area in
search of better j ob opportunities. None of the residents interviewed felt that the population change
in the community was related to impacts from the presence of surface mining, rather the feelings
expressed indicated that the community was accustomed to the mining industry and leaving was not
considered for that reason. One family described the population shift as follows:
Excerpt From Single Interview:
Resident: Well, we lost a school down here. The umm, all the young people grew up
and moved away.
Interviewer: Had any of them been employed with the coal company? That you could say
'Well, when the coal company left they lost those jobs and moved away and therefore the
school had to close?'
Resident: I don't think that many of them; some of them was employed by the coal
companies. But up and down through here we are just all getting older and nobody sells any
of their land and so...
Interviewer: There aren't any more kids to go to school?
Resident: And the kids just grew up like ours done. He is like... .he married a girl from
Pittsburgh, by the way. And they both teach school in Parkersburg now.
Interviewer: So, really most of them moved away for jobs?
Resident II: Most of them. The ones that didn't want to work in the mines left.
Resident: Well, when they went to college, there wasn't anything around here for them
to do. I know my granddaughter went to, she is up next to Washington, which isn't a good
place to be right now.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 29
-------
The interviews indicate that many of the remaining residents are of retirement age. One resident
speculated that without family ties to Werth, there was little draw to move into the community now.
Another resident believed that the population, while small was stable, and economic growth in the
tourism industry was helping to stabilize the area.
None of the residents interviewed in Werth had chosen to leave, if they had left, because of the
presence of surface mining, and none reported that the coal companies had offered to purchase their
home or land for anything other than mining prospects. In this manner, Werth is different from a
number of the other areas where interviews were collected.
No other specific social impacts or benefits were reported by residents; however when queried about
changes in their community, one resident speculated, "Well, we don't have the fields and everything,
but yeah it probably psychologically might have [changed]. But as far as money is concerned I
would say probably not."
2. Physical & Economic Community
Because Werth is located along a stretch of flat, bottomland, several residents reported a tradition
of family farms, for subsistence and some commercial crops. Interviewers were told that a small
underground mine was locally owned and operated in Werth, but none of the interviewed residents
cited this an important local employer. The Ely Thomas lumber company was cited as a far more
important economic generator. By the end of 1950s, the saw mill was no longer an employer in the
area, and residents reported that employment sources ranged from coal mining to related industries,
such as the railroad.
While some physical changes were reported by a number of residents, reports of economic benefits
during the surface mining period varied. Overall, residents felt that changes in Werth happened
overtime as a result of aging residents and younger generations moving out for jobs and other
opportunities. Most residents felt that the presence of large-scale surface mining neither had long-
term boost or negative impact on the community. When queried about the benefits brought to the
community by the presence of surface mining, on resident replied: "There probably was at the time
they were here, there was more money spent here that is natural. But no - the people moved and the
money didn't stay here and the coal left. There may have been. There had to be something but I do
not know what it would be." Another resident however indicated that the mining industry in the
Werth area had contributed significantly to the local economy and provision of community facilities.
Excerpt From Single Interview:
Interviewer II: Does this community itself, in terms of Werth, do you feel it has
benefitted in terms of employment opportunities the mining operations offered in this area?
Resident: Absolutely... Otherwise they would of have to go out of state. Which a lot
of people in other parts, like the northern part of West Virginia where there's not many
mines and not much of anything else... and I can remember 25-30 years ago they had to go
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 3 0
-------
to Ohio, they had to go to South Carolina somewhere for employment.
The resident went on to say:
I know that personally because my husband had very much to do with that. It was... he's the
one that ram-rodded the site for the ball fields and the high school. The new high school is
right here on 19.
Interviewer: Can you tell me a little bit about that? What do you mean ram-rodded?
Resident: He furnished the equipment; he came down and did a lot of the work himself
at no cost to the county.
Interviewer: He helped build it and see that it was built?
Resident: He didn't build, but he prepared the site with equipment, his own equipment
from his company.... He brought his men down and he paid his men but he didn't charge
anybody for it. He also was the fund-raiser for the hospital and because he was known, so
well known in the community, he was able to tap the coal industry get money and got funds
to start the Summersville, to expand I am sorry, to expand the Summersville hospital.
Residents overall did not feel that the community of Werth was significantly changed by the
presence of surface mining aside from landscape changes in mined areas; however, some changes
to specific areas were reported. For the majority of the residents interviewed two factors seemed
to have shaped the types of changes reported. First, surface mining in the Werth area was carried
out by at least two separate companies; and second, adj acent surface mining was reported to pre-date
current environmental legislation. The second of these factors was reported to have significantly
shaped the quality of work and the related physical impacts that were reported.
Surface mining was reported to have occurred from the 1950s to the present; however, most of the
residents interviewed focused on physical changes in the community related to mining prior to the
1970s. In their opinion, mining methods during this period differed from current practices. One
important perceived difference included the level of blasts feasible and the lack of regulations
regarding disposal of overburden. Few, if any, residents reported any instances of significant dust,
or damage to their homes, but some fly-rock was reported. In other communities problems with well
water are often cited as having a relationship to blasting. Two residents reported problems with
well water; however, they did not claim that this was certainly attributable to surface mining. More
significantly in Werth, mining companies were cited as having dumped rock and spoil over the hill
into the bottomland, and therefore, into the stream running parallel along the southern properties of
the community.
"And when they dumped that refuse, them rocks and stuff over the hill, you know
just dumped it over there, you got to see that to believe it, what that is."
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 3 1
-------
Another resident described the same results:
"That was top mines, strip mines. And they didn't have no regulations they just
throwed it all over the hill, because they wanted to and I guess it was more
convenient for them than to pile it up."
As a result of the clogged stream, properties and farmable land were flooded. One resident describes
the situation on his property following the clogging of the stream:
"...when they stopped it up it backed it up and stopped it all up. It filled in out here
until I had a swamp in the yard. It was a swamp....! had seen these trucks, with the
bed down on the ground. That much mud. And we could not bring our cars. And
had to leave our cars over on the main highway. Yes, you couldn't get it over here
and back because of the mud in the road.... Those trucks I had seen buried down right
out here until the bed was in the ground. They would have to get dozer down in here
and pull them out. Now this was Tassa Coal Company. T, A, SS, A, Tassa Coal
Company."
Another resident described it as follows:
"I am talking about rock, slate, goobs- probably a little coal - anything that they, dirt,
anything that they would dig up on top of the mountain, when it rained it came
down...It filled up the creeks. It filled up the creek beds and the creek would be
wandering around and basically make into a swamp. Which the wetlands
commission now want it to be a swamp but it never was a swamp before..."
Other physical changes described included impacts to habitat and wooded areas previously used for
hunting and the use of old coal rail lines for trails. The 'rails to trails' examples was cited as
another way that the community and the burgeoning tourism industry has benefitted long-term from
the historic presence of the coal industry in Werth . One resident stated:
"...[the mountaintops] basically, for a period of time, become grasslands. Which for
the all the vegetation that comes is good for the animals and the birds and
environment... for them to prosper. I think this "Keep West Virginia Green"; the
coal miners did not fall short in returning their areas to green."
3. Companies and Communities
When queried about interactions between the coal companies and the communities most residents
felt there was very little interaction that wasn't initiated by residents approaching the company with
specific complaints. Residents did cite having received notification of blasting activity, but did not
report having seen specific permits advertised for mining activity in Werth. All the interviewed
residents, who read the paper, currently see permit notices regarding new mining permit activity
advertised, and generally felt these were adequate, if sometimes difficult to read. Specific
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 3 2
-------
complaints were generally in regards to illegibility of the maps; however one resident stated,
"...if I didn't see the map clearly I would read the description."
An important theme echoed in nearly all of the interviews collected from the study communities was
the varying levels of communication and responsiveness observed among different mining
companies. Werth area residents perceived that one company was significantly more responsive to
complaints and more responsible in their mining methods than another.
"Now the company that came in after that was Hobet. And Hobet was all together
different. I don't care for the mining anyway, but if you are talking about
mountaintop mining. But, Hobet was 100% better than Tassa Coal Co."
Another resident stated:
"The damage that first company done - that couldn't be reclaimed. You roll a
boulder over, as big as this house, in one of them hollers you can't get it back."
Just as the individual coal companies were reported to have different work qualities, residents also
expressed different levels of satisfaction gained from the different coal companies' attempts to
address community complaints. While most residents felt that the coal companies had caused some
physical changes to the community, they reported varying levels of responsiveness to complaints.
One company was perceived as better at providing public information and addressing complaints
than another. Only one resident interviewed, felt that the coal companies had done a completely
adequate job in dealing with the community and had followed the letter of the law with regard to
public information.
4. Summary and Community Future
Residents in Werth had varying opinions about the benefits and impacts from adjacent surface
mining to the community. One consistent report, from interviewed residents who had lived in the
community since the 1950s was that they felt early surface mining in the community had changed
the physical value of the bottomland. The land is deemed by residents as no longer suitable for
farming, an aspect of community life that had been a staple for some families in Werth. To the
dismay of some of the interviewed residents, the bottomland in Werth is now designated as
wetlands. A fact that several residents felt was foolish, as they believed the clogging stream to be
directly related to the mining techniques of the earliest company to surface mine near Werth.
Overall, opinions regarding the positive and negative impacts from surface mining were greatly
varied. However, residents consistently reported that the presence of surface mining never prompted
them to leave, or try to leave the community. Population shifts seem entirely attributable to a lack
of jobs or a desire to work in an industry other than mining.
Interviewed residents felt the economic future of community is likely tied more closely to overall
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 3 3
-------
diversification of the economy in the region. "This area has shifted to timber and tourism."
Residents felt that any market for property would now rely on proximity to jobs elsewhere in the
region and the mobility of the automobile.
One resident summed up his experiences living with mountaintop mining in Werth through the
course of his life as follows:
"Well you can't see it now, but there use to be a big mountain up on top of that
mountain there. Well it is the same mountain, but there was a big knob. It was a lot
higher and everything. They just took everything that they didn't want and threw it
over the hill and then hauled the coal down the mountain. And that is just what they
could do. And we suffered impacts, not at the time it was happening, but nature took
it's course from everything that came down here."
B. KYLE, NORTH ELKIN DISTRICT, MCDOWELL COUNTY,
WEST VIRGINIA
The community of Kyle, WV is located within the Elkhorn Creek watershed area and consists of less
than 100 homes with a church along highway 52. The methodology described in section II.C of this
report was followed to identify interviewees; however, individuals selected for interviews could not
be located or did not wish to be interviewed. The process beginning with the selection of randomly
selected parcel numbers was repeated without success. No interviews were conducted for the Kyle
case study community.
C. NAUGATUCK, HARDEE DISTRICT, MINGO COUNTY,
WEST VIRGINIA
Located at the junction of state Route 65 and US Route 52 in Mingo County, Naugatuck is primarily
a residential community with a few hundred homes. The community of Naugatuck has a small
commercial area comprised of a grocery store, a post office, and a branch of the local Bank of
Mingo. Nearby a water and sewer plant is being developed to serve area residents, including those
who reside in informal neighborhoods along Pigeon Creek.
Within a few miles of Naugatuck to the northeast, there are several surface mining permits which
total approximately 900 + acres. US Route 119 crosses a portion of the Hardee District; however,
the largest employment center within the immediate region, Williamson, does not lie within the
Hardee District.
The methodology described in section II.C of this report was followed to identify interviewees;
however, individuals selected for interviews could not be located or did not wish to be interviewed.
The process beginning with the selection of randomly selected parcel numbers was repeated with
little success. One interview was conducted for the Naugatuck case study community. Information
on the social community, physical and economic community, company interaction with community
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 3 4
-------
and future of the community is not summarized since only one interview was able to be conducted.
D. SCARLET, HARDEE DISTRICT, MINGO COUNTY, WEST
VIRGINIA
Scarlet is comprised of a stretch of road along two forks of Trace Fork Branch in Mingo County.
Scarlet road is easily accessed from Highway 119, or Corridor G; however, this road reportedly was
View Down Left Fork of Scarlet Road
not completed in this area as a major highway until the last 10-15 years. Over time, the area grew
around a few families who settled the community. Interviewed residents report that the family
relationships and closeness of the community is what they valued most about Scarlet above other
places.
"We had real tight neighbors... We watched out for each other.... It was just, I don't
know, family. At one point in time we were crammed. Everybody was family."
An estimated 60 or 70 families lived in the hollow prior to the 1970s. The community was reported
to have amenities such as an informal ballfield. Underground mining had been in the Scarlet
community, at the head of the hollow, since the childhood of its residents. Its existence was part of
the culture of the hollow. One resident described waiting, as a child, for the train conductor on the
afternoon coal train to distribute candy to local children each day after school.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
35
-------
1. Social Community
Surface mining was reported to have begun in Scarlet in the early '70s. Scarlet reportedly remained
a close-knit, family community through the 1970s and ' 80s as surface mining continued in the area;
however, in the 1990s a drastic population drop reportedly had a significant impact on the social
community as well as the physical community. Residents all reported a change in the social
community following the purchase of many homes by the coal company and relocation of many
families. Most of the residents indicated that the process engaged in by the coal company to
purchase homes and land from families in the hollow caused rifts in the community and changed
relationships beyond just a physical distance. It is difficult to measure social impacts; however, one
resident described the process as "pitting neighbor against neighbor." Another resident elaborated
on the problem of 'neighbor against neighbor' as follows:
"Yeah, it really put a lot of strain on the community. Because everyone was afraid
of. I don't know what they was afraid of.... .and then when they started talking about
selling and it was like 'What are you getting?' And you'd get 1,000 phone calls and
it's just like everyone was expecting to make $5.00 more dollars than the other. I
mean that is just what I am saying. It just blowed the community up."
The resident goes on to explain how this affected their family personally....
"Then my husband happened to get a job there. And so he got a job there when all
this was going on, and it had nothing to do with what was going on. He had been
trying for ten years to get a job with them As soon as my husband got the job, I
was accused of, even at that meeting, they accused us of giving the first two pay
days to 'em and $1,000 for the job. I mean, that's what I went through. That's how
I was talked to by my neighbors, that I had lied to them. Right in front of everyone.
And I just sat there, you know, I mean, because it wasn't true. I cried when I come
home. You know, I thought how could these people treat me like that? Because if
they had been offered the job, or could have gotten the job, would their husbands
took it? Yes, they would've."
Despite the social implications of these changes and their affect on quality of life, not all the
residents interviewed chose to leave Scarlet. Some did not leave because they were not able
financially, and felt that the purchase offer made by the coal company was not sufficient. Others
chose not to leave because Scarlet is their home, and despite the changes they had endured, they
wanted to stay where they were. For those that left the reasons given were resoundingly concerned
with the quality of life and the chance at a willing buyer for their properties.
Sample Responses Taken from Several Different Interviews:
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 3 6
-------
Question: Why did you choose to stay?
Resident (A): "That was their attitude - 'Take it or nothing.' And it was nothing."
Question: Why did you choose to move?
Resident (B): "Primary reason for moving? They made us an offer we couldn't refuse."
Reside
would
was all
Your
was
all your
moved.
The
homes
i n
hollow,
visual
more
five.
were
reporte
Abandoned Home in Scarlet
nt (C): " I
say the houses
cracked up.
foundation
cracked and
friends had
number of
now occupied
Scarlet
based upon
survey, is no
than twenty-
Residents who
interviewed
d that some of
the homes purchased by the coal mining company are now occupied as company-housing, others
are people from within the community who were relocated into other homes on Scarlet Road. The
second scenario was a point of contention for some of the residents.
Other homes that were purchased remain standing, empty and dilapidated. The abandoned homes
serve as a visual reminder of the loss of the community.
"Well, that is what I told them, when they started buying people out and they started
moving off and the homes that are lived in that are falling in, is an example of what
they did. Cause, they tore several down.... that is one thing that I did get done. I got
a couple of them that were falling in; I did get those torn down. There was one beside
my mom that was falling down and I finally got them to tear one down."
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
37
-------
2. Physical and Economic Community
Reports of changes in the community during the presence of large-scale surface mining in Scarlet
were fairly uniform from one interview to the next. Residents all reported significant amounts of
dust hindering outdoor activities and in one case impacting respiratory related breathing problems.
Blasting was listed as both a nuisance and in some cases believed to be above legal limits.
"But it shook it hard because it threw me against the faucet there. I just walked in
here and was getting some water, you know, and wham."
Well water problems were not reported in all cases, but one resident who remains in the hollow
reports significant well water problems.
When queried about benefits received by the community from the presence of large-scale surface
mining, some of residents did not see benefits to the immediate community of Scarlet, while others
reported some benefits such as local employment. The reported levels of local employment varied.
Underground mining had been reportedly the largest employer among the families in Scarlet. The
underground mine closed in the late 1960s. One resident explained that the underground mine
wound underneath the whole of the community, and therefore, it was understood that families which
had settled the area would always be able to find jobs at that mine. One resident described the
presence of surface mining as an employment benefit to the community as follows:
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 3 8
-------
"The younger generation, younger than myself and ' specific name'. I' d say they
worked there when they was blasting, you know. That's the only thing I can see,
you know, as far as a benefit. I think that's good that when people come in and
brings work into our area that they hired locally. I can't say they didn't hire out
of state, but I could see some of the local people getting in."
More than one specific instance of local residents seeking employment with the surface mining
companies working in Scarlet and being turned down were recounted. The most stunning report
indicated that local residents were told that jobs were for sale.
"I went to a talk with the fella that was in charge of that. And he offered to sell me
a job... A bribe... I was shocked. I was stunned. I really didn't catch it until the
interview was over. And I was informed, 'Yes that is exactly what they are doing.
Didn't you know it?' I said, "No, I did not know it."
Each of the residents interviewed reported that a few men had j obs with the surface mines at Scarlet,
but that in a number of cases local men were believed to have been passed up for labor from other
areas.
3. Companies and Communities
When discussing the interactions between the community and the coal company regarding the
reported physical impacts, most residents reported mixed results. Those whom the coal company
had successfully bought out were satisfied with the way the situation was handled by the company
and their purchase prices. Concerning impact complaints, in some cases residents were satisfied,
in other instances the same residents felt that their complaints were not addressed at all or fairly.
Residents reported more than one company surface mined in the Scarlet area. Similar to the
experiences of Werth, differences in companies and in management played an important part in the
attitudes of residents toward their experiences and even jobs with the companies.
Scarlet residents also shared the feelings of the majority of Werth residents that public information
regarding mining activity was not universally satisfactory, and the degree to which information was
available varied by report. While the residents of Scarlet all reported seeing permit activity
advertised in the local paper, they did not generally feel that these were legible or helpful to persons
who may not be familiar with mining terminology or with the area. Some residents had attended
community meetings with representatives from the State Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) and the mining companies. Others felt that they had never dealt directly with the mining
companies regarding complaints or mining activity. Regardless of the levels of interaction,
satisfaction was almost never reported.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 3 9
-------
Each of the interviews indicate that the coal company approached at least a portion of the
community and made a blanket offer to purchase properties for the implied purpose of relief from
the impacts of the surface mining in Scarlet. Details of the offer varied with regard to the base
amounts offered, the numbers of families to which the offer was made, and the conditions associated
with the offers. One resident reported that a condition of the sale of their property was that the
family would agree to not relocate with the area of holdings of the company.
"I mean, it says that you cannot, couldn't move within so many miles but you
couldn't move back up that holler, Scarlet, at all. But then this area along, the four
lane, you couldn't move there either they said. Just because maybe they thought they
might have to buy them out if they continued stripping and..."
Several residents also indicated the following condition was attached to the sale of their property:
"When they bought us out they said 'everything stays that's connected.' And we
asked about the shrubbery, and like he said, he had his young fruit trees that he had
planted that we could have picked up and moved.... But they wouldn't let us take
anything that was connected to the home, tied into it like built-in cabinets....Six
weeks later, somebody come along and collected them all and sold them."
Another condition, or detail of sale, for which reports differed was the option to repurchase land.
Some residents had been told that following the conclusion of mining, they would have the option
to repurchase, others were interested in this possibility and reported that "[the company] will not sell
this land back for 200 years."
Another important variation between the residents' reports was their satisfaction with the company
regarding purchase offers. Some felt they received a fair and satisfactory deal for the purchase of
their property while others felt the offered purchase price was not enough to cover the purchase and
move to a new home. Of those interviewed who chose to leave, nearly all were satisfied with the
amount received. Relocation assistance in the amount of $5,000 was given to each of these residents
in addition to the agreed upon purchase price.
4. Summary and Community Future
When queried about the quality of life in the community now, the majority of the residents were not
positive. Those who had moved out, did not think they would move back for reasons including, lack
of land made re-available to them, deterioration of community relationships and satisfaction with
their current location. Those who remain are now facing the option of hooking onto a public water
system. The residents interviewed who remain in the hollow were currently choosing not to hook-up
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 40
-------
to the water system, but each for separate reasons. Reasons ranged from a sense of independence
lost and defiance against the coal mining company for having negatively impacted their water
supply, to a lack of current need. Hook up fees were reported at $500, in addition to the cost and
labor of laying the connection pipes. This was deemed prohibitive by a number of residents.
The reported animosity between neighbors and family members is a striking difference between the
experiences in Scarlet and those reported in other communities where a large-scale purchase of
homes was undertaken by the coal company. Other communities reported anger and poor
relationships with the coal company itself over perceived or actual differences in the details of the
sale. One commonality expressed between the communities with similar buy-out experiences was
the belief that relocation costs were often underestimated by those who chose to leave, and the
suggestion that many families had gone into debt.
What remains constant among the Scarlet residents' comments are their expression of the overall
decline in the quality of life directly related to the presence of surface mining and the loss of the
community physically and socially, despite any benefits provided. Satisfaction of the residents with
the purchase offers and the satisfaction to which complaints were addressed was inconsistent. For
those who left, a similar notion was expressed many times:
"I just feel that if they was doing it for one, they should have at least offered it back
to me... Give me the option of whether I want to buy it back or not. They didn't.
And, I feel that if they could have moved that double-wide out for one person, why
couldn't they have moved it out for me."
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 41
-------
E. CARCASSONNE, BLACKEY DIVISION, LETCHER
COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
The community of Carcassone, KY, is located within the Elk Creek watershed area and is currently
comprised of approximately 100 families, which includes those families living in the nearby area
locally referred to as lent Mountain. The Carcassone area of Letcher County has few significant
employment centers and no large-scale infrastructure investments. Located approximately 4 miles
south, Highway 7 is the closest primary roadway serving the Carcassone community and it provides
indirect access to Whitesburg, which is the Letcher County seat and the area's largest economic
center. Residents interviewed described the community as rural and remotely located from
employment opportunities outside of the mining industry. The following excerpt from an
interviewee relates this characterization of the Caracassone community.
Excerpt from Single Interview:
Resident: And, my son, I have two sons. One is 25 and one is 20 and both my sons had to
leave here to find work because they don't want to work in the mines or on a strip job, so
they left here, so now I have to drive about 3 hours to see my grandchildren. They live in
Georgetown. They moved there, you know, near Lexington, where there are better] obs. And,
I don't work because where we live, basically the roads and stuff, and the community where
we are in, it really it doesn't pay me to work. I wouldn't make enough money to drive that
far. You know, we tried that and by the times the taxes come out and all that, it doesn't pay
for me to work.
Interviewer: Right, so you are in a very much a rural, Carcassone is a very rural
community can I say that?
Resident: Very so, very much so, very much so. If it comes and snows, everybody here has
4-wheel drive. If you don't have 4-wheel drive, most of the winter, you are sitting. You
cannot get out. And, even with 4-wheel drive, a lot of times it's hard.
1. Social Community
Like many Appalachian communities, the discussions with the interviewed residents evoked that
the Carcassone population is close-knit and they value their sense of community and rural quality
of life. One resident said that "you can trust your neighbors" and "you've got your neighbors to look
out for you." The close-knit community perception was further stressed by the residents' statements
indicating that they have resided in Carcassone for most, if not all, of their entire lives. When asked
to describe the existing quality of life in Carcassone, one resident stated that Carcassone is a "quiet,
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 42
-------
peaceful place. A good place to raise a family. We raised our children here and have some of our
grandchildren here with us now, close to us."
The opinions of the interviewed residents' varied when queried about the impact of mining on
Carcassone's social environment. Population declines, for example, were the most frequently cited
social impact followed by the impacts on groundwater quantity and quality. Two interviewed
residents specifically linked the loss of the area's population to the diminished groundwater supplies
perceived to be caused by the mining operations. "I would say [Carcassone's population] has
decreased because when they stripped most of the land here, it is harder to find good water now than
what it was 25 to 30 years ago." The second resident shared the following sentiment regarding the
population losses.
Excerpt from Single Interview:
Interviewer: And do you have any reasoning or any idea why that population has
decreased?
Resident: Well, the main thing is because of water. The difficulty in finding suitable water
for families.
The mining operations' impact on local groundwater water supplies and quality were
resounded by another interviewed resident. The resident perceived that the local water
supply and quality has been negatively impacted by the local mining operations.
Excerpt from Single Interview:
Resident: They were mining and stripping and we used to have really good well water. Our
well is only like 65 feet down, something like that, and um, it just all of a sudden became
real orange and nasty and you couldn't stand turning it on because it smelled and we finally
contacted the coal company and uh they came and took samples and put a filter in for us.
Another interviewed resident, however, believed that the population declines were not caused by
the mining operations, but rather were the result of the lack of skilled employment opportunities.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
43
-------
Excerpt from Single Interview:
Interviewer: The question is, what was the community impacted by change in
population or shift in local demographics, we'll say again between the period of 1980 to the
current to the present day.
Resident: Uh, I don't know back then when I was growing up, it seemed like there was more
people here.
Interviewer: And, if you perceived that there were more people, do you have any reason or
uh, rephrase this correctly. Any perception of why the population may have declined?
Resident: Pretty much because once the kids grew up, there weren't nothing here to keep
them. You know, jobs were, jobs still are, if you don't have a college education, you know,
you either work in a fast food restaurant or you are working on a strip j ob and our kids have
to get jobs or go off to school.
No other specific impacts to the community' s social environment were reported by the interviewed
residents; however, when queried about changes in their community, one resident found it
disheartening that the area's scenic beauty has been destroyed. " the mountains are gone,
history's gone, uh, you see forever, used to be you would look out your window, you'd see forever
the mountains. You know, I think that's the future you got there and you can see the mountains all
the way in Virginia and Tennessee, you know, because you're up so high and [the mountains] are
all gone."
2. Physical and Economic Community
As previously discussed, the most significant physical impact resulting from the mining operations
as perceived by the interviewed residents is the diminished quantity and quality of the community's
groundwater supplies.
When further queried about additional impacts on quality of life issues, two interviewed residents
cited blasting as being a common problem among the area residents. According to one interviewed
resident, "We had things knocked off the wall and broken foundations, concrete blocks, it was
cracked and this area, several [families] have had that."
Opinions differed among the interviewed residents regarding the economic benefits of the mining
operations. One interviewed resident suggested that the employment opportunities afforded by the
mining companies were beneficial. "The mine company is what gives me my bread and butter. It's
what gave me the house I'm living in." Others, however, suggested that the local economy is too
dependent on the mining operations and few, if any, alternative employment opportunities offering
competitive wages exist within the Carcassone community.
Excerpt from Single Interview:
Interviewer: I was just gonna ask is any of that related to employment opportunities in your
area? What is the major employer for the Carcassone area for the residents that live there.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 44
-------
Resident: Right now I would say it is geared to the mining business other than, well we have
a lot of teachers, doctors, things like that lives in this area now.
Interviewer: And where do those teachers and doctors work? What is the local area that
they work in or maybe facilities that they worked out of, where are they located?
Resident: Well, I have a daughter and a son that are RNs and they both work in medical
facilities in Perry County.
A common thread among the interviews is that the Carcassone community' s basic economy appears
to be highly dependent on the mining industry and alternative skilled and competitively waged
employment opportunities are lacking. This statement is clearly articulated in one resident's
response "Well, if it wasn't for the mine, then what would our people be doing for money?
Because we don't have nothing else here." As a result of this one industry economy, the community
is experiencing a loss of its young adult populations who have obtained college-level educations and
moved elsewhere for employment opportunities. It is therefore possible that this trend has produced
a negative impact on the community' s quality of life and has, in part, dampened Carcassone's ability
to sustain its existing population.
3. Companies and Communities
Although there is indication that the mining companies approached at least a portion of the
community regarding their operations, the interviewed residents, overall, seemed pessimistic about
the level of contact the mining companies had with the local residents. In most cases, the mining
operations limited their public involvement efforts to the pre-mining inspections and publishing of
the mine permits in the local newspapers; often not seen or understood by the local residents. The
following interview excerpts support this issue.
Excerpt from Single Interview:
Resident: Now, not until, probably, uh, I would say a couple of years ago, I got a letter in
the mail, it was certified mail, they sent me a letter and said that they were going to be
mining within VaVa mile of my house and it, you know, it told about the blast signals and, you
know, all that. Other than that, no, you don't hear anything.
Interviewer: So, beyond that initial contact, you can answer yes or no, if you wish, did the
surface mining company continue any contact with you or your neighbors beyond that initial
contact?
Resident: No
Excerpt from Single Interview:
"If I didn't read the paper, I didn't know about it. Uh, it was put in the local news in
Malmego and uh if you can read that, you know they give notice in there and then sometimes
it would be word-of-mouth."
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 45
-------
4. Summary and Community Future
The resident's overall sentiment towards the presence of the mining operations in their community
was mixed. On one hand, the residents felt that the mining operations were beneficial because they
provided employment opportunities. But on the other hand, they felt that the employment
opportunities offered are limited and that the local economy is too dependent on this one industry.
To this end, it can be concluded that the future of the Carcassone community is questionable given
that the area's population is decreasing. Moreover, the quality of life for those who wish to remain
in Carcassone despite these odds will be jeopardized once the mining operation is over. As one
interviewed resident stated, "you never know from one day to the next what your quality of life's
gonna be because basically, if your husband or if you or any of your family members work in the
coal business, you don't know one day from the next if you've got a job "
F. SUPERIOR BOTTOM, WEST VIRGINIA
This community was not selected as a case study community, but was selected for collection of
additional narratives. Superior Bottom is exactly that, a bottom of flat land adjacent to the larger
community of Omar. Both are a short drive south of Logan. Both communities are traditionally
racially integrated, which is a noteworthy characteristic. It was considered a thriving area during the
first half of the twentieth century. Residents described local schools, a theater, businesses and a
clubhouse in Omar. Underground mining was described as the largest employer, but there was also
a mix of employment. Teaching was cited as an example of employment. Superior Bottom was
described as a community consisting of a bottomland area full of homes, as well as several rows of
homes on the opposite hillside. The decline of the mining industry in the later half of the century
contributed to a loss in population that ultimately closed the local elementary school in the bottom.
Also, as a result some homes were torn down at this point; however, the community remained
largely intact and stable based on these reports. Surface mining began adjacent to Superior Bottom
in the middle 1980s and continued into the 1990s.
1. Social Community
Superior Bottom residents reported very few changes in the population until the coal company began
to purchase homes and/or properties in the community. With the decline in population, fewer than
ten homes remain in the community, a community that was described as having closer to 30 to 40
homes at one time. One resident stated that the only negative change from the presence of surface
mining was, "losing my neighbors, and losing the children." Despite these changes, residents did
not feel that their quality of life had been significantly impacted. In fact, in contrast to the
experiences of other communities, Superior Bottom residents noted that the close knit aspect of the
community still remains and the community organization still remains, and is perhaps only
diminished.
Only one of the residents had interacted with the coal company regarding purchase of their property.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 46
-------
This family described their experiences dealing with the company as extremely honest, responsive
and helpful. This in turn, also shaped their decision to sell. One resident describes the close and
trustworthy relationship they had developed with the coal company agent as follows:
"I've been satisfied... And so I been very, you know, agreeable with him, because
he's doing everything, you know, to try to please us... But he's not pushy he won't,
wouldn't try to get me to change my mind. He would ask me questions, you know,
make sure... And he said, I want the same things for her that I want for my mother...
and I just thank God that he's like that."
Some residents did not move during this time despite impacts, due to age, ties to the area and general
affinity for the location.
"I just grew-up here...I'm 62 years old and so I really don't' feel like going anywhere
else."
None of the residents expressed anything more than sadness over the loss of their neighbors. For
the family who was relocated, the company relocated them within the same community. This was
not necessarily reported to be the case for any other residents who were relocated.
2. Physical and Economic Community
Residents reported few physical changes to the community within the study period. Landscape
changes and presence of blasting and dust were cited as the only physical impacts present in the
community. Changes in landscape included both changes to surface mined land and the physical
removal of many homes, leaving the bottomland much less densely occupied. The change in
housing density and increased peacefulness was noted as a benefit, because it increased the presence
of wildlife "coming down out of the mountain."
Residents described impacts from dust as hindering quality of life.
"Basically couldn't sit on your porch. Couldn't have your doors open or anything
else."
Also reported was blasting without any audible warnings. The community has been on public water
for many decades and reported no problems with this system.
Residents cited employment as a benefit to the community stating,
"As far as jobs, yeah. It helped out fine, but as far as environmental it wasn't too
good at all."
However, residents could not recall anyone specifically in Superior Bottom who had worked in the
surface mining, but several men in the larger Omar area. It was noted that fewer families were of
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 47
-------
employment age and "most of old-timers had retired."
3. Companies and Communities
When asked about their feelings of likelihood that the company will be responsive in dealing with
the community in the future the resident's responses were split. One resident felt that the company
had been more than accommodating, honest and responsive in their dealings. Another resident was
not clear on this issue. On the one hand, the resident felt that little had come of past efforts, but also
felt they believed if they decided to leave the bottom, the company would deal fairly with them.
It is particularly noteworthy that residents of Superior Bottom reported that the community was
organized and had worked in the past with the State Department of Environmental Protection to
address concerns about dust and overall mining activity. This organization, however, was unable
to stave off the displacement that occurred.
The most recent significant decline in population in Superior Bottom did not occur until the coal
company approached residents requesting to buy their lands for a haul road and for equipment
storage. It was noted that the community opposed this and held public meetings with DEP
representatives. However, they were unsuccessful in their opposition. Reports indicate that the
company did not approach everyone, just a specific portion of homes from the bridge that provides
access to the bottom and north. As stated above, the opinions of the residents interviewed varied
regarding access to public information and the cooperation of the coal companies with the
community.
4. Summary and Community Future
As for future of the community the residents again were split. One resident looked upon the changes
as a cycle of regeneration that would depend largely upon the efforts of those that remain in the
community now. Another resident did not express much optimism that things would improve.
"If the situation doesn't get any worse than it is now, then I am satisfied."
One resident explained their hope for the resilience of the community, regardless of any mining
activity in the future, as follows:
"You know, I saw some disappointment, but it's... they're coming back. Everyone
is they're trying now to do and keep things going. One of the things I told them too,
I said, well, you know, people were coming in and trashing the community. And I
told them, No, we have a community action group, that we were trying to improve
our community. And as long as we have one person living in that community, and
this is.... is ah going on, we expect the community to be decent. And able for people
to live in and clean enough for someone to come in and want to live in. To want to
live in it. So, that is what we are trying to do."
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 48
-------
Also stated was a fear that if mining companies continue to surface mine above Superior Bottom,
then "a lot of water would be coming out of there" at which point they might reconsider decisions
to stay.
G. BLAIR, WEST VIRGINIA
Blair is a community west of Logan which at it's height was reportedly home to approximately 700
families. The community was linked internally and with adjacent communities by the local school
and churches. Residents reported that their families originally settled in the community in the first
half of twentieth century and have continued to live there since that time. Strip mining reportedly
occurred in the Blair area in the 1970s, and mountaintop mining reportedly began in the early to mid
1990s.
1. Social Community
Residents described a number of aspects that made Blair a likeable and prosperous place to live.
The family atmosphere, quiet environment, local sports teams (baseball and softball) and good
people were cited as reasons for liking and enj oying living in Blair over the years. At one time Blair
was home to several local stores, filling stations, and numerous churches. Residents say they must
now drive to Logan "to buy a loaf of bread."
Empty Lots in Blair
Based upon the interviews collected, it is not clear exactly when a shift from a population of 700
families to 300 happened; however, accounts indicated that when mountaintop mining began in the
Blair area only about 300 families remained in the area. One possible explanation might be an
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
49
-------
overall decline in the mining industry and its related employment in the 1980s; however, this was
not clarified by the residents. In the mid 1990s residents report that the mining company in the area,
believed to be Arch Mineral, purchased more than half the homes in the community. A loss of jobs
related to mine closures was also reported to have contributed to the population decline. The closure
of two local schools in Blair and Sharpies, along with the loss over time of local businesses
contributed to a decline in the social community described by one resident as follows:
"When you loose your schools in a community, you have no reason to have a
community... Families... in this community, in Sharpies, when the children done
something, mommies and daddies was there. When they played ball mommies and
daddies was there. When they had Halloween parties, mommies and daddies was
there. When they had any kind of a get together, mommies and daddies was there."
Of the interviewed residents, one family chose to leave and the other family chose to stay in Blair.
Residents reported no animosity between neighbors or impacts on relationships related to decisions
to stay or leave. Neither resident had any regrets regarding their decisions. The residents described
their decisions as follows:
Excerpts Taken From Two Different Interviews
Decision To Remain In the Community: Resident (E)
Interviewer: Can you tell me a little bit about your decision not to move?
Resident: Well I didn't want to! I like this place, and I was born and raised here. I'm not
saying I won't go. It may get so bad I might have to, but I don't want to. I don't believe I'd
be satisfied anywhere else. I've looked around, looked at property and it's outrageous. I
said if I had to go, I said they're gonna buy me a place. I'm not gonna go in debt. This is
paid for -1 don't owe a dime on it. I own this place and that place up there, those hills. If
I go somewhere, their gonna buy me a place. I'm not gonna go in debt. So I don't know.
I'm not gonna say I wont go, but I don't want to.
Decision To Leave The Community: Resident (F)
Interviewer: Why did you approach the company to be bought out?...
Resident: I knew that they would strip behind my house. I, my son knew how far they was
gonna go, and any time you got strip mining you got a chance of a slide, especially in the
spring. Here when we have a lot of rain, we have deep water, nothing to hold it back, so I
felt that it was time. If I could, it was time for me to move out.
Residents reported an estimate of 65 families that "still own their own properties" in Blair. There
were no visible, abandoned or dilapidated homes, only a very few boarded-up businesses. Despite
the continuing "lived-in" appearance of the community, one resident reported problems with
residents from other areas dumping trash in and around the community. This type of problem has
social, physical and economic impacts on residents over time, impacts most often cited in urban
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 5 0
-------
areas where dilapidation and illegal dumping on abandoned lots can be a rampant problem.
2. Physical and Economic Community
Several types of physical changes were reported by both families interviewed for Blair including
changes to landscape, wildlife habitat and air quality. One family reported damage to water quality.
In Blair, one resident reported complaints regarding on-going dust problems and well water
problems having been ignored or not taken seriously by appropriate authorities. Well water was
reported to be no longer potable and residents travel to springs outside the community to collect
potable water for daily use. As mentioned previously, only a small number of interviews were
collected in Blair, therefore, it is difficult to gage the prevalence of reported positive or negative
impacts. Despite this it should be noted that reports of extensive dust from surface mining facilities
and blasting techniques have been consistently raised in each of the communities, except Werth.
As in many communities in West Virginia, underground mining was both a predominate part of life
in Blair and a major employer through the twentieth century. One resident explained that they had
worked a number of jobs in retail and other industries, but eventually worked at the coal tipple
because mining had the best wages. Residents referred to employment when asked about benefits
from the presence of surface mining in the Blair area.
"I raised three children on the miner's income....It's the best paying job in West
Virginia, far as I know, is coal mining."
Each of the residents felt that the jobs generated, not only by the coal industry, but by large surface
mining operations was an important benefit. Both families interviewed had been supported by the
coal mining industry, as were subsequent generations in one case. One resident clearly pointed out
that he relies upon the benefits and retirement he receives now that his employment is finished.
However, the residents were not always consistent in their own testimonies regarding employment
provided locally to Blair from adjacent mining versus overall employment benefits in the region.
Another theme which has been raised in interviews in several communities and repeated again in
Blair, was the difficulty in obtaining employment with coal companies and the need for a connection
or someone advocating for you to be hired.
Excerpts from two different interviews below illustrate that point.
Resident (G) "Coal is a good occupation. It is kind of dangerous, but it pays good
wages.... if you can get a job. I tried to get a job down at Sharpless for
probably about twelve years before I even got on down there... It is hard to
get on, you have got to have somebody to pull for you."
Resident (H) "My dad's a coal miner and he was in the coal mines for I think 3 5 years. So
he help get me in the coal mine."
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 5 1
-------
3. Coal Companies and Communities
The relationship between a given coal company and the community in Blair was not significantly
remarked upon by residents outside of the process through which a coal company purchased
properties and displaced a number of families. Complaints regarding any impacts were directed to
State officials and the relationship with the state was remarked upon as negative. Remarks regarding
a coal company's direct dealings with the community indicated that those who had interacted with
the company felt they were treated fairly.
In reaction to some of the physical changes, residents reported having filed complaints and spoken
to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and gotten less than satisfactory results. It
was believed that inspectors were bought off, that residents were put off and their complaints were
disregarded. One resident described the following interaction regarding his well water:
"I took three samples to a meeting we had down at the school about our water. I took one
over the weekend you know when they wasn't doing no blasting, and it looked fairly good.
And I took one after they started blasting, and I showed it to 'em. And they didn't think
what I was showing them was actual truth. They made fun of me, really, and I got it right
of my spigot."
Residents indicated that the coal company generally did not interact with the community on a
proactive basis. Public meetings were held with DEP representatives, but none of the residents
reported having been informed prior to mining of possible impacts or activity. In general,
knowledge of mining activities was gained through personal contacts and involvement with the
mining companies.
"They don't tell you anything. That is one problem that the community has, is they
don't let the community know what they're going to do. If they had come in here
and told the community what they were going to do, there might have been more
people who would have sold out. I don't' know."
The residents did not consistently report seeing the permit activity advertised in the local papers.
However, one resident reported, that for the advertised permits they did read, they felt that most
people would not understand the information due to lack of technical knowledge in reading the
maps.
Residents also alerted State officials of a trash dumping problem in their community; the problem
began following the decline in population and removal of many homes.
"They had come to the conclusion that ain't nobody around here, so why don't we
make a garbage dump out of this place."
Again, the resident had complained to the DEP and felt the issue was not resolved satisfactorily.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 52
-------
Residents were asked about the interactions regarding coal company or land holding company
purchasing of homes. One resident reported that individuals approached the coal company in most
cases, seeking to leave the perceived negative impacts of surface mining (dust, decreased property
values and possible flooding were noted) and to take advantage of a willing buyer. Buy-outs were
reported to have begun in the middle 1990s and one resident believed that the company was
interested in purchasing about 200 properties at that time. For those who had chosen to leave, they
did not report this as a difficult decision. They felt the company gave them a satisfactory purchase
price. When queried about any additional conditions of the sale, one resident stated the following:
"Yeah, I had to move, I had to move out of what the company owned. At that time
it was below Sharpless... I can't recall exactly the boundary line, but I couldn't move
back in the neighborhood I was in. Or Sharpless, the neighborhood where the
headquarters of the company was at, or their main office. I had to move outside of
that."
Another resident who had chosen to stay stated the following about the dealings between the
residents and the company:
"They would think they were getting a good price for their house, because when they
bought the house they didn't pay a whole lot for it. But then when they would try
to buy one somewhere else, they would usually have to go in debt, most of them."
4. Summary and Community Future
While surface mining is not going on currently adjacent to the community, the period of mining and
shifts in population are still somewhat recent. Residents indicated that current quality of life is
diminished from the loss of population and they worry about possible future flooding. When queried
about the community environment, one resident responded:
"I can't say that it is a bad community, but there just not that many of us... There is
just nothing to get us together."
The residents were not optimistic in regard to the future of Blair. They believe that the coal
company eventually might buy out the whole community based on indications of possible surface
mining activity in the future. One resident simply stated that there was no future for the community.
"I believe [Blair] will finally vanish. It won't be any, if the coal company has
anything to do with it. See they're wanting to go underneath us and get coal, they
want the long wall.... Well they want to get us out of here, because if our property
sinks, they know we're gonna sue. 'Course it's hard to get anything out of 'em. But
ah they'll eventually, I'd say, get us all."
VI. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DATA
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 5 3
-------
In Who Owns Appalachia? Charles C.Geisler and the Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force
undertook the task of identifying land ownership patterns, examining associated tax burden issues
and discussing the economic and social implications of land ownership patterns nationally. The
findings if the report were based on county tax data from eighty counties in six states, Alabama,
Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Task Force report indicates
that land ownership patterns, particularly patterns related to energy production and reserves have
far reaching implications ranging from national energy policies to local economic development. The
implications of absentee ownership and the scale of ownership of energy related lands in Appalachia
is not a new issue, but very little specific information has been made available to document this
issue.
The Task Force generally found that use of the land for coal mining and property ownership by
distant corporations contributes to patterns of depressed tax bases and loss of agricultural lands.
Lands used for coal mining, particularly strip mining, 'may limit the use of land for subsequent
agricultural development,' and a lack of improvements or taxable investments in these lands result
in large parcels of land which do not contribute to the tax base.
From the data collected by the Task Force, which echo the data found in other studies reviewed in
the report, two themes emerge with regard to property ownership in Appalachia: (1) absentee
ownership of surface rights is disproportionately high and (2) this ownership is becoming
increasingly divorced from the local economy and society.
1. Absentee Ownership
Findings of the Task Force indicate that as of 1981, 13 million acres, (nearly 75 percent) of the area
studied was held by absentee owners. Out-of-state ownership accounted for 47 percent, and
out-of-county ownership accounted for an additional 25 percent. More specifically corporations
own 40 percent of the land in the sample across six states. In West Virginia, that number is even
greater; corporate ownership accounts for 59 percent of the sampled area. To further illustrate the
point that a small number of large-scale owners control a large percentage of the land in Appalachia,
the Task Force analyzed the concentration of ownership as well. At the time of the study, "The top
one percent of the owners in the sample own 44 percent of the land in the sample... [and] the top half
of the owners in the sample control 94 percent of the land in the sample." Of the fifty top owners
in the sample, forty-six were corporations. (Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force, 1981)
The pervasiveness of large-scale absentee ownership, especially in West Virginia, has important and
dangerous implications for local economies and social environments. Both social scientists and the
Governor's Task Force use the term "colonial" or refer to a "colony" as an analogy for the social and
economic structure present in Appalachia with regard to land and power. Land ownership has long
been recognized as a tool for wielding power and gaining political control. For example, in a
colonial setting, ownership of land means control over geographic resources and power in shaping
economic development. Social theorists examining patterns of underdevelopment and poverty have
applied a number of theories to causes of economic failings. The colonialism thread within those
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 54
-------
theories maintains that underdeveloped economies are shaped by their dependency upon more
powerful economies and their development possibilities are controlled by absent decision-makers
acting on foreign interests (Obermiller and Philliber 1994). Geisler and the Task Force quote
Wunderlich, a land economist for the United States Department of Agriculture, as stating the
relationship between land ownership and power as follows: "Land is a means for distributing and
exercising power," (1981). The link between these ideas lies in who is controlling the power, (i.e.
the land). In the case of Appalachia, the Task Force's report illustrates that it is largely not
Appalachians.
"There was nothing here. So, you can't turn up your nose at industry coming in.
You've got to have something, and you want to have something that will keep young
people in this area, very much. But we are very disturbed at the lack of
control.(Freda Silver)" (Moore 1988)
2. Stewardship Of The Land
In addition to demonstrating who owns the majority of the land, the report also discusses the extent
of corporate and non-local ownership. The separation of ownership between surface and sub-surface
mineral rights is a pervasive practice in the coal fields of Appalachia and elsewhere. The resulting
pattern of separation between those that occupy the land and those who control its wealth and its
resources creates a distinctly unique question regarding stewardship. As in the colonial model of
social theory, the decisions of absentee owners will be in their interests, not necessarily in the
interests of or accounting for the interests of those who occupy the land.
The increase of surface mining and absentee ownership of surface rights creates additional issues
of stewardship. The Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force report illustrates that the nature of
absentee ownership in Appalachia has been changing since the 1960s. Since that time, large
multi-national energy conglomerates have been acquiring and combining the interests of, smaller
coal companies. While at one time the coal mining industry was focused around a local town,
epitomized in the company towns throughout the region, now a local operation may ultimately be
controlled by an operation thousands of miles away.
"Allied Chemical Corporation's mineral holdings in Fayette and McDowell counties,
West Virginia, have been absorbed into the larger holdings of Armco Steel and A..T.
Massey" (a subsidiary of St. Joe's Minerals of New York, now in association with
Royal Dutch Shell). (1981)
The implications of increasingly international forces shaping land use and economic decisions in
the Appalachian region are an increased divorce between those who control and have responsibilities
for stewardship of the land and those who occupy and live in proximity to those lands.
Several of the residents interviewed referred to the local mining operations and the series of
companies owning the land. The residents demonstrated understanding of these ownership patterns
and the shift from local companies to large multi-national interests with a depth that is likely
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 5 5
-------
uncharacteristic of the average American's understanding of land in their communities. In a region
centered so heavily around the energy resource economy, understanding the complex nature of the
ownership patterns has become a prerequisite to living in their own community, in a manner that
likely few other communities in the country are required to do.
The property ownership data collected for this study illustrate on a much smaller scale, the patterns
of land ownership within the selected community study areas. The findings are discussed with
regard to the displacement of local populations and the increasing separation of local power and
control over the communities in which they live.
A. WERTH, HAMILTON SUBDIVISION, NICHOLAS COUNTY,
WEST VIRGINIA
No pattern of company ownership or purchase of privately held properties in Werth was indicated
in the sample of property ownership data. Some residents reported selling land to the coal
companies for mining, but the sample property ownership records support the assertion that there
was no pattern of purchasing homes or buying-out communities large-scale in the Werth area.
Sample data are shown in Table 21.
B. KYLE, NORTH ELKIN SUBDIVISION, MCDOWELL
COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
A sample of property ownership data for Kyle, WV does not display a pattern of large-scale
purchase of properties by extraction or land holding companies. These data are shown in Table 22.
Interviews have not yet been conducted with residents of Kyle; therefore, no determination can be
made if these data support the experiences of residents in the community.
C. NAUGATUCK, HARDEE DISTRICT, MINGO COUNTY,
WEST VIRGINIA
Sample property ownership data for Naugatuck, West Virginia are shown in Table 23. The collected
data do not display a pattern of large-scale purchase of properties by extraction or land holding
companies. Two properties within the sample of 25 have been purchased by a land holding
company from private owners within the last five years. No data are available from existing
property tax records concerning purchase price.
D. SCARLET, HARDEE DISTRICT, MINGO COUNTY, WEST
VIRGINIA
Table 24 shows recent property ownership patterns in Scarlet, West Virginia. Community
interviews and the sample property ownership data both indicate a pattern of large-scale property
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 5 6
-------
purchases by the coal company(s) or an agent. Within the sample of 25 properties collected, 76
percent have been purchased from private owners by a land holding company. All of these
purchases occurred within the last ten years which is consistent with the time frame described by
residents. Previous purchase prices were not available from existing property tax records for the
majority of the 76 percent now owned by land holding companies. However, data were available
for three properties showing that the recorded sales price was more than double the last recorded
sales price. In two instances the sales price increased by 580 and 670 percent respectively over the
previous sales price in less than ten years. While a sample of three sales prices may not be
representative of all such transactions, it does support indications of satisfaction in purchase price
reported by some residents. None of the sales prices were compared to advertised sales prices for
comparable properties to determine the relative value compared to available properties; therefore,
no comment can be made on the ability of Scarlet home owners receiving the listed prices to
purchase a new home in another community.
E. CARCASSONNE, BLACKEY SUBDIVISION, LETCHER
COUNTY, KENTUCKY
There is no evidence of large-scale purchase of private property by extraction or land holding
companies based upon the sample property ownership data in Carcassonne, KY. These sample data
are shown in Table 25. Community interviews have not yet been conducted in this community;
therefore, it is not possible at this time to compare these data with the experiences of residents.
F. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITIES
1. Superior Bottom, West Virginia
Of the same property ownership data for Superior Bottom, WV, 52 percent of properties have shifted
from private ownership to that of land holding companies. Table 26 shows that none of the
properties purchased are larger than one acre in size. These data support statements by residents in
the community that roughly half of the valley bottom has been purchased by coal company interests.
Residents reported, from first-hand experiences, satisfaction with purchase prices offered and settled
upon with the coal company. Sale prices were not recorded for any of the properties within that 52
percent of the sample data.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 5 7
-------
2. Blair, West Virginia
Property ownership data were collected for the Blair, WV area; however, available records did not
provide complete transfer of ownership information. As shown in Table 27, records for current
ownership for one property and several records for previous ownership were also not available for
the sample properties. Over half of the properties within the sample are currently owned by either
extraction or land holding companies. Where data are available, 68 percent of the land owned by
either extraction or land holding companies was purchased from private owners. Only two of the
properties purchased by either extraction or land holding companies were larger than one acre, those
were 10 and 11 acres respectively.
Residents interviewed in the Blair community who had chosen to sell their property to the coal
company or their agent(s) were satisfied with the settled upon purchase price. The sample property
ownership data indicate for two properties the sale price for transfers from private property to coal
company interests. For these two properties the purchase price increased, by 176 percent and by 700
percent respectively within a fifteen year period.
VII. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT DATA
A. WEST VIRGINIA
School enrollment data collected state-wide by district are available in West Virginia beginning in
1977. Each county in West Virginia is its own school district. Presented in Table 28 are the total
enrollments from 1977 -1979 and in 5 year increments following that to 1999 for each of the school
districts in the West Virginia study areas.
The overall trend of total enrollment is consistently declining since the first half of the 1980s among
each of the West Virginia study areas as well as the control area. The McDowell County school
District shows the greatest overall decline in total enrollments. It is important to note that the
control area, Wyoming County School District, has similar drops in total enrollment over the study
period despite its lack of significant surface mining activity.
B. KENTUCKY
School enrollment data for Letcher County, Kentucky are shown in Table 29 for the study period,
with data missing only for the school year period of 1993-1994. Total enrollment data for the
Letcher County School District, which encompasses the county in its entirety, indicate the largest
decline in enrollments during the post-mining period, 1991 - 2000. Prior to the 1990 -1991 school
year, average five year enrollments only fluctuated by 100 -200 students. Between the 1989 -1990
and 1999 - 2000 school years total enrollment dropped by 1, 228 students.
Enrollment from 1970 to 1985 for the local elementary schools serving the Carcassone area, Letcher
and Campbell's Branch Elementary Schools, are shown in Table 30. Total enrollment over the 15
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 5 8
-------
year period increased at both schools. The range of total enrollment over 15 years for Letcher
Elementary was +/- 131 students, and the range for Campbell's Branch Elementary was +/- 37
students. A comparison of the pre-mining period, 1970 to 1979, to the first half of the during-mining
period, 1980 - 1985, shows the five year average enrollments continuing to increase.
Anecdotal accounts indicate that the Letcher County school district is currently planning on
consolidating all the students in the county into one high school. Enrollment data by school indicate
that the local Carcassonne School closed in at the end of the 1973-1974 school year with a total
enrollment of 12 students. Elementary schools which served the Carcassone/Blackey/Letcher areas
were consolidated in the late 1990s. Parents and area residents at these meetings expressed concern
over the loss of their local school and the impacts to the quality of education associated with
increased students at Letcher Elementary School.
VIII. SUMMARY DISCUSSION
A. COMMON THEMES
Among the residents in each of the communities several themes emerged in describing their
experiences living in a community adjacent to large-scale surface mining. Demographic data
support many of these themes such as loss of population, declining economic environments and
aging populations. The experiences shared by residents include loss of community population and
community structure, struggles in obtaining available economic benefits, occurrences of similar
physical changes and feelings of ineffectiveness in preventing or managing these effects. Additional
common experiences shared among the study communities related to the purchase of homes and
property by extraction or land holding companies and the resulting impacts of displacement.
1. Social Community
The census data demographic analysis presented in Section IV demonstrates that an overall decline
in population was experienced between 1980 and 2000 in the five case study areas and one control
area. While this is not shown to be consistent with the population growth rates of the respective
States, West Virginia and Kentucky, it is consistent with anecdotal and economic indicators
regarding employment trends within the coal mining industry. The population trends of the control
study area, District One, Wyoming County, West Virginia are somewhat consistent with that of
McDowell and Mingo Counties, showing a significantly higher rate of decline between 1980 and
1990 than between 1990 and 2000. Therefore, while the rate of loss of population is greater in the
during mining period, it is also greater in the control study area suggesting that the presence of
large-scale surface mining did not contribute to population decline.
It cannot be assumed that each of these communities was necessarily at its social and economic
height at the point at which surface mining began. While no single population shift of the scale
associated with the purchase of whole portions of communities were reported, several residents did
reported declines in local population over time.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 5 9
-------
In each of the communities, residents noted the decline in population, but not every resident felt that
this decline represented a decline in the community. However, several indications support reports
of less stable communities and loss of community resources. A number of residents reported that
large-scale purchasing of homes and land by the coal companies and their agents contributed to a
less stable community. Property ownership data collected in Scarlet, Superior Bottom and Blair
reflect these reported large-scale purchasing patterns. In each of these communities, between 44 -
76 percent of sample properties had been purchased by either a mineral extraction company or a
land holding company.
2. Displacement
Traditional discourse regarding displacement of persons and families most often occurs around
gentrification and urban displacement of a population by either market forces or public policy
around revitalization. In recent decades, a great deal of attention has been paid to this issue;
however, the possible displacement of rural populations or displacement caused by a single
industry/company has not typically been a focus of the discussion. Displacement could be generally
defined as the involuntary movement of a population, whether by natural disaster or market forces.
One source expands this definition to include any household forced to move despite "having met all
previously-imposed conditions of occupancy" or because of conditions that make occupancy
"impossible, hazardous or unaffordable" (Schill and Nathan, 1983). Much research indicates that
poor, minority and elderly populations bear the brunt of urban displacement, and in fact that the
elderly may share an even larger percentage of that burden (Palen and London, 1984) (Schill and
Nathan, 1983). As discussed in Section IV, demographic analysis of the study area counties and
county subdivisions indicate that between the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses the mature age group
(ages 45-64) and the senior age group (ages 65 and older) are increasingly occupying a larger
percentage of the total population. This trend is also noted at the state level.
The coverage in the literature of the specific issue of a private company undertaking a large-scale
plan for purchasing and moving populations in rural areas is sparse. To characterize this process
as strictly displacement could be considered questionable on the grounds that residents are given the
option to move or not to move; however, it should be noted that residents of in Scarlet, Blair and
Superior Bottom reported feeling pressured to leave. None of the interviewed residents in those
three communities, whether they stayed or left, indicated that they were interested in leaving prior
to the presence of surface mining or the relocation of the majority of their neighbors. Similarly,
for those who left their communities and some who would have chosen to leave, the quality of life
impacts and/or the opportunity presented by the coal company for a willing seller were nearly
always given as a primary motivation for relocating. Almost all residents interviewed expressed a
fear of possible future physical impacts and concern regarding the likelihood of flooding. Several
of these residents felt that the mining companies presented the only likely opportunity for an
interested purchaser at that time. Many residents may have felt that their options were limited, "In
West Virginia, the coal company is the power... And the little man don't have a chance. They decide
they want a piece of property their gonna get it" (Blair, WV). In this instance, the perceived power
of the coal company is believed to be larger than the person, family or community, and it is out of
their control or ability to fight.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 60
-------
The social and psychological effects of displacement are difficult to measure, and are not measured
by census data alone. Literature sources indicate that displaced populations face personal hardships
finding replacement housing, undergoing separation from family and community networks, and
feeling powerless or ineffective (Schill and Nathan, 1983). In urban environments, displaced
populations from public projects receive relocation assistance in recognition of the difficulties
associated with finding affordable replacement housing. Available affordable housing in Appalachia
is stymied by topography, land ownership patterns and a resulting tight and inflated market
(Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force, 1981). Compounding physical obstacles are the social
and psychological impacts associated with displacement.
There are many parallels between the experiences of a displaced community and other groups who
have been forced to migrate and relocate, specifically with regard to loss of community and a sense
of personal history. In Harriette Arnow's mid 20th Century book, The Dollmaker, she chronicles
the trials of a family forced to move from Kentucky to Detroit in search of work. Her
characterization of their displacement, while fictional, highlights some of the issues raised in the
interviews collected for this report, most notably the associations of a home place to a family and
personal history and culture (Rubinl998). This same sense of belonging to a culture and history tied
to a geographic place is present in literature regarding the displacement of Native American Indians.
In a Native American framework, Federal policies for assimilation included a movement toward
individual ownership of land and therefore a purposeful disruption of traditional communally held
land in order to engender concepts of "competitive individualism" over a communal culture and
history (Berninghausen 1998). Such policies recognized that within that culture, primary ties to the
land were not economic in nature.
Parallels can also be drawn between the memoirs of past Kentucky resident, Linda Scott DeRosier,
and the manner in which the majority of residents interviewed for this report referred to their
communities and the close-knit relationships developed between neighbors that were not physically
related.
"We watched out for each other. We was at the mouth of the hollow. It was just, I
don't know, family. At one point in time it was family. Everybody was family. And
then, of course, you start letting in, and people kept selling out, and of course, we all
bonded, even the people that came in that wasn't family, we all bonded real good."
(Scarlet, WV)
From Linda Scott DeRosier's memoirs:
"I also know that Daddy's and Ronalta Mae's daddy Tommy Pelphrey's jobs were
better than those of Frank Ward (Easter's daddy) or Kennis Holbrook (Owen's
daddy), because Uncle Frank and Uncle Kennis were sporadically employed at
smaller, nonunion mines." (DeRosier, 1999)
DeRosier's reference to all adults in the community as "Uncle" and "Aunt" reflects the unusually
close-knit relationships.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 61
-------
Of those residents interviewed in Scarlet, Blair and Superior Bottom, only one family expressed
personal dissatisfaction with their decision to leave. In that particular case, dissatisfaction was
largely due to factors pertaining to their new location. The maj ority of interviewed residents related
concerns about their abilities to find new locations which would be satisfying, and discontent over
the loss of close physical and social ties to family and friends. These feelings were expressed by
both residents who had left and those who had stayed, indicating the social impacts of displacement
could be applied to the families which remain behind in the community as well.
Discourse regarding displacement often reviews the degree to which minority populations are more
likely to be displaced. Current federal regulations require that public agencies consider unequal
adverse impacts on minority and low income populations when advancing projects, such as new
roads. These types of concerns are referred to as 'environmental justice' issues. Executive Order
12898 identifies the following as one of the guiding principles behind identification of
environmental justice issues:
"Agencies should recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical,
or economic factors that may amplify the natural and physical environmental effects
of the proposed agency action. These factors should include the physical sensitivity
of the community or population to particular impacts; the effect of any disruption on
community structure associated with the proposed action; and the nature and degree
of impact on the physical and social structure."
As with other quality of life impacts, the displacement of whole communities, and even the impact
upon remaining residents can be considered as a "disruption on community structure." It should be
noted that each of the three communities in which displacement has occurred, Scarlet, Blair and
Superior Bottom, lie within counties for which the percentage of the population below the poverty
level exceeds that of the State of West Virginia for 1990. Therefore, the displacement in these
communities should be considered as an environmental justice issue.
3. Community Facilities
In addition to population trends and patterns of displacement, school enrollments in these areas also
reflect the decline in population and loss of families in the community. At the county level, school
enrollment data indicate that each of the school districts, with the exception of Letcher County,
Kentucky where data are not yet available, experienced declined enrollments over the study period.
In Mingo County, West Virginia the rate of decline in enrollments from the 1980s to the 1990s
jumped from (4) percent to (23) percent. Except in Nicholas County, higher rates of decline were
experienced in the post-mining period. Again, this is true for the control school district as well;
therefore it is difficult to attribute these declines to a presence of surface mining.
In Letcher County, Kentucky the community of Carcassonne has been impacted by school closures
in the district. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the Letcher County school district is currently
considering consolidating the whole district from three high schools into one. In 1998, the Letcher
County School District closed Campbell's Branch Elementary, one of three elementary schools
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 62
-------
serving residents in that portion of the county. The students were consolidated into one of two
remaining elementary schools. School District records of the Letcher County Board of Education
meetings indicate that parents were concerned about impacts on the quality of education and social
community in a now more crowded Letcher Elementary School. School consolidation was reported
by residents in Scarlet and Blair in the post-mining period from 1990 to 2000. In addition to the
role education plays on quality of life, schools act as physical infrastructure for public meeting space
and create a focal point for interactions between families.
Closed School in Blair Area
4. Physical and Economic Community
Both the demographic analysis and the collected residents' interviews indicate physical and
economic changes in the study areas and communities. Three issues were raised by residents in each
of the communities studied: levels of community employment on surface mining sites; the difficulty
and desirability of surface mining jobs; and physical landscape changes. Water quality and
availability issues were also raised, but not in every community.
5. Employment and Place of Work
The traditional and complex relationship between the residents of southern West Virginia and the
coal industry was echoed in a number of comments. Residents respected the economic benefits the
coal industry offers to their communities and region; however, residents often also cited the
difficulties in obtaining jobs in the industry. A resident, who ultimately obtained a job through a
community connection on a Softball team described his trials in getting hired on at the coal company
as follows:
"Well, they paid good wages to the ones who worked there. Uh coal is a good
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 63
-------
occupation. It's kinda dangerous, but uh, it pays good wages, got good benefits, if
you could get a job. I tried to get a job down Sharpies for ah, probably about 12
years, before I even got on down there. One fella told me, he said, 'You the next
fella I'm gonna hire.' He lost his job, pretty good while after, he lost his job, and I
didn't get the job." (Blair, WV)
Demographic analysis indicates that employment within the mining industry decreased dramatically
in McDowell, Nicholas and Wyoming Counties in West Virginia between 1980 and 1990. In
addition, overall unemployment rates have increased in all each of the three county subdivision areas
in West Virginia as well as the control area. Unemployment doubled in McDowell County and
nearly doubled in the North Elkin District in McDowell County between 1980 and 1990. McDowell
County had the greatest rate of decline in mining employment between 1980 and 1990. It is
important to note, however, that the control study area, District 1, Wyoming County, the area with
minimal surface mining activity, also lost mining employment and experienced a marked increase
in unemployment.
Many residents felt that economic benefits to the local communities were limited, and only cited a
few specific cases of employment generated by surface mining sites benefitting residents in the
adjacent community. The results of demographic analysis of income data are similar to those of
employment. Each of the county subdivision study areas in West Virginia and the control area had
negative growth in median household income between 1979 and 1989. Again, McDowell County
and North Elkin District had the greatest decline in median household income, the same areas with
significant decreases in coal employment in the during- mining period from 1980 to 1990.
Wyoming County as a whole and District One had as great and greater declines respectively in
median household income over the same period; therefore, these declines cannot be clearly
attributed to loss of employment or income from smaller employment bases associated with surface
mining operations as opposed to underground mining operations based on this demographic analysis.
Census data regarding place of work for 1980 and 1990 indicate that in all of the West Virginia
county subdivision study areas the percentage of workers who worked in West Virginia and within
their county of residence declined. North Elkin County Subdivison experienced the greatest decline
from 90.6 percent to 75.4 percent. District One experienced the next highest decline. Place of work
data for the 2000 U.S. Census and for Blackey Division in Kentucky for 1980,'90 and'OO are not yet
available. The similarity in the trend between the study areas and that of the control area is also
demonstrated in the number of workers who work outside their State of residence. District One,
Wyoming County experienced the greatest increase, 220 percent, followed by North Elkin,
McDowell County with 119.6 percent increase, among resident workers who work outside West
Virginia. These travel to work patterns reflect the decline in available employment within the study
areas. Mingo County and Nicholas County and their county subdivisions were the exception,
showing only small declines in resident workers who work within the county and a decline in the
number of resident workers who work outside West Virginia.
While U.S. Census data for 2000 are not yet available for many economic and employment
measures, the demographic analysis of pre- (1970 -1979, represented by the 1980 U.S. Census) and
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 64
-------
during (1980 - 1989, represented by the 1990 U.S. Census) mining periods does not present a
consistent pattern of improved economic stability or employment growth in the during mining
period. Specifically, mining employment declined during the mining period in each of the West
Virginia Counties. Several counties showed greater declines than the control county, (Wyoming).
Letcher County, Kentucky was the only county evaluated which exhibited an increase in mining
employment (2.6 percent) in the "during mining" period.
6. Assistance Income
Another economic and social theme often raised in discourse regarding Appalachia which was
echoed by a number of residents, is a tradition of independence and self-reliance. Traditional
fluctuations in the coal industry often required families to be adaptable and fill in economic gaps;
however, much of the literature regarding this lifestyle indicates that taking government assistance
was viewed as a weakness. One account of a father who assiduously refused to be reliant or weak
is as follows: "Your in-laws will help you or your parents . If you don't want them to give it to you,
you go up there and do a job for them... You work it out so you are not accepting charity" (Yarrow
1990). DeRosier provides another example, "... Daddy immediately found another job doing
whatever kind of work he could scare up. One of the things he was proudest of was that he never
took a day of 'rocking chair' (unemployment compensation) in his life" (DeRosier, 1999). While
Appalachian culture cannot and should not be simplified into stereotypes, the demographic data
highlight this point. Given the increasing unemployment, and decreasing income levels, it might
be expected to find significant increases in households receiving public assistance; however,
between 1979 and 1989, these rates did not increase substantially. These data could also highlight
the important role social and family networks play in communities.
7. Physical Shifts
In addition to economic changes, many residents, although not all, reported changes in landscape
and physical impacts in communities which they felt were directly related and attributable to the
presence of surface mining. Not all of these changes were viewed as negative. "With this mine
coming in it hasn't improved anything other than to free up the animals and nature to feel free to
come in" (Superior Bottom, WV). Many other residents however felt that changes in surface
property ownership changed the accessibility of land for hunting and fishing and that the
introduction of dust, rock and overburden has negatively impacted the use of the landscape and
overall quality of life. In Werth, Scarlet and Blair residents reported muddy and uninhabitable
streams. As one resident explained:
"...when these coal companies comes through here and strip, they always put a gate
up. So a 4-wheeler or nothing gets through there to hunt. I don't like it, and I guess
the other guys don't either, you know, who likes to ride 4-wheelers and things. But
they always put a gate up... On their roads, where you can't get through. I can
understand their part in a certain way, you know... if you got equipment in there,
keeping people from stealing 'Course I got, to me, I got to an age where I got
rid of my 4-wheeler, and I'm not able to do it. So, but I like to see young guys enjoy
their life like I did mine" (Werth, WV).
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 65
-------
In some cases, a fear of future and long-term physical impacts has also changed the feelings of
stability in the community. A fear of future flooding related to surface mining and associated
timbering was mentioned in Werth, Superior Bottom and Blair.
".. .they stripped around to the head of this hollow and we had floods back then. And
it would rain, and you'd be sittin on the front porch and you can hear that water
coming down the hollow. It would all come down at one time. And we hadn't had
any of that, no floods, since they've done this mountaintop. And I don't know what's
gonna happen. And it worries me, but a I don't dwell on it a whole lot. But I don't
know what's gonna happen." (Blair, WV)
8. Company and Community
Demographic analysis does not measure the relationships and interactions between the coal company
and the communities. Reports given by residents both between communities and between
interviews, and even within individual interviews were not always consistent regarding the quality
and level of public information provided by the coal company and the degree of cooperation and
responsiveness exhibited by the companies in regards to complaints. One universal theme that
emerged was residents' varying views of different coal companies. The resident's views were
shaped by a number of factors including the availability of public information, the manner in which
complaints were handled, and the perceived quality of the surface mining site's operations. These
factors shaped responses to questions regarding specific surface mining sites and companies adjacent
to the communities; however, responses regarding surface mining as a practice or coal companies
in the abstract often seemed to be shaped by larger personal and perhaps political views.
In no instance did residents report being aware of public information being made available prior to
surface mining aside from legally required permit advertisements in the local papers. With the
exception of Werth, residents reported being aware of planned surface mining operations and in
some cases reading publicly advertised permit notifications. In Werth, several residents did not
report seeing advertisements for strip mining operations which were reportedly active prior to the
1970s. It was agreed by all residents that this type of public notification was useful, especially to
those residents who's personal property might be adjacent to the permit area.
The interface provided by individual company representatives or representatives of public agencies
between the communities and the coal mining industry was highlighted in every community.
"You're trying to provide jobs for people, lot of the jobs, I said you also trying to
earn a living. And that God has blessed us to be past that age where we are retired
and can live, you know. And I said, but if you need this to provide jobs, I won't
stand in your way...He said yes, we'll hire anybody. And so based on that, and I told
him I will sell." (Superior Bottom, WV)
One resident described the advantage of having a personal connection to someone within the
company:
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 66
-------
"It was to me because see I could tell, I could talk to him. They run up around the
road here, and drilled a test well. They drilled several of them, water wells. They
used the water to clean off the road, too. But my spring out there went dry. I thought
they had sunk the spring. See they drilled a test drill on above it there. I talked to
him about it and he brought a man in here on a backhoe and they dug that out. And
they hadn't been the cause. The water in the line that went up there to where the
spring was, was stopped up. But they put a new line in and cemented it in and
everything and they wouldn't take any money for it. They paid for it. Now that
wasn't Tassa that was Hobet. Tassa wouldn't even talk to me. When they stopped
the sewer system up, I went down there to see them and they didn't want to even talk
to me." (Werth, WV)
With one exception, all the residents interviewed felt that coal companies did not make information
regarding on-going mining activities available. Several residents in each community referred to
family members and friends with jobs or connections to the companies for information.
"Just my son knew everything what was going on. The company never approached
me for nothing" (Blair, WV).
9. Community Future
While most resident did not have very optimistic views of the futures of their communities, this was
not always attributed to the presence of surface mining adj acent to the community. In Werth, WV,
it was noted that debris in the stream and subsequent flooding of the bottomland left the area
inhospitable to farming, but most residents also felt that there was no more future for the small,
independent farmers of the type which had once been in Werth. One resident in Superior Bottom,
WV felt that the community was going through a necessary phase of decline as part of an overall
cycle of regeneration which any community might face. In Scarlet, WV and in Blair, WV however,
residents did not express anything positive regarding the near future because of the presence of
surface mining and the impacts of the displaced community, such as abandoned homes and loss of
community network.
Another important theme which was recurring among the community interviews was the belief and
knowledge that the coal mining industry had done a lot for the West Virginia economy and
specifically for some of the residents. Nearly every single family that was interviewed had either
currently or in the past, a family member working in the coal mining industry. All of those
interviewed, who had made their personal living in the coal industry, had worked either underground
or at a prep plant. The role that the coal industry has played and will continue to play in the
economies of the region is well recognized.
"I raised three children on the miner's income" (Blair, WV).
The future role of the coal industry is not only in on-going extraction as an active employer, but in
on-going benefits for retired miners. Residents in Werth and in Blair reiterated this point. As stated
previously, the portion of the population ages 65 and older is increasingly representing a larger
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 67
-------
portion of the population in each of the study areas.
"Nearly every resident expressed the belief that coal mining is necessary and
desirable for the economy, but that surface mining should be done more cleanly."
"Like I told you on the phone, I'm not against mining whatsoever, it's just that those
of us that feel the effects of the damages and things like that. You know, they need
to take care of us. Do something to prevent further damage, to keep us safe, you
know, stuff like that. But, on the good part, for the men that need a job to support
their family, it is great." (Scarlet, WV)
"They helped me, of course I raised my family through coal mining, I got a
retirement and whether I... I don't know how long that will last, but anyway I got
one. So overall I think the strip mining could do a better job reclaiming the surface,
that would put people that likes to hunt, that gives them more places to enjoy..."
(Blair, WV)
B. INCONSISTENCIES
This section highlights points raised by residents that were not common themes. Between each
community and within a given community, several points were raised that were not necessarily
echoed by others, but which bear mentioning and consideration. Further investigation would be
necessary to determine if these experiences were isolated.
The majority of the census data analysis supports and parallels the reports given by the residents.
However, the control study area, Wyoming County and District One, showed very similar
demographic patterns as that of the study areas. While the ties between the demographic patterns
of the study areas and the shifts in the coal mining industry are readily apparent, the similarity
between the control area and the study areas makes it difficult to determine the degree to which
demographic shifts are attributable to the presence of large-scale surface mining.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes Oo
-------
1. Social Community
Shifts in population within the counties and within the county subdivision areas support the reports
given by residents in the communities. The reactions and feelings expressed by the residents
regarding separation from traditionally family owned land varied somewhat. Overall, residents in
Scarlet and Blair expressed the strongest ties to the land. In these communities, most of the
interviewed residents represented at least the second generation, and even the third to have lived in
the community. Often in Scarlet, references were made to the 'home place' or 'homestead' that was
the first settlement of the family in that location. In Werth and Superior Bottom, ties to the land did
not seem to extend to a third generation. Many of the residents had moved there as children and
subsequently raised their families in Werth, but few believed that their children would return to the
area to settle. While this difference in settlement patterns appears to have no correlation to the
presence of surface mining, it does seem to correlate to the discussions of the future of each
community. In Werth and Superior Bottom, residents were more hopeful of a regeneration and
repopulation of the community at some point in the future. In contrast, in Scarlet and Blair,
residents expressed strong views that there may be no future for the community. Further social
analysis could examine the link between strong family ties and the strong negative reactions to the
disruption of these ties.
2. Displacement
As previously stated, the feelings expressed by residents in communities that reportedly experienced
displacement, Scarlet, Blair and Superior Bottom are not entirely consistent with the types of social
and psychological impacts often discussed with displacement. The majority of residents reported
feelings of loss for community and social networks. However, in some cases feelings of great
resentment were expressed toward other community members and the coal companies.
With regard to environmental justice, two communities in which property ownership patterns and
resident interviews were collected have substantial minority populations based on demographic data
and/or resident accounts. These communities are Kyle in North Elkin District, McDowell County
and Superior Bottom WV. Property ownership data for these two communities show that only one
community has experienced displacement, Superior Bottom. Community interviews have not yet
been collected in Kyle, WV; however, as noted in Section IV.A.6., Race, North Elkin District,
represents a high concentration of African American residents. Therefore, based upon available
data, there is no indication that minority populations in the study area jurisdictions have suffered
unequal adverse impacts compared to other populations.
3. Community Facilities
Experiences of school closures and consolidation were not reported in every community. In Werth
and in Superior Bottom school consolidation was not reported in relationship to the time frame of
surface mining in the community. In addition, some residents noted that the coal mining companies
and the industry had helped to support local facilities, such as parks and hospitals. In fact, until the
time that the coal company required land for its own uses, land adj acent to the railroad track serving
the underground mine in Scarlet was reported the site of an informal ball field. These reports are
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 69
-------
in contrast to the opinion expressed by the majority of residents interviewed who felt that the
presence of surface mining adjacent to their communities provided no benefits in terms of
community facilities.
C. PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
1. Employment and Place of Work
As stated in the section on physical and economic community, the results of the demographic
analysis do not show a clear correlation between either employment rate or income levels and the
presence of large-scale surface mining. When asked to name economic benefits to the communities
from the presence of adj acent surface mining, nearly all residents felt there were little or no benefits.
The few benefits that were named include retirement benefits and regional economic stability.
However, the negative responses belie the evidence that these same residents reported. In each
community at least one interviewed person mentioned knowing someone having a job at the
adjacent surface mining operation. It is difficult to assess the extent communities benefit
economically from adjacent surface mining operations.
With regard to place of work, as previously noted two of the study area counties and their county
subdivision areas showed little decline in the percentage of resident workers who work in their area
or State of residence, Mingo and Nicholas Counties. This pattern of retention is in contrast to rising
unemployment rates on par with those of the other study area jurisdictions. While Mingo County
lost a smaller percentage of its mining employment between 1980 and 1990, Wyoming County lost
over half of its mining employment in the same period. One explanation of on-going economic
stability offered by a resident of Werth in Nicholas County,WV was the increased development of
service industry employment associated with the outdoor recreation industry in the region.
2. Assistance Income
Mingo County and Hardee District and Hamilton District in Nicholas County were also inconsistent
with the other study areas with regard to patterns of households receiving Social Security income.
In Mingo County between 1980 and 1990 there was no change. In Hardee and Hamilton Districts
there was a decline; in fact in, Hardee District there was a 10 percent decline in the percent of
household receiving Social Security income. All of other study area jurisdictions had increases in
these rates. The increases in percentage of persons in the mature and senior age groups and in the
percentages of the population receiving public assistance income in Mingo County and Hardee and
Hamilton Districts were parallel to those of all the other study area jurisdictions; therefore, the
inconsistencies in their rates of households receiving Social Security income does not appear to be
attributable to population demographics.
3. Physical Shifts
The majority of reported physical changes in the communities studied were similar. However, in
Scarlet, WV, Werth, WV and Blair, WV residents differed in their views of surface mining impacts
to well water and the coal company's responsiveness to any such impacts. In addition, between
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 70
-------
communities residents did not consistently report the presence of fly-rock sometimes associated with
blasting techniques. For those that did report these physical impacts the effects were varied. In
Werth, well water problems were addressed by the coal company to the satisfaction of the resident.
In Scarlet and Blair however, residents who reported well water problems felt that their complaints
were ignored and wrongfully dismissed. In Scarlet, a public water system is currently being
installed, but reports were inconsistent regarding the involvement of any coal companies in
implementing this system. In addition, residents faced hook-up fees, reportedly of $500, along with
future water bills. Residents were quick to point out that this resource was once freely available on
their property.
4. Company and Community
It is not possible to provide a uniform characterization of the relationship between the coal
companies and the study communities. Residents' accounts depict these relationships as varying
from very good to very bad. Three different accounts in three different communities highlight very
positive experiences in dealing with the coal company regarding relocation and community benefits,
but just as many residents reported poor and bad experiences regarding the same issues.
As with the experiences of residents regarding pre-blast surveys, residents reported inconsistent
satisfaction from both coal mining companies and public agencies in response to complaints of
impacts. Generally, many residents felt that complaints were left unaddressed or disregarded. In
Werth and in Scarlet residents indicated that while complaints were acknowledged, corrective
actions were never carried out. In Blair and Scarlet residents reported filing and bringing complaints
to the awareness of public agencies, and the complaints were believed to be wrongfully ignored and
even mocked. However, some of these same residents reported having specific complaints
addressed completely to their satisfaction. Additionally, in Scarlet and Blair residents reported
attending public meetings to address community complaints or issues; however, not everyone
recalled such meetings and not all communities reportedly had such meetings.
Conflicting reports were also given regarding conditions associated with the purchase of homes by
the coal company. Some residents were required to relocate outside of the area in which coal
companies held interests while others were relocated in the same communities.
"....it says that you cannot, couldn't move within so many miles but you couldn't
move back up that holler, Scarlet, at all. But then this area along, the four lane, you
couldn't move there either they said" (Scarlet, WV).
Similar accounts were given in Blair as well. Residents reported being told they may have the
option to buy back their land at a future date, but other residents were told this was not an option.
"...they said plainly we could not buy it back. Then we see that other people had the
right to buy their's back" (Scarlet, WV).
Some of these discrepancies occurred within the same communities, and some are differences in the
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes I 1
-------
experiences of different communities with different companies or operations.
Each of these communities is adj acent to large-scale surface mining operations; however, large-scale
patterns of purchasing of private property by extraction or land holding companies were reported,
to date, and is evident in property records of only three communities. As discussed above, no
apparent correlation can be drawn between the racial make-up of a community and decisions by coal
companies to undertake large-scale purchasing of homes and/or properties.
5. Community Future
Some residents felt that additional public information would have better equipped the residents to
understand and perhaps respond to the surface mining occurring around their community.
".. .1 talked to several of the neighbors around up around Island Creek up to Tioga and
in through there. And they said if they would have knew what was going on they
could have probably stopped part of that. But we didn't know it until it was too late.
We had no idea what they was doing or what it would do - the damage or anything
else. I had never seen a strip mine." (Werth, WV)
Residents also indicated more consistent dealings between coal companies and families within the
communities could have eased the social and psychological impacts of displacement. Other
residents in Werth for example felt that the mining companies took all necessary steps to inform the
public of mining activities and provided benefits which off-set any impacts.
As previously stated, opinions regarding the future of these communities varied and are possibly
correlated to the level of personal values on land as part of a family heritage. The differences of
opinion regarding communities' futures were in some instances more complex than simply stating
the community either did or did not have a positive future. For example, in Werth residents felt that
the aging population and lack of significant local employment, such as coal mines or a saw mill gave
people little incentive to move into the area. These same residents also felt that there might be a
future settlement of families with jobs elsewhere and they did not feel that the past presence of
surface mining had impacted the future value of land for anything other than agricultural use. In
contrast, in Werth, residents did not feel that it was likely nor were there employment opportunities
which would retain or draw back their own children.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study is to evaluate what, if any, demographic changes can be observed in
communities located adjacent to mountaintop surface mining operations. Demographic data and
personal accounts were collected. The demographic evaluations presented for the selected case study
areas were based on three decades of census data (i.e., the 1980,1990, and 2000 decennial censuses)
in order to assess the demographic trends that have occurred over time: "prior to mountaintop
surface mining operations into the case study community (i.e., 1980)," "during mountaintop surface
mining (i.e., 1990)," and "after mountaintop surface mining (i.e., 2000)," respectively. Case study
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 72
-------
areas were selected based on timing of mining operations so that a comparison of pre, during and
post mining conditions could be performed.
Hamilton District in Nicholas county was the only district that had an employment trend that would
be expected; an increase in the during mining condition and a decrease in the after mining condition.
Employment increased during mining in two of the four case study magisterial districts and
decreased after mining in two of the four case study magisterial districts, but not the same two. The
control district did not experience an increase in employment in the during mining condition but
experienced a decrease in employment in the after mining condition. The number of persons
working in their resident county increased in Hamilton district for the during mining condition, this
was the only district where this occurred. Unemployment did not decrease in any of the case study
areas for the during mining condition.
Per capita income increased during mining in only one of the case study magisterial districts. Per
capita income decreased after mining in one of the case study magisterial districts and in the control
district. This income increase during mining and decrease after mining was not in the same district.
Real growth in median household income decreased in double digits in all case study areas as
compared to a four and a half increase nationally.
For most of the case study areas, the number of persons receiving public assistance did not decrease
in the during mining condition. Public assistance decreased in one of the case study districts and in
the control district in the during mining condition. The number of persons living in poverty did not
decrease in the during mining condition in any of the case study districts or the control.
Educational attainment, persons receiving high school or college degrees, increased in the during
mining and after mining conditions for all case study areas and the control area with one exception.
High school diploma attainment did not increase in the Blackey Division in the during mining
condition although college degree attainment increased.
The North Elkin District is the only case study area with a notable black/African American
population. It does not appear that the economic conditions for residents of this district improved
in the during mining condition. Large percentage point increases in poverty levels were experienced
in McDowell County and the North Elkin district. Employment did not increase nor did income
increase in this district during mining. One of the topics evaluated in this study is whether there are
indications of greater relocations or displacement in non-white racial areas. A sample of property
ownership data from the North Elkin District did not display a pattern of large-scale purchase of
properties by extraction or land holding companies. However, a sample of property ownership data
from Superior Bottom another racially integrated community shows a 52 percent shift from private
ownership to land holding company ownership.
Population decreased in all of the case study areas during mining and after mining. The number of
students enrolled in public school districts decreased in all of the case study areas including the
control area. All study areas experienced a decrease in their young adult populations. The senior age
group is comprising an increasing percentage of the total population within each of the study areas.
Several themes emerged from personal accounts of interviewed residents when describing their
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 73
-------
experiences living in a community adjacent to mountaintop surface mining. Demographic data
support many of these themes such as loss of population and aging populations. The experiences
shared by residents include loss of community population and community structure, struggles in
obtaining available economic benefits, occurrences of similar physical changes and feelings of
ineffectiveness in preventing or managing these effects. Additional common experiences shared
among the study communities related to the purchase of homes and property by extraction or land
holding companies and the resulting impacts of displacement.
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes 74
-------
Tables
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
-------
Attachment 1. Case Study Photographs
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
-------
Attachment 2. Community Narratives (Interview Transcripts)
Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes
-------
I. REFERENCES
Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force, Who Owns Appalachia? With a foreword by Charles
C. Geisler, Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1983.
Axel-Lute, Miriam. "Tales of Three Cities." Shelterforce Online National Housing Institute
May/June 2001.
Berninghausen, Tom. "This Ain't Real Estate:' Land and Culture in Louise Erdrich's
Chippewa Tetralogy." in Women, America and Movement: Narratives of Relocation, ed.
Susan L. Robertson, 190-209. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1998
Billings, Dwight B. and Kathleen M. Blee. The Road to Poverty: The Making of Wealth and
Hardship in Appalachia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
DeRosier, Linda Scott. Creeker: A Woman's Journey. Lexington, KY: University Press of
Kentucky, 1999.
Fields, Jason and Lynne M. Casper. America's Families and Living Arrangements: March 2000.
Current Population Reports, P20-537. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 2001.
Gaventa, John. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley.
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1980.
Millner, Reginald. "Conversations with the 'Ole Man': The Life and Times of a Black
Appalachian Coal Miner." in Blacks in Appalachia. Lexington, KY: University Press of
Kentucky, 1985.
Moore, Warren. Mountain Voices: A Legacy of the Blue Ridge and Great Smokies. Chester, CT:
The Globe Pequot Press, 1988.
Obermiller, Phillip J. and William W. Philliber, ed., Appalachia in an International Context:
Cross-National Comparisons of Developing Regions. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers,
1994.
Palen , J. John and Bruce London, ed. Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood
Revitalization. Social Differentials in Metropolitan Residential Displacement, by Barrett
A. Lee and David C. Hodge. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1984.
Parham, Groesbeck and Gwen Robinson. "'If I Could Go Back...': An Interview with Dobbie
Sanders." in Blacks in Appalachia. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1985.
Parker, Russell D. "The Black Community in a Company Town: Alcoa, Tennessee, 1919-1939."
in Blacks in Appalachia. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1985.
-------
-------
"Rich In, Poor Out: How Do We Solve The Displacement Dilemma?" Canadian Heritage,
August-September 1981: 8-11.
Rose, Kalima. "Beyond Gentrification." Shelterforce Online National Housing Institute
May/June 2001.
Rubin, Rachel Lee. '"My Country is Kentucky:' Leaving Appalachia in Harriette Arnow's The
Dollmaker," in Women, America and Movement: Narratives of Relocation, ed. Susan L.
Roberston, 176-189. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1998.
Schill, Michael H. and Richard P. Nathan. Revitalizing America's Cities. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1983.
Turner, William H., and Edward J. Cabbell, ed., Blacks in Appalachia. With an introduction by
William H. Turner. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1985.
Workman, Patricia Samples. "Ely-Thomas Lumber Company." Goldenseal Winter vol. 23, no. 4
Fall 1997: 10-22.
Yarrow, Mike. "Voices from the Coalfields: How Miners' Families Understand the Crisis of
Coal." in Communities in Economic Crisis: Appalachia and the South, ed. John Gaventa,
Barbara Ellen Smith and Alex Willingham, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press,
1990.
-------
Appendix P-9
Employment Comparisons
Study Area
Case
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Employees
Base Case
250 acre
150 acre
75 acre
35 acre
Difference from
250 acre
1 50 acre
75 acre
35 acre
33,906
33,906
33,906
33,906
33,906
Base Case
33,439
32,340
32,347
31,697
29,978
-1099
-1092
-1742
-3461
33,609
31,928
31,921
31,117
29,280
-1681
-1688
-2492
-4330
33,801
32,014
31,907
31,229
29,084
-1787
-1894
-2572
-4717
32,634
31,591
31,513
31,810
29,464
-1043
-1121
-823
-3170
30,638
30,374
29,893
29,435
28,948
-264
-745
-1203
-1690
30,093
28,656
29,164
31,401
28,081
-1437
-929
1308
-2012
30,310
27,598
27,850
27,207
28,149
-2712
-2460
-3103
-2160
26,699
26,393
26,377
25,619
26,304
-306
-323
-1081
-395
26,158
25,202
24,909
24,905
24,385
-956
-1249
-1253
-1773
Percent Difference from Base Case
250 acre
1 50 acre
75 acre
35 acre
Percent change
Base Case
250 acre
1 50 acre
75 acre
35 acre
Difference from
250 acre
1 50 acre
75 acre
35 acre
from 2001
-3%
-3%
-5%
-10%
-1%
-5%
-5%
-7%
-12%
-5%
-5%
-7%
-13%
-1%
-6%
-6%
-8%
-14%
-5%
-6%
-8%
-14%
0%
-6%
-6%
-8%
-14%
-3%
-3%
-3%
-10%
-4%
-7%
-7%
-6%
-13%
-1%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-10%
-10%
-12%
-13%
-15%
-5%
-3%
4%
-7%
-11%
-15%
-14%
-7%
-17%
-9%
-8%
-10%
-7%
-11%
-19%
-18%
-20%
-17%
-1%
-1%
-4%
-1%
-21%
-22%
-22%
-24%
-22%
-4%
-5%
-5%
-7%
-23%
-26%
-27%
-27%
-28%
Base as % of Total Employment (136,478)
-0.8%
-0.8%
-1 .3%
-2.5%
-1 .2%
-1 .2%
-1.8%
-3.2%
-1 .3%
-1 .4%
-1 .9%
-3.5%
-0.8%
-0.8%
-0.6%
-2.3%
-0.2%
-0.5%
-0.9%
-1 .2%
-1.1%
-0.7%
1.0%
-1 .5%
-2.0%
-1.8%
-2.3%
-1 .6%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.8%
-0.3%
-0.7%
-0.9%
-0.9%
-1 .3%
Annual Avg.
2002-2010
30,820
29,566
29,542
29,380
28,186
-1254
-1278
-1440
-2634
-4%
-4%
-5%
-9%
-0.9%
-0.9%
-1.1%
-1 .9%
Source: Hill and Associates 2001. Scale factors and Total Employment from West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs (2001), Kentucky Department of
Employment Services (2000), and Virginia Employment Commission (2000).
Note: Highlighted cells indicate maximum reductions for the case.
Note: The 2005 spike in base case production exagerates the apparent impacts for that year.
-------
Table 27 - Blair, WV Property Ownership Data
Property
Number
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
Current
Owner
Mineral Extraction Company
Mineral Extraction Company
Land Holding Company
Land Holding Company
Land Holding Company
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Land Holding Company
Private Owner(s)
Land Holding Company
Land Holding Company
Land Holding Company
Land Holding Company
Land Holding Company
Private Owner(s)
Land Holding Company
Other
Land Holding Company
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Mineral Extraction Company
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Land Holding Company
Mineral Extraction Company
Parcel Size
(acres)
<1 acre
1 0 acres
<1 acre
<1 acre
1 1 acres
1 66 acres
.5 acres
<1 acre
40 acres
<1 acre
<1 acre
<1 acre
.5 acres
<1 acre
<1 acre
<1 acre
<1 acre
<1 acre
1 .24 acres
not listed
2.5 acres
<1 acre
<1 acre
Purchase
Date
1925
1925
1996
1994
1976
1954
1992
1936
1995
1996
1995
1992
1995
1977
1996
1995
1969
1960
1930
1971
1995
1930
Purchase
Price
$27,000 (for 2 parcels)
$25,000
$70,000
$27,000 (for 2 parcels)
$33,000 (data unclear)
$1,450
$35,000*
$3,000**
$70,000
Previous
Owner
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Private Owner(s)
Purchase
Date
1977
1993
1990
1977
1994
1981
1949
1982
1986
1954
1952
1976
Purchase
Price
$500
$5,000
$1,700
-------
Table 28 - West Virginia Total Enrollment by District
School District
Mingo
McDowell
Nicholas
Wyoming (Control)
Number of Students Enrolled
(2 year period)
1977-1979
18,473
25,164
12,873
17,796
1980-1984
45,699
58,885
31,169
43,080
1985-1989
43,932
49,291
28,421
39,491
% change
1980-1989
-4.0%
-19.5%
-9.7%
-9.1%
1990-1994
38,370
37,386
25,886
32,618
1995-1999
31,214
30,099
24,828
25,921
% change
1990-1999
-22.9%
-24.2%
-4.3%
-25.8%
*Data is based upon 1st month enrollments
Source: West Virginia Department of Education
-------
Table 20 - Poverty Status Trends
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Percent of Persons for Whom Poverty Status is
Determined
Income in 1979
Below Poverty
Level
14.1
23.5
19.8
23.6
20.8
16.7
19.0
19.3
20.5
17.6
27.4
30.3
Income in 1989
Below Poverty
Level
19.7
37.7
32.5
30.9
33.6
24.4
27.5
27.9
29.1
19.0
31.8
33.6
Income in 1999
Below Poverty
Level
17.9
37.7
35.3
29.7
27.9
19.2
16.7
25.1
21.7
15.8
27.1
24.3
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 STF3A
(1) 1980 poverty levels were derived by calculating the average of the values enumerated for
the Adkin, Elkhorn, and North Fork Districts.
(2) 1980 poverty levels were derived by caculating the values enumerated for the Barkers
Ridge and Slab Fork Districts.
-1.8
0.0
2.8
-1.2
-5.7
-5.2
10.8
-2.8
-7.4
-3.2
-4.7
-9.3
1979
1 ,894,081
49,775
1 1 ,588
37,286
3,817
27,979
3,095
35,962
12,146
3,559,034
30,563
6,876
1989
7,595
3,396
3,055
9,023
3,582,459
26,829
6,335
Adkin District
Elkhorn District
North Fork District
Barkers Ridge District
Slab Fork District
17.0
24.1
18.3
21.9
19.1
n/a
n/a
32.1
26.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6,358
2,190
3,040
3,937
8,209
2,959
6,064
1979
1989
1999
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
-14.1
-23.5
-19.8
-23.6
-20.8
-16.7
-19.0
-19.3
-20.5
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
-19.7
-37.7
-32.5
-30.9
-33.6
-24.4
-27.5
-27.9
-29.1
-19.0
-31.8
-33.6
-5.6
14.2
12.7
-7.3
12.8
-7.7
-8.5
-8.6
-8.6
17.9
37.7
35.3
29.7
27.9
19.2
16.7
25.1
21.7
15.8
27.1
24.3
-------
North Elkin District
Hardee District
Hamilton District
Blackey Division
District 1 (Control)
Prior (1980)
19.8
20.8
19.0
30.3
20.5
During (1990)
32.5
33.6
27.5
33.6
29.1
After (2000)
35.3
27.9
16.7
24.3
21.7
12.8
12.8
8.5
"c o
V '4=
o re
Q.
3.3
10.0 -
5.0 -
ill
Prior (1
-------
1999
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Under 5'
5 years
6 to 1 1 yi
12 to 17
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 64
65 to 74
75 years
178,382
37,727
242,530
251 ,207
268,821
498,760
475,392
329,770
1 34,455
132,794
218,981
131,813
Income in 1989 below
Under 5'
5 years
6 to 1 1 yi
12 to 17
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 64
65 to 74
75 years
68,983
13,580
78,999
72,450
83,170
101,959
69,750
49,964
25,364
26,517
46,543
44,548
poverty leve
Figure III.P-10
Poverty Level Trends
CO a)
« T.
c >
o t:
U) V
0) o
0- 0.
»*-
o re
*- c
c o
II) 'S
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
D North Elkin District
• Hardee District
D Hamilton District
DBIackey Division
• District 1 (Control)
-------
10.0
5.0
Ill
I District 1 (Control)
Prior (1980) During (1990) After (2000)
Mountaintop Mining Periods
-------
Figure 6 - County Population Trends, 1980, 1990, and 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 SFT3A, 1990 and 2000 SF1A
o
CL
1
60,000
50,000 -
40,000 -
30,000 -
20,000 -
10,000 -
-McDowell County, WV
-Mingo County, WV
-Nicholas County, WV
-Letcher County, KY
• Wyoming County, WV
1980
1990
Census Year
2000
Figure 7 - County Subdivision Population Trends, 1980, 1990, and 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 SFT3A, 1990 and 2000 SF1A
14,000
12,000 -
10,000 -
c
o
2 8,000 -
3
Q.
O
15 6'000 '
'o
I-
4,000 -
2,000 -
1980 1990 2000
Census Year
-North Elkin District
• Hardee District
- Hamilton District
• Blackey Division
• District 1 District
-------
Figure 8 - Historic Comparison of Percent Change in Total Population, 1980, 1990, and 2000
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A, and 2000 SF1A
Figure 9 - Net Migration Trends, 1990-1997
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
C7VJ,VJVJVJ
80,000 -
70,000 -
60,000 -
I 50,000 -
jn
o 40,000 -
CL
•§ 30,000 -
20,000 -
10,000 -
fin nnm
78,571
11,044
609
(857)
(4,515) (2,130) (1J10)
West McDowell Mingo Co. Nicholas Wyoming Kentucky Letcher Co.
Virginia Co. Co. Co.
-------
Figure 10 - School Age Group Trends
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A, and 2000 SF1A
45.0 -
w 40.0 -
8 35.0 -
o! 30.0 -
Ł 25.0 -
t 20.0 -
o
•E 15.0 -
8 10.0 -
o- 5.0 -
~"~~\
School Age Group
i-i
—
~
^ 0°' ^
4V ^/ / °
V J
Figure 11 - Young Adult Age Group Trends
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A, and 2000 SF1A
o
<Ł.
CD
CL
"ro
"o
(U
o
(U
CL
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
-P'
Young Adult Age Group
-.0'
rTT, Jl
Q1980
• 1990
D2000
-O'
A^
>
-------
Figure 12 - Mature Age Group Trends
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A, and 2000 SF1A
§-
o
30.0
25.0 -
S 20.0 ]
<
ro 15.0 -
!l 10.0 -
(D
O
CD
CL
5.0 -
Mature Age Group
Q1980
• 1990
Q2000
Figure 13 - Senior Age Group Trends
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A, and 2000 SF1A
Q.
3
O
6
ro
"o
c
CD
O
CD
CL
25.0
Senior Age Group
20.0 -
15.0 -
10.0 -
5.0 -
Q1980
• 1990
Q2000
°'
°'
-------
Figure 14 - Numeric Change in Male and Female Population, 1980 - 2000.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A and 2000 SF1A
Percent Change in Populatioi
20 0
-inn
(10.0) -
(20.0) -
(30.0) -
(40.0) -
(50 0)
rjMale
• Female
LI
WV
(7.0)
(7.5)
Me Dow
ell
County,
(46.4)
(44.2)
]P^raffl
North Mingo Nicholas ... Wyomin [
M Hardee Hamilton '
Elkin County, . County, . g
' District ' District
District WV WV County, [
(45.2) (26.1) (24.1) (6.7) (5.6) (29.2)
(39.8) (22.6) (19.9) (4.4) (6.3) (27.9)
LT
)istrict Letcher
1 KY County,
Jistrict KY
(33.0) 10.4 (18.0)
(34.6) 10.4 (1.3)
Figure 16 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, West Virginia, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
West Virginia, 1980
Public Administration
5%
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries and Mining
18%
Professional and
Related Services
20%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation Services
4%
Business and Repair
Services —
2%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate ->
3%
Construction
7%
Manufacturing
15%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
8%
Retail Trade Wholesale Trade
15% 3%
-------
Figure 17 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, McDowell County, WV, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
McDowell County, 1980
Professional and
Related Services
19%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation Services^,
2%
Business and Repair
Services —\
1%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate —
1%
Retail Trade
14%
Public Administration
5%
Wholesale Trade / Transportation,
3%
Communication &
Public Utilities
6%
Agriculture, Forestry,
/- Fisheries and Mining
42%
Construction
3%
Manufacturing
4%
-------
Figure 18 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Mingo County, WV, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation Services
3%
Mingo County, 1980
Professional and
Related Services
5%
) Public Administration
/ /^ 5%
Business and Repair
Services
2%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate -^
2%
Retail Trade
16%
Wholesale Trade
4%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
11%
Agriculture, Forestry,
/- Fisheries and Mining
41%
Construction
7%
\ Manufacturing
4%
-------
Figure 19 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Nicholas County, WV, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
Nicholas County, 1980
Professional and
Personal, Related Services
Entertainment and 15%
Recreation Services )
3%
Public Administration
4%
Business and Repair
Services
2%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate -
3%
Retail Trade
16%
Agriculture, Forestry,
- Fisheries and Mining
29%
Construction
7%
Wholesale Trade
3%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
5%
Manufacturing
13%
-------
Figure 20 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Wyoming County, WV, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
Wyoming County, 1980
Business and Repair
Services ^
1%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
2%
Retail Trade
13%
Wholesale Trade
4%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation Services
3%
Professional and
Related Services
14%
Public Administration
3%
Agriculture, Forestry,
,-- Fisheries and Mining
45%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
5%
Construction
5%
Manufacturing
5%
-------
Figure 21 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Kentucky, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
KENTUCKY, 1980
Professional and
Related Services
19%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation Services^X
4%
Business and Repair
Services -^
3%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate -
5%
Public Administration
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries and Mining
8%
Construction
6%
Manufacturing
23%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
7%
Retail Trade
16%
\ Wholesale Trade
4%
-------
Figure 22 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Letcher County, KY, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
Letcher County, 1980
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation Services
1%
Business and Repair
Services -^.
2%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate ——
3%
Retail Trade^/^
14%
Wholesale Trade
2%
Professional and
Related Services
18%
Public Administration
4%
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries and Mining
41%
Construction
6%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
5%
Manufacturing
4%
-------
Figure 23 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, West Virginia, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
WEST VIRGINIA, 1990
Public
Administration
4%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fisheries
and Mining
7%
Professional and
Related Services
26%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation
Services
4%
Business and
Repair Services
3%
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate
4%
Retail Trade
19%
Construction
7%
Manufacturing
15%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
8%
Wholesale Trade
3%
-------
Figure 24 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, McDowell County, WV, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
McDowell County, 1990
Public
Administration
5%
Professional and
Related Services^
23%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation —.
Services ^
3%
Business and
Repair Services-
3%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
3%
Retail Trade
19%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fisheries
l~ and Mining
/ 21%
Construction
5%
Manufacturing
5%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
11%
Wholesale Trade
2%
-------
Figure 25 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Mingo County, WV, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
Professional and
Related Services
23%
Mingo County, 1990
Public
Administration
4%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation
Services
3%
Business and
Repair Services
3%
Finance, Insurance,
i
and Real Estate ->
3%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fisheries
and Mining
28%
Construction
4%
Manufacturing
4%
Retail Trade
14%
Wholesale Trade
3%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
11%
-------
Figure 26 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Nicholas County, WV, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
Professional and
Related Services-
20%
Nicholas County, 1990
Public
Administration
4%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation
Services
3%
Business and
Repair Services-
4%
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate
4%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fisheries
and Mining
18%
Construction
6%
Manufacturing
13%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
7%
Retail Trade
19%
^Wholesale Trade
2%
-------
Figure 27 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Wyoming County, WV, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
Wyoming County, 1990
Professional and
Related Services^
21%
Public
Administration
3%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation
Services
4%
Business and
Repair Services—-
2%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate -1
4%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fisheries
and Mining
30%
Construction
4%
Manufacturing
4%
Retail Trade
16%
Wholesale Trade
2%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
10%
-------
Figure 28 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Kentucky, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
KENTUCKY, 1990
Public
Administration
4%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fisheries
and Mining
6%
Professional and
Related Services-
23%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation —
Services
4%
Business and
Repair Services-^
4%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
5%
Construction
6%
Manufacturing
20%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
7%
Retail Trade
17%
Wholesale Trade
4%
-------
Figure 29 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Letcher County, KY, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
Letcher County, 1990
Professional and
Related Servicesn
23%
Public
Administration
4%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation
Services
3%
Business and
Repair Services
3%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate -/
3%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fisheries
and Mining
35%
Construction
5%
Manufacturing
3%
Retail Trade
12%
Wholesale Trade
3%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
6%
-------
Figure 30 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, West Virginia, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
West Virginia, 2000
Public Administration
6%
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries and Mining
4o/0 Construction
8%
Professional and
Related Services
32%
Personal, Entertainment
and Recreation
Services
9%
Manufacturing
13%
Transportation,
Communication & Public
~~ Utilities
6%
Wholesale Trade
3%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
5%
Retail Trade
14%
-------
Figure 31 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, McDowell County, WV, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
McDowell County, 2000
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fisheries
and Mining
15%
Public
Administration
7%
Professional and
Related Services
35%
Personal,
Entertainment and
Recreation Services
4%
Construction
/" 5%
Manufacturing
4%
Transportation,
Communication &
Public Utilities
9%
Wholesale Trade
2%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
3%
Retail Trade
16%
-------
Figure 32 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Mingo County, WV, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
Mingo County, 2000
Public Administration
4%
Professional and
Related Services
32%
Personal, Entertainment
and Recreation Services—-^
6%
Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate
3%
Retail Trade
15%
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries and Mining
20%
Construction
5%
Manufacturing
3%
Transportation,
\ Communication & Public
Utilities
9%
Wholesale Trade
-------
Figure 33 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Nicholas County, WV, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
Nicholas County, 2000
Public Administration
6%
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries and Mining
11%
Construction
7%
Professional and Related
Services
30%
Personal, Entertainment
and Recreation Services—
9%
Manufacturing
10%
Transportation,
Communication & Public
Utilities
7%
Wholesale Trade
2%
Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate
3%
Retail Trade
15%
-------
Figure 34 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Wyoming County, WV, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
Wyoming County, 2000
Public Administration
5%
Professional and Related
Services
29%
Personal, Entertainment
and Recreation Services—-
6%
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries and Mining
22%
Construction
5%
Manufacturing
5%
Transportation,
Communication & Public
Utilities
9%
r
Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate
4%
Retail Trade
12%
Wholesale Trade
3%
-------
Figure 35 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Kentucky, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
KENTUCKY, 2000
Public Administration
4%
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries and Mining
3%
Construction
~~ 7%
Professional and Related
Services
34%
Personal, Entertainment
and Recreation Services
7%
Manufacturing
19%
Transportation,
Communication & Public
Utilities
6%
Wholesale Trade
3%
Retail Trade
12%
Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate
5%
-------
Figure 36 - Distribution of Employment by Industry Sector, Letcher County, KY, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
Professional and Related
Services
36%
Letcher County, 2000
Public Administration
5%
k.
Personal, Entertainment
and Recreation Services——
4%
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries and Mining
17%
Construction
6%
Manufacturing
5%
Transportation,
Communication & Public
Utilities
6%
Wholesale Trade
2%
f Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, and 15%
Real Estate
3%
-------
Figure 37 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, West Virginia, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
WEST VIRGINIA, 1980
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
22%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
18%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
2%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
19%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
26%
Service Occupations
13%
-------
Figure 38 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, McDowell County, WV, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
McDowell County, 1980
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
24%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
16%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
30%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
18%
Service Occupations
11%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
1%
-------
Figure 39 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Mingo County, WV, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
Mingo County, 1980
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
27%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
28%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
16%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
17%
Service Occupations
11%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
1%
-------
Figure 40 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Nicholas County, WV, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
Nicholas County, 1980
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
25%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
25%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
17%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
20%
Service Occupations
11%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
2%
-------
Figure 41 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Wyoming County, W V, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
27%
Wyoming County, 1980
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
15%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
34%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
15%
Service Occupations
8%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
1%
-------
Figure 42 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Kentucky, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
KENTUCKY, 1980
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
23%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
14%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
4%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
19%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
27%
Service Occupations
13%
-------
Figure 43 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Letcher County, KY, 1980
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A
Letcher County, 1980
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
21%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
33%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
16%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
20%
Service Occupations
9%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
1%
-------
Figure 44 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, West Virginia, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
WEST VIRGINIA, 1990
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
19%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
15%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations —
2%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
22%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
28%
Service Occupations
14%
-------
Figure 45 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, McDowell County, WV 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
McDowell County, 1990
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
21%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
21%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations J
1%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
18%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
25%
Service Occupations
14%
-------
Figure 46 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Mingo County, WV, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
Mingo County, 1990
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
25%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
22%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
18%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
21%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
1%
Service Occupations
13%
-------
Figure 47 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Nicholas County, WV, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
Nicholas County, 1990
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
22%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
18%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
2%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
18%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
25%
Service Occupations
15%
-------
Figure 48 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Wyoming County, WV, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
Wyoming County, 1990
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers -%
22% \
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
25%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
18%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
23%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
1%
Service Occupations
11%
-------
Figure 49 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Kentucky, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
KENTUCKY, 1990
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
20%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
13%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations -/
4%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
22%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
28%
Service Occupations
13%
-------
Figure 50 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Letcher County, KY, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3A
Letcher County, 1990
Operators, Fabricators,
and Laborers
22%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
28%
Managerial and
Professional Specialty
Occupations
17%
Technical, Sales, and
Administrative Support
Occupations
21%
Service Occupations
11%
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing Occupations
1%
-------
Figure 51 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, West Virginia, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
WEST VIRGINIA, 2000
Operators,
Fabricators, and
Laborers
20%
Precision
Production, Craft,
and Repair
Occupations
15%
Farming, Forestry,
and Fishing
Occupations
1%
Managerial and
Professional
Specialty
Occupations
12%
Technical, Sales,
and Administrative
Support
Occupations
32%
Service
Occupations
20%
-------
Figure 52 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, McDowell County, WV, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
McDowell County, 2000
Operators,
Fabricators, and
Laborers
23%
Precision
Production, Craft,
and Repair ——__
Occupations
19%
Farming, Forestry, /
and Fishing /
Occupations
0%
Managerial and
Professional
Specialty
Occupations
8%
Technical, Sales,
and Administrative
Support
Occupations
28%
Service
Occupations
22%
-------
Figure 53 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Mingo County, WV, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
Mingo County, 2000
Operators,
Fabricators, and
Laborers
15%
Precision
Production, Craft,
and Repair
Occupations
21%
Farming, Forestry,
and Fishing
Occupations
1%
Managerial and
Professional
Specialty
Occupations
23%
Technical, Sales,
and Administrative
Support
Occupations
23%
Service
Occupations
17%
-------
Figure 54 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Nicholas County, WV, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
Nicholas County, 2000
Operators,
Fabricators, and
Laborers
18%
Precision
Production, Craft,
and Repair -^
Occupations
15%
Farming, Forestry,
and Fishing
Occupations
2%
Service
Occupations
17%
Managerial and
Professional
Specialty
Occupations
24%
Technical, Sales,
and Administrative
Support
Occupations
24%
-------
Figure 55 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Wyoming County, WV, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
Wyoming County, 2000
Operators,
Fabricators, and
Laborers
16%
Precision
Production, Craft,
and Repair -x
Occupations
20%
Farming, Forestry,
and Fishing
Occupations
2%
Managerial and
Professional
Specialty
Occupations
24%
Technical, Sales,
and Administrative
Support
Occupations
22%
Service
Occupations
16%
-------
Figure 56 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Kentucky, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
KENTUCKY, 2000
Operators,
Fabricators, and
Laborers "A,
20% \
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
11%
Farming, Forestry,
and Fishing
Occupations
1%
Managerial and
Professional
--- Specialty
Occupations
29%
Service Occupations
14%
Technical, Sales,
and Administrative
Support
Occupations
25%
-------
Figure 57 - Distribution of Employment by Occupation, Letcher County, KY, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF3A
Letcher County, 2000
Operators,
Fabricators, and
Laborers
15%
Precision Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occupations
21%
Farming, Forestry,
and Fishing
Occupations
1%
Service Occupations
15%
Managerial and
Professional
Specialty
Occupations
24%
Technical, Sales,
and Administrative
Support
Occupations
24%
-------
Table 1 - Case Study Communities and Respective Census Divisions by Decennial Census
Case Study Communities
MTM Study
Communities
Descriptive Statistics
Control Area
Kyle (McDowell County, WV)
Naugatuck (Mingo County, WV)
Scarlet (Mingo County, WV)
Werth (Nicholas County, WV)
Carcassone (Letcher County, KY)
(Wyoming County, WV)
Census Divisions Per Decennial Censuses
1980 Census
Adkin District
Bkhorn District
North Fork District
1990 Census
North FJkin
2000 Census
Dstrict (1)
Hardee District
Hardee District
Hamilton Dstrict
Blackey Division
Barkers Ridge District
Slab Fork District
District 1 (2)
Notes: (1) North Elkin Magisterial Districtwas created from the Adkin, Bkhorn, North Fork Magisterial Dstricts (Date
submitted 03 April 1987).
(2) District 1 was created from the Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork Districts (Date submitted 07 August 1994).
Table 2 - Population Trends
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Total Population
1980
1,949,644
49,899
11,682
37,336
3,817
28,126
3,108
35,993
72,024
3,660,777
30,687
1990
1 ,793,477
35,233
7,708
33,739
3,417
26,775
3,077
28,990
9,050
3,685,296
27,000
6,324
2000
1 ,808,344
27,329
6,725
28,253
2,967
26,562
2,933
25,708
7,957
4,041 ,769
25,277
5,554
Change
1980-1990
#
(156,167)
(14,666)
(3,974)
(3,597)
(400)
(1,351)
(31)
(7,003)
(2,974)
24,519
(3,687)
6,324
%
(8.0)
(29.4)
(34.0)
(9.6)
(10.5)
(4.8)
(1.0)
(19.5)
(24.7)
0.7
(12.0)
n/a
1990-2000
#
14,867
(7,904)
(983)
(5,486)
(450)
(213)
(144)
(3,282)
(1 ,093)
356,473
(1 ,723)
(770)
%
0.8
(22.4)
(12.8)
(16.3)
(13.2)
(0.8)
(4.7)
(11.3)
(12.1)
9.7
(6.4)
(12.2)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A, and 2000 SF1A
Notes: (1) 1980 population total for the North Elkin District was derived by adding the population counts for the Adkin, Elkhorn
and North Fork Districts.
(2) 1980 and 1990 population totals for District 1 were derived by adding the population counts for Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork
Districts.
-------
Table 3 - Population Density Trends
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Land Area
(Sq. Mi.)
24,086.6
534.8
122.1
422.6
73.6
648.7
147.8
500.9
175.9
39,732.3
339.1
131.8
Persons Per Square Mile
1980
80.9
93.3
95.7
88.3
51.9
43.4
21.0
71.9
68.4
92.1
90.5
1990
74.5
65.9
63.1
79.8
46.4
41.3
20.8
57.9
51.4
92.8
79.6
48.0
2000
75.1
51.1
51.6
66.9
40.3
40.9
19.8
51.3
45.2
101.7
74.5
42.1
Numeric Change
1980-1990
(6.5)
(27.4)
(32.5)
(8.5)
(5.4)
(2.1)
(0.2)
(14.0)
(16.9)
0.6
(10.9)
1990-2000
0.6
(14.8)
(11.5)
(13.0)
(6.1)
(0.3)
(1.0)
(6.6)
(6.2)
9.0
(5.1)
(5.8)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A, 1990 and 2001, SF1A. TIGER/Line Files 1990 and 2000.
Notes: (1) TIGER/Line data nonexistent for 1980 level data, therefore, the 1990 TIGER/Line data for North Elkin was used in
conjunction with the population totals for the Adkin, Elkhorn, and North Fork Districts to calculate the 1980 population density.
Also, the 1980 and 1990 land area for North Elkin was 122.1 square miles, while the 2000 land area increased to 130.3.
Figure 2 illustrates this boundary change.
(2) The District 1's 1980 population density value was derived by calculating the total population and total land area values for
the Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork Districts.
Table 4 - Gender Distribution Comparison Trends
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, VW
North Elkin Dstrict
Mingo County, VW
Hardee Dstrict
Nicholas County, VW
Hamilton Dstrict
Vfyxring County, VW
Dstrict 1 Dstrict
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Dvision
Male to Female Distribution
1980
Male
945,408
24,190
5,690
18,489
1,909
13,918
1,571
17,870
5,864
1,789,039
15,086
Female
1,004,236
25,709
5,986
18,847
1,897
14,208
1,547
18,123
6,160
1,871,738
13,083
M/F Ratio
0.94
0.94
0.95
0.98
1.01
0.98
1.02
0.99
0.95
0.96
1.15
1990
Male
861,731
16,712
3,606
16,449
1,682
13,114
1,545
14,103
4,319
1,785,068
13,095
3,078
Female
931,746
18,521
4,112
17,290
1,735
13,661
1,532
14,887
4,731
1,900,228
13,905
3,262
M/F Ratio
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.95
0.97
0.96
1.01
0.95
0.91
0.94
0.94
0.94
2000
Male
879,170
12,975
3,120
13,665
1,448
12,983
1,483
12,649
3,927
1,975,368
12,366
2,734
Female
929,174
14,354
3,605
14,588
1,519
13,579
1,450
13,059
4,030
2,066,401
12,911
2,820
M/F Ratio
0.95
0.90
0.87
0.94
0.95
0.96
1.02
0.97
0.97
0.96
0.96
0.97
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A and 2001, SF1A
-------
Table 5 - Total Household Formation Trends
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1 )
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Total Households
1980
686,210
15,959
3,721
1 1 ,925
1,187
9,462
1,015
1 1 ,407
3,810
1 ,263,355
10,007
1990
688,727
12,835
2,828
1 1 ,850
1,098
10,022
1,103
10,488
3,369
1,379,610
9,725
2,220
2000
736,481
11,169
2,732
1 1 ,303
1,116
10,722
1,138
10,454
3,251
1 ,590,647
10,085
2,256
Percent Change
1980-90
0.4
(19.6)
(24.0)
(0.6)
(7.5)
5.9
8.7
(8.1)
(11.6)
9.2
(2.8)
-
1990-00
6.9
(13.0)
(3.4)
(4.6)
1.6
7.0
3.2
(0.3)
(3.5)
15.3
3.7
1.6
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A, and 2000 SF1A
Notes: (1) The 1980 household data for the North Elkin District was derived by adding the
household data collected for the Adkin, Elkhorn and North Fork Districts.
(2) The 1980 and 1990 household data for District 1 was derived by adding the household data
collected for the Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork Districts
Table 6 - Family and Nonfamily Household Formation Trends
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Total Family Households as a
Percent of Total Households
1980
77.4
82.0
82.0
82.1
87.5
82.1
81.4
85.9
84.1
77.8
83.2
1990
73.0
76.0
73.9
79.1
83.9
78.0
80.7
79.6
77.7
74.1
79.6
81.9
2000
68.4
70.2
68.7
72.7
79.2
72.4
75.4
73.7
72.6
69.4
74.0
73.5
Total Nonfamily Households as a
Percent of Total Households
1980
22.6
18.5
18.0
17.5
12.5
18.0
18.6
14.6
15.9
22.2
16.8
-
1990
27.0
24.0
26.1
20.9
16.1
22.0
19.3
20.4
22.3
25.9
20.4
18.1
2000
31.6
29.8
31.3
27.3
20.8
27.6
24.6
26.3
27.4
30.6
26.0
26.5
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A, and 2000 SF1A
-------
Table 7 -Average Household Size Trends
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Bkin Dstrict
Mingo County, WV
Hardee Dstrict
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton Dstrict
Wyoming County, WV
Dstrict 1 Dstrict
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Persons Per Household
1980
3.68
3.13
3.14
3.13
3.22
2.97
3.06
3.16
3.16
2.90
3.07
1990
2.60
2.75
2.73
2.85
3.11
2.67
2.79
2.76
2.69
2.67
2.78
2000
2.46
2.45
2.46
2.50
2.66
2.48
2.58
2.46
2.45
2.54
2.51
Table 8 - Distribution of Race by White and Black/African American
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Race by Percent of Total Population
1980
White
96.2
85.0
68.9
96.9
99.6
99.7
100.0
98.6
96.7
92.3
99.2
100.0
Black/African
American
3.3
14.8
30.8
2.9
-
0.01
-
1.1
3.0
7.1
0.7
-
1990
White
96.2
86.3
69.6
97.2
99.9
99.6
99.7
98.9
97.3
92.0
99.0
99.9
Black/African
American
3.1
13.5
30.1
2.4
0.1
0.01
-
0.8
2.4
7.1
0.7
0.05
2000
White
95.0
87.1
68.0
96.4
99.2
98.8
98.3
98.6
97.1
90.1
98.7
99.5
Black/African
American
3.2
11.9
30.4
2.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.6
1.7
7.3
0.5
0.05
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 STF3A, and 2000 SF1A
(1) The 1980 race components for the North Elkin District were derived by calculating the values dervived for the Adkin, Elkhorn,
and North Fork Districts
(2) The 1980 and 1990 race components for District 1 were derived by calculating the values derived for the Barkers Ridge and
Slab Fork Districts
-------
Table 9 - Educational Attainment Trends for Persons 25 Years and Over, 1980 to 2000
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Percent of Persons 25 Years Old and Over by Educational
Attainment Level (3)
1980
High
School
35.6
26.3
28.1
26.9
26.9
35.5
28.8
31.4
32.4
53.1
37.9
38.1
College
10.4
9.6
10.1
12.5
13.1
12.4
7.7
10.8
9.8
11.1
6.7
12.8
1990
High
School
36.6
28.2
34.3
31.5
33.8
41.8
36.9
35.5
35.6
31.8
27.8
28.8
College
29.4
14.1
14.3
18.8
19.0
19.4
16.7
17.5
17.3
32.9
17.8
19.4
2000
High
School
39.4
33.1
39.0
35.7
36.1
43.6
39.9
41.8
46.4
33.6
32.9
28.8
College
35.8
16.9
20.8
23.9
23.9
26.4
25.4
22.5
20.9
40.6
25.6
33.9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 STF3A
(1) The 1980 educational attainment levels for the North Elkin District were derived by calculating the
average values for the Adkin, Elkhorn, and North Fork Districts.
(2) The 1980 and 1990 educational attainment levels for District 1 were derived by calculating the average
values for the Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork Districts.
(3) High school is equivalent to completing 12 years of school and includes obtaining a high school diploma
or equivalency. College includes completing 13 years or more of post high school level education and includes
two and four year college programs, and graduate programs.
-------
Table 9 - Vtorkers 16 Years and Over by Place of Work - State and County Level
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North El kin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Workers 16 Years and Over by Place of Work - County Level
Worked in State of Residence
Worked in County of Residence
1980
#
486,202
9,392
2,191
5,798
545
6,371
752
7,134
2,553
1,006,333
5,552
1,121
%
83.6
93.2
90.6
83.8
77.4
84.4
88.5
79.2
85.3
78.3
79.6
76.8
1990
#
486,317
5,524
1,077
5,785
438
7,050
787
4,809
1,537
1,160,660
5,661
1,213
%
81.5
86.2
75.4
83.5
72.2
85.2
86.4
69.3
73.2
79.4
80.9
72.2
2000
#
492,547
4,311
98C
4,852
609
7,294
817
4,641
1,524
%
77.3
82.3
73.7
78.9
72.1
76.6
76.5
64.2
63.4
Worked Outside County of Residence
1980
#
95,294
684
226
1,122
159
1,177
98
1,871
441
279,504
1,424
338
%
16.4
6.8
9.4
16.2
22.6
15.6
11.5
20.8
14.7
21.7
20.4
23.2
1990
#
110,373
882
351
1,143
169
1,225
124
2,126
564
300,800
1,333
468
%
18.5
13.8
24.6
16.5
27.8
14.8
13.6
30.7
26.8
20.6
19.1
27.8
2000
#
144.8SC
924
35C
1,296
236
2.23C
251
2,591
879
%
22.7
17.7
26.3
21.1
27.9
23.4
23.5
35.8
36.6
Total
1980
581,496
10,076
2,417
6,920
704
7,548
850
9,005
2,994
1,285,837
6,976
1,459
1990
596,690
6,406
1,428
6,928
607
8,275
911
6,935
2,101
1,461,460
6,994
1,681
2000
637,427
5,235
1,330
6,148
845
9,524
1,068
7,232
2,403
-
-
-
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Workers 16 Years and Over by Place of Work -State Level
Worked Outside State of Residence
1980
%
6.5
6.7
2.3
16.1
21.7
1.0
1.7
0.5
0.8
5.6
1.6
1.0
1990
%
9.5
11.0
7.9
14.0
14.7
1.3
2.5
2.0
3.7
6.7
5.5
1.5
2000
%
11.2
11.6
7.6
20.3
19.5
1.7
2.2
1.7
1.6
Change
(1980-
1990)
%
3.0
4.3
5.7
-2.0
-6.9
0.2
0.7
1.6
2.8
1.1
3.8
0.6
Change
(1990-
2000)
%
1.8
0.6
-0.3
6.3
4.8
0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-2.1
Total
1980
622,013
10,796
2,473
8,244
899
7,628
865
9,050
3,019
1,361,732
7,093
1,473
1990
659,136
7,196
1,551
8,057
712
8,380
934
7,080
2,181
1,565,711
7,400
1,707
2000
718,106
5,920
1,440
7,712
1,050
9,689
1,092
7,359
2,442
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990, and 2000 SF3A
(1) 1980 place of work data for the North Elkin District was derived by totaling the place of work data enumerated for
the Adkin, Elkhorn, and North Fork Districts.
(2) 1980 and 1990 place of work data for District 1 was derived by totaling the place of work data enumerated for the
Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork Districts
-------
Table 11 - Mining Employment Trends, Total Persons Employed Age 16 Years and Over
County
Me Dow ell County, WV
Mingo County, WV
Nicholas County, WV
Wyoming County, WV
Letcher County, KY
Total Mining Employment
1980 (1)
7,601
2,724
3,337
4,991
2,517
1990(2)
1,497
2,310
1,412
2,240
2,582
Change
#
(6,104)
(414)
(1,925)
(2,751)
65
%
(80.3)
(15.2)
(57.7)
(55.1)
2.6
Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 1980
-------
Table 12 - Location Quotient Analysis
NAICS
Industry Sector
Place
McDowell
Co.
Mingo
Co.
Nicholas
Co.
Wyoming
Co.
West Virginia
Letcher Co.
Kentucky
Number of Employees for Week Including March 12, 1999
11
21
22
23
31-33
42
44-45
48-49
51
52
53
54
55
56
61
62
71
72
81
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information
Finance and Insurance
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative and Support and Waster Management
and Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (except Public Administration)
11
21
22
23
31-33
42
44-45
48-49
51
52
53
54
55
56
61
62
71
72
81
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information
Finance and Insurance
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative and Support and Waster Management
and Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (except Public Administration)
11
21
22
23
31-33
42
44-45
48-49
51
52
53
54
55
56
61
62
71
72
81
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information
Finance and Insurance
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative and Support and Waster Management
and Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (except Public Administration)
3,972
0-19
871
59
20-99
13
105
871
143
46
161
61
94
20-99
20-99
0-19
1,052
0-19
100-249
174
6,847
57
1,856
20-99
310
278
199
860
818
98
240
20-99
210
0-19
410
20-99
810
15
272
287
6,915
76
554
20-99
331
816
232
1,539
427
57
171
56
241
20-99
148
-
1,236
15
573
368
4,244
55
1,025
55
272
127
58
783
236
20-99
113
23
80
0-19
200
0-19
653
20-99
290
133
545,495
1,351
20,256
8,320
28,257
73,103
22,398
89,629
14,305
12,430
21,920
6,575
19,091
4,912
23,196
9,008
100,330
7,150
51,441
26,750
4,997
0-19
1000-2499
0-19
228
113
412
727
325
106
151
14
174
89
23
-
737
20-99
343
150
1,469,315
2,231
20,798
10,496
81,996
292,206
72,525
216,211
66,537
28,091
61,430
18,136
50,705
27,359
75,212
24,041
199,385
14,931
129,217
64,588
Percent of Total Employment
21.9
1.5
0.3
21.9
3.6
1.2
4.1
1.5
2.4
-
26.5
-
-
4.4
0.8
27.1
4.5
4.5
4.1
12.6
11.9
1.4
3.5
3.1
6.0
-
11.8
0.2
4.0
4.2
1.1
8.0
4.8
4.8
11.8
22.3
6.2
0.8
2.5
0.8
3.5
2.1
-
17.9
0.2
8.3
5.3
1.3
24.2
1.3
6.4
6.4
3.0
18.4
5.6
2.7
0.5
1.9
4.7
-
15.4
-
6.8
3.1
0.2
3.7
1.5
5.2
5.2
13.4
16.4
2.6
2.3
4.0
1.2
3.5
0.9
4.3
1.7
18.4
1.3
9.4
4.9
4.6
4.6
2.3
14.5
6.5
2.1
3.0
0.3
3.5
1.8
0.5
-
14.7
-
6.9
3.0
0.2
1.4
0.7
5.6
5.6
19.9
14.7
4.5
1.9
4.2
1.2
3.5
1.9
5.1
1.6
13.6
1.0
8.8
4.4
Location Quotient
-
5.9
1.0
-
-
0.0
1.3
1.4
0.5
1.0
1.3
0.7
-
-
1.4
0.9
3.4
7.3
-
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.8
4.6
0.6
0.9
-
0.9
-
1.4
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.9
4.4
2.2
-
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.4
2.4
0.4
0.6
0.7
1.0
-
0.5
1.0
0.2
0.9
1.1
5.2
6.5
0.8
1.2
1.2
0.2
1.1
2.1
-
0.7
0.4
0.5
-
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
0.1
1.0
1.4
1.1
0.7
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.1
1.1
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns , 1999
-------
Table 13 - Industry Sectors by Zip Code, 1997
Number of Establishments by Industry Sector and Zip Code
SIC Code
000-039
040-059
060-099
100-399
400-499
400-579
580-699
700-720
721-760
900-939
Industry Sector
Agricultural Services, Forestry, and Fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation and Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Services
Public Administration
City Name, State, and Zip Code
Naugatuck, WV (25685)
No. of Establishments
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
Employee Size
-
20-49 & 500-999
-
-
-
-
10-19
20-49
-
-
Kyle, WV (24855)
No. of Establishments
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Employee Size
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Carcassonne, KY (41804)
No. of Establishments
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
Employee Size
-
-
1-4
-
1-4
-
1-4
-
1-4
-
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 1997
Notes: n/a = U.S. Census Bureau's County Business Patterns database did not include the zip code 24855
-------
Table 14 - Civilian Labor Force Trends for Persons 16 Years and Over
Case Study Area
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Civilian Labor Force Status for Persons 16 Years and Over
Employed
1980
689,461
12,072
2,822
9,362
830
8,492
868
9,942
3,377
1,531,000
5,960
1,631
1990
671 ,085
7,398
1,595
8,396
757
8,575
953
7,372
2,297
1 ,563,960
7,531
1,728
2000
732,673
6,054
1,481
8,046
1,093
9,883
1,122
7,600
2,500
1 ,798,264
7,758
50
Unemployed
1980
63,615
1,675
433
1,060
82
1,118
123
1,013
418
133,000
1,005
304
1990
71,142
2,087
450
1,541
173
1,359
148
1,454
462
124,354
1,205
326
2000
58,021
1,015
219
974
92
821
110
796
255
109,350
958
2
Total Labor Force
1980
753,076
13,747
3,255
10,422
912
9,610
991
10,955
3,795
1 ,664,000
6,965
1,935
1990
742,227
9,485
2,045
9,937
930
9,934
1,101
8,826
2,759
1,688,314
8,736
2,054
2000
790,694
7,069
1,700
9,020
1,185
10,704
1,232
8,396
2,755
1,907,614
8,716
52
Unemployment Rate
1980
9.2
13.9
15.3
11.3
9.9
13.2
14.2
10.2
12.4
8.7
16.9
18.6
1990
10.6
28.2
28.2
18.4
22.9
15.8
15.5
19.7
20.1
8.0
16.0
18.9
2000
7.3
14.4
12.9
10.8
7.8
7.7
8.9
9.5
9.3
5.7
11.0
3.8
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A and 1990 SF3A
Notes: (1) 1980 civilian labor force values were calculated by adding the values enumerated for the Adkin, Elkhorn, and North Fork Districts.
(2) 1980 civilian labor force values were calculated by adding the values enumerated for the Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork Districts.
-------
Table 15 - Per Capita Income Grow th
Case Study Area
UNITED STATES
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Census
Reported 1979
Per Capita
Income
$ 7,295
$ 6,142
$ 4,779
$ 4,609
$ 5,058
$ 4,763
$ 5,405
$ 4,450
$ 5,467
$ 5,189
$ 5,973
$ 4,546
$ 3,928
Inflated 1979
Per Capita
Income to 1989
Dollars (3)
$ 12,460
$ 10,490
$ 8,162
$ 7,872
$ 8,639
$ 8,135
$ 9,232
$ 7,601
$ 9,338
$ 8,862
$ 10,202
$ 7,765
$ 6,709
Census
Reported 1989
Per Capita
Income
$ 14,420
$ 10,520
$ 6,961
$ 7,347
$ 8,328
$ 7,263
$ 8,652
$ 7,498
$ 8,268
$ 7,641
$ 11,153
$ 7,340
$ 6,928
Inflated 1989
Per Capita
Income to 1999
Dollars (4)
$ 20,736
$ 15,128
$ 10,010
$ 10,565
$ 1 1 ,976
$ 10,444
$ 12,442
$ 10,782
$ 1 1 ,889
$ 10,988
$ 16,038
$ 10,555
$ 9,962
Census
Reported 1999
Per Capita
Income
$ 21 ,587
$ 16,477
$ 10,174
$ 9,672
$ 12,445
$ 12,721
$ 15,207
$ 15,241
$ 14,220
$ 15,381
$ 18,093
$ 1 1 ,984
$ 1 1 ,279
Real Growth in Per
Capita Income
(Percent Change
1979 to 1989)
15.7
0.3
-14.7
-6.7
-3.6
-10.7
-6.3
-1.3
-11.5
-13.8
9.3
-5.5
3.3
Real Growth in Per
Capita Income
(Percent Change
1989 to 1999)
4.1
8.9
1.6
-8.5
3.9
21.8
22.2
41.4
19.6
40.0
12.8
13.5
13.2
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A, 1990 SF3A, 2000 SF3A
(1) 1980 per capita income value for the North Skin District was derived by averaging the 1980 per capita incomes for the Adkin, Bkhorn, and North Fork Districts.
(2) 1980 and 1990 per capita income values for District 1 were derived by averaging the 1980 and 1990 per capita income values for the Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork
Districts.
-------
Table 16 - Median Household Income Growth
Case Study Area
UNITED STATES
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
No rthBkin Dstrict (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee Dstrict
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton Dstrict
Wyoming County, WV
Dstrict 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Dvision
Census Reported
1979 Median
Household
Income
$ 16,841
$ 14,654
$ 12,091
$ 12,652
$ 12,541
$ 13,849
$ 13,565
$ 11,353
$ 15,870
$ 14,924
$ 13,965
$ 10,927
$ 9,761
Inflated 1979
Median Household
Income to 1989
Dollars (3)
$ 28,764
$ 25,029
$ 20,651
$ 21,609
$ 21,420
$ 23,654
$ 23,169
$ 19,391
$ 27,106
$ 25,490
$ 23,852
$ 18,663
$ 16,672
Census Reported
1989 Median
Household
Income
$ 30,056
$ 20,795
$ 13,141
$ 14,933
$ 16,066
$ 14,583
$ 18,116
$ 16,969
$ 17,248
$ 15,873
$ 22,534
$ 15,112
$ 14,823
Inflated 1989
Median Household
Income to 1999
Dollars (4)
$ 43,221
$ 29,903
$ 18,897
$ 21,474
$ 23,103
$ 20,970
$ 26,051
$ 24,401
$ 24,803
$ 22,825
$ 32,404
$ 21,731
$ 21,315
Census Reported
1999 Median
Household Income
$ 41,994
$ 29,696
$ 16,931
$ 17,204
$ 21,347
$ 26,838
$ 26,974
$ 27,417
$ 23,932
$ 24,152
$ 33,672
$ 21,110
$ 19,250
Real Growth in
Median Household
Income (Percent
Change 1979-89)
4.5
-16.9
-36.4
-30.9
-25.0
-38.3
-21.8
-12.5
-36.4
-37.7
-5.5
-19.0
-11.1
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A, 1990 SF3A, 2000 SF3A
(1) 1980 per capita income value for the North Bkin District was derived by averaging the 1980 per capita incomes for the Adkin, Bkhorn, and North Fork Districts.
Real Growth in
Median Household
Income (Percent
Change 1989-99)
-2.8
-0.7
-10.4
-19.9
-7.6
28.0
3.5
12.4
-3.5
5.8
3.9
-2.9
-9.7
-------
Table 17 - Median Family Income Growth
Case Study Area
UNITED STATES
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North El kin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee Dstrict
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton Dstrict
Wyoming County, WV
Dstrict 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Dvision
Census Reported
1979 Median
Family Income
$ 19,917
$ 17,309
$ 14,124
$ 15,613
$ 14,885
$ 15,339
$ 15,397
$ 14,180
$ 17,745
$ 17,588
$ 16,444
$ 12,702
$ 10,856
Inflated 1979
Median Family
Income to 1989
Dollars (3)
$ 34,018
$ 29,564
$ 24,124
$ 26,667
$ 25,423
$ 26,199
$ 26,298
$ 24,219
$ 30,308
$ 30,040
$ 28,086
$ 21,695
$ 18,542
Census Reported
1989 Median
Family Income
$ 35,225
$ 25,603
$ 15,756
$ 17,687
$ 19,643
$ 17,390
$ 21,390
$ 19,198
$ 20,730
$ 19,122
$ 27,028
$ 18,229
$ 18,459
Inflated 1989
Median Family
Income to 1999
Dollars (4)
$ 50,654
$ 36,817
$ 22,657
$ 25,434
$ 28,247
$ 25,007
$ 30,759
$ 27,607
$ 29,810
$ 27,497
$ 38,866
$ 26,213
$ 26,544
Census Reported
1999 Median
Family Income
$ 50,046
$ 36,484
$ 20,496
$ 21,250
$ 26,581
$ 31,765
$ 32,074
$ 32,221
$ 29,709
$ 30,770
$ 40,939
$ 24,869
$ 20,625
Real Growth in
Median Family
Income (Percent
Change 1979-89)
3.5
-13.4
-34.7
-33.7
-22.7
-33.6
-18.7
-20.7
-31.6
-36.3
-3.8
-16.0
-0.4
Real Growth in
Median Family
Income (Percent
Change 1989-99)
-1.2
-0.9
-9.5
-16.5
-5.9
27.0
4.3
16.7
-0.3
11.9
5.3
-5.1
-22.3
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 STF3A, 1990 SF3A, 2000 SF3A
(1) 1980 per capita income value for the North FJkin Dstrict was derived by averaging the 1980 per capita incomes for the Adkin, FJkhorn, and North Fork Dstricts.
-------
Table 18 - Percent of Total Households Receiving Social Security Income
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Percent of Total
Households Receiving
Social Security in 1979
32.0
34.1
37.9
34.3
39.0
31.5
35.3
30.6
31.0
28.5
32.1
30.2
Percent of Total
Households Receiving
Social Security in 1989
34.4
42.3
46.4
34.3
29.9
34.6
33.6
34.7
38.8
28.9
31.8
30.1
Percent of Total
Households Receiving
Social Security in 1999
33.9
44.5
46.5
39.2
34.9
36.5
36.0
41.4
42.2
28.5
36.5
34.9
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 STF3A
(1) 1979 Social Security income value for the North Elkin District was calculated using the values enumerated for
the Adkin, Elkhorn, and North Fork Districts.
(2) 1979 and 1989 Social Security income values for District 1 were calculated using the values enumerated for
the Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork Districts.
Table 19 - Percent of Total Households Receiving Public Assistance Income
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Percent of Total
Households Receiving
Public Assistance in
1979
8.7
15.7
13.7
15.5
16.2
10.7
12.4
10.3
11.4
9.7
14.0
16.4
Percent of Total
Households Receiving
Public Assistance in
1989
9.7
19.7
15.5
17.6
17.2
12.4
16.4
14.3
15.2
9.6
13.9
13.2
Percent of Total
Households Receiving
Public Assistance in
1999
4.0
9.8
10.0
8.3
5.8
5.3
5.4
7.3
5.8
3.8
8.2
1.6
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 STF3A
(1) 1979 Social Security income value for the North Elkin District was calculated using the values enumerated for
the Adkin, Elkhorn, and North Fork Districts.
(2) 1979 and 1989 Social Security income values for District 1 were calculated using the values enumerated for
the Barkers Ridge and Slab Fork Districts.
-------
Table 20 - Poverty Status Trends
Case Study Place
WEST VIRGINIA
McDowell County, WV
North Elkin District (1)
Mingo County, WV
Hardee District
Nicholas County, WV
Hamilton District
Wyoming County, WV
District 1 District (2)
KENTUCKY
Letcher County, KY
Blackey Division
Percent of Persons for Whom Poverty Status is
Determined
Income in 1979
Below Poverty
Level
14.1
23.5
19.8
23.6
20.8
16.7
19.0
19.3
20.5
17.6
27.4
30.3
Income in 1989
Below Poverty
Level
19.7
37.7
32.5
30.9
33.6
24.4
27.5
27.9
29.1
19.0
31.8
33.6
Income in 1999
Below Poverty
Level
17.9
37.7
35.3
29.7
27.9
19.2
16.7
25.1
21.7
15.8
27.1
24.3
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 STF3A
(1) 1980 poverty levels were derived by calculating the average of the values enumerated for
the Adkin, Elkhorn, and North Fork Districts.
(2) 1980 poverty levels were derived by caculating the values enumerated for the Barkers
Ridge and Slab Fork Districts.
-------
Community Narratives:
Werth, Hamilton County Subdivision, Nicholas County, West Virginia
-------
Community Narratives:
Kyle, North Elkin County Subdivision, McDowell County, West Virginia
-------
Community Narratives:
Naugatuck, Hardee County Subdivision, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Community Narratives:
Scarlet, Hardee County Subdivision, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Community Narratives:
Carcassonne, Blackey County Subdivision, Letcher County, Kentucky
-------
Community Narratives:
Superior Bottom, West Virginia
-------
Community Narratives:
Blair, West Virginia
-------
Werth. West Virginia
:
Werth, Hamilton District, Nicholas County, West Virginia
-------
•
• •• •- .,
Werth, Hamilton District, Nicholas County, West Virginia
-------
Existing Lumber Yard On Site of Ely Thomas Saw Mi
Abandoned Garages for Ely Thomas Employees
Werth, Hamilton District, Nicholas County, West Virginia
-------
Kyle. West Virginia
Kyle, North Elkin District, McDowell County, West Virginia
-------
I
Kyle, North Elkin District, McDowell County, West Virginia
-------
Closed School Now Occasionally Used By Local Church
Homes Damaged Due to Recent Flooding
Kyle, North Elkin District, McDowell County, West Virginia
-------
Homes Damaged Due to Recent Flooding
Kyle, North Elkin District, McDowell County, West Virginia
-------
Naugatuck, West Virginia
Homes Adjacent to Railroad Tracks
Naugatuck, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Homes Adjacent to Railroad Tracks
i
Naugatuck, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Commercial Area
Naugatuck, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Scarlet. West Virginia
Existing Community
Scarlet, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Abandoned Homes and Empty Lots
Scarlet, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Abandoned Homes and Empty Lots
View of Valley Fill at End of Right Fork From Residence
Scarlet, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Valley Fill at End of Right Fork
Scarlet, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Abandoned Scarlet Plant Site
Scarlet, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Adjacent Surface Mine Site Photos:
On Going Mining
Scarlet, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Adjacent Surface Mine Site Photos:
On Going Mining
Reclaimed Lands
Scarlet, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Adjacent Surface Mine Site Photos:
Industrial Park
Scarlet, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Adjacent Surface Mine Site Photos:
Reclaimed Lands
V - W
Scarlet, Hardee District, Mingo County, West Virginia
-------
Carcassonne. Kentucky
Carcassonne, Blackey District, Letcher County, Kentucky
-------
Empty Lots:
Carcassonne, Blackey District, Letcher County, Kentucky
-------
Empty Lots:
Carcassonne, Blackey District, Letcher County, Kentucky
-------
Superior Bottom. West Virginia
- -
Bridge into Superior Bottom Named for Local Resident
$*• • Z:S&m
Superior Bottom, West Virginia
-------
t
'
Superior Bottom, West Virginia
-------
Closed School
Superior Bottom, West Virginia
-------
Blair. West Virginia
Blair, West Virginia
-------
Sharpies School - Now Closed
•
- •
-
I
. -
*•
•
Empty Lots:
Blair, West Virginia
-------
Empty Lots:
Blair, West Virginia
-------
Study Area Photos
Blast Warning Sign
Coal Mac Mining Company
r
Study Area Photos
-------
Delbarton Historic Arched Bridge
Delbarton Public School
Study Area Photos
-------
Delbarton,WV Public Water Installation
Abandoned Home in Scarlet, WV
Study Area Photos
-------
Mine Entrance Signs
Duncan Fork, WV - Water Tank For Residence
Study Area Photos
-------
[Additional Scarlet, WV Interview To Be Inserted]
-------
[Additional Scarlet, WV Interview To Be Inserted]
-------
[Additional Superior Bottom, WV Interview To Be Inserted]
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Blair, West Virginia
Interviewer: Um tell me a little bit about how you and your wife and your family came to live in
the Blair area.
Resident: I was born here.
Interviewer: You were born here...
Resident: Yeah
Interviewer: So your family lives here, and...
Resident: Right, my dad brought this, he just owned just about all this holler, in 1935.
Interview: Uh huh.
Resident: And uh I was born about a mile up the other holler over here and we moved here when
I was about 6 months old. I lived here ever since.
Interviewer: Uh huh.
Resident: She lived over in Man, and I met her and brought her over here.
Interviewer: Uh huh, uh huh... What would you say growing up here and and in the time you lived
here before the surface mining came in, what was it about this community that you liked, that you
enjoyed?
Resident: Well, the people. We had, we had a pretty nice people. We had a few outlaws too, but
ah the majority of the people were nice people. It's a nice community, and a lot of them just moved
away. And a lot of them sorry that they moved, after they moved, but once you sell out, you can't
get back.
Interviewer: So the people who were in the community, what's one of the best things for you?
Resident: Yeah, it's a quiet community, you know, we don't have.... very little ah problems. We
have a few, but it's a nice place to live.
Interviewer: Uh huh. And where did a where did you work for example?
Resident: I worked for Sharpies Coal.
Interviewer: Doing underground mining or surface mining or... ?
-------
Resident: Well, I worked inside for about two years and the rest of it was outside on the tipple -
preparation plant.
Interviewer: Uh huh. So were you working for the company that was close by?
Resident: Yeah, they the ones that mountaintopped... they wasn't mountain topping when I was
there, but maybe they stripped. But they didn't mountaintop.
Interviewer: Uh huh.
Resident: Most of it was deep mining.
Interviewer: Uh huh. And that was really the only job you've had, you've always worked for
them?
Resident: No, I worked old Logan. I worked a 13 years over there and I worked for ah... started
out at a car lot. I washed cars for a living.... Worked for a wholesale house, sold groceries,
wholesale groceries. And I worked for another wholesale house after that, and then I worked for
loading concrete. I sold concrete cinderblocks, and then I got a job at the mine. And I finished
there. I had 27 years.
Interviewer: Uh huh. So about when did you start working for the mining company?
Resident: Uh 1968.
Interviewer: In '68?
Resident: Yeah
Interviewer: And why did you, what what prompted you to take that job?
Was it you were looking for a new one you wanted a different one?
Resident: Money
Interviewer: Money.
Resident: They paid the best wages.
Interviewer: Uh huh.
Resident II: Tell them what you were making before.
Resident: I was making $2 an hour when I went to a Sharpies Coal. And I went down there I was
making a probably about $4 an hour, and then they went up. When I quit I was making over about
$116 a day.
-------
Interviewer: Uh huh.
Resident: Save matters a quarter. But ah these place I worked, I know Logan, they didn't pay
much. You just survived, that's about all you could say.
Interviewer: So, when did the surface mining start in Blair?
Resident: Ahh... probably about '95 somewhere around '95. I quit work in '94 and they was just
getting started then. But they didn't get up to Blair 'til probably about '95-'96.
Interviewer: Uh huh. So, you never worked for this company while they were mining right here?
Mountaintop mining?
Resident: No. Not mountaintopping. It was Ashland Coal when I worked for 'em. They sold out
to Arch Mineral. I guess that's who owns 'em now is Arch.
Interviewer: Did you notice... Did you notice any changes in the community when the surface
mining came in?
Resident: Oh sure
Interviewer: Can you describe some of those to me?
Resident: Well, are you talking 'bout the environmentalist or just the people leaving or what?
Interviewer: Any of the changes you want to talk about.
Resident: They got to buy out your neighbors, you know, they'd had to move and ah...
Interviewer: The population left...
Resident: Yeah, and they would think they would be getting a good price for their houses, because
when then brought their houses they didn't pay a whole lot for it. But when they go try to buy one
somewhere else, they usually have to go in debt, most of them.
Resident II: They had have lived here for years.
Resident: Yeah,
Resident II: And they didn't realize what the company was giving them wasn't worth what they
needed to...
Resident: A lot of them was just like me, they were born and raised here. And then you talk about
the environment - we had put up with dust. When they put off a shot, they'd be up back the holler
up here, and dust would roll down this holler. And ah, we haven't had a flood since they done all
this. Back when they stripped back in the early '70s, they stripped around to the head of this holler
-------
and we had floods back then. And it would rain, and you'd be sittin on the front porch and you can
hear that water coming down the holler. It would all come down at one time. And we hadn't had
any of that, no floods, since they've done this mountaintop. And I don't know what's gonna happen.
And it worries me, but a I don't dwell on it a whole lot. But I don't know what's gonna happen
Interviewer: Uhhuh
Resident: But ah, we ah, I called ah the Environmental Protection Agency one time about the dust
come down the holler. And my brother had just washed his truck and it was sitting down here in the
driveway. And he had a black Ford truck. And they came over here and he actually wiped dust of
my brother's truck. Um, he wrote me a letter after he filled out his report and said there wasn't
enough evidence to prove that ah they had broke the law. But they was one of the men riding over
in a helicopter when that happened, and he seen it and he made 'em file for it. And that goes to tell
you something that some of these people are being bought off. Because you know good and well
you can't wipe dust of a man's vehicle - something's wrong. And another thing, they ruined our
well water. I use to have a water softener on it and it took care of the rust. And it got to where it
didn't take care of it, but now our water stinks, it smells. It's sulfur water, I guess, what it is and we
don't use it other than to just flush the commode or take a bath. We don't bath in it unless we have
to. And I go way up the holler to get water which comes out of the mountain to drink and to cook
with, but they ruin our well water.
Interviewer: So, you said your brother filed a complaint about the dust?
Resident: I'm the one filed the complaint.
Interviewer: You filed the complaint?
Resident: My brother's truck was setting out there and he, and they wiped the dust off his truck.
Interviewer: Did you ever talk to them about any of the other things, such as the water?
Resident: Oh yeah, yeah we talked to them about it, but...
Resident II: They came up here and said to clean the well...
Resident: They wanted me to clean my well out. Said clean your well out, that's what they told
me. I took, I took three samples to a meeting we had down at the school about our water. I took one
over the weekend you know when they wasn't doing no blasting, and it looked fairly good. And I
took one after they started blasting, and I showed it to 'em. And they didn't think what I was
showing them was actual truth. They made fun of me, really, and I got it right of my spigot.
Interviewer II: And you reported that to the state department?
Resident: Oh yeah, we had a meeting down at the school, use to have environmental meeting down
there. And when we first had that meeting, I asked the man, that was environmentalist man, I asked
him, "What is it that you all protect?" They said, "Well, we protect against the water, protect against
-------
the air, and we protect the community." And when we got through everybody start questioning him,
come to find out they was protecting nothing, he wasn't. He said that would be under another
department. They put it off on somebody else on every case.
Interviewer: Uhhuh
Resident: And we didn't get a thing out of it, what we was trying to get done.
Female Interviewer: So, you never got any response about your water?
Resident: Oh no. Another man came here a while back, oh it's been...
Resident II: That's about... I think, last part of last summer.
Resident: It wouldn't be that long.
Resident II: Yes it has
Resident: Well, he come here and he got like he was going to put us a water system in here. And
ah, I was glad when he told us. I said I'll believe it when I see it. But ah, we never heard anything
about that.
Resident II: It goes on 24 hours a day.
Resident: Yeah, you hear things a clanging and banging back in here ah... they' d let off shots, most
of those were early in the morning or late in the evening, the shots were. They'd rattle your house,
your windows would shake, your pictures rattled.
Interviewer: Was there any warning, for the shots?
Resident: Well, we couldn't hear 'em. They'd put off warnings back there on the hill, but we
couldn't hear them down here.
Resident II: There were three, three horn blasts before...
Resident: Did you even hear one?
Resident II: Before the shots go off.
Resident: No, they send us letters, you know.
Resident II: We're so far away, that when the horn blasts... It's hard to hear, but when the
dynamite blew you could hear that.
Resident: See, they got a dam up the holler, a run-off pond is what it's called, and I don't know
what's gonna ever happen to that. They told, the environmentalist told me that when they quit
-------
they' d tear that dam out, but they ain't tore it out. It's still up there. They came down the other day,
and that boy lives up the holler here said they came down and cleaned it out. That's the first time
I know of them to clean it out.
Female Interviewer: Now you think that was the state or that was someone from the mining
company?
Resident: That was the mining company cleaned it.
Female Interviewer: Did the mining company ever talk to you, like come around and discuss with
you what was going on, or ask you if there was damage? Work with you in any way, like that?
Resident: They came here and done a pre-blast survey on my house. I called 'em, had to do that.
They haven't been back since then. But I can't, I can't say that they damaged my house, other than
the dust, you know, but they damaged my water.
Interviewer: Did you ever ask to have regular samples taken from the water or anything like that?
Resident: Well ah, that man that came here he took samples of my water.
Interviewer: The man that came here?
Resident: And the environmentalist that came and done the pre-blast, he took samples of my water,
my water wasn't that bad when they done that.
Interviewer: Right.
Resident: Just got worst after that, they did come back two days more, By the third coming, took
two samples. He said now you put water in here, and now he was mad then.
Resident II: And we haven't heard from him.
Resident: Yeah, and that ain't been to long.
Interviewer: And who do you think he worked for?
Resident: He worked for some contractor now didn't he?
Interviewer: So he was
Resident: But he was something to do with the state now, but I don't know what it was.
Resident II: They ran a waterline from Madison, I don't know were it started at...
Resident: Elk River from what I understood, the waterline that comes through Sharpies to Clothier
and the Boone County line.
-------
Resident II: And the people is hooking up on that waterline, but it didn't come through Sharpies.
Resident: Well, Sharpies already had a water system.
Resident II: I don't know how far up the road they did come.
Resident: They came to the Clothier line, the Boone County line.
Resident II: He may have been passing out information, because of that, I don't know.
Resident: See this... this use to be a big community, I mean there was probably about 300 hundred
families that owned their home. Now I bet there's 65 that own their homes. There's a few more that
the company has rented their houses out they bought, but there's about 65 families that own their
property. And they'd like to buy all us out but we don't wanna sell.
Interviewer: When did that shift happen? When did it go from 300 to 65?
Resident: Well, a probably when they started buying they wasn't quite 300. They was probably...
I think they said they was gonna buy 200 and some houses when they first started buying. And that
way they included everybody. See it had already dropped down some then, but ah... I've got a
picture if you'd like to see of Blair back in 1927. That's was before they even started this strip
mining, that was back when it was a mining community.
Interviewer: Underground mining and that who people worked for, underground mining company?
Resident: Yeah, but you can see what kind of community it was then. It was a big community.
Interviewer: When the surface mining came in, in your experience did a lot of people go to work
for them, from Blair and Sharpies area?
Resident: Not from Blair, no.
Interviewer: No?
Resident: A whole lot of them came here from other places. Lot of 'em bringing in contractors and
I was already working there then.
Interviewer: Was um... you talked a lot about some of the physical, environmental changes when
the mining started, was there changes to the community like the schools were impacted or things of
that nature?
Resident: We don't have no schools. These days, when they buy these out, the kids leave. And
we didn't have no kids, so they closed the schools down. And they, what kids you have now, some
of them I think goes Madison, some to Chapmanville. My baby girl graduated from Chapmanville,
what, she go there two years?
-------
Resident II: One year
Resident: In her last year at Chapmanville.
Resident II: Madison? Something...
Resident: That was about the only thing that the communities like Sharpies, Clothier and Blair had
that we got together on. Was the schools, you know. And ah, so they got them closed down and ah
we had no communication now what so ever with other communities.
Resident II: When you loose your schools in a community, you have no reason to have a
community.
Resident: There was at one time we had five grocery stores. We had three service stations, now
we don't have... All we got in businesses is a barber shop and a post office. That's all we got. We
want to buy a loaf of bread we got to drive to Boone County line, or to Logan.
Interviewer: So the businesses are gone. Tell me a little bit more also about what you meant by
when the school was closed down, the community... .how did you phrase it... doesn't have a reason?
Resident II: The community is no community anymore. Children is what makes families. And
if children ain't around in the community, they're going somewhere else. Then the family don't
have no reason to get together for any reason. Families... in this community, in Sharpies, when the
children done something, mommies and daddies was there. When they played ball mommies and
daddies was there. When they had Halloween parties, mommies and daddies was there. When they
had any kind of a get together, mommies and daddies was there. They had mothers to do... mothers
got together to do things with the children. We don't have that no more!
Resident: We, we live in an isolated area.
Resident II: Yeah
Resident: From the top of Blair mountain, the Logan County politicians wait's 'till Boone County' s
election time. We can't get much from Logan until election time, then we get a little bit. And ah,
from Boone County, see on up this way from Clothier that's Boone County out that way, so we don't
get anything from Boone County. We tried to secede to Boone County, but it didn't go through.
But ah, we have always been treated as red headed stepchild (ha ha), but ah the politicians has never
done anything for us until election time. They come over and pat you on the back, and the people
they give a little money go. And all the people they'll get out and campaign for 'em.
Resident II: There was Board of Education members that we had voted for because they had it exed
on the ballot that they wouldn't vote for it - "We will not close, vote to close your schools."
Resident: They was considering to drive... that they had to take the kids the whole way to the
Chapmanville. And they was considered going across Blair mountain, but they said they wouldn't
-------
go that way. But ah they did say they would never vote to close the school down, but when it come
time to vote they voted and did it.
Resident II: They told us a bare face lie.
Resident: The pressure was probably put on from the State, you know, the State come in here and
took over ah the board
Resident II: I'm the type of person that if I give somebody my word, I'm gonna stick to my word.
Resident: Well, he's a politician though you know politicians like to lie (ha ha). They don't like
to, but they do (ha ha).
Resident II: I couldn't do that. I'm not that kind of person. "Specific name" was one of them.
Interviewer: Where there other community resources that closed down, ah churches? You said the
post office is still here.
Resident: Yeah, and what did you want to know?
Interviewer: Churches, were there any churches, or libraries or any public...
Resident: No, there wasn't no library. I don't think any churches are closed yet but some of them
don't meet very often.
Resident II: The Blair, the Baptist down here.
Resident: They met Sunday.
Resident II: Did they?
Resident: Yeah, they don't meet very often. But they have but about six members.
Resident II: Our property...
Resident: We came down here Church of Christ and we have ah 18 members. And ah, we use to
have about 43. A lot of them have moved away, and some of them passed away. And you don't
have much to work with, 'cause we're so small. But were surviving
Resident II: That land that the church property is on is on loan from the coal company. We need
that.
Resident: Well, the deal was as long as they didn't need the property we could use it. That was the
deed or the lease or whatever they got from them. But if they ever decide they want it, they give us
a 90 day notice and we gotta move the structure. But we couldn't move it.
-------
Interviewer: So, you'd lose the church if they decided they wanted it that land...
Resident: Right
Interviewer: What is the community like here now with the homes and the families that are left?
Resident II: It's not the same community.
Resident: Well, I can't say it's a bad community, but there's just not many of us.
Resident II: So few of us left.
Resident: There's nothing to get us together. I mean you take you got the four churches here in
Blair, and they don't never associate with one another. So, we don't get together for that reason, so
there's nothing like school or anything like that to get us together. Every now and then somebody
will have a baby shower or household shower or something and some of the women will get
together... (The phone rings, Resident is speaking to someone on the phone)
Pause in tape.
Interviewer: Ah lets see, where were we???
Resident: You asked about the community I believe... Our community is ah it's small, but
everybody just about knows everybody. We got a few people here in Blair, that we don't get
acquainted with yet, that moved into company houses, not lived here very long. And ah, but the
ones that's lived here along time, all of them are mostly good people. And ah were just not as big
as we use to be. And we don't have anything to get us together, you know, like a community
gathering. Every Memorial Day, they have a memorial get together, ah that's about the only time
that the community... The people come here, you know, that's moved away for that, and that's about
the only thing we had to get together on. Or unless it's a wake or something, somebody died. That's
what wakes are, they're just reunions, (ha, ha)
Interviewer: Of the people who still live down here, are there some family? Is... how would you
describe sort of the future of this community?
Resident: I believe it will finally vanish. It won't be any, if the coal company has anything to do
with it. See they're wanting to go underneath us and get coal, they want the long wall. I don't know
if you know anything about long wall mining or not... you know what happens when they long
wall? Well they want to get us out of here, because if our property sinks, they know we're gonna
sue. 'Course it's hard to get anything out of 'em. But ah they'll eventually, I'd say, get us all.
Interviewer: Tell me a little bit about how the company approached the community from your
experience about buying out, you said 200 some homes?
Resident: The way I understood it, is the people called them. They was thinking they was getting
a big price you know, for their property. Well let me give you an example: Man brought a piece
-------
of property right down here, below this house right there, he paid $18,000 for that piece of property,
an it was an old house. The coal company, ah he called them, and they made him a deal - give him
$24,000. So he said, "I'm making $6,000." Well my brother told him, he said "Well you go buy you
a place for $24,000." And he went and moved over round Madison or somewhere over in there.
He come back and told my brother, he said, "Well," he said, "You was right, you can't find nothing
for that price." So you see he didn't help his self any, that's what happens to a lot of them. They're
think there getting, you know a good price until they go try to buy something.
Interviewer: And you think they approached the company, to buy out because...
Resident: Most of them did. Now some of them, maybe the company might of came to them but
ah, most of them would call the company and make a deal with the company.
Interviewer: And you think that was because they didn't want to live with the impact that was
going on?
Resident: That's was part of it. They didn't want to live with the problems that was gonna be
caused. They wanted to get out.
Interviewer: And the other part?
Resident: Oh, the other part... They thought they was getting a good deal for their property and
they didn't pay that much for it. Thought he was making a profit just like that fella, he thought he
was making a profit until he went to buy something some where else, and found out he, he wasn't
getting a good deal. And another thing too, the people, other people would sell for and get a bigger
price that what he did, and he'd hear about it, and it'd make you feel bad.
Interviewer: So did that cause tensions in the community?
Resident: Well, not between the community, but it did between who sold out to the company.
They'd get made because they didn't get as much as somebody else got.
Interviewer: So they're mad at the company and not their neighbors.
Resident: Right, right. I don't think there was any problem between the community, as far as
people selling out. I hate to see them go, but that was their choice.
Interviewer: Can you tell me a little bit about your decision not to move?
Resident: Well I didn't want to! I like this place, and I was born and raised here. I'm not saying
I won't go. It may get so bad I might have to, but I don't want to. I don't believe I'd be satisfied
anywhere else. I've looked around, looked at property and it's outrageous. I said if I had to go, I
said they're gonna buy me a place. I'm not gonna go in debt. This is paid for -1 don't owe a dime
on it. I own this place and that place up there, those hills. If I go somewhere, their gonna buy me
a place. I'm not gonna go in debt. So I don't know. I'm not gonna say I wont go, but I don't want
to.
-------
Interviewer: Have you had any interactions with someone from the company or an agent, about
that possibility?
Resident: Selling out?
Interviewer: Uhhuh
Resident: No, now they came in here... We own 27 acres of this hillside here. And the coal
company, ah sold the timber, and they told them that they owned all the way down here behind our
house. And the reason they done that there, was a the man that lives up the holler, my dad sold some
property to. And he kept 27 acres, but that lawyer, their lawyer up the holler here corrected the deed.
They done correct the deed and gave him 27 acres of our property. So, we didn't know nothing
about that. So when the coal company come in here, or the logging company, they got to cutting
our timber. And we got out there and told them they was cutting our timber. And they said no, he
said, that belongs to the coal company, so we got into a lawsuit with the coal company over them
cutting our timber, you know. And they finally realized that they had made a mistake so we got
$ 15,000 for the timber they cut. We could have got more if we would of went to court, but it would
of took years. So, we decided to settle out of court for $ 15,000. And they also made a property line,
surveyed it made a property line, where our line is. But that's the only deal, the only problem that
we had, with the coal company as far as them trying to take our property, or anything.
Interviewer: Have they never approached you about purchasing that 27 acres that you know?
Resident: No, no. They never, they never come to us ask us about selling out or anything. I guess
they know we don't want to sell. We let it known to the community that we don't want to sell. See
my brother lives there, and I live here, and my sister lives... I own this up here and she lives in that
one. And ah Daddy left us, every one, a piece of property. My son and my sister lives up here. She
had a piece property and above that, and she deed that to my son. And he owns it now. Then
another one of my sisters owns a piece of property right above the home place here, but she sold
hers. It's been sold three or four times, and finally they sold to the coal company. And ah, so we
own this property and these heir ships. The hillside is heir ship, and we just don't want to sell.
Don't want to go.
Interviewer: So you enjoy living here and, and the ties to the land that your family has? Is that
why?
Resident: Right, right, it's not... it's a good community, I lived here all my live, I can't imagine
living somewhere else, I might have to one of these day, I don't know.
Interviewer: Did you have any other ah, interactions with the company, or, or an agent of the
company about what kind of mining they were going to be doing, or before they came in?
Resident: They don't tell you anything. That's one problem the community has, is they don't never
let the community know what there going to do. See if they'd come in here and told, you know,
what there going to do, there might have been more people that would have sold out. I don't know.
-------
But they still haven't told nobody what there going to do. But we understand, and know that there
going to go underneath us. They got two seams of coal down there, that they're wanting to get and
they want to long wall. See, they're already coming this way, from over Danville, well actually
Dehue and that way. And if Sharpies gets back open back up they're going to
come this way. They're going to get all this coal underneath.
Interviewer: So you've got one on the other side of you?
Resident: Well this ones not operating now, but that one over yonder is. That one over yonder is
Massey and this is Arch. I don't know if I would want to buy it with all that coal and all that water
Kelly' s got in it. Westmoreland, Sharpies, they went in to Cedar Grove, and flooded it out. Caused
an explosion.
Interviewer: Those are underground minds that are flooded out?
Resident: Right. Up here, up Kelly holler here, where that mine use to be up there, see they came
in from Amhurst. That all collects together back to Amhurst and the water runs out of the ground
at the side of the.holler up here just comes right up out the ground, from the pressure. And all that
mine is filled with water. You got Westmoreland, then over this way, that comes back in towards
us all that full of water. Then Sharpies, go down beneath that, I'd been scared death to go in there.
That water breaks through - you ain't got a chance.
Interviewer: Did you ever see information printed about what kind of permit activity or anything
like that?
Resident: They put the permit's that they applied for, and they permit... when they get them in the
paper. But most people don't understand those permit's, you know, where it is at or anything like
that. They just see a map in there and they don't even no where it's at.
Resident II: We have at Orange Cove was suppose to have gotten a permit, for Sharpies now. And
if they did and when they do, they'll go across the road toward Dehue.
Resident: That's the big permit that they've had trouble over, she's takin about... Going across
through... Pigeonroost, White Oak and all up through yonder. I've heard that they got part of that,
but they ain't got it all now.
Interviewer: So none of that is something that you read about... or permit in the paper, that's just
what you've heard through the community?
Resident II: From other sources, people in the community talk about....
Resident: You'll hear every now and then, they're going to start back up about two weeks down
here. But they ain't started up yet.
Female Interviewer: Did they put the ah, permit information that's in the paper, is it in the local
paper?
-------
Resident: Yeah, the Logan Banner.
Interviewer: Logan Banner.
Interviewer: And is it... do people not understand it because it's... the way they talk about it or
the maps not legible, or they are?
Resident: Some of them just don't know how to read that map.
Interviewer: Okay
Resident: It's written down. Well the permit's are written down, but people still don't understand
where they're at.
Interviewer: The maps are clear, they just don't necessarily no what they mean.
Resident: Right. Now the ones that understand it are the ones that fights against it. 'Cause they
know where it's at. But ah, it's hard to fight against the coal company, and win.
Resident II: Down in West Virginia the coal company has the power. In West Virginia, the coal
company is the power.
Resident: The coal is king as they say, in West Virginia.
Resident II: And the little man don't have a chance. They decide they want a piece of property
their gonna get it.
Resident: Where do you live?
Female Interviewer: We're from the Philadelphia area.
Resident: Philadelphia... they mine up there too don't they?
Female Interviewer: They definitely do some mining in central Pennsylvania.
Resident: Are they mountaintopping?
Interviewer: Not much mountaintop...
Interviewer II: They use to do a lot of deep mining, but that's pretty much done.
Resident II: That's what they did here for years and years, and years is deep mining.
Resident: West Virginia, they found out it's a lot cheaper to start at the top and take the mountain
down to the coal. 'Cause they get three inches of coal, if they grind into three inches of coal, they
-------
get that too. They don't waste anything but that don't care what there doing to the environment.
They just throw it over the hill and fill up a holler. We got a holler up here that use that be fork up
here, one holler to the right, and one to the left, and they filled the one to the right so full it ain't no
holler there no more.
Resident II: When they take the hilltop off to get the coal, they don't need as many workers
either...
Resident: No, it takes less men...
Resident II: So that puts men out of work. And that all most people here was doing, knows, was
coal mining, in these small communities.
Resident: You all come across Blair Mountain?
Interviewer: Uh huh.
Resident II: Did you all see some garbage over there?
Interviewer: I did, along side of the road.
Resident: Yeah
Resident II: That's another problem we have.
Resident: I don't know why the, you talk about you're an environmentalist, why can't you stop and
look at that and see if you can find a name in it? I thought about doing it but hell, I said if I do
somebody come along catch me and think I was gonna put it out. They'll fine me.
Resident II: When this started out here in all the houses up this holler was gone except for
"Specific name" and then ours, people come up here and put garbage up our holler.
Resident: Yep, the magazine up there had their name on it. The fella that lives above me up here,
he called 'em, and he told'em he done it. And he brought his garbage up there and dumped it out.
Resident II: They had come to the conclusion that ain't nobody around here, so why don't we make
a garbage dump out of this place.
Resident: That's what there gonna do bring out... look like they just bring there garbage. They
ought at least throw it over the hill, where people can't see it. They just throw it out the side of the
road.
Interviewer: And that's people who don't want to pay, or, or maybe can't pay, don't wanna pay
for someone to come take it away?
Resident: I don't know what it is.
-------
Resident II: If I couldn't afford to pay, I would take it to the town and put it in the garbage bin
somewhere in the town.
Interviewer: Ah huh
Resident II: I mean, that's better then throwing it side the road. 'Cause we had one down here at
the mouth of holler, and other people had put their stuff in our bin.
Resident: I'll tell you what, they done to us one time... We ah, they found a piece of paper on Blair
Mountain where it had her name on it, and they called her and was gonna want her to bring it where
she pays for garbage. And she called them and told them, she said, "Now listen... .1 don't like to
see this littering, and I don't litter." She said, "Now that might of blown out of my car, I don't
know." But they was wanting to fine us, just because they found a piece of paper. Now you look
at the garbage long the road and they don't do a thing about that.
Resident II: I put ah, we have plastic bags in our car, and we put our garbage in the plastic bag in
our car.
Resident: Yeah, we put garbage bags in the car.
Resident II: So, that just the messing the road up and the territory up.
Resident: The scenery, I hate to see that garbage along the road.
Interviewer: Well like you said, that their bringing it in here where you live too, 'cause they think
no one lives there.
Resident II: He's got a nephew that lives up Kelley... tell um that story.
Resident: Yeah, there was a fella, he was a contractor from over on the Man side, Buffalo Creek
side, somewhere, and they worked on somebody' s roof. And the old shingles that they took off, they
brought them up the holler up here, and dumped them. And my nephew and his wife, they found
out he done it, and they called...
Resident II: They found a piece of paper where they...
Resident: Yeah, ...paid for the stuff that they had worked with. So, they called 'em, and they
found out through that who done it. And they called this fella and told him that they'd give him 24
hours to come and clean that up or they were gonna call, whoever they call and ask them to come
over right a way. And he said, "I paid my brother to do this job, and I paid him to haul that to a
garbage dump." And he said, "He brought it up there." So, he got another on of my nephews had
a little ole end loader, and he hired him to load it up. And they hauled it off. But that's the way they
do. It's ridiculous. You know, must garbage trucks will pick up about any garbage they pick up old
washing machines, things like that. But about all people just haul off and throw 'em upside the road
somewhere.
-------
Resident II: It's really not that much. Is it $24 for a month for a large one?
Resident: For what?
Resident II: Like for our garbage thing down here? We paid how much?
Resident: About $12.
Resident II: $12, for a month. That ain't bad. And there's three of us that put our garbage in
there.
Resident: There is more than than....
Resident II: Yeah, I know there are. I know.
Resident: Yeah... they're not supposed to... I've never caught any body, but I know there is people
who do it.
Interviewer: What about the homes that were bought-out, what happen to them, where they?
Resident: They were tore down,
Resident II: Torn down
Resident: Most of them, now if there's a real nice home I don't know where you noticed the one,
you come off Blair mountain? They bought that one, and that's a nice one - haven't been built to
long. And they kept that one. And there's a few more like that, that's kinda new. And they kept
' em and rented. They just cost you about $ 100 a month to rent. That's a pretty good price for rent.
Some of them may be a little more, I don't know, but they said were those that way they rented them
out instead of tearing them down.
Resident II: That was another thing we had round here, there was homes burning.... They just
leave it a mess.
Resident: A mess.
Interviewer: They didn't haul the refuge?
Resident: Well, they didn't until the people got to complaining about it, and then uh the
environmental Protection Agency, I guess, came in and got on the coal company, made 'em clean
it up. But uh, it wouldn't be long after somebody moved out of one - it burned. We always figured
the coal company hired somebody to set it on fire, to get rid of it probably. Cheaper to burn them
than it was to tear 'em down.
Interviewer: Well, I think that pretty much covers all the questions that I wanted to ask you. Uh,
-------
did we talk about the, in terms of the coal mining industry being here in the holler, where there any
benefit's that you saw? I know you said a few people were hired by the company to work there, uh
were there any other benefit's?
Resident: Well, they paid good wages to the ones who worked there. Uh coal is a good occupation.
It's kinda dangerous, but uh, it pays good wages, got good benefit's, if you could get a job. I tried
to get a job down Sharpies for ah, probably about 12 years, before I even got on down there. One
fella told me, he said, "You the next fella I'm gonna hire." He lost his job, pretty good while after,
he lost his job, and I didn't get the job. But there's a boy I was raised with, his brother-in-law got
to be Superintendent, and we had little league baseball, and I was manager of the little league team.
And he ask me, he said "Specific name, say, why don't you get a job in the coal mining?" I said,
"Man, they wont hire me." So he talked to his brother-in-law, and his brother-in-law said, "You
want work?" I said, "Well give me a job and see," and they gave me a job, that way - little league
baseball. And I worked 27 years for them. But it's hard to get on, you gotta have somebody to pull
for you. Just take somebody in the community, that's got nobody that works there, or you don't
know anybody, you just can't get on. It's kinda like a family thing.
Interviewer: So you think there are jobs there, but their hiring from other places?
Resident: Oh yeah, they'd rather hire strangers than hire someone from the community.
Resident II: We know they do... was my son, that could have got hired for a job and
These others got the job.
Resident: Well, what it was, they got to hiring these young boys, and 'sow and plow' - hire them
to cut weeds or something like that. And if they liked them, they'd move them up, but if they didn't
like them, they'd get rid of them. Well, my son, I got him a job, cutting weeds. He moved up into
the warehouse, and this is still a salaried job. And two of the boss's, boys was hired after my son,
and they moved them up into the union. My son he got so aggravated, he just quit. And I told him,
I said "Son, you gotta be patient."
Resident II: They was the same age. One was born in February, and was born I believe in October,
they was the same age. And that had nothing to do with it - his daddy was the boss.
Resident: It was a family thing, you know, you was in the family or in the click, you could get on,
or get your son on. I had a time getting my boy a job. I went to the 'main man', and talked to him
about it, and it wasn't long after I talked to him, he hired my son.
Interviewer: So, other than a few jobs, well paying jobs, would you say there are other benefit's?
Did, did they improve any of the roads, or, or improve any other community things?
Resident: The State Roads, State keeps the roads up for the coal companies. I mean, if you got a
coal company that's paying big taxes, State Roads will keep the roads up. It's like this Kelly holler
here now, that use to be past on all the way cross over to Amerstdale. And after the coal company
went out up here, it's asphalted up to where the tipple was and then it's dirt from there own up to
the foot of the mountain, and there across is asphalted. But that was back in the early '60s that that
-------
was asphalted? That was when this coal company up the holler was a big business. See it's out of
business now, so they don't care. The State Roads ain't gonna fix it. It's still a State highway
though.
Interviewer: So, the surface mining just, uh, help me remember, here on one side it's still going
on and one side it might, it might be starting up again.
Resident: Oh, they're gonna start back up. I don't know when.
Interviewer: And you said it started around middle 90s?
Resident: The mountaintopping, right.
Interviewer: Yeah
Resident: Yeah, now this coal mine down here been down for oh, back in the probably the turn of
century. But they deep mined back then, and...
Resident II: We know they were gonna start back up because the old... what is that thing down
there...
Resident: The dragline.
Resident II: ... the dragline is still there. If they wasn't gonna start back up they would have moved
the dragline and put it somewhere else.
Resident: Now they started stripping back in the '70s, but the mountaintopping they didn't start
to the mid '90s. The stripping, you know, I guess you know about the stripping.
Interviewer: Yeah
Resident: It's bad enough, but then the mountaintopping just take it all. If you go... where you
going when you leave here?
Interviewer: Where gonna go the other way out, where gonna go up...
Resident: Down Charleston? Madison?
Interviewer: Madison, right.
Resident: When you go down the road here, you kinda watch down this side the top of the
mountain and you can see the mountains been cut out about halfway. And a lot of places just got
grass, they ain't got no trees down so far. When you get down at the bottom there's trees, but they
sewed grass, and I don't think grass is as good as trees (laugh).
Resident II: Another thing, I don't know if you all have anything to do with trees, or well I guess
-------
you do. When people come in here to cut trees down, they take what they like...
Interviewer II: Yeah, select
Resident II: ... and they leave what they don't like. And they don't clean it up, they don't, they
pull in take what they like and leave. They leave terrible mess and we live with it!
Resident: When we had that meeting down at the school about, with the environmentalist, I ask that
fella, I asked him what they protecting. He told me you know, the streams, and stuff like that. I
said, "Well. I'll tell you what I said, suppose you caught me cutting trees down in the creek, and just
leaving them there." I said, "What would you do?" He said "I'd tell you to get 'em out." "Well,"
I said, "up the holler where I live, I said they cut these trees down and left the tops of the trees right
in the creek." And I said, "When it floods, you know what's gonna happen!" And he said, "Well,"
and he said, "there ain't no laws against the timber company." That's what he told me. And he
could've made the coal company... who would've been responsible, I ask him, "I said if this comes
down the holler and damage my property, who am I gonna sue?" He said, "Well, it would be the
coal company, being liable." I said, "Why can't they come down there and just pull them trees tops
up out of the creek?" I said, "They can do that real easy." But, they never did.
Interviewer: Well is there anything that I didn't ask you about, that you wanted to talk to us about?
Resident: I'm gonna show you that picture.
Interviewer: Yeah, I'd like to see that picture.
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Blair, West Virginia
Resident: Ya'll live in where? Pennsylvania, the steel mills?
Interviewer: Pennsylvania.
Resident: So, if you live close to a steel mill, chances your life is shortened, then if you're out in
the country, is that right?
Interviewer: I'm sure there are all kinds of industries that have similar kinds of, you know the good
and the bad that come with it, um, none probably as big as coal I think... But, (laugh) that's just my
opinion so far, I mean, I haven't studied the other industries, so...
Resident: Okay
Interviewer: Um, tell me a little bit about how you and your family originally came to live in
Blair?
Resident: That's were I was born. My dad's a coal miner and he was in the coal mines for I think
35 years. So he help get me in the coal mine. I went to Cleveland in '54 when I finished high
school. I got a job that ah, I just couldn't make ends meet. So, I come back to West Virginia and
he help me get a job in the coal mines in '56. And that's where I spent ah... This is underground
coal mining, I spent 3 years there. Laid off. Went back to Cleveland in'61, worked till'63. Come
back to the coal mines, and I been there ever since.
Interviewer: Were you always doing underground or did you originally do...
Resident: I was always doing underground.
Interviewer: All underground.
Resident: Uhhuh
Interviewer: So you retired as an underground coal miner...
Resident: I had 34 years. I got black lungs. 'Course that comes from coal mining. 'Course they
paid me for compensation, because of my lungs. To uh... I raised three children on the miner's
income, so I give them the opportunity if they want to go to college. I told 'em I'd pay for it; they
didn't... like me they didn't have the desire, so. The strip mining I don't know very much about it,
just what I see. And my son works on strip mine but, I never did work on one. Ah., they do, ah...
they do tear the mountains off. They ah, pollute streams, that's still, ah, they still make a good
living. It's the best paying job in West Virginia, far as I know, is coal mining.
-------
Interviewer: When you...
Resident: When I lived at Blair, before I moved, I moved in '93, the strip mine hadn't come quite
to my house. But by '94, after a year after I moved here, go back to my house where I live and I can
see the dust from rock and stuff, you know, fly in the air. But ah, when I... asked them if they'd buy
my place, they didn't come to me I went to them, they said yeah. I felt that they gave me a
reasonable offer for mine; that's the reason why I'm here.
Interviewer: Let me back up and ask you, what was it that you liked about the community when
you were growing up there, and when you lived there before the surface mining came in?
Resident: Okay, it was a community about 700 there were neighbors, and we knew everyone. We
had softball teams; we had baseball teams. It was a nice community, clean and ah, I just enjoyed
my childhood.
Interviewer: And you children were raised there?
Resident: Uhhuh
Interviewer: So they went to school in the area?
Resident: They went to school in Sharpies, that's about six miles below Blair. That's a high
school.
Interviewer: What was it that you would say that you noticed, or were there any changes that you
noticed when the surface mining started in the community?
Resident: Right at the time, no. I can't tell where the community growed any, at that time. But by
the end of it, by '94, '95 in that area, the coal company bought people out, as they did me. And
today is only maybe 152-200 families, where there use to be maybe 700 or so. More than half have
left out, Sharpies, that's six miles below Blair. One particular place, Monclo, there's only two
houses there, where at one time there was probably, maybe 80. So, you see what a fall that
community had.
Interviewer: And you say you didn't see it grow any... and by that you mean you might, are you
referring to the possibility that it would grow, some people moving in for jobs?
Resident: Yes. I'd say, didn't see very much grow, most, probably most the coal miners came from
other communities. But Blair and Sharpies did not have very much room to expand anyway.
Interviewer: In your experience, like with your son for example, is that a job that he got when the
company came to your community or did people from the community get jobs there?
Resident: He worked as a supply clerk before he got the job on the outside, on the strip job. He
worked in the supply house for the same company. I think he worked there, I don't remember, four
or five years, and then the company gave him a job on the strip. And he's been working for them
-------
every since.
Interviewer: He a clerk in the supply house?
Resident: Uhhuh
Interviewer: Okay. Um... and he, so he was working for them before the came into the community
you said? Did I hear you...
Resident: No, he worked in the same community that the mines was in.
Interviewer: Oh, okay. Before they started mining there or?
Resident: The mines, let's see, really before the strip mines was in at the time that he started
clerking or not, I don't know. I just can't remember back at that particular point.
Interviewer: So, you didn't really see any growth in the community. Were there any other
positives that you might have seen? Was there benefits like to the community resources, like
schools, or roads, or any thing like that?
Resident: Seen no benefits. And a very little harm, I'll put it that away.
Interviewer: And very little harm?
Resident: Uh huh. Now the deep mining and the strip mining is two different types of mining. Uh,
your deep mining will affect your water, it will. Well, strip mining will hurt your water too, if its
surface water, but if its under the ground, then I can't see were strip mining would hurt your water.
But deep mining will hurt your water. I feel that deep mining is ah, far as the environment, would
be more cleaner than strip mining, because they, they don't have the dust on the outside. Strip
mining has very much dust, rock dust, and also coal dust, where your deep mining, your coal goes
into railroad cars, instead of hauling them in trucks. So, I feel that strip mining is more dirtier than
deep mining.
Interviewer: So, what were the few impacts, the negatives that you did see?
Resident: Fishing, streams, your water. We have a few fish out here, but nothing like it was when
I was growing up, or before the mines come in. Hunting, I would say that it ah, the strip mining
would affect hunting...
Interviewer: Uh huh, the habitat?
Resident: ... .Deep mining I couldn't see where it would. The only thing you had is a few what that
called site dumps. I guess ya'll got 'em in Pennsylvania? But strip mining is to me more harm to
the environment then deep mining.
Interviewer: Can you tell me a little bit... um, as you said there was maybe not a lot of benefits,
-------
but not so many negatives either. Why did you approach the company to be bought out? What
was... why did you decide to do that?
Resident: I knew that they would strip behind my house. I, my son knew how far they was gonna
go, and any time you got strip mining you got a chance of a slide, especially in the spring. Here
when we have a lot of rain, we have deep water, nothing to hold it back, so I felt that it was time.
If I could, it was time for me to move out.
Interviewer: Was that a difficult decision?
Resident: It wasn't for me, but it was for my wife. She did... it took her a year or so to get use to
the place, me - it didn't bother me 'cause I like the quiet neighborhood. She said it was too quiet
for her, so... (laugh)
Interviewer: Just different things that you were looking for? Did you notice any changes in the
community, when ah, when the population started to leave in terms of interacting with each other
or the things that you have valued before in the community?
Resident: No, I didn't see no difference in personalities. I could see, as everybody else could see
that the valuation of property and stuff was going down.
Interviewer: How did that work for you when you approached the company? Did you have
someone come in and appraise it or did they?
Resident: Mmmm... Yes, I don't recall the guy's name, but he did come in. I gave him a price,
what I felt that it was worth. And they come in and checked it, and they said it's fair enough for
them.
Interviewer: Okay. So, you estimated what you wanted and what you thought it was worth and
told the company. You didn't have a third party person come in and do a value?
Resident: No
Interviewer: Okay. So the negotiations of the company were very simple?
Resident: Uhhuh
Interviewer: Do you feel like they satisfied, you know, what you had hoped...
Resident: Yeah, by... by me asking what I felt it was worth and they gave me my price. So, I felt
that I got a square deal. I could probably held back, and ask for a higher price and I'd could
probably got it. But I just stick with my price and they give it to me.
Interviewer: What kind of interactions did you have with the coal company about any thing else?
For example did you discuss anything with them about... you said you didn't really have, at that
point, they weren't that close to you... so you didn't have any impacts to your home to complain
-------
about? Or did they ever approach you to find out?
Resident: No
Interviewer: Did you ever have interactions with the company about what they were going to be
doing? I know you said your son knew...
Resident: No. Just my son knew everything what was going on. The company never approached
me for nothing.
Interviewer: Did you ever see anything, ah, printed publicly about the permit activity, or what type
of mining was going to go on in your community?
Resident: I never saw it. No.
Interviewer: No Do you
Resident: Now I asked the company, the company that... the man that I bought, that gave me the
price of the land, or I asked... he did come in told me that I had six months after I sold to leave. He
would go as much as a year to give me time to find me a place or to build, so I'd say he gave me a
year.
Interviewer: Did he... was there any help with moving expenses or ...
Resident: No
Interviewer: No... Was there any discussion about where you could move or where you would...
Resident: No
Interviewer: No
Resident: Yeah, yeah, I had to move ah... I had to move ah, out of what the company owned. At
that time it was below Sharpies, I can't recall the exact boundary line, but I couldn't move back in
the neighborhood that I was in or Sharpies. The neighborhood where the company was really, that's
where the headquarters was at, the main office. I had to move out by that, but later on, now they did
give some of them permits after they sold to rent the house that they lived in.
Interviewer: Explain that to me again. They did give who? Other property owners?
Resident: Unhuh
Interviewer: The ability to...
Resident: Stay in the same house.
-------
Interviewer: To rent it out? Why would some one what to do that necessarily?
Resident: I don't know, (laugh) Well, if they was just gonna give me, say if I asked for $100,000,
they just gonna give me $90 and if I wanna make agreement with 'em, you give me, so long a time
to live in a house. What they done, they cut the rent down to like $ 100 a month which is very cheap.
It's just the way they work it, but at the time that I bought, now I was about the 3rd one that sold out,
they didn't give me that privilege to do that. But there's some up there they did. Like later on I
guess.
Interviewer: Did you ever discuss with them the possibility of buying back the land?
Resident: No. I never did. I wasn't gonna go back for one thing, and I never did have no desire
to go back.
Interviewer: When they discussed with you limits to where you could move to, like with in the
property areas that they owned and they were mining in, did ah, did you have the impression that
was just for this current move? If you should have every wanted to move back in that area would
that be allowed or just...
Resident: No, they didn't tell me I could ever move back into that area.
Interviewer: Just, you had to move out of that area.
Resident: Out of that area, yeah.
Interviewer: What kind of future... I know you don't live there now, but... what kind of future do
you sort of see that the community of Blair may have now?
Resident: None
Interviewer: Why... why do you think that is?
Resident: 'Cause I think the company is going back in there and strip again, their talking about
opening it up again, on a different side of the mountain. Now whether the company will come in
and buy those out up there now or not, I don't know. They may give 'em a fair price. And if they
do go back in and give 'em a fair price, as I felt they did me, and give them the same opportunity
I had... 'Course some of them don't wanna move. Ah, there was two or three cases, I'm not
mentioning no names, where the evaluation of the house and property probably wasn't worth a
$100,000, but they was asking $250,000. They was getting... they was wanting triple out of what
they owned, and ah, but they wouldn't move because the company wouldn't give them the price that
they was asking. Now although there is one or twp that got much more than what the value is that
they got.
Interviewer: Do you think that was all on the up and up? Did uh, I know you said that some people
were trying to get more, but uh, for example, do you think in your case that people asked
for things like repairs that weren't due to the mining or?...
-------
Resident: I don't know. I know that there was some houses that when they set this blast off it did
crack their cinderblocks and the sheet rock in their house. Now whether the company came in and
gave them money for it or not, I don't know. 'Cause my house, I never had no trouble with mine.
Interviewer: And you never had any trouble with water either, right?
Resident: No, I had good water when I went there, and I had good water when I left. In fact, it was
the best water in Blair. Even though it was a drill well, it wasn't surface water.
Interviewer: You said that they're gonna, they're talking about going back in there and opening
up that mine, is that something you also heard from your son or did you see permit information in
the paper?
Resident: He heard it, my son heard it, and it will probably be some time in this coming year. In
2002. Whether it's true or not, I don't know that.
Interviewer: Do you ever see those permits information in the paper or do you read the paper
regularly?
Resident: No, I don't take the paper. No, I don't.
Interviewer: Part of what the study is looking at is, you know, what the evolution of the community
was like before the mining, and during the mining and after the mining. So, F d be interested in your
thoughts on, I know we touched on it, each of those areas a little bit, over the, sort of, course of time
how would you describe the changes over all?
Resident: I have to go back to uh, the time I moved, in '93. I would say it be on a downhill.
Interviewer: A downhill how, because the families were moving out or?
Resident: Families moving out. I didn't... I've not been back up where they stripped now. I don't
know whether they reclaimed it after the job was done on it. That to me is a decline after I moved
out. At the time I moved it was okay because it hadn't interfered with this part of the town.
Interviewer: Were there uh, I know you said that a number of people may of worked in surface
mining, but not necessarily because that mine came in. Was there anyone in your experience who
necessary benefited in terms of employment from the mining being right there?
Resident: Yeah, they had pretty good size operation, the strip mine. 'Course my son he got a job
through that, and ah I'd have to say as far as employment, they done whole lot.
Interviewer: And in terms of just the community of Blair, if you could help me sort of understand
was there a need for j obs in Blair? In the sense that you know, the mining coming in to that area was
a direct benefit, did they hire local people for those jobs? Or are you speaking in a more broad
sense, that the surface mining you know, is a benefit in terms of employment?
-------
Resident: Its probably overall because we had, Sharpies at that time had a deep mine. They had
more one, at that time Westmoreland had two or three mines. So, far as the community, they's
probably okay, but when the strip mine comes in people on the outside come in.
Interviewer: Did you ever see any changes in the schools, or any of the public facilities?
Resident: The schools dropped. I'll say the schools dropped considerable, ah course now, they
don't even have a school up there. Both them schools are shut down.
Interviewer: In Sharpies, where your children went?
Resident: Uh huh, where my children went, where my grandchildren went. Everything closed
down, because of when that mine shut down it took a lot of people jobs.
Interviewer: So the things that you liked about that community, in terms of you know, it being
quiet and a nice place to live, you said those have changed.
Resident: Uhhuh
Interviewer: Yeah.... Did I forget anything?
Interviewer II: I don't think so. I think you covered it.
Resident: She likes to talk, don't she? (laughter)
Interviewer: I tried to keep track in my head to make sure were covering everything. Did I not ask
you anything about your experiences living over in that community with the surface mining that you
wanted to talk about? We can get to the logging as well, but...
Resident: No
Interviewer: You feel like you fairly well summed up what your experiences were?
Resident: Yeah, I feel that, um, okay, I can't hardly put the, I don't want to put the coal company
down because they made my living for me.
Interviewer: Sure
Resident: They helped me, of course I raised my family through coal mining, I got a retirement and
whether I... I don't know how long that will last, but anyway I got one. So overall I think the strip
mining could do a better job reclaiming the surface, that would put people that likes to hunt, that
gives them more places to enjoy and ah that's pretty well, and we could talk about saw logging.
Interviewer: Yes, well let's do. Let me ask you one more question before we move on to that...
-------
Resident: Okay
Interviewer: ... It just occurred to me, but you have mentioned along with the hunting the fishing
as well, and you thought that that had to do with the surface mining. How exactly, the streams, the
impact on the streams?
Resident: The... when it rains, in the spring here when it rains, say we get two inches of rain, that's
probably a bit below normal, cause we don't get much rain here, but anyway if we get two inches
or more our streams are nothing but muddy water, (laugh) Be honest with 'ya, I don't know how the
fish lives in it even today, cause it's so muddy when it rains. Because don't have nothing to hold
the water back, not only mines, but like I say the saw logging too. And that takes care of the fishing
part, far as the hunting part where the strip is at, the mountain that they took it. It would hurt them
if they don't reclaim 'em, reclaim 'em and sew the grass and stuff back in for the deers. And as far
as reclaiming and puttin' trees in there, I don't see where they're doing any good about that, which
they should do it. They don't.
Interviewer: And that, it sounds to me like that an important part of your lifestyle and what you
probably enjoyed doing, hunting, fishing?
Resident: Yeah, I was a hunter, hunting.
Interviewer: And was it all mostly recreational, or did you use that as well? ... I mean, I know my
uncle for example often goes out hunting you know they make deer sausage, and all sorts of things
so...
Resident: Mine was probably, it was both. That one there I killed it. That was one I killed in '74,
but ah back when I was young I killed to eat. Now I can look at a squirrel and I can't kill because
I don't like it. The same way with deer, I don't deer hunt. To me it's like a sport, like anything else
it's enjoyable....
Interviewer: Okay. Well uh, why don't you tell me a little bit about what you wanted to share with
us about the logging.
Resident: Is it all under about the same thing, coal mining, ya'll take that up?
Interviewer: Well, probably uh, probably what will happen, and I can't guarantee this... but you
know, I'll share it with the project manager and its up to him to find the right person to pass it on
to. The particular study that were looking at doesn't talk about logging...
Resident: Okay
Interviewer: ... except how it would relate to, you know, if the coal companies were selling off the
logs, or maybe that how it might...
Resident: Yeah, they do that. Yeah, the company usually they'll sell the logs before they do the
stripping. They come in and take all the logs out then they strip. And when they take the logs out
-------
they make, you know it's down here, cause you see plenty bull dozer roads, where they go in and
get the timber. When they cut the timber down, they don't worry bout the cost of them. They got
this deal here last year. And you sit here and watch these big trees fall and it makes you sick,
especially if your hunter or sportsman. They come in here... they cut them down, leave the tops of
them lay. Then you get a forest fire, and the forest fire get so big, out of hand there's and there's
no way they control it, because of the tops of these trees. Anywhere they cut trees down, then you
gonna have slides, where it wont hold the water back. So, here goes your, your game in the
mountain - takes care of your streams and water, takes care of your fish. What they don't take the
bulldozer tears it up, or they just let the trees fall over on this and tie um up. They're just not, to me,
taking care of the mountains like they should, that's my feeling about it.
Interviewer: Umm hum. Now I've heard some people say that some groups actually encourage
a certain amount of leaving behind, you know, logs or debris as almost habitat encouragement for
animals. But are you saying that, you know, the extent that they're doing it is really beyond...
Resident: Too much, too much, yeah. They don't want to leave anything over six inches in
diameter, they want to take everything bigger than that. It's through the range like that, in my
lifetime, and in my kids lifetime, they can't see it get big enough to support anything.
Interviewer II: You know one thing that, you know, I noticed and we were talking about actually
earlier today, is that if you look at a lot of the forest the size of the trees are pretty much the same.
And they all look like they're probably, at most maybe 18 inches in diameter.
Resident: Yeah. And some of 'em and especially a beach tree, you can't use for nothing no way.
To build houses cause you can't drive the nail through it. So they ain't worried about that beech
tree. That's a squirrel's tree, see. They just take a bulldozer and push the stuff out of the way.
Interviewer II: Yeah. Right. I guess the question I was going to ask you, based on your memory
in your lifetime, do you remember a time when there was less forest or had it been lumbered?...
What it sort of tells me by the fact that there is... all the trees are about the same size and there are
no huge trees, that probably within the last 50 years that there was a major lumbering...
Resident: Yeah, it hadn't been that long. Last uh...
Interviewer II: Actually, I would say probably in the '60s.
Resident: Last 30 to 40 years. Of course when I was growing up as a young boy 12-13 year old,
all we had was big trees. And then see, they used, instead of using them bulldozers they used horses
or mules and they didn't tear up the mountain and stuff like this bulldozer done.
Interviewer: So, what specific is it that they should be doing differently? Should they be limited
to the areas they can log, and, and improving how they do it? Like not leaving behind the tops?
Resident: Tops yeah... and yeah.
Interviewer II: And more select it sounds like.
-------
Resident: ' Course the best tree they take is the best tree for the squirrel and that's the oak. That's
the main timber, and hickory. I don't know what they used that hickory for but they'll cut them
down too. It's actually hard wood, I can't drive a nail through one, so.
Interviewer: Have you ever had any discussions with the State about either the coal mining or the
timbering from... you know, the State, environmental protection people?
Resident: No. 'Cause I always felt that the Governor of West Virginia, like all the governors of
other states, it's a money racket. You can't beat money no way, money' s gonna override you. And
but it's like up northern part of West Virginia, you got better roads, they cut more money out cause
usually the Governor's from up in that part of the state. But can't one from Logan, I don't think
we'll ever get one, cause it's crooked (laugh). But the governor of Charleston right now, Wise,
whether he ever been down this part of the country or not, I don't know. You don't hear of Welch,
and all this places where you hear about all these floods. It's caused from, I'll say it's caused from
coal mining and from timber, that's the two main sources. And one of them not bit worst then the
other one. Only thing about coal mining is a lot of times you build a dam, if that dam breaks loose
with all this water behind it, and that lets everything to us... that's a bad thing, far as coal mining.
Interviewer: So at least that your saying, that at least they built the dam, or they tried to sort of deal
with the issue?
Resident: Uhhuh
Interviewer: Now I know they've had a lot of serious floods over near Welch recently, um, and
in some other areas as well... Boone County.
Resident: Boone County's bad. And it's uh, well, you ever been up there, you'd see a lot of strip
mines up in there. And like I say, they take the logs and everything else first so one of them's not
a bit more blame than the other.
Interviewer: Is there anything else you wanted to be sure to tell us, or share with us from your
understanding?
Resident: No. I just trying to speak the truth about it. I'm not gonna up hold one no more than any
other, but it's just a situation that, ah all involve jobs. I know that. 'Course coal mine takes care
more jobs than saw mills does. 'Cause one man going out there and cutting them trees down in one
day, just one man can tear a lot of 'em up. But overall irons out probably about the same.
Interviewer: So you're happy living, living here now?
Resident: Yeah, I like it here. I'm between, I'm half way between Logan and Charleston. And
except for Blair there, there's only, as the worst part about it, is had to go all the way to Logan,
which is 12-15 miles to a hospital. Here I am in very close reach.
Interviewer: And you have health concerns, and that's important about...
-------
Resident: Closer to the hospital, yeah. I can get to Charleston in 25 minutes. It takes about 25
minutes to get to Logan, so that's not to bad.
Interviewer: And you don't regret it at all then?
Resident: No. No, I do it of my own free will. Company didn't come to me, I went to them, so.
Whether the rest of them did or not, now I... The rest of them, some of them probably went out on
the same condition I did. They went and asked, because I knew the strip mines was coming through
there and I felt that the quicker I get out, probably the better off I would be. Which I ain't regretted
one bit. Even though I lived in Blair for practically all my life, 50 some years, I ain't regret a bit to
come down here.
Interviewer: Did um, did you sign an agreement? You had mentioned about not moving into a
specific area that they outlined...
Resident: Hummm.. .1 don't recall whether I signed that or not. Or whether it was on a separate
piece, or granted or not, I don't recall.
Interviewer: Well, like I said, I think we've covered all the questions I wanted to ask you, as long
as there wasn't anything else you want to add... I want to be sure to give you that opportunity that
I promised, so.
Resident: Well, (laugh) put it this way, help any... or help you any or not, when these coal
companies comes through here and strip, they always put a gate up. So a 4-wheeler or nothing gets
through there to hunt. I don't like it, and I guess the other guys don't either, you know, who likes
to ride 4-wheelers and things. But they always put a gate up...
Interviewer: On their roads?
Resident: On their roads, where you can't get through. I can understand their part in a certain way,
you know... if you got equipment in there, keeping people from stealing. But most time you got
night watchman's things there, anyway. But they do put the gates up; they keep you out.
Interviewer: That's interesting you should mention that. We were just discussing that the sort of,
the change that, that we've heard discussed as well in that regard... about a certain amount of public
use of the land.
Resident: Uh huh
Interviewer: So is that... that's definitely a change that you saw as well, then?
Resident: Strip mine, yeah, uh huh.
Interviewer: ... and that was when it was owned by, you know, neighbors, or people you know, or
you knew?
-------
Resident: Probably the coal company, no, probably the coal company owned the land, or they
bought it off some other guy, you know that owned it, yeah. But after they get their equipment back
in there, due to stripping, they closed the road off. Which it might be good, and it might be bad,
cause they have to do it some way that they would not be responsible if somebody got hurt on the
4-wheeler. Because they had one over high-walls here, you know what a high-wall is?
Interviewer: Right. We've seen 'em.
Resident: So the company could not be responsible for something like that, if they run over, you
know.... 'Course I got, to me, I got to an age where I got rid of my 4-wheeler, and I'm not able to
do it. So, but I like to see young guys enjoy their life like I did mine.
Interviewer: When you were young and you lived in that community, the um... the coal companies
maybe owned that land for underground mining, how, what was the situation then, with being able
to ...
Resident: It was all together different. They didn't, I mean back then it was, these all were deep
mines. Strip mining, this is a lot different from that, because you're blasting rocks. All together
different from what deep mining is, and I feel that strip mining is more dirtier.
Interviewer: I'm glad you raised that point. That's a good point to bring up.
Resident: Only thing that's good about... I can see to strip mining is that you probably wouldn't
have as much chance of getting black lung, as you would in deep mining. Still it's, it's not... I don't
believe that strip mining is, is as clean as the inside. See, there's good parts and there's bad parts,
I just told you the best I can (laugh).
Interviewer: No, I appreciate that, I really do. It's good for us to be able to talk to a number of
people from the, these communities. And, and be able to hear these stories from different points of
view and get a good picture of what went on, and what the experiences were like. Uh so we
appreciate your taking the time.
Resident: Okay
Interviewer: We really do. Okay.
Resident: Are ya'll Christians?
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Carcassone, Kentucky
Resident: Yes.
Interviewer: O.K., great, I have you on the phone. Just to start off, would you be able to tell me
a little bit about yourself and your family?
Resident: I'm married. My husband he works on a strip job. I have two children and I have
family members that work on strip jobs. That's pretty much it.
Interviewer: O.K., and your family still resides in the Clarkizone community?
Resident: Yes.
Interviewer: O.K., about what is the size of your community in terms of how many people live in
Clarkizone?
Resident: In Carcassone, uh, I count we got maybe 250, something like that, not many.
Interviewer: And that's currently at this time. How long have you lived in Carcassone?
Resident: Uh, since I was 7 years old. I'm 42.
Interviewer: You are 42 and you have lived there since you were 7 years old. So you have been
there quite a while?
Resident: Yes, uh huh.
Interviewer: What are your connections to the Carcassone area. Did you uh, uh, apparently if you
were 7 years old, does your family, uh, did they move into the area at that time, or how did you,
what are your connections?
Resident: Yes, my mom and my dad are both from this area and they moved to Indiana and had
me and my sisters and then they moved back here and my dad got into the coal business and they
found a house over here to live in, in Carcassone.
Interviewer: So your father worked for the coal, uh, in coal mining?
Resident: Yes.
Interviewer: O.K., how long ago was that?
Resident: Uh, Dad started in about 1967, 1968.
Interviewer: O.K., I'm gonna ask you a couple of questions about your quality of life in terms of
-------
your community and how, uh, you have enjoyed uh your community.
Resident: O.K.
Interviewer: The first question. Did you observe or experience changes in quality in your quality
of your life related to community resources? Uh, such as schools, public services or any types of
the natural environment, like water quality concerns between the periods of we'll say 1980 up to the
present time?
Resident: Uh, I'd say that the quality of the water and stuff like that, that has changed.
Interviewer: The quality of the water changed?
Resident: Yes.
Interviewer: In what way?
Resident: They were mining and stripping and we used to have really good well water. Our
well is only like 65 feet down, something like that, and um, it just all of a sudden became real orange
and nasty and you couldn't stand turning it on because it smelled and we finally contacted the coal
company and uh they come and took samples and they put a filter in for us.
Interviewer: Did that, what, how did that affect your water quality after they installed the filter?
Resident: Well, for one thing, the water doesn't taste good like it used to. I mean it used to.
It probably, you know, had a lot of stuff in it, a lot of bacteria stuff, but it just tasted really good,
fresh, everybody would come to my house to get water.
Interviewer: And, is that the case today?
Resident: No. I don't have good water. I mean we got a filter, but it's different.
Interviewer: O.K. Any other besides the quality of your water, did the quantity, do you still have
the amount of water that you currently did at the time before the mining affected the quality. Is there
any changes in the amount of water that you receive?
Resident: So far we haven't seen that, and that's been a while, so I don't think that changed
any, just like I said the water changed and well my sister-in-law, hers went dry and she had to get
a well drilled and it's a problem where we live, there's no such thing as city water. It goes so far.
Interviewer: It's all on-lot well systems?
Resident: Yes, we have to drill our own wells.
Interviewer: You don't have any basically any public water services there being piped in from
another source?
-------
Resident: Yea, we don't have that. It goes just so far and it don't reach Carcassone yet.
Interviewer: Right. Um, what other, I'll ask you another question. You had said that currently
there are 250 people approximately living in Carcassone, is that correct?
Resident: Uh huh.
Interviewer: The question is, what ... was the community impacted by change in population or
shift in local demographics, we'll say again between the period of 1980 to the current to the present
day.
Resident: Uh, I don't know back then when I was growing up, it seemed like there was more
people here.
Interviewer: And, if you perceived that there were more people, do you have any reason or uh,
rephrase this correctly. Any perception of why the population may have declined?
Resident: Pretty much because once the kids grew up, there weren't nothing here to keep them.
You know, jobs were, jobs still are, if you don't have a college education, you know, you either
work in a fast food restaurant or you are working on a strip job and our kids have to get jobs or go
off to school.
Interviewer: So there was other factors basically looking for employment opportunities and if they
didn't like the choices of working in a fast food restaurant or the mining operations, they left the
community, is that what you are saying?
Resident: Yea, pretty much so, I believe.
Interviewer: Or, if they wanted to get a, you know, beyond high school education that they went
off to college then they of course moved out of the area as well.
Resident: Pretty much that.
Interviewer: And they uh, then I would assume that the ones that have left have never returned
then?
Resident: No, its, right now, its pretty much, I guess the youngest would be like my family
members, like my niece and they are continuing on over here. Uh, but uh, it's pretty much my age
and our generation go here.
Interviewer: Um, do you, can I ask the question, do you plan on living there for a long time or?
Resident: Yes, we tore down my old family home and we rebuilt and I plan on staying here.
We've got a lot of land and my son's going to college in the fall and uh, my daughter, she'll be
going to college.
-------
Interviewer: O.K. What is it about Carcassone that you like. I guess, what do you like most
about
Carcassone, I'll ask?
Resident: O.K., urn well, for one thing, I guess where it's close near, you know, you can trust
your neighbors, pretty much. Urn, you have privacy, only thing is I hate the winter 'cause it's hard
to get in and out if you don't have 4-wheel drive, but the summer, uh, it's really beautiful and you
will have people not on top of each other, you know. You've got your neighbors to look out for you,
I mean, over here, there's a lot of woods, [ ] we have I think 8 teachers that live around us and a
doctor lives next door, uh.
Interviewer: Did you say teachers, 8 teachers?
Resident: 8 teachers.
Interviewer: O.K.
Resident: Uh, and then a doctor lives next door, uh, it's just I guess a close knit community,
you know, they're there for you if you need them and you are there for them if you need them and
pretty much you don't worry about your children and stuff like that. You know, if there is strangers
that come through here and stuff, you got to worry about that, but I don't know, I guess, most of it's
family really, if you come right down to it, if you go back probably 60 years, you will find that
everybody's kin or something somewhere or another.
Interviewer: Right, exactly. Has, uh, during the time period when mining came in, when was
mining introduced to the Carcassone community, do you know? Or is it still active?
Resident: Let's see, uh, stripping, I think come here in uh 1978, I'm not sure if that's exactly
it, I know it's close, somewhere in that area is stripping, 'cause my husband, well, that was the year
we got married, I believe, he, it's probably earlier than that because we got married in '78 and he
worked out about a mile from where we lived out on the mountain. On a strip job. And I mean, they
stripped it good, I mean, they took the whole mountain.
Interviewer: Is mining still going on in the Carcassone community now?
Resident: Uh, they mined underneath us, deep mined, about 10 years back and uh out there not
real close to Carcassone, maybe 3 miles from us, I know the strip is still here.
Interviewer: So the operations are still ongoing there?
Resident: Oh yea.
Interviewer: O.K., uh, then that leads me to my next question, how it's tied into the previous
question about your community. Um, since the mining operations have operated in the Carcassone
community, the answers that you gave to me, uh, what do you like most about Carcassone, has any
-------
of those likeable features about your community changed or have been impacted by the mining
operation?
Resident: Uh, to be honest with you no, not really, although we, you get upset if like if a shot
is put off and your foundation is cracked, you know, everybody gets upset about that, but personally,
no one does anything about it unless it's a lot of damage to your property.
Interviewer: O.K.
Resident: I guess it's just you're used to that being a way of life. If half your family works full
strip jobs and you know and I guess you just get used to it, I don't know.
Interviewer: You sort of become accustomed to your surroundings, I guess.
Resident: Yea, urn, you know when a shot goes off at 5:00 or 4:00, uh, you don't even notice
it any more. It's just like an everyday thing, not unless something falls off your wall or something
like that.
Interviewer: Right. Regarding the future, and again, we are still talking about quality of life
issues here, based upon the current mining activity and past mining activity, do you still view that
your quality of life will remain the same in the future?
Resident: That's one thing about the mine, you never know from one day to the next what your
quality of life's gonna be because basically, if your husband or if you or any of your family members
work in the coal business, you don't know one day from the next if you've got a job because if it's
not been a bad winter, they're not selling a bunch of coal, uh, your husband may be laid off and not
only him but family members and then, you know, that's way a lot of people over here rely on but,
we've got a lot more now that are going through different stuff besides the mining. But for quality
of life with mining, I wouldn't get I would advise it to nobody.
Interviewer: O.K., now just to repeat the answer that you had given a little bit before, you said
that
people are moving south for the coal mining, is that what you said?
Resident: No, uh, they're just moving like the younger kids are normally having to leave uh
home and a lot of them are not coming back over in Carcassone because there's nothing here for
them really, you know, except the coal company and stuff like that. But it's like living over here
I think everybody loved it. It's just to continue with their future and to make something of
themselves, they pretty much have to leave not unless they become like a doctor, a teacher or
something in the medical fields and stuff like that.
Interviewer: O.K., uh, what have been the benefits from the presence of surface mining in your
community?
Resident: Uh, personally to me there's no benefit, uh. You know, they would keep the [ ] up,
uh, donate stuff like to the community center something like that but I personally to me it paid my
bills because my husband worked out there.
-------
Interviewer: Right, right...
Resident: But, I hated it. I mean you should see out there. My kids on the weekends we go out
there and for them to ride their four-wheelers and it's just a horrible big mess that you ride your
four-wheelers through, you know.
Interviewer: In terms of where the mining has been taking place or...
Resident: No, I mean, its mountains are gone, history's gone, uh, you see forever, used to be
you would look out your window, you see forever you see mountains. You know, I think that's the
further, you got there and you can see mountains all the way in Virginia and Tennessee, you know,
because you're up so high and it's all gone.
Interviewer: Right, so there's been in terms of scenic beauty, can I say that?
Resident: Yea, it's horrible.
Interviewer: O.K. The next couple of questions I want to ask you is about public relations, how
the mining companies have interacted with the local community.
Resident: O.K.
Interviewer: The first question is what public information was available to you or to the
community regarding the introduction or the presence of surface mining?
Resident: If I didn't read the paper, I didn't know about it. Uh, it was put in the local news
in Malmego and uh if you can read that, you know they give notice in there and then sometimes it
would be word-of-mouth. Sometimes someone would come and take maybe a sample of your water
where they would be stripping.
Interviewer: They would come and sample your water, is that what you said?
Resident: They would come and take a sample of your water, uh, if you weren't at home,
though, you know, you were out of luck. They'd come, some would come and take pictures around
your home, uh, you know, in case they do any damage afterwards, they had the "before" pictures.
Uh, we were at home and uh they took a snap shot of the crack in our foundation, but we never done
nothing about it because we weren't here for them to take pictures, you know, to prove before and
after here, and that's pretty much, you find out word-of-mouth, someone comes and says hey they're
stripping around you or they're gonna strip behind you.
Interviewer: And you had said they put, did you say they put notices in the paper?
Resident: Yea, they put like notices about telling you the area that they graded, where it
belongs to, know where I'm at but then they'll eventually say Carcassone area.
-------
Interviewer: Would that be advertising the permit?
Resident: No this is to strip. They have to put it in the Mountaineer, they have to put it in the
paper, uh, sometimes they strip so many different times, sometimes you will get a letter in the mail
actually telling you. And a lot of times you'll see your name in the paper saying that they're gonna
be stripping and you can't refuse it underneath, I mean mine underneath there, you know, I don't
mind underneath it but uh, you know you'll see your name in the paper and they'll be underneath
you.
Interviewer: O.K. I think you may have already touched upon a couple of things I'm gonna ask
you next about the public relations. Uh, the question is were or are public relations between the
community and the surface mining company continued beyond their initial contact, uh and if so,
what types of circumstances.
Resident: Uh, lets see, they'll come back, like if there's a slip or you know, something like that,
uh...
Interviewer: A slip meaning foundation or?
Resident: Well, like if they was to strip somewhere behind you know some high wall fell down
behind your house, uh, like it rained a lot or something and it's because they were mining up above
you or something, or stripping up above you, um they'll actually they come back for people and
that's claimed their water was bad after they left and you know, and you know the miners drilled
wells, they've caused a lot of wells to come dry. Um, wells went dry, we didn't have a well that
dried, but you know, we got bad water, um, they'll come back and do stuff like that. Sometimes,
I don't know, they did try to do everything they can after they strip, I've gotta give them credit for
that.
Interviewer: O.K.
Resident: You can call and you can argue with them and they' 11 come out and they' 11 try their
best to satisfy you, but if the aggravation of having to through all that plus looking at what they've
done when they're through ...
Interviewer: Right, right. Well, Resident, those are all the questions I have of you, I really
appreciate your time, um, what I'm gonna do too I'm gonna give you my contact information again,
if you have any follow-up questions or comments, again, my name is Troy Truax and again, I'm
with Gannett Fleming, my company is Gannett Fleming, G-A-N-N-E-T-T and Fleming it's F-L-E-
M-I-N-G and we're working with the Environmental Protection Agency, that's the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and my telephone number here at Gannett Fleming is 1 -800-233-
1055, and my extension number is 2143. And, I'll give you another individual's contact or point
of reference, just to validate the, you know, why we're calling. The Environmental Protection
Agencies Project Manager for this study, his name is Bill Hoffman. And, his telephone number is
area code 215-814-2995.
-------
Resident: Do you all have a web site?
Interviewer: Gannett Fleming has a web site, but I think most importantly, the Environmental
Protection Agency has a web site specifically dedicated to this project. If you would go on to and
uh, forgive me for not having it in front of me, it's www.epa.gov. and I believe the next is a forward
slash or back slash and then type in Region 3 and hit enter, then try to do a search on Mountaintop
Mining and that should take you to the exact, uh, there's a web site dedicated and there's also
documents there and everything that's been uh basically been published as terms of public
documents are on that web site and some background information on the project itself.
Resident: O.K.
Interviewer: And again, these interview notes, these are confidential in terms of your name, uh,
you will not find any of this information that I'm aware of on that website ...
Resident: That's okay, and if you did because, you know, I'm just being honest.
Interviewer: Right, so urn, if, again, if you have any trouble with that website, please give me a
call.
Resident: O.K.
Interviewer: I don't have, I'm not at my desk right now, I'm in a closed room to have some quiet
for these interviews.
Resident: O.K., that's fine.
Interviewer: But, if you do have some trouble, please give me a call, I will be more than happy
to
help you.
Resident: O.K. Thank you very much.
Interviewer: Thank you again, and you have a good day.
Resident: O.K., you too.
Interviewer: O.K., bye now.
Resident: Bye Bye.
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Carcassone, Kentucky
Interviewer: We are good to go, I apologize. O.K. First question, could you tell me a little bit
about yourself and your family and how you came to live in Carcassone?
Resident: I was raised near here, about 3 or 4 miles and then married my wife. We live on her
home place and when I came back out of the service, we moved in here to take care of her mother
and lived out her mother's life in this house.
Interviewer: O.K. How many years has that been then?
Resident: About 33, 34, something like that.
Interviewer: O.K., so you probably moved in there in the early 60's, mid-60's?
Resident: Early 70s
Interviewer: Early 70s, I do my math right, early 70s, right. Um, so basically your connections
to the area are through your wife?
Resident: Right
Interviewer: O.K., Now your wife, I assume that she is still residing there?
Resident: Yes she is, her mother passed away a little over a year ago and we are still living
here.
Interviewer: O.K., Sorry to hear about that. Um, some questions about your quality of life, now
we are looking at a time period for the Mountain Top Mining. When did, is Mountain Top Mining
currently being conducted in the Carcassone area?
Resident: Right, about probably maybe a mile from where we live, approximately I would say.
Interviewer: O.K., do you know when that type of operation started in that area?
Resident: Well, they have been strip-mining here ever since we have been in this area, but and
they strip-mined on our property around 10 years ago, so it's been going on 15 - 20 years in this area.
Interviewer: O.K. In terms of your quality of life, what do you like most about the Carcassone
area?
Resident: Quiet, peaceful place. A good place to raise a family. We raised our children here
and have some of our grandchildren here with us now, close to us.
Interviewer: O.K. How many people live in the Carcassone area. If you would say. I know it
-------
sounds like a very rural community, but how many families do you think live there right now?
Resident: Oh, probably 50 or 75.
Interviewer: O.K. In terms of what do you like most about Carcassone, the question I just asked
you, have you observed any changes to those things that you enj oy in Carcassone, in terms of natural
environment, the local environment, or any types of services, or like through government services
or schools, or anything that you notice that has changed over the years that you may perceived has
occurred form the presence of mining?
Resident: No, not in this area.
Interviewer: O.K. In terms of the population, have you noticed any changes in the local
population? Has it increased or decreased?
Resident: I would say it has decreased because when they stripped most of the land here, it is
harder to find good water now than what it was 25 to 30 years ago.
Interviewer: O.K. What is the water quality like? I assume you have on lot your own well there.
Is that correct Emory?
Resident: Because when they stripped they drilled this well and we appear to have plenty of
water, but it has to be filtered, treated in order to use it and then it's not the best quality water.
Interviewer: O.K. Was that something with the water quality? How would you describe the
quality and quantity of your water when you first moved there?
Resident: When we first moved here, we had one drill well, one dug well, and we got our
drinking water from a what we called a coal bank which was a mine, probably 200 feet back in,
used to get their house coal from. And we walled that up and made us a reservoir and that was
excellent water. Had to do very little treating of it and had more than what 3 or 4 families could use.
Interviewer: How is that source used today?
Resident: That one that we had?
Interviewer: Right, the reservoir.
Resident: They stripped that same of coal so it don't longer exist.
Interviewer: O.K. O.K. So you are saying that the population you feel is actually decreased?
Resident: I would say it probably has.
Interviewer: And do you have any reasoning or any idea why that population has decreased?
-------
Resident: Well, the main thing is because of water. The difficulty in finding a suitable water
for families.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: And j ob s al so.
Interviewer: I was just gonna ask is any of that related to employment opportunities in your area?
What is the major employer for the Carcassone area for the residents that live there.
Resident: Right now I would say it is geared to the mining business other than, well we have
a lot of teachers, doctors, things like that lives in this area now.
Interviewer: And where do those teachers and doctors work? What is the local area that they
work in or maybe facilities that they worked out of, where are they located?
Resident: Well, I have a daughter and a son that are RNs and they both work in medical
facilities in Perry County.
Interviewer: O.K. And how far away is Perry County?
Resident: Well, it is only about 3 to 4 miles from where we live but they drive probably . . .
my
daughter drives 8 or 10 miles and my son drives about 20 and we have a doctor and a dentist... two
doctors and a dentist in the family and I would have to sit down and count all the teachers and they
teach and lecture at Perry County in [Ivecove] which is approximately each one 20 some miles from
here.
Interviewer: O.K. So basically the services that the families in Carcassone they really have to
travel some distance to get to those services or employment opportunities. Is that correct?
Resident: Any employment that anyone does, they have to travel out of here if they can make
a living on it. I worked for a natural gas company which mine was probably the closest of any
mileage to it and I only drove probably 6 or 7 miles at the most for 30 years that I worked.
Interviewer: O.K., so you are retired right now?
Resident: Yes, I retired a little over a year ago.
Interviewer: O.K., well hopefully you are enjoying your retirement, I'm sure you are.
Resident: I am.
-------
Interviewer: In terms of the future of Carcassone, do you and your wife plan to continue living
and
residing in Carcassone?
Resident: Yes sir
Interviewer: And do you have any . . . based upon your past perceptions and experienced in that
area . . . how do you perceive, or what do you think the future of Carcassone is?
Resident: Well, they are continuing mining, from what I hear, they are gonna come back to just
behind our property. I don't know if we will let them get on our property or not, but they will be
right behind it and it's gonna be Mountain Top Removal I understand. I don't know what will be
added to that or how it is gonna effect our water or anything like that.
Interviewer: So you are, right now, you are probably anticipating the mining companies to come
in very close to your property, if not on it, possibly, but the future of Carcassone in terms of your
perception is unknown at this time.
Resident: Right, because on depending on what seam of coal they would go after. We sit and
most of Carcassone, most of the people in the Carcassone area sit on the on the sediment coal or just
about it.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: They have gone a seam or 200 which would be completely underneath where
everyone is. If they did that, then it would really hurt the area.
Interviewer: Now, if they would do that, would that impact your decision to stay in Carcassone?
Resident: Not if they didn't get on my land and didn't destroy my water where I couldn't find
it, because when they did the mining on my property, they drilled one well 300 and some feet deep
I believe it was and didn't get water. And the other one was around 200 something that we have for
water, so I don't know if they come back and strip more, I don't know how it is gonna be to get
water and we don't have any local water systems that's come in where we could get water from.
Interviewer: Right, everything is basically on-lot type of water systems, private water systems.
Resident: Closest public water system would be three miles, I would say.
Interviewer: O.K., so it's a little distance away from where you are at right now?
Resident: Yes, and no plans for it to come this way, not that I have heard of.
Interviewer: Have you know any local residents that have had to move out of the Carcassone area
because of mining?
-------
Resident: I have known ones that they purchase their property and the place where they lived,
it was all leveled. Some of them went back later on and built on that property where they had mined
and some of them put trailers on it, but several in the Carcassone area had to move when they were
doing the stripping in that area.
Interviewer: Do you know where those families may have moved?
Resident: No, I don't
Interviewer: O.K. You don't know if they were able to move locally or if they had to travel far
away outside the area to find new residents?
Resident: I would say most of them moved locally, because most of the people in this area are
older people that have lived here most of their lives.
Interviewer: O.K., so they have ties to the area then I would assume.
Resident: Right, it would be the majority of the young people that stay in this area either go
into the education or medical field or something of that line.
Interviewer: O.K. What are the benefits . . . have there been any benefits from mining being
present in the Carcassone community?
Resident: Not on my property.
Interviewer: O.K. And you don't perceive any other types of benefits that they have been able to
provide to the local community or at least the community has been able to achieve from the presence
of mining?
Resident: Not really that much, no. Some of the land is more level now than what it was, but
the majority of it isn't worth anything as far as doing any kind of farming on it or anything.
Interviewer: In terms of that level ground, did you see any potential uses or reuse of that property
other than mining operations? The leveled areas?
Resident: Yes, a person could raise cattle or something of that on it. It takes several years to
get a good stand of grass to do that for my area here they had promised us some level land and we
don't have any. It's far worse than what it was when they started on it.
Interviewer: So basically, your perception is that any reuse of that property would be some type
of agricultural use?
Resident: Right
Interviewer: O.K. In terms of the relationship that the mining company has had with the local
-------
citizens, including yourself, what public information was made available to you regarding the
introduction of the presence of surface mining in the Carcassone area? Did they make any contact
or have any correspondence with you?
Resident: Yes, two or three different times, they had a representative from a coal company
come and talk to us and we were one of the last ones to give in to agree to let them use our property
as a strip mine. And that was after we were promised a lot of things which we did not receive.
Interviewer: O.K. And basically those contacts were made to discuss purchasing the property for
their mining use, is that correct?
Resident: No, they weren't pressuring it, they were just getting the coal off of it. Paying us
royalty for...
Interviewer: I see, OK
Resident: Mining
Interviewer: So that is what they made contact for. To discuss the
Resident: Right, for the removal of the coal.
Interviewer: O.K. have you had, is your property in terms of structurally, have had any impacts
from any mining activities?
Resident: Not right around the house, now the other property, where they did mine that most
of it is steep. It's, well you might be able to use it for a pasture, but the only way you could mow
it or clear it would be by hand or dozer, so there is really not too many benefits after they got
through.
Interviewer: O.K. And in terms of the coal company making any contact with you, you haven't
had them ... uh, there hasn't been a need for them to come out and look at any possible damage that
may have occurred from any types of mining activities, such as blasting, have you had any problems
such as that?
Resident: When they were stripping, yes, we did.
Interviewer: Could you elaborate on that for me please?
Resident: We had things knocked off the wall and broken foundations, concrete blocks, it was
cracked and this area, several have had that.
Interviewer: In your opinion, that was caused by the mining operations?
Resident: I have no doubt it was. The blast.
-------
Interviewer: O.K. and have the mining representatives come out, company come out to your
property to do any assessments of that type of damage?
Resident: Not since they quit the permit they had on our property in the other area which that
has been close to 10 years ago.
Interviewer: O.K. And did they publish the mining permits in the local paper?
Resident: Right
Interviewer: O.K., I guess that is required by law, right, state law?
Resident: Right. After they complete the mining, then they go through several phases before
their bond is released for it. And I would say, I am not sure, but I would say that bond has been
released on this property where they mined here, or it is awful close to it.
Interviewer: Those are all my questions, I had a few more questions, but your indication to me
that you lived there basically for most of your life, at least with your wife and you have no future
decision to leave the area, so we had some other questions regarding your decision to leave the area
and go to another area, but it sounds like you are planning to stay there for now.
Resident: I'm an old regular Baptist Minister and church in this area where I can, so I have no
intention of leaving this area.
Interviewer: O.K. Super. Well, Resident those are the questions. Again, we really do appreciate
your time and interest in speaking to us, and again, your name and any other personal information
will remain confidential, and this interview that we have conducted today will remain anonymous
as well.
Resident: I appreciate that.
Interviewer: O.K. One last thing, do you have access to the Internet?
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Carcassone, Kentucky
Interviewer: O.K., the first question, could you just tell me a little bit about yourself and your
family.?
Resident: O.K. What would you like to know? Husband?
Interviewer: A little bit about family history, where you work or where your husband works and
also . . .
Resident: My husband works for a strip job and he is a dozer operator.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: And, my son, I have two sons. One is 25 and one is 20 and both my sons had to
leave here to find work because they don't want to work in the mines or on a strip job, so they left
here, so now I have to drive about 3 hours to see my grandchildren. They live in Georgetown. They
moved there, you know, near Lexington, where there are better jobs. And, I don't work because
where we live, basically the roads and stuff, and the community where we are in, it really it doesn't
pay me to work. I wouldn't make enough money to drive that far. You know, we tried that and by
the times the taxes come out and all that, it doesn't pay for me to work.
Interviewer: Right, so you are in a very much a rural, Clarkizone is a very rural community . . .
can I say that?
Resident: Very so, very much so, very much so. If it comes and snows, everybody here has 4-
wheel drive. If you don't have 4-wheel drive, most of the winter, you are sitting. You cannot get
out. And, even with 4-wheel drive, a lot of times it's hard.
Interviewer: What are your connections to the area, Resident? You or your family? How did you
come to live in Clarkizone?
Resident: I was born . . . my husband was born, in fact he was born on a bridge about a mile
or
two down the road. On the way to the hospital. But, I was born in Louisville. My family, my
grandparents were here and my mother, my mother and father are divorced, so that is how I ended
up to be here. My husband has been born and raised here. My children, you know, they went to one
school the whole time here. The school bus comes at 6:45 in the morning and gets here after 4:00
in the afternoon, that's how long they are gone to school and that's starting in kindergarten.
Interviewer: Yea, that sounds like my days of going to school. I cam from a very rural area. We
are actually here in Pennsylvania and that reminds me of my childhood days.
-------
Resident: But I have seen the kids sometimes here, the roads were so bad, you know that they
stopped at the road and they would let the kids off the school bus and let them walk across, and then
drive the school bus across and then pick them up on the other side.
Interviewer: What. . . how many people do you say would live currently in Clarkizone? I know
it's a rural area but. . .
Resident: Clarkizone is just a small area here. What it is basically it starts up ... when people
around here, when they think about it, it starts up in Elk Creek, this little part starts, it's Elk Creek,
that's called Elk Creek, and then you come on up the mountain and this part here is Clarkizone and
then probably not a half a mile out through here is known as lent Mountain and I guess they called
it that because there's a lot of Jents that lived there at one time, but everybody just knows that as
lent Mountain, but up there starts the strip j obs, I mean that's where you have people actually living
just about in the yard, you know, they're right there, the strip jobs are right there, I mean you look
and the rock trucks and everything are going. I wouldn't live there for . . . you know, you couldn't
. . . no, I wouldn't want to live there. It's bad enough where I live I felt, you know, you feel the
shots and hear 'em and if I have damage from them, I can just imagine what those people out there.
Interviewer: O.K. How many people live in Clark ... I mean considering that geographic area
you just defined, how many people would you say live in the community of Clarkizone?
Resident: Well, I'm gonna put Clarkizone and lent Mountain and I would say approximately,
you would be lucky 100 families, about 100 families, maybe.
Interviewer: 100 families, o.k. When did the . . . how far away is that actual is lent Mountain
where the strip operations is?
Resident: It might be a mile out there.
Interviewer: A mile from where you live currently?
Resident: Uh huh, it may be a mile.
Interviewer: Um, the next questions are focusing on quality of life issues. The first question, did
you observe or experience changes in your quality of life related to community resources within the
time periods that I specified from let's say 1980 to the present time?
Resident: Community Resources?
Interviewer: Let's give you an example of the quality of your schools, local services, maybe from
your local government, the natural environment, the resources, those types of qualify of life issues,
could you . . .
Resident: Like the government things to here, say as in our courthouse system and all that, is
that included in that?
-------
Interviewer: Right, I would say quality of life in terms of related to the Mountain Top Mining
Operation. Did you see any change, any relationship there . . .
Resident: I can tell you that the situation here, especially with the mining industry, just about
everybody here has a job connected to the mining industry in one way or another.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: And if the mines . . . everybody is dependant on that basically, more or less, and
that's our problem in this community is we do not have the officials in place that they are too
worried about making money theirself Now right now, we have had a very good, you know,
township, Carol Smith is trying to get us out of this. And it's just so ingrained in, you know, people,
the magistrates and all this stuff, that they're beholding to the mining company, you know, they,
where if you do this for me, you know, I will do this for you, you know, that kind of thing.
Interviewer: Right.
Resident: You have a whole lot of that right there. Where if you do this for me, you know, I'll
give so-and-so a job in your family, you know, he can come out here and work on the strip job, we'll
give him a job, you know, or we'll put him to work in the mines. And you have a whole lot of that.
For us to ever make anything, bring factories in here, other things in here, you're gonna have to get
away from that, you know, you're gonna have to quit being so, we need to quit being so dependent
on the mining industry, because you are liable to work six weeks, I mean six months out of a year,
and make oodles of money, but then you gotta look, you are laid off for six months, 18 months, you
know, let alone, you know, then you've got the health quality issues too, that's like one thing with
my husband, right now. You've got the dirt when they're working there, they're working in, you
know, the dirt. Now, they are getting a lot better about that stuff right there, making them keep the
road watered and . . . you know, the equipment with air conditioning in it, like in 19 ... o.k. you're
talking about starting in 1980?
Interviewer: As a rough time period, correct.
Resident: O.K., well back then, when my husband worked in the dozer, it was, I mean, it was
mainly open cab dozers, no cab on them, no nothing on them, no air conditioning, no nothing, and
I mean it was dust, they come home dirty, just, you know, nasty, and you know they are breathing
that. Now, that is getting a whole lot better because, you know, they are in the enclosed cabs, they
have, you know, the air conditioning, they have all that there, they are getting better about that, but
they still, they need to get a whole lot better about it, they need to go to all the mines and do that and
not just pick out certain ones. I think you have some of the mines, you know, the people that are in
the mines that know people that are like, you know, over that, like, what's the people that they have
come out there, I can't think of their name, my minds been blank, that comes and takes that,
inspectors. O.K., where you have a whole lot of the people that, uh, the big wigs at the mines that
knows these inspectors, and they turn their heads to a lot of things.
-------
Interviewer: O.K., so in terms of... how about community resources, you talked about personal
impacts there, were there anything in terms of impacts or changes to the natural environment?
Resident: Oh, yes. It doesn't even look like the same place where I live. I lived here and I
hadn't been a mile up the road, I mean, I can go for a month or two and I don't go a mile up the road
here, because I don't go out that way, you know, I go out the other way, and I can go out that way
and I mean, I'm amazed, I'm amazed, I mean it doesn't even look like the same place, every time
I go out through it's changed.
Interviewer: Right
Resident: There's a mountain gone here, a mountain gone there, you know, some of where you
.. . where I live used to be trees. Where my home ' s at right now, used to be ... it was like a forest
and, I mean, you know, now I've got my home here, where this was, this area where I live, right
now, on what I live on, was somewhere that they strip mined back in the late 70's, early 80's.
Because when we moved here, when we moved in our place, right here on our property, what it was
was we bought it off of a woman, an older woman and there was a strip j ob that the mining company
had moved her, had bought her this little piece of land here, well, they moved her here, they stripped
a piece of land here and they moved her from her home out here on lent Mountain, down to here,
bought her a trailer, and gave her this land in order so that they could go up there and strip her
property up there.
Interviewer: O.K.
Resident: O.K., then when they got through with her property, she got to go back up there, you
know, and do whatever, but by then, it's you know, just flat, rock, dirt, which is when we moved
here, that's what this was.
Interviewer: Right
Resident: I mean it was, it was awful. I'm still going out here right now, I can't plant anything
hardly for the rocks and stuff that's here that you have to dig up and I mean we had a dozer come
in here. We had bit coal trucks full of dirt come in here and you know, dump the dirt and then got
a dozer in here and done all that, and leveled it out and done all that stuff and then waited years
before we moved, you know, our double wide, our modular home here where we've got it at now.
Interviewer: Right. Now do you have, you said about planting things. Do you mean like grass
for your yard? Do you have a garden there too, Resident?
Resident: I don't have a garden of like food, but we have peach trees, we have apple trees,
what
we are trying to get 'em going, you know, we've lived here ... we moved here, we bought the land
off of that woman I was telling you about in '81, in May of '81, o.k. and we have lived here ever
since, but what it is we lived in a single wide trailer and there was like the road, the county road that
went through and we owned a big field, like, where they had stripped is what it was, across from it,
-------
and we had that dirt brought in and the dozer and all that and we lived in that trailer for 13 years.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: Before we came over here, you see, and put something here, so all that time, see it
had that time to sit, but when you go out there to plant something, you have to take, well, you can
see in my yard, several places where there are big rocks that was put here. . .
Interviewer: Right
Resident: You know, and there's just no way to get those up. My husband said, you know, he
talked about going and you know kinda like getting dynamite and dynamiting them up ... but on
the other side it makes you worry if it's even worse, and you can't do that so you just have to live
with them and there's two or three rocks. One out there like in my lower yard, I'm thinking about
planting creeping rocks you know going down it.
Interviewer: Right, exactly, make a rock garden out of it, so to speak.
Resident: That's what I am attempting to do right here, I have planted a lot of stuff out here
that, you know, kinda incorporating that rock into it.
Interviewer: Right, exactly, try to work with what you have there.
Resident: Yes. But when you go like to plant a tree, I can't get out here and plant... a lot of
times I can't even plant flowers because the rock is in there and you have to cut... my husband has
to take a crow bar a lot of times, you know one of those big bars, and go down in there and have to
get that rock, you know, out of there.
Interviewer: Dig the rock out before you can actually put some good soil back in.
Resident: Yea, yea, yea we have a big pile here of saw dust, rotten saw dust, that we went and
got from the old saw mill that used to be back years and years and years ago, and we go and get that
saw dust and just keep ... I mean there's probably two truck loads of saw dust that we keep out
there at all times, for that right there.
Interviewer: Oh, interesting. You had mentioned, a little in your conversation just now
about your water supply. Could you tell me a little bit ... uh, has that, uh, have you seen any
change in your water supply since the mining operations?
Resident: When we lived here, the water, when we moved in in '81, the water that they had
there, you know, the water system that that woman had, the well was 300 and some feet deep, 365
or something like that they had for that woman . . .
Interviewer: Right
Resident: O.K., there was never, I mean, there's nothing like going and getting in the shower
-------
and getting your hair all soaped up and the water would quit.
Interviewer: Oh Boy ... I know what you mean.
Resident: So, we went through that for, I don't know how long, and come to find out, there was
a mine from over on Carbon Glow, at this mine that was mined underneath of us.
Interviewer: Interesting.
Resident: And, that's where our water had been going to, and we had some people that were
friends of ours that worked for that mine and they told us, you know, we're right directly underneath
of you all and we are getting the water. But, of course, you know, they would tell us that that was
their job, you know, and you couldn't say nothing, you know, they wouldn't have never stood up
in court or anything.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: O.K., but finally I called the coal company, it was Golden Oak and I called them and
they told me that man laughed at me, he laughed at me. He said we're nowhere you all, you know,
you don't have nothing, you know, we don't have nothing to go with that.
Interviewer: Now what was the name of the coal company again?
Resident: Golden Oak Mining Company
Interviewer: Golden Oak Mining Company. O.K.
Resident: Uh huh, exactly, and I'm trying to think of the man's name that I talked to because
this would have been in like '81 and '82, '83, and I'm thinking, I'm wanting to think his name was
Koontz, but it may not have been that.
Interviewer: And that's o.k. We don't need that detailed information. I am trying to clarify the
name of the mining company so we're . . .
Resident: That's the mining company very definitely the mining company. O.K. But anyway,
let me tell you a story . . . this is a good one. O.K., when we went to move to get out double wide
to put over here, we found out that this land, even though it had been deeded to us and was recorded
in the courthouse, the man that had give the woman the land, you know, the older woman the land,
he had give her the deed for it and it was recorded at the courthouse, but come to find out he had
already sold out. . .
Interviewer: How interesting . . . interesting
-------
Resident: beforehand ... and so it didn't really belong to us so here we are holding the bag, we
had already signed the papers on this trailer and you know when they do the title search, then they
found out that it belongs to the same coal company, Golden Oak Mining Company . . .
Interviewer: Oh, interesting . . .
Resident: So I went to the mining company and explained it and I mean, it was a long, drawn
out process. Now, first of all, but getting back to the well, we had to get another well drilled and
what we did was, 'cause it was, I mean, we were totally out of water, totally . . .
Interviewer: And this is on your current property?
Resident: This was on the property, yes, on the property, but this was when we were in the first
trailer. O.K., we finally had to have another well drilled and what we did was came over here in this
field and we found out where a long time ago my grandparents had people that lived here, my
family, we found out where they used to have the little house at and where their dug well was at, and
what it is they had a mill down here in the creek beside of it, down here, we have a creek here, they
used to have a mill here that they ground everybody's meal, o.k., but the creek isn't nowhere near
now, it doesn't have enough water in it, you couldn't, you know, back then they said it was a real
big, you know, roaring creek.
Interviewer: Yea, enough to power a mill.
Resident: Enough to power a mill, right here where I am at. You know, to grind corn. They
ground everybody's corn here.
Interviewer: Into corn meal.
Resident: Uh huh. O.K., and what we did was we found out that the approximate location of
where that dug well was at and that is where we had them drill. O.K. They hit water at like 60 feet.
Interviewer: That's pretty good.
Resident: They hit water, o.k., and then they went down 60 more feet, so my well was 120 feet
deep and I'm gonna tell you when I first got that well drilled, I tried my dead level best to run that
well dry. I would do everything I could and I could not run that well dry.
Interviewer: You had a good water supply there.
Resident: I had a good water supply and it was real good water. O.K., we done it across the
road here because we knew that eventually we were gonna put our house here. So then when we
moved our double wide in here, we hadn't been here ... we moved in here on December 13, 1993
and I mean, it wasn't the next year, we hadn't lived here no time till they put saw dust and all the
block work, you know, busted all to pieces, you could, I mean we went out there one day, I was
sitting here by myself one day about 7:00 in the morning and I kept hearing this thump, thump, I tell
you it sounded exactly like when you put tennis shoes in a dryer.
-------
Interviewer: Oh yes, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Resident: But it only happened every so often and when I would hear it I would get up to try
to tell where it was coming from and by the time I would . . ., it would be, you know, it would go
away.
Interviewer: Right
Resident: Well, I told my husband I kept hearing it and finally I went outside, was it something
outside, and I had two or three dogs at the time and I said it must be the dogs under here, I don't
know how they got under there, but it sounded like a dog hitting its head . . .
Interviewer: Underneath the house?
Resident: Yea, so I went out there and all the dogs were all sitting, they wouldn't come near
the
house, they were sitting here looking at the house . . .
Interviewer: Oh boy, ha, ha, ha.
Resident: So I thought there's some kind of an animal underneath of my house and they won't
go near it, they're scared of it. So when my husband come home from work that night, we were
sitting there eating supper and I was telling him about it, I said you're gonna have to go under there
and see what kind of animal is under there, I said it's ... and about that time, he heard that noise and
he said I'm gonna go see what's under there . . . and he went out, he got up from the supper table,
him eating eating supper, ran out and went around the side of the house and when he got around the
side of the house, there he said every bit of our block work was busted all to pieces and you could
stick your hand through there, your arm, all the way through the block work.
Interviewer: So it actually made enough gap in the block work.
Resident: Oh, it was, it was busted all to pieces and we went around the back side of our trailer
and the hole and it's now five block high, it is oh oh oh block work in the back it's five blocks, you
know, five concrete blocks high.
Interviewer: These are cinder blocks.
Resident: Yea, and it had actually moved that whole wall out.
Interviewer: Oh, interesting.
-------
Resident: The whole wall out. And what it was was right where our well was at, it sat right up
against our house, so there's a crack that went all the way down through our yard and it went all the
way under our trailer. Come to find out, that noise that we were hearing? Was our trailer coming
off the, you know how when you've got a trailer, you know, you put the block up and . .
Interviewer: You have to have some foundation there for it.
Resident: Yea, you know, you've got, well I tell you what we did, when we poured the
concrete
for this, poured 44 pads, my trailer is 28x70 and we poured 44 pads of concrete. They're 10' x 10'
x 10' concrete. 10' deep, 10' wide, you know the pads. . .
Interviewer: Exactly
Resident: And that's what they, you know, blocked the trailer up, you know how they blocked
it up underneath of there. Well, it was coming off of them.
Interviewer: For goodness sakes.
Resident: That's what I was hearing. So I had to call them and they sent people out here and
they went under my trailer, had to jack it up and put that back under there and I mean, I've just, I've
had an awful mess with them. They've had to come out here and drill me a well. The well that they
drilled didn't last a week or two, and they come, maybe a month, and then they had to come back
here, the water quit. Now mind you when the water quits, it's usually always on a weekend, so you
have to go all weekend with no water. . .
Interviewer: Right
Resident: until you can get hold of them again and until they can get out here an do something
about it. So sometimes there was a week there one time that I was without water.
Interviewer: Didn't have any water to go on?
Resident: No, none, none whatsoever. So anyway the well, when they drilled it, it went dry
about I guess three weeks a month later, so they sent the truck back out here and they drilled it
deeper. They went down deeper. O.K. Then it didn't last much longer after that. So then they
come out here and built me a building, a pump house, they had put concrete floor, it has a 500 gallon
water tank in it, is has the potassium filter, 'cause the water had got bad, this water when they made
the big crack in my yard, done that to my trailer, you could run a glass of water and it looked just
like a glass of milk.
Interviewer: Oh, interesting. Now you say "they" did it. Who are "they"?
Resident: Golden Oak Mining Company.
-------
Interviewer: Oh, so you are talking about the mining company actually came out and did the
improvements to your well.
Resident: Yes, but I'll tell you something about that. This is an observation on my part. I'm
gonna tell you this. O.K., when we got this trailer I told you that we found out that the field wasn't
ours, I had to go to Golden Oak, well they ended up giving it to us, deeding it to us, but I had to
agree to sign a paper for them to put a pond within so many feet of us. I don't know if it was 75,
300, what it is, I've got the paper still in there, but that's the only that they would agree to give it
to us, which was still very nice. They still could have kept from doing that, but they said they didn't
really have any need for it and I'm gonna tell you the reason why, the reason that I think is behind
this. I think that the man that they sent out there was nothing but a big . . . and I think that he
thought he would get somewhere with me and was trying to score brownie points.
Interviewer: Oh, ha, ha, ha, O.K.
Resident: Now, I know that because I had to , do you see what I am getting into there, and I
think a whole lot of the reason why I was so lucky in getting a whole lot of this to get done around
here was because he that he thought that he could get somewhere, the mine company officials were
more worried about how many women they could go. I actually asked them did they have somebody
hired to go around and try to get these women, you know,' cause their husbands are mainly at work,
so they're dealing with the women.
Interviewer: Right.
Resident: And I said what did you all do, you know, in other words, the pretty women, the ones
that are nice to you, that's the ones you know, did they hire you to go around and try to make the
women, you know, happy, so that that's much less you all can get by with, you figure if you know,
you snoocker the women, you've got it made?
Interviewer: They tried to appease you.
Resident: Yes, are you following me?
Interviewer: I know what you are saying.
Resident: Yes, yes, I mean I actually asked him if that's the reason why they had him hired.
Interviewer: Interesting. Now, you had talked about those types of impacts. Was there any
impacts on the population or the local demographics from uh, during this time period, 1980, did you
notice any population shifts, did people leave the area, or did people come into the area?
Resident: They packed up and people leave. When the kids grow up, I told you I have two
sons, both of them left, out of here. I mean there was no jobs to be found at the time there was no
jobs to be found because if the mining industry is in a slump, then, they don't hire anybody. They
don't hire anybody period and I'll tell you another thing. Even with the mining companies, you've
-------
got to understand these people, these young kids when they are coming out of high school, college,
the strip jobs, the mine companies, the mines, they want them to have experience.
Interviewer: Right.
Resident: Well how can they have experience if they've never, you know, you have to you
have
to work somehow and you have to, you know, learn some time, but they would always want them,
you, you had to have experience. Of, if you were lucky enough to have somebody with a lot of pull
working there, you know, that could get you a job. That's the only way you could get a job.
Interviewer: So, local hiring practices, it was very, it was difficult in your, could you say it was
difficult trying to get a job with the local mining company?
Resident: Oh, very difficult.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: Very difficult. In fact, you had to have family working for them already, or, you
know, work experience, or you know, something like that.
Interviewer: Would you say a lot of people in your community worked for the mining company,
or do most people work elsewhere.
Resident: No, most people are, just about everybody that I know, almost everybody that I
know, in one situation or another, their job is related to mining, you know, they may not be directly
in a mine, but there is someone, it has got something to do with the mines, or impact in it in some
way. Some form or fashion.
Interviewer: And so you are saying like your two sons, for example, and are you noticing this in
other families that have children of high school or college age, are they moving out of the area, or
Resident: They are moving out of here.
Interviewer: And they are looking for other employment opportunities outside the area?
Resident: Yes
Interviewer: O.K., urn just an overall question, what is it that you like about Clarkizone, what do
you like most about Clarkizone?
Resident: Well, I like being able to ... I don't have, I'm not . . . like being in a city. I don't
have neighbors that I'm sitting here looking when I look out my window, I'm looking at the wall
of their house. I'm not looking at somebody else's yard. I have, you know, an area here that I can
get out and I can take a walk through my yard and it's like walking, it's nice and quiet, I can walk
-------
down the road without, you know, meeting 1,000 cars. I can keep my doors unlocked. You know,
I don't have to have my doors locked all the time. Uh, neighbors, if I need something, right now,
if I need something, all I have to do is go down there and pull up in my neighbors house, and you
know, if I have something go, my husband's on a fishing trip right now, and if something goes
wrong here, all I know, you know, I just have to go down the road, and I'm sure some of them will
come up here and help me if something tears up here or something like that. You don't find that in
the city. And, I like being able to go out here and sit on my porch and look at the birds.
Interviewer: Has any of this whatyou just described, has any of that changed over uh, since 1980,
the time that you have moved in, and has any of that, what you enjoy about Clarkizone, changed in
any way?
Resident: You want to know about how many times that I have told the coal company what I
thought about them because I feel like that they are inviting on my territory.
Interviewer: And you would say in terms of your privacy, can you say that your privacy . . .
Resident: I feel like that they're tearing up with I have ... I don't want them to tear up what
I
have here because this is mine, I paid for it, it's mine and I don't want it destroyed.
Interviewer: Right.
Resident: Even though my husband is a dozer operator, and he, I'm sorry, but these mining
companies, there has to be a better way to do this. You know, don't go in here and mess up people
like me that money couldn't buy me and they couldn't come in here . . . my piece of mind here and
me sitting out on my porch, watching my birds, you know, they aren't gonna buy this place from me.
They might go somewhere down the road here to some of the neighbors and buy their place or
something and go strip it...
Interviewer: O.K.
Resident: If you keep your dust and your smoke and your thoughts and the rest of it to you, but
of course it don't work that way. It's a constant fight with them.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: It is a constant fight. And, by the way, what I was gonna tell you about the water
situation earlier in the field over here, we found out they own this field and when we found that out,
we also found out that they had made a mistake on the deed, their deed, their fault, their, their, they
had put when we lived on that... the one part that we did own the acre of land that we did own,
remember when I told you when our well went out and I called them and they said that they weren't
anywhere around us?
Interviewer: Right.
-------
Resident: They had used my one acre of land in my name and had used it to mine . . . they
mined right directly. They had made a mistake on there and included my one acre of land in one of
their permits and had been mining on it.
Interviewer: Oh, interesting.
Resident: And mining under it. Yea, I've got the papers showing it.
Interviewer: Interesting.
Resident: And I mean, it's even papers that come from them where they diagramed, I can take
you back through the deeds from what the 1970s when they deeded it to her and then where it went
to us, you know where it went from Billy Gilton and at the time that was his, I don't know what they
called the mining company, but it was Billy Gilton was the one that was, I guess they called him
Gilton or something.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: Uh, but I've got the deeds here at my house, showing where, you know, it's went
from one to the other to the other, and I've got the papers showing where Golden Oak Mining
Company made a mistake on that. I've even got papers showing where they have admitted to
making a mistake on it and adding it into their back up, so I don't know what that would have,
probably I could have got them in a whole lot of trouble.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: But see, I didn't know it until years later.
Interviewer: Right. Exactly. Are there, based upon those, what you just told me, Resident, let me
ask you this question. Have there been any benefits from the presence of surface mining in
Carcassone?
Resident: Well, if it wasn't for the mine, then what would our people be doing for money?
Because we don't have nothing else here.
Interviewer: So they basically provide the, that's your basic, uh, employment.
Resident: Uh, the mine company is what gives me my bread and butter. That's what gave me
the house that I'm living in.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: What pays for it. My husband works, you know, that's what he does, he operates a
dozer. If that company wasn't there, then I wouldn't have. . . you know, then, then, they're paying
for everything I have here.
Interviewer: O.K. So the benefit, you're telling me the benefit then is the employment
-------
opportunity that your husband has.
Resident: That, that's basically, that's one of the things, and I can tell you another thing, they
do do a whole lot like as far as helping put ballparks in here, things like the road over here, side of
the mountain, I can give you a good example here. Probably back about 5 years ago, 7 years ago,
there was a piece of our road fell down. 7 years ago the parents were going to get together and were
not gonna let the school bus, our kids ride the school bus because it was so bad. School was about
to start. Now, there was, I can tell you this, it was not far from an old mine that used to be there, in
fact people go there right now and get water out of it. It's got water that runs all the time and they
fixed a hose up out of it and I don't know. Tons and tons of family around here, they come and get
their water from there. It must be good. People come from Blackie, from down at Red Star, from
everywhere to get water from that mine.
Interviewer: Right.
Resident: O.K., it was that close to that mine, but there was also a gas company that had a line
through there too, so we don't know exactly the reason why the road did that. But anyway, Golden
Oak Mining Company came in here and fixed the road. They, I think, furnished the equipment, or
furnished half of it and the County furnished the other half and they fixed that road. It supposedly
it was supposed to be like for community relations, but I found out later on that here they were, it
was on TV. and all this stuff, and here they were taking the credit for it and oh, you know, wanting
everybody to think, oh, they're so great for doing this, for helping this community out, and doing
this for them, well, come to find out, I found out that they were getting, they had been fined for
something and were gonna have to pay a fine and they didn't have to pay the fine if they helped, you
know, in other words a community service project.
Interviewer: Right, in lieu of having to pay . . .
Resident: Lieu of having to pay their fine.
Interviewer: OK
Resident: So, you know, things like that would come out to the good hit home.
Interviewer: Right, exactly. What, in terms of the mining company, its relationship with the
community, what public information was available to you or your neighbors regarding the
introduction of the presence of surface mining. Do they have any information that they give to you
on their activities?
Resident: Now, not until, probably, uh, I would say a couple of years ago, I got a letter in the
mail, it was certified mail, they sent me a letter and said that they were going to be mining within
!/2 mile of my house and it, you know, it told about the blast signals and, you know, all that. Other
than that, no, you don't hear anything.
Interviewer: So, beyond that initial contact, you can answer yes or no, if you wish, did the surface
mining company continue any contact with you or your neighbors beyond that initial contact?
-------
Resident: No
Interviewer: The next couple of questions, I know this is, if you left the community, would you
ever, are you planning to stay in Carcassone for a long period of time?
Resident: Yes, I would love to. This is my home, I have my home, I have my house here, I
have, you know, the trees that I have planted and watch grow, but, if my husband gets without work,
if the mining company, then, we would have to leave, we would have to go where the jobs was at.
Interviewer: Right, because there's no other employment opportunities there to ...
Resident: Other employment opportunities.
Interviewer: O.K., so hat would be a factor for you to leave if the mining company left and your
husband was without a j ob, you would basically have to leave because of that fact of unemployment.
Resident: In fact, I can tell you right now, my husband, as of right now is laid off.
Interviewer: Oh, interesting.
Resident: Yes, he just got laid off, lets see Saturday was his last day of work, but it's only
supposed to be for this week, because, uh, what it is is the coal will stop, see you go through this
right here too, and now this is the first time my husband has worked for the company for 9 years and
he has never been laid off before and they have had their hours cut down here for the last month,
month and one-half, they have cut the hours down and now they have laid them off this week
because the tipple is shut down because where didn't have a bad winter, we didn't use coal, as much
coal, so they have coal stockpiled up. They have too much coal stockpiled up, so they cut their
hours down. See, this is the mining industry, it will be o.k., but yet look at it back three months ago,
two or three months ago, they were wanting them to work 7 days a week, they were hiring people,
they were begging people, they were talking about bringing people in the from the Ukrane to work
because we didn't have enough workers here, they couldn't train them fast enough, you know, and
they were just, coal was selling for, you know, $50 and $60 a ton and now here it is, and I've been
in around the coal business long enough to know, when I see that, I know that there is a big slump
fixing to follow it.
Interviewer: Oh interesting.
Resident: When you see something like that going on, a big coal burn, then you can bet that not
far along following it is gonna be, it's gonna, the bucket's gonna fall, the bottoms gonna fall out
from under it. This is exactly three months ago, they were begging for workers, couldn't find
enough workers, and now here you are laid off.
Interviewer: Laying off workers, interesting. Well, you have given us a lot of good information.
I will give you this opportunity. That's all the questions that I have, if you have anything else you
want to add, feel free to, but that's all the questions we have. I had given you information up front
-------
about if you needed to contact Bill Hoffman, or if you wanted to log on to the web site to check out
the project itself and where it is at in terms of the report. . .
Resident: I have it written down here.
Interviewer: Exactly, so and you have my name and information if you want to get back in touch
with me, but that's all the questions I have for you.
Resident: O.K., well if you all need anything else, you can contact me.
Interviewer: Well, that's uh, that is super . . .
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Naugatuck, West Virginia
Interviewer: I am going to ask you several questions regarding again about Mountain
Top Mining. Could you tell me a little bit about yourself and your family and how you came to live
in the Naugatuck area?
Resident: Well, I have lived in the Naugatuck area all of my life. Ever since I was about six
years old, lived over up on Big Branch, that mine is up there.
Interviewer: And what was the name of the bank or the Mountain?
Resident: It was more of a development where I lived up on Big Branch most of the time till
I went in the service.
Interviewer: O.K., you said Big Branch?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: O.K., Big Branch, O.K. Did your parents reside in Naugatuck then too?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: So you were a life-long resident, born and raised in Naugatuck.
Resident: I was born on Marble, but I was about six years old up in here.
Interviewer: Since you were six years you lived in Naugatuck?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: You were born outside the area then?
Resident: Uh Huh
Interviewer: O.K. When did your family then first arrive in Naugatuck.
Resident: I don't know, I don't remember.
Interviewer: So basically your family has had long ties to the Naugatuck community?
Resident: I was about, well we lived on Main over there in Logan County for a while, and then
we moved back over here when I was six years old. Ever since.
Interviewer: O.K., so you have been in Naugatuck since you were six years old?
-------
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: O.K. In terms of the mining operations, we are trying to concentrate a time frame,
from 1980 up to the current time, so one thing, if you could maybe keep in mind anything from 1980
to the present day when you are answering the questions that would be great. When did mining
operations come into Naugatuck?
Resident: Oh, ever since I can remember the strip j obs bit the other mine deep mines things up
know.
Interviewer: When did you observe, or when do you know when Mountain Top Mining type of
operations came into the Naugatuck community?
Resident: I can't remember what time it was.
Interviewer: And they are currently operating now?
Resident: In some places, yea.
Interviewer: In your own opinion, what are the effects of Mountain Top Mining on the
community. In your own opinion?
Resident: [ ], he don't affect nobody, he just gets more work and stuff to the people. It don't
affect nobody through here that way.
Interviewer: So it sort of has some positive affects then for employment opportunities, is that what
you are saying?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: O.K. How many people live in Naugatuck. How large is Naugatuck in terms of the
number of people or families that live there?
Resident: Well I guess, right through my community, there is about 50 homes.
Interviewer: About 50 homes?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: Have you noticed any changes in the population? Have people moved in? Has it
increased or decreased over the last 20 years?
Resident: Well, it's been about the same. Somebody moved in but a lot of elder people have
since then passed away and some other peoples have moved in. Younger people, you know.
Interviewer: Do you know why the younger people are moving in? Is there any reason that you
can determine why they are moving into the area?
-------
Resident: Well, they just like the location.
Interviewer: They like the surroundings and what the community has to offer I assume. O.K. Is
any of that been related to the mining operations in terms of are they seeking employment at the
mines or there are other reasons you think that they are ...
Resident: They are there, most of them, is working in the mines.
Interviewer: So most of the people that live in Naugatuck are employed by the mining operations?
Is that correct?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: O.K. Has anything . . . what do you like most about Naugatuck? Why do you stay
there?
Resident: Well, it's just home to me, I have been here so long and it's a handy place for me.
I told you I am a Christian and right across in front of the house is the church house, I go to church
there and I can walk over to the post office and store and it's just a handy place for me.
Interviewer: So there's a lot of other things that you like about Naugatuck that keeps you there
like the church and the store and the post office.
Resident: Yea, and I have been here all my life and I know a lot of people and stuff.
Interviewer: Did you ever work in the mines?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: You did? How long ago?
Resident: It's been a right smart bit ago. It's been 40 years, I guess, since I worked in the
mines.
Interviewer: It's been almost 40 years ago since you worked in the mines?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: O.K., so that's been quite a long time ago, hasn't it?
Resident: Yea, the last I worked I worked at the Coppers Mine in Wyoming County.
Interviewer: In Wyoming County, and that's in West Virginia?
Resident: Yea
-------
Interviewer: O.K. Do you ... in terms of do you hear anybody talk about the mining operations?
Has it caused any problems for them, the people that you know, or have any feedback about the
mining operations in the Naugatuck area currently?
Resident: Well, uh, all that I have talked to and things, when they talk about shut down the
strip
jobs, they think it's wrong, they ought to let the men work.
Interviewer: So, it is really a positive aspect that the mining operations are in Naugatuck and
really for the employment opportunities, is that correct?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: So you haven't heard any people talk or any negative effects from the mining
operations there in the community?
Resident: No
Interviewer: O.K. Did the mining operations, have they had any contact with you about their
operations in terms of notifications of their operations, or any just personal relationships that they
have had in any . . . with you or any other members of your community?
Resident: No
Interviewer: O.K. Do they announce when they are doing any operations or any blasting
activities
for example?
Resident: No
Interviewer: O.K. So you are pretty much... you're gonna remain in the Naugatuck community
probably for the rest of your life then I assume?
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: O.K. The questions that I have the way you have answered them have . . ., you
know, you have been to the point and that's great, but that's all I have for you. We are trying to get
an understanding and I think your overall opinion is that the mining operations have positive affects
on the community.
Resident: Yea
Interviewer: O.K. Super. Well, with that in mind, that's all I have to ask you. We appreciate
your time and you have a ...
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Scarlet, West Virginia
Interviewer: Tell me again a little bit about how you and your family came to settle on Scarlet
Road and the pre, before the mining came in. What was the, what you liked about it here.
Resident: It was a, it's a family community. My grandfather owned, probably the biggest
majority of this. He lived down here where the stone wall is; there is a piece of stone took out of
the corner of it. That was the home place. There was no houses up in here 'til then. And I told you,
this was another mile and a half to two miles longer, it is up to the valley fill right here now. Most
of these people are my aunts and uncles that lived down here. All the houses that are gone or falling
in are aunts and uncle or cousins that died or was brought out and they've left. Up the other fork,
have you been up the other fork?
Interviewer: Umm hum. We were up there yesterday.
Resident: We are all kind of family community. You know, everybody knew each other. There
was approximately sixty or seventy families, I believe, at one time. I think there is what? Three or
four up there now? It has really dropped off. This place was full of kids. It was just a community
where, you know, we had a ball field. You can't tell where the ball field was but it's at the forks
down there. They done away with that about ten years ago when they started this mountaintop down
on 119, down there.
Interviewer: Did they... how was the ball field... was the land bought or?
Resident: No. It was at... the name of the cemetery - it was called the "specific name"
cemetery, it's "specific name" cemetery - it was off there beside the railroad track. Then when they
started mountaintop down there, this Consolidated, they came up there and redone the railroad
tracks. And they owned so much of it so they took a dozer and "sphll", killed the ball field. Let's
see... the quality of life was well you know, I guess you call us poor, you know. But we didn't
bother anybody and nobody bothers us. Everybody worked their mines underground and there was
no such thing as strip job you know. Like I told you, I worked almost 20 years underground. My
dad worked for Island Creek down here. You see, Island Creek had a big underground mine down
here from '49 to '69. And when they shut down that is when they started trying to strip.
Interviewer: Un huh. Can I just ask? Did this community grow up around the underground
mines? Did a lot of the people who worked, who lived here?
Resident: No. No it didn't... Well, I guess in a way it did grow up around it because, since my
grandfather owned all of this, naturally, all of his sons had a job whenever they wanted it. They
mined underneath his property. And he gave them access, see there's no road up here except down
to the homeplace down there, and he gave them a road, a right-of-way with a road. They built a
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
road, but he gave them the right-of-way to come up here. And they have substations. You know
what a substation is?
Interviewer: No.
Resident: That's where they have the electricity. They drill a hole down into the mines and
they put electricity down.
Interviewer: Okay.
Resident: Instead of trying to take it underground, they come on the surface and drill a hole
down. They had one up here on the hill. And one down the road here a little ways, you can't hardly
tell where it's at. There's a brick house down here on the right. Going back out right here, there
was a substation there at one time. And that is how, I guess maybe you can say that it grew up...
the community grew up around that. In a way.
Interviewer: So, you said the underground mine closed about when?
Resident: About' 68 or' 69.1 was in the service when it closed. It was running good when I left
in '77.1 think it shut down in '68 or '69.
Interviewer: Un huh. So you moved back here about when?
Resident: In '71. That has been thirty years ago.
Interviewer: Long time for anyone to live in one place these days.
Resident: Well, I came back here in '71. I stayed here until '78, then I moved to Delbarton.
I lived in Delbarton fifteen years and then I moved back here. My dad stayed here. I am one of...
my brother lives up here. That is where he lives. As a matter of fact, he was the oldest employee
for Arch Coal on the job. I ream him all the time. I say, "Look what you done."
Interviewer: Did he work for the underground mine and then when that closed?
Resident: No. He started working for them in ' 70, when they first started.. .when this, this job
was called Hobet 07. They started it in, I am not sure on the date, '69 or '70. They started down
here on the hill. You can see the old strip. But that was... they got that permit, from what I
understand, what I have been told I really don't know, it was on a temporary thing. The State told
them to do it, so they could see what they could do. It was a new thing that they wanted to try. So,
they got started on that and they'd seen what they could really produce with nothing. And that is
where it all started from. They actually started... when they started they blasted everything over the
mountain. It was terrible. It was terrible. You could see the difference. I mean when they loaded
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 2
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
it up it just... they used it all. But a lot of it was shot over the mountain and was just left.
Interviewer: Right.
Resident: That was good. It made an awful lot of money. Then they said wait a minute,
blowing it over the hill is no good. So, they stopped and thought about it and we'll try, what we call
now a box cut. Called a box cut. They go in and they don't shoot over the hill. When they shot it's
loaded up and carried back. It's called back fill. The spoil and overburden is back fill. So, once
they remove the coal the dirt in front of it is hauled back behind then to reclaim. So they reclaim
it as they go. They have an open fill of so many hundred yards. Which is good. Which was real
good. You can tell there is a world of a difference if you go and look on that. You can drive and
look on it. The road is still there. A world of difference. That was good. That didn't bother
anything or hurt anything. That was good. They mined that for about seven... about seven years.
Of course, that took them all the way to the head of the left fork, which runs into this, you see. It's
tied into that. And that was real good. It didn't hurt anything. They shot hard, but as far as water
damage, it really didn't show up. I guess probably because it was... they really wasn't shooting that
hard, because there just really wasn't that much to shoot on that. So ah... there was no water
problems. The water problems began in the '80s. They moved... that was in '76. They moved...
they moved to the Hobet job here in ' 76 they started. In '80 is when the water problems started. My
mother had a well drilled. I was about ten or eleven years old. She lived up there then. She had a
well drilled when I was about ten or eleven and it was about 75 feet deep. It's good water. No
problems. Never had a filter. Never heard of a filter. What's that, you know? It was real good
water. In '80 the water starts to go. They come in and say, "We'll drill you a well. We'll put you
a filter on it.... Anything you want".
Interviewer II: That was the mining company?
Resident: The mining company, yeah. Then after they got by you know what happened? They
just... you know, sue 'em.
Interviewer: Was it the same company, that was doing like the box cuts down here that was over
there?
Resident: Well, I say it was the same company... When it was here it was independently
owned, but it was bought by Ashland Oil.
Interviewer: Who is Hobet?
Resident: Yeah, they bought it. In'70,1 think. Before they left here, Ashland Oil bought it.
Then I think by the time they got over on that side, it was actually, solely owned by Ashland Oil.
Out of Gatlinsburg, I guess that is where their headquarters are. So, then in, what about five years
ago, Arch Coal bought them. So, that's just the... The time line I am not sure on but that is just the
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 3
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
way it happened.
Interviewer: So what kind of changes? .. .you described a community that was very tight knit,
family and you had a ball field and that sort of thing. How... what kind of changes would you say
occurred in the community during the mining?
Resident: Ah, when all the problems started in and they ah, more people complained, you know,
about the water and stuff. The dust was real bad. You can see how close we are to it. The dragline
boom, you can see it right there it was so big, and naturally you can see it right here. But you could
see it through the trees and it would swing around. The closer they got to the community the more
problems, naturally they are going to have more trouble. So their way around was to buy you, or
you know, water wells, or whatever. So they started buying people out. And as they started that,
they started pitting neighbor against neighbor.
Interviewer: What were your experiences with that?
Resident: With that? They offered to buy, now I didn't get into it. I moved back here in '93 and
I really didn't get involved in it until then. My dad died in '90. I moved back here in 1993. And
ah, my mom is seventy some years old. I told her well, we ought to go ahead and sell and get out,
and it is only going to be worse because they kept buying people, you know. Naturally if, you're
you know... it was a good thing 'cause they killed the community. The water goes and everybody
falls off. The property that they purchased will set to idle for two hundred years. And you see the
old houses now and that they just literally walk off and left, like a slum lord. You know, just walked
off and left. And she finally agreed to it and I got a hold of this land agent. His name was "specific
name", I don't know if he's still there but. But he didn't want to give her enough to go buy a place
back. You can't give your place up or sell your home that is convenient to those people. You'll put
yourself out on the street. You just can't do that. That's not good business and that's not smart
either. But that, that was their attitude: "Take it or nothing," and it was nothing. But you hear all
kinds of things. Families talk. This one talks. From what we could get, some people really got paid
for their places and some didn't. But of course people who didn't aren't going to admit it, you
know, that they got took. But, the bottom line is she didn't sell and we're still here. And they
brought her drinking water for months, then they quit. Then she complained to the State DEP, and
they told her that there was nothing they could do about it. ...
Interviewer II: And when you say pit neighbor against neighbor, when they started to buy
people out, what was the attitude there in terms of neighbor against neighbor? What do you mean
by that?
Resident: Well they would tell some people not to drink the water and tell the others there
wasn't nothing wrong with it. Now how can you go... Did you talk to "specific name" and
"specific name"?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 4
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer: We haven't. We haven't had a chance to talk to them yet. We missed them last
night.
Resident: They probably won't talk to you.
Interviewer: You think so?
Resident: Just, just, you know... Because "specific name" still works for them.
Interviewer: Oh really.
Resident: And that was his mother that I told you, that I was told they told her not to drink the
water because she was sick. They told her not to drink the water and she lives right above my
mother. So, and he still works for them.
Interviewer: That is interesting. We'11 have to talk about that a little later. I'd curious to talk to
them, I hope. Did you notice... well let me put it this way: What were your interactions with the
coal company personally? Did you complain about anything specific to them? Did you complain
to DNR or?
Resident: Not to DNR. DNR is never been involved in this, as far as I know. It has always
been the State DEP. I always complained about the water and the dust. The dust was terrible.
Interviewer: So you complained straight to the State?
Resident: State DEP, yeah. I moved here in August of '93. In February of '94, February 3rd or
the 4th this records had been destroyed. I'd been told that they can destroy those blast records after
five years.
Interviewer: Who told you to do that?
Resident: The State guy told me they could take and destroy it after five years.
Interviewer: What was your understanding for why?
Resident: I don't know. But on that particular day the dragline on the top of the valley there,
they put off a blast of a hundred and three thousands pounds of explosives. It was an open shot.
You know what that means?
Interviewer II: It was basically near the surface right?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 5
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: It wasn't confined - it was open. It hit a fracture in the rock, and the shock foreman
and his people didn't pay attention to what they was doing and they over loaded. Didn't realize
what they were doing. I guess they estimate. I don't know if they really knew. But they put down
on paper a hundred and three thousand pounds of explosives. When it went out it tore the back end
of the dragline out. It was down for about two to four days to a week. I was fortunate. This mobile
home is tied down. I got eight or ten ties on it. Normally there are about four. I knew I was in a
blasting area, so when I put it here I really tied it down. But it shook it hard because it threw me
against the faucet there. I just walked in here and was getting some water, you know, and wham.
I didn't know what happened and when I stepped on the porch there I could not see that big tree at
that point at the bottom there. I knew it had killed the people up there. I just knew it. I just knew
it killed 'em; you couldn't see nothing. There was a wall of dust. I could believe it.
Interviewer II: Did people end up getting hurt?
Resident: No. Nobody got hurt. Nobody got hurt. I listened, then I heard somebody holler and
I said well somebody is alive. But the dust, you just couldn't see. And I knew... I just knew that
they had killed someone.
Interviewer II: Are they supposed to give off warning signals before they do that?
Resident: They are supposed to have ah... a whistle or something.
Interviewer II: But did you hear anything?
Resident: Nah, I didn't hear it.
Interviewer II: There was no warning? I mean that you could hear, that they were going to
set off a charge?
Resident: Ah... I don't know. To my knowledge, I don't think I ever did hear it. But normally
they did do, they did, normally they did do there blasting around four to six.
Interviewer: So you had a basic time frame, you knew that probably if it was going to come that
is when?
Resident: Yeah, but if you are not sitting there looking, then you don't pay attention to what
time it is. Oops, they are going to blast. Well, hang on. No, that was just one of the things they
did... with total disregard to people that lived around here. Just one. They constantly, they
constantly, the surface water they constantly messed that up. With total disregard, and the State
DEP won't do anything.
Interviewer: What kind of... what kind of messed up do you mean?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report Q
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: Well, they put black water in the creek. That is a no, no. You are not supposed to
put black water in the creek.
Interviewer: What kind of... Do you have any direct contact with the coal company about umm,
any of what was going on?
Resident: Any direct?
Interviewer: Yes.
Resident: No, because I would not talk to them. Because the bottom line, if you did, if you
could catch one of them, was - sue us.
Interviewer: What are you going to do about it? Sue us?
Resident: Right. You going do something with the water? No. We can't do this. We can't do
that. No. Sue us.
Interviewer II: You're the little man.
Resident: You're the little guy and ah - Try it, ten years from now you may get it in court, if
you've got enough money to retain a lawyer for that period of time. And these lawyers around here,
they wouldn't take it. Probably want to take you money, but you would never get it anywhere, so
why bother? You can't fight it. If you don't have the State behind you, you are not going to get
anywhere.
Interviewer: Did you ever have any direct contact or to your knowledge did your parents or your
family have any direct contact with the coal company before they came in?
Resident: Before the coal company came in?
Interviewer: Yes, before the surface mine came in?
Resident: No. No. That is one of the things we talked about. To my knowledge they never
came in here and done a thing. They were supposed to do an environmental study on the water and
all of that stuff. I asked them for a copy of it and I never did get it. I don't believe it was ever done.
Interviewer: How about any pre blast surveys or anything like that?
Resident: They did do a pre blast survey on some homes. My mother had hers done. They
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report J
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
done a lot of damage to her - house is old. That is one of the things that they haggled is that - Your
house is old, you know so we are not going to do anything. They done a pre-blast on it. There was
damage on it along with the water. She did harass them long enough that they did finally come and
say well we will fix ah, drill two wells and they were suppose to fix a couple more things and I can't
remember exactly what that was, put a new roof on her house. Ah they drilled a new well here for
my dad. Drilled her a new well. But they never did fix the roof and stuff. And I still have the paper
that they signed that they would do that. And the DEP refused to enforce, to even talk to them about
that. To make them do what they promised too. They wouldn't do it. And their bottom line was
we are not going to do it so. I had a report. This is my last one.
Interviewer II: That's thick!
Interviewer: You just gave the transcriber a heart attack.
Resident: This is my last one as of August the 17th about my water. See my well out there has
gone dry.
Interviewer II: Where do you get your water now "specific name"?
Resident: I'11 show you after a while. Yeah, the 17th. Terrible. This is just one of... This is
between me and my mom's place.
Interviewer II: This is a copy of the complaint investigation with the West Virginia Division
of Environmental Protection.
Resident: And that is as far as it goes.
Interviewer: So, it's basically like a receipt of the registered complaint.
Resident: Complaint. They acknowledged that I complained about it and ah it pretty well dies
on the vine.
Interviewer II: What does it mean by investigation results terminated?
Resident: It means, they're just not going to do anything. The volume of my water kept... my
drill well out there, the one that they drilled for my Dad... one of them. They drilled another one
out here and I filled it up with concrete because it cracked and the creek was running in it. I wish
I hadn't done that, but I did. I wish I hadn't done that. But they have a record of it when they
checked it. I told them that I kept... see they got my dad a filter to put on it - bought him a filter for
it. And I noticed over the last since I have been here, the water kept going down, the volume. And
the guy told me, he said, "Well when you run out of water, we're going to have to do something
about it." I said it's going to happen. I kept telling them it's going to happen. Finally one day I got
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report g
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
up and it all shut down. The filters ran out of water and it shut down, which it is suppose to. So,
that was a couple months ago. I went to him and told him, I said, "I ran out of water last night." He
said, "Keep an eye on it." You know, like he is really going to help me this time, you know. So I
kept and eye on it, you know, and a day or two later well it done all right. Then the 17th, I guess.
I said it is gone. I said there is no sense fooling with it. I said it is gone. It is time to do something
about it. I went and filled that out. You see how far it went.
Interviewer: And he in this case was who?
Resident: He was the inspector of the DEP for this area. For this job.
Interviewer: He was a mine inspector from DEP?
Resident: Right.
Interviewer II: So, you have no water at all now?
Resident: I have water but I am having to work for it. It is a daily problem.
Interviewer II: You have to wait for it to fill?
Resident: Fills up or I have to adjust it. I have 10 minutes reserve in it. And it is not enough
to backwash one of those filters. It takes two and a half hours to run those filters out.
Interviewer II: You often during the course of the day run your well dry?
Resident: Yeah, I run dry during the day. I don't use a whole lot of water.
Interviewer II: You watch how much water you use?
Resident: Yes. I haven't washed a car in three years.
Interviewer II: These dry periods like during the summers... do you, you're really ah ...
Resident: Terrible. Yes, I really have to watch the water I don't have a whole lot...
Interviewer II: Do you have to go outside the area to get water? Like bottled water or? Right
there?
Interviewer: Right. Jugs.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: That's drinking water. But now you see, you see what kind of problems it has
created? And really we didn't ask a whole lot. After they destroyed the community water we asked
them to pay for what was lost. Really you can't pay for what we lost, because we lost our
independence. We were self-reliant mostly, you know we worked outside but you know we took
care of ourselves. We had our own water, our own places to live and now they are going to come
along, and because they want to mine coal that we had to up and give it to them. That was their
attitude.
Interviewer II: So, your feeling was, you may not have minded the coal company... the
mining itself, because it was, I mean what your feeling was...
Resident: The mountaintop?
Interviewer II: Right.
Resident: They way they do it I don't think it is really that profitable, considering everything.
Interviewer II: But in terms of like mining is, you know....
Resident: Mining itself? I am not against the mining. Is that what you are talking about?
Interviewer II: Yeah, I am just wondering, you know, you probably realize maybe importance
of mining and how it serves the economy but the actual impacts on local communities, like Scarlet,
and what may not be and what is not done to ah., reattribute your loses, so to speak, that is probably
where the...
Resident: Well like I said. If they knew, they knew what they were going to do in here, why
didn't they come beforehand? Because, they didn't want to pay the people for their places or their
property. Because, they knew they were going to destroy it.
Interviewer II: Did you get offered to get bought out?
Resident: Yeah at one time. But like I said they didn't offer enough... You got to have money
to buy a home back. You can't give them your place and go start paying a mortgage and all this
stuff for their benefit.
Interviewer II: Right.
Resident: That is like I came to your community and say I will give you so much for your place
and then you've got to go. But why should you, I mean, you know, do that for me? Your not
obligated to do that for me. For what?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ Q
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: Exactly.
Resident: And that was their attitude. But this is all the complaints over the years.
Interviewer II: This is a notebook probably 4 inches thick of complaints just like you showed
us here.
Resident: Yeah.
Interviewer: The property that your home sits on now, does your mother own that or do you own
this property?
Resident: She does.
Interviewer: She does. It is getting windy out huh?
Resident: Oh, it is terrible out there. My electricity went off last night about 12:30 and it came
on about 7:30 this morning.
Interviewer: The electricity was out where we were too last night.
Interviewer II: Yeah, we heard the wind and rain last night. Woke us up, too.
Resident: Yeah it was terrible out there.
Interviewer: What can you tell me about where you would see these permits being posted publicly.
Did you ever find those?
Resident: Those were in the newspaper.
Interviewer: Did you, do you get a newspaper here that you see them in regularly?
Resident: No, not now I don't. No. They did that. I guess they really did publicize those like
they were supposed to. That is one thing that I would say they probably did do right.
Interviewer II: Did you ever see the permits in the paper?
Resident: Sure.
Interviewer II: Were they legible? Could you understand what the locations were about?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ \
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: Most of them. I would say about 90 percent of the time you could.
Interviewer II: You could understand it by reading what, where the locations were? Where
the permit was actually being applied, to the area?
Resident: Yes. Most people can't but, you know...
Interviewer II: When you say a lot of people can't, what do you mean by that?
Resident: Well, can't read a map or understand the terms that they... they ah write under the
permit and stuff. For some people that are not familiar with mining...
Interviewer II: As you are.
Resident: Right.
Interviewer II: But the average person...
Resident: .. .person may have difficulty, you know, understanding what they're talking about.
They may be able to look at that map, if it is real legible like you say, "Yeah I can see what this is.
Yeah, this is all 119 or Dunkin Fork or Myrtle or Trace Creek," and you know, they could tell where
it was at. But they may not understand the terms that's written into the permit. There may be an
Article 3 renewal on the water or new permit completely.
Interviewer II: Which you understand?
Resident: Yeah, I did.
Interviewer II: But anybody not evolved with the coal mining operations may have...
Resident: They had trouble they still have. All the people may not understand. My mother
didn't understand.
Interviewer II: Interesting. Interesting.
Interviewer: We have talked a lot about the negative impacts and the physical impacts in the
community and you know, what would you say were the benefits here?
Resident: The benefits?
Interviewer: Um hum.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 2
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: I'd say probably the only good benefit to say is if you are working for them.
Interviewer: And, take your example, for example, where were you working during this time
period?
Resident: I worked underground.
Interviewer: You were underground?
Resident: Yeah.
Interviewer: Did you ever consider going to work for them?
Resident: I worked for them when they had their prep plant down here. Ah, that's a good
question that you asked. In 1986, I think it was. I was unemployed and I, they had a couple
openings and I went to a talk with the fella that was in charge of that. And he offered to sell me a
job.
Interviewer: What do you mean sell you a job?
Resident: For money.
Interviewer: He basically...
Resident: He was a foreman he was in charge...
Interviewer: A bribe?
Resident: A bribe.
Interviewer: Humm, and what was your...
Resident: I was shocked. I was stunned. I really didn't catch it until the interview was over.
And I was informed, "Yes that is exactly what they are doing. Didn't you know it?" I said, "No, I
did not know it." I said, "What happen to honor?" He said, "There is no honor among those
people."
Interviewer II: So if you wanted a job you had to pay?
Resident: You had to buy it.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 3
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: You had to buy your job. Interesting.
Interviewer: So, what did you do? Where did you go to get work after that?
Resident: I was floored. Oh I went back underground, you know. Yeah, during that period of
time, the coal industry went up and down. These guys here were real fortunate. That's one... like
I say, if you were working for those people it was good. Because my... my brother who worked for
them, never lost any time. They, when I worked underground it was up and down there for a long
time. Up and down. And I would just from one to... because it was, it was,... I don't know. It was
just... I guess when these guys had the big operation, I was working for smaller people who would
start up and shut down for a while, you know, just up and down. But, these guys could run the large
amount, you know the large tonnage. And I guess that's really what kept them going.
Interviewer: Did you ever discuss what you had encountered when you try to get a j ob there, with
your brother? While he was working there?
Resident: That is who informed me as to what was going on. He said, "Didn't you know it?"
I said, "No, I did not know it."
Interviewer: Do you think he had gone through the same thing?
Resident: No. No. See he had worked there since, for thirty years. He was there,... They
bought,... he was working for that company that they bought. So they bought him when they came
in.
Interviewer: Well that is interesting.
Interviewer II: To say the least. Did the other, so basically the people in Scarlet, as a
community as a whole, most of those people in here were not employed by the mining company that
operated?
Resident: There were, I am going to try and tell you how many there were. I think there were
four.
Interviewer II: Four people?
Resident: No, I think there was five.
Interviewer II: Five. And how many, I assume they were all male, all men? How many men,
you know, were in the community here in Scarlet during that time period? That is five compared
to how many men?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 4
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: Ummm. There was several. Several
Interviewer II: So, out of that five would be considered maybe a small percentage?
Resident: I would probably say maybe 20 percent. Well you take, it is not that big of a
community, so five guys, you know... There was several people that they could of hired. I may be
wrong in that. I believe there was just five.
Interviewer II: So was there benefit of employment, offered by the mines, if you lived here?
Resident: No. No.
Interviewer: What did ah ... once this operation started to wind down, the five, or the four or five
people that worked for them... Did they move with them and move out of the community? Or do
they still live here and still work for them or?
Resident: No. No. There is no one working for them now.
Interviewer: That lives here?
Resident: That lives here.
Interviewer: What would you say, do you think happened?
Resident: A couple of them... let's see here, one of them still does work for them. Just one.
Interviewer II: In the Scarlet community?
Resident: Yeah, but he doesn't live here now. He was one of those that they bought out up the
left fork. So he is out of the community, but he still works for them. Just like, just like "specific
name" and "specific name"; he still works for them.
Interviewer: ... and the other three or four?
Resident: ... are retired or they work somewhere else.
Interviewer II: Did the coal companies, you know during the mountaintop mining operations,
in your opinion... Did they have good public relations with the communities and then the individuals
like yourself that lived in like Scarlet? Did they actually have good public relations in your opinion?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 5
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: Not in my opinion. No.
Interviewer II: Other than publishing the mine permits, would you say that was part of their
public relations or there was a lot more....
Resident: I would think that was required by law.
Interviewer II: Right. So above what was required...
Resident: They didn't do anything more than what was required.
Interviewer: I wanted to ask you a little bit about your decision to stay verses leaving. You had
said that the offer they had been made to your mom for the property and presumably for her home
and maybe your home too, was not enough to really purchase something somewhere else in your
opinion. Is that what you ...?
Resident: Right. Right.
Interviewer: Can you elaborate for me, a little bit on your decision to stay? Was there ever a
question that maybe you would take that money anyways, because you really wanted to leave?
Resident: Ah, no. You can't go unless you got money. You know, you travel. You know the
price of things, ah... I watch the homes go up everyday. Ah., try to move right now so much it
costs. Terrible. Terrible.
Interviewer II: Now when you moved from Delbarton, you lived in Delbarton for 15 years.
Your decision, maybe you mentioned this earlier and I apologize, your decision to move back into
Scarlet... What was your decision to move back in to Scarlet from Delbarton?
Resident: Well I didn't own my place up there. So I was living on a piece of land that my
brother owned and I'd just moved back. My dad died and he had stayed here.
Interviewer II: In Scarlet?
Resident: Yeah. So I decided just to comeback to the old home place.
Interviewer: You said your dad had died so your mom was alone at that point.
Resident: Right. And my wife was working in Logan so it was kind of beneficial for everybody
just to move, you know.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ Q
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: And when you moved back into Scarlet was the mining activity sort of
winding down?
Resident: No. It was going strong. Remember the blast....
Interviewer II: It was still going strong. Because you had said, and that tells me because you
had said about the, you could see the dragline boom and the blast that had occurred. So you moved
back into the ...
Resident: Yeah, right into it.
Interviewer II: Into the heart of the activity.
Resident: Yeah. Yeah.
Interviewer II: Now is there any more opportunity for this valley fill to expand or has it gone
as far as it...
Resident: Well they tell me that... I believe it is illegal. I believe it is too big. Remember that
West Virginia had a problem with that. Governor Underwood signed a thing to extend those valley
fills, which, I thought was illegal... was contrary to the Federal Government. That was the big brew-
ha-ha that I think started all this. And I think that thing was illegal when they, way before their
initial, when they initiated that thing. Because that thing has to be a mile and a half to two miles
long.
Interviewer II: How far from your house here to that valley fill, the toe of it, are you? If we
would drive up?
Resident: If you ... Once more I don't know. But the law on it, and they're in violation of the
law, too, because there is a house right over top of it. You took a picture of that right? It is all
messed up.
Interviewer: Yeah. I think.... well we can drive up there and we can look. But what would you
estimate.
Resident: What from my trailer here now?
Interviewer: Ahh, hun.
Resident: About four hundred feet. That is why,.. I take it back. Now what are we talking
about to the toe of the valley fill?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ J
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: Right the toe. I would assume that is ...
Resident: Rock ford? To where it's rock ford?
Interviewer II: Right.
Resident: About eight hundred feet, maybe.
Interviewer: Eight hundred feet?
Resident: I am just guessing.
Interviewer: Ahhh, hun.
Resident: But the house right there... there's a house right on top of it.
Interviewer: I think that pretty well covers most of the things that I wanted to ask you about. Is
there anything you wanted to add that we didn't talk about?
Resident: I just think it is terribly unfair. What got me about this whole thing, maybe we didn't
do it right.... They have a Federal Office of Surface Mining. I have never seen one of those people.
Where are they at? Was we suppose to go to those people too?
Interviewer: You feel you've given the DEP...
Resident: Yeah, too much of the... we should of went, maybe we should of went to the Federal
Office of Surface Mining.
Interviewer II: So you feel that your opportunity to contact the people who you felt were in
charge was, in your own words you can tell me, I am trying to phrase the question.... Did you feel
in your opinion you had an adequate opportunity to talk to the right people? I mean certainly, by
showing this stack you thought you were talking to the right people...
Resident: I thought I was talking to the right people that would take care of it. Because the
State was issuing the permits.
Interviewer II: So, there was no information given to you to say if you have concerns or want
to talk to someone these are the people you should be talking to. You just sort of assumed whom
you should be talking to?
Resident: Right. I did talk to these people once a year or two ago and it was kind of a negative,
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ g
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
you know, reply that I got from them. That if the State wasn't involved in it, you know, there wasn't
much they could do.
Interviewer: So you contacted the Federal OSM office?
Resident: Right. Right. And I just kind of gave up on, 'cause if those guys weren't going to do
nothing then....
Interviewer II: You sort of lost hope when...
Resident: Yeah, you just give up on it. You can see here, it's kind of a lost deal, you know what
I mean?
Interviewer II: And of all these complaints were any of them positive reaction or at least
follow-ups that actually your complaints were addressed?
Resident: Ah, when my water ah... they still check my water once a month. This company has
a contract and they come to take water samples. And ah.. .when he gets it and it is out of compliance
he normal tells me. Sometimes he denies it. And when it is out of compliance I call these people
and say, "The water is out of compliance." Never goes anywhere.
Interviewer: Do you get a record of the report?
Resident: Yeah. Yeah, but I was informed something out there the other day that if you are out
of compliance they doctor the results.
Interviewer: Who? Who told you...?
Resident: The contractors.
Interviewer: Say that again.
Resident: The contractor.
Interviewer: The contractor told you?
Resident: Told me that if it goes in the lab bad, it usually comes out good. So unless I run my
own water sample through my own lab and stuff, I don't know.
Interviewer: Which is certainly something that would cost a lot of money to do?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ Q
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: Sure. Don't you think? To take water samples and then break it down.
Interviewer II: What kind of things are they finding in your...
Resident: Water?
Interviewer II: Water?
Resident: They take the iron and all of that stuff in there.
Interviewer II: Iron content is pretty high?
Resident: Magnesium... and all that stuff. All kind of stuff. That is pretty isn't it?
Interviewer: What have you got a stack of about 50 papers there? Is that the report?
Resident: That is some of the stuff they check.
Interviewer II: These are your water sample reports from the contractor, I assume, telling you
Interviewer: Are they in order just about?
Resident: Just about, yeah.
Interviewer: Dating back to '98 and up until now?
Resident: Ah, huh.
Interviewer II: Now basically the concentration then would indicate whether or not you are
in compliance or not in compliance. Can you tell, did the individual running the tests when they gave
you these reports, give you an indication of what you should be looking for on this.
Resident: No.
Interviewer II: So, are you able to tell?...
Resident: No that is solely up to me to get somebody to read that for me.
Interviewer II: You certainly,... I don't understand it.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 20
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: The State has never said look, bring that over here and we'll let you sit down and
we'll get somebody in here to explain that to you.
Interviewer II: So you have no idea what this information means? What the ...
Resident: All I could do was compare the numbers there. I could compare if it was up or down.
Interviewer II: But that basically is only your indication of what changes might have
occurred? You don't know ...
Resident: I am familiar with, what is it called... the alkaline maybe, where it is acid or base.
And you can really tell it goes down, straight down.
Interviewer II: Right. Like the thresh hold levels for some of these other parameters, you
don't know what it means?
Resident: No. Your solids, your suspended solids and whatever. There is another one there
that's got solids. Ones solely related to mining. I can't remember exactly which one it is. There's,
those things jump up and down... You just, the layman is not going to be able to tell anything about
that and they know that. They'd have to hire ah ... all they had to do then is explain that to me and
say, "Hey you must be a mile out of compliance here! How come I haven't heard anything?"
Interviewer II: Yeah, it is pretty hard for you to understand what is going on...
Resident: I would have to hire a contractor or a lab to do that for me.
Interviewer II: Did you get a log, did you say everybody gets these re..., did they get, you
have to ask for these report?
Resident: They are doing mine because I am within a half mile of the mining.
Interviewer II: So anybody else....
Resident: They don't do anybody else. To my knowledge they don't do anybody else except
me and maybe the guy up on the hill.
Interviewer II: So anybody else they are not getting those reports at all?
Interviewer: Could they request?
Resident: I don't know if they could even request them to be checked... to check them out. I
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 21
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
am not familiar with that. But no, to the layman it doesn't mean anything. You would have to get
a lab to do it for you. It is right there.
Interviewer II: Interesting.
Interviewer: Can you tell me a little bit about the public water coming in here?
Resident: The public water is in right now. It ah, there is water coming, I' 11 say down the creek.
It is coming from Logan County. This water is coming from Logan County. They pulled, they put
a new water line up Pine Creek to the industrial park here. Some people might say that is a plus for
mountaintop. I say it is not, because they will not going to hire local people for that job. They
brought a water line up to it from the Logan county water plant and they're going to run water to it
from the Mingo water plant at Naugatuck, so that they will have two sources of water. I understand
they use a lot of water to run that thing. So in the mean time this coal company, which is A.T.
Massey, has came in and then you're right at the... Duncan Fork. Have you noticed those big white
tanks in those people's yards?
Interviewer: Ah hun.
Resident: Okay they have sunk all their water. The water... the mines that they are mining,
according to the DEP, is where my water comes, okay.
Interviewer: So, say that again to me.
Resident: The water that they sunk for those people, which is a lower elevation than me. Is the
same water, according to the DEP, that my well was in. Okay? So he tells me way back when all
this started. He said because your water is gone they will have to fix your water. I said that is great.
Bam! All of a sudden all those wells, there is 130, 150 wells gone down there. And they got these
wide, big, white tanks. A.T. Massey's got these big white tanks in their yard. They are hauling
water in trucks.
Interviewer II: Filling up those tanks.
Resident: Right. Filling up those tanks. So now they are in the process of... My brother lives
down there at the mouth of Duncan Fork across the road next to the hill, and you'll see a big white
tank in his yard right there. He has got a big cinder block wall, it is a gray wall like. And he
informed me they are going to force him, they are making him, they are not gong to bring him any
more water. He has to hook-up onto public water in order to have water. And he may or may not
get paid for them destroying his water.
Interviewer II: So how much would it cost? Do you have an opportunity to hook up to public
water?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 22
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: Yeah I could hook up to it any time I want to.
Interviewer II: How much is that?
Resident: Cost?
Interviewer II: Cost wise.
Resident: Ah, probably cost about $500 to hook up.
Interviewer II: And in most cases that is cost prohibitive - that is a hardship maybe?
Resident: Ah, it is a hardship and it pisses me off. It goes back, now remember we were
independent. We had our own source of water and now we are forced to hook up on public water.
Interviewer II: Now you are dependant?
Resident: You're dependant on that. You've lost your independence. Now you are at the mercy
of water company. You have to hook up on it. You are burdened with another monthly bill.
Remember your car payments, your water bills, your electric bills come every month regardless.
Interviewer II: Because when you had a private well, like my parent do, you don't have to
pay for the water. It is a natural resource.
Resident: It is a natural resource. You don't have to worry about it. You know where they
water comes from. I hate city water.
Interviewer: Is that primarily, would you say, why you are not hooking up to it now?
Resident: Right. I am defiant. I won't hook on it until the very last...
Interviewer II: Until there is no other way?
Resident: Until there is no other way. Because once I hook up onto it, I might as well throw
that away.
Interviewer II: And all of your complaints have been... in their...
Resident: Nullified. Gone. Zilch. Out the window.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 23
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: So that four-inch stack of complaints is really work going down the drain?
Resident: Down the drain. Yeah.
Interviewer II: In your opinion?
Resident: I my opinion it is gone. We get back to this down here. They told him in four months
they were going to force him to hook up on it because they aren't going to bring him any more water
after a certain day.
Interviewer: They told him what that day would be?
Resident: They haven't told him yet.
Interviewer: Oh.
Resident: And the DEP is not going, not going to do anything.
Interviewer: According to what they told him?
Resident: Yeah, according to what they told him. So there you have A.T. Massey which just
came in and underground to destroy those wells. And the DEP refuses to intervene and do
something. But getting back to me on this deal, he tells me... the mine inspector says, "When your
water is gone they will have to do something." I said, "Fine. Who?" We are talking about two
entities right here. We are talking about Arch Coal and Massey Energy. I said "Who?" No answer.
So when my water goes I said, "Is Massey or Arch Coal going to fix my water?" And you see what
happened.
Interviewer II: So out of all the impacts, and you have named off several of the mining
operations, what you can tell me, what's the, what is the most significant impact? That is to come
out or resulted from all these mining activities.
Resident: Most significant impact? I'd say the destruction of natural resources. Because
without those, the lands... this land is worthless right now. I had this appraised again. And they
appraised it as unfit to live in except for mining. The only worth of this was for mining purposes.
It was not fit to live in. And I asked a couple of realtors and they said, "Yes they could come out and
they could appraise your property in that manner." I said, "That is wonderful." So you live in a
mining community and your property is worthless except to a coal company. And I was told that.
So, they destroyed the natural resources. Before they done this mining we go back, before they
started the mining now... this community was full of people then. Lots of people lived here.
Everybody had good water.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 24
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: So is water one of those...
Resident: Water is gone. Just think about it, if you had no water, if you had no water, what
would you do? Could you live in a place...?
Interviewer II: We take it for granted. I know my mom and dad, just an antidote here, my
mom and dad have an on lot water well. Just like you do and it's... and the formation it is in doesn't
produce as much water as other places do. We've had our well run dry. We have had to wait for
the pump to fill it back up. So, and now I live on a public water supply system and I, we do take it
for granted that you turn on the faucet and you have water. Back home you once in a while turn it
on and you hear airline... you hear air running through the lines. So then, it was a hardship because
you couldn't do what you wanted to do at that moment. You had to wait to it filled.
Resident: You know the saying, 'You don't miss your water until the well runs dry.' And it
is true. Just like if you got up one morning and opened up the faucet and you had no water. You call
the water company and 'What is the matter with it?' 'Well we had a major line break and it will be
down 48 hours before you can get it.' What do you do for water?
Interviewer II: Well, you either wait or you go out and buy a jug of water like you have done.
Resident: Right. That is exactly what you do.
Interviewer II: But we are too impatient these days.
Resident: We are living in a fast paced world and we have got to have it now. Well, you know
that is fine, you know, but I am trying my best to not live that way. I don't have to have it right now.
Which means I will wait to the bitter end, even if it means having to do without water. So ...
Interviewer II: So your quality of life has greatly been impacted?
Resident: Yes it has. Greatly.
Interviewer II: Now I don't want to say greatly, but it...
Resident: Sure.
Interviewer II: And you can tell me yes or no, was it impacted by the loss of the, of the..
Resident: Natural... Let's call it natural resources.
Interviewer II: .. .natural resources?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 25
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: Which one? There is water. And naturally when they were mining the dust in here
was terrible. The ah, the ah explosives that they used - terrible. It settled in here. You can really tell
it when they blasted. The destruction of the water and the land itself has really been, in my opinion
it has been a disaster. And that goes back to them appraising your property as unfit to live in now.
Well, that is what I told them, when they started buying people out and they started moving off and
the homes that are lived in that are falling in, is an example of what they did. Cause, they tore
several down.... that is one thing that I did get done. I got a couple of them that were falling in; I
did get those torn down. There was one beside my mom that was falling down and I finally got them
to tear that one down.
Interviewer II: The coal company?
Resident: The coal company. There is a couple more here that they tore down, that they were
falling in. I don't know why they agreed to do it. I guess maybe I caught them on a good day or
something, you know. Somebody had a plan to clean it up, you know.
Interviewer II: Is there any opportunity in your opinion, that people will eventually move
back into Scarlet?
Resident: Ah, I am sure they probably would.
Interviewer II: Considering, you know, some people made see public water as a benefit. That
they actually have a reliable source of water; we'll put it that way.
Resident: I said yes. I said yes. That is today. Eighteen months from now, no.
Interviewer II: What do you mean by that?
Resident: Because you got another coalmine coming. I don't know if I got it here or not.
Anyway, I don't think I've got it. I probably got somewhere. Got it hidden. Anyway, going back
to A.T. Massey down here. Ah...
Interviewer II: This is a legal advertisement for a permit that you are showing us?
Resident: Sure. Yes. Okay, yeah this is it. Yeah, this is a permit; see December 21st of ah...
last year. Okay, this is last year for that.
Interviewer II: You're saying even though that they're... eighteen months from now, ...
Resident: That they will not, they will not... People would move back, today. I would say. You
know this is just my opinion. Just like you said, there is public water laid, which is good. They
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 26
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
probably would today. That's on the assumption, that the coal company would sell their property.
See all this property now belongs to the coal company.
Interviewer II: So there is no opportunity, at least right now to buy back property.
Resident: No.
Interviewer II: You are here because you own it.
Resident: Right. They will not... I was told that they will never sell that property. It will stay
idle for 200 years. So, because they feel that there is a liability because if they sell it back to
someone they think that they are going to be liable for something. You see. This was published
back in December, which I'd been told it was coming. This is for a deep mine on number two gas
that is to be put in. And you know you came by at the mouth of the holler here, when you crossed
the first railroad crossing, there is a trailer there, which is a coal load out facility. Okay? That is
where one of those mines is going to be, down in the ground. Okay? The same people at DE, and
I took that over there, they had a map of this mine. A projection. They have engineered the map
... Are you familiar with underground?
Interviewer II: Very little. I'll be honest
Resident: Very little. You know you drill holes in the ground. Okay. There are three holes to
be punched in the ground. The slope on it is 981 feet long. I don't know the elevation of it. But
it's down,... straight down is 400 feet deep, I think down to the coal seam, number two gas. They
permitted that right there and that could be given out any time. And they could start mining.
Interviewer II: That is basically the entrance to Scarlet.
Resident: Right, the entrance to Scarlet. So when I took that over there, they said they had the
permit. I said could I look at it. And I signed it out there was a big table in the back. I told the
engineer, I went ah,... I said ah that looks about, that looks all right. I said, but I have got a question
for you. He said yes? Where is that road at that goes to my home? He said what are you talking
about? I said, I have got to have a road to go up Scarlet. It is not on the map. He said are you sure?
I said railroad track, railroad track, yeah... I said where is the road? I said there is a road in here.
He said no there is not. Get in your truck and go over and look.
Interviewer II: So the one that... in Scarlet there is one way in and one way out, because it
goes up through the valley of the mountain and the entrance to that... to Scarlet Road ...
Resident: Right. And that's where it is scheduled and ah he has yet to give me an answer on
that. I said you need go take your maps and your cameras and take forty-five minutes out of your
work day and go there. And throw that back to those people and tell them to give you a good ah,
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 27
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
a good application... It is no big whoop, but you know how it goes. Up there along the road, can
you tell where they are going to dig?
Interviewer II: Well actually that is what I am trying to figure out.
Resident: There are two of them. There are actually two of them.
Interviewer II: At the axis of these latitudes and longitudes?
Resident: Right. Right. There are two of them. Right here is the one at Scarlet.
Interviewer II: Yah, right here.
Resident: And this one is Hell's Creek. Remember that little prep plant that you came by?
Interviewer II: Right.
Resident: That is supposed... there is going to be two. One there and one here. And all this
is number two gas. And the are going to mine from here to here or here back. And from here, they
tell me, on through Logan County from this one.
Interviewer II: So this is the extent. The corner of those axis where they are showing the
latitude and longitude that is the mining area proposed by this permit. And Scarlet is right in there.
Resident: Right. Like I say, I kept the old application. You know the old engineering plan.
Interviewer II: So is that...
Resident: That could come any time.
Interviewer II: Once that goes in ...
Resident: Oh yeah, once that goes in, how much room do you think it is going to take down
there, to put this complex in? You know, there are certain laws you have to go back so many feet,
you know to separate those things.
Interviewer II: And basically the rail line that is down there now will become operable?
Resident: No.
Interviewer II: Will be gone?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 28
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: Will be moved. Will be moved. According to their,., according to their permit
application. You know? That was my beef with him. I said between the railroad tracks there you
don't show my road. And he didn't understand. He was supposed to check down there and he
didn't get back to me. But anyway, as of today people probably would, if their property was for
sale. But when this thing goes in, it will never be for sale. So...
Interviewer II: What do you think the impacts, I know we are talking about Scarlet, you know
when this mountaintop mining, I mean just as a side note... when this does go in, what will happen,
what do you think the other people around here will do? I mean ...
Resident: It will be terrible in here because they scheduled a 20 foot diameter exhaust fan. You
know what those are? You seen those in Pennsylvania?....
Interviewer II: For the underground?
Resident: For the underground, yes. There is going to be a 20 foot diameter fan down there and
it is going to echo through this hollow plus push the dust. You know there is going to be dust
around.
Interviewer: Do you know where the fan is going to go?
Resident: No. I have an idea and according to their plans, it is going to be what I call up the
creek from... There is a little cemetery right there. Do you know the cemetery? The thing will be,
Interviewer: The "specific name"?
Resident: No, not the "specific name", this is the "specific name" across from the load out right
there. From the load out trailer. There is a little cemetery up on the hill there, the exhaust fan... that
I read the application it will be close to it. So it is going to be noise and dust, it is going to be pushed
up to this hollow. It is going to be unbearable.
Interviewer II: You being an underground mine worker...
Resident: I know exactly...
Interviewer II: You know exactly what you are talking about and how that operates?
Resident: Right. Right.
Interviewer II: Interesting.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 29
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Resident: Ah.. .There will be dust and noise. It all depends to what degree they're going, to
what kind of complex they are really going to have.
Interviewer II: And you talked about your ingress and egress, like going and coming to and
from your home on Scarlet Road. Your opinion by them not showing it there basically ...
Resident: They are telling me that they are going to reroute something and they are not wanting
to tell anybody. And I can't convince the gentleman at the DEP, that as a courtesy to people, they
should go, and if that is an incorrect map, to go correct it. Because it is a public record and if it is
incorrect, it is not right. It needs to be corrected.
Interviewer II: And to your knowledge no one has come out to actually ...
Resident: No, they have not done that.
Interviewer II: .. .consider your request or your ah., courtesy or concern that you expressed
to them about the current location and how it interacts or relates to the proposed mining permit
activity here?
Resident: Right. That's right.
Interviewer II: Interesting.
Resident: So you take this along with this and ah the place, the proper use don't fit.
Interviewer II: This here sort of land locked?
Resident: So, here we sit and ah you know ... But no there is nothing to stop us from picking
up today and moving.
Interviewer: But this is your home place.
Resident: Sure.
Interviewer II: This is where your current home is. You live in Scarlet.
Resident: Right. Right. I spent four years in the military. I know where Pakistan is. I know
where Islamabad is. I know where Peshawar is. I know where Kabul is. 'Cause I served 18
months.... covered logistics for them in the late '60s.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 30
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: In the Army?
Resident: Air Force.
Resident: We had an air base in Ankara, Turkey. Where we fly the jets out of for the Croatia
incident.
Interviewer: I remember reading about that base.
Resident: So, I know a little bit. I am not that ignorant.
Interviewer II: Well you certainly seen more world than what we have that is for sure.
Experienced more. But um... all the solitude and comforts that you have here in the U.S isn't ah...
Resident: No, my country has been asleep for thirty years. Thirty years.
Interviewer: Is there anything else you want to be sure and tell us? We certainly appreciate...
Resident: I'll probably think of something later.
Interviewer: You can call. That is why we give you that card there.
Interviewer II: "Specific name," let me just give you our 1 -800 number. I think our regular
number is on here but you can call the 1 -800 you can ask for me and if I can't answer your question
we'll get somebody...
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 31
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S26 revised.wpd
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Scarlet, West Virginia
Interviewer: Have her opinions too. That would be great. Why don't start off and just tell me a
little bit about how you came to live on Scarlet Road in that area there. Did you have family living
there?
Resident II: My wife's family was born and raised right there. Her mother and dad, her
grandmother, they're all buried right there in Scarlet.
Interviewer: I saw, we saw a couple of family cemeteries up there.
Resident II: Even the great great grandfather was born there.
Resident I: My great great grandparents were buried there and they lived there.
Resident II: And I married into the family and look what happens.
Resident I: I'm not the only one. There's two more of us.
Interviewer: So you lived there. When did you get married and lived in that area.
Resident II: Oh goodness.
Resident I: 1956
Resident II: 1956, yea
Interviewer: So did they start to do a majority of the strip mining.
Resident II: They didn't start then. They didn't start until in the 60s.
Resident I: 70s. There was a strip back then, remember the old strip where they did the auger
mining.
Resident II: I think back in the late 60s.
Resident I: No, that was in the 70s. The Hobet mine started their mountaintop removal in the late
80s.
Resident II: Ashland Oil, actually.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: Ashland Oil owns Hobet mining and they started in the 80s.
Interviewer: Well then, what would you say was one of your favorite parts about living there
before the mine or during?
Resident II: Before the mine?
Interviewer: Ever, how about that.
Resident II: The peace and quiet.
Interviewer: Peace and quite, yeah.
Resident I: Everybody that we lived with and around us was friendly. Everybody was like one big
family. They would help each other. We would all help each other. And, now, we are all separated
and scattered just everywhere.
Resident II: We're scattered miles apart. From Chapmanville to over in Kentucky. There is some
people live up in there yet.
Interviewer: We have been talking to a number of people but were hoping to talk to some people
who live up there still.
Resident II: I've got a brother-in-law lives up there. They're right at the head of the left fork.
Interviewer: One of the things that we are looking at is what changed in the community after the
mining came in. About what you liked about it or the physical changes or the economic changes,
any of those sorts of things that you could tell us about.
Resident I: Well, one thing we all got together because we had approached ... several, myself and
several other residents, had went to the EPA office in Logan and we had complained about the gas
and the hazards and the streams being nasty, muddy and things like that. And they come out and
started talking to everybody in the community and then we went to one big meeting where they
interviewed all of us that attended this meeting.
Interviewer: There were some representatives from the office in Logan or?
Resident I: Right. And also some representatives from Ashland Oil, Hobet Mining.
Resident II: Regulations then wasn't quite as strict as they are now. Especially on water quality.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 2
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
They made'em clean dams and before we didn't. They put in, what, straw bales and stuff like that
to help try to stop the mud and stuff. Now, they're pretty strict on it.
Interviewer: In the 70s actually they did a lot of legislation. Do you remember . . . tell me a little
bit more about what you were talking about at the meetings before the mining . . .
Resident II: I didn't go to that meeting so I really couldn't comment on it too much. I know
everybody was stirred up because we was getting such tremendous blasts.
Interviewer: So that was already after the mining had started - that meeting?
Resident II: Yes, it got bad there for a while. They even put a seismograph in my yard and then
they quit shooting that hard, after they put the seismograph in.
Resident I: You talking about on Scarlet?
Resident II: Yes
Interviewer: Did you see the readings on the seismograph or did they just tell you?
Resident II: Well you couldn't see them because they were on a tape inside of them. But now I
had a house, a new house, from here to that fireplace from the seismograph and it was sheet rock and
drywall and it cracked it to pieces. I had to go in there a fix a lot of the seams. It shook it to pieces.
Interviewer: Were there any other physical changes from your house to your....?
Resident I: Concrete cracks.
Resident II: Yea, the foundation is cracked. Water.
Resident I: My house was on a good professional, solid... everything - it was a brand new home.
The concrete foundation was cinderblocks. The blasting moved it approximately, I would say, 6 to
8 inches off the foundation.
Interviewer: Did you complain directly to the company about that sort of thing?
Resident I: Yes I did
Interviewer: What kind of an interaction did you have with the company about that?
Resident I: The company was great about it. They were very cooperative.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 3
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer: That's good. Tell me again about the meeting that you had gone to that was
something that the Department of Natural Resources, the state, did those people call the company
to come meet with you or how did that meeting come about?
Resident I: We insisted on the meeting so something could be done on our behalf and we
blocked... we asked that their mine permit be blocked until they at least did something to
accommodate us and help us first. And the permit was denied.
Resident II: You file a complaint over there and they'll set up a meeting.
(some people come into the room and a dog is barking)
Resident I: This is "specific name", our daughter.
Interviewer: Hi, I'mAlexa. Nice to meet you. We were just going through with your Mom and
your grandpa here what they went through on Scarlet Road, what some of the changes that occurred
on Scarlet Road after the mine came in and started to be active. You mentioned something about
your water, your well?
Resident II: Yea, after they blasted so much, it started to turn black. I had perfect water, I didn't
even have to have a filter on it at first, a water filter. Three houses.
Resident I: We had particles in it. Sometimes it was red too.
Resident II: Well, it did turn red, but it wasn't before.
Resident I: It stunk, it had an odor.
Resident II: It just acted like it come right out of an underground mine, that water did. Where
before it was just as clear; it was perfect water.
Interviewer: Were there any other changes in the community like anything to do with
employment? Did people work for the mines there?
Resident I: There was only a very few people. They brought a lot of people. That was another
complaint that we brought up at that meeting. There was a lot of employees that worked right there
in our back yard. They supplied jobs for hundreds of people who were brought in here from out of
state instead of employing our guys that were probably more qualified and certified and had all the
qualifications they needed to go to work there.
Interviewer: So were there... ?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 4
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: They were denied jobs. My husband, which is "specific name's" dad, was one of them.
That was one complaint that I did bring up at the meeting.
Interviewer: Did you see any benefits in the community? What kind of changes? Were some of
them positive?
Resident I: While this was going on?
Interviewer: From the mining?
Resident I: No
Resident II: No, there wasn't nothing done for us.
Resident I: Other than, you know, purchasing our property which, that was good and bad, because,
why should we have to pull up stakes and move away from where we were born and raised and
raised our children? Only to come around here and then this mine started up and started doing the
same thing or even worse.
Interviewer: What about, um, can you tell me a little bit about, you said that your interactions with
the coal company were pretty good when you had complaints, and that they were good about some
of that stuff. Did you talk to them at all before they came in to the community to do the mining?
Did they . . .
Resident II: No. It took a long time for them, where we could get them, we got them to the point
where we could talk to them. They ignored us to start with, didn't they "specific name"? Until you
started filing them complaints over there with the EPA and then they took notice. Cause they were
gonna get shut down.
Resident I: ByDNR
Interviewer: Did you guys read about the permits that they posted in the paper? Did you see those?
Resident II: I read them all the time.
Interviewer: You read them all the time? Did they put them, where did they put them in the paper
generally? Like in the, like right up front or is it varies, . . .
Resident I: Usually, it was like on the third page.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 5
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Sometimes it was on the back, inside back page.
Interviewer: Did they put it in the local paper, or the papers you get here as well as the state
papers?
Resident I: Local paper.
Resident II: Local paper. It is probably published it in like Logan County, the Logan paper too.
Resident I: But I noticed when they put that in there to kinda show you the map, it's not legible.
You can't even hardly read it.
Resident II: You can't read it.
Resident I: You can't read where they are talking about.
Resident II: If you don't know the territory, you don't know. You wouldn't know.
Interviewer: Right, so the maps aren't very helpful at all?
Resident I: No
Interviewer II: What would make the maps more legible?
Resident I: If they were printed in the paper. I don't know if it's the newspaper's fault or what,
it's both of them, the company and the newspaper's fault. Number 1, the company doesn't specify
well enough when they put the little directions and their legends and things like that and their arrows
and the route number, like the road numbers, or dimensions, or whatever.
Resident II: It could be faxed in too and they're not too clear.
Resident I: Plus, you know, like when the newspaper prints it off, I don't know, it comes out
looking yucky and you can't read it.
Interviewer II: So, there definitely needs to be improvement in the clarity of the maps they are
providing.
Resident II: Yea, I looked at one today and you couldn't even tell nothing about it.
Interviewer: I would be interested in seeing that before I leave if you still have it.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Well, where's your paper at?
Resident I: In the kitchen.
Interviewer: Well, you all tell me, are there any other impacts or any other changes that were in
the community, for example, sometimes - schools? Did the children's population change so that the
schools were changed in any way?
Resident I: Yea, the population changed. A lot of people moved out of the state, out of the county.
Interviewer: Now what that mostly because they were looking for jobs in general or because they
wanted to move out of the area because the mining was going on.
Resident I: Both
(Map is shown to interviewer)
Resident II: Now, you try to read that.
Interviewer: Yea
Resident II: You couldn't tell east from west by that.
Interviewer II: Yea, you clearly can't read this.
Interviewer: What kind of places did most of the people that lived in the holler work? All over?
Resident II: Different mines, different things too. Some logged, some worked in the mines.
Resident I: Strip mining, underground mineing. Coal truck drivers.
Resident II: The biggest problem right in this area right now is the underground mines. That's the
biggest problem.
Interviewer: Underground mines? What problems? Leaking?
Resident II: Because of the cave-ins, and the water problems. That's one reason I think we got city
water all over the county now, public water.
Resident I: Well, we don't actually have it yet, but they are trying to get it put in and that would
help if we could get it.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 7
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer: We saw the signs and we saw about them coming in. And some places have got it
and some places haven't.
Resident II: Riffe Branch has got it, Duncan Fork's got it.
Resident I: This mine over here, okay, has destroyed the quality of our water okay. Now we are
gonna have to pay a monthly bill and pay for hook-up on this new water line that is going in and that
is not fair.
Resident II: $300 hook-up fee. Because of the size of it.
Resident I: I heard it was $500. And then a monthly bill.
Resident I: And we have to dig from the road . . .
Resident I: Yea, the only thing they are gonna do is put a meter in out there where their lines are
and we have to dig it and put the rest of it in.
Resident I: That's a lot of digging for each one of these...
Interviewer II: So it is a $500 tap-in fee to the actual line, and you have to have a contractor that
you pay for by yourselves to come in and actually install the lateral and come off the main line and
actually hook up and make it serviceable . . .
Resident II: And it's all... I don't think... 90% of it is the underground mining, not strip mining.
I mean, I.
Resident I: Well, that's for this area. Now, there are people in other areas that are having big time
problems with strip mining and surface mining, but now right here, we're having problems with this
tipple, the dust, the blasting. Not to mention, I ride four-wheeler in there and got in behind this mine
where their sludge pond is and it is super, super huge. If it breaks, there will be nothing left in this
bottom, we will all be washed a way.
Resident II: Now that's deep mines. That's a deep mine over there too, and a strip.
Interviewer II: Are those ponds that you're talking about up the valley here, at the head water
here?
Resident I: It looks like a large lake.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: It has fine coal particles in it and they settle to the bottom . . .
Resident I: It looks, I couldn't believe it was that big.
Resident II: You read about that big coal sludge spill over in Kentucky didn't you?
Interviewer: Yeah, in Inez?
Resident II: Well, that's just like a river of goo going down the creek.
Resident I: Our creek that we have is not going to handle this if it breaks back there.
Resident I: You all have no clue how big that is.
Resident II: I seen it once.
Resident I: It's bigger. I mean it is... It is too big and too dangerous.
Interviewer: What else can you tell me about .. . we haven't talked about much about, when you
decided, or when you were offered to move out of Scarlet. How did that come about? Did you
approach ...
Resident II: Well, there were so much complaints that Ashland Coal decided evidently to buy most
of the people out. So, that was an opportune time for us to get out of there.
Interviewer: Had you thought about leaving before that?
Resident I: No
Resident II: No, we didn't want to leave really.
Resident I: Why would we want to leave? We just through building a new home.
Interviewer: You built a new home?
Resident II: I had three houses there. Besides her's, new home that she built.
Interviewer: If you had to put it into words, what would you say was the reason you primarily left?
Resident II: I was afraid of getting blown off the face of the Earth.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 9
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer: Blasting?
Resident II: Blasting!
Interviewer: What was the ... how did the discussion go between you and the company about
purchasing your home?
Resident II: They were real good about it, wasn't they?
Resident I: Yea. But the gentleman who came out to work out a deal with us was extremely nice.
Resident II: Yea, I dealt with him twice.
Resident I: Cause he was... the left hand fork. They were bought out then when they first started.
So, he cames down the holler, all the way to the end, purchased another property down there. We
all moved down there and here they come again. The mine it's expanded . . .
Interviewer: So you actually moved twice?
Resident I: Yeah. We moved twice.
Interviewer: And so you dealt with the same agent twice?
Resident II: I built two new homes in that area.
Interviewer: When you moved the first time, did you discuss with them whether or not... did they
ever talk to you about where you were moving to?
Resident II: Not really. No, not really.
Interviewer: And what would you say that. . . how did things go between you and the company
in terms of fairness?
Resident II: Well, they were really fair about it. We got more than market value. You know, you
couldn't have got that much at a market value.
Resident I: They told us they would give us a little more than the market base. They offered us like
a certain percentage more for the inconvenience.
Interviewer: And did they help you with the move at all?
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ Q
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: No, we had to move ourselves.
Interviewer: Did they give you any relocation money or anything like that, any moving money?
Resident II: Yes, they give us $5,000. But $5,000 doesn't go very far on building a home. You
couldn't put a roof on that house for $5,000.
Interviewer: Did they discuss with you at all whether or not they would be expanding when the
first time you moved?
Resident I: No. We never dreamed it was gonna get that big.
Interviewer: One of the things that I was curious to find out from you all, given the fact that, you
know, your whole family lived in there and the community was pretty closely tied to family
obviously, for the people that are still there, and for the people that have moved out, do you feel like
there are any tensions between or, that the community was changed in any way by that or your
family relationships were changed by that?
Resident II: No, it didn't affect our family relationship at all.
Resident I: I think it did.
Resident II: You do?!
Resident I: Yea, because of the change of environment. Like you said before, it was new people.
Resident II: Oh well, I thought about location.
Interviewer II: Would you move, now since the mining is not... it really isn't active in the Scarlet
area in terms of where the community that you lived, would you consider, if you were offered to buy
the land back, would you consider moving back there?
Resident I: I might consider it.
Interviewer: And, as far as you know, did the mining company offer or indicate that they would
offer you the opportunity to purchase your land back?
Resident II: I wouldn't. I tell you the reason why. There gonna come back there and get that coal
anyway.
Interviewer: So there's, you feel there's still more coal to mine?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Well, sure
Resident I: There sure is. This company is headed way. This company is headed in that direction.
They are already, I've been reading the newspaper, they are putting mining permits in, that one that
you just had is for that area.
Resident II: 14 acres
Resident I: I mean, every time you pick up the paper, there's more permits they keep applying for.
It's not over. There's still more coal to mine.
Resident II: There's all kinds of coal in there yet.
Resident I: That old strip mine that's in there, the one they used an auger, they're gonna go back
and get that. So....
Interviewer II: What made you chose this area to relocate to?
Resident II: Well, I like this bottom, and it's a nice big flat bottom and I didn't want to live across
from no creek and up no holler.
Interviewer: Do you feel like you're better off? I mean I think I know maybe what you might say
to that answer, but do you feel like you're better off here than you were there?
Resident I: We were until this mine started.
Resident II: Yea, that's about the way I feel about it.
Interviewer: Well, I think I covered everything that we wanted to ...
Interviewer II: What would you feel, if there is anything the coal companies could do, do you feel
that when you were in Scarlet that the coal companies, it sounds from what we are hearing that they
had a good public relations program at least. If you voice an opinion, their response was you felt
they were concerned enough they would come out and talk to you. You felt that they did an
adequate job in that respect? I mean, granted there's some negative impacts. You folks were
displaced from your community that you were born and raised in. But you felt that they responded
to your concerns overall? What's your general sentiment or feeling about that?
Resident I: At first no. After all the complaints started, yes.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 2
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: After they were forced into it. It was either listen to the public or be closed down, it
was as simple as that. If there was enough people going against the permits, they are not going to
get it.
Interviewer: It's interesting that you raise that point, because I know I have talked to some people
and sometimes you hear that they feel like they are going in and saying something isn't gonna get
much done. And some people like yourselves feel differently that it's better go in and you can get
something done. Why do you think you feel that way maybe?
Resident I: Because we know we can.
Resident II: Some people have a defeatist attitude about them too, you know. Oh what's the use?
You can't fight the company. Well, yea you can fight the company. You see, he is defeated before
we start.
Interviewer: So you just had confidence that you could get it done and that's . . .
Resident I: We're both Capricorns.
Resident II: Aquarius
Resident I: Now that's right, you're Aquarius aren't you? We're left handed.
Interviewer: I'm not sure how I can put that in the study, but I'll try.
Resident II: Okay
Resident I: Determination.
Resident II: I'm an Iowa Hawkeye, that's what I am.
Interviewer: Oh really?
Resident II: Yea. He's originally from Iowa.
Interviewer: I grew up in Kansas. You're a little bit closer to where I'm from . . . Kansas
Resident II: Cornhuskers.
Resident I: No, Iowa's Cornhuskers.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 3
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: No it ain't
Interviewer: Nebraska I think are the Cornhuskers.
Resident I: I thought we were the Cornhuskers.
Resident II: Hawkeyes
Laughing
Resident I: I remember going to school out there. Kindergarten and first grade.
Interviewer II: Did the coal company that you knew back in Scarlet, after they made the initial
contact, during that time you had complained, you said that's when they started to come to you and
talk to you? Did you feel that was something you had to keep complaining to keep that contact?
Resident I: Oh yea
Resident II: Oh yea
Interviewer: I mean if you felt that after the initial contact that you wouldn't have made any more
follow-up complaints that you probably . . .
Resident I: It was a constant thing for a long time. Phone call after phone call. Letters. I mean
it was just like negotiations.
Interviewer: Uh huh, that takes a certain amount of emotional and just wear and tear on your life.
Resident II: Yea, they don't, they would have kept right on the way they were going if we hadn't
protested long enough. We weren't the only ones. There were a lot of people protesting.
Interviewer II: Do you feel in that respect after what the coal companies had gone through and
seen, you know the, I guess the impact that it has on families and local communities, do you think
that they are ever going to think about what the impacts or detriments, other than in terms of past
or history, what has happened, do you think that they would start going into new areas, with their
feeling would be 'let's look and see what our impacts would be on this community up front?' Or,
do you think that they possibly may want to wait until . . .
Resident I: It depends on the company.
Resident II: Right, there you go.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 4
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: More or less one company might be ... I'm not trying to excuse it, but I'm just
trying to say that it's more of a management standpoint, like what decisions are made in terms of
how the company is run, if they want to be a good neighbor, or if they don't choose to be a good
neighbor, so to speak? Do you think it's based upon how the company is run?
Resident I: Right
Interviewer II: So one area might be good, the other areas may...
Resident II: I think they ought to hire a good PR man.
Interviewer II: Do you see, I mean in the Scarlet area, I mean, overall, what was your feeling about
the company? I mean, do you think they were good or ... granted I know what you guys, I
understand and hear what you have gone through, but uh . . .
Resident I: I was upset with the company, because I was a very young mother - she was a baby -
when they first started. Crystal, my oldest daughter, had two small children at home and my
husband, "specific name" was unemployed and very qualified, he was a truck driver. And he
applied for a rock truck driving job back there. I felt, you know, I was kinda happy when I first
heard, you know, that all, there was gonna be a lot of jobs, he'll get a job back there - a good paying
job with insurance for my children. He didn't get it.
Interviewer II: Is there any reason why, did you understand why he was not hired? You know, if
it's personal, you don't have to answer that.
Resident I: There's no reason why he should not have gotten a job. He was qualified, cause he
drove truck for years.
Resident II: They would get somebody from some other area.
Interviewer II: So basically the employment opportunity was given to people that actually didn't
live in the community.
Resident I: Right
Interviewer: Are you finding any change even with other coal companies? Have you heard other
people about employment benefits. I mean there is nothing . . .
Resident I: We have a lot of people in this area that does work, now Massey, A.T. Massey owns
most of the permits of the mines here now. Arch MineraHs, they purchased Ashland Oil. They
have some here, but A.T. Massey is the majority. And they do employ a lot of the men in this area.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 5
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
So, as far as jobs are concerned, they are employed.
Resident II: They get a lot of contract miners too.
Resident I: Yea, sometimes they use a lot of contract. But still our men are being employed.
Interviewer II: At least in this case.
Resident II: Yea
Resident I: Yea
Resident II: But now A.T. Massey is a company that you can't fool, they are such a huge company.
Interviewer: Uh hum, a lot of them have been bought out by companies like that. Is there anything
that we haven't discussed that you want to be sure and talk to us about?
Resident II: I can't really think of anything.
Resident I: All right... you all, this interview today is you're just basically concerned with Scarlet.
Why is that?
Interviewer: Because what they asked us to do was to look at five areas that were adjacent to the
surface mines. Scarlet was one of the areas that was picked to talk to the people who lived in those
areas to get a real assessment of what happened and that specific area. Which is not to say, you
know, it wouldn't, that the discussions wouldn't have relevance about what's happening to you here,
now. But, the Scarlet area was the area that was sort of picked. So, we are talking to people who
lived there now and who used lived there and bought out.
Interviewer II: One of the things you are looking at is like six case study communities, if you will,
and Scarlet was one of the case study communities as part of that in terms of gathering information
that would help write the case studies, in addition to like all types of demographic information was
actually going out and identifying randomly folks like yourself who we can actually sit down and
talk to and sort of get a more of a candid objective viewpoint of what your experiences were.
Resident I: Well, why pick something that happened to us 10 years ago? Why not discuss what
is going on now? Why not address the problems that are happening to the communities now?
Interviewer: Yea, I'm glad you made that... I think the idea is we won't figure out how to change
what's happening now unless we understand what happened then. They'll take the information that
we gather in places like Scarlet and they will be able to look at... because, you know, I'm sure you
understand that a lot of the discussion we hear from both sides of the issue, from all sides of the
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ g
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
issue, there's more than two .... are that some things, they tell us that some things are occurring in
communities and then you hear from another group that another thing is occurring. So, if we look
at an area like Scarlet where it has already happened, we can go back and look at all that, as Troy
said, that demographic data, like, you know, population and income that the Census Bureau collects
and get an idea of what actually did happen and then talk to those people and then, sort of use all that
information to look at the legislation for now, is what that means. So that hopefully the communities
where it's going on now and where it will be going on next, the next community, that if any changes,
ought to be made, that's what will happen. That we will learn from this.
Resident I: I think something that needs to be done now with ... the people...
I don't know what in the world we're gonna do. Like, that lives this close to this mine here. Like
I said, I mean, you can look at my window sills, you can look at my ceiling fan, you can look on
their back porches, in their carpet, in her house, I mean it's just nothing but black. It is dirty,
nothing but coal dust. And the blasting and uh, we had a problem, or have been having a problem
with these large coal trucks going in right there. There have been so many wrecks out there, due to
that problem.
Resident II: And they start banging their tail gates about 5:00 in the morning. Bang, bang, bang.
Resident I: We have to listen to that "beep, beep, beep, beep", the backup horns are on all the
heavy equipment. Yea. They just put in that load-out. The coals got to go up right there where you
cansee'em. They back up there and from that little tailgate... it sounds like an explosion. And they
start, I mean you can't sleep for it. Did you hear the backup horn right there? I do!
Resident II: Sounds louder in the bedroom. Somebody evidently has been complaining about the
dust because they put automatic sprinklers on the road over there.
Resident I: And, that makes another hazardous problem. It makes the road gooey.
Resident III: On this road right up here?
Resident II: No, on the roads going up to that load-out.
Resident I: I know when they start coming out of there, that junk comes out on the tires and it gets
on the road. I've done that. . .
Resident II: When it first starts sprinkling rain on this road, it's slick, just like it's got a film on it.
Resident HI: There was a car... a van, ran into a school bus on that hill up there because of that
problem.
Interviewer II: Yea, it's just like a slime. What do they do in the winter time? Do they keep that
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ J
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
outside . . .?
Resident II: Oh yea, they put graders and equipment on there right quick.
Resident I: Salt
Interviewer II: Salt it down. Does that mean... Course with the snow and everything there... that
would help keep maybe the dust down, cause that is moisture on it, and salt would melt, but how
about when it's deep cold winter and it's a cold sunny day, I mean, how do they keep the dust or
how do they protect the dust by putting water on that, certainly that would freeze up ...
Resident I: They can't do it.
Interviewer II: Well, that's what I was thinking, that you've still got the problem in the wintertime.
Interviewer II: Yeah, one of the things, too, the reason why we are looking at, you know, Scarlet,
versus what's happening now is try to get an assessment of what the community was like before the
mine came in, what it was like during the mine operation when you folks were living there and of
course, afterwards, we are finding out in Scarlet, residents like yourself were bought out and had to
be displaced because of the activity that was going on. It sort of gives a whole scenario of what
happened in that one instance. And right now, in this mine, I think we are in the period of right now.
We don't know what is going to happen after this mine leaves, you know. Who knows what the
future may hold . . .
Resident I: Oh, well there's several... ah, there is year, years there. Because the old type coal
mining, underground mining, they couldn't get all the coal and now they have this new type of
mining, miners.
Interviewer II: Did that give you in a sense a sort of a better idea, you asked the question why not
look at what's going on now? The whole direction that we have been given is to look at, you know,
an area, that has actually gone through the transition stage of before mining, during mining and after
mining. Scarlet is one of the prime examples that has actually experienced a whole transition of
what's happening. You can almost see the full effect of what occurs and you folks are the recipients
of all that.
Resident I: Yea, somebody has to be the guinea pig.
(CHILD AND MOTHER SPEAKING WHILE INTERVIEWER IS TALKING)
Interviewer: I know that our information doesn't make it any easier to put up with what's going
on down the road right now.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ g
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: It was an awful good little community to live in, I'll put it that way.
Interviewer II: Just as a side note, you folks had blast and pre-blast surveys done on your homes?
Resident II: Yea, we did
Resident I: He did, before blasting started last year. They . . .
Resident II: They're talking about Scarlet.
Interviewer II: I just mean in general.
Resident I: That's something else that I have been fighting this company about. They made a
statement, on paper, that they offered me a pre-blast survey on September 1999, September 19th or
something like that... I got pictures and videos and tickets. I was in Decatur, Alabama, at our World
Celebration Show with horses, so there's no way that they could have called me and asked me and
that I would have refused a pre-blast survey. So they put together a bogus statement. Okay and then
the seismograph, I don't believe those readings it for a minute. The first seismograph they had it
over, on the other side of that big house there.
Resident II: These coal companies will lie like dogs.
Resident I: You can just kick it and mess it up. We know a enough about that stuff.
Interviewer: Uh huh, Uh huh.
Interviewer II: You said in Scarlet you had a seismograph instrument placed there and you
questioned the readings it was giving after it was put in place.
Resident II: It absolutely shake them houses, dishes would rattle in the kitchen.
Interviewer II: Were pre-blast surveys done back in Scarlet on your homes?
Resident II: Yeah, it was on mine.
Resident I: Not mine. I don't know why.
Resident II: They done a print out of the house, where seismograph what done was sittin. They
had a pre-blast survey. They just walked through and looked at it. Now they take the photographs.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 9
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer: Did it make any difference in your discussions with the coal company having that pre-
blast survey?
Resident II: Did it make any difference with them?
Interviewer: Uhhuh?
Resident II: Oh, not at first I don't think. I think it took a while. They were denying it. That they
shooting that hard. When everybody knew they were shooting as hard as they could shoot.
Interviewer II: Now is there any, in this case, with this mine, do you think that there is better
public relations or ... involvement with the community.
Resident I: No, worse. It's worse.
Interviewer II: So I guess basically you are saying that definitely there is room for improvement.
Resident I: Absolutely.
Interviewer II: You know, in terms of...
Interviewer: Is there anything else that you wanted to tell us?
Resident II: Well she's held the floor so long, she won't shut up. (laughter)
Resident III: I don't know enough about that. I don't remember.
Resident I: Well, you were little.
Resident II: You remember the blast don't you?
Resident III: I do remember.
Interviewer II: How many years ago did you move away from the Scarlet area? Maybe you said
that earlier.
Resident II: In 1991
Interviewer: Do you remember at your school, lots of kids from families moving out and things
like that? Was your school closed down at one point?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 20
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Was it at Myrtle then? The grade school was in Myrtle. Do you know where Myrtle
is? That was the grade school. There were a lot of kids in that hollow. Almost a bus-load.
Interviewer II: And that school was you thought was directly impacted by you being displaced or
was there other factors?
Resident III: I think so, because it shut-down when we moved.
Resident I: It shut down after that. I went to grade school there.
Interviewer: Where do the kids who live there now go to school?
Resident III: A lot of them live down....
Resident I: They had to be bused farther. Lenore area.
Resident HI: Everybody moved. They moved mostly to the Lenore area, kept them mostly, kinda
in the same area.
Interviewer: Yea, I think that is about all the questions we have for you all.
Interviewer II: We try to keep these to around about 1 hour so that we don't take up much of...
Interviewer: If you think of something later that you want to be sure to tell us, you should feel free
to call us or if you have questions about, you know, what we are going to do with the information
or the study, you can call us. Or, on that letter I gave you the Environmental Protection Agency
Project Manager's name and phone number and e-mail address are there so you can talk to them
directly if you want. He would be happy to talk to you.
Resident II: I think the state has made it, has made Massey furnish those people water when they
sunk their wells and stuff over there. And aren't they gonna pay their water bill for 20 years?
Resident I: I've been hearing that. Like I said, like they're headed towards Scarlet. Duncan Fork
comes first, then Scarlet, which is very close, and they have already sunk their wells and are
supplying them with water.
Interviewer: I don't know the details of what arrangements have been made for them in terms of
paying for the water, but it is my understanding that they are going on public water if they are not
already on it.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 21
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: Yea, I rode, you can ride, you can go up here an go up in the mountains and ride the
four wheeler all the way over that area and I come upon several places where they're building water
towers.
Resident II: I think that was in the long-range plan.
Interviewer: By the? By who?
Resident II: By the coal companies.
Interviewer II: The water towers?
Resident II: The water system. I think they knew, they knew what they was gonna do. They done
the same thing over at Beach Creek and Bend Creek over here in that area where they use that long-
wall mining. They sunk all them peoples' water over in there. You've gotta have coal mining, but
ah... there is a right way and a wrong way.
Interviewer II: Yeah, it is a major economy, major part of your economy down here . . .
Resident II: Well you close a mine down, and that trickle down effect... uh huh boy.. .it's bad.
Resident I: A lot of people are out of work. Like I told you on the phone, I'm not against mining
whatsoever, it's just that those of us that feel the effects of the damages and things like that. You
know, they need to take care of us. Do something to prevent further damage, to keep us safe, you
know, stuff like that. But, on the good part, for the men that need a job to support their family, it
is great.
Interviewer: Well, I think that's why it's such a difficult issue.
Interviewer II: Well we thanks for your time.
Interviewer: Yeah, we really appreciate it.
Interviewer II: We do apologize up front for not calling.
Resident II: I really hope we helped you with whatever you're...
Interviewer II: Well, we want you to feel like you have helped. Because, believe me, we have had
a lot of other people say we don't what we say they don't know how it's going to help, but by
actually getting your input, that's part of our job in trying to contact you folks. Talk to you about
these issues and that's a real big part.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 22
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 23
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S4 revised.wpd
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Scarlet, West Virginia
Interviewer: Tell us about how you came to live here. Let me back up. Let me put it this way,
how did you come to live in Scarlet?
Resident I: My family lived there. I was raised there. I wasn't born there. I was born in Harts
Fork but I was brought back home there. How it all come about is my Mom and Dad, well my
grandmother and then it's actually left to my father and then I bought a piece of property off him.
He sold the rest of it. So, that's how I came to live here. It was home and I didn't want to leave
West Virginia. All my other families out and about in cities, like we say, and ...
Resident II: I married into Scarlet Holler.
Resident I: He was married into the fortune.
Interviewer II: How did you folks meet? You were in the Navy at the time that you met her? Or
before that?
Resident II: No, we met in school.
Resident I: Childhood sweethearts.
Interviewer II: You are both from the area then? Oh great.
Resident I: He is originally from Duncan Fork.
Resident II: Born and raised up there. I don't know, somebody moved to the mouth of Scarlet.
Resident I: I went to school with his brother. We were in the same class all through school, all
through 12 years. Our families, you know they were church goers and my Dad was a preacher and
his Dad was a Deacon at the church, that type of thing. Till death do we part, they say. I said he
wasn't shaking me and I didn't want to shake him.
Resident II: We have been married what 32 years or so?
Resident I: It doesn't seem like that.
Resident II: She don't tell me what to do and I don't tell her what to do. That's basically why we
get along.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: You know, disagreements come and go, but it just working through'em.. .that's the
whole concept.
Interviewer II: Just give and take.
Resident II: People who are too strict on each other don't make it. Do they? I don't think any way.
Interviewer: How did your family come to settle there, do you know?
Resident II: That started many moons ago.
Resident I: Right, generations and generations.
Resident II: That land was originally plotted off in maybe four plots of farms, and then my Dad
and Mom, right at the mouth of Scarlet, was their home place. All of that area in there. And then
the mines come in and they moved them out and this and that. Well, her family was just about all
of the one fork . . . but I know, originally there was three or four, and they just kept giving it out to
the kids and . . .
Resident I: The biggest part of the holler was "Specific Name". And they connected that way.
Interviewer: I saw the family cemetery up on the hill.
Resident II: I liked it better then - where we lived. I did.
Interviewer: What did you like most about it would you say?
Resident II: The community and neighbors.
Resident I: We had real tight neighbors.
Resident II: Yea and there was plenty of them, you know.
Resident I: We watched out for each other. We was at the mouth of the holler. It was just, I don't
know, family. At one point in time it was family. Everybody was family. And then, of course, you
start letting in, and people kept selling out, and of course, we all bonded, even the people that came
in that wasn't family, we all bonded real good.
Interviewer: A real sense of community that you had. Exactly.
Resident II: Yea, lots of big families.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 2
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: Yea, I can't say that I don't miss it, I do miss it cause it was home and I was raised
there. But when I get trying times here, I find myself, especially when my kids are home, and they
could push your last nerve . . . you know, instead of exploding, like I used to do years ago, I would
get in my vehicle and I would drive up 27. By the time I got to the head of both forks, it's like, o.k.,
I feel better. It's gone. Took me about 30 minutes and I am a lot cooler and I can handle the
situation calmly.
Interviewer: That leads me to my other question which is part of what Troy and I are looking at
is how the community has changed or didn't change before the mining was there and then while the
mining was there and then after it left in some cases. So, you know that sense of community that
you talk about, can you tell me a little bit about how that changed or stayed the same ... either way?
After the mining moved in ...
Resident I: While we were still living there? Is that what you are saying?
Resident II: Well, we were used to the mining cause it went on after we had been there. Then, all
the sudden it started to blast and shake and your house is cracking and all that and that is when
everbody . . .
Resident I: We were more used to the undergound when it was down at the mouth of that hollow
that you see underground mining. So, we were always used to the commotion of mining and the dirt
and all that stuff that went with the undergound mining, and the trains. It's like I said, just part of
the heritage.
Resident II: You would go out in the morning and all your swings and stuff on the porch would
be covered with black dust. Which, I haven't seen that in years.
Resident I: With the strip job, it was different.
Resident II: Yeah, it was a brown dirt.
Interviewer II: Well, the dirt, the actual dirt, the soil, to get to the seams themselves . . .
Resident II: You could sit there on the porch and watch the rocks raise up and settle down. It was
something.
Resident I: The underground mining never affected us, or maybe I just didn't realize it. Maybe I
was just too young to realize it. But, ah... It just tore the house apart, that's all. We were one of the
fortunate ones living at the mouth of the hollow. It was worse the closer you got to where they were
working.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 3
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: They had a wonderful company. They would come right out. . .
Interviewer II: So the company themselves, actually seemed concerned.
Resident II: They were great. They were real concerned.
Interviewer II: About what their actions, in terms of their operations and how it was actually
affecting the community. They were actually coming to you without you going to them?
Resident II: Right. We never had to, no.
Resident I: I don't know if somebody had to start. . . You know, I'm sure they did.
Resident II: This one over here now, see I don't know... adjoining this company, right across the
hill there, now they're shaking the snot of you. This is the one that's doing all the sinking the wells.
. . this one right here, yes shakes. The windows will rattle, and they're not a bit concerned.
Interviewer II: And they let you know when they are going to blast?
Resident II: They are supposed to. We have gotten the letters, but we never heard a signal.
Resident I: There is supposed. Supposed to be a siren and then supposed to be so many seconds
after that and then when they are finished you are supposed....
Resident II: You just hear, all you feel is a shake.
Interviewer II: A shake, so they've done it without any warning?
Resident II: Yeah, they are supposed to do pre-blast surveys and we signed for them and they never
did come check it.
Interviewer II: Oh, so they actually... That's very interesting.
Resident II: They've never done it.
Interviewer II: Now, the other company that you talked about. . .
Resident II: Now, they were outstanding.
Interviewer II: They would do the pre-blast survey?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 4
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: I don't think they ever had a pre-blast survey.
Resident II: They didn't care. They come in and anything. If it was cracked they'd say they'd say
we done it. They didn't care.
Resident I: They never did a pre-blast survey. They didn't care.
Interviewer II: This is the company that's here now?
Resident II: No, the one before, I don't know who owned that, strip out there . . . Hobet? Hobet
mining, they were real good.
Resident I: They never notified, you know, that they was going to be shaking your house, or
anything like that. I never remember any of it if they did, but...
Interviewer II: But they would admit that they caused damage?
Resident II: They admitted it.
Resident I: If we said, well now this, because some of the houses were new houses, a lot of them
older houses, ours was an older house that had been moved in.
Resident II: And redone, we'd redone it. We bought it.
Resident I: When the four-lane was coming through, we bought an old house and moved the whole
house, over on our land. It was in good shape, because they had brought it in and redone it all . .
. but ah, a tear here and leak'in here, you know.
Resident II: It takes about three trucks to take it up that four-lane ... it was cool, I tell you what
it was fun to watch it. Then they brought it up the road. I don't know if you have been up Scarlet.
Well, it was real wide then. All the trees were gone when they put in those tracks so we get it lucky,
and they brought it right-up the track.
Interviewer II: For goodness sakes, it does sound like it's really neat.
Resident II: It was. It was really cool, and for the price, that guy done an outstanding job.
Resident I: He had our home and my son had had a home. It was a garage but he converted it into
a home. And my daughter had a trailer, so we were compensated well for it. I mean it's not mine
no more, you know, and it's not the families no more, but...
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 5
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: I would like to have at least been able to get the land back in case the grandkids or
somebody wanted it.
Interviewer II: Who owns the land. Does the mining company still own the land in that case?
Resident II: They had an option at one time there, to...
Resident I: We were supposed to have been notified when we got done, so we could buy the land
back... And I never pushed it. And it's my fault that it's there's I guess.
Interviewer: Did they approach you about purchasing your home or did you approach them?
Resident II: That was in the original deal. We haven't heard nothing since them, have we?
Resident I: What, you mean when they bought our home?
Resident II: When they bought our home, we told them we needed the option.
Resident I: I guess, they probably, after... everybody... they were tearing everything up, you know
all the complaints. They approached us.
Interviewer: How... Well, I'm getting ahead of myself. But, when they approached you, did you
have discussions with them back and forth about how much, or did they give you a price that they
were willing to pay and say ... how did that work?
Resident II: When they bought us out?
Resident I: Well they... I can't remember no big lot of talk about price.
Resident II: No, I know they was paying fair market for what the same thing you would buy a new
house for. It went by the square feet. The same thing with land, you know.
Resident I: Considering, not only did ours, but then theirs, because of all the kids with our land.
We got the lot the got the lump sum in turn. We gave them what they have anyway.
Resident II: We gave the kids whatever they had... whatever their house was valued for, we give
it to them. Well, I told her you know, that's only fair. Yeah, we give them whatever in here they
say this was worth, and that's what they give... told us it was worth.
Resident I: We wanted to know what this, our home, plus the land, now the land is ours... what
you think you'll be given us and then in turn what do you think theirs' is worth, just the house.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer: So you never went out... .they did all the appraising and gave you the information?
Resident II: Right. Then it was up to you if you accept or whatever and it was such a fair price and
you know, we'd already looked at this and made an offer on it.
Interviewer II: This house was existing when you bought it, when you came here?
Resident II: This house is over 100 years old. It needed redone all that but, with all new stoves and
everything. It's a great place though. Twenty-four more or less acres. We own the woods.
Interviewer II: Do you own up against the mountainside here?
Resident II: I own to the top of the hill. A lot of land. I told them to save it in case the kids need
a place for a home. I don't need the money.
Resident I: Can't take it with you. I asked the Lord to take care of our needs, not our wants.
Because we want too much sometimes.
Interviewer: Well that's always the case I think.
Resident I: I don't try to live up to the Jones and the neighbors.
Resident II: We have had more since we are retired now we ever had when we was working.
Resident I: I feel we have bettered ourselves.
Interviewer II: As long as you have your health and a roof and clothes on your back and food on
the table, you can't complain about anything.
Resident II: Well, we got boats and campers and when we want to use them we use them. If we
don't want to use them they just sit up there.
Interviewer: Actually, you mentioned an interesting point. You said you feel like you've bettered
yourselves since you moved here.
Resident II: Oh yea, we did. We definitely did.
Interviewer: It's a better situation than what you moved out of?
Resident II: A lot better house.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 7
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: I wouldn't say better situation. I wouldn't say a better community. I'm just saying
it ... when you look from where was then from where we are now, it was hand-to-mouth most of
the time. Of course, then he was working every day. Maybe that had nothing to do with it, but we
lucked up - got into a good community, got into a good house and what we thought was a good
home. We like it. And that's what I told him, as long as we like it that's all that counts.
Resident II: It is peaceful here. You...
Resident I: Contentment. Peace.
Resident II: You never hear nothing unless a dog barks at somebody.
Interviewer II: It is very quiet up here. You are removed from the road.
Resident I: That's important, I think.
Resident II: You can... My keys are the camper, and my keys are in my truck. You all can't do
that no more.
Interviewer: Yeah, my mom and dad did that growing up. The keys were hanging right by the
door to the house.
Resident I: If they even made it in the house. Most of the time, I can remember hanging in...
hanging right there by the back door on a nail or something.
Interviewer II: Never locked our cars up. Now, where we used to live, everything was locked up,
not that it was a crime, it's just that's the way my wife grew up, where you locked stuff up because
you weren't born in an urban environment.
Resident II: Well, if somebody steals it and you let the key in it's your fault.
Interviewer II: That's right.
Resident I: We go on vacation, we just tell our neighbors "hey, we're going to be gone for a few
days" so they will notice who is coming and going. Lock the house, but ah... We always have a key
somewhere. One time we went on vacation and I thought "oh man I forgot to turn that coffee pot
off. I know I forgot to turn that coffee pot off." Like you say, the community, here's the community
thing. I'm in a good community, but I didn't call my next-door neighbors who would be able to
walk right up here and turn my coffee pot off. I called somebody that lived above me at 27.
Because, I mean I trust my neighbors, you know. I would give them a key in a heartbeat as far as
that goes if I needed to or they needed it. But, the bond is, I called him. I said listen, I got this maj or
thing, I am on vacation.. .He said, "Oh well, good where you at" and I said "I ain't got time to talk,
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report g
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
I'll tell you about it when I get home, o.k?! What I need for you to do is I need you to go on back
to the house and turn the coffee pot off." He laughed, I didn't think he was going give me a second.
He said, "Well honey, consider it done. You all have fun and I'll talk to you when you get back."
Interviewer II: Oh, that's good. That gives you that peace of mind, having people like that around.
Resident I: That was some of the people that had some of the land off Mom and Dad, who lived
above us.
Interviewer: Did you see a lot of people moving in when the mining came into the community?
Did the people who bought the land, did they work for the mines at all?
Resident II: No, they moved out. It became a ghost town. Now they are moving back in, up 27?
It's 'cause they tore all the houses down.
Resident I: Most of the guys, a lot of the guys, I would say, and the men, worked for Hobet that
lived....
Resident II: That lived in the community.
Interviewer II: Oh that's really interesting.
Resident II: Yea, they moved out and communicated from where ever they lived.
Interviewer II: So, did you have any connection to the mines at all?
Resident II: No, I always worked underground.
Interviewer: So you actually worked on the underground mines themselves.
Resident II: Yea, I worked for 27 years or so, underground.
Interviewer II: That's interesting. Did the mining operations, did like Hobet before, or even this
mine, do you know, other than, sounds like the mining company before was more concerned with
what was going on in the community. . .
Resident II: They were, 100% more.
Interviewer II: So, you are not seeing any benefits, so to speak, in terms of community
improvements or anything that this company might be doing?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 9
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: No, huh uh, they sample our water and that's it. That's the only thing I have ever seen
out of them.
Resident I: They hired them [water samplers].
Resident II: I think the EPA might be hired them. To get the last and that first of this hollow and
I think EPA done that, I don't know.
Interviewer: Probably the state I think, the Department of Natural Resources.
Resident II: Because they come up. If we are not here, they leave us a report.
Resident I: A report. The last time, when they came to get another sample, because that's what we
asked for, we want the report. . .
Resident II: They came the second time to get a sample. They said, "Can we get a sample?" I
said, "No you didn't leave me no report." So they was gone and they came back in about a week
with a report and they said, "Can we get a sample?" And I said sure. I said, "I'm not being hard,
but you live up to yours and I live up to mine." so now they . . .
Interviewer: Now, this is a company that is right next door here, is that right?
Resident II: Well, he said he worked not directly for Massey, but for I thought he said EPA
wanted a first and last in this hollow. They're kinda keeping...
Resident I: It's a private . . .it's a private.
Resident II: They are going to check the water here for a year and see if they are affecting it, you
know, our water. We are not in the line, as far as the mining goes...
Resident I: This company up here has sunk so many wells.
Resident II: Yea, they've sunk all of 'em. All of 'em.
Resident I: Duncan Fork, Gillman's Drive and I don't know what the name of all them places.
Even upt Scarlet now.
Resident II: I know you have seen some water tanks around here, haven't you?
Interviewer: Right. Yea, somebody was just telling us about Ducan Fork this morning.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ Q
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: It's bad, I'll tell you.
Interviewer II: We've seen a lot, in fact we saw at least two signs coming down the road this
morning where the state is actually doing, or the USDA is doing public water supply projects.
Resident II: Yea, they are trying to get them hooked up. In Duncan Fork I think they are already
starting to turn the water on there.
Resident I: Yes, it's a mess at Duncan Fork. I've got two kids up there. My daughter's got. . .
Resident II: I've got an Aunt up there... Then after they got close to the surface, they said that was
over 100 years old. The well was here before, before any of these houses were here. Beautiful
water too. The guy said you couldn't make it no better, he said you can't buy water this clean. I was
telling him about the hand-dug well - over 100 years old. And that's the one they're testing.
Interviewer II: Go up and take a cup and drink it right from there.
Resident II: Well, it's delicious, like clear as can be.
Resident I: Used to be you could go up to the head of the hollow there and drink out of the creek
too, but I wouldn't recommend that now more. Not with this anthrax and stuff...
Resident II: It stays dry, now too - the creek does.
Interviewer II: You think that's? You think that might...
Resident II: I don't know if it's just a low water table or what, but it stays dry.
Resident I: It used to run all the time.
Interviewer II: That's pretty amazing that water streams up in the hillsides, you know, you usually
have some water flowing there, even in the dry period.
Resident II: We know ah well, I don't know if you've ever been in the mines but that's an awful
big hole.
Resident I: Yeah, that water is going somewhere, isn't it.
Interviewer II: Two years ago, we toured the Hobet mine that Arch Coal has up 119, south of
Charleston. We toured that mine and that's just unbelievable, you know, the types of operations
they have on their surface mines, and I don't think you can imagine it until you actually see how vast
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
they are. And Alexa has seen some mines, too. It's truly unbelievable.
Resident II: My wife don't like mines...
Resident I: He went to take me in where he worked underground one time. I'm like... I get in and
it starts getting dark and I kinda keep getting lower and lower....
Resident II: There was big blocks on the wall.... It was a nice mine to walk in and look at. But
then sandstone, they just fall right out. They're laying there, you got to go around them, they're as
tall as you.
Interviewer II: Oh boy! I'd be like you.
Resident I: My babysitter, we took her with us, and we took the kids, you know. Of course, now
adays they wouldn't let you do something like that. But, my babysitter loved it... Me and the baby
went out to the van . . .
Interviewer: Tell me a little bit about what the things that you might have seen when you were
living in Scarlet from the mining. Were there benefits in that community? I know we talked a little
bit about here, but what about when you were in Scarlet?
Resident II: I don't know of any benefits other than employment and surfacing the road. I'd say
they helped the road a lot because they brought a road across, then they would hardtop it all the way
up. Like that one the did on the hill back there. I would say they were a big part of getting it
surfaced. There's nothing cheap about Hobet. There wasn't, I don't know about now.
Interviewer: And the employment that you talk about, was it people living in Scarlet that they hired
when they came in?
Resident II: Yes, in the hollow.
Resident I: The younger generation, younger than myself and "specific name". I'd say they
worked there when they was blasting, you know. That's the only thing I can see, you know, as far
as a benefit. I think that's good that when people comes in and brings work into our area that they
hired locally. I can't say they didn't hire out of state, but I could see some of the local people
getting in.
Interviewer: What kind of ... to the best of your knowledge, did those people, when the mine
moved on, did they move on with the mine? Or...
Resident II: Most of them yes. ... places like that.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 2
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer: Where were other people in that hollow employed otherwise?
Resident I: A lot of them retired. A lot of them retired. I would say probably half of them. Like
the kids lived there, like I said, just a tight community. You know, their Dad is done working and
retired. It was a lot of retired. Lot of, lot of generations as far as kids that worked for Hobet, their
kids is now raised, you know. I guess I could say it's just like half and half. Half of them was the
elderly, the older people about to retire. There were a few of the older people like they worked
elsewhere. But, I'm assuming that probably if they would have applied, Hobet would have
considered them it being a union, you know. I think it was union wasn't it? They have the union
standards they have to go through. I am sure if "specific name" would have wanted a job - he was
a good electrician, they would... He could eventually gotten on there. But he never was interested
in working there.
Resident II: I never was interested in it... The surface job, I was always making big . . .
Resident I: He always had surface cards in case push come to shove he had to.
Interviewer: Can I ask you a couple of questions about moving out of Scarlet? Did you have any
interest in doing that other than from ... let me phrase this better. .. What would you say was your
primary reason for moving?
Resident I: Primary reason for moving? Well, they made us an offer we couldn't refuse.
Resident II: I would say the houses was all cracked up. Your foundation was cracked and all your
friends had moved. Then why not?
Interviewer II: I guess, you know, instead of like staying in Scarlet, they bought you out one place
so there was no real reason or incentive for you to move or stay within the Scarlet area. Your option
was to move totally out of the area? .... Just because of what was going on.
Resident II: Right, out of the area.
Resident I: I don't think we could have not.... The whole hollow... you either sold to them or you
stayed and that's what you ended up with, with whatever you ended up with. You know what I'm
saying? I don't know, but the people did stay there . . . people did stay there and pushed to get
bigger and better and more . . . and I don't think they got anything out of it.... You know what I'm
saying?
Resident II: They didn't even get their house fix.
Interviewer II: Your decision to move, you think was a good move?
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 3
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Yeah, I think it was...
Resident I: It was a benefit. Because this was it, you either . . .
Interviewer II: Now, you had said about your sense of community, that would probably be it
sounds like . . . What was the top things that you think you miss from the Scarlet area, besides like
the effects of the mine? You know you had talked about the sense of community...
Resident I: I miss family. Because like I say, I have a lot of aunts and uncles and cousins .. . you
know there is a few of us in the area here, but then there's more like over in Logan County towards
Chapmanville, I am sure you all realize that, it is like they're just mixed up ... it's a sad thing that
we don't see each other. That's what I miss, the bondness. Being able to walk up the holler and
spend the afternoon or visa-versa. Now it's only for a funeral anymore. You know what I'm
saying? Somebody died, we all come together and I say it's a shame that we have to reunite at a
funeral.
Interviewer II: Yeah. We say the same thing back home.
Resident II: Oh, that's true. I don't know my cousins...
Interviewer II: It's a shame that the only time you get together is when there's a tragic - like a
death in the family, or something like that.
Resident I: We talked about having like a... Like every year we talked and never have had what
we call, like, a community reunion. But it has never happened. I think it would be something good.
I mean it just forces you to bond, and come together...
Interviewer II: You have family reunions and almost like the community that you live in is almost
like your family.
Resident II: Yea, they were good people. They were closer than family, a lot of when we left.
They did for yeah, what family wouldn't.
Interviewer II: But living in this area, you are not. . .
Resident II: We do not . . . anybody here. No.
Interviewer II: You don't have that bond or relationship like you did back in Scarlet?
Resident II: No, there's no friend that close here.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 4
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: Like I say, I was born and raised up there. From the time Momma got me from the
hospital, it was my friends and my family . . .
Interviewer II: So it's interesting, you felt that the mining company that is back in Scarlet was a
good neighbor in one sense, but because of the events that caused you to move out because of the
mining operations, sorta broke that up. So it was sort of an ironic type of situation. They were good
to you in once sense in terms of their concern, but their actual affects... where the operations had
been conducted . . .
Resident II: Yeah, they were... they were outstanding...
Resident I: And we, you know, we seen some of the. . . I know if this has anything to do with it.
. . I know we all gotta set time to die. You know, I know that. But we seen a lot of the elderly
people that did sell. . .
Resident II: They never could get satisfied. Some of them moved to like Cincinnati, and stuff.
They had their own little business up there. Retired and played cards and stuff... had a hobby and
it give them something to live for. And they got there, and they didn't have nothing to do so they
just. . . cracked. Cause, they spent $200,000 on a place down there and couldn't get it back out of
it. It was all tied up.
Resident I: Just rolled up and died. I've always...
Resident II: They didn't have enough sense to manage their own affairs, so they left their kids and
the kids done dirty. They said, "No you're not going nowheres." That's what happened to my uncle
and he died down there. I mean it's sad, but kids will do that.
Interviewer II: They said money is the root of all evil. I think is what they say.
Resident II: It's learned me a lot of lessons. I'm not giving mine to anybody and anything until
I'm dead. I know it may sound harsh or something, but you can't trust your own kids.
Interviewer II: Yup, this day and age
Resident II: If you give them power of attorney, you're liable to be anywheres... Nursing home.
All they've got to do is say, tough love... and then you're in a home. That's it, you can't move, you
can't leave, you can't do nothing.
Interviewer II: Right, exactly right.
Resident II: I mean it's sad, I mean I'm dead serious. I never would have thought that when I was
growing up, you know 18, 19, and somebody would tell me and I would say, nah you're nuts.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 5
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: You kept care of your own. You know what I'm saying? Your momma got old, you
took care of her. You know, grandma moved in with you, you know. If she wasn't close enough
for you to go over to her or something.
Interviewer II: Not like today. Yea, society has really changed. I think we have all come to live
our own lives. I know I am as guilty of it today as anybody else. It seems like you just live in your
own little world.
Resident I: You got this tunnelvision.
Interviewer II: Whatever's out there, even within your own family, you are not as concerned about
them as your own welfare and being. I feel guilty about that, you know...
Resident I: Well, you need to reconsider it then. Go home and call, (laughter) "Hey, how you
doing?"...
Resident II: Yea, I've got a Dad that's still involved with grand kids at 80 years old. He always
has time for everybody. I can't do that, but I wish I could.
Resident I: He used to mention that "I will never be the man he is," and I don't think a lot of us will
be.
Resident II: He still walks 2 to 3 miles every day. Goes out on the mountain. Looks good too.
Resident I: He took his great grandchild up the other day. My daughter went up to clean his house,
she can't... my Mom's got back problems... She's a working class, you know, she's one of them
9 to 5ers, or 7 to 8, or whatever. But anyway, she leaves what needs to be done at here house and
she goes up there. And of course, her husband's third shift, he's in bed, so she takes the child with
her. He's 4 years old - active 4 years old. Thinks there ain't nothing like hunting and fishing. Pure
country boy. She was up there cleaning them carpets and stuff. And he said "o.k. grandpa what do
you want to do?" Uh, Pop Pop, sometimes he messes up and he calls him Daddy . . just like a kid.
And he'll say, "Well' Specific Name', Well I mean PaPa' Specific Name.'" "What do you want to
do? You want to go outside and rake leaves? What do you want to do?" And Pop Pop said "Well
I thought I would just get my 22 and go up the hollow and shoot." Because every time he goes up
there Pop Pop has to show his guns. Let me hold it, let me feel them. And, honey, he's in hog
heaven... you're gonna take him up that hollow and let him shoot an automatic 22? You know. He
has a 22 himself, a single shot, you know. So you got just that one shot, before you got to put
another one in.
Resident II: He couldn't get his finger off the trigger. He wanted to keep shooting. He shot it like
4 or 5 times.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ g
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: That's a way of life. I know hunting back home that's a way of life. When deer
season comes around, things shut down. Has the mining operations affected those types of
enjoyments that you have had?
Resident II: No, no there's more deer than ever.
Resident I: With Hobet, I think it made the hunting more accessible. Because of the
Interviewer II: Because of the roads that were provided?
Resident I: Right, roads provided for, and you've got 4-wheel drive and you've got 4-wheelers.
Or whatever, you know.
Interviewer II: Now the fishing... Did you actually see any impacts on the fishing?
Resident II: I don't know, we never did fish in the creek. We always fished in the lakes. You
know, and they're what? 90 miles away, or 70 miles away where we always fished.
Resident I: Well, you fished the creek.
Resident II: I fished this creek, yea you're right. I take this boy down here and there's plenty of
small mouth bass and then they'll have a spill up here at Delbarton and then there's no more fish.
I mean this is over night.
Resident I: You can see the connection that takes upon the...
Resident II: I believe people report'em or something, because they clear it up. But you can't bring
the fish back. I mean it... we had small mouth bass like this at the start of Spring.
Interviewer II: Right... That was just this year?
Resident II: Yea, then it comes high waters and the water, you know, you could tell muddy high
water from black waters. And when the water goes down, it's black, they can't live. That cleaned
them out. What in April and May, we would catch small mouth bass, even during a flood, he would
take his lures down there and throw them out and bring the fish in, small mouth bass like that.
Interviewer II: And that's in the creek right down there?
Resident II: Right down at the bridge you crossed. But there's not enough small mouth bass in it
now. Now, maybe next year, when they come up ...
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ J
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer: If they come up from the other creek?
Resident II: Yea, they come up from the river. He's a fisherman, I'll tell you. I hate to see the
spills, you know...
Resident I: You often wonder, you know, if it is an accident or...
Resident II: Well it is always going to flood. I mean, you know, when the water gets up they
always say, "Well, that broke loose a spill," you know.
Interviewer: That's what happens. Their pond...
Resident II: Their pond is over . . .
Interviewer II: Is that the cleansing pond, that they clean the . . may overflow and get into the
waterway.
Resident II: Yea, so it could be true, then, if he had enough rain to raise your creek, then it could
raise their pond. I hate to see it though. We don't have as many floods as we used to do we? Very
seldom now, the water gets up.
Interviewer II: Yea, we could use the rain, that's for sure, but . .
Interviewer: Tell me a little bit about when you were living in Scarlet, what kind of physical
impacts, you talked about the blasting and the house shaking. Did you have any specific things that
occurred at your home? Did your well.. .Was your water fine while you were there?
Resident II: Water was fine, except, it got real gassy, super gassy. I'm telling you, it would blow
the cabinet doors open. When the pump would kick on, it would blow the top off the pump house.
And I went in there and it blowed cabinet doors open cause, I believe it was right by that vent. I
didn't know, I didn't have enough sense to know any better when I was younger. I built it wherever
the well was you know, that's where I built the pump house. What it done, it come through that vent
and it would ignite dust rags and whatever you had in there, napkins or whatever, it would blow the
cabinet and then I would put the fire out under the sink.
Interviewer II: Now would that be when you say it would ignite, that's actually the natural gas
from the mines that would seep up in your well and when you, when the pump would turn on, of
course, there's a little spark involved.
Resident I: I wouldn't say that had to do... I wouldn't really say that had to do with Hobet... I
would say that the underground part of it.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ g
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: We never had that problem for years thought, I mean. We never had that problem up
until all that started...
Resident I: No, we finally had to vent it. And another way of lighting it, burned it off.
Resident II: Yea, I put a vent in it.
Interviewer: Let the gas, you know, just go out.
Resident II: Yea, and lighting it, see. It would burn sometimes 4 or 5 month in a row.
Interviewer II: So you actually had natural gas coming up through your water well that you
actually had to vent it off... to burn it off so you wouldn't have a hazard.
Resident II: It was dangerous. If you get a leak or something, it was dangerous to go in there with
propane, cause I done it, not thinking, and just as soon as I strike that propane, it would burn
hair....
Resident I: I don't know how we survived!
Interviewer II: Yet, you laugh about it.
Resident II: You don't know whether it'sin there. The first time I done that. Man, I was 23-24.
Interviewer II: Did you smell the gas?
Resident I: Yes, you could smell it.
Resident II: I can't smell gas, I've been around it so much, I guess.
Interviewer II: I know yesterday, we were driving up and there were some gas wells you could see
up along 119 and I could smell it and I was telling Alexa and she said she couldn't smell it.
Resident II: Well, a lot of people... I'm not sensitive to it.
Interviewer II: It depends on how sensitive your smell is.
Resident I: If you get a nostril full.
Resident II: Ya'll live in a beautiful place, but I wouldn't want to be in Pennsylvania right now.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report \ 9
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: Well, Pennsylvania, we've been there.
Resident II: We've been through there a few times. I have some good friends from that state.
Interviewer II: Well, I really enjoy it up there.
Resident II: A guy I was in the Navy with. His dad...
Resident I: His dad owned the Coca Cola plant. Owned the company?...
Resident II: He got out of the Navy and lived about four months, I think, and got killed in a car
wreck, I think.
Interviewer: It is a different lifestyle, you know everywhere you are... But I think after driving
around down here, there's something really to say for living in these places that are beautiful all
around you.
Resident II: If you can get used to setting on a porch, or just going camping, or going bowling.
Or going hunting... If you get used to that... I'm not going to bother you.
Resident I: Just like it would be different to go from here to go to a city.
Interviewer II: Yea, that's kinda like my Mom and Dad grew up, they had an hours drive to major
facilities, or something. And we grew up, I mean, right behind our house was one of the state forests
in Pennsylvania. So, as a kid growing up, I entertained myself by walking the dog in the woods and
going fishing, or going . .. after school my best thing was to get the 22 or the shot gun to go squirrel
hunting. That was the most... I miss that, I don't get to do those things.
Resident II: Oh yeah, they run right through the yard now.
Interviewer II: Oh yea, they're like rats.
Resident II: I see pheasants right here in the road.
Interviewer II: Do you really?
Resident II: Yea, I've got chickens up there so I'll get some food and put it out there and watch
the pheasants. . .
Resident I: Watch them and deers come in.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 20
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: You can get within from here to the door of them. I don't kill them because....
they're you know too tamed.
Interviewer II: Yea, cause they are always too tamed. There's no sport in that.
Resident I: I never forget, when we first moved up here 'cause... those boys came coming up the
hollow. Come up with their grandpa or something, on a four-wheel or something and they were out
there talking and it was about hunting season and things. And you know, talking about the hunting
coming in, and we're saying "I'm come up here on your back porch, and I'm gonna get me a deer."
And they say, "Hey you're not getting on my back porch and get no deer". If you're a man, you go
out on the hills and hunt. If you're big enough to hunt, you go out to the hills and hunt. You don't
kill nothing around my house.
Resident II: I see six-point deer standing in the yard.
Resident I: Well now if this deer goes up the hollow you can shoot him there, but don't shoot him
in my yard.
Interviewer II: Yeah, I think the best part is just going out to hunt.... Just peaceful. Just peaceful.
Resident II: We've got cabins up those mountains.
Resident I: You just laid the law down about how you feel about it. If you're big enough to hunt
you're big enough to go in the hills, if you don't expect it to come to you, you go to it. The big
surroundings, the hillsides.
Interviewer: I don't mean to keep jumping back . . .
Resident I: That's alright. . .
Resident II: You do what you have to, yea, go ahead.
Interviewer: Can you tell me a little bit more about when you decided to move out of Scarlet. Did
the company talk to you at all about where you were going to be moving?
Resident I: Nope. They could've care less. I mean it wasn't, it wasn't . . . that wasn't their
responsibility to find us a place, it was our responsibility. They were paying for us ... they give us
plenty of time and extra time if you needed it. You know what I'm saying, it's not like you've got
90 days and that's it. Because I know it took ... I mean it didn't take us that long. But, I'm sure
it took some of the other ones longer because they weren't fortunate to find a place as fast. I didn't
feel that was their responsibility, you know.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 21
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: They didn't compensate you for your move that you had to make?
Resident II: Yes.
Interviewer II: They did compensate you for your move?
Resident II: They gave me $5,000 moving money.
Interviewer II: Oh that's great. . . I mean I don't know if that's great, but that's...
Resident II: That was to move five miles. That ain't bad is it? That's why I'm saying, it is a good
company.
Interviewer II: That's really good.
Resident II: $5,000. But, if you had a trailer and you know that pretty well compensated for
moving the trailer, you know, 4 or 5 miles.
Resident I: That's what they gave my daughter . . .because she had a single wide trailer and she
took her home with her. You know, so they compensated for getting a well drilled, you know but
Interviewer II: That's interesting, I was just thinking the aspect of compensating for your property,
but I was thinking boy ... my wife and I just got done moving into our first home and ah, thinking
there's expenses involved that were questions . . . they actually reimbursed or gave you some
assistance on moving expenses.
Resident II: $5,000 moving expenses.
Interviewer: And you thought that that was adequate?
Resident II: I thought that was way above adequate.
Resident I: Yeah, because we didn't move what? How far are we from there? Ten miles?
Resident II: Ten miles. If that, maybe eight or ten miles, yea. Depends on which way you go. If
you go over that hill . . .
Interviewer II: Now, is this mining company here, is it actually displacing people, actually forcing
them to move out of the area in their operation?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 22
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Not unless, no ...
Resident I: Not unless because they are out of water.
Resident II: Not unless because they are out of water, or like my daughter, bought a new home for
what $100,000 or so and it's got those big beams underneath her house, they've turned over. And
they said, you know, the mines didn't do it.
Resident I: Going down that way under her house. Right under the matt, going right-square under
her house.
Resident II: It's right under. She's got this big fancy house with that wood, you know, going down
in it, a big home, and it's cracked up now.
Interviewer II: And they didn't do a preblast survey on that that you know of?
Resident II: Uh, I don't know, do you know?
Resident I: I think after the complaints and stuff started, I believe that they had sent people out, but
Interviewer II: In terms of mending the situation?
Resident I: But they, it was a day late, and a dollar short there. You know what I mean?
Resident II: I believe it's a fly-by-night company. I know it is Massey, but I believe that Delbarton
mining is going to be the sub-leaser and then when they go broke I believe it will be a wake-up. I
believe. I mean that's the way it appears to me, I think. They put everything on hold as long as they
can. Maybe it won't have to run back, fall back to that other company.
Resident I: They ain't near, they ain't near as good.... What they've done to what Hobet was.
Resident II: Hobet, Hoebet was probably Massey, I don't know, but... I don't really know.
Resident I: See that was the underground versus the strip.
Resident II: Yeah, it is like a bunch of groundhogs, digging up under you.
Resident I: If I had to say which one I would prefer, as a person, underground versus surface, I
would have to say surface.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 23
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Yea, it's a lot better I think.
Resident I: I mean, my husband worked on underground. Retired from it. As far as damage-wise,
I would say, I would say that surface... I mean hate to see the hills tore up, you know. There should
be stipulations to fix them back up and put your animals back and then your trees, and replant and
all that stuff. That would be, that's just my personal opinion, everybody's got an opinion.
Interviewer II: Well, actually, just from the people we have talked to, it doesn't seem like the
aesthetics is a big a deal as what some of the . . . like it seems like the impact that they have had in
terms of personal property and water wells and things ... it seems like that's more of a ... that's
your own personal type of feeling, you know, all the... you've got plenty of mountains, I mean, I
don't know about you Alexa, but to me it just seems like we haven't heard a lot about how they've
made their scenery, you know, degrade it. We may have heard a few here and there, but it doesn't
seem like an overriding . . .
Resident II: They didn't seem like they hurt it up there, because they replanted... apple trees and
stuff like that. It was real nice, where they've moved out.
Resident I: A lot of them is against it thought, a lot of them. You know, they go to see the
underground next to the surface.
Interviewer II: Just for the pure reasons of what they are actually doing to the landscape.
Resident I: Right. Right.
Interviewer: Clarify something for me, because I didn't quite understand. When you were talking
about people decided to stay versus, going ahead and being bought out. You said the people who
stayed have tried to get bigger and better. Clarify what you mean by that for me.
Resident I: Well they, as a whole, the whole hollow was offered the option to sell out, you know,
reasonable rates, and like I say, whatever the going rate for land and homes and stuff, you know.
Everyone of us up the hollow was offered that option. Some people thought they had, I guess,
thought they was gonna get rich from it I guess. You know what I'm saying? They didn't like what
they offered them, you know, it wasn't enough. They couldn't move for that, and, it's not like there
was $100,000 homes up there. They might be now because I think they had a couple build up there
that's really nice, but . . .
Interviewer II: They were just maybe holding out for a better offer.... And it didn't happen
Resident I: For more money. Yeah, for more money. That's basically what it was. Like I said,
I don't know their business, but I don't know if they ever got compensated for damages or anything.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 24
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
I really don't know. But, I would say, out of the whole, I would say there was probably... they
might be ten families up that holler.
Interviewer: Why would you say, I know you mentioned that you lived at the mouth of the
holler.... Why would you say that you decided to move when you knew that you weren't as
impacted as much? You know what I mean?
Resident I: Because... they wasn't around up back of me, they were at the head of the hollow.
They were coming over the mountains from Logan County. So the people up the head of the head
of the hollow was really, really impacted. You could see the impact, you know, it was visual. Your
cracks down the cinder box, and some homes were made of pure cinder blocks that had cracks going
all the way. So I thought, that was an advantage for us, that we lived we lived all the way down...
they hadn't got all the way down behind us.
Interviewer: But you felt that they were going to get down behind you.
Resident I: I didn't see any reason why they wouldn't get down behind me. You know, they had
the option ... I don't think they ever did, to my knowledge, but they got, they got behind I
don't know how far they did get.
Resident II: They're not done yet, up there. They got all kinds of deep mines going in, in and
around that area. So, they're not really done with the land yet.
Interviewer: There is one other part of all this that we haven't talked too much about that I wanted
to be sure and ask you all about and that is before the mining comes in ... now you said, were they
surface mining as long as you owned that home or?
Resident II: Yeah.
Resident I: Yeah they was, wasn't they? They was still up over in Logan County.
Resident II: Well they had that one little ole strip back in there. Then they, they really went big
time after that. They were augering, you know more or less just what they could get with an auger.
Yeah, it was there when we first moved in, or when we first got out of the Navy. She still lived
there.
Interviewer: So, in your experiences, you lived there, probably a little bit before they were really
doing very much there. Did the company come in ... and how did you all find out what was going
to be happening? I guess, is what I'm getting at...
Resident II: That. . . when they brought that ole big thing in there .. . that big crane deal that you
see along the roads and stuff, and you can see across the meadows and stuff. When they brought
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 25
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
that in, that's when they started to come around a talk to people. Well, I don't know if they started
to them or until people started to complain about the blasting and then they assigned "specific name"
somebody, one of the Massey people to come around and talk to us.
Interviewer: They had an agent?
Resident II: Yea, right. Then they had "specific name" or something like that, there was two or
three different people. He was real nice and done everything he could. But that was, they didn't
actually come around until after the people started complaining about the blasting.
Interviewer: Did you feel, see notices in the paper about the permits and things like that? Did you
ever see those or read those?
Resident II: Mom probably did, I never do read the paper.
Resident I: We have had a paper and then it might. . . papers never was....
Interviewer: So you didn't really ... so they might have been there but you didn't, you know, read
the paper.
Resident I: I'm sure they were because, I think by law you are supposed to.
Resident II: ... don't pay no attention to them, Mom does, and she reads all of it and I never did.
I don't think I've ever read a paper in my life.
Interviewer II: So this permit information, you know, really, even if you knew about them, does
it cause you to react in any way or is like well it's just, you know, a piece of information that doesn't
mean much . . .
Resident I: It wouldn't, it wouldn't have made me mad.
Interviewer II: And seeing that permit, did that give you any thoughts of what you need to do to
react to that permit notice?
Resident II: It does now, it bothers me now when I see these permits, especially if it's real close
to my land this way.
Interviewer: And how do you know that it's close to your land? By the map that . . .
Resident II: Yeah, it's pretty just look at the map and tell,' cause I know just about where my land
runs.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 26
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: We don't get a paper. His mom does, so what information we got she says, "I'm gonna
save this for you because there's something going on." She was telling us about what Delbarton
Mining, or something like that.
Interviewer II: So actually though the information they do give in the permits, I mean, your mother
can ... she reads the paper and all and it's noticeable. I mean she knows . . .
Resident I: She's not even a high school graduate.
Resident II: She notices more than Dad, ah more so because of Dad because Dad will look at it and
he pretty well knows too. He knows all these hollows by their road names.
Interviewer II: Are they always like at a set place in the paper that someone might always know
where they're located?
Resident I: Right, classified.
Resident II: But there's just not a lot you can do about 'em. If they're seeking permits... if they
get them they get them. A lot of people argued about them, but mostly they don't do any good. . .
Resident I: I think it states or something maybe to voice your opinion, or whatever, and maybe they
got a set place, or something.
Interviewer II: So, a public meeting where you go and talk about it?
Interviewer: But you never felt like that going to those meetings or sending a letter or doing
anything was gonna
Resident II: No, I always figured you know, if somebody could work, more power to them. You
know, I mean, I know that I was always looking for a job all the times they mined, 20 some years.
Resident I: Maybe I got the wrong opinion of it. Okay, but this is my opinion: I figure, and maybe
I'm wrong, maybe everybody shouldn't feel this way and maybe a lot of people feel this way is why
nothing ever gets voiced on it. I figure they're gonna come and they're gonna do what they're gonna
do. My little "yes" or "no" or my little conflict or discussion I might have with 'em ain't going....
because I feel that it's, it's all political. I know it's all political because it, the way it appears to me,
who you know and what connections you have. That's sad.
Interviewer II: Yea, I mean it's definitely part of your economy. So there is some, ah., influence
there that ah....
Resident I: Maybe I should be more vocal or more verbal towards it.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 27
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: I don't know this time if the coal was worth what they done.
Interviewer: To the community you mean?
Resident II: Yeah, from the time you turn up the road, you're 2 or 3 miles up the road, you get
down here to the four lane and take 119, 2 miles, 3 miles up the road then, all the way up to Scarlet
hollow and in Scarlet Hollow. And in all them little hollows in between - the water is gone.
Resident I: They say that to attempt to drill a well it would take 100 years. That's what my
daughter said.
Resident II: Yea, they said 100 years before you can drill one.
Interviewer II: To get the water supply back?
Resident I: To get the water supply back up. This is after they leave out of the area, I think. Of
course, that's two different topics, you know.
Resident II: They've been what three different, they've drilled two or three times on our property.
Resident I: But they've had a lot of public meetings and officials, three to four officials. And I
don't know that anybody from the coal company comes, but they did have a lot of meetings and a
lot of concern. Like I said, I don't know if this is just the communities meeting with the political
officials, or if in turn the people from the mining industry, I don't really know. But they, you know,
I do see that happening.
Resident II: This mine was too close to the surface. Too close. Not enough coverage, that's what
done it.
Interviewer II: Did the coal trucks, like the transport of coal, did they impact you in Scarlet or
here?
Resident II: Not as much in Scarlet as they do here. It's pure dangerous here. I mean, you just go
out here, go out here and watch, you know what I mean. That's all you gotta do watch the trucks
coming. They'll take their part of the road. You have to be careful while you are all here. You
could be killed with a coal truck. They're dangerous.
Resident I: I think the companies could be better with... not necessarily truck drivers in general,
but the poundage, the weight they haul. Because I seen on the news the other day, this one guy said,
"This is my living," and I can understand it. "This is what I feed my family with and pay my bills.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 28
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
I have to load this truck as loaded as I can get it, otherwise, I'm losing money. And this is my
position." Nothing personal, but still, I think the company needs to be more relatable to, and the
state too, to the amount of coal that's on it. When it shuts off other vehicles, and . . .
Resident II: I think they ought to haul by rail, personally. Truck the coal to the tipple and then haul
it by rail.
Resident I: They're getting it to the tipple. That's the thing, that's what these trucks are doing
Baby, but it's such a long distance.
Resident II: The others, but these coming up down here are splitting it up. They can get more out
of the truck and all the way down to Huntingdon. So they'll send 2,500 trucks to whatever dock,
down there at Huntingdon docks creek. So they get more money out of that and then they fill the
train up. It might go to the same place, but they get more money out of what they ship by truck.
That's what they tell me. So, they'll split the difference, split the loads up. They'll send so many
trucks to docks, for example, and then they load them.
Interviewer II: So, even though you have a rail siding up here, and rail facilities to ship the coal
out from your . . . you're seeing trucks also.
Resident II: Yea, and they may be trucking the same place. But you might get more, you know
more, like they told me they get more out of a truck than they do ...
Interviewer: Is it more, you think it's because it's more economical, because I guess your rail
service here is Norfolk Southern, right?
Resident II: Yea
Interviewer: Is it just because what they charge to ship the coal versus what. . .
Resident II: Or, it might be that they need the coal right then. Or a train backs in and it might take
till tomorrow to load the whole train.
Interviewer: Oh, I see, so a truck is instant. You load up one truck and it's gone.
Resident II: Yea, you just load up the truck and in two hours he's dumping.
Interviewer: Versus a train that might take 24 hours.
Resident II: Or 48 hours, or three days, depending on how much coal is on that.
Interviewer: Well, I can see that point now. Where loading time . . .
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 29
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: After they get there, so they can ship it on to somewhere else...
Interviewer II: The loading time is more instantaneous, so to speak, with a tractor trailer versus.
Resident I: But you see a lot more, like I say, versus when I was young and growing up in Scarlet,
and even when ... it was never really noticeable back then, the coal trucks.
Interviewer II: Yeah there was more activity. Was Norfolk Southern always the rail carrier down
here.
Resident I: I think, Chesapeake.
Resident II: Chesapeake, and Ohio, but that's, I don't know if they changed the name.
Interviewer II: Yea, they did, I know up our way that Conrail used to be the big carrier then
Norfolk Southern came in.
Resident II: N & W, Norfolk and Western, yeah. I know all that stuff is collectible as far as
moneywise, if you can buy anything with it on.
Interviewer II: What's amazing, they even have back home, in fact where we live, you can see the
trains right out by our home and even at the rail crossing, they have a notice there that there's
increase in rail traffic. So I don't know if it's ... I don't know what's causing that, if Norfolk
Southern is just better at it than the previous company, but it's interesting.
Resident II: I don't know either. But they can haul so much, can't they?
Interviewer II: It's amazing what they can haul.
Resident I: I was raised with trains. Living up, born and raised, living up Scarlet that the trains
went up that way, the mines was at the mouth of the hollow. It was like 11:00 in the night you hear
the train coming up. Pulling empties, pulling empties up and then backing back down. And if they
come during the day to pick them up, the engineer, he would bring candy.
Resident II: That's them old timers.
Resident I: You know, that's a thing of the past too. You know what I'm saying? Gum and candy.
We would look forward to him coming up during the day time... we would always hear them in the
night. Probably the same engineer every night. . . That was an advantage of being the kid at the
mouth of the hollow... All the kids would say, and they known about the schedule because all the
kids knew. I would tell them, you know, hey they are throwing candy out. They ought to come
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 30
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
down here, (laughter)
Interviewer II: Where do most people in this area work? Do they work for the mine here or do
they work elsewhere? I know with surface mining, we've understood, we understand that it takes
light labor because of the large equipment that they have versus underground mining, but
Resident II: It's really, it's changed a lot any more. There's a few . . .
Resident I: Professionals, most people, if you ain't a coal miner, you're into the ... I mean where
the money is, the medical field. Nurses, lab techs, that's where you see a lot of the younger kids
that's going, going to college for that type. Engineering. The guys will do some engineering.
Interviewer II: So they are definitely not looking towards the mine for their future employment?
Resident I: I don't think so.
Resident II: No, not as much as they used to. No.
Resident I: You know you've got some, but it's so hard to get in the mines any more.
Interviewer II: Because of the unions?
Resident I: No, not necessarily... they just...
Resident II: They're not training really, like they used to. They brought in a lot from Mexico and
places like that now and training them up, Mexicans. Massey is, instead of hiring people around
here. Mexicans.
Resident I: They're paying cheap wage, cheap labor, training their people. If our younger
generation...
Resident II: $6.00/hour, you know, versus $15.00
Interviewer: So, that causes conflict with the unionized workers?
Resident II: Massey is not union really, so I don't know. You know, I haven't been around it, I've
just seen it up there and to know for a fact that it's going on right now. That's something I never
seen in my whole life, you know...
Resident I: Versus, they won't take our younger people that might be interested in going in the
mines and training them. You know, pay, maybe not pay... I think might be because our kids won't
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 31
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
take that cheap a wage.
Resident II: And they probably won't work as hard. I mean seriously, you know.
Resident I: Kids nowadays are lazy, you know, mine just as well as the rest of 'em. They won't
give you the op. They won't say, "Hey, you've got a head on your shoulders, you know. I really
think I could train you." Just like "specific name", his Dad was in the mines. One of the best
electricians there was, you know, but in turn, they seen "specific name" and his brother, you know,
they seen the option there. And back then, still it was hard to get in when you come it. It was just
luck, "specific name" came out of the service working for a mining repair shop where they repaired
the mining equipment. He was delivering something to the coal mines and they had this problem
electrical-wise. They was ... they was shut down, wasn't running no coal. They was a having a big
situation. It's a major catastrophe, you know.
Resident II: They just didn't have no electricians. They just didn't have none.
Resident I: "specific name" said "Well, what seems to be the problem?", and they were "hmm" you
know and told him what they thought might be the situation. They said "You care to look at that?"
and "specific name" said I don't care a bit and they hired him, you know.
Interviewer II: Wow!
Resident I: So, that was how he become an electrician. It wasn't because....
Interviewer: So that's what you did in the mines.
Resident II: Electrician, electrician, chief electrician. But I had some, had some college electronics
while I was in the Navy, they sent you to ...
Resident I: He's been around electricity, and his Dad has done all this all his life, wired houses,
and he went along with him. Now you don't just walk in off the street and say, "I think I see your
situation or your problem." They'd say, "Well go put an application in." It's all special work now.
Interviewer II: Ah, being an electrician that's ah... you can almost get a job anywhere.
Resident II: I could. You know you could about name your wages. If you didn't like it, you just
quit. That's what I always done.
Interviewer II: So really the community around here is really ... I don't want to put words in your
mouth, but tell me... my assessment is it's really not benefiting the community overall here, is that
right or wrong?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 32
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: The mining?
Interviewer II: The mining. I mean at least in this one here.
Resident II: This one up here hasn't, I don't think ever benefited them. It's hurt them more so than
anything else.
Resident I: Yeah, it's hurt their name. I know... I think the community...
Resident II: The wages are cheap here too.
Interviewer II: Right, in contrast to the other mining operation up in Scarlet.
Resident II: Yeah, the other one was done right. And they paid good wages and . . .
Interviewer II: So the management, it seems like,
Resident II: Seems like the management has gone, gone south for the winter up here.
Interviewer II: Right, the benefit, the benefit of the community, or if it is or if you want to call it
a benefit, or how they make out and what impacts are being cause, . . .
Resident II: Maybe the benefit to the community is what taxes they pay, I don't know.
Interviewer II: Right, but I mean in terms of the company itself, either it's good or bad, it might
come back on how well managed that company might be in terms of... like Hobet, it seems like
they were very concerned.
Resident I: I thought they were.
Resident II: I don't believe anybody would miss them if they just left.
Interviewer II: In this situation?
Resident II: Right, if they just closed the gate up here . . .
Resident I: 'Cause we're not personally interested, not yet. Knock on wood... Not personally
impacted.
Resident II: Lot closer.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 33
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: And we're just hearing like second hand news, you know. It's second hand news, they
might be more... they may be communicating more . . .
Resident II: Because if you walk this line to the end, then you will be standing in the road on their
land. The mining land, so that's how close it is.
Interviewer II: So you abut right against their property?
Resident II: That's exactly right.
Interviewer II: Now the Hobet mine, you think if that one would have left... Are they still mining
up there, I assume?
Resident I: No
Resident II: No, they're mining in Boone County or somewhere...
Interviewer II: So, that town that they have left, or do you think that that has actually hurt that
town that they left or do you think that they are better off now than what they were during the time
when they were mining?
Resident II: Well, there's nothing up there now up in Scarlet hollow.
Interviewer II: In other words, things were better before the mine came in it seems like.
Resident II: It was a more thriving little community. They didn't have no Mayor or nothing, so
it was just a spot anyway, you know. But there's nothing there now. They burned all the houses.
And they, they hired somebody to come in there and burn them. So, that's what they done.
Interviewer: That actually, that leads me to one other question I wanted to ask you guys and it's
a little bit more personal, so I don't want to... tell us what you want to tell us, but uh . . .
Resident II: I'll leave and let you ask her. No, I'm just kidding ya.
Interviewer: What were your feelings? I know you have described to me that it was sad to leave
your family that lived there, but how did you feel about your decision to leave, you know what I
mean? Did you feel like people who were staying versus the people who were leaving, were there
tensions there, you know your family lived up there. Were there tensions at all, were there any?
Resident I: Not at all. No emotions, or disagreements or no hard feelings on my part and I
wouldn't think, I haven't heard of any on the others. If that's what you're asking?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 34
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer: That is what I'm asking. I was just wondering . . .
Resident I: I thought you were going to ask if it impacted our marriage life.
Resident II: I liked to move, 'cause we got a nicer place. Up there, you had a little ole yard and
here, got a lot of open space to do what you want.
Interviewer: I was wondering, if the community that is still there, you know, if they feel broken
up, or if they still feel like they are a community and it's just sad that other people have left. You
know...
Resident I: Right, they miss us. When we're around, we talk to them and they say "Oh man, you
all have to come up. They really miss the community. We really miss having you all here."
Resident II: The people that stayed there also expanded. Like, if they leased her land off of them
people, then they let them have what they wanted after that.
Interviewer II: Do you think Scarlet will ever, other than water problems, but do they have public
water in there now?
Resident II: Yeah, they have public water.
Resident I: Did they put public water in there?
Resident II: Uh huh
Interviewer: Since public water is there now,
Resident I: It's opt, it'snot there yet. The lines are run, but the water is not here yet. The lines are
run.
Interviewer: But then you've got to pressurize the lines with the water itself.
Resident II: Yeah, they came up and flushed them out. I think there was a court thing up there or
something. I think they was wanting to pay their water bills for so long and then give them $2,000
or something if they would hook up. And then these people would pay for this and that and so I
don't know.
Resident I: You're talking about what going on up Duncan Fork.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 3 5
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Yeah, well Scarlet is the same way.
Resident I: What's going on up Duncan Fork or Scarlet or wherever, where people don't have no
water. Course we have water.
Resident II: They got tanks up Scarlet now.
Resident I: There's no reason why they shouldn't be helping them people up down through here...
Resident II: Yeah, it something to think about, I don't know..
Resident I: Not that we have any need to hook up, but...
Interviewer II: Did the coal companies, did the coal companies help when the water supply went
bad... Did they help actually fund that infrastructure, like public water supplies?
Interviewer: Were you all living there when that happened?
Resident I: No.
Interviewer: I mean, do they have any assistance? I mean, who paid for the water system?
Resident II: The county did. This was in the makings before the water went dry. This public water
was, and allotted $20,000,000.
Interviewer: In Scarlet?
Resident II: No, around here, in this community when this public water come in. Now, Scarlet,
that was just part of this deal. Part of the Hobet, you know...
Interviewer II: You think Scarlet will ever be the community that it once was?
Resident II: No.
Resident I: I would like it, I'd like for it to be. But like for it to be and wanting it to be is entirely
different. The coal company could offer people, if they would, if they would do what they said they
were going to do, offer people their land back if they got done, you know. If they left town and they
had left town. Maybe they're planning on coming back. I believe if they would offer me back my
land, I wouldn't move back up there.
Interviewer II: Okay, that was my next question. Would you . . .
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 36
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: I would personally never load up, I would never move ever again.
Resident II: I would buy it, buy it just for my grand kids or my . . .
Resident I: I would like to have it to offer to the families. I don't foresee maybe my daughter that's
living over in Matewan. That might be something she would like, but the rest of my family has land.
Interviewer: So as far as you know, the coal company still owns that land?
Resident I: As far as I know.
Resident II: Yeah, cause they're still leasing it.
Resident I: But they're you know, I would like to see that, you know. I think it would be good.
Interviewer II: Interesting.
Resident II: I know when we went through the woods when I was a young kid and when I moved
up there. Well, I was 20, 21, 22, you know and I'm 53 now.
Interviewer II: How many people worked in Scarlet when you folks lived there?
Resident II: When we, when we left roughly, 35 or 40.
Interviewer II: That's families or people?
Resident I: There were more than that. There were more than that, Baby.
Resident II: Well, I'm talking about different families. I know there wasn't more than that. As
far as people, you take 4 or 5 in each family, and that's a lot of people.
Interviewer II: That's a lot of people. How many families do you think are there now?
Resident II: Ahhh... I say if there's 10, no more than 11.
Resident I: If there's 10, no more than 15. I can almost name them.
Interviewer II: And you think that decrease in the number of families is directly due to the . . .
Resident II: To the buying out. . .
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 37
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Interviewer II: To the buying out part of it.
Resident I: But, like I said, I could see the community coming back if they offered the land back
to us.
Resident II: It may be a different generation than us.
Resident I: Right, but it would still, you know, I think the first opt for the land, was supposed to
be made to the people they bought it off of. And then in turn we had so long to decided. If we
decided not to then....
Resident II: I can close my eyes and feel I've been there, you know. Yeah...
Interviewer II: Yeah feels like the back of your hand, hun?
Resident I: But would it be to who they bought it off of versus, you know, I think the community
could come back, it may not be the community that it was, but it would be, you know, growing.
That's kind of scary now when you think, you know 3 5 or even 50 homes or whatever they was up
to versus 10. It's kinda like, kinda like scary because there's so big a distance between a home.
Interviewer II: Is Scarlet close enough to places of employment, like if the people were to come
back, they would come back, you know, maybe to live there. But what would, you're talking about
a different generation, what would be their incentive to come back? ... if they might have had family
ties there?
Resident II: Because there's no land.
Interviewer: There's no ... if they would come back . . .
Resident II: There's nothing to buy now.
Interviewer: It's land available to buy. Is there employment opportunities around, you know, that
they could go to for employment?
Resident II: No more than . .. there used to be other than these stores, you know. Wal-Mart and
places like that.
Interviewer: Sorta like the retail type.
Resident I: The malls unless the they can do anything professional.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 3 8
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Lot of skill training down here, something to put your skill into. Like my boys was
body men, working on cars and painting and stuff. So, wherever you're skilled then more or less,
but there's no land to be bought now.
Resident I: You can see, you know . . .
Resident II: There are these little /^ acre lots are $30,000, you know. And it was before, you know
. . . $100 per lot.
Resident I: 20 years ago, you could see a vast area between the homes, now they're like on top of
each other.
Interviewer II: Especially in these valleys, you know. There's a very limited amount of land that
you can actually put a house on, so to speak.
Resident I: Well, they don't care now adays. It's one deal. They build it up to where every the
need it to and go on out.
Interviewer II: Exactly, exactly, that's interesting. Have you seen this community change at all
too, up the holler here.
Resident II: Well, not up the holler, it's all owned. But you can see on the roads filling up,
everything, any place they can buy.
Interviewer II: Even though the mine's here, they're still buying the land if it's available or
buying? ... do you see people moving in and out, like different faces or maybe you're not that
connected with . . .
Resident II: No, we are not really connected that much. We don't even see no places for rent no
more. Do you?
Resident I: Not a whole lot.
Interviewer: I think we've covered pretty much everything that was on our list. Did you all have
anything that you wanted to add or to tell us about Scarlet?
Resident II: No, I mean, that was home, that's the only thing about it. I think I miss more than she
does and it was her home. I mean it's where she was raised. But, I probably miss it more than she
does. But it's, I guess, a lot to deal with . . .
Resident I: Life changes.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 39
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Life changes. I had my kids all around me then.
Resident I: But, I miss it.
Resident II: I had my fruit trees up there that I planted, you know, they were doing real well, I
come up here and didn't have no fruit trees.
Resident I: They wouldn't let us take anything, no flowers, nothing. Anything connected to the
house. Like your cabinets.
Resident II: So I planted all these apples that you see here, and cherry trees, peach trees. I planted
everything you see since I came here.
Interviewer: Why do you think that was? Why do you think they wouldn't let you take your
flowers? ... I'm sorry, we have so many voices going on over this tape, I'm afraid I'm gonna miss
something. Can you explain that to me a little bit?
Resident I: When they bought us out they said "everything stays that's connected." And we asked
about the shrubbery, and like he said, he had his young fruit trees that he had planted that we could
have picked up and moved. It might have hurt their season, you know, for a year or two, but they
would have come out of it, you know, and flourished. But they wouldn't let us take no fruit trees,
no shrubbery, not that we have a lot. The fruit tree was well, he was mainly concerned about them.
But they wouldn't let us take anything that was connected to the home, tied into it like built-in
cabinets.
Resident II: Stoves, fireplace, you know your metal stoves.
Resident I: We did have the old fashioned heating stove and stuff.
Interviewer: Did they give you any explanation for why?
Resident I: It was just part of their buying.
Resident II: Six weeks later, somebody come along and collected them all and sold them.
Resident I: And that's kinda disgusting, you know. They broke into your homes.
Resident II: I came here and had to buy the same stove that's right in there.
Interviewer: You said, "broke into the homes", do you think it was the coal company who . . .
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 40
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident II: Security, whoever had security on it.
Resident I: They didn't have security at first. That was before they had security, when they hired
people to come in and go up and down the hollers and watch what's going on in the nights.
Observe and see_things like that, they just broke in different places and took things out.
Resident II: All the stoves, anything they could sell you know.
Resident I: Anything that was left that was of value they took.
Resident II: 'Cause I thought that maybe would look bad on us, you know.
Resident I: We tried to cooperate.
Resident II: Figured they'd open the door, and find it ready to move it, you know. For anybody
else. I think that's what they had in mind in original, but...
Resident I: But, when I sign my name to something, you know, and it says I'm not gonna leave and
not gonna take this ... or if I tell you, 'Hey, I'm gonna sell you my home and I'm gonna sell you
everything with it.' I couldn't take as much as a picture off the wall, because my word is good.
Interviewer II: Now, when they gave you your fair market value for your home, did you know that
you had to leave like stoves . . .
Resident I: Well not at first we didn't, not at first.
Interviewer II: I mean you were just expecting when you moved out of your house, just like you
would make a move to another place, that you could take the refrigerator . . .
Resident I: Refrigerator, the stove, you're cooking, your electric...
Resident II: You could take that, you couldn't take a water filter or nothing like that.
Resident I: Pumps, water tanks.
Resident II: And when you move into a place like this where you have to put pumps...
Resident I: Very seldom do you find in this area and I want things . . .
Resident II: I swear to you that they had to leave their blinds up here when we bought this.
C :\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 41
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: On the average, now adays, when you buy, or when you sell a place, they come
connected, your blinds and things have to stay. That's just the way it is now, times have changed.
But, like I said, I could sell my house today to you or to whoever else, and you would say well, I
really like this, and this. You know, I would leave it like it is, for so much more you could have
the whole contents. You know what I'm saying? 'Cause otherwise, it all goes with me. Because
a lot of people like that, they like how it's decorated, not that mine is decorated really nice or
anything. But they don't want to have to go through all that their self. They don't have time for it
versus, maybe they think they don't know how.
Resident II: This house has four fire places in it, on every corner.
Interviewer: Oh really?
Resident II: That's the reason you got flat places.
Resident I: That's why they say it's 100 years old.
Resident II: You go to the other side, it's that way. The bedroom, the living room... they built
them all.
Interviewer II: Each room had to have it's own heat source.
Resident I: But when we come in, they were all closed up. My first electric bill, I about had a heart
attack. Started punching holes. We don't have the one in the living room open and we don't have
this one here open.
Resident II: I got a fire place, you know, a fancy fire place in the bedroom. Out of what they had
and then we use a stove here. We don't, still don't owe, what $35 on electric. And then in the
summertime, sometimes the air condition don't run no more, you know. This place will stay cool
until 2-3:00 in the afternoon. Until we have to turn any air conditioners on. She puts that plastic
up because she's in her own business. All her freight comes and you don't want it to get wet, you
know, in winter, it's unpredictable and the fall, so stuff. They'll leave it for her. I'm retired, so I
just do whatever.
Resident I: What ever we want. Adding anything to it or not the conversation. There's nothing
much more to add. You all covered a lot.
Resident II: They were fair with us, when we moved. The only thing I would like to see changes,
I would like that opportunity to buy the land.
Interviewer: I'm glad you brought that up.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 42
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
Resident I: I would like to have that opportunity.
Resident II: And I would say if you talk to anybody else, that would be their only.
Interviewer II: You said other people back that you knew at least in Scarlet, if they got anything
else out of the deal, it would be to have the opportunity to buy their land back?
Resident I: And we was told that we would have that opportunity.
Resident II: Right, and I have never heard nothing. Now, it may still come.
Resident I: It may be that they've got something else planned for the land and they don't want to
relocate people and just have to do it again.
Interviewer II: But still there's an uncertainty there. It doesn't seem like you feel there's a
guarantee or you know for sure that they . . .
Resident II: People are living on there, you know, now they are still living there. We was at the
mouth of it, we was the first place at the holler.
Resident I: Which was a mile and one-half, two miles off the main four lane.
Interviewer: Well, you know thanks so much for talking to us. I really appreciate you taking the
time....
Resident II: I enjoyed it. It brought back a lot of memories.
Interviewer II: I'm glad, I hope you enjoyed it. We enjoyed it just as much.
Resident II: Well, I would say 90% of the people, or 95% that you talk to would say they would
like to have the option to buy the land back.
Resident I: They may even want the option to move back. Like I said, I wouldn't. I've been away
what 12 years, we've been up here 12 years?
Resident II: Yeah, 10 or 12 years.
Resident I: Going on 12 years. This is home now. But, that also used to be and I would like that
option of having it. For hereditary reason, you know to pass down... to say hey.... I could still say
hey listen, my grandpa, or my great grandpa used to own from here to here, you know. Basically
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 43
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
almost up the whole holler, up to the fork. Generations back. His dad, and his dad's dad or
something. It all started out in the family, as a family thing, that whole hollow did. Kinda like
branched off - this one bought this one and that one bought that. I would like to have that option.
I know I could never own what my dad owned up there, unless I got rich. Win the lottery. That
was a little heart breaking, that part. "Course it was heartbreaking when my Mom and Dad sold it,
I just couldn't understand why they did that. Because they were living... where were they in Ohio?
They were living in Ohio. Like I say we got some good friends and neighbors out of it, but still it
was... They didn't need it, so they sold it. I was fortunate to have what they sold to me. Which
they seen to that, because when you buy it from for nothing, it is really about a gift to keep it. To
keep the family from saying it was given to me there was money exchanged for it. But, it wasn't
nothing that broke me up. Because they were selling to us kids. Don't want to say that I give you
something that I didn't give to them. But, ain't none of them saying they want to live or wanting
to relocate back here, so.... I was the baby .... gotta take care of my baby.
Interviewer II: Well, Alexa?
Interviewer: Yeah. We appreciate you giving us your time. You've got our card there if you think
of any questions that you have....
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report 44
on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Scarlet
Interviews\S7 revised.wpd
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Superior Bottom, West Virginia
Interviewer: Tell me a little bit about how you and your family came to live in Superior Bottom.
Resident: Well my husband had lived there and well in fact he wasn't born in Omar he was born
in Pine Creek. And then his father pastured a church there in Superior Bottom and they moved to
Superior Bottom. I moved to Superior Bottom when I married him. And that is how, you know, I
became a resident there of Superior Bottom.
Interviewer: About when was that?
Resident: We got married in 1948. But, we moved to Omar in 1945, but we moved up Pine Creek.
Interviewer: So when did you move back to Superior Bottom?
Resident: In 1948, we...we really didn't move away. He.... after our son was born in 1949,helost
his... well he lost his right hand in an accident at the tipple.
Interviewer: Your husband did?
Resident: My husband did. And they wouldn't hire him back, because they didn't think that he
could do the work, you know, with one hand. And he was a GI, so we convinced him to go to
college. And he went to, he enrolled in Blue Field State College, in September, 1949. And we went
to Blue Field. And then while I was up there, he insisted that I take some classes. And so we did,
so we stayed up there until he graduated in 1952. And we moved... came back to Superior Bottom
and that's where we've been.
Interviewer: Oh okay. So you got a degree in teaching?
Resident: Yes.. .1 got a degree in elementary education.
Interviewer: And what about did your husband, what did he study?
Resident: He studied um.... well, at Blue Field, they had started a course where you can be
certified from kindergarten through 12th grade. And he took that, they called it the single
curriculum. And then he did his student teaching on the elementary level and then he did it on the
secondary level. But he graduated from there, and then he went on to Marshall. And he got his
masters in Principleship of Supervisory. And then he took some masters plus classes in special
education, because he was a director.
Interviewer: So both of you ended up in the special education field?
Resident: Yes
-------
Interviewer: Did you work at the school in Superior Bottom, then?
Resident: I did... I started of first at Peach Creek, in what we call the 'trainable center.' And then
they transferred me back to Omar, that was when they opened up as the... on the secondary. And
then they made my husband Principal and I worked there. And then when he left...he became
Director of Special Education. They brought in another principal, and I stayed there until... that's
where I worked until I retired.
Interviewer: Until you retired. When.... when about was it when they opened up that school and
then you started working there again?
Resident: Itwasumnumn, Fall of'67. 1967. Because that was the year...well in fact in July of
1967, and I was going back to Marshall. And had a wreck. Well in fact, came close to losing my
life. But, thank God didn't see fit to take me then. But um, then... that is when they opened it up,
they opened it up, that school in September. And my husband was Principal. And on the other side,
half of it they were using if for Adult Education, but they gave the Adult half of the building and we
had... we had the... I'm trying to think... we had the front of the building. The front side facing the
main road. And they had the back side facing the mountain side. And that was the way we started
the Douglas Omar School. It was a high school, secondary level, for special ed students.
Interviewer: So at that time you were now living back in the Omar and Superior Bottom area.
Resident: Yes we were
Interviewer: And what was the community like back then... when you were living there and
working there?
Resident: We had, well it had.... it had really started going down. See that's when the mines, they
started closing the mines in 54'. And people started leaving. And then um, Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel sold the land, or leased it to someone and they would came in and truck the coal out. This was
really the beginning of the depreciation of the community. And there was... most of the people
didn't put anything back in the community. And then we started complaining about the dust and
then they started oiling the roads. Trying to, you know, keep it straight. But, as far... it was really
a close-knit community. It was.
Interviewer: Up until then or...
Resident: Well, and even now there... Some of the people who use to live there they come back.
And when they come back into this area, they have to come back into Omar. And even some of
them are upset now, because most of the houses are gone. And some of them look at them and tell
me that it is depressing. I told them 'No, it isn't depressing.' I don't look at Superior Bottom as
being a loss, and something that isn't going to come back. I looked at it as if is well, I've expressed
it as a pregnant lady getting ready to give birth to something. And this is where I expect, I expect
Superior Bottom to come back and I'm expecting people to live there. And...
-------
Interviewer: So it is just going through a cycle of change.
Resident: This is what I see, and this is what I believe is happening - just a cycle of change.
Interviewer: That is interesting view point, and a very interesting way to put it.
Resident: Yes
Interviewer: Very positive way to look at everything.
Resident: Uhm hum.
Interviewer: Tell me a little bit more what you liked about the community or what you still like
about the community.
Resident: Well in fact, I liked the relationship that the people had. And well, now it is just so quiet.
And the birds, more birds.. .we've seen more birds, different birds in the last year and a half, close
to two years, than I've seen in the bottom, you know, since I've been living there. And uhm, deer
come out of the mountain and we can see them. Well, of course we had a bear that came down, well
of course we're not too interested in a bear (laughing). But then before I moved from my old house,
there is a big tree in the back of my house and a light pole and I was across the street at one of my
neighbors one day and I looked and I saw a squirrel running down... down that tree. So, we had
wildlife living there. And unh, it's just so peaceful that they were coming out of the mountains.
Interviewer: So back when there were more houses and more people it wasn't so quiet?
Resident: No, it wasn't so quiet. And we didn't have so many, you know, of nature's creatures
coming down. Once in awhile at night they may have a bear come out of the mountains. And one
time there was a deer that ran through the community, but that was it. You just didn't see them
coming into the community. And I... we didn't see the exotic birds. We've seen blue birds, small
little... they almost looked like canaries, and wrens, almost every kind of bird. Blue jays, yes. It
was very... To me... and I just loved to watch the birds. And I watched them and you could hear
them and you could see them. And different people have been talking about what beautiful birds
they have been seeing.
Interviewer: Hum... That's really an interesting and positive change that I hadn't heard any one
else mention. Is the close-knit aspect of the community still there?
Resident: It is still there. It is one of the things that is unique. We are close-knit but we seem as
if we don't care. You know, lot of times... but we give each other their privacy. But, when we
know that one is in need or one is going through something. People will rally to see what we can
do to help them. And that is the type of community that we have, and that type of relationship that
we have. And unm, well I'm blessed... my daughter doesn't think I'm so blessed, but if anyone
knows that someone is going through something they will call me to see what going on or call me
and tell me what is going on. And usually I'll see what I can do or see where I can direct them to
get some help or something like that.
-------
Interviewer: Do you think that is likely to change in the future?
Resident: It all depends on the people and umm... if we want it to remain the same we will. And
but if someone should think "Oh I can't do anything," and you have their hope. It will be, if they're
positive.
Interviewer: Do you think that any of that has been affected or might be affected because of the
surface mining coming in and the changes with regard to that?
Resident: You know, I saw some disappointment, but it's... they're coming back. Everyone is
they're trying now to do and keep things going. One of the things I told them too, I said, well, you
know, people were coming in and trashing the community. And I told them, No, we have a
community action group, that we were trying to improve our community. And as long as we have
one person living in that community, and this is.... is ah going on, we expect the community to be
decent. And able for people to live in and clean enough for someone to come in and want to live
in. To want to live in it. So, that is what we are trying to do.
Interviewer: That sounds like that is a really strong and unique, as you put it, important part of the
community - that you've all come together at least in that way.
Resident: Yes we have. We've had a few that, you know, well you don't ever have complete unity.
But some will backed off and umh, well they... you know, and if some people they can't get their
way about something then they drop out of it. It is as if they take the ball and go home. But then
these same people have needed help from the community and they've asked, and it has done. So,
I can see them slowly coming back and becoming involved. The only thing that... one of the things
I missed the most we don't have the children that we use to have, because we use to do positive
things with the children, we would give them like a little outing, or little wiener roast, or something
like a picnic, at the end of school. And then we would do something, you know, at the beginning
of school and try to do something to keep them encouraged.
Interviewer: When did that change, when when did there seem to be less children?
Resident: When they started moving out of the community, and they sold their houses. Because
when the coal company came in to ask to buy the houses, they only wanted, I think it was 4, no it
was 3 houses, at first. 'Cause they want my house, 'cause I'm right on the corner, and the "specific
name" house that was on the corner, and the other place... which it would be hard for them to turn.
And the house right beside me, because it is directly in front of the bridge. And they said that if they
can get that, they could make almost, a straight shot back to the mine. And one lady in the
community heard that the coal company wanted to buy the houses. And he said, well he told me,
he said, that he wanted to buy the ones in a row down to the school. And ah... he said, and then all
the way back to the mountain, because that was what he needed, he needed that for his men, and for
his equipment, you know for them to park. Well, when we knew anything, this lady had knew about
it because it wasn't gonna bother the houses on the creek. And she took a petition, and got the
people to sign, saying they wanted to sell. Well, when we took it to the community group we would
discuss it. And my concern was if they brought in all this equipment, we had little children that
-------
lived, and most of the little ones lived in the houses along the creek, and I was concerned about
them. Because sometimes they would get out, and they wouldn't be supervised, that they may get
hurt. And I called him to ask him, you know, I wanted to talk with him see exactly what his plans
were and he thought I was interesting in selling too, that I was speeding it up. And, I told him no,
I was concerned about the children. And this is when I found out that this lady had circulated the
petition, and that all of them wanted to sell.
Interviewer: So initially you, they all wanted to buy a certain number and really... the whole group
of people got together and said why don't we all go. Why do you think in your experience they
decided to do that?
Resident: Well, I think some of them... well it was for the money. I think that's what most of
them were out, were after. But they did not get what they would have, had he ask them, you know
to, to buy their homes. So, in fact different ones saying that... that they wanted to go, everybody
wants to leave, he didn't have to offer them a lot of money.
Interviewer: Do you think that they got a fair deal?
Resident: Well, not as fair as they could have and he, well... As far as what we paid for the houses,
we really got them very cheap, and then we had put a lot of expenses... gone to a lot of expense to
repair them, remodel them. And what a lot of them got out of it, they could not have bought a house
that was comparable for the amount that some of them got.
Interviewer: Tell me a little bit about your experiences, with that same process.
Resident: Well with that same process, they came and they appraised, and the lady that did the
appraising, appraisal put in false pictures. She had appraised... made an appraisal of a property for
another group, they wanted to put in a housing development on some property. Of the lady that
bought this school property, this is one thing she was trying to do. This lady did the appraisal and
the pictures, well in fact one of the things she was saying then, was that the community was too
dirty, and you know, run down for it. And she put in a negative report, so the housing people turned
it down. And well we didn't know that this was in the plan, this plan for the coal company was
already developing and she knew about it because she was the appraiser for them. So when she
came in to make the appraisal for us, to appraise our houses, you know fix up this package here, they
put homes that are similar to yours. She put a picture of the house that was next door to me that she
had taken on the first appraisal. 'Cause between the time of the first appraisal and the second
appraisal, some renovations and remodeling had been done on that home. It didn't look like it did
on the first appraisal. But she put that picture in there and I recognized it, and I pointed I out to her.
And said, I told her, I said, look this is a reflection on the integrity of your company. And
I said it's false. And the man, I think "specific name" was with him, and he looked at me
and he said integrity? And the "specific name" said, but you know, I've tried to be honest with you.
He said I've tried to keep my word. And I said, I know you have. I said, what you need to realize
when they talk about your company, you' re out here talking with the people, and you' re the one they
see as being dishonest. And I said this a reflection on you, as well as on your company. He thanked
me. He said, I'll tell them. And I said now, I said I could not recommend this lady to do any
appraisals, because of this false report.
-------
Interviewer: And she worked for... his company?
Resident: His company, Massey, he worked for Massey. And he said I'll take it back to them and
I tell them.
Interviewer: Did they give you a choice of what appraisers to use?
Resident: No, no they didn't. They had hired this lady, you know, to do these appraisals for
everyone. And then of course they based it, course they went by court house, they based it on the,
you know, the tax value our rate, tax rate. So what he was offering me for my home and my lot, well
I couldn't have bought a new place for it. And we had, my daughter was living in Denver, Colorado,
and my husband was bedfast. But let me tell you something, go back to the very first time they came
to me. He and "specific name" came to me, and they apologized for coming because they had heard
my husband was bedfast and was sick. And they apologized for coming because he was ill. And
they said but we, and they told me what they needed, and they needed my house. They needed to
expand the road. And I said well do you really need it? And he said yes, and he told me what he
was doing. And I had heard a little bit about it, I said they... and they had, they had told me they
didn't hire blacks. So I asked him, I said are you an equal opportunity employer? He looked at me
and said yes. We hire anybody we think can do the job. And I said well okay, and I said now you
need this. Your trying to provide jobs for people, lot of the jobs, I said you also trying to earn a
living. And that God has blessed us to be past that age where we are retired and can live, you know.
And I said, but if you need this to provide jobs, I won't stand in your way. I believe a job would be
worth some place else to go. And ah... so, if you need it, and you will hire people. And I told him
about my next-door neighbor and two other families right there in my community who needed work.
And two of the men had sons who needed work. And I told them, I said now they need work, they
can't find, and if you're willing to give them a chance, you know, if they want to apply. He said yes,
we'll hire anybody. And so based on that, and I told him I will sell. And I talked with my husband
he said he would sell. We were going to go Denver. Well, I would have to transport him by air
ambulance. And my daughter went on the internet and found someone, well the man... we didn't
know the man was dishonest. But she told me he said it would take $20,000.
Interviewer: To move your husband?
Resident: To move my husband, to fly him, you know, from West Virginia, out to Denver,
Colorado. And so that would, and when they brought the appraisal I think he just offered, it was
either $45 or $49,000 for my home and the vacant lot. And that would not have left enough to buy
a home, it would have taken that to move my furniture. And so I told him, I said no, I can't do that.
So then he offered to pay, they went on and they could it for a little over $10,000. He said, we will
fly him out there and let you keep all the money. And by this time my husband had become, well
he loved Omar, he was born in Omar. And he asked me had I changed my mind about going to see
his brother? So I had asked if he wanted to move to ... Virginia to be with his brother. Or either to
Norfolk, Virginia. We have a young son there. We... our oldest son lives in Texas. I asked him,
you know, if he wanted to go and live with either one of the children. And he answered no, he
wanted to go where our daughter was. But he changed his mind, he was really anxious and I saw
the fear on his face. And I had told him no, I said do you want to go live with "specific name"? He
-------
said no, I want to go see him, but I don't want... I want to live in Omar. Then I said, well you said
you want to go live with our daughter, and her son and daughter. And he said no, I want to go see
them, I want to live in Omar. And he was afraid I was gonna take him out of Omar. And I promised
him I wouldn't take him out of Omar. And that totally, I said now are you, do you mean Omar and
this house or do you mean just Omar? And he kept saying just Omar. And I told him, I explained
it again, I broke it down. I said now if we sell this house, we stay in Omar. We'll move in a new
house, is that what you want? And he said yes, it would be all right to sell this house. But I prayed
and asked God if he meant that house - don't let me move him. We were in that house when he
passed, so I'm sure that's what he meant.
Interviewer: So you stayed for how much longer than before when you originally started talking
to that company?
Resident: It's been over 3 years. Over 3 years.
Interviewer: Over 3 years. And how did the company react to your decision to stay? Was that
something?
Resident: They were completely satisfied with it. They told me, and then they offered me property
in Pine Creek. We use to live in Pine Creek, but Pine Creek has been, it has depreciated. And then
drug dealers frequent up there and I didn't want to go up there, from what I had heard. Main reason,
I would have moved away from my support. 'Cause I had a young man who would come in when
I had to go to the store, and sit with my husband. And then my next door neighbor, when she saw
the lights on or something, she'd call and checked on me. And this is what my neighbors did. And
I didn't want to move out of that secure environment. And I told them no, I didn't want to go that
far and I wanted to get as close as I could. So I knew that he wasn't taking all of the property in
Superior Bottom, so I asked him if I could move to the upper part, some place in Superior Bottom.
He first offered me a lot behind where I was, and I thought it was on the back. I said no I didn't
want that. One night I had brought my... after I brought my husband home from the hospital, and
it was beautiful. And I was out there, I was just saying Lord I love this place. 'Cause I had pine
trees around, and it was just so peaceful. And I said, but I've given him my word, I'll sell. And I
said, I don't want to go back on my word. And it was like he spoke to me, 'And what about back
here? You will still be on the corner and it would be similar to where you are.' And I could just
picture my home right behind that house. So I told him I wanted it. But then that lot was tied up
- the lady that had had it, you know, she didn't do right. And another young man bought it for taxes
and ah but, anyway. All this went on, and I just asked the Lord to let me... if I was going to stay
in Superior Bottom, let me be where he wanted me to be. And they were going to put me in front
of my church. Well ran into some difficulties with the homes that we picked out at Fleetwood. And
when my husband passed the one I had picked out and settled on. I was trying to get one with
enough area I could bring him in to the family room with, you know, the bed. And uhm, then this
man, he didn't believe the coal company was going to pay for it. He started trying to pressuring us
after he realized that to go ahead and close the deal. And well anyway, when my sons came in they
went down to look and to see. One of them is in air condition and heating, and he felt the gas
furnace would be better, than the electric. And um, so this was one of, one of the changes we had
to ask for. Then they wanted the motion detecting lights and some other things. But the little
changes... that they made, he said that it would be an additional $1,000 to the cost. Well, "specific
-------
name" went down to like the payment and he told me $2,000 dollars more. Then he started
pressuring "specific name and he would call me, called my son in Dunbar. Every time he would...
he wouldn't call me to say anything. And then he didn't call "specific name" and "specific name"
would stop calling him. "Specific name" went down to make the down payment, he wanted him to
pay all of it. He said no. If I ay you all, then "specific name" may not be satisfied. And so we'd
would be stuck with it. He said I'll pay you half of it and when you bring it and bring it in, I'll pay
you the other half. But anyway, that is the way it went. And went through, even in the first half,
he wanted to add $2,000 dollars on. And then "specific name" got upset with him and went to his
friend. Back to "specific name", at "specific name" Manufactured homes. He had brought one over
from "specific name" lot, over for me to see. He put it there on the lot there at Rothmore. Trying
to save me from having to travel and leave my husband. Well I went in - it was a beautiful home.
But the fire place was facing the door to the great room. Right behind the fire place was the kitchen.
And its an "L" shape, but it was small. I was used to a large kitchen. And the washroom was very
small, and then the table, the kitchen table, it was really close together. And it looked as if... only
if you could sit on the end it would be comfortable. Doesn't seem as if you could be comfortable.
And, I had 5 children, and I am 1 of 16 children. There is fourteen of us living. And when my
sisters and brothers come, they come to my house. All of us are kinda hefty, and I just... I just had
nightmares. I got claustrophobia looking at that, thinking about my family. And I needed some
pantry space. Cause I had some pantry space. So I asked him if I could look some place else and
he said yes, I want you to be satisfied.
Interviewer: That is interesting. So all through this really, the representative from the coal
company has worked closely with you to make sure that you were satisfied. And you feel like he
was very honest with you?
Resident: Yes
Interviewer: That's good. What was the arrangement in terms of were they going to purchase your
current home and pay for a new one. Or they...
Resident: They.... these people are purchasing my home and giving me a new one. Debt free. And
they'll landscape it for me, fence my yard. And he was going to give me a carport, but I had so
much stuff that I need some storage. I had a little storage building but I didn't think that would be
large enough for they could move it. So, I told him that I wanted a garage. And then I could put
some stuff in the garage. And the young men who was doing it... I thought that a 1 car garage
would be enough of storage space, and so we bought a package. And he said that I should have 2... a
2 car, in order to have ample storage room. So, this is what we're trying to do. And he was going
to give me what he was going to pay for the carport, for the garage.
Interviewer: So you'll have to pay the difference, a little bit, but that is okay by you.
Resident: Yes
Interviewer: So you feel like you got a very good deal. Have you talked to the company about
anything else? Do you have any dealing with them about blasting or anything else that the
community has experienced?
-------
Resident: Well now with the blasting, even before it started... they came by and they told us. And
they did, that was why they did appraisals of our homes and took pictures. And so that in case the
damage was done because of the blasting, they would pay for the damages. And this was one of the
things they said. And now since it has started, you know, we hear it sometimes. But he told us
anytime, just let them know, you know, if it disturbs you. And one of the things he was trying to
do with me, he said he wanted to put me up on the end by the church. Because my husband was
living, and he wanted him to be away from the bridge and not get the noise of the trucks coming
across the bridge. And one of the things, I know about the men who working and cleaning off my
property, they was throwing stuff in the creek. And I stopped them. Then one came and cut down
the tree and let it fall in the creek. And I told him. He said oh no, they'll get it up, he made them
get it up. And this was one of the things he's doing, he trying to work that way, to be sure that
things are not messed up, not done wrong.
Interviewer: Did they come in and talk to you, and to people in the community before they started
surface mining at all?
Resident: When they came in they... Well, when he came through, talking about the property, he
told me what he was going to do. And the original plan, he said, was they was going to put in a shaft
mine, up behind the mountain. And that he told me, he said, they don't plan to truck coal through
the community. They're building a conveyor belt to go, I think to the plant at Stirrat.. and that's were
they plan to send their coal.
Interviewer: So you had information about what was going to happen
Resident: Yes
Interviewer: How satisfied are you with everything that has been arranged, for you, in terms of your
move?
Resident: I've been satisfied, it's just going slower than I had thought it would. But ah, and I keep
telling my daughter, but she was getting upset. And I said, we can't move ahead of Gods plans for
us. He always in control, and we have to wait on him. And the other day when I was getting a little
anxious, cause the cold weathers coming... And they put my new home in place in June, and then
they didn't get everything finished. We... well was it June? We started to put furniture in there in
August. We spent our first night in the home the 8th of October and we been moving in ever since.
Waiting for them to get things, you know, fixed. And the landscaping well, instead of doing some
of the grading before they put down this... They had to get, my home came in first then they had
to get it off the lot, 'cause it took up most of "specific name" lot. So they had to get it in place. And
so they, this is why they started the way they did. And then they're putting in another home above
me and its cheaper, he explained to me, its cheaper to have multiple work done then to do one single
thing. And this is what he's trying to do. And he said that the more he can save, on the landscaping
and all, he'll be able to more. And ah that was one of the reasons he gave us the carport. And he
went to the Health Department to see if it would be possible for us to use the same sewage system
and so that saved money, freed up money for him to use, you know, towards the landscaping. And
so I been very, you know, agreeable with him, because he's doing everything, you know, to try to
-------
please us. And this is, now going back to "specific name", with the home at Fleetwood... he had
gone down and he knew a lot of things. But he's not pushy he won't, wouldn't try to get me to
change my mind. He would ask me questions, you know, make sure. And when he came in and
talked with my children and they were asking him questions. And he said yeah, he said this is some
of the things he was concerned about, and he said, I don't want you mother to be taken advantage
of. He said, and I'm not going see, allow her to be. And he said, I want the same things for her that
I want for my mother. And he said these are some things that need to be taken care of. He became
so emotional when he was talking about that, and I just thank God that he's like that. And he
pointed out to them some things that they needed to look for and be concerned about. So that's the
kind of support I have in him.
Interviewer: That's really wonderful.
Resident: Yes. And when I called him about some things, he said well let me call the company and
see what we can do. And then call me and said it would be all right.
Interviewer: So you have faith that he'll stick to that.
Resident: I do, I do
Interviewer: What about ah, do you, how do you feel about your decisions to move? You've
explained that you feel like it s the right thing to do and that's...
Resident: Well, I, originally, I stand on my faith in God, in the Word of God. 'Cause you know
it says if I obey him and the Word dwell in me ... I can ask anything in his name and it will come
unto me. And based on that, and I prayed and even when this was going on and my husband asked
to stay in Omar, everyone saying you know, you don't need to be hearing about all of this. And I
asked, "specific name" about the dust and he said that... you know, he told me what he planned to
do. And then I know there's Federal, Federal regulations they have to do all they can to control the
dust. But I prayed and asked the Lord he knew exactly what was going to take place in Superior
Bottom. And if it would not be a place that would be good for my health or good for my husband...
don't let me stay in there. No matter what we felt, don't let us stay where we would be in danger.
And ' cause it's my desire to be where I can serve him and where he wants me to be. And even with
the home, when it was going to be up in front of the church, I had even asked the Lord, you know,
about that. But then I asked him, I said where ever in here where it will glorify you, because I want
my home to glorify you. And still please me and meet my needs. And this is where we're moving
to the spot where I am. And that is the best spot. Better than the one where we were going to be.
And I am content on that.
Interviewer: Let me back up a little bit and ask you about something else you had mentioned. You
said that you had initially talked to the company about selling out, that you expressed to them their
desire to see the people that lived in the community could get jobs. One of the things that I wanted
to ask you about is what did you see as the benefit... ah what benefits did you see coming from the
coal mining coming in to do surface mining. Did those jobs become a reality? Were there other
benefits that you saw?
-------
Resident: They haven't become a reality, yet. Because the permit has been held up, and they really
haven't be able to start mining the coal. They have just progressed into building the road. They're
building the road now, trying to get that in. And hoping and expecting to get the permit. But, the
last thing... last time I talked "specific name" about it, this is one of the things he said, that they are
still waiting to get the permit. But, they believe that they will get it. And as far as the people, you
know, being... having jobs, you know, they had to move. And the young men, one of them is in
Huntingdon. And the other one is in Logan. He is working at, I think, Bob Evans. Of course his
father has another job. But his father was re-called back to the mine that he worked for. But, he's
had a lot of health problems, a lot of surgery. And he said that this time it just didn't feel
comfortable with going back to the mine. And the other two men... one has a back injury; and the
other one went to work at the jail. And, of course he is off now with surgery and recovering from
that.
Interviewer: Did they end up finding other work?
Resident: Yes they did.
Interviewer: Do you think that there will be other benefits from the surface mining coming in or
are there some that I am not seeing?
Well I really believe that... well in fact one of the things that I am expecting and maybe it is just
hoping. That the mines start working and they get all of their equipment and get the land fixed like
they want to. I am expecting them to put in modular homes, ah manufactured homes. Maybe for
some of the workers. But, this is one of the things that I am expecting them to develop the
community, and develop the land.
Interviewer: That is a very good... that would be a wonderful benefit.
Resident: Umm hum, it is.
Interviewer: Are there any other impacts that you have noticed? Let me re-phrase that. Over the
course of time that you have lived there, how would you say the quality of life may or may not have
change in relationship to the mining coming in? Did it change that at all?
Resident: Well, from the beginning the quality of life has, you know, dropped because of the lack
of mines and the lack of jobs. And with this mine coming in it hasn't improved anything the other
than to free up the animals and nature to feel free to come in. And the peace that we usually have
until, you hear, we hear the noise and stuff. But, I guess I've always... I, I can adjust to a change.
When things start... I look for and expect the best. Until I feel, you know, that it is not going to
happen. With this I am just expecting some positive effects.
Interviewer: Well that is good. I hope that that is the case.
Resident: Yeah
Interviewer: Were there any negative changes at all?
-------
No more than losing my neighbors, and losing the children. Well at one time we didn't have a dog,
in the community. You know, not near, but then the people that lived around in Holler had a dog.
Things like that, those are things that I miss and I would say is negative.
Interviewer: What kind of information do you ever see published out about the permit activity and
the mining activity? Other than what you have been told first hand do you read anything or see
anything?
Resident: I haven't been keeping up with it lately, but the last thing I read about was, you know,
the case that is involving Blair. It had been returned to West Virginia. And the last I heard it was
still held up, they had not made a decision on it. And until this decision is finalized the permits are
being held up until after that decision is confirmed. That is the last that I've seen of that.
Interviewer: You read the paper regularly and take the paper?
Resident: I take, I take the Logan Banner and I take the Williamson New. And I try to keep up
with it. I try to listen to the news, but for the last three weeks or maybe more. I haven't been really
effective in doing that. Because when I get my paper behind, I'm reading my paper. And I end up
falling asleep, (laughing)
Interviewer: Well you are busy these days with moving. Do you ever.. .remember ever seeing in
the paper, did you read that permit information that was posted in there
Resident: Yes
Interviewer: Did you find that it was ledge able and helpful to you?
Resident: Yes. I really did. I found out what exactly what was going on, and where it would be.
And you know, I understood that part. And then I attended one of the meetings, that was when they
came in and explained. I didn't hear... and one of the other meetings we had a representative from
our community to go and they came back and brought us the information. So we try to keep up with
it that way.
Interviewer: So they have been effective in sharing information? And that has been good? Okay.
Resident: Yes. And then, I've asked "specific name" you know, exactly what were they planning.
And he would explain, you know, some of the barriers that they keep running into. One time he
thought that Massey was going to back out. But, he went to the meeting and they told him, no, they
were still going to go ahead. Because he is part of what you call the Stirrat Coal Company. Stirrat
Coal Company is the company that will be operating under they Massey umbrella.
Interviewer: How do you spell that.. .the company.
Resident: S-T-I-R-R-A-T
-------
Interviewer: I have seen that name. There's a town close by, right?
Resident: Yes, it is. It is above... up there. And that is where the tipple is, you know, or
preparation plant.
Interviewer: Okay. I am trying to make sure that I asked you everything that I wanted to be sure
and ask... Is there anything else that I didn't ask you about that you want to talk to me about or tell
me about. It is about ten of one so...
Resident: There isn't anything else that I can think... Other than, I just thank God that he let me
have the relationship that I had with "specific name" and he gaves me someone with integrity. And
you know, that I really can respect. Because I couldn't deal with people that I don't respect. So far
from the day.. .first day I met him he has been a man of his word. And he has.. .and he has gone
through some things, trying to keep his word. But he is a wise businessman. And if you are in
business you have to try to operate as economically as you can, and he is no different than a smart
businessman. And I said, but when he gives his word and he follows through with it.
Interviewer: In your experience has that been the case for the others who lived around you as well?
Resident: Yes. And this is one of the things that even now... One young man very close to me got
anxious, and he... Well actually, if had not been for the grace of God he could have gone to jail for
what he did. And uh, it upset "specific name" terribly, but God was merciful to him. And he got
out of it.
Interviewer: How fortunate then that the company and the community were able to maintain the
relationship despite that.
Resident: Yes. Well actually it was one of the things that involved him and the people that he had
bought the property from. He signed their name.
Interviewer: Humm... so he signed falsely?
Resident: Right. That was it... He had, he had lied to "specific name" and he is trying to be sure
the everything is legal and right.
Interviewer: Let me ask you actually other thing if you still have a little bit... You tell me, if you
have to go you tell me.
Resident: Okay. Yeah, because I have a meeting with the lawyer and I need to let him know I'm
coming. I have to pick up the young man. Okay.
Interviewer: This is my question and you tell me if you want to answer it. Uhm.. .Now I'm going
to forget what I was going to ask you. It went right out of my head. But, I basically I think that we
covered everything.
-------
Resident: Okay
Interviewer: And I really appreciate you taking the time.
Resident: Okay. And I know Massey's done a lot of things. And I know in my community, even
with the people that dealt honestly with him, they received the same type treatment. We had some
who tried to deal on it dishonestly and they wanted to get more than their property was worth. We
had some people's houses that no one lived in, they were abandoned. And some haven't lived in
them for years. And they wanted to get a huge amount of money. They got angry with him because
he refused to pay. If they would sell it out-right some of them would not get $5,000 dollars, but they
were wanting $50,000... $30,000 and $50,000 dollars. Forthis house thathad no porch, it's leaking,
and all of that. And so I believe in being honest and fair. I know that even with my home the way
it is, it was... I have the better deal. Cause if I had lived in that house, again, I would have had
massive renovations and repairs. But, God has blessed me to move into one that I won't have to
worry about repairs for a while.
Interviewer: And you feel like you described the community's future as something of a rebirth.
So it sounds as if you have plenty of good faith that the quality of life there is going to continue to
improve.
Resident: Yes
Interviewer: And you are not concerned about... company's use of the other property degrading
the future of that area?
Resident: No, no. In fact, I see a positive thing in it, and that is what I am expecting. Well, in fact,
I tell them when I have a big mouth and I don't know any better than to express how I feel. And if
it is going wrong, I think I can speak to whoever is there to let them know how I feel and that I think
it is wrong. But, I have to stay aware of the laws and, you know, be sure that I let them know that
"Hey" you are out of the guidelines. And when I do that and people know that you know what they
are supposed to be doing - they respect you for it. And then they won't try to do something illegal.
Interviewer: I very much hope that is the case. I applaud your faith and really that is a wonderful
thing.
Resident: Well thank you. And this is the way that I operate and this... and God has been merciful
to me. And he has given me favor with "specific name" and ah... my son that lives in Albuquerque.
Well all of them were concerned. They was thinking I was being taken advantage of. And my son
came in and he has a friend that runs the service station. In fact, they were in Cub Scouts together,
graduated from high school together. And he went down and he was talking with him about his
concern. This young man is a friend to "specific name." And "specific name" had discussed me
with this friend. And he had told him of all the people in the bottom that he was definitely going to
see that I got what I wanted. I had not harassed him. I tried not to harass him. I've tried to be
honest and up front with him. So I said... well I told him, I said well before I went into this I prayed.
And, I said that when I started I had to stand on my faith, and I believe it is going to all right.
-------
Interviewer: Well good.
Resident: It is taking me a long time. It will. And you know? I have to say this too: When I was
young, we lived at Pine Creek. And the dust sometime from the tipple would cover our porch and
we lived through that. We moved over here when they first started truck in with this. In Superior
Bottom it was just... you couldn't sit on your porch from the dust. Then the Federal laws, you know,
improved that. And I know now that we don't have to live like that. The dust has had an affect on
other people's health. I am not too sure of what has happened to me to me that caused me to develop
asthma, but I know that God is still in control. And he will help us and we, we need to work with
the people that have the mine, and they need to work with us. And try say "Hey" let us earn a
living, but let us keep it as safe as possible. And I think that if we approach each other with respect
and understanding we can get there faster and much easier than we can when we be start fighting
each other and go with the a combative attitude.
Interviewer: That is a very healthy and good way to approach it.
Resident: It is. That, to me, is the best way to approach any situation if you want to resolve it
peacefully.
Interviewer: Good. Sounds like it worked, too.
Resident: It is.. .it does. It does.
Interviewer: Thank you for sharing all of that with me and I really appreciate it. Taking your time.
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Werth, West Virginia
Interviewer: Why don't you start off by telling me how you came to live here. You said it was
a boarding house before you moved in. When about was that and what brought you here?
Subject: I have lived here since I was three years old. Sixty-seven years. And my father was
a, he worked for the, first he was their mechanic, Ely Thomas Lumber company. And then he was
a work boss in charge of their camp. So, he got married in Montana in 1915 and when they came
back from Korea why we lived here.
Interviewer: Did you move here because you had family ties or to work at the lumber company
or?
Subject: He worked for a truck tractor and trailer and hauled lumber.
Interviewer: And your family has lived here for awhile, so you have a pretty good image in your
mind of what this community was like before they really started to do a lot of strip mining around
here?
Subject: Yes.
Interviewer: Can you tell me a little bit about what that was like compared to what it might have
been like during the strip mining and after? What was the community, from what we understand
predominantly made up of the lumber industry and families working there.
Subject: Yes. Nicholas County, Ely Thomas Lumber company was Nicholas County's biggest
employer. Before the coal companies came in.
Interviewer: Some one was explaining to us that it was the second largest mill in ah, how did he
say?
Interviewer II: I forget how that one huh,
Interviewer: Second largest mill in, in almost like the Eastern United States or something like that,
I think he said.
Subject II: That is the biggest lumberyard in the Eastern United States.
Interviewer: Yeah, yeah. Pretty big and nice huh? So then, when about did the mill close down
actually? I don't think I know that.
Subject: This one burned in '59.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 1
-------
Interviewer: So that was after they had already started to strip mine in here?
Subject: Umm, humm. This one here on the hill, Mr. Ely had umm the last part of it, had ' em
shut it down because they were blasting and jarring the mill. So, some of it they had left. Not much,
but some of the coal there.
Interviewer: He had them shut down the strip mining you mean?
Subject: Yes. Because of it was... of jarring his mill.
Interviewer: So then, when the strip mining moved into the area did you, what kind of changes
did you notice to the community at that point.
Subject: Well not right here, not much. But on down a way the stream started filling up.
Interviewer: And that was from them, putting over the land in the holler.
Subject: Washing down in the spring.
Interviewer: So that had an impact on the physical environment, you know the streams and the
flooding?
Subject: Oh yes, it is building back up here; it is going to eventually be back up here again.
Interviewer II: Do you still think there is sediment being washed down from the spoils or
from the mining operations?
Subject: Oh there'd have to be.
Interviewer: Is there any changes that you saw in the people who lived around here? Where there,
for example did they hire a lot of people from the community to work at the mines or did the people
move in?
Subject II: Well, the mines, there are some big mines around Tioga. On up the road up here was
a big mine and things and there was a lot of people that worked. But then after they got the
machinery and strip mining doesn't hire them...
Interviewer: Those people mostly moved out to find other jobs?
Subject II: Oh yeah. The young people though.
Interviewer II: So the older people, you know...
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 2
-------
Subject: Were still in this County.
Interviewer II: .. .were sort of established here and didn't want to move out because they
owned property or had ties to the area verses the younger people who were and, had more of an
opportunity to move outside for employment I guess.
Subject: Yeah they needed jobs, so they moved out.
Interviewer: What other kinds of physical impacts or changes did you see? Did you, did your
house shake from the blasting?
Subject: Well, one time we had one episode where they blew rocks down and came from
across the side road and we had to get on them about that. They came down to see about, that is
when "specific name" ran the company.
Interviewer II: Who did you, did you actually contact this mine operator up here? How did
you know who to contact?
Subject II: This use to be Island Creek when they were doing that. And they were pretty good.
Subject: The had lots of stuff at Craigsville, down to 7 miles up the road. Than ah ....
Subject II: But their tipple and everything was on back then on this mountain, so we didn 't have
much dust from tipple.
Interviewer II: Right.
Subject: When they came right around this edge we did, they worked on our chimney. Some
that blasting did and then when they blew that rock down.
Interviewer: But they came, you say they came and worked on your chimney when you talked to
them about it or?
Subject II: No we never bother to talked to them about the chimney.
Subject: Not until they washed out our road.
Interviewer: Did you not bother about the chimney because you figured they weren't going to do
anything about it or.... Just figured it wasn't that big of a deal?
Subject: Oh, it was pretty hard to prove whether they did it or not. You can hear things rattle
in the house when they sent off a blast but you couldn't really prove they cracked the chimney.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 3
-------
Interviewer II: You couldn't prove what was there before and after a certain time period.
Subject II: Anyhow we never bothered too much. As long as it didn't bother us directly. It
didn't make too much difference. Though there was a lot of people at that time working.
Interviewer II: Now was your water supply then affected would you say?
Subject: Well after they ah, they use to use this holler, they used the water that came out of
it. When they had a boarding house here. But after they put the coalmines in it ruined the water.
You couldn't use it.
Interviewer II: Where do you folks get your water from now?
Subject: We have a well. We have a ... How many foot well?
Subject II: We just have a well out there out back.
Subject: That's a well house. Where you come in, that is a well house. And it is deep. What
75 feet? And it is down to a stream it goes through.
Interviewer II: You don't have any problems with your water then now?
Subject: Not now.
Interviewer: But you didn't have, you were on that well, you were on that well system when they
were right up here on the ridge? Even doing their work? Have any problems with it then?
Subject: Other than the water being yellow. It had some iron in it.
Subject II: Too much iron in it. But that doesn't maybe, probably had something to do with the
mines up there. That was all deep mine most of it. And then they come through and took out, took
of the tops of the deep mines to get the coal that they left.
Interviewer: Did you do any work for the deep mines? In here?
Subject II: I never worked in the mines. I don't haul coal. I hauled a little bit from the backside
of the mountain, a time or two. My boss had me haul some. After that flood, I think they donated
some coal to the people that had been flooded out in Webster County. My boss donated the trucks
and we went and hauled some coal up to Webster County.
Interviewer II: Which flood was that? When was that?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 4
-------
Subject: It has been a long time.
Subject II: The Gauley River.
Interviewer II: Was this Agnes? Back in the seventies?
Subject: It seemed back then, right" specific name"?
Subject II: Yeah it was in sometime in the seventies.
Interviewer II: Probably Agnes, Hurricane Agnes, that came through. It seemed like it...
Subject: No, I don't think it, I don't believe it had a hurricane or anything connected to it. It
just rained 18 inches.
Interviewer II: Oh, okay
Subject II: It rained up in the headwaters of the Greenbrier River.
Interviewer II: That would cause some damage.
Subject II: It always makes it really bad for a while. Just too much rain up the river.
Interviewer II: Sure. Exactly.
Subject II: Hadn't been any rain like that for a long time. So people that moved in were afraid.
Interviewer: Did ah, did you all notice any specific benefits form the industry being here? You
know did they build a company store that was more convenient for you or did the schools improve
or anything like that?
Subject: Well, there one time they had a thing in Charlestown Gazette that Nicholas County
was one of the richest counties in the state. Some of the homes around that was built by people that
had coal, you know, millionaires and stuff like that, you know...
Interviewer: So you have read about some benefits to the whole county but you don't necessarily
know of any in Werth?
Subject: No.
Subject II: Yeah there just wasn't any ... There are a few people that lived here now and then
that worked in the mines or something. Didn't have too much direct contact with them. I went to
work after the mill burnt down, and the company sold out what they had, I went to work for the coal
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 5
-------
company. Well it was a trucking company that hauled down below Summersville. It was the deep
mines we hauled out of.
Interviewer II: So, that was your change of employment from working for the lumber
company over here, when that went out of business from the fire, I assume, then you got
employment with the coal companies transporting coal for them?
Subject II: Yeah I had already been driving a truck about 13 years when they...
Interviewer II: You had the experience that they needed?
Subject II: So, I got a job driving truck for the coal company.
Interviewer: What umm, what else can you tell me about, you know... after the coal companies
left, how would you say the community changed from that period? You know what I mean? There
were people living here, a few of them working for the mines, when they were mining and you had,
you know, the physical impacts like blasting and things like that, did it... Did any of the benefits
carry over after they left or did it just get better in terms of physical impacts? What would you say?
Were there any changes from that sort of transition period?
Subject: Well, we lost a school down here. The umm, all the young people grew up and moved
away.
Interviewer: Had any of them been employed with the coal company? That you could say 'Well,
when the coal company left they lost those jobs and moved away and therefore the school had to
close?'
Subject: I don't think that that many of them; some of them was employed by the coal
companies. But up and down through here we are just all getting older and nobody sells any of their
land and so...
Interviewer: There aren't any more kids to go to school?
Subject: And the kids just grew up like ours done. He is like....he married a girl from
Pittsburgh, by the way. And they both teach school in Parkersburg now.
Interviewer: So, really most of them moved away for jobs?
Subject II: Most of them. The ones that didn't want to work in the mines left.
Subject: Well, when they went to college, there wasn't anything around here for them to do.
I know my granddaughter went to, she is up next to Washington, which isn't a good place to be right
now.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 6
-------
Interviewer: A little scary, yeah.
Subject: But she works for a computer company in human resource management. She is a hire
and fire. (Laughter)
Interviewer II: She's got the fun job.
Subject: She had to lay off a bunch here last week.
Interviewer II: Oh boy, she makes some tough decisions.
Subject: Yeah.
Interviewer II: What was, in terms of, during that activity about fifty years ago the, you
would say that the lumber company was the largest employer and the mining company, the mining
operations came in and they became the largest employer. Is that what you had said before?
Subject: No.
Interviewer II: After the mines went away then what was the major employment around here?
Is that sort of, it is sort of a unique second trans... situation, where the lumber company really
wasn't around because of what had happened there. So it's almost a real, I am looking at it as a real
hardship for this area because the mines went away, the lumber company burned down, so what did
people do then after that time maybe in the '60s and '70s what did you do for employment? I know
what you did ...
Subject: I worked for the Board of Education.
Interviewer: All the way through that period?
Subject: Yeah. I started in '69.
Interviewer II: But what was the major, where did people that lived here, where did they go
for their employment or...?
Subject II: Whatever mines were working. Different places. This one didn't go out 'til...
Subject: This one back up in here just went out in the last... well they are working some now,
over in there. Out back over in there. But I don't think, what they do here was they closed down
and then they open up a little with bit with non-union miners. And that is what they did.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 7
-------
Subject II: What is the bank there on the corner on cemetery road where Farmer's America use
to be? What is the name of it now?
Subject: The BB&T.
Subject II: If you go in there you can see some of the pictures of the miners that worked in this
area.
Interviewer II: Oh interesting.
Subject: They have these long pictures.
Subject II: They have these long pictures of the whole crew that was out.
Interviewer II: Like the panoramic type.
Subject: Yeah.
Subject II: They was sitting out in front of the mines either in the morning or evening, sometime.
Interviewer II: So some people actually continued to work up at this mining operation?
Subject: Yeah, until not too many years a go.
Interviewer II: But what did the maj ority of the people that lived around in this area what did
they do after the majority of the mining activity left? Because we had mentioned before that once
the heavy equipment started to be used then the employment, the amount of labor that that you
needed wasn't as, the need wasn't there to have a lot of, you know, labor to be involved in the
mining operations, maybe what it use to be at one time. Do you have a sense for what local
employment was? Where people worked?
Subject II: Well it went down in West Virginia - all over. The population, there for a while was
going down. And they went to North Carolina, Ohio ...
Subject: Fast food places - work around down at Summersville. You got all kind of fast food
places and motels and ...
Interviewer: So they are working at those commercial places down in other cities close by? Like
Summersville and maybe go up to even as far as?
Subject II: There are several still works in woods and things and they won't leave this country.
They built a mill, you know right on down by Roywood in Summersville.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 8
-------
Subject: That one down here, yeah it is a big operation.
Interviewer II: Where do they get their lumber? They actually go with the mining companies?
Because there is a lot of timber there to be harvested in these mountaintop mining operations, do
they get their lumber from..?
Subject: I don't think so.
Subject: Ah they use to get it from; they still buy it from some of the holdings of the lumber
or ah coal companies. They still probably some of them buys from them.
Interviewer II: But they have their own properties that they ah ...
Subject II: They got to have some property and then a lot of it is just brought in. The logs are
just brought in by independent truckers. I suppose some of them buy and sell, buy logs and timber
and stuff. Because, there are a lot of different trucks that comes in here.
Subject: This kind of a mill now aren't any more. It's got two, they have compartments for
them to sit in and they just push buttons.
Interviewer II: They are all laser-guided saws now a day. It is really amazing how times
have changed.
Subject: That what it is.
Subject II: You have this double band mill coming now. And they don't employ near as many
as the old mill like this here. They really can't afford it. For the lumber to sell for that high. They
don't stack lumber any more. They like stack it when it comes out of the mill, but they don't dry
it or anything.
Interviewer II: Yeah, at that time with the stacks, the smoke stacks on that picture they had
a kiln or something there?
Subject II: Yeah, well they run the mill with steam.
Interviewer II: That is true. The run the mill with steam and that what?
Subject II: That is what the smoke stack is for.
Interviewer II: They didn't actually have a kiln there that they used?
Subject II: Not at this mill, they had one at Fenway. They had a motor....
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 9
-------
Subject: They have two mills.
Subject II: They kept it in the yard 30 to 60 days. The lumber, to let it dry out. And before they
sold most of it.
Interviewer II: They sold it.
Subject II: So it was all stacked behind here. Didn't have any end-loaders then. They laid it on
the truck by hand.
Interviewer II: A lot of hard work I am sure. A lot of splinters to be had.
Subject: The wages back then was low really. I think your dad worked for almost 50 cents an
hour, didn't he?
Subject: He worked 10 hours a day, $2 a day when it first started here in the 30s.
Interviewer II: That was the depression time too.
Subject: Yeah. Yeah in the 30s. He was glad to have that $2 a day.
Subject II: Companies just don't stay any more. They don't want to stay anymore. That what
happens to the jobs, people just,... that is why they are wandering all over the country, hunting jobs
you see.
Interviewer II: Go where the labor pools are at.
Subject II: Yeah you don' t know when you work for a company whether it is going to last or not.
It may last five years it may last ten or fifteen. But not very many of them any more last thirty or
forty.
Interviewer II: Yeah it is really hard to find a lot of big old companies around, like G.E. or
whomever you know, that stood the test of time. These small start up companies, boy you have to
wonder how long they are going to stay in business and how lucrative they could be.
Subject: Well you can't depend on that. A cousin worked for RCA and he got moved, was
laid off from them, several years ago. They just, everybody that had worked under so many years,
ten something like that, and he had worked for a little under ten. And they said well they didn't
want to lay him off be he was under the guidelines, so... He had to find somewhere else to go. That
was when you didn't think about RCA being, ...
Interviewer: Yeah. They were a good business.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 10
-------
Interviewer II: Exactly.
Subject: So you can't depend on any company now.
Interviewer II: So over all you didn't, probably, you folks didn't really see any direct benefit
from having the mine here, whether or not it was a good or bad thing? But there was really no
benefit that you got from it?
Subject: Not ah, no. Of course we didn't work for them or anything...
Subject II: Never worked in the mines...
Interviewer II: Mostly in this community, it sounds like from the people we have talked to,
never really had any benefits from the mines being here, except for the few that might have actually
worked for the mines.
Subject II: Yeah the ones that worked for it.
Interviewer II: But ah, do you know of, do you have any senses of how many people in this
area may have worked for the mines. Actually had direct benefit from it, because that was their job?
At lot, many, very few?
Subject: Did you all talk to the people down next door? I can't remember their name. In the
next hollow. Did you all talk to them? He worked up here.
Interviewer: No we haven' t spoken to any one yet who worked up here. We got the names, I don' t
know if I remember if I told you or not, we ... the handful of people we're talking to were just
selected at random from the people who own property in here. You know we, there are records at
the county courthouses who owns the property.
Subject: Well he owns his property.
Interviewer: Well his name might have been on there but his name might not have been selected
at random. You know we didn't...
Subject II: It wouldn't, his house didn't make the long list.
Subject: He would of have had more idea of how many from around here might have worked
up there.
Subject II: Yeah there were a lot of them that went up that hill in the morning, up there. And we
had no idea how.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 11
-------
Interviewer II: Had no idea where they might have came from?
Subject: No. No.
Subject II: No, they was from all around.
Interviewer II: So it wasn't like the local population here benefited as a whole because that
is where their jobs came from. It doesn't, from what we're saying, ...
Subject II: Well, after everybody had got an automobile, after the 2nd World War and the
distance didn't matter much when this place come here and went to work. They stayed here. This
building right here, and they worked at the mill and things like that.
Subject: And went home on the weekends.
Subject II: Now if you could go over around Widen, you could really get you some stories. If
you found some of the older people from Widen. Once they had a hospital and school, company
houses, it was a town over there a mining town.
Interviewer II: Yeah, that's interesting. We've heard that story too where a coal company
comes in, there is basically nothing there; they actually set up a town almost, for their workers.
That's some of the unique cases that we've, ...
Subject: Hospital the whole works. Whole town works there, and he didn't want them to leave.
Subject II: Tioga was sort of a mining town too. That's just up the roadway from here. I have
been through Tioga logging stuff, but I never,... We hauled the logs, some of the logs out of that
country back in there where they did the mines.
Interviewer: Now was Tioga and Widen were those towns mostly built up from the underground
mining.
Subject: Underground mines yeah. When they started this, however, I remember when they
put the dam in down here, Summersville Dam, they said that, Mrs. Johnson, they came in you now
to dedicate it and she said, "What's all those rings on the hill?" As they said she said. That's about
the time they started doing all of that. That was a mess and it is really sickening to see it. Piles of
mounds out here. Oh, it looked like a moonscape, when they did that.
Interviewer: Yeah, we noticed as we were coming down 19 you could see now that it is all covered
in grass and kind of, ...
Subject: When you first seen it, ohhh, It was horrible.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 12
-------
Interviewer II: What umm, you said that you, you of course had steady work hauling and
driving a truck during that time that they were mining here, right up above you. Did the company
ever talk to you about purchasing your home or buying you out from the impact or any thing else
like that?
Subject II: No they never said anything about that.
Interviewer: Did you have any interaction with the company before they came into mine? Did
they talk to the community? Or how did you find out? Did you read about notices in the paper or
things like that?
Subject II: Oh they sent you notices they was going to blast.
Interviewer: Oh they did? They sent it to your house or... ?
Subject II: They sent it in the mail, registered letters. You could go to the post office and pick
it up if you wasn't home when the mail boy comes with it.
Interviewer: They still do that at our, once in awhile I get a registered letter I have to go and pick
up because I can't get it in my mailbox. And ah, where I live. So, so you never, do you ever see
those now? Those permits postings in the newspaper?
Subject: They put a thing in the newspaper.
Subject II: I look at them once in awhile but most of them are out of our district anymore, so I
don't pay much attention to them.
Interviewer: They put them in the local paper or in the...?
Subject II: Oh, they put them in, this Chronicle and the Charlestown Gazette, too. I think of all
the times, where they were applying for permits and stuff.
Interviewer: So, but mostly you found out what was going on because they sent you a letter or
because you saw it happening?
Subject II: Well it was, they didn't, they didn't do, they didn't go around, I don't think, to
everybody and everything back then. They just started out, more or less just grew into stripping.
They started out mining and then they, wanted more of the coal out so, it just grew into a strip job.
Interviewer: Did you ever think about leaving here because of what was going on?
Subject II: Oh I never guess particularly no. 'Cause it was going on all around us.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 13
-------
Subject: Know what there was a little coal mine up here for years. Somebody had one up here;
"specific name" had one. I had one up here for years.
Interviewer II: Is that the under ground mine you still see the equipment, like the elevator?
Subject: No, No. That is up above it.
Subject II: Yeah that is "specific name".
Subject: But ah no, it is on down this way. Where that nice house is. Right there beside of
it. They had one for years, you know, but you never knew anything about it. There was no blasting
around or anything.
Interviewer: Right. Right.
Subject II: Well there is all kinds of deep mines like this but,...
Subject: Back in through there I guess.
Subject II: This hill up here, and then they wanted the coal that was left so they stripped it off.
Subject: And I don't know what they ever finished stripping all of it or not, cause of that 21
foot seam they said they had. They never, ... they said they'd be there for years and they weren't
there that many ...
Subject II: They stripped what was up here I think. It's gone. They owned clear to Powell
Mountain to the mountaintop.
Interviewer II: So other than the water erosion coming down, the water runoff, down the
holler here, that was probably your major impact from the mining operations? Is that correct?
Subject II: Never bother us more than anything else around here.
Interviewer II: Some of the smaller things might have been some of the blasting and maybe
some of the rocks that might have been flying down off the hillside there.
Subject II: Yeah, but it never did hit our house here. It hit one of the others over there at one
time. But it hit the ground and rolled into the ...
Interviewer II: Was it a pretty sizable rock that might have caused some pretty good damage?
Subject II: Oh, if it had hit on the roof it would have.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 14
-------
Interviewer II: It would have gone through the roof.
Interviewer: That's fortunate then that it didn't.
Interviewer II: Exactly.
Subject II: But that has happened in this country from roads and strip mines and everything. But
we don't have any coasters yet.
Interviewer II: What do you like most about this area in terms of Werth itself and the entire
area that you live in and have lived in for many years?
Subject II: Oh, it just got to be home.
Interviewer II: What you call home.
Subject II: Yeah, we have another place but we just never,... got use to this one here.
Subject: We have property in another county, over in there.
Interviewer II: This is where you call home though?
Subject II: Yeah, we have been here since I got out of the service in '53.
Interviewer: And you never thought about moving there even though you have that property, huh?
Subject: Well, we thought about it.
Subject II: We thought about it for a time or two.
Subject: Just couldn't get going.
Interviewer: Yeah. Yeah. So you seem to be settled in one place. You don't really want to pick
up and move.
Subject: We've got so much here.
Interviewer: I know that feeling.
Subject II: Well we both stayed here until we retired.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 15
-------
Interviewer II: I know the feeling. My wife and I just got done moving into our first home
and ah, and I think we are ready to stay there as long as it takes so we don't have to pack things up
again and move it. That is a job and a half. That is a deterrent not to move. Is all the work you have
to do to pack stuff up.
Subject II: Packing stuff is her favorite work. The garage is full. The basement is full.
Interviewer II: A lot of stuff.
Interviewer: Well you know, I think we covered pretty much...
Interviewer II: Off the list of questions, we' ve gone over about everything we wanted to try
and talk to you about today.
Interviewer: Was there anything else that you wanted to tell us or talk about.
Subject II: I don't know. We tried to get along with everybody around, you know. We never
bothered the companies much. Bothered us a whole lot but...
Interviewer II: Over all, like I said you didn't have much impact other than the storm water
run-off, up, down the hollow. You didn't really have much impact form the mining operations.
Subject II: No, not much I guess.
Interviewer II: Now, we still had another topic, the sawmill itself, I mean that was your
mainstay of employment to begin with. But ah ...
Subject II: Yeah that is what brought me to this place.
Interviewer II: How many workers worked at the mill, in its hay day, if you will?
Subject II: "specific name" would know more reliably.
Subject: Oh no.
Subject II: Yes, you did dear. Owned witch camps for a long time.
Subject: And their own trucking, had about 12 or 14 truckers and they had ...
Interviewer II: They would all come into this facility, this plant down here, right?
Subject: Yeah. And they would bring in the logs and then they had a couple that worked in
the mill and down in the... unload the lumber down on the set.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 16
-------
Subject II: They had two, I think they had two wet lumber crews and two dry lumber crews and
loaded the lumber out.
Subject: "Specific name", "specific name" was in charge of them. What was he in charge of?
He's in charge of the, umm, what part of that?
Subject II: Who?
Subject: "Specific Name."
Subject II: In the mill, framing mill.
Subject: Framing mill. So it is framing mill and then .... At one time they had a steam engine
ran back behind here. And that shop there to the right, was big enough to run a steam engine in to
repair it. So they had a repair crew and they repaired anything about the mill. And then that's what
I'm talking about the saw stop was.
Subject II: We had two or three carpenter crews.
Interviewer II: Sharpen the saw blades.
Subject: Un huh. A lot of people.
Interviewer: Sounds like a couple hundred people maybe even. Or at least...
Subject: It was a lot. With the work crews and everything else.
Interviewer II: The reason I asked is I am just sort of curious. You had such a big operation
there at one time, we don't know where those people came from that worked there. Did they live
right around?
Subject II: Well most of them come in with the mill. A lot of them came from...
Interviewer II: Other places in the area?
Subject II: One of the mills in where the mill was before.
Subject: He moved it over from Upshire County. That's over in, whether you know, Cannon
or not. But he came from over there, "specific name". And he drove in from over there and a lot of
people moved with it. My parents did and a lot of people that came, came ...
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 17
-------
Interviewer II: Now, where did they live at then, when they came to this area where did they
set up, make their home?
Subject: Well they had the houses down in the... A lot of the men... this was a boarding
house...
Subject II: It had fourteen rooms on top.
Subject: Thirteen rooms and a bath. Thirteen rooms and a bath.
Interviewer: My goodness. Is it still up-to date.
Subject: No we cut it off. We cut it down.
Interviewer II: So there was more stories to this than what there is currently now?
Subject II: Yeah, there was another story on top and it was sixty feet long. And it just was
roomed off.
Interviewer II: Yes, this is really a nice.
Subject: And the men stayed in it and then they went home on weekends. They carpooled.
Interviewer II: Ah, so they stayed here during the week and they actually lived outside the
area. Their families, wife and children ...
Subject: And then there was the store building they had their own store across the road. They
had a store building and an office building and up over them was rooms.
Interviewer II: Oh interesting.
Interviewer: Even more.
Subject: And then they had a yes, their garage where they worked on their trucks and stuff and
they had an apartment over it. And that is where we lived. In an apartment right there.
Interviewer II: Seems like the lumber industry around, at least for Worth is concerned, had
more of an impact on the community than possibly what the mining operations did?
Subject: Well of course the railway was here longer.
Interviewer II: Right. Exactly. That's interesting.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 18
-------
Interviewer: You mentioned something called a, I thought you said a witch camp... Is that what
you said?
Subject II: Witch camp. They had, they took shanty cars and moved them to the woods. They
had, well they had them so they were about 10 to 12 feet wide and they would put them on a truck
and moved them from place to place. Wherever they were cutting timber they had that. And they
would move their camps in there and set them up, the people would stay there that cut timber.
Interviewer II: Stayed in the woods where they were cutting their timber.
Subject II: Some of them had families somewhere else. They would come and stay. Of course
that has been going on since back in the early nineteen hundreds.
Interviewer II: Long time ago.
Interviewer: I have never heard that term before. That is an unusual...
Subject II: Yeah they called them wooden camps. "Specific name" use to go with her dad to
them.
Subject: Yeah.
Interviewer II: Witch camps today are hunting camps.
Subject II: Yeah those like that. Those hunting camps are more elaborate. They just had a ...
"specific name's" grandmother cooked at the woods camps, for years.
Interviewer II: Oh, interesting. That is very interesting.
Interviewer: Well is there anything else that was missed?
Subject II: She fixed their meals and everything, whenever they would come in. They would
stay there until the next morning. Some of them they called them wood hicks. Some of them were
out there for months at a time.
Interviewer II: Oh boy, that would be some life to live. I guess that is just what you got use
to. You did what you did to make your living and that is how you survived back in those days. Well
Alexa, I think we've covered everything. If you folks don't have anything else to add that's fine.
We do appreciate you sitting down with us and ...
Interviewer: Very much.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 19
-------
Interviewer II: Thanks for sharing your home with us for this hour. We really do appreciate
it. It takes a lot for having strangers to come in, just to sit down about something that you may or
may not have enjoyed in the past. But we do appreciate you talking to us and like I said if you have
got any more follow-ups or concerns you know you can call the EPA directly or call one of us, to
voice your opinions or concerns, or a follow up. If you think of something that you want to get back
to us that is great. We appreciate it.
Interviewer: I know, how as you said it is probably frustrating to be telling us the same things...
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth InterviewsM.
W15 revised.wpd 20
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Werth, West Virginia
Interviewer: Let me ask you first off, how did you and your family come to live in the work area?
Tell me a little bit about that background, if you would.
Subject: Well, my husband I married him in 1981. We lived in the heart of Summersville.
I always liked elbowroom. So, his office was located at Werth and they had extensive properties
there so, we built a log cabin behind what was originally the Muddlety grade school. So it was for
convenience of having more space.
Interviewer: And you moved there as your permanent home?
Subject: Yes.
Interviewer: Okay, okay.
Subject: We have since moved to Canvas.
Interviewer: Were you living in Summersville or in this area for a particular economic reason, like
for your husband or did you work for a specific industry in this area or?
Subject: I worked for Brady and Klein Coal Company.
Interviewer: And that did primarily underground mining or everything?
Subject: Well, they did underground and then they subcontracted Massey Mine Strip Mining.
Interviewer: What kind of work did you do for them?
Subject: Bookkeeping.
Interviewer: What about your husband? Did he work for the coal companies or?
Subject: He owned his own coal company.
Interviewer: He owned his own coal company. Okay. Did he do all different kinds of mining as
well?
Subject: No. He mainly did deep mining. He did have some Massey mines that were stripped.
Or contract, I am sorry it wasn't Massey it was contract that he had contracted the land area to them.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 1
-------
Interviewer: Okay. Did umm... Let me get this in order. When you moved to the Werth area,
about what time was that would you say?
Subject: Eighty-four.
Interviewer: Eighty-four. So at that point really most of the surface mining in the Werth area had
ceased or was there still some?
Subject: There was still some.
Interviewer: There was still some. Okay. What umm... You mentioned that you moved to that
area in order to have the elbowroom. What was it that you enjoyed about that community would you
say? If you had to put it into works.
Subject: The privacy of it.
Interviewer: The privacy. Ummm. Was that something that you felt changed at all because of the
surface mining or no?
Subject: No. I didn't see no change. In the area that we lived.
Interviewer: Right. Right.
Interviewer II: How close in your home, how close in proximity were you to any mining
operations? In this case I am talking surface mining operations.
Subject: Okay. You are talking the strips.
Interviewer II: Right.
Subject: Umm. We lived just off of Route 55. You went up a hill and around, oh maybe 500
yards or something up a hill. Before you started up that hill, on the right hand side of that road,
umm, let see, I am trying to remember the people, I don't remember the people that mined it. But
umm, at this present time, but it was stripped right there on that side of the road. In sometime in the
mid-eighties. Eighty-six, something like that.
Interviewer: Were there any other changes in the community that you could say, were noticeable
between that time, before, during or after?
Subject: Not necessarily. Coal trucks on the road. Which is...
Interviewer: Right, that is pretty standard.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 2
-------
Subject: Ah hum.
Interviewer: Did you, were there any physical changes to your home at all, from blasting or
anything of that nature?
Subject: Oh no. No.
Interviewer: And then, I wanted to ask you about your wells. Did you have any changes, whether
they were they were due to the surface mining or not? Did you have any changes to your water
sources or water supply on your property?
Subject: No. No. You got to remember that we were up on the hill. The strip was down next
to the road.
Interviewer: Right. So you were in an unusual position compared to some of the people in the
community in that respect.
Subject: But there was a school right there, next door, and there's no, umm, no problems there.
Of course you may even want to contact the Board of Education because that, at that point in time
it was Muddlety grade school.
Interviewer: Did your kids go to school in that area at that point or where?
Subject: They were already grown.
Interviewer: Would you say there was any... How would you classify or how would you discuss
the future of that community both when you were living there and sort of now as you see it?
Subject: Well, as I mentioned earlier, in that particular area the coal had pretty much been
mined out. Stripped or deep mined. So, of course industry had to look elsewhere for, you had to
look else where for employment. As you probably already know it pretty much shifted to timber
and tourism in this area. And the tourism is really ah, the rafting and the lake and everything is ah,
they are promoting that in Nicholas County now.
Interviewer II: Is that maybe one, some of the reasons why the commercial strip if you will,
out along 19, where all the motels and restaurants have became present? Is that, do you think that
is because of the tourism industry and the changes in the economy in the area?
Subject: Yeah, it is, they have found that it is a good stop off for people that when they, either
way you come down on 79, if you are coming form the north, if you are coming out of Charlestown,
there is a big space there that there is not hotels, motels or restaurants. As well as from the north,
other than around Flatwoods, and that is still a good piece from Summersville. And it is a good stop
off area for people and we have found that has been productive.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 3
-------
Interviewer: So, in your opinion that the community of Werth, in terms of how it relates to this
industry, I mean, it's got another source of income and a lot of economical development going on
to make that a positive?
Subject: Hum, hum.
Interviewer II: Is any of that economic development that is occurring today, based on the
tourism industry, is any of that benefited from the past coal mining operations? Or any of that land
that was formally mined, has that been ever used to promote tourism or...
Subject: I don't know about as much tourism as, in my personal opinion, you say that they
flattened the mountain and that is just what is there then.
Interviewer II: Well, I might say flattened in some cases or it might have been opportunities
where you know, you have seat topography if you will, you well know it ah, here in West Virginia
there is possibly opportunities where we may have encountered or heard about or read about what
is actually...
Subject: Highwalls?
Interviewer II: I am sorry.
Subject: You call them highwalls?
Interviewer II: Right.
Subject: But they, the reclamation has taken care of that. If you will look a little closer, that
there is a certain grade that has to be there, that vegetation will grow on.
Interviewer II: Right it almost has to be put back to its original contours, as much as possible.
Subject: That is what the reclamation bill really did.
Interviewer II: Right.
Subject: And ah, that was my point I was going to get to is that they basically, for a period of
time, become grasslands. Which for the all the vegetation that comes is good for the animals and the
birds and environment... for them to prosper. I think this "Keep West Virginia Green"; the coal
miners did not fall short in returning their areas to green.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 4
-------
Interviewer II: We saw a lot of people say that they have seen at least in their opinion, have
notice an increase in wildlife in those areas particularly because of the vegetation that has been
provided in terms of grass and forage. And also ...
Subject: So it's not just left dead.
Interviewer II: Right. Exactly.
Interviewer: But would you agree with that assessment? Or, that you said that we've heard that
from other people and that you would agree with that.
Subject: Yes. Oh yeah.
Interviewer II: Right.
Subject: And I think that because my family is hunters, that is a big plus.
Interviewer II: Right.
Subject: If you want to call it tourism it brings... there is some that promote hunting.
Interviewer: Absolutely.
Interviewer II: So there might be a sort of an indirect benefit, so to speak, benefits may not
be completely direct but what was the mining industry and what had been left over or actually
reclaimed has provided some economic benefit to this area?
Subject: And eventually there will be a forest.
Interviewer II: In your opinion. Right.
Interviewer: One of the questions I was going to ask you and this sort of leads into it, is in terms
of benefits to the community if you are thinking of the community of Werth, for example, for having
the mining come in, whether it is economic jobs or what have you, if you were going to, could you
say what you think those benefits might be or are?
Subject: Well I think there is a lot of people had a good base of employment at the time that
the coal industry was booming. From that they were able to put their children through college or
whatever, which in my opinion betters any community.
Interviewer II: Does this community itself, in terms of Werth, do you feel it has benefited in
terms of employment opportunities the mining operations offered in this area?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 5
-------
Subject: Absolutely.
Interviewer II: And direct benefit to the Werth community in terms of those people being
employed?
Subject: Yes.
Interviewer II: And the benefits of them being employed, what impact, positive impact in this
case possibly, have...
Subject: Otherwise they would of have to go out of state. Which a lot of people in other parts,
like the northern part of West Virginia where there's not many mines and not much of anything
else... and I can remember 25-30 years ago they had to go to Ohio, they had to go to South Carolina
somewhere for employment.
Interviewer II: Right.
Subject: Because they didn't have that.
Interviewer: They didn't have jobs in that industry.
Interviewer II: Now what is happening now, as the mining industry in this area is waning off
if you will, or moving elsewhere... What's happening to that employment base? If you could just
tell me?
Subject: As I mentioned before, a lot of them shifted to timber, tourism, and when I say
tourism I mean all aspects of it; motels have to have some one to manage them and all of the
different restaurants, whatever. It has just shifted to another resource.
Interviewer II: So, during the mining operations you feel, in your opinion the community
benefited even though the mines, now during the post-mining period, the community is still
benefiting because it's been, I won't put words in your mouth, but its benefited because its changed
and found other opportunities for economic incentives in terms of employment. It has actually
changed with the shifting, with the times. Before...
Subject: Even the railroad tracks that came in for ah, to haul the coal out, those tracks have
been taken up and they have been made into trails for tourism.
Interviewer II: Rail-trails. You talked about during-mining and post-mining, what about pre-
mining what were the conditions, economic conditions here like before the mines?
Subject: I can't answer that.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 6
-------
Interviewer II: Okay.
Subject: I only moved to Nicholas County in sixty-eight.
Interviewer II: And the reason again, like you said you aren't in a positions to answer that
question because you moved in when the mining operations were beginning to open up.
Subject: I didn't even move to the Werth area, well Summersville, until the late seventies.
Interviewer II: Interesting. Okay.
Interviewer: You would be in an unusual positions probably to answer this question, ah one of the
things that we were curious about trying to find out is how the companies interacted with the
community in terms of people who may have had complaints or even though they didn't have
complaints and just wanted to find out what was going on, you know in terms of the mining around
them.
Subject: Umm, no I am sorry I wouldn't be in a position to answer that truthfully. I do know
that the coal industry did a great deal for Nicholas County. I know that personally because my
husband had very much to do with that. It was... he's the one that ram-rodded the site for the ball
fields and the high school. The new high school is right here on 19.
Interviewer: Can you tell me a little bit about that? What do you mean ram-rodded?
Subject: He furnished the equipment; he came down and did a lot of the work himself at no
cost to the county.
Interviewer: He helped build it and see that it was built?
Subject: He didn't build, but he prepared the site with equipment, his own equipment from
his company.
Interviewer II: So there was direct benefit to the community as a whole had some direct
benefit due to your husband, in this case good will, and actually provided services
Subject: He brought his men down and he paid his men but he didn't charge anybody for it.
He also was the fund-raiser for the hospital and because he was known, so well known in the
community, he was able to tap the coal industry get money and got funds to start the Summersville,
to expand I am sorry, to expand the Summersville hospital.
Interviewer II: What is, are the coal industry here is the community benefiting otherwise
from the coal industry after it has left? I know during the time period, you know they have
benefited, you know based upon your account, from your husband giving back to the community
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 7
-------
in terms of being a good neighbor, from the coal industry. Does the community, are they, I am not
saying this in a bad context, are they still seeing benefits from the coal industry or since they have
gone?
Subject: I think you would have to ask some retired miners how their health insurance is paid.
Where did they get their retirement benefits from? Which I think you will get an answer that the coal
industry is still very much in.
Interviewer II: Involved with the community in that sense. Interesting.
Subject: Did you not think of retirement? You know they paid into that fund they have to live
on it now.
Interviewer II: Sure. Exactly. So, even though the mining operations aren't here providing
a direct, in terms that they had to go else where for the mineral resources, there is still some
continuing positive benefits that the coal mining industry has had for the Werth community?
Subject: Exactly.
Interviewer: This is a little bit off the subject of Werth, but do you, did you all see the permit
notices that they are required to put in the paper these days? And was anything like that done that
you can recall about any of the mining that is going on around Werth, that you have seen in the
paper?
Subject: It is required by law.
Interviewer: So you remember seeing those?
Subject: You have to.... I mean, that is a requirement.
Interviewer II: One of the things we have talked to a couple people, we have gotten
indications as we asked that same question, and said that "Yes" they have seen them and we know
that the state requires them to published, the permit. Some of the information that we got, we just
want to see what your reaction is to, some of the notices although they were published may not have
been legible or maybe understood by non-coal mining people. People that were not associated with
the coal mining operations, not use to the terminology and also to the maps that are published with
the legal advertisement, may not have been clear enough. In your opinion did you feel, and legal
advertisement that you saw for the permit, did you feel that they were...
Subject: I didn't... I usually, if I didn't see the map clearly I would read the description. And
I well, because my husband had different sites and around and everything, I sort of had an interest,
so that is why I read them. And as I said if I did not understand the map exactly where the details
that they were trying to describe, I would refer to the description.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 8
-------
Interviewer II: Now one of those legal advertisements, of course that provides an opportunity
for the public to express concerns or to have questions and have an opportunity to ask questions
about the particular permit. Did your husband ever was he ever involved or have opportunities to
discuss...
Subject: I really don't know.
Interviewer: That's okay we don't want you to comment on something if you really don't know.
Subject: No. No. I, really, I'm sorry.
Interviewer II: That is fine. I was just sort of curious if you, if there was any reaction to the
public if there was any reaction to the advertisement?
Subject: I don't know.
Interviewer II: Okay.
Interviewer: The only other real part of the questions that I had to ask you is about your decision
to no longer live in the Werth area and what that may or may not relate to any of the mines.
Subject: My husband and, he just passed away in August. He was eighty-seven years old.
The reason we moved from the Werth area was the same reason almost opposite to when we got
here. He felt that we needed to be closer to family, because of his age and he wanted me close to
family if something should happen to him. So in ah, about four years ago, we moved to the Canvas
area.
Interviewer: So the reason for moving to the Canvas area had nothing to do with the present of
mining in the community?
Subject: Oh no it didn't. No. We just wanted to be closer to family. Which I live next door
to my son.
Interviewer: Okay. Well you know, I think that fairly well covers all the questions that we really
wanted to ask you. Did you have anything else that you wanted to say? Or wanted to discuss with
us, about questions about the study or anything of that nature?
Subject: No. I just had a question when I was going to be asked earlier. Ummm, what other
aspects are you going, do you go to the economic aspects, tax bases and ...?
Interviewer II: One of the things that we had actually looked at early on in the study was to
actually collect a variety of data in including census data, population, income, what were the
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 9
-------
employment conditions like. And that would be historic not just based upon.... Based upon
County... State and County and made comparison on those. Ah, I think with that we started in
seventy or maybe sixty and actually looked at each of the census, depending on census information
and did studies on those. What were the labor? You know, who were people employed by during
those times? Looked at mining production. Historically a lot of scientific analysis looking at the
mine production on, mining production in this area verses other areas in the United States. What
that resource is being used for? Electric generation power plant and so forth and so on, and also to,
like Alexa said, a lot these biological like in terms of water aquatics are just a myriad of information
that was looked at early on in the study. And this, Alexa pointed out, was trying to get more in tune
with the community aspects. And this is really an objective stand point to these questions were
really formulated to ask people that were directly involved with the mining operations. And the
randomness about it is we don't, it can go both ways.
Subject: I was wondering if you had contact "specific name" at all?
Interviewer: No. That name didn't come up on the list of people.
Subject: Grade Inc.?
Interviewer: As one of the property owners?
Subject: Um, hum.
Interviewer: I did see that.
Subject: That is "specific name." He's a politician. I didn't know whether you picked on
politicians or not?
Interviewer II: Yeah all that was ...
Interviewer: Not on purpose anyway.
Interviewer II: All that was done ...
Subject: He uses that place right down there. He owns, the reason I asked is because he is the
one that purchased the tipple from my husband, the tipple for coal.
Interviewer II: Interesting. Yeah all of the interviewees that we've sat down with and will
be sitting down with in the future, are all based on random selection. Based upon the tax roles in
the case studies communities that we are looking. So there is no interplay by us to select who we
choose. It is all random, so whomever's name comes up. We don't know what their position is
before hand only until we come and sit down and start asking you these questions to try and get
more information. So we didn' t know what your affiliation was before we came to this interview and
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 10
-------
ah, and our questions, I hope, aren't poignant to making you go on any defensive. We are just
asking questions that everybody gets asked. To see what your position is and feel what your
opinions are about the coal mining industry in this area.
Subject: Well, he wouldn't qualify because we never lived in the Werth area. He only owned
property there. So I guess that is why they excluded him.
Interviewer: Right. Basically if it had said, for example, Gracie Inc. I would have moved onto the
first individual or the most recent individual that was listed as a property owner.
Interviewer II: So overall just the Werth area itself, you feel that, although you can't attest
to the pre-mining conditions that you felt that since you have lived here and even now, that you felt
that it was a thriving community. You tell me. I am not going to, what is your overall assessment
of the Werth area and how it is operating today and existing today.
Subject: Well there is really... it is growing in population. The umm.... What is the overall?
Interviewer II: Overall condition, your perspective, your opinions on the ...
Subject: I think it is a pretty much a thriving community for the fact that, I don't know... West
Virginia, is I think, has better employment than some other states at this time. But not living, I
haven't lived there for four years, so I don't maybe... can't qualify to answer...
Interviewer II: That's fine. That is fine.
Subject: But from the looks of things, there's no not that many rundown buildings, there's not
damage or anything.
Interviewer II: Right. Exactly. Okay, I appreciate that.
Interviewer: Okay, I appreciate your time. I really do. Just that you came out
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\2.
W19 revised.wpd 11
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Werth, WV
Interviewer: We started to talk a little bit about your Mom living in this house. How did your
Mom and her family come to live in this area? And this place particularly?
Subject: Because it was a place that was for sale that my Dad could afford at the time. He was
a farmer. He had been saving up to buy one and this is the one he bought. I do not know any
particulars.
Interviewer: What kind of farming did they do?
Subject: We raised corn and hay and hogs and farm boys and pigs and things that we could
survive with.
Interviewer: You said the house was built. Did they build the house then they moved here?
Subject: "Specific name." I don't remember which "specific name" but probably, maybe
"specific name". But one of the "Specific name" built that. "Specific name" from Calhoun.
Interviewer: Did you grow up here in this house then?
Subject: From the time I was seven years old.
Interviewer: Seven, umm, umm. Lived here and went to school in the area?
Subject: I went to school at McMillan Creek School. About a mile and a half down the road.
Interviewer: Had everything from grade school to
Subject: One through eight grade. One room.
Interviewer: You started to tell us when we were standing outside, about what time did the surface
mining and strip mining start in this area?
Subject: I would probably say that excavators started up 15 years. That would be the North
site or that property probably 1944-45. And then this coal mine over here probably 1950 or '51.
Interviewer: And were these surface mines or underground?
Subject: They were surface mines. And I'm not, I wouldn't swear to those statement but that
is the best that I can remember right now.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 1
-------
Interviewer: You were about how old then?
Subject: Probably eight or ten.
Interviewer: Eight or ten. Do you remember, a part of what the study is looking at is for a
community that is adjacent to the surface mining what kind of changes may have occurred - from
when before the mining was there to when the mining was there and then once it left. Did you notice
and changes in the community?
Subject: Oh sure. They.. .the fields were are all flooded with debris from the mines. And plus
my father sold probably 80 or 90 acres, which he spent the money from that trying to get his
property back into shape again. And it was just a round robin- for us. And then this mine up here
set off blast that would cause our well to go dry. They did drill a new well. Then we would get
quite a bit of runoff from that mine too showing up on this side here.
Interviewer: So when your father sold off let me back up for a second. What kind of debris
are you talking about?
Subject: I am talking about rock, slate, goobs- probably a little coal - anything that they, dirt,
anything that they would dig up on top of the mountain, when it rained it came down.
Interviewer: It filled up your fields? and ponds?
Subject: It filled up the creeks. It filled up the creek beds and the creek would be wandering
around and basically make into a swamp. Which the wetlands commission now want it to be a
swamp but it never was a swamp before. So I don't know what will happen there. And I am getting
too old to be battling this stuff. I am retired and I want to be retired. I don't want to ignore it but I
don't want to put forth a lot of effort.
Interviewer: I can understand that when you are retired that is the whole idea you don't want to
have to put forth a lot of effort into much at all if you don't want to do it.
Subject: Well, I retired when I was 56. But I came down when my Mom, she was in bad
shape mentally and that went on for 11 years, so I haven't been retired really.
Interviewer: Umhumm... You mentioned your father sold off 80 or 90 acres. He sold it to the
company for mining?
Subj ect: Tassa C oal C o.
Interviewer: And then was that land that he had been farming?
Subject: Ah, some of it was the roadway across there he sold the right-of-way to that. We had
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 2
-------
been farming that. Ah, now that that goes up the mountain. Now the mountainside we didn't farm.
So, most of it was not land that we farmed. It was woodland.
Interviewer: Do you remember at all any of the interactions between the Coal Co. and your father
about selling that property?
Subject: Actually the Coal Co. worked with a "specific name". His house is down where -the
one they are remodeling and fixing up. Ah, "specific name" and "specific name". I have some maps
and things I probably should have brought them, but I didn't know what we were going to do. But
my father was friends with him. Probably up until my father figured out what was happening to him.
So actually Tassa Coal had "specific name" and "specific name" and there was one other person,
I have documents at home, to ummm, they brought the land from my father. And they, like I said
they strip mined it up there, took the top of the mountain off, got the coal out and they trucked it off
the hill.
Interviewer: So the coal company was working with some of the property owners in the
community. They bought it from your father and then they gave it to the coal company? Or they
Subject: That is what it looked like to me.
Interviewer: Do you remember at all before the coal mining started any interactions between the
company and the community about coming in?
Subject: No. Nope. That was 1954. Back then things were done quite a bit differently. We
did have you people to protect us.
Interviewer: Well, we are trying to catch up unfortunately, I guess, with this problem. Were there
specifics, you said that there, in terms of changes with the community there were some real physical
changes to the environment. Were there any changes in terms of people moving out or people
moving in? Or for example, the school that you mentioned? Was there any changes in the population
that might have affected the school?
Subject: I don't think there was a big affect. There weren't that many people. But Raven
down there use to be like deep mine and that kind. Deep mines were sort of going defunct. A lot of
people that worked for the strip mines moved into those houses. You know where Raven is?
Interviewer: It is down 55 a little bit?
Subject: Right. There is that row of houses there. They built those houses for the deep mines
that were adjacent to them. Then when that slowed down. The strip job was going pretty well and
people came from Clarksburg, or where ever they got their people from, and lived in those houses.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 3
-------
Interviewer II: They actually didn't try, the population base wasn't large enough here that
they didn't try to tap into local...
Subject: I don't think it changed it very much. I think that the people that were living there
working in the deep mines had to go somewhere else. How many people stayed and how many
people left I wouldn't know. But for a while there, there were a few more people here. That mine
didn't last that long. Another company came and depends on the value of the cole, another company
came and worked it awhile.
Interviewer: Did your mother talk about, you mentioned the blasting from the mines. Did
she talk about, and you certainly would have known
Subject: She talked about getting knocked off her chair.
Interviewer: Sure. Yeah. Do you have any idea, at any point, did she report that kind of a
problem?
Subject: Ah yes, I think so. My older brother lived here with her. He had diabetes was
married and he just sort of had a place to stay here, so he managed most of that for her. She was
getting old even then. But, he handled that. Whether that was good or not I do not know. I was up
in Cleveland driving a bus.
Interviewer: When you were old enough to look for work was there any reason besides from, I
guess you mentioned you went to Cleveland to look for a job, did you ever consider staying here and
there weren't job? Or how did you make that decision?
Subject: I worked for excavating from the deep mines for about nine months. I went into the
army and got away from here and my eyes got opened. And I said T don't have to work in those
mines.' I went to Cleveland to work for a beryllium company and the Cleveland transit system.
There were a sawmill up here that I worked. Started when I was 17. I worked that for a couple of
years. Ely Thomas, I don't know if you've ever heard of that....
Interviewer II: To get back on the house part - you said your mother was knocked off her
chair one time by a blast?
Subject: Oh, That was just a figuratively speaking.
Interviewer II: It would shake the house? I guess my point, what I am driving at is was there
structural damage to the foundation and the house? Was there actual walls where the drywall was
cracked?
Subject: No doubt there was. Well like I said it ruined the aqua flow for the well and they did
drill a new well. But
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 4
-------
Interviewer II: That was the coal company came in once apparently your family reported it.
Subject: Well we ran out of water we couldn't keep from complaining.
Interviewer II: They obliged to drill another well and they were successful or what?
Subject: Yes they were. Well, gradually the well filled up and to get to that point, I remember
just before my Mom died that the well filled up to the point where the pump on the bottom got
sucked in by, where I had to take it out and cut part of that off a try to repair the damage that was
done.
Interviewer II: Is that the same well that is being used out there now?
Subject: Yes.
Interviewer: Do you think there were any real benefits to this community with the surface mining
being adjacent to it? Do you see any benefits that you could talk about?
Subject: There probably was at the time they were here, there was more money spent here that
is natural. But no - the people moved and the money didn't stay here and the coal left. There may
have been. There had to be something but I do not know what it would be.
Interviewer: You said that people left. When do you think people started to leave? During the
mining from impacts or later on?
Subject: Oh no, well eventually they got the coal out. When the coal ran out then the coal
company quit and these people, a lot of these people traveled with the strip job. Where ever the strip
job was they would go there and live and when the strip job left they left. I assume that they kept
their jobs, I do no know. But, what I am saying is that the jobs were temporarily here. And
temporary means temporary. They left.
Interviewer: The people who lived here before the mining, they stayed? And are still here or?
Subject: No, this is West Virginia. Constantly people use to go to Cleveland, or they use to
go to Cleveland, now they are going down South to work. Wherever the jobs are that is where they
would go. Young people don't, it doesn't grow here because there is no work here.
Interviewer II: During that time, the center of activity possibly for the miners and the time
that those mines were active, was that Summersville, maybe?
Subject: Well for the most part what looks like a barn down there, that was called Duffy's
grocery store. They had a pool hall on one side and the other side they sold beer, at one time, but I
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 5
-------
think at that time they sold groceries. If you wanted to see the people that worked up on the hill,
then you went down to Duffy's.
Interviewer II: And that is just right down ....
Subject: You can see it from here. That white building down there.
Interviewer II: Ok. okay I see it.
Subject: It looks a little bit like a barn. They use to have a gas station there. That is what I
would call the center of town. Of course they went to Summersville. Like me I live in Craigsville
and I go to Summersville probably once a week. When we run out of something I can't get up there.
Interviewer: So you could say having a little grocery store for the community might have been a
benefit for a little while? Or was that something you didn't really go to? That just the miners went
to?
Subject: To who? No. My Mom didn't buy groceries there. She brought her groceries in
Summersville. She would plan it so that maybe once every two weeks she'd go to get salt and
whatever she needed. And you could just to make it easier you would get it all at once.
Interviewer: Do you think from your experience of talking to your mother about it, that did she
ever consider moving or did the coal company ever talk to her about buying out her home? Why
do you think she stayed, I guess is what I am asking?
Subject: Well, it was just a mindset. Probably like, it is like you lived somewhere and that
was your home and that is the way she felt about it. No, she wouldn't sell the place.
Interviewer: Do you know if they ever asked her about it?
Subject: I do not think so, no. They didn't need it.
Interviewer: Right they weren't going to mine here.
Subject: Ok, my Dad didn't own the coal. All he was selling was the surface rights. No, there
is no reason for them to be interested in this property. They were interested in the property they
used to build a road across these bottomlands and that was about it. And they wanted the property
to run the road up the hill for the mines. But the actual farmland - they weren't interested in.
Interviewer: Did anyone ever talk to them about the sludge in the creek?
Subject: Well sure, my Dad did. As a matter of fact he brought suit against them. That is how
he got the money to buy the shovel to operate to come up the creek and clean it out. And I told you
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 6
-------
that story about the sides of the creek it made that higher and the run off water couldn't get into the
creek in the right places. My dad was getting older and he wasn't farming any more. And I was the
youngest of the boys and when we left that stopped the work.
Interviewer: Some of the other things we wanted to try and find out was, as I asked you, how
much interaction there was between the company and the community before the coal mining came
in. And one of the things that now I am sure you know is that they get posted in the newspaper, the
permit, information when they get a new permit or expanding.
Subject: I have seen that.
Interviewer: Have you seen that, yeah? Do you know if your mother or anyone with you at the
time ever saw anything like that or knew what was going on because of what was posted in the
paper?
Subject: Well, the company came here and they told them whatever it was that they wanted.
I don't know what you are saying, what, that so the community could rise and say that we don't want
this? Or something like that?
Interviewer: Well no, just so to find out if individuals are aware.
Subject: I don't see what your point is - that is why I am trying to find out. Individuals were
aware. Individuals who had the property, it was just legal. And they would try and contact him.
Now, joe-blow down the street didn't care. He didn't then, probably don't even now. But he didn't
care.
Interviewer II: I think the point is, it is pretty understanding why the coal company came to
you , I mean your father, your parents, for being property owners. But they decided, just like you,
that we understand that people that are not affiliated in terms of owning property or working at the
mine, they don't know what has been going on around. They don't know possibly the activities that
exist in mines, when the permits might be issued, My one questions is, how did they actually
post those permits in the papers? In the legal ads? Or....
Subject: It can appear anywhere in the paper. Actually there are 4 or 5 together of them,
maybe on the back of the first page you will see one.
Interviewer II: But it is pretty good size? I know back in Pennsylvania where we are from,
they get put in a legal notice where it is very fine print that even people with very good eyesight
almost have to
Subject: Right. Well that is the way it is here.
Interviewer II: I was just sort of curious is it a quarter ad or something on a page?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 7
-------
Subject: Now that you mentioned it. The people that did this on this side were from
Pennsylvania on this side. Now on this side I don't know. But..
Interviewer II: So the coal companies on either side here, where not affiliated? They were
different outfits?
Subject: As far as I know. Who knows? They could be? I am not a legal beagle.
Interviewer II: I guess we were curious if people if they did describe to a local newspaper
or happen to pick one up, if they actually realized that the activity of the mining company in terms
of the permits?
Subject: There is no active group that opposed anything like that. That I know of. Most
people will say, "oh good you are coming in. There is going to be mines! There is going to be
money!" But it is not like it use to be.
Interviewer II: Do you think that there is a sentiment today that if a mine would actually
come in, now granted - the mines that are existing are probably what is going to be there for awhile,
but if a new mine would happen to come in, do you fell the public's perception would be favorable?
Subject: There would be not opposition that I am aware of.
Interviewer II: They see that as ... I don't want to put words in your mouth. Do they see it
as economic incentive or actually at bettering their lives
Subject: Some how or another they do. It just the mine didn't help us. That I could see. I
mean it didn't help me. I don't know if it helped my dad in the end. It didn't help him because he
took the money and put it back into the farm. I don't think he knew, and I don't suppose anyone did,
what the after affects would be of the strip. And by the time he found out about it, it takes a while
for the dirt and rocks to wash down, by the time he found out about it, they were virtually gone. He
did manage to go to a tenant, and Tassa Coal Company by that time was gone out of business and
you know how it is. Some other company was working there. Anyway, he did, I think get some
money from Tassa Coal Company. They just dissolved after they got through stripping. I am sure
they were aware of all of this stuff. Like you said, they were from Pennsylvania they started
stripping up there long time before they moved here. I am sure they knew what they were doing and
they knew what problems would happen. But, this Tassa Coal Company no longer existed, and
doesn't today as far as I know.
Interviewer II: Do you think the environmental impact, nobody really, they were thinking
if a coal company comes in, or the benefits of a coal company are more an economic benefit..
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 8
-------
Subject: OH, you are talking about a different time period. At that time period, yes. People
like the idea of a coal, and the people would come to work and spend money and etc... But, it like
I said I don't think anyone understood what the downside was.
Interviewer II: Like the environmental impact?
Subject: Right.
Interviewer II: To the a natural environment?
Subject: You can see what we think of it now. Because nobody is here.
Interviewer: The other part I think, of what Alexa is asking the question too, in terms of
population, is that it makes sense there are no jobs here that, why, what is the incentive
Subject: Oh, well, ok we talked about this before. A lot of people had to go somewhere else
to get a job in Pennsylvania, Florida, wherever it was. Now they are getting to be my age and
retiring and where do you think they are going to come? They don't have to work any more and this
isn't a bad place to live, if you can afford it.
Interviewer II: Exactly. Exactly.
Subject: So that is what I think happens. My brothers never did come back. They choose to
die instead, and my sister. They never did come back.
Interviewer II: What is the population like around here now verses what it was like back in
when the mining companies were here and possibly before the mines. Well actually you folks, hen
your dad bought the property was the population.... seems likes there was granted an area where to
have people move in?
Subject: Good point. Which area are you talking about?
Interviewer II: I say just the Werth area just in this general area where we are talking about.
Subject: There was nobody here unless they are retired or... This guy over he works for some
kind of medical outfit. There are probably at least 60 percent less than there use to be. As a matter
of fact Werth up there that use to be, incorporated and you could get a meal there. A boarding house
and all that is gone.
Interviewer II: In that population or that activity that was once there, was that even attributed
at all maybe to the economic benefit that the coal company had.
Subject: It had nothing to do with it.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 9
-------
Interviewer II: No relationship at all in your opinion?
Subject: It was just brought in from out of state, for the most part.
Interviewer II: But do you say a lot like yourself being retired.... now we understand your
relationship with Werth - you do not actually live here now. You live in Craigsville?
Subject: Do you want to hear this story?
Interviewer II: Well, what I was getting at too was that the other people that might live in this
area, that might be retired, do they actually have ties to this area?
Subject: Yes.
Interviewer II: They didn't actually have ties somewhere else and decide to buy a place in
this area because they thought it was a nice area.
Subject: No. No. It was just like you said without ties, I would never come back here. But my
Mom was living in this house by herself and she had no one to look after her. She pleaded with my
wife to get us to come here. I didn't get along with my mother because I didn't know she having
a mental problems and she was kind of rough. But yes, so I came back. We moved our furniture in
here and we stayed three weeks. And we had to rebuild the whole side of the house. The water was
in it and it was just old. My son and I did. And she just kept getting more demanding and more
demanding. Just how much can you give? My wife said either leave there or I am leaving you. And
all that. You know how that goes. But any way, so I went to Craigsville and bought a house up
there. Not particularly because I liked Craigsville because there aren't that many suitable houses
around.
Interviewer: Is there anything else that we haven't asked you about, that you wanted to mention?
Your community life here and what it was like?
Subject: Most of what I would be doing is bitching about the strip job and how they did. But
I didn't have anything to do with that because I wasn't old enough. And now I might I don't know.
But we were just taken back by something we didn't know about. By we, I mean my father. I didn't
have anything to do with this. It is probably the reason you guys are doing the study. There are
probably other people like us.
Interviewer II: I know that is the main thing these studies often look at whatever existing data
is out there. Never really sort of, they view all what's, sort of, right there at the moment. Like focus
on the mining how in terms of their production, sell off, employment. They never really get to the
community the people that actually lived here or had ties to the area and actually sit down and come
here. We work out of an office in Harrisburg and who we work for, they have offices maybe in a
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 10
-------
bigger city areas and really aren't into getting out or getting in touch with the local community. And
one of the ways we have identified to do this is to actually talk to folks like you.
Subject: That is a good idea.
Interviewer II: This really gets your honest opinion of what the situation We have
other interviews scheduled this week and Alexa is coming back again another week to actually talk
to other individuals like yourself. To just sit down and ask frank questions like we have and just sort
of get your honest opinion. Just candid insight as to how things occurred. How things evolved.
What we are trying to do is establish some patters. What was it like maybe before the mining
operation opened up? What it was like during? And what it was like after the mining?
Subject: Well, my dad had this farm and like I said my brothers would help work and I worked
and we had a horse and all those fields of corn and all that. We had a hog and we lived. That is the
way we lived. Now, about the time we were ready to leave. The coal company came in and he sold
the land. The farm got ruined. And I do not know what would have happened if the situation, if the
times hadn't worked out right. Because we didn't have place to raise corn and do all that we did.
Interviewer II: What is the future? You had said you and your son are fixing the house up
for a family member?
Subject: Oh, ok. This is my son's friend.
Interviewer II: Ok.
Subject: This is "specific name". He gives me advice. He if fixing the house up. I do not own
the house. I got one third of it. My two brothers got a third each and they died and their kids
So, he is going to live here I suppose.
Interviewer: Your son is going to fix it up to live her?
Subject II: Yes.
Interviewer II: Do you see any, say for example if you wanted to sell out of the family, do
you see any problems? Does that worry you as to how quickly or how long it might take to sell the
property?
Subject: No. I have my ....
Interviewer II: What my question is, do you think that maybe the perception of people
knowing there was mining here, that possibly the house might have some damage to it that might
not be apparent? And do you think that perception or what they might be thinking considering the
proximity to the mine might have devalued the property?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 11
-------
Subject: Oh the property, I had that appraised before my mother died because we ran a little
low on money for a while there and the government was going to come in and take our farm away.
And so I got it appraised in case they took it. But anyway I don't, everybody.. ..that is a good
point you're bring up there. My brothers knew what went on down here. Whether their children
do... well one of them owns a piece and the other two will probably get one shortly. The other part,
the third of it. Do they know what happened? I don't think so, I don't think they know what they are
getting into. But, I'll keep my third as long as my son wants it. Whatever. I like to have family
interaction.
Interviewer II: It is one thing if your farm here has stood out and there is not activity such
as mining that may have done some possible, like you have already identified some damage that
might have been caused by it. I am just sort of curious if any property values would have been
impacted directly with or without what had happened here maybe fifty years ago in terms of the
mining....
Subject: I think property values have definitely probably decreased because if someone bought
this for a farm. Now you know that now the farms are big farms. A small farm it isn't the most
desirable thing to do any more. It wasn't as far as I was concerned back then. This would not be that
any more. About all you can do, the way I see it, is you could build, this land up here was used for
pastureland, it was cropland down here below the road. The only thing I could see is some one might
want to build a house here or something and work at Wal-Mart or something. I don't know.
Interviewer II: So, you don't see, I don't know, just to give and example, back where I am
from we are often seeing retired individuals might be moving from larger urban areas. I live in, I
grew up in a very rural area. And they like that. They like getting out of the city. They like having
maybe a small farm they can so call tinker on. Coming here maybe staying on the weekends or
actually eventually move here full time until they would eventually pass away and that is a piece of
property they can keep in their family then. To pass on. I'll just ask the question. Do you see that
as pattern in this area that might have people moving in because it might be a desirable area to retire
in? Its actually very beautiful around here.
Subject: Ok in conjunction with what you said. They built this Route 19, now b
(count 362)
Interviewer II: OH, we drove down it. It is very pretty.
Subject: And now before we had that I don't think it would have been a very good idea. But
now that they have that it is much better and in addition to that we are getting some medical facilities
here. Where you don't have to go to Charlestown to get a bypass or whatever pokes you to death.
Interviewer II: Some major medical surgical procedure.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 12
-------
Subject: When you have stroke like I did last spring.
Interviewer II: Oh wow. Well, you are doing quite well then.
Subject: Oh no, it is just this one side.
Interviewer II: Left side. Well if you wouldn't have said anything I would not have noticed.
Interviewer: Not a bit.
Subject: I always try to hide that when it comes to beer time.
Interviewer II: I think you see the point of our interview today. I think we have tried to
establish or at least try to see if there is any pattern of pre-mining activity in terms of community
function itself. During the mining and what may be occurring here today after the mining
operations.
Subject: Ok, mining operations in this area have been shut down long ago. Most people
probably don't even remember. They probably weren't even born then. It is just some thing that
happened.
Interviewer II: It is long since forgotten about because of the time frame of when it started?
Subject: I guess the new generation comes in and grows up. Especially now because of the
anthrax.
Interviewer: What time do you think they finished the Route 19 about?
Subject: What time do I think they finished it? Probably 1975.
Interviewer: So about 25 years?
Subject: Well not finished like it is now. They keep finishing it. It use to be just two lanes,
now it is four lanes all the way. They started this in seventy-five probably. It took quite awhile to
get that done, so... That is probably a long time period. The only time I would see it is when I came
home from Cleveland.
Interviewer: It looked a little different every time?
Subject: It got better all of the time. It use to have to go through swampland and winding
roads.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 13
-------
Interviewer II: The back way home, so to speak. But that was the main roadway home?
Subject: I am surprised so many of us made it.
Interviewer: The only other thing that I think that I wanted to really ask you about is did you or
your mother and father ever talk about the coal trucks going by your house? And was there a change
in the community because of that kind of traffic? Or did they take another route than?
Subject: Well, the coal trucks didn't come by our house. Do you know where Muddlety is?
Interviewer: Yes.
Subject: They have a siding there where they loaded the coal onto the trains, right there. So,
where the road goes by that white building over there, the farthest part of the farm... That would be
the west of the farm. The farthest part of it. They would make a left there and then just go down
to Muddlety. The coal trucks made a little noise but, we didn't complain. No I don't remember that
the
Interviewer: Probably the most noise you heard is the blasting then?
Subject: The blasting we heard, yes. And maybe the trucks a little bit.
Interviewer II: In terms of debris, like fly rocks or anything, from the blasting activity that
might have came down off?
Subject: Oh yeah. There just are rocks. Oh, I don't know if it came while they were mining,
or when they leveled it off and plant grass and everything. After I got down here my mom was ill
and I was taking her to the hospital all of the time. So, I didn't have time to take care of the rocks.
Then I started having medical problems.
Interviewer: Well, we certainly appreciate you taking your time to come talk to us. It is very
helpful.
Subject: You know for what you did, you probably could have come to my house and we
could have been a bit more comfortable. This the outside is .. .It is something, maybe like you said,
it may help someone.
Interviewer II: That is the whole thing. We are not the decision makers we are just trying
to do the data collection on it. And of course, the powers-that-be will possibly consider what we ....
Subject: Well in my opinion it could have been run a lot better than it was with my father.
But then again we are talking how many years ago.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 14
-------
Interviewer II: Yeah, you also have to realize that some of the environmental policy, like
NEPA, you know and all those environmental protection type agencies. The environmental
protection agency itself didn't evolve until way after these mines were here.
Subject: Oh yeah, I see these other mines around Powell Mountain and they all have grass on
them.
Interviewer II: There are a lot of other impacts that are being looked at. This is just for the
community aspect of it in terms of the mines. There is a whole environmental component too that
they are looking at in terms of other studies that are going on.
Subject: Well you can't see it now, but there use to be a big mountain up on top of that
mountain there. Well it is the same mountain, but there was a big knob. It was a lot higher and
everything. They just took every thing that they didn't want and threw it over the hill and then
hauled the coal down the mountain. And that is just what they could do. And we suffered impacts,
not at the time it was happening, but nature took it course from everything that came down here.
Interviewer: Did they do any reclamation on that? Did they plant anything up there?
Subject: Oh, I think that someone, it looked like maybe someone, planted some locust trees.
Now I don't know those were natural or if they planted them there.
Interviewer: Umm. Umm. It might have been someone who came along later and did it?
Subject: It may have been some kind of ,1 don't know if it was reclamation or what.
Probably if anybody did it, the State did it. Now that wasn't done until much later.
Interviewer: Yes, they didn't start doing that or requiring that until the seventies.
Subject: I came down here most of the time because my Mom was sick and I would be taking
her to the hospital, trying to get her medicine or something. Cutting the grass.
Interviewer: Other things were on your mind...
Subject: Yeah, you are trying to keep two households. And that is very difficult.
Interviewer II: You had no family or friends or people that you knew that worked in the
mines when you were here? Do you know of people from around this area?
Subject: Sure.
Interviewer II: And you said that most people moved out of the area to follow the mines.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 15
-------
Subject: No, these weren't my friends who worked in this mine up here. I was young and they
were forty or fifty years old.
Interviewer II: But they weren't, they weren't acquainted with your Mom or Dad or
anything?
Subject: No. Oh no. I told you I worked in the deep mines, well I excavated. Yeah I knew
people up there. "Specific name" runs a used car dealership out on Route 41 and the other people
they went to California.
Interviewer II: So all of their labor basically, they pulled their labor in from elsewhere?
Subject: Which mines are you talking about?
Interviewer II: Well either one. The surface mines lets say. Did they, did the labor pool, did
the workers that they used....
Subject: This company used a lot of people from this area. This company basically had their
crew when they came in. I guess it depends on the company and how it is set up.
Interviewer II: That is another aspect of it too. When a company comes in are they actually
looking for the local people for their labor force or at least to help make up their labor force in
addition to what they have?
Subject: They didn't have any rule against hiring local people. I knew at least one person that
worked for them, he greased up the shovel. Up at this mine quite a few people that lived around
here worked for as excavators.
Interviewer II: What would happen once that coal company moved out? ...the coal was
mined and they moved elsewhere? What would those people do, who lived her locally and worked
at the mine? Do you know where they went if they moved with the mine? Did they keep their job?
Subject: Well, my two bothers worked at this mine and basically that started slowing down
a bit. They had both been in the service and they went to Cleveland and took the GI bill and learned
skills. But the one brother used his skill the rest of his life. The other one got diabetes and he came
back and stayed with Mom until he died. Well, what you are asking is are these remedies or
whatever and they are not. Everybody has a different set of circumstance and everybody has
something different than, ... Actually, when I got our of the Army I took a plane from Seattle,
Washington to Cleveland and my brother wanted me to stay there and he got me to apply to a job
where he worked. But anyway I did take that job. But no, I feel that happens all over the place.
Whatever connections people have they certainly use those more than they use the coal company.
Interviewer II: Right.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 16
-------
Subject: No, it is "Goodbye, Thank you Mama." when the coal company gets through with
you.
Interviewer II: So, if basically if they had ties here and lived here they're more apt to stay
here than follow the coal company? At least in your experience?
Subject: No, they are more apt to go to Wyoming or Cleveland or somewhere there is the
possibility to get a job. That farm work, it is like I said, not only can the big farms out farm you, but
that is hard work and you do not get paid.
Interviewer II: My Dad use to do the crop farm, so I know a little bit about that and it is not
a lucrative business. If you are a small gentleman farmer and just a small time operation, you need
to have a bigger operation to...
Subject: Oh exactly. Things have advanced in that fifty years to the point I might, like you
said be, like someone comes here and raise a garden because I wanted the fresh vegetables and to
see it grow, and all of that. But commercially no. Not even a tiny bit.
Interviewer II: It is very expensive just for the instruments you have to get involved with and
a lot of expense. Not just in the operations but...
Subject: My son wants to buy a tractor for him. ... And guess who he'd like to pay for it?
Anything else?
Interviewer: No, I think that is everything I hoped to talk to you about. Unless you have
something, like I said, that you want to talk about.
Subject: The complaints I got, you hear them over and over again. I don't want to be
redundant as far as my conversation.
Interviewer: I think you have given us a lot of good information.
Subject: I am not sure it's not the same thing you will get everywhere else.
Interviewer II: That is a good point. But that may also confirms some things. I mean if you
keep hearing things over and over again that maybe indicates to us in a general way, that these
thoughts and perceptions are true. So what you might be thinking is the same as people we will be
interviewing this week and that is sort of confirmation and that maybe possibly more of a ...
Subject: Yes, well I was just trying to give you information. This didn't affect me that much.
I, probably my life would have been the same whether the coal company came or not. At least up
to now. I inherited this part of it. No this probably didn't make any difference to me.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 17
-------
Interviewer: Probably a fair assumption that it made a difference to your parents and their life
here? Or no?
Subject: I couldn't see that it did. Money was so,... you worked for a dollar an hour back
then. Money was scarce. It probably,... like I said there were five of us and then we had my
grandma lived here. She didn't help. We all had to get fed. But no like I said we raised most of our
own food. Anyone who lived here worked here. My dad saw to that.
Interviewer: Well, in large part it didn't necessarily change?
Subject: Well, we don't have the fields and everything, but yeah it probably psychologically
might have. But as far as money is concerned I would say probably not.
Interviewer: I really appreciate your talking to us "specific name".
Subject: Well it has been a pleasure.
Interviewer II: Thank you very much for your time.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews'^.
W21 revised.wpd 18
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Werth, WV
Interviewer: You started to tell us, well, tell me a little bit about how you came to live here and
how your family came to live in the Werth area.
Subject: Well, I worked in the coalmines for six years. That is how we paid for everything.
And I hand loaded. And then I went to work on the railroad and I made it here so that I would have
better access to,... I lived up here at Raven, on the other side of town. I moved here so that I would
have better access to where I worked. I worked out of Tioga and Island Freight. I worked thirty-four
years for the railroad. Invested on the railroad. When I first moved here in fifty-one the first outfit
on this side, Tassa Coal Co. had just begun. Island Creek was on the other side over there. The
people on that side had all kinds of trouble with Island that had all kinds of stuff from the mountain
come down into their yards and everything else. And then Tassa moved in here. When I brought
this place I had to put in a sewer system. Just had the outside system. And I put a sewer system in.
It cost me about three thousand dollars to put it in to standard, you know, what it ought to have been.
I dug a trench from the house here clear to the creek six foot deep put a tank in out there. And put
three lines in there. One was over the other with rock in between the two. Well this outfit moved in
and that stuff washed off the hill. The sewer system quit working. When I went over there to see
what was the matter the creek, the bed of the creek, is that much higher than the discharge on the
sewer system. I wanted them to repair it, but they wouldn't even talk to me about it.
Interviewer: Sediment off the ...
Subject: Yes, off the hill raised the creek bed.
Interviewer: Raised the bottom of the creek bed above where your discharge pipe is so ...
Subject: It was I'd say 6 feet from the bottom of the creek bed when I put that sewer system
in. It filled up with silt until that was 3 foot from the bottom at least. And it filled up above that. The
silt did. Until couldn't even, it couldn't... I put in another sewer system. It is not near as good and
it is going to have to be redone. Because it is the original one I put in here. The one they destroyed.
Because it didn't work after they, well there wasn't any way to drain it. The wasn't anything that
came out of there except clear water. See, you had them two lines one over the other and them leach
fields and everything else. It was a little bitty clear water that came out the bottom. That when they
stopped it up it backed it up and stopped it all up. It filled in out here until I had a swamp in the
yard. It was a swamp.
Subject II: Yeah, it was so muddy it was knee deep.
Subject: I had seen these trucks, with the bed down on the ground. That much mud. And we
could not bring our cars. And had to leave our cars over on the main highway. Yes, you couldn't
get it over here and back because of the mud in the road.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 1
-------
Subject II: And the kids had to go to school.
Subject: Those trucks I had seen buried down right out here until the bed was in the ground.
Interviewer II: The wheels were down in the mud.
Subject: They would have to get dozer down in here and pull them out. Now this was Tassa
Coal Co. T, A, SS, A, Tassa Coal Co.
Interviewer: Yeah, I have seen that name.
Subject: Now the company that came in after that was Hobet. And Hobet was all together
different. I don't care for the mining anyway, but if you are talking about mountaintop mining. But,
Hobet was 100% better than Tassa Coal Co.
Interviewer II: Yeah, Hobet I think was from the original landowners. Howard and Betty is
that is what someone..
Subject: I don't know. I knew the Superintendent. He was from a family around here. I knew
him since he was a little fella.
Interviewer: So, he was from around this area or somewhere else?
Subject: Yes. He just recently passed away about three months ago. He was younger than I
am. But I knew him, knew his dad.
Interviewer: Have you all lived in this area for your whole life?
Subject: I was born up in Tioga. Do you know where that is?
Interviewer: Yes. I have not been there but I know where it is.
Subject: I was born in Tioga in 1923. Then when I grew up I joined the Army. Thenlserved
about 4 years in the Army. I have been around here or in Webster County ever since. She was
born... her home was in Webster County.
Interviewer: So, you moved here about 1951?
Subject: Yes
Interviewer: And they were already mining on one side,....
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 2
-------
Subject: Yeah, and then they started on this side over here. I had to lay boards across here to
get over to that road to get across the swamp. Then after they got ride of them, I hired a dragline
to come in here from Peerless Eagle Coal Company. My brother was superintendent for them and
he managed to get it in here. I got the dragline here. Dug up a hole for a pond and filled the yard
in to make me a yard out there all at the same time. But they just made a regular swamp out of it.
Right out there in that holler out there was a cornfield. And I didn't own that. "Specific name" over
here owned that. But the people that rented off of them lived across the road here, across from me.
And they finally got in corn. I wish you would go out there and look at. It is full of wild rose
bushes, cattails, and you need hip boots to get through there. And they had a cornfield out there.
Mind you. You see it never did straighten-up. And I had a water tank back up here. I drilled a hole
back in.... there is a seam of coal laced in there. I drilled a hole back over top of that seam coal,
there was water coming out. I took an old mine auger and went up there and drilled. And I built me
a tank and fed that water right in. And that was really good water. Had gravity fed ... for the house.
And after they got to shooting, it got acid in it. And I took it, a sample of it to these people that put
in filters. And they said that much acid I couldn't do nothing with it. It was just that much acid from
where they shot.
Interviewer II: Your water supply was ruined?
Subject: Oh, it was ruined and I put another tank in out here. There was a spring out there.
Before that stuff was forced off the hill and there was a spring out there. And I built me a tank out
there and put a line in and a pump. And it is good water it wasn't as good as this. Now after 30
years, my boy was working for Hobet. He was sampling the water and so forth and he was a
bookkeeper. And he wanted to check that and he went and got a check of it and the acid is gone. So
I went and put a new line in and now I have two sources, places to get water. I can I can turn a valve
and I can get that off of the hill, or I can get this out here.
Interviewer II: Now there was that one time, how long ago was that?
Subject: It took about 30 years for that to clear up.
Interviewer II: Thirty years to clear up and now it is non-acidic, it is potable?
Subject: Oh yeah, its good again now. But they're wanting to put in another mine out here,
what will it be like again?
Interviewer II: Oh so they are going to pursue it?
Subject: Oh there is no doubt they are talking about it. The one fellow has the backing, and
so they've got money to do it. I don't see how they will make any money. But like I said I mined
for six years and that coal out there- the highest I have seen of it is about 20 inches. That is what
happened to the people that tried to mine it before. They had to cut bottom with the cutting machine
in order to get their cutting machine through there. I don't think you can make any money out of
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 3
-------
that, but the people that is talking about mining it I don't think have any experience in mining. One
of them inherited millions from his pappy and used the money to back it. But I know he don't know
anything about mining and the other fellow I don't... there is a whole lot of doubt about him.
Interviewer : That actually brings up an interesting question that I wanted to ask you all. That is
how do you hear when the mining is going to come in? Do you read about it in the papers?
Subject II: We see them out there drilling and so forth.
Subject: My grandchild is an attorney - who works for the Judge. They have to come through
there to get your permits and everything. And I found out about it - that they were wanting to put
in another mine. Now they did deep mine out there. And like I said they had to cut bottom, and it
wasn't profitable. They had to give it up. That is why they were mining there. Because it was so
low. They went back here on this hill dozens of times. They had the "specific name" boy up there,
that I know, he cored drilled back there and he told me that when they were in the side of the hill
he couldn't actually legally tell me what they would find. Because that is suppose to be kept.... But
he said that near here, on the side of the hill, they got the last coal out. He said there was about 16
inches back under the middle of the hill. Now you can't mine that deep mining. There ain't no way.
Up here, in this holler above here, it runs up here at about three foot. And when they want to show
somebody, the people that don't know no better, when they show somebody. That is where they
take them, (laughter) They don't show them the samples where they core drilled up there.
Interviewer : So, just to finish my thought then, do you see the permits posted in the newspaper
at all?
Subject: No, when they strip they are supposed to post it in the newspapers. But you'd have
a hard time we had to figuring out where it is. Because when they put it in there they don't
specifically specify where it is. You know. I they maybe have Braxton County on one side of the
line and Nicholas County on the other and so. But to exactly where it is, they don't want you to
know.
Interviewer II: It is just basically a legal ad print. They are probably small fine print that we
always use to just call them as buried in the legal ads.
Subject: I don't know where they get a copy of those maps. But it is not current.
Interviewer II: Right, right.
Interviewer: Did they put it in the local paper too or only in like the state...
Subject: In the local paper, in the Nicholas County Chronicle. Recently they did have a lot
of their maps in there. But it where they were trying to get their money back where they had their,
... Oh, I forget what you call it, how you say, before you buy you put so much down and then they
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 4
-------
are trying to get their money back. Some of them do get their money back but they don't have
anything. Now like I said, this Hobet was all together different. F d seen what happen here. All those
seams of coal that lay back north of here. When they come up here, they come together. You had
27 foot of coal on this mountain. Now you had binders in between the different seams. But you look
at all that, some people really don't think that we described that there was that much coal. But that
is what we said there were 27 foot of coal. Now Tassa came in they cut around and left big pieces
of the middle. And then one fellow over here, he lost 2 of his coon dogs up there that went up there
on that end and they came off of that high wall.
Interviewer II: Oh boy.
Subject: It took $200 and some dollars for one of them. He was very teed-off.
Interviewer II: You mean they actually fell
Subject: Yes, fell over the thing. Oh it looked like these pictures of the moon up there. Then
when Hobet came in they took those out and leveled it off.
Subject II: It is pretty up there now.
Subject: Oh, it don't look bad. But they talk about plowing it you know. But there ain't no
way. You got about two and a half inches of topsoil then it is rock. There ain't no way you can plow.
Interviewer II: Just enough to put some grass on top of it.
Subject: Yes. Yes. And the only thing that grows on it is locust trees. I planted chestnut trees
up there and they got about that tall and died. There was nothing there for them and there was too
much acid in the soil. And there wasn't no coal company that wanted to put out the money to put
fertilizer on that to make it grow something. It costs too much.
Interviewer II: Those locust trees they will grow about anywhere.
Subject: Yeah, they grow on a dry log. Hobet tried. They are a lot better than that other outfit.
But there are boulders in these hollers out here that are half as big as this house. That Tassa rolled
over there and there weren't nothing nobody was going to do about them. You see they are still
down in those hollers and places. And there are two big slides where they just dumped the refuse
over the hill. It is dangerous, you have to go around it.
Interviewer: Can you see that from the street at all? From 55?
Subject: No. You have to go up here on the top of the hill and look over there. Before they just
bumped it over the hill. Now that was Tassa that done that. Hobet didn't do any of that. Because
they took the coal out and then dropped that back in. They filled it back in. But like I said you don't
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 5
-------
have no topsoil. But it is a lot better than the way it was when Tassa had it.
Interviewer: One of the things we are trying to get a gage of is how things changed in the
community before the mining was there and while it was there and after. You described some real
stark physical changes to the land and your water systems and I have heard stories of wells drying
up and the blasting shaking the houses. Are there, did you have those types of impact as well? Did
the blast shake the house? And ....
Subject: Yeah it did. My chimney out here, it cracked it. And you can see out there where I
put tires and plaster it into the house. Now it hasn't moved any more. I hope it stays it has been that
way for about 20 years. But that chimney it was cracked from the blast. Oh they shook the house.
The windows and everything. They, both this outfit on that side and this one up here both. Yeah
they put off a big enough blast.
Interviewer II: Now did you report any of that damage to the mining companies at all?
Subject: I didn't, no...
Interviewer II: You knew there was no use of doing it, because...
Subject: I will give you and idea. Now the way I see it the government. It was the State
government and the County government were in with the coal operators. I will give you and
example there was a guy named "specific name", over here on Little crick. He had a nice farm. He
got it from his daddy. He inherited it. And he had big bottoms over there, that one bottom must have
had 200 acres in it. And they flooded... now this was Island crick.... they flooded Little crick. They
just filled the bottom up. The crick filled up. And then the water overflowed. And brought suit
against them. And they had more money that he did. It suffered on in the courts for 4 years. And
then they had a hung jury to start with. And one of the members of the jury that helped hung the
jury, was the baby sitter for "specific name" which was one of their superintendents. And a few days
after the trail was over here she is driving a big new automobile. She didn't have that kind of money
I wonder where she got that automobile?
Interviewer II: Very interesting. We can only speculate right?
Subject: Yeah. And then they had another trial. It cleared them up again. It was, ...a some
how, he got 'em. But he was about out of money. But they had another trial. The awarded him $300.
Now if that wasn't a laugh. Two hundred acres of bottomland. He'd grow corn and hay. And gone.
Now it was gone. There ain't no two ways about it. When cattails grow up in your bottomland you
ain't going to raise hay off of it.
Interviewer II: Not at all. It is too wet.
Subject II: It filled in the crick at the end and it went into his land.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 6
-------
Subject: Yeah, it filled the crick. They let the refuse run off of the hill. Filled the crick up
until it was level full. And there was nowhere, when the water is not allowed to leak, there is
nowhere else to go.... All over his bottom!
Interviewer II: You can't grow anything except cattails in wetlands.
Subject: I am prejudice and discouraged about them coal, because I have seen enough of it to
make you sick. And you know. I was down through Kentucky here about three years ago, about two
or three years ago. And I came up Route ... 15,... Ahh, what was that? 23 there? It comes over.
And stripping down there was just like it was up here. I am telling you it would make you sick to
look at it.
Interviewer: Yeah. That is part of what we are trying to get the report together. We are probably
not going to change what happened in Werth. But maybe in will impact what will happen on Route
23, or some other community.
Subject: Yes down there.
Interviewer: Let me ask you something else. When you moved in, the kind of community that was
here and the population that was here, did you see any change in that population that could be
related to the coal mining at all? Or surface mining?
Subject II: Well, they're just not as many people here.
Subject: That did have anything to do with the surface mines. When we moved here there was
a mill up here. It was an abandoned sawmill and they probably employed, oh, 8 or 9 hundred
people. That mill burnt while we lived here. But you have seen them... there were several houses
up there that mostly belonged to the company. That was Ely-Thomas Lumber Co. I believe it was
you that wanted to know about all of those buildings? Those were the garages for the employees
because they didn't live here. They lived all over and they brought their cars in there and they put
them in the garages while they worked on the mill and in the yard and everywhere else. But the mill
up there burnt down. My dad worked for them and when the mill burnt down, he was a lumber
inspector. A lumber grader. He worked for the First Valley Lumber Co., in Tioga for 28 years. As
a lumber grader. That was the second biggest mill, I think, at least in the Eastern United States.
Interviewer II: Wow.
Subject: It was a double band sawmill. And I got tapes of that old saw mill and them sawing
lumber. But ah, I don't know whether you have ever seen those, big band saw mills? But you see
that saw was, well it is probably 50 feet long. But it goes, you know in a ...
Interviewer II: It is like a big belt.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 7
-------
Subject: It is like a belt pulling, like that, around and the carriage that carries the logs, you see
it is steam operated. And they roll that big log over on that see, and it goes by just about that fast.
And then if you are the "dogger" on the carriage they say that you were screwed in those carriages.
You better get a hold, because when it back it went like that. It comes all the way back and then back
again. And I mean they had to hold on when that thing went. It is steam operated. You see Tioga
had a double band. They had two saws, one on one side of the mill and one on the other. They
brought big logs in there at that time. I got pictures of those old engines hauling logs and they wasn't
little poles like you are getting in this day and time. They was logs.
Interviewer II: There was a lot of board feet lumber in one of those things.
Subject: Oh gosh. The Lumber Company had so much lumber up there in stacks that the
insurance companies wouldn't insure them. I use to ride the old No. 5 Engine of Tioga, oh they had
trains. About 6 trains. And the No. 5 up there, there is a No. 4 up at Cass now. And it wrecked and
rolled in the holler of Sprucey Low Gap up there, and killed three people. One of them was my
uncle. Rolled over in the holler at the top of Sprucey Low Gap. But I use to ride that from down
here at Summersville, I went to high school down here. And I would come to Muddlty catch that
train and ride it to the Tioga. Got off down there about a mile. I got off there. But I rode that old
No. 4 which was No. 5 on the Shady side.
Interviewer II: So, other than the mines, the lumber company around here did a lot of the
employment.
Subject: Oh yeah. They had way more than the strip mines. The strip mine don't employ very
many people.
Interviewer II: Because they let the machinery do the work.
Subject: Yeah. You it uses mostly heavy equipment operators.
Interviewer: Did you work on underground mining or the surface mining?
Subject: I worked in the underground. I loaded the trucks. I got paid for... Way back then
I held the record for the most coal ever loaded in Tioga. I loaded 27 tons, 500 pounds in one day.
Interviewer II: Oh, boy!
Subject: That was the record for the most coal that was ever put out by one man.
Interviewer II: Oh my heavens.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 8
-------
Subject: But, back then base wages was, I think when I quit the mine, was $17 a day. Of
course I was averaging about $28 a day. By hand loading, I was averaging more than the base
wages. And I quit and went to work on the railroad for $9 a day.
Interviewer II: OH, you really gave up some cash there.
Interviewer: Were you looking for a change in work or what made you decide to do that?
Subject: For one thing I've got a leg broke in four places in there and oh it was dangerous and
I figured I had better get out while the getting' was good. And I got a chance to go to work on the
railroad. And I went to work on the railroad. But, you heard me when I was paid $9 for 8 hours. But
back at that time you hardly ever worked less than 15 or 16 hours a day. So you made a little more
money than that. But it was mostly overtime. Now it changed over a period of time. Now, when
I retired I made something a little over $200 a shift and I hardly ever worked 8 hours. You see I
belonged to the union and we cut the working hours down from 16 to 14, to 12. And when I retired,
why then you could only work, they could only work you a total of 12 hours. But that is a long time.
Interviewer: Twelve hours by today standards, when the average workday is like 8 hours. A
typical workday. But twelve hours, we think we work overtime when we work 12 hours. But when
you pull almost double shifts working 16, that's a long time. And that is the j ob and you have other
things to do at home.
Subject: Well, you betcha. When we just worked 12 hours, you see I had to keep the time for
the crew, I had to be there ahead of time in order to fill out all the papers and after the shift was over
I had still had more papers to fill out on what was done and what needed to be done. It wasn't a bad
job maybe I wouldn't see a boss for 2 or 3 months. I would talk to them maybe, on the phone and
on the radio. But if you had a major big job. But you could take the time I spent 12 hours and then
2 more hours that would be 14. By the time you came home and eat and sleep, you about lived on
the job.
Interviewer II: Oh exactly. Like we live on the j ob sometimes, but that is really living on the
job.
Subject: And they didn't know when Sunday come.
Interviewer II: They made you work on Sundays too?
Subject: I worked 9 months without a day off. And that includes Saturdays, Sundays and
Holidays.
Interviewer II: Were you married at the time?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 9
-------
Subject II: Oh yeah, I did all the work here.
Interviewer II: I bet you were happy for that work schedule?
Subject: Oh, we have been married for 57 years and she said that was why. We didn't live
together. Hived on the rail.
Interviewer II: You guys are doing pretty good these days. You are retired. Fifty seven years,
that is quite an accomplishment.
Subject: I have been retired .... 18 years.
Subject II: It went so fast, that 18 years has.
Interviewer II: So did you notice any change? Like in the population, seems like the
population from what it was before the mines came in and during? Did you see any increase in, like
people, leaving alone the mill out here? Was there any noticeable change in the local economy or
how many people actually lived here when the mines came?
Subject: No. Not,... Now down here below here was Raven. And they put in the deep mines.
And you see all them little houses there? Now the company built most of those houses. After they
put I the deep mine, it increased the population down there at Raven, that little town down there
already. By quite a bit, because see all those people that lived there, most of them worked in the
Raven mine. But up here and through here, no it didn't seem to make any difference when the strip
outfit moved in.
Interviewer II: So, in terms of them actually adding incentives to the local community to
help, you know, maybe roads or anything, no services were provided or extras added or any benefit
like that was given by the coal company when they were here?
Subject: No No
Interviewer II: So what was here before, other than the coal in the mountaintops, you know,
everything pretty much stayed the same over all?
Subject: Yeah. Nope, you see I hunted these places through here before they ever done any.
And those over there too. I hunted ever since I was big enough to carry a shotgun. And I hunted all
over these places and I liked to have been able to took a picture of what it looked like then and what
it look like now.
Interviewer II: It is a whole difference.
Subject II: Um, Um. It makes a difference.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 10
-------
Subject: Oh gosh. This Island Creek,... this poor old country clear through back to Tioga the
tops is all gone. And they,...
Interviewer II: So aesthetically it is not,... the view of what you had and that is actually
diminished?
Subject: Oh yeah.
Interviewer II: Are you still able to hunt up here?
Subject: Yep. The fellow that owns this, there was two of them, "specific name" and "specific
name". And "specific name" died. He just passed away this last summer. "Specific Name" I have
know him for years and he is a good friend of mine. But ah, he owns, well I don't know how much
they own. But they bought this from Tassa and Hobet. What Tassa and Hobet had, they bought it.
And like I say, they own minerals and all of it. I suppose there are other people in with him but....
Interviewer II: So the coal companies didn't hold onto their land?
Subject: No, they got rid of it as soon as they could.
Interviewer II: They liquidated it off by selling it to new landowners. Private landowners?
Subject: Yeah. "Specific name" is the gentleman that owned it. And he doesn't know how
much he owns. He is wealthy. But there is a big pond on the hill up there, course he didn't even
know where it was. But I knew where it was, like I say I hunt, you know. And he wanted me to take
this fellow up there who was going to talk about raising cattle up there in the summer time. And I
asked him if he owned that. That was the only water on it. If he owned that? And he said no, and
I have no idea. Now you think he owned that much land that you have no idea...
Interviewer: Oh what you own and what you don't. Yeah
Interviewer II: It is quite hard to fathom in these days. Where a lot of us just own little plots
of ground where are homes are. Not like our, my grandfather who owned hundreds of acres of
ground for farming. That is very interesting. Yeah, we are trying to figure out also how the
ownership,... did they maintain ownership over that land and basically that is no longer available
for public or private use rather? Or what happens to the ownership of the land? That is interesting
that they actually sell that off.
Subject: Well, "specific name" he told me he didn't mind, he didn't like people driving in
there because of the insurance if they happen to run their car over the hill.
Interviewer II: Right, there is a lot of liability there right?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 11
-------
Subject: He said that he didn't mind if people hunt. Anyone could hunt on his property that
wanted to. But I own land in Braxton County. I own a half interest in 700 and some acres down
there in one place. Me and my brother owned it. Now he passed away. But I asked "specific name"
about going back there and cutting some of those locust post. I wanted to put a fence in. I was
building a fence down there. He told me to just use that lot down there. And I'll get all of the locust
post you want.
Interviewer II: That is very nice of him. Sounds like he was a nice gentleman.
Subject: I only wanted about eight. He was a nice feller. He was here. He came here to see
me little about a week ago
Subject II: Yeah, he knocked at the door....
Subject: She didn't know him.
Subject II: I have had heart surgery and I forgot. I have had two open heart surgeries and
balloon surgery and I,... my memory of people has left me. They hug me down at Wal-Mart and
the Lord knows who they are. They are people I use to know.
Subject: Her nephew's wife is a doctor and she said that when they used that heart bypass
machine that there were air bubbles in there and you couldn't get them out. And these air bubbles
cause miniature strokes. And those miniature stokes cause you to loose your memory.
Interviewer II: There is no oxygen in there and the air bubbles that leak from the blood, your
blood stream. That is interesting.
Subject: And she had that open hear surgery. She was on that bypass machine 10 hours, the
last time.
Subject II: They stopped it at 5 hours and had prayer. The doctor and nursed did. And that
blood started going up right to my heart.
Subject: They had trouble getting her off the bypass machine after she had been on it 10 hours.
Her heart wouldn't pick up enough pressure.
Interviewer: You are sort of dependent on that sort of thing.
Subject: Yeah, and they did what they call a sausage pump. It got put in her thigh there. And
it helps boost her heart and then when the nurse came out she said "It is a workin'. You've got the
light at the end of the tunnel."
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 12
-------
Subject II: Oh, I have been doing good. I was just down to about 85 Ibs. I had no appetite and
now you can't fill me up.
Interviewer II: Well, that is the way you want to be right?
Subject II: Yeah, I want to stay hungry all of the time. But I just could not eat nothing'.
Interviewer II: Now, did you have to go to Charlestown for those surgeries? That is quite a
long way to go for that.
Subject II: Yeah. Well what happened, I was getting' company, and my arm started hurtin'. If
your arm ever hurt, so I'm thinking, oh I over did. It's your heart!
Interviewer II: Yeah, there is something wrong.
Subject II: So I just ignored it. I took my tylenol and go on about my business. Well I was
getting company. And I had two hound dogs. Now this was just at the end of Christmas. I had just
had a big Christmas dinner and all of that stuff. Here they come up the door and I have a heart
attack. I had a major heart attack. It just happened that "specific name" had a glycerin tablet.
Subject: I had heart trouble before, and I kept the glycerin tablets. I usually kept them on my,
on a thing around my neck, so that I would have them handy. And she had trouble breathing, and
I said that is not arthritis. You are having a heart attack. And I gave her a glycerin tablet. Well by
the time I got her to Summersville, it let up. And they run her through this EKG machine and
everything. And one of the doctors came in and said she was alright she could go home. About 30
minutes, that is when they get the tests back. I told my nephews "Let's go have a cup of coffee and
we'll come back and pick her up." When we started to drive here they come with that EKG machine
again. I said "Wait a minute there is something wrong here." Then the other doctor came in then,
and I knew him, "specific name". And he said "specific name" she has had a massive heart attack
and we can't do anything for her. We are going to have to send her to Charlestown. But that doctor
Interviewer II: Yeah, a second opinion is always better.
Subject: They sent her to Charlestown. You see they called Charlestown, and they said they
had a bed arranged down there. Then they took her in an ambulance to Charlestown. For three years
I spent more time in Charlestown than I did here.
Subject II: I have been in Charlestown Hospital all that time. I had a blood clot and major
surgery and I don't know what else. And he called John Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, they called
everybody, this doctor "specific name" did. For them to help me. And all of them refused me.
Them big hospitals.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 13
-------
Interviewer II: Oh boy.
Subject: They thought it was too big of a risk. See she had full quadruple bypass. And it
didn't work. She stopped again before she got out of the hospital. Before they released her. And
then she had to have quadruple bypass again. And they couldn't get no surgeons to do it. "Specific
name" he called all over the country trying to get anyone to do it. And then they done four balloon
surgeries on her and then she was still having trouble and he said she was going to have to have
major surgery again and so he tried to do balloon surgery again and he punched a hole thru the
artery.
Interviewer II: Oh no.
Subject: Well when he did, something had to be done. And they called this, they call him a
high risked surgeons, down there from one of the other hospitals. And he come over and he done
the operation. Like I said it was 10 hours, but he said part of it was cutting away the growths from
that other doctor done first.
Interviewer II: All of the scare tissue I guess.
Subject: Scare tissue, yes. He said there was a whole lot of, a long time. Probably the biggest
part of the operation was cutting away the scare tissue from your first operation.
Interviewer II: Cutting away the mistakes that other people have made.
Subject: Yes
Subject II: And you all don't know how active I was. I would go hunting. F d walk clear to the
top of the mountain. You all wouldn't believe. I mowed. I did everything. I was healthy.
Interviewer II: You hunted too.
Subject: Are you from West Virginia?
Interviewer II: No I am actually from Fulton County, Pennsylvania. And Alexa is from
Philadelphia.
Subject II: You was out there where the plane crashed, then wasn't it?
Interviewer: He is a little closer to it than I am. But yeah, that is in our neck of the woods. Not
too far.
(Multiple conservations going on at once.)
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 14
-------
Subject II: I was being prayed for all over the earth. I mean to tell you, I got letters and cards
mailed from all over.
(Multiple conservations going on at once.)
Interviewer II: This your trophy?
Subject II: Yeah, yes, that is me. If I had known, I had cleaned that room up before I let
anybody in there.
Interviewer: We will be right back I guess.
Subject II: OK
Subject II: Now we had a hunting camp down there and I am the one that keeps that thing clean.
Interviewer II: The mining, did it interrupted any of the deer population up here? Made
them,... There is not much forest cover for them up on top like there us to be.
Subject: There are a lot more deer now than there was, but the mine didn't have anything to
do with it. See there were very few deer I this country before they started. The family down here,
"specific name", I don't know, one of them was a judge and a lawyer and I don't know who all
lived... in Summersville. And they imported deer from Michigan and they built pens down here.
I use to find them. I don't know whether you can still find them or not. But it is by that old "specific
name" place down there. And they raised these deer and they turned a few loose every year. They
are the one who stocked deer. Not the DNR but the "specific name" in Summersville was
responsible for stocking the deer around this part of the country.
Interviewer II: Oh interesting. How long ago? I hear the in the early 1900's the deer
population was really bad around here.
Subject: That was ... I would say, when they started to turn them loose down there was in the
fifties. When they started turning the deer loose. Before that there were very few deer in this
country.
Interviewer II: Now it almost to like ...
Subject: I got a dog out there ...
Interviewer II: Like rabbits.
Subject: I got a dog out there, my grandson brought him up here when he was about that long.
I didn't ask for him but I got him. He keeps the deer run off now.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 15
-------
Interviewer II: Right
Subject: Now two years ago when grass was scarce, I fed them out here all winter.
Subject II: He would ring a bell and them deer would come.
Subject: See that bell over there?
Interviewer II: Yep Yep
Subject: I would go out there and put the feed out. And ring the bell and in 30 minutes time,
there would be six or seven deer out there feeding. One morning I got up and all told there was,
down there and back up here, there were 17 deer in my yard.
Interviewer II: Oh goodness, gracious.
Subject II: He would go after "specific name", that boy that loads. He'd know what "specific
name" was after. He would just stop and run over there. He'd have to hurry up and get back to ...
Interviewer II: They will be coming in the house after "specific name" to find out where that
feed is at.
Subject: I built me a bird feeder.
Interviewer II: I see that
Subject: Was it last winter or the year before that?
Subject II: Last winter I think.
Subject: And it holds 20 pounds. Well it was lasting about four days. There ain't that may
birds out there. There are a lot of birds but....
Interviewer II: 20 pounds of feed that is a lot to be eaten.
Subject: All of a sudden, "specific name" looked out there and there was a deer licking it out.
Interviewer II: Oh goodness
Subject: I don't those deer should be eaten out of the bird feeder. Well, I told her and she'd
done run'em off. She went out there a running and a hollerin' and a hootin' at it. And this one deer
looked back at her and she came back in the house and he is back in the bird feeder.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 16
-------
Interviewer II: Not shy at all.
Subject: She took a rug out there and stood on the back of her chair, and threw it over top of
it to keep the deer out of the bird feeder.
Interviewer II: They are not shy at all.
]
Subject: Oh I enjoyed feeding them. I would go out there and shovel off snow to get down
to the ground. And I picked apples down here, off of some of these trees from this old farm down
here. Put them in the cellar and then in the wintertime, I would cut those up and put salt on 'em and
take those out there and dump those out there. And them hole kernel corn. And boy them deer love
that. They'd cleaned it up.
Interviewer II: Yeah it is like a treat for them.
Subject: They would come in there and get that every day. As soon as I'd ring that bell, there
is a lot of people that come here just to see them deer. 'Cause about 4 o'clock in the evening I
would go out there and feed and I would ring the bell and they would take about thirty minutes to
come off of that mountain there.
Subject II: If they were going to survive, somebody had to feed them.
Interviewer: Sounds like living in this part was good for the deer and for you.
Interviewer II: Now what made you folks move,... Did you buy this? You built this house?
Subject: I built this... Well there were 4 rooms. I built this and built the den in there where
you was. And the kitchen. I built those on it. And this was just four rooms here.
Interviewer II: So this house was here before you lived here.
Subject: Yeah, I brought it off of "specific name." Yeah, "specific name". I brought it off of
him.
Interviewer II: What made you choose to move into the area? Was it the mines?
Subject II: No. It was on account of the phone. My sister had a phone and he couldn't get his
call to work. There use to be there wasn't no phones. And so, she had one of those kind where you
ring and when got he got his call, she'd call me on it.
Subject: I put a line, my brother owned the filling station over there, and they had a phone.
You couldn't hardly get a phone at that time.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 17
-------
Interviewer II: Is that the old store over here?
Subject: It was across the road and downside of the railroad tracks. And he had a filling
station and a garage where he done mechanical work. And he had a telephone. They got him a
telephone because he did mechanical work and people called him. Well I brought two of these old
crank phones and I put a line between here and over there. They'd call on his phone cause they
needed work and he'd ring over here and tell me to go to work. That is how it worked. So, I was
here where I could get to work. I 'd get the call and go to work. You see, they never knew when
they was going to call you.
Interviewer II: You were on call?
Subject: I was on call 24 hours a day. And you had to go when they called ya'. That is when
I moved here to get the phone call to go to work.
Interviewer II: Now, knowing the impacts of the mining up here, what you had said about
your water supply and what had happened out front. Do you think that would have deterred your
decision to move into the area? If you knew what the impact was?
Subject II: Oh yeah. I would have never moved here. No way!
Subject: Oh that would have never happened. There ain't no way I 'd have moved here.
Interviewer II: You are not seeing, as far as you know, your not,... As long as there is no
mining occurring up here in the future you are not seeing any re-occurring, continuing impacts or
influences from the mining operations.
Subject: No. Now they consider this, I don't know how far up this goes, you all would have
a better idea than I do. But this is considered wetland. Well the reason it is wetland is because the
crick was stopped up and it over flowed. At one time it wasn't. But they tried to mine, they wanted
to mine this down in the development and they couldn't get a permit on account it was considered
wetland. So, I just hope this up here is too. So they can't mine out there any more.
Interviewer II: There is a lot more restrictions on wetland development than you said back
in the fifties or so. If could drain it all and didn't see any value in wetland. But now they are seeing
value in it so there is more protection on it.
Subject: Yeah, I hope that wetland goes clear up to Tioga. (laughter)
Interviewer: We should be so lucky, huh?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 18
-------
Subject: Oh, I have had enough of these mines now. You know even Hobet here. Them
trucks came off of here continually. You had dust and you had mine black dust from the coal,
blowing off them coal trucks. They wasn't covered. And then you had dust from the road, you
know, from where the trucks kicked up the dust from the roads. It was a nuisance all the time.
Interviewer: Where did the trucks come out? Did they come out right over here?
Subject: Come right down around the road there. You see up there? Where the little trailer
is parked? Right down around the road and then they went down by, in front of my garage there.
My garage even went down this way to the trickle by the train. They had a tipple down there. They
moved a lot of coal off there.
Interviewer II: Now a tipple would be where the train came through, right.
Subject: Yeah, they hauled a lot of coal.
Interviewer II: A stock pile down there to load it on the train, I guess.
Subject: They run it through the tipple to sort it and to make different grades.
Interviewer II: Oh right. Like size it.
Subject: Some of it they washed and some of it was mine run and then you had different
grades. Tioga mine up there had 10 different grades of coal. Of course, I had to sort that, you know
from different cars. Pick up the cars when I was conductor and had to put that in the train in certain
places because it went different directions. The different grades of coal.
Interviewer: So, you saw how much coal was coming out of there? When you were working on
the railroad.
Subject: At one time we used 8 diesel engines, four on each end of the train. You see, we took
it across Sprucey Low Gap which was a little better than a 4% grade. That is the reason for that.
Now with 8 engines, I could take 70 loads of coal across there in a trip.
Interviewer II: Wow. That is a lot of coal.
Subject: Yeah and most of them were hundred pound cars. Most of that came from Island
Creek. They had both the deep mines and the strip mine, Island Creek did. And they were loading
union train. Union train usually consisted of about 125 cars. But ah, usually I had to make two trips
across there. You see I would make one trip and take them over and store those coals. Put them in
the siding over there. And then I would come back and get another trip and then I'd put them
together and take them to Island Dale and turn them over to another crew that took them onto town
and to Graphton. I hate to think of the amount of tonnage I hauled out of there on that railroad.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 19
-------
Interviewer II: Now when did you, did you basically retire fro the railroad?
Subject: Yeah
Interviewer II: Were they still hauling coal at that time?
Subject: Yeah
Subject II: They quit. When "specific name" quit, the train quit running.
Subject: I always laughed at them boys and said that this railroad wouldn't work without me.
I quit and they did too. (laughter)
Interviewer II: From that day they were no longer operational?
Subject: They started digging the rails up. I don't know if you noticed?
Interviewer: Yeah, I saw the ties beside the road.
Subject: Yeah, they took the rails up even. I was 34 years for them. Now the rails were there
when I worked.
Interviewer II: Oh sure. They were there when you quit, but soon after they weren't.
Subject II: The day he quit was the day they quit. Now that was amazing.
Subject: Now when I retired they were still using 6 engines. And we would use 3 on each end.
But the coal was reduced down to where there wasn't quite as much going out.
Interviewer II: So they didn't need that 4th engine?
Subject: The reason we didn't use 8. Well they was afraid that that rear engine was probably
shoving them off when they had a derail... was shoving them off of the track. They were mistaken
on that. That wasn't the cause. Most of the cause of the derails was ' cause they let the track get too
wide. They didn't keep it gagged in.
Interviewer II: It kept on pushing it out.
Subject: Yeah, they didn't keep it gagged in good. But this one time we had a derailment with
empties. And I had four engines on the head end and three on the other. And we had a derailment
and I reported the track wide. And see it was on record where the clerk recorded it two or three times
and you see. It was on record. The clerk would send it in and they keep copies of all of that. And
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revrsed.wpd 20
-------
ah, because it fell in, they thought that they couldn't claim the insurance on that. So they sent
specialist in here from Baltimore, to see what caused the derailment. Well anyway, they say that
the helper engine pushed them off. I told them fellers, I said you boys better sit down at the table
and have another meeting. That helper had 80 some cars ahead of him. He couldn't shove the train
to the top of the hill, let alone turn it over and shut down, so it wasn't his fault. You all better
redraw your. It is a tough call these wide tracks. You can look on the reports and see. I don't care
what you call charges to, but don't you blame it on my train crew because it wasn't their fault.
Interviewer: Right it was the actually the track's fault.
Subject: I got a ranger boat over there in the garage. And bought me this...
Interviewer II: "It is not my place to run the train with a whistle I can't blow. It is not my
place to say how far the train is allowed to go. It is not my place to shot off steam or even clang the
bell. But let the damn thing jump the track and see who catches hell." (laughter) That is pretty good
huh? They remember that huh?
Interviewer: I wanted to ask you guys to go back a little bit, when you talked about... how for
example your front yard was pretty much a swamp at one point... Did the coal company ever come
talk to you about buying you out? Or did you have the option if you wanted to move? Could you
have done that? Did you stay for the job?
Subject: No, they never ... never heard anything from any of them.
Subject II: Yeah, our yard was a swamp.
Interviewer: But they never approached you about purchasing your property? What made you
decide to stay here?
Subject II: On account of the phone.
Interviewer II: You needed that line of communications for your work at the rails?
Subject: Yeah
Interviewer: Did you have any interactions with the coal company over the years before they came
in? For example the one that came in after you moved here, did they talk to you at all about what
they were about to do or not?
Subject: No they tried to keep it all a secret. They didn't want no one to know what they was
going to do. I don't think. I talked to several of the neighbors around up around Island Creek up to
Tioga and in through there. And they said if they would have knew what was going on they could
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 21
-------
have probably stopped part of that. But we didn't know it until it was too late. We had no idea what
they was doing or what it would do - the damage or anything else. I had never seen a strip mine.
Interviewer II: What would you do now, say for example if a coal mine wanted to come back
in? What would be your reaction?
Subject: There ain't much I can do. Now what I own here, like they wanted to strip this in
through here and I told them, I said you are welcome to go up there and walk on any of that you
want to. But you keep your dozers off of that. I have had enough trouble and I don't want it
stripped. You are destroying my water. I don't want my part of it stripped. So keep your dozers
off of it. Well they tried to buy that on that side, and the gentleman that owns that over there said,
"No way. You ain't getting' it." You see they didn't own the land. They owned the minerals.
Interviewer II: The mineral rights.
Subject: But now they own the land above that. But that wasn't where they could strip.
Because that has already been stripped.
Interviewer: They need to own the surface rights to strip it.
Subject: Yeah, they have to have the surface rights, you know to strip it. They want to strip
what I own in Braxton County, down there. And I told them there wasn't no way. And they said
well you would make some money.
Subject II: Money ain't everything.
Subject: And we would spend your money and the money would be gone and the land would
be all tore up.
Interviewer II: Yep. Money can't replace what was there that is for sure.
Subject: No, that other company put in two culverts over here in that pasture. They're little.
The crick got up, the culvert stopped up, real early. So then they put in a bridge. And they used only
timber. It wasn't treated or nothing and it rotted out. Well, I had trouble getting my oil in here. The
heating is oil. I had to bring it in by the barrel because the oil truck couldn't get it past there. That
was about the time that this outfit was moving in, Tassa. And I told ah, "specific name", the
Superintendent, I told him I said "specific name" if you are going to put culverts in, put them big
enough to take care of that crick or they'll just stop up and wash the road out again. He put two in
that'd take care of the Gauley River!
Interviewer II: Yeah, small creeks they can get a lot of water running through them. They
can come up pretty high.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 22
-------
Subject: Yeah, this one over here, no bigger than it is, it was up to that road this spring. It was
over my garden. I have got a garden over there. And it was clear over the garden. You know it
didn't hurt it all that much. Some of the tomatoes plants and some of the pepper plants died on
account of it. But them culverts, if they hadn't been there we probably would have had nothing.
Interviewer II: Right exactly.
Subject II: They put the big culverts in.
Interviewer II: Look for the worst and make it through.
Interviewer: Yeah, but it was interesting that raise that point. Now you said that you knew him
since he was a feller and he lived here? Was from around here? I haven't heard too many situations,
from the people I have talked too, where that was necessarily the case. That the person that
happened to be running the mine was from the area even or knew the people even. Do you think that
was an advantage for you all?
Subject: It was to me because see I could tell, I could talk to him. They run up around the road
here, and drilled a test well. They drilled several of them, water wells. They used the water to clean
off the road, too. But my spring out there went dry. I thought they had sunk the spring. See they
drilled a test drill on above it there. I talked to him about it and he brought a man in here on a
backhoe and they dug that out. And they hadn't been the cause. The water in the line that went up
there to where the spring was, was stopped up. But they put a new line in and cemented it in and
everything and they wouldn't take any money for it. They paid for it. Now that wasn't Tassa that
was Hobet. Tassa wouldn't even talk to me. When they stopped the sewer system up, I went down
there to see them and they didn't want to even talk to me.
Interviewer II: Hobet was a little bit more approachable and that.
Subject: Oh yeah. But "specific name", he was great. And when he left here he was still the
head of Hobet down there where they had those big mines in Southern West Virginia.
Interviewer: I have seen some of those, Hobet 21 and those down there...
Subject: Yeah, he was President down there of those. And he retired and moved to Florida and
they brought him a ranch down there, a cattle ranch. And he passed away about three months ago.
But I knew his dad and I knew his grandpa. I said you know when you are getting old when you
know everybody's grandpa.
Interviewer II: Yeah, ok, if he just passed away then you did know some people way back
when.
Subject: Yeah
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 23
-------
Interviewer: Did you know many people from around here that worked for the surface mines?
Subject II: Not that I know of. I didn't know'em.
Subject: No, most of them that worked up there were from other places.
Interviewer II: They moved in their employment from elsewhere and set up shop there to
work down here?
Subject: I don't know where Hobet is from originally before they come in here. But a lot of
those people came from Beckley over here to work.
Interviewer: And in your experience they pretty much left when the mine left?
Subject: Yeah, when the mine left they left. Because then they did live her to start with. They
just came in here to work on the strip.
Interviewer: When you lived here in the 50s and 60s, where there more families here than there
are now or was it pretty much just like what we see here now?
Subject: There were quite a few more when we lived here. There was a house right across the
road over there, where my garden is. Just right here in front of my driveway there was a house there
and "specific name" lived there. And there was one, two, three more houses that have been torn
down that was across the road. And then they lived in the old house that you see is down. And they
lived in the big house above there and they lived, another house on this side of the road. Maybe one
house down here on the bottom and one house over there on this side of the road. Now those are
all gone. But most of the people that lived here are dead and gone.
Interviewer: Most of them stayed here through the mining and chose not to move away?
Subject: Yeah. They owned land and you can't just pick up and leave the piece of land that
you own unless you sell it or something. There wasn't no one interested in buying; ... I know they
wouldn't have wanted to buy this about the time that coal company was here.
Interviewer II: That is one of the things were looking at too. How your property values
probably went down hill after, ... versus what they were before and then after mining operations,
you probably saw a devalue in your property?
Subject: Oh yeah. You couldn't have sold this place about the time that Tassa was in here.
From the mud over here in front of the house, you couldn't get your car into here.
Interviewer: You couldn't get across the mud to see the house let alone to sell it. Huh?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 24
-------
Interviewer II: Yeah, that would be quite a hard sell for a realtor or your own self to trying
to sell it privately.
Subject: No, you couldn't have sold it when Tassa was over here. And like she said we had
a swamp here in front. I had to lay boards across there, up on blocks, to get across there.
Interviewer II: That would be quite a way of life.
Subject: I didn't have the money to fight them, because see back then like I said, they had the
money. They would keep you in court for three years.
Interviewer: Right. Did you notice at all, when your kids were in school, for example in some
places I know that schools had been shut down because populations, you know, get smaller and
smaller. Did you notice any changes in those types of things?
Subject II: No No
Interviewer: Kids stayed in school at the same place they started?
Subject II: Yeah
Interviewer: Ok. Is there anything else that we haven't asked you about that you wanted to tell
us about?
Subject II: Oh I don't know. Just hope no more money is up there.... (laughter)
Interviewer II: Yeah, I don't know if we can prevent that. But I think, ... we don't make the
decisions. We are just doing the study collection, the report effort that we are told to do. But, EPA
and other agencies at the federal level and even State there, are going to look into the report and see
what policy changes they might have to make. In terms of the actual mining operations itself. And
part of that, would hopefully minimize some of the impact that folks like you have experienced over
the years.
Subject: Yeah if any of them wants to see what that looks like, I've got a four-wheeler sitting
back there, I can take them right back there and show 'em. The damaged that first company done
that couldn't be reclaimed. You roll a boulder over, as big as this house, in one of them hollers you
can't get it back.
Interviewer II: Oh no. Not unless you got a huge crane, a phenomenal power and the
capability to climb up hills to get it back in place.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 25
-------
Subject: And when they dumped that refuse, them rocks and stuff over the hill, you knowjust
dumped it over there, you got to see that to believe it, what that is.
Interviewer II: We toured a mine just south of Charlestown, Arch Coal. Did you ever hear
of Arch Coal? Arch is a mine down off of the highway there south of Charlestown, but ah, I think
it is the Robert T. Byrd Highway or something, it is called. We went there about two years ago. We
were down there. That is just unbelievable, you know what, how much earth they can move and ah,
just take it over to the next valley and start filling it up. So, a lot of refuge and debris.
Subject: They moved the shovel down there at Island Creek. It took them little over a year
to shut that thing up.
Interviewer II: That mine was huge. Unbelievable.
Subject: It had enough electricity in there to run, I bet you, to run Summersville.
Interviewer: I think that is true. I have read things like that about some of those draglines, they
take more energy than a small town.
Subject: They back one of them big coal trucks in the dipper and hide it. But I tell you they
moved that in there on the railroad, brought it in by pieces. And then they was over a year setting
it up, up there. It looked like a football field when they put it up out there, set it up.
Interviewer II: Right
Subject: Everyone who had anything to do with moving that in there got fired.
Interviewer & Interviewer II: Oh really?
Subject: Yeah
Interviewer: What do you think that was about?
Subject: I think, ... it cost too much to operate it for what they got out of it.
Subject: Yeah
Interviewer II: Yeah, that's a, ... we actually went on one of those, I think it was called Big
John or something was the name of that. And we actually stood in the bucket and we have a
photograph of that, I have it back on my computer at the office, and it is just unbelievable how
people, you know, six feet tall get dwarfed by that huge bucket.
Subject: Can you imagine one of these, you put a big dump truck, coal truck in it?!
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 26
-------
Interviewer: Yeah? The whole truck?
Subject: Yeah, the truck backed into the dipper up there. I think I got pictures of it somewhere.
You had to go up a big ladder to get up in. I had in one of my friends, was a crane operator on the
railroad. He operated the cranes. And he said he would like to see that. Well, I called the
Superintendent, he works nightly out there, he was in charge of the personnel. And I asked him
about us, about me taking my crane operator over up there to see that. So I told the trainmaster on
the railroad that I was going to stop my train long enough to take my crane operator and let him see
that. Now he was really impressed. I said do you think you could run one like this. The one that
we had was miniature compared to that.
Interviewer II: I actually got to go up in one of those too, up in the big cab, in the cabin, up
in the box with the controls and it is just like grand central station up in there. Unbelievable.
Subject: That one up there was huge. That is the biggest one I have ever seen - that one up
there.
Interviewer II: It was a monster.
Subject II: Have you ever been to Calhoun County?
Interviewer: I have been through it. I've not stopped there.
Subject II: They were stripping there. You can see where the town flooded and so. In the
Calhoun county "specific name"?
Subject: No, not much Calhoun county.
Subject II: Well, what county was it?
Subject: Well, part of it was Fayette and down through McDowell and down in that direction.
Interviewer: I saw, I was over McDowell County a few weeks ago, around by Route 52. You
know, west of Welch. And a lot of those communities have been flooded out this past summer and
spring. It is sad how that happens.
Interviewer II: Did you guys get impacted by the flooding last spring, down here?
Subject: No. When we they had the big flood, about two weeks later it flooded my garden,
see.
Interviewer II: When you say the big flood that is the ...
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revised.wpd 27
-------
Subject: That is the one in Fayetteville and all them over in through there.
Interviewer II: Just this past year?
Subject: Yeah. This past year. But about three weeks later it come and floods here and
covered my garden over there. But like I said it didn't hurt anything. It didn't even bother the
garden that much.
Interviewer II: Yeah, we say that on the news back home, that you folk had been impacted
by the heavy rains and flooding.
Subject: Where we go to church, up there, you can't even get across the bottoms up there. The
road that goes across there was completely covered. We couldn't drive through there with rains. But
where we're at here, it doesn't bother me. It doesn't flood here.
Interviewer II: All right then, I think we covered everything.
Interviewer: I think we covered everything, do you?
Subject II: Well, "specific name" has told you his life story anyway! (laughter)
Interviewer II: That is perfectly, that is what we want to hear those things.
Interviewer: Yeah, that is exactly what we were hoping to get.
Interviewer II: Yes, those candid insights on what occurred and having an informal
conversations with you folks. We appreciate your time.
Subject: You're sure welcome.
Interviewer II: It is good to know you folks, what little time we've spent together. From
Alexa's standpoint we appreciate you folks letting us come into your home and sitting down here
with you.
Subject: Yeah, most of the people that was here when this first, when Tassa was here, are dead
and gone. There was a feller, "specific name", he is dead and gone. And then there was four boys
that lived over there with their mother. They are all dead.
Subject II: And "specific name" lived over here across the road. They are gone.
Subject: The people that lived in these two houses are gone. "Specific name" are gone.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revrsed.wpd 28
-------
Subject II: We are going to be gone pretty soon, they are going to mark my own words.
Subject: And my brother he lived over there he is dead and gone. The next three houses down,
the people who lived there are dead.
Interviewer II: Yeah, "specific name" he is gone. And we talked with his son, his youngest
son this morning.
Subject II: Yeah, how is he?
Interviewer II: He seemed to be doing pretty good. He said he had a stoke and ..
Subject: He has had two.
Interviewer II: That is right two, and Alexa and I both told him that we couldn't tell that
anything had happened to him.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Intendews\4.
W8 revrsed.wpd 29
-------
MTM/VF EIS
Community Narrative: Werth, West Virginia
Interviewer: Basically, why don't you start off and tell Troy and I a little bit about how you and
your family came to live in this area.
Resident: I was born and raised down in here in Muddlety there. And I bought this place here
in 1944. That is where I am living here and then the farm down there 308 and three quarter acres
- bought it in 1960. And ah, course they... I sold some of it across the crick there to Tassa Coal Co.
And they stripped, there wasn't much on mine. I didn't own the coal, I just owned the land. It was
just over, well wasn't even an acre of it, I don't think up there, of coal. But they stripped on this
mountain up here. And when they first come in there, they just went around stripped the outside and
tossed it over the hill. They done all that, and this about that way here. Island Creek Coal Co. they
was up on this side. And they just went around and stripped around. First cutting over the hill and
the rest of it, well they pushed a lot of it over the hill. I don't know what year it was they got after
them about it and not let them throw it down. But it filled the creek up here and come rain it just
filled the whole crick up. And ah, I don't know after I bought the farm down yonder, I guess about
1962 or 3,1 got the conservation fellers, they said they would help me line up, fill up... shoot the
ditches out and shoot the crick out. And when it come time to load, they were suppose to tell me
how to load, and they wouldn't do it. They said that they wasn't going to do it. So, I just went down
to the low end of the farm down there and I just shot the creek from up through here. And
straightened it out so that it, the water would just run all over the meadows. And it stayed pretty
clean since then.
Interviewer: About when was that, do you think? How long ago?
Resident: Oh it was in about '63 or '4 when I done that shooting.
Interviewer: And what time did the first mine company come into the area? About what time?
Resident: I guess that was in, in sometime in the late forties that they first come in here. They
hauled the coal out down the road here.
Interviewer: Was that underground mining? Or that was ...
Resident: That was top mines, strip mines. And they didn't have no regulations they just
throwed it all over the hill, because they wanted to. And I guess it was more convenient for them
than to pile it up. They would piled it up and then ... I don't know how they done that this here.
But I was up there some but not much. But down on my place down there, they stripped part of it
before I owned it. And there were just a couple of knolls there and I give permission to the "specific
name" boys, they were starting out, and they got in there and dug it up. And then they sold it to
"specific name" I believe it was. And how he was a, he was a, pretty much operator on the mine
stripping stuff. They finished stripping on the mine down there and they ... that was... they leveled
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12 revised, wpd 1
-------
it off. But they didn't... just piled up the rocks there and they just up and they back lifted up and
left ridges. You couldn't, it ain't, you can't... mow it or to keep the kids out. I put lime and
fertilizer on it to try and get a pasture in there for my cattle. But it wouldn't, that was in ' 63 or 4 that
I tried to plant some pine trees down there. And they wouldn't even grow. You couldn't get nothing
to grow there. I mean only, there is some of this moss -counter 42- and a few locust trees that
"specific name" growed in there. But ah, they threw rocks over the hill and they moved the timber
down that way for I don't know how long. It has been better than fifty years now and they ... It ain't
done nothing now. Nothing on the top you can't grow anything.
Interviewer: Why do you think that is? Because the soil is too thin or..?
Resident: Yeah, just too thin. Too many rocks there too many rocks there. No moisture there
for the trees to grow on, or that is my opinion of it.
Interviewer: Do you remember when they first came in did the coal company come and talk to you
and the community at all?
Resident: Well they didn't, not on my property first. When the first ones come in here, the one
came in and worked on this good one up here and they hauled their coal down the State Road. But
ah, in... ' 52 or 3 they bought that place of mine over there, property. They put a big road down over
there so that they could haul it without using the State Road. But it didn't, they didn't do that's
when they throwed it over and come a hard rain the creek just fill clear up, with the dirt.
Interviewer: Tell me a little bit, a little bit more about why you moved here. When you first
moved here.
Resident: Well I, I was the kind of the guy, a feller that didn't like to be pushed around by the
mine company. I was working the mines. And me and the boss got into a kind of an argument. And
I gave him a cussin' and he said he would fire me. And I told him go ahead; it didn't make a damn
bit of difference to me. So he fired me, or wrote out the time. I took it down to the office they said
they wouldn't... they wouldn't, they said they would give me the go ahead and work. But they
didn't want me to quit. I told I was leaving, when a feller gives, the boss give you an order for your
time, well you are suppose to quit. So, I went over here to Gauley River and went to work in the
mines over there. And I was still living in Widen, but didn't... Well, I found out that this property
here was for sale and so I went and bought it and moved in a house by the creek there. I just moved
in here, and that is when I bought it in '44.
Interviewer: And you were working in an underground mine then?
Resident: Yeah. Yeah, I worked about 21 years in the mines.
Interviewer: So you continued to work for that underground mining company for a long time?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12revrsed.wpd 2
-------
Resident: No, not too long. I quit them and went down here to this Peerless Coal Company and
underground mined there. I worked there for a good while and then I went up to Tioga and worked,
so... I was working Tioga when I quit.
Interviewer: Did you notice when the coal mining started here if there were economic benefit?
Did people get jobs with them?
Resident: Well, they had some people working but it didn't seem like it helped much of any.
The underground mines was more of an advantage then. The strip mines wasn't any benefit much...
they didn't have over 15 or 20 fellas working for them.
Interviewer: Did you know any of those fellas? Were they anybody that they hired that had lived
here before then?
Resident: Other than the "specific name" boy down here that worked for them. But, the rest
of them, there were some of them from over in Braxton County and I don't know where the others
were from.
Interviewer: So you would say there wasn't very many at all?
Resident: No.
Interviewer: Yeah. What did you like about living in this community when you first moved here?
Resident: Well, I was raised up four miles form here. I was born and raised in the community.
Interviewer: So it was home to you?
Resident: Yeah, yeah. I knew about all the people. I mean, when I come over here I knew
about all the people that lived in the... up this way and down the other way and up next to Powells
Mountain and down next to Summersville. Use to be I knew pretty near all the people that lived in
Summersville, or was kin to a lot of them. I mean, my dad was raised down on the Brushy Fork
there. I don't know where my granddaddy come from. I guess Maryland.
Interviewer: So, this was, so that was what you liked about it here? ... that you knew everybody?
Resident: Yeah, well it was a pretty good community. Wasn't no crooks or crime or anything
like that around.
Interviewer: That is usually a good thing in a community.
Resident: A few fellas made whiskey and drunk it. But I didn't do none of it.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12 revised, wpd 3
-------
Interviewer: I know you got that dog across the way; he's the only crook around, huh?
Resident: Huh?
Interviewer: The dog
Resident: Yeah, (laughter)
Interviewer: Tell me a little bit more about when you were living here and the mining came in.
What kind of changes did you see in the community? Were there physical changes? ... like you said
they dumped some of the stuff from the other side of the mountain and that changed the creek? Any
changes to your home, for example?
Resident: No, it didn't... had a bridge across the creek over there and drove across on to the
road here to go to work. It didn't change...well maybe, I mean... it changed, it had to do, my
neighbor up there he had a shovel come in and clean the creek out and straighten it out and just
while that backed-up, then that's when there come rain and it filled it up all the way. And mine
down through here I just, well I had the shovel clean it out because it filled it up and then I got that
ditch with dynamite. Got enough of it then to blowed it up so that the crick runs pretty good now.
Interviewer: Yeah. Yeah.
Resident: But I didn't have no help from anybody then.
Interviewer: Did you ever talk to them about what had happened?
Resident: No, I never talked to'em. Nothing about that. There wasn't no use, I mean, we had
no law against it, I don't reckon'. If we did, the legislation just like you are doing about the drunken
drivers. They don't, they just let them do what ever they want. They give em' a day in jail and fine
them a little bit. Now I seen in the Gazette where, here, about two or three weeks ago, where they
tell about this terrorist attack up there that killed 6,000 people and drunken drivers in West Virginia,
or not in West Virginia but in the United States, kill 16... over 16,000 each year and they don't do
a damn thing about it. Looks like to me if, the government, 'course they're spending a lot of money
on, about the terrorist thing, but they won't even give these drunken drivers - get them off the road.
Interviewer: Umm, humm.
Resident: They are killing 10,000 more people than the terrorist did.
Interviewer: Yeah, there are a lot of things in this country that I... that are doing worse damage
than they did just in one day. It is sad. There is no question.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12 revised, wpd 4
-------
Resident: They do more damage; I mean cars and people, wrecking people's lives, crippling
them for life and everything. They are doing a lot more damage, drunken drivers, here, in a year
than most terrorist done.
Interviewer: So, but you felt talking to these guys up on the hill, wasn't going to get you
anywhere.
Resident: No, it wasn't going to get you anything.
Interviewer: Okay
Resident: They just lie about it.
Interviewer: Sorry?
Resident: They just lie about it. They stripping down on that low place down there, they
coming around, it wasn't on my property but it was next to it. I wouldn't let them strip on mine
down there on that seam that they was on. And they come up there; there was ah... water starting
to come up in my meadow down there. I expect it was 300 yards or more. And there hadn't been
no water come up there at all when I first bought the place down there. And this is when I had had
it about 15 years. And I went and told them about it, "No," it wasn't their fault. It didn't make any
difference; they'll deny everything. Lying don't hurt them a bit.
Interviewer: Why did you choose not to let them strip down there where you owned?
Resident: Well, I didn't like them. I let them strip after that, I mean a neighbor of mine owned
land joining me there, and he said they wouldn't strip his unless they could strip mine. It wasn't...
was just maybe 40 or 50 feet deep on the top of the hill there. And I felt I didn't want to keep him
from selling his coal, because I wouldn't sell 'em mine. But I didn't like the people that had the
mine down there. So, I done it for the fella. He had treated me right and so I thought I didn't need
to hold him up on my account. But they done a good job on what they hadn't, up on the left hand-
side, eastern side of it, they had stripped most of that before. On the right hand-side of the road
down here, they hadn't stripped any there. But they didn't hurt that up there too much. They didn't
have to go down very deep. And then at that time they didn't throw nothing over the hill.
Interviewer II: What was this meadow like before the mining operation started up? Can you
remember what it was like?
Resident: Well it was good farmland all the way down through here.
Interviewer II: That was pretty much what it was used for? Crops?
Resident: Yes. Yes.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12 revised, wpd 5
-------
Interviewer II: Was it corn and.. ?
Resident: Well corn and hay.
Interviewer II: And that is sort of how this, what was about this community?
Resident: Yep. Yeah it was farming community.
Interviewer II: Farming community. Then the mining operations came in and I think you had
said about nothing would grow down there. Is that sort of, what impact did the mining operations
have on the farming community?
Resident: Well, from down what they call Crack's Fly down there, the road that goes across,
the road goes across and goes over on Phillip's Run and from there up this way is pretty good shape
now. But it is because of people like myself that kind of kept it cleaned out and stuff. But from there
down yond way now, its, well the whole bottom just, nothing but a swamp land. There is no... you
couldn't raise anything in there now. And they, the government wouldn't let them people down
there at the Raven houses, they wanted to clean the creek out and sort of drain the, their septic tanks
wouldn't drain good.
Interviewer II: Because the creek was backed-up and all the sediment from the spoil that was
taken off, that actually caused the water not to be able to drain it just laid in there. And that what
caused it to become a wetland, if you will.
Resident: It is wetland all right. But back... I remember when there was corn and hay grown
and all that down there where there is nothing but a swamp now.
Interviewer: Are any ... I am sorry go ahead.
Resident: They wanted to clean it out and the government wouldn't let clean it out. Told them
they could clean it out if they'd put rocks in the bottom of the creek and up both sides and it would
cost over a million dollars for less than a mile to do that kind of stuff. Wasn't nobody, even this
whole community, didn't have that kind of money.
Interviewer: Were there any changes to your water supply?
Resident: Well, not mine. They, ... I sold that over to the company and my water comes over
there from a spring. I built me a tank over there. And when I lived across over on the other side
there, I built that tank. And then when I built this over here, why, I put that water over here. When
I sold it, I reserved that water tank - the spring and the water. And the fella that owns the land now,
he talks about stripping over there. And I told him, I guess me and he will have another round of
it. And I told him... He said he thought that he had it. Well, I said you better go and read it. You
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12 revised, wpd 6
-------
will see that that spring is reserved. I said you better not try tearing it up. But they never bothered
my water at all. But I don't know how the other people, water was.
Interviewer: Would you say there were any benefits, in the community that you could name from
the mining being here?
Resident: Not that I know of. There was a few fellas from out of here, about the only one on
the creek that worked was the "specific name" boy. That worked for them.
Interviewer II: Where does everybody else work around here?
Resident: Well they, some of them worked in mines over here on Gauley River and some up
here for Island Creek Coal Company.
Interviewer II: So that, would you say that that was the majority of the people around here
working the mines then?
Resident: No, No. I suppose that most of them just went ahead with their farming or worked
some kind of County or State j ob. Working for the State Road and for the County and stuff like that.
Interviewer II: Did mining companies bring any, other than employment; did it bring any
other benefits to the community? Like did it, was there a local store or anything that it helped
support? Like the workers would come to and help support that store or anything down in
Summersville?
Resident: They didn't have no... the company didn't have no stores or anything that made a
benefit that I know of.
Interviewer: What about after the mining sort of wound down around here. Did you notice a
significant change in the community then at all?
Resident: No.
Interviewer: Like the "specific name" that you mentioned and a few people that you knew who
worked for the mines did they, for the surface mine that is, did they move on with the surface mine
company?
Resident: No. No. I don't think any of them that worked here went with them.
Interviewer: Right. Okay.
Interviewer II: So the mines didn't, even back in the '40s and '50s if you will, the mining
operations that was conducted at that time was really happen or occurred before there were a lot of
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12revrsed.wpd 7
-------
environmental protection laws and regulations on mining? Or if this is back, sort of, when the
mining operators did what, how they saw fit, so to speak?
Resident: The cheapest way they could get the coal out.
Interviewer II: Right. .. .the most economical way for them to do their business.
Resident: Yeah. That's right.
Interviewer: Do you ever see... these days, I don't know if you read the paper regularly, but do
you ever see permit information published in the newspaper?
Resident: Yes. The Chronicle, that's our newspaper.
Interviewer: That's local?
Resident: Yeah, that is locally... ah in Summersville down there. They generally publish the
permits. Whenever they want their money from back when they put a deposit on things, they run
an ad on it.
Interviewer: Um hum. Um humm. Did you have any interaction with the coal companies when
they were here? About anything at all? Complaints that people might have or what they might be
doing? Or did they publish public information back then?
Resident: No, not that I know of.
Interviewer II: Were the mining permit advertisements legal advertisements?
Resident: Yeah
Interviewer II: Were they,... Could you understand what they were meaning in terms of what were
the locations of the permits? Where they were being applied for and what areas were to be mined,
so to speak?
Resident: Well some of them, if they describe it, it was something I knew, the landowners was
mentioned in it.
Interviewer II: Could you read the map that was published along with the advertisement of
the permit?
Resident: Well, some of them yes.
Interviewer II: Some of them you could read?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12revrsed.wpd 8
-------
Resident: And some of them I couldn't, stuff was put on there that you couldn't, or I couldn't
understand it.
Interviewer II: Do you think the permits of that legal advertisement is helpful? Do you ever,
... do you think it is helpful or beneficial that that is published?
Resident: Yeah well, I think so. The people that their land is next to, it would help them.
Interviewer II: Do you know of anybody that actually ... I am familiar with that you can actually
go to a public meeting or actually get questions and concerns answered about that permit
application? Did you know of anybody that actually were affected by those permits that went to
those meetings or had questions for people who were advertising the permits?
Resident: Well, I don't know. The mine down there, when I let them strip, well before I give
'em permission to strip, I went over to Oak Hill, I believe it was, and talked to people about my
water. It was up on top of the hill from my property down with houses. I had three houses there.
I was concerned that they would cut the water off from them. And I told them I wouldn't... I was
protesting it about the water. And the company they didn't ask... they come and asked me about
drilling - where I wanted the well. And I, ... So they drilled the well some 200 and some feet and
they got me good water down there.
Interviewer II: So you went and actually were concerned about how the water impacts, was that?
How they would impact your water supply?
Resident: Yeah. Well, I figured that stripping up there on top of the hill they could possibly.
'Cause it was ah, maybe 600 - 700 yards from where my water tank was.
Interviewer II: Did they use blasting techniques back then?
Resident: Oh yeah. Yeah, they blasted.
Interviewer II: Is that what you mean by affecting your water or just ....
Resident: Well, just cutting the top off of the hill basically could affect it.
Interviewer II: So when you... you had concerns, or expressed your concerns about your water
supply to the coal company, they actually came out and drilled you a well? Is that what you said?
Resident: No, I went and talked to the fellas over in Oak Hill that gives them permits. That is
where I went to.
Interviewer II: Oh you went to the huh,... was that the State?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12revrsed.wpd 9
-------
Resident: Yes. That is the one that gives it, gives the maps out.
Interviewer II: Ok you went, .. .issued the permits and you actually went to them about what your
concerns were. Were they the ones that actually, who drilled your well then?
Resident: Well, the company had the well drilled. They didn't, they'd come, the company
come and asked me about the, where to drill the well at.
Interviewer II: And that was after you went to the State and expressed your concerns about it. And
the State notified the company and told them that you were concerned and they came out and drilled
a well for you.
Resident: Yeah. I was protesting from them stripping up there. That was before I let them strip
on my place. I told them I wasn't going to let them strip on it until we decided something about it.
'Cause they could say that I give them permission to strip up there, on top of, and it wasn't there
fault that the water was messed up. Because I give my permission to you.
Interviewer II: Were you satisfied with the response that you got?
Resident: Yep, yeah they ...
Interviewer II: You felt that they came out and did a good job and responded to you, to your
concerns?
Resident: Yep. They drilled me a good well and got good water. Most of the wells along this
creek that I know of is, 'course they didn't go as deep as that one did. But ah... I had them test the
water, I mean, there is a company that tests your water. What they sell is these... I don't know what
you call it, these purifiers or something that takes the sulfur out and stuff. I had him test this one
here of mine. I know the spring wasn't bad and it had no sulfur or iron in it. I had them go down
and test the one down there and they said it was as good as this one up here.
Interviewer II: Well, that is good. That is real good.
Resident: But I made them, they drove down to the hard rock. They drilled 200 feet down.
They got good water.
Interviewer II: That is real good then.
Resident: Yep. Better than what I figured they do.
Interviewer II: You were pleasantly surprised we could say.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12revrsed.wpd 10
-------
Resident: Well, the water seemed like it was good. I mean, before it was tested I 'course we
didn't know what it was for sure. But id didn't look like it had any iron or sulfur in it.
Interviewer II: Very good.
Interviewer: Did you, ... I am going to change the subj ect a little bit from the water but ah, could
you tell me a little bit what you think about the sort of future of this community? Do you see it?
How would you describe it?
Resident: Well, I don't know. Some of the people may sell their land for lots and stuff. There
are a lot of people wanting to buy them. A fella asked me the other day about buying some of my
lot. I told him I wasn't going to sell any of it. I was gonna give it to my two boys. I was gonna fix
it up.
Interviewer: So you think the future is pretty good around here? People are wanting to move in.
Resident: Yeah, there's people wanting to buy lots and land all the time.
Interviewer: And you don't think, ... Do you think that the surface mining or the presence of the
mining around here changed the future in any way? The way people look at it?
Resident: No, I don't think.
Interviewer: Good.
Resident: I don't think it changed it any up from what it would have been if there hadn't been
mines. 'Course up that place down there where the creek is dammed up down there... But this up
through where they use to fill the creek up with stuff, why I don't think, ... of 'course the people
who lived here like me that kept the creek cleaned out.
Interviewer II: Is there any benefit? What do you see might be used for this bottomland?
Here behind your house? Is there any, ... in grassland do you think that is how it will remain?
Resident: Well, it will all depends on the people... my kids with my property... This here goes
to my daughter, and the big farm down there goes to the boys. It is just whether they, if they want
to sell it off or what, sell all the lots. I can't say what they will do with it.
Interviewer II: That's up to them to decide when that time comes.
Resident: Yeah, both boys... I don't think either one of them will ever come back here to live.
One of them built him a home in Georgia. Another built a home up in Linwood.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12revrsed.wpd 11
-------
Interviewer II: Why ah, ... you don't think they would come back? Do you have any idea
or reason why they wouldn't want to come back to this area?
Resident: Well they, they just, my boy in Georgia he likes warmer weather and he is a chemical
engineer and he is a... well he is a consultant. He travels all over. Well he pretty near... he goes,
they got a company in Spain that he works for a good bit. And then he, these other chemical
companies for the Unifoam, he is an expert on that.
Interviewer II: Oh interesting.
Resident: I guess he is about the best in the world on it.
Interviewer II: He has his roots settled down south then?
Resident: Yeah. He married a girl, a woman from down there. And his first wife died. They
use, he use to work for Union Carbide. And he went, they put him down in Atlanta, Georgia, put
him down there. He married this woman that lived at Stone Mountain. Her peoples lived down
there so he moved up and went to work for another company in Philadelphia. He was up there about
10 years. And he went back to... he retired from them. Went to down there and built him a home
there in Georgia. Now that he's a "specific name" up in the eastern panhandle. And his... he's got
two kids up there. And they are both married and live up there in Martinsburg. So his family, his
immediate family, I mean his kids and grandchildren they're up there.
Interviewer II: They are all married and have families of their own and they are settled where
they want to? There is employment up in those areas too?
Resident: Yeah well they've just got a girl. She lives in Maryland and she got a big huh, oh
I don't know how many houses, they got 4, 5, 6 houses and a condominiums up there for rent. So,
they are tied up, up there a lot. If I was all three of them, I would just sell this stuff down here and
forget about it.
Interviewer: How about you? How come you decided to stay here as long as you have?
Resident: Well, this is my work. I was a farmer. I worked at the farm and the coal mine and
I got too old to do either one of them now. I just quit. Draw my social security.
Interviewer II: Yeah. So, did you ever think about leaving when the mining was going on
because of what the impacts were?
Resident: No. No I don't. I had no desire at all to move out. After we built this house here in
' 541 believe it was. No, I don't have any idea to move at all. I figured when I leaved here I would
go in a box.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12revrsed.wpd 12
-------
Interviewer II: So you built this house?
Resident: Yep. I had it built. I didn't build it.
Interviewer II: You had it built? And you moved over across the ...
Resident: Yeah I just lived across the way.
Interviewer II: Over the meadow there?
Resident: Over yond side of the creek. That where the house, there was a house there when I
bought the farm.
Interviewer II: Right.
Resident: But I... but I wasn't thinking about moving anywhere....
Interviewer II: So the mining operations didn't deter you? Didn't force you out of the area?
Resident: No No
Interviewer II: Didn't impact you in that way that you had to move out of the area?
Resident: No. No. They just caused a little bit more work for me, that's all.
Interviewer: Well you know umm, we pretty much covered most of the questions we wanted to
ask you. Did you have anything else that you wanted to talk to about us? About the surface mine
being in your community?
Resident: No. Not in here. But I'm sure them people down in the southern part of the State
where they're mountaintop, that the flood they had, in my opinion, that was just caused because the
coal mine didn't fix... didn't keep it from flooding on them.
Interviewer: Umm hum. Yeah, that could be. There are certainly lots of people looking into that.
Resident: Well, they will have to do it themselves. The legislature ain't going to help them any.
They're a bunch of drunks, I think that is the reason they don't do anything that law... make an
eight, .08 percent alcohol. If they don't do that and it is going to cost the State millions of dollars
if they don't do it. And they don't do nothing to get the drunks off of the road, so,... And them
overloaded the coal trucks and they kill people and they don't do nothing about that.
Interviewer: Can I ask you, have you personally been affected by someone that was hurt by a
drunk driver?
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12revrsed.wpd 13
-------
Resident: Well, I've never been... I've seen.
C:\mntop\Appendix G Socioeconomic\Case Studies Report on Demographic Changes\Attachment 2\Werth Interviews\5.
W12 revised, wpd 14
------- |