METHODOLOGY for APPLYING GEOMORPHIC RECLAMATION to EXCESS SPOIL FILLS in WEST VIRGINIA1 Peter R

JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

METHODOLOGY FOR APPLYING GEOMORPHIC RECLAMATION TO EXCESS SPOIL FILLS IN WEST VIRGINIA1 Peter R. Michael2, Leslie C. Hopkinson, Nathan DePriest, and John D. Quaranta

Abstract. Researchers at West Virginia University developed and evaluated a method for applying geomorphic landform design principles to excess spoil fills in West Virginia. Although successful in the southwestern United States, challenges to applying geomorphic reclamation to steep-slope terrain in Central Appalachia were previously identified as (1) regulatory agencies’ current intent to limit the down-gradient reach of excess spoil fills and (2) designing and constructing “natural” landforms that are stable in a youthful, erosional landscape. The methodological approach presented in this paper addresses those challenges. The researchers developed the Geomorphic Land Design method, used it to create an alternative design to an existing valley fill, and then evaluated the design based on the criteria of fill volume maintenance, channel stability, and landform stability. Potential ecological improvements over the conventional design resulted from preserved stream length and greater diversity in slope gradient and aspect. None of the geomorphic designs generated, however, satisfied all evaluation criteria simultaneously or complied with regulations governing the placement of excess spoil.

Additional Key Words: landforming, natural landscaping, stream restoration, excess spoil fills, valley fills, durable rock fills.

______1 Oral paper to be presented at the 2015 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Lexington, KY Reclamation Opportunities for a Sustainable Future June 6 - 11, 2015. R.I. Barnhisel (Ed.). Published by ASMR; 1305 Weathervane Dr., Champaign, IL 61821. 2 Peter R. Michael, PE is a Geologist, U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Pittsburgh, PA 15220. Leslie C. Hopkinson, PhD, is an Assistant Professor, Nathan DePriest is a PhD Candidate, and John D. Quaranta, PhD, PE, is an Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506. Journal American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1 pp 57-72 DOI: http://doi.org/10.21000/JASMR15010057 For some unknown reason, the DOI doesn’t always work so if this is the case use in place of the DOI http://www.asmr.us/Portals/0/Documents/Journal/Volume-4-Issue-1/Michael-PA.pdf

57 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

Introduction

We present the latest developments in the field of geomorphic coal-mine-land reclamation as applied to the design and construction of excess spoil fills or “valley fills” in steep-sloped terrain of Central Appalachia. We review concerns previously identified by technical staff of the US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) relating to the efficacy of the methodology in the region, and summarize a recently completed modeling study at West Virginia University (WVU) that addresses several of those concerns. This paper proposes a design process developed by WVU that could be used to apply geomorphic design principles to future reclamation in Appalachia and then presents a representative design from the WVU project. We conclude by supporting continued development of the technology and identifying additional issues arising from the WVU study that should be investigated.

Background

Problems Relating to the Traditional Method of Valley Fill Construction and the Proposed Geomorphic Solution Some of the most contentious issues related to coal surface mine reclamation surround the practice of mountaintop coal mining in the steep-slope topographic settings of Central Appalachia and the construction of excess spoil fills in valleys below the mine sites (Fig. 1). Chief among them include: the flattening of the ridge and valley landscape that often results; the burial and pollution of headwater streams and riparian zones during and after the construction of fills; and extensive disruption to the wide variety of biota unique to Appalachia. Proposed solutions vary from increasing environmental restrictions on surface mining in the region to the application of alternative approaches and methodologies to surface mining and reclamation (e.g. Michael et al., 2010; Sears et al., 2013, 2014; Russell et al., 2014; Quaranta et al., 2013). One approach to mine- land reclamation that has received keen interest over the last decade or two is the application of geomorphic principles to landform grading and stream restoration. Broadly speaking, the objective of geomorphic reclamation is to copy nature, i.e. reclaim the land and water in a way that reflects what geomorphic processes have already engendered in the surrounding environment. By doing so, the hope is that the product of reclamation will approximate what natural processes would do to the land over geologic time, thus restoring the land and ecology to its natural beauty, diversity, and stability in a relatively short period of time.

58 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

Figure 1. Valley Fills in Central Appalachia; (left) example of a valley fill at a mountaintop mining site; (right) states and counties with watersheds affected by mountaintop mining and valley fill construction. Geomorphic reclamation is becoming a common reclamation strategy (Nicolau, 2003). Application of this approach to date has been concentrated in the southwestern United States (e.g. Measles and Bugosh, 2007; Bugosh, 2009; Robson et al., 2009) and in some locations outside of the U.S. (Martin-Duque et al., 2010; Martin-Moreno et al., 2008). However, the methodology has been relatively slow to develop in Central Appalachia. One likely reason for this pertains to the region’s landscape. Unlike coal mining sites in the west, where landforms are nearly flat or gently undulating and excess spoil is not generated, the mountainous terrain in Central Appalachia presents significant challenges to earth-moving operations, as mine sites are backfilled to achieve the approximate original contour (AOC) of the land and excess spoil fills (or “valley fills”) are built on steep foundations below mining sites. The perception in the mining industry has been that the practices of geomorphic reclamation would be uneconomical because of the extra time and skill required, especially in steep terrain, and the potential loss of storage volume in valley fills. Since the Federal regulations under the Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Act

59 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

(SMCRA) do not explicitly reference geomorphic reclamation, there has been little impetus to utilize or encourage use of its methodologies.

Regulators’ Historical Approach to Valley Fill Design and Construction Until recently, technical staff members of OSMRE engaged with mountaintop mining and excess spoil disposal focused on ensuring the exercise of prudent civil engineering practices in the design and construction of backfill structures and valley fills. Important issues they addressed included the long-term mass stability of fills, and drainage, erosion, and sedimentation control. Most of the attention has been focused on valley fills. In contrast to spoil backfills, valley fills are artificial landforms that are added to the natural landscape and that rest on inclined foundations. Several have been the sites of mass instability and dramatic occurrences of floods or mudflows.

To date, nearly all site-specific problems took place on active mining and reclamation sites and were subsequently remediated by the mine operator. However, engineers and geologists of the OSMRE Appalachian Region offices remain concerned about the long-term stability of the fills and their drainage diversion channels. There is no provision in SMCRA for the maintenance or remediation of the structures once the mined land is reclaimed to the satisfaction of the governing regulatory agency, and final bond moneys are returned to the mine operator. The OSMRE engineers’ and geologists’ concerns pertaining to long-term stability of the artificial structures are in large part behind their interest in geomorphic reclamation as an alternative approach to valley fill design and construction (Michael et al., 2010).

Previous assessment of the feasibility of applying geomorphic reclamation to valley fills in central Appalachia. Michael et al. (2010) found the concept of geomorphic reclamation to be sound, and proposed that the techniques of landform grading and stream restoration may have potential for coal mined lands in steep-sloped Appalachia as well as in other regions of the U.S. However, they also posited that certain regulatory and practical bottlenecks will need to be addressed before the concept is applied to the coal fields of Central Appalachia. Those bottlenecks are described below.

1. The Federal SMCRA regulations as they currently stand include provisions that appear to be contrary to some of the objectives of geomorphic reclamation. These include: (1) variances in the requirement of returning a mined land to AOC which (a) turn natural ridges into broad plateaus and (b) produce large quantities of excess spoil that significantly alter the morphology of valleys below the mined area; (2) references limited to expertise in rock-

60 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

and earth-fill engineering (i.e., which do not include expertise in geomorphic reclamation); (3) lack of references to complex, curvilinear shapes (typical of natural landforms) for reclaimed surfaces; (4) and the requirements for or practices of constructing unnatural drainage control systems such as fill outslope terraces and steep diversion ditches on the sides of the fill.

2. Recently promulgated regulations require, among other provisions, restrictions on the volume of excess spoil fills to avoid disturbance of natural streams. Placing excess spoil in naturally optimal locations (i.e. in lower topographic reaches) in the interest of stability as well as aesthetics could contravene these requirements. Also, a geomorphically designed valley fill could either reduce spoil volume storage capacity or necessitate more land and stream disturbance relative to a conventional fill.

3. Although cost increases connected with landforming in certain settings have been shown to be minor after an adjustment period (Schor and Gray, 2007), they might still be enough to discourage its voluntary application to Central Appalachian mine sites on the part of the industry. The observation that earth-movement cost increases are minimized since only the surficial layers of a fill are altered to natural, curvilinear forms probably would not apply to valley fills of limited thickness.

4. Requirements for more sophisticated and time-consuming regrading associated with geomorphic reclamation could motivate more delays in final reclamation relative to conventional earth-moving procedures. Inspectors would need to be especially vigilant to ensure contemporaneous reclamation of the valley fills.

5. The terrain of Central Appalachia is erosional in nature and many of its natural, steep slopes are prone to rapid mass movements. For this reason, constructing artificial landforms that look natural and blend well with the surrounding landscape will not necessarily satisfy all environmental objectives connected with coal-mine-land reclamation. One significant challenge will be to build valley fills that are stable as well as aesthetic.

Michael et al. (2010) concluded that serious pursuance of geomorphic design and construction of valley fills in rugged topographic settings will require both workshops and in-field experimentation. Future studies should assess the compatibility (or lack thereof) between the

61 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1 methodology and current regulation enforcement policies. Rule changes to accommodate geomorphic reclamation, however, should not be proposed without first determining the geotechnical feasibility of the approach to a variety of site conditions existing in Central Appalachia. Finally, determining the feasibility of applying geomorphic principles to valley fill design in steep-slope Appalachia will require demonstration construction projects on mine sites.

Proposed Geomorphic Design Process for Future Valley Fill Construction

Using Carlson’s Natural Regrade, Hopkinson et al. (2015) of WVU quantitatively evaluated the second and fifth issues (fill location and volume, and fill stability) enumerated above in a Geomorphic Land Design (GLD) modeling study under the OSMRE Applied Science Program3. In order to develop the alternative designs, they had to address another issue, which was that the values for geomorphic design criteria used in the program should be different in Central Appalachia than in the southwestern United States. They recognized that soil types, vegetation, and precipitation differences between the southwestern U.S. and Central Appalachia all affect two important parameters used in the software, namely ridge to head of channel distance and drainage density. Quantifying the parameters was necessary for accurate site-specific design (Buckley et al., 2013; Sears, 2014), but available data for Central Appalachia were limited. This work quantified these design criteria for locations in southern West Virginia. A design procedure that could be applied to future reclamation was developed and is reported in the following sections. A representative design completed through the WVU project is then presented4.

Geomorphic Design Procedure A procedure for applying the geomorphic design process for West Virginia valley fills is presented below. This design process is appropriate for small permit areas with designed landforms that have one channel in the center of the fill. Basic steps include the following:

______3. The OSMRE Applied Science Program is a potential but highly competitive source of funding for projects such as the one summarized in this paper. http://www.techtransfer.osmre.gov/NTTMainSite/appliedscience.htm. 4 Access the final report at: http://www.osmre.gov/programs/TDT/appliedScience/2012WVU- LHopkinsonGeomorphicReclamationValleyFillFR.pdf . 1. Selection of multiple stable reference landforms to obtain geomorphic properties applicable to the physiographic region of the geomorphic design site. 2. On-site and remote data collection from the reference landforms.

62 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

3. Reference-landform data analysis and determination of geomorphic parametric values applicable to the design site. 4. Generation of geomorphic landform designs based on alternative priorities (channel stability, valley side-slope stability, fill volume). 5. Evaluation of geomorphic landform designs based on the alternative priorities or “evaluation criteria.” 6. Final design selection.

Field design site selection and data collection. Preliminary information about the design site is needed to select the reference landform locations. Spatial data are needed, defining the pre- reclaimed valley. These may be obtained from digital elevation models, aerial photography, and/or the mine permit file. Planned conventional valley fill topography data are useful so that cut/fill volumes comparisons can be made. In addition, design storm information is needed for the initial design process. Soil properties of the material used to construct the fill (e.g. grain-size distribution, bulk density, hydraulic conductivity) will be needed for the design evaluation process.

Reference landform analysis. The GLD methodology uses a reference landform approach; therefore, reference data are needed. This work is important in defining two fundamental design input parameters, ridge to head of channel distance, or “drainage length,” and drainage density. Because channel head locations of the low-order, ephemeral-to-intermittent streams cannot be detected with spatial data, field surveying is required. The field data can be supplemented with spatial data to quantify the input parameters (e.g. drainage length, drainage density, channel slopes, and channel lengths). The GLD approach entails the following steps: 1. Evaluate alternative reference landforms based on properties such as degree of human land disturbance, topography, history of landform stability, data availability, in-field accessibility, hydrology, and vegetation. The selected reference landforms should have a long history of stability and should share other properties as closely as possible with the pre-mined topography of the field design site.

2. Select reference landform location(s) at which field data will be collected.

3. Collect parametric data from the reference landforms to be applied to the GLD valley fill design.

63 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

4. Supplement field data with geospatial analysis to fully quantify landform properties that could not be adequately documented in the field.

5. Determine specific or range of geomorphic property values to be used in completing geomorphic design.

Reference data are needed for all areas where standard geomorphic characteristics are not already available. The reference watersheds should be of similar size as the design area so that channel characteristics obtained from the reference site are appropriate to the GLD design. Although on-site field measurements are essential, they can be supplemented with spatial data to make up for limited accessibility at several locations and reduce the time required for data collection.

Generation of GLDs. The first step in applying GLD (using Natural Regrade) to a valley fill location is to define the landform boundary within the existing topography. A polyline representing a channel that satisfies the input parameters defined from the reference landform is then added. Next, streams, ridges, and depressions are created within the design boundary. The final design should connect with the surrounding topography (Bugosh, 2006). Figure 2 summarizes these steps for a valley fill with a single channel (larger fills may require sub-basins with multiple channels).

Figure 2. Natural Regrade design process for generating geomorphic landforms: (a) Given an existing topography; (b) Define landform boundary and create a polyline which satisfies input parameters; (c) generate a stream(s) and corresponding ridges and valleys; and (d) develop landform that connect with surrounding topography. Evaluation of GLDs. The alternative GLD designs should be evaluated based on the following criteria.

1. Channel stability: Channel stability can be evaluated by determining whether a channel design has the ability to convey a design storm without mobilizing large (e.g. boulder-size) bed

64 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

particles. The design storm required by regulatory agencies may be defined differently than what is used in the GLD design program (as is the case with Natural Regrade). Even so, the capacity of the generated channels must also conform to regulatory requirements.

2. Valley side-slope stability: Natural Regrade does not have a built-in check for slope stability. However, slope stability can be independently evaluated both through slope stability analysis (based on strength testing of materials used to construct fills), and compliance with regulations governing the maximum grade and minimum safety factor of the created slopes.

3. Fill volume: The volume of spoil used to construct the geomorphic design can be compared to the volume of a conventional valley fill for the same area. If the geomorphic design is to be implemented as part of an existing reclamation plan, mass balance must be maintained, or a plan for excess spoil placement at other locations must be developed. The ability to meet fill volume requirements can inform decisions on whether the fill’s impact area must be expanded and if regulations limiting excess spoil placement can be met.

Final design selection. Ultimately, this is an iterative design process, and the final design should be selected that most successfully meets all evaluation criteria of channel and landform stability and excess spoil storage capacity. If no designs sufficiently meet requirements, some manual changes to the design may be necessary or excess spoil may need to be added to the surface mine backfill or placed in other valleys.

Case Study of Valley Fill Design in West Virginia Using the process described herein, a series of designs for a fill confined to a permitted area were generated and analyzed on the basis of channel stability, landform stability, and fill volume. Design iterations were completed and evaluated through the following steps: (1) investigating the effect of low, mean, and high drainage density values; (2) maximizing channel stability; (3) maximizing fill volume placement; (4) examining various trade-offs in priority among channel stability, hillslope stability and fill volume; and (5) using the Natural Regrade default design parametric values. Varying levels of stability and fill volume were then applied to an area expanded beyond the permitted valley fill boundary5.

Results

65 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

From geomorphic design iterations, the relationship among channel stability, landform stability, fill volume, and area of impact was developed. Channel stability increased with decreased landform stability, and vice versa. When designing within the permitted area, fill volume requirements were met with high landform stability but low channel stability. Target fill volume requirements were met with more acceptable levels of both channel and landform stability when the design footprint was expanded beyond the original permitted valley fill area.

Figure 3 shows the most successful GLD design when the permitted valley fill area was maintained and a stable channel was created. The channel was designed to be stable at flood-prone flows. Channel slopes ranged from 8.0-14%. A potential ecological benefit from the GLD design results from the “re-creation” of 612 ft. of the 951 ft. of stream length otherwise lost to burial beneath the conventional valley fill. Another potential ecological benefit is the greater diversity of habitats resulting from broader slope gradient and aspect distributions in the geomorphic design relative to the conventional valley fill. As much as 21% of the landform slopes, however, were above the 2:1 maximum grade allowed by the West Virginia and Federal regulations. Further, fill volume for the design corresponded to only 72% of the volume contained in the conventional valley fill. An expanded-area design also involving a flood-prone stable channel fared better. The storage capacity of the GLD fill actually exceeded that of the conventional fill by 2%. As much as 17% of the hillslopes, however, exceeded the 2:1 grade limit.

______5 See DePriest et al. (2015) for a full description of the design iterations.

66 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

Figure 3. (a) Original topography with existing stream, (b) conventional reclamation, and (c) most successful geomorphic design in permitted area with recreated stream. Discussion

It is important to point out that the GLD designs create more natural looking and aesthetically pleasing landforms but do not recreate the original topography of the valley. The geomorphic designs have more ridges and valleys than the pre-mined topography, which is typically one smooth, two-sided valley with a channel at the bottom. This difference between pre-mined and post-reclamation topography highlights that geomorphic reclamation aims to create a landform in erosive equilibrium, not to purely recreate the original, undisturbed topography. Accurately recreating the pre-mined topography is impossible due to the introduction of a large volume of spoil to the site and to geotechnical property differences between that spoil and the indigenous soil and rock. It is also worth emphasizing that whereas the goal of valley fill geomorphic reclamation is to promote the environmental and ecological health of a disturbed site, it is not to minimize the disturbance. With the exception of preserved stream lengths, site modification may be as extensive or even slightly more extensive in the interest of satisfying landform stability and spoil storage capacity.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The authors of this paper are of the opinion that the potential application of valley fill geomorphic design in Central Appalachia should continue to be evaluated. Although difficulties with reconciling stream channel and slope stability with fill volume maintenance has been quantitatively verified, potentially significant environmental benefits has also been quantitatively confirmed. Topics covered by projects subsequent to the WVU study should include the following:

67 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

1. In this study, the consideration of slope stability did not account for the effect of pore water pressure. To do so would have resulted in a less positive outlook for the methodology. Many small valleys in Central Appalachia are affected by multiple discharging aquifers controlled by permeable strata such as coal seams and valley-stress-relief fracture systems. Another source of water seeping into the placed spoil fill is the buried and created stream. Future research will need to address this factor especially concerning those sites where available spoil material is relatively less permeable and aquifers dip into the valley fill mass.

2. The method of constructing the geomorphically designed valley fills must be addressed. For instance, will the earthen structure be constructed from the bottom up in lifts? If so, how thick will the lifts be? If not, i.e. if some end dumping from the top is allowed, how will drainage be controlled during the construction process?

3. The WVU study established that geomorphic reclamation in Central Appalachia requires the use of different values for key parameters than those successfully employed in the southwest. The question not addressed is whether the physiographic conditions of the former region fall within the domain of the program’s algorithm. In other words, do the equations and routines underlying the software accurately apply to the rugged terrain of Central Appalachia? Conclusively answering this question may require field applications of the technology.

4. The threshold for channel stability used in the modeling study is the channel-bed shear stress exceeding 4.33 psf, which is capable of moving boulders. However, boulder-size material is routinely placed in the diversion channels of valley fills as they are currently constructed. Would placement of the large particles in limited reaches of a created stream in a geomorphic valley fill engender enough of an overall environmental improvement to still warrant the alternative design? Further, to address potential slope instability, would manual corrections to a pure geomorphic design still result in “natural”, more environmentally friendly landform?

5. The study created stream-centered valley fill designs that mirrored the original form of the valleys they occupy as much as possible. Would a ridge-centered design, one that forms the spoil fill into a created ridge in the center of and parallel to the valley and includes two

68 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

geomorphically designed side channels achieve the objectives of geomorphic reclamation as well as or more effectively?

6. In the WVU study, designs were created for valley fills less than 20 acres (8 hectares) in area. Smaller areas were targeted because the location for the first demonstration of geomorphic design application to valley fill construction would likely be small as well. Several design features were not evaluated in this work because the size, shape, and elevation differences of the fills did not support additional features. These features include multiple channel network and storage ponds. In larger fills, the design might include multiple sub-basins as long as the sub-basin topography blends in with the surrounding terrain. Ponds may be utilized in larger fills to provide surface storage, provided that fill stability concerns are not exacerbated by seepage into the spoil substrate.

7. An important added value provided by geomorphic construction of valley fills relative to conventional construction pertains to stream flow regime. In contrast to the steep, riprapped side channels of conventionally reclaimed valley fills, stream reaches that are preserved or created under the geomorphic reclamation approach are more gently sloped and consequently more conducive to the natural development of stable aquatic and riparian ecosystems. The modeling performed in the subject study did not include analysis of flow regime. Future studies should do so, especially those entailing actual construction of geomorphically designed fills. Comparisons with pre-mining regimes should be made if possible. In any case, variations of flow under different time and spatial scales in relation to precipitation events and the concomitant formation of flora and fauna within the stream environment should be monitored.

8. In that the condition of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems also depend on water quality, alternative strategies of minimizing acid mine drainage and dissolved solid concentrations in streams that can be incorporated into a geomorphic design should be identified and evaluated.

Acknowledgements

The work described in this publication was supported by Grant/Cooperative Agreement Number S12AC20029 from OSMRE. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of OSMRE.

69 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

Epilogue

Application of field-scale demonstration is the next step to assess the plausibility of this approach in the Central Appalachian region. WVU investigators will construct a GLD designed valley fill under a new Applied Science Cooperative Agreement with OSMRE. The project is scheduled to be completed in 2017.

References

Buckley, C., L. Hopkinson, J. Quaranta, B. Mack, and P. Ziemkiewicz. 2013. “Investigating design parameters in the design of West Virginia valley fills to support application of geomorphic landform design principles.” Environmental Considerations in Energy Production, J.R. Craynon, (ed.) Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), Englewood, CO, 405- 414.

Bugosh, N. 2006. “Basic manual for fluvial geomorphic review of landform designs.” United States Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Denver, CO.

Bugosh, N. 2009. A summary of some land surface and water quality monitoring results for constructed GeoFluv landforms, Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2009 pp, 153-175 http://dx.doi.org/10.21000/JASMR09010153

DePriest, N., L. Hopkinson, J. Quaranta, P. Michael, and P. Ziemkiewicz. 2015. "Geomorphic landform design alternatives for an existing valley fill in central Appalachia, USA: Quantifying the key issues." Ecological Engineering, 81, 19-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.0079.

Hopkinson, L., J. Quaranta, M. Armstead, J. Hause, and N. DePreist. 2015. “Assessing Geomorphic Reclamation in Valley Fill Design for West Virginia.” Final report prepared under the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Cooperative Agreement No. S12AC20020, 54 pp. plus appendices.

Martin-Duque, J., M.A. Sanz, J. Bodoque, A. Lucia, and C. Martin-Moreno. 201). “Restoring earth surface processes through landform design. A 13-year monitoring of a geomorphic reclamation model for quarries on slopes.” Earth Surface Processes & Landforms, 35(5), 531-548.

70 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

Martin-Moreno, C., J. Martin-Duque, J. Nicolau, L. Sanchez, R. Ruiz, M. Sanze, A. Lucia, and I. Zapico. 2008. “A geomorphic approach for the ecological restoration of kaolin mines at the Upper Tagus Natural Park (Spain).” 6th European Conference on Ecological Restoration, Ghent, Belgium.

Measles, D., and N. Bugosh. 2007. "Making and building a fluvial geomorphic reclamation design at an active draggling mine using the GeoFluvTM design method." 30 Years of SMCRA and Beyond, Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2007 pp. 449-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.21000/JASMR07010449.

Michael, P., M. Superfesky, and L. Uranoswki. 2010. Challenges of applying geomorphic and stream reclamation methodologies to mountaintop mining and excess spoil fill construction in steep slope topography (e.g. Central Appalachia). Proceedings American Society of Mining and Reclamation. 2010 pp 610-634 https://doi.org/10.21000/JASMR10010610.

Nicolau, J.M. 2003. "Trends in relief design and construction in opencast mining reclamation." Land Degradation and Development, 14, 215-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.548

Quaranta, J.D., L. Hopkinson, and P. Ziemkiewicz. 2013. “Comparison of groundwater seepage modeling in conventional and geomorphic valley-fill design. Environmental Considerations in Energy Production, J.R. Craynon, ed. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), Englewood, CO, 246-254.

Robson, M., R. Spots, R. Wade, and W. Erickson. 2009. "A case history: Limestone quarry reclamation using fluvial geomorphic design techniques." Revitalizing the Environment: Proven Solutions and Innovative Approaches, Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2009 pp 1166-1175. http://dx.doi.org/10.21000/JASMR09011166.

Russell, H., N. DePriest, and J.D. Quaranta. 2014. “Stability analysis comparison of conventional valley-fill to geomorphic landform designs.” Trans. Soc. Min. Metall. Expl., 336, 414-420. Sears, A.E., C.J. Bise, and L.C. Hopkinson. 2014. “Field and modeling study for stream mitigation on surface mine sites in West Virginia.” Mining Engineering, 66(5), 48-53.

Sears, A., C.J. Bise, J.D. Quaranta, and L. Hopkinson. 2013. “Methodology for geomorphic landform design of valley-fills in Appalachia surface mine reclamation.” Environmental

71 JASMR, 2015 Volume 4, Issue 1

Considerations in Energy Production, J.R. Craynon, (ed.) Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), Englewood, CO, 397-404.

Schor, H.J. and D.H. Gray. 2007. "Principles of landform grading." Landforming: An Environmental Approach to Hillside Development, Mine Reclamation and Watershed Restoration, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 354 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470259900.ch9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470259900.ch7.