-------
   ?•!_
   I  "o O.
   •  0 fu
   ;  cc o)

O  -o

«  J  »

•S  2  tf
•S  5 -
re  jS rs
             i1
             i

-------
o

I


1
o
             CO O •<-
             o ^  ^
             ^ z  >•

             Z O  Q-

               -|
                  O

                  g-
              b E  o
              !> £=  0.

              ! ^  P
              81

              i^ii
              1 o  E5
              i CC  o>
2  i
O  -a
01  « «

^  s &
           re
                re

-------
  -o >
  I) ^ >

  ill
  o

It
O -o
« J M
•S 2 tf
•S 5 -
re jS rs
       in £

       II


       H

       *s
       £ ^
       2 S
       .2 8

       II

-------
o
I

1
o
            CO O •<-
            o ^ ^
            ^ z >•
            Z O Q-
            a.-g|
            O, .E O
            .E .E g-
          £ -1 o .E
          o> £ £ "K

          ciiggfc
             n E o

              | o
             81
             :^^
             1 o E5
             ; OL o>
          O T3
          0) «  M
          ^ w 'w

          ^ 5 -
          2 -S  ra

-------
  CO O •<-
  o ^ ^
  ^ z >•
  Z O Q-
    -|
      O
      g-
   b E  o
   !> £=  0.
   ! ^ P
   81
   i^ii
   1 o  E5
   i CC  o>
T- E c, _
  S-S 9-
2 i
O -a
01 £ «
^  !ȣ
re
     re
           CM ±i
           .2 8
           II
           a> o

-------
o

I


1
o
           CO O •<-
           o ^ ^
           ^ z >•

           Z O Q-

             -|
                O

                g-
          £ -1 o .E

          o> £ £ "K


          ciiggfc
            n E o


              | o
           9-5 E



            D, C >

         « g>||-
          O —i  "o Q-


          | g  cr a


          S £  £
          0^5
         (/) g  g
          2 ^ ^ o>
            ^O >
            en ~— ^
         T- E en _>•


         •ill I
          f3 _1 ^ o>
2 i

O T3


« J »


^ *"&
re
     re
                               II

-------
gin
(C
w
Scenari
Without L
With Minin
pograp
 — O a
 o> ^ ^
i ra.p Q.
: ^i 2
 o
 ?,
       !!
       & o
       «S
       .2 8
       II
       0> O
       *S

-------
o

I


1
o
          CO O •<-
          o ^ ^
          ^ z >•

          Z O Q-

           -|
             O

             g-
        £ -1 o .E

        o> £ £ "K


        ciiggfc
          .CT
          en E o


          o | o
        2 = 5 m
          — O a
          CT ^^ >
        f- E ra ^


        •ill I
        re _i ^ en
        O -a

        £ J
II

-------
    cc
   ~Q
 °fes
 ^ tf) 0>
 0£|
 raz 5
 •I, a. 5
-o?|
  -O >
  i) ^ >
  ill
O -o
« J »
^ w 'w
n^t
        5 I
rshed Bo
and Com
        .2 8
        II

-------
  CO O •<-
  o ^ ^
  ^ z >•
  Z O Q-
     -|
       O
       g-
    b E  o
    !> £=  0.
    ! ^ P
    81
    i^ii
    1 o  £5
    ' Q^  D)
   ^O  >
   en ^ ^
T-  E en _>•

   S'i  9-

-------
Scenari
Without L
With Minin
pograp
-o >
I) ^ >
ill
     11
     I!
     & o
     s«
     .2 8

-------









o>
O
a>
.Q
£1
5
o
(/)
.E
"c
a>
HI
E
o

o
o
CM
oo"

->















































































































































































1



1






1







•
-------
 0)
 0)
O
_0>
^

 E
 o
CO
 CD
£i
 £
^
55
o
o
-------
 E
 CD
 £

CO
     CD
     (U
CD CD    CD  CD
 CD .0 CD  CD  ^2 CD
T- T- CM CO  CO ^T
     CD

     Q
                                                                     CM
                                                                     O
                                                                     O
                                                                     CM
CM


O

CO


T3
V

"c

CL
-------
-------
Q      ~
 0)
 0)

O
 o
 i3

 0)
 0)
Q
 O    12
 g  cB
co
-------
       Sycamore Creek Study Area
Legend
 Sycamore Creek Watershed Boundaries
                                             -«*
3000
           3000
                6000 Feet
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                   0)

                                                                                                                                                                                  I
            -—

            CO
                
(0
            CO
            ID

            (N
 CD
 >



 E

_o

CO
0)

£
O

£
o


ra
o

10

o

E
               O  o
               •<-  o


               E   E'
               z   ^

                ro  CO

                
                cu  in

               O  ^
                cu   E
                ro
                o
                                                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                                                                             o
                                      •E  E   E


                                      ?  P  5
                                      LD  OT  «
                                          in
                                          CM
                                                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                                                                             Q

                                                                                                                                                             CD
                                                                                                                                                             O

                                                                                                                                                             O
                                                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                                                                           .. (Si
                                                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                                                                                   in
                                                                                                                                                                                   X

                                                                                                                                                                                  42
                                                                                                                                                                                   3
                                                                                                                                                                                   VI
                     o
                     o
                     o
o
o
o
CD
o
o
o
in
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CM
o
o
o
I
to
-------
(A
a-
O)
LIDAR (wo Mining & wo Logging)
>,
o
o
>,
in
(N
"c

LLI
1 Sycamore Creek
Outlet Node
g
O
to
£
CO
•^-
CNJ
O
in
8
8
?
o
(N
1^
R
Tt
S
CO
CO
§
00
o
CO
8
CNJ
CO
in
8
CO
O
Tt
-------





_^
0)
0)
^_
O

0)
o
E
o
(/)

c
4-1
c
0)
LU
E
53
o
CM
ocT
"1*
^






















1






CM v















































































































, 	

1













1









1







|=




CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CN
0
CM
CD
"*"
00

^
CD
^
CO "^
t- 3
- o
0)
^ E
0 l~
CD
00
CD
LO
^"
CO
CM
0
- 00 CD 'f CM O
•5^ O O O O
-------
 0)
 0)
O
 0)
 O
 E
 O
 0)
LU
 E

53
O
CM
ocT

                                                             <
        CO
CM
                c\
-------
<5^27^>
 ^^H^
 LONG-TERM STABILITY OF VALLEY FILLS
                FINAL REPORT
                    March 2002
                    PREPARED BY

                 U.S. Department of Interior
                 Office of Surface Mining
-------
BLANK PAGE
-------
                               SYNOPSIS OF FINDINGS

During the outreach and scoping process for the programmatic environmental impact statement
(EIS) on mountaintop mining and valley fills, comments received suggest that valley fills might
pose a threat to downstream areas due to mass instability.  The perception that looming fill
failure potential, with consequences similar to a dam or an impoundment failure, had not been
addressed by a comprehensive regional assessment of valley fills—although several past
oversight analyses of excess spoil disposal practices have occurred in each state. The sense
within the regulated community prior to this study was that occurrences of valley fill instability
(i.e., landslides or land slips on fills) were isolated and  infrequent; and, that properly constructed
valley fills are well-engineered and stable structures. The EIS Steering Committee chartered a
study of fill stability to provide regional empirical information addressing this issue.

A review and analysis of the data indicates that significant slope movements  on valley fills are
neither commonplace nor widespread. As of the completion of this study in November, 2000,
only 20 occurrences of valley fill instability are recorded out of more than 4,000 fills constructed
in the past 23 years.  While these instances of fill  instability might have been "major" as regards
the cost of re-engineering and corrective action to mitigate the mass movement, the
consequences were not loss of life or significant private property damage.  Another important
finding of the study was that all of the fill movement occurred during the mining and reclamation
phase of the permits; thus correctable prior to bond release. Conversely, no records of instability
were discovered on valley fills after final bond release. The twenty slope movements reported
appear to result from improper construction or design practices or inadequately-investigated
foundation conditions.

The regulations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act require geotechnical
investigation of fill sites, foundation preparation,  controlled placement of material, as well as
surface and subsurface drainage control. Slope movements and other events  symptomatic of
potential fill instability were identified in the study, but all of them reflect site-specific problems
that can be corrected, or could have been avoided, under the current regulatory framework. This
investigation has found no systemic failings in the regulations ensuring valley fill stability.

While the study found only a very small percentage of excess spoil fills that experienced
instability over the past 23 years, there are areas of fill design, construction, and documentation
that could be improved to better ensure long-term stability. Some of the following
recommendations have already been implemented by state regulatory authorities: (1) more
discriminating methods for determining rock durability; (2) consideration of alternative  fill
construction techniques to assure optimal foundation and drainage control; (3) better guidance on
requirements for foundation investigations and stability analyses; (4) better documentation and
record keeping for critical construction phase certifications; (5) prohibition of, or limitations to,
"wing dumping" for excessive distances beyond the fill face;  (6) additional assurances for fill
foundations on steep slopes; (7) consideration  of limits on fill construction temporary cessation
periods before requiring face completion; (8) additional studies of completed fills;  and, (9)
diligence in assuring a prohibition of impoundment construction on fills.
-------
BLANK PAGE
     11
-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                     Page

SYNOPSIS OF FINDINGS                                               i

I.     Introduction                                                       1.

II.    Background                                                       1.

III.   Investigative Approach	   9.

      Scope of Investigation	   9.

IV.   Findings

      A. Durable rock fills
           1. Background	  12.
           2. Interviews	  15.
           3. Data analysis	  16.
           4. Discussion	  19.

      B. Effectiveness of I & E programs 	  19.

      C. Valley fill design
           1. Foundation investigations	  20.
           2. Design parameters	  22.
                 Permit data collection	  23.
                 Permit data analysis	  24.
                 Parameter sensitivity analysis 	  25.
                 Slurry impoundments on valley fills	  29.

      D. Valley fill construction
           1. Critical-phase certifications	  29.
           2. As-built versus as-designed volume/
                 confi guration/po sition  	  31.
           3. The construction process 	  32.
                                    in
-------
      E. Valley fill performance (completed fills)
           1. Previous work	 35.
           2. Helicopter-survey and ground-level observations 	 36.
           3. Identification and analysis of fill instability	 37.

V.    Conclusions and Recommendations 	 40.

References 	 44.

Acronym List  	 46.
APPENDICES

Appendix A:     Workplan Approach for Fill Stability

Appendix B:     Permit and Field Data from Valley Fill Samples

      Kentucky	 KY-1 to KY-198

      Tennessee	  TN-1 to TN-34

      Virginia	 VA-1 to VA-110

      West Virginia	  WV-1 to WV-294

Appendix C:     Sensitivity-Analysis Box and Whisker Plots
                                   IV
-------
                                     I. Introduction

A typical mountaintop mining/valley fill operation in the Appalachian coalfields removes
overburden and interburden material to facilitate the extraction of coal seams. Inadequate
storage within the mine site requires placement of excess spoil into adjacent valleys. The valley
fills that result vary greatly in size. Fills evaluated in this study range in volume from 0.2 to more
than 200 million cubic yards (mcy); and in length from 300 to nearly 10,000 feet.  Concerns have
been expressed that instability of a fill could endanger life, property, and the environment
downstream.

The purpose of this investigation under the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), and as an OSM oversight special study, is to assess the effectiveness of
current regulatory and policy-driven safeguards against future fill instability that may negatively
affect public safety. The scope of the study includes the identification and analysis of past and
existing cases of valley fill instability in steep-slope Appalachia. It also includes the collection
and analysis of indicator data relating to fill designs, present-day construction practices, and the
existing conditions of as-built embankments. This study also evaluates the current State and
Federal regulations, policies, and practices;  government documents that identify and discuss
issues related to fill stability; and pertinent geotechnical literature.  The procedures undertaken
by the United States Office of Surface Mining (OSM) include: (1) discussions with State/Federal
inspection and enforcement (I & E) and permit-review personnel and Federal geotechnical
experts; (2) review of permits, inspection reports, and other relevant documentation; and (3)
aerial and ground-level site inspections.  This report presents conclusions concerning the
adequacy of the current safeguards and recommends improvements, where appropriate.
                                     II. Background
A. Nature and consequences of valley fill instability

Data analysis pertaining to occurrences of fill instability are presented in section IV, E, 3. For
the purposes of this study, fill instability is defined as any evidence that: (1) part of the fill's
mass has separated from the rest of the fill; (2) the separation occurs along a continuous slip
surface, or continuous sequence of slip surfaces, intersecting the fill's surface; and (3) some
vertical displacement has occurred.  Cases of instability, or "slope movement," identified with
these criteria are further distinguished between "major" and "minor" occurrences. Major slope
movements are those judged to occur over a large fraction of the fill face (e.g. over at least a few
outslope benches) and/or require a major remediation effort (redistribution of the spoil from one
part of the fill to another, construction of rock-toe buttresses, extensive reworking or augmenting
of the drainage systems etc.).  Minor slope movements are those that occur over a small area on
the fill (e.g. not more than one bench on the fill face) and only necessitating minor reworking of
the fill material (i.e. without significantly changing the original fill configuration).
                                           -1-
-------
The word, "instability," is a general term used in science and engineering when a material or
structure fails to remain intact or "hold up" under stress. For valley fills, commonly-used terms
descriptive of slope movement include landslide and land slip. These are distinguished
according to distance and rapidity of material transport.  The more dangerous of these is the
landslide, which involves sudden, rapid, and relatively distant movement of material.  A land slip
has many features that are similar to a landslide, but is characterized by a gradual movement
over a shorter distance. Although this kind of slope movement is at first less of a safety hazard
compared to a landslide, it can turn into a slide if left unremediated. Both landslides and slips
can be considered major slope movements if they are large enough  and costly to remediate.
Relatively small events, i.e. minor occurrences of instability, are simple to repair. However, if
left unattended to, they can grow into major events.

Although most valley fills occur in relatively remote areas, some of them are above or adjacent
to buildings (primarily residential) and public roads. Structures at these locations risk severe
damage, if not total destruction, if the fill is not stable. People in or on these structures during a
landslide may experience injury.

It is important to note that the danger posed by a potential fill instability is limited in areal
extent. Those people or structures on or very close to the site of a slope movement can be
affected.  However, catastrophic impacts over a great distance down-valley, such as occurred
during the Buffalo Creek coal waste dam failure (Logan County, West Virginia, 1972) or the
2000 Martin County, Kentucky, coal waste impoundment breakthrough into an underground
mine working, should not occur. An unstable valley fill would not be expected to impact distant
areas because:

       •      Fill designs build in a substantial, long-term factor of safety against instability
             and have specific drainage control measures.

             No large quantity of water should be present in properly designed valley fills to
             "lubricate" the fill material into a flowing mass that could transport for any great
             distance.  The regulations prohibit ponds  on fills or fills impounding water behind
             them. Even improperly-designed fills should have minimal impounding potential.

       •      Dam failures may release large volumes of water with little or no warning.  Slope
             movements on fills can also be  sudden, but are often characterized by the
             presence of warning signs of instability (cracks, increased seepage, etc.) and a
             slow creep.

Although this study is primarily concerned with possible injuries and property damages directly
resulting from fill instability, it is noteworthy that there are other potential environmental
consequences as well.  Exposure of rock fragments and soil along the scarps and ground cracks
of a landslide or slip may increase erosion and stream sedimentation.  Accelerated erosion can
lead  to the partial or total filling of sedimentation ponds and/or stream channels beyond the fill
                                           -2-
-------
toe, thus reducing the water-retention capacity of the ponds or streams, and possibly
accentuating floods during unusually high precipitation events.
B. Methods of valley fill construction

The predominant valley fill construction technique is the durable rock fill method. Because of
this, the proper design of stable excess spoil fill structures is dependent upon accurate
characterization of rock strength and durability [30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
§816.73]. Excess spoil consists of overburden or interburden (soil and rock excavated during the
mining operation) not needed to reclaim the disturbed area to the approximate original contour of
the land. The excess spoil material forming the rock fill is generally made up of angular blast
rock.  Before the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA), excess spoil disposal structures were generally constructed with minimal engineering
guidance. Often these structures were placed at locations selected merely for the convenience of
the mining operation.  Since the passage of SMCRA, regulations require increased engineering
efforts directed toward design and construction of excess spoil disposal areas to improve safety.

In general, methods of excess spoil placement in valleys that are recognized by the State and
Federal  regulations include:  (a) the 'conventional' lift-type construction method  (Figures  1 and
2); (b) the head-of-hollow fill method (Figures 3 and 4); and, (c) the durable  rock (gravity
segregated) fill method (Figure 5).  Each type  is described below.

In the lift method, excess spoil is usually deposited in  uniform and compacted horizontal lifts or
layers (four feet or
less in thickness).
Prior to placement of
the spoil, the
foundation (i.e.
valley floor and
sides where the spoil
will be placed) must
be prepared and rock
underdrains installed
to accommodate
groundwater seepage
and surface-water
infiltration. OSM
regulations at 30
CFR§816.71(f)(3),
require that the rock
underdrain be
durable  (rock that
will not slake in        Figure 1: Typical Conventional-Lift Valley Fill (after Loy, Leroy D., Jr. et. al, 1978)
x 'S75Lt^^^*ifo
xX^tr»?iC.,>'   .   * *tiwy**/
-------
water nor degrade to soil material); non-acid or toxic forming; and free of coal, clay or other
non-durable material.
     i    I
                                                                                          1100
                                                             If HOW tt >36MJM K1TWA* CUT1 0
                                                             NOCK TOC SlmlfW fOfi IT*mmf
                                                          J	L
                                                                                 J	I	L
  A  o
          I    I   I    I    I
                                 I    I   I
                                                                    SCALE IN FEET
 Figure 2:  Sections of Conventional-Lift Valley Fill (after Loy, Leroy D., Jr. et. al., 1978)
The Federal
regulations [30 CFR
§816.72(b)(l)] also
provide for another
method for excess
spoil disposal, which
involves the placement
of spoil in lifts at the
valley head, i.e. at
elevations
approximating the
adjacent ridge lines of
the watershed. This
"head-of-hollow fill"
method originated in
West Virginia in the
early  1970's, and
                                              l»#TSw. •**"*""••  $f
                                              '  '    '  -i^*'
                                 <*  4
                                      ::^^fc,S,^p5'
                                            ,-jA^W. ?
Figure 3: Typical Chimney-Drain Valley Fill (after Loy, Leroy D., Jr. et. al.,
1978)
                                              -4-
-------
      jm.
             _J	)	1
                                                              100o      aoo
                                                                 SCALE IN FEET
  Figure 4: Sections of Chimney-Drain Lift Valley Fill (after Loy, Leroy D., Jr. et. al.., 1978)

combines the lift-placement technique described above and a rock chimney drain in the center,
or core, of the fill. The "rock core chimney drain" results from mechanical segregation of larger,
durable rock during spreading of spoil material and lift compaction. All surface and subsurface
drainage is to be controlled by this rock core to minimize the phreatic surface or water level
within the fill mass.  This type of fill must crest as close as possible to the ridge line to minimize
the surface drainage entering the rock core. The chimney drain can also be used in lift fills lower
in the watershed, provided the fill volume does not exceed 250,000 cubic yards (cy) and
upstream drainage is
diverted  around the fill.
The durable rock fill
method (30 CFR
§816.73) consists of
end-dumping spoil into
valleys in a single lift or
multiple lifts.  The fill
construction begins at
an elevation where the
crown or top of the
completed fill will
occur.  Dump trucks
haul spoil to the center
of the hollow and dump
                                Final Grade
                                  26'
Gravity Segregated
 Blanket Underdrain
                         Figure 5: Diagram of Durable-Rock Fill
                                            -5-
-------
the material downslope.  This continues to take place, allowing a platform of spoil to lengthen
down the hollow, and ends when the toe or bottom of the fill approaches its as-designed final
location. This study has found the lifts of existing fills to range between 30 to over 400 feet in
thickness. At the completion of spoil placement, the face of the fill is graded from its dumped
angle of repose (the natural slope of spoil material under its own weight) into a less steep,
terraced configuration.  The durable rock fill method can only be used if durable rock
overburden is present and will comprise at least 80 % (by volume) of the fill1.  A designed rock
drain is not required for this type of fill, since the gravity segregation during dumping forms a
highly permeable zone of large-sized durable rock in the lower one-third of the fill.

Among these different methods of valley-fill construction, end-dumping to build a durable rock
fill has been, by far, the most commonly applied since 1980.  It is less expensive than lift
construction; and, with the sampling and testing practices commonly in use, most permits
demonstrate excess spoil volumes of at least 80 % durable rock.
C. Valley fill construction and inspection issues

The literature reveals that numerous technical and regulatory issues have arisen concerning the
stability of valley fills since before the enactment of SMCRA.  These include the following:

•      Testing rock durability. There is no consensus among geotechnical experts working for
       the industry, environmental groups, and government as to what constitutes rock
       durability testing protocol (i.e. to determine whether or not a material is durable enough
       to be used in an underdrain, chimney drain, or durable rock fill) that represents the
       conditions rocks are subject to by excavation and placement during mining, and as long-
       term residence within a fill. The rigor of various testing techniques proposed varies
       widely.

•      Sampling to determine volume of available durable rock.  Accepted standards do not
       exist for the frequency of rock sampling prior to mining and a methodology for ensuring
       that 80 % (by volume) durable rock is being placed during durable rock fill construction.

       Plugging of durable rock fill underdrains during regrading. Following the end-dumping
       of spoil, the mine operator is required to regrade the face of a durable rock fill from the
       angle of repose to a more stable, 2:1 slope. This regrading is commonly accomplished by
       grading spoil from upper sections of the fill  outslope towards the toe, thus extending the
       toe downstream.  This reworked spoil is finer-grained than the gravity-segregated
       underdrain material. The placement of the fines downstream of the terminus of the
       JThe 80 percent durable rock standard was first proposed to OSM by Dirk Casagrande in
October, 1978, in comments on proposed rule making following the passage of SMCRA
(Casagrande, 1978).

                                          -6-
-------
     blanket underdrain can retard free drainage from within the fill, and consequently
     increase pore pressures in the spoil, reducing fill stability.

     Surface drainage control on durable rock fills.  Durable rock fills in most states are
     constructed with perimeter or groin drains to control drainage from sources on and above
     the fill (Figure 6). However, the current approved West Virginia regulations allow for
                                         Figure 7: Durable Rock Fill with center surface drain.
Figure 6:  Durable Rock Fill with perimeter
drains.
     the use of drainage structures located on the top and face of the fill surfaces [38 Code of
     State Regulations (CSR) § 2-14.14(e)(6)] (Figure 7). These center drains result in
     increased contact between running water and the fill. Whether or not this significantly
     influences the stability of valley fills remains in question. Some geotechnical experts
     recommend allowing all drainage to run through the fill mass (Terra Engineers, Inc.,
     1993).

     Wing dumping. A common problem in mountaintop mining concerns the dumping of
     spoil across the valley from the mining bench at points down-valley of the toe of a
     developing fill.  Ideally, all spoil is first transported up the valley and then dumped from
     the top of the fill in the  down-valley direction. In this way, the end-dumped face of an
     advancing fill progresses uniformly down the valley and parallel to the fill face.  This
     preferred procedure maximizes gravity segregation of competent (unweathered) rock for
     underdrain development; and minimizes spoil exposure, and consequent breakdown and
     stream sedimentation. Presently, wing dumping  is expressly limited in West Virginia
     [(State Directive Series  14 (effective October 1992)]. Kentucky has also adopted
     procedures for restricting wing dumping. OSM will evaluate the Kentucky procedures
     after two years of implementation.
                                         -7-
-------
•      Effect of spoil settlement on pore-water pressures and stability.  Government and
       academic studies have documented the expected occurrence of surface settlement on
       constructed excess spoil fills (Wunsch et. al., 1996) and have evaluated effect of
       settlement on pore-water pressures and fill stability, using a matric-stress critical state
       model (Rohlf et. al., 2000). Settlement of spoil fills results from spoil fragments or
       particles gradually coming closer together (consolidating) under the influence of gravity
       (i.e. the weight of the spoil). Pore water in the fill is located within spaces between the
       spoil particles. Below the phreatic surface or ground-water table, the weight of the pore
       water produces forces that press against the spoil particles. The work suggests that a fill
       can become either more or less stable with spoil consolidation, depending on a variety of
       factors related to the depth of the ground-water table in the fill and characteristics of the
       fill mass itself. Presently, there is very little, if any, empirical data about the internal
       conditions of completed fills.

       Differences between as-built and as-designed fill configurations and their effects on
       stability. Regulatory staff say it is a common occurrence that as-built fills often have
       very different configurations than those approved in the original permit. As-built fills are
       often much smaller than as-designed. Building a fill that is smaller or larger than planned
       can impact long-term stability. Smaller fills could end up higher in the watershed where
       the natural ground could be much steeper. Consequently, fill stability is more difficult to
       maintain. Larger fills can extend the toe area into zones  of thicker,  less stable,
       foundations soils (that may not have been investigated in the permit application).

•      Timeliness in fill completion. Sometimes durable rock fills are abandoned for long
       periods of time following partial  construction.  Long exposure of spoil to the elements
       without the benefit of revegetation could  accelerate rapid spoil degradation and erosion.
       This can lead to  rapid in-filling of sedimentation ponds (which the permittee is required
       to repair) and significant stream sedimentation; and can also result in instability in the
       completed fill from internal weak zones parallel to the face of the completed fill.

       Effectiveness of I & E protocol to ensure sound fill-construction practices. Specific
       concerns related to this issue have included the frequency of inspections at fill-
       construction sites, adequate pre-mining site inspections, and protocols for verifying the
       stability of completed fills.

In addition to evaluating other concerns pertinent to the question of valley-fill stability, this
study addresses the issues above with one exception: There are insufficient subsurface data to
support consideration of spoil settlement and its effect on fill stability. However, properly-
installed underdrains and surface diversions should limit pore-water pressures to a low level
within the fill-and, thus, not impact stability adversely.
-------
                                III. Investigative Approach

SMCRA led to regulations containing permitting, design, and construction requirements
intended to implement state-of-the-art engineering standards for excess spoil disposal.  The
regulations and engineering standards were tailored to ensure excess spoil disposal practices
were  meeting the SMCRA goals of long-term stability and, hence, public safety and
environmental protection.

A retrospective study definitively evaluating the mass stability of large earth and rock structures
requires extensive knowledge of the in-situ engineering properties of the fill and foundation
materials, as well as the phreatic surfaces within the fills. The limited funds and time available
for this study made it impractical to accurately establish the geotechnical condition of the
thousands of fills on the Appalachian mine sites.  This investigation utilizes information and data
from permit files, interviews, and  field observations, which serve as indicators of regulatory
program effectiveness in assuring long-term stability  of fills. The adopted approach focuses on
problematic fills. The team is using these sites, along with fills randomly selected, in the
evaluation of valley fill performance.
Scope of Investigation

The tasks undertaken to determine the effectiveness of regulatory programs with respect to fill
stability include:

       •       Assemble all available literature on excess spoil disposal practice evaluations and
              compare the conclusions and recommendations with known current practices.

              Examine the feasibility of documenting that 80% durable rock (by unit volume) is
              attained during construction and in final fill configurations.

       •       Evaluate the effectiveness of current sampling and testing protocols for
              establishing representative rock durability of excess spoil.

              Establish the effectiveness of current methods utilized in I & E of excess spoil
              disposal.

              Determine the population of documented fill instability since the permanent
              regulatory program, and the causative factor(s).

       •       Review strength parameters, phreatic surfaces, and analysis methods used in
              stability analyses in the approved permit.

              Evaluate state  surface mining information systems (SMIS) data and compile
              violation data relative to excess spoil disposal.

                                           -9-
-------
       •      Review documentation, certification of critical construction phases, and quarterly
              certification.

              Establish if foundation conditions for fill placement are as defined in the
              approved permit.

              Aerial reconnaissance of a sampling of completed and fills under construction in
              WV, KY, and VA to visually assess stability, drainage control, and related
              features.

       •      On-the-ground visits to selected sites identified in 10, above to further assess
              stability, drainage control, and related features.

              Compare as-built fill configurations with as-designed.

       •      Assess if proper surface and subsurface drainage controls are installed.

A full description of each of these tasks is provided in the workplan as Appendix A. The
workplan also identifies the principal participants in the study (hereafter identified as "the team")
and principal State and Federal contacts.  Task 1  entailed a document and literature search. Tasks
2 through 5 are interviews with Federal geotechnical experts and state regulatory agency
inspection staff. Tasks 6 through 13 entail permit and field reviews of selected fill samples. The
approximate location of the fill samples are shown in Figure 8.  Data and photographs for each
fill are presented in Appendix B. The selection and utilization of samples in each state are
summarized in the table below:

 State   Total #    Durable   Reclaimed   Aerial       Ground      Spoil      Construct-
         of fills    rock       fills          inspection   inspection   Volume    ion dates
                   fills                                             (mcy)      (yr)
WV
KY
VA
TN
49
48
25
6
34
46
24
4
35
6
10
0
49
0
25
0
19
48
13
1
0.2-201.1
0.2-90.9
0.3-16.8
0.2-7.5
78-98
87-00
90-99
86-98
 Total   128        108           51          74          81      0.2-201.1   78-00

West Virginia:  The West Virginia sample list was derived from a list of problem fills identified
by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) in a 1994 inventory
study of inspectable fills (i.e., fills in active permits).  This list was augmented by OSM
personnel from the Charleston Field Office from personal experience with valley fill
investigations.  The study database includes 49 West Virginia fills.  All of the fills were observed


                                           -10-
-------
from the helicopter. From the document review and helicopter surveillance, 19 sites were
selected for ground-level inspection. These sites include two adjacent unstable fills initially not
included in the sample list, one of which was detected from the helicopter.

Among the West Virginia samples, fill construction began between June 1978 and September
1998. Thirty five of these had been reclaimed as of 1999. The recorded size of the fills range
from 0.20 to 201.10 mcy. Fill lengths range from 490 to 9,900 ft.  Thirty four were proposed as
durable rock fills in the permit, the rest conventional-lift, chimney-drain, or (in the case of two
                                  OH          1
                               ,-_   ,.-1        \              A     /  A
                              •^   I,—'    1      LIB?
                                                    ^  2* «TV  >_/
                                                X   -f_ Boon* S f Fa'vette "*s.
                                                             .

                                                                         (
                                               +?Vn*a'
                                I    A;   I-, /    V   1             ''""
                                uy"i    t/   ^    \     ^  ..--•'
                                VrWL    *s..^- ^Buchananjv-/
          Figure 8: Locations of valley fill samples.

fills) unknown types of construction. Twenty one of the sampled durable rock fills use center
surface drains, which are unique to the state (the durable rock fills in the other states use
perimeter surface drains).

Kentucky: The elements of the study in Kentucky were completed as part of a durable rock fill
oversight study by the Kentucky Department of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(KYDSMRE) and OSM.  Since the state agency  conducts routine overflight and video-
documenting of permits, aerial reconnaissance under this study was unnecessary.  Also, the
oversight workplan requirements of the durable rock-fill study included ground-level visits of all
sites.
                                          -11-
-------
For the most part, the samples were randomly selected—with a few known problem fills added.
The study database includes 48 Kentucky valley fills.  Construction start dates range from March
1987 to September 2000. The recorded fill sizes range from 0.20 to 90.90 mcy; and fill lengths
vary from 300 to 8,800 ft.  All but two samples are durable rock fills.  The two exceptions were
conventional-lift fills.  All include perimeter surface drains.  At the time of the site visits, only
six of the sample fills had been reclaimed.  For this broader study, the list was supplemented
with four more completed fills for ground-level inspections and permit reviews.  OSM had
identified stability problems on these additional fills during oversight of the Kentucky program
between 1986 and 1990. The final bonds on the permits of all four of the fills had been released
before the inception of this study.

Virginia: The team developed a 25-fill sample list from the Virginia Department of Mine Land
Reclamation (VADMLR) fill-inventory database. Thirteen fills were visited at ground level.
Construction  start date ranges from August 1990, to December 1999.  The fill volumes range
from 0.30 to 16.80 mcy; and the lengths vary from 390 to 4,300 ft. All but one are durable rock
fills, the exception being of the conventional-lift type. All of the fills include perimeter surface
drains.  Ten were reclaimed at the time of the helicopter survey.

Tennessee: The Tennessee sample list includes six fills that are still under an active permit. The
construction start dates range from January 1986 to June 1998. Recorded volumes range from
0.20 to 7.50 mcy. Fill lengths varied from 350 to 3,300 ft. The team  conducted a ground-level
visit of the largest fill. Four of the samples are durable rock fills and two are conventional-lift
fills. All of them include perimeter surface drains.
                                      IV. Findings

A. Durable rock fills

1. Background

The successful long-term performance of excess spoil structures is directly related to the strength
and durability of the rock in the fill mass and rock drains. Rock materials removed from their in-
situ condition during the surface mining of coal exhibit changes in physical integrity.  Such
changes are caused by physical and chemical mechanisms induced by variations in moisture and
stress regimes.  The rock in fills has been subjected to blasting, handling, compaction, and
weathering-and continues to be subjected to overburden pressure and weathering after fill
emplacement. Generally speaking, a sedimentary rock that can withstand these processes
without rapidly breaking down into smaller-sized, soil-like, weaker material can be classified as
a durable rock.

Durable rock is defined in Federal regulations at 30 CFR §816.73(b) as rock which does not
slake in water and will not degrade to soil material.  The regulatory intent is to selectively obtain
rock that can withstand surface mining conditions, and natural forces affecting the fill mass after

                                          -12-
-------
final placement, without significant degradation.  The intent is that, over the long term, the
durable rock fill behaves as a mass of broken rock and not as soil. A rock mass is inherently
more stable than soil with similar volume, geometry, and foundation conditions because rock has
much greater load-carrying capacity.  Rock has more resistance to both consolidation and
displacement along planes of weakness.  Durable rock fill or underdrain material has this greater
strength because of strong friction between the particles (quantified as the angle of internal
friction) and greater resistance to forces promoting shear (shear stress). A rock mass is also free-
draining because of its high permeability. Weak, nondurable rock will degrade into finer soil-
like particles  as a result of the weight of the material above it (overburden pressure) and moisture
absorption. The drainage system provided by the void space between the rocks may become
clogged.  The clogging may cause excess pore water pressures to develop that will cause a
decrease in the shear resistance or shear strength of the fill material. A decrease in shear
strength can cause  instability in the excess spoil structure. Another concern is that the uneven
settlement of the fill (differential settlement) resulting from the breakdown and excessive
consolidation of non-durable rock can disrupt surface drainage structures, including diversion
channels on terraces. Failure of drainage diversions leads to increased water infiltration and
promotes fill  mass  instability. Therefore, the correct assessment of the strength and durability of
the rock is a critical design factor.

The Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia definitions of durable rock are similar to the Federal
definition.  The Kentucky and West Virginia definitions are, in fact, more specific.  The
Kentucky regulations require a Slake Durability Index (SDI) of at least 90 %, or similar result
using another test that's equivalent to the SDI to the KYDSMRE's satisfaction [405 Kentucky
Administrative Regulations 16:130 § 4 (l)(a)2J. The West Virginia regulations reject soil-like
material in the durable rock definition: rock capable of degrading to a material, of which at least
50 % is finer  than 0.074 millimeter, has plasticity, and is classified as ML, CL, OL, MH, CH, or
OH (under ASTM  D-2487), is considered to be soil [38 CSR § 2-14.14(g)(l)(B)].

In all states, the industry and state agencies have relied upon the SDI as the primary method to
evaluate rock durability. However, early OSM special studies and inspection reports indicated
that weak, non-durable rock was being used in durable rock applications. Consequently, the
agency undertook a major study that developed an alternative testing protocol and classification
system (called the "strength-durability classification") and examined the results of applying it
and the SDI test tol 16 overburden samples collected from 61 mine sites in the same four states
covered by this  study (Welsh et. al. 1992).  The study concluded that the strength-durability
classification was significantly more effective than the SDI in discriminating weak, non-durable
rock2.  OSM emphasized that the recommended protocol was not only effective, but also simple
and inexpensive.
       Subsequent, independent analysis of the data used in the 1992 study confirms this
conclusion, with the notable exception of rock samples obtained from West Virginia, in which
the SDI test was more discriminatory than the OSM classification (Rohlf, 2001).

                                          -13-
-------
The proposed strength-durability classification utilizes a phased approach. The initial phase
consists of soaking rock samples in water for 24 hours to identify very low-durability rock by its
short-term slaking behavior. Samples passing this phase are then subjected to a second phase of
free-swell and point-load tests. In the free-swell test, a rock sample is immersed in water and the
degree of its expansion or swelling is measured over a 12-hour period.  Rocks tend to weaken
with swelling. Thus, rocks that tend to swell less have a greater chance of being classified as
durable.  The point-load test is a relatively inexpensive procedure for measuring a rock's shear
resistence.  The sample is placed between two metal cones. The cones are then pressed into the
specimen with increasing force until the sample fails. The point-load strength and swell-test data
are plotted on a graph, and the points are compared to "zones" on the same graph representing
the acceptable value ranges for durable rock classification.

Since this OSM study was published, the strength-durability system has received both support
and criticism.  There seems to be a broad consensus among the state and Federal regulatory
agencies that the SDI does not adequately discriminate non-durable rock for surface coal mining
and excess spoil fill construction. Some comments against the strength-durability classification
protocol  have asserted that its requirements  for durability are far too stringent (Casagrande,
1991). For example, the ASTM procedure for the 24-hour soak test includes oven drying the
samples before and after soaking; but temperatures as high as 105 degrees Centigrade do not
occur in a valley fill. Also, critics contend that the free swell test is unnecessary.  The tendency
of rocks that do not readily slake to swell in an unconfmed state does not indicate  a significant
loss of strength; and the swelling should be resisted to some degree by the confined conditions
(from contact with other rock particles) within the spoil fill.  Finally, the minimum point-load
strengths required for rock to be classified as durable are claimed to be unreasonably high,
considering the range of fill thicknesses and, therefore, the limited  compressive force a rock
endures.  A counter argument supportive of the strength-durability  is that the purpose of oven
drying is not to replicate the temperature regime in a fill. Its intent is to simulate drying.  Rocks
do, in fact, experience significant drying and air slaking from excavation to placement during the
mining process (Farrar, 1999).  Further, the stress concentrations  from point-to-point contacts
between the rock  particles in the  finished fill can result in forces much stronger than those
associated with simple vertical compression (Farrar, 1999). It is noted herein that a rock
durability test must conservatively account for a valley fill's long-term stability. The stability of
valley fills are not monitored or maintained  by the mining industry or government following
final bond release. Steps in a testing procedure that may subject a  sample to extreme
environments over a very short time period may help to account for the effect of milder
environments over an indefinite period of time.  They may also account for short-term events not
easily captured in the lab, such as the effect of blasting and severe  impact and abrasion among
boulder-size particles during the  spoil-handling process.

A review of technical literature shows progress in rock durability research. However, many of
the classification systems discussed relate to rocks unlike those encountered in coal mining, e.g.
rocks of the igneous and metamorphic variety which are heavily influenced by chemical
weathering of constituent minerals. Hudec (1997) points out that shales have the most rapid
weathering rates of all rock types, but also that their weathering is  almost entirely  physical in

                                           -14-
-------
nature. Weathering of shales occurs through water-pressure build up in small pores during
wetting and drying, or through ice expansion and contraction during the freeze-thaw process.
Dick and Shakoor (1997) compared various geologic characteristics of mudrocks (claystones,
shales, and mudstones) to their durability as measured by the SDL  They proposed that some of
these geologic properties (e.g. percent water adsorption for shales and micro-fracture density for
mudstones) may be useful durability indicators. The team did not find any other work that
provides a relevant alternative to either the SDI or OSM classification.

2. Interviews

The team interviewed a number  of WVDEP staff members from the Nitro, Logan, Oak Hill and
Phillippi regional offices. In general, the durability observations of inspectors and their
supervisors partly depend on which part of the state they are working in. Inspectors working in
the southern part of the state are relatively confident that the fills have about 80% durable rock
thanks in part to the presence of massive sandstones in the overburden and interburden. This
confidence does not seem to be mirrored among those working further north.  This may be a
reflection of a lesser occurrence  of sandstone in the geologic section in that part of the state. A
related contrast in topography was observed from the helicopter between these two regions:  The
landscape to the south is more rugged with weathering-and-erosion-resistant sandstones capping
the ridges.  The mountains of the north are lower and more rounded, suggesting the predominant
influence of weaker rock types.  Still, all of the inspectors seem to feel that the durable rock fills
in their areas are stable based on their record to date (i.e. the lack of slope-movement events).
One comment advocated a standard for particle-size distribution in durable rock fills under
construction in order  to ensure the formation of an adequate underdrain. There is a broad
consensus among the WVDEP inspectors that the SDI is not an adequate test for durability.  This
latter opinion seems to be shared by the inspection staff of the KYDSMRE based on draft
findings of their joint oversight study with OSM.

Discussions with VADMLR staff indicate that durable rock fills in the state are stable due to the
availability of hard sandstone in the overburden and interburden and the absence of any record
or recollection of fill  instability.  The agency has not made a call on the reliability of SDI as a
test for rock durability for excess spoil construction. Use of the test among permit applicants is
accepted because of its broad use as a standard for a wide variety of engineering applications.

The team contacted with members of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers,
Federal Highway Administration, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Bureau of Land
Management, and Department of Energy.  The first four agencies deal with structures in which
the durability of construction material is important. However, large earthen structures
constructed or inspected by these organizations tend to be composed of selected off-site
materials and to be constructed by other than the end-dumping method. An interviewee with the
Bureau of Reclamation familiar with the SDI would like to see the current ASTM protocol
supplemented with some sort of measure of specimen break-down following the regular testing
procedure and suggested that this may make the technique more applicable to the durable rock
fills.

                                           -15-
-------
3. Data analysis

The issues described above relating to rock durability testing and placement of 80 percent
durable rock in a durable rock fill have largely resulted from subjective observations by state and
federal inspectors, engineers, and geologists of fills under construction. The investigators of this
study recorded their own observations using the sample valley fills. During initial site visits, the
percent durable rock estimates of several fills were compared to assure consistency. The
remaining valley fills in the sample were then individually evaluated.  The use of this visual
technique for purposes of this study should not be construed as an endorsement by OSM for use
in regulatory programs.
                                                        $*£*'*'.      •->*-
                                                                          '
                                                  .   '  •:..     >  C^TO.^  N\   >5a£
                                                                        N>X  V.   <*•
                                             r-';'-^        ,    '• \  -        s    '
 Figure 9:  Durable Rock Fill under construction.     Figure 10: Shale breakdown in fill under construction.
Using on-site visual observations and photographs of the fill samples, the team made subjective
judgements on whether sampled durable rock fills were being constructed with at least 80
percent durable rock (Figures 9-12); and whether a discernable underdrain was being formed via
                                                                                  y
 Figure 11:  Degraded shale boulder in a completed valley fill.
Figure 12:  Non-durable sandstone in a
durable rock fill under construction.
                                           -16-
-------
gravity segregation (Figures 13-14). The photographs
used were primarily those taken from the helicopter,
but also included some color certification
photographs. Possible responses to the two questions
(when visual data was available) included yes, no, or
no response (i.e. when there was too much
uncertainty). The criteria employed for the first
question included the perceived particle-size
distribution on the advancing face of the fill, the
amount of sandstone versus shale in the dumped spoil,

    Figure 13: Note gravity segregated underdrain.
Figure 14:  Lack of gravity segregation in a
durable rock fill under construction.
and (for ground-level site visits) the degree of particle breakdown occurring in the exposed
portion of the spoil. Subjective judgements were made for 44 durable rock fills.  Of these, 28
appeared to have less than 80 percent durable rock and 5 were considered to lack discernable
gravity-fed underdrains. The percent durable rock estimates for those under 80 percent range
from 20 to 70 percent.

West Virginia's definition of soil for durable rock classification purposes highlights how rock-
overburden and interburden lithology can influence the effectiveness of a durable rock fill's
underdrain system.  Even if gravel-to-boulder size particles break down into their unit grain
sizes, the resulting material would possibly still be permeable enough to act as an effective
underdrain.  Some of the sandstones in the region may fit this condition.  Shale fragments, on the
other hand, result in relatively impermeable material when decomposed.  In general, sandstones
also have the added advantage of being harder and more resistant to impact, abrasion, and
weathering; and thus more likely to preserve  large and porous particle-size distributions in the
fill underdrain.  To document the variation in lithology among the sample mine sites, the team
measured the % sandstone from drill logs in the permit files down to the lowest coal seam
mined. In all, 117 recordings were made.  It  is important to note that the data do not accurately
represent site-specific volumes of sandstone available for excess spoil fill construction.  For
instance, the volume of a 10-foot thick sandstone bed forming a ridge crest may be markedly less
                                           -17-
-------
than that of 10 feet of sandstone immediately overlying the mined coal seam. This is a result of
the geometric effects of topography. Nevertheless, the data should be a fair indicator of general
variability with respect to the rock type's occurrence. The measured column-weighted amount
of sandstone ranged from 6 to 97 percent. The percentages most commonly fall in the 50 to 70
percent interval and are relatively high in West Virginia and Kentucky. Based on this
information, it may be both technically and economically feasible to incorporate volume-
weighted rock/lithology distribution as a partial indicator for the designation of durable rock
fills3. Justification for this approach, especially for sites where available sandstone may be weak
and/or non-durable, may require research that identifies the permeability ranges of regional
sandstone-derived soils and compares them to the subsurface drainage discharges of typical
valley fills.

An apparent contradiction within the durable rock classification issue occurs where the same
layers of rock (rock strata) in a permit area are designated as both durable and suitable for topsoil
substitution. A rock is  designated as suitable for topsoil substitution (in the absence of sufficient
quantities of natural topsoil) if it can sustain revegetation on spoil fills. To support freshly
planted vegetation on a reclaimed surface, the rock must rapidly decompose into soil-like
material. This requirement appears to directly contradict what is expected of durable rock (i.e.
that it will not slake into a soil-like material).  The occurrences of this phenomenon among the
fill samples of the study was not systematically recorded and, thus could not be queried from the
database; but the permit review has identified several samples that fit this category.  This
apparent dichotomy of properties is partly explainable by the nature of the lab tests performed:
tests for topsoil substitution directly measure the organic chemistry of the samples, whereas
those for rock durability test the specimen's mechanical behavior. However, the problem may
also be symptomatic of the inadequacy of the  SDI test for durability. It is noted that the spoil at
the surface of a valley fill is used as  a soil-substitute as a matter of course, due primarily to the
lack of in-situ natural soil available.  Even in a durable rock fill, however, this may be acceptable
if the end-dumping has effectively segregated the durable material towards the bottom of the fill.

Another observation made (but not recorded from the permit review) concerns the representative
sampling of the overburden and interburden for the purpose of determining % durable rock by
volume.  The frequency of sampling relative to the thickness of the rock section above the lowest
mined coalbed (or sampling density) varies significantly.  Whether or not a realistic rock
durability testing  protocol is used, the results are not meaningful if the tests are applied to only a
few specimens. For this reason, it is recommended that regulatory authorities develop standards
or guidelines pertaining to the density of sampling for rock durability testing.
       3The concept of applying percent sandstone to valley fill design was previously proposed
by Robins and Hutchins (1979): Fills with greater than 65 percent sandstone would not require
compacted lifts; and fills in steep terrain with more than 90 percent sandstone could use gravity
segregated underdrains.  This present report, however, does not recommend specific, numeric
percentages; nor does it recommend that percent sandstone necessarily be the sole basis for fill-
design considerations.

                                           -18-
-------
4. Discussion

The subjectivity some of the work described herein and the general lack of consensus on what
test(s) are appropriate for determining rock durability in valley fills, underscores the absence of
empirical data on  subsurface conditions in valley fills.  Resolution of this issue may not be
possible without critical information about (1) what is the typical geochemical environment or
the range of environments inside a fill mass and (2) how do different materials (affected by
mining) hold up under these conditions over time.  In addition to or in lieu of an agreed-upon
testing protocol for durability, the team recommends consideration of in-situ sandstone % as a
contributing (but not stand-alone) parameter for the designation of durable rock fills. It is noted
that any requirements based on this parameter would be relatively easy to enforce. Further, the
team suggests that estimating or even quantifying particle-size distributions at different
elevations on an advancing  fill face may be an effective, quantitative way to evaluate gravity-fed
underdrain formation. The  application of scaled, electronic photography in  conjunction with a
computer-enhanced counting-and-measuring procedure might turn out to be a useful quality-
control tool. For purposes of enforcement, where the effectiveness of blanket-drain formation is
suspect, a representative number of measurements by the regulatory authority would be
necessary.

As an alternative approach to resolving these difficult issues concerning durable rock fills, a
standard construction method could be adopted that combines end-dumping following placement
of carefully constructed underdrains.  This would limit  the need for strength and/or durability
testing (with the possible exception of the underdrain material) and for developing a
representative test-sample collection procedure.  The underdrains would be constructed to
effectively capture all sources of seepage and to extend an adequate distance beyond the final toe
position of the fill. Stability analyses would assume  soil-like properties (with minimum or no
compaction) in the spoil above the underdrain.  Compacted lift requirements would only apply to
sites where the mine operator or regulatory authority judged the spoil properties to be such that
long-term stability would not be obtainable otherwise.  The study team believes that this may be
the most cost-effective approach available.
B. Effectiveness of I & E programs

The WVDEP inspection report form includes two questions per excess spoil fill construction.
These are paraphrased as follows: (1) Is the fill being constructed in accordance with the
specifications of the permit; and (2) have all the appropriate construction certifications been
provided? The KYDSMRE inspection form includes "disposal of excess spoil" as part of a
compliance/non-compliance check list.  The VADMLR form is electronic and includes two
spaces for identifying compliance and violations of unspecified performance standards.  The
Federal form includes a compliance/non-compliance check list under "excess spoil disposal" for
"placement," "drainage control," "surface stabilization," and "inspections and certifications."
All of these forms are general and must assume that the inspectors using them are fully
                                           -19-
-------
knowledgeable of the regulatory standards and permit specifications applicable to the
construction of an excess spoil fill.

Some insight into the state staffs' experience with the I & E programs were obtained from the
interviews with WVDEP inspection personnel and a review of the joint KYDSMRE-OSM
durable rock-fill study. WVDEP interviewees did not have any significant issues with their I &
E program vis a vis assurance of fill stability, or with fill stability in general. Specific comments
include the following:

•      The program  has significantly improved  over last six or seven years, thanks to increased
       resources and more and better-trained people;

       Three inspections of a permit (one full, two partial) are required per quarter.  One
       inspection per week often occurs.  One interviewee indicated that this may be enough, i.e.
       if anything is wrong, it will be wrong during an inspection. Another cautioned, however,
       that some mines are in operation for 24 hours (i.e. thousands of cy's can be placed
       between inspections-even at this inspection frequency);

•      Sampling for durability testing and other parameters should be more thorough. One
       sample per stratigraphic unit (such as a 50 ft. thick sandstone bed) is not sufficient.

       People conducting the lab testing, collecting samples for the lab testing, or directing the
       handling of spoil in the mining operations should be better trained.

The joint KYDSMRE-OSM study has produced draft recommendations reflective of the State
staffs perspective on its I & E program. Some of the recommendations are related to: increasing
the frequency of inspections during critical construction phases; requiring more detailed
information in the critical-phase certifications; requiring a more thorough analysis of coal seams
and coal mines in permit-application foundation investigations; and requiring new spoil-balance
calculations when a permittee changes the method of mine  operation or does not  generate the
amount of excess spoil originally estimated.
C. Valley fill design

1. Foundation investigations

Review of the foundation investigations in the permit applications of the fill samples resulted in
three categories: (1) reports that reference test pit(s) and/or test hole(s); (2) reports limited to
narrative; and (3) no reports of foundation investigation found in the permit file.  The permit data
analysis indicates that there were 25 out of 129 fills for which the team was unable to find even a
narrative of foundation conditions. Fill foundation reports for 55 of the fill samples  appeared to
be limited to narratives that generally (1) state that a foundation investigation was performed, (2)
identify the underlying bedrock, (3) report the soil depth to be shallow, and (4) claim that springs

                                           -20-
-------
or seeps or signs of instability were not found. Test pits and/or test holes drilled in the
foundation areas were found in the permits for 48 fills.  Again, where test pits or holes were
included in the permits, soil depths were generally reported as shallow.

The study also included a limited in-field and photograph assessment on the fill foundation
conditions based on: (1)  the occurrence of springs or seeps on the fill; (2) fill instability
attributable to uncontrolled subsurface drainage or thick soil foundations; and (3) mass
movements in the hollow surrounding the valley fill. Clear cases of seeps or springs were
identified  on 11 fills.  Some of these seeps occurred near the fill toe (Figure 15). These may be
reflective  a generally high phreatic surface in the fill, if not a natural ground-water discharge
point from underlying bedrock near the toe.  Other seepages occurred higher in the fill outslope;
and can result from local  ground-water discharges from the underlying strata and/or highly-
permeable zones in the fill material. Some additional fills with possible seeps or springs, as
observed the helicopter photographs, were noted but not digitized. Seventeen of 20 cases of fill
instability in the database are connected to inadequate underdrains or thick foundation soils.
Signs of instability in natural slopes adjacent to the fill were noted for nine of the samples
(Figure 16).
 Figure 15: Seepage at toe of valley fill.
Figure 16:  Landslide into side of valley fill.
An important foundation issue identified during this investigation pertains to the presence of
abandoned underground or auger mines in the location of the valley fill, where the rock strata dip
or are inclined towards the fill.  Abandoned deep mines may result in ground-water discharge
exceeding the capacity of the fill's drainage system—if they are not thoroughly investigated and
accounted for in the fill design. Alternative solutions to presence of abandoned mine effluent
include: (1) over design of the subsurface drainage system (to account for worst-case flow
discharges); (2) sealing the mine effluent areas; and (3) relocating the proposed fill to another
hollow.
                                           -21-
-------
2. Design parameters

Background: The unit weight (or density), angle of internal friction, and cohesion of a material
comprising a valley fill are the engineering properties that affect the fill's stability.  In the slope
stability analysis of a proposed fill, the engineering factors of the material are assigned values
assumed to be representative of the spoil properties. The analysis is applied to the steepest
profile (side-view projection) of the fill.  The procedure then calculates the safety factor (SF) for
several  two-dimensional curves which represent possible three-dimensional slip surfaces in the
fill.  In  one type of analysis commonly used in permit applications, each curve is an arc of a
circle defined by a center and radius.  A grid pattern of circle centers and a range of radii
delineate the potential slip surfaces in the fill (Figure 17).  The curve with the lowest calculated
SF is the end result of the analysis. An SF above 1.0 is the margin between instability and
stability.  That is, the higher the  SF is above 1.0, the more stable the fill structure.
              1.80
        3.56
1.62
1.51
3.13
2.03
                                                           4.19
                                                           4.22
                                                           3.21
                                                            Relocated
                                                            Road
                                              Lowest
                                              Safety
                                              Factor at
                                              Grid Point
                                                                         Top of Valley
                                                                         FillElev. 1550'
                                             I
                                                                             c = o
                                                                             0 = 38°
                                                                             Y=140pcf
                                                                               Top of
                                                                               Existing Fill
               Phreatic
               Surface
C = 100psf.
0 = 25°
Y=130pcf
                                                Bedrock
                                                Surface
Natural Soil
Surface
C = 500 psf.
0 = 20°
Y=135pcf
  Figure 17:  Example of a slope-stability-analysis profile.
                                             -22-
-------
The SF is a ratio between forces that resist slope movement (resisting forces) and those that can
contribute to slope movement (driving forces). The regulations require the ratio of resisting to
driving forces to be at least 1.5 for designed valley fills under static conditions (i.e., conditions
which do not include the effects of vibrations from earthquakes, etc.).  The total weight of the
spoil (i.e. the spoil volume multiplied by the material's unit weight) above a potential slip
surface contributes to both the resisting and driving forces.  How much it contributes to each of
them depends on the steepness of the underlying foundation slope. The material's  friction angle
and cohesion affect the resisting forces only. The higher the friction angle and cohesion, the
stronger the resisting force and more stable the fill. On the other hand, the presence of pore
water in the fill normally reduces the effect of the resisting forces.  The higher the pore-pressure
ratio,  or the higher the phreatic surface in the valley fill profile, the lower the resisting forces and
less stable the fill.

The regulations also require an SF of 1.1 for designed durable rock fills under dynamic
conditions (conditions which include the influence of earthquakes  and other sources of
vibration).  In general the dynamic SF is calculated the same way as the static SF, except that the
driving forces are augmented with a horizontal load equal to a proportion, or fraction, of the total
weight of the fill. The proportion is determined by a  seismic coefficient which, in turn, is related
to the seismic zone occupied by the site in question (Algermissen,  1969).  The general area of
interest in this study occurs within zone 1, characterized by Modified Mercalli earthquake
intensities of V and VI and "minor damage."4

The team obtained typical engineering values for mine spoil and similar materials from the
following sources: (1) text book engineering tables; (2) direct-shear and triaxial tests on several
samples of surface-mine spoil (Superfesky et. al.,  1978);  (3) bench-scale tests for shear strength
on durable and non-durable surface-mine spoil (Hribrar et. al., 1986); and (4) testing of samples
obtained from 12 non-durable rock mine spoil embankments in Ohio (Shakoor et. al., 1989).
The references indicate a unit-weight range of 100 to 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Friction
angle varies from 25 to 40 degrees for spoil (or like material); but, with respect to durable rock
fills, has a narrower range of 30 to 40 degrees.  Cohesion ranges from 0 to 400 pounds per square
foot (psf) for spoil, but is assumed 0 psf for embankments similar to durable rock fills.

Permit data  collection: Data recorded from stability analyses in the permit applications and some
final as-built engineering certifications include: the analysis software employed; SF; the
engineering properties of the spoil and foundation material (unit weight, angle of internal
friction, and cohesion); and the phreatic surface.  As for the phreatic surface, the team has
distinguished the data into three categories: (1) pore pressure ratio given; (2) no pore pressure
ratio given, but phreatic surface shown on the cross-section of the proposed fill; and (3) no
phreatic-surf ace data provided.   For all of the above parameters, the team recorded data for: the
original permit applications; the latest permit-application revision that was approved prior to the
       4The discussion in this section relating to SF analysis is focused on the static case.
However, since the factors in the static and dynamic analyses are almost identical, pertinent
observations and conclusions in this report should be equally applicable to the dynamic case.

                                           -23-
-------
completion of the fill; and the fill's as-built condition. The purpose of this data collection was to:
(1) observe the ranges of engineering values used in the stability analyses; and (2) compare these
ranges to the accepted value ranges for spoil and similar materials to discern whether the
numbers used in the fill stability analyses are consistently reasonable.

Permit data analysis: The primary slope-stability software employed by permit applicants is the
Rotational Equilibrium Analysis of Multi-Layered Embankments (REAME).   SB-Slope and
STABLE have been used infrequently. A few of the original designs include hand calculations.
All of these methods assume cylindrical, rotational landslides or land slips; and have been
developed for slopes composed of unconsolidated material. In some cases, the Sliding Wedge
Analysis of Side-Hill Embankments (SWASE) was also been used in conjunction with REAME.
SWASE had been developed for blocky or wedge-type slope movements, such as in densely
jointed, in-place, massive units of rock.  Predominantly, if not in all cases, the application of
SWASE results in higher minimum SF's than those of the rotational-movement analyses.  No
valley fill stability analyses were found in six original permit applications. All of the existing
analyses resulted in minimum SF's of at least 1.5.

The spoil-related
engineering  data
analyzed were collected
from  119 stability
analyses in original
permit applications, 48
analyses in permit
modifications, and 21
post-construction
analyses in final
certifications.  The ranges
of engineering values
approximate those in the
literature; and are
roughly consistent among
the original permits,
permit modifications, and
final certifications. Unit
weight or density values
for spoil vary from 95 to
165 pcf and  concentrate
between 120 and 130 pcf
(Figure 18).  Friction
angles range from 21 to
50 degrees and are
focused between 20 and
40 degrees (Figure 19).
                        Figure 19: Frequency distribution of friction angle values.
90

70
>» 60 --
O
§ 50 --
O" 40
0)
LL 30
20 --
10

Comparison of Unit Weights








I 	 1 I I
91-100
101-110


—

—





i— i\A/~~4.\/; .-,,;„;„

DVirginia
• Tennessee
n Kentucky



	
111-120 121-130 131-140 141-150 >150
Unit Weight (pcf)
Igure 18: Frequency distribution of unit weight values.
40
35
30
>s
o 25
§ 20
cr
® 15
u_
10
5
0
Comparison of Friction Angles
i — i









21-25















H
s



nWestVirginia
nVirginia
• Tennessee




—
26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50
Friction Angle (deg)
                                          -24-
-------
50

40 -

>» J0 '
0 30
^ 25
£~ 20

10
5
0 -
Comparison of Cohesion
	










0









™









=











D West Virginia
DVirginia
• Tennessee
n Kentucky

1-100 111-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 >300
Range of Cohesion Values (psf)
However, there appears to be a bimodal distribution of these values. This is clear when one
examines the Kentucky data for original permits and permit modifications. Friction angles
cluster at 24 degrees, and between 30 and 35 degrees. The West Virginia data mostly falls
within 33 to 39 degrees. Virginia and Tennessee have friction angles equal to or greater than 30
degrees.  For spoil cohesion, Kentucy, Virginia, and Tennessee values are concentrated between
160 and 200 psf (Figure 20). Most of the West Virginia fills have zero cohesion, with a few
occurrences of 100 psf.

Many stability analyses
also include
engineering values for
the fill foundation.
These values were not
systematically recorded
in the initial period of
the investigation.  The
database includes 51,
13, and 9 sets of
foundation values from
original permits, permit
modifications, and
final certifications,
respectively.  Unit
weight ranges between 90 and 130 pcf.  Friction angle values vary from 22 to 45 degrees; 43 out
of 51 original-permit values equal or exceed 30 degrees.  Cohesion ranges from 0 to 2500 psf,
but concentrates between 0 and 200 psf.  Most of these numbers seem to reflect rock-like
properties.  This should be justified where soil cover is thin and discontinuous following
foundation preparation.

The data analysis found 67 out of 121 stability analyses in the study database that use pore-water
pressure ratios of 0.05.  Nine analyses employ a ratio of 0.10. Twenty-six did not appear to
present this ratio but did include a shallow phreatic surface in cross-section. Finally, there were
24 analyses in which the team did not find any phreatic-surf ace information.

During the permit reviews, the team did not systematically determine whether or not permit
applications included specific justification for the engineering values.  It was noted, however,
that such justification was frequently provided.  Commonly, these values were derived from the
weighted average of typical shear-strength properties of the rock overburden and interburden.  It
is assumed that pore pressures and/or phreatic surfaces are sometimes applied to proposed valley
fills to perform a conservative (i.e. cautious) analysis. A truly effective underdrain system
should prevent any subsurface-water build up in the fill.

Parameter sensitivity analysis: In the interest of minimizing the impacts of valley fills on
streams,  the EIS is considering limiting the length of valley fills to above the reach of
Figure 20:  Frequency distribution of cohesion values.
                                           -25-
-------
intermittent and perennial streams.  This could increase the foundation slope of fills at the toe
(where most of the resisting forces to movement occur) and thus might impact their stability. To
assess the significance of this quantitatively, the team selected a valley fill design profile and
determined the maximum foundation slope at which a stability analysis resulted in a SF of 1.5.
One of the West Virginia fills, specifically durable rock fill # 2 of permit # S-5027-89, was
selected for the analysis. The slope was gradually increased by moving the fill toe to various
elevations up-valley from its original location (where the slope is 7 percent). At each elevation,
the profile of the fill face was adjusted to maintain 50-ft. vertical distances and 2:1 slopes
between terraces.  Fill volume decreased each time the toe moved up the valley slope.  That
is,spoil material was never added to the top of the top of the fill to maintain the original volume.
The material input parameters of the stability analysis in the permit application were held
constant:
             Property                         Spoil               Foundation

             Unit weight (pcf)                  129                      125

             Cohesion (psf)                      40                      200

             Friction angle (degree)              38                       30

             Pore pressure                        0                     0.05
Using the SB-Slope computer program as the analysis method, the toe-foundation slope at which
the SF dips below 1.5 occurs between 25 and 27 percent (14 and 15 degrees).

The team also assessed the sensitivity of SF to changes in spoil engineering properties, based on
the ranges of values in the database.  The same fill profile was employed. An estimated mean
value and two representative end values for each engineering property were selected, with the
exception of pore pressure, which was held to 0.05.  The same foundation values as above were
assumed for this analysis. The following spoil values were selected:
   Property                         Value 1             Value 2                Value 3

   Unit weight (pcf)                      95                 115                   135

   Cohesion (psf)                         0                 100                   200

   Friction angle (degree)                 20                  35                    50
The fill's toe foundation slope, and the location and depth of the circles defining potential
minimum SF's, were also varied by modifying the grid of circle centers and range of circle radii.

                                          -26-
-------
Five scenarios were developed as follows:
       Case

         1

         2

         3

         4

         5
Toe foundation slope percent (degree)   Minimum SF circle

               7  (4)                   Through the toe

               25(14)                  Through the toe

               25 (14)                  Shallow circle above the toe

               25 (14)                  Deep circle above the toe
              25(14)
Above the toe and through the
foundation
Using the total of 27 combinations of spoil engineering values, stability analyses were run for the
5 scenarios (totaling 135 runs).  Box-and-whisker plots were generated to show the variation of
SF against the three engineering values.  Example plots for a critical toe circle and 25 percent or
14 degree toe slope are presented in Figures 21-23.  All of the plots (and an explanation of what
they show) are provided in Appendix C.
2.3
Q 1.9
Sal.l
0.7
Critical Circle at Toe
25% Foundation Slope






~
r

\ /


\ /

/
/
\
\

T

l
\
\
/
1
) 	 (

i/
\
\i
T ;
i
\
\
/
/
/
/
/
/ \
/
'
\ -
\ -
95 115 135
Unit Weight (pcf)
  Figure 21:  Notched box and whisker plot showing
  safety factor vs density.

The following observations were made from
the parameter analysis and other results of this
study:

•      Although the average toe foundation
       slope among the valley fill samples is
       10 percent, 5 of them have foundation
       slopes at the toe of the fill that are
       greater than 25 percent. Four of these
       have experienced instability  (see
       Section IV, E, 3 for discussion of
2.3
31.9
0.7
Critical Circle at Toe
25% Foundation Slope






\ /
\ /
} 	 (
1 \
1 \
,
| J
\ /
/ \
/ \
I/ — ' — \\
—,-
\ j
\ /
\ /
/ \
/ \
\/ -j— \\
:

:
:
1
0 100 200
Cohesion (psf)
                              Figure 22:  Notched box and whisker plot showing
                              safety factor vs cohesion.
2.3
Q 1.9
b
£,1.5
<§
c»l.l
0.7
Critical Circle at Toe
25% Foundation Slope







-,_
/ \


— \ —
,> 	 	 \
— i —
n
—,-
^> 	 	 \




:
:
:

-
-
20 35 50
Friction (°)
                              Figure 23:  Notched box and whisker plot showing
                              safety factor vs friction angle.
                                           -27-
-------
slope imovements), which corroborates the result of the toe-slope analysis discussed
above. The result of the analysis would not, of course, be precisely replicated by a
similar analysis of all other fill designs. However, the team believes that it is reasonably
representative.  It is important to note that the analysis may have resulted in an SF below
1.5 sooner (starting with a foundation slope less than 25 percent) if the spoil volume in
the fill remained constant as the toe was moved upslope. A constant volume would have
forced the placement of more spoil in the uppermost parts of the existing fills, i.e. those
parts where the driving forces of instability are strongest and the resisting forces are
weakest.

The box-and-whisker plots of SF vs. the input engineering parameters show a similar
pattern across most scenarios. SF is least sensitive to unit weight.  The relationship is
either nonexistent or statistically insignificant, and inconsistent.

There is a relationship between SF and cohesion and SF that is consistently direct across
the minimum-safety-factor cases. However this relation is also very weak to statistically
insignificant.

The influence of friction angle on SF markedly contrasts with  that of the two other
engineering parameters. The correlations for  most scenarios are direct, statistically
significant, and dramatic.  The exception occurs in the shallow circle scenario where the
sensitivity of SF to the three parameters are similarly low.  This result underscores the
importance of using the correct friction angle  in a stability analysis.  This concern
especially applies to durable rock fills that may not, in fact, comprise 80 percent durable
rock.  Under such circumstances, rock-related friction angles  are not justified.

The results of this study's sensitivity analysis  are similar to a sensitivity analysis for Ohio
mine-spoil embankments conducted by Shakoor et. al. (1989).  Their analysis included
variations of the same input parameters (with  similar value ranges); and also phreatic
surface (0 to 40 ft. in elevation relative to the  toe of the fill) and slope angle (from 20 to
34 degrees). Within these value ranges, the significance of the input parameters relative
to SF, in descending order, are slope angle, angle of internal friction, phreatic surface,
cohesion, and unit weight.  Our own analysis  assumed a constant slope angle between
terraces of approximately 27 degrees, since this is the standard requirement of valley
fills. The significance of the phreatic-surface  effect on stability, as demonstrated in the
earlier analysis, emphasizes the importance of accurate accounting of the ground-water
conditions, as well as the amount of durable rock, in the design of a durable rock fill.

The lowest SF's computed by this study's stability analyses occur  at the fill toe.  All of
the SF's fall below 1.00 for the 20-degree internal friction  angle (a soil-like property).
Almost all are below 1.5 where the friction angle is 35 degrees (comparable to a strong
shale or weak sandstone).  Again, the dimensions and density  of the circle-center grid,
and the range and incremental lengths of the radii were adjusted to compute the minimum
SF's at the toe and other locations on the fill.  This study did not include an in-depth

                                    -28-
-------
       study of grids and radii used among the sample permit applications; and, therefore, the
       team cannot state whether the stability analyses are usually adequate in assessing the
       proper circle radii and grid to compute the SF. Regulatory authorities should consider
       specifying the parameters required to set up stability analyses to assure the minimum SF
       is assessed under the proper circumstances.

Slurry impoundments on or below valley fills: During the course of this investigation, it has
come to our attention that several permit applications are proposing the construction of large
slurry impoundments on existing valley fills.  It is inappropriate to place an impounding
structure on top of a valley fill. The design standards for valley fills were developed to assure
that permit applications and construction practices minimize the infiltration of water into the fill.

The Federal regulations prohibit the placement of permanent impoundment structures on all
excess spoil fills [30 CFR §816.71(e)(4)]. This provision was intended to preclude mine
planning that would allow impoundments to be designed or constructed on valley fills as part of
mining or reclamation operations.  However, the same logic applies to old fill sites which are
contemplated to be "retro-fitted" with an impoundment.  Even placing a dam downstream of a
valley fill  could cause the pool to envelop the fill toe and impede the free-flow of internal
drainage.  In the case an impounding structure built on the crest of a valley fill, internal drainage
structures  for the fill may not be adequate to handle the additional seepage that would result.
The presence of such impoundments would add load to the fill and increase the effectiveness of
driving forces; the possible influx of additional subsurface water into the fill material could
decrease the effectiveness of resisting forces.  While there may be engineering designs and
analyses that could show it is possible to build an impoundment on a old valley fill, elaborate
drainage controls and rigorous geotechnical evaluations would be required to demonstrate
feasibility and safely.  State regulatory authorities should exercise great caution in considering
this type of permit and, as a general rule, disfavor such proposals. Future OSM oversight should
focus on whether and how states considered these types of proposals.

An additional note of caution relates to the construction of valley fills above reclaimed coal-
waste impoundments.  The consolidated slurry typically  comprising  reclaimed impoundments: is
fine grained; may still contain a significant amount of pore water; and, consequently, may have
very low engineering strength. Unless measures  are taken to prevent pore-water pressure build-
up in the slurry and otherwise strengthen the waste material, the finished valley fill will rest on
an unstable foundation. The effectiveness of impoundment-stabilization measures will  depend
on a thorough fill-foundation investigation. The  study team recommends that the placement of
fills above reclaimed impoundments be avoided as a matter of policy.

D. Valley fill construction

1. Critical-phase certifications

Based on the data collected  on the construction certifications, the team distinguished three
categories: (1) critical-phase certification provided; (2) no critical-phase certification, but

                                           -29-
-------
equivalent quarterly certification provided; and (3) no certification.  These categories were
applied to the critical phases of foundation preparation, placement of under drains, construction
of surface drains, grading and revegetation, and final certification. Photographic documentation
was categorized into: (1) color photographs provided; (2) copies of photographs provided; and
(3) no photographs provided.

Numerous fills have quarterly certifications without title- or narrative-reference to a specific
critical phase.  The team found many of these quarterly certifications to be applicable to one
phase or another based on the text of the report and/or accompanying photographs. These were
counted as critical-phase certifications. Still, only eighteen of the fills had certifications that
covered all of the critical phases. Incomplete sets of certifications were found in the permits of
113 fill samples. Figure 24 shows the results of this analysis, specifically for completed fills.
                         Comparison of Certification Information
                                      Completed Fills
     s *=
     1 8
     §1
     I 3
100%
 80%
 60%  -
 40%  -
 20%  -
  0%

1—1 r~

M













—












i — |









—



















































i—i














~~






~h
D Kentucky (22)
• Tennessee (3)
DVirginia (6)
DWestVirginia (32)
                 Foundation  Underdrain
                                    Surface
                                     Drain
                                   Grading
                                                       Final
                                                               All Certs
                                Certification Requirement
 Figure 24: Frequency percent of completed valley fill samples with critical phase certifications.

A similar pattern was found with respect to photographs.  No fills have a set of original color
prints or copies of photographs that cover all critical construction phases. Original prints and
copies of photographs for some, but not all, of the critical phases were found in the permits of 42
and 35 fill samples, respectively.

The team recognizes that the above results with respect to certifications are related, in large part,
to where the files were reviewed.  It is understood, for instance, that the most current and
complete documents are usually in the possession of the field inspectors and not preserved in
files available for public review.  Where copies of photographs were available, it is assumed that
color prints do exist elsewhere, or at least did exist at one time. In this case, the team
recommends better public-record keeping. The regulatory authorities should take steps to assure
that permit files available for public review are as complete as practicable.  Where inspectors are
routinely the source of the most recent certifications and it is difficult to maintain the latest
copies in central files, the permit file should contain a notation explaining that missing data
might be held by the field inspector or district office and can be requested for review, as
necessary.  If, upon request, the data is found to not exist, the state can take necessary
                                            -30-
-------
enforcement actions for failure to provide required information.  Finally, it is recommended that
construction certifications specifically reference the critical phases they are supposed to
represent.

2. As-built versus as-designed volume/configuration/position

Many permit revisions and as-built certifications include changes in the fill's dimensions.
Revisions that increased and decreased fill size were both noted.  Size reduction may result in a
stability concern if it significantly increases the toe-foundation and/or average foundation slope
of the valley fill. Theoretically, this can occur in durable rock fills which are constructed by
progressive end dumping of spoil in the down-slope direction. A reduction of available excess
spoil during the mining operation may prematurely halt fill construction. This could cause the
fill to toe out at a higher elevation and in a steeper part of the hollow than originally planned.
Since most of the resistence to fill instability occurs in the toe area, a marked reduction in fill
stability may result. In addition to potentially steepening the toe foundation, a change in fill
length may result in an increase in soil thickness beneath the toe from what had been assumed in
the fill design. This also may weaken the foundation conditions of the fill due to the low shear
strength of soil (relative to the rock beneath it).  The problem applies to increases as well as
decreases in fill-size.

There seems to be agreement among State personnel that valley fills commonly decrease in size
between the design  and as-built condition. However, interviewees did not think that the size
reductions posed a serious threat to fill  stability. For instance, an inspector observed that the fills
he worked with were large enough that, when they became smaller than planned, the foundation
slope at the toe did not significantly change.  Others inspectors pointed out that  if the toe
foundation slope did significantly change from the latest approved design in the permit, the
operator may be required to push the spoil down-valley to a more gentle natural slope.
Alternatively, the inspector may require a new stability  analysis in the final certification, if not a
complete permit revision.  It is noteworthy that the West Virginia regulations stipulate a
maximum toe-foundation slope  of 20 % (approximately 11 degrees) for durable rock fills.

The study attempted to collect data on fill size changes through the permit-review process. Fill
dimensions in length,  area, and/or volume were recorded if available from original permit
applications, permit modifications, and as-constructed certifications.  Records were also made of
fill-crown and toe-elevation changes. Unless final, as-built certifications were available, the
study was unable to systematically assess the occurrence of size changes of finished fills in
comparison with the latest documentation in the permit  files. Limited field time precluded land-
surveys or the application of the global positioning system.  There were a few exceptions where
a size change was significant enough to be visually apparent. In addition to querying this study's
database, the team hoped to utilize the results of the EIS valley fill inventory to  compare as-built
and as-proposed footprints. Fill boundaries from aerial  orthographic photography of finished
fills and permitted as-designed fills had been digitized into a Geographic Information System
database for Kentucky and West Virginia. While the valley fill inventory does not allow
accurate comparison of the change in individual fill size, it did show considerable decrease in the

                                           -31-
-------
total number of fills built from those planned. For instance, in Kentucky, the original inventory
of planned fills exceeded 4,000; however, the as-built data showed less than 2,000 on-the-ground
fills.

Analysis of the study database identified 53 out of the 129 fill samples with at least one size
change in the permit files.  In terms of volume or length, permit modifications for 20 fills
proposed enlargements and 24 proposed size reductions. A few fills have contradictory data
between the volume and length changes.  These may result from recording errors or represent
changes in fill geometry, e.g. from flat to concave outslopes. This data is not included in the
numbers above. The number of fills with recorded changes in toe elevation and foundation slope
are  12 and 17, respectively. There are seven fills with documented increases in toe slope; the
magnitude of the changes range from 4 to 27 percentage points.

In addition to identifying fills  that have experienced size reductions, the database was developed
to evaluate why the reduction  occurred.  Permit file and field reviews, and interviews with State
and OSM inspectors, identified seven categories: (1) change in market conditions during the
mining operation; (2) change in coal quality during mining; (3) pinch out of a coal seam; (4)
interception with abandoned underground or auger mines; (5) inaccurate spoil volume
calculations in the permit; (6)  permit revocation; and (7) reason unknown. There is insufficient
data to emphasize the influence of one or more of these factors on the size reductions.

A potential improvement in the mine operator's valley fill planning and construction process that
may help to avoid undersized fills is more extensive exploration drilling of the  coalbeds. Given
an unavoidable margin of error of market forecasts, it may be recognized that some amount of
size change is inevitable.  From a regulatory perspective, methods of controlling this problem
include policies that require the planned toe location to remain fixed, or more comprehensive
foundation investigations and  stability analyses that cover a realistic range of conditions that
may represent different fill face locations up or down the hollow. In any case,  effects on fill
stability from changes in the proposed toe position  should be fully evaluated in a permit
modification prior to fill completion.

3. The construction process

A number of issues concerning durable rock-fill construction have been noted during the field
review.  These include (1) wing dumping, (2) fill outslope configuration, (3) inadequate gravity-
placed underdrain formation, and (4) lack of timeliness in fill reclamation.

Wing dumping: The practice of wing dumping can  lead to both stream pollution and eventual
stability problems.  In terms of stability, this technique potentially impairs formation of the rock
underdrain system. Effective gravity segregation of the larger rocks is not as effective compared
to end-dumping of the spoil by trucks from the head of hollow.This is further exacerbated by the
fact that the material pushed downslope originates from the highly-weathered outcrop regions
and is more soil-like in its characteristics. This material is generally not representative of the
type of spoil material (1) required by the State and Federal programs for durable rock fills and

                                          -32-
-------
(2) portrayed in the stability analyses in the approved permit.  There are some examples among
fills under construction in which materials with varying properties are being placed on the
different outslopes (Figures 25-26). Some spoil material may have been degraded to fine-
grained soil-like properties at or near outcrops prior to its removal in the mining process (Figures
12 and 14).
  Figure 25:  Variation of spoil materials in a wing-
  dumped fill.
Figure 26:  Contrast of segregated sandstone and
poorly segregated shale in a wing-dumped fill.
Outslope configuration: Unanticipated reductions in excess spoil may result in a concave
outslope on the completed fill (Figure 27). This can happen in durable rock fills, where "wing
dumping" of spoil occurs on the hollow side slopes ahead of the advancing toe. With less-than-
anticipated excess spoil, the face may be regraded to a concave configuration.  This can lead to
over-steepened slopes against the valley sides. A concave face can also result in longer and less-
inclined terrace drainage channels. Increased water transport distances and diminished channel
gradients can cause ponding on the
terraces.  Ponding, in turn, may promote
water infiltration into the fill material,
fluvial erosion, and consequent fill
instability. It is also noted, however, that
an argument in favor of the concave
outslope with respect to a fill's mass
stability has been made. It purports that
stabilizing compression arches form on
the concave face because the direction of
driving forces influencing  different parts
of the face "collide."  The database
includes 27 cases of concavity from
final-permit documentation and the
team's field observations.  Sixty eight of
the fill outslopes are recorded as flat and
                                           -33-
-------
four convex.  The database is insufficient to enable the team to discern any connections between
fill-face configuration and fill stability in this study.

Gravity segregation: Inadequate gravity segregation during the end-dumping process is not
unique to wing dumping. Among other factors, its effectiveness depends on the length (or
height) and steepness of the outslope.  A slope can be too short because the gravity transport
distance does not allow sorting of larger from smaller particles in the spoil. This can occur in
shallow fills in the headwaters of the hollow, or even in larger fills that are constructed in several
end-dumped lifts.  On the other hand, longer slopes may have enough fine-grained particles to
affect the friction angle and cohesion of the spoil. In this situation the slopes may be too gentle
and the material may cushion impact and thus
reduce the momentum of the rolling rock,
preventing the larger particles from rolling all the
way to the base of the fill (Figure 28). Another
factor is the shape  of the larger spoil particles.
Large rock fragments from thinly-bedded strata will
be platy, and less disposed to roll all the way to the
advancing toe than more  spherical particles.
Factors such as slope inclination and length, and
particle shape, become less significant as % durable
rock increases.  For example, where excess spoil is
comprised of 80 to 90 % hard sandstone, the
formation of an effective underdrain via gravity
segregation should depend little on the length of the
outslope.
Timely reclamation: This study also found eight
cases of unreclaimed durable rock fills where end-
dumping or regrading-and-seeding work had not
occurred for a year or more (Figure 29). Severe
erosion has resulted. The prolonged exposure of some of the material to the surface elements has
also accelerated the weathering process and
diminished the potential effectiveness of
subsurface drainage control.

Additional concerns about valley fill construction
that were discussed by OSM and State personnel
during the course of this study include: (1)
plugging of durable rock fill underdrains during
final regrading of the fill face;  and (2) inadequate
quality control. OSM could not evaluate either of
those problems in the field, since each of the
sample fills were visited only one or two times.
However, the problem of underdrain plugging
  Figure 28:   Limited gravity segregation on a
  long outslope of a developing durable rock fill.
Figure 29:  Spoil degradation and erosion on an
unreclaimed durable rock fill.
                                           -34-
-------
during regrading has been expressed since well before this study. The proposed solution, which
we support, is to require the mine operator to extend the underdrain system some distance
down-valley of the final toe position prior to the regrading.

The assurance of proper valley fill construction requires adequate quality control, especially
during the critical phases of foundation preparation and placement or formation of underdrain
systems. The regulatory authorities should review their inspection policies and, wherever
possible, increase the inspection frequency during the critical phases of foundation preparation
and placement or formation of underdrain systems.
E. Valley fill performance (completed fills)

1. Previous work

Other studies related to the stability of existing valley fills include: (1) the 1994 WVDEP valley
fill survey, used by this study for the selection of West Virginia fill samples; (2) the study of the
interrelationship between fill settlement and pore-water pressures (Rohlf et. al., 2000); (3) an
ongoing investigation of a durable rock fill near Prestonsburg, Kentucky (Bentler et. al., 2000);
and (4) various State and Federal agency reports of fill instability.  Other work that is less
directly related to valley fill stability includes work on the stability and hydrology of mine-spoil
backfills (Shakoor et. al., 1989; Hawkins et. al. 1992; and Hawkins, 1998). In general these
studies emphasize the significance of subsurface drainage.  For instance, Bentler et. al. are
concerned with the effects of underground mine drainage entering a Kentucky fill experiencing
local stability problems. They demonstrate that, under current estimated phreatic-surface
conditions and assuming durable rock engineering properties of the fill material,  a stability
analysis results in a SF well less than 1.5. They further show that a potential increase in the
water level controlled by the elevation of the underground mine could result in instability.
Hawkins' findings on ground-water activity in mine backfills includes an apparent inverse
correlation between a fill's age and the  permeability of its material, i.e. the older the fill, the less
permeable it tended to be.  This may reflect the influence of particle breakdown into finer-
grained, less porous material. Decreases in permeability may result in increases in pore pressure
and, ultimately,  fill instability. He also evaluated the potential role of the amount of sandstone
in the contributing overburden and fill permeability. A general correlation was not found, with
the exception of older fills (greater than 100 months old) for which there occurred a direct
correlation.

The factor of fill age was also assessed  by Shakoor et. al. with respect to backfill spoil
engineering properties. A breakdown of spoil into finer-grained sediment theoretically results in
lower friction angles and higher cohesion. A significant relationship in this regard was not found
from their data, however.
                                           -35-
-------
2. Helicopter-survey and ground-level observations

The purpose of field-inspecting constructed fills was to observe their general condition and note
any symptoms of instability or events that could result in instability. The team's database
includes information on the occurrence and position of mass-movement events, tension and shear
 Figure 30: Tension crack.
                                                   Figure 31:  Depression


                                                        Figure 33:  Erosion above seep area on
                                                        right side of the fill toe.
  Figure 32:  Seeps, ponding and erosion on fill face.

cracks, depressions, erosion areas, hummocky or bulging
ground, seeps or springs, and notable changes in
vegetation and/or soil color (Figures 30-33). The
analysis found a total of 42 fills exhibiting one or more
of these symptoms.  Most of them were recorded during
ground-level inspections which permitted closer scrutiny of the fills than the helicopter
surveillance. Twenty fills in this category have also been identified as experiencing, or having
experienced, instability (see next subsection).  Problems less severe than fill instability were
regarded as fully repairable within the remaining time period of the permits.  However, some of
them could clearly result in instability if not properly remediated.
                                           -36-
-------
3. Identification and analysis of fill instability

OSM recognized that, in advance of identifying and characterizing instability on valley fills, a
working definition was necessary. For the purposes of this study, fill instability is defined as any
evidence that: (1) part of the fill's mass has separated from the rest of the fill; (2) the separation
occurs along a continuous slip surface, or continuous sequence of slip surfaces, intersecting the
fill's surface; and (3) some vertical displacement has occurred.  The cases of instability
identified with these criteria have been further distinguished between "major" and "minor"
occurrences. Major slope movements are those judged to occur over a large fraction of the fill
  Figure 34:  Land-slip on valley fill.
Figure 35:  Land-slip escarpment.
face (e.g. over at least a few outslope benches) and/or require a major remediation effort
(redistribution of the spoil from one part of the fill to another, construction of rock-toe
buttresses, extensive reworking or augmenting of the drainage systems etc.) (Figures 34-37).
Minor movements are those covering a small area on the fill (e.g. not more than one bench on
the fill face) and only necessitating minor reworking of the fill material (i.e. without significantly
changing the fill's original configuration).

Using this  definition, the team identified 22 cases of fill instability.  Twenty of these were
  Figure 36:  Land-slip bulge near base of fill.

                                                 Figure 37:  Signs of fill instability. Note arcuate crack
                                                 and seepage pattern near toe, left of center drain.
                                            -37-
-------
reviewed in the permit files and inspected in the field; and thus are among the 128 fill samples in
the database.  Two cases of instability were not reviewed or inspected, but were noted from an
OSM list of valley fill problems that had transpired between 1986 and 1990 in Kentucky (House,
1990).  Four other cases on the list are part of the database. All  six of these fills were stabilized
and reclaimed; and the permit bonds were released.

Nine of the 22 slope movements are in West Virginia and 13 in Kentucky. The study did not
find or learn of any occurrences of fill instability occurring post final-bond release. However,
one major occurrence in West Virginia is located on a bond-forfeiture site and remains
unrepaired at the time of the study. Fill instability had begun during the permit period and
continued after the permit revocation. The WVDEP is presently looking at alternative methods
for reclaiming the fill. As previously stated, this inventory included ground-level inspections
and permit reviews of four out of six bond-released Kentucky  fills that had experienced slope
movement while the permits were still active. One of the fills could not be observed when field
visited because it had been buried or removed by subsequent mining activity.  The other three
were found to be stable.

Of the 22 cases of fill instability, all but two were judged to be major events. The assignment of
this classification to the six bond-released Kentucky fills is relatively uncertain, due to the
presently stable condition of the inspected fills and lack of detailed documentation. The
handwritten notes of  an OSM civil engineer identify the events as "mass failure," or "toe
failure." A recent personal conversation with the engineer indicated that the events were
relatively large slides.

One of the minor slope movements in the database involves a set of tension cracks that appear
connected to bulges and seeps on the next bench down. The other entailed the failure of a barrier
near the top of a fill which led to severe erosion of the embankment. The small number of
recorded minor events, relative to the number of major events, may not accurately reflect real
field conditions for two reasons. First, the major slope movements were not discovered
randomly, but resulted from our concerted effort to identify problem valley fills in fulfilment of
one of the tasks in this investigation. There is high probability that most, if not all, major
occurrences of valley fill instability are covered in this investigation. Second, minor slope
movements, as defined herein, are small and their remediation is relatively simple, involving
surficial reworking of the spoil. Normally, minor cases of instability can be corrected by the
mine operator quickly, and without the need for documentation beyond normal enforcement
procedures. Minor occurrences of slope movement on valley fills may be more numerous than
major events, and therefore under-represented in the study since  they are less well known.

The analysis indicates that all but one of the unstable fills in the database are small, ranging from
0.10 to 7.70 mcy, the exception being 53.0 mcy (one of the minor cases). However, neither the
length nor volume frequency distributions of the unstable fills differ from those of general
sample (Figures 38 and 39). Whereas the average foundation slope at the toe among all the fills
in database is about 10 percent, that of the 20 unstable fills is approximately 16 percent.  Twelve
of the 20 unstable fills have toe slopes above the database average, and 6 have slopes greater

                                          -38-
-------
Comparision of Fill Lengths
fin
« en -
'iL
*~ 40
_§ ^0 -
3
m










25
0-1000
1




50
15
D Unstable Fills
D Stable Fills

3

m
1001-2000 2001-3000 3001-4000 >4000
Fill Length (feet)
Frequency distribution of valley fill lengths.
than 20 percent
(Figure 40). The
database also
characterizes the
slope movements in
terms of: position of
movement on the fill;
dimensions of the
moving material,
scarp(s),  and cracks;
rate and extent of
movement.  Two of
the fills were reported
to have slope
movements on at least  Figure 38:
three positions on the
outslope.  Four
recorded lengths
range from 35 to 900
ft. Four width
recordings vary from
20 to 400 ft.  Scarp
heights are 8, 30 and
60ft.

The predominant
causes of the slope
movements were also
assessed.  Potential
factors were identified Fig"1"6 39:  Frequency distribution of valley fill volumes.
from a review of the
field notes and other
information sources.
Where the available
data allowed, one or
more factors were
then selected as
probable causes  of
fill instability.
Probable causes  were
entered in the
database for 17 fills
that experienced
instability (i.e., data
                      Figure 40:  Frequency distribution of toe foundation.




j/)
u_ 80-
M—
O
1 6°-
E 40
= 4U -
Z





















0-10
Comparision of Fill Volumes

19

• Stable Fills®
D Unstable Fills
93

3 7 1 5 1
, 	 , I 	 1 5| 	 1
11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50
Fill Volume (MCY)










Number of Fills
30ioo!ooiooi&
u-
/
Comparison of Fill Toe Slopes
D Unstable Fills






J 7 1
/ 	

37
3 D Stable Fills
t 	







28
5







23
A


f 	 71 2
t
r 	 { R
n
) 3 ) /
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >20
Natural Slope (%)
            -39-
-------
were insufficient to determine causes for 3 fills). The causes are listed in descending order of
selection frequency as follows: inadequate subsurface drains; non-durable rock; underground
mine drainage; inadequate surface drains; steep foundation slope; and (interchangeably) thick
soil foundation and construction in a landslide-prone area. It is important to note that, for any
valley fill, these factors can be interrelated. For example, an underdrain system of a durable rock
fill may be inadequate due to an insufficient amount of durable rock spoil and/or unaccounted-
for underground mine drainage. A thick soil foundation can result from accumulations of
colluvial sediment in landslide-prone topography.
V. Conclusions and Recommendations

A review and analysis of the data indicates that valley fill instability is neither commonplace nor
widespread. Only 22 known cases of instability occurred (all during the mining and reclamation
phase) out of more than 4,000 fills constructed in the past eighteen years.  All reported slope
movements appear to have resulted from improper construction or design practices or
inadequately investigated foundation conditions.

The regulations under SMCRA require geotechnical
investigation of fill sites, foundation preparation,
controlled placement of material, as well as surface and
subsurface drainage control. Slope movements and
events symptomatic of potential fill instability were
identified in the study, but all of them reflect site-specific
problems that can be corrected, or could have
been avoided, under the current regulatory framework.
This investigation has found no systemic failings in the
regulations pertaining to ensuring valley  fill stability.
The results of the study indicate that most reclaimed fills
are evolving into stable landforms (Figure 41).  Almost
all slope movements documented herein have taken place
during the permit period, either during or shortly
following the completion of spoil emplacement. The permit of one unstable fill has been
revoked. The team is unaware of any occurrences  of instability in reclaimed valley fills post
final-bond release.

While this study found only a very small percentage of excess spoil fills that experienced
instability over the past 23 years, there are areas of fill design and construction that could be
improved. Implementing the following areas for suggested improvement would provide even
greater assurance of minimized environmental and public safety concerns related to fill stability5:
Figure 41:
condition.
Old valley fill in stable
       5Recommendations presented below or elsewhere in this report should not, of course, be
incorporated into regulatory programs without further thorough review and assessment.

                                          -40-
-------
1.      Fill Construction Methods:  OSM should consider establishing a different fill
       construction method that would replace the durable rock and lift-type fill techniques.
       The proposed new fill regulation would allow end-dumping of spoil, but only after the
       construction of an effective, conventional sandstone or limestone underdrain. The
       underdrain would extend downstream beyond the ultimate toe of the final regraded front
       face. End dumping would occur on top of the constructed underdrain, but would stop at a
       point where regrading the front face would not cover up the end of the drain.  For
       stability analyses, the applicant would assume more conservative, soil-like shear strength
       and cohesion properties and configure the front face to an appropriately stable slope. To
       account for spoil with unusually weak engineering properties at some mine sites, the
       regulatory authority would still have the discretion of requiring compacted-lift
       construction above the underdrain.  This hybrid fill construction technique would involve
       higher costs for underdrain installation, but those costs would be offset by the elimination
       of durability testing and the need to selectively handle spoil.

2.      Durable Rock Standards: If the first recommendation above is not adopted (i.e. if the
       regulations will continue to recognize the durable rock fill as an option for excess-spoil
       disposal), a more discriminating rock durability test or testing protocol should be
       developed. OSM and the states should consider the strength-durability classification
       system proposed in  OSM research and other sound, scientific alternatives. Criteria using
       a volume-weighted percent sandstone might be appropriate for assessing the presence of
       80 percent durable rock above each coal horizon. To support this approach, regulatory
       authorities may need to establish: (1) the general durability of sandstones compared  to
       shales in steep-sloped Appalachia; and (2) the permeability of slaked sandstones in
       comparison with typical subsurface drainage discharges in the fills.  Guidelines  for
       sample frequency should be recommended by OSM or developed by the state regulatory
       authorities to ensure representative geospatial distribution and establish the proper ranges
       of rock properties for fill design. Coupled with better testing, techniques for selective
       handling of mine spoil must used to assure no less than 80% of the durable portion of
       overburden is placed into end-dumped fills.  Additional research could assist to  set
       testing and placement standards for durable rock fills. The research should involve data
       collection at constructed fills and should establish typical material properties reflecting a
       range of subsurface conditions. This information would allow proper fill stability
       modeling based on anticipated rock behavior over time.

3.      Slope Stability Analyses: The regulatory authorities should consider specifying grid,
       circle-radius, and/or other applicable parameters required to set up stability analyses to
       assure minimum SF is assessed under the proper circumstances.

4.      Foundation Investigations: Regulatory authorities should specify the detail necessary to
       satisfy existing foundation investigation requirements for the proposed valley fill
       footprint. Foundation investigations, in addition to establishing the thickness and
       properties of residual, or colluvial soil deposits,  should also determine the presence of
       underground workings, auger holes, or natural groundwater discharge points. Designs

                                           -41-
-------
       and stability analyses should consider the maximum anticipated flows from these sources
       for underdrain sizing and setting pore water pressure ratios or phreatic levels.  The ability
       of an underground mine to carry the added weight of a valley fill and the effect of
       collapse on stability should be analyzed.

5.      Critical Phase Inspections and Certifications: Because the Federal provisions and
       state counterpart rules require greater levels of documentation by the permitee during
       critical phases of construction, state regulatory authorities should consider increased
       inspection frequency during these times-particularly during foundation preparation and
       underdrain installation. OSM inspector training could be enhanced in these areas. State
       programs should also require that each valley fill critical phase certification be clearly
       designated as to the type of critical phase being submitted. Public review files should
       contain up-to-date certifications or state that the most recent submissions can be
       requested from regional offices/inspectors for review.  The absence of critical phase
       certifications in any state file locations is cause for enforcement action.

6.      Wing Dumping: Regulatory programs should prohibit or limit wing dumping to a short
       distance beyond the advancing durable rock fill face.

7      Fill Outslope Completion/Temporary Cessation: Regulatory authorities should
       expand temporary cessation requirements to valley fill construction where durable rock
       fill faces have not been completed.  Timely regrading of dumped-rock fills to a 2:1 slope
       should be required for sites anticipating temporary  cessation for more than a few months.
       In addition, sites not in temporary cessation, where durable rock fill  placement is
       completed, should initiate regrading immediately to achieve the long-term stable final fill
       slope.

8.      Long-term Stability Studies: Additional study of long-term stability at completed fill
       sites should be periodically performed by OSM in cooperation with the states.  Such
       studies should utilize aerial surveillance followed by ground-level inspection, where
       warranted.  Consideration should be given to use of high resolution orthophotography,
       satellite multi-spectral imagery, or other remote sensing technology to establish where
       field visits should occur.

9.      Impoundments on Fills: Regulatory authorities should discourage the construction of
       impoundments on completed valley fill structures and ensure impoundments are not
       placed on proposed valley fills.
                                           -42-
-------
                                      References

Algermissen, S.T., 1969, Seismic Risk Studies in the United States, in proceedings of Fourth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Santiago, Chile, Vol. 1, pp. Al-14 to Al-27.

Bentler, D., Zeng, X., and Rohlf, R.A., 2000, Stability Monitoring of a Mining Excess Spoil Fill
near Prestonsburg, Kentucky, study proposal submitted to the U.S. Office of Surface Mining and
University of Kentucky Department of Civil Engineering, 5 pp.

Casagrande, D.R., 1978, Alternative Method For Disposal of Hard Rock Spoil in Valley Fills
and Head of Hollow Fills, open file memorandum to Walter Heine, then Director of the U.S.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Pittsburgh, PA, 1 pp.

Casagrande, D.R. , 1991, letter to Ratcliff, J.E.of Hobet Mining Inc. re: Surface Mining
Regulations for Durable Rock Fills, Casagrande Consultants, Arlington, MA, 11 pp..

Dick, J.C. and Shakoor, A., 1997, Predicting the Durability of Mudrocks from Geological
Characteristics, in Characterization of Weak and Weathered Rock Masses (P.M. Santi and A.
Shakoor, eds.), Association of Engineering Geologists Special Publication #9, pp. 89-105.

Farrar, J.A., 1999, memorandum to Peter Michael of the U.S. Office of Surface Mining re:
Technical Review of Scope of Work Statement - Topic #4: Assess Long Term Stability of Fills,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, 6 pp.

Hawkins, J.W., 1998, Hydraulic Properties of Surface Mine Spoils of the Northern Appalachian
Plateau, in proceedings of American Society  for Surface Mining and Reclamation in St. Louis,
MO, pp. 32-40.

Hawkins, J.W., and Aljoe, W.W., 1992, Pseudokarst Groundwater Hydrologic Characteristics of
a Mine Spoil Aquifer, in Mine Water and the Environment, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 37-52.

House, T., 1990, Fill Failure List, Kentucky,  open file notes to Bill Kovacic, Lexington Field
Office Director, U.S. Office of Surface, Lexington, KY,  2 pp.

Hribar, J. A. and Wimberly, P.M. Ill, 1986, Shear Strength Parameters for Excess Spoil
Disposal, GAI Consultants, Inc Contract Report S680103 prepared for USDI, Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Monroeville, PA, 35 pp.

Hudec, P.P., 1997, Changes in Engineering Properties of Weak and Weathered Rock with Time,
in Characterization of Weak and Weathered Rock Masses (P.M. Santi and A. Shakoor, eds.),
Association of Engineering Geologists Special Publication #9, pp. 53-71.
                                          -43-
-------
Loy, L. D. Jr., Ettinger, Charles E., Franks, M. R., and Kremer, D. J., 1978, Development of
New Design Concepts for Construction of Valley Fills, U.S. Bureau of Mines Contract Report
JO 177063 for USDI, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 182 pp.

Robbins, J.D. and Hutchins, J.C., 1979, Environmental Assessment of Surface Mining Methods:
Head-of-Hollow Fill and Mountaintop Removal, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
No. EPA-600/7-79-062, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, 204 pp.

Rohlff, R.A., 2000, personal conversation re: initial, unpublished results of National  Science
Foundation study.

Rohlf, R.A., 2001, Review: Long-Term Stability of Fills, Office of Surface Mining, open file
report, Kentucky Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Frankfort, KY,
llpp.

Rohlf, R.A., Zeng, X., and Wells, L.G., 2000, Simulating Deformation of an Excess Spoil Fill, in
Advances in Unsaturated Geotechnics, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 99, pp. 305-317.

Shakoor, A. and Ruof, M.A., 1989, Stability of Selected Coal  Mine Waste Embankments in
East-Central Ohio, in Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, V 26, No. 3, pp.
369-386.

Superfesky, M.  J.  and Williams,  G.P., Jr., 1978, Shear Strength of Surface Mine Spoils
Measured by Triaxial and Direct Shear Methods, Forest Service General Technical Report NE-
39, Broomville, PA, 15pp.

Terra Engineers, Inc., 1993, Model Studies of Flow Through and over Rock Fills, Contract
Report prepared for West Virginia Mining and Reclamation Association, Charleston,  WV, 31 pp.

U.S. Office of Surface Mining, 1986, Overburden Strength-Durability Classification System for
Surface Coal Mining, open file draft report, Pittsburgh, PA, 45 pp.

Welsh, R.A., Jr., Vallejo, L.E., Lovell, L.W., and Robinson, M.K., 1991, The U.S. Office of
Surface Mining (OSM) Proposed Strength-Durability Classification System, in proceedings of
Symposium on Detection of and Construction at the Soil/Rock Interface (W.F. Kane and B.
Amadei, eds.), ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 28, American Society of  Civil
Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 19-24.

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Analysis of Valley Fill Survey,  1994,
Open File Report, Phillipi, WV,  11 pp.

Wunsch, D.R., Dinger, IS., Taylor, P.B., Carey, D.I., and Graham, C.D.R., 1996, Hydrogeology,
Hydrogeochemistry, and Spoil Settlement at a Large Mine-Spoil Area in Eastern Kentucky: Star Fire
Tract, Kentucky Geological Survey Report of Investigation 10, Series XI, Lexington, KY, 49 pp.


                                         -44-
-------
                                   Acronym List
ASTM




CFR




CSR





cy




EIS




I&E




KYDSMRE




mcy




OSM




pcf




psf




REAME




SDI




SMCRA




SRA




SWASE




VADMLR




WVDEP
American Standard Testing Methods




Code of Federal Regulations




Code of State Regulations




Cubic Yards




Environmental Impact Statement




Inspection and Enforcement




Kentucky Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement




Million Cubic Yards




Office of Surface Mining




Per Cubic Foot




Per Square Foot




Rotational Equilibrium Analysis of Multi-Layered Embankments




Slake  Durability Index




Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977




State Regulatory Authority




Sliding Wedge Analysis of Side-Hill Embankments




Virginia Department of Mine Land Reclamation




West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
                                        -45-
-------
BLANK PAGE
-------
                 APPENDIX A




PERMIT AND FIELD DATA FROM VALLEY FILL SAMPLES
-------
BLANK PAGE
-------
         Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement
                                  Technical Study

               WORK PLAN APPROACH FOR FILL STABILITY
I.     Problem Statement

A typical mountain-top mining/valley fill (MTM/VF) operation in the Appalachian coalfields
removes overburden and interburden material to facilitate the extraction of low-sulfur coal
seams—requiring placement of excess spoil into adjacent valleys. These valley fills are some of
the largest earth and rock fill embankments being built in the world today. Concerns have been
expressed that mass movement or failure of a fill could endanger life, property, and the
environment downstream.

This study plan will record instances of past fill failure as well as collecting indicator data
regarding outward signs of fill instability. Geotechnical engineering assessments will be made
on fill designs, construction practices, and as-built embankments.

II.    Goals and Questions to be Addressed by This Work Plan

The steering committee for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has adopted goals and
questions to be addressed from several different perspectives: environmental, regulatory, and
public service.  This work plan, in conjunction with the other work plans and technical symposia
that will be conducted during the preparation of the EIS,  will attempt to address the following
goals as adopted by the committee:

      o     Are fills adequately stable under the current regulatory scheme? If not, why and
             what alternatives are available?

III.   EIS Team Members and Experts Consulted

Point of Contact: Peter Michael, OSM Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center, Pittsburgh,
PA, (412) 937-2867, pmichael@,osmre.gov

OSM Lexington. KY Field Office: Joe Blackburn
OSM Columbus. OH Field Office: Stephen Koratich
OSM Knoxville. TN Field Office : Jim Elder

Experts Consulted: KYDSMRE: Mark Thompson; WVDEP: Lew Halstead;
VADMLR: Bill  Bledsoe; COE: Mike Gheen, Bob Yost, Mike Spoor; Bureau of Reclamation:
Jeff Farrar, Dave Gillette; OSM: Mike Superfesky, Dave Lane, Mike Robinson
                                        A-l
-------
IV.    Study Approach

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 established general engineering
requirements for valley fills to assure mass stability of valley fills. OSM regulations provide
even more specific requirements that, if properly followed during design and construction,
establish a high probability against failure.

The EIS will evaluate State and Federal regulations, policies, and practices; geotechnical
literature; and the conditions of existing valley fills to assess the effectiveness of current
safeguards against future fill failures that may negatively affect public safety.  The OSM study
team (team) will conduct: (1) discussions with State/Federal inspection-and-enforcement and
permit-review personnel and Federal geotechnical experts; (2) review of permits, inspection
reports, and other relevant documentation; (3) aerial and ground-level site inspections; and (4)
test drilling. The team will reach conclusions per the adequacy of the safeguards and will
recommend improvements, where appropriate.

It is impractical for this evaluation (i.e., cost-prohibitive and an inadequate period of time) to
definitively establish the geotechnical condition of thousands of fills throughout Appalachian
mine sites. In fact, the various state regulatory programs routinely evaluate the company
submission of this type of information in permits, evaluate the adherence to approved plans in
monthly inspections, and assess the fills for signs of incipient or actual failure prior to making
bond release decisions after construction. Company engineers and consultants perform extensive
tests, stake their professional reputation and licenses on fill designs, document/certify critical
construction phases, and certify quarterly.  Therefore, this evaluation limits its focus to various
indicators of regulatory program effectiveness in assuring long-term stability of fills

To perform a retrospective study definitively evaluating the mass stability of large earth and rock
structures would require detailed knowledge of representative shear strength parameters of the
fill and foundation material, as well as ground-water activity within the fill.  With reliable excess
spoil geotechnical strength parameters and internal pore water pressure information (along with
the dimensions of the fill, foundation, and bedrock) a stability analysis could provide accurate
engineering estimates for the factor of safety of the fill.

The following descriptions  of the approach for each task assume the completion of the inventory
of fill types, sizes, and location proposed under a separate study under the EIS; or, the existence
of other inventories.  Based on these inventories, the team will select candidate fills for the
study.
Task 1: Assemble all available literature on excess spoil disposal practice evaluations and
compare the conclusions and recommendations with known current practices.

              Assemble and review documents and literature pertaining to the construction of
              excess spoil fills.  This includes National Academy of Science reports, contract

                                           A-2
-------
              research studies, oversight special studies, reports of investigation on specific fill
              problems, professional articles, regulation preambles, public hearing transcripts,
              court decisions, letters, memoranda, etc.

              Assess current Federal and State regulations as well as historic and current
              regulatory program policies and inspection practices.

       •      From the above reviews, develop an accounting of program-related problems and
              issues affecting fill construction and a historical perspective of the technical
              issues at hand.

              Compare issues and recommendations delineated in the reports to current day
              issues and practices for relevance. Use this information to guide data collection
              efforts for some of the other tasks outlined below.

Task 2: Examine the feasibility of documenting that 80% durable rock (by unit volume) is
attained during construction and in final fill configurations.

       The concept of 80% durable rock by unit volume is a valid one, theoretically—with
       respect to attaining long-term excess spoil fill stability. However, there is no known
       feasible representative sampling technique to evaluate a fill during or following
       construction to assess if the material placed meets the regulatory standard.

       The team will consult with geotechnical experts throughout the Federal government for
       advice relating to:

       •      The "enforceability" of the current regulatory standard and the availability of
              alternative measurable standard(s).

              Possible use of a more rigorous durability classification system on overburden
              cores used in permit design.

       •      Greater controls on spoil selected for fill placement (e.g., selective handling
              controls to assure higher volumes of durable rock).

              Available techniques for in-pit sampling and testing of overburden to show that
              permit conditions are or are not field validated.

Task 3: Evaluate the effectiveness of current sampling and testing protocols for establishing
representative rock durability of excess spoil.

       OSM completed a comprehensive research study in 1990 that concluded the slake
       durability test is not particularly effective at discriminating rock durability.  The study
       recommended a different testing protocol and rock durability classification system that

                                           A-3
-------
       more closely evaluates rock durability under the excess spoil disposal conditions of
       slaking in water and under compression in a fill. Under this task the team will continue
       to evaluate the rock-durability question through the following activities:

              Document the rock durability observations of SRA permitting and inspection staff
              through (1) phone or in-person interviews with I&E and permitting supervisors
              and (2) discussions with available State inspectors, permit reviewers, and
              technical staff in the course of performing tasks 5-13.

       •      Document the rock durability information supplied within the approved permit
              and comparing it to field observations under task 11.

              Recommend whether or not the rock-durability classification system proposed in
              the OSM study should be put forward for rule making.

Task 4:  Establish the effectiveness of current methods utilized in inspection and enforcement of
excess spoil disposal.

       •      Determine if a fairly standard protocol for fill inspection is in effect in each state.

              Identify any issues or practices encountered about excess spoil disposal that
              concern the State staff.

Task 5:  Determine the population of documented fill failures since the permanent regulatory
program, and the causative factor (s).

              Assess any documented  failures from reports gathered in Task  1 and failures
              known by the SRA to  quantify the failure rate of permanent program fills.

              Compile a list of failure  causes to see if any commonality exists. Use this
              information to guide survey and data collection efforts for other tasks.

Task 6: Review strength parameters, phreatic surfaces, and failure analysis methods used in
stability analyses in the approved permit.

              Based upon existing SRA fill inventory data or results from Evaluation Topic 1,
              compile a sample of permits with excess spoil fills of varying type (post-SMCRA
              durable-rock and post-SMCRA non-durable-rock), size (small, <3 MCY;
              medium, 4 to 20 MCY, large, >20 MCY), and stage of construction (fills still
              under construction and fills completed).  Apply the sample to this and tasks 7-14.

       •      Review the permit applications of sample fills to identify and record values for
              shear strength, phreatic surface, and failure method used to assess fill stability.
                                           A-4
-------
       •      Compile the data into a database and compare them with accepted ranges for
              shear strength; expected phreatic surface; and, appropriate failure type.

Task 7:  Evaluate state surface mining information systems (SM1S), environmental resource
information networks (ERIN) or other similar databases and compile violation data relative to
excess spoil disposal.

              Using the sample of permits selected for task 6, document the types of violations
              written on excess spoil disposal sites and develop a database.

              Evaluate the potential impact of the violations on fill stability.

Task 8: Review documentation and certification of critical construction phases and quarterly
certification.

              Using the sample of permits selected for task 6, review photos and certifications
              of critical fill construction phases.

              Assess on-site conditions and fill construction methods pertinent to stability
              concerns and record observations for comparison in the field.

Task 9:  Establish if foundation conditions for fill placement are as defined in the approved
permit.

              Using same sample as in task 6, review permits to compare fill foundation
              preparation and underdrain placement documentation (color photos and RPE
              certifications submitted by the company as required by regulatory programs) with
              documentation of foundation test holes.

       •      Assess whether or not foundation conditions comport with fill design.

Task 10: Aerial reconnaissance of a sampling of completed and fills under construction in WV,
KY. and VA to visually assess stability, drainage control, and related features.

       •      Using the samples selected for task 6, perform aerial  surveys of the fills.

       •      Develop an inspection checklist to document the condition of each fill, including
              signs of instability (e.g. seepage, drainage control failure, ground cracks).

              Make video recordings of observations for further analysis at the office.

       •      Use the results of the aerial inspections to select sites for Task 11.
                                           A-5
-------
Task 11:  On-the-ground visits to selected sites identified in 10. above to further assess stability.
drainage control, and related features.

       •       Conduct on-the-ground inspections of fills selected from Task 10 to confirm
              conditions observed in the air and obtain more detailed information on the
              condition of slopes, seepage, drainage control systems, etc.

Task 12: Compare as-built fill configurations with as-designed.

       Regulatory staff say it is a common occurrence that as-built fills are often very different
       configurations than proposed and approved in the original permit. Situations have been
       described when fills are much smaller than planned, or the fill site is not used at all.
       Whether a fill is constructed smaller or larger than planned can have definite impacts on
       the stability analyses and long term stability. Smaller fills tend to be higher in the
       watershed-sometimes where the natural ground is much steeper and instability could be
       more problematic due to less friction counteracting sliding/driving forces. Using the
       sample from task 6, the team will:

       •       Review the permits—and evaluate the fills during the aerial reconnaissance and
              on-the-ground inspections—to compare fill designs with as-built configurations.

       •       Estimate the potential effect of as-built variance from design on fill stability.

              Evaluate overburden characterization and coal exploration thoroughness in the
              permit to see if the reason(s) for variance can be determined.

       •       Document permit revisions, including stability analyses, for changes in design.

       •       Make recommendations for improving the rate of as built = as designed, if
              appropriate.

Task 13:  Assess if proper surface and subsurface drainage controls are installed.

       •       Using the same sample of permits as task 6, inspect the fills during the aerial
              overflight and on-the-ground site visit for the presence of seepage contrary to the
              expected subdrain performance (as shown in the stability analysis assumptions).

              Document the designed surface drainage control system in the permit applications
              and compare with aerial/field observations of the as-built system.

       •       Note significant differences between the as-built and as-designed systems, if any,
              and document evident flaws.
                                           A-6
-------
Final Report: The team will write a chapter to be incorporated into the EIS report. This chapter
will provide an analysis of: technical and programmatic issues related to excess-spoil-fill
stability; the results of the permit and inspection documentation review; and field inspections
and testing.  The chapter will also draw conclusions, where possible, on the long-term stability of
the fills.
                                            A-7
-------
BLANK PAGE
    A-8
-------
                  APPENDIX B




PERMIT AND FIELD DATA FROM VALLEY FILL SAMPLES
-------
BLANK PAGE
-------
                                     APPENDIX B

                           Explanation of Valley Fill Data Sheets

Two pages of data ("data sheets") are provided for each valley fill sample used in this
investigation. The data is topically organized into boxes. Data collected from the permit files is
included on the first page. Data obtained from the field is identified by an asterisk in the left
margin of the data sheet; and begins at the bottom of the first page and continues on the second
page.

Permit-application data is presented in the top 12 boxes; and is identified as to whether they
were collected from the original application ("original design"), the latest valley fill modification
to the application ("revision"), or the final certification on a completed fill ("as constructed").

The question as to whether critical-phase certifications were found on file is broached in two
ways. First, the "yes" column is marked when a certification was found that clearly indicated
that it was connected to a critical construction phase. Second, an "applicable" quarterly
certification is recognized if it contains information or photographs showing a critical phase in
the construction, even if it is not specifically connected to a critical-phase certification. This
type of certification is identified by the year and quarter. For example, 92/2 represents the
second quarter (January through March) of 1992.  In the data analysis, credit for having a
critical-phase certification was given if the "yes" column was marked and/or the year and quarter
of an applicable quarterly certification was indicated.

A substantial part of the  field data pertains to the identification and location  of potential
symptoms of instability on fills such as ground cracks, erosion scars and seeps. The location of
these features, when identified, is presented in terms of bench level and "quarter." For
perspective, the total number of benches on the fill outslope is given at the bottom of the first
field-data box. Bench designations are numbered upwards from the toe to the crown. B 3, for
instance, represents  the third bench up from the toe of the fill. B 6-crown represents an area
between the sixth bench  and the crown of the fill.  The quarters are identified from left to right
when one faces the fill outslope from  a position down-valley of the toe. Q  1 indicates left-most
l/4th of the fill face.  Q 2-3 represents an area crossing the boundary between  the second and
third quarter, i.e. centerline, of the outslope.
                              Explanation of Page Numbering

The pages in Appendix B are organized alphabetically by State and numbered Sequentially. The
States represented and their respective abbreviations are: Kentucky (KY), Tennessee (TN),
Virginia (VA), and West Virginia (WV). Pages are numbered using the State's abbreviation, a
hyphen, and the sequential number. The pages for Kentucky are numbered KY-1, KY-2, KY-3,
through KY-198.  Pages for the other States are numbered as follows: Tennessee, TN-1 through
TN-34; Virginia, VA-1 through VA-110; and West Virginia, WV-1 through WV-294.
-------
BLANK PAGE
-------
KENTUCKY
   KY-l
-------
BLANK PAGE
   KY-2
-------
KENTUCKY
Company
Addington Enterprises
Addiiigton Enterprises
Addington Enterprises
Addington, liic.
Addmgton, liic
Big Creek Mining, Inc
ij Big Creek Mining, liic
Big Creek Mining, Inc
Big Creek Mining, Inc
Big Creek Mining, Inc
1 Big Creek Mining, Inc.
Big Creek Mining, Inc.
Mine
Prater #1
Prater #1
Prater #1
UK#1
UK #1
Hunt's Branch Strip
Hunt's Branch Strip
Hunt's Branch Strip
Hunt's Branch Strip
Hunt's Branch Strip
Hunt's Branch Strip
Hunt's Branch Strip
Permit
813-0238
813-0238
813-0238
813-0180
813-0180
898-0490
898-0490
898-0490
898-0490
898-0490
898-0490
898-0490
Fill
HF#8
HF#10
HF#12
HF 33 ||
HF#7
HF #5A
HF#5B
HF#6
HF#9
HF#10
HF#11
HF#16
Cheyenne Resources
Coal Mac Mining, Inc.
Coal Mac Mining, liic.
CZAR Coal Corp.
EDCO Energy Coip.
Elkhorn Coal Corp
Elkhorn Coal Corp
Elkhorn Coal Corp.
Elkhorn Coai Corp
Elkliom Coal Corp
Elkhorn Coal Carp
Elkhorn Coal Corp
Elkhorn Coal Corp
Surface Mine Job k3
No Mine Identifier
No Mine Identifier
Panther Fork Mine
EDCO Mine
Homer Short Surface Mnie
Hornei Short Surface Mine
Homer Short Surface Mine
Hornet Short Surface Mine
Homer Short Surface Mine
Homer Short Surface Mine
Homer Short Surface Mine
Homer Short Surface Mine
860-0377
498-0204
498-0204
880-0122
836-0100
880-0130
880-0130
880-0130
880-0130
880-0130
880-0130
880-0130
880-0130
HF#4
HF #1
HF#2
HF772
HF#1
HF#1
HF#2
HF #3
HF#4
HF#5
HF#6
HF #7
HF#8
-------
                                     KENTUCKY
Company
Elkborn Coal Corp
II & D Coal Co., Inc
Mine
Homer Short Surface Mine
Isom Branch
Permit
880-0130
898-0440
Fill
HP #9
HF#1
Lodestar Energy, Inc.
No Mine Identifier
836-0261
HP #3A
Lodestar Energy, Inc.
Lodestar Energy, Inc.
Martin County Coal Corp.
Martin County Coal Corp.
Miller Brothers Coal
Miller Brothers Coal
Miller Brothers Coal
Miller Brothers Coal
1 Miller Brothers Coal
No Mine Identifier
N o Mine Identifier
No Mine Identifier
No Mine Identifier
Wolf Creek #1
Wolf Creek #1
Wolf Creek #1
Wolf Creek #1
Wolf Creek #1
836-0261
836-0261
880-0103
880-0103
813-0207
813-0207
813-0207
813-0207
813-0207
HF #4 1
HFK6C
HF#33
IIP #34
HP #13
HF#14
HF£15
HF#I6 11
IIP #17 ||
|| Miller Brothers Coal
Mountain Clay, Inc.
New Ridee Mining
Pine Branch Coal Sales
Pine Branch Coal Sale?
Pine Branch Coal Sales
Richardson Fuels, Inc.
Starfire Coals, Inc.
Wolf Creek #1
#32
Road Fork of Big Creek
Haddock Fork Mme
Hdddock Fork Mine
Haddock Fork Mine
Mine #2
Skyline
813-0207
518-0157
898-0415
897-0271
897-0271
897-0271
836-0212
060-0080
HF#1S I!
HF#3
HF#K
HF#10
HF #13
HF#DD
HF#1
HF#1
]._
Sunny Ridge Mining Co.
Jones Fork
898-0507
HP #9
                                         KY-4
-------
      Kentucky
Addington Enterprises
      Prater #1

  Permit: 813-0238

        Fill: HF#8
        Fill: HF#10
        Fill: HF#12
        KY-5
-------
BLANK PAGE
   KY-6
-------
                                    As constructed
                                                                                 Revision
                                                                                                                        Original design
      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phrcatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Durable Rock
Length (it)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
3210
29.4
1.5

Crown (ft)
Toe (It)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dcg.)
1180
1080
2.0
27.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle
Cohesion {psf)
1.5
1,2
125
24
160
unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
Appl.Quarterly
 certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surf ace Drains
Grading and Revegctation
Find Certification
Yes[ ] No[X] 97/2
Yes [ ] No [X] 9712
Yes[ ] No[XJ 99/01
Yes [ ] No [XI 99/01
Yes[ ] No[X] 99/0
Tf a DKF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core yndcrdrain by gravity segregation?







Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
None
None
None
None
None
Yes [ J No [ ]
Text

Yes[X] No[ ]
YesIX] No I ]
Yes [X] No [ ]
Yes{ ] No[X]

If a durable rock tillis under construction,



Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceraable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the Size with the sire in the latest pre-completion revision?
Yes[ ] No[X]
60
Yes[X] No [ ]
Same
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is (he reason according lo the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration:
Is the fillsituated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Concave
Yes [ j No [X]
Ycs[ ] Nu[X]

                                                                      KY-7
-------
           Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
           Depressions
           Location o f
         Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location 0 f
               Changes'
            Movement
        Characteristics
             Comments
813-0238
HF*S
                                        Locution
                                                                                                 Length (ft)
                                                                                          Width (ft)
Depth (in)
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes[  I   No I
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depfh)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the till benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Maximum Cully Depfh)
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [  }
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [  }
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes f  ]   No [ ]
                                  1
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [x]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                 Mass 1
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                                                                                   Bench #
                                                                                    Length (ft)
                                                                                    Width (ft)
                                                                               Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                        Depth to Slip Plans  (ft)
                                                                         Transport Distance (ft)
                                                                          Rate of Movement
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement
                                           Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                  Mass 3
                            !n March 30, 199? was completing final grading

                            on-TOmpliance (#6IQs&5) was issued for buried timber at toe of fill (observed by OSM in March 1998) Fill was constructed as 2 wing fill due to change of operation and using a
                            [ghwall miner Disturbed a large area of drainage duo to CHANGE OF OPERATION TO A-H1GHWALL MINER
                                                                                  ICY-8
-------
 Company: Addington Enterprises
   Permit:  813-0238
     State:  KY
  County:  BreatMtl
 Latitude:  37-31-26
.ongitude:  83-00-56
             Fill:  UF # 10
           Mine:  Prater#l
War this fill visited at ground level?
          Date of visit:
Had the till been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
YesfXj   No[  ]
 06/08/99

Yes[  ]   No[X]
 12/31/99
   Date ofpcrmit file review:       04/16/99
 Date fill contraction started:        09/02/97
                  Finished:        04/05/99
Number of fill size revisions:
 %Sandstone in overburden:             63
            Type of Fill

             Size of Fill
               Surface
          Configuration

             Elevations
                Slopes

       Surface Drainage
               Control
            Subsurface
             Drainage
               Control
              Stability
              Analysis
          Software Used

          Safety Factor
           Engineering
             Properties
                (Spoil)

           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

        Phrcatic Surface
          Construction
         Doc umen ta tio n
       #nd Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                        As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
Durable Rock
Length (R)
Area (acres)
Volume (racy)
650
4.6
0.2

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation {%)
Fill Face (dsg.)
1180
1040
2.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
FrictionAngle
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
•t.2
125
24
160
Unit Weigh! (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                        AppL Phase
                                                        Certification
                                   Appl.QuarterJy
                                    certification
                                        Photography
                                           Type
Foundation Preparation


TJnderdrains
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes fX]
No[ ] 97/02
No [ ] 97/07
No [X] 99/01
No [X] 99/01
No [ ] 99/1





None
None
None
Nooe
None

If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrawn by gravity segregation?


















Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
WereNOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Yes[ I


Yes [ 1
Yes[X]
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
No [ ]
Text

No[X]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
3
If a durable rock fill is under construction.









Approximately 80%durable rock by volume?
If noto above, estimate percentage:
Disceniable blanket or core drain forming?
Yes ! ]

Yes[ ]
No[ 1

No [ ]
If the fillis completed, compare the size with the size in tho latest pre-completion revision?
If the till is significantly








smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration:
Is the fillsituated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the till face or benches?
Number of benthss on fill:

Yes ! I
Yes[ ]

Flat
No[X]
No[X]

                                                                         KY-9
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                               Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
           Location or
                Cracks *
           Location or
           Depressions
           Location co:
         Erosion Areas
           Location "f
         Ground Bulges
           Location of
          Springs/Seeps
           Location of
              Changes
            Movement
             Comments
813-Q238
HF#10
                                               Were there depressions on "[he fill benches?    Ycs[  ]   No [
                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                            Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes I 1  No [  ]
                                                  Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]  No {
                                    Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [1   No (  ]
      Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observedon fill?     Yes [ J   No [
      1
      2
                                Did a failure occur on the nil?    Yes [  j   No[X]
i'so, enter the source of information on tlic failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Marsl
                                                     Bench n
                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                       Width  (A)
                                                 Scarp Height  (ft)
                                           Depth to Slip Plane   (ft)
                                            Transport Distance  (ft)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                     Mass!
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                   Mans2
                           Was Filial in permit* 811-0218
                           /ml certification April 05,1990 Quarterly certs only No photos
                                                                                                       (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                        Mass 3
                                                                              KY-10
-------
      Type of Fill

       Siw of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
      Properties
          (spoil)

     Engineering
      Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    construction
   Documentation
and certifications
Durable Rock
Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (Ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)

1400
s.4
0.6
Flat
1200
1055
1.0

Perimeter
Underdram
REAMH
1.4
1.1
125
30
200



P-.05
1500
11.2
1.0
Flat
1200
1050
1.0

Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
1.5
1.2
125
30
200



P-.05
   Aerial survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
Appl. Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
    Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading andRcvegetation
Final Certification
Yes I ] No[X] 97/4
Yes I ] No[X] 9811
Yes 1 1 No [X] 9SM
Yes I ] No[X] 9814
Yes[ 1 No[X] 9911





None
None
None
None
None

If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or coreunderdrain by gravity segregation?







Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long\vas disposal operation idle (months)?
Yes[ j


Yes] ]
Yes[X]
Yes [X]
Yes I ]

No [ ]
Text

l*o [X]
No I ]
Nof ]
NbfX]
3
fa durable rock fill is under construction,



Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain forming?
Yes [ ]

Yes[ ]
If the fill i s completed, compare the size with the size in the latest prc-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on till:
No [ ]

No[ ]
Larger
Dorit know

Yes[ J
Ycs[ J

Flat
NbfX]
NofX]

                                                                     KY-11
-------
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
           Location of
         Erosion Areas
           Location of
         Ground Bulges
           Location of
          Springs/Seeps
           Location of
              Changes
            Movement
        Characteristics
                                       Location
                                                                                               Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                              Depth (in)
             Comments
813-0238
HF*12
                                               Were there depressions oti the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [ j
                                                                                                                                  (Potential Water Depth)
                                            Were there areas of erosion on the ill! benches?   Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                  Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  }
       1
       2
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No[X]
[f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                     Mass 1
                                                      Bench #
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth So Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance (ft)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement    Mass 1
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                   Mass 2
                           'vision reduced size of the fill to allow use of an existing road

                          On Majeh 3G, iOOO f\lV v*as rempkted and final grading was occuring
                                                                                                                                         Mass 3
                                                                               KY-12
-------
           Kentucky
   Addington  Enterprises
           Prater  #1
Permit: 813-0238
Fill: HF# 8
Permit: 813-0238          Fill: HF# 8

              KY-13
-------
          Kentucky
   Addington  Enterprises
          Prater #1
Permit: 813-0238
Fill: HF# 8
             KY-14
-------
           Kentucky
    Addington Enterprises
           Prater #1
Permit: 813-0238
Fill: HF# 10
Permit: 813-0238          Fill: HF# 10

              KY-15
-------
           Kentucky
   Addington Enterprises
           Prater #1
Permit: 813-0238
                       Fill: HF# 10
Permit: 813-0238
                      Fill: HF# 10
              KY-16
-------
           Kentucky
    Addington Enterprises
           Prater #1
Permit: 813-0238
Fill: HF# 12
Permit: 813-0238          Fill: HF# 12

              KY-17
-------
          Kentucky
   Addington Enterprises
          Prater #1
                                             	
Permit: 813-0238
Fill: HF# 12
             KY-18
-------
    Kentucky
 Addington, Inc.
     UK#1

Permit: 813-0180

     Fill: HF#3
     Fill: HF#7
     KY-19
-------
BLANK PAGE
   ICY-20
-------
Company: Addington, Inc.
Permit: 813-0180
State; KY
County: Breathitt
Latitude: 37-25-16
Longitude: 83-11-45

Fill: HF#3
Mine: UK#1
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Dale of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:

Yes[x] No[ 1
06109199
Yes[ ] No[X]
12/31/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill eontruction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%SandstOne in overburden:

05/18/99
01/15/95
04/20/98

57

      Type of Fill

       Size "Mil!
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Durable Rock
1900
15.0
2.0
Flat
1240
1030
13.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.9
1.5
125
30
200

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Ruck
1900
15.0
2.0
Flat
1240
1030
13.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.9
1.5
125
30
200
Durable Rock
1900
15.0
2.0
Flat
1240
10.10
13.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAMF,
1.5
1.2
125
30
200
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
                                                 P-.l
                                                                                               P-.l
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
                     Appl.Quarterly
                      Certification
Photography
   Type
                                                                                                                                             P-05
FoundationPreparation Yes [ J No [X]
Undcrdrains Yes [ ] No [X]
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X] 97/3
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X] 98/1
Final Certification Yes [ 1 No fX] 9S/2
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdraiu by gravity segregation?
roundation data:
Dip of stratarelative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active till, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, haw long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rock fill is under construction
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernible blanket or core drain forming?
ifthc fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantlysmaller. what jsthe reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:

Ycsf ]
Yes [X]
YcsfX]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ }
Yes[ ]
Ycs[ J
Yes[ ]
None
None
B&W
B&W
B&W
No I ]
Text
No[X]
No [ ]
No[ j
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ J
Same
Flat
No [XI
No[X]
                                                                     ICY-21
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)          Width (ft)            Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
         Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
813-0180
HF#3
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [I   No [  ]
                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes J  ]   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs of seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [  J
      Were changes in vegetation or spoil color obseA'ed on fill?    Yes[  ]   Nu [  ]
      1
      2
      3
                                Did a failure occur en the fill?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
f so, enterthc source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Mass I
                                                      Bench if
                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                       Width  (ft)
                                                 Scarp Height  (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                            Transport Distance  t&)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                    Mass 2
                           nal certification "as built1 dated 9/24/9$ only minor deviations from original design
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                         Mass 3
                                                                               KY-22
-------
Type of Fill
Sire of fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatk Surface


Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crovm (it)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)




Durable Rock
1700
26 6
6 1
Flat
1240
985
16.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME

DurableRock
1150
61
0.7
Flat
1190
1000
16.0
270
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angie
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pet)
FrictionAngle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

1.6
1.2
125
24
160
125
30
200
p.OS
1.5
1.2
125
24
160
125
30
200
F-.l

    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                           Appl.Quarterlj
                                                            Certification
      Foundation Preparation      Yes [  ]   No [X]
                 Underdrains     Yes [  1   No [X]
               Surface Drains    Yes [  ]   No [X]
    Grading and Revegetation     Yes [  ]   No [Xj
           Final  Certification     Yes [X]   No [  1
9413
9413
97/3
97/3
9713
                                  Photography
                                      TVDC
None
None
None
None
B&W
                                      if a DRP, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                           Foundation data:                                               Text
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                              Were NOVswrittsaoa the S!!7  Yes[  ]   No [X]
                                                               Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [XI  No [  ]
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]  No [Xj
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [X]  No [  ]
                                If spoil disposal  site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

f a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable root by volume?   Yes [  ]  No[X]
                                                                       If no to above, estimate percentage:               50
                                                                Discernable blanket or core drain forming?   Yes[X]  No[  ]

               If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-complelion revision?                   Larger
          If the till is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?                Auger Mine
                                                                         Fill surface configuration:                      Flat
                                                               Is the fillsituatcd in landslide topography?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [ 1
                                                                               Number of benches on fill
                                                                        KY-23
-------
Location of ,
Cracks
Location of
Depressions
Location ©f
Erosion Areas
Location of ,
Ground Bulges
Location of
Springs/Seeps
Location of
Changer
Movement
Characteristics
comments
811-0180
Location Length (ft) Width (ft) Depth (in)
1 TOE OF FILL 40 20
2
3
Were there depressions on the fill benches? Yes [ ] No f 1 (Potential Water Depth)
1
3
5
Were there areas of erosion on the till benches? Yes [ J No[ ) (Maximum Gully Depth)
1
2
4
5
Were there bulges or hummocky terrain? Yes [ ] No [ ]
1
2
3
Were there springs <*r seeps observed in disposal areas? Yes [ ] No [ 1
1
2
4
5
Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill? Yes { ] No [ ]
2
3
4
5
6
Did afailure occur on the fill? Yes [X] No [ 1
rso, enter the source of informationon the failure:
Stage of construction during failure:
Mass 1 Mass 2 Mass 3
Bench " TO
Length (ft) 40
Width (ft) 20
Scajp Height (ft)
Depth to Slip Plane (A)
Transport Distance (A)
Rate of Movement Slow
Extent of Failure Movement Bu(ge
Cause of Movement Mass 1 Inadequate UnderDrains
Mass 2
Mass 3
Had repaired smaU slide movement @ toe of fill SignifiaiH seepage @ toe area with heavy iron staining Seepage located from sides and toe area indicate underdrain was not workir
operly.
KY-24
-------
           Kentucky
        Addington  Inc,
             UK#1
Permit: 813-0180
Fill: HF# 3
Permit: 813-0180
Fill: HF# 7
               KY-25
-------
           Kentucky
        Addington  Inc,
             UK#1
Permit: 813-0180
Fill: HF# 7
Permit: 813-0180         Fill:HF#7

               KY-26
-------
      Kentucky
Big Creek Mining, Inc.
 Hunt's Branch Strip

  Permit: 898-0490
       Fill: HF#SA
       Fill: HF #SB (No Photo)
       Fill: HF#6
       Fill: HF#9
       Fill: HF#10
       Fill: HF#11
       Fill: HF#16
        KY-27
-------
BLANK PAGE
   ICY-28
-------
Company: Big Creek Mining, Inc.
  Permit: 898-0490
   State: KY
 County: Pike
Latitude: 37-26-50
jngitude: 82-13-35
             Fill:  HF n 5A
           Mine:  Hunt's Branch Strip
Was this fill visited at ground level?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
          Date of visit:                07/08/99
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?                Yes f  ^   No [X]
        Date of survey:                12/31/99
   Date of permit file review:       04/16/99
 Date fill contraction started:       07/01/97
                  Finished:             / /
Number of fill size revisions:              )
 %Sandstone in overburden:             59
           Type of Fill
            Size of Fill
              Surface
         Configuration

            Elevations
               Slopes

     Surface Drainage
              Control
           Subsurface
            Drainage
              Control
             Stability
             Analysis
        Software Used

         Safetv Factor
          Engineering
            Properties
               (Spoil)

          Engineering
            Properties
          (Foundation)

      Phrcatic Surface
                                       As constructed
                                                                                 Revision
                                                                                                                     Original design

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle (deg,)
Cohesion (psl)

Durable Rock
200
1.1
0.0
Flat
1190
1090
2.1
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.4
1.1
125
34
160



P-.l
Durable Rock
1150
7.6
0.5
Flat
1190
1090
2.1
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.5
1.1
125
30
160



P-.l
Appl. Phase
Certification

Construction
DociiDien ta ti on
3iid Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Foundatioa Preparation Yes [ j No [X]
Underdraws Yes f ] No[X]
Surface Drains Yes [ J No [X]

Grading and Revegetatlon Yes [ ] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ ]
AppL Quarterly
Certification
02/9?
03/97
03/9?



If a DR1% did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?

Foundation data:
Photography
Type
Color
Color
None



Yes[ ] No[ ]
Text
Dip of strata relative to tilt;



If active til
Were NOV's written en the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Yss[ ] No[X]
Yes[X] No[ }
Yes[X| No[ ]
Yes [X] No [ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle {months}?
[f a durable rock fill is under construction,




Approximately W% durable rock by volume?
If so to above, estimate percentage;
Discernable blanket or core drain fonnmg?

Yes[ ] No[X]
60
Yes [X] No [ J
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pro-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?


Fill surface configuration;
Ts the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?

Number of benches on fill:

Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]

                                                                      KY-29
-------
                                                                                                 Length (ft)          Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location Of
            Depressions'
            Location "f
          r   -    *    "
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges'
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
898-0490
HF#5A
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  j
                                                                                                                                    (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [
                                                   Were there bulges Of hummocky terrain?    Yes [  J  No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [  }
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  J   No [ j
                               Did a failure occur en the fill?    Yes [  J   No [x ]
so. enter the source of information on the failure:
          Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                   Massl
                                                     Bench #
                                                     Length (ft)
                                                      Width (ft)
                                                 Scarp Height (ft)
                                           Depth to Siip Plane  (ft)
                                           Transport Distance (ft)
                                            Rate of Movement
                                    Extent of Failure Movement
              Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                    Mass 2
                                    Mass 3
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                            JQF Revision #1 (8/1 1/98 split Fill #5 into Fill &5A and £5B
                                ll miner in permit
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                          Mass 3
                                                                                KY-30
-------
Company: jjjg Creek Mining, Inc.
Permit: 898-0490
State: KY
County: Pike
Latitude: 31-26-50
Longitude: 82-13-35

Fill: IIF#5B
Mm«: Hunt's Branch Strip
Was this fill visited at ground level? Yes fXl No [ ]
Date of visit: 12/31/99
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey? Yes [ ] No [X]
Date of survey:
Date of permit file review:
Date till contraction started:
Finished:
Number oftill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

1213 1199
12/22/97
1 1
1
59

    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                  As constructed
                                                                                                                  Original design
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Control
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phrcatic Surface

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (fl)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dee.}



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)

Durable Rock
900
3 2
0.3
Flat
1220
1140
20
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME.
I.?
LI
125
34
160

P-.l
Durable Rock
1150
76
0.5
Flat
1270
1140
2.0
210
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME.
I.?
1.1
125
24
160
125
34
111
P-l
                                                  Appl, Phase
                                                  Certification
AppI.Quarteriy
 certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X] 9713
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [X] 9713
Surface Drains Yes[ ] No [X] 9913
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X] 9913
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ ]
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdram by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative lo fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determinedto he on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
if no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentationor inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fillsituated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Color
Color
None
None

Ycs[X] No[ J
Text

Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes [X] No [ ]
Yes[X] No[ ]
Ycs[X] Nof ]


Yes [ ] No[Xj
60
Yes [X] No [ ]
larger
Don't know
Flat
Yes [ ] No [X]
Yes [ ] No [Xj

                                                                   ICY-31
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                                Lernrth (ft)          Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
         Erosion
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
898-0490
HF*5B
                                                Were there depressions on the till benches?    Y e [  1   No [  ]
                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [  j
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ I   No [  ]
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [ J   No [Xj
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure.
                                                                    Miss 1
                                                      Bench*
                                                      Length (ft)
                                                       Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (A)
                                            Transport Distance (A)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                    Mass 2
ajor Revision #1 split Fill # S into Fill #5 A and H5B

igKwai! miner on permit

11 was 15% completed on 3/29/99
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                         Mass 3
                                                                                KY-32
-------

Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used

Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreafic Surface

Construction
Documentation
and Certifications


Aerial survey
and Ground
Level .Review
As constructed Revision Original design
Durable Rock Durable Rock
Length (Ft) 800 800
Area (acres) 6.0 4.0
Volume (mcy) 0.3 0.0
Flat Flat
crown (A) 1260 1250
Toe (A) 1110 1120
Toe Foundation (%} 3.4 3.4
Mil Face (deg.) 27.0 27.0
Perimeter Perimeter
Grav, Segregated Gray. Segregated
REAME REAME

Static ! .5 1 ,5
Seismic I.2 1.2
Unit Weigh! (pcf) 125 125
Friction Angle 24 24
Cohesion (psi) i^O 160
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P- 1 P- 1
Appl. Phase Appl.Quartcrly Photography
Certification Certification Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X] 97/2 None
Underdrairjs Yes [ ] No [x] 97/2 None
Surface Drains Yes[ J No [X] 97/3 Color
Grading and Rcvegetation Yes [ ] No [X] 9S/1 None
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ ]
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ J No [X]
Foundation data: Text
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOVs written on the fill' Yes [ ] No [X

Surface drainaee control working properly? Yes [X] No [
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [X] No [ ]
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [Xj No [ ]
TF spoil disposal site inactive, how longwas disposal operation idle (months)? 11
fa durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80%durahle rock by volume? Yes [ ] No [X]
If no to above, estimate percentage: 50
Discernible blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ] No[X]
if tile fillis completed, compare the size with the siasin the latest pre-eomplction revision? Larger
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to 1he documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration: Flat
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yen[ ] No [X]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes [ ] No [X]
Number of benches on fill:



















KY-33
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Leneth 
-------
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
configuration
Elevation*
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safely Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phrcatic Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
As constructed

Length (h)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Revision
Durable Rock
750
10.0
0,6
Flat
1540
1240
22.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.4
1.1
125
34
111
Original design
Durable Rock
750
4.6
0.2
Hat
1550
1280
22.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
l.S
1.1
125
34
111
Unit Weight (pcf)
Krk-tion Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psi)

Appl, Phase
Certification
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Underdraias Ycs[X] No [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [ J No [X]
P-l
Appl. Quarterly
Certification
9712
9x12
P-1
Photography
Type
None
Color
None

Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Foundation Preparation
Underdraias
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes[ ] No[X] 9712
Ycs[X] No[ ] 9x12
Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes\ } No[ ]
Yes [ ] No [ ]
if a DRP, did the photographs show flic rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [X]







Foundation dala:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written or. the fill? Yes [ ]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [X]
If spoil disposal rite inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
None
Color
None


No 1 J
Text

No [X]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]

If a durable rock fill is under construction,



Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disccniable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [X]
No[X]
50
No[ ]
If the till is completed, compare the size with die size in the latest pre-complction revision?
If the fillis significantly




smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes { ]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes f ]
Number of benches on fill:

Flat
No[X]
No[X]

                                                          KY-35
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)
                                                                                                                      Width (ft)
                                                                                                                 Depth (in)
            location of
                f~   i   *
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes'
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
898-0490
HF»9
                                                 Were there depressions on the fillbendies?    Yes [  ]   No [  1
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosiO" on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    "Were there bulges or hummock}'terrain?   Yes I  ~)  No[
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Fes [  ]   No [  1
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill'!      Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [X]
ff so, enter the source of information on the failure:
             Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                 Mass 1
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                        Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   scarpilcight (A)
                                             Depi'h to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance (R)
                                               Poits cf Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                      Mass I
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
4ajor revision X I increaseilll size slightly. Revision # 2 increased f i 11 size

.evision (9/30/97) required removal of overburden to bedrock
 II
, 3/28(00 Fill was 52% comobtc
                                                                                 ICY-36
-------
Company: Big Creek Mining. Inc
Permit:
state:
County:
Latitude:
jfjngifudc:

898-0490
K.Y
Pike
37-27-14
82-13-25

Fill; HF# 10
Date of permit file review: 04116199
Mine: Hunt's Branch Strip Date fill contraction started: 09/27/Ott
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time ofthe air survey?
Date of survey:
Yes[X] No[ ] Finished: / /
07/08/99 Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden: 59
Yes [ ] No [X]
12/31/99
                                     As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                            OrUdnal design
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
      Type of Fill
       Size, of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration
       Elevations
           Slopes

surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         (Control
        Stability
        Annlvs B
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)
       Properties
     (Foundation)
 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
                                                                                                                                            Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
2800
34.7
1.9

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1510
1260
5.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.7
1.3
125
24
160
                                      Friction Angle (deg.)
                                      Cohesion (psf)
                                                                                                 34
                                                                                                111
                                                                                                                                                   P-.05
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                           Appl.Quarterly
                                                             Certification
                                                                        Photography
                                                                            Type
       Foundation Preparation
                  Underdrains
                Surface Draijis
     Grading and Revegetation
            Final  Certification
Yes [ ]   No [X]
Yes [ ]   No [X]
Yes [ ]   No [X]
Yes [ 1   No [ ]
Ycs[ ]   No[ ]
97/2
97/2
97/3
None
None
Color
                                      If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdraw by gravity segregation?    Yes [  ]   No I  ]
                                                                           Foundation data:                                               Text
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                              Were NOV's written on the fill?  Yes [  ]   NO [X]
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                             Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                             If active fill, was active  spoil disposal detennined to be on-going?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                 If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock 611 is under construction,
                                                               Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?   Yes (  ]   No [X]
                                                                        If no to above, estimate percentage:                60
                                                                 Discernablc blanket or core drain forming?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the  size in  the latest pre-completion revision?                     Same
           If the filhs significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                          Fill surface configuration:                     Fiat
                                                                Is the till situated in landslide topography?    Yes [ ]   No [X]
                                                Were there, ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   YCS [ 1   No fXl
                                                                                Number of benches on till:
                                                                        KY-37
-------
                              Location
                                                                                      Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                             Depth (in)
   Location of
       Craek$
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Lscatioa of
      Changes
   Movement
    Comments
                                       Were there depressions on the till benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                    Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes ( ]   No [  ]
                                         Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                            Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                         Were changes In vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [1   No [  1
                                Did a failure occur on the fili?    Yes [  ]   No[X]
f so. enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Mass 1
                                                     Bench #
                                                      Length (ft)
                                                      Width (it)
                                                 Scarp Height (it)
                                           Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                            Transport Distance (it)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass!
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                          Mass 2
                                                                                                                         (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                                                                                       (Maximum Cully Depth)
                                                                                                                               Mass 3
                                                                      KY-38
-------
      Type of Fill
       Sire of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor

     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatk Surface

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Durable Rack
1100
10.0
0.5
Flat
1580
1340
3.7
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Durable Rock
1100
10.8
0.6
Flat
1580
1340
3.7
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
1-riction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

1.5
1.2
125
24
160
125
34
111
P-.os
1.5
1.2
125
24
160
125
34
111
p-,05
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
      Foundation Preparation     Yes [  ]   No [X]
                 Underdrains     Yes [X]   No [  1
               Surface Drains    Yes [  j   No f  ]
    Grading and Rcvegetation     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
           Find Certification     Yes [  ]   No[  ]
                                                                                          98/2
                                                                                          98J3
          None
          Color
                                      If a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdnun by gravity segregation?    Yes [X]   No
                                                                           Foundation data:
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                              Were NOVs written on the fill?
                                                                                                        Yes [
                                                                                                                                      No pi]
                                                               Surface drainage control \\orking properly?
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
                                                                       If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                Discemable blanket or core drain forming?
               If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in ihe latest pre-completion revision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentationor inspector?
                                                                         Fill surface configuration:
                                                               Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the fillface or benches?
                                                                               Number ofbenches on fill:
                                                                                                                             Yes [X]
                                                                                                                             Yes[X]
                                                                                                                             Yes[  ]
Yes[X]

Yes [X]
                                                                                                                             Yes[ }
                                                                                                                             Yes { ]
No[  ]
No[  \
No[X]
    15


No[  ]

No[  ]
             Flat
          No[X]
          No[X]
                                                                        KY-39
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ftt          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                             Depth (in)
            location of
                Cracks 4
            Location of
            Depressions
            Locution of
         Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location "f
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
& 98-0490
HF #11
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [1   No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  J   No [ ]
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [ J
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                            Yes[  ]   No[X]
                                                                                                  Mass 1
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (fl)
                                                   Scarp Height (fl)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance (ft)
                                               P.ale of Mcvcaisnt
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                      Massl
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
ajor Revision # I - decrease in fill size
.1 used as faceup area for underground mine
> change in fill since 06/29/99 (Irirough 338/00)
) special drainage scheme for old contour cut under the fill
                                                                                 KY-40
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
-------
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
           (spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (racy)
980
2.1
0.3

Grown (ft)
Toe ( ffi
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1530
1250
15.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.4
1.1
125
24
160
125
34
111
P-.05
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
  Foundation Preparation     Yes [ ]   No [X]
            Underdrains    Yes [X]   No [   1
           Surface Drains    Yes [X]   No [  ]
Grading and Revegetatioii     Yes [X]   No [  ]
       Find Certification    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                          9812
                                                                                          98/3
None
Color
None
None
                                      If aDRF. did the photographs show the rack blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                                                           Foundation date:                                               Tsxf
                                                                  Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                              Were NOV's written on the fill?   Yes [  1  No [X]
                                                                                    Surface drainage control working properly?
                                                                                 Subsurface drainage control working properly?
                                                                If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
                                                     If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
                                                                                                  Yes[X]   No[  J
                                                                                                  Yes[X]   No[  1
                                                                                                  Yes IX]   No[  ]
                     fa durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                         Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [x]   No [  1
                                                                   l"fb to above, estimate percentage:
                                                           Discernable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [X]   No [  J
           If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-complction revision?
     if the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                    Fill surface configuration:                     Flat
                                                          In the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [ J   No [XJ
                                          Were there ground cracks observed on the fill race or benches?   Yes [ J   No [X]
                                                                         Number of benches on fill:
                                                                       ICY-41
-------
                                       location
                                                                                               Length (ft)          Width (ft>
                                                                                                                                        Depth Cm)
           Location "f
                Cracks
           Location "f
           Depressions
           Location of
         Erosion Areas
           Location of
         Ground Bulges
           Location of
          Springs/Seeps
           Location of
               Changer
            Movement
             Comments
S9B-04SO
HF*16
                                               Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  j   No [  }
                                                                                                                                  (Potential Water Deptn)
                                            Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                  Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes[ ]   No [ ]
                                 Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed On fill?    Yes [  1   No [  ]
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  J   No [X]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Mass 1
                                                     Bench*
                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                       Width  (ft)
                                                 ScarpHeight  (A)
                                           Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                            TransportDistaiice  (ft)
                                             Rate nf Movetusiit
                                     Extent of Failure Movement

               Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                   Mass 2
                           11 added m "Revision #2
                                                                               ICY-42
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                        Mass 3
-------
           Kentucky
    Big Creek  Mining, Inc.
     Hunt's Branch Strip
Permit: 898-0490
Fill: HF# 5A
Permit: 898-0490          Fill: HF# 5A

             KY-43
-------
           Kentucky
   Big  Creek Mining, Inc.
     Hunt's  Branch Strip
       ti
Permit: 898-0490
Fill: HF# 5A
            KY-44
-------
           Kentucky
   Big  Creek Mining, Inc.
     Hunt's Branch  Strip
Permit: 898-0490
Fill: HF# 6
                                                   --
Permit: 898-0490

            KY-45
Fill: HF# 6
-------
          Kentucky
   Big Creek Mining, Inc.
    Hunt's Branch Strip
Permit: 898-0490
Fill: HF# 6
           KY-46
-------
          Kentucky
   Big Creek Mining, Inc.
    Hunt's Branch Strip
Permit: 898-0490
Fill: HF# 9
           KY-47
-------
           Kentucky
    Big Creek Mining, Inc.
     Hunt's Branch Strip
Permit: 898-0490
Fill: HF# 10
Permit: 898-0490

            KY-48
Fill: HF# 10
-------
           Kentucky
    Big Creek Mining, Inc.
     Hunt's Branch Strip
Permit: 898-0490
Fill:HF#ll
Permit: 898-0490          Fill: HF# 11

            KY-49
-------
           Kentucky
    Big Creek Mining, Inc.
     Hunt's Branch Strip
Permit: 898-0490
Fill:HF#ll
Permit: 898-0490

            KY-50
Fill:HF#ll
-------
                     Kentucky
             Big  Creek Mining, Inc.
              Hunt's  Branch Strip
'<



          Permit: 898-0490
Fill: HF# 16
         Permit: 898-0490

                      KY-51
Fill: HF# 16
-------
BLANK  PAGE
     KY-52
-------
     Kentucky
Cheyenne Resources
Surface Mine Job #3

 Permit: 860-0377

      Fill: HF#03
      Fill: HF#4
       KY-53
-------
BLANK PAGE
   KY-54
-------
                                     As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                           Original design
      Type of Fill

       Size "f Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications

Length (H)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crow,, (ft)
Toe (R)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seisroio
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

Durable Rock
1500
53.0
53.0
Convex
1810
1380
21 0
27.0
Perimeter
Giav. Segregated
REAME
1.4
1.1
125
24
160

P-.05
Durable Rock
1600
82.0
10.4
Convex
1760
1350
21.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.6
1.2
125
24
160
125
38
0
P-.1
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      certification
                                                           Appl.QusrteHy
                                                            Certification
      Foundation Preparation     Yes [  ]   No [X]
                 Underdrains     Yes [  ]   No [Xj
               Surface Drains    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
    Grading andRevegetatinti     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
           Final Certification     Yes [  ]   No [  j
                                                                                         94/01
                                                                                           98/2
Photography
   Type
          None
          Color
                                      if a DRF, did the photographs show tic rock blanket or core underdtain by gravity segregation?    Yes [1   No [  ]
                                                                           Foundation data:                                               Text
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                              Were NOV's written on the fill?  Yes [X]   No [  1
                                                               Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly'?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes[X]   No [  ]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

fa durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80%durablc rock by volume?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                       Ifno to above, estimate percentage:                60
                                                                Discemoble blanket or core drain forming?   Yes [Xj   No [  ]
               If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pro-completion revision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason accordingto the documentation or inspector?
                                                                        Fill surface configuration:                      Flat
                                                               Is the fill situated in landslide topography?   Yes [X]   No [ ]
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [X]   No { ]
                                                                               Number of benches on fill:
                                                                        ICY-55
-------
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location o f
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
             Comments
860-0377
HF 803
                                                 Were Ihere depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  j   No [ ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on Ihc fill benches?   Yes [ ]   No [  j
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges Of hummocky terrain?   Yes f  1   Nu {  1
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [
                                 Did a failure occur on the Fill?    Yes [X]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass 1
                                                        Beuch«             #\
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               P.ate of Movement         Slow
                                      Extent of Failure Movement         Slide
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                           Canse of Movement
                                      Mass 1     Inadequate UndcrDrains
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                                      issued fos" fsU failure, \nspectksntech. report (S/T7/9S) cause ^as underdram failure. Lower two benches liquified Did not drain old auger works

                            ad not completed rernedial repairs at time of field visit.
                                                                                  KY-56
-------
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineer hg
       Properties
           (SpoU)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Fhreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe 
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)           Width (ft)            Depth (in)
           Location of
                f-   i   *
                C racks
           Location of
           Depressions
           Location of
         Erosion Areas
           Location "f
        Ground Bulges
           Location "f
         Springs/Seeps
            Location ef
               Changes
            Movement
        Characteristics
             Comments
SS 0-0377
HF*4
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches'?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No f
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes f  }   No [  ]
                                 Did a Failure occur on the fill?
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                          Yes[  ]   Nope]
                                                                                                Mass 1
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench #
                                                       Length  (ft)
                                                        Width  (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height  (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance  (ft)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                      Massl
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                           limit SmnsfK from LeslieResoraces MI 4/29/99, permit It 860-0501

                           riginal fill was completed on &/19/96 , new fill places additional material on old fill.
                                                                                ICY-58
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                          Mass 3
-------
           Kentucky
     Cheyenne Resources
     Surface Mine Job #3
Permit: 860-0377
Fill: HF# 03
Permit: 860-0377         Fill: HF# 03

            KY-59
-------
           Kentucky
     Cheyenne Resources
     Surface Mine Job #3
Permit: 860-0377
Fill: HF# 03
Permit: 860-0377

            KY-60
Fill:HF#03
-------
          Kentucky
     Cheyenne Resources
     Surface Mine Job #3


Permit: 860-0377
Fill: HF# 03
Permit: 860-0377

            KY-61
Fill: HF# 4
-------
BLANK  PAGE
     KY-62
-------
      Kentucky
Coal Mac Mining, Inc.
 No Mine Identifier

  Permit:  498-0204

       Fill:  HF#1
       Fill:  HF#2
       KY-63
-------
BLANK PAGE
   KY-64
-------
Company: Coal Mac Mining, Inc.
Permit: 498-0204
State: K.Y
County: Pike
Latitude: 37-37-12
ongitudc: 82-20-18

Fill: HF#J
Mine; N/A
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:


Yes [X] No [ ]
06/15/00

Yes fX| No { ]
12/31/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:


06/14/00
/ /
12/31/87
1
92


      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreafic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Cs round
   Level Review
                                    As constructed
                                                                                 Revision
                                                                                                                        Original design
                                          Conventional
                                                                                         Conventional
                                                                                                                                       Durable Rock
1400
18.3
0.4
Flat
1500
1000
4.2
27.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
1.6
1.3
125
30
200



Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pef)
Friction Angle
Cohesion {psf)
Uriit Weignt (pel)
Friction Angle (deg-)
Cohesion (psf)
1400
18.3
0.4
Flat
1500
1000
4,2
27.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
1.6
1.3
125
30
200



1250
15.6
0.4
Hat I
1600
1050
4.2
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
!.7
1.3
125
30
200



                                                 P-.05
                                                                                               P-.O5
                                                                                                                                              P-.05
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
Appl.Quarterh/
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdraias
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes[ ] No IX]
Yes[ 1 No [X]
Yesf ] No[X]
Yes[X] No I ]
Yes IX] No [ ]
4/S7
4/87
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or eore undcrdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOVs written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active till, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spall disposal site inactive, liow long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceraable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-compktian revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is die fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Notie
None
None
None
None
Yes [ j No [ ]
ACXt
Toward Fill
Yes [X] No[ 1
Yes[X] No[ ]
Ycs[X] Not 1
Yes[ 1 No I ]
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Same
Flat
Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes[ ] No[X]
                                                                     KY-65
-------
                                        Location
                                                                      Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                             Depth (in)
            Location "f
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
                        *
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location "f
          Springs/Seeps
            Location "f
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
498-0204
HF*1
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Deptn)
                                              Were there areas <£erosion on the 611 benches?   Yes [  ]   Nu [  ]
                                                    Were there bulges or huminocky terrain?   Yes [  J   No f  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]

                                   I
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?     Yes [x]    No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:    DEP Inspector
            Stage of construction during failure:     Active - Post Construction, Inactive - Post Constr
                                                                                                  Mass 1

                                                                                   Bench #
                                                                                    Length (ft)
                                                                                     Width (ft)
                                                                               Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                         Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                                                         Transport Distance (ft)

                                                                          Rate of Movement
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement

                                           Cause of Movement     Mass 1     UndergroundMine Drainage

                                                                  Mass 1
                                                                  Mass 3
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                            Passive fill failure in uppsjr terrace Causation duety underground mine drainageintotbe fill  DSMRE aw e d non-compliance #057293 on April 19, 1993 Remedial measures
                            quired an engineering plan to be submitted and is in Revision #5
                                                                                 KY-66
-------
Type of Fill
Conventional
s.zeofFi|| 2100 Length (ft)
17,4 ^rea (acres)

Surface
Configuration
Elevations

Slopes

Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor

Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatie Surface

Construction
Documentation










Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
1 .4 Volume (mcy)
Flat

1400 Crown (ft)
900 Toe (ft)
4.6 Toe Foundation (%)
--- - 	 =-,
Perimeter

Underdrain


REAME

Conventional
2100
17.4
1.4
Flat

1400
900
4.6
- --
Perimeter

Underdrain


REAME

Durable Rack
1300
12.3
1.4
Flat

1400
1000
4.6
27.0
Perimeter

Gray. Segregated


REAME


1 ,5 Static
1.1 Seismic
1 25 Unit Weight (pcf)
30 Friction Angle
200 Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psi)
P-.os
1.5
1.1
125
30
200



P-.05
1.6
1.3
125
30
200



P-.05

Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Uncterdrains Yes [ ] No [X]
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X]

Grading arid Revegetation Yes [X] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [xj No [ ]
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket




3/87
3187
or core Underdrain by gravity segregation?
Dip of strata relative to fill:


Were hiOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active till, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Ff spoil disposal Site inactive, how



long was disposal operation idle (months)?



None
None
None

None
None
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Toward Fill
Yes [X] No [ J
Yes[X] No( ]
Yes[X] No[ ]
Yesf ] No[ ]




ICY-67
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  UnKth (ft)           Width ffll
                                                                                                                                             Depth (in)
            Location of
                 Crack;
            Location of
            Depression?
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
498-0204
HF*2
                                                 Were there depressions on the fillbenches?    Yes [ ]   No [ J
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  J   No f  ]
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ J   No [ ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ j   No [
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [X]   No [  ]
fso, enter the source k>f information on the failure:   DEP Inspector
           Stage or constructionduring failure:    Active - Post Construction, Inactive - Post Constr
                                                                     Mass 1              Mass 2
                                                       Bench £
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (A)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (Aj
                                             Transport Distance (A)
                                              Rate of Movement         Slow-
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Massl    Inadequate UnderDrains
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                                      (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                                           (Maximum Cully Depth)
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                            iMRE issued N/C 053389 on April S, 198? and 1DCO 050343  Massive failure apparently due to Hilda-drain problems Approximately 8 5 acres off site damaged by slide
                            nendment £ I (submitted 5/01/87) included remedial measures for the fill failure
                                                                                 KY-68
-------
          Kentucky
   Coal Mac Mining, Inc.
     No Mine Identifier
Permit: 498-0204
Fill: HF# 1
Permit: 498-0204

            KY-69
Fill: HF# 1
-------
          Kentucky
   Coal Mac Mining, Inc.
     No Mine Identifier
Permit: 498-0204
Fill:HF#2

Permit: 498-0204

            KY-70
Fill:HF#2

-------
    Kentucky
 CZAR Coal Corp.
Panther Fork Mine

 Permit: 880-0122

   Fill: HF#2
      KY-71
-------
BLANK PAGE
   ICY-72
-------
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
   Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage.
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1300
228
3.4

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dcg.)
1237
865
7.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.4
1.1
125
30
200
Unit tf eight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                    Certification
                                                                               certification
                                                                                                                            Type
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Foundation Prepsiration
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading andRevegetation
Final Certification
Yes 1 J No [XI ]/90
Yes [ 1 Nu [X] 3/91
Yes [ I No [X] 1/93
Yes[ J No[X] 1/93
Yes [ 1 No [X]
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdroin by gravity segregation? Yes [X]







JfnnnH^t^r, dim:
Dip of strata relative to Fill:
Were NOV's written on thr fill? YDS [X]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes f ]
l~fic live fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-gomg? Yes [ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how longwas disposal operation idle (months)?
None
B&W
None
None

No[ ]
Text

No[ ]
No[X]
No[X]
No[ ]

If a durable rock fill is under construction



Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ]
if no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernible blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ]
Ifthc fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
No[ ]

No[ ]
Same
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes [X]
Number of benches on fill:
Mat
No[ ]
No[ ]

                                                                     KY-73
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                               Depth (in)
            Location of
                Crack*
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
SSa-0122
HF«2
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches'?   Yes [  ]   Nu [  J
                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [X]  No [  ]
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  J  No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [x]   No [  ]
                                Did a failure occur on the till?     Yes [x]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:    OEP Inspector
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                     Mass 1              Mass 2
                                                       Bench It             1
                                                       Length  (ft)
                                                        Width  (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height  (ft)
                                            Depth id Slip Plane   (ft)
                                            Transport Distance  (A)
                                              Rats of Movement         Slow
                                     Extent of Failure Movement         Bulge
               Cause of Movement     Mass 1     Inadequate UnderDrains, Underground Mine Drainage
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
                            ide caused by undergoimd mining draining into fill  Drainage saturated fill due to inadequate underdrain Heavy Pe staining drainage at toe of ill] Entire fill shows movement
                                                                                KY-74
-------
          Kentucky
      CZAR Coal Corp.
     Panther  Fork Mine
Permit: 880-0122
Fill: HF# 2
  l
Permit: 880-0122          Fill: HF# 2

            KY-75
-------
                           Kentucky
                       CZAR Coal Corp.
                      Panther Fork Mine
                  Permit: 880-0122
Fill: HF# 2
.%>
           -
-------
     Kentucky
 EDCO Energy Corp.
    EDCO Mine

  Permit:  836-0100

Fill: HF#1 (No Photo)
        KY-77
-------
BLANK PAGE
   KY-78
-------
Company: EDCO Energy Corp.
Permit: 836-0100
State: KY
Count): Floyd
Latitude: 37-33-55
Longitude: 82-47-10

Fill: HF#1
Mine: EDCO Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of Ihe air survey?
Date of survey:


Yes [x] No [ ]
06/22/00
Yes [X] No [ 1
72731/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

05/03/00
/ /
/ /

81

      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Usetl

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
ami Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                    As constructed
                                                                                 Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
                                                                                                                                        Conventional
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
1500
22.S
1.0

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1380
800
12.0
27.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
AppI.Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation
Undcrdrains
Surface Drains
Grading andRevegelalion
Final Certification
Ycs[ ] No[X]
Yes[ J No[x]
Yes[ ] No [XI
¥33 [ ] No [X]
Yes[ ] No(X]
None
None
None
None
None

If a DRF, did the photographs show' the ruck blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? yes 1 I
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill? Yes [X]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Tfes [ j
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determinedto be on-going? Ifes [ j
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 8$% durable rock by volume? Yes [ 1
If no to above, estimate percentage :
Disceraablc blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-cornpletion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yen [ 1
Were there ground cracks observed on the fillface or benches'? Yes [ j
Number of benches on Al 1 :
No[ 1
Text
No[ ]
No[ ]
No 1 J
No[ ]
No I 1
No[ ]
Same
No[ 1
No I ]
                                                                     KY-79
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                               Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location Of
         Ground Bulges
            Location Of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
«36-0100
HF#1
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?   Yes I  ]   No [  1
                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fillbendies?    Yes[  ]    Nu [  ]
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [  1
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  1  No [  J
     Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
     1
     2
     3
     4
     5
     6
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?  Yes [X]   No [  ]
so, enter the source of information on the failure:   DEF Inspector
          Stage of construction during failure:    Active - Post Construction, Inactive - Post Constr
                                                                    Mass I              Mass 2
                                                     Bench i
                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                       Width  (ft)
                                                 Scarp Height  (ft)
                                           Depth to Slip Plaae  (A)
                                            Transport Distance  (A)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
              Cause of Movement     Mass 1    Durability of Rock, Thick Soil Foundation
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                            JM inspection (original) 7/86 following fill failure

                            M inspection 06/22/00 showed that fill was stable Final Bond release - 12/09/97
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                                                                                 KY-80
-------
        Kentucky
   Elkhorn Coal Corp.
Homer Short Surface Mine

    Permit:  880-0130

         Fill:  HF#1 (No Photo)
         Fill:  HF#2
         Fill:  HF#3
         Fill:  HF#4
         Fiii:  HF #5
         Fill:  HF #6 (No Photo)
         Fill:  HF #7 (No Photo)
         Fill:  HF #8 (No Photo)
         Fill:  HF#9
         KY-81
-------
BLANKPAGE
   KY-82
-------
 Company: Elkhorn Coal Corp.
  Permit:  880-0130
    State:  KY
  County:  Martin
 Latitude:  37-46-57
.ongitude:  82-37-05
             Fill:   HF#1
           Mine:   Homer Short Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes[x]    No [ ]
          Date of visit:
Had the till been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survev:
07/28/99

Yes[ ]   No[X]
 12/31/99
   Date of permit file review:       04112100
 Date fill contraction started:       03/05/98
                  Finished:             /  /
Number of fill size revisions:
 %Sandstone in overburden:             92
            Type of Fill
              Surface
          Configuration

             Elevations
                Slopes

      Surface Drainage
               Control
            Subsurface
             Drainage
               Control

              Stability
              Analysis
         Software Used

          Safety Factor


           Engineering
            Properties
                (Spoil)

           Engineering
            Properties
           (Foundation)

       Phreafic Surface
          Construction
         Documentation
      and Certifications
         Aerial Survey
         and Ground
         Level Review
                                        As constructed
                                                                                  Revision
                                                                                                                      Original desien
Durable Rock
Volume (mcy)
1.0

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
ToeFoundation(%)
Fill Face (deg )
1000
750
10.0
27.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friclion Angle
Cohesion (pst)
1.5
1.2
125
24
160
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                       AppL Phase
                                                       Certifi cation
                                   Appl.Qua rterly
                                    Certification
                                       Photography
                                          Type
Foundation Preparation
Undcrdrams
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegelation
i-inal Certification
Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes[ ] No[xj
Yes [ ] No [X]
Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes[ j NoM
9811
98/1
00/1
00/1

B&W
u&w
None
None


It" a DRF. did the photographs show the ruck blanket or core miderdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ J


Foundation data:
No[ ]
Text
Dip of strata relative to fill:







If active fi
Were NOV's written on the fill? Yes [ ]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [Xl
Subsurfacedrainage control working properly? Yes [XJ
1, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [XJ
No [XJ
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,






Approximately 80% durable rock by vohime? Yes [X]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [X]
No[ ]

No[ ]
If tlie fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the till is significantlysmaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fillfacc or benches? Yes [ ]


Number of benches on fill:
Flat
No[X]
No [XI

                                                                       ICY-83
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                            Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks *
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location ©f
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges*
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               j-i.     *
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics *
             Comments
880-0130
HF*1
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches'?   Yes [  ]   No [
                                                    Were there bulges or hummoeky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  I   No [  \
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed Oil fill?    Yes  I ]   No  I ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?   Yes [  ]   ND I }
f so, enter tire source ofinformalion on the failure;
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass 1
                                                       Bench *
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (R)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (A)
                                             Transport Distance  (A)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement

               Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
n 04/24/OO-Fiil # 1 was 99% complete

uarterly certs but no critical phase certs Only original celt (3105198) had photos

onsiructed underdram- 16' x 8'
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                                                                                 KY-84
-------
  Company: Elkhorn Coal Corp.
   Permit;  880-0130
     State:  KY
   County:  Martin
  Latitude:  37-47-03
Longitude:  82-37-29
             Hill:  HF#2
           Mine:  Homer Short Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [X]   No [
          Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
  07728799

  Yes f  |   No [X]
   12131199
   Date of permit file review:       04112100
 Date fill contraction started:        01131198
                  Finished:             / /
Number of fill size revisions:
 %Sandstone in overburden:             92
             Type of Fill
             She "f Kill
               Surface
          Configuration

             Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control

               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor


           Engineering
             Properties
                 (Spoil)

           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

        I'lireatic Surface
           Construction
         Documentation
       and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                         As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                        Original design
Durable Rock
Length (it)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
830
4.0
0.5

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dcg.)
990
S3 II
6,0
27.0
Perimeter
Underdraia
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
1.2
125
24
160
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psl)
P-.05
                                                        Appl. Phase
                                                        Certification
Appl. Quarterly
 Certification
            Photography
               Type
Foundati


on Preparation Yes [
Unde-rdrains Yes [
Surface Drains Yes [
Grading and Revegetaiion Yes [
Fir
a! Certification- Yes [
] No[X]
] Nu [X]
] No[X]
1 No [X]
] No[ ]
98/1
9811
0011
00/1

B&W
"None
None
None



If a DRF, did the photoc
raphsshowthe rock bl
inket or core underdrawn by gravity segregation? Yes [X]
Foundation data:
No [ ]
Text
Dip of strata relative to fill:









Were NO Vs. written on the fill? Yes [ ]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Ifes [XJ
If active till, was activespoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [X]
If spoil disposal site inactive,
hov, long was disposal operation idie (months)?
No [X]
No [ 1
No [ ]
No[ ]

Ifa durable rockfill is under construction,









If the till is completed, compare the sue with the
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [X]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [X]
size in the latest pre-c.ompk£ion revision?
No[ 1

No [ ]

Tf the till is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?










Were there £

Fil! surface configuration:
Is the till situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Around cracks observed on the fill face or benches? "fes r i
Number of benches on fill:
Flat
No[X]
No[XJ

                                                                        KY-85
-------
                                        Location
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
880-0130
Hpf 2
                                                                                                 Length (ft)           Width (fl)
                                                                                                               Depth (in)
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes f  1   No f  ]
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gull) Depth)
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain^    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed m disposal areas?    Yes [  1   No [   1
                                  Were changes in vegetationor spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                   I
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
'so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                     Mass 1
                                                      Bench £
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                            Transport Distance (ft)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
i 04/24/00 Fill # 2 was 99% complete

mrterty certs but no critical certs. Only origirtal(01/31/98) had photos.

instructed underdrain IQ' \ 4'
                                                                                ICY-86
-------
Company
Permit:
State:
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:

'• Elkhorn Coal Corp,
880-0130
KY
Martin
37-47-08
82-37-30

Fill: HF#3
Dale of permit file review: 04112100
Mine: Homer Short Surface Mine Dale fill contraction started: 07731/98
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
lime ol the air survey?
Date of survey:
Yes [x] No[ ] Finished: / /
07128199 Number of fill size revisions: 1
, %Sandstone in overburden: 92
Yes [ ] No [X)
72737799
      Type of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                   As constructed
                                                                              Revision
                                                                                                                    Original design

Volume (mcy)

Crown (it)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation {%)
Fill Face (deg )



Stalic
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Rock
1.0
Flat
881
770
2.0
27.0
ftriimer
Underdrain
REAME

125
24
160
Durable Rock
0.8
Flat
870
770
2.0
27.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
1.5
1.2
125
24
160
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                   AppL Phase
                                                   Certification
AppL Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X] 9811
Uuderdrains Yes [ J No [xj 98/1
Surface Drains Yes\ ] No [X] 00/1
Grading andRevegefation Yes [ ] No[X] 00/1
r'mai Certification Yes [ j No [ j
Color
None
None
None

Tf a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [X]
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's writien on the fill? Yes [ ]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
Subsurface drainage control working properly'? Yes [XJ
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [X]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
F a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume'? Yen [X]
If no to above, estimate percentage
Discernable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [X]
If the fill is cooiplcted, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yen [ 1
Number of benches on till:
No[ ]
lext
No[Xj
No[ J
No[ 1
No [ ]
No [ ]
No[ ]
Larger
No [XI
No[X]
                                                                    KY-87
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth {in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S 80-0130
BF# 3
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                                                                                                                    (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the ill! benches?    Yes [  ]  No f  ]
                                                   Were there bulges or hiimmoeky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
      Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                Mass 1
                                                                                                                     Mass!
                                                                                  Bench #
                                                                                   Length (ft)
                                                                                   Width (ft)
                                                                              Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                       Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                        Transport Distance (ft)
                                                                         Rate of Movement
                                                                 Extent of Failure Movement
                                           Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                                                 Mass 2
                                                                 Mass 3
                           n 1/20/99 Fill rf 3 was 98 % completed

                           onstmcted underdrain 10' s 4'
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                          Mass 3
                                                                                KY-*
-------
 Company: Elkhorn Coal Corp.
  Permit: 880-0130
    State: KY
  County: Martin
 Latitude: 37-47-14
.ongitude: 82-37-25
             Fill:  HF#4
           Mine:  Homer Short Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [X]
          No[  ]
          Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?

        Date of survey:
                                     07/28/99
Yes[  ]   No[X]
 12/31/99
   Date of permit file review:       04/12/00
 Date fill contraction started:        01/02/00
                  Finished:        02/28/99
Number of fill size revisions:
 %Sandstone in overburden:              92
            Type of Fill

             Size of Fill
               Surface
          Co nil pi ration

             Elevations
                Slopes

      Surface Drainage
               Control
            Subsurface
             Drainage
               Control

              Stability
              Analysis
         Software Used

          Safety Factor
           Engineering
             Properties
           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

       Phreatic Surface
                                        As constructed
                                                                                  Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
1660
116
0.9

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
JOOO
850
4.0
27.0
Perimeter
tlnderdrain
REAME
Static
Seismic
1.5
1.2
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
Appl. Phase
Certification

Construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes [X] No [ J
Underdrains Yes [X] No [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X]

Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ ]
AppLQuarterly
Certification
99/1
99/1
00/1

00/1

If a DRF, did the photographs show the rack blanket or core undcrdrain by gravity segregation?
Photography
Type






Yes [X]
Foundation data;

Color
Color
None

None

No[ ]
Text
Dip of strata relative to fill



If active fill.was
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Yes[ 1
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]
No [X]
No [ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
f a durable rock fill is under construction,





Approximately 80%durable rock by volume?

If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain fanning?

Yes [X]


Yes [X]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?

No[ ]


No 1 1
Same
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentationor inspector?


Fill surface configuration:
1 s the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the 611 face or benches?

Number of benches on fill:

Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]

Flat
Nu[X]
No[X]

                                                                        KY-89
-------
                                                                                                 Length (ft)          Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location "f
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges'
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
880-0130
HF»4
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the till benches?    Yes [  ]    No [  1
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]    No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No f
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [ I
                                 Did a failure occur on the filly    Yes [ ]   No [  J
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure-
                                                                     Mass 1
                                                       Bench*
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                             Transport Distance (ft)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass J
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                     Mars 2
n04/24/00 F i 11 #4 was 99% complete

titial cert (04/27/99) had color photos. No other critical phase certs or photos

onstnictcd underdram ID' x 4'
                                                                                                          (Maximum Cully Depth)
                                                                                                                                           Mars 3
                                                                                KY-90
-------
                                    As constructed
                                                                                Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
      Type of Fill

       She of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         CGiitrol
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
575
2,0
0.2

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dcg.)
1000
870
12.0
27.0
perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
Static
Seismic
1.6
1.2
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
   Aerial survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
Appl.Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [Xl No [ ] 99/1
Underdrains Yes [X] No [ ] 9911
Surface Drains Yes [ J No [X] 00/1
Grading and Revegetati on Yes [ ] No [X] 00/1
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ j
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [X]
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NQV's written on the till? Yes [ 1
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
if a durable rock fill is umler construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [X]
If the fill is completed, compare the size, with the size IE the latest pre-completion revision?
If the f i 1 1 is significantly smaller, what is the reason according, to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Ts the fillsituatcd iniandslide topography? Yes ( ]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on fill:
Color
Color
None
None

No[ ]
Text

NO[X]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]


No[XJ
50
No[ ]
Same

Flat
No[X]
No [X]

                                                                     KY-91
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)           Width (ft)            Depth (in)
            Location of
                _   i  *
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location Of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
8SO-0130
HF*5
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [   ]   No [  ]
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes ( ]   No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observedon fill?   Yes [  ]   No [  }
                                Did a failure occur on the till?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
 so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                     Mass I
                                                       Bench #
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance (ft)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                     Mans2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
.04/24/00 Fill # 5 was 99% complete

iginal cert  (04127199)had color photos No other critical phase certs or photos

instructed undei drain ]0' x 4'
                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
                                                                                KY-92
-------
  Company: Elkhorn Coal Corp.
   Permit: 880-0130
     State: KY
   County: Martin
  Latitude: 37-47-16
Longitude:  82-37-17
             Fill:  HP #6
           Mine: 'Homer Short Surface Mine
Was this till visited at ground level?
          Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yes[X]   No[
07/28/99
Yes[  ]
 12/31/99
No [X]
                    Date of permit file review:       12/31/99
                  Date fill contraction started:             / /
                                    Finished:             / /
                 Number of fill size revisions:
                  %Sandstone in overburden:             92
             Type of Fill

              Size of Fill
               Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
             Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor


            Engineering
              Properties
                 (Spoil)

            Ting I nee ring
              Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
           Construction
          Do eumenta tion
       and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                         As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                        Original design
                                                                                                                                       Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
475
0.8
no

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
ToeFoundation{%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1000
875
12.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pd)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
1.2
125
24
160
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (pst)
P-.05
                                                         Appl. Phase
                                                         Certification
                                   Appl. Qua rterly
                                    Certification
                                       Photography
                                           Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrain s
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes[ ] No[X]
Ycs[ ] No[X]
Yes[ J No[X]
Yes [ ] No [ ]


Y
Y

If a DRP, did the photographs sliow the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation'?


foundation data:





Yes[ j

None
None
None
None

No[ J
Text
Dip of strata relative to fill:






Were NOV's written on tlie fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Yes[ ]
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Ye5[ ]
No [X]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[X]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable ruck fill is under construction,






Approximately 80% durablerock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage :
Disccrnable blanket or core drain forming?
Yes [X]

Ycs[X]
No[ ]

No[ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-cornpfction revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason accordingto the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches'?


Number of benches on fill:

Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]

Flat
No[X]
No[X]

                                                                         KY-93
-------
                               Location
                                                                                       Length (ft)           Width (ft)            Depth (in)
   Location 0 f
       Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location Of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                       Were there depressions on the fill benches'!    Yes [  ]  No [
                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                    Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                          Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes II   No [  I
                            Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                         Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?   Yes [ ]   No f ]

                         1
                                DidafailureoccuronthefillV   Yes [ ]   No [
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Mass 1
                                                      Bench 4
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                       Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                           Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                            Transport Distance (A)
                                             Rare of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement

               Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                     Mass!
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                           Mass 2
On 04/24/00Fill** was 99% complete

uarterly certs only - begin with 04/27/99 with Fill 60% complete

Constructed undcrdrain 10' x 4'
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Uepth)
                                                                                                                                Mass 3
                                                                      ICY-94
-------
Company: Elkhorn Coal Corp.
  Permit:  880-0130
  Fill:  HF#7
Mine:  Homer Short Surface Mine
  Date, of permit file review:       04/12/00
Date fiil contructiori started:        04/27/99
                                        As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                         Original design
           Type of Fill

            Size of Fill
              Surface
         Configuration

            Elevations
               Slopes

      Surface Drainage
              Control
           Subsurface
            Drainage
              Control

             Stability
             Analysis
        Software Used

         Safety Factor


          Engineering
            Prwperti •
               (Spoil)

          Engineering
            Properties
          (Foundation)

      Phreatic Surface
         Construction
        Documentation
      and Certifications
Durable Rock
Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
700
1.8
0.2

Crown (A)
Toe (A)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1000
800
12.0
27.0
Perimeter
Under drain
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.7
1.3
125
24
160
Unit Weight (pcf)
Fiction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-,05
        Aerial Survey
        and Ground
        Level Review
                                                        Appl. Phase
                                                        certification
                        AppL Quarterly
                         Certification
           Photography
               Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes [ ] No IX]
Yes [ ] No [XI
Yes[ 1 No[X]
Yes[ j No[ ]
99/01
99/02
00/1
0011

If a DRF, did the photographs show the ruck blanket or core imderdrain by gravity segregation?


Foundation data:





Yes[ ]

None
None
None
None

No[ J
Text
Dip of strata relative to fill:







If active fill,
1 Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Yes I I
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Yes[ 1
No [XI
No[ ]
No[ ]
No I 1
if spoil disposal rite inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
f a durable rock fill is under construction,






Approximately S0% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernible blanket or core drain forming?
Yes [X]

Yes [X]
No[ J

No[ ]
Jf the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topopaphy?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?


Number of benches on fili:

Ycs[ ]
Ycs[ ]

Flat
No IX]
No[X]

                                                                         KY-95
-------
                                Location
                                                                                         Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
    Location of
        Cracks
    Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location af
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Cfaa raeteristks
    Comments
                                        Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                             (Potential Water Depth)
                                     Were there areas of erosion on the flit benches?   Yes [  }   No [  ]
                                           Were there bulges or Immmocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                             Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes f  ]   No [
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  j
       1
       2
       3
       4
       5
       6
                                  Did a failure occur on the Ell?    Yes [  j    No [  ]
If so, enter the source of information on the failure:
             Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                       Massl
                                                        Bench &
                                                         Length  (ft)
                                                          Width  (ft)
                                                    Scaip Height  (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane   (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement
                Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                       Mass 2
                                       Mass 3
                                                                                                              Mass 2
3n 4/27/99 fill had not been started

No critical phase certs or photos in Frankfort or Regional files

instructed rock underdrafn is 10' x 4'
                                                                                                            (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                    Mass 3
                                                                         KY-96
-------
Company: Elkhorn Coal Corp.
  Permit: 8SO-013Q
    State: K.Y
 County: Martin
Latitude; 37-47-28
ongitude:  82-37-26
                                                     Fill:  HFS8
                                                   Mine:  Homer Short Surface Mine
                                        Was this fill visited at ground level?   Yes[X)   No [  ]
                                                  Date of visit:
                                        Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                                        time of the air survey?
                                                Date of survey:
07/28/99

Yes[  ]    No[X]
 12/31/99
   Date of permit file review:       04/12/00
 Date fill contruction started:       01/02/00
                   Finished:             / /
Number of fill size revisions:
 %Sandstone in overburden:              92
            Type of Fill
             Size of Fill
               Surface
          Configuration

             Elevations
                Slopes

      Surface Drainage
               Control
            Subsurface
             Drainage
               Control
              Stability
              Analysis
         Software Used

          Safety factor
           Engineering
             Properties
                (Spoil)

           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

       Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
         Aerial Survey
         and Cronnd
         Level Review
                                          As tenstructeil
                                                                                      Revision
                                                                                                                            Original design
                                                                                                                                            Durable Rock
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                       Area (acres)
                                                       Volume (nicy)
                                                               1650
                                                                12.1
                                                                 1.1
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1000
825
3.0
Perimeter
Underdratn
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
1,1
125
24
160
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg,)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                          Appl. Ftiase
                                                          Certification
                                                                             AppLQuarterly
                                                                              Certification
                                         Photograph?
                                             Type
                                 Foundation Preparation     Yes [x]   No [ ]
                                           Underdrains    Yes [X]   No [ ]
                                         Surface Drains    Yesf  ]   No [X]
                               Grading and Revegctation     Yes f  ]   No [X]
                                     Final  Certification    Yes [  j   No [ ]
                                                                                       99/2
                                                                                       99/2
                                                   Color
                                                   Color
                                                   None
                                                   None
                                          If a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core imderdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [X]   No [ J
                                                                               Foundation data:                                             Text
                                                                      Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                                 Were NOVswriUeu on the fill?   Yes [  J   No [X]
                                                                                       Surface drainage control working properly?
                                                                                    Subsurface drainage control working properly?
                                                                    If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
                                                         If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
                          If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                                                Approximately S0% durable rack by volume?
                                                                                        If tie* to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                                  Diseernable blanket or core drain forming?
                                   If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest prt-completion revision?
                              If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                                          Fill surface configuration:
                                                                                 Is the fill situflted in landslide topography?
                                                                 Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
                                                                                                Number of benches on fill:
                                         Yes[X]  No[  ]
                                         Ycs[X]  No[  J
                                         Yes[ ]  No[X]
                                                        3


                                         Yes[X]  No[  ]

                                         Yes [XI  No[  ]
                                                                                                                                          Fiat
                                                                                                                               Yes[  ]   No[X]
                                                                                                                               Yes[  ]   No[XJ
                                                                           KY-97
-------
   Location "f
        Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location "f
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                        Were there depressions on the fillbenches?    Yes [  ]    No [  1
                                                                                                          (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                     Were there areas of erosion on the fillbenches?    Yes [  J   No [ j
                                           Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes {  1   No [   1
                             Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  J   No [  J
                          Were changer in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ ]   Nu [ ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?   Yes [  ]   No [
f so, enter the source- of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                        Mass 1
                                                                                                             Mass 2
                                  Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance (A)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                      Mass i
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
•n 04/24/00ill! # 8 was 99% complete  Fill smaller lhan planned but no revision was seen in the fills!

ritical phase with photos only on 4/27/99, remainder are quarterly celts with no pholos

onstructed underdrain ]6! x &
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                   Mass 3
                                                                        ICY-98
-------
  Company: Elkhorn Coal Corp.
   Permit:  880-0130
     State:  KY
   County:  Martin
  Latitude:  37-47-13
Longitude:  82-37-32
             Fill:  HF#9
           Mine:  Homer Short Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level1?   Yes [X]   No [  J
          Date Cfvisit:               01/07/00
Had the till been reclaimed at the
lime ol'the air survey?                Yes f  1   No [X]
        Date of survey:                12/31/99
                                Date of permit f i le review:       04/12/00
                              Date fill contruction started:       01/02/00
                                               Finished:       02128199
                             Number of fill size revisions:
                              %Sandstone in overburden:             92
           Construction
          Documentation
        anil Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level. Review'
                                         As constructed
                                                                                  Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatk Surface
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
390
0.3
0.0

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1010
875
2.0
27.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
FrictionAngle
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
I.I
125
24
160
Unit Weight (pcf)
FrictionAngle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-,05
                                                        /\ppl. Phase
                                                        Ctrfific
-------
                                        Locution
                                                                                                  Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                 Depth (in)
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location Of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
880-0130
HF*9
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]  No [  J
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                           {Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes f  I   No [
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the Ell?     Yes [  ]  No [  J
f so. enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                 Mass 1
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                                                                                   Bench a
                                                                                    Length (ft)
                                                                                    Width (Ft)
                                                                              Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                        Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                         Transport Distance (ft)
                                                                          Rate of Movement
                                                                 Extent of Failure Movement
                                           Cause of Movement    Mass I
                                                                 Mass 2
                                                                 Mass 3
Jl 04/24/00 fill # 9 was 99% complete

ritical phase witll photos only on initial cert (4/27/99) Rest are quarterly certs with no photos

instructed underdrain is 10' x 4'
                                                                                KY-I 00
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
-------
          Kentucky
    Elkhorn  Coal Corp.
 Homer Short Surface  Mine
Permit: 880-0130
Fill: HF# 2
           KY-101
-------
           Kentucky
     Elkhorn Coal Corp.
 Homer Short  Surface Mine
Permit: 880-0130
Fill: HF# 3
Permit: 880-0130         Fill: HF# 3

            KY-102
-------
           Kentucky
     Elkhorn Coal Corp.
 Homer Short  Surface Mine
Permit: 880-0130
Fill: HF# 3
Permit: 880-0130

            KY-103
Fill: HF# 3
-------
              Kentucky
         Elkhorn Coal Corp.
     Homer Short  Surface  Mine
Permit: 880-0130
Fill: HF# 4 and HF# 5

    Permit: 880-0130         Fill: HF# 5

               KY-104
-------
           Kentucky
     Elkhorn Coal Corp.
 Homer Short  Surface Mine
Permit: 880-0130
Fill: HF# 9
Permit: 880-0130         Fill: HF# 9

            KY-105
-------
BLANK PAGE
    KY-106
-------
     Kentucky
H&D Coal Co., Inc.
   Isom Branch

 Permit: 898-0440

    Fill: HF#1
      KY-107
-------
BLANK PAGE
   KY-108
-------
      Type of Fill
       size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
      Properties
          (Spuil)

     Engineering
      Properties
     (Foundation)

 1'hreatic Surface

Length [it)
Ares, (acres)
Volume, (mcy)

crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face {(leg.)
Durable Rock
1600
13.6
1.0
Flat
1840
1250
9.4
25.2
Durable Rock
15SO
13.6
1.0
Flat
1800
1250
9.4
25.2
Perimeter
                                              Perimeter


Grav. Segregated
REAME
Grav. Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.4
1.1
12S
30
200
1.5
1.2
125
30
200
Unit weight (pci)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

P-.l
P-05
Appl. Phase. Appl, Quarterly
Certification Certification

Construction
Documentation
and Certifications











and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Reparation Yes [ ] No [X] 4/95
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [X]
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No[X] 3/93

Grading and Revegetation Yes [ J No[X] 3/98
Final Certification Yes f 1 No ( ]
IfaDRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the till?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock till is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no lo above, estimate percentage:
Discemabfe blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest prc-complction revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the. documentation or inspector?
^11 surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill race or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Photography
Type






Yes[ ]


Yes [X]
Y*s[ ]
Yes[ 1
Yes[ ]


Ycs[ 1

Vest ]



Yes[ 1
Yes{X]


R&W
None
B&W

B&W

No[X]
Text

No [ ]
No[X]
No[X]
No[ ]


No ! j

No[ ]
Same

Flat
Nn[X]
No[ ]

                                                                    ICY-109
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width (ft)            Depth (in)
            Location "f
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location "f
          Erosion Areas
            Location If
         Ground Bulges
            Location «f
          Springs/Seeps
            Location 
-------
                               Kentucky

                        H &  D Coal Co., Inc.

                             Isom Branch
St--,--*" •  vjgfc^, ::-.  jjiLv "-  . .  -   -
 '^.. 	   "?*^  .•:••*    -  •**£•  .   .
,.':^^:>   r^&£ft  '.    •••    .


 ' ^*'j^';^  "'     ""-'''
•
   ,-
 • ^
                   SS#; *

                    .*-r- ^

                         7 '.**
                                               .-.    •
                    Permit: 898-0440
 Fill: HF# 1
   ,—  .--_
  ^<'-^:^
                    Permit: 898-0440


                                KY-111
Fill: HF# 1
-------
                         Kentucky

                    H & D Coal Co., Inc.

                        Isom Branch
-",   .V* " *?f,Ti   "" >
. -\ :V 4  A ~-> .
    -  ^   "..;  i   ^.\;,      •.^^<^^>^

'  ^  ^-•    "^:-.^ T-:  .  --"  ."     ^^r^?'^
       ' •  -     •   ^ '     p "  / -      " .    V"v  v,s'
  -V „          -         -   f       ,          ,t. *'    V:
       i^.^...   —   •-*» r -      v •• --                  -  - »-*;
                     TTT*^
                     - -;4.
                 Permit: 898-0440
Fill: HF# 1


                 Permit: 898-0440


                          KY-112
Fill: HF# 1
-------
     Kentucky
Lodestar Energy, Inc.
 No Mine Identifier

  Permit:  836-0261

       Fill:  HF#3A
       Fill:  HF#4
       Fill:  HF#6C
       KY-113
-------
BLANK PAGE
     KY-114
-------
Company: Lodestar Energy, Inc.
Permit: 836-0261
State: KY
County: Floyd
Latitude: 37-41-34
Migitudc: 82-45-10

Fill; Hf#3A
Mine: N/A
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed ai the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:


Yes[X] No[ ]
01/07/00

Yes[ ] No[X]
12/31/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:


04/16/99
03/29/93
10/28/98
1
47


      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phrcatie Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                    As constructed
                                                                                Revision
                                                                                                                      Original design
                                                                                       Durable Rock
                                                                                                                                      Con ven Liotial
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (racy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg,)
Cohesion (psf)

1019
13.5
1.5
Flat
1000
740
5.2
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.5
1.2
125
37
160



P-.05
650
2.8
0.4
Hat
920
750
5.2
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.8
1.5
125
30
200



P-.l
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
AppLQu arterlv
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ 1
Underdraws Yes [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [ ]
Grading andRevegetation Yes [ ]
Final Certification Yes [ ]
No [X] 93/1
No [X] 93/1
No [X] 94/1
No [XT 9m
No [X] 9S/3
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ ]






Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill? Yes [ j
Swfaee drainage control walking properly? Yes [X]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
If active Oil, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [ ]
None
None
None
None
Hone
Nof ]
Text

No[X]
Nof 1
No[ 1
No[X]
If spoil disposal sits inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,




Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ J
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Diseemable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ]
If the fill Is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?

No[X]
50
No I 1
Larger
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration;
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Were there groutid cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on fill:
Flat
No[X]
No[X]

                                                                    KY-115
-------
            Location "f
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
         Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
836-0261
HFff 3A
                                       Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                              Depth (in)
                                                Were there depressions on the till benches?    Yes [1   No [  ]
                                                                                                        (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fillbcnches?    Yen[  J   No f  ]
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                   Were there bulges or riummocky verrain?   Yes [  }   No [  }
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  J   No [  1
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?
Fro, entertlie source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                          Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                                                                Mass I
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                                          Cause of Movemeat
                                                      Bench 11
                                                      Length (ft)
                                                       Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                           Depth to Slip Plane  (fi)
                                            Transport Distance (ft)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
                                     Muss 1
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                            ;vision 4 enlarged Fill #3A

                            naJ cert on original fill 12/29/94, no photos or critical phase certificates
                                                                               KY-116
                                                                                                                                          Mass 3
-------
      Typ& of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Su rface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreafic Surface

Length (it)
Area (acres)
Volume (fncy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (fl)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Fate (deg.)
Durable Rock
1895
8.5
2.0
Flat
1400
750
9.5
27.0
Conventional
925
2.9
0.5
Flat
1000
750
9.5
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
REAME


REAME
1,5
1.3
125
24
160
Uriitwel8nt
-------
   Location of
       Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Lscatior. at
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                               Location
                                                                                       Length (ft)          Width (ft)             Depth (in)
                                       Were there depressions on the till benches?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                    Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                          Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [I   No [  ]
                            Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes I  j   No [  ]
                         Werechanges in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                               Did afailure occuron the fill?    Yes [ j   No [ ]
so, enter the source of information on the failure:
          Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                       Mass I
                                                                                                            Mass 2
                                                                         Bench It
                                                                         Length (K)
                                                                          Width (ft)
                                                                     Scarp Height (ft)
                                                              Depl'n lo slip Plane  (ft)
                                                               Transport Distance (ft)
                                                                Rate of Movement
                                                        Extent ofFailure Movement
                                  Cause ofMovement     Mass 1
                                                        Mars 2
                                                        Mass 3
                   ivisioa $3 added i,555,184 cu yds Above lowest 2 coal seams
                                                                                                       (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                 Mass 3
                                                                      ICY-118
-------
Company: Lodestar Energy, Inc.
Permit: 836-0261
State: KY
County: Floyd
Latitude: 37-41-25
ongitudc: 82-44-41

Fill: l!F#6C
Mine: N/A
Was this fil! visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:


Yes[x] No I J
07/29/99

Yes[ ] No[X]
12/31/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contruction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:


04/16/99
12/31/99
06/04/99
2
47


     Type of Fill

      Size of Fill
        Surface
   Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                   As constructed
                                                                               Revision
                                                                                                                    Original design
Durable Rock
1250
101.8
28.5
Flat
1150
755
2.7
27,0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.8
1.3
125
30
200

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (pst)
Durable Rock
1250
101.8
28.5
Flat
1150
755
2 1
27.0
Perimeter
Gtsv. Segregated
REAME
1.8
1.3
125
30
200
Durable Rock
1537
3.4
Flat
1200
760
2.7
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1,5
1.2
125
24
160
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.l

P-.l
P-.01
                                                   Appl. Phase
                                                   Certification
Appl. Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X] 95/2
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [x] 95/2
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X] 99/2
Grading and Rcvegctation Yes [ ] No [X] 99/2
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [X] 99/2
If a DRP, did the photographs show the rock blanket or c-ore underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [X]
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV!s written on the Jill? Yes [X]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [ J
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be co-going? Yes [ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disecmable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ j
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-complctkm revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [X]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on fill:
Color
Color
None
None
None
No[ ]
Text

N°[ j
No( ]
NofX]
No[ ]


No[X]
40
No[X]
Larger

Flat
No[ ]
No[X]

                                                                   KY-119
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
836-0261
HF*BC
                                                 Were there depressions on the fillbenches?    Yes f ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal srcas?    Yes [X]   No [
       I
       2
       3 BENCH#3
       4
       5
                                                                                                      20
                                                                                                                            10
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  j
                                 Did a failure occur on the fili?    Yes[  j    No [  ]
fso, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                  Massl
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench*
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Deptli io Slip Plane (ft)
                                             Transport Distance  (fl)
                                              Rate 0 f Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement

                                      Mars I
                                      Mars 2
                                      Mass 3
                            ngineering analysis of fill requested by City of Prestonsburg due t& high level seeps and concern for !ong term stability of fill

                            iil monitored by U K 5urvev monuments
                                                                                ICY-120
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                             Mars 3
-------
               Kentucky
        Lodestar Energy, Inc.
          No Mine Identifier
Permit: 836-0261
Fill:HF#3AandHF#4
                KY-121
-------
           Kentucky
    Lodestar Energy, Inc.
      No Mine Identifier
Permit: 836-0261
Fill: HF# 6C
Permit: 836-0261

            KY-122
Fill:HF#6C
-------
       Kentucky
Martin County Coal Corp.
   No Mine Identifier

    Permit:  880-0103

         Fill:  HF#33
         Fill:  HF#34
         ICY-123
-------
BLANK PAGE
  KY-124
-------
Company: Martin County Coal Corp.
Permit: 880-0103
State: KY
County: Martin
Latitude: 37-46-15
Longitude: 82-29-51

Fill: HF # 33
Mine: N/A
Was this till visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the till been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:

Yes[Xj Nof ]
07/28/99
Yes [ J No[X]
12/3 1/99
Dale of permit tile review:
Date fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstonc in overburden:

04/16/99
/ /
/ /
I
97

      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
        Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor

     Engineering
      Properties
          (Spoil)
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phrcatic Surface
    construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                    As constructed
                                                                                Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe 
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)
                                                                                                                       Width (ft)
                                                                                                                Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes'
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
880-0103
HF*33
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  j  No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were (here areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                                    Were there bulges or hummoeky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [ J
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                           Yes[  ]   No[  1
                                                                                                   f ass 1
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance (ft)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                      Mass 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                            11 * 33 added in Amendment #3, replaced Fill HI SB

                            jarterly certs-on 4/12/99, 7/13/W,]O/27/99iOI/!8/99,04/14/«9 ALL HAVE COLOR PHOTOS (Reg. Office files only) No discussion of% completed or notes that the certs are
                            itical stage certifications.
                                                                                ICY-126
-------
Type of fill
Size of Pill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phrearic Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review

Durable Rock
Length (it)
Area (acres)
Volume (tncy)
2500
20.5
6.5

crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dcg.)
1600
720
8 0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.4
1.1
125
34
160
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
Appl, Phase AppLQuarterly
Certification Certification
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X] 03199
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [x] 04199
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No( ]
Grading and Revegetatkm Yes 1 ] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No T 1
Photography
Type
Color
Color

If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the flip
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposaldetermined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rockfill is under construction.
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Diseeraable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-complction revision?
1 f the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fillsituated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Yes [X] No [ ]
Text
Yes [ ] No [X]
Yes I ] No[Xj
Yes [X] No [ )
Yes pC] No [ ]
Ycs[x] No[ ]
Yes[X] No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes [ j No [X]
KY-127
-------
                               Location
                                                                                        Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                Depth (in)
   Location of
       Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges'
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location sf
      Changes
   Movement
    Comments
                                        Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [I   No [  I
                                     Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes (  ]   No [  ]
                                          Were there bulges or rmmmocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No {  ]
                            Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes[  ]   No [  ]
                         Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill'?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill1
If so. enterthe source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                  Yen[ ]   No[
                                                                                        Mass 1
                                                                                                             Mass 2
                                  Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                             Transport Distance (ft)
                                               P*ate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement

                                      Mass I
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mans 3
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                  Mass 3
ill #34 added on 10/27/99 in Amendment #4 (MPA-J)

 wingflli construction technique

Quarterly certs 7/12/99,10/27/99 01118100,04/14/00 ail hare color photos (Regional Office only) None are marked critical stage certifications
                                                                       ICY-128
-------
           Kentucky
  Martin County  Coal Corp.
      No  Mine Identifier
Permit: 880-0103
Fill: HF# 33
                       ','••   •••- •   *S "Q^
Permit: 880-0103

            KY-129
Fill:HF#33
-------
           Kentucky
  Martin County Coal Corp,
      No Mine Identifier
Permit: 880-0103
Fill: HF# 33
Permit: 880-0103

            KY-130
Fill:HF#33
-------
             Kentucky
    Martin  County Coal  Corp,
        No Mine Identifier
s?
   Permit: 880-0103
Fill: HF# 34
   Permit: 880-0103          Fill: HF# 34

               KY-131
-------
BLANK PAGE
    KY-132
-------
     Kentucky
Miller Brothers Coal
   Wolf Creek #1

 Permit: 813-0207

       Fill: HF#13
       Fill: HF#14
       Fill: HF#15
       Fill: HF#16
       Fill: HF#17
       Fill: HF#18
      ICY-133
-------
BLANK PAGE
   KY-134
-------
Company: Miller Brothers Coal
Permit: 813-0207
State: KY
Count?: Broathitt
Latitude; 37-35-31
Longitude: 83-U.-27

Fill: HF#13
Mine; Wolf Creek #1
Was this fill visited at ground level1?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air Survey?
Date of survey:


Yes[x] NoL ]
06108199
Yes [ ] No [X]
12131199
Date of permit file review:
Date till contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

04/16/99
06/08/99
/ /
52

      Type of Fill

      Sixeof Fill
         Surface
   Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
      Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
      Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
                                    As constructed
                                                                                Revision
                                                                                                                       Original
Durable Rock
Length (A)
Area (acres)
7.9 Volume (racy)
1200
8.0
0.5

crown (it)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1140
940
14.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.4
1.1
125
24
125
35
0
P-05
    Construction
  Documentation
anj Certifications
   Aerial survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
  Foundation Preparation     Yes [ ]  No [X]
            Undcrdrains    Yes [ ]  No [X]
          Surface Drains   Yes f ]  No [X]
Grading and Revegetation     Yes [ ]  No [X]
       final Certification    Yes [ ]  No [  ]
9913
9913
None
None
None
None
                                                                     KY-135
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width 
-------
      Type of Fill

       Size of Pill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface. Drainage.
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor:
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatk Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certification.
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1000
7.9
06

crown (!T>
Toe (Ti)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dcg.)
1150
900
16.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAMH

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pef)
Fiction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pci)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.4
1.1
125
24
160
125
35
0
P-(M
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                   Appl. Phase
                                                   Certification
Appl,Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading andRevcgdalion
Final Certification
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
No [XI
No[x]
NO [X]
No[X]
No [X]
If a DKF, did the- photographs show



9911
9911
99/2
99/2
99/3
the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:





Yes[ ]

None
None
None
None
None
No[ J
Text
Dip of strata relative to fill:












Were NOV's written on )hc fi!P

Surface drainage control working prooerlv?
Subsurface drainage control working property1?
If active fill. was active spoil disposal determined to be nn-going?
Yesf 1
x wj L j
Yes [XJ
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
No [XJ

NnJ ]
No[ ]
No [ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle Jrcnths)?
fa durable rock fill is underconstruction,









Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Diseernabk- blanket or core drain forming?
Yesf ]

Yes [X]
If the fill is com pleted, compare the size with the size in (he latest pte-comptetion revision?
If the fill i s significantly smaller,




what, is the


reason according to the docume.tilaliotl or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?



Number of benches on fill:


Yes[ ]
Yes [ ]

No[X]
60
No[ ]
Same

Flat
No[X]
No[X]

                                                                   KY-137
-------
   Location "f
   Location of
   "Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
                                       Were there depressions on the fillbcnchcs?    Yes [
                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                    Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [ J   No [ ]
                                          Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                            Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  j   No [  ]
                         Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till?     Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Mass 1
                                                      Bench w
                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                       Width  (ft)
                                                 Scarp Height  (ft)
                                            Depth to SI ip Plane  (ft)
                                            Transport Distance  ft)
                                             B.3TC of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass!
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                           Mass 2
                   j field check of certs, Frankfort files only
                                                                      KY-138
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                Mass 3
-------
Company: Miller Brothers Coal
Permit: 813-0207
State: KY
County: Brcathitt
Latitude: 37-35-44
ongitudc: 83-11-05

Fill: 1-IF# 15
Mine: Wolf Creek #1
Was this fill visited at ground levci?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey'!
Date of survey:

Yes[x] No[ ]
06/08/09
Yes [ ] No [XJ
12/31/99
Date of permit file review:
Date till contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone m overburden:

04/16/99
/ /
10/21199

52

Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review*
                             As constructed
                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                     Original design
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatk Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Durable Rnrk
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1210
11.5
1.0

crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
foe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1150
950
10.0
27.0
Perimeter
Orav. Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Wfeight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psi)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.4
1.1
125
24
160
125
35
160
B-.05
Appl. Phase Appl.Quarterly
Certification Certification
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [xJ
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X| 9912
Photography
Type
None
None
None
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [xJ
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X| 9912
Grading and Revegetatioti Yes [ ] No [X] 99/2
Final Certification Y5s[x] No I ] 99/3
If a DRF, did the photographs show tho rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ J
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fi!P Yes [ ]

Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [X]
If spoil disposal rite inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
F a durable rock fill i s under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ 1
Tf no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceraable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [X]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-eomplction revision?
If the fill i s significantlysmallcr. what is the reason according lo (he documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fillface or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on fill
None
None
None
None
None
No [ ]
'l-UAl
No [X]

No[ 1
No[ ]
No[ )
No [XI
50
No[ ]
Flat
No[X]
No[X]
                                                         KY-139
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                              Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas'
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
813-0207
HF*15
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                                   (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                  Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  j
                                  Were changer in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                Did a failure occur on the till'    Yes [ }   No [ ]
f so, enter the source of informationon tiie failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Mass I
                                                      Bench#
                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                       Width  (ft)
                                                 Scarp Heigh!  (ft)
                                            Depth 10 Slip Plane  (ft)
                                            Transport Distance  (ft)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Causs of Movement     Mass 1
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                   Mass!
                                                                              ICY-140
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                         Mass 3
-------
  Company: Miller Brothers Coal
   Permit;  813-0207
     State:  KY
   County:  Breathilt
  Latitude:  37-36-02
Longitude:  83-10-58
             Fill:  HF#16
           Mine:  Wolf Creek #1
Was this fill visited at ground level'?
          Date of visit:
Had the till been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey.
YcsfX]   No [  ]
06/08/99

Yes [  ]   No [X]
 L2/3 1/99
   Date of permit file review:       04116199
 Date till contruction started:       12/31/98
                   Finished:       09/30/99
Number of fill size revisions:
 %Sandstone in overburden:             52
             Typo of Pill
              Size of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
             Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor
            Engineering
              Properties
                 (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
           Construction
          Documentation
       and Certifications
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
1200
13.0
1.1

Grown (ft)
Toe (fl)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1150
930
13.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav, Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight 
-------
                                                             zn-Ax
(l*d3([ ^[[n;
                                                                        Mn[iEj jo lus
                                                            (y) saucisif;
                                                            (H)  OUEMdnsoimdsn
                                                            (e)
                                                                                :smirej sqj no uopanojui jo 33anos sip .rajira "os jj
                                                                   illLJ uo ps
                                               [  ] °N.   [  ] S3A    /.seaitj jusodstp ui paAjssqo sdsss jo sSuuds oisqi 349^
                                                                      iraq |;g sip uo uoisixra jo SESIE o
                                                                     pusq [|tj sip uo suois
                                                                                                                              SJU3UIOT03
                                                                                                                              je
                                                                                                                                   uoisojg
                                                                                                                              jo uoi
                                                                                                                              JO UOJIB30'}
                                                                                                                              JO
(ui
                            (y) itfP!
                                                                                                      UOIJE3O1
-------
      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
         Surface
   Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
      Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
      Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Ctwitraetioii

and Certifications
Durable Rock
Length 
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                               Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                              Depth (in)
           Location of
                Cracks
           Location of
           Depressions
           Location of
         Erosion Areas
           Location of
         Ground Bulges
           Location of
          Springs/Seeps
           Location of
              Changes
            Movement
        Characteristics
813-0207
HFJM7
                                               Were there depressions on (he fill benches?    Yes [  I  No [  ]
                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                            Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                  Were there bulges or liummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ J   No [ ]
                                 Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                Did a failure occur on the till?    Yes f  ]  Nu [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Mars 1
                                                      Bench #
                                                       Length  (ft)
                                                       Width  (ft)
                                                 Scarp Height  (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (it)
                                            Transport Distance  (ft)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                   Mass 2
                           s of 9/30W) fill was pending frail cen.

                           o field review of cert data onlv Frankfort files
                                                                              KY-144
                                                                                                                                        Mass 3
-------
Company: Miller Brothers Coal Fill: HF # 1 8
Permit: 813-0207 Mine: Wolf Creek #1
State: KY Was this fill visited at ground level? Yes fxl No [ ]
Count).: Breilthitt Dateot'visit: 06/08/99
Latitude: 37-16-21 Had the fill been reclaimed at the
-ongifmle: 83-10-46 time of the air survey? Ycs [ 1 No [X]
Date of survey: 12/31/99
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatie Surface
Date of permit file review: 04116199
Date fill contraction started: / /
Finished: 09/30/99
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden: 52

Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
1200
10.9
0.9

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face ((leg.)
1140
920
12.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
U nit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
UriltWd«ht(Pcf>
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.4
1.1
125
24
16U
125
35
160
P-05
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                 Appl. Phase
                                                 Certification
Appl.Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Uuderdrains Yes [ ] No fx]
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No[X] 99/3
Grading andRevegetation Yes f ] No[X] 99/3
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ 1
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ ]
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative lo fill:
Were NOV's mitten on the ti 1 1 ? Yes [ ]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [X]
If active fin, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes fX]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
/fa durable rock 611 i s under construction,
Approximately 80% durablerock by volume? Yes [ ]
ff no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceraable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [X]
If the fill is completed, compare the size wilh the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason accordingto the documentation or inspector?
fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Were there ground cracks observed on the till face or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on till:
None
None
None
None

No[ ]
Te™

No [X]
No[ }
No[ }
n°l 1


No[X]
30
No[ ]


Flat
No[X]
No JX]

                                                                 KY-145
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                              Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas *
            Location Of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
813-0207
HF*18
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [1   No [
                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion On ihe fill benches?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                     Were (here springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observedon fill?     Yes [  ]   Nu [  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?     Yes f  ]   Nu [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure;
                                                                     Mass 1
                                                      Bench #
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                       Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth i"S!ipFiane (fi)
                                             Transport Distance (ftj
                                              F.2te of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement    Mass 1
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                    Mass 2
                           s of 09/30/99 fill was complete pending final cert
                           o field check of certs, only Frankfort files
                                                                               KY-146
                                                                                                                                         Mass 3
-------
           Kentucky
     Miller  Brothers Coal
        Wolf Creek #1
Permit: 813-0207
Fill: HF# 13
Permit: 813-0207          Fill: HF# 13

            KY-147
-------
           Kentucky
     Miller  Brothers Coal
        Wolf Creek #1
Permit: 813-0207
Fill: HF# 14

Permit: 813-0207          Fill: HF# 14

            KY-148
-------
                        Kentucky
                  Miller Brothers Coal
                     Wolf Creek #1
     v^
                        - *o
                               '
                                               >'5»
'  -' - ^S'^^SP^^^
              Permit: 813-0207
Fill: HF# 14
              Permit: 813-0207

                         KY-149
Fill: HF# 14
-------
           Kentucky
     Miller  Brothers Coal
        Wolf Creek #1
Permit: 813-0207
Fill:HF#15
Permit: 813-0207          Fill: HF# 15

            KY-150
-------
          Kentucky
    Miller Brothers  Coal
       Wolf Creek #1
Permit: 813-0207
Fill: HF# 15
           KY-151
-------
           Kentucky
     Miller  Brothers Coal
        Wolf Creek #1
Permit: 813-0207
Fill: HF# 16

                  V5*! —
Permit: 813-0207          Fill: HF# 16

            KY-152
-------
                            Kentucky
                     Miller Brothers Coal
                         Wolf Creek #1
                 Permit: 813-0207
Fill: HF# 16
.

                Permit: 813-0207         Fill: HF# 16

                             KY-153
-------
           Kentucky
     Miller  Brothers Coal
        Wolf Creek #1
Permit: 813-0207
Fill: HF# 17
Permit: 813-0207          Fill: HF# 17

            KY-154
-------
           Kentucky
     Miller  Brothers Coal
        Wolf Creek #1
Permit: 813-0207
Fill:HF#18
Permit: 813-0207          Fill: HF# 18

            KY-155
-------
           Kentucky
     Miller  Brothers Coal
        Wolf Creek #1
Permit: 813-0207
Fill:HF#18

Permit: 813-0207

            KY-156
Fill:HF#18
-------
     Kentucky
Mountain Clay, Inc.
       #32

 Permit:  518-0157

    Fill:  HF#3
      KY-157
-------
BLANKPAGE
  KY-158
-------
  Company: Mountain Clay, Inc
   Permit:  518-0157
     State:  KY
   County:  Whitley
  Latitude-.  36-41-57
Longitude:  84-11-28
             Fill:  HF#3
           Mine;  #32
Was this fill visited at ground level?
          Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yes[X]   No[  ]
 06108100

Yes[Xj   No[  J
 02701/88
   Date of permit file review:      05103100
 Date till contraction started:       06701/81
                  Finished:       02/01/87
Number of fill size revisions:
 %Sandstone in overburden:             20
             Type "f Fill
               Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor
            Engineering
              Properties
                 (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
           Construction
          Documentation
       and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                         As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
Durable Rock
Volume (mcy)
1.6

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation {%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1818
1320
3.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
unit Weight (pet")
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.7
113
24
90
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P- .05
                                                        Certification
                                                                                 Certification
                                                                                                                            Type
Foundation Preparation


Undcrdrains
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Find Certification
Yes I ]
Yesf 1
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yesf I
No[
No[
Na [
No [
No[
1
]
]
]
]
















IfaDRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?




Foundation data:
Yes I ]
No[
]
Text
Dip of strata relative to fill:












Were NOV's written OH the till?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determinedto be on-going?
If spoil disposal
site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]

No[
No[
No[
No[

1
]
]
]

If a durable rock fill is under construction.












Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Diseemablc blanket or core drain forming?
Yes[ ]

Yes[ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-cornplction revision?
If the




fill is significantly




No[

No[
]

]
Same
smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?








Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Flat
Yes[ ]
Yen I }

No[X]
No[X]


                                                                        KY-159
-------
                                        Location
                                                                     Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                           Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location "f
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location If
               Changes'
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comment.
518-0157
HF#3
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]  Wo [  ]
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the Ell benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  I
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [  I
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  j   No [  ]
                                  Were changer in vegetation or spoil color observed on Ell?     Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the Ell?    Yes [X]   No [ ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:   Permit File
            Stage of construction during failure:    Inactive - PostConstr
                                                                                                Mass 1
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                                                                                  Bench #
                                                                                   Length (ft)
                                                                                   Width (ft)
                                                                              Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                        Dcptfi to oiip nitric \ii)
                                                                        Transport Distance (ft)
                                                                         Rate of Movement
                                                                 Extent of Failure Movement
                                           cause of Movement     Mass 1     Inadequate UtiderDrains
                                                                 Mass!
                                                                 Mass 3
                                                                       Slow
riginal OSM inspection dn March 1987

111 construction began hi June! 981 Massive fill failure occurred in spring 1987 Aerial video (#020188) shows fill as of (WQ6/1998

ml bond release]]/] 993
                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                               KY-160
                                                                                                                                           Mars 3
-------
           Kentucky
    Mountain Clay, Inc.
              #32
Permit: 518-0157
Fill: HF# 3
Permit: 518-0157

            KY-161
Fill: HF#
-------
BLANK PAGE
    KY-162
-------
      Kentucky
  New Ridge Mining
Road Fork of Big Creek

   Permit: 898-0415

Fill: HF #K (No Photo)
       ICY-163
-------
BLANKPAGE
  ICY-164
-------
Company: New Ridge Mining
Permit: 898-0415
State: KY
County: Pike
Latitude: 37-35-31
ongitude: 82-21-58

Fill: HF#K

Mine: Road Fork of Big Creek
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Dale of Survey;
Yes[x] Not ]
06/22/00

Yes [X] No [ J
12/31/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contruGtion started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden;


05/03/00
12/15/87
05/21/97
1
80


      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes.

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Fhreatie Surface
    Construction
   Bo cum enta tion
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                     As constructed
                                                                                  Revision
                                                                                                                          Original design

Length (fl)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dog.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
.Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weigh! (pel)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
Conventional
2400
46.8
2.7
Convex
1 675
950
11.0
19.0
Perimeter
Utiderdrain
REAME
1.5
1.1
125
35
100



Durable Rock
1425
24.8
2.7
Convex
1660
1020
11.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.4
1.1
125
35
100



                                                                                        Plirestic Surface
                                                                                                                                                 p-.OS
                                                     Appl. Phase
                                                     Certification
                                                           Appi. Quarterly
                                                            Certification
Photography
    Type
       Foundation Preparation     Yes [X]   No f ]
                  Underdraws    Yes [  ]   No [x]
                Surface Drains    Yes [  ]   No [X]
     Grading and Revegetetion     Yes [  ]   No [X]
            Final Certification    Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                                          4/g8
         None
         None
         None
         None
         None
                                     If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [ 3
                                                                           Foundation data:
                                                                  Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                             Were KOV's written on the fill?  Yes [X]
                                                                                                                 No[ ]
                                                                                                                   Text
                                                               Surface drainPge control working properly?
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
                                 If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under cnnstruction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
                                                                       If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                Disceraable blanket or core drain forming?

                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest prt-completion revision?
           If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                         Fill surface configuration:
                                                               Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the fill Face or benches?
                                                                               Number of benches on fill:
Yes[

Yes[



Yes[

Yes[
                                                                                                                            Yes[
                                                                                                                            Yes!
                                                                                                                                     No[  ]
                                                                                                                                     No[  I
                                                                                                                                     No{  ]
         No[

         No[
          No[
          No[
                                                                      KY-165
-------
                                Location
                                                                                          Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
    Location of
        Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location "f
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                        Were there depressions on the till benches?    Yes {  ]   No [ J
                                     Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  1   No [  ]
                                           Were there bulges or hummoeky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                             Werethcre springsor seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                          Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ j   No [  j
                                  Did a failure occur on (be fill?    Yes [x]   No [  j
f so, enter the source of information On the failure:    0£p Inspector
            Stage of construction during failure:     Active, Port Construction, Inactive - Post Constr
                                                                      Mass 1              Mass 2
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rats of Movement
                                      Extent ofFailurc Movement
                cause of Movement    Mass 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
ii Failure occurred 6111/89 Permit revision 03/09/90 cotiiained remedial repairs No certs after this dare

Dmpiete release 0/25/97

emedial measures included rock foe buttress (free draining) Holbwfillwas stable at lime of inspection on 6/22/0Q
                                                                                                                              (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                                            (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                    Mass 3
                                                                        KY-166
-------
      Kentucky
Pine Branch Coal Sales
 Haddock Fork Mine

  Permit: 897-0271
       Fill: HF#10
       Fill: HF #13 (No Photo)
       Fill: HF#DD
       KY-167
-------
BLANK PAGE
  KY-168
-------
  Company: pine Branch Coal Sales
   Permit: 897-0271
     State: KY
   County: Perry
  Latitude: 37-23-04
Longitude:  83-19-37
                            Fill:  HF#10
                          Mine:  Haddock b'ork Mine
               Was this till visited al ground level'?   Yes Ixj
                        Date ol'visit:
          Nu[  ]
               Had the fill been reclaimed at the
               time of the air survey?
                      Date of survey:
 10127198
Yes[  1   No[X]
 12131199
                                                                                                         Date of permit tile review:       02110100
                                                                                                       Date fill contraction started:       09101193
                                                                                                                        Finished:            / /
                                                                                                      Number of till size revisions:              1
                                                                                                       %Sandstone in overburden:            52
             Type of Fill

              Size of Pill
                Surface
           Configuration
              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
             Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor

            Engineering
              Properties
                 (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phrcalic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
          Aerial survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                         As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                        Original design

Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown(ft)
Toe (A)
Toe Foundation {%)
FillFace (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg,)
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Rock
3550
9S.1
27.8
Flat
1330
975
5.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
RliAME


125
38
160



Durable Rock
2100
43.2
13.0
Flat
1270
99u
5.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.6
1.6
125
38
160



None
                                                         Appl. Phase
                                                         Certification
                                                 Appl.Quarterly
                                                   Certification
                                       Photography
                                           Type
  Foundation Preparation
           Underdraws
          Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
      Final Certification
                                                       Yes [ ]  No [X]
                                                       Yes [ J  No [X]
                                                       Yes I 1  No [XI
                                                       Yes [ ]  No [X]
                                                       Yes [ J  No [  ]
        93/3
        93/3
          N
          N
                                                                                                                           None
                                                                                                                           None
                                                                        KY-169
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                   Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                  Depth (in)
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions'
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
             Comments
897-0271
HFS10
       nl
       2
       3
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                           (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [ J   No [  ]
                                                                                                            (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [ ]   No [  J
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ ]   No [  J

       I
       2
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yea [  j   No {  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                   Mass 1
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                    Bench 1t
                                                                                    Length in)
                                                                                     Width (ft)
                                                                               Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                         Depth 10 Slip Plane (ft)
                                                                          Transport Distance (ft)
                                                                           Rate of Movement
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement

                                           Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                  Mass 3
mendment #3 (6/21/96) -expanded fill size

11 joins with backfill/same elevation, no special drainage provisions

Quarterly certs began 4/93 through 3/2000 No photos of fills and no critical construction phase cenificstes

Fill is completed to 120' high and reeded
                                                                                                                                              Mass 3
                                                                                 KY-170
-------
  Company: p;ne Branch Coal Sales
    Permit:  897-0271
     State: KY
   county:  Perry
  Latitude:  37-22-08
Longitude:  83-18-40
             Fill:  Iff # 13
           Mine:  Haddock Fork Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes[X]   Nof  ]
          Date of vis it:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
10/27/98

Yes[  ]   No[X]

 12/31/99
   Date of permit tile review:       02/10/00
 Date fill contraction started:       03/31/00
                  Finished:            / /
Number of fill size revisions:              2
 %SandstOne in overburden:             52
             Type of Fill
              Size of Fill
               Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control

               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor
           Engineering
             Properties
                 (Spoil)

           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
           Construction
         Documentation
       and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                         As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                        Original design

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (A)
Toe Foundation (14)
Fill Face (dcg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Rock
2250
33.0
68
Flat
1260
990
5.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.6
1.2
125
24
160
Durable Rock
2650
33.0
10.8
Flat
1300
980
5.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
1.6
125
24
160
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
                                                                                                 P-.OS
                                                                                                                                             P-.os
                                                         Appl. Phase
                                                        Certification
                                   Appl.Quarterly
                                    Certification
                                       Photography
                                           Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegctation
Final Certification
Yes! ] No PC] 00/1
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes [ ] No [ ]

None

If a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
foundation data:
Dip of strata relativeto fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completionrevision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
YesJ ]
Yes I J
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes [ ]
Yes[ 1
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Nof J
Text
NO[X]
No [ ]
No [ ]
Nof ]
Nof ]
Nu[ ]
No[ ]
Nof J
                                                                        KY-171
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width (ft)            Depth (in)
            Location "f
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location o f
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
897-0271
HFSM3
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yen [  ]   No f  ]
                                                                                                           (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion oil the fill benches?   Yes [ ]   No [ J
                                                         ihere bulges or humniocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   Ko [  )
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [
If so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass 1
                                                        Bench £
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (it)
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement
                                           Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                                  Mass!
                                                                  Mass 3
'ill tf 13 added-AiDendmrart & 2 (5/OS/95

unendmcnt # 14 (11/19/98) revised fill (smaller)

 first cert, found was 3/3 t/OD which staled brushing was completed as of 3/2000 fiU «mstuvcuoi\ Imd sot s
                                                                                KY-1 72
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
-------
Company: pine Branch Coal Sales
  Permit:  897-0271
    State:  KY
 County;  Perry
Latitude;  37-22-22
ongitude:  83-18-45
                                                   FHh  HK#DD
                                                 Mine:  Haddock Fork Mine
                                      Was this fill visited at ground level?
                                               Date of visit:
                                      Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                                      timeof the air survey?
                                             Date of survey:
                                                                       Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                       10/27/98

                                                                       Yes I  '   No M
                                                                       12/31/99
   Date of pennit file review:       02/10/00
 Date fill contraction started:       10/01/95
                  Finished:             /  /
Number of fill size revisions:              2
 %Sandstone in overburden:             52
     Type of Fill
      Size of Fill
     Surface
Configuration

   Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Aoalysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
    Engineering
      Properties
          (Spoil)

    Engineering
      Properties
    (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
an
-------
                                        Location
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location "f
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
897-0271
HFSDO
                                                                                                  Length (ft)
                                                                                           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                             Depth Cta)
                                                 Were there depressions on the HI benches?    Yes I  ]   No[ ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No[  J
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                 Did a failure oceur on the fill?    Yes f  j   No [
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass 1
                                                        Bench H
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scaip Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (El)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
atitude -37-22-22
ad cleared arid grubbed entire area before fill construction
roposed permanent stream at the top of Ihe fill
ill size increased in Amendment # ! and Amendment #4
uarter!y certs from 6/95 through 3/2000. No photos or critical phase certs.
                                                                                KY-174
-------
           Kentucky
   Pine  Branch Coal Sales
     Haddock Fork Mine
Permit: 897-0271
Fill: HF# 10
Permit: 897-0271

            KY-175
Fill: HF# 10
-------
                             Kentucky

                     Pine Branch  Coal Sales

                       Haddock Fork Mine
                                                           '.*<   .
                                                               :*.'•«•-.»    '  -: >
                  Permit: 897-0271          Fill: HF# 10



                              KY-176
-------
           Kentucky
   Pine Branch  Coal Sales
     Haddock  Fork Mine
Permit: 897-0271
Fill: HF# DD
Permit: 897-0271         Fill: HF# DD

            KY-177
-------
                             Kentucky
                      Pine Branch Coal  Sales
                        Haddock Fork Mine
-*

   ;  .


                  Permit: 897-0271
Fill: HF# DD
                  Permit: 897-0271

                              KY-178
Fill: HF# DD
-------
      Kentucky
Richardson Fuels, Inc.
      Mine #2

  Permit: 836-0212

     Fill: HF#1
       KY-179
-------
BLANK PAGE
  KY-180
-------
  Company: Richardson fuels. Inc.
   Permit:  836-0212
     State:  KY
   County:  Floyd
  Latitude:  37-30-36
Longitude:  82-49-28
             Fill:  HF#1
           Mine:  Mine #2
Was this fill visited at ground level?
          Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey'?
        Date of survey:
Ye.s[X]   No[  ]
 04105199

Yes[  ]   No[X]
 12/3 1199
   Date of permit file review:       05/17/00
 Date fill contraction started:       06/06/90
                  Finished:             /  /
Number of 1111 size revisions:
 %Sandstone in overburden:             32
            Type of Fill

             Size "f Pill
               Surface
          Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control

               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Saferv Factor
            Engineering
             Properties
                 (Spoil)

            Engineering
             Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phrearic Surface
           Construction
         Documentation
       and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                         As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1500
25.3
2.6
Flat
Crown (A)
Toe (ft)
Toe foundation (%)
Fill l-'acc (deg.)
1300
750
30.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.7
1.3
125
34
200
unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                        AppL Phase
                                                        Certification
                                   Ap pi. Q ua rterly
                                    Certification
                                       Photography
                                          Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [X]
Underdrains Yes [X]
Surface Drains Yes [X]
Grading and Revegetation Yes ! 1
Final Certification Yes [ ]
No! 1 90/2
No! ] 90/5
No[ ] 91/1
No [X] 91/1
No[ ]





Color
Color
Color
None


I fa DRF, did Ihe photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?






Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill
WereNOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Yes [X]


Yes [X]
Yes 1 1
Yes[ )
Yes[ ]
No[ ]
Text

No ! !
NofX]
No[X]
No[ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, haw long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rock fill is under construction;




Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain forming?

Yesf 1

Yes I ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size rith the size in the latest pre-completion revision?

No[ ]

No[ ]
Same
Jf the till is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were (here ground cracks observed on the fill face or beaches?
Number of benches on fill:

Yes [X]
Yes [X]

Flat
No[ 1
No[ ]

                                                                       KY-181
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                   Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                   Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location 0 f
                        *
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges'
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
836-0212
HF«1
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [X]   No [
                                                                                                             (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Wcrcthcre areas of erosion on the fillbenches?    Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [ ]   No [  }
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     YeslX]   No [  ]
                                   Did a failure occur on Hie fill?   Yes [X]   No [
 If so, enter the source of information on the failure:    FieldMeasurements
             Stage of construction during failnre:
                                                                        Mass i
                                                         Bench if             #1
                                                          Length  (ft)
                                                           Width  (ft)
                                                     Scarp Height  (ft)
                                               Depth (o Slip Plane   (ft)
                                               Transport Distance  (ft)         50
                                                 Rate of Movement         Slow
                                        Extent of Failure Movement          Slide
                                                                                                                        Mass!
                                            Cause of Movement
                                        Mass 1     Inadequate UnderDrains
                                        Mass 2
                                        Mass 3
Completion of fill-4/30/91

N/C issued for Fill failure 3/23/9-1, Slide due to inadequate underdrain (Hazard*! ?)

Operator advised in fill visit that fill had been placed in 4" lifts but perrnit says durable rock fill

Revision was issued 7/13/99 \o atcomwla^e Trading offUi due lo Mhive  As of 1/G4/2GGG fegrading has continues
                                                                                 KY-182
                                                                                                             (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                              Mass 3
-------
          Kentucky
   Richardson Fuels, Inc.
           Mine  #2
Permit: 836-0212
Fill: HF# 1
Permit: 836-0212          Fill: HF# 1

           KY-183
-------
                               Kentucky
                       Richardson  Fuels, Inc.
                               Mine #2

I  ':
                    Permit: 836-0212
Fill: HF# 1
              *M
                    Permit: 836-0212

                                KY-184
Fill: HF# 1
-------
      Kentucky
  Starfire Coals, Inc.
       Skyline

  Permit: 060-0080

Fill:  HF#1 (No Photo)
        KY-185
-------
BLANK PAGE
   ICY-186
-------
Company: Starfire Coals. Inc.
Permit: 060-0080
State; KY
County: Knott
Latitude: 82-55-51
Longitude: 37-77-56
Fill: IIF# I
Mine: Skyline
Was this fill visited at ground level? Yes [ J No [Xl
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey'? Ycs ' ' No 1XJ
Date of survey: 12131199
Date of permit file review:
Date till contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:
05103100
/ I
I 1
\
56
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsu rface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
                                   As constructed
                                                                                Revision
                                                                                                                      Original design

Lenglli (it)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%}
Mil face (dcg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Rock
1035
39.0
1.6
Flat
1280
1110
23.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME


Conventional
1035
39.0
1.6
Flat
1280
3110
23.0
27.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
1.6
1.3
125
34
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
p. ns
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Appl. Phase
Certification
Appl.Quarterly Photograph)
Certification Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [ ]
Underdrains Ycs [ ] No [ ]
Surface Drains Yen [ ] No [ ]
Grading and Revegetation Yes f ] No f ]
If aDRF, did thepliotographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ ] No [ J
Founuatiou oata: i ext
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOVs written or. trie fi!l? Yes fX] No [ ]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [ I No [ ]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ] No [ ]
'' activefill. was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Ifes [ J No [ J
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If i) durable ruck till is under construction,
Approximately S0% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ] No [ ]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ 1 No [ 1
lithe fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the till is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the till situated in landslide topography? Yes [ j No [ J
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes [ ] No [ J
Number of benches on fill:
                                                                   ICY-187
-------
                                Location
                                                                                         Length       •    *
   Depressions
   Location of
 T-    •    i     *
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location "f
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes'
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                        Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                     Were there areas of erosion on the fillbenches'?    Yes [ J   No [ ]
                                           Were there bulges orhiirnrnocky terrain?   Yes [   I   No [ J
                             Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  j   No [  I
                          Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ ]   No [ J
                          I
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass 1
                                                       Bench ff
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth  to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance (ft)
                                              Rate of Movement          Slow
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass i     Inadequate UnderDrains. Durability of Rock
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                             Mass 2
                   verlappcd by permits #460-0080 and then #860-9005 with Mtowfills greatly enlarged to 300 2 acres

                   ew fills cover original flli-rio field inspection possible
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                   Mass 3
                                                                       ICY-188
-------
      Kentucky
Sunny Ridge Mining Co.
      Jones Fork

   Permit:  898-0507

        Fill:  HF#7
        Fill:  HF#9
        ICY-I83
-------
BLANK PAGE
   KY-190
-------
  Company: Sunny Ridge Mining Co.
    Permit:  898-0507
      State:  KY
   County:  Pike
  Latitude:  37-25-05
Longitude:  82-10-38
                                  Fill:  HF#7
                                Mine:  Jones Fork
                    Was this fill visited al ground level?
                               Date of visit:
                    Mad the fill been reclaimed at the
                    time of the air survey?
                             Date of survey:
Yes[x]   No[  J
07/07/99

Yes [  ]   No [X]
 12131199
   Date of permit file review:       04/16/99
 Date fill contraction started:       03/17/97
                   Finished:             / /
Number of till size revisions:               2
 %Sandstone in overburden:              78
                                             S constructed
                                                                                        Revision
                                                                                                                               Original design
             Type, of Fill

              She of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

               Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control

                Stability
                Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor


             Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spoil)

             Engineering
              Properties
             (Foundation)

         Phreatic Surface
            Construction
          Documentation
        and Certifications
           Aerial survey
           and Ground
           Level Review
                                                 Durable Rock
                                                                                                Durable Rock
                                                                                                                                              Durable Ruck
1200
6.9
0.3
Concave
1835
1643
70
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (el)
toe (ft)
"Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



3150
18.1
42
Flat
1880
1440
7.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAMF,
3125
31.6
5.1
Flat
1880
1420
70
270
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME

2.0
1.4
125
35
200



P-.05
Static
seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

1.6
1.3
125
35
200



P-.05
1.7
1.3
125
34
200



P-.05
                                                            Appl, Phase
                                                            certification
                                                         AypLQuarterly
                                                           Certification
                                          Photography
                                             Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes{ ]
Yes[ ]
No[X]
No[X]
No 1 ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
9711
9712
9912
9912

None
None
None
None

                                            If a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [  1   No [  ]
                                                                                 Foundation data:                                              Texi
                                                                        Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                                   Were NO\"-.witter, on the fill?  Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                              Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes[X]   No [ ]
                                                           Subsurface drainage control working properly?    Yes[X]   No I  1
                                           If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going'!    Yes f  ]   No [X]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                            Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?   Yes [  j   No [ ]
                                                                     If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                              Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
                                           If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pie-completion revision?
                                      If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to tlie documentation or inspector?
                                                                                                  Fill surface configuration:
                                                                                         Is the fill situated in landslide topography'!
                                                                          Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
                                                                                                        Number of benches on fill:
                                          Yes [  ]   No [ ]

                                                   Smaller
                                               Don't know
                                                  Concave
                                          Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                          Yes I  ]   NofX]
                                                                            KY-191
-------
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location »f
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
898-0507
HF*7
                                        J ocation
                                                                                                Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                              Depth (in)
                                                Were there depressions on the fillbenches?   Yes[ ]   No [ J
                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of crosk™ on the fill benches'!     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes[  J   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                  2
                                  3
                                  4
                                  5
                                  6
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [
 so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                Mass 1
                                                                                                                    Mass 2
                                                                                  Bench#
                                                                                  Length (ft)
                                                                                   Width (ft)
                                                                              Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                       Depth to Slip Plane  (it)
                                                                        Transport Distance (ft)
                                                                         Rate of Movement
                                                                 Extent of Failure Movement
                                           Cause of Movement     Muss 1
                                                                 Miiss 2
                                                                 Mass 3
nendment #2 added Fill H 7 , Amendment # 4 (1/17/98) reduced fill size

Inal as-built was submitted 3s revision to original design

QSt Cots-3/1TO7,6ft
-------
                                                                       £61-
                   :il!j uo sstpiBq 40 jsqumfvi
[Xl °N   f  ] S3A   isaqonaq jo MCJ [|ij 3i|j no poAissqo sijoco puncu3 343q) 3.13/ft
[ 1 °M   fxl S3A     j,XqdBiIodo) spifsptre] ui paptnis ug sin s[

                           (UOttsdsui 10 uouBiusujTinop asp oj SuipjoDoe uosEai aip si JSTJM 'i3j|Euis ApuEOijiuSES si |m 3144 j[
 I^I^I                     ^UOISIASJ UOlJ3[duiOD-3.ld JS3JEJ 3l|| HI 3ZIS Dqj qi[A\ DZIS 3IJJ 3Jedui03 ;p3(3[dlIIO? SI \\H 3M1JI
 [  ] °N   [x] S3A  iSuiuuqj urejp 3J0310 )35(iiE[q siqcureosiQ
 OS                :a3Biua3jad ajcuiiiss (3Aoqc 04 cm jj
 [X] »N   { 3 S3A  63U«MOA A'q 1MJ =WBJnp %Q8 Xptuuiixoiddy
                                                                                     'HoitJnjjsuoD Jdpun sr |[y >|3iu 3j
                     i(SlJ)UOUl) 3|pl UOI4EJ3do [BSOdsip SE.tt SUO[ M01J 'OAI13BUI OJIS |BSOdsip [lods JJ
 L  J °N   [Xl SSA   f;3uio§-uo sq 04 pamiiLTDisp |Esodsip |yods 3AI4DH SBA\'||IJ SAipejl
 [  I °N   [x] SOA   ^Xfiadojd Supfio.w |oj|uoo a^Buryjp soejjnsqnc
 [  1 °N   [\J S3A   i<K   [  ISSA   iim aq» uo U3jju« S.AON »->»M
           DUOKT
              JON.   I  1s3 A
             SUCK
                                                               :[[g 01 3Aj)e|3i emis jo diQ
                                S AjiABiS Aq niB.ip.iDpun ajo;) jo 435pre[q ^oj 8141 MOqs sqdEjSojoqd 341 pip 'jga ° JI
                                                           t/66
                                                                                                                                    B jj
                                                                           [ 1 °N   !  ] "A     uopeoijiyso puy
                                                                           [Xj °N   [  ] S9A     lKH4E4333A3'g plIC SmpEJt

                                                                           [Xl°N
                                                                                                                      uoqepuuoj
                                                                                      tXl °M   1  ] S3A
                                                                                                                                              punoiQ pu
                                                                                                                                                      33 pue
SO'-d
00!
St
SZI
n
9 1
HWVHH
J313UIUOJ
O'iZ
Si8t
                                                   SO'-d
                                                                                                    so-j
                                                                                    (jsd) uoiS
                                                                              (•Sop) ojSuy uoiisu,j
                                                                                 (jDd) 1M3I9/A jjun
                                                                         (jsd) 110153^03
                                                                         3[§uy uoq3i.y
                                                                      (pd) iqiiaM l!«ll
                                                  9 1
                                                           j 'AEJQ
                                                                                                              'A6.IO
                                                  Jffrl
                                                                                                    SSI' I
                                                                                                        paprujsuo:) sy
                                                                                                                                           uoi4lMil3yu<>->
s-o
O'E
SZ9
n
rsi
OOZl
(.tou,) 9um|oA i-i
(s3JOE)Baav ISZ
(U). BSuaq OOEl


8Z. :u3pjnqj9AO ui 3uo)spnEg%
I :suoisiAai azis yrj jo jaqiunjsj
66/WOI :p34S4U4,4
/ / :p3jJBis uoipnfluOD ipj SIBQ
66/9 l/tfl :«.9IA3J 9J4J J4UJJ3d JO 31BG
66/1 f/n
[X]0N [ ]s^A
3
60/LQ/LO
[ ] i>N [X] SOA (,P*


:X3,unsjo SJBQ
^AaAjns JIB sqj jo 91014;
[1 IB paiurepsj U33q i|ij sijj pen
IJISJA JO 9]EfJ
j[ punojS ie p3)iS!A []ij si4)j SB^
5JJOJ ssuof :smj\'
6#JH =IIU

IZ-Ql-ZS :apnjiSuoi
ZO-SC-if :3pn)ij8T
35(W rijuno^
AN :JJBJS
iOSO-868 Uiuiaoj
'03 Suiutjrtj Sopc^j X(iun§ :^uBdiuo3
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           width (ft)
                                                                                                                 Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location o f  ,
            Depressions
            Location of  ,
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location QI
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
898-0507
MF*9
                                                 Were there depressionson the 111! benches?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                           (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No f
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  J   No [  1
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas'?   Yes [  1   No[  1
                                   Were changes in-vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes (  ]  No [  J
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                            Yes[  ]   No[
                                                                                                  Massl
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                            Cause of Movement
                                                        Bench tt
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               "ate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                      Mass 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                 KY-194
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
mendrnent # 4 added hollowfdts 8- 13 to balance reduction of Fill tt 1

wincfill construction on steep side hill with 11 foot wide terraces

Quarterly certifications 10/04/99, 04/21/00 only. First cert, shows fill completed No critics] phase certifications or photos
-------
          Kentucky
  Sunny Ridge Mining  Co,
          Jones  Fork
Permit: 898-0507
Fill: HF# 7
Permit: 898-0507

            KY-195
Fill: HF# 7
-------
          Kentucky
  Sunny Ridge  Mining Co.
         Jones Fork
Permit: 898-0507
Fill:HF#7
           + .<->r-^-
       5*JSfc '•*•" *••"- V
         *r^P^xSF^'
                   •jf^Cf
                ?*^-'-.-
                  u*^
                  t_»- '"^t
Permit: 898-0507         Fill: HF# 9

           KY-196
-------
          Kentucky
  Sunny Ridge Mining  Co.
         Jones Fork
                              + *1
Permit: 898-0507
Fill: HF# 9
                         as
                     ^et^^*W. . .'-".
Permit: 898-0507

           KY-197
Fill: HF# 9
-------
          Kentucky
  Sunny Ridge Mining  Co.
          Jones  Fork
Permit: 898-0507
Fill: HF# 9
Permit: 898-0507

            KY-198
Fill: HF# 9
-------
TENNESSEE
    TN-l
-------
BLANK PAGE
   TN-2
-------
TENNESSEE
Company
Cumberland Coal Co.. LLC
Gatliff Coal Co.
Gatliff Coal Co.
Valley View Coal, Inc.
Valley View Coal. Inc.
Valley View Coal, Inc.
Mine
Turner Mine/Area #1
Wolfpen Hollow
Wolfpen Hollow
Area #2
Area #2
Area #3A
Permit
2981
2833
2833
2431
2431
2475
Fill
Excess Spoil Storage
HF#1
HF#2
Fill A 1
Fill B
Area #3A Hollowfill
   TN-3
-------
BLANK PAGE
   TN-4
-------
        Tennessee
Cumberland Coal Co., LLC
   Turner Mine/Area #1

      Permit:  2981

 Fill: Excess Spoil Storage
          TN-5
-------
BLANK PAGE
   TN-6
-------
Type of Fill
Durable Rock
Size of Fill Length (ft)
Area (acres)

Surface

Configuration
Elevations

Slopes

Surface Drainage
Gun fro)
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor

Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(FounJatiun)
Phreafic Surface
Volume (tncy)
3200
91.0
5.2
Convex
Crown (K)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2050
1840
11.0
27.0
Perimeter
Gray. Segregated
Other

static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pef)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (pst)
1.6
1.6
110
35
100



None
Appl. Phase AppLQuarterly
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes [Xj No [ ]
Undcrdrains Yes I 1 No [X]
Surface Drains Yes [X] No [ J Y

Grading and Revegetation Yes [ J No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ 1
If a DRF, did tlie photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
f a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size ill the latest pre-cornpletion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector'!
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on thefillface or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Photography
None
None



Yes[ ] Nn[ ]
None

Yes[ ! No[X]
Yes[X] No[ ]
Ycs[X] No I ]
Yes [XI No f 1


YcsfX] No[ ]

Yes[X] No[ j


Flat
Yes[ 1 No [XI
YesL ] No[X]

TN-7
-------
                                          Location
                                                                                                     Length (ft)
                                                                                              Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Locution of
                 Cracks
             Location "f
             Depressions
             Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
          Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
                ,r-*      *
                Changes
             .Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
29&1
Excess Spoil Storage
                                                   Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [1   No [x]
                                                                                                             {Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there wear of erosion on the Jill benches?    Yes [ ]   No [x j
                                                                                                              (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or liummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No[x]
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [x ]
                                    Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [ ]   No jx]
                                  Did a failure occur on ihe fili?
f so, enter the source of iBfonuation on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                              Yes[
                                                                                                     Mass 1
                                                                                                                          Mass!
                                                                                                                                                Mass 3
                                             Cause of Movement
                                                         Bench ri
                                                          Length (ft)
                                                          Width (ft)
                                                    Scarp Heighi (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                               Transport Distance (ft)
                                                Rate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement
                                       Massl
                                       Mass 2
                                       Mass 3
nis fill has northern 2nd southern sides with the crown in the center. The north side has been totally revegetsted, while the 
-------
             Tennessee
    Cumberland Coal  Co., LLC
       Turner Mine/Area #1
Permit: 2981
 Fill: Excess Spoil Storage
Permit: 2981
 Fill: Excess Spoil Storage

TN-9
-------
             Tennessee
   Cumberland Coal Co., LLC
       Turner Mine/Area #1
Permit: 2981
Fill: Excess Spoil Storage
Permit: 2981        Fill: Excess Spoil Storage

                 TN-10
-------
             Tennessee
   Cumberland Coal Co., LLC
       Turner Mine/Area #1
Permit: 2981
Fill: Excess Spoil Storage
Permit: 2981        Fill: Excess Spoil Storage

                 TN-11
-------
           Tennessee
   Cumberland Coal Co., LLC
      Turner Mine/Area #1
Permit: 2981
Fill: Excess Spoil Storage
        -±mm
        *&S>-;j?^
Permit: 2981      Fill: Excess Spoil Storage

              TN-12
-------
   Tennessee
Gatliff Coal Co.
Wo If pen Hollow

 Permit: 2833

     Fill: HF #1  (No Photo)
     Fill: HF#2
      TN-13
-------
BLANK PAGE
   TN-14
-------
Type of Fill
 Size of Fill
                                                                                                                        Conventional
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
                                                                                                                                250
                                                                                                                                0.0
Surface
Configuration
Elevation!!
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safely Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phrcatic Surface
Fiat
Crown (ft)
Tne, (m
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
Perimeter
Underdrain
SWASE REAME
static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
1.3
30
unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (pst)
None
Construction
Documentation
nd Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [
Underdrains Yes [1 No [
Surface Drains Yes \ ] No [
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [
Final Certification Yes [ ] No f
j
]
]
J
]


If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fin, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceraable blanket or core drain forming?
lithe fill is completed, compare the si/e with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fillis significantly smaller, "what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fillsituated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Yes [ ] No [ ]
None
YSS[ J No! ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes [ ] No ( }
Yes [ ] No [ 1
Yes[ ] No I ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Ycs[ J No[ 1
Yes [ ] No [ ]
                                                           TN-15
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                               Length  terrain?   Yes \  ]  Nu \  I
                                    Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
      Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  1   Nu [  ]
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
                                Didafailure occur on the fill?  Yes f  ]   No [X]
"so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                   Mass 1
                                                     Bench #
                                                      Length (ft)
                                                      Width (ft)
                                                 Scarp Height (it)
                                           Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                            Transport Distance (ft)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                    Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                                                                   Mass 2
                                          Cause of Movement
                                                                Mass 1
                                                                Mass 2
                                                                Mass 3
                           illowfill #l was never constructed.
                                                                                                       (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                        Mass 3
                                                                               TN-16
-------
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Conventional
550 Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Concave
1920 Crown (ft)
1840 Toe (ft)
23 0 Toe Foundation (%)
21.0 Fill Face (deg.)
Perimeter
Underdrain
RliAMIi
Conventional
820
0.1
Flat
1960
1840
230
270
Perimeter
Underdrain
SWASE REAMli

2.4 Static
Seismic
128 Unit Weight (pcf)
33 Friction Angle
200 Cohesion (psf)
1.6
1.3
125
30
200
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-0 05
Appl- Phase Appl.Quarterly
Certification certification
Foundation Preparation Yes [ 1 No [X]
Underdrains Yes f 1 No [X]
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X]
Grading and Revcgetation Yes [ J No [X]
Final Certification Yes [X] No [ ] 92/2
P-0. 05
Photography
Type
Copies

If a DR1-', did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurfacedrsinage control working properly?
if active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fillface or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Holes
Yes[X] No[ J
Yes[ j No I ]
Yes[ ] Nof ]
Yes [ ] No { I
Yes[ 1 Nof ]
Yes I J Nof ]
Smaller
Yesf ] Nof ]
Yesf 1 Nof ]
TN-17
-------
2833
HF#2
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
                                                 Were there depressions on the fillbcnches?    Yes [  ]   No f  I
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were tlierc areas of erosion on the fillbenchcs?    Yes [  J   No [
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                   Weie iliac bulges or hummocky terrain?   Ycs[  ]   No\  I
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  J   No [  1
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on iilS?     Yes f  ]   No [  ]
                                  Dici a failure occur on the fiii?    Yes |  ]   No [X ]
If so, enter the sonrce of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                 Mass 1
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                      Mass 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                           Icllowfill #2 was built considerably smaller than designed.

                           in NOV was issued 10/16/91 for a diversion ditch breach allowing water Lo flow across the fill
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
                                                                                 TN-18
-------
                          Tennessee
                      Gatliff Coal Co.
                      Wolfpen Hollow
           "":
             i ^™  •
  ••«• .

'J
!•..-.= " "
r^.     •
   •  v. •
                  Permit: 2833
     Fill: HF# 2

                  Permit: 2833        Fill: HF# 2

                             TN-19
-------
                 Tennessee
             Gatliff Coal Co.
             Wolfpen Hollow
                                                     _T -»_
                                                  .f &F   , *
                          ,
                                      i~
                                     '!>•'
                                                    .,>^
:^ir,  -

    ^ -.
Permit: 2833
                            Fill: HF# 2
         Permit: 2833       Fill: HF# 2

                     TN-20
-------
      Tennessee
Valley View Coal, Inc.
      Area #2

    Permit: 2431

        Fill: Fill A
        Fill: FillB
        TN-21
-------
BLANK PAGE
   TN-22
-------
Company: Valley View Coal, Inc.
  Permit: 2431
    State: TN
 County: Anderson
Latitude: 36-15-16
ongitude: 84-13-55
              Fill:  Fill A
            Mine:  Area #2
Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [ ]   No [Xj
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
                                                      Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                                      Date of permit file review:       04/08/99
                                                                                    Date fill contraction started:       05/26/89
                                                                                                      Finished:       10/12/90
                                                                                   Number of till size revisions:
                                                                                    %Sandstone in overburden:              55
            Type of Fill

             Size of Fill
               Surf-ace
          Configuration

             Elevations
                Slopes

      Surface Drainage
               Control
            Subsurface
             Drainage
               Control
              Stability
              Analysis
         Software Used

          Safety Factor


           Engineering
             Properties
                (Spoil)

           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

       Phreatic Surface
          Construction
         Documentation
      and Certifications
                                          As constructed
                                                                                      Revision
                                                                                                                             Original design
Durable Rock
1500 Length (ft)
37,8 Area (acres)
5.8 Volume (nicy)
Concave
Durable Rock
1500
37.8
5.8
Concave
2900 Crown (ft)
2600 Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
Perimeter
Grav, Segregated
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
1.5
120
30
200
Unit Weight (pc-f)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
                                                          Appi, Phase
                                                          Certification
                                     Appt Quarterly
                                      Certification
                                                                                               Photography
                                                                                                   Type
  Foundation Preparation
            Underdrains
          Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
       Final Certification
                               Yes[ I
                               Yes[ ]


                               Yesf ]
No[ )
No[ 1
No[X]
No [ ]
No[ ]
                                                                                         Color
         Aerial Survey
         and Ground
         Level Review
                 Ifa DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
                                                     Foundation data;
                                             Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                       Were NOV's written on the fill?

                                                              Surface drainage control working properly?
                                                           Subsurface drainage control working properly?
                                           If active fin, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                            Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
                                                                     If tio to above, estimate percentage:
                                                               Discemable blanket or core dram forming?
                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                       Fill surface configuration:
                                                              Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
                                              Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
                                                                            Number of benches on fill:
                                                                                                                              Yes [X]   No [  ]

                                                                                                                              Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                              Yes jX]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                              Yes[  ]   Nol  ]
                                                                                               Yes [
                                                                                         No [
                                                                                                                              Yes [  ]   No [  ]

                                                                                                                                         Same

                                                                                                                                      Concave
                                                                                                                               Yes [ ]   No [XJ
                                                                                                                               Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                                           TN-23
-------
                               Location
                                                                      Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
   Locationof
       Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location 0 f
 T-   •    i     *
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                        Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                     Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes I  ]   No I I
                                           Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yen[  ]   No [  ]
                             Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No f  ]
                          Were changes in vegetation orspoil color observedon fill?     Yes [  J   No [ j
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No[Xj
f so. enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                         Mass 1
                                                                                                              Mass 2
                                                                           Bench #
                                                                           Length (ft)
                                                                            Width (ft)
                                                                      Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                Depth to Slip Hare (it)
                                                                 Transport Distance (fl)
                                                                  Rate of Movement
                                                         Extent of Failure Movement
                                   Cause of Movement     Mass i
                                                         Mass 2
                                                         Mass 3
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                    Mass 3
                   iNOV was issued 5/2/90 for failure to consiruclFill "A" in accordance wilb revision #03 The final graded configuration was approved in revision *?I3 on 10114190

                   he quarterly certs, referenced a seep that contributed to a small slough on one of the terraces after fill construction was complete.
                                                                         TN-24
-------
Company: Valley View Coal, Inc.
Permit: 2431
State: 'IN
County: Anderson
Latitude: 36-15-16
Longitude: 84-13-55

Kill: FillB
Mine: Area #2
Was this fill visited at ground level? Yes 1 1 No fx]

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey? Yes [X] No [ J
Date of survey: / /
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

04/08/99
01/10/86
09/21/89
1
65

           SJopes

Surface. Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Ertgi need tig
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatie Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                     As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                           Original desisn
Type of Fill
Sire "f fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Durable Rock
1400
35.6
6.5
Concave
2900
2600

Length (fl)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Durable Rock
1 400
24.6
4 1
Concave

11.0
Perimeter
Gray. Segregated
REAME
IJ
1.4
95
35
0
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
11.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
KEAME
1.6
1. 5
120
30
200
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
Phreafic Surface
                                                      Appl, Phase
                                                      certification
                                                           AppKQuarferly
                                                            Certification
Photography
    Type
       Foundation Preparation    Yes [x]   No [ ]
                 Underdrains    Yen [X]   No [ J
                Surface Drains    Yes [ 1   No [X]
     Grading and Revegetation    Yes [X]   No [ ]
            Hnal Certification    Yes [ J   No!  J
         Copier
         Copies
          Color
          None
                                      Tf a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core undcrdraio by gravity segregation?    Yes [ j   No [ J
                                                                           Prtitn/feH/™ Hot*'                                        T^v* TJ«W
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                              Were NOV's written on the fill?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                Surface- drainage, control working properly?   Yes [X]  No [  ]
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [X]  No [  j
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [  j  No f  ]
                                 If spoil disposal rife inactive, how long wag disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under eon struct! on >
                                                              Approximately 80%durable rock by volume?  Yes [  1  No [  I
                                                                        If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                Diseernable blanket or core drain funning?  Yes [  ]  No [  ]

                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?                    Same
          If the fill is significantly smaller,, what is thereason according in the documentation or inspector?
                                                                         fill surface configuration:                 Concave
                                                                Is the fill situated in landslide topography'!      Yes [  J   No [X]
                                                Were there- ground cracks observed on the fill face- or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                               Number of benches on fill:
                                                                        TN-25
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                               Length (ft)          Width (ft)            Depth (in)
           Location or
                Cracks
           Location if
           Depressions
           Location of
         Erosion Areas
           Location or
        Ground Bulges
           Location of
         Springs/Seeps
           Location of
              Changes
            Movement
        Characteristics
             Comments
2431
FIIIB
                                               Were there depressions on ihe fill benches?    Yes [ J   No [  ]
                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                            Were there areas of erosion on the fillbenches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                  Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes I  ]   No [
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [ ]
      Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [

      1
                                                                                                  No [
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:


                                                      Bench #
                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                       Width  (II)
                                                 Scarp Height  (ft)
                                           Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                            Transport Distance  (ft)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                                                  No[X]
                                                                                               Mass 1
                                                                                                                   Mass 2
                                          Cause of Movement
                                                                Mass 1
                                                                Mass 2
                                                                Mass 3
                                         y of spoil vnatena^'was added to V\\\ "B* in revision $03
                                                                                TN-26
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                        Muss 3
-------
       Tennessee
Valley View Coal, Inc.
        Area #2

 Permit: 2431
Fill: A
 Permit: 2431       Fill:  A

          TN-27
-------
       Tennessee
Valley View Coal, Inc.
        Area #2
  Permit: 2431
Fill: B
 Permit: 2431        Fill: B

          TN-28
-------
       Tennessee
Valley View Coal, Inc.
        Area #2
  Permit: 2431
Fill: B

 Permit: 2431        Fill: B

          TN-29
-------
BLANK PAGE
     TN-30
-------
            Tennessee
      Valley View Coal, Inc.
            Area #3A

          Permit: 2476

Fill:  Area #3A Hollowfill (No Photo)
              TN-31
-------
BLANK PAGE
   TN-32
-------
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1250
51.0
7.4
Concave
Crown (ft)
toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2900
2560
2.0
270
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
Other
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
1.5
95
35
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
Phreatic Surface
Appl. Phase Appl.Quarterly
Cci'tif ~~i: ~" /---.j^--*:-..

J N°I ]
Foundation Preparation Yes f . xr r i
Underdraws Yes [
I No 1 J
Surface Drains Yes 1
1 No [ ]
Grading and Revegetation Yes [
j No I J
Final Certification Yes [ No [ J
If a DRF, did the photographs show (he rock blanket or core tinderdrain by gravity segregation1!
Dip of strata relativetofill.
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going!
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durahle rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rack by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernible blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Photography

Yes[ 1 No[ ]
None
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes[ ] No[ 1
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes 1 ] No 1 ]
Yes[ ] No[ 1
Yes[ 1 No[ 1
Yes[ ] No[ 1
TN-33
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                              Depth (in)
            Location "f
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location "f
         Erosion Areas
            Location of
                       £
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location 0 f
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
2476
Area *3A Hollowfill
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [
                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the till benches?    Yes [  ]    No [  J
                                                  Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No (  ]
                                     Were there springs 
-------
VIRGINIA
   VA-I
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-2
-------
VIRGINIA
Company
A & G Coal Corp.
A & G Coal Corp,
A & G Coal Corp.
Clmchfield Coal Co.
Cumberland River Coal Co.
Cumberland River Coal Co.
Motivation Coal Co.
Motivation Coal Co.
.Motivation Coal Co.
Motivation Coal Co.
Red River Coal Co.
Red River Coal Co.
Red River Coal Co.
Red River Coal Lo , Inc
Red Rivei Coal Co ., Inc.
Red River Coal Co., Inc.
Red fiver Coal Co., Inc.
Red River Coal Co., Inc.
Red River Coal Co., Inc.
Red River Coal Co., Inc.
Red fiver Coal Co., Inc.
Red River Coal Co., Inc.
Rrd River CoalCo,5 Inc
Virginia Iron, Coal and Coke
Virginia Iron, Coal and Coke
Mine
Coastal Coal Co.
Coastal Coal Co.
Coastal Coal Co.
The Black Thunder Mme
Trace Fork Strip Mine
Trace Fork Strip Mine
Pawpaw Gap Surface Mine
Pawpaw Gap Surface Mine
Pawpaw Gap Surface Mine
Lovers Gap Surface Mine
Buckhead
Buckhead
Buckhead
Flat Gap Mine
Flat Gap Mine
Flat Gap Mine
Flat Gap Mine
North Fox Gap Surface Mine
North Fox Gap Surface Mine
North Fox Gap Surf ace Mine
Black Creek Surface Mine
Black Creek Surface Mine
Black Creek Surface Mine
Boldcamp Surface Mine

Boldcamp Surface Mine
Permit
1101692
1 101 692
1101692
1101218
1101623
1101623
HO 1369
1101369
1101360
1101548
1100717
1100717
1100717
1101272
1101272
1101272
Fill
HF#1
HF#2
HF#A
HF #3
Fill A
FillB
Fill#l
Fill #3
Fill #4
Fill C
HF#1
HF #3
HF#5
HF#1
HF#2
HF#3
1101272 HF#4
1101401
1101401
1101401
1601576
160 1 576
1601576
1101537
1101537
Fill #6
FillK7
Fill #8
HF-B
HF~C
HF-D
Fill#lB
Fill #5
   VA-3
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-4
-------
    Virginia
A & G Coal Corp.
 Coastal Coal Co.

 Permit:  1101692

      Fill: HF#1
      Fill: HF#2
      Fill: HF #A (No Photo)
      VA-5
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-6
-------
      Type of Fill
       Sire of Fill
         Surface
   Configurarion
       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1200
1.2
1.1
Flat
Crown (fl)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2300
2080
12.0
22.0
Perimeter
Const. Underdrain
RHAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psi)
1.8
125
30
200
yijjt Weight (pet)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                    AppL Phase
                                                    Certification
AppI.Quarterly
 certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes[x]
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Yes [X;
Yes[ ]
No 1 ]
No[ ]
No[ 1
No[ 1
Nu[ ]
Y
Y
Y
Y
If a DRF. did the photograph show th e rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
D i p of strata relati ve to fill :
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Tf spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill i s under construction.
Approximately 80% durable rack by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the till is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill i s significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:

Yen[ j
Yesf 1
Ycs[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes I ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Color
Color
Color
Color

No[ ]
No[X]
No[
No[
No[
No[
No 1
Nof
No 1
1
]
]
1
]
1
                                                                      VA-7
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                 Depth (in)
            Location of
                 Cracks'
            Location of
            r*       •    *
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               r^      *
               Changes
            Movement
             Comments
1101592
HF*1
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on (he fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  I   No [  ]
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]    No f  J

       1
       2
       3
       4
       5
       6
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Y'es [I   No [X ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass I
                                                        Bench a
                                                        Length  (fl)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              TransportDtstancc  (A)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement

               Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                            Sttllit review fill completion pending find vegetation on upper terrace H, photos show some exposureof travel inside of the dcilt side drain Possibly erosion related, but not
                            bulated
                                                                                  VA-8
-------
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
      Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
      Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatie Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
2500
26.9
5.9
Ebt
Crown (ft) 2420
Toe (ft) 1990
Toe Foundation ('K>
Fill Face (dcg.)
2370
1990
12.0
22.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismio
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
125
30
200
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
AppLQuartcrly
 Certification
Photography
    Type
Foundation Reparation Yes [Xj No [ 1
Undcrdrains Yes [X] No [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [X] No [ ]
Grading and Kevegetation Yes [X] No [ 1
Final Certification Yes f 1 No [ ]
Y
Y
Y
Y
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes {X]
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill? Yes [ ]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [ !
If active fill, v*as active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes I 1
If spoil disposal Site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rack by volume? Yes [ ]
Tf no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pro-completion revision?
Tf the fill is significantly smaller what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on fill:
Color
Color
Color
Color
No[ J
Text
NofXJ
No( ]
No[ 1
Nol 1
No[ J
No[ I
Flat
No [ ]
No[ ]
7
                                                                     VA-9
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                     Length (ft)
                                                                                              Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location "f
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1101692
HF #2
                      Were there depressions on the till benches?    Yes [x]   No [  ]
                 R4-5,Q]
                                                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes { ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                              (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [ ]   No  [  ]
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No |x]
       1
       2
       3
       4
       5
       6
                                  Did a failure occur on the nil?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                     Mass I
                                                                                                                          Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                Mass 3
                                                                                      Bench #
                                                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                                                       Width  (ft)
                                                                                 Scarp Heigh!  (ft)
                                                                           Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                           Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                                             Rate of Movement
                                                                    Extent of Failure Movement
                                            Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                                    Mass 2
                                                                    Mass 3
                             :rmit Revision (5/12/97) raised fill by 50'. New stability analysis bur no revised volume amounts. As of 7/07/99 fill is complete except for vegetation on fill crown, H, pholos show a
                             w areas of minor moisture concentration^ yn benches. Not tabulated. Fill face is primarily ilat. First Q is concave above the second bench and this is the area where the tsbuiated
                             ^pressio?! and color change occur. The depression is placed on the slope between benches May result from njnofT erosion or minor slippage.
                                                                                    VA-10
-------
                                                     review:
Type of Fill
size OT Pill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatk Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications

Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review


Durable Rock
Length (tt)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1900
1.3

Crown (ft)
roc (ft)
Tor Foundation (%)
fill Face (dcg.)
2475
2000
12.0
22.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion{psf)
1.5
125
30
200
Unit Weight (pcf;
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.os
Appl. Phase Appl.Quarterly
Certification Certification
FoundationPreparation Yes f ] No [X]
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [ ]
Surface Drains Yes[ 1 No [ 1
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ ]
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to till
Were NOV's written on the fill''
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined 1 o be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
f a durable rock fill is under construction.
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
Tf no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the till is completed, compare the size with tlie size in the latest pre-complction revision?
If the fill is significantly-smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the till situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fillface or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Photography
Type
None
Ycs[ ] No I ]
Pits
Yes[ ] No[X]
YesI ] No I ]
Yes [ ] No [ j
Yes [ ] No [ )
Ycs[ ] No[ 1
YesJ ] No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[ 1
Yes[ ] No[ !



VA- 11
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)
                                                                                         Width (ft)
Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location If
          Erosion Areas'
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
        Characteristics
             Comments
H01692
HF*A
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  j   No [
                                                                                                                                   (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the till benches?   Yes [ ]   No [  J
                                                   Were there bulgesorhummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes[  ]   No [  J
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till?     Yes [
       I
       2
       3
       4
       5
       6
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [
I so, enter the source of information on the failure;
            Stage of construction during failure:

                                                       Bench 8
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height  (it)
                                            Depth 10 Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Dislance (A)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                                                   No[Xj
                                                                                                Mass i
                                                                                                                    Mass 2
                                          Cause of Movement
                                                                Mass I
                                                                Mass 2
                                                                Mass 3
                           ill added 1/28/99, Amendment #9107471
                           ill construction has "of started
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                         Mass 3
                                                                               VA-12
-------
           Virginia
      A & G Coal  Corp.
      Coastal  Coal  Co.

Permit: 1101692
Fill: HF# 1
Permit: 1101692          Fill: HF# 1

             VA-13
-------
           Virginia
      A &  G Coal Corp.
      Coastal Coal Co.
Permit: 1101692
Fill: HF# 2
             VA-14
-------
           Virginia
      A & G Coal  Corp.
      Coastal  Coal  Co.
Permit: 1101692
Fill: HF# 2
Permit: 1101692          Fill: HF# 2

             VA-15
-------
BLANK PAGE
      VA-16
-------
        Virginia
  Clinchfield Coal Co.
The Black Thunder Mine

   Permit:  1101218

      Fill: HF#3
        VA-17
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-18
-------
                                   As constructed
                                                                               Revision
                                                                                                                     Original design
      Type of Fill
       Sizeof Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


    Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

    Engineering
       Properties
    (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume {rncy)
Flat
Crown (h)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
26.0 Fill Face (deg.)
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated

Durable Rock
1445

2.0
Flat
1990
1800
5.0
24.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Conventional
1150

1.2
Flat
1940
1810
10.0
23.0
Perimeter
Const. Undcrdrain
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcfj
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psfj

1.7
1.3
130
38
0
][5
34
400
P-0.05
1.5

125
40
0
115
34
400
P-0.05
Appl, Phase
Certification

construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes [x] No [ ]
Underdrmns Yes [X] No [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [X] No [ ]

Grading and Revegetation Yes [X] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [X] No [ ]
Appl. Quarterly
Certification
9212
9512
98/3

98/3
9S/4
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underclraia by gravity segregation?

Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:



If active till
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly1!
Subsurface drainage, control working properly?
was active spoil disposal determined lobe on-going?
Photography







Yes [X]

Right Fl
Yes [X]
Yes [XI
YesfX]
Yes[ ]

None
Color
None

Color
None
No [ ]
Holes
Jnk High
No[ ]
No[ ]
No [ ]
No[ ]
If spoil disposal Site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rockfill is underconstrucfion,





Appronimatcly 80% durable rock by volume?

If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If lh.e fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what i s the reason


according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fiil situated in landslide- topography?
Were fli ere. ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?

Number of benches on fill:

Yes[ ]


Yes [ ]

No [ ]


Nof ]
Un known


Yes [X]
Yes[ ]


Flat
Nof ]
No[X]
3
                                                                     VA-19
-------
                                          Location
                                                                                                     Length (ft)
                                                                                              Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Cracks
             Location of
             Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges'
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
                Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1101218
HF#3
                                                   Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [ ]   No[x]
                                                                                                              (Potential VVater Depth)
                   Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
          Right Side Drain below B 3
                                                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [xj   No [
                                    I    1/4 on face between B2 & B3
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed m disposal areas?     Yes IX]   No f  ]
                                    I   Flowing into right drain below B3
                                    Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes  [  ]   No|x]
                                  Did a failure occur on the ti 11 ?    Yes [ ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                     Mass 1
                                                                                                                          Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                 Mass 3
                                            Cause of Movement
                                                         Bench ii
                                                          T^-.-fj. iet\

                                                          Width (ft)
                                                    Scarp Height (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                               Transport Distance (ft)
                                                Kate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement

                                       Mass 1
                                       Mass!
                                       Mass 3
                             svisson approved 5/26/92 changed HF#:» 10 a durable rock fill Revision approved 6/24/94 added 8 5 acres of new mining area and modified HF #3 to accommodate the additional
                             'Oil The toe was moved approximately 100 feet downstream resulting in an extra 50-foot lift  An NOV was issued 9112/97 because flooding severely eroded the perimeter ditches
                             ndslidejust above the right side perimeler ditch appeared 10 be caused by water emanating from orphan spoil Loin of trees leaning and water flowing in right side ditch  There was
                             rge side-hill fill to the left side of llf $3 The difference in elevation between benches £2 and #3 was estimated to be 70 feet
                                                                                    VA-20
-------
           Virginia
    Clinchfield Coal Co.
  The  Black  Thunder  Mine
Permit: 1101218
Fill: HF# 3
Permit: 1101218
Fill: HF#
             VA-21
-------
           Virginia
    Clinchfield Coal Co.
  The  Black  Thunder  Mine
Permit: 1101218
Fill: HF# 3
Permit: 1101218
Fill: HF#
             VA-22
-------
         Virginia
Cumberland River Coal Co.
  Trace Fork Strip Mine

     Permit:  1101623

          Fill:  Fill A
          Fill:  FillB
          VA-23
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-24
-------
                                      As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                             Original design
      Type of Pill

       Sire of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
Durable Ruck
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1240
3.4

Crown (ft)
Toe®
Toe Foundation (%)
ffll Face (deg )
3030
2630
18.0
Perimeter
Gray. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight 
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle (deg )
Cohesion (psf)
1.8
135
34
2SO
530
32
146
Phreatic Surface
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                       Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                           Appl, Quarterly
                                                            Certification
Photography
   Type
      Foundation Preparation     Yes [X]   No [ ]
                 Underdrains     Yes [  ]   No [ 1
               Surface Drains    Yes [  ]   "No I ]
    Grading and Revegetation     Yes [  ]   No [ ]
            Final Certification     Yes [  J   No [ ]
                                                                                                                                        None
                 If a DRF. did the photographs shew the rock blanket or core underdraiti by gravity segregation?
                                                       Foundation data:
                                                                                                                              Yes [  ]   No f ]
                                                                    Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                               Were NOV's written OH
                                                                                                                              Yes [
                                                                                                                  No [XI
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?  Yes I 1  No [  J
                                                             Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                            If active till, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?  Yes [X]  No [  ]
                                 If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

f a durable rock fill is under construction.
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?   Yes [   !  No [  ]
                                                                        Tf no lo above, estimate percentage:
                                                                 Dlscemable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [X]  No [  1

               If the till h completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completlon revision?
          If the till is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inipector?
                                                                         Fill surface eoriilDuration;
                                                                Is the fill situated in landslide topography1!    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the till fac-c or benches'!   Yes [  ]   No [  1
                                                                                Number of benches on fill:
                                                                         VA-25
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                   Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                  Depth (in)
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location Of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges'
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
             Comments
1101623
Fill A
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No f  ]
                                                                                                            (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [ j   No [  ]
                                                                                                            (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No (  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [ ]   No [  j
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes f  ]   Nu [  ]
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes \  ]   No [X ]
if so. enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                       Mass 1
                                                        Bench #
                                                         Length (ft)
                                                          Width (ft)
                                                    Scarp Height (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distauce (ft)
                                                Rate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement
                Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                       Mass 2
                                       Mass 3
                                                                                                                        Mass 2
iollowfill "A" was added in a revision approved 4/15/99.

ndcrgroimd mining of the Parsons and Lowsplint coal seams occurred below rhe fill.

ccording to the aerial photos, a gravity segregated underdrain was in place, but recent dumping was not reaching the toe
                                                                                                                                              Mass 3
                                                                                  VA-26
-------
  Company: Cumberland River Coal Co.
    Permit:  1101623
      State: VA
   County: Wise
  Latitude: 37-01-28
Longitude: 82-45-45
             Fill:  Fill B
           Mine:  Trace Fork Strip Mine
Was ihis fillvisited at ground level?  Yes[X]   No [ ]
          Date of visit:               04/18/00
Had the fill been reclaimed  at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:               02/23/00
Yes I
          No
                              Date of permit tile review:       04/17/00
                            Date fill contruction started:       03/01/99
                                              Finished:            / /
                           Numberof fill size revisions:
                            %Sandstone in uverburden            42
             Type«f Fill

              Size of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration
              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safer;' Factor

            Engineering
              Properties
                 (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phreafic Surface
                                                        Certification
                                                                                 Certification
                                                                                                                            Type
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (tncy)
2120

8.8
Concave
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dcg.)
3270
2510
18.0
25.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
1.1
135
34
250
130
32
182
Phreatic Surface

Construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial survey
jincl Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains

Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]
Yes [ ]

Yes[ 1
Yes[ ]
No[ 1
No[X]
No[ ]

NofX]
No[ 1
99/1
9912


9914

Color
None


None


ir a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core imderdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ 1



Foundation data:
No[X]
Pits
Dip of strata relative to fill:











If active fill
Were NOV's written on the till? Yes f ]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ]
, was active spoil disposal determined lo he on-ping? Yes [X]
NofX]
No IX]
No [XJ
No 1 1
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction.









Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceraablc blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ]
No [X]
50
No [XJ
If the till is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision1?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according lo the documentation or inspector?






Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ J
Were theie pound cracks observed o\\ the itU face Of benches? Yes [ J



Number of benches on till

Nn[ 1
No [ ]

                                                                         VA-27
-------
                                           Location
                                                                                                        Length (ft)
                                                                                                Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Cracks
             Location of
             Depressions
             Location 0 f
          Erosion Areas
             Location of
          Ground Bulges
             Location of
           Springs/Seeps
             Location of
                rv-      *
                Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
              Comments
(101623
FilIB
                                                    Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [ ]   No [
                                                                                                                (Potential Water Depth)
                                                Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches'?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                                                                                                 (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                       Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  J   No [ ]
                                        Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [x]   No [  ]
                                     1 Near toe on right side
                                     Werechanges in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  1    No [  1
                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [X]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
             Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                          Mass 1
                                                          Bench #
                                                           Length (ft)
                                                            Width (ft)
                                                      Scarp Height (ft)
                                               Depth to Slip rlarie  (ft)
                                                Transport Distance (ft)
                                                 Rate of Movement
                                        Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                                                                             Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                    Mass 3
                                              Cause of Movement
                                                                     Mass 1
                                                                     Mass 2
                                                                     Mass 3
                             ollowfill "B" was added in a revision approved 11/23/98 Underground mining occurred beneath the fill An old refuse embankment that was located in the same hollow had failed
                             vera! years earlier. Net all cf this refuse m atedal was removed during fill construction.  Seeps and springs noted during pre-rnine site visit estimated at 10 gpm, They were not
                             jllected by an underdrain. They flowed across the surface of the fill. Two roads across the fill will serve as the terraces upon final reclamation  The problem is that these terraces will
                             ! 350 to 400 led apart in elevation  Surface drainage plans call for a diversion above the fill and diversions along Hie rwo internal access roads  Drainage will alt flow to right side of
                                                                                      VA-28
-------
           Virginia
Cumberland  River  Coal  Co.
   Trace Fork Strip Mine
Permit: 1101623
Fill: Fill A

Permit: 1101623
Fill: Fill A
             VA-29
-------
           Virginia
 Cumberland River Coal Co.
   Trace  Fork Strip Mine
r

Permit: 1101623

       I

Fill: Fill B
Permit: 1101623          Fill: Fill B

              VA-30
-------
           Virginia
Cumberland  River  Coal  Co.
   Trace Fork Strip Mine
Permit: 1101623
Fill: Fill B
Permit: 1101623XX        Fill: Fill B

             VA-31
-------
           Virginia
Cumberland River Coal Co.
   Trace Fork  Strip Mine
Permit: 1101623
Fill: Fill  B

Permit: 1101623
Fill: Fill B
             VA-32
-------
         Virginia
   Motivation Coal Co.
Pawpaw Gap Surface Mine

     Permit:  1101369

          Fill:  Fill#l
          Fill:  Fill #3
          Fill:  Fill #4
          VA-33
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-34
-------
  Company: Motivation Coal Co.
   Permit:   1101369
     State:  VA
   County:  Bnchanon
  Latitude:  37-12-09
Longitude:  82-13-17
             Fill:  Fill #  1
           Minr:  Pawpaw Gap Surface Mine
Was this fi I Ivisited at ground level?   Yes [ ]   No [xj
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yes [X]   No [

02123100
                              Date of permit file review:        12/06/99
                            Date till contraction started:        12/31/91
                                              Finished:        11/23/94
                           Number of fill size revisions:              I
                            %Sandstone  in overburden:             71
             Type of Fill
              Size of Fill
               Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       SurfaceDrainage
                Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
               Analysis-
          Software Used

           Safety Factor


            Engineering
             Properties
                 (Spoil)

            Engineering
             Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
           Construction
          Documentation
       and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                         As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                         Original rlesipn
Durable Rock
Length (fi)
Area (acres)
Volume (rncy)
Flat
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
ToeFoundation{%)
Fill Face (deg.)
Durable Rock
2080
4.1
Flat
2000
1550
20.0
23.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg )
Cohesion 
-------
                                          Location
                                                                         Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                                Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Cracks
             Location of
             Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1101368
Fill S 1
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                    Were Ihere areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [x]   No [  ]
             Top of Fill
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes f  ]   No [  J
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
        Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [X ]
 If so, enter the source of information on the failure:
             Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                    Mass 1
                                                                                                                         Mass 2
                                            Cause of Movement
                                                          Bench #
                                                           Length  (ft)
                                                            Width  (ft)
                                                      Scarp Height  (ft)
                                               Depth to Slip Pmiie   (HI
                                                Transport Distance  (K)
                                                 "Rate of Movement
                                        Extent of Failure Movement
                                        Mass I
                                        Mass 2
                                        Mass 3
                                                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                                Mass 3
Revision approved 4^29/')3 addressed the placement of additional material in HF ifl. The fill toe was extended 20D Feet to coincide with the originally approved plans. More material wai
generated after the fill was initially rcvegetaaed.

A portion of the fill overlies an old deep mmc

An NOV dated 2/25/92 cited failure 10 Gonstnict diversions above and around fill.
                                                                                    VA-36
-------
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
configuration
Elevations
Slopes
surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Durable Rock
Length (ft) 880
.Ai'ea (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Concave
Crown (fi)
Toe (A)
Toe Foundation (%)
26.0 Fill Face (deg.)
Concave
1950
1700
5.0
23.0
perimeter
Grav, Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
125
30
200
127
34
942
P-0.05
Appl, Phase AppLQuarterly
Certification Certification
Foundation Preparation Yes [ I No [XJ
Underdrains Yes [X] No f ] 93/2
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X]
Grading arid Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X]
Final Certification Yes [X] No[ ] 94/2
Photography
Type
Copier
Color

If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdram by gravity Segregation?
Foundation dzta:
Dip of strata relative to fill :
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the si^e with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Yes[X] No[ ]
5its
YesF 1 NofX]
Yes [X] No [ 1
Yes[X] No[ 1
Yesf] No[ ]
Yes [ j No [ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Concave
Yes [ 1 No [X]
Yes [X] No 1 1
5
VA-37
-------
                                         Location
             Location of
                 Crack*
            Location of
            Depression!
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             comments
1101369
Fill* 3
                                                                                                   Length (ft)
                                                                                           Width (fl)
                                                                                                                                              Depth (in)
       I   Crown Q 314 to Q
       2    B2QOtoQl/8
                     Were there depressions on tiie fill benches?    Yen [XI   No [
       I     B4 Ql/8 to Q  1/4
       2     B2Q3/4toQl
       3
       4
       5
                                                                                                                                       (Potential Wafer Depth)
                  Were there areas of erosion on the fillbcnchcsl    Yes [X]   No [  ]
       1   Side Drains
      2
                                                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yea[  1   No[x]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  J   No[x]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?     Yes f  ]   No[X]
 so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass I
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height (A)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transpon Distance (A)
                                              E.aie of Movement
                                      Extent ofFailure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Msiss 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                       M I S SZ
vision approved 3/17/03 added Fill fj to the approvedpennii plans This small til] was needed to mine an additional 301 acres

gas -well and its associated bench are located adjacent (right hand side) to the fill face between benches 4 and 5

ie crests of several fill face had seltled and broken ofYrifJht at the bench intersection
                                                                                  VA-38
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
-------
Type of Fill
Size "fPill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Software Us eel
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
anil Ground
Level Review
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
Concave
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation {%)
Fill Face (deg.)




950
Concave
1950
1750
5.0
24.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated


Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psJ)
Unit Weigiit (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg)
Cohesion (psf)



1.5
125
30
200
115
33
922
P-0,05

Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Underdrains Yes[X] Nof ]
Surface Drains Yes f ] No [X]
Grading and Revegetalion Yes [ ] No[XJ
Final Certification Yes [X] No [ 1
93/2
94/2
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or cote underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foiindation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainase control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active ffll^ was active spoil disposaldctcrmincd to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long war disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceniable blanket or core drain forming'?
If the fill is completed, compare the si/e with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill i s significantly smaller, wliat is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the (111 situated in landslide Topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Copies
Color
YesfX] No[ ]
Yes[ ] NofX]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes[ ] Nu[ ]
Yes[ ] Nof ]
Yes{ ] No[ ]
Yes[ 1 No[ 1
Concave
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
VA-39
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location 0 f
         Ground Bulges
            Location 0 f
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
             Comments
1101369
Fill * 4
                     Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [XI   No [  ]
       I Multiple locutions
                                                                                                                                      (Potential Water Depth)
                  Were there area? of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [X]   No [
       I Multiple locations
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes f ]   Nu [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes £  ]   No [  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [ ]   No [X ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass 1
                                                       Bench it
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Deplh lu Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               RateoCMovement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                 VA-40
                                                                                                                                       (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                            cvision approved 3/17/93 added Fill #4 to the approved permit plans. This small fill was needed In mine in additional 101 acres.
-------
           Virginia
     Motivation Coal Co.
 Pawpaw Gap Surface Mine

Permit: 1101369
Fill: Fill # 1

Permit: 1101369          Fill: Fill # 1

              VA-41
-------
           Virginia
     Motivation Coal Co.
 Pawpaw Gap Surface Mine
Permit: 1101369
Fill: Fill #3
Permit: 1101369          Fill: Fill # 3

              VA-42
-------
                Virginia
          Motivation Coal  Co.
      Pawpaw  Gap Surface Mine
     Permit: 1101369
Fill: Fill #
                B-.1

J


     Permit: 1101369
Fill: Fill # 3
                   VA-43
-------
           Virginia
     Motivation Coal Co.
 Pawpaw Gap Surface Mine
Permit: 1101369
Fill: Fill #4
Permit: 1101369          Fill: Fill # 4

              VA-44
-------
        Virginia
  Motivation Coal Co.
Lovers Gap Surface Mine

    Permit: 1101548

       Fill: FillC
         VA-45
-------
BLANK PAGE
    VA-46
-------
  Company: Motivation Coal Co.
    Permit:  1101548
      State:  VA
   County:  Buchanon
  Latitude:  37-12-43
Longitude:  82-09-21
                                  Fill:   Fill C
                                Mine:   Lovers Gap Surface Mine
                    Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [  J    No [Xl
                    Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                    time of the air survey?
                            Date ofsurvey:
Yesj  ]   No[X]
02123100
                                Date of permit file review:       12/15/99
                              Date fill contraction started:       07/01/96
                                                 Finished:             / /
                             Number of fill size revisions:
                              %Saridsi.one in overburden;              78
             Type of Fill
              Sizt of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

               Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control
                Stability
                Analysis
           Soft* are Used

            Safety Factor


            Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phreatic Surface
            Construction
          Documentation
        and Certifications
           Aerial survey
           and C round
           Level Review
                                            As constructed
                                                                                         Revision
                                                                                                                                Original design
Durable Rock
Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (incy)
450
0.1
Flat
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face ((leg.)
2200
2050
11.0
19.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
135
36
100
129
31
104
Phreatic Surface
                                                            Certification
                                                                                       certification
      Foundation Preparation     Yes [  J   No [X]
                Underdrains     Yes [  1   No [X]
               Surface Drains    Yes {  ]   No [X ]
    Grading and Revegetation     Yes {  ]   No [X]
           Final Certification     Yes [  1   No [  ]
        9811
        9973
Color
None
None
                                             If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdraia by gravity segregation?    Yes I ]   No 1  ]
                                                                                 Foundation data:                                               Pits
                                                                         Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                                    Were NOV's written on the fill?  Yes [  1   No [X]
                                                              Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  j   No [  ]
                                                           Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  1   No [  ]
                                           If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [X]   No [  j
                               If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

fa durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                             Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes f  ]   Nu [  1
                                                                     If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                               DiscemaWe blanket or core drain forming?  ^fes [1   No [  1

               Tf the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller., what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                      Fill surface configuration:
                                                              Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [ ]   No [ 1
                                              Werethere ground cracks observed on the fill face or beaches?   Yes I ]   Nu [ ]
                                                                             Number of benches on fill;
                                                                              VA-47
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                    Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location 0 f
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1101548
FilIC
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes{  ]   No [  J
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  J    No [  ]
                                   I
                                                            Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [ ]   No |x]
                           if so, enter the source of information on the failure:
Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                Mass 1
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                                                                                  Bench #
                                                                                  Length (ft)
                                                                                   Width (ft)
                                                                             Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                       Depjh 10 Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                        TransportDistance (ft)
                                                                         Rate of Movement
                                                                 Extent of Failure Movement
                                           Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                                 Mars 2
                                                                 Mass 3
                           nderground mining of the Hagy coal seam occurred benealh the fill
                                                                                             (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                              (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                          Mass 3
                                                                                VA-48
-------
                               Virginia
                         Motivation Coal Co.
                      Lovers Gap Surface Mine
                                      fe'
                    Permit: 1101548
Fill: Fill C
L
                    Permit: 1101548           Fill: Fill C

                                 VA-49
-------
           Virginia
    Motivation  Coal  Co.
  Lovers Gap Surface Mine
Permit: 1101548
Fill: Fill C
Permit: 1101548          Fill: Fill C

             VA-50
-------
     Virginia
Red River Coal Co.
    Buckhead

 Permit: 1100717

      Fill: HF#1
      Fill: HF#3
      Fill: HF#5
      VA-51
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-52
-------
Company: Re(j Rjver Coal Co.
Permit: 1100717
State: VA
County: Wise
Latitude: 37-03-04
Longitude: 82-38-36


Fill: HF # 1
Mine: Buckhead
Was this fill visited at ground level?

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:
An constructed


Yes[ ] No[X]

Yes[ ] No[X]
02/23/00
Revision
Dale of permit filerevievv:
Date fill contruclion started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

Original design
12/01/99
01/10100
10101185

70


Typo cf Fill
Sire of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatie Surface
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
1500
9.8
Concave
Crown (ft)
roe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
FillFace(deg.)
2625
2300
2.0
27.0
Perimeter
Giav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.9
125
30
200
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
Appl. Phase
certification

Construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Undcidrains Yes [ ] No [X]
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X]

Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ ]
Appl. Quarterly
Certification
1/86





If a DRF, did Ihe photographsshow the rack blanker or core imderdrain by gravity segregation?

Foundation data:
Photography
Type






Yes[ 1

B&W





No[X]
Text Holes
Dip of strata relative to fill:



Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]
YSS[ ]
Yes[ ]
Na[ ]
No[X]
No[ 1
No[X]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
[fa durable ruck fill is under construction,




If the fill is completed, compare the s

Approximately 80% durable icckby volume?

If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain fonning?
ze with the size in the latest pre-cornpletion revision?

Yes [X]


Yes [X)


No[ 1


No[ 1
Smaller
IF the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?


Fill surface configuration
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or beaches?

Number of benches on till:
Concave
Yes[ 1
Yes[ ]

No [XI
No [XI
4
VA-53
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                     Length (ft)
                                                                                             Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location "f
          Springs/Seeps
            Localism of
                Changes'
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1100717
HF*1
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                                                                                             (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                 Bt
                                                                                                              (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain'!    Yes I  1   No [  ]
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
       I
       2
       3
       4
       5
       6
                                  Dili a failure occnr on the nil?     Yes [  j   No [X ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction dnring failure:
                                                                                                    Mass 1
                                                                                                                         Mass 1
                                                                                                                                                Mass 3
                                                                                     Bench #
                                                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                                                       Width  (ft)
                                                                                 Scarp Height  (ft)
                                                                          Depth lo Slip Piane   (i'i)
                                                                           Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                                            Rate of Movement
                                                                   Extent of Failnre Movement
                                            Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                                   Mass 2
                                                                   Mass 3
                            ispcction Repori (10/16/99) indicates fills £ 1 and £5 were active then PIsns show construction in 50' lifts. Helicopter photos show two smaller fills in adjoining hoiknvs One seems t
                            ; reclaimed but without surface drains. Is this temporary reclamation'' The other is unreclaimed Natural vegetation setting in, Seems to have been idle for some time.
                                                                                   VA-54
-------
 Company: Red River coal Co.
  Permit:  1100717
    State:  VA
  County:  Wise
 Latitude:  37-03-04
.ongitude:  82-38-36
                                  Fill:   HP #3
                                Mine:   Huckhead
                    Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [  ]   No fxl
                    Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                    time of the air survey?
                            Dale of survey:
Yes [X]    No [  1
 02/23/00
                                Date of permit file review:        12/01/99
                              Date fill contraction started:              / /
                                                Finishad:        10/17191
                             Numberof fill size revisions:

                              %Sandstone in overburden:              70
            Type of Fill

             Sizeof Fill
               Surface
          Configuration

             Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control

               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor
           Engineering
             Properties
                 (Spoil)

           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

        Phreafk Surface
           Construction
         Documentation
       and certification,
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                           As constructed
                                                                                        Revision
                                                                                                                              Original
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (sncy)
Convex
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2000
2.2
Flat
2725
2400
ISO
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
125
30
200
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                           AppJ. Phase
                                                           Certification
                                                         Appl. Qua rte rly
                                                          Certification
       Foundation Preparation     Yes [Xj   No [  J
                 Underdrains    Yes [  ]   No [X]
               Surface Drains    Yes [  ]   No [X]
     Grading and Revegefofion     Yes [  J   No [XI
           Final  Certificata    Yes [  1   No [X]
                                          Photography
                                             Type

                                                   None
                                           If a DRF,. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?   Yes [
                                                                       Dip of strata relative to fill
                                                                                                  Were NOV's written on the fill?  Yes [  ]   No[X]
                                                              Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  1   No[X|
                                                           Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  1   N o [  1
                                           ii active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [  ]   Nu [  ]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

Ifa durable rock fill is uoxJer construction,
                                                            Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?   Yes [  ]   N o [  ]
                                                                     if no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                              Discernable blanket or core drain forming?   Yes f  1   N o [  ]
               If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-eompletion revision?                  Smaller
          Tf the till is significantly smaller., what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                      Hi! surface configuration:                  Convex
                                                              Is the fill situated in landslide topography?   Yes [ I   No [X]
                                              Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?  Yes [ ]   No [X]
                                                                             Number of benches on fill:                6
                                                                            VA-55
-------
110071?
HP #3
             Location "f
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
                                                                                                   Length (ft)
                                                                                            Width (ft)
Depth (in)
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches'!    Yes [  ]   No [ }
                                                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                  Were there areas of erosion on the fillbcnchcs?    Yes [X]   No [ ]
                  B toc-
                  B2-3.
                                                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  1   No [  ]
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [ ]
       I
       2
       3
       4
       5
       6
                                 Did a failure occur on the fiil?
f so. enter the source of information on the Failure:
            Stage of construction duringfailure:
                                                                                            Yes[  ]   No[x]
                                                                                                   Mass I
                                                                                                                        Mass 2
                                                                                                                                              Mass 3
                                            Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height (ft)
                                             Depth io Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                      Mars 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass3
                            ispection Report (10/16/99) showed fill completed with 80 % vegetative cover  Plans show construction m 50' lifts H photos show the fill is concave at the first bench, bur convex
                            jcve The side drains are poorly developed to non-existent Permit plsji view of the fillshow^ 6 benches
                                                                                  VA-56
-------
  Company: Red River Coal Co., Inc.
    Permit:  1100717
     State:  VA
   Count)1:  Wise
  Latitude:  37-03-04
Longitude:  82-38-36
                                  Fill:  I IF #5
                                 Mine:  Buckhead
                     Was this till visited at ground level'?   Yes [X]   No [  1
                               Date of visit:                 04/20/00
                     Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                     time of the air survey'!                  Yes [  ]   No [X]
                             Date of survey:                 02/23/00
                                                             Date of perm it tile review:       12/01/99
                                                          Dale Jill contraction started:       12131/99
                                                                             Finished:             / /
                                                          Number of fill  size revisions:
                                                          %Sandstonc in overburden:              70
             Type of Fill
              Size of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control
               Stability
               Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor

            Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phreatic Surface
           Construction
          Documentation
        and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                           As constructed
                                                                                        Revision
                                                                                                                               Original
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
2400
7.3

Crown (ft)
toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2700
2175
180
270
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
125
30
200
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                            Appl. Phase.
                                                            Certification
                                                          Appl.Quarterly
                                                           certification
                                                                      Photography
                                                                          Type
       Foundation Preparation
                 Underdrains
               Surface Drains
     Grading and Revegetation
            Final Certification
Yes[X]  No[  1
Yesf ]  No[X]
Ycs[  1  No[X]
Yes[ ]  No[X]
Yes[ ]  No[X]
                                                                                                                                Yesf ]   No[X]
                                                                                                                                       Text Holes
                 If aDKJ\ did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
                                                     Foundation data:
                                             Dip of strata relative to fill
                                                                        Were NOV's written on the fill? Yes [ ]   No [XI
                                                              Surface drainage control working properly?  Yes [ J   No [Xj
                                                           Subsurface drainage control working properly?  Yes [X]   No ! ]
                                           If active fill; was active spoil disposal determinedto be on-going?  Yes [ ]   No [X]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal Operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                            Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes ( ]   No [X]
                                                                      ]f no to above, estimate percentage:                60
                                                               Discemable blanket or core drain forming?  Yen[XJ   No [  ]
                Ifthe fill is completed, compare the sr/e with the size in the latest pre-coniplction revision?
          Ifthe fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                       Fill surface configuration:
                                                              Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes[  ]  No [XI
                                              Were there ground cracks observed on  the fill race or benches?   Yes [  ]  No [X]
                                                                             Number of benches on fill:
                                                                             VA-57
-------
                                          Location
                                                                                                       Length (ft)
                                                                                                Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Cracks*
             Location of
             Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
             Location of
          Ground Bulges
             Location of
           Springs/Seeps
             Location of
                Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
              Comments
1100717
HF*5
                                                   Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                (Potential Water Depth)
                    Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [X]   No [  ]
        I         R toe-crow
        2
        3
        4
        5
                                                                                                                                              (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                      Were there bulges or huinmocky terrain?    Yes [   1   No [  ]
                                        Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yea [  ]   No [  ]
        Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [X ]
If so, enter the source of information on the failure:
             Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                          Mass 1
                                                           Bench *
                                                            Length (ft)
                                                            Width (R)
                                                      Scarp Height (ft)
                                                Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                                Transport Distance (ft)
                                                 Rate of Movement
                                        Extent of Failure Movement
                 Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                        Mass I
                                        Mass 3
                                                                                                                            Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                   Mass 3
                             "ill has been in Temporary Cessation stams for several years. Surface drainage over face of the fill with severe surface erosion One pond full and second pond partially full
                             \ppearance of 60 Vu durability results from prolonged exposure of spoil to weathering Perimeter dilch at Inp completed day before we arrived on April 20,00, Surface drainage contrc
                             md temporary vegetation inadequate to maintain fill stability. Inspecliun report (7/17/98) required temporary seeding on Fill H 5. H. photos show good gravity segregation on right pa[
                             )f Till, but not to the left where severe weathering and erosion occurs Seems to include old terraces that are now being wiped away.
                                                                                      VA-58
-------
           Virginia
     Red River Coal  Co.
          Buckhead
Permit: 1100717
Fill: HF# 1
Permit: 1100717
Fill: HF# 1
             VA-59
-------
           Virginia
     Red River Coal  Co.
          Buckhead
Permit: 1100717
                «
Fill: HF# 1
Permit: 1100717          Fill: HF# 1

             VA-60
-------
           Virginia
     Red River Coal  Co.
          Buckhead
Permit: 1100717
Fill: HF# 3
Permit: 1100717
Fill: HF#
             VA-61
-------
           Virginia
     Red River Coal  Co.
          Buckhead
Permit: 1100717
Fill: HF# 5
Permit: 1100717          Fill: HF# 5

             VA-62
-------
           Virginia
     Red River Coal  Co.
          Buckhead
Permit: 1100717
Fill: HF# 5
Permit: 1100717
Fill: HF# 5
             VA-63
-------
           Virginia
     Red River Coal  Co.
          Buckhead
Permit: 1100717
Fill: HF# 5
Permit: 1100717
Fill: HF# 5
             VA-64
-------
       Virginia
Red River Coal Co., Inc.
    Flat Gap Mine

   Permit:  1101272

        Fill: HF#1
        Fill: HF#2
        Fill: HF#3
        Fill: HF#4
        VA-65
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-66
-------
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surf ace Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface
Construction
Documentation
ami Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Durable Rock
Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
290
2.3
Concave
Crown (A)
Toe (A)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2300
2020
5.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.9
130
40
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psi)
P-.05
Appl. Phase AppLQuarterly
certification Certification
Photography
Tvi»e
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [X]
Surface Drains Yesf ] No[X]
Grading and Rcvcgctafion Yes [ ] No [X ]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ ]
If aDRP, did the photographs sbaa the rock blanket orcorcimdcrdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
WereWV's written on the fill1
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
if active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, liow long was disposal operation idle (months)?
if a durable rock fill i s under construction,
Approximately S0% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Diseemable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision'?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface, configuration:
is the fill situated in landslide, topography?
Wore there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Pits
Yes! ] No[X]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes ! ! No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes [ ! No [ 1
Yes( ] No[ ]
Concave
Yes [ ] No [ 1
Y«[ ] No[ ]
6
VA-67
-------
Location of
Cracks *

Location of
Depressions



Location of
Erosion Areas



Location of
Ground Bulges



Location "f
Springs/Seeps



Location of
Changes



Movement
Characteristics











Comment.
1101272
I
2
3
Were there depressions on the till benches? Yes [ ] No [ J
1
3
4
5
Were there areas oferosion on the fill benches? Yes [ ] No [ ]
I
2
3
4
5
Were there bulges or hummocky terrain1? Yes [ ) No I 1
1
2
3
4
5
Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas'! Yes [ ] No [ ]
1
3
4
5


(Potential Water Depth)




(Maximum Gully Depth)
















Were changes m vegetation or spoil color observed on fill? Yes [Xj No [ ]
1
2
4
5
6
Did a failure occur on the fill? Yes [ j No [X]
fso. enter the source of information on the failure:
Stage of construction during failure:
Mass 1
Bench*
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
Scarp Height (A)
iJcptli to Slip Plane (ft)
Transport Distance (ft)
Rate of Movement
Extent of Failure Movement
Cause of Movement Mass]
Mass 2
Mass.?







Mass 2 Mass 3











orapleted to third terrace with 75% vegetative cover H pholos show numerous vegetation changes that may represent minor concentrations of moisture from runnoff as opposed to
epage One anomaly at tee is> tabulated Toe is up against the pond




VA-68
-------
      Type of Fill

       She of Fill
         Surface
   Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Fhreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certification.
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
420
8.9
Concave
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2270
1910
5.0
270
Perimeter
Grav, Segregated
REAME
Slalic
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
130
40
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-,05
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
Appl.QuKrterl;
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X] Y
Underdraws Yes[ 1 No [X] Y
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X] Y
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X] Y
Final Certification Yes [1 No [X]
None
None
None
None


If aDRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Frumdation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NO V!s written on the fill')
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rockfill js under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
Ifthefillis completed, compare the si^e with the size in the latest pie-completion revision?
If the fillis significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
i;ill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were theve ground cracks observed on the fill face ov benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Ycs[ ] No[ J
Pits

Yes[ ! No[X]
Yes 1 1 No I 1
Yes [ 1 No [ 1
Yes[ ] NoM


Yesf 1 No[ ]

Yes[ ] No[ ]


Concave
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Y«[ ] Nol 1

                                                                     VA-69
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                   Length 
-------
Company: Red River Coal Co., Inc.
Permit: 1101272
State: VA
county: Wise
Latitude: 37-04-15
Longitude: 82-42-30

Fill: I1F#3
Mine : Flat Gap Mine
Was this till visited at ground level? Yes [ 1 No [X]

Had the till been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey? Yes t ] No ^
Date of survey; 12131/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of till size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:


12101199
01/17/91
/ /

56


      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Co nfigu ration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
    Safety Factor

     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreafic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                     As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                            Original design
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
300
7 9
Flat
Crown (A)
Toe (A)
Toe Foundation {%)
FillFace(dcg.)
2170
1920
5.0
27.0
Perimeter
Gray, Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
130
40
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dog.)
Cohesion (psf)
P-.05
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                            Appl.Quarterly
                                Photography
       Foundation Preparation     Yes [  ]   No [X]
                  Underdrains     Yes [  ]   No [x]
                Surface Drains    Yes [  ]   No [XI
     Grading and Revcgclalion     Yes [  ]   No [XI
             Final Certification     Yes [  ]   No [X]
Y
Y
Y
Y
                                      If aDRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket orcoreiinderdrain by gravity segregation?


                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                                         Yes[  ]   No[
                                                                                               Were NOV's written on the fill?   Yes [ ]   No [X]
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]   No [  j
                                                             Subsurface drainagecontrol working properly?   Yes [  1   No [   1
                                             If active fill.was activespoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                 If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
Ifr durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                               Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes f  1   No [  ]
                                                                        If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                 IMseemable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes(  ]   No [  J

                Ifthc fillis completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-cornpletion revision?
           Ifthc fillis significantly smaller, what is tie reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                         Fill surface configuration:                     Flat
                                                                Is the till situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]   No f  ]
                                                V\fere there ground cracks observed on the 611 lace or benches?   Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                                                                Number of bcndics on fill:
                                                                        VA-71
-------
                                        Location
                                                                      Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                           Depth (in)
            Locution Of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location ©f
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1101272
HF#3
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [ J   No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [I   No [  ]
                                     Were there springsor seeps observedin disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                  Were changer in vegetationor spoil colorobserved on fill?    Yes [  ]   No [
                                 Did a failure occur on the fiii?    Yes[  j   No [x]
-f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during Failure:
                                                                      Mass I
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scam Height  (A)
                                             Depilii" Slip Plane   (It)
                                              TransportDistarice  (R)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                Cause of Movement     Mass?
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
                           Qmplete 10 third terrace with 75% vegetative cover  Clearing and grubbing operations 300" ahead of active raining H photos show fill toe against sediment pond
                                                                                VA-72
-------
  Company: Red River Coal Co.. Inc.
    Permit:  1101272
      State:  VA
   County:  Wise
  Latitude-,  37-04-15
Longitude:  82-42-30
                                  Fill:  HI: #4
                                Mine:  Flat Gap Mine
                    Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes f  J   No [X]
                    Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                    time of the air survey?
                            Date of survey:
                                                                               Yes[  ]   No[X]
                                                                                02/23/00
                                                                                                               Date of permit tile review:       12/01/99
                                                                                                             Date fill contraction started:        08/21/90
                                                                                                                                Finished:             /  /
                                                                                                            Number of fill size revisions:
                                                                                                             %Sandstone in overburden:              56
             Type of Fill
              Si« «f Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

               Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control
                Stability
                Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor


            Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spuil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
           Aerial Survey
           and Ground
           Level Review
                                            A s constructed
                                                                                        Revision
                                                                                                                               Original design
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
295
6.2
Flat
Crown (it)
Toe (it)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2210
1900
5.0
27.0
Perimeter
Grav, Segregated
REAME

static
Seismic
unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
130
34
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psi)
P-.05
                                                            Appl. Phase
                                                            Certification
                                                         Appl. Quarterly
                                                          Certification
                                                                                                                         Photography
                                                                                                                            Type
                                  foundation Preparation     Yes [  ]   No [XI
                                            Underdrains     Yes [  1   No [XI
                                           Surface Drains    Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                Grading and Revegetation     Yes [  ]   No [XJ
                                       Final Certification     Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                     Y
                                                                     Y
                                                                     Y
                                                                     Y
                                            If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [ ]  No [  ]
                                                                                 Foundation data:                                              Pits
                                                                        Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                                   Were NOV's written on the fill1   Yes  [  ]   No [X]
                                                             Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [ ]   No £  ]
                                                          Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                          If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes[ ]   No[  I
                               If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

fa durable rock fillis under construction
                                                            Approximately 80%durable rock by volume?  Yes [ ]   Noll
                                                                     If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                              Discernable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes  II   No [   1
               If the fill is completed, compare tiie size with the size in the latest pre-completionrevision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                      Fill surface configuration:                     Flat
                                                             Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                              Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]  Na [  ]
                                                                            Number of benches on fill:                 4
                                                                             VA-73
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                   Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1101272
HFfM
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                    Were there bulges or hummoeky terrain?    Yes [  J   No f ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [ j
                                   Were changes invegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ J   No [
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   N o [x ]
so, enter the source of information on the failure:
          Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                   Mass 1
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                    Bench #
                                                                                    Length (ft)
                                                                                     Width (ft)
                                                                               Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                         Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                          Transport Distance (fl)
                                                                           Rate of Movement
                                                                  Extentof Failure Movement

                                           Cause ofMovement     Mass 1
                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                  Mass 3
                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                             upleted 4 terraces with 75%vegetaiive Cover Clearing ml grubbing operations limited to 300'ahead of mining  H photos of only the lower, completed terraces  Fill tyg against
                             linen! pond
                                                                                  VA-74
-------
           Virginia
  Red River Coal  Co., Inc.
        Flat Gap Mine
Permit: 1101272          Fill: HF# 1
Permit: 1101272           Fill: HF# 2

             VA-75
-------
           Virginia
  Red River Coal  Co., Inc.
        Flat Gap Mine
Permit: 1101272
Fill: HF# 2
Permit: 1101272           Fill: HF# 2

             VA-76
-------
               Virginia
      Red River Coal  Co., Inc.
           Flat Gap Mine
Permit: 1101272
Fill: HF# 3 and HF#4
Permit: 1101272          Fill: HF# 3 and HF#4

                 VA-77
-------
               Virginia
      Red River Coal  Co., Inc.
           Flat Gap Mine
Permit: 1101272
Fill: HF# 3 and HF#4
Permit: 1101272          Fill: HF# 3 and HF#4

                 VA-78
-------
          Virginia
  Red River Coal Co., Inc.
North Fox Gap Surface Mine

      Permit:  1101401

           Fill:  Fill #6
           Fill:  Fill #7
           Fill:  Fill #8
           VA-79
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-80
-------
  Company: Red River Coal Co , Inc.
    Permit: 1101401
     State: VA
   County:  Wise
  Latitude: 37-03-59
Longitude:  82-39-38
             Fill:  Fill # 6
           Mine:  North Fox Gap Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yes [X]   No [

02123100
                              Date of permit file review:       12/07/99
                            Date fill contraction started:       12131/92
                                              Finished:             /  /
                            Number of fill size revisions:               1
                            %Sandstone in overburden:              55
             Type of Pill
              Sire of Fill
               Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
             Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control

               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor
            Engineering
              Properties
                 (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
           Construction
          Documentation
       and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                         As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                        Original design
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (incy)
Flat
Crowk (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face fdeg.)
2700
7.1
Flat
1400
1890
11.0
18.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
130
35
0
726
29
0
P-0.05
                                                         Appl, Phase
                                                         Certification
                                   AppLQuarterly
                                    Certification
                                       Photography
                                           Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [x] No [ 1
Underdrains Yes [X] No [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [XI
Grading and Revegetation Yes [X] No [ 1
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [X]
li'a DRF, did the photographs show me




99/3

rock blanket or core imderdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:





YesJ ]

Color
Color

Color

No f 1
Fits
Dip of strata relative to fill:



If active
'WereNOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Ycs[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yesi 1
Yes[ 1
No[X]
Na[ ]
No[ j
No[ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long ^ras disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rack fill is under construction,




Approximately 80% durable rook by volume?
Ifno to above, estimate percentage:
Disceraable blanket or core drain forming?

Yes[ ]

Yes[ ]

No [ 1

No[ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-cornpletion revision?
lithe fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according io the documentation or inspector?


Fill surface configuration
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?

Number of benches on till:

Yes[ 1
Yes[ ]

Flat
No[ 1
No[ 1

                                                                         VA-81
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                   Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                           Depth (in)
            Location "f
                 Cracks
            Location "f
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location Of
         Ground Bulges
            Location 0 f
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1101401
Fill # 6
               Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [x]   No [ ]
      B2QI/4toQ3/4
           Were there areas of erosion on the fillbenclies?    Yes[x]   No[  ]
1   Right side drain near fop of fi II
2
3
4
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes I  1   No [  1
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [1  No I I
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yen [  ]   No [ ]
                                                             Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  J   No [x ]
                            If so. enter the source of information on the failure:
     Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                  Mass 1
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                    Bench #
                                                                                    -Length  (ft)
                                                                                     Width  (ft)
                                                                               Scarp Height  (ft)
                                                                         Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                          Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                                           "Rate of Movement
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement
                                            Cause of Movement     Mass i
                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                  Mass 3
                             vision approved 7/14/92 allowed approximately 230,000 cy ofspoil to be taken to another permit instead of Fill #6,

                             e upper part of the fill covers the highwall associated with mining the Tmboden Marker coal scam
                                                                                  VA-82
                                                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                                                                        {Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
-------
CompanyrRed River Coal Co.. Inc.
Permit: 1101401
State: VA
County: Wise
Latitude: 37-03-42
Longitude: 82-39-37
Fill: Fill #7
Mine: North Fox Gap Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level? Yes [ ] No [X]
Had the till been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey? Yes [X] No [ 1
Date of survey: 02/23/00
Dale of permit file review:
Date fill contrueiion started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstonc in overburden:
12/07/99
12/31/93
7/
55
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatk Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   I
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                    Length (ft)           Width (ft)            Depth (in)
             Location "f
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions'
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location Of
          ,,   .    ,_     *
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
1101401
Fill* 7
                      Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [xl   No [  ]
       1     B1Q1/2WQ1
       2
       3
       4
       5
                  Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [X]   No [
       1   Riglit side drain near fop of fill
       2
       3
       4
       5
                                                    Were there bulges or humrnocky terrain?   Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No f  ")
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [
       i
       2
       3
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                       Massl
                                                        Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (A)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane   (A)
                                              Transport Distance  (R)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                Causeof Movement    Mass i
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                        Mass 2
                            eviskm approved 7/21/M added Pill#7
                            small, previously repaired slide to the right of the third face toes out at the right perimeter ditch on bench #
                                                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                              Mass 3
                                                                                  VA-84
-------
  Company: Red River Coal Co.. Inc.
   Permit;  J101401
      State:  VA
   County:  Wise
  Latitude:  37-04-00
Longitude:  82-40-30
                                 Fill:  Fill # 8
                               Mine:  North Fox Gap Surface Mine
                    Was this fill visited at ground level?   Yes [x]   No [  ]
                              Date, of visit:
                    Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                    time of the air survey'!

                            Date of survey:
04/20/00

Yes [XJ   No [  ]

02/23/00
   Date of permit flic review:        12/07/99
 Date fill contraction started:       03/01 /94
                   Finished:             / /
Number of fill size revisions:
 %Sandstone  in overburden:             55
             Type of f ill
              Size of Fill
                surface
           Configii ration

              Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control
                Stability
                Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor


            Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phreatic Surface
           Construction
          Documentation
        and Certifications
           Aerial Survey
           and Ground
           Level .Review
                                           As constructed
                                                                                        Revision
                                                                                                                               Original design
                                                                                                                                              Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
1080
0.3
Flat
crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
23.0 Fill Face (deg.)
2235
2080
21.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAMH

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
130
35
0
132
32
188
P-0.05
                                                            Appl. Phase
                                                            certification
                                                        AppLQuarterly
                                                          Certification
                                          Photography
                                             Type
      Foundation Preparation    Yes [X]   No [  I
                Underdraws    Yes [X]   No [  j
               Surface Drams   Yen [1   No [X|
    Grading and Revegetalion    Yes (  ]   Nu [X]
           Final Certification    Yes[  ]   No[XJ
                                                                                                 Y
                                                                                                 Y
                                                   Color
                                                   Color
                If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core vmderdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [  1   No [ ]
                                                    Foundation darn:                                              Pits
                                            Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                       Were NOVs wline
                                                                                                                         e R"?   Yes [  ]   No [Xj
                                                             Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                          Subsurface drainage control working properly'?   Yes [Xj   No[  ]
                                          If active fill, was active spoildisposal determined to bcon-going?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                               If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

f n durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                           Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                    If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                              Disrcniable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [  ]   No f  ]
               If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-eorapletion revision?
          If the till  is significantly smaller, what is the reason according lo the documentation or inspector?
                                                                      Fill surface configuration:                     Flat
                                                             Is the rlli situated in landslide topography?    Yes [ ]   No { ]
                                             Were there mound cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [X]   No [ ]
                                                                            Number of benches on fill:                3
                                                                             VA-85
-------
                                         Location
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions'
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Li.ica liuii o i
               Changes'
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1101401
F Hi
                                                                                                   Length (ft)
                                                                                            Width (ft)
      Depth (in)
       I     Face#2 Q 1/8 tog 1/2
       2
       3
                                                                                                        30
                                                                                                                            10
                     Were there depressions on tile fill benches'!    Yes [X]   No [  ]
       I     B3 Q I i 4 to Q 3/4
(Potential Water Depth)
            3
                                               Were there areas of erosion onthe fillbenehes?    Yes [  ]    No[Xj
                                                                                                            (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No[x]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [x ]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [  ]   NofX]
                                 Did o failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No[X}
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                       Mass 1
                                                        Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent ofFailure Movement

               Cause of Movement     Mass i
                                      Mass!
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                        Mass 2
                                                                                                                                               Mass 3
                            evision approved 2/8/94 added Fill #8 Deep mining of Lower Kelley coal seam occurred below Fill £8 location An old "healed over" slip plane surface between benches 31 and #2
                            iay have resulted from ponding on bench #1  Benches #1 and $2 had recently been regradedlo get rid of ponding Bench #3 had water standing with cattails  The perimeter ditches
                            ere regraded prior to our arrival at the site We could not tell what prompted this action
                                                                                   VA-86
-------
              Virginia
     Red  River Coal Co., Inc.
  North  Fox Gap Surface Mine
i
   Permit: 1101401
Fill: HF# 6
                                        i
   Permit: 1101401          Fill: HF# 6

                VA-87
-------
           Virginia
  Red River Coal  Co., Inc.
North Fox Gap Surface Mine
Permit: 1101401
Fill: HF# 7
Permit: 1101401          Fill: HF# 7

             VA-88
-------
           Virginia
  Red River Coal  Co., Inc.
North Fox Gap Surface Mine
Permit: 1101401
Fill: HF# 8
Permit: 1101401
Fill: HF# 8
             VA-89
-------
           Virginia
  Red River Coal  Co., Inc.
North Fox Gap Surface Mine
Permit: 1101401
Fill: HF# 8
Permit: 1101401          Fill: HF# 8

             VA-90
-------
        Virginia
 Red River Coal Co., Inc.
Black Creek Surface Mine

    Permit: 1601576

         Fill:  HF-B
         Fill:  HF-C
         Fill:  HF-D (No Photo)
         VA-91
-------
BLANK PAGE
   VA-92
-------
  Company: Red River Coal Co,, Inc.
   Permit:  1601576
      State:  VA
   county:  Wise
  Latitude:  36-56-11
Longitude:  82-41-12
                                   Fill:  HF-B
                                 Mine:  Black Creek Surface Mine
                     Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes f  1    No fX
                     Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                     time of the air survey'?

                             Date of survey:
Yes[  ]   No[X]

 02123100
                                Date of permit file review.        12/16/99
                              Date till  contraction started:        06/01/97
                                                 Finished:              / /
                             Number of fill si/e revisions:
                              %Sandstone in overburden:              63
             Type of Fill

              Size of Pill
                surface
           configuration

              Elevations
                  Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control
                Stability
               Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor


            Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spoil)

            Encjineexincr
              Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (racy)
4200

16.7

Crown (A)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2450
2150
5.0
25.0
Perimeter
Grav. Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.5

130
33
200
131
26
544
Phreatic Surface
           Construction
          Documentation
       and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
       Foundation Preparation    Yes [ ]   No [X]
                 Undcrdrains    Yes [ ]   No [x]
                Surface Drains   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
     Grading and Revegetation    Yes [ ]   No [ ]
            Hnai Certification    Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                                                               9913
                                                                                               9812
                                                   None
                                                   None
                                             1-fTJRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core undcrdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                 Foundation data:                                              Pits
                                                                        Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                                   were NOVs written on the fill?  Yes [ ]   No [X]
                                                              Surface drainage control working properly?  Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                           Subsurface drainage control working properly?  Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                           If active fill; was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?  Yes [X]   No [ ]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                             Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [ ]   No [XJ
                                                                      If no to above, estimate percentage:                60
                                                               Diseemable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [ ]   No [X]
                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
          If tile fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                       Fill surface configuration:
                                                              Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes[  ]   No [  ]
                                              Were there ground cracks observed on the fillfaec or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                             Number of benches on till:
                                                                             VA-93
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)          Width (ft)            Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Locution of
            Depressions
            Locution of
          Erosion Areas
            I.KatMnol
         Ground Bulges
            Location "f
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
             Comments
1601576
HF-B
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes f ]   No [
                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there nensof erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  I   No [ j
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  I
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  J   No [x ]
'so, enter the source oCinfonnation on the failnre:
           Stage of construction during failnre;
                                                                    Mass 1
                                                                                                                    Mass 2
                                                                                  Length  (ft)
                                                                                   Width  (ft)
                                                                             Scarp Height  (ft)
                                                                       Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                        Transport Distance  (1)
                                                                         Rate of Movement
                                                                Extent of Failure Movement
                                          Cause of Movement    Mass 1
                                                                Mass 2
                                                                Mass 3
                            derground mining occurred beneath the fin 3n the 1960!s
                            I'!BM has been  end dumped in up to 8 different lifts
                                                                                                        (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                          Mass 3
                                                                                VA-94
-------
Company: Red Rjver Coal Co., Inc. Fill: HF-C
Permit: 1601576
Slate: VA
County: Wise
Latitude: 36-56-56
Longitude: 82-40-40


Type of Fill


Surface
Configuration
Mine: Black Creek Surface Mine
War this fill visited at ground level'? Yes [ ] No [X]

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time ofthe air survey? Yes [ ] No M
Date of survey: 02/23/00
A S constructed Revision
Date of permit file review; 12116199
Date till contraction started: / /
Finished: / /
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden: 63


Original design
Durable Rock
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
Flat


3.7


Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safer}1 Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface
crown (it)
Toe (tt)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2320
2140
2.0
24.0
Perimeter
Gray. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
130
33
200
129
31
108
Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
       Foundation Preparation     Yes [  ]   No [  J
                  Underdrains    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                Surface Drains    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
     Grading and Rcvcgctation     Yes [  ]   No {  \
            Final Certification    Yes [  ]   No f  ]
                                                                                                                                         No[ ]
                                                                                                                                            Pits
                  If a DRF.. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [  ]
                                                        Foundation data:
                                               Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                            Were NOV's written on the fill?  Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                  Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                                              Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes f  ]  No [  ]
                                             If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined (o he on-going?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                  If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                                Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [  j  No [  ]
                                                                         Tf no lo above, estimate percentage:
                                                                  Discernable blanket or core drain forming?   Yes [  |  No [  ]
                if the fill is completed, compare tlie size wilh the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
           If the till is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                           Fill  surface configuration:                     Flat
                                                                 Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                 Number of benches on fill:
                                                                         VA-95
-------
1601576
HF-C
            Location of
                 _   ,  i
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Locution of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)
                                                                                          Width (ft)
Depth (in)
                                                Were there depressions on the Ell benches?    Yes [ ]   No [   I
                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches'?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  1   No [
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed oti fill?   Yes I  ]   No [
                                  1
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?   Yes [ 1   NofX]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                 Mass 1
                                                                                                                     Mass2
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench a
                                                       Length  (ft)
                                                        Width  (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height  (ft)
                                            Depth lo Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance  (A)
                                              Kate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
                                     Massl
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                           F -C not started as of Inspection Report dated 9/16/99 Fill could not be located during aerial flight
                           nderground mining occurred beneath the proposed fill location Jnthe 1960!s
                                                                                 VA-96
-------
  Company: Red River Coal Co.. Inc.
    Permit:  1601576
      State:  VA
   County:  Wise
  Latitude:  37-87-13
Longitude:  82-40-20
                                   Fill:  HF-D
                                 Mine:  Black Creek Surface Mine
                     Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [  1    No [X]
                     Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                     lime of the. air survey?
                             Date of survey:
Yes[  ]   No[X]
 02/23/00
                                Date of permit file review:        12116199
                              Date fill contraction started:             / /
                                                 Finished:             / /
                             Number of fill size revisions:
                              %Sandstone in overburden:              63
             Type of Fill

               Sire of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

               Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control
                Stability
                Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor


            Engineering
              Properties
                  (spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phrearic Surface
                                            As constructed
                                                                                         Revision
                                                                                                                                Original design
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1200
1.8

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2330
2170
3.0
25.0
Perimeter
Gras'. Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psi)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
130
33
200
130
22
634
Phreatic Surface
            Construction
          Documentation
        and Certifications
           Aerial survey
           and Ground
           Level Review
       Foundation Reparation     Yea [  ]   No [ ]
                 Underdrains     Yes [  ]   No [ ]
               Surface Drains    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
     Grading andRevegelation     Yes [  ]   No [ ]
            Final Certification     Yes [  ]   No [ J
                                            If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core undcrdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [  ]   No [  1
                                                                                 foundation data                                              Pits
                                                                         Dip of strata relative to fill
                                                                                                    Were NOVs written on the fill?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                                          Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                                                                       Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                                                       If active fill,was active spoil disposal determined to he on-going?   Yes [  ]  No [  j
                                                           If spoil disposal rite inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                             Approximately 80% durable rock by volume0   Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                                                      If 110 to above, estimate percentage:
                                                               Discernable blanket or core drain forming?   Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason  according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                       Fill surface configuration:
                                                              Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [ ]  No [  ]
                                              Were there ground cracks observed on the fillfaec or benches?   Yes [ ]  No [  j
                                                                              Number of benches on fill:
                                                                             VA-97
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)           Width (ft)            Depfll (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location "f
          Erosion Areas
            Location 0 f
         Ground Bulges
            Location Of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1601576
HF-D
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benched   Yes [  J   No [  J
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  I   No [  J
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]

       I
       2
       3
       4
       5
       6
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No[X]
If so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass I
                                                       Bench II
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rale of Movement
                                      Extern of Failure Movement

                Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                           FF -D not started as of 12116199 F i 11 could not be located during aerial flight

                           inderground mining occurred beneath the proposed fill location in the [960!s
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                                                                                 VA-98
-------
           Virginia
  Red River  Coal Co., Inc.
 Black Creek Surface Mine
Permit: 1601576
Fill: HF- B
Permit: 1601576          Fill: HF- B

             VA-99
-------
                  Virginia
          Red River Coal Co., Inc.
         Black  Creek  Surface  Mine
^f^


        Permit: 1601576
Fill: HF- C


        Permit: 1601576          Fill:HF-C

                    VA-100
-------
         Virginia
Virginia Iron, Coal and Coke
  Boldcamp Surface Mine

     Permit:  1101537

          Fill: Fill#lB
          Fill: Fill #5
          VA-101
-------
BLANK PAGE
  VA-102
-------
Type of Fill
Size of Fill


Surface

Configuration
Elevations

Slopes

Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Software Used
Safely Factor

Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface

Construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Conventional Lift



Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)









Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1430
6.0
0.4



1950
1760
16.0
240
Perimeter
Underdrain










Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
TJr.it Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.6

125
30
200
111
32
12
Phreatic Surface

Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains

Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes[X] Na[ ]
Yes[X] No I ]
Ycs[ ] "NoiX]

Tfes[ ] No[X]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
If a DRF, did tlia photographs show the rock blanket OT core Underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ ]







Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill? Yes ! J
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes f ]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ]
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be an-going? Yes [ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
Color
Color




No[ ]
Pits

No[X]
No [ ]
No[ 1
No[ 1

If a durable rock fill is under construction,


Approximately 80% durable rook by volume? Yes [ 1
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemablc blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-complction revision?
If the fill is significantly




smaller, what i s the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography! Yes [ 1
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on fill:

Flat
No[ ]
No[ ]

VA-103
-------
1101537
Fill # 1B
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges'
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes'
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
                                         Location
                                                                                                    Length (it)
                                                                                             Width (ft)
Deplh (in)
                                                  Were there depressions on the Fill "benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas oferosion on the fill benches?    Yes f ]   No [
                                                                                                             (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [ ]   No f  ]
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes | ]   No [  ]
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  J   No [  ]
        1

       2
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?
fro. enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during f ai I u re:
                                                                                              Ycs[  ]   No(X]
                                                                                                    Mass 1
                                                                                                                         Mass 2
                                                                                                                                               Mass 3
                                            Cause of Movement
                                                        Bench #
                                                         Length  (ft)
                                                          Width  (It)
                                                    Scarp Height (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (It)
                                                Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement

                                      MassI
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                             11 #1B is a "zoned concept" till The "staicturaf zone" near die toe is compacted m 4-foot lifts and h e vmderdrain is wrapped in filter fabric Tbe"noriStrueturaiVone is typical of
                             irsble rock fills  Spoil associated with removal of the Norton coal seam was the only material placed in Fill #\B  Fill #tB is separated from Fill #1A by s rock outcrop divide
                             cording to the aerial photos
                                                                                  VA-104
-------
Company: Virginia Iron. Coal and Coke
  Permit:  1101537
    State:  VA
 County:  Wise
Latitude:  37-04-34
tmgitude:  82-30-41
             Fill: Fill #5
           Mine: Bokicamp Surface Mine
Was this till visited at ground level?   Yes [  ]   No [x]
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
lime of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yes [X]   No [

 02/23/00
                              Dale of permitfile review:       12/08/99
                            Date fill contraction started:       04101199
                                             Finished:             / /
                           Number of fill size revisions:
                            %Sandstonc in overburden:
           Type of Fill

            Size "fPill
              surface
         Configuration

            Elevations
               Slopes
              Control
           Subsurface
             Drainage
              Control
             Stability
             Analysis
         Software Used

         Safety Factor
          Engineering
            Properties
               (Spoil)

          Engineering
            Properties
          (Foundation)

       Phreatic Surface
                                       As constructed
                                                                                 Revision
                                                                                                                     Original design
Conventional
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (incy)
Flat
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
1050
8.0
1.9
Flat
2000
1710
17.0
Perimeter
Underdrain
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
.Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
125
30
200
122
31
37
Phreafic Surface
Appl. Phase
Certification

construction
Documents tian
nd Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No f ]
Underdrains Yes [ } No [ }
Surface Drains Yes { ] No [ ]

Grading and Revegeuition Yen [ ] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [ ] N o [ ]
AppLQuarterlj
Certification






Photography
Type







IfaDRF, did the photographs snow the rock blanket or core underdraw by gravity segregation?
Fo
indation data'
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Tits
Dip of strata relative to fill:



Tf active fill, wa
If spoil disposal site inactive
If s durable rock fill is under construction,




Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
s active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

Approximately 80% durablerock by volume?

|-fb lo above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
Yes [ ] No [XJ
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes I 1 No[ ]
Yes I ] No[ ]


Yes[ ] No[ 1


Yes[ J No[ ]
If the till is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-eompletion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?


Fill surface configuration:
Is the fili situated in landslide topography'!
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?

Number of benches on till:
Flat
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yesf 1 No[ ]

                                                                      VA-105
-------
            Location of
                 Cracks"
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location "f
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
                Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comment.
1101537
Fill* 5
                                          Location
                                                                                                     Length (fl)
                                                                                                                     Depth (in)
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                               (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                       Were (here springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                    Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [ J
                                   Did a failure occur on tiie fill?    Yes[  ]   No [xj
If so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of consfructioii during failure:
                                                                                                     Mass 1
                                                                                                                          Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                 Mass 3
                                             Cause of Movement
                                                         Bench #
                                                          Length (ft)
                                                           Width (ft)
                                                     Scarp Height (ft)
                                               Depth to Siip Plane  (ft)
                                               Transport.Distance (ft)
                                                 Rate, of Movement
                                        Extent of Failure Movement

                                        Mass 1
                                        Mass!
                                        Mass 3
                             ill #5 is a "zoned concept" fill. The "structural zone*' near the toe is compacted in 4-foot lifts andthc underdrain is wrapped infilter fabric The1'nonstructurainzone is typical of durabl
                             >ck fills  llollowfili #5 ivas added in. a revision approved 10/8/96  Someponditig and erosion on this freshly revegetated fill  The 1st and 2nd fill faces look rough in the aerial photos
                                                                                   VA-106
-------
            Virginia
Virginia Iron, Coal and Coke
   Boldcamp  Surface  Mine
Permit: 1101537
Fill:Fill# IB
Permit: 1101537           Fill: Fill# IB

             VA-107
-------
            Virginia
Virginia Iron, Coal and Coke
   Boldcamp  Surface  Mine

Permit: 1101537
Fill:Fill# IB

Permit: 1101537           Fill: Fill# IB

             VA-108
-------
            Virginia
Virginia Iron, Coal and Coke
   Boldcamp  Surface  Mine
Permit: 1101537
Fill:Fill# 5
 Permit: 1101537          Fill: Fill# 5

             VA-109
-------
BLANK PAGE
     VA-110
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
      WV-1
-------
BLANKPAGE
     WV-2
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
Company
Apogee (or Amherst)
Apogee
Appalachian Mining, Inc.
Appalachian Mining, Inc.
Battle Ridge Coal
Bluestone Coal Corp
Bradford Coal Co.
Bradford Coal Co.
Bradford Coal Co.
BUE.CO Resources
Cannelton, Inc.
Cannelton, Industries, Inc.
Caternary Coal Co.
Chafin Branch Coal Co.
Chafin Branch Coal Co.
Chafin Branch Coal Co.
Colony Bay
Costain Coal
Mine
Amlierst 3 A
Caitwright Valley Fill #3
No Mine Identifier
Alloy #1
Orgas No. 2
Poca 1 1
Brown Tract
Brown Tract
Brown Tract
East Cazy Surface Mine
Custer Hollow Surface Mine
Cannelton 9 S Surf ace Mine
Stanley Heritage Surface Mine
Harrys Branch Surface Mine
Rich Fork of Harrys Branch
Skillet Creek Surface Operations
No Mine Identifier
Pax No. 5

Cumberland River Coal
Cyprus Kanawha Corp
No Mine Identifier
Sycamoie South Mtn Top Job
Permit
S- 159-74
S-5069-92
S-6034-88
S-6009-88
S-5004-91
S-4021-88
102-77
102-77
102-77
S-5016-90
S-78-55
615-70C
S-3035-93
180-77
S-5015-86
S-5082-86
S-15-81
S-3023-91

S-5027-89
S-6020-89
Fill
#8
#3
#1
HF#1
Fill #1A
#2
#1
#2
#3
#2
#1
Fill #1
DRF#3
#1
#1
Fill #1
#5
#1
if?
112
Laurel Branch #1

Dal-Tex Coal Corp
Eastern Associated
Elkav Coal Co
Evergreen
Bumbo #2 Mine j S-5049-91
No Mine Identifier
Tower Mountain
No Mine Identifier
S-53-85
S-5023-93
S-35-76
Fill #5
#6
Fill # I
#1
     WV-3
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
Company
Evergreen Mining Co
Fola Coal Co.
High Powei Energy
High Power Energy
Hobet Mining, Jnc.
Independence Coal Co., Inc.
Mine
Knight-Ink #-1 Mine
No Mine Identifier
Twenty Mile Creek Mme #901
Twenty Mill Creek Mine #90
West Ridge
Twilight MTR Surface Miiie
James Coal Co. (River Ridge No. 1 Surface Mine
Coal)
Julianna Mining
1 K & B Coal Co. (after Lionel)
|| K & B Coal Co. (after Lionel)
Lone Star
Marrowbone Development
(Triad)
Mingo-Logan
I New Land Leasing Co., Inc.
Peerless Eagle Coal Co.
Pen Coal Corp.
Princess Beverly
Rawl Coal Sales & Processing
/""*_
v-u.
Rawl Coal Sales & Processing
Co.
Red River Coal
Suzanne Fuels, liic
Terry Eagle Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Camp Creek Surface Mine
Grace #3
Grace #3
Surf ace Mine No. 6
Dingess Tunnel Mine #1
Low Gap Branch Surface Mine
#2
Pax if2
Lilly Fork Surface Mme
Devilstrace Smface Mine
Carbon Fuel Tract
Sprouse Creek Surface Mine
Mary Taylor Mtn Project
RRC-Surface Mine No 2
Laurel Cieek#l Mine
Little Elk Mine #1
Hampton #47
Permit
S-2019-88
S-20 12-93
S-3026-90
S-51-85


S-5033-87
S-2002-94
S-3010-86
Fill
#5
B
S2-X
E

FMfifflgs§reei
#1
VF#1
IB
S-3010-86 1 #4
S-3016-92
S-5024-S8
S-4013-95
S-3039-91
S-3021-93
O-5015-89
27-81
S-5033-88
S-5011-87
S-5089-87
S-3011-90
S-3034-88
S-5050-89
#3
#2 .
#4
VF#6
VF#7
#2
#2
Calf's Branch #4
C
#5
#1
Fill #1
K
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
Company
White Flame (Mingo Logan
Coal)
Mine
Surface Mine #5
Permit
S-5066-92
Fill
Fill A
     wv-5
-------
BLANK PAGE
     WV-6
-------
   West Virginia
Apogee (or Amherst)
    Amherst 3A

  Permit:  S-l 59-74

      Fill: #8
       WV-7
-------
BLANK PAGE
     WV-8
-------
  Company: Apogee (orAniherst)
   Permit:  S-J 59-74
     State:  WV
   County:  Logan
  Latitude:  37-46-15
Longitude:  XI-42-30
             Fill:  #8
           Mine:  Arnherst3A
Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [  J   No [Xl
Had the till been reclaimed at the
time o/the air survey'?
        Date of survey:
Yes[X|   No[
 12/22/99
                             Date o/pennit file review:       10/13/99
                           Dale 1111 contraction started:       04/01/82
                                            Finished:       09/04/98
                           Number of til I size revisions:
                           %Sandstone in overburden:             89
            Type of Fill

             SheafFill
               Surface
          Configuration

             Elevations
                Slopes

       Surface Drainage
               Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
               Control
           Safety Factor


           Engineering
             Properties
                (Spoil)

           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
                                                                                                                         Type
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Flat
Cro\\n (ft)
Toe (A)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
Chimney
1100
Flat
2120
1850
10.0
27.0
Chimney core
Chimney Core

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (per)
Friction Angle (deg )
Cohesion(psf)

construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial survey
and Ground
Level Review*
Foundation Preparation Yes f ] No [X] 82/2
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [X] 9312
Surface Drains Yes [1 No ixi 96/2
(Jrading and Revcgetation Yes [ ] No [X] 9711
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [XJ 98/2
Color
Color
Color
Color
Color

If a DRF, did the photographs show the rack blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ J
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
WSre NOV's written on ths fill? Yes [ ]
Surface drainage control working protrerly? Yes [ ]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ]
If active fill, -was active spoil disposal determined to he on-going? Yes [ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rock till is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on fill:
No [ ]
None
No[ ]
No[ ]
Nof ]
No I ]
No[ ]
No[ 1
Same
Flat
No [ ]
No [ ]
10
                                                                       wv-9
-------
                                            Location
                                                                                                           Length (ft)
                                                                                                                                  Width (ft)
                                                                                                                           Depth (in)
             Locatipn "f
                  Cracks
             Location "f
             Depressions
             Location of
           Erosion Arras
             Location of
          Ground Bulges
             Location of
           Springs/Seeps
             Location of
                Changes
              Movement
          Characteristics
              Comments
S-159-74
its
                                                      Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Vcs [I   No [  I
                                                                                                                     (Potential Water Dcptn)
                                                  Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]    No  [  J
                                                                                                                     (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                         Were there bulges or huinmocky terrain?    Yes [  ]    No [  ]
           Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes f  ]   No [  J
       Describe location of seep
       1
       2
       3
       4
                                      Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                    Did a failure occur on the fill?     Yes [
f so. enter the source of information on the failure:
             Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                           J   No[
                                                                                                           Mass 1
                                                                                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                          Mass 3
                                               Cause of Movement
                                                            Bench #
                                                             Length
                                                              Width
                                                        Scaip Height
                                                 Depth to Siip Plane
                                                  Transport Distance
                                                   Rate of Movement
                                         Extent of Failure Movement
                                         Mass 1
                                         Mass 2
                                         Mass 3
                                                                                                    (ft)
                                                                                                    (ft)
                                                                                                    (ft)
                                                                                                    (ft)
ji undated modification request includes a diagram of chimney-drain design. A 12/O/94 map shows a groined rip rap or fabivforrn at toe that crosses a minor existing road The
'irnitfilc includes both a rock-durability and soil-substitute study of the predominant sandstone (both dated 1981). Rock durability is justified by high SOI values  Soil substitution is
sect on favorable chemical characteristics The same samples seem to be used in both reports- The soil-substitute report indicates the author's  preference that the spoil be crushed prii
application. But the certification photographs indicate rapid natural breakdown of the dumped spoil; i.e. crushing may not have been necessary. A stability analysis was not found. I
ck-durability report presented friction-angle and cohesion values and these might reflect that an analysis was in fact done. There seemed lo be lots of fill-related NOVs for this peuni
ost of them do not specify which fill. Did not find 2 specific reference to fill 8, except in a couple of inspection reports (11/IO/9S and 4/2/99) referencing the "reclamation" of the fill
21/79 inspection report mentions a slide on fill 6. The helicopter pholos show K steep and shallow Fill S, There were small dark areas On the snow-dusted surface, potentially indicath
' seeps and/or uncontrolled surface drainage. These are not curtain enough to warrant tabulation.
                                                                                         WV-10
-------
       West  Virginia
   Apogee (or  Amherst)
        Amherst 3A
Permit: S-159-74
Fill: # 8
         x .
                                   I
Permit: S-159-74          Fill: # 8

            WV-11
-------
       West  Virginia
   Apogee (or  Amherst)
        Amherst 3A
Permit: S-159-74
Fill: # 8
Permit: S-159-74          Fill: #

            WV-12
-------
     West Virginia
        Apogee
Cartwright Valley Fill #3

   Permit: S-5069-92

        Fill: #3
         WV-13
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-14
-------
      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    construction
  Docu m en tation
and Certifications
Durable Rock
2860
154.0
23.9
Flat
2200
1340
7.0
19,0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.5
1.2
136
37
0
121
37
0
None
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation {%)
Fill Face Meg.)



static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

Durable Rock
2860
154.0
239
Flat
2200
1340
7.0
19.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAMS
1.5
1.2
136
37
0
121
37
0
None
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
Appl.Quarferly
 certification
Photography
    Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading andRevegetation
Final Certification
Yes [X] No [
Yes [X] No [
Yes [X] No [
Yes [X] No [
Yes [X] No [
] 94/1
] 9813
J 9612
] 99/3
] 99/2
If a DRI% did the photographs show the roclc blanket or core underdraitt by gravity segregation?


Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to filli






Were NOV's written on the fiiii
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active till, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?

Tf spoil disposal
site inactive, how lung was disposal operation idle (months)?





Yes [X]

Copies
Copies
Copies
Copies
Copies
No{ ]
Pits
Toward Fill
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]
Yes [ ]

No[ 1
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[X]

If a durable rock fill i s under construction,






Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain forming?
Ycs[ ]

Yes[ ]
No[ ]

No[ ]
Ifthe fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill i s significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?








EDI surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill

Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]

Flat
No[ ]
No[ ]
16
                                                                     WV-15
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                    Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                  Depth (in)
             Location "f
                 Cracks
            Location 0 f
            Depressions
             Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
             comments
S-5Q69-S2
93
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  }
                                                                                                            (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  1  No I 1
                                       Were there springsor seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   Nu [  1
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [ ]   No [
Ff so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                       Mass I
                                                         Bench*
                                                         Length  (ft)
                                                          Width  (ft)
                                                    Scarp Height  (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                                                                        Mass I
                                            Cause of Movement
                                                                   Mass I
                                                                   Mass 1
                                                                   Mass 3
                                                                                                             (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                              Mass 3
                            o Coal Mined on permit. Only structure on site was spoil disposal for adjoining permits   Chilton seam was U/G mined in vicinity of fill but does not appear to be under the fill are;
                            late NOY issued for downstream flooding butstorm event believed to be greater that 10yr/24hr event

                            wo fills have been merged into one fill at bench #3
                                                                                  WV-16
-------
       West Virginia
           Apogee
Cartwright Valley Fill #3
Permit: S-5069-92
Fill: #3
Permit: S-5069-92         Fill: #3

            WV-17
-------
       West Virginia
           Apogee
Cartwright Valley Fill #3
Permit: S-5069-92
Fill: #3
Permit: S-5069-92

            WV-18
Fill: #
-------
     West Virginia
Appalachian Mining, Inc.
   No Mine Identifier

   Permit:  S-6034-88

        Fill: #1
         WV-19
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-20
-------
       Elevations
          Slopes

SurfaceDrainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineermg
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phrcatic Surface
Chimney
4400
5.6
Bat
1175
975
2.7
27.0
Chimney Core
Chimney Core

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

crows (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)


Chimney
4600
Flat
1250
975
2.7
27.0
Chimney Core
Chimney core
RE 	



Statit
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
132
35
I
91
30
1
None
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [XJ
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [X] 9313 None
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X] 9313 None
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X]
Final Certification Yes [X] No [ ] 6/94

[
                                                                    WV-21
-------
                                           Location
                                                                                                         Length (ft)
                                                                                                 Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                  Cracks"
             Location of
             Depressions
             Location of
           T-   '     I     *
           Erosion Areas
             Location of
          Ground Bulges
             Location of
             Location of
                         ^
                Changer
             Movement
         Characteristics
              Comments
S-6034-86
#1
                                                     Were there depressions oil the fill benches'!    Yes [  ]   No [
                                                                                                                  (Potential Water Depth)
                                                 Were there areas of erosion on the Gil benches?    Yes [X]   No {  ]
                                                                                                                   (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                        Were there bulges or lmmmod
-------
       West Virginia
Appalachian Mining,  Inc,
    No Mine Identifier
Permit: S-6034-88
Fill: # 1



Permit: S-6034-88         Fill: # 1

            WV-23
-------
           West  Virginia
     Appalachian Mining, Inc.
        No Mine Identifier
    Permit: S-6034-88
                            Fill: # 1
                                                 1
f
m
    Permit: S-6034-88

                WV-24
                            Fill: # 1
-------
      West Virginia
Appalachian Mining, Inc.
        Alloy #1

   Permit:  S-6009-88

       Fill:  HF#1
         WV-25
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-26
-------
                                                                          LZ-AM
                                  :[[ij uo ssipusq jo jsqiuni^
[X] °N   [  ] S3 A
[X] °N   [  ] S3 A
   ] °N  [  ] S3A


   ] °N  [  1 S3A
   1 °K
                                           jo aoE} j(§ aqj no pSAresqo s^piao puncu3 sasip 3J3jVL
                                                 ippuij tit papiujs ][tj oq) sj
                                          UOlJEJTlSyUOO SSEJJUS JJTj
                                          yopsdsm jo uopliouinaop aqj oj impjOME UOSESI aqi si }«q.« 'sipius i|jireDgraire s; j[g
                                          ^IIOISIASJ UOt]3(dlUO>3jd )S3IE[ 3IJJ Ut 3ZIS 3l[} IJJIM SZIS OTp 34BdU103 'pS)8(da[O3 SI [JIJ 3q)JI
                                                                                                         uo? j^pun si ijrj ?|30
                                       UDJ UjEJp 9JO3 IO J

                                       3343d 3JEU111S3 'SAO^e 0| OU J
                                        puoui) gjpi aojiejsdo |ESodssp SBM §ao| MOIJ *3Atpeui SKS psodsip jiodsjj
                                        8-uo sqoipauiuusjsp (Esodsip jiods
                                        dojd 3u:^jOA\ pjjuoa ofKmgjp Mejin
                 I  i«N   IXJ
                     °N   [  ] S3 A    iu
                                         i no usJiiiM s,AOM a»M
                  3U°N
                                                                                EJ|S JO dTQ
                                                              r/66
                                                                                       [X]ON

                                                                                       [X]ON
      SO'O-d
                                                                                   (pd) )i(3
                                                                                                                                          (uopepunoj)
      0
      8£
      6CI
                                                                     (jsd) aoisaqog
                                                                     sjf uy uotpiKj
                                                                  (jsd) jqipift 4ian
      2,' I
                                                                                             3I1EJS
                                                      3103 Xsuuin{
      0'8I
      OX
      096
      08H
                                     O'S
                                     0"9
                                     068
                                     0001
                                                                                    O'i
                                                                                           ft)) 3°i
      6'E
      t'S
      0061
                    u3;sap |Bui3u
                                                     OKI
                                                                                         to) i
88/10/0 1
66/ZI/80
                                                                                                   JIB 3lp JO
                :suoisiA3j azis |iy jo j
                :P34s!u!d
                :p3]JEJS UOJ13MJU03
         66/OZ/Cl
I ]OM   1x1 saA

         66/9Z/W
I ] °N   [X] S9A    il8A3l punojl p paiisiA ipj sup i
                                                                                                                           00-£!-l8
                                                                                                                           ££-60-»£
                                                                                                                          88-6009-S
-------
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
                        *
          Erosion Arras
            Location Of
         C round Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-6009-88
HF#1
                                         Location
                                                                                                    Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                  Depth (in)
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   Nofx]
                                                                                                            (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [X ]
                                                                                                             (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No[x]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes f  ]   No [
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction duringfailurc:
                                                                                             Yes[ 1   No[x]
                                                                                                   Mass 1
                                                                                                                        Mass 2
                                                                                                                                              Mass 3
                                            Cause of Movement
                                                        Bench #
                                                         Length  !"!
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Tlane (ft)
                                              Transport Distance (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent ofFailure Movement
                                      Mass!
                                      Mass 1
                                      Mass 3
2ria! photos show adjacent backfill area with an old failure surface and lots of erosion yn it

;vision #08, approved 10/19/94, completely changed the £11! configuration, size, volume, and location Material volume was significantly reduced If was changed from a durable rod
I to a conventional fill with rock chimney core

II face slope measurements in field  15% from toe to first bench, 10% frcm first bench to fop of 611
                                                                                  WV-28
-------
        West Virginia
 Appalachian Mining,  Inc.
           Alloy #1
Permit: S-6009-88
Fill: HF# 1
Permit: S-6009-88

             WV-29
Fill: HF# 1
-------
        West Virginia
 Appalachian Mining,  Inc.
           Alloy #1
Permit: S-6009-88
Fill: HF# 1
Permit: S-6009-88         Fill: HF# 1

             WV-30
-------
  West Virginia
 Battle Ridge Coal
   Orgas No. 2

Permit: S-5004-91

  Fill:  Fill #1A
     WV-31
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-32
-------
                                      As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                            Original design
      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
          Control
         Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
Concave
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Durable Rock
2070

1550
1015
8.0
15,0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME
Durable Rock
3300
166.7
21.4
Flat
1450
1000
8.0
15.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
SB Slope

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angk.
Cohesion (psi)
1.9
1.6
135
36
200
1.7
1.3
135
36
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psi)

P-0.05
None
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                           Appl.Quarterly
                                                            certification
      Foundation Preparation      Yes [  ]   No [  j
                 Underdrains     Yes [X]   No [  ]
               Surface Drains    Yes [X]   No [  ]
    Gtading and Revegefafion     Yes [  ]   No [  j
           Fiua!  Certification     Yes [  ]   No [  1
91/3
9212
                                   Photography
                                      Type
Copies
Copies
                                      If a DRF., did the photographs show the rack blanket or core- unde-rdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                            Foundation data:                                                Pits
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill;
                                                                                               Were NOV's written-on the fill?  Y« [X]   No [  ]
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [X]   No [ ]
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]   "No | ]
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [  }   No [X]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

Fa durable rock till is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume'?  Yes f  ]   No [ ]
                                                                       Tf no to above, estimate percentage.
                                                                Discernible blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [  J   No [ ]

               if flic fill is completed, compare the size with the ske in the latest pre-completion revision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the doeumentafion or inspector?
                                                                         Fill surface configuration:                  Concave
                                                                lithe fill situated in landslide topography?     Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                               Were, there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                                                               Number of benches on fill;                12
                                                                        WV-33
-------
Location
                                                  Lcnath (frt
                                                                    Width (ft)
                                                                                      Dcnth (m\
Location of
Cracks


Location of
Depressions




Location of
Erosion Areas


Location of
Ground Bulges




Location of
Springs/Seeps




Location of
Changes'





Movement
Characteristics














Comments
S- 5004-91

2
3
Were there depressions on the fiil benches? Ye5 [ I No [ I (Potential Water Depth)

2
3
4
5
Were there wear of erosion on the fin benches? Yes [ ] No [ J (Maximum Gully Depth)

2
5
Werc there bulges or hummocky terrain? Yes [ } Nu [ ]
1
2
3
4
5
Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas? Yes [ ] No [ J
1
2
3
4
5
Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till? Yes f ] No [ ]
t
2
3
4
5
6
Did a failure occur on the fill? Yes[ ] No [ ]
fro, enter the souree of information on the failure:
Stage of construction during failure:
Mass 1 Mars 2 Mass 3
Bends #
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
Scarp Height (ft)
Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
Transport Distance (A)
Rate of Movement
Extent of Failure Movement
cause of Movement Mass i
Mass 1
Mass 3
oal seams #5 Block, Original fill #1 was modified to two separate fills in August 97, Some ponding on benches # 6,7,8 and 9 near center of fill. Two fills separated by a ridge mad
,1A Smaller fil is flal


                                   WV-34
-------
         West  Virginia
       Battle Ridge Coal
          Orgas No.  2
Permit: S-5004-91
Fill: Fill# 1A
Permit: S-5004-91          Fill: Fill# 1A

              WV-35
-------
         West Virginia
       Battle Ridge Coal
          Orgas No. 2
Permit: S-5004-91
Fill: Fill# 1A
             WV-36
-------
   West Virginia
Bluestone Coal Corp.
      Poca 11

 Permit: S-4021-88

 Fill: #2  (No Photo)
      wv-37
-------
BLANKPAGE
  WV-38
-------
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreaiic Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Chimney
390 Length (ft)
1.6 Area (acres)
Volume (mey)
Concave
2450 Crown (ft)
2355 toe (ft)
8.0 Toe I-'oundatioii (%)
22 0 Fill Face (deg.)
Chimney Core
Chimney
390
1.6
Flat
2450
2355
8.0
22.0
Chimney Core
Chimuev Core Chimney Core


Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Ura't Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

Certification Certification
Foundation Preparation Yes [x] No [ ] 9214
Underdraws Yes [ ] No [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [X] "No [ ] 96/2
Grading and Rcvegetation Yes f ] No [X] 97/t
Final Certification Yes [ ] No! ]
Type
None
None
None
None
If a DRI-\ did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ ] No [X]
Foundation data: None
Dip of strata relative to till Left Flank High Toward Fill
Were NOVs written on the till? Yes [X] No [ ]
Surface drainage control working property?
Subsurface drainage control 'working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to bo on-going'?
If spoil disposal site inactive, haw long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
Tf no lo above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the till is significantly smaller, what is the reason accordingto the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography'!
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Yes[ ] No[ 1
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes[] No[ ]
Yes[ 1 Nof 1
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes[ ] Nof ]
WV-39
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                               Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location "f ,
            Depressions
            Locution "f ,
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-4021-88
#2
                                                Were there depressions on the till benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  j
                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of crosionon the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs ot seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  I  No [  ]
      Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  J   No [  ]

      1
      2
      3
      4
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?     Yes [  J   No [  ]
: so. enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                     Mass 1
                                                      Bench #
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                       Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                            Transport Distance (ft)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement

               Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
                             l seams Pocahontas #11. Pocahonfas # ] 2, No design found i n permit, All engnieedng properties were left blank on form; State NOVs issued for lifts greater than 4 feet
                                                                                WV-40
-------
  West Virginia
Bradford Coal Co.
   Brown Tract

 Permit:  102-77

      Fill: #1  (No Photo)
      Fill: #2
      Fill: #3
     WV-41
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-42
-------
                                                                             EP-AM
                I  JON
                MOM
                 I ]°N
                 I  ]ON
                 I  ION
                 i  ION
I ]«N   [
                  :j[[; uo soijousq 10 jaquin^

                  (-.ssipuaq jo 33EJ |iy sqj uo pSAjasqo S3JOBJ3 punoiS 3.1341 3J3^\

                   (.XqdcjSodoi 3p;|Spue[ u; pajenirs [jg aifi sj
                         ruoiiejnSyuos SJEIJIIS |[ij

                          ,;jo|33dsn; jo noiieiioiDTOOp sq) 01 Suipjooso UOSBM aqi si iBq,« 'jspuis AfjuraijraSis si \\n 3m JI

                         ^IIOISIASJ UOI13ldui03-3jd )S3]E| 3l|J UI 3ZIS 3Ip IJJIM 3ZK 3l() 3JBdlUO3 'p3)3|dlIIOD SI [|IJ 3q) JJ

                         j uiBjp aioa jo I35jira|q sjquuisMici

                             3jei0iJS9 'gAoqe 01 ou ij

                             ^aoa 3|qBjnp %og ,{p4euiixoiddv

                                                                                   'iiiiii,inj|Mi(j,> japan si ||ij ?|30J ,i|(|i:jnp B j

                            l) SJl^l uOI4BJ3do pSOdSlp SB-VlSuO[ AVOIJ '3AIPBUI 3|(S [BSOdSIp (tods IJ
                          ad Sui)(aOi« pjiuo
                                    illLJ
                                                                     :iijl?p uoijepuuoj

                                                 X)JA«48 ^q urejpjspun MOO jo I3^nc[q >p) soBd IIM   o'sr
                                                                                    (%) uoitEpunoj sex   Q 6
  ftl)Ml   00^1
(U)U.«OJ3   jcji
                                                                                                                                                (Uiiiltipiinnj)
                                                                                                                                                sal)J3dojj
                                                                                                                               (liodg)
                                                                                                                                                paSQ 3JBAMJOS
                                                                                                                                                          uo >

i'£
OPE

L Z
OK
(Abui) sumpA
(SSJDE) Esjy f£
(y) mSusq 01,9
                              ui

                 :suoisiA3j szis

08/Or/SO        :p3MS!ui.j
                                                           F  low   f
                                          [X] ON   [  ] SOA    l\3M\
                                                                                         i[i( siip SH«
                                                                                                                                                  8$-££-l8   :apnji3no
                                                        suoog   :ijuno3
                                                          AM   :3}B)S

                                                       /./.-EOT   U
                                                                                                                                         -03
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                    Length (ft)
                                                                                Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Cracks
             Location of
             Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location 0 f
          Springs/Scops
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
102-77
«M
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  I   No I  I
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes \  ]   No [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?      Yes [  ]  No [
                                   I
                                                              Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes[ ]   No [  ]
                            f so. enter the source of information on the failure:
Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                   Mass i
                                                                                                                        Mars 2
                                                                                    Bench #
                                                                                     Length  (ft)
                                                                                      Width  (ft)
                                                                                Scarp Height  (it)
                                                                          Depth to Slip Plane  (flj
                                                                          Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                                           Rate of Movement
                                                                   Extent of Failure Movement
                                            Cause of Movement     Mass i
                                                                   Mass!
                                                                   Mass 3
                                                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                                (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                              Mass 3
                            jal seam #5 Block, Ho design criteria found ill permit Permit issued in 1977 during interim program  One revision to permit to chance from 4 foot lift tc 50 foot lifts
                            "swer five tiffs were pre-law and likely liave no OSM jurisdiction

                            3 photography available
                                                                                  WV-44
-------
Company: Bradford Coal Co.
Permit: 102-77
State: WV
County: Boone
Latitude: 38-06-40
Longitude: 81-35-58

Fill: #2
Mine: Brown Tract
Was this fill visited at ground level? Yes [ ] No [X]

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey? Yes [X] No [ ]
Date of survey: 12/21/99
Date of permit file review:
Dale Jill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

10119199
/ /
09/01/89

84

                               As constructed
                                                                         Revision
                                                                                                              Original design
Type of Fill
She of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slope*
Control
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Chimney
1585
26.7
Flat
1410
1010
6.0
23 0
Chimney core

Other

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face fdou.)



Chimney
1585
26.7

1410
1010
6.0
23.0
Chimney Core
Chimney Core
Other
Chimney
1585
26.7
Hat
1410
1010
6.0
22,0
Chimney core
Chimney Core
Other
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pd)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (pst)
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading andRevegetation
Final Certification
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ;
Yes fX]
Yes[ ]
Yesf ]
No [ j
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[X]
No[ j


8012
89/12

If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core undcrdrain by gravity segregation?



Foundation data:





Ycs[

Dip of strata relative to fill: Righl Flank High









Were NOV's written or. ths fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active till, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
None

None
None
None
] No[
11U1





]
C
Toward Fill
YSS[ ] No PC]
Yes[
Yes[
Yes[
] N°[
] N°[
j Nof
]
j
}
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durablerock fill is under construction,









If the fill is completed, compare the size
ff the fillis significantly smaller,




Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceraable blanket or core drain forming?
with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
Yes [

Yes[

] No[

1 No I

1

1

what is the reason according lo (he documentation or inspector?


Fill surface configuration:
Is the fillsituated in landslide topography'?
Were there ground cracks observed on the till face or benches?



Number of benches on fill:

Yes[
Yes[


] No[
] Nof


]
]

                                                              WV-45
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
1Q2-77
#2
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes  [  ]   No [  J
                                                    Wcrc there bulges or hummocky terrain'.'   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                      Were (here springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes  [  ]   No [  ]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?   Yes [  1  No [  j
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [   1   No[  ]
f so, enter the source of information on tlic failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                  Mass I
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                   Bench if
                                                                                    Length  (ft)
                                                                                     Width  (ft)
                                                                               Seatp Height  (ft)
                                                                         Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                          Transport Distance  (ft]
                                                                           Rate of Movement
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement

                                           Cause of Movement     Massl
                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                  Mass 3
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                            oal seam  #5 Block No design criteria found in permit  Permit issued m j 977 during interim program One revision to permit 10 change from 4 foot lift to 50 toot lifts

                            me tree established on V* of fill face  Volunteer trees on otlicr Vi of ill! (Look at on the ground)
                                                                                 WV-46
-------
Company: Bradford Coal Co, Fill: #3 Date of permit file review: 10/19/99
Permit: 102-7? Mine: Brown Tract Dale fill contruction started: //
State: WV Was this fill visited at ground level? Yes [ J No [X] Finished: 09/01/89
County: Boonc Number of fil! size revisions:
Latitude: 38-06-40 Had the fill been reclaimed at the %Sandstone in overburden: g4
Longitude: 81-35-58 time of the air survey? Yes[XJ No [ ]
Dale of survey: 12/20/99
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
As constructed Revision Original design
Chimney Chimney Chimney
1220 Length (ft) 1220 1220
22.4 Area (acres) 22.4 22.4
Volume (mcy)
Fiat Flat

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Fhreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
1420
1020
14.0
23.0
Chimney Core

Other
Crown (ft) 142°
Toe (ft) 1020
Toe Foundation (%) 14.Q
Fill Face (deg.) 23.0
Chimney Core
Chimney Core
Other
1420
1020
14.0
23.0
Chimney Core
Chimney Core
Other
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

                                                     AppL Phase
                                                     Certification
A ppl,Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
  Foundation Preparation    Yes [ ]   No [ ]
            Undsrclrains    Yes [ ]  ' No [ ]
          Surface Drains   YesfX]   No [ ]
Grading and Revegetatiou    Yes [ ]   No [X]
       Final Certification    Yes I ]   No [ ]
          go/2
         89/12
         None
         None
         None
         None
         None
                                     If a DRF» did tb.e photographs show the rock blanket or core uaderdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [
                                                                          Foundation data;
                                                                 Dip of strata relative to fill;                        Right Flank High
                                                                                            Were NOV's written on the till?  Yes  [
                                                  Toward Fill
                                                  ]   No[X]




If a durable rock fill



Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
Tf active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
is under construction*
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If tio to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
YeS[ J
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]


Yes[ ]

Y«[ J
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]


No[ ]

No[ 3
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-cdmpletion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration;
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:

Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]


No[ ]
No[ ]

                                                                      WV-47
-------
102-77
#3
             Location Of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depression^
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location uf
         Ground Bulges
             Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
                Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
              Comments
                                          Location
                                                                                                     Length (ft)            Width (ft)
                                                                                                                     Depth (in)
                                                   Were there depressions on the fill benches!     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                              (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                               (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [ j   No [  ]
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes f ]   No [  ]
                                    Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observedon fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?
I so, enter the source of information on the failure:
             Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                              Yesf  ]   No{  ]
                                                                                                     Massl
                                                                                                                          Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                 Mass 3
                                             Cause of Movement
                                                          Bench #
                                                          Lenglii  (ft)
                                                           Width  (ft)
                                                     Scarp Height  (ft)
                                               Depth to Si i p Pi ane  (ft)
                                               Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                Rstc of Moverp.ent
                                        lixtent of Failure Movement

                                        Mass 1
                                        Mass 2
                                        Mass 3
                            *oai seam: $5 Block, No design criteria found in permit Permit issued in [977 during interim program; One revision to permit to change from 4 foot lift to 50 foot lifts Slate NOVs
                            ssued for failing to construct in four foot iifls. State NOV issued for contamination of rock core with fine material.

                            'ili has pine trees established on approximately 1/3 of the face.  (Field visit should be done to examine surface erosion and seeps)
                                                                                    WV-48
-------
       West Virginia
    Bradford Coal Co,
       Brown Tract

Permit: 102-77
Fill: #2
Permit: 102-77
Fill: #3
           WV-49
-------
       West Virginia
    Bradford Coal Co.
       Brown Tract
Permit: 102-77
Fill: #3
Permit: 102-77
Fill: #3
           WV-50
-------
    West Virginia
  BURCO Resources
East Cazy Surface Mine

  Permit: S-5016-90

        Fill: #2
         WV-51
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-52
-------
  Company: BURCO  Resources
    Permit:  S-5016-90
      State:  WV
   County:  Boone
  Latitude:  37-55-25
Longitude:  81-42-40
                                  Fill:  «2
                                Mine:  East Cazy Surface Mine
                     Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [  }   No [X]
                     Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                     time of the air survey?
                             Date of survey:
Yes [  ]    No [X]
 12/21/99
                                Date of permit file review:       10/07/99
                              Date fill contraction started:       01/01/91
                                                Finished:             / /
                             Number of fill size revisions:
                              %Sandstone in overburden:              79
                                            As constructed
                                                                                        Revision
                                                                                                                              Original design
             Type of Fill
              Size of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control

                Stability
                Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor


            Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phreatic Surface
            Construction
          Documentation
        and Certifications
           Aerial Survey
           and Ground
           Level Review
                                                                                                                                              Durable Rock
                                    Length (ft)
                                    Area (acres)
                                    Volume (mey)
                                                               4800
                                                               113.0
                                                               40.7
                          Concave
                                                                                                                           Fiat
Crown (it)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
Center Drain
1780
1170
7.0
23.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
1.3
140
36
0
135
36
200
                                                                                                                                            Phreatic Surface
                                                            AppL Phase
                                                            Certification
                                                         Appl. Quarterly
                                                           Certification
                                         Photography
                                             Type
       Foundation Preparation    Yes [xj  No [  J
                 Underdraws    Yes [X]  No [  ]
               Surface Drains   Yes [X]  No [  ]
     Grading and Revegetarion    Yes [  ]  No [  ]
            Final Certification    Yes [  1  No [  1
        91/2
        91/2
        98/4
Copies
Copies
Copies
                                            If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core widerdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [X]   No [  ]


                                                                        Dip of strata relative to fill:                                       Toward Fill
                                                                                                  WereNOV's written on the fill?  Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                              Surface drainage control working properly?
                                                           Subsurface drainage contra* working properly?
                                           If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                            Approximately 80% dorable rock by volume?
                                                                     If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                              Discernable blanket or core drain forming?

                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-complctkm revision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                       Fill surface configuration:
                                                              Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
                                              Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
                                                                            Number of benches on fill:
                                                                                                                               Yes [X]
                                                                                                                               Yes[ ]
                                                                                                                               Yes [X]
                                         Yes[

                                         Yes[
                                                                                                                                Yes[
                                                                                                                                Yes f
                                                  No[
                                                  No[
                                                  No[
 No[ 1

 No[ j
                                                                            WV-53
-------
                                         Location
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location Of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-5QI6-90
#2
                                                                                                   Length (ft)
                                                                                            Width (ft)
Depth (in)
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                           (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the till benches?    Yes [  ]  No [
                                                                                                            (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or humtnocky terrain?    Yes f  ]   No f  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   Nu [  ]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                  Didafailureoccuroiithefill?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
If so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                       Mass 1
                                                        Bench ff
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rats of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                Cause of Movement    Mass I
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                       Muss 2
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                            •earns mined $5 Block, Upper Stockton, Lower Stockton, Coalburg, Middle Stockton, Cedar Grove seam wasU/G mined on this permit, Wing dumping proposed as the construction
                            lethod,

                            ower seven benches reclaimed upper three benches under construction Appears to be wing dumping on right flank of fill
                                                                                 WV-54
-------
       West Virginia
    BURCO  Resources
 East Cazy Surface Mine
Permit: S-5016-90
Fill: #2
Permit: S-5016-90         Fill: #2

            WV-55
-------
       West Virginia
    BURCO  Resources
 East Cazy Surface Mine
 '
Permit: S-5016-90
Fill: #2

Permit: S-5016-90         Fill: #2

            WV-56
-------
      West Virginia
      Cannelton, Inc.
Custer Hollow Surface Mine

      Permit:  S-78-55

         Fill: #1
           wv-57
-------
BLANK PAGE
   wv-58
-------
Company: Cannelton, Inc.
Permit: S-78-85
state: WV
County: Kanawha
Latitude: 38-11-58
Longitude: 81-22-14

Fill: #1
Mine: Custer Hollow

Surface Mine
Was Ibis fill visited af ground level? Yes [ ] No [Xl

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time, of the air survey?
Date of survey:

Yes[ ] No[ ]
12/31/99
Date of permit tile review
Date fillcontruetion started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

i 0/19/99
04/01/88
10/13/90

52

      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
                                    AS constructed
                                                                                 Revision
                                                                                                                        Original design
Durable Rock
2400
22.1

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Durable Rock
2400
22.1
Concave
975
760
9 0
160
Ce.nter Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.7
120
37
0
95
34
200
None
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Anglo
Cohesion (psf)
unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

975
760
9.0
16.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.7
120
37
0
95
34
200
None
Appl. Phase
Certification

Construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial survey
and Ground
Level Review







FoundationFreparation Yes [ J No [XJ
Underdrams Yes! ] No fXl
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X]

Grading and Revegetafioa Yes [ ] No [Xj
Final Certification Yes! 1 No [X]
AppLQuarterly
Certification






Photography
Type
None
None
None

None
None

If a DRP, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?

Foundation data:
Yes [ J NofXJ
TSvt Holes
Dip of strata relative to fill: Right FJarik High Away from Fill



if active fill,
Were NOV's -written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage, control working properly?
was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going'!
Yes [X] NO [ ]
Yes[ ] Nu[ ]
Ycs[ ] No[ 1
Yes[ ] No[ j
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rock fill is underconstruction,




Approximately §0% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disccmable blanket or tore drain forming?

Yes[ 1 No[ 1

Ycs[ 1 No[ 1
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pie-completion revision?
If the Ell is significantly smaller, what i s the reason


according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide, topography?
Were there grou nd cracks observed on the fill face or benches?

Number of benches on fill:


Yes[ ] No[ J
Yes[ ] No[ ]

                                                                     WV-59
-------
                                      Location
                                                                                            Length (ft)          Width (ft)
Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
           Location "f
           Depressions
           Location of
         Erosion Areas
           Location of
         Ground Bulges
           Location 0 f
          Springs/Seeps
           Location of
              Changes
            Movement
        Characteristics
            Comments
S-78-85
*1
I
2
3
Were there depressions on the fill benches? Yes [ 1 No [ ]
I
2
4
5
Were there areas of erosion on the till benches? Yes [ ] No [ ]
1
"\
3
4
5
(Potential Water Depth)
(Maximum Gully Depth)
Were there bulges or hummocky terrain? Yes [ J No [ 1
2
3
4
5
Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas? Yes [ ] No [ ]
1
-)
3
4
5
Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till? Yes [ ] No [ \
I
2
3
4
5
6
Did a failure occur on the fill? Ycs[ ] No [ ]
S so, enter the source of information on the failure:
Stage of construction during failure:
Mass 1
Bench #
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
Scarp Height (ft)
Depth to Slip rhme (ft)
Transport Distance (ft)
Kate of Movement
Extent of Failure Movement
Cause of Movement Mass 1
Mass 2
Mass 3
oa] seams: Upper Wioifrcdc Lower Winifred, Coalbuig, Stockton, Clarion, £5 Block; L7G miningoccurred under |
ilh fines;
Mass 2 Mass 3
art of fill site, State NOV issued far contamination of rock core
                                                                            WV-60
-------
        West Virginia
       Cannelton, Inc.
Custer Hollow Surface Mine
  Permit: S-78-85
Fill: #1
 Permit: S-78-85

             WV-61
Fill: #1
-------
BLANK  PAGE
      WV-62
-------
      West Virginia
 Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Cannelton 9S Surface Mine

     Permit:  615-70C

       Fill: Fill#l
          WV-63
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-64
-------
Company: Cannelton Industries, Inc. Fill; Fill#l
Permit:
State:
County:
Latitude:
3ngitude:

615-70C
wv
Fayette
38-13-01
81-17-26

Mine: Cannelton 9S Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:
Yes[ ] No[X]


Yes [X] No [ ]
12/20/99
Date of permit file review; 10/06/99
Date fill contraction started: 06/01/78
Finished: 11/01/88
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden: 55


       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documcn tation
and Certifications
                                     As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                            Original design
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
Concave
1300
33.1
Concave
1300
33.1
Concave
1350
1000
14.0
24.0
Perimeter Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
SB Slope
1,5
1.2
110
38
0



Phreatic Surface
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

1350
1000
14.0
24.0
Perimeter Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
SB Slope
1.5
1.2
110
38
0



Phreatie Surface
1350
1000
14.0
24.0
Perimeter Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
Stabil
1.5

110
38
0



None
   Aerial Survey
   and Ci round
   Level Review
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                            Appl. Qua rterly
                                                             Certification
Photography
    Type
Foundation Preparation
Uaderdrains
Surface Drains
Grading aid Revegetaliott
Final Certification
Ycs[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]
Yes [X]
No[ ]
No [XI
No[ ]
No[X]
No I ]

87/4
91/4
99/3
91/4





None
None
None
None
None

if a DRF? did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?



Foundation data:
YC3[ ]

No(X)
None
Dip of strata relative to fill :











if active fill.
Were NOV's written on ft a fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Y«s [XI
Yes [X]
Yes[ 1
Yes{ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[X]
                                 If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under construction.
                                                               Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                        Tf no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                 Disceniable blanket or core drain forming?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                Tf the fill is completed, compare the size with the sixe IB the latest pre-corapletion revision?
           If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or Inspector?
                                                                         Fill surface configuration:
                                                                Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [ ]   Ho I ]
                                                Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [ J   No [ ]
                                                                                Number of benches on fill:                4
                                                                        WV-65
-------
615-70C
Fill *1
            Location ©f
                 Cracks
            Location 0 f
            Dcu regions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location ef
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
                                         Location
                                                                                                     Length (ft)
                                                                                              Width 
-------
        West  Virginia
 Cannelton Industries, Inc.
 Cannelton 9S  Surface Mine
Permit: 615-70C
Fill: Fill #1
Permit: 615-70C          Fill: Fill #1

             WV-67
-------
        West Virginia
 Cannelton Industries, Inc.
 Cannelton 9S Surface Mine
Permit: 615-70C
Fill: Fill #1
             WV-68
-------
       West Virginia
     Caternary Coal Co.
Stanley Heritage Surface Mine

     Permit: S-3035-93

        Fill:  DRF#3
          WV-69
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-70
-------
Company: Caternary Coal Co.
  Permit:  S-3035-93
    State:  WV
 Coumty:  Kanawha
Latitude:  37-58-50
ongitude:  81-28-25
             Fill:  DRF#3
           Mine:  Stanley Heritage Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [  ]   No [X]
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yes [X]   No [  ]
 12/20/99
                              Date of permit file review:      09/23/99
                            Date fill contraction started:       07/01/95
                                              Finished:       07/31/98
                            Number of fill size revisions:             2
                            %Sandstone in overburden:             go
           Type of Fill
            Size of Fill
              Surface
         Configuration

            Elevations
                Slopes

      Surface Drainage
              Control
           Subsurface
             Drainage
              Control

             Stability
             Analysis
         Software Used

          Safety Factor
          Engineering
            Properties
               (Spoil)

          Engineering
            Properties
          (Foundation)

       Phreatic Surface
         Construction
        Documentation
      and Certifications
        Aerial Survey
        and Ground
        Level Review
                                        As constructed
                                                                                  Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
                                                                                         Durable Rock
                                                                                                                                      Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
Concave
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)


2350
4,9
Concave
1910
1590
17.0
21.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
4500
9S.O
44.0
Flat
2040
1350
7,0
21.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Atigle
Cohesion (psf)


1.7
128
38
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
                                                                                                                                            P-D.05
                                                       Appl. Phase
                                                       Certification
                                   Appl. Quarterly
                                    Certification
                                       Photography
                                           Type
Foundation Preparation Yes fXj No [ ] 95/2
Umierdrains Yes [X] No [ ] 97/4
Surface Drains Yes [X] No [ ] 98/3
Grading and Revegetation Yes [X] No [ ] 9g/3
"Final Certification Yes [X] No [ ] 9S/3
If a DRF1, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOY's written 02 the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined So be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
Ef a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Diseernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
Tf the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
is tine fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there pound cracks observed on the till face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Copies
Copies
Copies
Copies
Copies
Yes[ J No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[Xj
Ycs[ ] No[ ]
Yes[ } No[ ]
Yes (1 No [ ]
Yesf ] No[ 1
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Concave
Yes{ ] No[ ]
Yes I ] No[ ]
                                                                       WV-71
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (it)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas'
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
S-3035-93
DRF*3
                                                 Were there depressions on tlic fill benches?    Yes [ J   No [ ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  1   No [  I
                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                   Were there bulges or hummockyterrain?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till?      Yes [  ]   No {  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [X ]
If so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass 1
                                                       Bench *
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                             Transport Distance  (A)
                                              Rste of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                      Mass2
                           }R tf2 moved the toe of DKF #3 400 feet upstream

                           JR #6 moved the toe of DRF HI 2000 feet upstream

                           lectrical resistivity soundings were used in the foundation investigations
                                                                                WV-72
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
-------
         West Virginia
      Caternary Coal Co.
Stanley Heritage Surface Mine
 Permit: S-3035-93
Fill: DRF #3

 Permit: S-3035-93        Fill: DRF #3

              WV-73
-------
         West Virginia
      Caternary Coal Co.
Stanley  Heritage Surface Mine
 Permit: S-3035-93
Fill: DRF #3
             WV-74
-------
       West Virginia
  Chafin Branch Coal Co.
Harrys Branch Surface Mine

      Permit: 180-77

         Fill: #1
          WV-75
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-76
-------
Company: Chafm "Branch Coal Co.
Permit: 180-77
State: WV
County: Mingo
Latitude: 37-31-50
Longitude: 81-50-50

Fill: #1

Mine: Harrys Branch Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:
Yes[ ] NoLX]


Yes [X] No I I
12120199
Date of permit file review:
Dale fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:


10/08/99
09/01/82
12/01/94
1



      Type of Fill

       Size of Pill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
                                    As constructed
                                                                                 Revision
                                                                                                                         Original design
Durable Rock
Length (8)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
2000
50.8

2200
65.6

Flat
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



1700
1115
13.0
22.0
Chimney Core
Gravity Segregated
SB Slope
1680
1040
9.0
IR.O
Chimney Core
Gravity Segregated
Other

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pet)
friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

1.6
1.4
120
35
0
130
32
0
Phreatic Surface


114
32
75
105
25
300
None

Construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes [ ]
Underdrains Yes [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [X]

Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ]
Final Certification Yes [X]
No[X] 8214
No [X] 8213
No [ ] 94/4

No[X] 9811
No [ ] 9414
1-fDRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or coreunderdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [X]






Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill: Right Flank High Away
Were NOV's mitten on the £11? Yes [X]
Surface drainage control working properly'! Yes[X]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [XJ
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [ ]
None
None
Copies

copies
Copies
No[ 1
Pits
Rum Fill
N°[ ]
No ! 1
No [ ]
No [X]
ff spoildisposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,





Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ]

If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceniable blanket or core drain forming? Yes! 1

No[ ]


No [ 1
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?




Fill surface configuration:
Is the fillsituated in landslide topography? Yes I ]
Were there ground cracks observedon the till face or benches? Yes I ]
Number of benches on fill :
Concave
No[X]
No[ ]
13
                                                                      WV-77
-------
180-77
*1
            Location "f
                 Cracks
            Location "f
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location <(f
               Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
             Comments
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  j   No [  j
                                                                                                                               (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches'!    Yes [  ]    No [  ]
                                                                                                                                (Maximum Cully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hummockytcrrain?    Yes [  ]    No [  ]
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed m disposal areas?     Yes [  I    No I
                          Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No f ]
                          I
                          2
                          3
                          4
                          5
                          6
                                                              Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [X]   No [
                             f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
                                        Stage o f construction during failure:
                                                                                                   Mass  I
                                                                                     Bench #
                                                                                     Length (ft)
                                                                                      Width (ft)
                                                                                Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                          Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                           Transport Distance  (A)
                                                                            Rale of Movement
                                                                   Extent of Failure Movement
                                            Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                                   Mass 2
                                                                   Mass 3
                                                                                                               Mass 2
                                                                                                                                      Mass 3
                            oal seams: Cedar Grove, Alma, No original design in permit, Modification #1 used ss original design, TBR#3 was final certification of fill design and construction.State NOVs issued
                            >r slide* in till during construction and failure to follow permit plan while constructing till. 1BR£3 reduced the face slope.

                            orne erosion and bare areas on benches 8-11 on right Vi of fill.
                                                                                   WV-78
-------
                            West Virginia
                      Chafin Branch Coal  Co.
                    Harrys Branch  Surface Mine
                     Permit: 180-77
Fill: #1
n
I
                      Permit: 180-77           Fill: #1

                                 WV-79
-------
BLANK  PAGE
      WV-80
-------
      West Virginia
  Chafin Branch Coal Co.
Rich Fork of Harrys Branch

     Permit: S-5015-86

          Fill: #1
           WV-81
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-82
-------
                                    As constructed
                                                                                Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   D ocum en fa tion
and Certifications
   Aerial survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Durable Rock

Concave

31.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated




Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (A)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcD
Friction Angle
Cohesion (pst)
Durable Rock
1320
27.0
Concave
1730
1209
39.0
31.0
centerDraiti
Gravity Segregated
Purdu
1.5
125
35
0
Durable Rock
2000
37.0
4.0
Concave
1750
1170
12.0
27.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAMK
1.5
135
37
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)


Phreatic surface
None
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
Appl.Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [
Underdrains Yes [
Surface Drains Yes 1
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ]
Final Certification Yes [X^
No [ ]
No [X] 9412
No[ 1
N°[ ]
No [ ] Y






Color




If a DRF, did the photographs showlhc root blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?






Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Yes[ ]

No[ 1
None
Toward Fill
Yes[X]
Ycs[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
No[ ]
No [XI
NopCj
No 1 1
if spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,




Approximately 80% durable root by volume'?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disee-rnable blanket or core drain forming?
if the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-cornpletion revision?
if the fill is significantly smaller,




what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches!
Number of benches on fill:

Yes [ ]

Ycs[ ]

No[ J

No[ ]
Unknown


Yes [X]
Yen [X]


Concave
No[ ]
No[ ]
11
                                                                     WV-83
-------
                                             Location
                                                                                                            Length (ft)
                                                                                                   Width (ft)
Depth (in)
              Location of
                  Cracks
              Location of
              Depressions
             Location of
           Erosion Areas
             Location of
          Ground Bulges
             Location of
           Springs/Seeps
             Location of
                 Changes
              Movement
          Characteristics
              Comments
S-5015-36
#1
       1 Btoc-l,QI
       2
                                                      Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [Xj   No I  1
                                                                                                                    (Potential Water Depth)
       1 B toe-] I
       2

       3


       5
                                                   Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [x]   No [  J
                                                                                                                     (Maximum Gully Depth)
       I B foe-I, Q
                                                         Were there bulges or liummocky terrain?    Yes [X]   No [
          Were there springs or seeps observedin disposal areas?     Yes fx]   No [ ]
       Describe location of seep
       1 Btoe-1, QI
       2
       3
       4
                                      Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till?      Yes [X]   No |
                                    uid a failure occur on the fill?    Y~es [XI   No [  ]
'so, enter the source of information on !he failure:    permjt pj)^ Field Measurements, DEP Inspector, Co
            Stage of construction during failure:      During Construction
                                                                                                           Mass I
                                                                                                                 6
                                                                                                                                  Mass 2
                                                Cause of Movement
                                                            Bench*
                                                             Length  (ft)
                                                             Width  (ft)
                                                       Scarp Height  (R)
                                                Depth to Siip Piane  (it)
                                                 Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                  Rate of Movement          S'8t^                  Slow
                                         Extent of Failure Movement           Slip                   Slip
                                                     Inadequate UnderDrains, Underground Mine Drainage, Underground
                                                     Inadequate UnderDrahis, Underground Mine Drainage, Underground
                                                     Inadequate UnderDrains, Underground Mine Drainage, Underground
                                                                                                                           Mass 3

                                                                                                                                10
                                                                                                                                                            Slow
                                                                                                                                                              Slip
                                                                        Mass 1
                                                                        Mass 2
                                                                        Mass 3
cording to 4/1 U93 mine inspection report, NOV# 7 had been issued "  for failure to assure static safety factor of i 5 " By the 7/12/91 quarterly certification, seepages had been
'ntified and excavated and drains were being installed Symptoms of failure continued to be reported in the 11/8/93 inspection repon  On 1/18/94 it consultant to the mining company
miitted a report to DEP discussing the nature of the stability problems and proposing 4 phases of corrective measurer. The report identified several slip areas which were
;doniinaiuly below the elevation of the Eagle Coalbed outcrop The remedial measures included regrading paris of the fill face, reconfiguration of the center drain where necessary,
3 construction of an additional drain that will intersect old mine workings in the Eagle scam  The report noted that the structure of ihecoaibed dips into the fill, there was no record
it any open mine portals beneath tho fill were ever sealed; and no discharge horn the outcrop had been observed prior to and during construction of the fiil  In addition to the possible
luence of uncontrolled drainage from tho mine portals, the report concludedthat settlement on the fill miilted from subsidence of underground working in the Eagle Coalbed The
cumcnt proposed inspections 2 times a week and the installation of a  piezometer to  monitor the fill's stability. The fill was stable at that time ?!anmaps dated 2/94 and 5/94 of thefi
>w several slump areas between me 3rd and 10th benches, and » long subsidence crack above and roughly parallel 10 bench 11 Based on the longitudinal section, the maximum
cknessof the till Is 100 fi or less and rhofiil rests on a steep slope starting at the toe As of the field visit, slips and seepages  continue to occur The helicopter survey also noted a se
arcuate cracks near the toe This may correspond to the ground-level inspection report's mention of ground saturation I n the lower 2 benches (the crack pattern may not have been
cemable &t ground fevci) Ponding was prevalent on the benches and there were appearances of over-staking of spoil in some placer Repairs of past failures were noted  More recent
                                                                                         WV-84
-------
        West Virginia
  Chafin  Branch Coal Co.
Rich Fork of Harrys  Branch

  Permit: S-5015-86
Fill: #1
  Permit: S-5015-86

             WV-85
Fill: #1
-------
             West Virginia
       Chafin Branch  Coal  Co.
     Rich Fork of Harrys Branch
^^^^^^B
       Permit: S-5015-86
Fill: #1
      Permit: S-5015-86

                  WV-86
Fill: #1
-------
        West Virginia
    Chafin Branch Coal Co.
Skillet Creek Surface Operations

      Permit: S-5082-86

          Fill: Fill#l
            WY-87
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-88
-------
                                As constructed
                                                                            Revision
                                                                                                                   Original design
  Type of Fill
   Sine of Fill
     Surface
Configuration

   Elevations
       Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safely Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatie Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Perimeter Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME

1.5 Static
Seismic
135 Unit Weight (pcf)
35 Friction Angle
0 Cohesion (psf)
120 Unit Weight (pcf)
28 Friction Angle (deg.)
250 Cohesion (psf)
Phreatie Surface
Appl. Phase AppLQuarterly
Certification Certification
Foundation Preparation Yes [X] No [ ] 9512
Underdrains Yes [X] No [ ] 97/1
Surface Drains Yes [XI No [ ] 9912
Grading and Revegetation Yes [X] No [ ] 9912
Final Certification Yes [X] No [ ] 9912
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core iinderdraiu by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were T-TGV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
if active till, was active spoil disposal determined to he on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock till is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rod: by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the till is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pie-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on till:
1.6
135
31
0
120
2S
250
Phieatie Surface
Photography
Type
None
None
None
None
None
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Pits
Yes [X] No [ ]
Yes [X] No [ ]
Yes [X] No { ]
Yes [ ] No [X]
Yes [ ] No ( ]
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes [ ] No [ ]
13
                                                                 WV-89
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                   Length 
-------
                             West Virginia
                       Chafin Branch Coal Co.
                  Skillet Creek  Surface  Operations
.
                     Permit: S-5082-86
Fill: Fill #1


                    Permit: S-5082-86        Fill: Fill #1

                                  WV-91
-------
BLANK  PAGE
      WV-92
-------
  West Virginia
   Colony Bay
No Mine Identifier

 Permit: S-15-81

     Fill:  #5
      WV-93
-------
BLANK PAGE
     WV-94
-------
Company
Permit;
State:
County:
Latitude:
Mgitude:








Colony Bay Fill: #5 Date of permit file review: 10/26/99
S-15-81 Mine: N/A Dale fill contraction started: 11/30/87
WV Was this fill visited at ground level? Yes [ ] No [X] Finished: 09/01/96
Boone Number of fill size revisions: j
37-53-04 Had the fill been reclaimed at the %Sandslone in overburden: go
81-41-38 lime of the air survey? Yes [X] No [ ]
Date of survey: 12/31/99
As constructed Revision Original design
Type of Fill
Size of Fill


Surface

Configuration
Durable Rock Chimney
Length (ft) 5400 2350
Area (acres)
22,7 Volume (nicy)










       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreafic Surface
    Construction
   Do cum^ntatie n
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1100
5.2
24.6
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
RKAME
1.7
102
37
0
1835
1360
20.0
26.6
Oiimney Core
Chimney Core
Other
1.9
102
37
0
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

None
None
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                           AppLQuarterly
                                                             Certification
                                  Photography
                                      Type
       Foundation Preparation     Yes [  ]   No [X]
                  Underdrains    Yes [  ]   No [X]
                Surface Drains   Yes [  ]   No [X]
     Grading and Revegetation     Yes [  ]   No [X]
            Final  Certification    Yes [  J   No [  ]
89/4
96/2
96/4
Color
Color
Color
                                      If a 13RF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                           Foundation data:                                               Text
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill;
                                                                                              Were NOVs written on the fill?  Yes [X]   Ns {  j
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes fX]   No [  ]
                                                             Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                 If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                        If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                 Diseemable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes f ]   No [  ]
                If the fill is completed, compare (he size with the size in !he latest pre-completion revision?                 Unknown
           If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                         Fill surface configuration:                      Wat
                                                                Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                               Number of benches on fill:
                                                                       WV-95
-------
                                           Location
                                                                                                        Length (ft)
                                                                                                Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Ci'acks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
             Location "f
           Springs/Seeps
             Location uf
                Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
              Comments
S-15-81
#5
                                                    Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  1   No [X ]
                                                                                                                 (Potential Water DepIB)
                                                Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes[ ]   NoJX]
                                                                                                                 (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                       Were there bulges or hunimocky terrain?    Yes [  1   NolXj
                                        Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [ j   No [X ]
                                     Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]    No[X]
                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?     Yes [  ]   No [x]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
             Stage ol construction during failure:
                                                                                                        Mass 1
                                                                                                                              Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                     Mass 3
                                                                                         Bench #
                                                                                         Length (ft)
                                                                                          Width (ft)
                                                                                    Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                             Depth to Slip Wane (ft)
                                                                              Transport Distance (ft)
                                                                               Rate of Movement
                                                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                              Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                                      Mass 2
                                                                      Mass 3
he revegitaticn is still setting in, i e. there are some bare spots (not erosion related). Helicopter ptiotoes also may indicate minor seepage and ponding. In the reviewers judgement, if
is is the case, its not significant enough to tabulate above. The shape of the fill is similar to the permit design  Includes a long crown and a relatively steep face. Can't tell if there's a
imificant size difference. The as-buiit fill seems to be a durable-rock type with a center dram (as designed in the revision) Permit application indicates 80 % sandstone. Disparity wit
bulated dala may be a matter of which coal scam in the stratigraphic column was the lowest one mined. \ 6/22/87 letter report from Colony Bay refers to tbe "retained slaking test."
his lest seems tess rigorous than the SDL The values fisted are all 100. Could not find any phreatic-surface data.
                                                                                       WV-96
-------
       West Virginia
        Colony Bay
    No Mine  Identifier
Permit: S-15-81
Fill: #5
Permit: S-15-81

            WV-97
Fill: #5
-------
       West Virginia
        Colony Bay
    No Mine Identifier
Permit: S-15-81
Fill: #5
            WV-98
-------
  West Virginia
   Costain Coal
    Pax No. 5

Permit: S-3023-91

     Fill: #1
     WV-99
-------
BLANK PAGE
   wv-100
-------
Company: Costain Coal
Permit: S-3023-91
State: WV
County: Fayclte
Latitude: 37-54-20
mgitude: 81-18-05

Fill: #1
Mine: Pax No. 5
Was this fili visited at ground level?

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:


Yes[ ] No[X]


Yes [X] No [ ]
12/20/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contruction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:


11/16/99
07/22/92
10/20/94

54


       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                   As constructed
                                                                               Revision
                                                                                                                     Original design
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Flat
Durable Rock
1640
2.6
Flat
Crown (fl)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation {%)
Fill Face (deg.)
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
2440
2030
12.0
26,6
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
SB Slope

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Uftii Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.7
110
36
0
145
45
2500
                                                                                                                                           None
                                                   Appl. Phase
                                                   Certification
AppL Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [Xf 92/2
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [X] 92/3
Surface Drains Yes [ J No [X] 94' [
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X] 94/2
Final Certification Yes [X] No [ 1 Y
Color
Color
Color
Color
Color

If a DRJ, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ ]
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to ttli:
Were NOV's written on the fill? Yes [X]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [ ]
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, ho» long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ]
Were liters ground cracks observed on the fill Face or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on fill:
No PC]
Tavt

No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]


NOT i

No [ ]
Same

Hal
No[X]
No[ J
7
                                                                   WV-101
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)
                                                                                       Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                         Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location 0 f
          Erosion Areas'
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location a
               ^i      N
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-3023-91
#1
                                                Were there depressions on the till benches?    Yes [  }   No [
                                                                                                      (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the till benches!    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                       (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                  Were there bulges or hiimmocky terrain?    Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas'?    Yen [  ]   No [  ]
     Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [x]   No [

      I Toe B2-3
     2 BI-2
     3
                               Did a failure occur on the till?
so, enter the source of information on the failure:
          Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                         Yes[ ]   No IX]
                                                                                               Mass 1
                                                                                                                   Mass 2
                                                                                                                                         Mass 3
                                          Cause of Movement
                                                     Bench#
                                                     Length (ft)
                                                      Width (ft)
                                                Scaip Height (ft)
                                          Depth to Slip Flane (ft)
                                           Transport Distance (ft)
                                            Rate of Movement
                                    Extent of Failure Movement

                                    Massl
                                    Mass 2
                                    Mars 3
                                                                              WV-1.02
-------
       West Virginia
        Costain Coal
          Pax  No. 5
Permit: S-3023-91
Fill: #1
           WV-103
-------
BLANK PAGE
     WV-104
-------
    West Virginia
Cumberland River Coal
  No Mine Identifier

   Permit: S-38-79

       Fill: #2
       WV-105
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-106
-------
  Company; Cumberland River Coal
    Permit:  S-38-79
      State:  WV
   Count}-:  Mingo
  Latitude:  37-40-34
Longitude:  82-03-23
                        Fill:  #2
                       Mine;  N/A
           Was this fill visited at ground level?
                     Date of visit;
           Had the fill been reclaimed at the
           time of the air survey?
                   Date of survey;
                                                                               Yes [X]    No [
                                                                               02/23/00

                                                                               Yes [XJ    No [

                                                                                12/21/99
   Date of permit file review:       10/13/99
 Date fill contraction started:       04/01/92
                   Finished:             / /
Nurnberof fill size revisions:               j
 %Sandsfone in overburden:
             Type of Fill
              Size of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control
                Stability
                Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor


            Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                                                                             Phrcatie Surface
                                                           ^ppi< mast:
                                                           Certification
                                                                                     Certification
                                            Underdraws    Yes [ ]  No [X]
                                          Surface Drains    Ycs[ ]  No [  )
                                Grading and Rcvegetation    Yes [ ]  No [  ]
                                       Final Certification    Yes [ ]  No [  ]
                                                         94/4
Chimney



Fiat



25,0
Perimeter


Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg,)


Durable Rock
3000

10.0
Flat
1940
1420
9.2
26.6
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
Durable Rock
2800

13,6
Flat
1920
1360

26.6
Chimney Core
Chimney Core









Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pef)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.5

135
35
0











                                                                                                                                   Type
                                                                                                   Copies
                                            If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [ ]  No [X]
                                                                                Foundation dsta*                                            None
                                                                        Dip of strata relative to fill:                                  Right Flank High
                                                                                                  Were NQVs written on the fill?  Yes [XJ  No [  j
                                                                                         Surface drainage control working properly?  Yes [X]
                                                                                     Subsurface drainage control working properly?  Yes [X]
                                                                      If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
                                                           If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
                                                                                          Yes[
                                                                                                                                 No[
                                                                                                                                 No[
                                                                                                                                 No[
                           If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                  Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [
                                                           If no to above, estimate percentage;
                                                    Discemable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [
                                                                                                                                         Ho I  I

                                                                                                                                         Smaller
      If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-cornpletion revision?
if the fill is sigiiifieasily smaller, what is the reason according to the doeimientatioti or inspector?     Previously mined, pinch
                                                            Fill surface configuration;                    Flat
                                                   Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                    Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                   Number of benches on fill:              10
                                                                           WV-107
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                    Length (ft)
                                                                                             Width (ft)
                            Depth (in)
             Location "f
                 Cracks
             Location of
             Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes'
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-38-78
#2
                      Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [XI  No [  ]
       1 Bench 1, Quarters 1-4
       2 Bench 2, Quarter 4
       3 Bench 3, Quarter 4
       4 Bench 5, Quarters 3-4
                                                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                   Were there areas of erosion on the fill bendies?    Yes [x]   No [ ]
       I Benches 6-7, Qtrs 1-2
                                                                                                                                         (Minimum Gully Depth)
                        Were there bulges or humntocky terrain?   Yes [X]  No [ ]
       1 Benches 7-8, Quarter 1
       2
       3
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [x]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes (  ]   No[x]
                                  Did a failure occnr on the till?    Yes [  ]   No [X]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                        Mass 1
                                                         Bench it
                                                         Length  (ft)
                                                          Width  (ft)
                                                    Scarp Height  (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement

                Cause of Movement     Mass i
                                       Mass 2
                                       Mass 3
                                                                                                                         Mass 2
                                                                                                                                               Mass 3
                                                       tion not recorded for lack of specific dales from field report and insufficient ce
                             rt and completion of fill construc
rtifications in file. Field report indicates final grading in 8/95.
                                           some ha
                                          king properly
:s  an  compeon o    consrucion no recore  or ac  o  specc  ales rom  e  report an  nsucent cert
ndsCone was estimated during the permit review, but geologic column (if present in the tile) was not copied for mea
„.),, ----------- , --- ,u- r.-;.\.~> mi TI._ ,1.1. ----- ,_j.. _
                                                                                                                     surement Estimated 50-90 %. Field rep
                              subsurface may be of concern for the long term
                                                                                  WV-108
-------
       West Virginia
 Cumberland  River Coal
    No Mine Identifier
Permit: S-38-79
Fill: #2
Permit: S-38-79           Fill: #2

           WV-109
-------
       West Virginia
 Cumberland  River Coal
    No Mine Identifier
Permit: S-38-79
Fill: #2

Permit: S-38-79           Fill: #2

           WV-110
-------
    West Virginia
Cumberland River Coal
  No Mine Identifier

  Permit: S-5027-89

       Fill: #2
       wv-l 11
-------
BLANK PAGE
 WV-I 12
-------
Company
Permit:
State:
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:

• Cumberland River Coal Fill: $2
S-5027-89
WV
Logan
37-42-40
82-03-03

Mine: N/A
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:

Yes [X] No [ ]
02/23/00
Yes [ ] No [X]
12/21/99
Date of permit file review: 09/08/99
Date fill contraction started: 07/01/92
Finished: 05/01/97
Number of till size revisions: I
%Sandstone in overburden: 64

      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations'
          Sloues

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                    As constructeJ
                                                                                Revision
                                                                                                                      Original design
Durable Rock
1280
6.0
2.3

Lengfh (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Durable Rock
1280
6.0
2.3
Durable Rock
2300
24.0
10.6
Flat
1800
1315
320
19.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
MAME
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



1SOO
1315
32.0
19.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAMF,
1790
1230
32.0
23.0
center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME

1.5
1.2
125
35
0
125
35
0
P-0.05
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

1.5
1.2
125
35
0
125
35
0
P-0.05
1.6
1.5
120
30
0
135
35
0
None
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
Appl. Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes { ] No [ ]
Underdraiiis Yes [X] No [ ] 92/3
Surface Drains Yes [X] No [ ] 97/2
Grading and Rcvegctafion Yes [X] No [ ] 97/2
Final Certification Yes [X] No [ "1 9712
If a DXF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdtain by gravity segregation?
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill''
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage cor.rrol working properly?
^ active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rock till is under construction,
Approximately 80% durablerock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
DisceniaWe blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
if the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the (ill Situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
None
Color
Color
Color
Color
Yes [ ] No [X]

Ye.<; [ ] No [X]
Yes[X] No[ ]
YesjX] No{ ]
Yes[ ] No(X]


Ycs[ ] No[ ]

Yes[ ] No[ ]
Same
Don't Know
Convex
Yes [ ] No [X]
Yes [XI No [ ]
11
                                                                   WV-113
-------
                                         Location
             Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location "f
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-5027-89
#2
                                                                                                   Length (ft)
                                                                                          Width (ft)
                                      Depth (in)
      Bench#5.Qtr2
      Bench #5.Qlr 3
      3
35
40
                     Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [x]   No [  j
      Bench #7, Qtr 3                                                      25
      Bench #5, Qtr 3                                                      35
      3
      4
      5
                                                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                  Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [X]   No [ ]
      Bench #9, Qtr 2                                                      40
      2
      3
      4
                                                                                                                                       (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [X ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes I  }   No[X]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?
                                                                  >L ]   N°[x]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [Xj   No [  ]
7 so, enterthe source of information on the failure:   Field Measurements
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                   Bench #
                                                                                    Length  (ft)
                                                                                     Width  (fl)
                                                                               Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                         Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                          Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                                           Rate of Movement
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                     Mass 1
                                                                          P4
                                                                          35
                                                                          25
                                                                          55
                                                                       Slow
                                                                         Slip
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                                                                             Mans 3
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                                  Mass i
                                                                  Mass!
                                                                  Mass 3
                                                Inadequate Surface Drains, Durability of Rock
                             >al seam Dorothy (CaaJburg), Stockton, #5 Block; Three modiofkations to fill, One revised size Two changed construction and final configuration characteristics Slip at bench
                             s sloughing info center drain \vhich would eventually be caught in sediment pond  Wing Dumping occurred during construction of fill  The wind dump area is eroded due to
                             epness
                                                                                WV-114
-------
       West Virginia
 Cumberland  River Coal
    No Mine Identifier
                                         J
Permit: S-5027-89         Fill: #2
Permit: S-5027-89         Fill: #2

           WV-115
-------
       West Virginia
 Cumberland  River Coal
    No Mine Identifier
Permit: S-5027-89
Fill: #2
Permit: S-5027-89

           WV-116
Fill: #2
-------
       West Virginia
   Cyprus Kanawha Corp.
Sycamore South Mtn. Top Job

     Permit: S-6020-89

   Fill: Laurel Branch #1
          WV-117
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-118
-------
  Company: Cyprus Kanawha Corp.
    Permit:  S-602049
      State:  WV
   County:  Fayette
  Latitude:  38-03-11
Longitude:  81-20-53
                             fill;  Laurel Branch #1
                           Mine:  Sycamore South Mtn. Top lob
               Was this fill visited at ground level?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
               Had the fill been reclaimed at the
               time of the air survey?                 Yes [XJ   No |
                       Date of survey:                 12/20/99
                       Date of permit fi 1 e review:       09/23/99
                     Date fill contruciion started:        07/01/93
                                       Finished:        10/01/97
                    Number of fill size revisions:
                     %Sandstone in overburden:              68
             Type of Pill
              Size of Pill
                surface
           Configuration

               Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control
                Stability
                Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor
            Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spoil)

            Engineer! rt£
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phreatic Surface
            Construction
          DGCUEueatation
        and certifications
           Aerial Survey
           and Ground
           Level Review
                                           As constructed
                                                                                        Revision
                                                                                                                              QriEin
Durable Rack
Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Concave
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
3200
Concave
1950
980
12,0
23.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
165
40
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psl)
None
                                                            Appl. Phase
                                                            certification
                                                    Appl.Quarterly
                                                     certification
                                 Photography
                                    Type
  Foundation Preparation     Yes [x]   No [  1
            Underdraws    Yes [X]   No [  1
          Surface Drains    Yes[X]|   "No[  ]
Grading and Revegelation     Yes [X]   No [  J
       Final Certification    Yes f  I   No /  1
95/4
95/1
98/1
9911
Copies
Copies
Copies
Copies
                                            If a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core undcrdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                                Foundation data:                                             Text
                                                                        Dip of strata relative to 611:
                                                                                                   Were NOV's written on the fill?  Yes [  J   NofXJ
                                                                                         Surface drainage control working properly?
                                                                                      Subsurface drainsge control working properly?
                                                                      If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
                                                           If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
                                                                                               Yes I  1   Not  1
                                                                                               Yes[  ]   No[  ]
                                                                                               Yes[  ]   No [  ]
                            f a durable rock fills under construction,
                                                       Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                         Disceraable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes f  ]   No [  ]
           If the Jill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completioti revision?
     If the till is significantly smaller, what is the teason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                  Fill surface configuration:                Concave
                                                        Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                         Were there ground cracks observed on the fillface or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  1
                                                                        Number of benches on fill:                18
                                                                            WV-119
-------
                                       Location
                                                                                               Length (ft)
                                                                                                                   Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location 0 f
                Cracks
           Location of
           Depressions
           Location "f
         "Erosion Areas
           Location 0 f
         Ground Bulge*
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
           Location uf
               Changes
            Movement
             Comments
S-6Q20-89
Laurel Branch #1
                                               Were there depressions on the (ill benches?     Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                 Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [X]   No [ ]
               Bl,Q2                                                 100
               B 2, Q 2                                                  80
               B3.Q3                                                  70
                                                  Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
         Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [X]   No [ ]
      ]     'Toe, Q 2
      2
      3
      4
      5
      Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [X]   No [  }
      1       B t,Q4                                                  100
      2       B2,Q4                                                   50
      3
      4
      5
      6
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes I  ]   No [X ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Massl
                                                      Bench #
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                       Width (ft)
                                                 Scarp Height (ft)
                                           Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                            Transport Distance {ft)
                                             ^xcltC Ci -yloV2i"£iat
                                     Extent of FailureMovetneM
               Cause of Movement     Mass j
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                    Mass 2
                           )urth quarter 1993 certification shows piezometers installed in tho lowest li!\ cHlie fill
                                                                              wv-120
                                                                                                                                   (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                         Mass 3
-------
             West Virginia
       Cyprus Kanawha Corp.
   Sycamore South  Mtn.  Top Job
Permit: S-6020-89
Fill: Laurel Branch #1
Permit: S-6020-89
Fill: Laurel Branch #1
                 WV-121
-------
            West Virginia
       Cyprus Kanawha Corp.
   Sycamore South Mtn. Top Job
Permit: S-6020-89
Fill: Laurel Branch #1
                WV-122
-------
  West Virginia
Dal-Tex Coal Corp.
 Rockhouse Mine

 Permit: S-5024-86

    Fill: VF#6
      WV-123
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-124
-------
                 lX) °M
                 [XJ °M
                                       no poAjasqo sifOBaD punoa3 a
           ] SSA    (-,Ai[dcjgodo) 3pi|spuc| m pojenjis ||g sip sj
                          yopsdsui jo uoiie|ii3iuii30p sqi 01 SuipjoooB noseai sqi si jeq.vv 'J3|[euis X|iueoijiuSis s; ||ij 3154 jj
                                    H3|duiOD-3jd JS3JE[ 3l[) III 3ZIS 3t[| q)[M 3'/IS 31(1 SJB
                            3JGUIIJS3 '3AOqB OJ OU J|
  ] °N
                    i(si)iuoui) sjpi uoijcjgdo psodsip SCM Suoj MOIJ 'SAIIOCUI 5)is [esodsip |iods j[
[Xl °N   [  1 S3A   iSuioS-uo sq otpamuijsppjosodsip [iods3Aii3BSB.«'||i(3Ap3cj[
[  1 °NL   I X] SSA   ^Xuadojd SUDJJOM [oiiaon a^euiejp gsej-insqnc
[  1 °N   [X] SSA   t^IJsdojd Sup(jo« [Ofluo
                    J °N.   [xl S3A   inon
 M'BB
                              a;j<« s,AON SJS/A
                                                  :(iy OJ 3AfiB[3I BjBJJS JO dlQ
                                                   :Binp iioiiBpnnoj
                              s X)iAej3 AqmBjpjgpnn 3JOO 40 )3JiuB|q )|ooj am ,woip siidojao)OTjd oi[) pip
                                                                2/66
                                                                1/66
                                                                1/06
                                                                fr/68
[ jON   [ ]S»A
[X]°N   f ]S3A
                                                                        t  ]OK
                                                                        [X]°N
                                                                                 -[ddy
                                                                                                        [oui.j
                                                                                                       i pue Su
                                                                                                       uopepunoj
                                                                                                     sy
                                                                                                                                unojg pue
I'D-d 03FJIHS n]lE3Jqd
0
IE
SCI
0
8E
Sll
81
8-1
3WV3H
0
1C
EH
0
SE
Sfl
i'l
61
3
-------
                                Location
                                                                                          Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
   Location of
        Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges'
   Location of
 .,...-,     N
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                         Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [1   No [  I
                                                                                                            (Potential Water Depth)
                                     Were there areas of erosion on the fillbenches?   Yes [ J   No [
                                           Were there bulges or huniraocky terrain'!    Yes { ]   No [
                             Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                          Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]

                          I
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [ ]   No [
Ef so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                       Mass 1

                                                        Bench #
                                                         Length  (ft)
                                                          Width  (ft)
                                                    Scarp Height  (H)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement

                Cause of Movement     Mass j
                                       Mass 2
                                       Mass 3
                                                                                                               Mass 2
                                                                                                            (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                     Mass 3
                   arge fill 1 5 miles total length, Permit calls for SWASE analysis but KEAME analysis Included in permit. Spoil from S-5005-91 placed in this fill

                   illweli vegetated with effective surface drains in-place
                                                                        WV-126
-------
        West Virginia
     Dal-Tex Coal  Corp.
       Rockhouse Mine
Permit: S-5024-86
Fill: VF #6
Permit: S-5024-86         Fill: VF #6

            WV-127
-------
        West Virginia
     Dal-Tex Coal  Corp.
       Rockhouse Mine

Permit: S-5024-86
Fill: VF #6
Permit: S-5024-86         Fill: VF #6

            WV-128
-------
    West Virginia
 Dal-Tex Coal Corp.
   Bumbo #2 Mine

  Permit: S-5049-91

Fill:  Fill #5  (No Photo)
        WV-129
-------
BLANK PAGE
    wv-130
-------
  Company: Dai-Ten Coal Corp.
    Permit:  S-5049-91
      State:  WV
   Count}':  Logan
  Latitude:  37-53-50
Longitude:  81-52-36
                                  Fill:  Fill #5
                                 Mine:  Bumbo $2 Mine
                     Was this till visited at ground level?   Yes [  ]   No fx]
                     Had the fill been reclaimed at the
                     time of the air survey?
                             Date of survey:
Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                Date of permit file review:       11103199
                              Date fill contruclion started:              / /
                                                 Finished:              / /
                             Number of fill size revisions:
                              %Sandstone in overburden:              59
             Type of Fill
              Size of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                  Slopes

        Surface Drainage
                 Control
             Subsurface
               Drainage
                 Control
                Stability
                Analysis
           Software Used

            Safety Factor
            Engineering
              Properties
                  (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

         Phreatic Surface
                                            As constructed
                                                                                         Revision
                                                                                                                               Original desien
Durable Rack
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
5400
55.6
11.9
Flat
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation {%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1380
1180
4,0
24,0
Perimeter
Constructed Underdrain
SB Slope
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.7
1.4
148
50
0
125
36
0
None
            Construction
          Do cumenta tion
        and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
       Foundation Preparation     Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                 Underdrains    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
               Surface Drains   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
     Grading and Revegetation    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
            Find Certification    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                            Ifa DRP, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core undcrdrain by gravity segregation?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]


                                                                        Dip of strata relative to fill                                       Toward Fill
                                                                                                   Were NOVfs written on the fill?  Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                              Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes {  ]  No [  ]
                                                           Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                           If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                If spoil disposal Site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock 611 is under construction,
                                                            Approximately 80%durable rack by volume?  Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                                                     If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                               Discernable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [  ]  No [  ]

               If the fill is completed, compare the size wiiih. the size in the latest pie-completion revision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                       Fill surface configuration
                                                              Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                              Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                                                             Number of benches on fill.
                                                                            WV-131
-------
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks '
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location Of
          Erosion Areas'
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location Of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
             Comment.
S-5049-91
Fill (5
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No {  ]
                                                                                                           (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches'?   Yes [  ]   No [  I
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
       i
       2
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                  Massl
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                   Bench #
                                                                                    Length  (ft)
                                                                                     Width  (ft)
                                                                               Scarp Height  (ft)
                                                                         Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                         Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                                           Rats of Movement
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement
                                            Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                  Mass 3
                            til not started. U/G entries encountered during fill construction will be drained lo the rock core undcrdrain.
                                                                                                            (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                                                                                WV-132
-------
  West Virginia
Eastern Associated
No Mine Identifier

 Permit:  S-53-85

     Fill: #6
      WV-133
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-134
-------
                   :)[ij uo sstptisqjo laquin^
            ] 53^
   } °M
   ] °N

   3 °N!
                     ^(stpuom) 9jpi noijijjsdo [Esodstp S^M 3uoi .ttoq 'aAuoEin sjis psodsip jiods j
 [  ] °N   [  ] "A   i,SuioS-U09qO)p3UlUO»)3p [ESOdSjp |lodS9AIpCSEM'l[IJ 3AJPEJJ
 [  I °M   [Xj S3A   ^^l-^doid 3ui^jOA\ jojjuOD a^suiRip s^sjinsqn^
                    ^ijsdojd §UI>(JOM [OJIUOD 3§cumjp 3ocjjn$
                                 pl[SpUB[ Ul pSJEIUjS [[1| sqj SJ
                          :uoitBjn3yuoc) Mejjns |(y
                           <• jojDsdsin jo uoijDjusranaop am oj SuipTOMB uosesj 3q) si ic([M 'a3|[Buis ^[jireoijuiSis si [|ij sqi Jl
                          iuoisiAOi uoipidmoo-ojd 1S3(E| sq) ui axis sip ipuw szis 9qi sjudmos 'psjsjdraoo si ng 3i)j j]
                                                                                              3 japun si i
                                                                                                                   Jnp e ^j
                    ] °N
                                                   :[P! 01 3Auc|ai EiEns jo di
                                                   ;r,t!p uoiirpunoj
                                                   SJOD .10 }33fiiE|q 3poj a^ A\
                                                                                         3qj pip
                                               1/L6
                                               V06
                                                                                   -(ddy
                                                                                          [  I ON   i  ] ss^    uoutDgtiio^ [Buy
                                                                                          I  ] °N   [  ] S5A    UOI)B]389A9)£ pUC
                                                                                          [X] ON   I  ] S3A   suieja s^i^ms
                                                                                          [X] 014   [  ] SSA    smcjpiopun
                                                                                          [Xl °N   [  I S3A    uoiiu^dsjj uofjBpunoj
                                                                                                                                                punejj) ptiu
SUO^J 3UOf^
0
8Z
56
0
£11
0 (Jsd) uoisaqog
OH (jDd) H!3»/« jran
0 (jsd) uoissqo3
SKI 6'd) iq3(3M liun
9-T S'I °™nS
J3l[lO HOTVHH
UIEJplSpUQ paiOIUlSUO^J p3je33j33S AJI
- "—-—-——
ureiQ J9|U33 UIBJQ JDJUO-")
0>
oon
Ot'il
O't'I (%) uoijepimoj sex
0091 te)s°I
OS61 («)t™oJO
leu .^U ,-u
O'OZ
0009
OOOt (fl) MtSua'i
                                                                                                                             (Hods)
                                                                                                                             s -id a |S-
                                                                                                                             1|IJ JO 3ZKJ
98
I
16/60/60
£8/21/01
66/IZ/OF
 :u3pjnqM3AO ui am
:suois]A3j ozis ny jo joqumfj
:A\siA3j 3|ij iiuuad jo 3JEQ
                                                  66/lC/ZI
                                         [X] ON    [   ] saA
                                                                   sqj ju
                                                                                       IE 3t|lJO 3UIIJ
                                                                                   uaaq [jg aip pun
I punojg IB psjisiA ||ij siijj i
      V/N :«U!IAI
       9 # :H!.i
3iioog  :
  AM  :aj»JS
                                                                                                                     poieioossv
-------
   Location of
        Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location "f
Ground Bulges
   Location Of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      _,       *
      Changes
    Movement
                                                                                              Length (ft)
                                                                                                Width (ft)
                                                                                                                       Depth (in)
    Comments
                                          Were there depressions on the fillbenches?    Yes [  1   No f ]
                                                                                                                                   (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                       Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]    No [
                                                                                                                 (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                             Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]    No [ ]
                              Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  J   No [  I
                           Were changes in vegetation or spoil  color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                   Did a failure occur on the till?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                             Mass 1
                                                                                                                   Mass 2
                                                                                                                                          Mars 3
                                                                              Bench #
                                                                              Length (fl)
                                                                               Width (ft)
                                                                         Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                  Depth to Slip Mane  (ft)
                                                                   TransportDistance (ft)
                                                                     Rate of Movement
                                                           Extent of Failure Movement
                                    Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                           Mass 2
                                                           Mass 3
y the first certification on file, 600,000 cy were already m place  The spoil in place seemed to liave a fair amount of durable rock Could not discern foundation on the copied photo
le first revision found in the file is dated 10/12/85  By the 1996 revision (1BR), fiil £ 6 had been severely reduced in size into rwo fills  6 and 6A The reason for this was not found
nly fill 6 data is listed above  The engineering parameters for the stability analysis is based on the internal properties of the rock lithologies making up the fill. The same revision
dicates previous shallow failure problems on the 2 1 slopes, forcing the use of 2 4 I instead Fill 6 looked stable from the helicopter Possible minor ponding on the 2nd bench nextii
c center drain
                                                                           WV-136
-------
      West Virginia
    Eastern Associated
    No  Mine Identifier
Permit: S-53-85
Fill: #6
Permit: S-53-85

          WV-137
Fill: #6
-------
BLANK PAGE
    WV-138
-------
  West Virginia
  Elkay Coal Co.
 Tower Mountain

Permit: S-5023-93

   Fill: Fill#l
     WV-139
-------
BLANK PAGE
    WV-140
-------
  Company: Elkay Coal Co.
   Permit:  S-5023-93
     State:  WV
   County:  Logan
  Latitude:  37-41-33
Longitude:  81-53-51
             pill:  Fitl#l
           Mine:  Tower Mountain
Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes f  ]   No
Had the fill bees reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?

       Date of survey:
Yes[  1   No[X]

 12/31/99
                              ])ate of permit tile review:       09/21/99
                            Date fill contruction started:       10/0 1/93
                                              Finished:             / /
                           Number of fill size revisions:              I
                            %Sandstone in overburden:             49
            Type of Fill

             Sire of Fill
               Surface
           configuration

             Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
              Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor


           Engineering
             Properties
                 (Spoil)

           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
                                         As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                        Original desisn

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Durable Rock
2475
77.0
Durable Rock
4000
102.0
91.1

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1900
1230
16.0
22.0
Perimeter
Constructed Underdrain
REAME
1.6
1.4
130
35
0
1840
1050
8.0
23.0
Perimeter
ConstructedUnderdrain
SB Slope
1.6
1.4
135
35
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

Phreatic Surface
None
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications

Aerial Survey
a nil Ground
Level Review
App). Phase Appl. Quarterly
Certification Certification
Foundation Preparation Yes [x] No [ ] 94/3
Underdrains Yea [X] No [ ] 95/2
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [ ]
Grading andRe-vegetufion Yes [ ] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes! ] No [ 1
If aBRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core imderdrain by gravity segregation'?
Foundation data'
Dip of strata relative to fill:
WerftNOVfs written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal detenu ined to be on-going?
if spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
'a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage;
Discernible blanket or core drain forming?
if the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completi on revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill suiface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fillface or benches?
Number of benches on till:
Photography
Type
Copies
Copies
Yes IX] No[ ]
Pit1;
Ye-s[ ] No[X]
Yes[ 1 No[ 1
Yea [ 1 No [ ]
Yes I ] No[ ]
Yes[ J No I ]
Yes [ 1 No [ J
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
                                                                       WV-141
-------
                             Location
                                                                                  Leneth (frt          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                        Depth (in)
   Location of
       Cracks
   Location, of
   Depression*
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
   Movement
Characteristics
    Comment.
1
2
3
Were there depressions on the fill benches? Yes [ ] No [ 1
1
2
3
4
5
Were there areas of erosion on the fillbenchcs? Yes { ] No[ ]
I
4
5
Were there bulges or hummocky terrain? Yes [ ] No [ ]
1
I
4
5
Were there springs or seeps observedin disposal areas? YQS [ ] No [ ]
1
2
3
4
5
Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observedofi till? Yes [ ] No[ }
2
4
5
6
Did a failure occur on the till? Yes [ ] No [ ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
Stage of construction during failure:
Mass 1
Bench K
Length (A)
Width (ft)
Scarp Height (ft)
Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
TransportDistance (A)
Dntg ^f ]i/r™*a,>lo*>f
Extent of Failure Movement
Cause of Movement Mass 1
Mars 2
Mass 3
muittce performed triaxiai shear tests on ibundation material, Fill PI wa$aepanded into two till from a larger single fill
oal burg, Lower Coalburg, GSM issued TDN 94-1 13-524-00! for not capturing drainage from auger holes Jn fill area

(Potential Water Depth)
(Maximum Gull) Depth)



Mass 2 Mass 3

Coal seams mined were Stockton, Upper Coalburg, Middl
                                                                 WV-142
-------
         West Virginia
        Elkay Coal  Co.
       Tower Mountain
Permit: S-5023-93
Fill: Fill #1
Permit: S-5023-93

             WV-143
Fill: Fill #1
-------
         West Virginia
        Elkay Coal  Co.
       Tower Mountain


Permit: S-5023-93
Fill: Fill #1
Permit: S-5023-93

             WV-144
Fill: Fill #1
-------
  West Virginia
    Evergreen
No Mine Identifier

 Permit:  S-35-76

     Fill: #1
      WV-145
-------
BLANKPAGE
  WV-146
-------
Company: Evergreen
Permit: S-35-76
State:
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:

WV
Webster
38-25-26
80-36-35

Fill: # i
Mine: N/A
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:
Date of permit tile review:
Date fill eontruetion started:
Yes [ ] No [X] Finished:
Number offill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:
Yes[ ] No[X]
12131/99
10126199
03/28/91
/ /
1
43

      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Saferj Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
                                     As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                            Original design
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Durable Rock Conventional
3400
1.1
Flat Flat
Crown (h)
Toe (h)
Toe Foundation {%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2500
2400
26.6
Perimeter Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME REAME
Static
Seismic
UmtWeight(pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcfi
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
140
36
150
115
30
150
None
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                            Appl. Quarterly
                                                                                                                             Photography
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
       Foundation Preparation    Yes [  ]   No [X]
                  Underdrains    Yes [  ]   No [X]
                Surface Drains   Yes [  ]   No [X]
     Grading wid Re-vegetation    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
            Final Certification    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
9111
91/1
9912
Color
Color
Color
                                      If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?     Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                           Foundation darar.                                               •™"
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                              Were NOY's written on the fill?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                Surface drainage control working property?  Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                             Subsurface drainage control working properly?  Yes {  ]   No [  ]
                                             If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?  Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                 If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Ycs[  1   No [  1
                                                                        If note above, estimate percentage:
                                                                 Disc-emable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [X]   No [  J

                If the till is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-complefion revision?                 Unknown
           If the fi II i s significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                          Fill surface configuration:
                                                                Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                                Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  1   No [X]
                                                                                Number of benches on Ell:
                                                                       WV-147
-------
                                 Location
                                                                                              Length (ft)
                                                                                                                    Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                            Depth (in)
   Location of
        Cracks
   Location "f
   Depressions
   Location "f
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
                                          Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [x ]
                                                                                                                (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                       Were ihere areas of erosion on the fillbenches?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                                                                 (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                             Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No[x]
                               Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                           Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [X]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                          Massl
                                                          Bench #
                                                           Length (ft)
                                                            Width (ft)
                                                      Scarp Height (ft)
                                               Depth to Slip Plane  (it)
                                                Transport Distance (ft)
                                                 Rate of Movement
                                        Extent of Failure Movement
                Cause cf Movement     Mass 1
                                        Mass 2
                                        Mass 3
                                                                                                                    Mass 2
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
                    11 I started as a lift typo and was extended in size as a durable rack type 1991 cert shows underdrain eoastmctioa ]99S plan map seems 1o show constructed undenfrains in the fine
                    signed fill so, don IFt know why Permit review began with fills A andB, bur there discontinued m a 1996IBR Fill j has become a combination valley and side-hill fill Includes
                    infaceside drain along lower side (along the main trend of the fill) and (in the 1998 design) 3 surface "flumes" connected to h The toe dope is dose to flat The fill's crown tilling,
                    cc is a relatively minor part of the configuration Stability analysis includes ] longitudinal section and 2 cross-sections The original parameters of fills A and B paitty differ from till
                    soil cohesion for bolh A andB is 0 For tilIB, foundation unit weight and cohesion is 92 andO respectively There'suse of the critical foundation concept in the permit Helicopter
                    totoes show tho end-dumpingprycess to benearly complete Appear; to involve 2 lifts The upper lift nd yet regraded nearthetoc In spite of tho short slope, the gravity segregation
                    ocess seems to be working very well
                                                                           WV-148
-------
       West Virginia
         Evergreen
    No Mine  Identifier
Permit: S-35-76
Fill: #1
Permit: S-35-76           Fill:  #1

           WV-149
-------
       West  Virginia
         Evergreen
    No Mine Identifier
Permit: S-35-76
Fill: #1
          WV-150
-------
    West Virginia
Evergreen Mining Co.
 Knight-Ink #1 Mine

  Permit: S-2019-88

       Fill:  #5
       WV-1.51
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-152
-------
                                     As Constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                           Original design
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
           (spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    construction
   Documentation
and Certifications

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
lull Face (deg )



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (pst)
unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psfj

Durable Rock
1520
32.0
1.4
Flat
2520
2400
6.0
24.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.8
1.5
140
36
0
120
30
250
None
Chimney
1750
32.0

Flat
2515
2400
6.0
20.0
Chimney Core
Chimney Core
REAME
1.7

140
36
0
120
30
250
None
ifaDRF, did the photographs show the root blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [ ]
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill? Yes[ ;
No[ ]
None
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      certification
                                                           Appl,Quarterly
                                                             Certification
  Foundation Preparation     Yes [ ]   No [ ]
            Underdrain s    Yes [X]   No [ ]
           Surface Drains    Yes [ ]   No [ ]
Grading and Revegetation     Yes [ ]   No [ ]
       Final Certification    Yes [ ]   No f 1
                                                                                          3/98
                                                                                          2/99
                                                                                                   Photography
                                                                                                       Type
                                                                                                                  B&W
                                                                                                                  R&W
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [ ]   No [  }
                                                             Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [Xj   No [  ]
                                 if spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill I sunder construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                        If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                 Discernable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [X]   No [  ]
                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
           If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation Of inspector?
                                                                         Fill surface configuration
                                                                Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                               Number of benches on fill:
                                                                      WV-153
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                               Depth (in)
            Location "f
                r~   1  *
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-2019-68
#5
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [ ]   No [
                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  I   No [  ]
                                                   Were there bulges or liurnmocky terrain?   Yes [  I   No [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [  I  No [  ]
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [I  No [
' so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                     Mass 1
                                                      Bench #
                                                       Length  (ft)
                                                        Width  (ft)
                                                  ScarpHeiglit  (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane   (ft)
                                             Transport Distance  (ft)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                                                                      Miss 2
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                                 Mass 1
                                                                 Mass 2
                                                                 Mass 3
                            3 at seams Freeport & splits Mearns, Widen, Kittanning & splits, *B" & "C" Seam, "A" seam

                            R $2 revised fill from chimney drain to DRF with segregated ruck blanket
                                                                                WV-154
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
-------
      West Virginia
  Evergreen  Mining Co,
   Knight-Ink #1 Mine
Permit: S-2019-88

          WV-155
Fill: #5
-------
BLANK PAGE
    WV-156
-------
  West Virginia
  Fola Coal Co.
No Mine Identifier

Permit:  S-2012-93

     Fill: B
     WV-157
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-158
-------
Companj
Permit:
state:
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:

: Fola Coal Co.
S-20 12-93
WV
Clay
38-21-16
81-02-44

Fill: B
Mine: N/A
Was this fill visited at ground level'?

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey1?
Date of survey:


Yes [ 1 No [x]

Yes [ ] No [X]
12/20/99
Date of permit file review: 10/27/99
Date fill contruction started: 01/20/95
Finished: / /
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden: 70

      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Su rface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
Durable Rock

Flat


Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (it)
Toe (K\
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dee,.)
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
Durable Rock
6000
51.7
Flat
1600
1100
2.0
27,0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME




Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcQ
Fiction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Fiction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.7
140
38
0
125
33
40
P-005
Appl, Phase Appl-Quarterly
Certification Certification

Construction
Documentation
2nd Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X] 95/1
Underdrams Yes [ ] No [x] 95/4
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X]
Grading and Revegetation Yes { ] No [X]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [X]
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written 02 the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction.
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
Tfnoto above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain forming?
If the Oil is completed, compare the size with the sixe in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what isthe reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fillsituated in landslidetopography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Photography
Type





Yes {X]


Yes [X]
Yes[ J
Yes [ ]
Yes [X]


Yes[ ]

Yes IX]

Color
Color



No [ ]
ijuira

No[ J
Nof ]
No [ ]
No[ ]


Nu[X]
70
NoJ ]
Unknown


Yes[ ]
Yes[ 1


Flat
No[X]
No [ ]

                                                                    WV-159
-------
                                 Location
                                                                                               Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                            Depth (in)
   Location of
        Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Locution of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                           Were there depressions OR the fill benches?    Yes [  1   No [  1
                                                                                                                                      (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                       Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  1
                                                                                                                                      (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                             Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   Nu [  ]
                               Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                           Were changes in vegetationor spoil color observed on fill?      Yes f ]   No [  ]

                           1
                                                       Did a failure occur on the fill?   Yes[  ]    No f  ]
                    !f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
                                 Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                               Mass I
                                                                               Bench %
                                                                               Length  (ft)
                                                                                Width  (ft)
                                                                          Scarp Height  (ft)
                                                                    Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                    Transport Distance  (£t)
                                                                      Rats of Movement
                                                             Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                                    Cause of Movement
                                                            Mass 2
                                                            Mass 3
                    he original application includes perimeter surface drains However, the size of the ill] and the shape of the hollow appears to have required a complex netwok s or' drains running
                    ;ross a broad fill crown shared by at least 2 other fills This involved multiple face-ups and drainage divides (referencing 2/17/94 plan map) A revision dated 6/22/94 shows atributa
                    /stem of center drains in a considerably smaller fill (albeit still large) separated from the other fills by the natural topography Permit includes a soil-substitution study showing
                    verburden with superior properties for sustaining vegetation relative to the natural soil The spoil materials proposed for substitution includes most of the overburden, including most
                    le sandstone. End dumping had already begun by the time of thefiret certification. There were two NOVs found in the file placement of acid/toxic materials and dumping beyond ths
                    30ft  from toe limit. By the helicopter survey, the face had beenregrsded and on-going dumping  and grading occurred at the crown Even on the short dumping slopes above the fsc<
                    : avitv segregation -was evident
                                                                           WV-160
-------
      West Virginia
      Fola  Coal Co.
    No  Mine Identifier
Permit: S-2012-93         Fill: B

Permit: S-2012-93

           WV-161
Fill: B
-------
BLANK PAGE
     WV-162
-------
       West Virginia
     High Power Energy
Twenty Mile Creek Mine #901

     Permit: S-3026-90

         Fill:  S2-X
           WV-163
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-164
-------
Company: High Power Energy
  Permit:  S-3026-90
    State:  WV
 County:  Nicholas
Latitude:  38-17-26
Jngitude:  81-01-31
             Fill:  S2-X
           Mine:  Twenty Mile Creek Mine #901
Was this fill visited at ground level?   Yes [  ]    No [Xj
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yes[X]   No[  J
 12/20/99
                              Date of permit file review:       11/18/99
                            Date fill contraction started:       01/01/91
                                             Finished:       12/31/95
                           Number of till size revisions:
                            %Sandstone in overburden:
           Type of Fill
            Size of Fill
              Surface
         Configuration

            Elevations
               Slopes

      Surface Drainage
              Control
           Subsurface
            Drainage
              Control
             Stability
             Analysis
         Software Used

         Safety Factor


          Engineering
            Properties
               (Spoil}

          Engineering
            Properties
          (Foundation)

       Phreatic Surface
         Construction
        Documentation
      and Certifications
         Aerial Survey
         and Ground
         Level Review
                                       As constructed
                                                                                 Revision
                                                                                                                     Original design
Durable Rock
1240
Tlat
1670
1390
25,0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Durable Rock
1240
1.5
Flat
1640
1400
11.0
22.0
Center Dram
Gravity Segregated
Stabl

1.6
120
35
0
125
30
0
Pbrcatic Surface
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (pst)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg,}
Cohesion (psf)

1.5
120
35
0
125
30
0
Fhreatic Surface
                                                       Appl. Phase
                                                       Certification
                                   Appl. Quarterly
                                    Certification
                                       Photography
                                          Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [X] No [ ] 91/3
Underdrains Yes [ ] No [Xj 91/3
Surface Drains Yes[ ] No f 1
Grading and Keveg etation Yes f ] No [X] 95/4
Final Certification Yes [x] No 1 J 96/1
If a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill;
Were NO Vs written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernible blanket or core drain forming?
if the fill is completed, compare the size with the size ift the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller- what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
None
None
None
None
Yes[ ] No[X]
TV*™ tlml 	
Yes [X] "No [ ]
Yes[ ] Nof]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yesl ] No I ]
Yes[ ] No[ J
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[ I
Yes[ ] No{ ]
                                                                      WV-165
-------
                                        Location
                                                                      Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                            Depth (in)
            Location of
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-3026-90
S2-X
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  1  No I  1
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [ ]   No [ J
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [ ]
      "Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes f  ]   No [  ]
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
                                 Did a failure occur on the till?
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                            Yes [  ]   No |X]
                                                                                                  Mass 1
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                       Bench #
                                                        Length (ft)
                                                         Width (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                              TransportDisfance (A)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                                      Mass 1
                                      Mars 2
                                      Mass 3
                            Jiuary 17, 1996 certification states that upper part of fillwas banded for adeep mine. In the aerial photos it appears that a large seep is emanating (tcmabovethefill

                            n NOVwas issued May 14, 1991, for failure to remove all organic material prior to fill placement
                                                                                 WV-166
-------
         West Virginia
      High Power  Energy
Twenty Mile  Creek Mine #901

  Permit: S-3026-90
Fill: S2-X

 Permit: S-3026-90

             WV-167
Fill: S2-X
-------
         West Virginia
      High Power  Energy
Twenty  Mile Creek Mine #901
  Permit: S-3026-90
Fill: S2-X
            WV-168
-------
       West Virginia
    High Power Energy
Twenty Mile Creek Mine #90

      Permit:  S-51-85

          Fill: E
          WV-169
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-170
-------
                                   As constructed
                                                                                Revision
                                                                                                                      Original design
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Durable Rock
1700
37.0
Flat
1800
1380
4.0
22.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.6
1.2
120
33
100

"Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Rock
1700
37.0
Flat
1800
1380
9.0
22.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.6
1.2
120
33
100
Durable Rock
2300
64.0
27.0
Concave
1850
1225
19.0
23.0
Chimney Core Center Drain
Gravity Segregated Chimney Co
SB Slope
1.7
1.4
1 20
35
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psi)
P-0.05

P-0.05
None
                                                    Appl. Phase-
                                                    Certification
Appl,Quarterly
 Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdraius
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Ycs[X]
Yes[X]
No [ j
No [ ]
No [ ]
No[ ]
91/4
9012
9311
93/1
96/1

None
B&W
B&W
B&W
None

Tf a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket orcoi'e underdrain by gravity segregation? Yes [X] No [ ]
uuuuauuii data. r'iis
Dip of stratarelativetofill: LeftFlankHi& Toward Fill
Were NOV's written 0: the fill? Yes [X] No [ ]
Surface drainage control ^¥orking properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly''
If active fill, war active spoil disposal determined to he on-going?
If spoil disposalsite inactive, how long was disposaloperatiou idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the Size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason accordingto the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Yes[X]
Ycs[ ]
Yes[ J
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No [ ]
8
                                                                   WV-171
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)          Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
         Erosion Areas
            Location of
                       4
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             comments
S-51-85
E
                                                Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes[  ]  No [  ]
                                                                                                         (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No[ J
                                                   Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                  Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes[  ]   No [  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the till?   Yes [ ]   Nu [  I
F so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                 Mass 1
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                       Bends #
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                  Scarp Height (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (A)
                                             Transport Distance (A)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
                                     Mass I
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                            sal Seams Coalburg, Stockton, 5-Blcck; Original design called for 50' lifts but was modified to DRF;
                            Hiding on top surface of fill; Pond constructed on backfilled area above fill
                                                                               WV-172
                                                                                                          {Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
-------
        West Virginia
     High Power Energy
Twenty Mile Creek Mine #90
  Permit: S-51-85
Fill: E
  Permit: S-51-85

            WV-173
Fill: E
-------
Blank Page
  WV-174
-------
  West Virginia
Hobet Mining, Inc.
   West Ridge

Permit:  S-5003-96

   Fill: Fill #52
      WV-175
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-176
-------
Type of Fill
SUe of Pill
Surface
Configu radon
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface
Durable Rock
Length (h)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
3700
82.9
7.7
Flat
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1250
850
8.0
23.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
Other

static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psi)
1.6
125
34
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psi)
None
AppL Fiuse AppLQuarterfy
Certification Certification

construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [ ]
Underdrains Yes [X] No [ ] 9614
Surface Drains Yes IX] No I ] 9714

Grading and Revegetation Yes [X] No [ ] 9714
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ ]
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by g ravity segregation?
i:<,und.t;<>,, ,),*,.
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
if spoil disposal site inactive, how longwas disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock 611 is under Construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration.'
Is the till situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Photography
Type






Yes [ ]


YesfX]
Yes[ ]
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]


Yes[ ]

Yes [X]



Yes[ ]
Yes [X]



None
Notie

None

No[X]
0-,!^.-

Not I
Nu[XJ
No[ ]
No[X]
30

No[X]
40
No[ ]
Same

Convex
No[X]
No [ ]
5
WV-177
-------
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)
                                                                                         Width (ft)
                                                                                                        Depth (in)
             Comments
S-5003-9S
Fitl *52
Bch.v4. Full length, Paral
Bch#3.3&4 Qitl, Parallel
                                                                        600
                                                                        300
                     Were there depressions on the fillbenches?    Yes [x]  No {
      Bch S3, 2 Quratile                                                   15
      BcIi*l,2Quratile                                                   15
                                                                                                                                    (Potential Water Depth)
                                             Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]  No[X]
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                       Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [x]  No [  ]
      Bch £3,2 85Quarti)e                                               25                    5
      Bch #2,2&3 Quarlile                                                15                    5
                                     Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   Nu [X]
                                  Were changes in vegetationor spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   Nn[x]
                                Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [x]   No f  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:    Field Measurements
            Stage of construction during failure:     Post-construction active
                                                                     Mass  I
                                                      Bench #             3
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                       Width (ft)        25
                                                  Scarp Height (A)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane  (ti)
                                            Transport Distance (ft)
                                             B.ate of Movement        None
                                     Extent of Failure Movement         None

               Cause of Movement     Mass I     Durability of Rock
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                     Mass 2
                           ield review revealed bulges on benches $3 and $2 Company indicates bulges and cracks are normal maintenance and not failures

                           hates were 
-------
         West  Virginia
      Hobet Mining,  Inc.
          West Ridge
Permit: S-5003-96
Fill: Fill #52

Permit: S-5003-96         Fill: Fill #52

             WV-179
-------
r
                             West Virginia
                           Hobet Mining, Inc.
                               West Ridge

                     Permit: S-5003-96
Fill: Fill #52
                                  .,,
                     Permit: S-5003-96         Fill: Fill #52

                                  WV-180
-------
      West Virginia
Independence Coal Co., Inc.
Twilight MTR Surface Mine

    Permit:  S-5023-96

  Fill: Fill #Uames Creek
          WV-181
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-182
-------
                                     As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                            Original design
      Type of Fill
       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       "Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications

Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (it)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
unit Weigiit (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psft
Durable "Rock
9800
135.0
201.0
Flat
2060
1300
3.0
27.0
Center Drain
Constructed Underdrain
REAME
1.5

140
40
0



Durable Rock
9800
135.0
201,0
Flat
2060
1300
3.0
27.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.5

140
40
0



   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                                                                  P-0.05
                                                       Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                           Appl. Quarterly
                                                            Certification
      Foundation Preparation     Yes [  ]   No [XJ
                 Underdrains     Yes [  ]   No [X]
               Surface Drams    Yes [  ]   No [X]
    Grading and Revegetation     Yes [  ]   No [  j
           Hnal Certification     Yes F  1   No r  1
                                                                                           98/4
Photography
    Type
          None
        Copies
        Copies
                                      Tf a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdraw by gravity segregation?    Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                            T7«..—*U*;.,~ *J~^~.                                                T~..i

                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                               Were NOV's written on the fill?  Yes [X]   No[  ]
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                            If active an.  was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going1!    Yes [X]   No [ ]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
f a durable rock fill is under construction.
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                                       If no lo above, estimate percentage:
                                                                Discemable blanket or core drain forming?  ¥es[X]   No [ 3
               If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                        Fill surface configuration:
                                                                Is the till situated in landslidetopography?     Yes [  J  No [  ]
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]  No [  }
                                                                               Number of benches on fill:
                                                                                                                                                   P-Q.05
                                                                       WV-183
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                     Length (ft)
                                                                                                                          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                                 Denth finl
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
                Changer
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-5023-96
Fill #1 James Greek
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [
                                                                                                               (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosionon the fill benches?   Yes (  ]   No [  J
                                                                                                                (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hunimocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [ J
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill'      Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                    Did a failure occur on the fill?
  f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
              Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                              Yes[  ]   No[X]
                                                                                                    Mass 1
                                                                                                                          Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                 Mass 3
                                               use of Movement
                                                          Bench if
                                                           Length  (ft)
                                                            Width  (ft)
                                                      Scarp Height  (ft)
                                               Depth to Slip Plane  (it)
                                                Transport Distance  (A)
                                                 Rats of Movement
                                        Extent of Failure Movement
                                        Mass 1
                                        Mass!
                                        Mass 3
  alley Fills #2 and tij combine with the James Creek fill to form VF #S .It is a multi-lift fill with 4 different crown elevations

  new  "constructed" underdraw sysicm was approved In Modification #3. This was in direct response to inspection concerns about improper gravity segregation

  Mimenis inFebnjary 8, 1999, inspection report indicate drainage from old deep mines needs to be collected and internally routed through the VF #1 underdrain.

An Nov was issued January 20, 1999, for side dumping
                                                                                   WV-184
-------
             West Virginia
     Independence Coal Co., Inc.
     Twilight MTR  Surface Mine

Permit: S-5023-96
Fill: Fill #1 James Creek

Permit: S-5023-96         Fill: Fill #1 James Creek

                 WV-185
-------
             West Virginia
     Independence Coal Co., Inc.
     Twilight MTR  Surface Mine
Permit: S-5023-96
Fill: Fill #1 James Creek
Permit: S-5023-96         Fill: Fill #1 James Creek

                 WV-186
-------
         West Virginia
James Coal Co. (River Ridge Coal)
       No. 1 Surface Mine

       Permit: S-5033-87

            Fill: #1
             WV-187
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-188
-------
                                     As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                           Original design
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
Durable Rock
1050
14.5
0.8
Concave
1400
1150
9.0
23.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Durable Rock
1050
14.5
0.8
Flat
1400
1150
9.0
23.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME
Durable Rock
1300
32.0
4.5
Flat
1610
1150
9.0
25.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
•RFAME

1.6
140
33
1
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
140
33
1
1.6
130
36
100
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (pst)
None

Nraic
Nnn^
   Aerial survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                           Appl.Quarterly
                                                            Certification
       Foundation Preparation     Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                 Underdrains    Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                Surface Drains    Yes [X]  No [  ]
     Grading and Revegetation     Yes [  ]  No[X]
            Final Certification    Yes [X]  No [  ]
93/2
99/1
94/3
                                  Photography
                                      Type
 None
 None
 None
 None
Copies
                                     If aDRF, did the photographs show the icckblanket or tore underdrain by gravity segregation1!     Yes [ ]   No f  ]
                                                                           Foundation data:                                                «'i=
                                                                  Dip of strata relative to fill:                      Left Flank High Away From Fill
                                                                                              Were NOVs written on the fill?  Yes [X]   No [ ]
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [  ]   No [XI
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how lung was disposal operation idle (months)?
!f a durable rock fill is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable lock by volume?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                       If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                Discernableblanket or core drain forming?   Yes [  ]   No [  J
                If the fill is completed, compare the si/,e with the size in the latest pie-completion revision?
          If the fill  is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                        Fill surface configuration:
                                                                Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                               Number of benches on fill:                 9
                                                                       WV-189
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                 Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                            Depth (in)
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location 0 f
          Erosion Areas'
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-5033-87
*1
                                                 Were (here depressions on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                              Were Ihere areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                                   Were there bulges Of hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No f ]
       1
       2
       5
       4
       5
       6
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                     Mass 1
                                                       Bench*
                                                       Length (ft)
                                                        Width (ft)
                                                   ScarpHeight (ft)
                                            Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                             Transport Distance (ft)
                                              Rate of Movement
                                     Extent of Failure Movement
               Cause of Movement    Mass 1
                                     Mass 2
                                     Mass 3
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                           Mass 3
                            oal seam. Upper Cedar Grove, Lower Cedar Grove, Alma; Slate NOVs issued for contemporaneous reclamation improper drainage, improper construction, and erosion , Seeps
                            irming at bench £1 which were drained as shown on final certification

                            >ndmg on bench $7, quarter #4
                                                                                WV-190
-------
            West  Virginia
James Coal Co.  (River Ridge  Coal)
         No. 1 Surface Mine
     Permit: S-5033-87
Fill: #1
      Permit: S-5033-87

               WV-191
Fill: #1
-------
BLANK PAGE
     WV-192
-------
      West Virginia
    Julianna Mining
Camp Creek Surface Mine

    Permit: S-2002-94

       Fill: VF#1
        WV-193
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-194
-------
Com pa ii)
Permit:
State;
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:

• Julianna Mining
S-2002-94
wv
Webster
38-30-15
58-03-10

Fill: VF#I
Date of permit file review:
Mine: Camp Creek Surface Mine Date fill contraction started:
Was this fill visited at ground level?

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:
Yes [ J No [X] Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
,, . , ,, „„ %Sandstone in overburden:
Yes [ ] No [X]
12/21/99
1 1/03/99
11/01/94
/ /
3
59

                                    A s constructed
                                                                                 Revision
                                                                                                                        Original design
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
      Type of Fill
       Sire of Fill
         Surface
   Configuration

       Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
  Documentation
and certifications
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%}
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
2580
108.0
18.1
Flat
2250
1920
6.0
47.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
Stabi!
1.6
1.4
125
38
0
3740
108.0
16.4
Flat
2140
1875
6.0
47.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
Stabil
1.8

125
35
100
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
                                          32
                                                                                         27
                                                                                      Phreatic Surface
                                                                                                                                     Phreatic Surface
                                                    Appl. Phase
                                                    Certification
                     Appl.Quarterly
                       Certification
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdrains
Surface Drains
Grading and Rcvegetation
Final Certification
Yes [xl
Yes[X]
Yes 1 J
Yes I ]
Yes! ]
No f ] 4/97
No [ ] 4/97
No I j
Nof 1
No[ ]
Ifa DR1-', did the photographs showthe rock blanket or cureundcrdram by gravity segregation?








Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active ill), was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Jf spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?





Yes [X]

B&W
B&W



No[ ]
Text ,PJts
Away From Fill
Yes [ ]
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
No[ 1
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[X]
Ifa durable rock fill is under construction,






Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
if no to above, estimate percentage:
i DiscernaWe blanket or core drain forming?
Yes[ ]

Yes[ ]
No[ ]

No[ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?


Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on 111!:
Yes[ 1
Yes[ ]
Flat
No[X]
No[X]
8
                                                                    WV-195
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)
                                                                                    Width (ft)
Depth (in)
            Location of
                Crocks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location ot
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes*
            Movement
             Comments
E-2002-84
VF#1
                                                 Were there depressions on the fillbenches?    Yes[  ]   No [
                                                                                                   (Potential Water DcptH)
           Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches'!   Yen[X]   No [  ]
] Entire Face
2
3
4
5
                                                    Were there bulges or hutnmocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
   Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas'!    Yes [X]   No [  ]
1 Toe Area, QTR4
2
3
4
5
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                             Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
                            f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
                                        Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                 Mass 1
                                                                                                                      Mass 2
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                Bench;?
                                                 Length  (ft)
                                                  Width  (ft)
                                            Scarp Height (R)
                                      Depth to Slip Plane  (A)
                                       Transport Distance  (I?)
                                        Rats of Movement
                               Extent ofl-'ailure Movement
                               Mass 1
                               Mass 2
                               Miss 3
                                                                                                                                       (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                            Mass 3
                            *R #!  changes center drains to ground drains; TBR 42 increitsed capacity by raising final elevation; Rev #9 added refuse disposal on bench above VF#1 in backstack ares

                            abstantiai erosion on area above seep at toe  Erosion extends up the terrace face to bench #1
                                                                                WV-196
-------
        West Virginia
       Julianna Mining
 Camp Creek  Surface Mine
Permit: S-2002-94
Fill: VF #1
Permit: S-2002-94         Fill: VF #1

            WV-197
-------
        West Virginia
       Julianna Mining
 Camp Creek  Surface Mine
Permit: S-2002-94
Fill: VF #1
Permit: S-2002-94

            WV-198
Fill: VF #1
-------
       West Virginia
K & B Coal Co. (after Lionel)
          Grace #3

     Permit:  S-3010-86

           Fill: #3
           Fill: #4
           wv-199
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-200
-------
                                                                       TOZ-AM
001
K
S 1 1
0
9£
OZI
i'[
3J03
 0'9£
009Z
WIJ
L'6
                                      ^jojoadsui jo uoLjEiusuinoop 341 oj §mp.iooDE uosEai sip si JEIJM '
                                      uoisiA94 uoipjduio3-9ad is3jE[ si[i ui 3zis aqi i||u\ szis 3qi 3i«dui
           9                  :|[ijuo
           I  ] °N   [XJ S3A   t,S3ipuaq .10 3DS| |[y sqi uo paAjasqo s^3BJ3 p
           [Xj °N   [  ] S3 A    i'CqdE.iSodoi 3pipp«| u; psienirs ipj aiy sj
           [Xl °K
           SI
           [X] °N
              ] ojq
                                                                       is X[|UE3i)tu§is si [iy ai[j jj
i''u!UIJOJ U!EJP ajo° J0 |9
            BIUIJS3 'SAOqe 0) OUJI
                       1 S3A  ('
                         esodsip se.\\ ouo| Moq 'aMjoeui SJTS psodsip |iods jx
 ^3uto3~uo aq oj pamiujaiap [Bsodsip (iods OAIIOB SEM '1(11 3AipEj|
                  |o^iuo3 a^euieip 23EJJnsqmj
                  jojjuoo s3Bu
           !  1 "N   [Xj S3A   tii3 3Hi HO uSjiUm S.AOM 5"A
            [X]
               Xqdej^otoqj
                SlSSp (BUI^UQ
                                                               :||g o) 3Anupa Biefls jo diQ
                                                                :c;cp uoijopunog
                                                                                                           UOIIBMJIH3 J |BUIJ
                                                                                      [X] ON   [  ] SSA    suiBipaapiifi
                                                                                      Ixj °N   [  J S3A     uoijEJDdaij uoijepunoj
                                                            Aijajjcnf)'|ddv
                                                                                                'iddv
                                                                                 (i3d) ni3ia^\ iiuri
                     01
                     9t
                     Oil
   (jsd) uoTsoipg
   sfSuy UOUDIJJ
(pd) H[3ra^\ )i«n
                                                   9' I
                                                                                           DIUJSI3S
                                                                                             °!)BJS
                                                          ss AJIAEJO
                                                   O'Ll
                                                                                    ('Sap) 3»BJ IIU  O'ic
                                                  )BIJ
                                                                                       (S3J3B) E3JV
                                                               UOISIA9JJ
                                                                                                                punoj
                                                                                                                                            uopanjjsuoj
                                                                                                                                            pas;}

t-c

16/K/LO
06/10/Z1
00/80/80

:u3PjnqjDAO lit 3uoispires%
isuoisjAoi azis ||ij jo jsqumN
:pai[siuij
:popuis uoiianjjuoa jjy SIBQ
:A\siA3j a[[f jiiuiad jo ajeQ
66/'^ ImT^o™!,, K-8E-08 ^P-M-auo!
31)1 JE psuiiBpgj ussq (]ij sqipRH 1 £-££-&£ rapnjije'i
00/ir/£0 tjisujosiBQ si!|oq3iK :Xiun»3
[ JON [Xl S3yV /,|3A9| punojg IE p3|IS1A ||[f SILJ1 SB A^ ^^ :3]E)S
CfSOBJQ :au!W 98-OIOE-S :)!tuwj
e # :HU (isuon J8^) -03 1^03 a 5 ^ ^imduno
-------
                                  Location
                                                                                                Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                         Depth (in)
   Location of
        Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location "f
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
       Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                           Were there depressions on the fill benches'.'    Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                  (Potential Water Depth)
                   Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [x]   No [  )
       1 B 6-crown, Q ]
       2 B 2-toe, Q 2
       3
                                                                                                                                       (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                              Wcic there bulges 01 trammocky terrain?   Yes [X]   No I
          Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?
       Describe location of seep
       1 B crown. Q 1
       2 B 2,Q 2
       3 B 5 Q 3-4
       4
                                                                                        Yes[Xj   Nb[
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observedon fill?    Fes[X]    No [  j

       1
       2
       3
       4
       5
       6
                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:    Permit File, field Measurements, DEP Inspector
             Stage of construction duringfailure:
                                                                           Mass 1               Mass 2
                                                                                 6                     3
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                                     Cause of Movement
                                                           Bench S
                                                            Length (ft)
                                                             Width (ft)
                                                       Scarp Height (ft)
                                                Depth  to Slip Plane  (ft)         30
                                                 TransportDistance (ft)          9                                             1
                                                  Rate nt'Movetnen!         Slow                  Slow                   Slow
                                        Extent of Failure Movement          Slip                   Slip                    Slip

                                                    InadequateUmlerDrams. Underground Mine Drainage. Durability of P.ock.
                                                    Inadequate UnderDrains, Durability of Rock, Steep Stream Profile
                                                    InadequateUnderDrains, Durability of Rock, Steep Stream Profile
                                                             Mass 1
                                                             Mass 2
                                                             Mass 3
se first modification for fill 3 (5/S/9Q) allowed for end-dumping and then reworkingthe spoil far the lift construction {as opposed to a complete haul-down of die material to the
ittom of the developing till). Along with fills 2 and 4, ilwas changed to the durable-rock type on 7/16/90 This occurred under the original company (Lionel-permitted2/2/90), 8
mples above the Lower Kiuaning Coalbed were tested for durability, using SDI Three of these were shale, the rest sandstone All bui one shale sample passed as durable The permv
viewer could not determine why samples between the Lower Kittanmg and Clarion Coalbeds were not taken A profile of fill 4, the crown of which is at m elevation very close to tb
fwn of fill 3.,  shows It back-stacked ever abenchinto the Clarion  There's a thick, massive sandstone between the two seams  The peraut was revoked on. 7/16/90 due to problems.
laiedtc effluent limits, sediment control systems, and the construction of the valley fills Repair work began under contract on 6/29/94
slip on fill 3 was firs! documented m the 1/28/92 quarterly  certification report Certification photographs indicate that the slip was corrected by 7/24/92, but reoccurred by 2/12/93.
le contracted work on fill 3 began by 10/12/94 The inspection report claimed that a large discharge was faking place at the fill toe and ihat trees and excessive spoil had been placed
e slip area The projected was completed by 12/7/94 However the slip  reappearedby 3/3/95 The slip -was reclaimed a third time by 7/20/95 A final inspection took place on 1/30/9
!tit>st a year after the contractor's release The current problems on the fill must have started between this last inspection and the 12/99 helicopter survey The slip referenced  in the
rtification and inspection reports 35 listed under mass # I in the table above Twoothor independent failures were observed during iheQSMjpxiund-level review The maximum depl
the largest slip is estimated la be 30 to -40 feet, whish corresponds to the depth of the fill Theie i s g significant seep atbencli 3, whish is connected to the mass #2 failure There is £
                                                                             wv-202
-------
Company
Permit:
state :
County:
Latitude:
jOngitude;

K & B Coal Co. (after Lionel)
S-30 10-86
wv
Nicliolas
38-23-21
80-." 8 -5 4

Fill: #4
Mine: Grace # 3
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:


Yes[x] No[ J
03/21/00

Yes [Xj No [ I
12/22/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of flll size revisions:
%Sflridstone in overburden:


08/08/00
12/01/90
07/24/92

54


As constructed
                                       Revision
                                                                         Original design
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface
Durable Rock
Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
Concave
Crown (K)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
27 0 Fill Face Cdcif.1
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated

Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (pst)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg )
Cohesion (psf)

Durable Rock
1128
1.5
Flat
2615
2315
10.0
27.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
KKAMIi
1.6
120
36
10
115
30
120
None
Chimney
1075
14.8
Flat
2600
2320
10.0
27.0
Chimney Core
Chimney Core
Other
1.7
120
36
0
115
34
100
None
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review
Appl. Phase Appl. Quarterly
Certification Certification
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Uuderdrains Yes [ ] No [xj
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [X] 9211
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X] 92/4
Find Certification Yes [ ] No i I
If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's wntten on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage contra! working properly?
If active fili, vras a«ive spoii disposal uetcnnined to be on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rocktill is under construction
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drainfonning?
If the fill is completed, compare the sire with the s«e in the latest prc-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill
Photography
Type
Color
Color
Yes[ ] No[X]
Text Pits
Yes IX] No[ ]
Yes[X] No[ ]
Yes [ ] No [X]
Yes [ ] No{ l
Yes [ ] No[X]
15
Yesf ] No[X]
Unknown
Concave
Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes[X] No[ ]
7
                            WV-203
-------
                                   Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)
                                                                                                   Width (ft)
Depth (in)
    Location "f
        Cracks
    Location of
    Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location 0 f
Ground Bulges
   Location If
 Springs/Seeps
   Location 0 f
       Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
     Comments
                             I B 7-grown, Q 1
                                            Were there depressions on the til I benches?    Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                    (Potential Water Depth)
                                         Were there areas of erosion on the fillbenches?    Yes [xj   No [  ]
                                                                                                                     (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                               Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
       1 B 7-crown, Q 3
           Were there springs Of seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [X]   No [  ]

       Describe location of seep
       1
       2
       Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fiil?     Yes [X]   No [  ]

       1

       2
       3
       4
       5
       6
                                    Did a failure occur on the till?
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
             Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                           Yes [  ]   No|x]
                                                                                                  Mass 1
                                                                                                                        Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                 Mass 3
                                      Cause ofMovetnenl
                                                            Bencli #
                                                             Length  (ft)
                                                              Width  (ft)
                                                        Scarp Height  (ft)
                                                 Depth to Slip ™ane   (ft)
                                                  Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                   Rate of Movement
                                         Extent of Failure Movement

                                         Mass 1
                                         Mass 2
                                         Mass 3
le first modification for fill 3 (5/S/90) allowed for end-dumping and then reworking the spoil far the lift construction(as opposed to a complete haul-down of the material to the
ttom of the developing fill) Along with fills 2 and 3, it was changed to the durable-rock type on 7/16/90 This occurred under the original company (Lionel-permitted 2/2/90)
instruction of the fill had already started when the change was made  A 6/22/90 inspection report noted that 90 % of the placed fill material was composed of tines and that the fill w
ginning tu break near tho top Trie inspector was unsure if the fill should be constructed as a durable-rock type " at this time " 8 samples above the Lower Kittamng Coalbed were
ited for durability,usmg SD1 Three of these were shale, the real sandstone AH but one shale sample passed M durable  The permit reviewer could not determine why samples
tween the Lower Kittaning and Clarion Coalbeds were not taken  A profile of fill 4 shows if back-stacked twer a bench into the Clarion There's a thick, massive sandstone between
: two seams  The permit was revoked on 7/16/90 due to problems related to effluent iinuts, sediment control systems, and the construction of the vattey €\\h Repair work began undt
irtract on 6/29/94  There is a marked contrast between the 54 % sandstone in the geologic section and the very minor amount of sandstone seen in Ihe certification photographs Alsf
are is a contrast between the seepage witnessed ill the field and  the lack of ground-water discharge asserted ill the permit foundation report and assumed i n the permit stability analysi
1C crack above bench 7 is bog and arcuate and the bulge is just below it The elevation of this activity corresponds to that of top of the largest slip on fill 3 It is possible that both of
3se events have  resuled from groundwater emanating from a cut benchinto the Clarion Coalbed (over which (he fills may have been back-stacked) In addition to g feu minor
currency* of seeps, ponding and erosion on the fill face, water was observed flowing from the centra! drain approximately 30 feet above the toe
                                                                              WV-204
-------
                             West Virginia
                    K  & B  Coal Co.  (after  Lionel)
                                Grace #3
                      Permit: S-3010-86
Fill: #3
r


                      Permit: S-3010-86         Fill: #3

                                 WV-205
-------
         West  Virginia
K  & B Coal Co.  (after Lionel)
            Grace #3
   Permit: S-3010-86
Fill: #3
   Permit: S-3010-86

             WV-206
Fill: #3
-------
          West Virginia
 K  & B Coal Co.  (after  Lionel)
             Grace  #3
i
;  *
    Permit: S-3010-86
Fill: #3
          	•	.	:
   Permit: S-3010-86

              WV-207
Fill: #3
-------
         West  Virginia
K  & B Coal Co.  (after Lionel)
            Grace #3
   Permit: S-3010-86
Fill: #4
   Permit: S-3010-86

             WV-208
Fill: #4
-------
         West  Virginia
K  & B Coal Co.  (after Lionel)
            Grace #3
   Permit: S-3010-86
Fill: #4
   Permit: S-3010-86         Fill: #4

             WV-209
-------
         West  Virginia
K  & B Coal Co.  (after Lionel)
            Grace #3

  i
   Permit: S-3010-86         Fill: #4
   Permit: S-3010-86         Fill: #4

             WV-210
-------
  West Virginia
    Lone Star
Surface Mine No. 6

Permit: S-3016-92

     Fill: #3
    WV-211
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-212
-------
Company: Lone Star
Permit: S-3016-92
State: WV
County: Raleigh
Latitude: 37-54-29
Longitude: 81-19-24

Fill: #3
Mine: Surface Mine No.
Was this till visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:

6
Yes [X] No [ 1
03/08/00
Yes [X] No [ ]
12/20/99
Date of permit tile review:
Date fill contruetion started:
Finished:
Number of 1111 size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

11/16/99
04117/94
08/26/98
1
59

      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software TJsed

    Safetv Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and CertificatioQs
   Aerial Survey
   ana Ground
   Level Review
                                     As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                            Original design
Conventional
1125


Flat
2075
1750
7.5
23.2
Perimeter
Constructed Underdrain
REAME

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
'foe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Conventional
1740

3.5
Flat
2330
1750
9.0
26.6
Perimeter
Constructed Underdrain
REAME
Durable Rock
ISOO

3.5
rut
2350
1750
14.0
26. 6
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
GB Slope

1.6

125
34
100
125
33
100
None
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit \Afeight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

1,6

110
36
0
145
45
2500
None
1.6

110
36
0
145
45
2500
Phreatic Surface
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                      Appl. Qu a rte r!y
                                                        Certification
                                                                                                        Photography
                                                                                                            Type
  Foundation Preparation     Yes [ ]   No [XJ
            Underdrains    Yes [1   No [x]
           Surface Drains   Yes [  1   No [X]
Grading and Revegetation     Yes [ ]   No [X]
       Final Certification    Yes [ 1   No [X]
                                                                      9412
                                                                      94/3
                                                                      9511
                                                                      95/4
                                                                      98/3
Color
Color
Color
Color
Color
                                      If a DRP. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underilrain by gravity Segregation?    Yes [  ]   No [  J
                                                                            Foundation data:                                               Text
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                               Were NOY's-written on the S?    Yes [XJ   No [  ]
                                                                                                                 !  I
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [X]  No [  ]
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes (  ]  No [Xi
                                            If active fill, wa_s active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

fa durable rock fill is under construction
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes[  ]
                                                                       If no to above,  estimate percentage:
                                                                Discernable blanket or core drain forming?   Yes [  ]
                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
          If the  fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?    Underground/Auger Mine
                                                                         Fill surface configuration                      Flat
                                                               Ts the fill situftted in landslide topography?     Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?    Yes[X]   No [  ]
                                                                               Number of benches on fill                 7
                                                                                                                                       No[  ]

                                                                                                                                       Smaller
                                                                       WV-213
-------
                                           Location
                                                                                                        Length (ft)
                                                                                                 Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Cracks
             Location 0 f
             Depressions
             Location 0 f
          Erosion Areas
             Location of
          Ground Bulges
            Location of
           Springs/Seeps
             Location of
                Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
              Comments
S-3016-92
*3
        1        B3-5 ,Ql-3
        2        B6-7, Q3.
                 B7-8, Q3-4
                       Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes[x]   No [
        I          B5, Q2-3
        2          B6, Q1-2
        3          B7, Q2-3
        4
                                                                                                                                              (Potential Water Depth)
                    Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [X]   No [
        1  B2-3, Q4
        2  B3-4. Q4
        3  B7-Crown, Ql
        4
        5
                                                                                                                                               (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                       Wcic there bulges or humrnocky terrain?   Yes(X)    No [  1
        I B4-5, Ql-2

        3
        4
           Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [X]   No [
        1  B7,Q1
        2
        3
        4
        Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [x]   No [  1
        ! B1-2.Q1-4
        2  B2-3,Q4
        3 R3-5. Ql-2
        4
        5
        6
                                    Dido failure occur on the fill?    Yes [X]    No [  ]
ff so> enter the source of information on the failure:    permit File. DEP Inspector, Company .Representative
             Stage of construction during failure:     During Construction
                                                                           Mass 1               Mass 2                 Mass 3
                                                           Bench #
                                                            Length  (ft)
                                                             Width  (ft)
                                                       Scarp Height  (A)
                                                Depth to slip Plane  (ft)
                                                 Transport Distance  (fl)
                                                  Rate of Movement
                                         Extent of Failure Movement
                 Cause of Movement     Mass 1     Inadequate UndcrDrains, Landslide Prone Area, Thick Soil Foundation
                                         Mass 2
                                         Mass 3
Revision had two options dependingon the amount of spoil available (controlled by previous underground mining of Eagle seam) Actual construction reflected smaller size of option
:ace slope between benches averaged 42 8% but one of them exceeded the 26 6 % limit The underdrain and lift construction is limited to the lower IWQ benches Field report indicates
Dtationa! slip during construction Permit reviewer observed a cross-sectional diagram of the slip and judged it to betranslational. Failure occurred ii old orphaned fill after the initial
sd'dumping of the new spoil Revision shows Klip material being moved to the loe tor remediation Erosion points are sloughage, creep, and a small scarp formation. The para]lei (to
ace direction) cracks may be indicative of bulging tK& ts tno subtle to readily tiouce Landslides Haw occuned oa either side of the rill. PrescnUy don'tfcnow they're age relative to 61
(instruction or fill failure Tield report concludes that instability still exists  especially beyon the underdrain-and-lift ares to ibove the # 4 bench, and the culprit continues to be
inderground drainage related Ic the Eagle seam  Water disdiare In the left groin dhch decreased between the 60i and 5th benches
                                                                                     WV-214
-------
       West Virginia
         Lone  Star
    Surface Mine No.  6
Permit: S-3016-92
Fill: #3
Permit: S-3016-92

           WV-215
Fill: #3
-------
       West Virginia
         Lone  Star
    Surface Mine No.  6
Permit: S-3016-92
Fill: #3
Permit: S-3016-92

           WV-216
Fill: #3
-------
       West Virginia
         Lone  Star
    Surface Mine No.  6
Permit: S-3016-92
Fill: #3
Permit: S-3016-92         Fill: #3

           WV-217
-------
       West Virginia
         Lone  Star
    Surface Mine No.  6

Permit: S-3016-92
Fill: #3
Permit: S-3016-92

           WV-218
Fill: #3
-------
         West Virginia
Marrowbone Development (Triad)
     Dingess Tunnel Mine #1

       Permit:  S-5024-88

            Fill: #2
            WV-219
-------
BLANK PAGE
   WV-220
-------
                                     As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                           Original design
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

surface Drainage
         Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety  Factor
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Durable Rock
3200
42.3

Concave
1500
860
9.0
22.0
Perimeter/Cliitnney core
Chimney core
REAME
1.6
1.3
135
36
0
110
30
100
P-0.07

Length (R)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (dcg.)



Static
seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

Durable Rack
1400
42.3


1500
860
9.0
22.9
Perimeter/Chimney Core
Chimney Core
REAME
1.6
1.3
135
36
0
110
30
100
P-0.07
Durable Rock
1780
10.2

Flat
1060
860
9.0
19.0
Chimney Core
Chimney Core
REAME
1.5
140
38
0
110
"\7
50
Phrealic Surface
                                                      Appi. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                           Appl.Quarterly
                                                             Certification
       Foundation Preparation      Yes {  ]   No [  ]
                  Underdraws     Yes [X]   Nu [  ]
                Surface Drains    Yes [X]   No [  ]
     Grading and Revegetation     Yes [X]   No [  ]
91/3
9212
96/2
                                  Photograph,
                                      Type
Copies
copies
copies
                                      If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or cote underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes {X]   No f  1
                                                                           Foundation data:                                               Pits
                                                                   Dipof strata relative to fill:                                     Away From Fill
                                                                                              \, ti-NOV's written on the fill?  Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly'?  Yen(X]   No [  ]
                                                             Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes i  ]   No [  i
                                            If active fi||jWas active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                 If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?

If adorable rock fill is under construction,
                                                               Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [  ]   No [  1
                                                                        Ifno to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                 Discemable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [  J   No [  ]

                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pro-completion revision?
           If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                         Fill surface configuration:                 Concave
                                                                Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [ ]   No I ]
                                                Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [ ]   No f )
                                                                                Number of benches on fill:                12
                                                                      wv-221
-------
                               Locution
                                                                                         Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                Depth (in)
   Location of
       Cracks
   Location or
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
               *
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                        Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                     Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [ ]   No [ J
                                           Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                             Were there springs or seeps observed i n disposal areas?    Yes [ J   No [ J
                         Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till?     Yes [  1   Nu [  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  1   No [
fso, enter the sonrce of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                         Mass 1
                                                                                                              Mass 2
                                                                          Bench It
                                                                           Length (ft)
                                                                            Width (ft)
                                                                      Scarp Height (ft)
                                                                Depth to Slip Plane (ft)
                                                                Transport Distance (ft)
                                                                  Rate of Movement
                                                         Extent of Failnte Movement
                                  Cause of Movement     Mass 1
                                                         Mass 2
                                                         Mass 3
                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                   Mass 3
                   )al seams; Coaiburg. #5 Block; Fill was proposed with wing dumping; Hlghwall miner used on permit;

                   ructure is small three lift fill. Large flat top area. Upper fill loes out onto long top area of lower fill.  Chimney drain in lower fill. Ponding on bench #! 1 first quarter.
                                                                       WV-222
-------
           West Virginia
Marrowbone  Development  (Triad)
      Dingess Tunnel  Mine #1
                        4
     Permit: S-5024-88
                       Fill: #2
Permit: S-5024-88

          WV-223
                           Fill: #2
-------
Blank Page
  WV-224
-------
         West Virginia
         Mingo-Logan
Low Gap Branch Surface Mine #2

       Permit:  S-4013-95

            Fill: #4
            WV-225
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-226
-------
  Company: Mingo-Logan
    Permit: S-4013-95
     State: WV
   county: Mingo
  Latitude:  37-35-30
Longitude:  81-56-50
             Fill: #4
           Mine: Low Gap Branch Surface Mine 42
Was this fill visited at ground level?   Yes 1  ]   No [X]
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yes [  ]   "No [X]

 12/21/99
                              Date of permit tile review:       11/02/99
                            Date till conduction started:       04/01/96
                                             Finished:       02/22/99
                           Number of fill size revisions:
                            %Sandstone in overburden:             jg
             Type of Fill
               Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
             Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor
            Engineering
              Properties
                 (SpoU)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
                                         As constructed
                                                                                  Revision
                                                                                                                      Original design
Durable Rook
27.9
Concave
1690
1090
9.0
24.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.7
1,3
140
38
0
125
32-
0

Volume (nicy)

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (dcg.)
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Rock
27.9
fiat
1690
1090
9.0
24.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.7
1.3
140
38
0
125
32
0
P-.oj ?-fu
Appl. Phase
Certification

construction
Documentation
and Certifications










Aerial Survey
ft~[1(! vjrFOUIlti
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes [1 No [ ]
Underdrams Yes [X] No [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [X] No [ ]
Grading aiidRevegetalion Yes [X] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No [ ]
Appl.Quarterly
Certification

01/98
03/99
03/99

Photography
Type






B&W
B&W
B&W


If a DRF, did the photographs showthe rock blanket or core uriderdram by gravity segregation?

Foundation data:
Dip of stratarelative to fill:



If activ
If spoil disposal site
If a durable rock fill is under construction,




Were NOV's %vrirteii on the fill?
Surface, drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
e fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
inactive, haw long was disposal operation idle (months)?

Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?

If no to above, estimate percentage;
Discernabie blanket or core drain forming?
YesfXj

Away
Yes[ ]
Yes[X]
Yes [X]
Yes[ ]


Yes[ I


Ycs[ 1
Not ]
Nous
From Fill
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[X]


No I 1


No[ J
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-coniplction revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?


Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography1?
Were there ground cracks observedon the fill face or benches'?

Number of benches on fill:

Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]

Concave
No[XJ
No[ ]
10
                                                                       WV-227
-------
                               Location
   Location of
        Cracks
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location of
Ground Bulges
   Location "f
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                                                                         Length (ft)          Width (ft)            Depth (in)
                                        Were there depressions oil the fill benches?    Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                     Were there areas of erosion on the iiii benches"    Yes [  ]   No f  ]
                                           Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?    Yes [  J   No [  ]
                             Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
     Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till?      Yes [xj  No [  ]
     1 Bench #8, QTR2
     2
     3
     4
     5
     6
                                L)id a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [ ]   No [  J
so, enter the source of information on the failure:
          Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                    Mass 1
                                                     Bench #
                                                      Length  (ft)
                                                       Width  (ft)
                                                 Scarp Height  (ft)
                                           Depth to Slip Plane  (fi)
                                            Transport Distance  (ft)
                                             Rate of Movement
                                    Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                                                             Mass 2
                                  Cause of Movement
                                                         Mass 1
                                                         Mass 2
                                                         Mass 3
                                                                                                                             (Potential WaterDepth)
                                                                                                         (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                   Mass 3
                    na C seam dips away from fill; Post mining landuse is Golf Course

                    itinct color change on bench #8 quarter #2, Bench f 7 near cenlerline of bench, Bench #5 in quarter 4, bench #3 in quarter 4 indicating ponding or very wet areas
                                                                       WV-228
-------
           West  Virginia
            Mingo-Logan
Low Gap Branch  Surface Mine  #2
                                  ;
     Permit: S-4013-95
                       Fill: #4
Permit: S-4013-95

           WV-229
                            Fill: #4
-------
                             West Virginia
                             Mingo-Logan
                 Low Gap Branch Surface Mine #2
•*-.
                      Permit: S-4013-95
                      Permit: S-4013-95

                                 WV-230
Fill: #4
Fill: #4
-------
      West Virginia
New Land Leasing Co., Inc.
         Pax #2

    Permit: S-3039-91

       Fill: VF#6
         WV-231
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-232
-------
  Company: New Land Leasing Co., Inc.
   Permit:  S-3039-91
     State:  WV
   County:  Faycltc
  Latitude:  37-56-23
Longitude:  XI-17-02
             Fill:  VF#6
           Mine:  Pax #2
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yesf  ]   No[X]


YesfX]   No[   1

 12/20/99
   Date of permit file review:      09/22/99
 Date fill contruclion started:       01/01/93
                  Finished:       12/31/97
Number of fill size revisions:
 %Sandstone in overburden:             49
             Type of Fill
               Surface
          Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       surface Drainage
                Control
            Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor


           Engineering
             Properties
                 (Spoil)

           Engineering
             Properties
           (Foundation)

        Phreafic Surface
           Construction
         Documentation
       and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                         As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                       Original design
Conventional
Volume (racy)
Concave
Crown (A)
Toe (A)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
1.4
Flat
2240
1940
12.0
Perimeter
Constructed Underdram
SB Slope
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
1.9
110
38
0
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg )
Cohesion (psf)
None
                                                        Appl. Phase
                                                        certification
                                  Appl. Quarterly
                                    Certification
                                       Photography
                                          Type
Foundation Preparation
Underdraius
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Yes[ ] No IX]
Yes[ ] Nofxl
Yes[ ] NofX] 93/2
Yes [ ] No [X]
Yes[Y] No[ 1 97/4

None
None

If a DRF, did the photographs showthe rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working property?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
if active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to bo on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
la durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Disceniable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the Ell situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fillface or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Ycs[ ]
Yesf J
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes[ ]
Yes I ]
Ycs[ ]
Yes[ ]
No[X]
PJtn
No[X]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No[ 1
No[ 1
No[ J
No[ ]
                                                                       WV-233
-------
                                         Location
                                                                                                   Length (ft)
                                                                                           Width (ft)
Depth (in)
            Location of
                Crack*
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-3039-91
VF*6
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes f  ]   No [
                                                                                                                                       (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on Ibe 611 benches?    Yes [  ]   No [ J
                                                                                                            (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummock} terrain?    Yes [  I   Nn I
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No f ]
                                   Were changes jn vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [ J   No [  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on the nil?    Yes [ ]   No|x]
Fso, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                   Mass 1
                                                                                                                        Mass 2
                                             aiise of Movement
                                                        Bench f
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             DeptlitoSiiprliiiK  (ft)
                                              TransportDistance  (A)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement

                                      Mass I
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
>nventional fill with first 50 feet being placed in 4-foot lifts, then 10-foot lifts after that

11 toes out on Glen Alum bench where coal removal took place

le material obtained from the foundation investigation was tested to determine trie slope stability parameters
                                                                                                                                              Mass 3
                                                                                 WV-234
-------
        West  Virginia
New Land  Leasing Co., Inc.
             Pax #2

Permit: S-3039-91
Fill: VF #6
Permit: S-3039-91         Fill: VF #6

            WV-235
-------
Blank Page
  WV-236
-------
     West Virginia
Peerless Eagle Coal Co.
Lilly Fork Surface Mine

   Permit:  S-3021-93

      Fill:  VF#7
        WV-237
-------
BLANKPAGE
 wv-238
-------
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Sof twa re Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications


Aerial Survey
and Ground
Level Review













Foundation Preparation
Undcrdrains
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Durable Rock
Length (H) 2500
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy) 3 2
Flat Flat
Crown (ft) 1815
Toe (A) 1510
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.) 24.0
Perimeter
Constructed Underdrain
Stab!
Static 1.6
Seismic
Unit Weight (pel) 12,0
Friction Angle 38
Cohesion (psf) Q
Unit Weight (pet) 115
Friction Angle (deg.) 30
OlufiSJrin (psf) 0
Phreatic Surface
Appl. Phase Appl. Quarterly
Certification Certification
Yes [X] No [ J 9714
Yes[ ] No [XI
Yes[ ] No[X]
Yes[X] No I ] 99/2
Yes[ ] No[ 1
Durable Rock
2000
1.9
Flat
1825
1600
70
16.0
Perimeter
Constructed Underdrain
Stabi
1.6
130
38
0
115
30
0
Phreatic Surface
Photography
Type
Copies
Copies

If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core Underdrain by gravity segregation?
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to fill:
Were NOVs written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined lobe on-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
Tfno to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-complction revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill lace or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Yes[ ] No[X]
Pits, Holes
YS3[ ] No[Xj
YesfX] No[ ]
Yes[ j No[ ]
Yes[ } No[ ]
Yes[ 1 No[ 1
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Flat
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
10
WV-239
-------
                               Location
                                                                                        Length (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                        Depth (in)
   Location of
        Cracks *
   Location of
   Depressions
   Location of
 Erosion Areas
   Location "f
Ground Bulges
   Location of
 Springs/Seeps
   Location of
      Changes
    Movement
Characteristics
    Comments
                                        Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [x]   No [  ]
I B2, Q3
2
3
4
5
                                    Were there areas of erosion on the fill beaches?   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                          Were there bulges or humraocky terrain?   Yes[  ]   No [ ]
                             Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas'5    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                         Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill1     Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  ]   No [x ]
                  If so, enterthe source of information on the failure:
     Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                        Mass 1
                                                                                                            Mass 2
                                  Cause of Movement
                                                Bench M
                                                Length  (ft)
                                                 Width  (ft)
                                            Scarp Height (ft)
                                     Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                      Transport Distance  (ft)
                                       Rate of Movement
                               Extent of Failure Movement

                               Massl
                               Mass 2
                               Mass 3
                                                                                                  (PotentialWatcr Depth)
                                                                                                   (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                  Mass 3
                     #l extended the disposal limits of VF #7 approximately 500 feet downstream resulting m 1.3 mc> of addtoonal storage capacity (approved 10/7/97)
                                                                      WV-240
-------
        West Virginia
  Peerless  Eagle  Coal  Co.
  Lilly Fork Surface Mine
Permit: S-3021-93
Fill: VF #7
Permit: S-3021-93         Fill: VF #7

            WV-241
-------
        West Virginia
  Peerless  Eagle  Coal  Co.
  Lilly Fork  Surface Mine
Permit: S-3021-93
Fill: VF #7
                              V.
Permit: S-3021-93         Fill: VF #7

            WV-242
-------
     West Virginia
     Pen Coal Corp.
Devilstrace Surface Mine

   Permit: 0-5015-89

   Fill: #2 (No Photo)
        WV-243
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-244
-------
Company: Pen Coal Corp.
Permit: 0-5015-89
state: WV
county: Wayne
Latitude: 38-01-28
Longitude: 82-17-04

Fill: #2

Mine: Dcvilstrace Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:
Yes [ ] No IX]

Yes[X] No[ ]
72721/99
Date of permit file review:
Date fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

09/08/99
04101190
I I

54

      Typo of Pill
     Surface
Configuration

   Elevations
          Slopes

Surface Drainage
         Control
     Subsurface
       Drainage
         Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Faetfl r
     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreatic Surface
    construction
   Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Keview
                                    As constructed
                                                                               Revision
                                                                                                                                     Durable Rock
                                                       Volume (nicy)
                                                                                                                                              0.6
                                                                                                                                             Flat    I
Crown (ft)
'1'oc (A)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
920
750
8.0
21.0
Center Drain
Constructed Underdrain
REAME

static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcfj
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psQ
1.5
140
38
200
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Ajigle (deg.)
Cohesion(psf)
P-0.10
                                                    App), Phase
                                                    certification
                                                                         Appl,Quarterly
                                                                          Certification:
Photography
   Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [ ] No [X]
Underdrains Yes [Xj No! 1 90/2
Surface Drains Yes [ 1 No{X] 9212
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [X]
Final Certification Yes [I No 1 ]
if o DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket Of core underdrmn by gravity segregation? Yes [ 1
Foundation data:
Dip of strata relative to till:
Were NOV's written on the fill? Yes[ J
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [ 1
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [ }
If activefill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [ 1
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rock fillis under construction.
Approximately 80% durablerock by volume? Yes [ ]
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discernable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ]
If the fillis completed, compare the size- with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Is the filbituated in landslide topography? Ye-s [ }
Were there ground cracks observed on the Ell face or benches? Yes [ ]
Number of benches on fill:
Copies
None
No[ ]
Non?
No [X]
No I 1
N°[ ]
No[ 1
No[ I
No[ ]
No[ 1
No{ !
                                                                   WV-245
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                Length
-------
  West Virginia
 Princess Beverly
Carbon Fuel Tract

  Permit: 27-81

     Fill: #2
     WV-247
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-248
-------
Company
Permit:
State:
County:
Latitude:
^ongitude:

Princess Beverly
27-81
WV
Kanawha
37-58-04
81-25-19

Fill: #2
Mine: Carbon Fuel Tract
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:


Yes[X] No[ ]
01/03/00

Yes [ ] No [X]
12120199
Date of permit flic review:
Date fill contraction started:
Finished;
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:


09/08/99
08/03/93
i i
2
51


                                     As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                            Original design
      Type of Fill

       Size of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
       Drainage
          Control
        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor

     Engineering
       Properties
           (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phrcatic Surface
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certifications

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
Durable Rock
1800
40.5
7.6
Chimney
4300

40.0
Concave
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
2360
1640
8.0
22.0
Perimeter
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.9
1.8
107
38
0
2335
1 550
8.0
39.0
Center Drain
Chimney Care
SB Slope
1.9

120
40
0
   Aeruil Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                    Unit Weight (pcf)
                                    Friction Aj^gJe (deg.)
                                    Cohesion (psf)
                                                                                                  None
                                                                                                                                         Phrcatic Surface
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      certification
                                                          A ppl. Qu a rte rly
                                                            certification
Photography
    Type
      Foundation Preparation     Yes [X]   No [  ]
                Underdrains    Yes [X]   No [  )
               Surface. Drains    Yen [ ]   No [  ]
    Grading and Revegefaticm     Yes [ ]   No [  ]
           Final Certification    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                           94/3
                                                                                           9413
          Color
          Color
                                      If a DRF, did the photographs show tlic rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [X]  Nu [  ]
                                                                            "Foundation data:                                                Pits
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:                                         Toward Fill
                                                                                              Were NOV's written on the il!!?   Yes [X]  No [  ]
                                                                                                                             Yes[  ]   No{  ]
                                                                                                                             YesfX]   No[  I
                                                                                                                             Yes{  ]   No[X]
                                                                                                                                           IS
                                                               Surface drainage control working properly?
                                                            guos;;ss;«e drainage control working properly?
                                           If active fill, was active gxdl disposal determined to be on-going?
                                If spoil disposal rife inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
f a durable rockfill is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                       If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                Discernable blanket or core drain forming?
                                     Tfttie fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pro-completion revision?
                               If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                                              Fill surface configuration:
                                                                                     Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
                                                                    Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
                                                                                                    Number of benches on fill:
Yes IX]   No [  ]
          Smaller
     Don't Know

 Yes [  1   No [X]
 Yes [  ]   NO [x]
                                                                       WV-249
-------
                                          Location
                                                                                                     Length (fl)
                                                                                              Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 r~   i   "•
                 Cracks
             Location of
             Depressions
             Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location "f
           Springs/Seeps
            Location of
                Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
              Comments
27-81
# 2
                                                   Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No[x]
                                                                                                                                           (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on tile fill benches?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                                                               (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                      Were there bulges or hummock? terrain?    Yes [  ]   No[x]
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   No [x ]
                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [xj   No [  ]
If so, enter the source of in formation on the failure:    DEP Inspector, Company Representative
            Stage of construction during failure:     During Construction
                                                                                                     Mass 1
                                                                                                                          Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                 Mass 3
                                             Cause of Movement
                                                         Bench #
                                                          Length  (ft)
                                                           Width  (ft)
                                                     Scarp Height (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                               Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                Rate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement
                                       Mass 1
                                       Mass 2
                                       Mass 3
                             oal seams, 1*5 Block, Clarion, Tkmesta. Belmont, Coalburg, Donithy.Chilton, Willimanson, Cedar Grove, Four modifications to fill were approved, Two changes size and two chano
                             mstruciron method; Material placement is complete but no reclamation /breakdown underway; Stale NOV issued for off site sedimentation caused by storm event eroding fil!. The
                             iderdrain was reported by state inspector in ke functioning properly; Pending revision lo the mine plan will allow permanent pond on bench above Die fill which could saturate the fii
                             3nd not properly constructed to prevent leakage.
                                                                                   WV-250
-------
                    West  Virginia
                   Princess Beverly
                  Carbon  Fuel Tract
L
              Permit: S-27-81
Fill: #2
                  J
              Permit: S-27-81

                        WV-251
Fill: #2
-------
       West Virginia
     Princess Beverly
    Carbon Fuel  Tract
Permit: S-27-81
Fill: #2
Permit: S-27-81

          WV-252
Fill: #2
-------
         West Virginia
Rawl Coal Sales & Processing Co.
  Sprouse Creek Surface Mine

       Permit:  S-5033-88

     Fill: Calf s Branch #4
            WV-253
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-254
-------
Company
Permit:
State:
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:

Ra\vl Coal Sales & Processing
S-5033-88
WV
Mingo
37-40-07
82-11-14

Co. Fill: Calfs Branch P4

Mine: Sprouse Creek Surface Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?
Date of visit:
Had the till been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:
Yes [x] No [ ]
02/08/00
Yes [X] No [ 1
12120199
Date of permit tile review:
Dale fill contraction started:
Finished:
Number of fill size revisions:
%Sandstone in overburden:

09/08/99
10/01/89
/ /



                                     As constructed
                                                                                   Revision
                                                                                                                           Original design
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainaee
Control
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Fhreafic Surface

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)
Flat
Crown (n)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Anglo
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Rock
1920
15.0
1.1
Flat
1770
1000
19.0
22.0
Center Drain
Gravity Segregated
SWASE Stabil
1.5
110
21
0
Durable Rock
1570
12.2
l.l
Flat
1600
1000
190
38,0
center Drain
Gravity Segregated
REAME
1.5
125
35
100
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg,)
Cohesion (psl)

None
P-0.05
    Construction
   Documentation
and Certification.
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
       FoundationPreparation     Yes [X]   Nn [  ]
                  Underdrains    Yes fX]   No [  ]
                Surface Drains   Yes [  ]   No [  ]
     Grading and Rovcgetation     Yes {  }   No [  ]
            Final  Certification   Yes T  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                          90/2
                                                                                          90/2
Copies
Copies
                                      If a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [X]   No [  J
                                                                                                                                        None
                                                                                                                   Right Flank High Toward Fill
                                                                                              Were NOVs written on the fill?  Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                              Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?  Yea [X]   No [  ]
                                                             Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                            If active fill, war active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [   ]   No [Xj
                                 If spoil disposal sile inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
If a durable rocktlllis under construction,
                                                               Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [   !   No  !  !
                                                                        If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                 Discemable- blanket or core drain forming^  Yes [
                                                                                                                                      No[  1
                                                                                                                                        Same
                                    If the fill is completed, compare the- size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
                               If the fill is significantlysmaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                                              Fill surface configuration:                 Concave
                                                                                    Is the fillsituated in landslide topography?    Yes [X]   No [ ]
                                                                    Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?   Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                                                    Number of benches on fill                10
                                                                      WV-255
-------
                                         Location
            Locationa! seams Coalburg, Upper Clarion, Lower Clarion, Upper Stockton, Lower Stockton; Pill has a longnfiitow configuration, Fill tapped out at the Winifrede seam The Winifrede
sm was augered in the past,Company reported some water from this se&m early in construction but controlled water with drains  Fill was redesigned after slide rncveinj* material
iwnslope and construction of rock buttress  Horizontal drains placedat#4todewaterfill material  Drains 21 #4 bench were discharging at I-? gpm during inspection

^gelation on dope above bench #4 much greener (wetter?) Thau other benches Evidence of slip plane forming. aboveseepin$4 bench w;ar water dram
                                                                                  WV-256
-------
            West Virginia
 Rawl Coal Sales & Processing Co.
    Sprouse Creek  Surface  Mine
Permit: S-5033-88
Fill: Calf s Branch #4
Permit: S-5033-88        Fill: Calf s Branch #4

                WV-257
-------
            West Virginia
 Rawl Coal Sales & Processing Co.
    Sprouse Creek  Surface  Mine
Permit: S-5033-88
Fill: Calf s Branch #4
Permit: S-5033-88        Fill: Calf s Branch #4

                WV-258
-------
                         West Virginia
              Rawl  Coal Sales  & Processing Co,
                 Sprouse  Creek Surface Mine
ff ^

*~~
              Permit: S-5033-88
Fill: Calf s Branch #4

              Permit: S-5033-88         Fill: Calf s Branch #4

                             WV-259
-------
            West Virginia
 Rawl Coal Sales & Processing Co.
    Sprouse Creek  Surface  Mine

Permit: S-5033-88
Fill: Calf s Branch #4
Permit: S-5033-88        Fill: Calf s Branch #4

                WV-260
-------
         West Virginia
Rawl Coal Sales & Processing Co.
    Mary Taylor Mtn. Project

       Permit:  S-5011-87

            Fill: C
            WV-261
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-262
-------
      Type of Fill
       She of Fill
         Surface
    Configuration

       Elevations
           Slopes

Surface Drainage
          Control
      Subsurface
        Drainage
          Control

        Stability
        Analysis
   Software Used

    Safety Factor


     Engineering
       Properties
          (Spoil)

     Engineering
       Properties
     (Foundation)

 Phreafic Surface
    construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
Durable Rock
1800
25.0
Flat
1800
1040
20.0
23.0
center Drain
Chimney Core
REAME
1.6
125
35
J45

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (nicy)

crown (A)
Toe (ft)
Toe foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Rock
1800
25.9
Flat
1770
1020
14.0
27.0
Center Drain
Chimney Core
RFAME

125
35
0
                                     Unit Weight (pcf)
                                     Friction Angle (deg.)
                                     Cohesion (psf)
                                                 P-O.Oj
                                                      Appl. Phase
                                                      Certification
                                                           Appl. Quarterly
                                                            certification
Photography
    Type
                                      If a DRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [  ]  No [  ]


                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill:
                                                                                              Were NOV's written on the fill?   Yes [X]  No [  ]
                                                               Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [X]  No [  ]
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [Xj  No [  j
                                            If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [  J  No [  ]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rock till is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]
                                                                       If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                Discemable blanket or core drain forming?   Yes [  ]  No [  ]

               If the fill is completed, compare the size with the si/e in the latest prc-completion revision!
          If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                        Fill surface configuration:                     Flat
                                                               Is the fill situated in landslide topography?    Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches'?   Yes [  ]   No fX]
                                                                               Number of benches on fill:                14
Foundation Preparation
Undcrdrains
Surface Drains
Grading and Revegetation
Final Certification
Vest J
Yes [X]
Yes [X]
Yes IX]
Yes [X]
NofX]
No[ ]
No[ ]
No [ 1 93/4
Nu [ ] 92/2

Copies
Copies
Copies
None
                                                                       WV-263
-------
            1 ocation ol
                 Crack-
            Location of
            Depression!
            Location o f
          Erosion Area!
            Location Of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comment.
S-5011-87
C
                                         Location
                                                                                                    Length (ft)
                                                                                             Width (ft)
Depth (in)
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                                                                                                                        (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the till benches?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
                                                                                                             (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or liummocky terrain?    Yes [  ]   No I J
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  I   Nofx]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [
If so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:


                                                         Bench »
                                                          Length  (ft)
                                                          Width  (ft)
                                                    Scarp Height  (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                P.ate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement
                                                                                                       Nofx]
                                                                                                   Mass I
                                                                                                                        MRSS 2
                                                                                                                                               Mass 3
                                            Cause of Movement
                                                                   Massl
                                                                   Mass 2
                                                                   Mass 3
'uile a few trees on the fill Kudzu growing from toe up to first lift.

'verall average slope measured 40% for entire fill

ccording to the operator, during construction of the fill, drainage control for the access road to the fill was not being maintained. Runoff from an intense storm "flushed" fines from th
II into the properly owner's barn downstream.
                                                                                 WV-264
-------
           West Virginia
Rawl Coal Sales  & Processing Co,
    Mary Taylor Mtn. Project
     Permit: S-5011-87
Fill: C
     Permit: S-5011-87

               WV-265
Fill: C
-------
           West Virginia
Rawl Coal Sales  & Processing Co,
    Mary Taylor Mtn. Project
     Permit: S-5011-87
Fill: C
     Permit: S-5011-87

               WV-266
Fill: C
-------
     West Virginia
    Red River Coal
RRC-Surface Mine No. 2

   Permit:  S-5089-87

        Fill: #5
       WV-267
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-268
-------
           01                 :ny uo ssqougq jo asquiu^
           [  ] °N   [  I SSA   t,ssipu3q jo soty ||y sip no paAjssqo s3pBja punoj8 Djaip DJS^\
           [X)°N   [  I S3A     iXqdctiSodoi spi|spiiB[ in ps)BiHis j|ij sip si
           9AG3U03                  :uorje.mSijuQ3 soejins [|y
                                      iJOjOSdSUI JO UOI)e)U3UlIi:>Op 3ql 0) SuipJOMB UOSE3J 3q| SI JEqAi 'JSIJEIUS Xj|DK>I}rai!l5 SI J|IJ 3q}JJ
           UMOIT^DQ                  iUOjSI.W.1 U01)S|duiOO-94d 1SS1BJ 3qj Ul 321S 31(1 qifM 3ZIS 3q) SJEduiOD 'p313|dU!00 SI ]HJ 3q) J[

           f  1 °N   [X] S3A  iSnnmpj niejp SJOD jo  )D5(UB{q qqetnaDsig
                              :^9EJU33Jsd S1BUJIJS3 'SAOqS Ol OUJ]
           [xl°N   [  I S3A  £3uiniOA Xq jpoj siqRinp %og ApiBiuixouddv
                                                                                                'uouon.usuoo japun si ][ij Jfsoj ,i[qi;jTip B jj
                                                         SOdsip SSM Ouo| A\oi[ 'SAIJDSUI sjis jcsodsip jiods jj
              1 °M   [  1 S9A   /,§[iro§-uo sq ojpaujuusisp [Bsodsip jiods SAJIGB SBA\ :|[EJ SAIIDBJJ
              1 °N   [X] S3A   i-<|J3dojd 3ni)(jOM lofliio
              1 °N   [x] SSA   ^X|i3
              1 °N   [XJ s=A   ill
                                             uu. S.AOK 3«M
                                                                •IIU °^ DA^(3J UJFJJS JO dlQ
                                                                :Biep uonepuno^
              1 °N   [X] S3A    iuoi)B8ai8as XIIABJ§ Aq uiojpjspun ajoo jo pjpreiq JJDOJ sqi Moqs sqdBjSojoqd sq) pip ' j>£Q e ,H
                                                            1/96
                                                            WI6
        [X] °M   [  ] S3A    UO1JGDU11.133 IBII!,'I

        [Xl °N   [  1 "A    UOI1B1333A9J1 pue guip

                 [  1S!5A   suiBJasaejms
                                                                                      [X]°N
                                                                                                                       uoi)Epunoj
                                                                  jng [PU3V
                                                                                                                                                       a^ put;
SZ
£f
OJl
0
££
OZ!
S'l
HWVHM
080!
OOSI
61
0'6l
                                                                                          asttqj -(
      (jsd) uorssqo;)   QOJ-
{'Sap) S^SlTV UOIJDUJ   nc
   (pd) iqUpM |iufi   OM
   (jad) iqSBytt jran   o£l
                                                                                                     HWVHH
                                                                                                     J313UIU3J
                                                                                    (^§3p) 33E
                                                                                (%) uoiiBpimoj
                                                                                                     0901
                                                                                                     DAcauoj
                                                                                              "si  0«l
                                                                                                                                             IIM jo «


:uapjnqjaAO ui 3uojspuES%
:suoisiA9j szis i|ij jo jsqiunf^
96/IO/£0 :p3qsiui..i
/ / :p3]jB]s uoiprujuoo |[i( SIBQ
66/^1/01 ^^SIAOJ 3|ij jiujjad jo ^IEQ
66/OOTI :.\aAjnsjo3jB(j
[ ]ON [X]«3A iXoAjnsjiBamjoauiij
sqi ju psuiiupaj UDDQ [[ij oqi p^H

IX] ON [ ] S3A iP'^^l punojg IB psiisiA ||ij siqj SBAA
I 'ON n"!W 33BJJHS-3HH ^"!IM
S# :HM

6fr"IO"28 :3pnji8no
££-££-££ '3pni|iEr|
o^ui]A^ :X4uno3
AM :3)EJS
IS-680S-S Ujuusj
(BOO J-iAi-y pay :A"uediuoj
-------
                                          Location
                                                                                                     Length (ft)
                                                                                             Width (ft)
Depth (in)
             Location of
                 Cracks'
             Location of
             Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location "f
         Ground Bulges
            Location Cf
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
                Changes'
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-5089-87
*5
                                                  Were there depressions on the fill beaches?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                                                          (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches'!     Yes f  ]   No [ ]
                                                                                                              (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hnmmocky terrain?   Yes [  j   No [ ]
                                       Were there springs Of seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?    Yes[x]   No [  ]
                                    I  BIO
                                  Did a failure occur on the fill?    Yes [  1  No [   1
f so, enter the source of information on the failure;
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                        Mass 1
                                                         Bench #
                                                         Length (ft)
                                                          Width (ft)
                                                    Scarp Height (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance (ft)
                                                Rate of Movement
                                      Extent of Failure Movement
                Cause of Movement    Mass I
                                      Mass 2
                                      Mass 3
                                                                                                                          Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                Mass 3
                             ie fmt quarterly certification of 1991 indicates that 80 % of ihe spoil is already in place. Judging by the black-and-white copies of the photos, the spoil appeared to he less than 80 °/
                             irable. There may have been a reduction in volume from the original design in correlation with the as-built concavity of the face, although comparable volume data was not found
                             iring the permit review. Appearance of minor moisture concentrations along the entire length of the 10th bench.
                                                                                  WV-270
-------
       West Virginia
      Red River Coal
 RRC-Surface Mine  No. 2
Permit: S-5089-87
Fill: #5

Permit: S-5089-87

           WV-271
Fill: #5
-------
Blank Page
  WV-272
-------
    West Virginia
 Suzanne Fuels, Inc.
Laurel Creek #1 Mine

 Permit: S-3011-90

 Fill: #1 (No Photo)
       WV-273
-------
BLANK PAGE
    WV-274
-------
  Company: Suzanne Fuels, Inc.
   Permit: S-3011-90
     State: WV
   County:  Nicholas
  Latitude:  38-23-19
Longitude:  81-10-00
             Fill:  #1
           Mine:  Laurel Creek #1 Mine
Was this fill visited at ground level?    Yes [ 1   No[  ]
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey'?
        Date of survey:
Yes[  ]   No[
                              Date of permit file review:       11/18/99
                            Date fill contruclion started:             / /
                                              Finished:             / /
                            Number of fill size revisions:
                            %Sandstonc i n overburden;
             Type of Fill

             Sire of Fill
               Surface
          Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
             Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control

               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor


            Engineering
             Properties
                 (SpoU)

            Engineering
             Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
                                         As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                         Orioinal desig
Durable Rock
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1450
16.0
1.6

Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
"foe Foundation (%)
l-'ill Face (deg.)
1585
1135
10,0
23,0
center Drain
Chimney Core
REAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pel)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weightier)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.6
140
36
0
120
30
250
None
Appl. Phase
Certification

Construction
Documentation
and Certifications











Aerial Survej'
and Ground
Level Review







Foundation Preparation Yes f ] No [ ]
Underdrains Yes [ ] Wo [ ]
Surface Drains Yes [ ] No [ 1

Grading and Revegefafion Yes [ ] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [ ] No! j
AppI.Qua rterly
Certification






If a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?

Foundation data:
Photography
Type






Yes[ ] No[ ]

Dip of strata relative to fill:



Were NOV's written on the f
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active fill, was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?
Yes [ ] No [ J
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle frrmths)?
I a durable rock fill is under construction,





Approximately 80% durable rockby volume?

If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain forming?

Yes [ 1 No [ 1


Yes [ ] No [ ]
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the till is skpLficaitl^smaller, what is the reason according to Che documentation or inspector?


Fill surface configuration:
Is the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the till face or benches?

Number of benches on till

Yes [ ] Wo [ ]
Yes [ ] No [ ]

                                                                        WV-275
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width (ft)
                                                                                                                   Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location o f
                       *
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges*
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-3011-90
*1
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No [
                                                                                                            (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?    Yes [  ]   No {  ]
                                                                                                             (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   Wo [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?     Yes [  ]   Nu [  ]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No [
                                   Did a failure occur on the fill?     Yes [  ]   No[X]
 If so. enter the source of information ou the failure:
             Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                  Mass 1
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                    Bench #
                                                                                    Length  (ft)
                                                                                     Width  (ft)
                                                                               Scarp Height  (ft)
                                                                         Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                                                          Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                                           Rate of Movement
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement
                                            Cause of Movement     Mass I
                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                  Mass 3
This particular fill was never constructed (reason unknown).
There was a side-hill road fill on this site that had several violations and was required to be certified

No geologic information was collected.

No tatitu4e/Umgitu4e was collected.
                                                                                WV-276
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
-------
   West Virginia
Terry Eagle Coal Co.
 Little Elk Mine #1

 Permit:  S-3034-88

     Fill:  Fill#l
       WV-277
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-278
-------
Company: Terry Eagle Coal Co. Fill: Fill#l Date of permit file review: 09123199
Permit: S-3034-88 Mine: Little Elk Mine #1 Dale fill contraction started: 11101189
State: WV Was this fiilvisited at ground level? Yes [ 1 No [x] Finished: 091301 92
Count).: Nicholas Number of fill size revisions: 1
Latitude: 38-15-30 Had the fill been reclaimed at the %Sandstone in overburden: 57
Longitude: XI-05-03 time of the air survey? Yes [X] No [ ]
Date of survey: 12120199
'Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
Surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safely Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phrearic Surface
Construction
Documentation
and Certifications
Aerial survey
and Ground
Level Review
As constructed Revision Original design
Durable Rock Durable Rock Durable Rock
2600 Length (I?) 2600 2600
44.0 Area (acres) 44.0 50.0
Volume (nicy) 6 2
Concave Concave Flat
1880 Crown (fl) 1880 1950
1450 Toe (ft) 1450 1500
10.0 Toe Foundation (%) 10.0 10.0
17.0 Fill Fare ((leg.) 17.0 22.0
Perimeter Center Drain Perimeter CenterDrain Perimeter Center Drain
Gravity Segregatcd/Underdrain Gravity Segrcgated/Underdrain Gravity Segregated/Underdrain
REAME REAME REAME
1.8 Static 1.8 1.9
1.6 Seismic 1.6 1.5
130 Unit Weight (pcf) 130 130
36 Friction Angle 36 36
100 Cohesion (psf) 100 100
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
Phrcatic Surface Phreatic Surface Phreatic Surface
Appl. Phase Appl.Quarterly Photography
Certification Certification Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [Xl No [ ] 9012 Copies
Underdrains Yes [X] No { ] 90/2 Copies
Surface Drains Yes [X) No [ ] 91/2 Copier
Grading and Revcgetation Yes [X] No [ ] 92/2 Copies
Final Certification Yes [x] No [ ] 92/3

IfaDRl". did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdram by gravity segregation? Yes [X] Na [ ]
foundation data: Test
Dip of strata relative to fill: Left Elan]; High Away From Fill
Were NOV's written on the fill? Ye? [X] No [ ]
Surface drainage control working properly? Yes [Xj No [ ]
Subsurface drainage control working properly? Yes [X] No [ j
Tfactive till, -was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going? Yes [ ] No [X]
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
f a durable rock fill is under construction,
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Ifioto above, estimate percentage:
Diseernable blanket or core drain forming? Yes [ ] No[ ]
If the fill I s completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surf ace configuration: Concave
Is the fill situated in landslide topography? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Were there ground cracks observedon the fill face or benches? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Number of benches on fill: 8

WV-279
-------
                                        Location
                                                                                                  Length (ft)           Width (ft)             Depth (in)
            Location of
                Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
            Movement
         Characteristics
S-3034-88
Fill 01
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches'!     Yes [ J   No [  ]
                                                                                                          (Potential Water Depth)
                                              Werethere areasof erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No [  j
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [1   No [  ]
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes [  ]   No [  ]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]   No f  ]
                                 Did a failure occur on trie filly    Yen [1   No [  ]
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                      Mass I
                                                        Beuch #
                                                        Length  (ft)
                                                         Width  (ft)
                                                   Scarp Height  (ft)
                                             Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                              Transport Distance  (ft)
                                               Rate of Movement
                                      Exteut of Failure Movement
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                           Cause of Movement
                                                                  Mass 1
                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                  Mass 3
                                                                                                           (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                            oal Scams were Stockton, Coalburg;  Surface dvaiittLge was usitSeai. Drainage could be directed into perimeter OF center 
-------
        West Virginia
    Terry Eagle Coal Co,
     Little  Elk Mine #1
Permit: S-3034-88

            WV-281
Fill: Fill #1
-------
        West Virginia
    Terry  Eagle  Coal Co.
      Little Elk Mine #1
Permit: S-3034-*
Fill: Fill #1
Permit: S-3034-88         Fill: Fill #1

            WV-282
-------
    West Virginia
Westmoreland Coal Co.
    Hampton #47

  Permit: S-5050-89

       Fill: K
        WV-283
-------
BLANK PAGE
  WV-284
-------
Company
Permit:
State:
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:

: Westmoreland Coal Co. Fill: K
S-5050-S9
WV
Boone
37-53-43
81-46-38

Mine: Hampton #47
Was this fill visited at ground level1?

Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
Date of survey:

Yes[ J No[x]


Ycs[X] No[ 1
12121/99
Date of permit tile review: 09/09/99
Date fill contraction started: 07/01/89
Finished: 11/15/93
Number of fill size revisions: 2
%Sandstone in overburden: 65


    Construction
  Documentation
and Certifications
   Aerial Survey
   and Ground
   Level Review
                                     As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                            Original design
Type of Fill
Size of Fill
Surface
Configuration
Elevations
Slopes
surface Drainage
Control
Subsurface
Drainage
Control
Stability
Analysis
Software Used
Safety Factor
Engineering
Properties
(Spoil)
Engineering
Properties
(Foundation)
Phreatic Surface

Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)

Crown (a)
Toe (Q)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)



Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Durable Rack
1240
8.0
0.3
Flat
1700
1230
20.0
21.0
Perimeter, Center Drain
Constructed Underdram
STABL
1.8
113
38
0
Conventional
1160
20.0
Convex
1640
1190
8.0
21.0
Center Drain
Chimney Core
SB Slope
2 2
135
38
700
Unit Weight (pcf)
Friclion Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)

Phreatic Surface
Phreatic Surface
                                                      Certification
                                                                                 Certification
                                                                                                                                 Type
       Foundation Preparation     Yes [  ]  No [XI
                 Underdrains     Yes [  ]  No [X]
               Surface Drains    Yes [X]  No [  ]
    Grading and Revegctation     Yen [  ]  No [X]
           Final Certification     Yes [X]  No [  ]
90/3
90/2

9113
 None
Copies

Copies
                                      TF a DRF, did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdrain by gravity segregation?    Yes [  ]   No [X]
                                                                            Foundation data:                                              Ncse
                                                                   Dip of strata relative to fill
                                                                                               Were NOV's written on the fill?   Yes [X]   No [  ]
                                                                Surface drainage control working properly?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                            Subsurface drainage control working properly?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                            If active fill,was active spoil disposal determined to be on-going?   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
fa durable rock (31 is under construction,
                                                              Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?  Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                                                                       If no to above, estimate percentage:
                                                                Disceraable blanket or core drain forming?  Yes [ ]   No [ ]
                If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completion revision?
          If the fill is significantly Smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
                                                                         Fill surface configuration:                     Flat
                                                                Is the till situated in  landslide topography?     Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                               Were there ground cracks observed on the till face or benches?   Yes [  J   No [  ]
                                                                               Number ofbenches on fill:                10
                                                                       WV-285
-------
            Location of
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Depressions
            Location of
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location of
          Springs/Seeps
            Location of
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-50 50-89
K
                                          Location
                                                                                                     Length (ft)
                                                                                              Width (ft)
Depth (in)
                                                   Were there depressions oil the fill benches?    Yes [ ]   No [  ]
                                                                                                              (Potential Water Depth)
                                               Were there areas of erosion on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]   No |
                                                                                                              (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                     Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No f  ]
                                       Were there springs or seeps observed Jn disposal areas?     Yes f  ]    No [  ]
                                    Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on fill?     Yes [  ]    No [ ]
                                  jjid a failure occur on the fill?
f so, enter the source of information on the failure:
            Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                               Yes[  ]   No(X]
                                                                                                     Mass 1
                                                                                                                           Mass 2
                                                                                                                                                 Mass 3
                                             Cause of Movement
                                                         Bench £
                                                          Length  (ft)
                                                           Width  (ft)
                                                    Scarp Height  (ft)
                                              Depth to Slip Plane  (ft)
                                               Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                Rate of Movement
                                       Extent of Failure Movement

                                       Mass 1
                                       Mass 2
                                       Mass 3
edification #3 significantly reduced the size of Fill "K",

:R #2 increased (he size of Fill "K" slightly from the size approved in Modification #3-

ily the left side of tlie fill (looking upstream) was constructed from the original design. The toe and crest of fill were boiri moved upstream.

iveral Inspection reports from March 1995 - March 199& tkscuinerit the existence of smaU tension cracks, erosion, seepage, and sk>ughing/snppiT]g located tiein the left abutment
larinel (northern edge ditch) between the first and second benches.
                                                                                   WV-286
-------
      West  Virginia
 Westmoreland Coal Co.
       Hampton #47
Permit: S-5050-89
Fill: K
Permit: S-5050-89

          WV-287
Fill: K
-------
Blank Page
  WV-288
-------
         West Virginia
White Flame (Mingo Logan Coal)
        Surface Mine #5

       Permit:  S-5066-92

          Fill: Fill A
            WV-289
-------
BLANKPAGE
    WV-290
-------
  Company: White Flame (Mingo Logan Coal)
    Permit:  S-5066-92
     State:  WV
   County:  Mingo
  Latitude;  37-42-22
Longitude:   82-00-57
             Kill:  Fill A
           Mine:  Surface Mine #5
Was this fill visited at ground level?   Yes [  }   No [X]
Had the fill been reclaimed at the
time of the air survey?
        Date of survey:
Yes [  ]   No fX]
  / /
                              Date of permit file review:       11/03/99
                            Date fill contraction started:        04/11/98
                                              Finished:             / /
                            Number of fill size revisions:
                            %Sandstone in overburden:             57
                                          As constructed
                                                                                    Revision
                                                                                                                         Original design
             Type of Fill

              Size of Fill
                Surface
           Configuration

              Elevations
                 Slopes

       Surface Drainage
                Control
             Subsurface
              Drainage
                Control
               Stability
               Analysis
          Software Used

           Safety Factor


            Engineering
              Properties
                 (Spoil)

            Engineering
              Properties
            (Foundation)

        Phreatic Surface
           Construction
          Documentation
        and Certifications
          Aerial Survey
          and Ground
          Level Review
                                                                                                                                        Durable Rock
Length (A)
Area (acres)
Volume (mcy)
1720
18.0
9.4
flat
Crown (ft)
Toe (ft)
Toe Foundation (%)
Fill Face (deg.)
2030
1450
13.0
23.0
Perimeter
Constructed Underdrain
TtEAME
Static
Seismic
Unit Weight (pef)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
Unit Weight (pet)
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
1.5
1.2
125
35
100
125
28
100
P-0.1
                                                         Appl. Phase
                                                         Certification
                                   Appl,Quarterly
                                    Certification
                                        Photography
                                           Type
Foundation Preparation Yes [X] No [ 1 02/99
Underdraws Yes [X] No [ ] 03/98
Surface Drains Yes[ ] No [ ]
Grading and Revegetation Yes [ ] No [ ]
Final Certification Yes [ ] Nc [ ]
B&W
B&W




IraDRF. did the photographs show the rock blanket or core underdraifl by gravity segregation?
Foundation data.
Dip of strata relative to f i 1 1 :
Were NOV's written on the fill?
Surface drainage control working properly?
Subsurface drainage control working properly?
If active All, was active spoil disposal determined to be oil-going?
If spoil disposal site inactive, how long was disposal operation idle (months)?
[fa durable rock fill is under construction.
Approximately 80% durable rock by volume?
If no to above, estimate percentage:
Discemable blanket or core drain forming?
If the fill is completed, compare the size with the size in the latest pre-completiott revision?
If the fill is significantly smaller, what is the reason according to the documentation or inspector?
Fill surface configuration:
Ts the fill situated in landslide topography?
Were there ground cracks observed on the fill face or benches?
Number of benches on fill:
Yes[X] Nof 1
Pits
Away From Fill
Yss[ } No[ ]
Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yesi 1 No[ i
Yes [X] No I ]


Yes[ ] No[ ]

Yes[X] No[ 1



Yes[ ] No[ ]
Yes [ 1 No [ ]

                                                                        WV-291
-------
                                         Lo cati on
                                                                                                   Lenzth (ft)          Width (ft)
                                                                                                                                             Death (in)
            Location o f
                 Cracks
            Location of
            Denressions'
            Location o f
          Erosion Areas
            Location of
         Ground Bulges
            Location "f
          Springs/Seeps
            Location o i
               Changes
             Movement
         Characteristics
             Comments
S-5D66-92
Fill A
                                                 Were there depressions on the fill benches?   Yes [  ]    No [
                                                                                                          (Potential Wafer Depth)
                                              Were there areas of erosion on the till benches?    Yes[  ]   No [ ]
                                                    Were there bulges or hummocky terrain?   Yes [  ]   No I }
                                      Were there springs or seeps observed in disposal areas?    Yes f  ]  No [  ]
                                   Were changes in vegetation or spoil color observed on till?     Yen [  ]   No [ ]

                                   i
                                Did a failure occur on the till?    Yes [  ]   No [ ]
so, enter the source of information on the failure:
           Stage of construction during failure:
                                                                                                  Mass I
                                                                                                                       Mass 2
                                                                                    Bench #
                                                                                    Length  (ft)
                                                                                     Width  (ft)
                                                                               Scarp Height  (ft)
                                                                         Depth to Slip Plane  fit)
                                                                          Transport Distance  (ft)
                                                                           Rate of Movement
                                                                  Extent of Failure Movement
                                           Cause ofMovement     Mass 1
                                                                  Mass 2
                                                                  Mass 3
                                                                                                          (Maximum Gully Depth)
                                                                                                                                             Mass 3
                             5 mine at North edge of fill. Lower 4 feet of fill to be constructed as typical valley fill  Certification dated 07/28/99 shows "Wins" dumping into valley

                             pears that shaky material is being deposited on left side of fill Rock core underdram was constructed prior to placing of fill mto structure
                                                                                WV-292
-------
           West  Virginia
White  Flame  (Mingo  Logan Coal)
          Surface  Mine #5
   Permit: S-5066-92
Fill: Fill A
                                        i


   Permit: S-5066-92

               WV-293
Fill: Fill A
-------
Blank Page
  WV-294
-------
                APPENDIX C




SENSITIVITY-ANALYSIS BOX AND WHISKER PLOTS
-------
BLANK PAGE
-------
                                     APPENDIX C

             Explanation of Sensitivity Analysis and Box-and-Whisker Diagrams

The assessment of SF sensitivity to the engineering properties used in a valley fill stability
analysis was performed using three values for each property and five scenarios defined by the
toe foundation slope and the preset location of the minimum SF circle.

The minimum FS for each scenario was determined by the Simplified Bishop analysis method
using SB-Slope software. This software has a number of procedures available to find the SF for
a slope under investigation. For this study, OSM used the Grid Search procedure (an example
grid is shown in Figure 17 in the main body of this report). This search method allows the user
to limit the segment of the slope to be examined and the range of radii to be applied. The slope
segment is limited in  both the x (horizontal) and y (vertical) directions. Additional constraints
that are available set the x-increment and y-increment of the circle centers, and the incremental
change in radii. This study applied a constant incremental  change in the x-direction, y-direction,
and radii.  Because SB-Slope does not have an algorithm to incrementally search around the
minimum SF determined by the initial search grid, this study did not find the absolute minimum
SF for the slope segments. Rather the study determined the change in the minimum FS resulting
from changes in the engineering properties of the spoil for the specified grid.

The results of the parameter sensitivity analysis are presented in the box and whisker diagrams
in the following pages. Each diagram shows a relationship between SF and an engineering
property for a specific scenario.  The bottom and top ends or "hinges" of each box represent the
first and third quartiles of data. That is, the central 50 percent of the data (the interquartile range
between 25th to the 75th percentiles) are contained between the hinges of the box. The vertical
lines above and below the box, or "whiskers," extend to the largest or smallest SF  within 1.5
times the interquartile range. Extreme values lying between 1.5 and 3.0 times the  interquartile
range are represented by squares.  Outlying values greater than 3.0 times the interquartile range
are marked with a plus sign.

Within each box, the  horizontal line denotes the median value of the  data. Fifty percent of the
data have SF values either greater  or less than the median.  Indentations, or "notches" in the
sides of the box approximate the 95 percent confidence  level about the median.  The notched
box-and-whisker diagrams can be  compared  on each plot (i.e. for a given engineering property
and scenario). If the notches do not overlap, the medians are said to be significantly different at
the 95 percent confidence level.  Thus the results of the  sensitivity analysis can be interpreted as
follows: Based on the Simplified Bishop, slope-stability analysis method and the SB-Slope
software employed, the ranges of SF (at the 95 percent confidence level) for the values of unit
weight and cohesion are too broad for a statistically significant relationship, regardless of the
scenario.  The ranges of SF compared to the values of internal friction angle are narrow and
statistically significant under all scenarios.

For additional information on notched box-and-whisker plots,  the reader is directed to:
-------
McGill, Robert, Tukey, John W., and Larson, Wayne A., Variations of Box Plots, 1978, in The
American Statistician, Vol. 32, No. 1.
                                           11
-------
  2.5
i2

^
  0.5
    0
  2.3
o 1.9
o
  1 1
GO 1. 1
  0.7
             Critical Circle at Toe

                7% Foundation Slope
            95          115         135

                 Unit Weight (pcf)



             Critical Circle at Toe

                25% Foundation Slope
            95          115         135

                 Unit Weight (pcf)
                     c-i
-------
3
O
o
a
ft,
    i
GO  1
             Shallow Critical Circle

                25% Foundation Slope
^
2
1
0
4
3
1
n
-
-

-

-
-
-


K
\

A
/
\ /
/ \
/



\





\
/
/





/
\
\







\



/
/ V
/



\



-
-


-

-
-

-

95 115 135
Unit Weight (pcf)
Deep Critical Circle
25% Foundation Slope

-
-
-
-

-
-P
\ /
\ /
/ \
/
\/


\
M


—r
\ i
\ i
1 \
i \
)/ _L_ \

— ^
\ 1
\ /
) (
I \
]/ -L- N

-
-
-
-
-

-
            95          115          135

                 Unit Weight (pcf)
                     C-2
-------
 ^28
 o
+j
 o

£2.6



1*2.4
^
2.2



 2
       Critical Circle through Foundation

                25% Foundation Slope
                             \
            95          115          135


                 Unit Weight (pcf)
                     C-2
-------
  2.5
 O
 CS
^
  0.5
   0
  2.3
01.9

  0.7
              Critical Circle at Toe
                 7% Foundation Slope
            0            100          200
                   Cohesion (psf)

              Critical Circle at Toe
                25% Foundation Slope
            0           100          200
                   Cohesion (psf)
                      C-4
-------
 s 4
-4-i >

CO
    1

    0
 o
 c^J
PH
    1
on  I
   0
             Shallow Critical Circle
                25% Foundation Slope
                                 v
            0           100         200
                   Cohesion (psf)

              Deep Critical Circle
                25% Foundation Slope
            0
     100
Cohesion (psf)
200
                     C-5
-------
O
+j
o
^
  2.2
       Critical Circle through Foundation

                25% Foundation Slope
            0
     100

Cohesion (psf)
200
                     C-6
-------
  2.5
£

HH


03
    0
                 Critical Circle at Toe
                   7% Foundation Slope
             20            35            50
                   Friction Angle (°)
   2.3


3 1.9

PH
GO 1.1
   0.7
                Critical Circle at Toe
                  25% Foundation Slope
             20
     35
Friction (°)
50
                        C-7
-------
VH  4
O
fe
Cd
    0
                Shallow Critical Circle
                   25% Foundation Slope
             20            35             50
                     Friction Angle (°)
£
ctf
    0
                  Deep Critical Circle
                   25% Foundation Slope
             20             35            50
                    Friction Angle (°)
-------
Critical Circle through Foundation
         25% Foundation Slope
J
,.2.8
^2.6
PH
£2.4
0
-
;
-
-
_





	 i 	


*



	 ! 	
^> 	 -^C^





_
;
-
;
_
   20
35
50
         Friction Angle (°)
              C-9
-------
BLANK PAGE
    C-10
-------
     Mining and Reclamation Technology
                   Symposium
                June 23-24,1999

Disclaimer
Annotated Agenda
Participants List
Mining Methods
    Overview of Mining Methods
    Underground Mining Methods
    Truck and Shovel Methods
    Auger and Highwall Miner
    Dragline Methods
From Perception to Procedures
Outlook of Surface Coal Mining
Future of Surface Coal Mining
Mountaintop Reclamation
Schor Consulting
West Virginia Case Study
-------
                                      PARTICIPANT LIST
                                  Mining Technology Symposium
                                   June 23, 1999 - June 24, 1999

                                     Participant List by Name
1  Timothy D. Backus
   P&H Mining Equipment
   4400 National Avenue
   Milwaukee, WI 53214
   Phone: 414/671-7384
   Fax: 414/671-7560
   E-mail: tbac@hii.com

2.  Victor Badaker
   University of Kentucky
   292 Commonwealth Drive
   Lexington, KY 40503
   Phone: 606/323-9641
   Fax:
   E-mail: vbadaker@engr.uk.edu

3.  Carl Bauer
   Federal Energy Technology Center
   US Department of Energy
   3610 Collins Ferry Road
   Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
   Phone: 304/285-4912
   Fax: 304/285-4100
   E-mail: cbauer@fetc.doe.gov

4.  Heino Beckert
   Federal Energy Technology Center
   US Department of Energy
   3610 Collins Ferry Road
   Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
   Phone: 304/285-4132
   Fax: 304/285-4403
   E-mail: hbecke@fetc.doe.gov
5. BobBillups
  Pittston Coal
  P.O.Box 11718
  Charleston, WV 25339-1718
  Phone: 304/347-8233
  Fax: 304/347-8980
  E-mail: rbillups@pittstonminerals.com

6. Ralph Blumer
  Office of Surface Mining
  2675 Regency Road
  Lexington, KY 40503
  Phone: 606/233-2896
  Fax: 606/233-2898
  E-mail: rblumer@osmre.gov

7. Jason Bostic
  West Virginia Coal Association
  1301 Laidley Tower
  Charleston, WV 25301
  Phone:
  Fax:
   Gary Bryant
   US EPA
   1060 Chapline Street
   Wheeling, WV 26003
   Phone: 304/234-0230
   Fax 304/234-0257
   E-mail:
-------
9.  Melissa Bundash
   US EPA
   1060 Methodest Building
   11th & Chapline Streets
   Wheeling, WV 26003
   Phone: 304/234-0246
   Fax:
   Email: bundash.melissa@epa.mail.epa.gov

10. Carey R. Butler
    Waste Policy Institute
    3606 Collins Ferry Road
    Suite 202
    Morgantown, WV 26505
    Phone: 304/598-9383 ext. 15
    Fax: 304/598-9392
    E-mail: carey_butler@wpi.org

11. Roger W. Calhoun
    Office of Surface Mining
    Charleston Field Office
    1027 Virginia Street East
    Charleston, WV 25301
    Phone: 304/347-7158
    Fax: 304/347-7170
    E-mail: rcalhoun@osmre.gov

12. MikeCaputo
    United Mine Workers of America
    310 Gaston Avenue
    Fairmont, WV 26554
    Phone: 304/363-7500
    Fax: 304/367-1382
    E-mail: mikeumwa@aol.com

13. Ian Carr
    AEI Resources
    1 SOON. Big Run Road
    Ashland, KY 41102
    Phone: 606/928-7220
    Fax: 606/928-7257
    E-mail:  icarr(S)aeiresources.com
14.  Mike Castle
    Office of Surface Mining
    1951 Constitution Avenue
    Washington, DC 20240
    Phone: 202/208-2928
    Fax: 202/219-3276
    E-mail: mcastle@osmre.gov
15.  Peter Claggeh
    Canaan Valley Institute
    103MarltenRoad
    Woodstown, NJ 08098
    Phone: 609/769-3381
    Fax:
    E-mail:
16.  Danny Cox
    Massey Coal Services Inc
    P.O.Box 1951
    Charleston, WV 25327
    Phone: 304/345-3556
    Fax: 304/345-3623
    E-mail: danny.cox@masseycoal.com
17.  Ron Damron
    Pittston Coal Mgmt
    POBox 11716
    Charleston, WV 25339
    Phone: 304/347-8200
    Fax: 304/347-8980
    E-mail: rdamron@pittstonminerals.com

18.  Thomas DeMoss
    US EPA
    701 MapesRoad
    Ft Meade, MD 20755-5350
    Phone: 410/305-2739
    Fax: 410/305-3095
    E-mail:
-------
19.  Dave Densmore
    US Fish & Wildlife Service
    315 South Allen Street
    Suite 322
    State College, PA 16801
    Phone: 814/234-4090
    Fax: 814/234-0748
    E-mail: dave-densmore@fws.gov

20.  Barry Doss
    Addington Enterprises Inc
    1100 River East Drive
    Belle, WV 25015
    Phone: 304/925-9577
    Fax: 304/925-9569
    E-mail: cccoal@wvinter.net

21.  Ken Eltschlager
    Office of Surface Mining
    Three Parkway Center
    Pittsburgh, PA 15220
    Phone: 412/937-2169
    Fax: 412/937-2903
    E-mail: keltsc@osmre.gov

22.  Diana Esher
    US EPA
    1650 Arch Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
    Phone: 215/814-2706
    Fax: 215/814-2789
    E-mail: esher.diana@epamaii.epa.gov

23.  Bernard Evans
    United Mine Workers of America
    PO Box 474
    Lyburn, PA 25632
    Phone: 304/752-8060
    Fax 304/752-8064
    E-mail: devans(S)xwv.net
24.  Kermit E. Fincham, Jr.
    Elk Run Coal Co Inc
    PO Box 497
    Sylvester, WV 25193
    Phone: 304/837-3520
    Fax: 304/837-3522
    E-mail: kermit.fmcham@masseycoal.com
25.  Terry Flum
    US EPA
    26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
    Cincinnati, OH 45268
    Phone: 513/569-7715
    Fax: 513/569-7609
    E-mail: flum.terry@epa.gov

26.  Nirmal Gangopadhyay
    New Land Leasing Co Inc
    PO Box 2243
    Beckley, WV 25802
    Phone: 304/255-1457
    Fax: 304/255-1498
    E-mail: gango@mtneer.net

27.  Ray George
    US EPA
    1060 Chaplin Street
    Wheeling, WV 26003
    Phone: 304/234-0234
    Fax: 304/234-0258
    E-mail: george.ray@epa.gov

28.  MikeGheen
    US Army Corps of Engineers
    502 8th Street
    Huntington, WV 25701
    Phone: 304/529-5487
    Fax: 304/529-5085
    E-mail: mikeg@maii.orh.usace.army.mil
-------
29.  Ben Greene
    West Virginia Mining & Reclamation Association
    1624 Kanawha Boulevard East
    Charleston, WV 25311
    Phone: 304/346-5318
    Fax: 304/346-5310
    E-mail: wvmra@wvmra.com

 30. Chris Hamilton
    West Virginia Coal Association
    1301 Laidley Towers
    Charleston, WV 25301
    Phone: 304/342-4153
    Fax: 304/342-7651
    E-mail: chamilton@wvcoal. com

 31. Ron Hamric
    Anker Energy Corporation
    PO Box 4360
    Star City, WV 26504
    Phone: 304/983-8700
    Fax: 304/983-8770
    E-mail: rhamric@ankercoal.com

 32. Rebecca Hanmer
    US EPA
    Mail Code 4505F
    Washington, DC 20460
    Phone: 202/260-4470
    Fax: 202/401-5341
    E-mail: hanmer.rebecca@epamail.epa.gov

 33. Randy Harris
    Federal Energy Technology Center
    US Department of Energy
    3610 Collins Ferry Road
    Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
    Phone: 304/283-4860
    Fax:
    E-mail: rharris@fetc.doe.gov
34. Dave Hartos
   Office of Surface Mining
   Three Parkway Center
   Pittsburgh, PA 15220
   Phone: 412/937-2909
   Fax: 412/937-2903
   E-mail: dhartos@osmre.gov

35. Ray Henderson
   Consultant
   807 Coleman Avenue
   Fairmont, WV 26554
   Phone: 304/363-3269
   Fax:
   E-mail:

36. John L Hoelle
   Gaddy Engineering Company
   PO Box 2742
   Huntington, WV 25727
   Phone: 304/697-4400
   Fax: 304/525-5997
   E-mail: ihoelle@ezwv.com

37. William J. Hoffman
   US EPA
   1650 Arch Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19104
   Phone: 215/814-2995
   Fax: 215/814-2783
   E-mail: hoffman.william@epa.gov

38. MaryHutzler
   U S Department of Energy
   Energy Information Administration
   1000 Independence Ave SW
   Washington, DC 20585
   Phone: 202/586-2222
   Fax: 202/586-3045
   E-mail: mhutzler@eia.doe.gov
-------
39.  Jeffrey Kelley
    Upshur Property Inc
    HC36
    POBoxSl
    Tallmansville, WV 26237
    Phone: 304/472-9272
    Fax:  304/472-9257
    E-mail: jkelley@ankercoal.com

40.  Charles R. Kimbler
    United Mine Workers of America
    POBox 185
    Danville, WV25053
    Phone: 304/369-3347
    Fax:
    E-mail:

41.  Eugene Kitts
    Summit Engineering
    400 Allen Drive
    Suite 100
    Charleston, WV 25302
    Phone: 304/342-1342
    Fax:  304/342-1379
    E-mail: wvsummit@nevvwave.net

42.  KewalKohli
    Office of Surface Mining
    Three Parkway Center
    Pittsburgh, PA15220
    Phone: 412/937-2175
    Fax:  412/937-2903
    E-mail: kkohli@osmre.gov
43. Thomas Koppe
    Office of Surface Mining
    2675 Regency Road
    Lexington, KY40503
    Phone: 606/233-2892
    Fax:  606/233-2898
    E-mail: tkoppe@osmre.gov
44. James Kotcon
   West Virginia University
   Div of Plant & Soil Sciences
   401 Brooks Hall PO Box 6054
   Morgantown, WV 26506
   Phone: 304/293-3911
   Fax:  304/293-2872
   E-mail: jkotcon@wvu.edu

45. William Kovacic
   Office of Surface Mining
   2675 Regency Road
   Lexington, KY 40503
   Phone: 606/233-2894
   Fax:  606/233-2898
   E-mail: bkovacic@osmre.gov

46. Frederick W. Kutz
   US EPA
   701 MapesRoad
   Ft Meade, MD 20755-5350
   Phone: 410/305-2742
   Fax:  410/305-3095
   E-mail:
47. Mary J. Lacerte
   US EPA
   12201 Sunrise Valley
   Mail Stop 555
   Reston, VA20192
   Phone: 703/648-4137
   Fax: 703/648-4290
   E-mail: lacerte.mary@epa.gov

48. Peter Lawson
   Arch Coal Inc
   5914 Cabin Creek Road
   Eskdale, WV 25075
   Phone: 304/595-7240
   Fax: 304/595-4068
   E-mail: plawson@archcoal.com
-------
49.  Tom Marks
    Cecil I Walker Machinery Co
    PO Box 2427
    Charleston, WV 25329
    Phone: 304/949-6400
    Fax: 304/949-7272
    E-mail: xuptam01@belle.walker.com
50.  Robert Marsh
    Pen Coal Corp
    POBox 191
    Dunlow, WV25511
    Phone: 304/385-4950
    Fax: 304/385-4594
    E-mail: robert-marsh@pencoal.com

51.  Richard E. Martin
    Cecil I Walker Machinery Co
    PO Box 2427
    Charleston, WV 25329
    Phone: 304/949-6400 ext. 453
    Fax: 304/949-7339
    E-mail: rmartin(S)email.com
52.  John McDaniel
    Arch Coal Inc
    CSX Operation
    PO Box 305
    Madison, WV 25130
    Phone: 304/369-8133
    Fax: 304/369-8131
    E-mail: jmcdaniel@archcoal.com

53.  Rhett McGregor
    Consulting Engineer
    10361 GivernyBlvd
    Cincinnati, OH 45241
    Phone: 513/733-0552
    Fax: 513/733-1235
    E-mail: 73071.331 O@compuserve.com
54.  TomMeikle
    Progress Coal Co
    HC78
    POBox 1796
    Madison, WV 25130
    Phone: 304/369-9101
    Fax: 304/369-9105
    E-mail:

55.  Michael Miano
    WVDEP
    IQMcJunkinRoad
    Nitro, WV25143
    Phone: 304/759-0575
    Fax: 304/759-0526
    E-mail: mmiano@mail.dep.state.wv.us

56.  Randy A Moore
    EG&G
    Collins Ferry Road
    PO Box 880
    Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
    Phone: 304/285-4606
    Fax: 304/285-4200
    E-mail: rmoore@fetc.doe.gov

57.  John Morgan
    Morgan Worldwide Mining Consultants
    PO Box 888
    Lexington, KY 40588
    Phone: 606/259-0959
    Fax:
    E-mail: mwmc@aol.com
58.  Jan M. Mutmansky
    Penn State University
    156 Hosier Building
    University Park, PA 16802
    Phone: 814/863-1642
    Fax: 814/865-3248
    E-mail: j93@psu.edu
-------
59.  Julie Parsons
    US EPA
    1060 Methodist Building
    11th & Chaplain Streets
    Wheeling, WV 26003
    Phone: 304/234-0246
    Fax:
    E-mail: parsons.julia@epamaii.epa.gov

60.  SydPeng
    West Virginia University
    Department of Mining Engineering
    P.O. Box 6070
    Morgantown, WV 26506
    Phone: 304/293-7680
    Fax: 304/293-5708
    E-mail: speng2@wvu.edu

61.  Christopher C Peterson
    Gannett Fleming Inc
    800 Leonard Street
    Suite 1
    Clearfield, PA 16830
    Phone: 814/765-4320
    Fax: 814/765-2511
    E-mail: cpeterson@gfnet.com

62. Jim Pierce
   WVDEP
   525 Tiller Street
   Logan, WV 25601
   Phone: 304/792-7075
   Fax:
   E-mail: jpiercez@mail.dep.state, wv.us

63.  Nadine Pierre-Charles
    US EPA
    1060 Chaplin Street
    Wheeling, WV 26003
    Phone: 304/234-0234
    Fax: 304/234-0258
    E-mail:
64.  Randy Pomporio
    Canaan Valley Institute
    964 deny Hill Lane
    Pottstown, PA 19465
    Phone: 610/917-2138
    Fax: 610/917-2139
    E-mail: jrpomponio@aol.com
65.  David E. Rider
    US EPA
    1650 Arch Street
    3ES30
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    Phone: 215/814-2787
    Fax: 215/814-2783
    E-mail: rider.david@epa.gov

66.  KurtRiitlers
    USGS-BRD
    NC State University
    PO Box 8002 Baltimore Hall
    Raleigh, NC 27695
    Phone: 919/515-7581
    Fax:
    E-mail: kurt@usgs.gov

67.  Mike Robinson
    Office of Surface Mining
    Three Parkway Center
    Pittsburgh, PA 15220
    Phone'. 412/937-2882
    Fax: 412/937-2903
    E-mail: mrobin@osmre.gov

68.  Ron Robinson
    Virginia Dept. of Mines, Minerals & Energy
    PO Drawer 900
    Big Stone Gap, VA 24219
    Phone: 540/523-8166
    Fax: 540/523-8141
    E-mail: rdr@mme.state.va.us
-------
69.  Terry Sammons
    Jackson & Kelly Attorneys at Law
    PO Box 553
    Charleston, WV 25322
    Phone: 304/340-1364
    Fax: 304/340-1050
    E-mail: tsammons@jacksonkelly.com

70.  Bernie Samoski
    US EPA
    Region 111
    1650 Arch St MS/3WP 10
    Philadelphia, PA 08009
    Phone: 215/814-5756
    Fax: 215/814-2301
    E-mail: sarnoski.bernie@epamail.epa.gov

71.  Katie Scharf
    Yale University
    604 Hazel Road
    Charleston, WV 25314
    Phone: 304/345-0931
    Fax:
    E-mail: katherine.scharf@yale.edu
72.  Horst J Schor
    H J Schor Consulting
    626 North Pioneer Drive
    Anaheim, CA 92805
    Phone: 714/778-3767
    Fax: 714/778-1656
    E-mail:

73.  Mark Schuerger
    RAG-American Coal
    1520KanawhaBlvdE
    Charleston, WV 25311
    Phone: 304/345-0970
    Fax: 304/345-6034
    E-mail:
74.  Guy Shelledy
    Fola Coal Company
    POBox 180
    Bickmore, WV 25019
    Phone: 304/587-4100
    Fax: 304/587-2469
    E-mail: wvsailor@aol.com

75.  GaryESlagel
    CONSOL Inc
    1800 Washington Road
    Pittsburgh, PA 15241
    Phone: 412/831-4532
    Fax: 412/831-4513
    E-mail: garysiagel@consolcoal.com
76. Terrence Slonecker
    US EPA
    12201 Sunrise Valley
    Mail Stop 555
    Reston, VA20192
    Phone: 703/648-4289
    Fax: 703/648-4290
    E-mail: slonecker.t@epa.gov

77. Keith Smith
    Kentucky Dept for Surface Mining
    #2 Hudson Hollow Street
    Frankfort, KY 40601
    Phone: 502/564-2340
    Fax: 502/564-5848
    E-mail: k.smith@mail.state.ky.us

78. John Smith Jr.
    Mining Tech
    1 SOON Big Run Road
    Ashland, KY 41129
    Phone: 606/928-7220
    Fax: 606/928-7257
    E-mail:
-------
79.  Douglas E Stone
    Office of Surface Mining
    Big Stone Gap Field Office
    1941 Neeley Rd, Suite 201, Compartment 116
    Big Stone Gap, VA 24219
    Phone: 540/523-0067
    Fax: 540/523-5053
    E-mail: dstone@osmre.gov

80.  Stanley Suboleski
    Virginia Polytechnic Inst/State Univ
    Dept of Mining Engineering
    Blacksburg, VA 24061
    Phone: 540/213-6671
    Fax: 540/231-4070
    E-mail:

81.  MJSuperfesky
    Office of Surface Mining
    PO Box 886
    Morgantown, WV 26505
    Phone: 304/291-4004
    Fax: 304/296-8897
    E-mail: mjsuperf@osmre.gov

82.  Dan Sweeney
    US EPA
    1650 Arch Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    Phone: 215/814-5731
    Fax: 215/814-2301
    E-mail: sweeney.dan@epa.gov

83.  Rick Sweigard
    University of Kentucky
    Dept of Mining Engineering
    Lexington, KY 40506-0107
    Phone: 606/257-1173
    Fax: 606/323-1962
    E-mail: rsweigar@engr.uky.edu
84.  Tony Szwilski
    Marshall University
    112 Gullickson Drive
    Huntington, WV 25755
    Phone: 304/696-5457
    Fax: 304/696-5454
    E-mail: szwilski@marshall.edu
85.  Joe Timms
    WV Board of Professional Engineers
    Phone: 304/842-4958
    Fax:
    E-mail: jimms@aol.com
86.  Paul Travis
    Kentucky Dept for Surface Mining
    #2 Hudson Hollow Street
    Frankfort, KY 40601
    Phone: 502/564-2320
    Fax: 502/564-5848
    E-mail: pa u I.travis@m ail. state, ky. us

87.  Jim Truman
    Hill & Associates
    32 West Street
    Westover, WV 26501
    Phone: 304/291-2290
    Fax: 304/291-2290
    E-mail: ula00260@mail.wvnet.edu

88.  Dave Vande Linde
    WVDEP
    IQMcJunkinRoad
    Nitro, WV25143
    Phone: 304/759-0510
    Fax: 304/759-0528
    E-mail: dvandelinde@mail.dep.state.wv.us
-------
89.  Thomas A Vorbach
    Steptoe & Johnson
    POBox 1616
    Morgantown, WV 26507-1616
    Phone: 304/598-8000
    Fax: 304/598-8116
    E-mail: vorbacta@steptoe johnson.com

90.  JanWachter
    Federal Energy Technology Center
    US Department of Energy
    3610 Collins Ferry Road
    Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
    Phone: 304/285-4607
    Fax: 304/285-4403
    E-mail: jwacht@fetc.doe.gov

91.  Steve Wathen
    P&H MinePro Services
    205 Sruley Drive
    StAlbans,WV25177
    Phone: 304/755-1007
    Fax: 304/755-8595
    E-mail: swathen@hii.com

92.  Mark Weaver
   RAG-American Coal
    1520KanawhaBlvd
    E Charleston, WV 25311
    Phone: 304/345-0970
    Fax: 304/345-6034
    E-mail:

93.  Ed Wojtowicz
    WVDEP
    116 Industrial Drive
    Oak Hill, WV 25901
    Phone: 304/465-1911
    Fax: 304/465-0031
    E-mail: bib00991@mail.wvnet.edu
94.  Roger Wolfe
    Jackson & Kelly Attorneys at Law
    PO Box 553
    Charleston, WV 25322
    Phone: 304/340-1105
    Fax: 304/340-1130
    E-mail: rwolfe@jacksonkelly.com

95.  Rodney Woods
    US Army Corps of Engineers
    POBox 1159
    Cincinnati, OH 45201-1159
    Phone: 513/684-6212
    Fax: 513/684-2460
    E-mail: rodney.l.woods@lrdor.usace.army.mil
96.  Dennis H Yankee
    Tennessee Valley Authority
    129 Pine Road
    Norris, TN 37828
    Phone: 423/632-1541
    Fax: 423/632-1493
    E-mail: dhyankee@tva.gov

97.  GO Young
    Pittston Coal Company
    POBox  11718
    Charleston, WV 25339
    Phone: 304/347-8205
    Fax: 304/347-8980
    E-mail: goyoung@piftstonminerals.com

98.  Paul Ziemkiewicz
    West Virginia University
    National Mine Land Reclamation Center
    PO Box 6064
    Morgantown, W V 26506-6064
    Phone: 304/293-2867
    Fax: 304/293-7822
    E-mail: pziemkie@wvu.edu
                                                                                              10
-------
                          Mining and Reclamation Technology Symposium
                                Federal Energy Technology Center
                                   Morgantown, West Virginia
                                      June 23 and 24,1999

Final Participants List

                                    Wednesday June 23, 1999

Dr. Jan Wachter, Federal Energy Technology Center Director, Environmental, Safety and Health Division,
welcomed a total of 98 participants representing the state and federal regulatory community, coal mining
industry, industry consultants, and environmental interest groups.  Dr. Wachter introduced Dr. Paul
Ziemkiewicz, Director, National Mine Land Reclamation Center, who served as the symposium facilitator
throughout the two-day proceedings.

Dr. Ziemkiewicz highlighted the scope and purpose of the symposium. The Mining and Reclamation
Technology Symposium was commissioned by the Mountaintop Removal Mining/Valley Fill Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Interagency Steering Committee as an educational forum for the members of the
regulatory community who will participate in the development of the EIS. The Steering Committee sought a
balanced audience to ensure the input to the regulatory community reflected the range of perspectives on
this complicated and emotional issue. The focus of this symposium is on mining and reclamation
technology alternatives, which is one of eleven topics scheduled for review to support development of the
EIS. Others include hydrologic, environmental, ecological, and socio-economic issues.

Overall Purpose of the Symposium in Relevance to the EIS
Mr. Mike Robinson, Chief, Program Support Division, Appalachian Regional  Coordination Center, Office of
Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement provided the background of the Mountaintop Mining/Valley
Fill EIS including the 1998 legal settlement that required the EIS to be completed within two years. He
identified the current concerns about the practice of mountaintop removal mining, why the EIS is being
conducted, and what will be studied. His briefing includes geographic information system (GIS) views of
the existing valley fill areas throughout West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee, which are the
only areas of the United States known to be suitable for the mountaintop mining technique and, therefore,
expected to need valley fills to receive the excess spoil material.  Members of the EIS Steering Committee
include, Mr. Robinson, Office of Surface Mining; Ms. Rebecca Hanmer, U.S.  EPA; Mr. Rodney Woods, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Dave Densmore, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; and Mr. Charley Stover,  West
Virginia Division of Environmental Protection.

Mountaintop Mining Environmental Impact Statement
Mining Primer: A General Description of Various Mining Techniques
Mr. Stanley Suboleski, Head, Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, provided the overview presentation on mining methods suitable for steep slope
terrain. He identified four major methods and two niche methods and discussed the basic economic and
physical factors that determine where each is likely to be employed.  The two major surface methods are
mountaintop mining and contour/point mining and the two major underground methods are room and pillar
and longwall mining.  He cited auger and highwall mining as surface related niche methods.  His
presentation included figures on the amount of surface mining that is conducted in the United States and
the southern Appalachian region. He also discussed the capital expenditures, coal reserves, and other
factors necessary for a particular mining method to be economically viable.  The percentage of reserve area
recovered by the various surface methods ranges from approximately 33% for single augers to 100%  for
areas mined by mountaintop removal. Coal recovery for underground methods range from approximately
40% for room and pillar operations to 80% overall for longwall mines. Both longwall and mountaintop
removal methods require large capital expenditures which necessitate larger reserve areas for a mine to be
-------
economically feasible.

The speakers following Mr. Suboleski provide more detail on the surface mining techniques. Mr. Suboleski
prepared a presentation detailing underground methods, which is included in this proceedings, but the
presentation was not given during the symposium in an effort to make up time.

Overview of Mining Methods
Underground Mining Methods

Surface Mining- Loader/Truck and Shovel/Truck Methods
Mr. Tom Meikle; Progress Coal Company
Mr. Kermit E. Fincham, Jr., Elk Run Coal Company, Inc.

Mr. Meikle described the mountaintop removal and contour/point methods of surface coal mining using a
case study example. The case study served to highlight the decision making process that industry typically
uses to evaluate the economic feasibility of a prospective surface mining operation.  He highlighted that
most of the low ratio (ratio of total overburden to recoverable clean coal) coal reserves in Appalachia have
been extracted and the higher ratio reserves that remain will require more capital to extract.  The typical
mountaintop removal operation removes multiple seams of coal, often eight down to the Coalburg seam,
removing an average of 436 vertical feet of terrain.  Mr. Meikle was joined by Mr. Kermit Fincham who
presented the detailed reserve evaluation that is conducted to  assess the value and features of the coal
reserve that will drive the overall mining operation. Mr. Meikle continued with the remaining activities that
are considered in the feasibility analysis through final reclamation and the results of his case study.  His
case study concluded that this typical operation had an internal rate of return of 9.6% (net present value),
which he remarked makes the project only marginally feasible.  Furthermore, he concluded that the low rate
of return is further impacted by uncertainty in environmental regulations that is further discouraging the
large capital investments necessary to conduct these operations.

Truck and Shovel Methods
Surface Mining- Dragline Method
Mr. Peter Lawson, Arch Coal, Inc.

Mr. Lawson reviewed the history of dragline operations dating back to 1904 and development of the
Chicago canal.  Today, only two firms continue to manufacture large draglines, including P&H Mining
Equipment and Bucyrus Erie. Dragline equipment has grown in capacity to 118 cubic yards (bucket size)
and typically operated on the overburden leading to extraction of the lowest seams.  Draglines are not
appropriate for all surface mining operations and, like other methods, are evaluated on the basis of several
factors.  He highlighted several benefits of large area surface mines including reclamation of legacy Acid
Mine Land (AML) sites within the operating area, elimination of miles of pre-SMCRA highwalls, elimination
of underground fires, and creation of wetlands and passive water treatment sites.

Those interested in receiving a copy of Mr. Lawson's presentation should contact him directly at:
Mr. Peter Lawson
Arch Coal, Inc.
5914 Cabin Creek Road
Eskdale,WV 25075
(304) 595-7240
plawson@archcoal.com
Surface Mining- Conventional Auger and Highwall Miner Methods
Mr. Ian Carr, AEI Resources
-------
Mr. Carr presented the results of his international research into state-of-the-art auger and highwall mining
technology.  These technologies are used to increase the recovery of coal underneath a highwall for a depth
of several hundred to a thousand or more feet after continued removal of the highwall becomes
uneconomical. Single, double, and triple augers typically have a lower coal recovery rate than highwall
miner technologies, but highwall miner technologies require a higher capital investment.  Mr. Carr's
presentation featured auger technologies from Salem Tool, and Brydet and highwall systems from Arch
Technologies (Archveyor), Superior- Highwall Miners, and ADDCAR Highwall Mining Systems.

Auger and Highwall Miner
Environmentally Responsible Options in Mining
Mr. John Morgan, Morgan Worldwide Consultants

Mr. Morgan is one of three experts retained by the EPA for the Plaintiffs as a result of the settlement suit to
support the EIS. Calling his presentation "From Perception to Procedures," he focused on the public
participation process and encouraged the mining industry to engage the affected local public on key issues
earlier in the process and more effectively for a more successful outcome. He cited key issues as mitigation
of short-term effects (dust, noise, blasting, traffic, etc.), Approximate Original Contour (AOC), AOC
variances and post-mining land use, and minimization of areas disturbed by mining.  He noted the need for a
"rational approach" to determining optimum mine configuration and recommended the concept of "banking"
to aid is matching optimum fill capacity to excess spoil.

From Perception to Procedures

Outlook for U.S. Coal Markets through 2020
Ms. Mary Hutzler, Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Energy Information
Administration (EIA)

Ms. Hutzler presented the government's long-range forecast for coal extraction and economics. EIA's
congressionally mandated mission is to develop independent energy data and analyses that help enhance
the understanding of energy issues on the part of business, government, and the general public. The EIA
has similar forecasts for other fuels.  She cited the recent dip in  coal prices as a result of an oversupply of
fuels, particularly foreign oil, and a resulting underdemand for coal. For the long-term, the EIA projects a
shift to natural gas combined cycle energy technology as the nation retires more than forty percent of the
nuclear energy production capacity. Electricity rates overall will decline about one percent per year through
2020 due to electric utility industry restructuring and retail competition. EIA also  projects a continuing
decline in minemouth coal prices through 2020 due to projected coal extraction productivity increases of 2.3
percent per year and increased production of western  coal reserves, at a lower cost, compared to eastern
coal reserves.  If Congress chooses to ratify the Kyoto Accord,  the fraction of energy produced from coal
will decline from fifty percent to near twenty percent with associated declines in coal employment from
80,000 to 29,000.

Outlook for U. S. Coal Markets through 2020
Panel Discussion: The Future of Surface Coal Mining
Nirmal Gangotadhyay, New Land Leasing Company; Ben Greene, WV Mining and Reclamation Association;
John Morgan, Morgan Worldwide Consultants; Barry Doss, Addington Enterprises, Inc.; Tim Backus, P&H
Mining Equipment

Mr. Gangotadhyay highlighted that fact that the costs of extracting coal and obtaining permits have
continued to increase, while the methods have remained essentially unchanged.  The regulatory issue is
-------
complicated by the several agencies trying to simultaneously regulate the industry and the continuing
debate regarding AOC nearly 25 years after the passage of SMCRA. He noted that valley fills in place for
several years have not affected downstream water quality and expressed concern that the Judicial Branch of
government was exerting undue control over the mining industry.

Mr. Greene focused on the shortcomings of long-range predictions like those presented by the EIA and
suggested that unexpected events like the oil embargo in the 1970's have always had a positive effect on the
coal industry.  Large equipment has come to West Virginia increasing the total coal production with record
levels in 1998.  He suggested that the industry choose the "keep at it" approach and not be discouraged or
dissuaded by long-range forecasts.  Mr. Green also suggested the Steering Committee rethink the value of
reclaiming these large areas with forestry operations.

Mr. Morgan made the point that the productivity increases projected by the EIA may not be achievable
considering the declining grade of the reserve base (more difficult to extract).  Western reserves are more
competitive, therefore drawing the available mining capital away from West Virginia. He cited the European
movement away from coal and oil to natural gas as an additional threat to the demand for coal. Reduction in
mining will make retaining a qualified labor force more difficult - particularly as mining methods become more
sophisticated.

Mr. Doss made a brief presentation to the audience on the coal  operator perspective. He projected that
existing operations will be mined to depletion within the next ten years. Due to the difficulty in obtaining a
permit and the  affect on available capital, there will be a reduction in new mountaintop removal permit
applications. He expects to see an increase in the use of multi-method mining or hybrid operations where a
number of different mining methods are used on the same site. He also noted that re-mining in marginal,
previously mined areas could increase.  He does not expect to see further increases in the size of large
equipment, but he does believe manufacturers will meet the changing market with improvements in
technology, productivity, and efficiency - particularly in the areas of fuel efficiency and digital and control
technology.  He cited the positive effects of large area mining including affects on employment and
economics and the lack of evidence of environmental impact from existing valley fills.

Future of Surface Coal Mining; Mr. Doss

Mr. Backus noted the larger trucks and shovels  and the effect they have had on productivity. Truck sizes
have grown as  large as 360 tons and are limited by the state of tire technology. Shovel size will follow
increases in truck size. Large dragline operations are limited by maintenance and downtime costs.  He
projected slow growth in eastern mining operations, and expects the main growth for equipment
manufacturers  to come from overseas operations.  Lower prices for all fuels and the potential for lower profit
margins will drive the need for larger, more efficient mining equipment.

The panel received questions from the audience. A member of the audience asked the panel members to
respond to the  specific projections and  ideas offered by Mr. Doss and Mr. Backus. Panel members cited the
need to reduce uncertainty and delays before companies will invest in eastern coal, and noted the apparent
large discrepancy between the values cited for coal reserves and mineable coal. Considering the earlier
presentation by Mr. Meikle, a member of the audience asked what is an acceptable rate of return and what
improvements  in mountaintop mining will be necessary to  make up the difference (will increased permitting
efficiency be sufficient).  The panel thought that a rate of return closer to 12 to 15 percent with some
reduction in the level of risk would be necessary to attract new capital.  Some capital investments are already
committed and are subject to whatever  rates are available but are loosing money.

Mr. Meikle, speaking from the audience pointed out there is a direct relationship between risk and return.
The uncertainty over costs and risk has most capital frozen making it impossible to determine the extent of
mineable reserves.
-------
Another member of the audience, identifying himself as a member of the UMWA and the West Virginia
Legislature, asked why the mountaintop removal mining has become such a problem now? Mr. Morgan
pointed out that the size of mountaintop removal operations has continued to increase.  The size of the
Arch Coal permit in 1998 was only the catalyst to question the practice.

Mr. Jim Kotcon posed a hypothetical scenario and asked which equipment would provide a reasonable
economic return while minimizing the impacts to the environment. What specific technologies are selected
for mountaintop mining and how does the industry convince nearby residents of their choices? The panel
pointed out that every selection is site specific according to the factors considered in the mining plan and
available equipment and capital. There is no unique guidebook.  The panel also noted that every member of
the community has a different agenda in the permitting process and it is not easy to please everyone who is
affected.  It was noted that the case study to be presented on the second day would address the question
of mining method and equipment options.

The panel was asked to address the 500 acre bank and highgrading as they are related to the 250 acre
threshold.  Mr. Morgan noted that the 500 acre figure was just an example. The issue is whether the
calculations on the optimum configuration indicate that valley fills are required.  Mr. Morgan recommended
a review of the 250 acres threshold because, in many instances, fewer larger fills would be easier to justify
with an expected lower cumulative impact on the environment. Mr. Doss noted that the current regulations
encourage companies to design more, smaller valley fills for a given mine site to avoid the 250 acre
threshold. Mr. Morgan agreed and noted that this situation supports the concept of an optimum
configuration and "banking," which could allow more flexibility while minimizing impacts.  Mr. Greene
noted that the 250 acre threshold arose from a legal ruling, and has little scientific or technical basis.

Mr. Doss highlighted the uncertainly regarding the issue of post-mining land use as a significant barrier in
the permitting process. There is little additional cost to the mining company to develop the site to any of
the various post-mining land uses. However, they need some stability in the process.  He also emphasized
the positive benefits of large area mining.  The large area operation in Cabin Creek covered an estimated
5,000 acres and reclaimed an estimated 745 acres of land adversely impacted by previous mining practices.

Closing Remarks- Day 1
Dr. Paul Ziemkiewicz, Director, National Mine Land Reclamation Center

Dr. Ziemkiewicz provided four summary points from the first day of the proceedings:
•   Coal mining in West Virginia is likely to continue.
•   Many of the sites under consideration for mountaintop removal operations have been previously mined
    and are environmentally degraded.
•   Previous mining has also high-graded the coal reserve making it more difficult to economically extract.
•   The industry needs stability in both economic and regulatory issues to continue to operate. This need
    should be considered when determining  which elements will be addressed during the EIS process.
                                      Thursday, June 24, 1999

West Virginia Approximate Original Contour (AOC) Concept
Mr. Jim Pierce, West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection

Mr. Pierce is member of the five-agency team that drafted a guidance document for evaluating the AOC
concept found in SMCRA and WVSMCRA.  SMCRA requires that the final surface configuration, after
backfilling and grading, closely resemble the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining while
maintaining the necessary flexibility to accommodate site-specific conditions.  The draft guidance document
provides an objective and systematic process for achieving AOC on steep-slope surface mine operations
while providing a means for determining excess spoil quantities. Using this process maximizes the amount
of mine spoil returned to the mined area while minimizing the amount of spoil placed in excess spoil disposal
-------
sites, e.g., valley fills.  This, in turn, minimizes impacts to aquatic and terrestrial habitats through ensuring
compliance with environmental performance standards imposed by WVSMCRA.

Comments from the audience expressed concern over the poor definition of "higher and better" land use
necessary to obtain an AOC variance. The resulting uncertainty in the AOC variance rule eliminates the
economic profitability of many sites. This could, in turn, raise the cost to the state of taking claims if
landowners become involved.

Mountaintop Reclamation: AOC and Excess Spoil Determination

Landform Grading and Revegetation: A Concept for Mined Land Reclamation
Mr. Horst J.  Schor, H.J. Schor Consulting

Mr. Schor pointed out that southern California and other areas have been dealing with reclamation issues
similar to those in West Virginia concerning the practice of mountaintop mining.  In southern California the
issue arises when dealing with urban pressure to develop hillside terrain for residential development. In
other areas the issue arises during post mining reclamation.  Through his practice of civil engineering he has
studied, categorized, and emphasized the use of natural landscape analogues in reclamation grading and
revegetation. He highlights that natural terrain does not slope uniformly at a 2:1  gradient but consists of
repetitive vertical curvilinear features that are more visually appealing.  Furthermore, natural vegetation
patterns are not uniform but are concentrated where water flow concentrates in swales.  From his experience,
he noted that grading contractors are very capable of reforming the land in a more natural configuration with
a project cost increase of not more than two percent and little increase in the excess spoil area.

Schor published material - Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4
Panel Discussion: AOC and Landforms Necessary to Accommodate Various Post Mining Land-Uses
Mr. Horst J. Schor, H.J. Schor Consulting; Dan Cox, Massey Coal Services; Jim Pierce, WV Division of
Environmental Protection; Mike Castle, Office of Surface Mining

The panel began by taking questions from the audience.  One member of the audience asked about the
establishment of meandering streams in Mr. Schor's scheme. Mr. Schor indicated that in his experience
streams could be reestablished in nearly the same channel with little settlement.  The fills are engineered and
constructed with large rock underdrains and slate or sandstone channels to provide stability. Mr. Cox
pointed out that there is nothing in Mr. Schor's concept that cannot be accomplished at existing sites by
industry- the issue will be cost. Mr. Pierce noted that the draft AOC guidance was flexible enough to
accommodate natural landform grading and revegetation. However, Mr. Castle stated that some regulatory
issues might exist with respect to fill saturation and maintenance of the phreatic surface to ensure stability.

The panel debated the issue of higher and lower landforms that has been cited as a regulatory impediment to
permitting.  Mr. Cox cited this as the biggest problem faced by the coal mining industry today. He also
stated that, in his opinion, flat properly is more valuable in West Virginia than regulators might believe.

A member of the audience asked for the basis for the 250 acres threshold for the size of valley fills requiring
a variance and the kinds of impacts that are expected at that threshold.  Mr. Castle pointed out that the 250-
acre limit is an interim value until completion of the EIS.

In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Schor noted that reclamation to more natural landforms
contribute to the re-establishment of natural habitat and introduction of native species.

Ms. Hanmer, speaking from the audience, noted that West Virginia has developed a Watershed Framework
Document and asked how this framework was being used to address the issue of mountaintop mining and
-------
post-mining land use? The panel pointed out that the state has established a Coalfield Development Office
that should be the focus of a watershed approach to this issue.

With respect to Mr. Schor's approach for natural landforms, Mr. Hartos noted that valley fills shaped with
natural landforms would probably cover more area than valley fills shaped in the traditional form.  The
question was posed as to how the natural landform approach maintains the stability of streams. Mr. Schor
noted that reconstructed streams in natural landforms are engineered with high compaction and sandstone
channels. The entire natural landform fill is also constructed with an underdrain for geotechnical stability,
as are current valley fills.

Mr. Doss asked how the current draft of the AOC rule would allow the use of natural landforms. Mr. Pierce
answered that the model was not yet finalized but that nothing specifically precluded alternate landforms
with an approved variance. Mr. Woods of the US Army Corps of Engineers commented that the stream
impact mitigation ruling that they are required to enforce allows only the minimal amount of fill to affect
existing streams. Ms. Hanmer commented that the EPA position is not as rigid. Their point of view
considers what the permitted firm has done to prevent, mitigate, restore, or reclaim the watershed to an
equivalent aquatic value. According to Ms. Hanmer, the EPA has identified the need for study of paired
watersheds with and without fills in an attempt to discern the potential impact on value of the watershed.
Mr. Ziemkiewicz noted that the recent SAIC study presented to the Surface Mining Task Force, which
evaluated the health of channels downstream of valley fills, is neutral with respect to the impact of the fill.
However, the SAIC study was small in scope and contains insufficient data to be conclusive on the subject.
Mr. Sweeney pointed out that the Programmatic EIS that the EPA has undertaken on this mining practice
would pick up where the SAIC study left off.

As a closing remark of this session, Mr. Meikle made the comment that, in his opinion, the WVDEP surface
mining permitting capability is shutdown until the OSM and EPA resolve the post-mining land use issues
that have been raised  during this symposium. Another individual added that mine permitting has been
stopped without evidence that anything negative is or has occurred. Why  has it stopped? Mr. Robinson
rebutted that permitting has not stopped. The settlement included two parts, one to evaluate the effects of
the practice and the other to address the permitting process.

Presentation of a West Virginia Case Study
John McDaniel Arch Coal, Inc.; Eugene Kitts, Summit Engineering

Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Kitts presented an extensive and detailed case study reflecting the development of a
detailed mine plan in  preparation for permit application. The case study was based on the development of
an actual permit request and was very useful in understanding the breadth  and depth of issues that a mining
firm has to evaluate and make decisions about in order to determine economic feasibility of extracting coal
from a reserve. The briefing material covers the breadth of the presentation and the buildup of the economic
evaluation.

West Virginia Case Study briefing materials
Panel Discussion: West Virginia Case Study
John McDaniel, Arch Coal, Inc.; John Morgan, Morgan Worldwide Consultants; Anthony Szwilski,
Marshall University

Mr. Hartos opened the questioning by asking how many community interactions typically occur for the
determination of post mining land use. Mr. McDaniel commented first by noting that little interaction occurs
because at this point the mining firm is trying to ascertain the economic viability of the project before
engaging regulators and the public. Mr. Morgan made the point that too much advanced planning before
-------
engaging the public actually creates a barrier to approval. His position is that creating an early public
dialogue will enhance the participation and support of the public in the permitting process.

Mr. Szwilski presented the point of view that the mining firms would benefit from implementing an ISO 14000
Environmental Management System. This system of environmental self-management would generate a
renewed confidence in those members of the industry that adhere to it. The motivation for a firm to adhere
is largely intangible but adherence might serve to streamline the permitting process for those firms that are
certified.

Mr. McDaniel responded to a question about environmental analyses conducted during the preliminary
mine planning phase by stating that a large amount of environmental data is collected by professional
scientists as part of the baseline assessment. This data is available for additional study of post-mining and
valley fill environmental impacts.

Mr. Morgan commented that uncertainty and delay in acquiring permits largely drive the cost and the
marginal economic viability of mining in West Virginia.  The notable exception to this generality is the direct
cost to achieve AOC. Anything that can be done to  establish a dialogue with the public and regulators
early in the process would be helpful.

Closing Remarks
Dr. Paul Ziemkiewicz, Director, National Mine Land Reclamation Center

Mr. Ziemkiewicz closed the conference by providing a conclusion based on his perspective as facilitator.
He noted that West Virginia underwent a mining boom in the 1980's. Mines during this period were
typically small, undercapitalized and left environmental and economic issues to resolve after closure.
Additionally, these small mines served to high-grade the reserve making the remaining coal less viable to
recover. Large consolidated mining operations in the area of these small mines would have the combined
benefit of improving the economics of the remaining reserve and provide long-term stability for contracts,
labor, planning, and other factors.  These bigger operations will be easier to regulate than many small
operations and will have a big effect on reclaiming previously mined areas.

He pointed out that clarity in regulation is necessary  to attract mining capital back to West Virginia. The
AOC policy must be coherent and post mining land use policy must be clear. In some instances growing
trees may be preferable to further economic development. He also recommended a holistic watershed
approach to hydrologic protection and reconstruction. Reconstructed streams and natural landform grading
fit well with a watershed approach and should be considered as part of the solution.
-------
To obtain a hard copy of following articles written by Horst J. Schor, contact:

H. J. Schor Consulting
626 North Pioneer Drive
Anaheim, CA 92805

Phone: 714-778-3767
Fax: 714-778-7656

Article 1 - Grading on the Curve
Article 2 - Landform Grading: Building on the Curve
Article 3 - Landform Grading Comparative Definitions of Grading Design
Article 4 - Landform Grading and Slope Evolution
-------
   Presented to Mining Technology Symposium
               Morgantown, WV

                  June 23,1999

The Outlook for U.S. Coal Markets Through 2020
                  Mary J. Hutzler
         U.S. Energy Information Administration
                  Washington, B.C.
    * WiYW.6 ki •. d o e. y &v
      • Energy information
      ' A   ra t i o n
-------
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
World Oil Prices in Three Cases, 1970-2020
            (1997 dollars per barrel)
                            Reference case
                           (nominal dollars)
                                                High price
                                                «.—-•
                                                Reference

                                                Low price
             History
                                    Projections
  1970
       1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
    (era
  www.eia.doe.gov
     Energy Information
     Administration
-------
  Lower 48 Natural Gas Wellhead Prices in Three
                  Cases, 1970-2020
       (1997 dollars per thousand cubic feet)
1 -
                                       Slow technology
                                                Reference
                                       Rapid technology
              History
                               Projections
 1970
     1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
   (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
            Electricity Generation by Fuel,
2,500 -   1997 and 2020 (billion kilowatthours)
2,000
1,500
1,000
 500
                                                  1997

                                                  2020
         Coal
           Nuclear  Natural gas  Renewables   Oil
    (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
100
 Electricity Generation and Cogeneration Capacity
   Additions by Fuel Type, 1996-2020 (gigawatts)
                                     	Natural gas
 80
                                                     Coal
                                                Renewables
 60
 40
 20
     1996-2000  2001-2005   2006-2010  2011-2015  2016-2020
    (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
50 -
     Electricity Generation Costs, 2005 and 2020
              (1997 mills per kilowatthour)
40
30 -
20 -
10
                  Fuel
                jOperating and
                 {maintenance
                 Capital
             2005
                                      2020
      Coal
         Combined-
Coal
                  cycle
Combined-
  cycle
    (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
    New Legislation Reduces NOX Emissions from
        Powerplants, 1996-2020 (million tons)
10 -
    Phase II Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
 8 -
                   Ozone Transport Rulemaking / SIP Call
 6 -
 4 -
 2 -
  1996
  (aid
     2000
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
2005
2010
2015
2020
-------
9

8
3

2

1
  1996
   (aid
   SIP Call NOX Control Costs, 1996-2020
             (billion 1997 dollars)
                            Annualized NO Control Costs
                              Yearly NOX Control Costs
     2000
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
2005
2010
2015
2020
-------
SIP Call NOX Control Costs Relative to Sales Revenue,
             1996-2020 (billion 1997 dollars)
300-
250-
200-
150-
100-
 50 -
                       Sales Revenue
              — Yearly NOX Control Costs

               - Annualized NCX Control Costs
   (era
            2000
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
                 2005
2010
2015
2020
-------
5
4
3
2
1
0
      Electricity Price Projections, 1970-2020
           (1997 cents per kilowatthour)
      History
                Projections
   1970
       1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
  (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
      Electricity and Other Coal Consumption,
1 500 _      1970-2020 (million short tons)
1,250
1,000
 750
 500
 250
              History
                                 Projections
                                  Total
                                        Electricity
                                              Other
    1970
        1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
   (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
100
Non-Electricity Coal Consumption by Sector,
  1997, 2000, and 2020 (million short tons)
 80
 60
 40
 20
                     Industrial
                      Coking
                   Residential/commercial
           1997
                       2000
2020
   (era
   www.eia.doe.gov
     Energy Information
     Administration
-------
 U.S. Coal Exports by Destination, 1997, 2000, and

              2020 (million short tons)
50 -      |            Europe
                      Asia
                       Americas

40
30
20
10-
           1997
                     2000
2020
   (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
1,500
1,250
1,000
 750
 500
 250
 Coal Production by Region, 1970-2020
            (million short tons)
     1970
               History
                                  Projections
        1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
   (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
Coal Distribution by Sulfur Content, 1997, 2000, and
               2020 (million short tons)
800
 600
 400
 200
                      Low-sulfur
                  Medium-sulfur

                  ~ High-sulfur
            1997
                           2000
2020
    (era
      www.eia.doe.gov
         Energy Information
         Administration
-------
40
30
20
10
Average Minemouth Price of Coal by Region,
       1990-2020 (1997 dollars per ton)
      History
                           Projections
   1990
       1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
   (era
   www.eia.doe.gov
      Energy Information
      Administration
-------
40
30
20
10
Coal Mining Labor Productivity by Region,
1990-2020 (short tons per miner per hour)
       History
                           Projections
                                              Western
  1990
     1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
   (era
 www.eia.doe.gov
    Energy Information
    Administration
-------
40
Labor Cost Component of Minemouth Coal Prices,
          1970-2020 (billion 1997 dollars)
30
20
10
               History
                                      Value of coal
                                        Coal wages
                                     Projections
     1970
           1975
1985
1997
2005
2015
2020
    (era
      www.eia.doe.gov
        Energy Information
        Administration
-------
20
Average Minemouth Coal Prices in Three
         1997-2020 (1997 dollars per ton)
15
                                            cost
10
                                Low mining cost
u
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015 202
   (era
     www.eia.doe.gov
       Energy Information
       Administration
-------
       Carbon Emissions by Fuel, 1990-2020
                 (million metric tons)
2,000
1,500
1,000
 500
         1,346
         1990
                                               Coal
                                         Natural gas
                                               Petroleum
              1997    2000    2010   2020
   (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
 Carbon Emissions from Electricity Generation by
        Fuel, 1990-2020 (million metric tons)
750-
                                  655
                          589
                   532
500
  477
250
                                             Coal
                                             Natural gas
                                             iRelroleum
        1990
             1997
2000
2010
2020
   (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
Carbon Emissions in Three Macroeconomic Growth
       Cases, 1990-2020 (million metric tons)
2,000  -
                        High growth
1,500  -
                                  Low growth
                                      Reference
1,000  -
  500  -
      1995
        2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
   (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
 Coal Production in Three Macroeconomic Growth
           Cases, 1970-2020 (million tons)
1,500 -
                                      High growth
1,200 -
 900 -
 600
 300
                History
                                     Low growth
                                          Reference
                                Projections
     1970
        1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
   (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
 U.S. Carbon Emissions in Three Cases, 1995-2020
                  (million metric tons)
2,000 ~                        1999 technoloi
1,500
                                  High technology
                                         Reference
                                           case
1,000
 500
     1995
    (era
        2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
-------
 Carbon Emissions in the Reference and Six Target
                    Cases, 1990-2020
2000
o 1200
!_
£ 1000

|  800

£  600

   400
 200
    1990
               1995
2000
2005 2008   2012 2015
  (aid
       www.eia.doe.gov
          Energy Information
          Administration
                                                        Reference
                                                        1990+24%
                                                        1990+14%
                                                        1990+9%
                                                        1990 Level
                                                        1990-3%
                                                        1990-7%
2020
-------
 Carbon Prices in the Six Target Cases,  1996-2020
400
    1996
      2000
2005  2008
2012  2015
  (aid
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
                                                          1990-7%


                                                          1990-3%

                                                          1990 Level
                                                           1990+9%
                                                           1990+14%
                                                           1990+24%
                                                          ' Reference
2020
-------
   Electricity Generation by Fuel in the 9%-above-1990
                       Case, 1950-2020
  5000
 4000
I
o
ISOOQ
o
c
.22000
  1000
               Renewable
               Hydro power
               Nuclear
               Petroleum
               Natural Gas
               Coal
     1950
             1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
    (aid
        www.eia.doe.gov
           Energy Information
           Administration
-------
1,400
1,200  -
1,000
 800 -
 600 -
 400
 200 -
    1970
             U.S. Coal Production, 1970-2020
                        (million tons)
               History
                              Projections
       1980
1990
2000
2010
   (era
www.eia.doe.gov
   Energy Information
   Administration
                                              Reference
                                              1990+24%
                                              1990+14%


                                              1990+9%
                                              1990
                                              1990-3%
                                              1990-7%
2020
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                    Page 1


        MOUNTAINTOP RECLAMATION: AOC AND EXCESS SPOIL DETERMINATIONS

To:           Michael Miano, Director

From:         AOC/Excess Spoil Guidance Team (WVDEP-David Dancy, Jim Pierce, Joe Ross,
              Ken Stollings, Ed Wojtowicz; OSM-Michael Superfesky, Michael Castle)

Subject:       AOC/Excess Spoil Guidance

Date:         March 18, 1999

Executive Summary

This guidance document, through the implementing regulations of the West Virginia Surface Coal
Mining and Reclamation Act (WVSCMRA), provides an objective and systematic process for
achieving approximate original contour (AOC) on steep-slope surface mine operations while
providing a means for determining excess spoil quantities. Using this process maximizes the
amount of mine spoil returned to the mined area while minimizing the amount of mine spoil  placed
in excess spoil disposal sites, i.e., valley fills. This, in turn, minimizes impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial habitats through ensuring compliance with environmental performance standards
imposed by WVSCMRA.

The definition of approximate original contour, as found in the Surface Mining and Coal
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and WVSCMRA, requires that the final surface
configuration, after backfilling and grading, closely resemble the general surface configuration of
the land prior to mining while maintaining the necessary flexibility to accommodate site-specific
conditions.  A detailed analysis of the terms in the definition of AOC, along with additional
reclamation requirements in the environmental  performance standards of WVSCMRA and the
promulgated rules serve to constrain what post-mining configuration is feasible. That is, a surface
coal mining operation must meet not only AOC standards, but satisfy numerous other
requirements including stability, access, and environmental provisions such as drainage, erosion
and sediment control that influence the determination of AOC. Other factors that affect
configuration are the diversity of the terrain, climate, biological, chemical and other physical
conditions in the area and their impacts on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values.

The key variables found in the AOC definition, influencing AOC  determination are: configuration,
backfilling and grading, disturbed area (mined area in SMCRA), terracing or access roads,
closely resembles, and drainage patterns. These variables, for analysis purposes, can be logically
grouped into three focus areas: (A) configuration, (B) stability, and (C) drainage.

These focus areas are addressed through a formula-like model that portrays these variables in an
objective yet flexible process for determining what post-mining surface configuration meets  the
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                   Page 2


AOC definition.  Applying this process during mine planning will determine the amount of total
spoil material that must be retained in the mined-out area. The resultant post mining
configuration should closely resemble the premining topography, thus satisfying not only the
access, drainage control, sediment, and stability performance standards of WVSCMRA, but
achieving approximate original contour as well. These same performance standards, applied in a
similar formula-like model, determine the quantity of excess spoil that must be placed in excess
spoil disposal site(s).

Using the AOC model in conjunction with the excess spoil model not only ensures compliance
with the environmental performance standards  of WVSCMRA, but provides an objective and
feasible means for determining what constitutes compliance with the approximate original contour
definition.

I.  Applicable Provisions of State Law

       Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA)

                    30 USC 1291 Section 701(2)

       West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (WVSCMRA)

                    22-3-3(e)
                    22-3-13(d)(3)
                    22-3-13(b)(4)
                    22-3-13(b)(10)(B), (C), (F), (G)

       West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation  Regulations (WVSMRR)

                    38 CSR 2-2.47
                    38 CSR 2-2.63
                    38 CSR 2-5.2, 5.3, 5.4
                    38 CSR 2-8, 8.a
                    38 CSR 2-14.5
                    38 CSR 2-14.8.a
                    38 CSR 2-14.14
                    38 CSR 2-14.15.a

II     Objectives

This guidance document has been developed to accomplish the following objectives:

       •       Provide an objective process for achieving AOC while ensuring stability of backfill
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                    Page 3
              material and minimization of sedimentation to streams.

              Provide an objective process for minimizing the quantity of excess spoil that can be
              placed in excess spoil disposal sites such as valley fills.

       •       Minimize watershed impacts by ensuring compliance with environmental
              performance standards imposed by WVSCMRA.

              Minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

       •       Provide an objective process for use in permit reviews as well as field inspections
              during mining and reclamation phases.

       •       Maintain the flexibility necessary for addressing site-specific mining and
              reclamation conditions that require discretion by the regulatory authority as
              intended by WVSCMRA and Congress.

The West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection's (WVDEP) Office of Mining and
Reclamation (OMR)  recognizes the need for guidance on how the various performance standards
of the West Virginia Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (WVSCMRA) and
implementing regulations, West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations (WVSMRR),
Title 38, Series 2, influence the final land configuration following coal mining and reclamation.
The following guidance document  delineates the amount of excavated broken rock (also called
mine spoil or overburden) that WVSCMRA considers "backfill," i.e., spoil placed in the mine area
to restore the approximate original contour. Further, this document determines the amount of
overburden or "excess" spoil that may be placed in excess spoil disposal sites outside the mining
area or "pit." In so doing, this document provides guidance, as needed for WVSCMRA program
administration in steep slope terrain, for determining whether the WVSCMRA provision of
"approximate original contour," or AOC, has been attained.

Chapter 22, Article 3-13(b)(3) of WVSCMRA, as well as State and Federal regulations, requires
all mining operations to return the mined areas to AOC, unless an appropriate variance is granted
by the appropriate regulatory authority.  Chapter 22, Article 3-3(e) of WVSCMRA defines AOC
to mean,

       "that surface configuration achieved by the backfilling and grading of the disturbed
       areas so that the reclaimed area, including any terracing or access  roads, closely
       resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining and blends into
       and complements the drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain, with all highwalls and
       spoil piles eliminated: Provided, That water impoundments may be permitted pursuant to
       subdivision (8), subsection (b), section thirteen of this article: Provided, however,  That
       minor deviations may be permitted in order to minimize erosion and sedimentation,
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                     Page 4
       retain moisture to assist revegetation, or to direct surface runoff. "

Section 701(2) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) uses the
term mined area instead of disturbed area.  SMCRA  requires that the mined area be reclaimed
so that the area closely resembles the general surface mining configuration of the land prior to
mining. Section 14.15 of WVSMRR requires, "Spoil  returned to the mined-out area shall be
backfilled and graded to the approximate original  contour with all highwalls eliminated." Section
2.89 of WVSMRR defines "pit" to mean "that part of the surface mining operation from which
the mineral is being actively removed or where the mineral has been removed and the area has not
been backfilled."  Section 2.47 of the WVSMRR regulations defines excess spoil as "overburden
material disposed of in a location other than the pit."

III.    Elements of AOC Definition

In order to determine whether approximate original contour has been attained, processes must be
developed to objectively assess what surface configuration closely resembles the general surface
configuration of the land prior to mining, while maintaining the flexibility required to
accommodate the diversity in terrain, climate, biologic, chemical and other physical conditions
in areas subject to mining operations,  as intended by  Congress in Public Law 95-87 (SMCRA).
To accomplish this, it is necessary to determine, and address, the variables that influence the
postmining surface configuration.  A detailed analysis  of the terms in the definition of AOC, and
additional reclamation requirements in the performance standards of WVSCMRA and the
promulgated rules serve to constrain what post-mining configuration is feasible. That is, a surface
coal mining operation must meet not only the AOC standards, but satisfy numerous other
requirements, including stability, access, and environmental provisions such as drainage, erosion,
and sediment control that influence the determination  of AOC. Focusing on the collective
requirements of WVSCMRA leads to an objective process for obtaining AOC.

The key variables found in the AOC definition, influencing AOC determination are: configuration,
backfilling and grading, disturbed area (mined area in SMCRA),  terracing or access roads,
closely resembles, and drainage patterns. These  variables logically group into the following
three focus areas: (A) configuration, (B) stability, and (C) drainage.

       A. Configuration: Configuration relates to the shape of regraded or reclaimed area after
       the reclamation phase.  This shape should  closely resemble the general pre-mining shape
       or surface configuration. However, final configuration, including elevation, is
       restricted or affected by the requirement to comply with performance standards found in
       WVSCMRA, such as ensuring stability, controlling drainage, and preventing  stream
       sedimentation.

       B. Stability:  The second focus area, stability, concentrates on ensuring that the
       reclaimed configuration is stable.  Section 22-3-13(b)(4) of WVSCMRA requires the
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                     Page 5
       mining operation, at a minimum, to "Stabilize and protect all surface areas, including spoil
       piles, affected by the surface mining operation to effectively control erosion and attendant
       air and water pollution." The WVSMRR also requires that spoil returned to the mined-
       out area to be backfilled and graded to achieve AOC (see 38 CSR-2-14.15.a.). The
       backfilling process places the spoil material in the mined-out area, while the grading
       process shapes and helps compact the material in a manner that ensures that the material is
       stable.

       State regulations, (see 38 CSR-2-14.8.a. and 14.15.a) require the backfilled material to be
       placed in a manner that achieves a postmining slope necessary to achieve a minimum long-
       term static safety factor of 1.3, prevent slides, and minimize erosion. This is often
       obtained by using a combination of slopes and terraces (benches) as needed. Generally
       acceptable prudent engineering configurations are slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical and
       terraces not to exceed 20 feet in width.  The 2:1 slope is measured between the terraces.
       Compliance with these stability requirements, such as adding terraces and designed slopes,
       renders it virtually impossible to replicate the configuration of the land prior to mining.
       However,  if backfilling and grading utilizes 2:1 slopes with terraces, the mine site will be
       reclaimed to a shape that closely resembles the pre-mining configuration.

       C. Drainage: The third focus area, drainage, as referred to in the AOC definition,
       requires the postmining surface configuration to complement the drainage pattern of the
       surrounding terrain. WVSCMRA, see Section 22-3-13(b)(10)(B), (C), (F), and (G).
       WVSCMRA also requires the proposed operation "minimize the disturbances to the
       prevailing hydrologic balance at the mine-site and in associated offsite areas and to the
       quality and quantity of water in surface and groundwater systems both during and after
       surface mining operations and during reclamation..." Among these requirements are the
       prevention of stream sedimentation, construction of certified sediment structures prior to
       disturbance, restoration of recharge capacity of the mined area to approximate pre-mining
       conditions, and any other actions that the regulatory authority may require.

       The  State  regulations, (see 38 CSR 2-2.63), define hydrologic balance to mean:

              "the relationship between the quality and quantity of water inflow  to, water
              outflow from a hydrologic unit including water stored in the unit. It encompasses
              the dynamic relationships among precipitation, runoff, evaporation, and changes
              in ground and surface water levels and storage capacity. "

       Specific requirements for the protection of the hydrologic balance are found in 38 CSR 2-
       14.5; 38 CSR 2-5.2, 5.3 and 5.4.  These performance measures require the minimization
       of disturbance to the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas as well as
       preventing material damage outside the permit area. The regulations provide appropriate
       measures for  complying with these requirements through the use of designed diversions
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                     Page 6
       channels and appurtenant drainage conveyance structures, designed sediment control
       structures, and measures, such as minimizing erosion, disturbing the smallest practical area
       at any one time, stabilizing the backfill, and retaining sediment within the disturbed area.
       As with stability, compliance with these drainage control requirements makes it virtually
       impossible to replicate the configuration of the land prior to mining.

Other performance standards that affect the reclamation configuration of the mine site must  also
be taken into account.  If access to the reclaimed area is necessary, the placement of a road  will
obviously factor into the possible post-mining landform. The more flat areas cut into backfill
slopes or placed on the mined bench at the toe of backfill,  the more difficult it becomes to create a
reclamation "template" that parallels the land configuration prior to mining. It is an absolute
necessity to provide some combinations of these flat areas  in a reclaimed mine backfill for access,
as well as drainage and erosion control (sediment ditches,  terraces, diversion channels), to
conform with the environmental performance  standards.

Another consideration in designing the post-mining configuration is minimizing the adverse
impacts on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values {see 38 CSR 2-8). While seemingly
general, when put into context with the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
and Clean Water Act, the provisions combine to limit mine site  spoil disposal disturbances to
stream channels and terrestrial habitats.   This results in the requirement that excess spoil disposal
should be confined to the smallest practicable site.  Minimizing spoil disposal fill sizes means
maximizing the amount of spoil backfill on the mining bench.  Maximizing backfilling on the mine
bench does not circumvent the need for stable backfill slopes, adequate drainage control, access
roads (where necessary),  and erosion/sediment control.  However, it is feasible to  configure  a
reclaimed area to satisfy configuration, stability, drainage control and also closely resemble the
land surface that existed before mining.   The planning process utilized in developing a surface coal
mining permit application, while complex, can and must simultaneously satisfy all of these
competing performance standards.

IV    AOC and Excess Spoil Determination

This guidance document applies to steep-slope surface mining operations (see 38 CSR 2-14.8.a),
including area mines and contour mines, that remove all or a large portion of the coal seam or
seams running through the upper fractions of a mountain and propose to return the site to AOC.
As described in the previous sections, many variables, such as stability requirements, drainage
requirements, and sediment control requirements, affect or determine what the post-mining
surface configuration, or shape, of the land will be at a steep slope surface coal mining operation
proposing to return the site to AOC.  Incorporating compliance with these performance standards
into the proposed permit application requires the applicant to carefully plan the mining and
reclamation phases of the proposed surface coal mining operation. This process requires, among
other requirements, plans showing: post-mining contour maps, cross-sections, and profiles; spoil
volume calculations; drainage structure designs; sediment control structure designs; access road
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                     Page 7
designs (if justified); spoil placement sequences; and excess spoil determinations and calculations.
When these findings are integrated, the resulting surface configuration of the land should satisfy
the Congressional intent, as presented in SMCRA, the Legislative intent as presented in
WVSCMRA, and related regulations, of returning the land to AOC.

       A. AOC Model: Portraying these performance standards as variables in a model or
       formula provides an objective, yet flexible, process for determining what post-mining
       surface configuration meets the AOC definition, while  complying with the other
       performance standards in WVSCMRA. The following terms were developed and defined
       for use in the formula:

              OC   Pre-mining configuration, or volume of backfill material required to
                    replicate the original contours of the undisturbed area proposed to be
                    mined.

              SR   Backfill volume displaced due to compliance with stability requirements.

              DR   Backfill volume displaced due to compliance with drainage control
                    requirements.

              SCR  Backfill volume displaced due to compliance with sediment control
                    requirements.

              AR   Backfill volume displaced due to compliance with access/maintenance
                    requirements.

              AOC  Volume of backfilled spoil required to satisfy the Congressional intent of
                    SMCRA for approximate original contour.

       This document uses the above acronyms for illustrative purposes only and are not intended
       to represent standard engineering terminology. Instead, they illustrate the AOC model
       process, rather than quantifying each term in the formula.  While the terms can be
       quantified individually, this is not required by the AOC model process.  Use of the model
       results in a reclamation configuration that can be quantified into a cumulative volume,
       accounting for the overall effect of the individual reclamation components which are
       performance standards in WVSCMRA. Volume calculations, however, are an integral
       requirement in order to satisfy the model.

       The term "backfill volume  displaced" refers not to specific volumes, but to the concept
       that, if not for complying with these performance standards, additional spoil or backfill
       material volumes could theoretically be placed in the location where these structures or
       slopes are proposed.  (See Figure 1). In practice, however, placing additional spoil  in
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                  Page

      these location will violate other performance standards.

      Details  of Backfill Volume Displaced When
      Complying with Performance Standards
                Area between green "pre-mine" line
                and blue "post-mine" slope displaces
                backfill due to stability  [       —
                                                         2h       /
          Green area: backfill           \                             /
          displaced due to access         \ -
                 i                 A  /
                                             20'
                                                        Terraces
                                   2h
                         "*•	Red area: backfill displaced
                                            for drainage/sediment control
                                Figure  1
      Based on the terms and illustrations used above, the following formula determines the
      amount of backfill which must be returned to the mined area to satisfy AOC.

                   OC - SR - DR - SCR - AR = AOC

      Several of the terms must be further quantified to be used consistently in the AOC model:

      Total Spoil Material (TSM) - Total spoil material is all of the overburden that must be
      handled as a result of the proposed mining operation.  TSM will either be placed in the
      mined area or in excess spoil disposal sites (valley fill  or pre-existing benches). This value
      is determined by combining the overburden (OB) volume over the uppermost coal  seam to
      be excavated with the interburden (IB) volumes between the remaining lower coal  seams.
      These values are typically expressed as bank cubic yards (bey).

      TSM volumes are determined by using standard engineering practice, such as average-end
      area, stage-volume calculations,  or 3-dimensional (3-D) grid subtraction methods.  The
      regulatory authority must have adequate information submitted by the applicant to  TSM
      properly evaluate TSM calculations.  If the applicant utilizes an average-end area method,
      cross-sections must be supplied for a base line or lines, at an interval no less than every
      500 feet-or more frequently, if the shape of the pre-mined area is highly variable between
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                    Page 9
       the 500-foot intervals. If the applicant utilizes a stage-storage method, planimetered areas
       should also be determined on a contour interval (CI) that is representative and reflects any
       significant changes in slope (20' CI or less recommended). If a 3-D model is used, the
       pre-mining contour map and, if possible, a 3-D model graphic should be provided.  The
       grid node spacings used in generating volumetrics should be identified. If digital data is
       utilized by the applicant, it should be in a format and on a media acceptable to the
       regulatory authority.

       TSM is determined by calculating the in-situ overburden and interburden volume,
       multiplied by a "bulking" factor (BF). Bulking factors are calculated by a two-step
       process: 1)  "swell" volume is determined from the amount of expected expansion of in-
       situ material through the incorporation of air-filled void spaces; 2) "shrink" volume can be
       calculated from the amount the swelled material compacts during placement (reducing the
       void spaces and, consequently, the volume). Thus, the bulking factor is the swell factor
       minus the shrink factor, which varies based on the overburden lithology (e.g., sandstone
       swells more and shrinks less than shales). TSM is reported in cubic yards (cy).  Permit
       applications should contain a justification of the weighted bulking factor utilized-based
       not only on the weighting of individual swell factors calculated for each major rock type to
       be excavated that will be placed in the backfill, but on the shrinkage or compaction factor
       due to spoil placement methods as well. In equation form:

                                   (OB + IB) x BF = TSM
       Spoil Placement Areas - There are only two areas that TSM can be placed: 1) disturbed
       area (mined area in SMCRA) or backfill (BFA); and, 2) excess spoil disposal areas (ESD),
       i.e. valley fills.

              BFA   the backfill area, referred to as the mine area, is generally thought of as the
                     area between, if viewed from a cross-section, the outcrop boundaries of the
                     lowest coal seam being mined. (See Figure 2)

              ESD   excess spoil disposal sites are areas outside of the mined area used for
                     placement of excess spoil.  (See Figure 2)
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                      Page 10
              CD AOC backstack
              I	1 Undisturbed area
                  Excess Spoil due to Access
              ^H Excess Spoil due to Sediment/Drainage
              LZJ Excess Spoil due to Stability
             Mountaintop bench           Excess Spoil   Pre-mine topography
                                         Disposal Site
           1800

           15DD

           1400

           1200
Contour bench
                                          Figure 2
       Original Contour (OC) - The original configuration of the mine area is determined from
       topographic maps of the proposed permit area.  This configuration is developed through
       the use of appropriate cross-sections, slope measurements, and standard engineering
       procedures.  Sufficiently detailed topographic maps, adequate numbers of cross-sections,
       or labeled 3-D model grids/graphics should be submitted that illustrate the representative
       pre-mine topography and slopes. Digital data should be submitted with the application in
       a format and on a media acceptable to the regulatory authority.

       Stability Requirements (SR) - The concept of stability, in this model, focuses on the
       stability of the slopes of the spoil material placed in the backfill areas or excess spoil
       disposal sites.  The spoil material must be placed in such a manner as to prevent slides or
       sudden failures of the slopes. State regulations require that slopes be designed to prevent
       slides and achieve a minimum, long-term static safety factor of 1.3. This safety factor
       should be the result of a worst-case stability analysis. There are standard engineering
       analytical procedures, that use unique shear strength and pore water pressure factors of
       the spoil material, for performing slope stability analyses. Therefore, it is the spoil
       strength characteristics and the water level anticipated within the backfill that determine
       the slope to which material can be placed and satisfy the safety factor requirement of the
       Federal  and state counterpart regulations.

       A generally  acceptable practice, unless it results in a safety factor of less than 1.3, includes
       grading the backfill slopes (between the terraces) on a 2 horizontal to a 1 vertical ratio
       (2H: IV, or a 50 feet rise in 100 foot of slope length) and placing terraces  where
       appropriate or required to control erosion or surface water runoff diversion (See Figure
       3). It may be theoretically possible to place spoil on slopes steeper than 2:1, but other
       performance requirements may not recommend exceeding 2:1 slopes.  For example, the
       Mine Safety and Health Administration recommends that slopes not be greater (steeper)
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                      Page 11


       than 2:1, because that is the maximum safe slope for operation of tracked-equipment.
                  Factor of Safety = 1.3 -j		
                                   I
                                   I

                  MSHA Berm      '            Terraces
                    /       Sediment/             ..J*-.^/
                           Drainage Ditch         U20'-l  /
                                                    /  Backfill Area
                                                         ^^r
                                               ine Bench
                 Values, except 2h:lv slope, are for example only (e.g., width/depth)

                                   Figure 3
       Slopes shallower or less than 2:1, with appropriate terraces, would result in more excess
       spoil material and would not closely resemble pre-mining configuration. Thus, the basis
       for these slopes would have to be documented based on engineering practices and
       approved by the regulatory authority.  For example, if overburden and interburden were
       predominantly weak shales that cannot attain a 1.3 factor of safety at 2:1 slopes, more
       gentle slopes could be justified. The 2:1 backfill slope, and associated terraces or
       drainage conveyances will determine the ultimate backfill height for the mined area. This
       final elevation may be lower than the pre-mining elevation, approximate the pre-mining
       elevation, or exceed the pre-mining elevation.

       However, as can be seen in Figure 4, this reclamation technique results in a configuration
       or shape that closely resembles the premining configuration, when defining the
       "approximate original contour."

       Drainage Control Requirements (PR) - Drainage structures are used to divert or convey
       surface runoff away from the disturbed area, after complying with effluent  standards.
       These structures must be properly designed to adequately pass the designed flow.  These
       structures are designed using standard engineering practices and theory. The purpose of
       these structures is to minimize the adverse impacts to the hydrologic balance (e.g.,
       erosion, sedimentation, infiltration and contact with acid/toxic materials, etc.) within the
       permit area and adjacent areas, as well as prevent material damage outside  the permit area
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                     Page 12
       while ensuring the safety of the public.  The size and location of these structures vary
       throughout the permit area depending on factors, such as travel time, time of
       concentration, degree of slope, design peak runoff curve, and depth, length, and width of
       drainage structures.  The size and location of these structures necessarily reduce backfill
       spoil volume because of the flat area required to properly construct effective structures
       and meet drainage requirements.

       Sediment Control Requirements (SCR) - Sediment control structures, like drainage
       control structures, are used to minimize the adverse impacts to the hydrologic balance
       within the permit area and adjacent areas, as well as prevent material damage to areas
       outside the permit area while ensuring the safety of the public.  Their primary purpose is to
       prevent, to the extent possible, additional contributions of sediment to stream flow or to
       runoff outside the permit area.  Oftentimes, drainage control structures and sediment
       control structures are combined into a single dual-purpose structure, i.e., the sediment
       control structure discharges from the disturbed area.  These structures must be properly
       designed to accommodate the required sedimentation storage capacity and are designed
       using standard engineering practices and theory.  As with drainage structures, the size and
       location of these structures dictate the amount of flat area that will, consequently, displace
       backfill  spoil storage. When reviewing the size and placement of these structures for
       adequacy in meeting effluent and drainage  control requirements, the regulatory authority
       will also assess the design plans to assure the structures are no larger/wider than needed
       for proper design.

       Access/Maintenance Roads (AR) - these structures are often necessary to gain access to
       sediment control structures for cleaning and maintenance. They may also serve to provide
       principal access to the mining operation and reclamation areas.  The size and location of
       these roads or benches will vary throughout the minesite and should be based on
       documented need.  This distinction is important, because the larger the road, the more
       backfill material displaced which will increase the size of the excess spoil  disposal sites.
       The regulatory authority permit review should evaluate the necessity for roads in the final
       reclamation configuration and approve only those widths suited for the road  purpose and
       equipment size.

       The top of the backfill should be  no wider/flatter than is necessary for safely  negotiating
       the largest reclamation equipment utilized for the mine site (see Figure 4). Areas larger
       than necessary to work this equipment would need to be documented and approved by the
       regulatory authority. The final configuration of the top of the backfill should be graded in
       a manner to facilitate drainage and prevent saturation.
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT
                                                                            Page 13
             ZODO -

             18OO -

             1 6DO -

             1 4DO -

             12OO -

             1000,—
                ] Backfill
                ^Excess Spoil Due to Stability
                J Undisturbed
                I Excess Spoil Due to Access^
                 Excess Spoil Due I
                 Sediment/Drajjtajje^	
                                                     Mountaintop
                                                     Bench  \
       Contour Bench
                                      12OO     1 6OO    2OOO    24-OO    28OO    32OO
                     Figure 4a-results in lower elevation than pre-mining
              1400
                         backstack
                 I	1 Undisturbed area
                 ^* Excess Spoil due to Access
                 ^H Excess Spoil due to Sediment/Drainage
                 L^J Excess Spoil due to Stability
                Mountaintop bench
                                                   Pre-mine topography

                                                                 Contour bench
                Z600

                Z4QO

                2200

                2000

                1800

                1EOO
                     Figure 4b- results in approximately pre-mining elevation
                  ] Backfill (AOC)
                  ] Undisturbed area
                  ] Access road
                  I Sediment/drainage
                  1 Excess Spoil Due
                  to
2:1 Slope
    Pre-mine topography
                      500    1000   1500   2000   2500   3000   3500   4000   4500   5000   5500    6000
                     Figure 4c-results in higher elevation than pre-mining
Figure 4.
                           Restoring contours and meeting
                           performance standards
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                    Page 14
       B. AOC Process Determination

       Applying these performance requirements in the mine planning process will determine the
       amount of total spoil material which must be retained in the mined-out area. The backfill
       material that will be placed within the mined-out area can be backfilled in a flexible
       configuration, in accordance with a practical mine sequencing and haulback operation.
       Consequently, the resultant post-mining configuration should closely resemble the pre-
       mining topography, thus satisfying not only the access, drainage, sediment, and stability
       performance standards of WVSCMRA, but AOC in addition (See Figure 4).

       Summarizing the formula or process:

                    Formula:      OC - SR - DR - SCR - AR = AOC

             Step 1:       Determine original or pre-mining configuration (Original Contour
                           (OC))

             Step 2:       Subtract from Original Contour:

                          Volume displaced due to Stability Requirements (SR) (based on
                          documented plans)

                          Volume displaced due to Drainage Requirements (DR) (based on
                          documented plans)

                          Volume displaced due to Sediment Control Requirements (SCR)
                          (based on documented plans)

                          Volume displaced due to Access Requirements (AR) (based on
                          documented plans)

             Step 3:       Evaluate results. The remaining volume is what has been termed
                          backfill (BKF) or spoil material placed in mined-out area. The
                          configuration of this backfill material will be (point where 2:1
                          outslopes begin) dependent on the placement of roads, sediment,
                          and drainage control structures (see Figures 1, 3 and 4 )

             Step 4:       This is an iterative process that is linked to the placement of excess
                          spoil in excess spoil disposal sites.

      C. Excess Spoil Determination Model: The parameters used in the formula developed
      for determining the quantity of backfill material also are used to develop a model or
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                     Page 15
      formula for determining the quantity of excess spoil. As with the backfill quantity formula,
      converting these variables into a model or formula provides an objective, yet flexible,
      process for determining what is truly excess spoil-while complying with the performance
      standards in WVSCMRA.

      Applicable terms and concepts used in the development of the model:

             TSM  Total spoil material to be handled or available. This material will be
                    classified as either backfill material (BKF) or excess spoil material (ES)

             OC    Pre-mining configuration, or volume of backfill material required to
                    replicate the original contours of the undisturbed area proposed to be
                    mined.

             SR    Backfill volume displaced due to compliance with stability requirements.

             DR    Backfill volume displaced due to compliance with drainage control
                    requirements.

             SCR   Backfill volume displaced due to compliance with sediment control
                    requirements.

             AR    Backfill volume displaced due to compliance with access/maintenance
                    requirements.

             AOC  Volume of backfilled spoil required to satisfy the intent of WVSCMRA for
                    approximate original contour.

             BKF   Volume of backfill or spoil material placed in the mined area

             ES     Volume of excess spoil remaining after satisfying AOC by backfilling and
                    grading to meet SR, DR, SCR, AR.

      The term "backfill volume displaced" refers not to specific volumes, but to the concept that,
      if not for complying with these performance standards, additional spoil or backfill material
      volumes could theoretically be placed in the location where these structures or slopes are
      proposed (See Figure 1).   Spoil material unable to be placed in backfill area (in order to
      comply with all other performance standards), by default, must be excess spoil (ES), and
      placed in an approved excess spoil disposal site(s).  The process for quantifying these terms
      is in  Section IV A, above.

      The ES quantity, as determined by the following formula, is obtained by complying with the
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                     Page 16


      stability (slopes) standards as well as incorporating the other performance standards such as
      drainage controls, sediment control, and access/maintenance requirements.

      The excess spoil relationships.

             ES = TSM - BKF

             Since BKF = OC - (SR + DR + SCR + AR),

                           Therefore:

             ES = TSM - (OC - (SR + DR + SCR + AR))

      The regulatory authority should carefully evaluate the spoil balance information provided in
      the permit application to assure that excess spoil volumes are not inflated merely for
      achieving cost savings from material handling costs. Inflated excess spoil volumes would
      most likely occur because of wider or more numerous flat areas than required for drainage,
      sediment, or erosion control; access roads; or top of backfill areas. Use of backfill slopes
      less that 2:1 would also increase the excess spoil disposal.  Permits that propose to conduct
      steep-slope surface mining operations, but change plans due to unanticipated field
      conditions (e.g., mining reduced to contour strip from area mining), should submit permit
      revisions containing revised volumetric calculations and excess spoil designs.

      Solving this formula establishes the  quantity of excess spoil material (ES) that must be
      placed in an excess spoil disposal site(s) (See Figure 2). Generally this ES volume, and/or
      mining logistics, requires more than one site. Typically, in steep-slope regions of
      Appalachia, excess spoil is placed in adjacent valleys. In areas where extensive "pre-law"
      mining (prior to passage of SMCRA, or August 3,  1977) has occurred, pre-existing benches
      are commonplace.  Sometimes, operations utilize adjacent pre-existing benches (without
      coal removal occurring) as part of the permitted area for excess spoil disposal-if in close
      proximity to the operation.   More often, pre-existing benches are part of the mined area,
      and provide for storage of additional backfill material-ultimately reducing the volume of
      excess spoil. Performance standards for excess spoil disposal areas are found in 38 CSR 2-
      14.14.

      The most common site selected to place excess spoil is in the adjacent valleys.  Site selection
      is typically made by calculating a stage-storage-volume curve for each valley adjacent to the
      mining operation. This stage-storage relationship changes, dependent on the point in the
      valley from which the downstream limits of fill is established. The permit application should
      contain the alternative stage-storage-volume data illustrating the various valley capacities
      for excess spoil storage dependent on toe location and crest elevation.
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT
               Page 17
      If pre-existing benches are to be used as excess spoil disposal sites, the capacity of each pre-
      existing bench area must be calculated.  Typically these calculations utilize the average-end
      area method based on cross-sections representing the site configuration.  After determining
      the capacity of these sites, the total value determined for excess spoil will be reduced by
      this value.  The remaining quantity of excess spoil will  then be placed in an adjacent
      valley(s), as described above.

      Other factors, besides the quantity of material, that go  into this ES site selection may
      include:  1) if a valley, the steepness of the valley profile (so as not to exceed 20 percent for
      durable rock fills or other value designated by regulatory authority relative to design
      changes for additional stability); 2) location in relation  to mining phase; and, 3) other
      statutory requirements, such as the size of watershed that can be disturbed without
      additional permitting requirements.

      Regardless of which factor(s)  determine the location of the toe of the fill, the process is an
      iterative procedure that requires the available backfill and excess spoil material to balance,
      consistent with the formula developed above.  After this material balance is achieved, the
      excess spoil disposal areas are designed to accommodate this quantity of excess spoil.  If the
      excess spoil disposal site is a valley fill, this design will determine the height or elevation of
      the crest (top) of the excess  spoil disposal site or fill. Once this design is complete, and top
      of fill elevation is determined, the next step would be to repeat or perform another iteration
      using the AOC model or process (See Figure 5).

      If the excess spoil disposal sites are pre-existing bench areas, the sites are designed to
      accommodate the calculated quantity of excess spoil, while complying with the performance
      standards imposed by the regulatory authority's regulations.
        2200

        2000

        1BDO

        1600

        1400

        1200

        1000,
               /Backfill
               -'Undisturbed area
               '"Excess spoil due to access
               
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT
                                                                              Page 18
     D. Combining AOC Model with Excess Spoil Determination Model: The excess spoil
     model in Section IV B establishes the quantity of material that must be placed in an excess
     spoil disposal site(s). Performing a material balance, comparing the excess spoil volumes
     with the valley storage possibilities established the height or elevation of the fills. At least a
     second iteration of the AOC model must be performed to establish the final reclamation
     configuration.  Before performing a new iteration of the AOC model (as in Section IV A),
     another term or concept must be introduced.  The new concept determines the interface
     between the backfill area and the excess spoil disposal area. (See Figure 2).  This
     demarcation can be used consistently in any steep slope mining situation, and is determined
     using the following process:

           Locate the outcrop of the lowest seam being mined, whether contour cut only or
           removal of the entire seam. (See Figure 6)

           Project a vertical line upward beyond the crest of the fill and backfill elevations (See
           Figure 2).

           The area where coal removal occurs, to one side of this line, is backfill area (BFA);
           and, the area on the other side of the line, including the valley bottom, is excess spoil
           disposal area (see Figure 2).
2200

2000

1BOO

1EOO

1400

1200
        AOC backstack
        Undisturbed area
        Excess Spoil Due to Access
        Excess Spoil Due to Sediment/Drainage
        Excess Spoil Due to Stability
                                                      Lowest Coal Seam Crop

                                                                 Pre-mine topography

                                                      -Mined
 Figure  6.  Lowest coal seam  outcrop and  mined area
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT
                                       Page 19
      Establishing this boundary between excess spoil areas and backfill areas is not arbitrary.  It is
      the same procedure used by some regulatory authorities in determining where permanent
      diversion ditches must be located. Also, this boundary establishes where permanent
      sediment control structures may be placed without being considered a violation of the
      prohibition of locating a permanent impoundment on an excess spoil disposal site.

       This point becomes a reference line to perform the second or additional iterations of the
      AOC model used in Section IV A. That is, the road access, stability, drainage, sediment
      control analysis is applied to establish where backfilling at a 2:1 slope begins. The
      additional material placed on the mined area as a result of the iteration process creates the
      need to perform  another material balance exercise, as describe above in Section IV B. This
      readjustment of the material balance may result in a reduction of excess spoil volume. In
      either case, the elevation of the fills would not be lowered, but instead the material balance
      would result in a reduction of length of the fills or possibly the elimination of some proposed
      fills (See Figures 7 and 8).
                 J AOC backstack
                 Undisturbed area
                 Excess Spoil Due to Access
                 ' Excess Spoil Due to Sediment/Drainage
                 1 Excess Spoil Due to Stability
                 Additional backfilk       Excess
                 1 Backfill         ^—    spoil \
           Vertical projection
           of lowest coal seam
                 Pre-mining topography
                                                        Backfill
                                         Figure 7
                  Backfill
                  Undisturbed Area
Final
topography
Pre-mine
topography
          1400

          12DO

          1000
                                         Figure 8
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT
                                                                    Page 20
   2600
   2400
   2200
   2000
   1BOO
   1600
   1400
   1200
   1000
Second iteration AOC
Company proposed AOC
First iteration AOC
First iteration material balance fill
Original valley profile
Second iteration material balance fill
             1000
                      2000
                              3000
                                      4000
                                              5000
                                                       6000
                                                               7000
                                                                       eooo
                                                                               9000
   Figure 9. How the  AOC  process  affects fill length
      Reevaluation of fill designs using this second iteration becomes an important component of
      the permit design. Reduction in fill lengths could result in the toe of the fill being placed
      upon too steep of a slope-requiring additional material excavation for a keyway cut, or
      additional  material placement for a stabilizing toe buttress.

      However, this process may still result in large flat areas at the fill crest that could be used to
      store additional backfill.  This provides the further option of storing additional excess spoil
      in the crest area-reducing excess spoil  fill length. This option would further minimize
      terrestrial and aquatic impacts in the excess spoil disposal area because the toe of the fill
      would move upstream (See Figure 9).
      E. Contour Mining Operations: Contour mining excavates only part of the mountainside,
      leaving undisturbed areas above and below the excavation (see Figure 10). The mining
      phase of a contour mine creates a cliff-like highwall and shelf-like bench on the hillside that
      must be restored to approximate original contour, with the highwall completely eliminated,
      in the reclamation phase. The AOC/excess spoil determination models, described in IV A-
      C, are used to achieve AOC and determine excess spoil volumes for this type of surface
      mining operation as well.
      For example, a contour mine typically takes one (1) contour "cut" (see Figure 10) and
      progresses around the coal outcrop, leaving a highwall and bench after the coal is removed.
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT
Page 21
      Reclaiming the site, utilizing the AOC process, would require documentation showing
      drainage structure designs, access road requirements, and properly designed sediment
      structures. The application would also require documentation demonstrating the stability of
      the outslope of the material placed in the backfill area.  Regulations require that slopes be
      designed to prevent slides and achieve a minimum long-term static safety factor of 1.3. A
      generally acceptable practice, unless it results in a static safety factor of less than 1.3,
      includes grading the backfill slopes (between terraces where required) on a 2 horizontal to a
      1 vertical ratio (2H:1V) (See Section IV A for details).  If compliance with the other
      performance standards, i.e., drainage, access, and sediment control, result in backfill out-
      slopes being steeper than 2:1, the application should contain adequate documentation that
      the backfill configuration meets a 1.3 static safety factor (see Figure 10). Documentation
      described in Section IV A would be required if slopes flatter than 2:1 are proposed.
                      Highwall
                                              i Undisturbed area
                                           ^•Backfill displaced-stability
                                           ^•Backfill displaced-drainage
                                              Backfill displaced-access
                                              Backfill
                                               Contour bench
                                         Figure  10
      Oftentimes, contour mining operations encounter long, narrow ridges or points that require
      more than one cut to recover the coal seam(s).  Although the mining phase utilizes both the
      contour and area mining methods when this occurs, the AOC/excess spoil determination
      models are used in the same way for determining AOC and excess spoil volumes. The same
      principles and performance standards apply-drainage, sediment control, and access
      requirements  must be designed and documented. Also, compliance with the stability
      requirements  for the outslopes of the backfill must be achieved and documented.

      However, in order to comply with these requirements and achieve AOC, the reclamation
      phase of these sites must integrate two perspectives when utilizing the AOC model:
      1) elimination of the highwall (perpendicular to the ridge line); and, 2) returning all spoil
      material that is not excess spoil to the mined area(s) (the area between the highwall and the
-------
3/18/99 DRAFT DOCUMENT                                                    Page 22
      end of the ridge line). Combining the two perspectives results in a postmining configuration
      that closely resembles the general configuration of the ridge or point prior to mining, while
      still complying with the performance standards discussed earlier in Section IV A- D.
-------
SURFACE MINING
 CONVENTIONAL AUGER AND
HIGHWALL MINING METHODS
         Presented by:
         IAN CARR
  MINING TECHNOLOGIES, INC
-------
    HIGHWALL
EXPOSED COAL SEAM
-------
AUGER MINING SYSTEMS
     SINGLE AUGER
      DUAL AUGER
     TRIPLE AUGER
-------
SINGLE AUGERS
-------
DUAL AUGERS
-------
TRIPLE AUGERS
-------
TRIPLE AUGERS
 -, :
  «•
-------
   AUGER MINING SYSTEMS
        SALEM TOOL, INC.
BRYDET DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION
-------
SALEM TOOL, INC
-------
SALEM TOOL, INC.
-------
SALEM TOOL, INC
-------
BRYDET DEVELOPMENT
    CORPORATION
-------
BRYDET DEVELOPMENT
    CORPORATION
        ;
-------
BRYDET DEVELOPMENT
    CORPORATION
 -
-------
BRYDET DEVELOPMENT
    CORPORATION
-------
BRYDET DEVELOPMENT
    CORPORATION
          ^3^ - ft
-------
BRYDET DEVELOPMENT
    CORPORATION
-------
  BRYDET DEVELOPMENT
      CORPORATION

-•- •
-------
HIGHWALL MINING SYSTEMS
       THEARCHVEYOR
 SUPERIOR HIGHWALL MINERS
  ADDCAR HIGHWALL MINING
-------
THE ARCHVEYOR
-------
THE ARCHVEYOR
-------
THE ARCHVEYOR
-------
SUPERIOR HIGHWALL MINERS,
            INC.
-------

-
-------
SUPERIOR HIGHWALL MINERS,
                INC.
  SUPERIOR HIGHWALL MINER
  SHM
-------
SHM PUSHBEAM
       -2O FEET-
TET

                    7 FEET
                   20 INCHES
                   	L
            ^ 7" DIAMETER AUGERS
       FRONT VIEW
-------
SUPERIOR HIGHWALL MINERS,
            INC.
                        m
-------
ADDCAR HIGHWALL
  MINING SYSTEM
-------
;    '    -'



                  *  &
               +   *j&-
-------
ADD CAR SYSTEM
  COMPONENTS
CONTINUOUS MINER
  CONVEYOR CARS
 LAUNCH VEHICLE
STACKER CONVEYOR
  WHEEL LOADER
-------
CONTINUOUS MINER
-------
CONVEYOR CARS
-------
LAUNCH VEHICLE
-------
r^ ,
-------
STACKER CONVEYOR
-------
WHEEL LOADER
-------
ADDCAR MINING PROCEDURE
-------

-------
-------
-------
    STEEP DIP
HIGHWALL MINING
-------
ADDCAR HIGHWALL
  MINING SYSTEM
         DDCAR
      Mining Technologies, Inc.
-------
A West Virginia Mining Case
-------
The
Decision-Making Process
Related to Coal Mining
     Presented to EIS Symposium
          June 24, 1999
-------


NITIAL INVESTIGATION


+ + + +
/ ENVIRONMENTAL / / GEOLOGICAL / / OPERATIONAL / / TOPOGRAPHICAL /
1 1

C

^
1

ONCEPTUAL MINE PLAN

" W
1

/iiMncD^Dniikin MIME / / CIIDCA.-C MIME / / COMBINED SURFACE /
UNDERGROUND MINE / / SURFACE MINE / / AND UNDERGROUND /
1

PRELI

^
/ MOUNTAINTOP / /
1

DET

+ J
/DRAINAGE AND / /
EDIMENT CONTROL / / RA AMPF"
PLAN / /
f ,
1
\
i '
MINARY SURFACE MINE PLAN

1' V

^-riMTnim / AncA , / / COMBINED /
CONTOUR /AREA/ / /MOUNTA|NTOP CONTOUR /
HinHWAI 1 MIWPR / / IVIUUIN InlNlUr - OUINIUUK - /
HIGHWALL MINER / / AREA - HWM /
1

AILED SURFACE MINE PLAN

J i
:
//OPERATING PLAN: / / POST-MINING /
/ MINE SEQUENCE / / LAND USE PLAN /

i ' i

// / II II 1
TRANSPORTATION / / EXCESS SPOIL / /^J^M'^MIZMT*^ / / ncwc^T^T?™, /
m AM / / rMon/^oAi m AM / / EQUIPMENT / / REVEGETATION /
PLAN / / DISPOSAL PLAN j / SELECTION / / PLAN /
1 r
, ,

/SPECIAL HANDLING / / BLASTING /
/ PLAN / / PLAN /
Overall
Decision
Process
-------
                       DECISION TO MINE
                            vs
                    INVESTMENT ELSEWHERE
                        COAL MINING
                        INVESTMENT
    USA
   Outside
West Virginia
West Virginia
Outside USA
-------
             Mining Options
 USA Outside    West Virginia   Outside USA
 West Virginia
Other Appalachia    Southern WV
                  (Low Sulfur)
   Wyoming
     Utah
    Colorado
     Other
Northern WV
(High Sulfur)
                  Colombia
                  Venezuela
Australia
                 South Africa
                   Other
-------
Preliminary Investigation
 Definition of Key Characteristics of
        Multiple Reserves
 Required for Valid Comparison of
     Competing Opportunities
-------
          PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
ENVIRONMENTAL
OPERATIONAL
            GEOLOGICAL
          TOPOGRAPHICAL
-------
        ENVIRONMENTAL
Unique Aquatic or Terrestrial Habitat
Endangered Species
Special Characteristics
Water Quality
 • Existing Acid Mine Drainage (AMD)
 • TMDL (Upcoming)
Proximity to Residents / Communities
Archeological, Historic, Cultural Features
-------
Environmental Factors
        13K
            pH, TS
,Mn,
r n~ P" \
ID

                 ^i
                  onc
   Grou

      0.7 mi
       qmfe
     Hicrvv£iier

                            li
               mmu
Tl
        u
   TS)S), pH, Iron, Mn, Acidi'ty, Alkalinil
           !ond
            ere?
IDS
         xisiing Trsaimsnt, If any
-------
Environmental Factors
 •olleci
- Prob

              Eval
          c\


                     orisecruerice;
- rl
   void AMD and iVIaterial
                           m
  T
      crri e ri r
   vo
r
      ri
            :o lt«
                      Tl
  rlycirologic Balance m Project Ar
-------
           GEOLOGICAL
Stratigraphy
Coal Seam Thickness
Coal Quality
Overburden Types (Sandstone, Shale, Other)
Overburden Quality
 • Acid Base Accounting
 • Slake Durability
 • Strength
-------
Geology
        I rr r ri

        <\.\.<\
-------
-------
Classification of Reserves
               ,ess than
-------
Reserve Classification
          Proven - Area of influence
          <1,320
          Probable - Area of influence
          1,320'-2,560'
  Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
  Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
]  Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
^  Middle Kittanning
X No. 5 Block
  Upper Stockton
  Middle Stockton
  C^alburg
                                 /^^^^^--r--. _... ^g& r^r^l \ \
                              i''\i-- f"' ^4^? -^-x"V^^r   '
-------
-------
COP.4NT: lEl JM1 CtMPANr
              PR9.ECT HA«E; BAL^EX PflOPErrr PROJECT KUHBES: 1
                                            9 Ssp 91  13:19:1E.

3£«H Wuftfc





[»«





L-JT1
l.iTl
.511
..iTl
UST1
US"
UE.11
US1 '
UiT1.
US"
US"
US"








. 5T
- ST




LCB1
urm

STP- SEN
GIMP :LT
_HU
. RU
.RU
.RU
_HU
i.P.0
.RU
,BU
.RU
.SO
. RU
,60
. RG
.RO
i RD
no
L RD
LSO
L?D
LSO
LSD
L*0
LID
LSO
LSD
LSU
L"*U

I.*U
L7H
LSU
i en
1 RJ
LAN

Itta
Lfti
I.RJ

ECOF F..COH
T7 rt
0.030 2C.COD
JB.IKID }(.L™
JD.D3C" SB, B9F.
53 . WO 7B . 50C

70.740 70.B1C
CD. 6io n.soc
71. MO 71 .-fit
n.sjn 72.531-
77.120 72.H3C
7?.i1f) 71. And
n.wo n.asn
77 . R3D 74 . Onn
74. KIO 7i.iOD
7(.i.3 217.370


APPARENT
>:
20.030
1D.D3P
IE,. 690
17.D10

0.050
rj.490
C.62D

C.-1D
-.•7t
C.23C
f..-7t
C.40C
n.5it:
0.29C
il. in:
O.B7E
n.noc
rj.B9C
a.isfl
3.18B
3.?3B
3 .T^rj
l.^Ou
K.54D
fl 90B
3.S53
J.903
^.•503
3,373
0 373
0,483
0 250

'7.9*3

30.9CO
0. 170
i, im
BORE m\E LOG B3ftE HLWBER • DT9KJ6 •
WJfl.Yr ICAL

EKSEIE,
5*."[>5TWE,
SAlltSTCWE, BS(V« GBEV, FINE E*ft]H SHE, HEUILW CRMB &12:. HISS LYE.
!I-*LE: SdfcDT, CRET, LA" : HATED, DISTlhDT E*SE, MEDIUH HABS.
:0*L, OCSTJNCT BASE. MEDIUM HABfJ.
^ARBOKfiCFDUa SHAI F ! CGA.lv, Hl^.nff, SK^frP HA5E , ufP]LH BASE ,
ILATSTOiE, LIGHT GSET, flMT ilBui?TLSEs, C'JtTiKCr SASt, nttJLB HARD.
CMKhACECUS SHALE, BLACK, DI5T1HCT USE, MENU" HARD.
SHALY LDAL, CII.SflHrr EA^E , MEDIUM BARD.
FIBECLAV, ^RE*. DFSTIUCT RISE, MEDIU» sc'T.
CDAL • HULL, UJ5UMCI HASE , "tJILW HMD.
CJRBPHAK01J5 SHULE, BISCK, DISTiHCT MSt. "EC ILK HA«[>,
CDAL, DI5TJh:T BASE, MEUILH HARD.
CML - BtlHff, OrSTHCT RB3E, HEDIU" HAED.
CCML, DlSTlHCT (US'-, MLDILH BARD.
OIL • B""n, orsTmrT B*SE, MEDIU« HAED.
B^NE, UlSTIHCI bAS4r MLCJLH BARD.
C3*l, DIST;RCT BA5£. "ECIL" HARP,
U^WE. LJl^TiM'lT BA^r MLCILH BARD.
CMI - HQHFT, DISTINCT RBiE, MEDIU" HAED.
bj«E. E'K'T:nCT BA££, MLLJLH HARD.
CMI - HOBEY, DISTINCT BASE, HEDIU" HARD.
C*RBO«Ai:t3US SHALE, out;, UISIIHCI BASE, HDJLH HARD.
SHAIT CDAL; BDUET, SH«P S*SE, MEDIU" HARD,
tftrfl^TrjHE- : SHt..E1, ECtV, 'Jhb GM[H SIZE, HfQ]LH ^fiflrH FIC7F, r.Rr.t;^
RFnoEJ, »»SS;^. SHdSP MSE. MEU1UB IIABD.
C4RHOHAre3(JS 5H1LE. BLAW, IWSS[fE, SXURP BASE, HECILW HARD.
SHALE, GREV, 3:^'|NL1 fe*.SE, KhDLUn hMRD.
QUBBDHACFajS 5Hfl:F, eLAW. HAiSr^E. 0[5'|UC~ R*?E, NEO[yM HfiRJ .
CLA1STOHE, fi«E'\ [Hill NCI BASE, KtDLUn 4BR3.
(XAL • BOHEV, DI;T:«CT »ASt, ntuLn HARD.
MBECLAf. GliEV. f Mi^FEBOus. CjETUri BASt , «E]:.« BMC.
EHSLE: 5*»[«, CBEY, SIDFSITK, =W5[LrFEiiCPjS, LA":HAT£B, DISTIkIT
MSE, MEIMLH HABI>.
SAhOSlDMt: SKflLEf, BR3UH CKEf, :1 k F TIU[H SIJE, Uf31u« ORATH SIZE,
HASSrVE, ESCSS BEODED, SHIRP BASE, h|BD.
ECAL • BOBEY, DIST!HCT BASE, ntcJLJH HARD.
                 Geologist Log
-------
Geophysical (Electric) Log
-------
               Stratigraphic Cross-Section
             50492
                      44468
                                50489
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900

—
re (us)

re (LS)|
w}—
/....i /
V ^
/ \..«i'
f
us/_
MS,—
re'
f
— >
/
/
J
f
/
(

/'
re (us)

\ / ••••..JI4B)
V /~~




y
\ /
v /

*• " v /
V





\
\ —
re (us)

— *VUK (LS)


	 MS


1400
1300


1200

1100

1000
900
 0+00
20+00
40+00
60+00
80+00
100+00
120+00
-------
Geologic
Column
~)EPTH
r- 0
\J
20
4Q 63. 12'
60
4.-761
80 9-*8'
100
120
140
160
180
200 s,92'
220
240
~r~ 6.00'
260
25.2V
280
DRILLHOLE



^^^H











i


Upper Kittanning (Upper Split) 5.07'
Upper Kittanning (Middle Split) 1 .31'

Upper Kittanning (Lower Split) 1.41'
Middle Kittanning 2.47'
"s
"s
a
o
5-Block5.21'




Upper Stockton 4.44'
Mlrlrlla Qtrt^L-trtn 1 ^^'
IVMGGie oTOCKTOn I.OO
Coalburq 1.62'
-------
-------
          OPERATIONAL
Location
Access
Legal Considerations
 •  Mineral Ownership
 •  Surface Ownership
 •  Oil and Gas Rights
Infrastructure
 •  Coal Preparation Facilities
 •  Transportation Facilities
-------
        TOPOGRAPHICAL
Drainage Patterns
Natural Terrain
 • Slopes
 • General Configuration
Relative Elevations
 • Coal Seams to Surface
 • Seam to Seam
Potential Excess Spoil Sites
-------
                                   1140 Acres
Original Topography
-------
Conceptual Mine Plan
  Identification and Evaluation
            of
        Alternatives
-------
              CONCEPTUAL MINE
                  PLANNING
UNDERGROUND
   MINING
   OPTION
S COMBINATION
UNDERGROUND
    and
SURFACE MINING
   OPTION
                   SURFACE
                    MINING
                    OPTION
-------
                                                  Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
                                                  Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
                                                  Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
                                                  Middle Kittanning
                                                  No. 5 Block
                                                  Upper Stockton
                                                  Middle Stockton
                                                  Coalburg

             ^cii?,  yl^^sx^'fes^'"' 
-------
                                                     Reserve  Criteria
Mining Method Analysis
Assumptions
Deep Mining
A  Minimum 30" Mining Height
B  Minimum 100 feet of Cover
C  Leave 100 foot outcrop barrier
D  Reserve size of at least 500,000 clean, recoverable tons
E  Mining Recovery of 60%
F  Must have at least 40 feet of interval to subjacent or superadjacent deep mining
G  Yield must be greater than 50%
H  Minimum 3" Out of Seam Dilution added during mining
I   Must leave 200 ft. barrier to old works
J  Must leave 100 ft. radius barrier around gas wells

Contour Mining
A  Must have at least 20 feet of cover
B  Seam must  be at least 12" thick to  be recovered
C  85% pit recovery
D  Bench width must be at least 80 feet.
E  Split must be at least 6" to be loaded

Mountaintop Mining
A  Must have at least 20 feet of cover
B  Seam must  be at least 12" thick or 6" if a split of another seam to be recovered
C  85% pit recovery

Miscellaneous
A  Washed Quality based on 1.60 float gravity
B  Plant efficiency is 92%
C  Ash must be less than 16% (Dry Basis) to be direct shipped
D  BTU must be at least 12,800 (Dry Basis) to be direct shipped
-------
   UNDERGROUND MINING
Identify Minable Seams Based on Available
Reserve and Projected Mining Conditions
 • Seam Extent and Thickness
 • Roof and Floor Conditions
 • Expected Recovery
Identify Potential Mine Portal Sites
Estimate Coal Extraction Rate
Predict Coal Quality (Markets and Price)
Define Other Constraints / Assumptions
-------
Underground Mining
Percent Recovery
  Room a:
       iVIinin
    70^80%
0
-------
AMD Prediction:

Underground or Auger Minin
AMDPo
ntial IxiLicatecl? - No
Toiai it?
                     Dcr
AMD Potential Incii
                    Eliminate Potential AMD?

        r/xen oi
       ;e Run of Mine Re
     •--^ -^^ ,^
             Dcly lYIinabli

                 Arable il;

                rri
                1 on;
-------
                                      No. 5 Block
Five Block Underground Area
-------
                                 r"j
                                  /50501
                                             Upper Stockton
                                             Middle Stockton
Upper Stockton
Underground Mine
-------
 1050
                                           Upper Stockton
Structural Contours Upper
Stockton
-------
                                            CUT INTO OLD MINE
                   CUT INTO THIN SEAM
                     MINER WORKS
                                                      Upper Stockton


                                                     THIN SEAM MINER WORKS

                                                     UPPER STOCKTON CONTOUR
Bigtree Underground Mine Works
-------
-------
-------
        SURFACE MINING
Identify Minable Seams Based on Thickness and
Incremental Ratios
Tentatively Assign Mining Method to Each
Seam (Mountaintop, Contour, Area)
Predict Coal Quality Per Seam or Seam Split
(Markets and Price)
Identify Strata Requiring Special Handling
Identify Excess Spoil Disposal Sites
Define Other Constraints / Assumptions
-------
Surface Mine Methods
Percent Recovery Within Pit


     %
-------
Combination Underground
and
Surface Mining
    Identify Seams to be Surface Mined
    Identify Seams to be Deep Mined
    Locate Excess Spoil Disposal Sites
    Locate Underground Mine Facilities to Avoid
    Conflicts with Surface Mining
    Define Other Constraints / Assumptions
-------
Preliminary Surface Mine Plan
       NOTE: Presumes That Other
    Alternatives Have Been Considered and
              Discarded
-------
       PRELIMINARY SURFACE MINE
              PLANNING
IMOUNTAINTOP
   MINING
CONTOUR/AREA/
HIGHWALL MINING
<            COMBINATION
            MOUNTAINTOP -
           CONTOUR - AREA -
              HIGHWALL
-------
    MOUNTAINTOP MINING
Define Economic Extent of Potential Mining
Estimate Coal Recovery as Tonnage and
Quality Per Specific Seam
Construct Preliminary Layout
 . General Mine Sequence
 . Preliminary Regraded Configuration
 . Preliminary Spoil Balance
 . Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
Define Specific Assumptions / Constraints
-------
                                                   Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
                                                   Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
                                                   Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
Upper Kittanning
Mountaintop Area
-------
                                         Middle Kittanning
Middle Kittanning
Mountaintop Area
-------
                                       No. 5 Block
Five Block Mountaintop Area
-------
                                          Upper Stockton
                                          Middle Stockton
Upper and Middle Stockton
Mountaintop Area
-------
CONTOUR / AREA / HIGHWALL
MINING
     Assign Mining Method to Each Seam
     Define Economic Extent of Mining per Seam
     Estimate Coal Recovery as Tonnage and
     Quality Per Specific Seam
     Construct Preliminary Layout
      • General Mine Sequence
      . Preliminary Regraded Configuration
      . Preliminary Spoil Balance
      . Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
     Define Specific Assumptions / Constraints
-------
Contour Mining
-------
                                            Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
Contour
-------
                                           Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
Upper Kittanning (Middle
Split) Contour Area
-------
                                         Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
Contour Area
-------
                                        No. 5 Block
Five Block Contour Area
-------
                                            Upper Stockton
                                            Middle Stockton
Upper and Middle Stockton
Contour Area
-------
                                          Upper Stockton
                                          Middle Stockton
Upper and Middle Stockton Contour
Area/Upper Stockton Auger Area
-------
                                         Coalburg
Coalburg Contour Area
-------
                                       Coalburg
Coalburg Contour/Auger Area
-------
COMBINED MOUNTAINTOP -
CONTOUR - AREA - HWM
     Assign Mining Method to Each Seam
     Define Economic Extent of Mining per Seam
     Estimate Coal Recovery as Tonnage and
     Quality Per Specific Seam
     Construct Preliminary Layout
      • General Mine Sequence
      • Preliminary Regraded Configuration
      • Preliminary Spoil Balance
      • Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
     Define Specific Assumptions / Constraints
-------
Detailed Mine Plan
-------
                                DETAILED
                               MINE PLAN
        DETAILED SURFACE
             MINE  PLAN
   DRAINAGE
  AND SEDIMENT
  CONTROL PLAN
TRANSPORTATION
    PLAN
 MATERIAL
 BALANCE
EXCESS SPOIL
 DISPOSAL
   PLAN
                       SPECIAL
                       HANDLING
                        PLAN
                       UNDERGROUND MINE
                                PLAN
CIPERATING PLAN
MINE SEQUENCE
 POST-MINING
  LAND USE
   PLAN
 OPERATING
   PLAN:
 EQUIPMENT
 SELECTION
 REGRADING /
REVEGETATION
   PLAN
                   BLASTING
                     PLAN
-------
  Drainage and Sediment Control
Locate Primary Sediment Control
Structures
 • Ponds at Valley Fills
 • On-Bench Sediment Structures
Define Temporary Sediment Control Plan
Complete Detailed Drainage Designs
 • Sediment Ponds
 • Sediment Channels
 • Drainage Channels / Flumes
 • Culvert Designs (Roads, etc.)
-------
-------
-------
Material Balance
  Calculate Total Material to be Excavated
  Determine Volume of Coal to be Recovered
  Difference x Swell (typically 25%) Equals
  Total Spoil Material
  Determine Volume of Backfill to Achieve the
  Post-Mining Configuration
  Total Spoil Less Backfill Equals Excess Spoil
  Location of Spoil Disposal Sites Relative to
  Spoil Generation Sites is Critical to Mine Plan
-------
Excess Spoil Disposal Plan
  Define Needs / Constraints / Limitations
   •  Volume Required Per Site
   •  Section 404 Considerations
  Situate Excess Spoil Disposal Facilities
   •  On-Bench Where Available and Practical
   •  Valley Fills
  Design Details
   •  Volume
   •  Stability
   •  Drainage (Internal and Surface)
-------
-------
-------
                                          L"! WATERSHED
                                             VALLEY FILL
Valley Fill Watersheds
-------
                                          Upper Stockton
                                          Middle Stockton
Valley Fill Volumes
(MMCY)
-------
-------
        Special Handling Plan
Identify Stratum Requiring Special Handling
 •  Determined By Geologic Investigation
Blending, Isolation, or Encapsulation?
 •  Decision Generally Based on Potential Acidity
   Relative to Neutralization Potential
Design Details
 •  Volume of Potential Toxic Material
 •  Availability and Volume of Containment or
   Blending Material
 •  Drainage (Internal and Surface)
-------
  Operating Plan: Mine Sequence
Operating Plan Must Consider
 • Logical Starting Point, Stopping Point
 • Multiple Seams with Varying Quality
 • Different Mining Methods Employed Per Seam
 • Overall Reserve Configuration
Develop Detailed "Cut" Sequence by Seam
Contemporaneous Reclamation
 • Based on Mining Methods and Equipment
 • NOTE: Smaller Fills, Higher Backfill Conflict with
  Tighter Contemporaneous Reclamation
-------
Operating Plan: Equipment Selection
  Evaluate Each Mining Horizon Based on Particular
  Characteristics
   •  Thickness
   •  Material Type
   •  Spoil Handling Requirements
  Assign Appropriate Equipment to Each Horizon
   •  Front End Loader / Truck Spread
   •  Hydraulic Shovel / Truck Spread
   •  Electric Shovel / Truck Spread
   •  Dozer Push Spread
   •  Dragline
-------
  Operating Plan: Blasting Plan
Identify Blasting Constraints
 • Nearest Protected Structures
 • Deep Mines Within 500 Feet
 • Strata Requiring Special Handling Within Logical
  Horizon
Develop General Blast Design For Each
Horizon
Determine Applicability of Cast Blasting
-------
-------
     Post-Mining Land Use Plan
Mountaintop Mining?
 •  Develop Higher and Better Post-Mining Land Use Per
   SMCRA
Select Post-Mining Land Use: Original or Alternate?
Determine Required Configuration of Regraded
Surface To Accommodate Chosen Use
Factors To Consider
 •  Long-Term Access
 •  Long-Term Maintenance
 •  Measures of Success
 •  Economics
-------
   Regrading / Revegetation Plan
Compatible With Post-Mining Land Use
 • Land Forms and Drainage
 • Types of Vegetation
Regraded Configuration
 • Varies Depending On Final Land Use
 • Must Be Durable and Stable
Revegetation
 • Avoid Non-Native Species
 • Must Complement Post-Mining Land Use
-------
Environmental Factors
 ,rosicm ana
PI an
-------
        Transportation Plan
Access To Mine Reserve Area From Existing
Highways
Internal Access
Coal Transport From Site To Processing Plant
or Shipping Point
Coal Transport to Markets
 • Rail
 • Truck
 • River
-------
 FINALLY	Permitting
Regulatory Review
Public Inspection and Comment
Regulatory Approval
-------
-------
SUMMARY
-------
Mining Method Analysis
Coal Reserves
Mining Method Reserve Summary
| Acres Available for Mining
Seam. Underground
Upper Kittanning Rider
Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
MiddleKittanning
No. 5 Block Seam 97.21
Upper Stockton Seam 521 .52
Middle Stockton Seam
Coalburg Seam
Total 618.73
I
Seam Underground
Upper Kittanning Rider
Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
MiddleKittanning
No. 5 Block Seam 60%
Upper Stockton Seam 60%
Middle Stockton Seam
Coalburg Seam
I
Seam Underground
Upper Kittanning Rider
Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
MiddleKittanning
No. 5 Block Seam 1.63
Upper Stockton Seam 1 .58
Middle Stockton Seam
Coalburg Seam
Total
Contour
-
53.10
53.10
76.58
28.14
181.90
236.18
236.18
131.61
996.79
Auger
-
2.93
-
-
-
48.80
64.16
-
65.66
181.55
Mountaintop
-
72.99
72.99
83.70
28.14
382.39
641 .40
641 .40
757.43
2,680.44
Mining Recovery
Contour
-
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
Specific
Contour
-
1.28
1.30
1.51
1.67
1.35
1.24
1.23
1.34

Auger
-
30%
-
-
-
30%
30%
-
30%
Gravity
Auger
-
1.28
-
-
1.67
1.35
1.24
-
1.34

Mountaintop
-
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
I
Mountaintop
-
1.28
1.30
1.51
1.67
1.35
1.24
1.23
1.34

|| Seam Thickness (feet) Recovered |
Underground
-
-
-
-
-
6.37
4.88
-
1
11.25
Contour
-
5.07
1.31
1.41
2.47
5.21
4.44
1.35
1.62
22.88
Auger
-
5.07
-
-
2.47
5.21
4.44
-
1.62
18.81
Mountaintop
-
5.07
1.31
1.41
2.47
5.21
4.44
1.35
1.62
22.88
1 1 Wash Yield (with 92% Plant inefficiency) |
Underground
-
-
-
-
-
46.43%
50.87%
-
1 	
|| Saleable
Underground
-
-
-
-
-
383,191
1,671,041
-
-
| 2,054,232
Contour
-
75.16%
76.70%
47.55%
52.14%
70.86%
79.10%
83.12%
58.71%
Tons Available
Contour
-
299,215
80,125
89,554
69,910
1,047,266
1,188,213
376,582
193,783
3,344,648
Auger
-
75.16%
-
-
-
70.86%
79.10%
-
58.71%
by Mining
Auger
-
5,824
-
-
-
99,157
113,925
-
34,122
253,028
Mountaintop
-
75.16%
76.70%
47.55%
52.14%
70.86%
79.10%
83.12%
58.71%
Method |
Mountaintop
-
411,294
110,138
97,880
69,910
2,201,560
3,226,861
1,022,693
1,115,242
8,255,579 |
-------
              Mining  Ratios  by Method
                          CLEAN RATIOS
Upper Kittanning Rider
Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
Middle Kittanning
No. 5 Block Seam
Upper Stockton Seam
Middle Stockton Seam
Coalburg Seam
BCY
Mountaintop
4,685,843
2,654,562
1,216,455
775,018
32,913,744
66,635,224
6,200,739
30,764,467
Incr. Ratio
Mountaintop
11.39
24.10
12.43
11.09
14.95
18.79
6.06
27.59
Cum. Ratio
Mountaintop
11.39
14.08
13.82
13.54
14.61
17.80
16.12
17.67
                               145,846,052
                          CLEAN RATIOS (No auger)
Upper Kittanning Rider
Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
Middle Kittanning
No. 5 Block Seam
Upper Stockton Seam
Middle Stockton Seam
Coalburg Seam
BCY
Contour
3,272,579
1,064,587
1,063,456
775,018
15,264,354
15,151,366
2,369,476
3,876,845
Incr. Ratio
Contour
10.94
13.29
11.88
11.09
14.58
12.75
6.29
20.01
Cum. Ratio
Contour
10.94
11.43
11.52
11.46
13.52
13.19
12.37
12.81
                                42,837,682
-------
                           CUT INTO THIN SEAM
                             MINER WORKS
Upper Kittanning (Upper Split)
Upper Kittanning (Middle Split)
Upper Kittanning (Lower Split)
Middle Kittanning
No. 5 Block
Upper Stockton
Middle Stockton
Coalburg
 UPPER STOCKTON DEEP MINE
 THIN SEAM MINER WORKS
 UPPER STOCKTON CONTOUR

 EXTENT OF MINING
 VALLEY FILLS
Actual  Mining  Extents
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
TV.MS*,vl •  •'••-3
e.-if-tm •'•'*:   .--. *•
-------
                      Alternative Contour Mining Ratio
Seam/Ratio
 Upper Kittanning Rider
 Upper Kittanning (All Splits)
 MiddleKittanning
 No. 5 Block Seam
 Upper & Middle Stockton
 Coalburg Seam
            Total
Seam/Ratio
 Upper Kittanning Rider
 Upper Kittanning (All Splits)
 MiddleKittanning
 No. 5 Block Seam
 Upper & Middle Stockton
 Coalburg Seam
            Total
| Overburden
8:1 10:1
5,099,600
9,258,624 16,805,880
9,809,100
9,258,624 31,714,580
I Overburden
8:1 10:1
6,374,500
11,573,280 21,007,350
12,261,375
(BCY)
12:1
8,937,720
25,707,456
34,645,176
(LCY)
12:1
11,172,150
32,134,320
-
|
14:1
11,561,760
694,200
37,059,120
49,315,080
I
14:1
14,452,200
867,750
46,323,900
-
11,573,280
39,643,225
43,306,470     61,643,850
Note:  Material swelled 125%
-------
                         Alternative Contour Mining Ratio
Seam/Ratio
 Upper Kittanning Rider
 Upper Kittanning (All Splits)
 MiddleKittanning
 No. 5 Block Seam
 Upper & Middle Stockton
 Coalburg Seam
Seam/Ratio
 Upper Kittanning Rider
 Upper Kittanning (All Splits)
 MiddleKittanning
 No. 5 Block Seam
 Upper & Middle Stockton
 Coalburg Seam
1 Backfill (CY)
8:1 10:1
3,651,072
-
5,714,491 11,772,086
6,538,550
5,714,491 21,961,708
I Excess
8:1 10:1
2,723,428
-
5,858,789 9,235,264
5,722,825
12:1
7,380,346
-
19,478,455
-
26,858,801
Spoil (CY)
12:1
3,791,804
-
12,655,865
-
I
14:1
10,296,411
382,719
30,222,920
-
40,902,050
I
14:1
4,155,789
485,031
16,100,980
-
                                 5,858,789
17,681,517
16,447,669     20,741,800
-------
Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work co-sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees makes
any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its
use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any
specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or
imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency or any co-sponsor thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
-------
Surface Mining
»-AC!
Dragline Methods
-------
History of Draglines
                  / First dragline built in 1904
                    by Page & Schnable
                  / Built for a specific need
                    on the Chicago Drainage
                    Canal project
                  / In 1912, Page Engineering
                    Company incorporated
                    when Page discovered
                    building draglines more
                    profitable than contracting
-------
History, continued
•-*:^.:
                / Up until 1912 no one had
                  developed a means of
                  propelling the machine
                / In 1913 an engineer for
                  Monighan Machine
                  Company revolutionized
                  dragline by placing two
                  shoes, one on each side of
                  the revolving frame
                / The Model 1 -T became
                  the first walking dragline
-------
        History, continued
          World's Largest Machines
/ 1935 12 CY manufactured by Bucyrus Erie
/ 1942 30 CY manufactured by Marion
/ 1961 40CY manufactured by Ransom & Rapier (British)
/ 1963 85 CY manufactured by Marion
/ 1965 145 CY manufactured by Marion
/ 1969 220 CY manufactured by Bucyrus Erie
-------
History, continued
 World's Largest Machines
, - . : .  . -.-.' ' ; •'•

 - '•  -:':'
/ BIG MUSKIE
/ Muskinghum Mine of
  Central Ohio Coal
  Company (AEP)
/ Operated until June
  1991
/ Attempting to preserve
  as a public historical
  facility
-------
      History, continued
/ Today only two remaining manufactures of
  draglines:
  - Bucyrus Erie
  -P&H

-------
       History of Dragline
 Operations in West Virginia
/ Joe Hughes of Northeast Mining Company operated a 4
  yard Page near Beaver Creek in Tucker County in 1963
/ During late 1960's and 1970's several operations
  including:
    Imperial Coal & Construction Co.
    Grant County Coal Corp.
    Byron Construction Company
    Bitner Mining
    Island Creek Coal
                                     KUC!
-------
        History of Dragline
 Operations  in West Virginia
/ 1983 Hobet Mining began operations with a BE 1570 - 80 CY dragline
  at Hobet 21 near Madison
/ 1983 Taywood Mining operated a Marion 183M - 9 CY
/ 1987 Hobet Mining installed Marion 8200 - 72 CY machine at the
  Hobet 07 operations (transferred to Dal-Tex in August 1996)
/ 1989 Morrison Knudsen began contract mining operations at
  Cannelton with a Marion 8200 - 72 CY
/ 1989 AOWV/Ruffiier added Marion 8400 - 49 CY machine
/ 1994 Catenary Coal Company installed a BE 2570 - 100 CY machine
  at the Samples Mine (upgraded 1998 to 118 CY)
/ 1998 Evergreen Mining comissioned a BE 1570 -  75 CY machine in
  Webster County
                                           SUC!
-------
      History of Draglines
 Operating in West Virginia

/ 1999 - 6 draglines in operation:
  • BE 1570 at Hobet 21 Mine
  • Marion 8400 at AOWV/Ruffner Mine
  • Marion 8200 at Dal-Tex Mine
  • BE 2570 at Catenary/Samples Mine
  • Marion 8200 at Cannelton Mine
  • BE 1570 at Evergreen Mine
-------
West Virginia Dragline Operations
         Arch Coal, Inc.
-------
Mine Planning..
                    "

                     .
-------
  General Considerations in WV
/ Topographical constraints
/ Pit geometry (length/width/bench height)
/ Need for added mobility of machine
/ Single vs. multiple seam
/ Development requirements
/ Contemporaneous reclamation
/ Economics
                                 S-AC!
-------
Topographic Map of Dragline Area
                     V.H-11



          .-—-..   ^ -*t *"-m
                  *

                  -

                  F«
                   .
                 \i' '*  --J --r
                 •: o»-ia
                  '   '

                        ..-.,
                     ,..,
       , • Pt-iflJ
    CH-M    *
,V»  .
              .
       _-'"• ^
       ,r^-


                        — —

                            CH-IM



                              CM • 17
-------
Coal Seam Correlation
-------
Coal Crops / Reserve Boundaries
-------
Volumetric Gridding
-------
Mine Sequencing
-------
3-Dimensional Modeling
-------
Pit Geometry
-------
BE 2570 - Samples Mine


                     -



                  *

-------
Schematic Showing Typical Dragline Operation
                    w«fitn*t
                              METHOD OF MINING
                          rrriisJ v*j mu * MM w» F*»
rt« 4
i
                          •« *s p*. fn
                                    -*r II
                    BEOiN ^EQRAQNQ ISpoll 1ro*n Cut* 1, 2. 4 3
                    I. (St. pi 4 ng>«tfi^i n^ntM 
-------
     General Mining Sequence '
                             Rftnovoi by
                                     Topoyophy
                                         Contov Cut
                                         Wochi EXiSOO Excowter
 S1«Hon *
 StocMoo
Low Stockton

   l» /-•
-------
Lower 5-Bock
Up<>«r Stockton •*•
 StacMon
Lower Stotkton

   too F

 Coaiburg
      General Mining Sequence
-------
    « r.
  7-9ock
  6-Hock
  S-Hock
U>«*f S-Block
Upp*r Stockton -1-
 SloeWon
Lo»*f Stockton


    100 F*«


 Coolburg
       General Mining Sequence
               Original Tgpoyophy
-------
 Typical Multi-Seam Dragline
         Sequence 61'

38DO'N
           77D18'
     -180. 00-
-------
Typical Multi-Seam Dragline
      Sequence 62'
                     SUC!
-------
Typical Multi-Seam Dragline
      Sequence 63'
                     SUC!
-------
Typical Multi-Seam Dragline
      Sequence 64'
                     SUC!
-------
Typical Multi-Seam Dragline
      Sequence 65'
                     SUC!
-------
During Mining
-------
   After Mining
(1+ yrs. reclamation)
-------
         Concept of Excess Spoil
 Original Cross Section Prior To Mining
1400
1200
1000
134,330 SQ.FT.
 (Original)
 0+00  2+00  4+00   6+00  8+00  10+00  12+00  14+00  16+00
                                    KUC!
              i
-------
      Original Material Swelled 125%
1600
1400
1200
1000
167,912 SQ.FT.
 (Swelled)
  0+00   2+00   4+00    6+00   8+00   10+00   12+00  14+00  16+00
-------
Regraded Cross Section After Reclamation
1600
1400
1200
1000
167,912 sq.ft. (Swelled)
-115,515 sq.ft. (Regraded)
         52,397 sq.ft. (Remaining)
                                      167,912 SQ.FT. (Swelled)
                                             115,515 SQ.FT. (Regraded)
  Q-KX)    2+00    4+00   6+00    8+00   10+00   12+00  14+00   16+00
-------
        Concept of Excess Spoil
         Disposal Alternatives

/ Two primary disposal alternatives:
   1 - Valley Fill (usually durable rock
    construction)
   2 - Backfill on mined-out area
                                   SUC!
-------
Durable Rock Valley Fill

      Construction
                 -~    —  —   — 	


                  I fat I"! •43'^L'^*^^^ **^*Z I,-** *"
                  {&?'•";•-"> "V r— .
                  S -^/ J r IS^s -  •*i*r— *•

                 f^H^^^TI
          Phase 1

     Sediment Pond Construction
-------
        Phase 2
Initial Overburden Placement
-------
         Phase 3
Continued Overburden Placement
-------
              Phase 4
    Overburden Placement Completed
Surface Drainage Conveyances Constructed
-------
           Phase 5
Regrading / Revegetation Completed
-------
-------

-------
-------
I
-------
Backfilling Operations
-------
Drilling & Blasting Operations
-------
-------
-------
Coal Loading Operations
-------
~- ^.

-------
   Typical Cross Section
    Stockton Coal Zone
Overburden4
              8-1 1.2'
              Parting 1.5'

              Rash 2.5'

              S-2 2.0'

              Parting 3.2'


              8-3 2.6'

              Parting 0.1'
              8-4 1.8'
— Stockton Coal Zone
-------
-------
Environmental
Considerations
-------
Establishment of Drainage and
   Sedimentation Controls
-------
-------
Approximate Original
      Contour
-------
            Other...
/Waste Management Plan
Ground Water Protection Plan
Spill Prevention Control &
Countermeasure Plan
                           SUC!
-------
        Fixing the Scars of the Past
"Third Generation" Surface Mining

 / Restoration of abandoned refuse sites eligible for AML
 funding at no cost to the state
 / Creation of wetlands and passive water treatment sites
 / Elimination of miles of pre-SMCRA highwalls
 / Extinguishment or isolation of abandoned underground
 mine fires
-------
Pre-SMCRA Highwalls and Deep
         Mine Entries
-------
-------
Abandoned Coal Refuse Dumps
                  ••;
-------
-------
Acid Mine Drainage

                       '.,,„:>.>
              .J*r%4^^'--' ^:-v^ i •  J -
SJ i^tiFSWV
-------
Reclaimed Pre-law Refuse Sites
              .
-------
Wetlands Construction
-------
           Related Benefits
/ Resource recovery
/ Can address prior environmental problems
/ Provides opportunities for future use of
  resource due to infrastructure development
                                 SUC!
-------
Russian Dragline - Circa 1998
-------
                          LOS Angeles
                MARKETS/MONEY/PERSONAL FINANCE
         BUSINESS
                                                        ORANGECOUNTY
                                                      Cos Angeles Sitnes
Landform grading sculpts the hillside of Talega project into new shapes in technique created by Horst Schor.

         Grading  on  the Curve
   Developer Goes for Natural Look in Sculpting Hills for Talega Project
ByJOHNO'DELL

           SAN CLEUENTE
    Fred Moeller has been op-
    erating bulldozers for al-
    most 40 years now. pit-
    ing din, cutting trenches
and grading slopes all over
Southern California.
 Bui for all his experience,
Moeller has never been on a job
quite like this one.
 Usually, when preparing hill-
sides and valleys for a housing
project, Moeller and  other
heavy-equipment operators are
asked to prepare a stairstep
arrangement of flat-faced
slopes with building pads on top.
 At Arvida Co.'s Talega devel-
opment in the hills just inland of
Orange County's southernmost
city, the rules have changed.
 Moeller and fellow operators
are being asked to think like
sculptors as they follow a com-
plex natural grading plan that
calls for them to create  slopes, valleys, gullies, hillocks and
hdgelines for the homes and commercial buildings that will one
day dot the 3,500-acre master-planned community.
 In some places they are merely altering existing slopes to
accommodate building pads. In others they are creating hills
where none ever existed.
 The grading process was invented in the late 1970s by Horst
Schor, now Arvida's vice president  for development. At the
time, Schor worked for the Anaheim Hills Co. as it was
developing its hillside community on the southern slopes of
Santa Ana Canyon,
Fred Moeller guides his 25-ton bulldozer over a mound.
                   Bui no one else ever picked
                  up on the  idea, Schor said,
                  despite the  industry publicity
                  the technique received at the
                  time, when the American Plan-
                  ning Assn. bestowed an award
                  of merit on Anaheim Hills Co.

                  ing plan.
                   One reason other developers
                  didn't adopt what Schor calls
                  landform grading is that it costs
                  a little more—adding about 1%
                  to a project's grading costs—and
                  requires a little effort to train
                  the grading crews,
                   "But Arvida feels the time is
                  really ripe for this." he said.
                  Environmental concerns and
                  complaints about development
                  that destroys natural landscape
                  and ridgelines can delay proj-
                  ects for months, even years.
                  Schor said  Arvida's natural
                  grading plan shaved at least 12
                  months off the time it took lo
                  get approval from San Clemente
                  officials for the Talega develop*
ment—which is located partly within the city and partly m
unincorporated county territory. The time saved can more than
make up for the extra grading costs.
 There are three key elements of landform grading, he said
Thursday during a demonstration of the process:
 • Building hills and slopes with natural contours;
 • Fitting the drainage system into the flow of the land so it
follows the valley bottoms like a nature! creek system instead
of cutting straight down the face of slopes with concrete
channels, as is done in a typical stair-step grading plan; and
                       riease Me TALEGA, O7
-------
                               Cos Angeles (Times
                       MARKETS/MONEY/PERSONAL FINANCE
                  BUSINESS
                                               ORANGE COUNTY
                                              doe Angeles SKmce
                Grading on the Curve
           Developer Goes for Natural Look in Sculpting Hills for Talega Project
                                     [continued]
Continued (ram D6
 • Designing a natural landscape
plan that mimics nature by placing
the trees and shrubs in the valleys
and on flat spots, where the heavi-
est runoff collects, and covers the
protruding areas with less-thirsty
ground covers.
 For Moeller. who spent Thurs-
day morning contouring a small
hill with a 25-ton Caterpillar bull-
dozer, the process isn't much more
difficult than building a traditional
stairstep,
 "It's a lot more challenging,
because you're not just going in
straight tines."

 Russ Churchill, who works with
Moeller and the other equipment
operators as a grade checker-
overseeing iheir work from the
ground to make sure they are
following the grading plan-said
there is a lot more for him to
concentrate on in a landform grad-
ing project.
 "It's challenging." said Church -
ill, "but it is very satisfying to see
the end result. I didn't really see
the whole thing we're working on
here until the other day when I
was leaving the site about 6 in the
evening and I happened to look
back up the road and saw it all
highlighted with the setting sun
and the shadows. It was really
                                           GLENN KOEN1C / UH Anf tin Tuna
Traditional grading of sites for homes is shown In picture of Tuscany Hills development in Lake Elsinore area.
-------
                                                                        Native's  Slopes
                                                By HORST SCHOR
                                       Senior Vice President, Anaheim Hills, Inc.
  The advantages and necessities of hill-
side living  are  becoming  more widely
evident  as  flatlands —the  traditional
building sites — are consumed by hous-
ing, industry and agribusiness.
  However, hillside building can require
massive grading that may become the
focal point of local resistance, thus im-
peding planning approval. The  innova-
tive  "landform"   grading  method  was
born of negative impressions gained  in
viewing the conventional,  linear slopes
commonly manufactured throughout the
building industry.
Hills agreed to finance the experimenta-
tion  and to use the results in the com-
munity.
  There seemed to  be no  reason  we
couldn't grade the  slopes to resemble
natural slopes. The question then arose:
what do natural  slopes look like? Curi-
ously, there was  no published informa-
tion  about  slope shapes as a total unit
We were on  our own.
  Project  research  involved  study  of
slopes  in such  diverse areas as Death
Valley,   Brazil, Alaska,  Hawaii and Ana-
heim Hills in an attempt to separate dis-
 TOPOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION of  a section  of  landform-graded  slope,
 showing  radial water  flow, foliage placement  in swales and redistribution of
 land on lots to conform with landform  configurations. Hatched area is concrete
 terrace drain required by building codes.
  Anaheim  Hills is situated  in  4,300
 acres of beautiful, undulating hillsides in
 northeastern Orange County, California.
 We,   like  every  other  developer, were
 taking natural terrain and transforming
 it into  rigid,  mathematical  shapes for
 building. It was a practice based on the
 idea: "We've always done it that way."
 Since there was no specific reason, other
 than expediency, why it was being done,
 the time had come to  examine ways of
 changing the  accepted thinking  about
 mass grading. The  search for  an alter-
 native was  an  attempt  to improve the
 aesthetics of graded hillsides.  Anaheim
tinct  features from among the  natural
slopes and to determine if there was any
 relationship between  climate,  soil type
and vegetation and slope configuration.
Yet  it was two  years  before  distinct,
 repeating  patterns emeged  from  the
jumble of forms. Simply stated,  cones,
pyramids, "elbows,"  ridges and various
combinations of these elements produce
 natural slope shapes.
   The challenge was now to apply these
 basic  shapes  to  the  grading  process.
 Could they be designed and graded?We
would  have to  retrain  everyone con-
cerned with the  project. Designers, en-
gineers,  grading  contractors and  public
officials had always worked  in straight
lines.  Now we were  saying, "the  more
irregular, the better."
  Communication of the new  ideas was
difficult at times. Initially we made clay
models in which  we combined the basic
slope shapes and took them out  to the
civil  engineers and grading contractors.
They,  in turn, conveyed the ideas to their
equipment operators in the field.  How-
ever, the grading was not shaping up as
we expected. We finally had to go into
the field and call a  bulldozer operator
off his machine,  show him the drawings
and  photos and explain the  ideas.  He
then  said,  "Sure, t can do  that. Why
didn't you  say that in the first place?"
With each grading project, we improved
and streamlined  the operations.
  We've now been doing the  grading in
Anaheim Hills for seven years. Contrac-
tors  experienced in landform grading
prefer it because the finished product
doesn't   need  to  meet precise  slope-
angle measurements, and it affords the
operator more leeway in his bulldozing.
  There is less finishing cost to the con-
tractor,  although there are more engi-
neering,  design  and  field  control costs
in landform grading. The cut and fill
slopes are very complex to design. It is
an art to assemble the various shapes on
the slopes so they won't look  unnatural.
They have  to blend  together  and work
structurally.  Landform  grading gets its
look not from  one component shape or
one gully but from a series of  them. The
landform shapes become a sequence of
undulations, peaks and gulleys.
  We have to deal with three planning
commissions in Aanheim Hills: the cities
of Anaheim and Orange and  the Coun-
ty of Orange. The planners are delighted
with the landform  grading idea.  At first
they  were  doubtful,  but once we'd
graded  several slopes, we invited them
out  for a  look. Thev walkeH over the
slopes,  viewed them from different an-
gles and saw the value of what we were
doing.
  The civil engineers were more skenti-
cal.  Thev felt that the shapes we were
creatine would cause severe erosion. We
proved them wrong.  Earlv on,  we cradeH
an experimental  slope 70 feet high with-
out the artificial drainage interception
aids  required by  the  building  codes.
Rather,  we let  the  curves and elbow
shapes  of the  landforms absorb the im-
                                                                                               PACIFIC  COAST BUILDER
-------
pact of the running water, as happens in
nature.
  The rains from 1977 to this year have
been  heavy.  From  September  through
March 1977-78, it rained more  than  31
inches. The same period  in 1978-79 gave
us more than 21 inches,  and  1979-80
during the similar months put more than
22 inches of water on  the  slope. The
siope is  still in perfect condition. Nature
doesn't  follow  building codes,  but  its
designs  still work.
  Ironically, we found that conventional,
angular  grading tends  to encourage ero-
sion. Water generally will sheet flow  on
a flat surface and  will tend to carve
swales in the weakest  sections of the
slope. To compensate, building regula-
tions require terrace drains every 25 feel
to break the momentum of  the  water.
Yet there is  an entire  set of  building
regulations  predicated  upon  the effi-
ciency of conventional, linear slopes.
  On the other hand, the  drainage pat-
tern of a landform-graded slope is radial
in nature and swales are already pro-
vided for  the  runoff.  If the  land  is
formed  naturally, as in our process, the
water follows the channels, which break
its speed by virtue of  their energy-dissi-
pating shapes. Further, most foliage oc-
curs in  the channels or swales, and  its
presence breaks the speed of the running
water. Our landscaping also  follows this
natural  pattern.  We  also  experimented
with such ideas as planting Acacia Rose-
mary, a  lush, low growth, to  cushion the
impact  of rainfall.
  Mother Nature is  full of surprises. She
knows how to contro! erosion without
using the clumsy terrace drains we use
in man-made  slopes.  We've  minimized
the visual  impact of  the  required con-
crete  drains by running  them diagonally
and curvilinearly  across the  slopes,
which  makes  them  considerably  less
visible.  We also line them  with river
rock,  so when they are visible they com-
plement the landform slope aesthetics.
AERIAL PHOTO of landform-graded region in Anaheim Hills. Note irregular pat-
terns formed by  tandform-graded slopes ateng perimeter of lot pads.
  Initially,  we  and  the  builders  were
concerned about the buildable land that
would be lost to the landform grading
process on each lot. We solved that by
reshaping backyards to conform with the
grading configurations. The center sec-
tions  of  the  lots, which  are  used  most
extensively,   bulge  outward  with the
ridgelines of the grading.  The corners
of the yard  are taken up by  the swales
and  these  edges  are characteristically
used  less often.  In  effect,  we redistrib-
uted the lot  pad  square  footage to our
advantage.
  We are pleased with the  results of our
experiments.  When covered with mature
vegetation, our landform graded slopes
appear  very  much  like  natural  slopes.
The  grading has allowed  us to  move
away from straight lines  and  abrupt an-
gles  in  our  community planning. The
homes are positioned  more irregularly,
which discourages the monotonous took
of row  housing.  And, importantly, we
come very close to restoring the slopes
to their natural conditions.
  We believe that  sooner or  later de-
velopers will  be required to use  this
type of landform grading.  This method
of grading is part of the future of land
development in this country  and even-
tually in all other countries because most
urban and suburban  flatland  has  been
built upon in one way or another. Land-
form  grading involves  more  effort to
achieve,  design,  implement,  construct
and engineer. However, the cost in time
and  labor is well worth the  results of
aesthetics, structural  integrity and the
value to developers of public acceptance
and municipal planning approval.    /*"\
 FRESHLY GRADED landform slopes  show ridges,  swales
 and pyramid shapes.
                     MATURE  LANDFOKM s/opes wifh vegefafion  and foliage
                     in swa/es.

 JUNE,  1980
-------
Volume 9 • Number 11
  LANDSCAPE
  ARCHITECT
    AND SPECIFIER NEWS
                   Seethe
                   LASN
                   Marketplace
                   on pages 26 - 41
     HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
-------
Landform Grading:
Comparative   Definitions  of
Grading  Designs
                                                          by Horxt J. fchor
        Tie advantages and
        lecessities of
        lillside living have
        3ecnme more
        *videlv evident as
flatlands, the traditional
building sites, are being
consumed rapidly by urban
development.

Hillside building, while
appealing to the consumer,
can require massive grading
that may become the focal
point of local resistance, thus
impending government
approval.

However, grading is a
necessity to accommodate
street and building  areas for
development, meeting
building codes, and safe
engineering practices. Grad-
ing is also frequently required
to correct unstable soils and

22 / landscape Architect & Specifier Nines
                          geologic conditions inherent
                          inmany natural hillsides.

                          The innovative "Landform
                          Grading and Revegetation"
                          concept was conceived to
                          solve negative impressions
                          gained in viewing the typical
                          re-manufactured hillsides
                          using conventional planning,
                          engineering and construction
                          methods. Conventional
                          grading drastically alters a
                          landscape, remanufacturing
                          natural forms and shapes and
                          plant distribution patterns to
                          replace them with artificial,
                          sterile and uniform shapes
                          and patterns.

                          The concept, as developed
                          and described here, consists
                          of three components:
                          • Grading
                          • Drainage Structures
                          • Revegetation/ Landscaping
       G rad ing

In recent years attempts have
been made by some to design
and construct "LANDFORM
grading," while in reality,
these efforts can only, at best,
be described as contouring or
rounding of slopes. Therefore
it is necessary to establish
proper definitions and
characteristics for the three
types of grading available:
Conventional, Contour and
Landform Grading.

 Comparative Definitions of
     Grading Designs
  Conventional Grading

 • Conventional graded slopes
 are characterized by
 essentially linear, planar slope
 surfaces with unvarying

the M*-Mrtj*w€ Cwrvneiiis Card on p*J£ 39
gradients and angular slope
intersections. The resultant
pad configurationsare
rectangular.

• Slope drainage devices are
usually constructrd in a
rectilinear configuration in
exposed positions.

• Landscaping is applied in
random or geometric patterns.

  Contour  Grading

• Contour-graded slopes are
basically similar to
conventionally graded slopes
except that: the slopes are
curvilinear rather than linear,
the gradients are unvarying
and profiles are planar,
transition zones and slope
intersections have generally
some rounding applied.
Resultant pad configurations
                                                                                       Hillside
                                                                                                •
-------
   Th* natural hilliM* obovt illutu otei that v*9*t«t>o
-------
The aerial photo to the iert sham a 4.100 acre planned community In
which the design rovolvvi around the landform gmding and revecjetation
concept.

The hill above Illustrate* how landform grading replicate? the Irregular
shqpes of natural slopes.  The landscaping will be a "rw*getallon
proem emulatingthe patterns of natural growth.

In high visibility arms, concrete drainage devicesare  lined with natural
river rock to createa stream bed effect (right) in the finished landscape.
 are mildly curvilinear.

 • Slope drainage devices
 are usually constructed in a
 geometric configuration
 and in an exposed position
 the slope face.

 • Landscaping is applied in
 random or geometric
 patterns.

   landform Grading

 • Landform Grading
 replicates the irregular
 shapes of natural slopes,
 resulting  in aesthetically
 pleasing elevations and
 profiles.  Landform-graded
 slopes are characterized by
 continuous series of
 concave and convex forms
 interspersed  with mounds
 that blend into the profiles.
 Non-linearity and varying
       1 liwmtnt
slope gradients are
significant transition zones
between man-made and
natural slopes. Resultant
pad configuration are
irregular.

• Slope down-drain devices
either follow "natural"
lines of the slopes or are
tucked  away in special
swale andberm
combinations to conceal the
drains from view. Exposed
segments in high visibility
areas are treated with
natural rock (see right
photo).

• Landscaping becomes a
"revegetation" process and
is applied in patterns that
occur in nature. Trees and
shrubs are concentrated
largely  in concave areas,
              I - '.':.. .,
-------
Underground Mining Methods
      Stanley C. Suboleski
         Virginia Tech
        June 23, 1999
-------
      Two Main Methods

Room & Pillar
- Mostly with continuous miners
Longwall
- Develop longwall panels with room & pillar
  using continuous miners
About 10% of underground production
still comes from drilling & blasting
Total underground output = 421mt
(1997 data)
-------
  FIRST, MUST ACCESS THE
              MINE

Drift (Adit)
- Seam outcrops, access from ground level
Slope
- Drive incline in rock at up to 16 degrees
-Allows belt haulage
Shaft
- Use: elevators/skips, for: people/coal
- Use shaft if >1500 feet, economics dictate
-------
    LIKE A CITY, OR LARGE
BUILDING, SERVICES MUST BE
            PROVIDED
• Transport people (rail, rubber tired)
• Transport supplies (materials / maintenance)
• Transport product (coal)
• Support roof
• Provide electrical power
• Provide fresh air (& suppress dust)
• Provide fresh water
• Get rid of waste water
• Dispose of trash
-------
     ROOM & PILLAR
Mine "streets & avenues" (entries and
crosscuts)
Leave pillars to support roof (may mine later)
 - Designed by formula
Plan view-looks like city with "greenbelts"
 - "Greenbelts" are large barrier pillars left to
  separate work areas
Use continuous miner
-------
            MINE PLAN

Main entries (7-9 openings)
Submains (5-7 openings)
Panels (panel entries, butt entries)
Rooms (at times)
Openings limited to 20-ft width
 - Openings serve as air ducts and travelways
 - Return air is isolated from fresh air, two
  escapeways must be provided from face
Longwall panels are solid coal blocks, usually
1000 ft by 10,000 ft, accessed by "gate" roads
-------
   ALL SERVICES EXIST TO
 SUPPORT MINING AT FACE

Continuous miner - rips coal, using tungsten
carbide bits - miner mines at 4-25 t/m and
conveys coal into shuttle cars
Shuttle cars are electric (cable) "trucks"
which haul for up to 600 feet or so
(usual = 300-400 feet)
 - Haul to feeder-breaker which acts as surge
  bin/crusher and feed coal onto belt
 - Hold 3-25 tons/load, depending on seam
  thicknesss and amount of rock mined
-------
    FEEDER-BREAKER FEEDS
 COAL ONTO BELT CONVEYORS
• Conveyors transport coal to surface or into
  skips for shaft access
  - Usual sizes - 42" to 72"
  - Speeds - 500 - 800 fpm
• Longwall requires largest conveyors
  - 54"-60" usual from face
-------
 ROOF BOLTS INSTALLED BY
  ROOF BOLTING MACHINE
Roof supported by inserting reinforcing rods
No one may work under unsupported roof
 - Cut depths limited to position of shuttle car
  operator (35' to 40' with remote control miner)
When miner place changes, bolter moves in
 - Bolt 3-6 min/row or 0.75-1.50 min/ft
 - Use two bolter operators, twin-boom bolter
A few operations attach bolters to miners, bolt
as they advance
-------
         ROOF SUPPORT
Insert bolts into the roof on regular pattern
(3'-8' length, usually)
- 4' x 4' or 5' x 5' most common
Either "glue" (resin) a re-bar bolt in, or
Use expansion bolt anchors or
Glue in the anchor only
-Anchors allow pre-tensioning of bolts
-------
  ROOF BOLTS GENERALLY
          WORK WELL
Form "reinforced" rock, strong beam
Or, may "hang" weak rock from stronger
overlying rock layer
Roof fall fatalities are now at 8 -12 per year
- Half are in violation of the law, under non-
  bolted roof
- Roof fall fatalities exceeded 100 per year
  around 1970
-------
          VENTILATION

Provides oxygen, dilutes methane & dust
 - Methane explosive when at 5-15%
  concentration
Most coninuous miners have dust scrubber
 - Draw air into ducts at front of miner
 - Efficiency up to 96-97%
Air directed to working face with brattice cloth
(plastic curtains)
Alternatively, hang tubing & use fan to draw air
to face
-------
          VENTILATION
Fresh air ventilates one face only, then it is
"return" air
- Separate air streams with concrete block
  walls or "stoppings"
Maximum allowable methane content is 1%
Control major flow with adjustable doors in
airways ("regulators")
-------
     PRODUCTION RATES
150 - 400 ft/shift usual, tonnage depends on
seam thickness
- 500 - 2000 tons/shift (usual)
New miners load at 10 - 25 tpm
Most continuous miners load only 60-120
min/shift
- Load only 12
- 10-25% of shift time
-------
            LONGWALL

More nearly continuous method
Analogous to "deli meat slicer" (shearer)
Shearer mounted on chain conveyor
 - Coal cut falls onto conveyor
Width of face usually 850 -1100 ft
 - Depth of slice is 30 - 42 inches
Behind face supported for 20' or  so by steel
supports - each 1.50 or 1.75 m wide
 - Each support holds up to 600-1200 tons
Supports connected to conveyor
 - By pushing, lowering & pulling - can walk
  conveyor and selves forward
-------
           LONGWALL
Panels (solid block of coal)
- Usually 850' -1100' wide & 7500' -15,000'
  long
- Contain 1.5-4 mm tons per panel
Shearers cut at 35 - 65 t/min (2000-4000 tph)
Output per year = 2-6 mm tons
6,000 - 20,000 t/day (max = 40,000)
Cut 200-500 min/day
- 20% - 45% of time (???)
-------
           LONGWALL
Capital intensive
 - $30M for face equipment only
 - $50-80M additional for mine / processing
Require large, regularly shaped reserve
 -50M ton minimum
 - Prefer 100-200M tons
Mine-specific design / limited ability to move
to other reserves
-------
    CONTINUOUS MINER
          SUMMARY

Capital for section is $3-5 million
Flexible, can move readily to other reserves
One longwall usually requires three
continuous miners for development
Annual output for miner section is 0.3 - 0.8
million tpy
-------
      ENVIRONMENTAL
Longwall strata caves behind supports
- Surface subsides to maximum of 50-70%
  of seam thickness
- "Tilt" area may damage structures, so must
  provide special support methods at the
  structures to minimize damage
- Subsidence trails face position by a few
  days to a week or two, about 95% occurs
  in a few weeks
-------
  LONGWALL SUBSIDENCE
Ground water flow is altered
Some wells lose flow, temporarily or
permanently; a few gain
May need to drill wells deeper
Connection from near surface to mine is
possible if depth to aquifer is less than 40 x
seam thickness (240 ft for 6-ft seam)
-------
             SUMMARY

Longwall (45% of UG output from only 60
faces -- average of 3 million tpy each)
 - High output, high capital
 - Low operating cost, 70-80% (?) reserve
  recovery
 - Low flexibility
Continuous Miners
 - Medium output, low-medium capital
 - Moderate operating cost, 40-60% reserve
  recovery
 - High flexibility
-------
              SUMMARY
Can use underground methods in +100 ft of
overburden (actual minimum depth depends on
whether strip ratio favors surface mining)
 - Roof subject to surface cracks when shallower
Use longwall in large, thick (mine 6-ft min.),
regularly-shaped reserves
 - Only economic method if seam is >1500 ft
   deep
Else, use continuous miner and room & pillar
While best walls far exceed cm productivity, on
average, tons per manhour are close
-------
Longwall mining machines have revolutionized underground coal mining, enhancing safety and productivity.
-------
-------
Surface Coal Mining
in West Virginia
Some Expectations for the Future
-------
Surface Mining Methods
  Mountaintop Removal
  - Expect Existing Operations Mining to Depletion
     •  Most Within ~10 Year Time Frame

  - Reduction in New MTR Operations / Permits
     •  Next 5 Years and Beyond

  - Most Suitable Full Scale MTR Reserve Blocks
     •  Either Currently Being Mined or Are "On the Board"
-------
Surface Mining Methods
  Multi-Method Surface Mining
   - Expect Hybrid Operations to be More Prevalent
   - Combination of Mining Methods on Single Sites
      • MTR & Area Mining
      • Point Removal
      • Contour Mining & Highwall Mining
      • Blast Casting & Dozer Production
   - Methods Tailored Specific to the Reserve
      • Combined for Volume Efficiency
   - Increase in Remining & Previously Marginal Sites
-------
Surface Mining Equipment
  Large Scale Mining Equipment
  - Expect Limited Number of New Machines
     •  Draglines & Shovel
  Mobile Equipment
  - Similarly Sized to Existing Equipment
     •  Expect Technology, Productivity, & Efficiency Gains
     •  Fuel Efficiency, Digital Technology, GPS, etc
  Secondary & Highwall  Mining Equipment
  - Improvements in Productivity and Reliability
  - Depth of Penetration Likely Limited by Reserves
-------
Reclamation Techniques
  Regrading
   - Elimination of Over Compaction
      • Will Lead to Substantially Improved Reforestation
  Revegetation
   - Better Understanding of Interaction of Species
      • Improved Survival Rates & Less Re-Seeding
  Acid Mine Drainage
   - Expect Slow But Continual Technology Gains
      • Prevention Will Continue to be Best Approach
-------
Environmental Impacts
  Water Quality Improvement
   - Existing Sites
      • More Consistent Flows & Lower Temperatures
      • Passage of Time
      • Rebound of Biological Populations
   - Remined  Sites
      • Opportunity to Eliminate Problem Areas
      • Incremental to Substantial Improvement Possible
  Revegetation
   - Expect More Commercial Woodland Projects
-------
Coal Industry Impacts
  Mining Companies
   - Continued Consolidation Of Large Operators
   - Small Operators Prosperous in Niche Markets
  Productivity
   - Modest Gains in Tons / Man Hour
     •  Fueled by Technology and Competition
  Overall Production
   - Flat to Modest Increases Over Next 10 Years
   - Overall  Declines Beginning Thereafter
-------
Impacts to Society
  Economic & Employment
   - Surface Mining Will Provide Substantial Economic
     Activity Over the Next 10 to 15 Years
      • Expect Some Declines in Direct Employment
      • Increased Secondary Employment Opportunities
  Post Mining Land Utilization
   - Many Entrepreneurial Opportunities Will Exist
   - Location of Site and Infrastructure Will Play Biggest Role
  Unreclaimed & Problematic Sites
   - Can be Substantially Reduced with Cooperative Efforts
-------
                                  FETC Coal Briefing
                                     June 23, 1999
Overview:

Introductory Comments

       Thank you for the invitation to speak here today. We at EIA appreciate the opportunity to
       learn more about the activities of our fellow agencies and our customers and to see how
       our information and forecasting products and services can contribute to their planning.

       I will be discussing , initially,  EIA's Annual Energy Outlook, with particular emphasis on
       coal and the market trends that will affect the time period through 2020. Then, I will
       cover a report that examines the potential impacts of the Kyoto Protocol.

       The goal is to provide a mid-term framework for examining the some of the issues
       confronting the coal industry that will be discussed during this symposium.

Quick Overview of EIA and the AEO

       EIA is the independent data collection and analysis arm of the DOE—it currently has
       approximately 370 FTE

       The projections in the Outlook are based on the National Energy Modeling System—
       NEMS,  a large-scale integrated energy model that EIA developed in the 1992-1993
       period. Each year the model is updated with the latest data and modified as necessary to
       examine emerging issues.

       NEMS provides detailed projections of energy supply, demand, and prices of all major
       energy sources through 2020. Its integrated structure permits the development of baseline
       and scenario forecasts that are can be used to  examine the impacts of government policy
       on a wide-range of issues.
-------
•D           The AEO99 reference case is based on data as of July 31, 1998 and assumes, for
              baseline purposes, that Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that were in
              effect at that time will remain unchanged through 2020.

       It does not attempt to anticipate the nature or approval of future policy or legislative
       initiatives. As such, the Kyoto Protocol targets have not been included in the reference
       case forecasts. However, in the second section of this presentation, I will provide some
       model results regarding the range of possible impacts.

AEO & Short-Term Issues

•      The AEO focuses on the mid-term~through 2020. As such, events of a more short-term
       nature such as weather, natural disasters, strikes, and facility outages are not factored into
       our trend projections.  EIA short-term forecasts would change, but such events do not
       influence our view of the mid-term.

Oil Prices-Three Cases

World oil prices are projected to rise gradually from current levels $22.73 per barrel in constant
1997 dollars.  Non-OPEC production gains and improved exploration and drilling technology are
keeping costs in check despite rising global demand.

Oil prices have been particularly volatile over the last 2 years - the  low prices in 1998 were the
result of abundant supply and weak worldwide demand.

If we convert the reference case projection to current or nominal dollars (See Inset Graph)--the
price per barrel rises to $43.30 in 2020.

The AEO includes high and low oil price cases that reflect uncertainties regarding future levels of
OPEC production. Prices range from $14.57 to $29.35 in 2020.

Natural Gas Prices

Prices at the wellhead grow at a rate of 0.8 percent annually.
The wellhead price in 2020 is $2.68 per MCF in 1997 dollars.

The moderate price growth coupled with lower capital costs, strong gains in generating efficiency,
and certain environmental advantages have made natural gas a formidable competitor to coal for
use in electric generation. In fact, natural gas consumption for electricity generation grows at a
rate of 4.5 percent annually.
-------
Before discussing our coal forecast, I would like to review the major trends and uncertainties in
electricity markets —the primary customer for coal.
Electricity Generation by Fuel (Figure 74)

•      Coal-fired power plants are expected to remain the dominant source of electricity through
       2020— but to decrease in overall share of total generation from 53 percent to 49 percent in
       2020.

•      In percentage terms, natural gas generation increases the most, from 14 percent of the
       total to 33 percent in 2020, overtaking nuclear generation by 2003..

•      Nuclear generation is projected to increase until 2000 and then decline as older units are
       retired.

•      Electricity sales grow at 1.4 percent annually, compared to a 2.1 percent growth  rate for
       the gross domestic product.

Electricity Generation and Cogeneration Capacity Additions (Figure 69)

•      Over 1200 new plants, with an average capacity of 300 megawatts, are projected to be
       built by 2020, to meet demand growth and to offset retirements of old units.

•      88 percent of the new capacity is projected to be combined-cycle or combustion turbine
       technology fueled by natural gas or both oil and gas.
Electricity Generation Costs (Figure 72)

•      Technology choice decisions for new generating capacity are made to minimize levelized
       costs while meeting local and Federal emissions constraints.

•      In head to head competition for new capacity, highly-efficient advanced combined-cycle
       plants have lower levelized generation costs than new, conventional coal plants, despite a
       higher fuel cost component..

•      The capital and O&M cost component for combined-cycle plants is one-third that for coal-
       fired plants.

•      In 2020, new combined-cycle plants have levelized costs of generation that are 6 mills (6-
       tenths of a cent) lower than new coal-fired plants.
-------
New Legislation Reduces NOx Emissions from Powerplants

•      AEO99 includes the impacts of legislation for the control of NOx by electric generators,
       including the second phase of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Ozone
       Transport Rule, scheduled for the 2003 summer season~(May 1 through September 30).

SIP Call NOx Control Costs

•      The compliance technologies available include combustion controls (including low-NOx
       burners), selective noncatalytic reduction, and selective catalytic reduction. Co-firing a
       coal plant with natural gas is also an option.

•D     The capital investment for these control technologies is expected to total about $8 billion.

•D     The total annualized cost for the technologies, including operating costs, is $2 billion.

SIP Call NOx Control Costs Relative to Sales Revenue

•      The total annualized costs for NOx controls (bottom line of the graph)-are relatively small
       compared to annual revenue from electricity sales (which exceed $200 billion) — less than
       1 percent.
Electricity Price Projections: AEO99 - Fig 1A

•      Real electricity prices (all sectors average) are projected to decline 0.9 percent a year
       between 1997 and 2020, from 6.9 cents per kilowatthour to 5.6 cents a kilowatthour.

•      The projections reflect the ongoing restructuring of the electricity industry to a
       competitive wholesale market.  The following regions are assumed to have competitive
       retail pricing: the Mid-Atlantic Council (Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and
       Maryland), the Mid-America Interconnected Network, California, New York, and New
       England.

•      As of April 1999, 21 states had enacted legislation or promulgated regulations establishing
       retail competition programs.  Most of the remaining  states have the matter under active
       consideration.
-------
Coal Consumption for Electricity and Other Uses: AEO99 - Fig 114

•      Domestic coal demand rises by 245 million tons in the forecast, from 1030 million tons in
       1997 to 1275 million tons in 2020.

•      Throughout the forecast, electricity generation accounts for approximately 90 percent of
       domestic coal demand.

•      The growth in coal consumption for electricity generation is the result of higher utilization
       of existing equipment (rising from 67 to 79 percent) and additions of new capacity in later
       years — 32 gigawatts of new capacity .
Non-Electricity Coal Consumption: AEO99 - Fig 115

•      An increase of 12 million tons in industrial steam coal consumption is offset by a 9 million
       ton reduction in coking coal consumption.

•      Increases in steam coal consumption are primarily in the chemical and food-processing
       industry, as well as cogeneration.

•      Coking coal consumption declines as a result increased use of electric arc furnaces,
       process efficiencies, and increased imports of semi-finished steels.

U.S. Coal Exports: AEO99 - Fig 116

•      U.S. coal exports rise slowly in the forecast from 84 million tons in 1997 to 93 million in
       2020, as a result of higher demand for steam coal imports in Europe and Asia. U.S.
       exports of metallurgical coal in 2020 are 3 million tons lower than the 1997 level.

•      The recent worldwide financial crisis has introduced  some changes in international
       markets, affecting trade patterns and prices. In international markets, coal  prices are
       negotiated in U.S. dollars. Currency devaluations against the U.S. dollar and contracting
       markets have placed strong downward pressures on U.S. sales.  Australia and South
       Africa have lowered prices substantially in key markets.

Coal Production by Region: AEO99 - Fig 107

•D     Total coal production grows at a rate of 0.9 percent, reaching 1358 MMT in 2020.

•      The western share of coal production is growing steadily and will soon exceed that mined
       east of the Mississippi. River. The reference case projects that this share will increase to
       approximately  57 percent in 2020.
-------
•      Production of low cost, low-sulfur subbituminous coal from the Powder River Basin is
       projected to grow at an annual rate of 2.5 percent annually, compared to a national
       growth rate of 0.9 percent.

Coal Distribution by Sulfur Content: AEO99 - Fig 117

•      Phase 2 of the Clean Air Act Amendments, which begins in 2000, tightens annual sulfur
       dioxide emissions limits on large, higher emitting plants and also set restrictions on
       smaller, cleaner plants.

•      Low sulfur coal is projected to increase gradually in market share from 40 percent in 1997
       to 51 percent in 2020.  (Low sulfur coal produces less than 1.2 pounds of SO2 per
       MMBtu).

Coal Minemouth Prices: AEO99 - Fig 108
•      Minemouth coal prices are projected to decline by $5.40 per ton in constant 1997 dollars,
       from $18.14 per ton in 1997 to $12.74 per ton in 2020. This decline reflects a
       continuation in productivity improvements over the forecast period as well as a continuing
       shift to the lower priced, low Btu coal of the Powder River Basin.

•      Over the forecast period, assumptions regarding productivity growth account for
       approximately 60 percent of the projected price decline, while regional shifts in production
       account for the remaining 40 percent.

Labor Productivity by Region: AEO99 - Fig 109
Historical Trend

•      Measured in tons per miner hour, U.S. coal mining productivity has risen continuously
       since 1977, increasing at an average rate of  6.2 percent per year.  On average, each U.S.
       coal miner produced more than three times  as much  coal per hour in 1997 as in 1977. On
       the positive side, these gains have allowed coal to remain competitive with other fuels
       over the period, despite  increasing environmental costs at coal-fired power plants.

•      On the other hand, employment in the U.S. coal industry has plummeted, declining from
       225 thousand miners in  1977 to 81.5 thousand miners in 1997.

Forecast Period

•      Over the forecast period, labor productivity  improvements are assumed to continue, but to
       decline in magnitude.  This is based on the expectation that further penetration of
-------
       productive mining technologies such as longwall units at underground mines and large
       capacity surface mining equipment at surface mines will gradually level off.

•      In the AEO99 reference case, labor productivity rises at an average rate of 2.3 percent per
       year over the forecast period. By region, productivity rises at a slightly faster pace West
       of the Mississippi River, reflecting further concentration of western production in the
       Powder River Basin (PRB). In 1997, the average productivity for PRB mines was
       approximately 35 tons per miner hour.  This compares with an average of 6.04 tons per
       miner hour for all U.S. coal mines.

(Note to speaker—the average value shown is correct. It is heavily influenced by the substantially
greater number of hours required for eastern coal production.)

Labor Cost Component of Minemouth Prices: AEO99- Fig 110

•      The contribution of wages to minemouth coal prices fell from 31 percent in 1970 to 17
       percent in 1997, and is projected to decline to 15 percent by 2020.

•      Improvements in labor productivity have been, and are expected to remain, the key to
       lower mining costs.

Average Minemouth Coal Prices in 3 Mining Cost Cases: AEO99 - Fig 111

•      Two alternative Mining Cost Cases were run to show how minemouth coal prices and
       regional coal distribution patterns vary with changes in mining costs.

•      In the AEO99 reference case projections, productivity increases by 2.3 percent a year
       through 2020, while wage rates are constant in 1997 dollars. The national minemouth coal
       price declines by 1.5 percent a year to $12.74 per ton in 2020.

•      In the low mining cost case, productivity increases by 3.8 percent a year, and real wages
       decline by 0.5 percent a year. The average minemouth price falls by 2.4 percent a year to
       $10.42 per ton in 2020. Eastern coal production is 17 million tons higher in the low case
       than in the reference case in 2020, reflecting the higher labor intensity of mining in eastern
       coalfields.

•      In the high mining cost case, productivity increases by  1.2 percent a year, and real wages
       increase by 0.5 percent a year. The average minemouth price of coal falls by 0.8 percent a
       year to $14.94 per ton in 2020 (17.3 percent higher than in the reference case). Eastern
       production in 2020 is 52 million tons lower in the high labor cost case than in the
       reference case.

Carbon Emissions  by Fuel: AEO99 - Fig 120
-------
•      Petroleum products are the leading source of carbon emissions from energy use. In 2020,
       petroleum accounts for 42 percent of the total  1,975 million metric tons of carbon
       emissions in the reference case.  About 81 percent of this amount (from petroleum) results
       from transportation use.

•      Coal is the second leading source of carbon emissions, accounting for 34 percent.  Most of
       the increase in coal emissions originates from electricity generation.

•      Of the fossil fuels, natural gas consumption and emissions increase most rapidly through
       2020, at average annual rates of 1.7 percent.

•      The use of renewable fuels and nuclear generation, which emit little or no carbon,
       mitigates the growth of emissions.

Carbon Emissions from Electricity by Fuel: AEO99 - Fig 121

•      Although electricity produces no carbon emissions at the  point of use, electricity
       generation currently accounts for 36 percent of total carbon emissions.

•D     Retirements of nuclear capacity will result in a 43 percent decline in nuclear generation.

•      To compensate for the loss of nuclear capacity and to meet rising demand, generation
       from fossil fuels will raise electricity related carbon emissions by 213 million metric tons,
       or 40 percent from 1997 levels

•      Coal, which accounts for about 52 percent of generation  in 2020 (excluding
       cogeneration), produces 81 percent of electricity-related carbon emissions.

•      In 2020, natural gas accounts for 30 percent of electricity generation but only  18 percent
       of electricity-related carbon emissions. Per unit of generation, natural gas produces only
       half the carbon emissions of coal.
Carbon Emissions in 3 Macro Cases: AEO99 Data

•      To reflect the uncertainty in forecasts of economic growth, AEO99 includes high and low
       economic cases in addition to the reference case.  The cases incorporate different growth
       rates for population, labor force, and labor productivity.

•      GDP increases at an annual rate of 2.6 percent in the high growth case, 2.1 percent in the
       reference case , and 1.5 percent in the low growth case.
-------
       In the reference case, carbon emissions increase at a rate of 1.3 percent annually.  Carbon
       emissions respond to the different rates of economic growth and result in a spread of 300
       million metric tons by 2020—approximately 150 above and below the reference case
       projection of 1975 million metric tons.
U.S Coal Production in 3 Macro Cases

•      The strong correlation between economic growth and electricity use accounts for the
       variation in coal demand across the economic growth cases.

•      The difference in coal production between the two economic growth cases in 2020 is 166
       million tons, with coal use for generation accounting for 144 million tons.
Carbon Emissions in 3 Tech Cases: AEO99- Fig 32

•      The AEO99 reference case includes continued improvements in technology for both
       energy consumption and production.

•      As a result of continued improvements in the efficiency of end-use and electricity
       generation, total energy intensity in the reference case declines at an average annual rate of
       1 percent between 1997 and 2020.

•      We ran two sensitivity cases to examine the effects of different assumptions regarding the
       rate of technological improvement.

•      The low tech case assumes that all future equipment choices are from the equipment and
       vehicles available in 1999.  New generating technologies are assumed not to improve over
       time.  Aggregate efficiencies still improve over the forecast period as new equipment is
       chosen to replace older stock and the capital stock expands.

•      The high tech case incorporates a set of technological assumptions developed in
       consultation with experts in technology engineering, including higher efficiencies, more
       rapid market penetration, and lower costs.

•      In contrast to the 1 percent rate of energy intensity decline in the reference case, there is a
       decline of 0.8 percent in the low tech case and 1.3 percent in the high tech case.

•      The lower energy consumption in the high tech case lowers carbon emissions from 1975
       million metric tons to 1848 million metric tons in 2020.  In the 1999 technology case,
       emissions increase to 2105  million metric tons.
-------
       To achieve greater reductions in energy consumption or carbon emissions, it is likely that
       either market policies (for example higher energy prices) or non-market policies (for
       example, new standards) may be required.
Carbon Emissions (7 Cases): Kyoto Report- Figure ESI

•      The Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in late 1997 to address concerns about climate
       change, calls for developed nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990
       levels.

•      In 1998, at the request of the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of
       Representatives, the EIA analyzed the Kyoto Protocol, focusing on U.S. energy use and
       prices and the economy in the 2008-2012 time frame.  The NEMS model provided the
       modeling platform that was used to develop the results.

•      The analysis included a reference case (similar to the AEO98 reference case) and 6 cases
       that represent a range of emission reduction targets that could result under different
       assumptions regarding emissions trading and the accounting for sinks related to
       agriculture, forestry, and  land use.

•      Each case was analyzed to estimate the energy and economic impacts of achieving an
       assumed level of reductions relative to the 1990 level.

•      In each of the carbon reduction cases, the target is achieved on average for each of the
       years in the first commitment period, 2008 through 2012.

•      The reference case carbon emissions level is 1791 in 2010; whereas the (1990 -7 percent)
       averages 1250 million metric tons in the commitment period, or 96 million metric tons less
       that 1990 and 542 million metric tons than the reference case.

Carbon Prices (7 Cases) : Kyoto Report - Figure ES2

•      There are three ways to reduce energy-related carbon emissions: reduce demand for
       energy services, adopt more energy-efficient equipment, and switch to less carbon-
       intensive or noncarbon fuels.

•D     To reduce emissions, a carbon price is applied to the cost of energy.

•      The carbon price is applied to each of the energy fuels relative to its carbon content at the
       point of consumption.
                                           10
-------
       The carbon prices projected to be necessary to achieve the carbon reduction targets range
       from $67 per metric ton ($1996) in the 1990 + 24 percent case to $348 per metric tons in
       the 1990 minus 7 percent case.

       Delivered coal prices are affected more by carbon prices than other fuel prices.  They are
       between 153 and 800 percent higher.

       The various cases show prices for electricity between 20 and 86 percent higher in all end-
       use sectors.
Electricity Generation by Fuel (9 Percent Case): Small Kyoto Report - Page 6

•      Over one-third of all primary energy consumed by the United States goes into producing
       and delivering electricity.

•      More than one-half of all U.S. electricity generated in 1997 was produced from coal- a
       fuel that emits more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity generated than any other fuel.

•D    And, unlike many other end uses, the are a range of fuel options for electricity generation.

•      Thus, electricity production and consumption is likely to be a major focus in meeting
       Kyoto targets -including fuel switching away from more carbon-intensive generation.

•      In the 1990 + 9 percent case, for example coal generation drops to 48 percent of the
       reference case levels and then continues to decline reaching to 25 percent of the 2020
       reference case level
U.S. Coal Production (7 Cases): Kyoto Report- Fig 105

•      In the carbon reduction cases, U.S. coal production begins a slow decline early in the next
       decade, accelerates rapidly downward through 2010, and then continues to drop slowly
       through 2020.

•      The projected declines in coal production result primarily from sharp cutbacks in the use
       of steam coal for electricity generation.

•      Coal production levels in 2010 range from a reference case level of 1287 million tons to
       624 million tons in the 1990+9 percent case to 313 million tons in the 1990-7 percent
       case.
                                            11
-------
       EIA estimates that coal mine employment in 2010 would drop from 68,500 in the
       reference case (which reflects the effect of continuing gains in productivity and a further
       shift to western coal) to 42,500 in the 1990+ 9 percent case and 25,500 in the 1990-7
       percent case.
Closing Comments
I have presented the mid-term projections views of EIA today and covered a range of topics and
issues.

Energy projections are subject to much uncertainty.

Many events that shape energy markets cannot be anticipated such as new legislation, political
disruption, and technological breakthroughs.

Many of the key uncertainties have been addressed through alternative cases that were discussed
today.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
                                           12
-------


 Overview of Mining
       Methods
   Stanley C. Suboleski
      Virginia Tech
Dept. of Mining & Minerals
      Engineering

      June 23, 1999



-------

   Four Major Methods
            "    '

  • Plus two niche methods
  • Surface
    - MTR
    - Contour/Point Removal
'HI m Surface-Related
    - Auger
    - Highwall
  • Underground
 :\       B
      Room & Pillar
''. §   - Longwall
  • Method chosen depends on
    economic and physical factors
-------
What Method to Use?
 -

    • Depth
      - <100'=notUG
                                     ,
    • Ratio
      - >15-20 yds/tn coal = not SURF.
    • Capital available
      - small = not MTR, not longwall
    • Reserve size
      - small = not MTR, not longwall
    • May be a combination of factors
*H ?l
      - usually, an obvious choice

-------

-

                MTR
•"  ' '
   • Recovers 100% of reserves,
     usually from multiple seams
     - Deep mines may only get 50% or
       so of one seam                2*
a 3
   • Use in large reserves with ratios
     up to 20:1 (yds per tn)
   • Large capex, large equipment
   • Backstack as much rock as


     possible (to AOC)
 •                          ..
 ; 1   - put remainder in valley fills ~
       planner must balance fill volume
     1 /4 - 1 /3 of output in Appalach
-------


      AOC / Valley Fills
    Fill problem arises from "swell"
       1
    of material after blasting

    Must store somewhere or there

    is no room for equipment

J • "Durable rock" is put in valley

    fills

    - Allows valley fills to be end
      dumped, not spread
•„
    - Large rock will roll further, forms
      natural drain

-------




          Economic Ratios
J} t   MTR/MTM=13-20(?):
      Can vary, is a function of:

       - Price of coal - Met or Steam

       - Overburden type - SS/SH

       - Topography - average distance
 f\
         luv^js. inudL uc nauicu
                                        	i
   A
rock must be hauled
       - Mostly, equipment type/size

          • Large/small loader/trucks:

          • 13 yd loader + 75t trucks, up to 40
  a        yd loader + 240/31 Ot trucks

       - Lowest cost per yard is dragline
                                        IBP
  r1(       • But need large capex, therefore large
           reserve to use larger equipment

-------

          Contour Mining
                             ^^^^
i
-



  -
%
                                      •*•
     Haulback & stack overburden
     Smaller equipment, will have
     smaller reserves
     Can control cost via ratio
      - Stop at the point that highwall
          get extra coal
•1  • Excess rock still taken to valley
     fill

        becomes uneconomic to mine
        (10-12:1?)
                                     jf
         • Often combine with augering,
          highwall mining or point removal to

-------

    Sequence of Surface
          Operations
   Remove soil & stockpile
(J • Prepare drill bench             "*
   Drill
   Blast
   Load & haul overburden
     Dozer
    - FEL/Truck or Shovel/Truck
                                 t
    - Dragline
ti
   Load out coal
   Place rock & reclaim surface
-------





       Surface-Related
            Methods
  • Used when too deep for surface,
    too thin or too small for deep
  • Auger - drill 200-400 ft holes
    into highwall
    - Round holes, 33% max recovery
  • Highwall miner - remotely mine
    for 400-1000 ft
j   - Auger or conveyor-car haulage
    - Square holes, 45% max recovery
                                  *f'
f\ • Specialized method & limited
    reserves dictate that contractors
 -. are normally used ,
-------



     Underground Mining -
            Longwall
   • Large capital, high output
  *,\ • Thus, requires large reserve
      - +50 million tons, prefer twice that
       as minimum
   • Requires regular shape of
     property
   • Thick seam method
  1    - 6.0ft+ to be productive
   • Not flexible
  I
-.11
-------

              Longwall
I" ""  "
-

      If conditions are favorable,
      there is no lower cost method
       - Rates of 1 million rom tpm with
        250 people are possible          5S
    • Other items:
       - Problem if coal quality is variable
       - Still must develop with          ^
                                      ^f
        continuous miner
       - Get subsidence immediately (&
        no more) - 2/3 of seam thickness


 '
         Changes groundwater flow
                                       /
-------





       Continuous Miners
         Room & Pillar
   • Used if longwall can't be used -
     - in smaller or thinner reserves
     (or to develop for longwalls)
   • Flexible layout
   • Used for both development and
     pillaring
   • Easily moved from place to
     place or mine to mine (small
     reserves)
MI • Moderately low capital
   • Historically has been the
     standard method in Appalachia.; ,


-------
-
       Continuous Miners
-'  '
     Used in seams from 28" to 13 ft
     - Equipment comes in many size
       ranges
     Room and pillar plan recovers


•1*3   40-60% of reserve
   • Can be low cost, but not in thin
     seams
  , • Difficult to justify new
     "greenfield" continuous miner
^ 
-------


             Longwall
                 °
                VQ
                 VS.
x^;    Continuous Miners
                                  *f'
    • 100% of longwall coal is
      recovered, maybe 70-80%
      overall (?) vs 40-60%
    • Lower operating cost/ much
      higher capital
    • "Digital" in nature vs "analog"
         ,
      -  Quantity and quality
  I  • Development may be a problem
      -  Many mines find it difficult to
• n i      keep Iw panels developed
    • Both produce about 45% of
    -m underground output in U.S. -,


-------
            Surface Vs.
 -•«
 *    '     -L   '     -L       * ..*•
           Underground
      MTR recovers 1 00% of all seams
      vs. 40-75% of one or two

    • All disturbance is immediate,
      reclamation is ongoing & close
  J • Eliminate roof fall danger (but
      substitue highwall falls)
    • Mostly mine coal that is not
H,  I   accessible by underground
  '

      methods

  ] • Can often control cost by
      limiting ratio in surface mines
-------



            Summary
        _
   • Surface mines account for 60-
     65% of national output, but 30-
     33% in WV, 38% in KY, 25%
     in VA and 28% in PA          jj
>i '
  i • Productivity in surface mines is
     9.44 tpmh vs 3.84 tpmh in
     underground, nationally
     - But is 5.75 tpmh vs 4.81 tpmh in
  \     WV (approx.)
 -i
-------



Longwall Mining
               [Utifo to* jntf forth






-------



-------
' ff	,	TK^ • . * •-•' ff	TR* •••'. .* f' ff	*iu' ''.' f K	.	2f  ft	''

      Mining Technology

  From Perception to Procedures




            MORGAN WORLDWIDE
            MINING CONSULTANTS

-------





fc
            What is typical environmentalist
             < Target Practice
            Reason for presentation
             « To make sure that environmental issues are included
              in thought process
             < Environmental awareness not permit compliance
             « No NOVs does not a perfect mine make
            Right of mining
             < Legal land use
             « Critical part of economy and vital commodity
-------
    Why Opposition?
4
         ' • .  •         •     *
        Helplessness
        Feelings of Impotence
        _
        Excluded from Process
  H    - Dislike of change
        Fundamental beliefs

-------
. ,•<
 *


Participants in Process
          : "^L
       Stakeholders
          Company
          Industry Groups
            Industry attorneys
           • Shareholder
          Landowner
        •  Mineral Owner
          Employees
        •  Customer
          Regulator
          Community
          Environment
-------
*

   Industry Character
   • Character of industry changing
 *
i|     < Consolidation of industry
      * Less local involvement
      t Managers are mobile
      « Foreign ownership
     1998 W.Va Tonnage 160 million tons
     Approx W.Va Value $3.2 bn
4
-------


      Capability of Industry
  4
  *.,. .  ••./£<•   ' ;...  v.w-	   •*..&v   ' :• .   •*..•;.•«••	>.... .
      •  Access to capital
      •  Capability of constructing almost any
          .....
        configuration
   £  •  Very efficient movers of rock
      •  Ongoing operations and therefore momentum
I^KI *~\
    1  •  Complacency of acceptability of historic approach
   £  •  Focus on efficiency
-------
Environmental / Citizen
Character

  National issues / groups
  Political groups i.e. Green Party in Germany
                                  "
•  Presidential / National politics
                   r
-  Local residents
  Troublemaking attorneys

-------
    Regulator
K   iv^8*ui«nji'S
                             I ^^HMPMHT
                      	>• .	      ,	
     Federal
      .U.S. EPA
      • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  ^      U.S. Fish and Wildlife
,       U.S. OSM
*
    • State
      • WVDEP
  .
-------
    Effects of Mining

    • Mining is a short-term land use

I      < Effects are both short-term and long term
  .^^j
       « Short term effects
         «•  On site
            • Removal of vegetation
* *
             Aesthetics
            « Hydrology

-------

  Effects (Cont.)




         Off site
            Blasting
           • Noise

            Dust
           • Visual
           • Traffic
            Flow rates in streams
]
            Water quality changes
-------
»
      Effects (Cont.)




              Long term effects
                •  Change in topography
                •  Filling of valleys
                  Changing grade and elevation of hillsides
                •  Change in drainage patterns
                •  Revised aesthetics
                •  Vegetation
                    "
-------
*



  Key Issues
    Short Term Effect Mitigation
    AOC
  • AOC Variances and Post Mining Land Use
                             °
B • Minimizing Disturbed Area
-------
    Minimizing Disturbed Area
                 «



a



      Recognize volume is needed for excess
      spoil
      Objective to reduce area disturbed outside
  a   mineral extraction area
Have rational approach to determining
optimum
Use previously disturbed areas first
-------
»
     Approach


     •  Calculate Excess Spoil (AOC Model)
     •  Select valleys for fill consideration
     •  Calculate equal increments of capacity moving
       down valley
     •  End calculation at logical toe
  1  •  Have top surface above elevation of primary

  g    mining horizon
       Select optimum capacity to meet excess spoil
 i
-------
»
     Approach (Cont.)






       Use area calculated from optimization as
                                                    V
       "disturbed area bank" in acres
       Add accepted acreage to reflect sub optimum
       Allow operator to apply bank to whichever valleys
       they want, in whatever order
       Any Amendment or adjacent permit has to be
       similarly optimized
       Variances always have an associated change in
       disturbed area from optimum
-------
                        LANDFORM GRADING AND SLOPE  EVOLUTION


                        By Horst J. Schor' and Donald H. Gray,1 Member, ASCE

                                                                          (
          ABSTRACT:  Transportation corridors and residential developments in steep terrain both require that some
          grading be carried out to accommodate roadways and building sites. The manner in which this grading is
          planned and executed and the nature of the resulting topography or landforms that are created affect not only
          the visual or aesthetic impact of the development but also the long-term stability of the slopes and effectiveness
          of landscaping and revegetation efforts. Conventionally graded slopes can be characterized  by essentially
          planar slope surfaces with constant gradients. Most slopes in nature,  however,  consist of complex landforms
          covered by vegetation that grows in patterns that  are adjusted  to hillside hydrogeology. Analysis of slope-
          evolution models reveals that a planar  slope in many cases is not an equilibrium configuration. Landfoim-
          graded slopes on the other hand  mimic stable natural  slopes and are characterized by a variety of shapes.
          including convex and concave forms. Downslope drains either follow natural drop lines in the slope or are
          hidden from view in swale-and-berm combinations. Landscaping plants are placed in patterns that occur in
          nature as opposed to random or artificial configurations. The relatively small increase in the costs of engineering
          and design for landform  grading are more than offset by improved visual and aesthetic impact, quicker
          regulatory approval, decreased hillside maintenance and sediment removal costs, and increased marketability
          and public acceptance.
INTRODUCTION

  All slopes are subject to erosion and mass wasting. Various
measures can be invoked to slow, if not completely prevent.
this degradation. Biotechnical slope-protection methods, for
example, have attracted increasing attention as a cost-effec-
tive and visually attractive means of  stabilizing slopes. This
approach has been used to stabilize and revegetate cut-and-
fill slopes along highways as well as slopes in residential hill-
side developments. Kropp (1989) described the use of contour
wattling in combination with subdrains to repair and stabilize
a debris flow  above a housing development in  Pacifica, Cal-
ifornia.  Gray and  Sotir (1992) described the  use  of brush
layering to stabilize a high, unstable cut slope along a highway
in northern Massachusetts.  Brush layering and other  soil
bioengineering measures have likewise been employed (Sotir
and Gray  1989) to repair a failing  fill embankment along a
highway in North Carolina.
  Transportation corridors and residential developments in
steep terrain both require that some excavation and regrading
be carried out to accommodate  roadways and building sites.
The manner in which this grading is planned  and executed
and the nature of the resulting topography or landforms that
are created affect not only the visual or aesthetic impact of
the development but also the stability of the slopes  and  ef-
fectiveness of landscaping  and revegetation efforts.
  Succinct descriptions and comparative definitions of grad-
ing designs are  as follows.

Conventional Grading

  Conventionally graded slopes are characterized by essen-
tially linear (in plan), planar <>kipc surfaces with unvarying
gradients and angular slope intersections. Resultant pad con-
figurations are rectangular.
  Slope drainage devices are usually constructed in  a recti-
linear configuration in exposed positions.

   Prin., H.J. Schor Consulting, 626  N  Pioneer Dr., Anaheim.  CA.
92805  (714) 778-3767.
   'Prof.. DeptofCiv. & Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Ml 48109.
  Note,  Discussion  Open until March I. 1996' To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with th: ASCE  Manager
o f Journals. The manuscript for this paper w as submitted for review and
possible publication on September 14. 1994. Thii p3|*r  is- par! of (he
Journal of CiMnhiucat Engineering,  Vol. 121,  No  in. October. 1995.
CASCE, ISSN ITO.lUliyyMlOlD-ira-inM-i: IM + $.25 per pase.
Paper No W36
  Landscaping is applied in random or geometric patterns to
produce "uniform coverage."

Contour Grading

  Contour-graded slopes are basically similar to convention-
ally graded slopes except that the slopes are curvilinear (in
plan) rather  than linear, the gradients are unvarying,  and
profiles are planar. Transition zones and slope intersections
generally have some rounding applied.  Resultant pad config-
urations are mildly curvilinear.
  Slope drainage devices are usually constructed in  a  geo-
metric configuration and in an exposed position on the slope
face.
  Landscaping is applied in random or geometric patterns to
produce "uniform coverage."

Landform Grading

  Landform grading  replicates  irregular shapes of natural,
stable slopes. Landform-graded  slopes are characterized by
a continuous  series of concave and convex forms interspersed
with swales and berms that blend into the profiles, nonline-
arity  in plan view, varying  slope gradients,  and significant
transition zones between man-made  and natural slopes. Re-
sultant pad configurations are irregular.
  Slope drainage devices either follow "natural" slope  drop
lines  or are tucked away in  special  swale-and-berm combi-
nations to conceal the drains from view. Exposed segments
in high visibility areas are treated with natural  rock.
  Landscaping becomes 3 "revcgeiuiinn" process and it ap-
plied in patterns that occur  in nature: trees  and shrubs are
concentrated largely in  concave areas,  whereas drier convex
portions are  planted mainly with ground covers.


GRADING APPROACHES

Conventional

  Conventional grading practice often results in drasticallv
altered slopes and the replacement of natural hillside forms
wiiti artificial, sterile. ;indumtorm shapesand patterns  Con-
ventionally graded slopes can Ke characterized  hy (••...(•titially
planar slope surfaces wilh constant gradients and angular j£_
tersections as shown in Fig. 1.  Slope-drainage devices are
usually constructed in  a rectilinear and  exposed fashion.
                                                               JOURNAL OFGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING/ OCTOBER 1995/729
-------
FIG. 1.  Conventional Grading with  Planar Slopes and Rectilinear
Drainage Ditch in Highly Visible and Exposed Location
FIG. 2   Conventionally Graded Hill Slope with Planar Face, Rec-
tilinear Drainage Ditch, and uniformly Spaced Piantings

Grading specifications  in southern  California, for example,
typically call for flat, pl.in.it 2: I (//: V) slopes with a midslope
hench and a drainage ditch, commonly placed straight down
the slope, that collects and conveys water from  hrou  and
midslope hench or terrace drains, respectively.  Landscaping
and plants are; applied in random  or  geometric patterns as
shown in Fig. 2.

Contour Grading

   Contour grading offers a slight improvement over the ster-
ile and  simple geometry  achieved  liv  conventional grading.
Some scalloping or curvilinear appearance is introduced onto
the slope when seen in plan view:  however,  the  slope  gra-
dients or profiles remain planar LmJ  unvarying.  Transition
zones at the bottom and top of slopes may also h.ivi- some
rounding applied. Slope drainage devices are still constructed
in the same geometric configuration and exposed position on
the slope faee ;is  in conventional grading.  Landscaping .inu
plants arc also applied in random or geometric  patterns.

Landform Grading

   1 I uiuilorm jirjilmj!" ciM-miaUy attempts to mimic nature's
lulls Thix approach h.i*. hccn largely developed and pioneered
b\  Schor  (IYXO.  1*2. WW). who I,,,.,  successfully  applied
landtorm grading to several  large hillside developments aiu:
plonncd communities in southern California.  H is important
to note  ili.ii  very few hillsides are tound in nature with linear.
planar faces. Instead, natural slopes consist of complex land-

730 JOURNALOFGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING  OCTOBER 1995
                                                             forms covrrrd hy vegetation  that grows in patterns that are
                                                             adjusted to hillside hydrogeology. as shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
                                                             Accordingly,  landform-graded slopes arc characterized by <
                                                             variety of shapes including convex and concave forms inter-
                                                             spersed with ridges and elbows in the slope.
                                                               Downslope drain devices either follow  natural drop linos
                                                             in the  slope or  are tucked away ,m