STREAM POLLUTION BY GOAL MINE DRAINAGE

                UPPER OHIO RIVER FASIN



                 Work Document No. 21

This document has been prepared tj record a specific
water pollution control activity carried out to date
in furtherance of the water pollution control program
being developed in the Ohio River Basin.   The
information contained herein will serve as a ready
reference to aid in the planning and development of
the program in the Basin, for appropriate in-service
training of participating personnel, and facilitating
program activities with other cooperating groups.

Questions or comments relative to this material should
be directed tor

                  Mine Drainage Unit
            Planning and Evaluation Section
                Wheeling Field Station
       UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
                   OHIO BA.SIN REGION

                      March 1968

-------
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)



                                                              PAGE



MINE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN THE MINOR BASINS (Continued)




     MUSKINGUM RIVER	-	     6h



     HOCKING RIVER				     ?0



     LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER					     H



     KANAWHA RIVER		-	-     76



     SCIOTO RIVER	     81



     GUYANDOTTE RIVER	     82



     BIG SANDY RIVER		-	-		     8?



     OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM AND MINOR TRIBUTARIES		     93



PROJECTED CONDITIONS			    102



     PRESENT MINE DRAINAGE SOURCES 		    102



     THE FUTURE MINE DRAINAGE PROBLEM	    106



ESTIMATED ABATEMENT COSTS	-	    110



BIBLIOGRAPHY						
                                ii

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES

                                                               PAGE

 1    Acid mine drainage, upper Ohio River Basin ------------    lU

 2    Projections of estimable annual damages ---------------    19

 3    Lower Clarion River tributaries, acid loadings --------    33

 U    Allegheny River basin streams carrying more than
        J> tons per day net acidity ------------ - -------------    38

 5>    Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage,
        Allegheny River basin -------------------------------    39
 6    Water quality data, Allegheny River basin
 7    Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage,
        Monongahela River basin
 8    Monongahela River basin streams carrying more than
        5 tons per day net acidity --------------------------    $0

 9    Water quality data, Monongahela River basin -----------    $U

10    Water quality data, Beaver River basin ----------------    62

11    Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage,
        MuskLngum River basin -------------------------------    65

12    Water quality data, Muskingum River basin -------------    6?

13    Water quality data, Hocking River basin ---------------    72

lU    Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage,
        Kanawha River basin ---------------------------------    78

15    Water quality data, Kanawha River basin ---------------    80

16    Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage,
        Guyandotte River basin -------------------------------    83

17    Water quality data, Guyandotte River basin ------------    8$

18    Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage,
        Big Sandy River basin -------------------------------    88
                                 111

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

TABLE                                                           PACE

 19    Water quality data, Big Sandy River basin	    90

 20    Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage,
         Ohio River main stem and minor tributaries	    97

 21    Water quality data, Ohio River main stem and
         minor tributaries	    98

 22    Mine drainage field survey areas	   103

 23    Mine drainage inventory summary	   lOii

 2li    Estimated acid mine drainage from abandoned sources,
         upper Ohio River Basin	   105

 25    Coal production projections, upper Ohio River  Basin    108

 26    Projected acid loads from active and abandoned coal
         mines, upper Ohio River basin	   109

 27    Estimated costs of acid mine drainage abatement program,
         upper Ohio River basin	   111
                                  IV

-------

FIGURE
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

1U

15

16
LIST OF FIGURES

Minor basins index map, upper Ohio River Basin 	
Ohio River basin coal fields 	
Mine drainage pollution, Allegheny River basin 	
Mine drainage pollution, Monongahela River basin 	
Mine drainage pollution, Beaver River basin 	
Mine drainage pollution, Muskingum River basin 	
Mine drainage pollution, Hocking River basin 	
Mine drainage pollution, Little Kanawha River basin 
Mine drainage pollution, Kanawha River basin 	
Mine drainage pollution, Scioto River basin 	
Mine drainage pollution, Guyandotte River basin 	
Mine drainage pollution, Big Sandy River basin 	
Mine drainage pollution, Ohio River main stem,
Pittsburgh to New Cumberland 	
Mine drainage pollution, Ohio River main stem,
New Cumberland to Belleville Dam 	
Mine drainage pollution, Ohio River main stem,
Belleville Dam to Meldahl Dam 	
Acid mine drainage abatement, upper Ohio River basin

FOLLOWS PAGE
	 2
	 10
	 U6
	 58
	 62
	 68
	 72
	 7U
	 80
	 80
	 86
	 92

	 101

	 101

	 101
	 Ill

-------
                         PURPOSE AND SCOPE
     The Ohio River Basin Project of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration is engaged in studies directed toward the
determination of the extent of the mine drainage stream pollution
problem.  Considerable effort will be needed to describe the sources
and amounts of mine drainage and to ultimately recommend a remedial
program.  This document was prepared as a Wheeling Field Station work
document to evaluate present and future conditions based on existing
knowledge.
     Section 206 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
PL 89-U, directs the Secretary of the Army to prepare a comprehensive
plan for the development and efficient utilization of the water and
related resources of the Appalachian region.  Several Federal agencies,
including the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, were
directed to assist the Secretary of the Army in the preparation of the
plan and report entitled "Report for development of water resources
in Appalachia".

     As a major part of the water resources survey and plan, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration was requested to provide
information that would describe the mine drainage stream problem in
Appalachia, its location and magnitude, measures for the alleviation
and eventual control of mine drainage pollution, and a preliminary
cost estimate of remedial measures.  This document was prepared to
provide the requested information in the upper Ohio River Basin for
volume XXIX, Appendix R, Attachment A, entitled "Stream pollution by
coal mine drainage in Appalachia".

     All conclusions, recommendations, and preliminary estimates
contained in this document are subject to further refinement as the
program of the Ohio River Basin Project progresses.

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     The authors express appreciation for the cooperation and
assistance of the following State and Federal agencies who supplied
general information concerning areas where streams are polluted by
mine drainage:

     West Virginia Department of Natural Resources

     Pennsylvania Department of Health

     Ohio Department of Natural Resources

     Kentucky Water Pollution Control Commission

     Virginia State Water Control Board

     Maryland Department of Water Resources

     U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service

-------
                                   SCALE
                              10 SO W M SO 40 SO MILES
                  J      - LEGEND -
                    UPPER OHIO RIVER BASIN BOUNDARY
                    UPPER OHIO RIVER TRIBUTARY
                              BASIN BOUNDARIES
                       (I) ALLEGHENY RIVER
                       (29 MONONGAHELA RIVER
                       (3) BEAVER RIVER
                       (4) MUSKINGUM RIVER
                       (5) HOCKING RIVER
                       (6) SCIOTO RIVER
                       (7) LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER
                       (8) KANAWHA RIVER
                       (9) GUYANDOTTE RIVER
                       (10) BIG SANDY RIVER
                       (11)02)(13) OHIO RIVER AND
                               MINOR TRIBUTARIES
INDEX   HAP
                             FIGURE  I

-------
                            SUMMARY
     The drainage from bituminous coal mines has, been a longstanding
water pollution problem in the Appalachian coal fields and  continues
relatively unabated at the present time.  Water quality of  streams
receiving mine drainage is seriously altered and the streams are
frequently rendered unfit for many legitimate water uses.   Acid  mine
water is associated with both active and abandoned mining operations.
The drainage from the abandoned sites represents that portion  of the
problem which will be the most difficult to abated It is conservatively
estimated that damages f rpmjsfyftfc drainage pollution in the upper Ohio
                        "S^ti "dlmlars annually.  These damages are
                      million do|lai?s'*'annually by the year  2020  unless
                    are taken.  |

     xv"a.wt.^
is plac
        ffik SSL   -i,    ' i -!IT^'f^^  *"
fljrticip^^Bl Tfii^jLdufi^^lS^OlftfcJ'dri Xocid.
(Tabl
     80 percent  of  the
 p^regjL^aifiry.  control
 sabatf|ment program  for
Ate- oT$850.8 mllion
required  tOj-aehieve the
[ppfrt)h6Tliver  Basin,
                                        vpHf' exists |n  fach. of  the
                                        ^*(Fi^rl H'jJle^lblem
                                                              drainage
                                                                    ly
                                                             reland
                                                          portions  of
                                            _	netas River
                            found to be discharging more than five
tons per day of" acl'ct 
-------
                    Monongahela River basin

     The Monongahela River basin is the most intensely polluted
by nine drainage of all the minor basins of the upper Ohio River
Basin.  Coal reserves are present in about 85 percent of the basin,
and production remains high.  More than 1,600 miles of streams in
17 counties are polluted to varying degrees by mine drainage.  The
worst conditions exist in Westmoreland, Fayette, and Green Counties,
Pennsylvania; and Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour,
and Preston Counties, West Virginia.  The principal tributary
watersheds affected in order of pollution intensity and average
net acidity loads discharged during the study period are the
Cheat River (20U tons per day), the Youghiogheny River (lltk tons
per day), and the West Fork River (156 tons per day).  The Tygart
Valley River, which joins the West Fork River to form the
Monongahela, carried an average net acidity of UO tons per day.

     It is estimated that there are 1,200 tons per day of acid
discharged to the basin streams from both active and inactive Hp<*^j
operations.  This acid load may increase to as much as 2,100 tons
per day by the year 2020, if projected increases in raining activity
are realized and no pollution abatement measures are taken.

                      Beaver River basin

     Mining activity, recoverable coal reserves, and the principal
mine drainage problems of the area, are concentrated in the
Pennsylvania portion of the basin.  The watershed contains 108
miles of streams affected by mine drainage, 93 of which are in the
Slippery Rock Creek drainage of Butler and Lawrence Counties,
Pennsylvania.  A major fish kill occurred in Slippery Rock Creek
in 1961* due to flushout of acid mine water.  Minor amounts of mine
drainage stream pollution exists in the Mahoning River area of the
Beaver basin.  The Ohio Counties of the watershed are excluded
from the defined Appalachian region.

     It is estimated that an acid load of 50 tons per day is
discharged to the streams of the Beaver River basin from active
and abandoned coal mine sites.  Projected mining production is
expected to result in the discharge of 250 tons per day of acid
by the year 2020, without corrective measures.

-------
                     Muskingum River basin

     About 80 percent of the basin contains coal reserves, and
prospects for future mining activities we good.  Drainage from
coal mining activities has affected some $00 miles of streams in
this watershed.  However, the principal streams of the basin do
not show significant water quality degradation from mine drainage.
Among the many smaller streams seriously affected, Moxahala Creek
in Perry and MuskLngum Counties is probably the most seriously
polluted stream in the watershed.  Its drainage area contains 90
miles of polluted streams.

     An estimated acid load of UOO tons per day is discharged to
streams of the MuskLngum River basin from active and abandoned
mines.  Assuming no corrective measures are taken, it is estimated
that this load will increase to 1200 tons per day by the year 2020.

                      Hocking River basin

     Eighty percent of current coal production in the basin is by
surface mining methods; however, the area has an early history
of deep mining which contributes a significant part of the present
water pollution.  The basin contains some 360 miles of streams
polluted by mine drainage, principally in Athens, Hocking, and
Perry Counties.  Sunday and Monday Creeks are the most seriously
affected tributary watersheds to the Hocking River.  Sunday and
Monday Creeks discharged average net acid loads of 13 and 19 tons
per day, respectively, during the 1966 water quality survey.

     An estimated acid load of 200 tons per day is discharged to
the basin streams from all sources.  It is projected that increased
mining activity will raise this load to 990 tons per day by the
year 2020 unless corrective measures are applied.

                  Little Kanawha River basin

     About 60 percent of the basin is underlain by coal reserves;
however, the resource has not been extensively developed.  Thirty
miles of streams in the area above Glenville, West Virginia, are
affected by mine drainage.  This mileage is comprised by a few
small tributaries that enter the main stream in the reach from the
GiLner-Braxton County line downstream to Glenville.  Although
mine drainage pollution is not serious in this basin at the present
time, sufficient coal reserves exist for potentially serious problems
to develop.

-------
     It is estimated that an acid load of 10 tons per day is
discharged to streams of the basin from all sources.   Further
development of coal reserves of the basin is projected to raise
the acid loading to an estimated 130 tons per day if  corrective
measures are not taken.

                      Kanawha River basin

     The Kanawha basin contains an estimated recoverable coal
reserve of 23 billion tons, and it has been a major coal-
producing region for a very long time.  Significant mine drainage
pollution occurs in the Focatalico, Coal, Elk, and New River
watersheds.  Generally, serious pollution conditions  exist in the
headwater areas of these drainages and in small tributaries of
these streams.  Pollution in the main streams of the basin is
intermittent, and their water quality is not severely degraded.
Much of the mine water in this area of the State of West Virginia
is alkaline rather than acid in character and is used for public
water supply by a number of small communities.  Fourteen
hundred miles of streams are affected to sone degree by mine
drainage in the Kanawha River basin.

     An estimated acid load of 350 tons per day is discharged to
streams in this watershed from all coal mining sources.  This
load is projected to increase to 560 tons per day by the year 2020,
assuming no corrective measures are taken.

                      Scioto River basin

     A very small portion of this drainage area is underlain by
coal deposits.  Only parts of two counties in the lower end of the
basin are involved in coal mining activity and the amount of
mine drainage present is small.  About eight miles of streams
are affected by mine drainage in this watershed.  Because of the
small area involved, stream pollution by mine drainage will not
become a problem except on a very localized scale.

     An acid load of 10 tons per day is estimated to be discharged
at the present time, and this load is projected to increase to
80 tons per day by the year 2020.

-------
                        Guyandotte River basin

     The production of coal and its support industries are the
principal economic activities of this mountainous area.  Many tributary
streams in the headwaters areas of the basin are polluted by mine
drainage but the main-stem is not seriously affected.  Acid mine
drainage is not as much of a problem in this region as in the basins
to the north.  Mine drainage effects in the Guyandotte drainage are
principally in total mineralization added to the streams and sulf ate,
hardness, iron, and manganese concentration levels.  The intermittent
presence of silt and fine coal in the streams is also a significant
problem.

     It is estimated that an acid load of 100 tons per day is dis-
charged to the basin's streams at the present time.  A projected acid load
of 130 tons per day is expected due to coal industry expansion by
the year 2020, assuming no corrective measures are taken.

                         Big Sandy River basin

     Coal production is the major industry in the basin and there were
more than 2,800 active mines in 1965.  Most of these mines were under-
ground operations.  Many streams in the headwaters of the basin are
affected by mine drainage.  Serious water quality problems are inter-
mittently caused by the entry of fine coal and silt from the mining areas
into the streams.   The drainage area above Fishtrap Reservoir on Levisa
Fork is of particular concern with respect to the occurrence of silt and
fine coal in the streams.  Five hundred miles of streams are affected
by mine drainage in the Big Sandy basin.

     Although acid pollution is not a major problem in the basin,
the total mineralization from mine drainage contributes to high iron,
sulfate, and hardness concentrations in receiving streams.  An
estimated acid load of 300 tons per day is discharged to the streams
from all sources.   This loading is projected to increase to 370 tons
per day by the year 2020, assuming no corrective measures.

             Ohio River main stem - minor tributary basins

     The Ohio River receives significant amounts of mine drainage along
both its banks from small tributary watersheds draining from Pennsylvania,
Ohio, and West Virginia.  Recent stream studies have measured an
average net acid load of over 100 tons per day discharged to the Ohio
River from the affected tributaries.  A total of over 1,300 miles of

-------
affected streams are present in this drainage area.   The majority
of the measured acid loading and the miles of affected streams are
in the State of Ohio.  The largest and most significant stream in
the minor tributary classification is Raccoon Greek, Ohio, which
enters the Ohio River below Oallipolis.  This stream carried an acid
load of 110 tons per day during the survey period.

     An estimated acid load of 1,000 tons per day is received by the
streams of this defined drainage area.  This load is projected to
increase to U,000 tons per day by the year 2020, assuming no corrective
measures.

-------
                             INTRODUCTION
     Acid mine waters result from the mining of ores of various
metals and from deposits of anthracite and bituminous coals.  In
parts of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma, Ifad and zinc mining
produces acid mine drainage; in Arkansas tjie ,extraction of barite
and manganese ores creates an acid drain
of gold and other ores in Soutlt Dakota
problem.                     '
               acid
               bi
                    $nese
                    fee
                     the highest
           and the mining
^Montana creates a similar
      are in the
       the country.  The
        bituminous coals
        i and its broad
            plentiful in
             coal fields
           Interior fields
           ield of the
           an field yields
            the United
           ountry and the
            field is about
           as of Pennsylvania,
           innessee,
     The major
anthracite and
problem is parti
because of the
utilization as
this country
are the Appalac
of the mid-contiri
western states.
about 70 percent,
States.  It con'*
largest continu
70,000 square
West Virginia,
Alabama, and Ge

     The acid n
coal mining is
and largely i;
is the Ohio R|
problem ste:
nized as the
basin.  The c
Figure 2.

     The water           problem 'agSosdjrtl^i.^i^h.fi^fl. mines is
not a new one -gjt*^s|yxisted sifWfpS Ijhj^jpjijening of-the first
mines in the OhifefliveW basin, grior W4800,;  Although these mines
have long sinceJ|SMett( afatfMtt&i& sow* of $hk still produce acid
drainage.  FroifFSt small,beginning over 150 y'eaii jj&ty~ coal production
has grown with projplessi've industrialization of the country, and
along with the de^^toan^C the coal industry has grown the mine
acid pollution probjfc& ~~ -nrlls ironic that the coal-mining
industry is in large part responsible for the area's prosperity and
at the same time seriously damages that area by its drainage.
                                                    ituminous
                                                     ppi River
                                                          drainage
                                                          recog
                                                      ohio
                                                          in

-------
     It has been stated that if one were to outline on a map  the
economically depressed Appalachian region,  one would likewise, in
large part, be outlining the area of serious acid mine drainage
pollution in the eastern United States.   The causes of economic
illness of an area are not so simple that they can be related to
one single factor; however, there is undoubtedly a substantial
measure of cause and effect to be found between mine acid  pollution
and depression in the region.
                                   10

-------
                                            SCALE
                                       10 5 0 W 20 30 40 SO MILES
                                     AREA UNDERLAIN BY COAL
UPPER OHIO RIVER BASIN COAL FIELDS
                                      FIGURE  2

-------
                         HISTORY OF PROBLEM

     Although evidence of the magnitude and extent of water
pollution during the early years of coal mining is meager,  a
number of written references to the problem were made prior to
1900.  Some of the earliest recorded references to the acid
condition of certain streams in the coal mining areas were made
by the communities and industries which utilized such streams
for water supply.  The U.S. Geological Survey in a 1906 pub-
lication described the quality of waters used for public supply
in the upper Ohio River Basin, pointing out those waters contami-
nated by mine drainage.  (7).

     The Youghiogheny River contained sufficient free acid at
times of low flow to kill fish as early as 1890 j however, the
stream has been substantially improved in recent times through
state and industry efforts.  In 190J?, a large number of fish
were killed in the Allegheny River below the Kiskiminetas River
as a result of acid mine drainage from the Kiskiminetas River
and its tributaries.  (7).

     During the period 1913 to 1916, the U. S. Public Health
Service conducted perhaps the first recorded survey of the
effects of acid mine drainage in this country.  (8).  The report
of this survey cited the deleterious effects of acid pollution
in areas of the upper Ohio River Basin.  The document concluded
that mine drainage was responsible for a major portion of the
acid pollution, and that this source of pollution might be
reasonably expected to increase.

     In tracing recognition and description of the acid drainage
problem in the early days of coal mining in this country, it
is pertinent to cite a court test whose outcome recognized the
problem, and in this case, the injustice of it.  It is known as
the Indian Creek Pollution Suit.

     The case was that of a private water company serving
municipalities in southwestern Pennsylvania, whose water supply
reservoir was in imminent danger from upstream coal mining  dis-
charges.  In 1922, the water company asked the courts for an
injunction to prevent the discharge of mine waters which would
be carried into their reservoir.  The Fayette County Court
refused to grant an injunction; however, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court reversed the lower court decision.  The reversal opinion,
which was concurred in by the U. S. Supreme Court, states:
                                11

-------
     "It is controlled by one fact and a single equitable
     principle; the fact that the stream has been polluted,
     and the principle that this creates an enjoinable
     nuisance if the public uses the water."

     In 1923 a paper was published which pointed up the aware-
ness and concern over the problem in certain quarters.   The
paper stated (9).

     "It is becoming very apparent that the sources of pure
     water supply in the coal regions are being rapidly
     destroyed by the drainage from coal mines, and that
     very few streams in their pristine purity are now
     available.  Furthermore, although the drainage from
     coal mines may not be considered as strictly pre-
     judiced to public health, yet it must be admitted that
     any water supply receiving such drainage must finally
     be rendered unfit for either domestic or industrial
     use; the time required to accomplish its destruction
     being dependent upon the character and amount of mine
     drainage, and the neutralizing capacity of the natural
     waters.  Many streams which a few years ago were
     admirable sources for water supplies are now running
     red with drainage from coal mines, and this value for
     either domestic or industrial use is completely
     destroyed."

     (7 the early 1930's the problem had grown to such magnitude
and had attained sufficient concern that the Federal Government
authorized a program of sealing worked-out coal mines to prevent
acid formation.  This program, commenced in 1933, was based
on earlier experimental work performed by the U. S. Bureau of
Mines that showed a reduction in acid production from sealed
mines.  The program was cooperatively conducted by a number of
Federal and State agencies from 1933 to 19U1, and supervised
and administered by the U. S. Public Health Service.  The
program was active in coal producing areas of nine states which
contribute drainage to the (Mo River system (Alabama, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and
West Virginia).
                             12

-------
     Although conducted as a relief measure, a substantial
amount of sealing was completed and an impressive initial
reduction in stream pollution reported.  For example, after
three years of sealing operations in West Virginia, it was
reported that 3,6U4. mine openings had been sealed.  The
records indicated that over 00 miles of streams had been
greatly improved by this sealing in West Virginia.  (10).

     The 19U3 report of the U. S. Public Health Service concern-
ing pollution of the Ohio River summarized the activities and
results of the mine sealing program.  It was reported in this
document that an overall 28 percent reduction in mine acid load
had been achieved to 191*0 as a result of the mine sealing
program.  The report estimated that a 70 to 80 percent reduction
in acid load could be expected four to five years after
completion of the program.  However, the needs of the Nation at
the outbreak of World War II saw the abandonment of the program
and the loss of opportunity for subsequent evaluation of the
sealing method as an abatement technique.  Many of the sealed
mines were put back in production during the war and no
maintenance was provided for the undisturbed seals so that much
of whatever benefit was achieved has been Iftst.

     It was estimated that more than 1.8 million tons of acid
per year were discharged into the streams of the upper Ohio River
Basin prior to the mine sealing program of the 1930's (6).
Table 1 presents this original acid load, in tons per year, for
the minor basins composing the upper Ohio River Basin.
Other regional acid production and acid loading estimates have
been made but the magnitude of the total problem has never been
quantitatively measured.   The water pollution control program of
the Wheeling Field Station includes the objective of physically
measuring pollution magnitudes in the upper Ohio River Basin.

     ]h the period since the high-production war years to the
present time, research activities, self-regulation by the industry,
and legislative control have increased at a rapid rate.  Jh 19U8,
the first Federal water pollution control act was passed
which led to the current Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
Public Law 660, as amended.  Although three states (Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) had laws specifically exempting
mine drainage from regulatory control prior to the 19UO's,
varying degrees of legislative control of the problem have been
instituted in all the coal-mining states and pressure is ever
increasing for more strict regulation and control at all levels.
                             13

-------
                               Table 1

           Acid mine drainage, upper Ohio Paver Basin  (6)


                                       Original Acid Load,  (approx. 1930)
	Drainage Basin	GaGO^ Egtiivalentj, Tons per Year

Allegheny River except Kiskiminetas                83,h6l

        RLskiminetas River                        321,689

                                Total                       1*05,150

Monongahela River except Toughiogheny             700,972

        Yougniogheny River                        219,68U

                                Total                       920,656

Beaver River                                                 17,388

MuskingUM and Hocking Rivers                                215,800

little Kanawha River                                            8l8

Kanawha River                                                32,855

Guyandotte River                                             20,181*

Big Sandy River                                              60,932

Scioto liver                                                 2it,100

Minor Tributary Basins to Ohio River

        Pennsylvania                                         k9t397

        Ohio                                                113,500

        West Virginia                                        26,80?

        Kentucky                                              

                                GRAND TOTAL               1,887,58?

-------
     In the early 1960's, the Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control of the U. S. Public Health Service initiated
a program to develop comprehensive plans for eliminating or
reducing the pollution of interstate waters on a basin-wide
basis.  In July 1962, the Ohio River Basin Water Pollution Control
Project was established (now in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, U. S. Department of the Interior).  A field
station was established at Wheeling, West Virginia, to study the
upper portion of the Ohio River basin.  Field activity and studies
directed toward determination of the ^rtent of the acid problem,
as well as other pollution problems, arvd ultimate recommendation
of a remedial program have been initiated.
                                15

-------
                              DAMAGES

                             TANGIBLE

     Many economic limitations are imposed upon the value of
waters whose quality is seriously affected by coal mine drainage.
The municipal, industrial, and recreational usage of such waters
is impaired throughout the Appalachian coal fields and direct
dollar damages are attributable to the pollution of waters by mine
drainage.  These tangible damages include damagej
                                              *L J"
     1.  Municipal and industrial water su;
         Structures and na-
                          to puo
                           commo
     The
terms.
Water Supptjrit

     ffigh
drainage
and exp
water
over no:

     The ;
treatment
of hardness increase, f^
are incurred from corrl
went.  Treatment provide
supplies includes facilities
conditions, the damage
by treatment to a. level
                                                              etary
                                                            in mine
                                                           tain uses
                                                           r public
                                                            elevated
                                as
                          turned magnitude
                         onditions
                         other equip-
                       iublic water
                       s basis of these
                       tardness reduction
In excess of 150 parts per million.
     Damages to industrial water supplies include treatment costs
for neutralization and softening.  In instances where industrial
water is not neutralized, notably for condenser cooling water at
power plants, damages are limited to plant equipment.  Some additional
damages are incurred to intake facilities.
                               16

-------
     It was estimated in 1963 that the annual damages to municipal
and industrial water supplies due to acid conditions of the Monon-
gahela River amount to $1,37U,000.  (5)  These losses are for water
treatment only and do not include damages to intake structures and
conveyance facilities, pumps, or the added expense of providing
acid-resistant facilities.

     Present municipal water usage in the upper Ohio River basin
from surface water sources is estimated at U36 million gallons per
day.  Industrial water usage from all sources is estimated at
8,621 MOD.  Water use demands for these categories over the
study period are listed below:
                                (MGD)    (MOD)  (MOD)
                                Present  I960   2000   2020

Municipal Water Supply:          U36      5U9    695     908

Industrial Water Supply:    8,621(1960)10,723 1U,U?6  20,8$U

     Although no exact determination of the annual damages to water
supplies due to mine drainage pollution is available at this writing,
it is conservatively estimated that these current damages range
from $7.0 to $10.0 million.

Navigation Damages

     Acid corrosion causes substantial damages to navigation equip-
ment and structures located on streams made acidic by the addition
of coal mine drainage.  Corrosion of concrete, as well as metal,
is the cause of significant losses to boats, barges, and lock and
dam structures in the upper Ohio River basin.

     The Monongahela River is the most acid stream maintained for
navigation in the study area.  In 1962, the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers estimated that the annual damages to boats, barges,
and lock and dam structures located on the Monongahela River total
$877,000 (E>).  Assuming that 90 percent of the total mine drainage
damages to boats, barges, and lock and dam structures in the study
area occur on the Monongahela River, the total damages for the
upper Ohio River basin are estimated at one million dollars.
                              17

-------
Sport Fisheries Damages

     Streams and lakes which contain quantities of nine drainage
have a deleterious effect upon fish and related water life.   The
toxicity of various mine drainage constituents plus the silt and
chemical sediments carried by the drainage commonly kill fish and
other aquatic organisms thus eliminating sport fishing as a
recreational form in the affected water bodies.  Often, conditions
in streams are such that fish are killed in large numbers in a
very short period of time.  Such fish kills are the result of
gradually deteriorating conditions reaching a critical level, or,
of the slugging effect of the sudden addition of large quantities
of mine wastes to the stream.

     The Senate Committee on National Water Resources has pre-
dicted that on the basis of numbers of fishermen,  the Ohio River
Region will show the greatest decline by 1980 of all the Nation's
water resource regions (l).  The projections made by the Committee
further show that in 1980 only five percent of the total number
of sport fishermen will fish Ohio River waters compared to ten
percent in 195b.  The effect of mine drainage on the area streams
contributes heavily to these pessimistic projections,

     A survey of streams and impoundments which are adversely
affected by mine drainage pollution with respect to fish and wild-
life has recently (1965; been completed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (2).  The survey indicated about 3,000 miles of
streams and 1U,000 acres of impoundments adversely affected by acid
mine drainage in the area covered by this report.

     Based on the I960 mean number of angler days (lk2 days) per
stream mile of fishable streams in the Ohio River basin, and the
I960 national average daily expenditure for sport fishing ($5.775),
it is estimated that additional sport fishing use realized from
the 3,000 miles of affected streams would provide 2.5 million
dollars annually to the area's economy.  (3)  (10.

     The damage estimates discussed are projected over the study
period in Table 2.
                               18

-------
                              Table 2

              Projection of estimable annual damages

                         (Millions)  (Millions)  (Millions)   (Millions)
                           Present      1980	2000        2020

Loss of Sport
  Fisheries:              $2.5        $U.O        $7.0       $10.0

Structures and
  Navigation Equip-
  ment Damages:           $1.0        $1.1*        $2.2       $ 3.0

Damages to Municipal
  & Industrial Water
  Supplies:               $7.0-10.0   $9.0-12.0   $11.0-15.0 $lg.0-20.0

  TOTALS:                $10.5-13.5  $m.k-17.1*   $20.2-21*.2 $28.0-33.0

     In all probability, intangible damages and tangible damages not
directly estimable, equal or exceed those listed.

     The damages to structures, navigation equipment, and water supplies
as a result of stream pollution by coal mine drainage were estimated
for a portion of the Ohio River basin by the U.S.  Public Health Service
in 191*3.  Although the methods used to estimate the damages are not
directly comparable to the present study, these previous estimates serve
to illustrate the general order of magnitude of the increase in damages.
For the drainage area above the Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania
state lines, the estimated damages amounted to $2,071,000 per year in
191*0 and were projected to increase to $3,19000 by I960.   (6)

                            INTANGIBLE

     Many damages attributable to pollution of waters by mine drainage
are intangible and not amenable to direct monetary evaluation.  These
damages are primarily those to potential water uses and esthetic
values including recreation, public health and the general economy
of the watershed.  These damages, while not directly subject to economic
evaluation, are of considerable magnitude.  They include:

     1.  Destruction of biological life in streams and lakes;

     2.  Water bodies made undesirable for certain recreational
         uses;
                                 19

-------
3.  Decrease in property values along polluted streams;

U.  Unwillingness of certain industl*ies to locate along
    streams so polluted;

$.  Uhsuitability of the water for agricultural use;

6.  Lack of incentive for sewrge pollution abatement  in
    acid streams.

Lack of incentive for sewage pollution abatement in acid
streams often exists at the community level.   The feeling
prevails that it serves no good purpose to clean up a stream
if it is still going to be of degraded water quality  after
sewage pollution abatement.  Also, it is commonly believed
that the acid in a stream destroys the pollution organisms
and makes it bacteriologically safe.   It is true that acid
in a stream does have an inhibitory or lethal effect  upon
many sewage bacteria, however, this fact should not be
considered as a safeguard to public water supplies taken
from that stream.  In periods of high flow there may  be
sufficient alkalinity to neutralize the acid and eliminate
any bactericidal effect.  This would happen at the same time
that accumulated sewage deposits in the stream bottom are
being flushed out and the greatest need for a bactericidal
effect occurs.
                         20

-------
                    FORM4TICN OF MINE ACID WATER
                              CHMISTRY

     In the mining process, water drains into the mine and must be
removed to permit mining to continue and for the safety of the
miners.  Most water drains into underground mines from ground
water storage through the rock intersected by the mine.  The mine
void serves as a focal point toward which the nearby waters drain.
The ground water normally enters the mine over a large area so that
its points of entry are
located above drainage, thf.
will be smaller, but
its way into the rains*.
                    :P
     As water
with sulfur-b
by the minin
these miner
leaves the
the nearest

     The f o:
three react

     The su
of the min
disulfide,
minerals ar
contained
shale and s
The disulfi
present as
at other tf
large size.

     During cote
and water and are.'	_,	,^,>
Flowing water leaches* away
                                                    the mine is
                                                    entering the mine
                                                    runoff may find
                                                       come in contact
                                                        ,the atmosphere
                                                          th
                                                          ,ter then
                                                            to enter
                                                        esence
                                                        erial.
                                of
                                                          L the form
                                                          both iron
                                                          !.  Both
                                                        tes are
                                                        Is and in the
                                                        o coal beds.
                                                        t is frequently
                                                        rock, and
                                                       gragates of
                                                        ed to air
                                                  Wulfuric acid.
                                               and acid, forming
acid mine water.  In the water, the ferrous sulfate may be further
oxidized to ferric sulfate which hydrolizes to basic ferric sulfate
or ferric hydroxide and additional sulfurie acid.   These reactions
are shown below:
     2FeS2  +  702
    (pyrite)
(ferrous sulfate)      (sulfuric  acid)
                                 21

-------
The reaction yields two molecular weights of hydrogen ions (acidity)
for each molecular weight of iron oxidized.

     UFeSOi.   +   2H2SOi.   +   09    - >-       2Fe2(SOi.)3  +  2H20
          U                                    (ferric sulfate)

Depending upon pH, temperature, and concentration of constituents,  the
reaction proceeds:
                   6H20     - >-      2Fe(OH)3    +
                                    (ferric hydroxide)
and/or
     Fe2 (80^)3  +  2H20    - >-       2Fe(OH)(S0li)   +
                                    (basic ferric sulfate)

     Although these equations generally describe the reactions
involved, the individual steps of the acid production processes and
the influence of numerous variables such as oxygen concentration,
inhibitors, reaction water composition, etc., on the reaction rate
are not fully understood.

     The variety of constituents found in mine drainage are produced
by secondary reactions of sulfuric acid with compounds in adjacent
rocks in the mine and along the stream valleys , and with various
organic materials which may be encountered in the drainage environ-
ment.  Such secondary reactions produce concentrations of aluminum,
manganese, magnesium, calcium, sodium, and other constituents commonly
found in the drainage water.

     There is evidence to indicate that micro-organisms play a role
in the formation of mine acid.  There are conflicting opinions,
however, among researchers as to the importance of the participation
of micro-organisms in acid formation.  Several bacterial species
have been isolated from acid mine waters but the extent of their role
in the acid reactions is still controversial among observers.

     Since the supply of air and water is seldom lacking in the mine
environment, the rate at which the acid is formed is a direct function
of the amount of exposed sulfuric material.  Consequently, the problem
is aggravated with the opening of new mine tunnels and the abandonment
of mined out areas in each operating mine.  Caving and roof falls in
abandoned mines increases the surface area expoaed, thus increasing
their acid forming potential.
                                  22

-------
     Waste materials are often piled outside the mine and these,  too,
represent additional surface area exposed to the elements.   This  "gob"
material is composed of impure coal, roof shale, and other high-sulfur
rock.  Because of the surface area involved and the sulfur content,  the
acid contribution from such piles may be particularly high.  The  use
of this material for road surfaces used to be common practice, but is
now discouraged in most states.

     Many mine discharges are alkaline rather than acid and seldom
create serious water pollution problems.  Such alkaline discharges
can be found throughout the bituminous coal fields but in the fields
of western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and northern West Virginia,  such
discharges are the exception.  In the southern Appalachian coal fields,
alkaline mine discharges are common.

     Mine drainage water has no part in the production of coal and is
not used in the mining process.  In fact, the removal of mine water
is a sizable item in the total mining costs.  Perhaps the major
difference between mine drainage and a normal industrial waste is that
mine drainage often continues at about the same rate of discharge after
the termination of coal production.  This fact points out a major
portion of the mine drainage pollution problem.  It has been variously
estimated that at least $0 percent of the acid mine drainage in this
region is from abandoned mines.  (1) (6) (11).

                 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MINE DRAINAGE

     The character and degree of mineralization of mine drainage  and
the intensity of its effects on receiving water is evaluated by
measurement of characteristic indicators or parameters.   The parameters
used in this study, methods of determination, and discussion of each,
are described below:

     1.  pH
         Method - Glass electrode pH meter
         Reference - Standard Methods - 12th Ed., p. 225
         Discussion - pH expresses the degree of acidity or alkalinity
         of a system and is defined as the logarithm of the reciprocal
         of the hydrogen ion concentration.  Fractions of a pH scale
         do not represent arithmetic values but rather logarithmic
         values.
              Natural waters usually exhibit a pH in the range of pH
         6.0 to 9.0.  Generally, acid mine drainage will vary from
         pH 2.0 to 6.0.  The pH of the receiving stream varies
         according to the severity of pollution and the state of
         reaction of the pollutants.
                                23

-------
     2.  Specific Conductance
         Method - by conductivity bridge
         Reference - Standard Methods (12th Edition,  p.  280)
         Discussion - Conductivity is expressed in terms of reciprocal
         resistance (mho) and is a measure of the electrical  conducting
         power of the systems.  The measurement is generally  indicative
         of the concentration of dissolved constituents, particularly
         inorganic ones,  and is thereby associated with  the amount  of
         dissolved solids in solution.   Waters uncontaminated by mine
         drainage or other wastes exhibit conductivities generally  less
         than 500 micromho.  Measurement of mine drainage discharges
         varies generally from 500 to greater than 8,000 micromho.
         Receiving streams exhibit intermediate measurements  depending
         upon the degree of dilution.

     The approximate relation that 1 micromho =0.65  milligrams per
liter (mg/l) dissolved solids is satisfactory for estimating  the
dissolved solids content of many natural waters.

     3.  Total Acidity
         Method - Potentiometric titration with sodium hydroxide to
         pH 8.3
         Reference - Standard methods - 12th Edition, p. 1;39  (modified).
         Discussion - The hot acidity test as modified consists of
         preliminary oxidation with 2 milliliters (ml) of 3 percent
         hydrogen peroxide solution, followed by heating to boiling,
         boiling for not less than 2 minutes, and titration while 90C
         or higher to pH 8.3, using thermally-compensated pH  meter  or an
         uncompensated meter standardized at pH 8.3 with an appropriate
         buffer at 90C - 95C.
              The method determines the acidity due to free mineral
         acids and acid salts.  It does not measure the  contribution
         to acidity of carbon dioxide.
              Acidity is reported as milligrams per liter of  CaCOo.
         This is not significantly different than reporting acidity
         as I^SO^, since the molecular weight ratio CaCOV^SO^ is  1.02.
              Net Acidity - The acidity that is present  in excess of
         alkalinity.

     h.  Alkalinity
         Method - Potentiometric titration to pH 1;.5>
         Reference - Standard Methods 12th Edition, p. 369
         Discussion - This procedure measures the titratable  alkalinity
         of the system which in most waters of Appalachia is  essentially
         bicarbonate and/or carbonate in origin.
              Under the conditions of the determination, a final
         positive alkalinity is measured when the acidity does not
         exceed the available alkalinity.  It is therefore,  essential
         that reactions yielding acidity be completed before the

                                 2h

-------
    alkalinity determination is attempted.
    Alkalinity is reported as milligrams per liter of

5.  Hardness (total)
    Method - ETDA titration
    Reference - Standard Methods - 12th Edition, p. Hi?
    Discussion - This procedure measures the total concentration of
    such ions as calcium, magnesium, lithium, etc.  It does not
    differentiate between species.
    Unpolluted waters usually exhibit lower values in the order
    of 100 mg/1 as CaCOo as compared to mine drainage where values
    may reach 500 to several thousand mg/1 as CaC03.
    Hardness is reported as milligrams per liter of
    Sulfate
    Method - Turbidimetric analysis by precipitation as barium sulfate.
    Reference - Standard Methods - 12th Edition,  p.  291.
    Discussion - A mole of sulfate accompanies each mole of sulfuric
    acid and sulfate is, therefore, an excellent indicator of the
    amount of mine drainage acidity formed.   Unpolluted waters have
    concentrations of generally less than 20 mg/1;  polluted waters
    frequently have concentrations of several hundred milligrams
    per liter.

    Iron (total)
    Method - Atomic absorption spectrophotometer.
    Reference - See manuals of instrument manufacturers
    Alternate method - Ferron-ortho-phenanthroline colorimetric.
    Reference - Rainwater and Thatcher, I960, p.  99.
    Discussion - Generally mine drainage pollution contains iron in
    both ferrous and ferric states.  Ferric  iron does not contribute
    to acidity.  Ferrous iron, a major contributor to acidity, is
    usually present in high concentrations in active mine drainage
    discharges.  Tfte presence of ferrous iron in a receiving
    stream usually indicates that the reactions have not gone to
    completion.  The ferric iron present in  systems above a pH of
    3 is in the particulate state.
         In receiving streams, measurements  of the total iron
    concentration are complicated by sampling problems, since the
    amount of ferric iron present is dependent upon the stream
    velocity and sampling depth.
         Unpolluted streams in Appalachia have iron concentrations
    less than 0.5 rag/1.  Mine drainage influence may raise iron
    concentrations to several hundred mg/1.

-------
8.  Manganese
    Method - Atomic absorption
    Reference - See manuals of instrument manufacturers.
    Alternative method - Persulfate oxidation.
    Reference - Standard methods - 12th Edition,  p.  b89
    Discussion - Concentrations of manganese in unpolluted streams
    do not usually exceed 0.05 mg/1.  This indicator is usually
    associated with mine drainage pollution.  Concentrations in
    the order of {? mg/1 to 20 mg/1 are not uncommon in mine drainage.

9.  Aluminum
    Method - Atomic absorption
    Reference - See manuals of instrument manufacturers.
    Alternative method - Ferron orthophenanthroline colorimetric.
    Reference - Rainwater and Thatcher, I960, p.  99
    Discussion - High concentrations of aluminum are usually found
    as a result of the leaching of deposits of clays associated
    with the coal bearing strata by the acid mine waters.
                            26

-------
                       WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
     Population growth combined with increased per capita use of
water, expanding industrial requirements, and the mounting emphasis
placed on recreational use of surface water all contribute to
the importance of maximum protection and utilization of water resources.
Certain constituents may affect a given water use at one concentra-
tion and affect another water use at a different concentration.
Also certain characteristics or compounds may be in synergism with
each other.  For instance, the toxicity to^fish of various elements
or compounds varies substantially with pH. '
     The following criterj
tion or range of values
all uses is indicated,
alone and not in syne:
listed are those commi
with most water uses:

     Charactersstic

     pH
     Specific Co
     Acidity (Ho
     Alkalinity
     Total Iron
     Manganese
     Hardness
     Calcium
     Magnesium
     Total Solids
     Suspended Solids
     Dissolved Solids
     Color
     Turbidity
     Sulfates
     Aluminum
     Arsenic
       define the concentra-
       water quality for
       acteristic is acting
       fcharacteristics
         and are of concern
  _ :bw'6.
  !gher th
Exceeding
     Acidity
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
Higher than
 iove 8. 5
350 microrr.hos/cm
e alkalinity
 and pH")
0.5 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
150 mg/1
75 mg/1
50 mg/1
750 mg/1
250 mg/1
500 mg/1
100 units
200 units
75 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
                                 27

-------
                         ABATEMENT MEASURES

                 SOURCES OF MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION

     Several methods are presently used to recover bituminous coal,
however all the methods fall within the two general types of either
surface or underground operations.

     Surface, or strip mining, is practical in areas where the rock
and soil overburden is relatively thin.  The thickness of overburden
for economical removal depends not only on the coal reserves but also
upon the type of machinery that can be utilized.  In selected areas
more than 100 feet of overburden rock have been stripped by means of
large power shovels or other machinery.  The first large strip trench
that is formed is utilized for depositing the overburden from the
adjacent trench.  Consequently, in areas x^here the coal is relativel/
flat lying and the land surface is also of relatively low relief,'
strip mining disturbs large areas or blocks of land.

     Where the coal crops ft.t
quickly and surface mining
around the hill.  In c|r
hill, aug&r aining
large    ^  *
      au
can
         ^r bur den
         ~"dng o%/tHp:&cj&kl outcrop
                 frojra inside the
                      out.  These
    as seven feetjjti diam?
feet into the hi]
into the
beneath the
is constructed to the
the coal bed.
                                                             under-
                                                             the
                                                              advanced
                                                         eratxLe distance
                                                        mine entry
                                             are then driven into
     All methods of surface and underground coal mining may result
in some degree of mine drainage pollution.  Acid drainage and silt from
strip mining areas are serious problems in many local areas, but
the underground mining operations contribute the bulk of the acid load
to the streams.

     Nearly all methods of mining and coal processing result in a
problem of refuse disposal.  The waste may be piled in the general
vicinity of the mine and coal preparation plant or in other adjacent
areas such as along roads, streams, or in abandoned areas inside the
mines.  Where the waste is high in sulfuric and other toxic materials,
acid drainage will occur depending in large part upon the amount of
water in contact with the material.
                                28

-------
                              PROBLEMS

     In most areas the rate and amount of acid formation is a direct
function of the amount and surface area of the exposed sulfuric
material associated with certain coal seams.   The quantity of acid
formed can be substantially lowered by reducing the contact between
the sulfuric materials, air, and water.  Apparently acid formation
will continue as long as the sulfuric material remains in contact
with air and water because some abandoned underground mines have
drained significant amounts of acid for many decades.

     Strip-mined lands left unreclaimed are often the source of
sediment pollution of streams and can be a serious problem, especially
in areas where the topography is steep and the spoil material is very
difficult to stabilize.  The abatement of water pollution from
abandoned underground mining areas is hampered by inadequate technical
information concerning remedial measures.  Contour strip and auger
mining that intercepts abandoned deep mining above the local drainage
level presents extremely complicated mine drainage problems.

     Disposal of the refuse materials from mines and coal preparation
plants is one of the most difficult problems associated with active
operations.  Refuse piles are a major source of acid drainage, and
washery residue spillage is a frequent source of the fine coal and
silt pollution common in some streams.  At most of the modern coal
washery preparation plants, settling ponds and lagoons are utilized
for disposal of washery residue wastes.

                         REMEDIAL PROCEDURES

     Methods of reclamation are presently known which can reclaim
most of the previously strip-mined lands and abate much of the associated
water pollution.  Although technical problems still exist, most  of the
difficult problems connected with abatement of strip-mine drainage
pollution are economic and legal in nature.

     Erosion and silt control can be obtained to an acceptable degree
with proper drainage facilities, grading of the strip area, replanting
vegetation, and construction of the necessary structures that will
control the movement of water from the mined area to the stream  channel.

     Water quality control from the reclamation of strip-mined areas
can be achieved to an acceptable degree in most areas if proper  drainage
is established, sulfuric and other toxic materials are covered,  and
pit and spoil areas are planted.  Proper grading, covering of sulfuric
material, and diversion and control of water away from contact with the
coal beds and fine sulfuric materials at spoil areas have been
demonstrated to be effective in reducing or eliminating stream pollution
from these disturbed areas.

-------
     Impoundment of excess acid water with controlled release during
periods of high stream flow is one method of disposal.   This may be
practical where types of coal mine wastes from active operations are
disposed of in a similar manner.

     Several methods of reducing the acid problem associated with
deep mining have been tried.  The major approaches to the problem have
been mine sealing, chemical treatment, mine waste disposal,  under-
ground and surface drainage control, and acid disposal to streams with
controlled flow.

     Sealing of abandoned mines and other related remedial construction
has been done in the past.  Although a scientific evaluation of the
long term results is not available, it is generally believed that
some pollution abatement benefits are possible from these techniques.

     Chemical treatment of the sulfuric and toxic materials  in order
to inhibit or reduce the formation of acid has been tried but the
results were not promising.  Chemical treatment or neutralization of
acid water at active mines is a practical method of reducing acid loads
to streams but at present this method is probably more costly than
drainage control at the source for abandoned mine sites.

     Control and prevention of surface water flowing into deep mines
and drainage control and rapid removal of water from underground
operations are known to be helpful in reducing the acid load.

     In places where the abandoned mine area is below the local
drainage level, flooding can be effective in reducing acid formation.
                                 30

-------
              MINE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS pf-TOE~MBJQR BASINS
      During the 1966 field seasojaf,  a detailed
 survey was conducted throughout/the areas of mine drainage^pollution
 in  the upper Ohio River Basin.  { The survey was designed to gather
 stream water quality data in thje principal problem areas where
 existing quality information/was meager.   Six samplings at each of
 some  165 stream location^ and corresponding streamflow determinations,
 were  acconplished-*'ln the"drainage area described in this report.
                f
      Following iis a description of  the mine drainage problem in
 each  of the m^jor tributary drainage units comprising the upper Ohio
         sin.  |Data from the 1966 special  stream ptfr^ey^/prevfi-ous stream
 siiriliyfi conduced by the Ohio RiveF%fiasi*J0:fect, and othejfcertinent
                                                   .   ,.   I ief Jt
          been "Utilized in the following minor basijx
                  "	"           -.                  '
Descript
                                        ,. s^viitoern *!
                                                 '-
Kanaw
The
of moderate relief.  The Kanawha-s
unglaciated plateau of fine texture
relief.
                                                   \ s -
     About 25 percent of the topography of the basin*has been
modified by the advance of the last continental ice sheets.  The  line
                                 31

-------
of farthest advance crosses the northwestern part  of the region
running from just west of Franklin, Pennsylvania,  to just east
of Jamestown, New York.  The topography of the glaciated area is
generally that of rolling plains with gentle slopes and many lakes
and swamps have been formed on the glacial deposits.  Below and
to the east of the glacial advance, the topography displays moderate
to strong relief.  In the mountain upland and high plateau areas  of
the basin, the land is highly dissected by its drainage.  For example,
the Conemaugh River and Loyalhanna Creek gorges are over 1,000
feet deep.  The highest points in the upland areas are above
2,500 feet in elevation.

     The major cities in the Allegheny basin are heavily industrialized
in the following major industry groupings:  Primary metal products;
electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies; fabricated metal
products; and stone, clay, and glass products.  Oil production,
coal mining, and agriculture are additional major  economic activities
in the basin.  The principal cities in the basin and their I960
populations are Johnstown, Pennsylvania - 53,91*9;  Jamestown, New  York -
1*1,818; Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania - 30,066; New Kensington, Pennsylvania -
23,U85; and Olean, New York - 21,868.

     All of the Allegheny River basin is contained in the Appalachian
Region as defined by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of  1965.

Coal Reserves and Mining Activity

     Bituminous coal reserves are present in lU of the 1? Pennsylvania
counties that are wholly or partly in the basin, amounting to some
57 percent of the total basin land area.  Coal has been mined in  all
but one of these lU counties.  The recoverable coal reserve in  the
Allegheny River basin portion of these counties is estimated to be
nearly 11 billion tons.  There are no coal deposits in the New  York
portion of the basin.

     By 1877, bituminous coal raining in Western Pennsylvania had
evolved into a significant industry, producing 1.3 million tons in that
year.  From this early beginning, production of coal in western
Pennsylvania has not fallen under 50 million tons  per year since
l89h.  A peak annual production of 177 million tons was reached in 1918.
Production in the Allegheny River basin in 1965 was 30 million  tons  (lU).
The principal coal producing counties were Armstrong, Clarion,  and
Indiana.
                                 32

-------
Streams Affected and Present Quality
     The long history of coal mining has left the Allegheny basin
with a legacy of stream pollution from coal mine drainages.
Significant mine drainage stream pollution exists in lh Pennsylvania
counties of the basin (Figure 3 and Table 6).  Nearly all of the
affected streams are found in that portion of the watershed south of
a general east-west line between Franklin, Pennsylvania, in Venango
County and St. Marys, Pennsylvania in Elk County.   Stream pollution
conditions from mine drainage are particularly acute in terms of
numbers of streams and total length of streams affected in Armstrong,
Cambria, Clarion, Indiana, Somerset, and Westmoreland Counties (Figure  3).
Table 5 presents the miles of streams, by watershed, considered
by this survey to be polluted by mine drainage in the Allegheny River
basin.

     Although the Allegheny River receives small amounts of mine
drainage from minor tributaries in Venango County, the first mine
drainage of any dimension is received from the Clarion River in
western Clarion County.  The Clarion River (Sta. 52b) discharged an
average net acid load of 63 tons per day to the Allegheny River
during the 1966 survey.

     The Clarion River is polluted by mine drainage in its lower
section.  At the Cooksburg station, (Sta. 523) the Clarion exhibited
a pH range of 5.7 to 6.7.  At its mouth (Sta. 52U), the Clarion
carried a net acid load of 63 tons per day and exhibited a pH range
of b.l to 5.3 during the survey.  Between Cooksburg and the mouth,
the Clarion River receives mine drainage from several very poor
quality tributaries.  The principal contributing tributaries and their
acid loads are presented in the following table.

                              Table 3
          Lower Clarion River tributaries,  acid loadings
Sampling
Station
Number     Stream
                    Location
pH Range
Average Net
Acid Load
Tons/day
517
516
515
513
Mill Creek          Mouth
Toby Creek          Mouth
Piney Creek         Mouth
Deer Creek          Mouth
Licking Creek       Mouth
2.9-3.2
2.8-3.1
3.U-U.O
3.2-3.k
2.6-3.1
  8.5
 2U
  9.6
  6.9
  Q.k
                                33

-------
     In the moderately polluted upper Clarion River basin, mine
drainage enters the headwaters of East Branch Clarion River.   At
Station 522 below the East Branch Reservoir, the pH during the
sampling period ranged from 5-5 to 6.6 (Figure 3> table 6) and
the net acidity was relatively small, U tons per day.  The main-stem
Clarion receives only minor drainage increments below Station 522
until the entry of Toby Creek in southern Elk County.  During the
sampling period, Toby Creek added a net acid load of 7.5 tons per day
to the Clarion and exhibited a pH range of 3.6 to U.I (Sta. 5l8).

     Very little mine drainage enters the Clarion River between
Toby Creek and Station 523 on the river below Cooksburg, Pennsylvania.
At this point the pft ranged from 5.7 to 6.7 and the average alkalinity
slightly exceeded the average acidity.  Total mineralization of the
water was relatively low.

     The Clarion River watershed contains more than 200 miles of mine
drainage polluted streams.  The principal problem areas are acid
tributary watersheds in the lower basin in Clarion County.  The net
acid load received by the Clarion River in this reach is about
57 tons per day.

     At Station 565, Allegheny River at Parker Bridge, the Allegheny
assimilated the large acid load from the Clarion with negligible
water quality effects.  The minimum pH at this location was 6.U,
and the alkalinity was consistently greater than the acidity.
Between the Clarion and Kiskiminetas Rivers the Allegheny receives
acid loads from Redbank (Sta. 525) and Crooked Creeks (Sta. 560).
These streams discharge net acid loads of 0.2 ton and 17 tons per day,
respectively.

     Thirty miles upstream from Pittsburgh, the Kiskiminetas River
enters the Allegheny.  During the survey it discharged a massive
average net acid load of h9k tons per day as measured at Vandergrift,
Pennsylvania (sta. 567).  The pH of the stream ranged from 3.0 to 3.6
and the alkalinity was depleted throughout the survey.  The
Kiskiminetas River is considered to be the most acid polluted large
stream in the Ohio River basin.  Long-term water quality records show that
the stream discharges an average of 329 tons per day of acidity to
the Allegheny River (15).

-------
     Within the Kiskiminetas watershed there are about U85 miles
of streams polluted by mine drainage.   Many streams are acid even in
the upper headwater areas of Somerset and Cambria Counties.  The
Conemaugh River above Johnstown (Sta.  581) carried a net acid load
of 25 tons per day originating from the watersheds of both the
North and South Branches.

     Stony Creek, which enters the Conemaugh River at Johnstown,
drains U66 square miles of the southern portion of the headwaters
area and contains more than 100 miles of acid streams.  The principal
tributaries of Stony Creek are polluted by mine drainage.  Shade
Creek carried a net acid load of 13 tons per day (Sta. U9U).
Additional acid loads to the Conemaugh River between Johnstown and
at Seward, Pennsylvania, raised the average net acid load in the
river to 86 tons per day (Sta. 579).

     Blacklick Creek and many of its tributaries are acid over
their entire length.  The Blacklick watershed contains over 100 miles
of mine drainage polluted streams.  The pH at the mouth of Blacklick
Creek ranged from 2.5 to 2.9 and the total acidity concentration from
U52 to 897 mgA (Sta. 573).  The net acid load of 208 tons/day
discharged from Blacklick Creek is U2 percent of the net acid load
discharged by the KiskLminetas River.

     A net acid load of 88 tons per day was measured on the North
Branch Blacklick Creek at Nipton in Cambria County (Sta. 577).
Although the watershed above this point represents only llj percent
of the Blacklick Creek watershed, hi percent of the total net
acid load of Blacklick Creek was measured here.  The load at this
station amounts to 18 percent of that measured in the Kiskiminetas
at Vandergrift.  Two Lick Creek discharged a net acid load of 38 tons
per day to Blacklick Creek (Sta. 57U).

     The Conemaugh River below Blairsville (Sta. 575) carried a net
acid load of 397 tons per day, contained no alkalinity, and exhibited
a pH range of 2.9 to 3.3.  Continuing downstream, the Kiskiminetas
River is formed where the Conemaugh River and Loyalhanna Creek
converge just above the Armstrong-Indiana County line.  Loyalhanna
Creek is an acid stream over much of its length and contributed a net
acid load of 57 tons per day.  The pH ranged from 3.3 to U.7 and
the alkalinity was completely depleted (Sta. 570).
                                 35

-------
     From the origin of the Kiskiminetas River to its mouth there
are several small acid contributing tributaries.  The largest of these
is Blacklegs Creek which contained a net acid load at its mouth of
five tons per day (Sta. 569).

     During the 1966 water quality survey, the Kiskiminetas River
at Vandergrift (Sta. 56?) contained an average manganese concentration
of 23.2 mg/1.  High average manganese concentrations were found at
station 579 (29.8 ing A) and station 56? (23.2 mg/1) in the Conemaugh
and Kiskiminetas Rivers below Johnstown.  Manganese concentrations in
tributaries to the Coneniaugh-Kiskiminetas main-stem averaged about
one-tenth of the main-stem concentrations.  The higher manganese
levels in the main-stem below Johnstown are probably due to discharges
from the steel industry.

     The Conemaugh-Kisldmnetas River is an acid stream over its
entire length and the river system is grossly polluted by coal mine
drainage.  Acid, sterile streams in this watershed are the rule and
not the exception.

     Although the Allegheny River possessed adequate dilution and
neutralizing capability to assimilate mine drainage water received
above the mouth of the Kiskiminetas River, the water quality is significant-
ly degraded below this point.  The Allegheny River at Natrona,
Pennsylvania (Sta. 566) carried an average net acid load of 2U5 tons
per day and had a pH range of U.O to 6.8.  The total acidity concen-
tration exceeded the alkalinity concentration during two thirds of
the survey period.  However, the acidity concentration was generally
below 30 mg/1.

     A one-year study during 1965-66 conducted by the University of
Pittsburgh for the Ohio River Basin Project, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, measured an average net acid load of 381* tons
per day discharged from the Kiskiminetas River and a net alkalinity
load of U01 tons per day from the Allegheny River at Pittsburgh (16).

     Water quality records show that acid conditions in the lower
Allegheny River are particularly acute during periods of low flow
when the percentage contribution of flow to the main-stem by the
Kiskiminetas is greater than normal.  When roughly 30 percent of
the flow in the Allegheny is from the Kiskiminetas River, fish kills
are expected.  One million fish were killed in the Allegheny River
below the Kiskiminetas due to acid conditions during the period
August 19-23, 1966.
                                 36

-------
     Among the major tributaries of the upper  Ohio  River  Basin, the
Allegheny is second only to the Monongahela in the  severity and
intensity of stream pollution by coal mine drainage.   It  contains the
most acid large stream in the Ohio River Basin and  over 1000 miles
of polluted streams.  Those streams in the Allegheny  basin that
carried an average net acid load of more than  five  tons per day are
listed in Table U.  Miles of streams affected  by mine drainage in the
Allegheny River basin are listed in Table 5.
                               37

-------
            Table U

Allegheny River basin streams
 carrying more than five tons
      per day net acidity
Sampling Average Net
Station
Number Stream Acid Load, tons/day
519
518
517
516
515
511
513
52U
558
560
U93
57U
577
573
U9U
570
569
579
567
566
Little Toby Creek, tributary to
Toby Creek, Elk County
Toby Creek at the Clarion River (Elk County)
Mill Creek at the Clarion River
Toby Creek at the Clarion River (Clarion County)
Piney Creek at the Clarion River
Deer Creek at the Clarion River
Licking Creek at the Clarion River
Clarion River at Mouth
Pine Run at Mahoning Creek
Crooked Creek at Mouth
Dark Shade Creek at the Kiskiminetas River
Two Lick Creek near Gray son, Pa.
North Branch Blacklick Creek at mouth
Blacklick Creek at the Kiskiminetas River
Shade Creek at Hillsboro, Pa.
Loyalhanna Creek at the Kiskiminetas River
Blacklegs Creek at Mouth
Conemaugh River at U.S.Q.S. Gage at Seward
Kiskiminetas River at Vandergrift, Pennsylvania
Allegheny River at Natrona, Pennsylvania
8.U
7.5
8.5
2h
9.6
6.9
8. a
63
6.1
17
12
38
88
213
13
57
5.0
86
U9U
2U5
               38

-------
                               Table 5

            Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage,
                        Allegheny River basin
Allegheny River

  Minor Tributaries

KLskiminetas River

  Tributaries

Conemaugh River

  Tributaries

Loyalhanna Creek

  Tributaries

Clarion River

  Tributaries
Drainage
Area
(sq.mi. )
11,733

1,892

1,376

300

1,232


Continuously
Polluted
(miles)
30
281
2U
UO
U8
310
21
31
21
173
979 miles
Intermittently
Polluted
(miles)

58

5

6



18
+ 87 mi. =
Tot;
30
339
2U
U5
U8
316
21
31
21
191
1066
                                 39

-------
Table 6 - Water quality data,  Allegheny River basin
Map
Station
No.
U90


U92


U93


U9U


U95


U99


501


503


50U


MLn.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
MLn.
Max.
Avg.
MLn.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of

Samples pH
7


7


7


7


7


7


7


6


6

7.1
6.8
6.2
7.8
6.9
2.8
U.U
3.3
2.7
3.8
3.1
6.5
7.U
7.1
6.3
7.2
6.8
3.2
6.0
U.3
7.0
7.9
7.2
6.7
6.9
6.8
Acidity
( rag/1 )
0.0
12.0
6.7
3.0
10.0
6.7
107.0
UU5.0
270.3
53.0
255.0
UU8.0
0.0
25.0
9.0
2.0
12.0
7.1
9.0
105.0
36.9
0.0
1U.O
7.0
0.0
19.0
12.5
Alkalinity Hardness
(mg/1)
13.0
32.0
19.6
5.0
15.0
9.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
33.0
22.9
13.0
U3.0
27.3
0.0
12.0
3.0
39.0
73.0
55.5
35.0
62.0
U6.7
(Mg/1)
76.0
172.0
136.1
7.0
60.0
3U.O
1U8.0
363.0
260.3
86.0
332.0
18U.9
9U.O
502.0
297.9
60.0
285.0
1U3.0
60.0
127.0
85.6
68.0
152.0
110.7
337.0
838.0
562.7
Sulfate
(g/l)
3U.O
1U5.0
106.0
U.o
25.0
12.9
U8.0
825.0
501.U
120.0
U90.0
310.7
71.0
U75.0
28U.U
80.0
135.0
106.8(6)
36.0
19U.O
108.3
15.0
25.0
19.2
5.0
30.0
16.5
Total
Iron
(mg/1)
0.0
2.0
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.2
7.5
73.2
U6.7
6.7
22.1
12.0
O.U
2.2
1.3
0.0
1.0
0.3
3.1
12.2
6.U
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.0
U.8
1.5
Manganese Aluninun
(vcA)
0.1
0.7
o.U
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
8.2
5.1
0.1
6.0
3.U
0.0
o.U
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.2
(ng/1)
0.0
2.5
Plow
-w
70.0
1.1(6)* 19.9
0.0
2.1
0.5(6)
10.U
30.8
22.3(6)
2.5
30.8
15.8(6)
0.3
3.6
2.1(6)
0.0
2.9
1.2(6)
1.1
8.U
3.3(6)
0.7
3.9
1.6
0.7
30.2
9.7
1.5
83.0
17.7
9.6
50.0
20.5
9.0
120.0
U9.6
5.0
65.0
18.9
5.U
116.0
26.2
10.5
Uo.o
22.7
170.0
600.0
380.0
7.0
23.8
15.2

-------
Map
Station
No.
506


508


509


5io


511


512


5Ht




Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples
6


6


6


6


6


6


6


Acidity
PH (mg/1)
77i o.o
7.U 18.0
7.3 7.5
6.8 0.0
7.8 13.0
l.h 7.0
7.6 0.0
8.7 9.0
8.0 U.7
7.1 0.0
7.7 12.0
7.1* 5.5
U.8 10.0
7.5 149.0
6.2 2ij.8
k.k 18.0
6.U 39.0
5.0 25.5
3.2 101.0
3.U 157.0
3.3 13U.O

Alkalinity
(me/1)
1*6.0
81.0
65.2
15.0
Uo.o
26.8
1*6.0
7U.O
60.7
21*. 0
52.0
35.3
3.0
16.0
7.3
0.0
10.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

Hardness
(mg/1)
75.0
135.0
99.5
25.0
59.o
36.7
68.0
132.0
90.3
59.0
81*. 0
68.7
256.0
290.0
278.0
81.0
120.0
100.8
131*. o
2U5.0
188.7

Sulfate
(ng/1)
5.0
30.0
19.0
9.0
35.0
22.3
15.0
70.0
33,5
20.0
55.o
1*5.3
150.0
260.0
219.2
50.0
110.0
90.8
11*0.0
390.0
280.8
Total
Iron
GoR/l]
0.3
l.U
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.2
o.l*
1.0
0.7
0.0
o.5
0.3
0.3
U.3
2.0
0.5
0.8
0.6
1.1
11*. 8
1*.8(<

Manganese
1 (mg/1)
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.1
3.6
5.8
U.7
1.9
2.9
2.3
7.2
11.1*
5) 8.9(5)

Aluminum
(mg/1)
0.1
6.7
2.U
0.0
2.0
0.8
1.0
2.8
1.9
0.0
2.1
1.1
1.5
10.5
h.h
I.I*
h!6
2.9
U.9
16.7
11.6(5)

Flow
(cfs)
U70.0
1900.0
969.2
6.0
38.0
18.U
7UO.O
3280.0
1752.7
.8.0
28.0
20.0
10.8
16.0
13.6
19.6
186.0
53.3
H*.5
2U*.0
19.3

-------
ro
Map
Station
No.
515


516


517


518


519


522


523


52U


Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples pH
3TU
6


6


6


6


6


6


6


6

U.O
3.7
2.8
3.1
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.1
3.6
U.I
3.9
3.0
3.U
3.2
5.5
6.6
6.0
5.7
6.7
6.5
U.I
5.3
U.7
Acidity Alkalinity Hardness
(og/1; (mg/1) (ng/1)
72.0
218.0
1UO.O
735.0
1226.0
969.7
187.0
U65.0
279.7
62.0
236.0
125.7
132.0
281*0.0
651.8
10.0
18.0
13.5
1.0
22.0
13.3
25.0
Uo.o
32.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
7.0
3.3
10.0
18.0
13.5
0.0
U.o
2.0
268.0
3UO.O
288.8
276.0
552.0
U1U.7
69.0
U60.0
337.0
221.0
313.0
271.8
300.0
U160.0
1032.8
20.0
36.0
2U.3
50.0
98.0
86.0
100.0
158.0
113.8
Sulfate
105.0
U50.0
3U2.5
350.0
1900.0
96U.2
165.0
775.0
385.0
lUo.o
UUo.o
285.8
150.0
950.0
U31.7
23.0
365.0
96.2
15.0
75.0
55.8
90.0
210.0
117.2
Total
Iron Manganese Aluninua
(mgA) (ng/1) (ng/1)
0.7
U.8
3.1
79.2
lUU.o
110.U(3)
l.U
18.0
10.6
0.2
1.2
0.8
O.U
60.1
13.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
2.6
1.1
0.2
l.U
0.7
11.0
17.8
1U.O
12.0
60.0
38.0
20.2
29.3
26.0
5.U
13.8
7.8
9.6
38.0
15.8
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.2
0,5
0.3
2.3
u.u
3.0
2.8
25.5
12.2
67.2
139.U
108.5(U)
U.o
27.U
15.0
6.1
12.6
9.8
2.0
36.0
18.0
0.2
1.5
1.0
0.8
6.6
3.7
1.9
7.5
U.5
Flow
9o!o
2U.3
3.0
15.0
10.0
5.1
17.5
11.8
9.5
5U.9
28.8
8.2
20.3
1U.6
121.0
170.0
11*7.8
232.0
335.0
286.3
68.0
2000.0
761.3

-------
Map Ho.
Station of
No.
525


551*


555


557


558


560


561


562


Acidity
Samples pH
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
OLl
7.2
6.8
6.U
7.1*
6.9
6.3
7.1*
6.7
6.6
7.0
6.8
2.8
3.1*
3.1
3.7
1*.7
h.2
6.9
7.1
7.0
6.U
7.0
6.8
OngA)
9.0
19.0
13.0
0.0
18.0
6.8
0.0
18.0
10.0
1.0
15.0
9.5
97.0
336V0
206.0
33.0
120.0
72*. 2
0.0
90.0
21.3
0.0
20.0
10.2
Alkalinity Harztaess
(fflg/1)
6.0
17.0
11.8
35.0
70.0
51.8
8.0
1*0.0
21.8
11.0
36.0
21.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.0
280.0
78.0
13.0
30.0
20.2
(rag/1)
I55".o
21*0.0
183.8
20.0
62.0
35.7
90.0
11*9.0
127.7
120.0
215.0
158.2
207.0
31t*.0
256.5
111.0
222.0
169.5
11*7.0
11,80.0
1*11.7
11*7.0
31*5.0
206.3
Total
Sulfate Iron Manganese Aluminum
(rag/1) (ragA) (rag/1) (ng/1)
K.o
215.0
159.2
6.0
35.0
17.7
110.0
11*5.0
130.8
120.0
195.0
157.0(5)
31*0.0
560.0
0.2
1.2
o.5
o.5
1.1*
0.8
0.3
o.U
o.u
0.0
0.7
0.3
2.6
31*. 6
l*li.3(l*)*13.8(5)
190.0
1*50.0
287.0(5)
112.0
1100.0
329.1*(5)
160.0
1*00.0
233.8(1)
0.0
0.6
0.1,
0.0
1.3
0.6
0.0
1.6
1.0
0.0
1.0
o.5
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.3
l*.l
10.2
6.1*(5)
1.0
U.8
2.8
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.7
1.1
0.9
0.9
5.8
2.2
0.1*
5.o
1.5
1.0
1.9
1.3
0.2
3.2
1.1
3.2
39.8
16.9(5)
1.6
12.3
5.8
0.0
3.8
1.1*
0.0
2.2
1.0
Flow
(cfa)
*7o
128.0
85.3
6.5
17.7
11.9
12.0
38.0
21*. 3
95.0
300.0
193.7
8.0
1U.2
11.6
50.0
101*. 0
76.2
8.8
ll*.0
11.6
12.8
32.0
23.5

-------
Map
Station
No.
565


566


567


569


570


572


573


57U




Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples
6


6


6


6


6


6


6


6



ihi
7.7
7.0
U.o
6.8
5.7
3.0
3.6
3.2
3.1
5.0
U.3
3.3
U.7
3.7
6.7
10.1
8.0
2.5
2.9
2.7
3.0
U.3
3.3

Acidity
(nEA)
0.0
13.0
7.7
2.0
158.0
37.3
159.0
259.0
221.7
60.0
171.0
112.8
10U.O
193.0
1U1.8
5.0
11.0
8.7
U52.0
897.0
601.5
189.0
U67.0
308.7

Alkalinity
Ug/1)
36.0
5U.o
U5.8
0.0
23.0
9.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
39.0
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Hardness
(mK/1)
7U.O
1UO.O
102.0
U5.0
2UO.O
167.5
26U.O
U5U.O
3U3.3
80.0
382.0
27U.2
125.0
500.0
3U8.2
21.0
52.0
35.2(5)
239.0
269.0
2U8.8
222.0
381.0
28U.O
Total
Sulfate Iron
One/l) (mg/1)
25.0 0.3
175.0 0.7
62.3 0.5
95.0 0.2
270.0 1.1
178.8(U) 0.5(5)
U25.0 5.5
700.0 32.6
552.5(U)12.2
3UO.O 3.U
600.0 21.6
518.0(5)10.7
120.0 2.U
680.0 18.5
U35.o(5)ll.U
0.0 0.0
15.0 1.6
6.5(U) 0.3
130.0 U8.0
920.0 158. k
522.5(U)93.8
130.0 27.8
750.0 U0.8
528.0(5)3U.7

Manganese
(mgA)
0.2
0.7
0.5
1.6
5.2
3.1
9.0
76.9
23.2
1.9
2.6
2.3
U.I
8.2
5.8
0.0
0.2
0.1
3.2
5.5
U.o
1.2
5.7
3.8

Aluninun
(m/l)
0.7
3.1
1.8
0.5
5.1
2.U(5)
12.2
39.8
21.0
5.6
31.9
Hi.3
0.0
17.9
6.2
0.0
U.U
1.7
22.2
168.0
82.8
10.8
8U.O
UU.5

Flow
(efs)
1392.0
U876.0
299U.3
1866.0
128tiO.O
757U.8
U21.0
U36.0
853.2
5.o
29.0
15.3
60.0
296.0
136.3
16.5
37.9
25.2
53.0
330.0
125.2
21.0
86.0
50.3

-------
v/v
Map
Station
No.
575


576


577


578


579


580


581


583


58U



No.
of
Sample
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min,
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
6


6


6


6


6


6


6


6


6

Acidity
B pj
2.9
3.3
3.2
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.8
3.0
5.2
3.9
5.U
6.8
6.2
6.7
8.3
7.2
3.0
U.2
3.U
5.1
6.9
6.U
6.0
7.2
6.8
(me/1)
167.0
27U.O
207.3
61U.O
1592.0
999.8
711.0
1572.0
1010.5
95.0
261.0
169.5
79.0
160.0
106.5
0.0
15.0
U.o
18U.O
330.0
2UU.2
0.0
U3.0
17.0
0.0
16.0
6.7
Total
Alkalinity Hardness Sulfate Iron Manganese Aluminum
(rag A)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.7
3.0
76.0
19.3
20.0
102.0
71.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
38.0
20.3
10.0
35.0
26.0
(mg/1)
23U.O
320.0
27U.5
2U7.0
Uio.o
311.2
110.0
3U2.0
272.0(5)
202.0
UlU.o
283-0
lUo.o
370.0
257.8
80.0
130.0
95.2
212.0
U52.0
336.3
95.0
200.0
11*5.8
113.0
lUo.o
128.7
(mg/D
UUO.O
U75-0
U56.3(U)*
1U50.0
2500.0
18U5.8
1150.0
2500.0
1720.0(5)
50.0
U5o.o
315.0(5)
Uoo.o
euo.o
58o.o(5)
20.0
88.0
U9.6(5)
U75.0
805.0
598.0(5)
62.0
215.0
Hi7.U(5)
75.0
120.0
97.5
(mg/1)
12 !5
7.8
91.0
312.0
215.2
163.2
37U.U
257.1
l.U
11.0
5.5(5)
7.7
67.2
22.0
0.0
1.5
0.5
10.6
26.U
17.8
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.6
3.6
1.7
(mg/1)
8.8
22.8
15.1
3.5
6.5
U.6
2.9
7.0
5.2
2.6
5.9
U.o
22.0
111. 7
29.8(5)
0.2
0.6
0.3
3.7
5.7
U.U
0.0
2.3
1.1
0.5
l.U
0.9
UK/I)
o.U
26.3
13.9
70.0
176. U
12U.8(5)
lU.o
179.2
96.8
7.8
35.3
19.1(5)
0.1
U7.6
12.9
0.0
2.5
0.6
0.0
Ui.U
17.7
0.2
3.6
1.5
0.9
6.U
2.U
Flow
-^o
901.0
72U.8
56.0
105.0
73.8
21.0
U7.5
35.U
8.0
U2.0
28.1
229.0
512.0
373.3
0.5
3.8
2.U
0.0
80.0
U0.9
0.1
12.0
3.9
28.0
82.5
59.9

-------
  Map             No.                                                 Total
Station           of        Acidity Alkalinity  Hardness Sulfate      Iron   Manganese Aluminum    Flow
  No.           Samples  pH   (mgA)   (ng/l)     (mgA)    (ag/l)      (wgA)  (agA)    (mg/1)     (cfa)
  585      Min.           676     5.0    12.0      187.0    155.0      0.0       0.2       0.0      "EHF
           Max.    6      7.0    16.0    28.0      237.0    235.0      0.5       0.7       1.9       30.0
           Avg.           6.8    11.5    19.7      210.0    193.8(5)   0.2       0.5       0.6       23.8


  * ( )  Indicates the number  of samples used in averages when other than the

-------
                                  PE N N.
                                 Pittsburgh
          LEGEND

          STREAMS  CONTINUOUSLY
          AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE

          STREAMS  INTERMITTENTLY  OR
          POTENTIALLY  AFFECTED BY
          BY  MINE DRAINAGE

       	   APPROXIMATE  AREA UNDERLAIN
       '   BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS

     8*   SAMPLING STATION
    APfiftLACHIA  MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
                  REPORT
      ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
      US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
O1IO BASIN REGION
                                FIGURE  3

-------
                         MONONGAHEIA RIVER

Description

     The Monongahela River basin includes about 7,380 square miles
in northern West Virginia, southwestern Pennsylvania, and northwestern
Maryland.  West Virginia contains the largest share of the basin,
U,1S>0 square miles.  Pennsylvania and Maryland contain approximately
2,730 and 500 square miles, respectively.  The basin is bounded on
the west by main stem Ohio River drainage, on the south by the
Little Kanawha and Kanawha River basins, on the east by the Potomac
River basin, and on the north by the Allegheny River basin.   It
includes all or part of 11 counties in West Virginia, six counties
in Pennsylvania, and one county in Maryland.

     The Monongahela River is formed by the confluence of the West
Fork and Tygart Valley Rivers at Fairmont, W. Va.  The river flows
129 miles in a northerly direction and joins the Allegheny at
Pittsburgh to form the Ohio River.  Major tributaries are the
Youghiogheny, Cheat, West Fork, and Tygart Valley Rivers.  The
Monongahela basin is maintained for navigation by lock and dam
installations through its entire length.

     The Monongahela River basin is located in the Appalachian Plateaus
physiographic province, mostly in the Kanawha section and partly in the
Allegheny Mountains section.  This area represents a mature plateau of
fine texture with moderate to strong relief.  Erosion has reduced almost
all the land area to slope, the terrain is rugged and the valleys are
deep and narrow.  Flat areas are limited to narrow flood plains and
some terraces and flat-topped hills.  The elevations of the basin
range from a high of about U,600 feet in the headwaters of the
Cheat River to about 700 feet at Pittsburgh, Pa., giving a maximum
relief of nearly U,000 feet.

     Most of the agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and urban and
industrial centers are located in the western half of the watershed.
Much coal mining has occurred in the basin, and it continues to be a
major industry.  Industries are concentrated along the West Fork
River and main stem Monongahela River.  The principal communities in
the basin and their I960 populations are McKeesport, Pa.  - U5,U89;
Clarksburg, W. Va. - 28,112; Morgantown, W. Va. - 27,U87; Fairmont,
W. Va. - 27,U77; and West Mifflin, Pa. - 27,289.

     All of the Monongahela River basin is contained in the Appalachian
Region.

-------
Coal Reserves and Mining Activity

     Bituminous coal reserves are present in 17 of the 18 counties
that are wholly or partly in the basin.   These reserves have been
estimated to be about 23 billion tons.   Coal has been mined in this
area for some 200 years.  Some mining has been done in all 1? counties,
and in 196$ production from approximately 750 mines was about 65
million tons (Hi) (17) (18).  Marion, Monongalia, Harrison, Preston,
and Barbour in West Virginia, and Green,Washington, Westmoreland,
Fayette, Somerset, and Allegheny in Pennsylvania were the principal
producing counties.

Streams Affected and Present Quality

     Mine drainage pollution of streams is the major water quality
problem in the basin.  It is present in all 17 counties where coal
has been mined (Figure U and Table 9).

     Among the major tributaries of the upper Ohio River Basin, the
Monongahela River basin is the most intensely polluted by coal mine
drainage.  The basin contains more than 1,600 miles of polluted streams.
In general, the western half of the basin has the most serious stream
pollution conditions.  Mine drainage problems are particularly acute
in terms of numbers and total length of streams affected in Westmoreland,
Fayette, and Green Counties, Pennsylvania and in Monongalia, Marion,
Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, and Preston Counties, W. Va.  Table 7
shows the miles of streams, by watershed, considered by this survey
to be polluted.

     A comprehensive water quality survey of the streams in the
Monongahela River Basin was conducted during 1965-66.  Those streams
that carried more than five tons per day of net acidity during the
survey are shown in Table 8.

     Although the West Fork River receives small amounts of mine
drainage from minor headwater tributaries in Lewis County, W. Va.,
the first mine drainage of serious proportions is received in Harrison
County from virtually every tributary including Isaacs Creek,
Browns Creek, and Elk Creek.  Elk Creek alone discharges an average of
5.8 tons per day net acidity, (Sta. 132).  At a sampling station
just below Clarksburg, W. Va., (Sta. 122) the West Fork River discharged
an average net acidity load of 6.5 tons per day and had an average
pH of 5*5.  The West Fork becomes grossly polluted by mine drainage in its
lower section between Clarksburg and Fairmont, W. Va.  Many poor
quality tributaries enter the stream in this reach.  Simpson Creek
near Bridgeport, W. Va., (Sta. 120) contributed an average daily net
                                U8

-------
                   Table 7

Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage,
           Monongahela River basin
Drainage Continuous Intermittent
Area Miles Miles TOTAL
Monongahela River
Minor Tributaries
Youghiogheny River
Tributaries
Cheat River
Tributaries
West Fork River
Tributaries
Tygart Valley River
Tributaries


8,038 129
31*1
1,768
129
1,1*21* 19
131*
882 30
371
1,369 1*8
181
1,3B2 +
GRAND TOTAL:

33
105
27
17
9
18
20

60
289

129
371*
105
156
36
11*3
kQ
391
1*8
21*1
= 1,671
1,671
                    1*9

-------
              Table 8 - Monongahela River basin streams
                    carrying more than five tons
                        per day net acidity
Station No.

  117

  120

  122

  132

  10U


  106


  105
      Stream

West Fork River

Simpson Greek

West Fork River

Blk Creek

Tygart Valley
River

Tygart Valley
River

Tygart Valley
River
90
9U
95
1*01
U32
1*33
U31*
U25
1*29
1*1*1
Big Sandy Creek
Cheat River
Cheat River
Cheat River
Redstone Creek
Monongahela
River
Monongahela
River
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
    Location

Above Fairmont, W.Va.

Below Bridgeport, W. Va.

Below Clarksburg, W.Va.

Near Clarksburg, W.Va.

Coifax, W. Va.


Below Tygart Reservoir


Below Grafton, W. Va.


Rockville, W. Va.

Albright, W. Va.

Rowlesburg, W. Va.

Point Marion, Pa.

Below Uniontown, Pa.

Brownsville, Pa.


Millsboro, Pa.


Pittsburgh, Pa.

Wilson, Pa.

Masontown, Pa.
Average Net
Acid Load
Tons/Day

   156

    29

     6.5

     5.8

    38


    Hi


    20


     5.0

    25

    15

   20U

     5.7

   1*69


   1*1*8


   1*62

   1*96

   360
                                 50

-------
              Table 8 - Monongahela River basin streams
                    carrying more than five tons
                        per day net acidity (con't)

                                                             Average Net
                                                             Acid Load
Station No.             Stream            Location           Tons/Day

  127            Monongahela River   Star City, W. Va.          235

  128            Deckers Creek       Morgantown, W. Va.           5.3

  129            Mbnongahela River   Hildebrand Lock and Dam    183

  130            Monongahela River   Lock 15, Fairmont, W. Va.  118

  I|02            Monongahela River   Point Marion, Pa.          221

  Ii03            Youghiogheny River  Above McKeesport,          HiU
                                     Allegheny County, Pa.

  l$5            Sewickley Creek     Near mouth, Westmoreland    21
                                     County, Pennsylvania

  1*10            Youghiogheny River  Below Connellsville, Pa,    28

  1|15            Youghiogheny River  At Ohiopyle, Pa.            35

  U17            Casselman River     Below confluence of         30
                                     Whites Creek

  111?            Casselmsn River     At Markleton, Pa.           25

  1|21            Casselman River     Below Piney Creek            5.1

  h2h            Youghiogheny River  Below loughiogheny Reservoir 7.0

  Ut7            Youghiogheny River  Above Jacobs, Pa.           26

   3             Youghiogheny River  Below Little Youghiogheny   10
                                     River, Garrett Co.,
                                     Maryland
                                 51

-------
acidity load of 29 tons per day.  Other tributaries with significant
acid loads were Tenmile Creek, Booth Creek, and Little Tenmile Creek.
At its mouth near Fairmont, (Sta. 117) the West Fork River carried
an average net acid load of 156 tons per day, had an average pH of 3^2,
zero alkalinity, and an average sulfate concentration of over 1000 mg/1.

     The Tygart Valley River basin has much less coal mining and
mine drainage pollution sources than the West Fork River basin and
therefore, contributes less acid to the Monongahela River.   The
Tygart Valley River is of good quality until it receives mine drainage
from Roaring Creek in Randolph County.  Further downstream in Barbour
County, the Middle Fork and Buckhannon Rivers contribute some acid.
Several small tributaries to the Buckhannon River in Barbour County,
carry relatively large amounts of acid.  During the survey, the
Tygart Valley River just below Philippi (Sta. 108) had a minimum pH of
U.8 during the study and the average net acid load was 2.7 tons per
day.  At a sampling station just below the Tygart Reservoir in Taylor
County, (Sta. 106) the average net acid discharge was Hi tons per day
and alkalinity concentrations were below desirable levels at all times.
At Coifax near the mouth of the Tygart, (Sta. 10U) the average net
acidity load was 38 tons per day and the minimum pH was U.7.

     The Cheat River receives its first mine drainage pollution from
the Blackwater River and its headwater tributaries in Tucker County,
West Virginia.  Just below Parsons, (Sta. 96) the Cheat River had
a minimum pH of 6.7 and at Rowlesburg, Preston County (Sta. 95),
the Cheat River had a minimum pH of 6.8.  At Albright (Sta. 9U) the
net acid load in the Cheat River was 25 tons per day and the minimum pH
was U.8.  This increase in acid loading and decrease in quality is
from many small acid tributaries in central Randolph County.  Acid
streams such as Big Sandy Creek and Bull Run in the northern part of
the County contribute additional acid to Cheat River.  Big Sandy Creek
at Rockville, W. Va.  (Sta. 90) discharged 5.0 tons per day net acidity.
The Cheat River at Point Marion, Pa., below Lake Lynn Reservoir (Sta. UOl)
discharged an average net acid load of 20U tons per day.  The pH ranged
from 2.9 to U.2 and sulfate concentrations were as high as 2500 mgA.
Much additional acid is received by the Cheat from mine discharges
in Fayette County, Pennsylvania.

     The main stem Monongahela River at Fairmont, Marion County,
W. Va., (Sta. 130) discharged 118 tons per day net acidity and the
minimum pH was 3.9.  Many minor tributaries such as Buffalo Creek,
Paw Paw Creek, Scotts Run, and Deckers Creek contribute acid to the
Monongahela River between Fairmont and Morgantown.  The Monongahela
at Star City  (Sta. 127) discharged 235 tons per day net acidity and had
a minimum pH of 3.U.
                                52

-------
     Below the mouth of the Cheat River, many tributaries,  including
Dunkard Creek, Tenmile Creek, and Redstone Creek discharge acidity
to the Mbnongahela.  At Wilson, Pennsylvania (Sta.  U29),  the
Monongahela River carried an average load of U?6 tons/day net acidity
and had high concentrations of sulfate,  iron, manganese,  and hardness.
The pH ranged between 5.2 and 6.1.

     The Youghiogheny River, the largest tributary to the Monongahela
in Pennsylvania, first receives some mine drainage pollution from
a few small headwaters tributaries such as Snowy Creek in Garrett
County, Maryland.  The Youghiogheny Paver just below the  Little
Youghiogheny River near Oakland (Sta. 003) discharged 10  tons of
acid per day.  Neutralization of some of the acid in the  Youghiogheny
River decreased the load downstream, and near Friendsville, Maryland
(Sta. 002) the Youghiogheny carried only 3.5 tons per day.   Just
below the Youghiogheny Reservoir in Pennsylvania (Sta. U2U), the net
acid load had increased to an average of 7.0 tons per day.

     The Casselman River, tributary to the Youghiogheny River, is
intermittently polluted by mine drainage in its headwaters in
Garrett County, Maryland.  Several small tributaries downstream
from Salisburg, Pennsylvania, discharge acid to the River,  and
above Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, (Sta. U21) the net acid load carried
was 5.1 tons per day.  Between Meyersdale, Pennsylvania and
Markleton, Pennsylvania (Sta. Ul9), other minor acid streams increased
the net acidity load to 25 tons per day and the minimum pH was 3.6.
The Casselnan River near its mouth (Sta. Ul?) just below  Whites Creek
had a total average net acid load of 30 tons per day and  the minimum pH
was U.5.  At Ohiopyle, Somerset County,  (Sta. 1*15)  the Youghiogheny
River carried an average net acidity load of 35 tons per  day.  This
increase in acid load over that measured at the Youghiogheny Reservoir
was received primarily from the Casselman River.  Downstream below
Connellsville, Pennsylvania, (Sta. UlO)  the net acid load was 28 tons
per day.

     Minor tributaries to the Youghiogheny River in Fayette, West-
moreland, and Allegheny Counties contributed some acid and produced
intermittent stream pollution.  Between Jacobs and McKeesport,
Pennsylvania, several tributaries including Jacobs Creek  and
Sewickley Creek contributed additional mine drainage.   Sewickley
Creek near its mouth in Westmoreland County (Sta. U05) discharged an
average of 21 tons per day of net acidity and had a minimum pH of U.9.
The Youghiogheny at its mouth at McKeesport, Pennsylvania,  (Sta. 1*03)
carried an average net acid load of lUU tons per day.   The minimum
pH was U.8.

     At Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, (Sta.  U25) the Monongahela River
discharged a net acidity load of U62 tons per day to the  Ohio River  and
had a minimum pH of 5.0.
                                53

-------
                 fable 9 - Vrter quality data, Monongahela River baain
Map
Station
Mo.
90


9k


95


96


lOJi




Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Arg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Mo.
of
Saaplee
8


12


6


12


10



fe0
8^2 '
7.2
3 k
6.5
Ii.8
6.8
7.6
7.2
6.7
9.0
7.U
U.7
7.5
5.U

Acidity
(i*A)
1 1.0
32.0
16.3
15.0
86.0
3U.3
5.0
30.0
16.7
0.0
U7.0
11.9
15.0
Ul.o
27.5

Alkalinity
(ng/1)
0.0
18.0
8.8
0.0
3.0
0.9
5.o
11.0
7.3
U.o
26.0
13.3
0.0
8.0
1.7

Hardness
(*/l)
28.0
80.0
57.9
32.0
96.0
71.8
26.0
69.0
U5.7
26.0
7U.O
55.1
3U.O
70.0
5U.7

Snlfate
(A)
19.6
3U.O
26.6
22.0
85.0
53.8
7.0
16.0
10.30)
3.0
UO.O
25.0
23.0
U2.0
32.7
Total
Iron
(aueA)
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.3
2.8
1.1
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.3
0.0
1.1
0.3

ManswteAe
6*A)
0.2
0.5
o.3(5)
0.0
0.3
0.1(9)
0.0
0.3
o.i(U)
0.0
0.3
0.1(7)
0.0
0.6
0.3(9)


6wA) (of)
	 'Jl,2
992.0
0.3(1) 196.6
26.0
1600.0
U38.2
1U6.0
1762.0
870.7
148.0
1031.0
O.U(1) 356.7
110.0
26UO.O
653.7
105

106



108
Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Afg.
12
7.3

6.8
7.2
7.0

Ii.8
7.U
6.1
30.0

27.0
33.0
30.0

12.0
39.0
23.1
 5.0

 1.0
 2.0
 1.5

 0.0
Ii5.o
 7.2
                                              52.0
                                                 16.0    0.2
0.3
Ui.o
60.0
52.0
I|2.0
112.0
76.0
16.0
17.0
16.5
19.0
92.0
57.0
0.2
o.U
0.3
0.0
1.3
o.U
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.8
O.U(9)
 Wi5.o

 120.0
 250.0
 185.0

  16.7
2056.0
 Ii50.2

-------
vn
vn
     Map
   Station
     No.
    117
    120
    122
    127
    128
    129
    130
    132
Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

inn.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples

12


9


13


7


9


12


12


3



EH
279
3.5
3.2
2.8
3.1
3.0
1*.3
6.3
5.5
3.1*
6.7
U.5
3.1
6.8
1*.7
3.3
6.7
U.I
3.9
6.2
U.8
3.0
3.2
3.1

Acidity
Ug/1)
17.0
362.0
216,6
300.0
1*18.0
366.7
li.O
75.0
38.2
17.0
128.0
70.9
9.0
31U.O
156.2
m.o
115.0
7U.7
12.0
n6.o
55.3
152.0
260.0
201.7

Alkalinity
(mg/1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
12.8
0.0
9.0
1.9
0.0
30.0
U.o
0.0
9.0
0.8
0.0
8.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

Hardness
(mgA)
UOO.O
10UO.O
782.5
708.0
1100.0
928.2
39.0
960.0
630.8
78.0
110U.O
367. 1*
130.0
780.0
U26.9
100.0
360.0
230.2
112.0
326.0
197.6
780.0
1120.0
903.3

Sulfate
(mg/1)
U60.0
11*00.0
10U6.9
750.0
2750.0
136U.U
200.0
1300.0
686.2
80.0
900.0
371.3
90.0
1225.0
53U.1
86.0
1000.0
353.0
60.0
U5o.o
198.2
660.0
1500.3
1011.7
Total
Iron
(mg/1)
3.3
18.2
8.5
13.2
1*1.6
23.5
0.7
7.8
2.8
1.7
10. U
3.3
2.8
10.3
6.8
0.5
3.8
1.5
O.I,
5.o
1.5
5.o
15. U
9.5

Manganese
(mg/1)
0.0
7.6
l*.l*
0.2
8.6
6.5
1.6
5.1
3.0(9)
O.U
2.2
1.1*0*)
0.6
6.8
2.6(6)
o.5
2.5
1.5(9)
o.l,
2.1*
1.3(9)
6.1
8.1
6.9

Aluminum Flow
(mgA) (cfs)
20.0
2UOO.O
353.7
5.3
92.0
27.6
2.5
273.0
63.5
315. 0
27500.0
5250.6
0.1
3148.0
20.3(1) 90.3
205.0
26000.0
3068.3
20^.0
18200.0
2l*71.U
6.5
13.5
11.1*

-------
  Map
Station
  No.
 1*02
 1*03
 1*05
 Uio
 1*15
 1*16
 1*17
Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Acidity
Alkalinity
Samples pH (ng/1) (ng/1)

10


13


10


2


10


13


6


10

2.9
U.2
3.1*
3.2
U.5
3.6
U.8
6.3
6.0
U.9
5.0
5.0
5.5
6.8
6.U
U.7
7.8
6.7
6.U
7.3
6.9
U.5
6.0
5.U
6U.O
281.0
133.7
13.0
179.0
121.2
10.0
52,0
31*. 2
166.0
2U5.0
205.5
7.0
36.0
22.9
5.0
37.0
23.1
5.o
26.0
U*.o
12.0
97.0
U6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.0
8.0
U.3
3.0
9.0
6.0
6.0
11.0
8.6
1.0
15.0
7.5
3.0
21.0
13.5
0.0
35.0
5.3
Hardness
(rag/1)
U6.0
371.0
139.0
8U.O
500.0
336.6
100.0
180.0
11*3.6(8)
630.0
770.0
700.0
62.0
88.0
76.9(9)
UU.O
80.0
59.6
32.0
56.0
U5.o
6U.O
26U.O
162.3
Total
Sulfate Iron Manganese
(ng/ll
56.0
2500.0
1*30.7
100.0
1250.0
505.8
72.0
190.0
1U3.U(9)
795.0
1275.0
1035.0
20.0
7U.O
U3.7
15.0
50.0
28.7
U.o
9.0
6.7
61.0
210.0
131.0
vPf/1) _J
1.3
16.U
6.6
1.0
3.7
2.3
1.U
6.0
3.1(9)
U2.1
U9.U
U5.8
0.6
3.9
l.U
0.0
1.7
o.U
o.o
1.0
o.U
0.1
3.8
0.9
Bjg/i)
0.3
2.3
1.0(6)
o.U
3.3
1.9(10)
0.3
1.0
0.6(6)
3.U
U.o
3.7
0.0
l.U
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
2.7
1.2
    Ll_   (cgs)
        ^JTo
10.3    1*000.0
         920.6

         Uio.o
        2800.0
         990.0

         720.0
        U6UU.O
        1860.7

          35.U
          1*2.1
          38.8

         375.0
        6200.0
        1718.0

         560.0
        2U20.0
         968.5

          1U.5
         U60.0
         199.0

          36.5
        1560.0
         U20.7

-------
 Map
Station
 No.
 U21



 h2h



 U25



 U26

 U29



 U32



 U33



 U3U
Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Acidity Alkalinity
Samples pH

9


10


10


9

3.6
6.2
U.7
U.I
6.U
5.5
5.8
7.2
6.5
5.0
6.9
6.2
(mgA) (mg/1)
10.0
120.0
70.9
10.0
181.0
5i.o
U.o
35.0
18.2
7.0
6U.O
37.8(8)
0.0
U.o
0.6
0.0
15.0
5.3
6.0
18.0
n.o
0.0
9.0
6.0(8)
Total
Hardness Sulfate Iron Manganese Aluminum Flow
(mg/1)
76.0
318.0
197.1
62.0
28U.O
131.7(9)
2U.O
U6.0
37.9
1U8.0
336.0
277.7(6)
(mg/1) (mgA) (mgA) (mgA) (cfs)
51.0
U70.0
210.1
3*0
310.0
91.8(9)
8.0
20.0
11.7
66.0
U70.0
281. U
0.0
2.2
0.8
0.8
6.5
2.6(9)
0.2
0.8
o.5
0.8
15.8
3.1
0.0
2.5
1.5
0.0
3.3
0.8
0.0
0.7
0.2
o.U
1.9
1.3
37.8
12U5.0
350.3
U.8
U05.0
122. U
92.5
1200.0
501.8
1775.0
29050.0
8953.9
10
                  7.0
                U5.o
59.0
292.0
195.0
7.0
0.8
5.2
6.1
5.8
6.1
6.6
6.3
3.6
6.2
U.6
3.6
6.3
U.8
5.0
68.0
37.3
11.0
500.0
211.3
6.0
180.0
9U.2
5.o
575.0
138.0
0.0
7.0
U.o
15.0
67.0
la. 3
0.0
U.o
0.7
0.0
5.o
1.0
118.0
Uoo.o
3ii.5(U)
210.0
1670.0
1175.8(8)*
110.0
U6o.o
282.7(9)
82.0
Uoo.o
26U.5(8)
80.0
55o.o
296.2
210.0
2900.0
15U8.3
66.0
530.0
320.5
65.0
510.0
293.8
0.8
8.5
2.6
1U-8
U3U.6
156.6
0.5
3.3
1.6
0.2
3.8
2.1
o.U
2.9
1.3
1.6
12. U
7.2
0.3
1U.U
2.9
0.3
U.O
1.3
   50.0

  8U2.0
31000.0
11303.7

   11.6
  560.0
   88.9

 1000.0
21600.0
 5876.0

 1000.0
16800.0
 U172.2

-------
      Map
    Station
      No.
vn
en
     hhl
m.n,
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Kin.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples

6


8


9


6


9




Acidity Alkalinity
2S
67?
7.2
7.1
3.1
5.6
l*.o
3.1
7.5
5.0
6.1*
8.1
7.2
5.5
8.8
7.0
(ng/1)
2.0
73.0
25.0
6.0
650.0
177.7(7)
0.0
535.0
170.1
0.0
37.0
12.2
5.0
3h.Q
21.7
(meA)
5.0
i5U.o
72.3
0.0
50.0
7.1(7)
0.0
82.0
22.7
26.0
130.0
67.5
3.0
11*. 0
7.3

Hardness
(mgA)
98.0
181*. 0
U*8.1*(5)
68.0
1*72.0
22U.7(7)
9U.O
820.0
I*2!*.8<8)
78.0
390.0
220.1*(5)
58.0
232.0
106.0(8)

Sulfate
(msA)
25.0
100.0
50.7
l*o.o
570.0
256.0
79.0
1500.0
6146.9
5l.o
900.0
3k7.2
32.0
77.0
52.1
Total
Iron
(mg/1)
0.5
3.2
1.1
2.0
16.U
6.0
2.2
22.2
11.2
0.2
2.7
0.7
0.1
h.2
1.1

Manganese
(rag/1)
0.1
i.U
0.8
O.I*
2.5
1.UC7)
0.2
6.0
2.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.1*
o.U

Aluminum Flow
(mg/1) (cfs)
2.0
858.0
257.1
1*02.0
21300.0
5897.8
5.9
900.0
H7.U
1.7
1800.0
397.9
600.0
691*0.0
2027.1
        )   Indicates the number of samples used in averages  when other  than the maximum.

-------
                STREAMS  CONTINUOUSLY
                AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE

                STREAMS  INTERMITTENTLY OR
                POTENTIALLY  AFFECTED BY
                BY MINE  DRAINAGE

                APPROXIMATE  AREA UNDERLAIN
                BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS
               SAMPLING STATION
     APPALACHIA  MINE  DRAINAGE  POLLUTION
                    REPORT
    MONONGAHELA  RIVER BASIN
       U.S. DEPARTMENT  OF THE  INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
OHIO BASIN REGION                    HCCLING FIELD  STATION

                                     FIGURE 4

-------
                           BEAVER RIVER

Description

     The Beaver River basin is located in northeastern Ohio and
northwestern, Pennsylvania.  The Beaver River is formed by the
confluence of the Mahoning River and Shenango River near New Castle,
Pennsylvania, and flows in a southerly direction for about 21
miles, then enters the Ohio River at Beaver, Pennsylvania, which
is 25 river miles below Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The Mahoning
River rises south of Alliance, Ohio, flows northeast to Warren,
Ohio, where it turns to the southeast and flows through Youngstown,
Ohio and across the Ohio-Pennsylvania line to join the Shenango
River.  The Shenango River rises in Pennsylvania, flows northwest
to the Ohio-Pennsylvania border and then flows generally south to
the confluence with the Mahoning River.  The total drainage area
of the basin is 3,lU5 square miles encompassing parts of 13 counties
in the two states.

     Principal tributaries to the Beaver River are the Mahoning and
Shenango Rivers and Connoquenessing, Slippery Rock, and Neshannock
Creeks.

     The Beaver River basin is situated in the Appalachian Plateaus
province of the Appalachian Highlands physiographic division.   The
topography of the northern and western portions of the basin has
been changed by the continental ice sheets, which rounded the hills
and filled most of the bedrock valleys with thick deposits of
glacial sediments.  The southeastern part of the basin drained by
Connoquessing Creek is unglaciated and is a dissected plateau.

     Industry in the Beaver River basin centers around the production
of steel and the fabrication and finishing of steel products.
In the Mahoning River watershed, major components of the industry
are located in the Youngstown to Warren reach.   The primary steel
and fabricated steel products industries are important to all of
the principal communities located in the Shenango River subbasin
and on the Beaver River main stem.  Principal communities in the
basin and their I960 populations are Youngstown, Ohio - 166,689j
Warren, Ohio - 59,61*8; and New Castle, Pennsylvania - UU,790.

     The Pennsylvania portion of the Beaver River basin, parts of
seven counties, is contained within the Appalachian Region.   The
Ohio portion of the Beaver River basin is not included in the
Appalachian Region.
                               59

-------
Coal Reserves and Mining Activity

     Recoverable bituminous coal reserves underlie three-fourths
of the Beaver River basin and are estimated to be in excess  of
three billion tons.  Of this total more than two-thirds of the
reserve is in the Pennsylvania portion of the basin.

     Coal production has been reported in all counties of the basin
which contain reserves.  Production for 1965 exceeded four million
tons.  Surface mining accounted for virtually all of the coal
produced.  (Hi) (19) (20).

Streams Affected and Present Quality

     The Beaver River basin contains about 108 miles of streams
polluted by acid mine drainage (Figure 5).  The most seriously affected
watershed in the basin is Slippery Rock Creek, which contains about
93 miles of acid polluted streams.

     The Slippery Rock Creek drainage basin has had a long history
of pollution resulting from mine drainage.  Extensive deep mine
activities were initiated in the early 1900's.  Beginning with the
early 19UO's, the deep mining activity was followed by the onslaught
of literally hundreds of strip mines.  A 1963 survey of the
Slippery Rock Creek watershed showed 935 active and inactive operations.
Of this total, 590 of the operations were strip mines.

     The large number of mines in the basin led to adverse effects
on stream quality, but until 1958 the lower reaches of the stream
were protected by the alkaline discharges from a limestone plant.
When this plant ceased operations in late 1957* the stream
became acid from its headwaters to the confluence with the South
Branch.  On July 12, 196U an extremely heavy rainstorm fell  in
the upper, now acid, portion of the creek.  This flushed out
the acid water from swamps, strip mine pits, ponds, and the  creek
itself.  As a result of this large amount of acid moving downstream,
two million fish were killed. (21).

     Based on various stream samplings during 1966 (Table 10) the
North Branch of Slippery Rock Creek (Sta. U82) discharged an
average net acid load of 8.6 tons per day and the pH ranged  from
2.7 to 5.0.  The South Branch of Slippery Rock Creek (Sta. U83)
was alkaline during the survey but carried high concentrations of
some mine drainage indicators.  Further downstream, Station  No. U8l,
the average acidity load in Slippery Rock Creek had decreased to
an average level of 50 tons per day in excess of the alkalinity.
Above the confluence of Wolf Creek (Sta. U80) Slippery Rock  Creek
showed further decreases in net acidity.
                                60

-------
     Wolf Creek above Grove City receives some mine drainage but
this was rapidly neutralized during travel downstream.   At the
mouth of Wolf Creek (Sta. U77), the net alkalinity load averaged
28 tons per day and the minimum pH was 6.8.  The alkalinity carried
by Wolf Creek neutralized the acidity in Slippery Rock Creek at
that point and the net alkalinity at Station No. U?6 was 30 tons
per day.

     Muddy Creek also receives some acid mine drainage but during
the survey, Station No. U8U, at the mouth of Muddy Creek, exhibited
a pH range of 6.3 to 7.U and the average alkalinity concentration
exceeded the average acidity concentration.

     Near its mouth (Sta. h75>), Slippery Rock Creek had a pH
range of 6.9 to 8.3 and an average net alkalinity load of 26 tons
per day.

     little Connoquenessing Creek receives some acid drainage
as a result of coal mining operations.  Alkalinity loads always
exceeded acidity loads during the study period but the presence of
mine drainage was indicated by high concentrations of iron,
sulfate, and hardness (Sta. U71).

     Mine drainage problems in the Beaver River basin are not
limited to the Pennsylvania portion of the basin.  There are
several streams in Mahoning County, Ohio, though not continuously
polluted by mine drainage, which have experienced washouts of
acid mine water.  A washout, occurring in January, 196$, resulted
in a fish kill of 1,600 along a tributary to Meander Creek.
                               61

-------
Table 10 - Water Quality Data, Beaver River basin
Map

Station
No.
U71


U75


U76


U77


U78


U79


U80


U81


Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples pH
fe
9 7.6
7.1
6.9
9 8.3
7.6
6.6
9 7.8
7.1
6.8
6 7.8
7.3
7.1
9 8.5
7.5
6.9
3 7.0
6.9
U.3
9 7.2
6.2
6.6
3 7.0
6.7
Total
Acidity
OngA)
0.0
3U.O
9.3
0.0
16.0
U.3
0.0
21.0
6.9
0.0
25.0
9.8
0.0
29.0
10.9
15.0
U9.0
27.7
0.0
55.0
19.8
11.0
27.0
16.7
Alkalinity
17.0
53.0
31.3
21.0
92.0
62.8
21.0
75.0
U5.U
U8.0
79.0
62.0
36.0
111.0
68.6
22.0
38.0
31.3
0.0
U5.o
15.U
8.0
15.0
10.7
Hardness
(mg/1)
90.0
326.0
205.1
11U.O
253.0
196.9
11U.O
233.0
176.7
130.0
236.0
104.8
112.0
281.0
18U.7
66.0
128.0
10U.7
128.0
279.0
201.9
116.0
180.0
150.7
Sulfate Iron
(mg/1) (fflg/L)
50.0
560.0
188.0(8)*
82.0
165.0
132. U
72.0
175.0
127.9
U8.0
1UO.O
9U.8
38.0
160.0
100.5(8}
33.0
80,0
60.3
85.0
2UO.O
176.1
90.0
1UO.O
120.0
0.0
U.2
1.3
0.0
U.2
0.9
0.0
2.9
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.0
2.U
0.9
o.U
2.1
1.1
0.3
1.8
0.9
o.U
1.0
0.7
Manganese Aluminum
0.2
l.U
0.8
0.0
2.3
0.7
0.0
2.5
0.9
0.2
0.8
O.U
0.3
1.3
0.7
0.6
1.3
1.0
1.0
3.1
2.1
1.3
2.1
1.7
o.o 
 3.0
1.0(6)
o.U
6.0
1.5(6)
0.0
6.1
1.6(6)
O.U
1.0
0.6(3)
0.0
7.5
1.6(6)



0.5
6.9
2.9(6)



i Flow
(cfs)
1.9
3UO.O
79.0
O.U
22UO.O
513.U
110.0
2U60.0
.586.9
57.0
222.U
109.5
22.0
5UO.O
liU.U
55.0
290.0
165.0
16,7
UU8.2
1U9.6
185.0
356.0
288.7

-------
            N
                                                              PE N N.
                                                            Pittsburgh
                           INDIANA
                                          VICINITY   MAP
          ARGENTINE
\
                                          LEGEND

                                          STREAMS CONTINUOUSLY
                                          AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE

                                          STREAMS INTERMITTENTLY OR
                                          POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY
                                          BY MINE DRAINAGE

                                          APPROXIMATE AREA UNDERLAIN
                                          BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS

                                          SAMPLING STATION
                        APPALACHIA
MINE  DRAINAGE POLLUTION
   REPORT
                            BEAVER  RIVER BASIN
                           U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                   FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION  CONTROL  ADMINISTRATION
                   OHIO BASIN REGION                   WHEELING FIELD STATION
                                                                  FIGURE  5

-------
     Map
   Station
     No.
     U83
     U81
     651*
o\
u>
ttLn.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of

Samples pjl

9


9


9


6

2.7
.5.0
U.3
6.7
7.2
6.9
6.1
7.1*
6.6
7.8
10.6
9.8
Acidity
(mg/1)
24.0
153.0
60.1
0.0
22.0
7.0
0.0
28.0
11.0
0.0
3.0
0.5
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
0.0
10.0
3.8
22.0
78.0
39.2
8.0
67.0
2U.9
32.0
21*5.0
117.8
Hardness
(mg/1)
132.0
312.0
217.1
116.0
333.0
223.6
110.0
358.0
215.1
113.0
176.0
1U0.2
Sulfate
(mg/1)
110.0
390.0
226.1
73.0
270.0
172. U
77.0
310.0
182.7
115.0
156.0
131.8
fotal
Iron Manganese Aluminum
(mg/1)
0.2
1*0.0
8.0
0.2
7.9
1.7
0.1
1.3
0.6
0.1
o.U
0.3
(mgA)
1.0
3.1*
2.6
1.0
3.1
l.U
0.1*
3.1*
1.7
0.1
5.2
1.2
(mg/l)
1.8
lU.o
7.8(6)
0.1
17.2
3.1(6)
0.0
2.5
1.1(6)
0.2
2.2
1.1(3)
Flew
(cfs)
8.9
l6i*.0
61*. 5
2.3
100.0
31.3
2.0
330.0
81.3
0.1
12.0
3.5
           Indicates  the number of samples used in averages when other than the maximum.

-------
                          MUSKINGUM RIVER

Description

     The Muskingum River basin lies in the eastern part of the
State of Ohio.  It is bounded by the Scioto River drainage on the
west, Lake Erie drainage on the north, and the Ohio River minor
tributary drainage on the east and south.   The Muskingum River is
formed by the junction of its two principal tributaries, the
Tuscarawas and Walhonding Rivers, at Coshocton near the center of the
basin.  The Tuscarawas River and its tributaries rise near Barberton
in the northwestern part of the basin.  The Walhonding River and its
tributaries rise near Ashland in the northeastern part of the basin.
The Muskingum flows south for about 110 miles and enters the
Ohio River at Marietta, Ohio, 172 miles below Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The total drainage area of the basin is 8,OljO square miles, about
20 percent of the land area of the State,  and covers all or part
of 2? counties.  The basin is roughly rectangular in shape, about
120 miles long in the north-south direction, and about 100 miles
wide in the east-west direction.  The principal tributaries comprising
the Muskingum River system are the Walhonding, Tuscarawas, and
Licking Rivers, and Wills Creek.

     The northern and western portions of the watershed were covered
by Pleistocene glaciers.  The line of glaciation generally trends
east to west from Canton to Loudonville, and thence almost directly
south leaving the basin in Perry County.  The glaciated area is
characterized by gently rolling to flat topography.  The unglaciated
area is generally rugged and well dissected by drainage.  Broad
valleys with prominent flood plains and terraces characterize the
larger streams in the unglaciated area.  The glaciers changed the
drainage of every major stream in the basin, and outwash materials
filled the major valleys many miles below the ice fronts.

     Extensive and diverse industrial activities are centered in the
Canton-Massillon, Mansfield, Newark, Zanesville, Barberton, Ashland,
Wooster and Cambridge areas.  Agriculture, coal mining, oil production,
and salt and clay mining also maintain important positions in the
economy of the basin.  The principal cities in the basin and their
I960 populations are Canton - 113,631; Mansfield - U7,32; Newark -
Ul,790j Zanesville - 39,077; Barberton - 33,805; and Massillon - 31,236.

     About one-half of the Muskingum basin is located in the Appalachian
Region.  Only the counties or portions of eleven counties making up
the western and northern boundaries of the basin are excluded.

-------
Coal Reserves and Mining Activity
     Bituminous coal reserves in'the Mnskingum basin are present
in 21 of the 2? Ohio counties that are wholly or partly contained
in the watershed,'amounting to 80 percent of the area.  Coal pro-
duction has been reported from all but one of the 21 counties
containing reserves.  Recoverable coal reserves in the Muskingum River
basin portion of these counties is estimated at over eight billion
tons.

     The Muskingum basin has a long history of coal production,
and prospects for long-term continued production are excellent
in view of recent industrial expansion in the area.  Six of the
basin counties had a cumulative coal production of over 100 million
tons during the period 1800-1958.  Production in 1965 in the
watershed amounted to nearly 19 million tons, about 70 percent
by surface mining methods.  (19) (20).

Streams Affected and Present Quality

     Although some mine drainage pollution occurs in each of the
coal producing counties of the basin, Tuscarawas, Coshocton,
Muskingum, and Perry Counties are the most seriously affected in
terras of number of streams and total length of streams affected
(Figure 6).  With very minor exceptions, all affected streams in the
basin are within the Appalachian Region.  A total of more than
500 miles of streams in the watershed are considered to be polluted
by mine drainage.  Table 11 presents the miles of streams found
by this survey to be polluted by mine drainage.

                             Table 11

                  Lengths of streams polluted by
               mine drainage, Muskingum River basin
Stream
Muskingum River
  Tributaries
Tuscarawas River
  Tributaries
Walhonding River
  Tributaries
Drainage
Area

 8038

 2590

 2252
                Inter-
Continuously    mittently
Polluted        Polluted
(Mies)	    (Miles)    Total
                 16
                CHI
                  59

                  3k
303
188

 31
                                65

-------
     Water quality data gathered during 1966 and 196? (Table 12)
shows that, although many smaller streams in the Muskingum watershed
are affected, mine drainage effects on the principal streams are  minor.
The presence of other industrial pollutants and the large dilution
and neutralization factors provided largely masks the quality changes
caused by mine drainage.

     The following fish kills resulting from acid mine drainage
were reported in the Muskingum River basin during 1966:

     Date       County         Watershed       Ho. of Fish Killed

     8/12/66    Perry          Jonathan Creek          5000

     8/21/66    Coshocton      Mill Creek              3061

     8/31/66    Tuscarawas     Sugar Creek           50,670

     9/22/66    Muskingum      Muskingun River       20,860

     Most of the coal mine drainage flowing into the Tuscarawas
River enters in the reach between Massillion and Newcomerstown.
Industrial pollution originating in the Akron area affects the
Tuscarawas River to such a degree that the influence of the nine
drainage that enters the river below Massillion is not easily
recognizable.  The effect of mine drainage is, however,  reflected
in loadings of mine drainage pollution indicators.  The average
sulfate loading was Iij2 tons/day at station 719 above Massillion
and 250 tons/day at station 727 above Newcomerstown.  The average
iron loadings were 0.3 tons/day and 2 tons/day at these respective
stations.

     The small amount of mine drainage entering the Walhonding
River is contributed by tributaries entering in the lower 10 miles
of the river.  These sources and tributaries entering the Muskingum
immediately below Coshocton do not significantly affect the quality
of the Muskingum, but are evidenced by increased loadings of mine
drainage indicators, such as sulfate, hardness, and iron.

     In the lower Muskingum basin, Moxahala Creek and its tributaries
in Perry and Muskingum Counties are the most seriously polluted streams
from acid mine drainage in the Muskingum basin.  Ninety miles of  streams
in this small watershed are affected.  A survey conducted by the
Wheeling Field Station in 1963 showed Moxahala Creek to be highly
acidic over most of its length and discharging 16,^00 pounds per
day of acid to the Muskingum River.  Readings of pH as low as 2.7
were observed in stream waters during the survey.  Limited field
work conducted this year in the Moxahala watershed indicates there
may be more than 200 significant point sources of mine drainage
polluting the streams of the watershed.


                                66

-------
Table 12 - Wats' quality data, Muskingum River basin
Map No.
Station of
No.
1715


1716


1717


1718


1719


1720


1721


1722


Samples pH
Min.
Max. 9
Avg.
Min.
Max. 9
Avg.
Min.
Max. 12
Avg.
Min.
Max. 9
Avg.
Min.
Max. U*
Avg.
Min.
Max. 15
Avg.
Min.
Max. 9
Avg.
Min.
Max. 9
Avg.
7.3
7.7
7.5
7.1
7.6
7.3
6.1*
7.7
7.1
6.8
8.0
7.1*
6.3
8.3
7.5
7.0
7.8
7.5
6.9
7.9
7.7
7.0
8.6
7.9
Acidity Alkalinity
(mg/1)
0.0
10.0
1.3(8)*
0.0
21*. 0
l*.l
0.0
28.0
10.6
0.0
39.0
12.7
16.0
129.0
6U.5
0.0
99.0
13.U
0.0
l*5.o
11.9
0.0
32.0
7.7
(mg/1)
93.0
201.0
161.1*(8)
69.0
191*. 0
97.9
26.0
11*8.0
83. h
71*. 0
120.0
100.1
79.0
216.0
11*5.3
98.0
302.0
302.0
89.0
127.0
135.6
12.0
11*8.0
lOli.l
Hardness
(ragA)
126.0
228.0
162.1(8)
106.0
156.0
132.2
1*9.0
236.0
11*1.5
327-0
1*32,0
390.2
295.0
3000.0
1752.1*
198.0
hlh.O
292.9
222.0
1*28.0
3U6.8
126.0
2*28.0
31*3. 1*
Total
Sulfate Iron Manganese
(mgA) (ragA) ( rag/1 )
52.0
135.0
67.9
9.0
35.0
21.3(8)
25.0
105.0
67.7
160.0
21*0.0
190.3
35.0
2500.0
0.2
3.8
1.7
0.1*
0.7
0.6
O.I*
5.9
1.3
1.0
2.5
1.6
0.2
3.6
1*1*3-8(13)1.0(13)
20.0
500.0
21*0.9
132.0
215.0
179.8
no. o
220.0
16T.1
0.0
5.o
2.1
0.2
1.2
o.5
o.5
2.3
l.o
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
7.2
1.1*
0.2
3.3
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.1(13)
0.3
l.i*
0.9
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.3
Aluminum
(mgA)
0.7
3.1
1.6(6)
0.6
1.3
0.9(6)
0.7
1.3
1.0(5)
1.6
3.1*
2.3(5)
O.I*
19. S
l*.3(6)
0.0
1.6
0.9(7)
o.5
il.2
0.9(S)
1.0
2.0
l.!*(6)
Plow
(cfs)
18.1
687.0
211.0
10.0
38.0
21.0
0.0
150.1*
l*5.i
890.0
3027.0
1573.6
75.0
81*7.0
251*. 9
62.3
500.0
11*1*. 1
980.0
2600.0
161*7.2
Bno.O
21*10.0
1318.0

-------
Map
Station
No.
1723


1721*


1725


1726


1727


1728


1729


1730





Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples

9


9


9


1*


12


11*


15


8



El
7.2
8.1
7.7
6.7
7.5
7.1
6.8
7.1*
7.2
6.9
7.1
7.0
6.5
8.6
7.3
6.9
8.2
7.1*
6.9
8.1
7.1*
7.5
8.2
7.7

Acidity
(rag A)
0.0
1*3.0
10.8
0.0
28.0
7.0
0.0
82.0
18. h
0.0
27.0
11.5
0,0
68.0
17.9
0.0
1*3.0
11.1
0.0
51*.o
10.5
0.0
1*2.0
7.1

Alkalinity
(ragA)
16.0
187.0
11*0.0
0.0
86.0
61.9
U7.0
89.0
73.9
90.0
131.0
108.5
Ul.O
150.0
80.5
38.0
123.0
83.6
23.0
137.0
85.2
151.0
221*. 0
182.3

Hardness
(mgAL
133.0
1*20.0
216.2
11*0.0
375.0
273.3
11*0.0
263.0
199.8
1*31.0
62U.O
51*8.8
21*2.0
80U.O
516.1*
168.0
1*29.0
319.2
83.0
1*1*0.0
211.1
i*i*.o
170.0
117.0

Sulfate
(rog/ll
56.0
1*25.0
107.8
110.0
310.0
253.9
60.0
223.0
122.8
l*Uo.o
565.0
503.8
110.0
320.0
191*. 6
120.0
1*750.0
572.7
68.0
200.0
123.9
25.0
51*.o
39.1*
Total
Iron
(mg/1)
o.U
1.1*
0.9
o.u
10.8
2.1*
0.2
1.8
0.6
0.9
l.U
1.2
0.5
3.9
2.2
O.U
2.0
1.0
0.2
U.5
2.1
0.0
0.5
0.?

Manganese
(ragA)
0.2
1.1
0.5
0.9
5.U
2.2
0.2
13.8
2.9
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.8
2.0
1.3
O.U
12.2
3.3
0.2
1.5
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.3

Aluminum
(ng/1)
0.0
2.2
1.0(6)
0.6
U.9
2.1(6)
0.5
2.0
1.2(6)
0.3
l.U
0.9(3)
0.7
5.2
2.0(5)
0.1
2.0
1.1(7)
0.7
2.2
l.l*(7)
0.0
0.8
o.5(5)

Flow
(cfs)
87.0
31*8.0
167. U
30.0
26U.O
77.8
28.0
75.5
U6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
295.0
9800.0
2357.6
9.1
830.0
11*5.8
28.0
11*20.0
272.5
0.1
12.3
3.1

-------
                                  PE NN,
                                 Pitribungn
         INDIANA
                    VICINITY  MAP
         APPALACHIAN
             REGION BOUNDARY
          1061
 LEGEND

STREAMS  CONTINUOUSLY
AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE

STREAMS  INTERMITTENTLY OR
POTENTIALLY  AFFECTED BY
BY MINE DRAINAGE

APPROXIMATE AREA UNDERLAIN
BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS

SAMPLING STATION
MONT
ICTHCto*
3  E
APPALACHIA  MINE  DRAINAGE  POLLUTION
               REPORT
  MUSKINGUM  RIVER  BASIN

  U.S. DEPARTMENT  OF THE  INTERIOR
*L WATER POLLUTION CONTROL  ADMINISTRATION
\S1N REGION              WHEELING FIELD STATION
                                    FIGURE 6

-------
     Map
   Station
     Ho.
    1731
Win.
Max.
Avg.
          No.
          of
        Samples
8^2
7.8
Acidity
teA)
0.0
56.0
6.2
Alkalinity
105.0
158.0
137.7
Hardness
(ng/1)
106.0
209.0
16U.9
Sulfate
teA)
Co.o
75.0
57.7
Total
Iron
(wgA)
0.2
l.U
0.7
Manganese
(rogA)
0.0
0.5
0.2
Aluminum  Flow
 (ragA)   (cfa)
 0.6       281.0
 2.5      2li80.0
 1.2(6)
    *(8)  Indicates the number of samples used in averages when other than the maximum.
os

-------
                           HOCKING RIVER

Description

     The Hocking River basin embraces an area of 1,200 square miles
located in the hill section of southeastern Ohio.  The basin is long
and narrow in shape having a length to width ratio of about three to
one.  The axis of the basin is oriented NW-SE and is about 65 miles
in length.  The basin is bounded on the north by the Muskingum River
drainage basin, on the west by the Scioto River basin, and on the
south by Raccoon Creek, Leading Creek, and the Shade River drainage
basins.  The basin includes portions of Fairfield, Perry,  Hocking,
Morgan, Athens, Meigs, and Washington Counties.

     The Hocking River area is located in the Kanawha Section of the
Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province.   This section represents
a mature plateau of fine texture with moderate to strong relief.
With the exception of the uppermost part in Fairfield, Perry and
Hocking Counties, the basin lies in the unglaciated portion of
Ohio.  Generally, the valleys are narrow and the hillsides are steep
and abrupt.  The divides are ridge-like, separating streams arranged
generally in a dendritic pattern.  The Hocking River heads in Fair-
field County in the northwestern portion of the basin.  The
stream extends approximately 95 miles in a relatively straight line
in a southeastward direction to its confluence with the Ohio River,
about 15 miles below Parkersburg, West Virginia.  The river has an
average gradient of U.6 feet per mile.  Principal tributaries in
the Hocking watershed include Rush Creek, Sunday Creek, Monday
Creek, and Federal Creek.

     The principal communities in the Hocking River basin are Athens,
Lancaster, Logan, and Nelsonville,  All of these communities are
located on the main stem Hocking River.

     The principal industries in the Hocking River basin are centered
chiefly in the two largest cities, Lancaster and Athens.  The
principal industries are engaged in the manufacture of stone, clay,
glass products, electrical machinery products, printing and publishing
products, and fabricated metal products.

     Of the six counties in the Hocking River basin, all but Fairfield
County, in the northwest corner of the watershed, are in the
Appalachian Region.

Coal Reserves and Mining Activity

     Bituminous coal reserves in the Hocking River basin are present
                                70

-------
in five of the six counties that make up the watershed, amounting to
three-quarters of the area.  Coal production has been reported in all
of the counties containing reserves.  Production in 1962 amounted to
more than 900,000 tons but this tonnage increased to over 1.6
million in 1965.  Surface mine operations accounted for approximately
80 percent of the total coal production figures in 1965.

     The recoverable reserve of coal within the boundaries of this
drainage area is estimated at over one billion tons.  This tonnage
represents substantial potential for continued and expanded coal
production in the Hocking River basin (19) (20).

Streams Affected and Present Quality

     The Hocking River basin contains 361| miles of streams signifi-
cantly polluted by coal mine drainage, 223 miles of which ire
continuously polluted and lUl miles of which are intermittently
polluted.  The principal problem areas are found in Athens, Hocking,
and Perry Counties (Fig. 7 and Table 13).

     Major tributaries to the Hocking River polluted by coal
mine drainage are Rush Creek, Monday Creek, Sunday Creek, and
Federal Creek.  At its midpoint (Sta. 1696) Monday Creek carried
an average net acidity load of 5.6 tons per day, had a pH range of
3.1 to 3.6, and had high concentrations of sulfate, metals and
hardness.  At its mouth (Sta. 1690) the acidity load in Monday Creek
increased to 19 tons per day, the pH ranged from 2.8 to 3.3, and
other mine drainage indicators were present in high concentrations.
Alkalinity was continually absent at both locations.

     At its confluence with Sunday Creek (Sta. 1698), the West
Branch of Sunday Creek carried an acidity load of U.2 tons per day,
exhibited a pH range of 2.9 to U.2, and had high concentrations
of sulfate, metals, and hardness.  Sunday Creek carried an average
net acid load of 13 tons per day at its mouth (Sta. 1691) and had
high concentrations of mine drainage indicators.

     Rush and Federal Creeks receive mine drainage throughout their
watersheds, but are alkaline at their mouths.  The level of mine
drainage pollution in these streams is indicated by the concentrations
of sulfate, metals and hardness as measured at stations 1689 and
1699.
                                71

-------
                                  Table 13  -  Water quality data, Hocking River basin
-j
r\>
Map
Station
No.
689


690


691


693


691.


695


696





MLn.
Max.
Avg.
MLn.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Man.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples

6


6


6


6


6


6


6



EM
578
7.1*
6.3
2.8
3.3
3.1
2.6
6.2
3.3
6.5
7.9
7.3
6.6
7.6
6.9
6.1*
7.7
7,1
3.1
3.6
3.1*

Acidity
(mgA)
0.0
35.0
11.0
175.0
597.0
1*38.8
0.0
712.0
1*00.3
0,0
9.0
1.5
0.0
28.0
5.3
0.0
25.0
6.8
107.0
36U.O
21*8.7

Alkalinity
(mg/1)
10.0
72.0
39.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.0
5.3
55.0
296.0
223.3
30.0
113.0
71*. 7
2l*.0
90,0
71.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

Hardness
(mgA)
75.0
51*5.0
32li.O
219.0
11*80.0
571.8
110.0
780.0
562.0
58.0
290.0
180.2
101*. 0
1*60.0
368.0
91*. 0
1*30.0
307.8
1*55.0
lOlJi.O
675.0

Sulfate
(rag A)
75.0
l*5o.o
21*3.3
260.0
875.0
572.5
95.0
1175.0
503.3
U*.o
120.0
71*. 8
80.0
31*0.0
236.7
85.0
31*0.0
201.7
161*. 0
580.0
1*19.0
Total
Iron
(mgA)
0.2
6.6
2.1
1*.8
1*3.2
20.2
3.5
168.0
6l*.9
0.1*
7.6
2.2
0.3
1*.8
1.7
0.3
6.2
1.7
3.6
12.0
6.7

Manganese
(mgA)
1.6
13.8
8.0
8.3
12.2
10.1
0.0
13.8
9.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
1.3
13.8
5.1
0.2
i.l*
1.0
8.2
13.8
11.0

Aluminum
(mgA)
0.0
11.1
l*.t*
25.7
138.9
6l*.5
0.9
86.2
14*.8
0.0
10.6
1*.3
0.9
20.7
5.3
1.5
6.8
3.2
6.1*
66.6
27.1

Flow
(cfa)
36.0
870.0
185.3
8.0
1*3.5
16.6
10.7
90.0
26.1
10.0
301*. 0
62.1
92.0
7600.0
1398.3
120.0
7500.0
11*17.5
2.2
15.0
7.6

-------
  o     c
                                               PE N N
                                              Pittsburgh
                            VICINITY  MAP
                             STREAMS CONTINUOUSLY
                             AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE

                             STREAMS INTERMITTENTLY OR
                             POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY
                             BY MINE DRAINAGE

                             APPROXIMATE AREA UNDERLAIN
                             BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS

                             SAMPLING STATION
          APPALACHIA  MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
                           REPORT
              HOCKING  RIVER BASIN
SCALE
         =   U.S  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR
          !AL  WATER  POLLUTION  CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
          3ASIN REGION             WHEELING FIELD STATION
                                                   FIGURE 7

-------
Map
Station
No.
697


698


699


No.
of

Acidity
Samples pH (mg/l)
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
7.0
8.2
7.6
2.9
4.2
3-2
5.0
7-7
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
125-0
446.0
315.8
0.0
100.0
23-5
Alkalinity
(mg/l)
84.0
187.0
143.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
142.0
86.2
Hardness
(8/D
64
267
149
250
945
696
168
620
323
.0
.0
6(5)*
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.8
Sulfate
(mg/D
24.0
37-0
31.7
330.0
1225-0
740.8
120.0
265.0
210.8
Total
Iron
(mg/l)
0.2
5-3
1.2
16.8
72.0
49.7
0.0
1.0
0.6
Manganese Aluminum Flow
(ng/1)
0.0
1.6
0.6
3-9
13.8
11.0
0.3
3-3
1.3
(mg/l)
0.0
7-9
1.9
3-7
123-8
54.6
0.2
6.7
3-5
(cfs)
13.0
312.0
66.3
3-5
12.2
5-7
0.0
110.0
18.6
*(5)  Indicates the number of samples used in averages when other than the maximum.

-------
                        LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER

Description

     The Little Kanawha River basin embraces 2,309 square miles
of west-central West Virginia, lies entirely within the State, and
comprises nearly 10 percent of the area of the State.  The basin is
80 miles in length, and its maximum width is about 50 miles.  It
is bounded on the south by the Kanawha River basin, on the west by
the Ohio River, on the north by the Middle Island Creek basin, and
on the east by the Monongahela River basin.  The basin contains all
or part of 12 West Virginia counties.  The Little Kanawha River
heads in southwestern Upshur County and flows 165 miles to the
northwest to its mouth at Parkersburg, West Virginia, 185 river
miles below Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  From the headwaters to a
point M- miles downstream, the river has a fall of about 29.5 feet
per mile.  The rate of fall for the remaining 121 miles is only about
1.5 feet per mile.  The principal tributary to the Little Kanawha
is the Hughes River.

     The Little Kanawha River basin is located in the Kanawha
section of the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province.  The
basin exhibits the steep slopes, sinuous ridges, and fine dissection
characteristic of this section.  Flat land is mostly absent except
along the lower reach of the river where broad flood plains and
terraces make up the topography.  Parkersburg, West Virginia, is
located on the flat land near the confluence of the Little Kanawha
and Ohio Rivers.  The topography of the basin is rugged throughout
with  elevations in the headwaters reaching approximately 2,200 feet.
The normal pool elevation at the mouth of the basin is 572 feet,
giving a total relief of about 1,630 feet.

     The major sources of income in the basin are derived from
agriculture, manufacturing, and mining.  Also, with 60 percent of
the area in commercial forest land, timber extraction is important
to the area's economy.  Nearly 90 percent of farm production is
livestock and livestock products.  Coal is the most valuable
mineral resource in the basin, but most of the increased economic
activity in the mining industry comes from an expansion of gas and
oil production.  Most of the industrial and commercial activity is
in Wood County with Parkersburg, located on the main stem Ohio River,
as the principal manufacturing community.  The principal communities
and the I960 populations are Spencer - 2,660; Glenville - 1,828;
Pennsboro - l,660j and, Harrisville - 1,428.  Parkersburg, at the
mouth of the basin, had a I960 population of 1*4,797.

     All of the Little Kanawha River basin is contained in the
Appalachian Region.

-------
 LEGEND



STREAMS  CONTINUC

AFFECTED BY MINE I
                  RANDOLPH
                 \
 55 }?%  '?!T^J/J-ACHIA  M|NE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
POTENTIALLY  AFFEC           REPORT
BY MINE DRAINAGE 	ncruni	
APPROXIMATE AREA

BY COAL-BEARING DE,
                 LE  KANAWHA RIVER  BASIN


                 5. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                =ATER POLLUTION  CONTROL  ADMINISTRATION

                 EGION               WHEELING FIELD STATION
                                                 FIGURE 8

-------
Coal Reserves and Mining Activity

     Bituminous coal reserves are present in seven of the 12 counties
which are wholly or partly contained in the basin.  The area under-
lain by mineable coal reserve amounts to about 60 percent of the
total land area of the watershed.  The area underlain by coal is
roughly that basin area upstream of the western edge of Gilmer County.
The recoverable coal reserve of the Little Kanawha River basin
portion of these counties is estimated to be about two billion tons.

     Although the watershed contains an appreciable coal reserve,
the resource has not been extensively tapped.   The coal removed
over the years in this area has been mostly for domestic uses.
Development of the reserves has been hindered by mining difficulty,
high sulfur content, and variable thickness.   Coal production in
1965 amounted to over one million tons, predominantly from under-
ground mining in Gilmer County (17).

Streams Affected and Present Quality

     Water quality analyses of stream waters show mine drainage to
be present in the Little Kanawha River in its upper portions (Figure  8).
The Little Kanawha River is intermittently polluted by mine drainage
downstream to about Glenville in Gilmer County.  The principal mine
drainage contributors to the main stein are Copen Run, Lynch Run,
Beard Run, and Duck Creek, which enter the river between the Gilmer-
Braxton county line and Glenville, West Virginia.   Mine drainage
pollution also occurs on an intermittent basis in portions of the
headwaters areas of Leading and Cedar Creeks,  tributaries to the
Little Kanawha in Gilmer County.

     The Little Kanawha River is considered to be intermittently
polluted by mine drainage from the mouth of Copen Run and extending
downstream a distance of about five miles.   A total of 2 miles of
tributary streams are considered to be polluted by mine drainage,
20 miles on an intermittent basis.

-------
                           KANAWHA RIVER

Description

     The Kanawha River basin spans the entire width of south-central
West Virginia, includes the west-central portion of Virginia,  and
the northwestern part of North Carolina.  It is bounded on the
north by the Little Kanawha and Monongahela River basins,  on the
east by the Potomac and Roanoke River basins, on the south by the
Pee Dee River basin, and on the west by the Tennessee, Big Sandy and
Guyandotte River basins.  The total drainage area of the Kanawha
River basin is 12,300 square miles, 8,U50 of which are in West
Virginia, 3*080 in Virginia, and 770 in North Carolina.  The Kanawha
River basin is entirely within the Appalachian Region.

     The Kanawha River is formed by the confluence of the New and
Gauley Rivers at Gauley Bridge, West Virginia.  From the point of
origin it flows northwesterly for 95 miles to its junction with
the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West Virginia, 266 river miles below
Pittsburgh.  The main tributaries comprising the Kanawha River
system are the Elk, Gauley, New and Greenbrier Rivers.

     The Kanawha River basin is located in the Kanawha section of
the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province, the Tennessee
section of the Valley and Ridge province, and the southern section
of the Blue Ridge province.  The entire basin is mountainous in
character, although the upper and lower portions comprise two
contrasting types of topography.  Rounded hills and wide valleys
characterize the Appalachian Plateaus province of the lower basin,
and high mountains and deep gorges characterize the Blue Ridge
province of the upper basin.  The elevations of the basin range
from a high of about 5,000 feet in the Blue Ridge Mountains of
North Carolina to 538 feet at the mouth of the Kanawha River,  giving
a maximum relief of about lj,500 feet.

     Agriculture, manufacturing, and mining each hold an important
position in the economy of the basin.  Hay is the principal agricultural
product and the bulk of the rural economy isirelated to livestock
production.  Mining output continues to be important with coal the
principal product extracted.  However, the relative importance of
manufacturing is increasing annually.  Manufacturing is especially
strong in the Charleston, West Virginia area.  Principal communities
in the basin and their I960 populations are Charleston - 85,796j
HLuefield - 19,256,- South Charleston - 19,180; Beckley - 18,61*2;
and St. Albans - 15,103.  All are located in West Virginia.
                                76

-------
Coal Reserves and Mining Activity

     Bituminous coal deposits underlie 19 of the 21 West Virginia
counties that are wholly or partly contained in the Kanawha River
basin.  Coal production has been reported for all but one of these
19 counties.  The recoverable coal reserve in the Kanawha basin,
underlying about 70 percent of the total area of the watershed,
amounts to an estimated 23 billion tons.   There are no coal deposits
in the Virginia and North Carolina portions of the basin.

     The Kanawha basin coal fields were developed very early,  and
have been very large producers in the history of the coal mining
industry in West Virginia.  Three of the counties produced more
than 500 million tons of coal in the period 1883 - 1965.   Coal
production in the Kanawha basin in 1965 amounted to over U6 million
tons.  The principal producing counties were Boone, Fayette, Kanawha,
and Raleigh.  (1?)

Streams Affected and Present Quality

     Some stream pollution from mine drainage in the basin occurs
in nearly all coal mining areas, but it is particularly prevalent
in Kanawha, Boone, and Nicholas Counties (Figure 9).  The Coal
arid Gauley River systems which traverse these counties contain
an estimated 333 and 385 miles of mine drainage polluted streams,
respectively.  (Table 111)

     Significant mine drainage pollution occurs in the Pocatalico,
Coal, Elk, Gauley, and New River watersheds (Table 15).  Generally,
serious pollution conditions exist in the headwater areas of these
drainages and in small tributaries to these streams.  Pollution
conditions in the main streams are intermittent and water quality
is not severely degraded.  Significant intermittent pollution also
occurs in Cabin Creek and Paint Creek, tributaries to the Kanawha
River in southern Kanawha County.

     In the Pocatalico drainage, several small tributaries from
Tupper Creek down to the Kanawha River confluence are seriously
polluted by mine drainage.  A survey of water quality conditions
in 196U showed that over 25 tons of acid per day were being
discharged into the Pocatalico River by these tributaries.

     The Coal River and its principal tributary, Little Coal River,
receive mine drainage in their headwaters and many tributaries to
these streams contribute mine drainage to the main stream.  The
                               77

-------
                             Table Ik



Lengths of streams polluted by acid mine drainage-Kanawha River basin



                           Continuously      Intermittently
Drainage Area
Kanawha River 12,21*0 sq.
Tributaries
Pocatalico River
Tributaries
Coal River
Tributaries
little Goal River
Tributaries
Elk River
Tributaries
Gauley River
Tributaries
New River
Tributaries

Polluted miles
mi.
85
20
31
63
iou
52
96
20
60
87
133

108
155
Polluted miles
95
90

6

18


11
67

165

89
+ SEC -
Total
95
175
20
37
63
122
52
96
3U
127
87
298

197
iCoS
                                78

-------
Coal and Little Coal Rivers are intermittently polluted by nine
drainage over their lengths.  Sulfate concentrations of 20 mg/1 are
frequently exceeded in the Coal River watershed due to mine drainage.

     The Elk River, water supply source for Charleston, West Virginia
intermittently receives mine drainage from the Birch River in
northern Nicholas County, Buffalo Creek in Clay County, and Blue Creek
in Kanawha County.  Mine drainage also occurs in the Elk River from
mining areas in the Webster Springs area,  Webster County.

     The Gauley River receives intermittent nine drainage at various
locations along its length and from the Cherry River, Beaver Creek,
Brushy Fork, Hominy Creek, and Twentymile  Creek.  Although the
intensity of pollution in the Gauley River watershed is not great,
this drainage area contains more miles of  affected streams than the
other tributary basins to the Kanawha River.

     In the New River basin, the Bluestone River in Summers and
Mercer counties and Piney and Coal Creeks  in the Beckley,  W. Va.
area are intermittently affected by mine drainage.  A number of
smaller tributaries to the New River are also affected.  The
principal tributary to the New River, the  Greenbrier River, is
totally unaffected by mine drainage.

     Water quality data gathered by the Wheeling Field Station in
196U reveals that concentrations of iron exceed 0.3 mgA in the
watersheds of all principal tributaries to the Kanawha River.

     In many parts of the Kanawha basin coal mine discharges arc
alkaline rather than acid.  A number of small communities  utilize
abandoned mines and mine discharges ?s sources of domestic supply.
In West Virginia, eight million gallons of mine water per  day were
used for public water supply in I960. (22).
                               79

-------
                               Table 15 - Water Quality Data, Kanawha River basin
00
o
Map

Station
No.
26


16


31


7


81
8U
71*
87


80


Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
Total
of
Samples pH

16


16


16


16

1
1
1

7


1

7.9
9.6
8.6
7.7
9.0
8.U
6.7
9.8
8.6
U.9
6.6
5.5
5.7
7.7
7.9
7.8
8.5
8.1

3.8

Acidity
(mg/1)
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
2.0
o.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
105.0
56.6
U6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

950.0

Alkalinity Hardness
bats/1) (mg/l)
97
180
131
37
80
59
55
83
59
1
99
13
10
1*3
1*8
75
99
86

0

.0
.0
.U
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.6
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0

.0

158.
182.
166.
56.
152.
117.
62.
68.
66.
532.
56U.
551.


202.
136.
2U8.
176.

11*1*0.

0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
5


0
0
0
6

0

Sulfate Iron Manganese
(mg/l) (mg/1) (wg/1)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
900.
57.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.

3590.0 75.

0
8
h
2
6
u
0
1*
2
1
0
3
2
2
u
5
2
9

0

Aluminum Flow
(mg/l) (cfs)
13.5
66.0
la. 2
5.3
29.5
13.8
1100.0
1*300.0
2762.5
1.2
15.U
7.3
0.1
1*0.0
67.0
0.5
1.5
0.8

o.U


-------
      W  Y  0 M I
                                     VICINITY MAP
                             LEGEND

                            STREAMS  CONTINUOUSLY
                            AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE

                            STREAMS  INTERMITTENTLY OR
                            POTENTIALLY  AFFECTED BY
                            BY MINE  DRAINAGE

                            APPROXIMATE  AREA UNDERLAIN
                            BY COAL-BEARING  DEPOSITS

                            SAMPLING STATION
                                       POLLUTION
                KANAWHA  RIVER  BASIN
M C  D  O W  E  L
                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF  THE INTERIOR
                 WATER POLLUTION  CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
               JM REGION              WHEELING FIELD STATION
                                                 FIGURE 9

-------
 R F I E L D
          APPALACHIAN
          REGION
          BOUNDARY
          I	
          SON
   APPALACHIA  MINE  DRAINAGE  POLLUTION
                  REPORT
       SCIOTO  RIVER BASIN
      U.S. DEPARTMENT  OF THE INTERIOR
DERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

-------
                           SCIOTO RIVER

Description

     The Scioto River basin lies in the central portion of Ohio,
its eastern limits nearly coinciding with the north-south center
line of the State, and forms the principal drainage system of
central and southern Ohio (Figure 10).  The Scioto River rises in
northwestern Ohio, flows east 60 miles where it is joined by the
little Scioto, then south 175 miles where it enters the Ohio River
at Portsmouth, Ohio, 356 river miles below Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The total drainage area of the basin is 6,510 square miles,
comprising about 16 percent of the land area of the State and
covering part or all of 31 counties.  The Scioto basin is roughly
rectangular in shape, about 135 miles long and 50 to 60 miles wide
except for the lower 30 miles where it narrows to about 25 miles.
The basin extends north beyond Marion, east beyond Galion and
Jackson, and west beyond Kenton, London, and Hillsboro.  Principal
tributaries to the Scioto include the Olentangy River and Big Walnut,
Big Darby, Deer, Paint, and Salt Creeks.  The principal communities
in the basin and their I960 populations are Columbus - U?l,3l6;
Marion - 37,079; Upper Arlington - 28,U86j Chillicothe - 2k,957j
and Whitehall - 20,818.

     The portions of eight counties that make up the lower Scioto
basin, about one-third of the watershed, are contained in the
Appalachian Region.

     Agricultural and diversified industrial production are the
economic mainstays of the basin.  There is no significant coal
production in the Scioto basin since only the fringe of the
southern Ohio coal fields is within the watershed in its southeastern
corner.  Reported coal production is limited to Jackson, Vinton,
and Hocking Counties.

     A small recoverable coal reserve of about 150 million tons is
estimated for the Scioto basin.  The Vinton and Jackson County
portions of the watershed contain most of the reserve.  (19) (20).

Streams Affected and Present Quality

     SignifiCcint stream pollution by coal mine drainage in the Scioto
basin is limited to Pike Run and another small tributary to Salt
Creek in Vinton County, amounting to about eight miles of streams
which are intermittently polluted by mine drainage (Figure 10).

     Because of the very small area of the basin underlain by coal,
stream pollution by mine drainage will not become a problem except
on a very localized scale.
                                81

-------
                         GUYANDOTTE RIVER

Description

     The Guyandotte River drains 1,670 square miles  of  southwestern
West Virginia, about seven percent of the state (Figure 11).   It
is bounded on the west by the Big Sandy River basin  and on the east
by the Kanawha River basin.  The Guyandotte River has its source
near Rhodell, West Virginia, in southern Raleigh County at the
confluence of Winding Gulf and Stone Coal Creeks.  It flows in a
westerly direction for approximately 50 miles to the town of  Gilbert,
where it turns north and continues for 115 miles to  discharge into
the Ohio River at Huntington, 305 miles below Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The only major tributary is the Mud River, which drains 358 square
miles and enters the Guyandotte at Barbourville, seven  miles  above
its mouth.  Many small upper basin tributaries drain the important
coal mining areas in Logan and Wyoming Counties and  part of Raleigh
County.  Eight counties lie wholly or partly in the  basin. All of
the Guyandotte River basin is contained in the Appalachian Region.

     The topography of the basin is mountainous and  consists  of a
maze of hills and valleys.  Altitudes range from under  1,000  feet
to between 2,000 and 3,000 feet in the middle and upper portions  of
the basin.  The gradient of the upper half of the river is 11 feet
per mile, but in the lower 71 miles the gradient is  only 1.8  feet
per mile.  The Mud River follows the wide valley of  the ancient Teays
River for much of its length.

     There is a small agricultural contribution to the  economy,
although the terrain is too steep to permit faming  on  a large
scale.  Coal mining has been the mainstay of the economy, and many
of the small industries in the area are support industries for
mining.  The major communities in the basin and their I960 populations
are Logan - Ii,l85j Mullens - 3,5UU; and, Mount Gay - 3,386.

Coal Reserves and Mining Activity

     Recoverable coal reserves underlie almost all of the drainage
area.  Only portions of Mingo and Cabell Counties are devoid of
mineable coal reserves.  The recoverable coal reserve of the Guyandotte
River basin is estimated at about five billion tons.  The production
of coal has been the dominant industry in this area  for a long time
and should continue to be in view of the remaining coal reserve.

     Over the period of record, 1883-1965, more than two billion tons
of coal were produced from the  eight counties comprising the basin.
More than 30 million tons were  produced in the basin in 1965.  The
principal producing counties were Logan, Wyoming, Lincoln  and Raleigh
 (17).  Logan County has the largest cumulative production figure,
885 million  tons.  Cabell  County has no recorded coal production.
                                   82

-------
Streams Affected and Present Quality

     Because coal mining is the major industry in the upper half
of the watershed, many streams there are affected by this activity
(Figure 11, Table 17).  Serious water quality problems are commonly
caused by silt and fine coal particles emanating from coal mining
and coal preparation sites.  The Raleigh and Wyoming County portions
of the basin are particularly affected in terms of numbers of streams
and total miles of streams degraded.

     Table 16 shows the miles of streams considered by this survey
to be polluted by coal mine drainage.

                             Table 16

Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage, Guyandotte River basin
Stream
Guyandotte
River
Drainage
Area
(Sq. Mi.)
1,680
Continuously
Polluted
(Miles)
16U
Inter-
mittently
Polluted
(miles)

Total
miles
16U
Tributaries to
  Guyandotte                        12U             11        135

                                    2BB       +n    =299

     The Guyandotte receives mine drainage in its upper portion from
Stonecoal Creek. Devils Fork, Allen Creek, Slab Fork,  and Barkers
Creek (Sta. 178).  The Guyandotte River at Tralee, West Virginia
(Sta. 190) below the affected tributaries mentioned, contained acidity
in excess of alkalinity on one occasion during the stream survey.
The stream pH did not fall under 6.8 but total mineralization, hardness,
sulfate, iron, and manganese were high as a result of  the upstream
mine drainage influence.

     Downstream from Tralee (Sta. 190) the Guyandotte  River receives
small amounts of mine drainage from tributaries in Wyoming County
above Clear Fork, principally Pinnacle and Indian Creeks.

     Clear Fork was the largest contributor of acid to the Guyandotte
River during the 1966 survey.  Virtually the entire Clear Fork water-
shed is polluted.  Laurel Fork of Clear Fork near Jesse, West Virginia
                                83

-------
(Sta. 179) carried an average net acid load of 12 tons per day and
had a minimum pH of 5U.  Clear Fork at Toney Fork, West Virginia
(Sta. 180) had a pH range of 3.5 to 5.7 and carried a net acidity load
of 37 tone per day.

     little Huff Creek, which enters the main stream at the Wyoming
County line (Sta. 181*), discharged an average acid load of U.6 tons
per day during the study period.

     Little additional mine drainage enters the Guyandotte in the
Logan County reach of the stream.  Island Creek is the principal
affected stream in this section.  Island Creek (Sta. 187) was an
alkaline stream when studied but had high concentrations of hardness,
sulfate, iron, and manganese (Table 17).

     The Guyandotte River near Logan, West Virginia (Sta. 198) was
an alkaline stream and had assimilated the acid loads received over
the Wyoming County reach of the drainage area.  Residual effects of
mine drainage were reflected at this location in high concentrations
of other related constituents (Table 17).

     The Guyandotte River at Branchland, West Virginia (Sta. 189)
is generally an alkaline stream but as at Logan, it had high hardness,
sulfate, and metal concentrations.  Near its mouth  (Sta. 197) the
Guyandotte was alkaline and carried high concentrations of mine
drainage-related constituents (Table 17).

     One of the major water quality problems in the Guyandotte basin
is the intermittent occurrence of fine coal and silt in the streams.
These materials are washed from mining areas during periods of
precipitation or are allowed to escape from mining and preparation
facilities.
                                8U

-------
                               Table 17 - Water Quality Data,  Guyandotte River basin
o>
Map
Station
No.
178


179


180


181


182


183


181*


185




Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples
6


6


6


6


U


6


6


6



pH
677
7.7
6.9
5.U
7.1
6.6
3.5
5.7
U.U
3.8
6.5
6.0
6.1
7.3
6.5
6.7
7.2
6.9
6.U
7.1
6.8
6.8
7.6
7.2

Acidity
(mgA)
0.0
61.0
17.0
5.o
115.0
38.0
58.0
608.0
27U.8
5.o
25.0
16.3
3.0
2U.O
12.5
0.0
115.0
31.2
12.0
79.0
U0.3
0.0
39.0
15.7

Alkalinity
(mgA)
12.0
119.0
3U.O
2.0
5U.O
26.7
0.0
13.0
3.8
0.0
17.0
9.8
10.0
18.0
13.3
8.0
7U.O
U0.8
8.0
150.0
Ul.2
18.0
196.0
86.0

Hardness
(mgA)
23.0
110.0
55.5
U5.o
109.0
73.8
162.0
3UO.O
251.2(5)*
lU.o
70.0
32.5
15.0
58.0
33.3
2U.O
57.0
U0.5
15.0
115.0
60.7
7U.o
162.0
101.2

Sulfate
(mgA)
35.0
66.0
U6.5
UO.O
130.0
81.2
165.0
690.0
3U8.3
20.0
23.0
20.8
Ul.O
23.0
19.3
3.0
25.0
15.3
30.0
75.0
55.7
75.0
238.0
121.3
Total
Iron
(mfiA)
0.0
8.U
1.8
0.6
12.0
3.2
0.0
216.0
U2.U
0.2
0.6
o.U
0.6
U.2
1.9
0.5
1.2
0.8
0.6
18.7
5.1
0.0
6.2
2.5

Manganese
1 GngA)
0.0
2.1
0.6
0.5
2.U
0.9
2.0
58.6
13.7
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.8
o.U
0.1
o.U
0.2
0.2
3.1
0.9
0.2
3.U
1.0

Aluminum
(mgA)
0.8
8.5
2.5
1.1
5.0
2.6
7.5
260.0
59.7
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.7
5.9
2.8
0.6
U.2
2.0
0.0
18.7
5.1
0.0
U.o
1.5

Flow
(cfs)
oTU
76.5
18.0
2.0
500.0
1U5.2
0.6
180.0
63.9
o.U
12.0
3.2
1.0
28.9
10.9
o.U
220.0
61.3
1.0
U20.0
9U.U
65.0
U120.0
986.2

-------
CO
Map
Station
No.
156


187


188


189


190


197


198





Min.
Max,
Avg.
Min.
Max,
Avg.
Min.
Max,
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples

6


6


6


6


6


6


6



pH
^)  -L
6.5
5.7
6.7
7.6
7.2
6.U
8.0
7.1
6.7
7.3
7.0
6.8
7.9
7.U
6.6
7.5
7.1
6.9
7.U
7.1

Acidity
(mgA)
7.0
316.0
82.0
0.0
28.0
12.2
0.0
20.0
9.3
0.0
27.0
7.0
0.0
28.0
9.5
0.0
28.0
8.7
0.0
26.0
9.8

Alkalinity
(rag/1)
1.0
15.0
5.8
90.0
33U.O
250.3
7.0
1*8.0
36.8
22.0
121.0
78.5
26.0
199.0
136.5
38.0
100.0
67.7
22.0
155.0
86.0

Hardness
(me A)
26.0
297.0
me. 2
135.0
300.0
21U.2
35.0
82.0
56.5
95.0
2U8.0
166.5
73.0
170.0
125.2
100.0
198.0
1U1.0
70.0
230.0
168.3

Sulfate
(mg/1)
65.0
U25.0
216.7
225.0
625.0
UU5.8
2.0
30.0
17.5
90.0
UOO.O
212.5
53.0
260.0
179.7
110.0
3UO.O
195.8
85.0
3U5.0
210.8
Total
Iron
(mgA)
0.0
9U.O
17.6
3.1
8.8
5.6
0.1
5.9
1.8(5)
0.3
8.U
2.1i
1.1
3.U
1.9
0.2
U.9
2.5
o.U
3.8
1.7

Manganese
(mgA)
0.7
1U.O
lull
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.0
3.k
1.2
0.0
0.7
o.U
0.1
1.6
0.7
0.1
1.1
0.5
0.1
0.8
o.U

Aluminum
(mgA)
1.8
19.0
6.1
0.0
8.1
3.3
0.1
2.1
1.K5)
1.9
6.2
3.1
1.1
3.6
2.3
o.U
U.7
3.2
0.9
8.2
U.2

Flow
(gfa)
1.0
U60.0
131.0
20.0
80.0
36.U
1.0
975.0
183.0
83.0
2855.0
661.0
26.5
900.0
200.3
1UO.O
6000.0
13U6.7
65.o
250.0
105.0
         Indicates the number of samples used in averages when other than the maximum.

-------
                            VICINITY  MAP
                     LEGEMD

                     STREAMS CONTINUOUSLY
                     AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE

                     STREAMS INTERMITTENTLY OR
                     POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY
                     BY  MINE DRAINAGE

                     APPROXIMATE AREA UNDERLAIN
                     BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS

                     SAMPLING STATION
, Tommy Creek
itigation Areas
51  G  H
        APPALACHIA  MINE  DRAINAGE  POLLUTION
                       REPORT
         GUYANDOTTE  RIVER BASIN
           U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE  INTERIOR
   FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL  ADMINISTRATION
   OHIO  BASIN REGION      WHEELING  FIELD STATION
                                          FIGURE II

-------
                          BIO SAUDI RIVER

Description

     The Big Sandy River is formed by the junction of Tug and Levisa
Forks at Louisa, Kentucky, and flows northerly 27 niles to enter
the Ohio River about 10 niles downstream from Huntington, West
Virginia.  It drains U,280 square miles, of which 2,330 are drained
by Levisa Fork and 1,550 by Tug Fork (Figure 12).  Levisa Fork rises
in southwestern Virginia and flows north for 3k miles in Virginia
and 130 miles in Kentucky to Louisa.  Tug Fork rises in southwestern
West Virginia and flows northwest about 60 miles to Kentucky, where
it forms the boundary with West Virginia for about 9U miles.
Principal tributaries to Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River are
Russell Fork, Beaver Creek, and Johns Creek.  The basin is bounded
by the Guyandotte River basin on the east, the Tennessee River basin
on the south and the Kentucky and Licking River basins on the west.
All of the Big Sandy River basin is within the Appalachian Region.

     The basin varies from mountainous terrain in its upper portions
to hilly areas along the Big Sandy River.  Some of the most rugged
portions of the three states is found in the headwaters of the
Tug and Levisa Forks of the Big Sandy River.

     Principal economic activities in the basin are the mining,
processing, and transporting of coal, fanning, gas and oil production,
and lumbering.  The principal communities in the basin and their
I960 populations are Williamson, West Virginia - 6,7U6j Welch,
West Virginia - 5,313j Pikeville, Kentucky - U,75U; and Paintsville,
Kentucky - U,025.

Coal Reserves and Mining Activity

     Coal production is the major industry in the basin and there
are more than 2,800 active mines, the majority of which are under-
ground.  Bituminous coal reserves are present in 16 of the counties
that are either wholly or partly within the basin.  In 1963 the
total recoverable coal reserves were estimated to be more than
11 billion tons.  Coal has been mined in most of the counties, and
in 1965 production was more than 65 million tons.  The major
producing counties were Pike and Floyd Counties in Kentucky;  Buchanan,
Dickinson, and Wise Counties in Virginia; and McDowell and Mingo
Counties in West Virginia.  (17) (23) (2U) (25)

Streams Affected and Present Quality

     Because coal mining is a major industry in the upstream reaches
of the basin, many streams are affected by the activity (Figure 12,
Table 19).  Serious water quality problems are caused by the fine
coal and silt discharged or spilled from coal washeries.
                                87

-------
     Approximately 500 miles of streams were found by this study to be
polluted by coal mine drainage and other mining activities.   (Table 18)

                             Table 18

            Lengths of streams polluted by mine drainage.

                       Big Sandy River basin

                      DRAINAGE      CONTINUOUSLT    INTERMITTENTLT
                      AREA          POLLUTED        POLLUTED      TOTAL
STREAM	Square Miles  (Miles)         (Miles)        (Miles)
Big Sandy River
Tributaries to
Big Sandy
Tug Fork
Tributaries to
Tug Fork
Levisa Fork
Tributaries to
Levisa Fork

U,29U


1,550

58
2,330


5& H
27

2
70

7U
131

138
h IJE2
27

2
70

132
131

138
50
     Tributary streams of the basin in which mine drainage pollution
effects have been observed to be the most serious are those in the
headwaters in McDowell and Mingo Counties, West Virginia; Buchanan
and Dickinson Counties, Virginia; and Pike and Floyd Counties, Kentucky.
The streams in these locations drain the areas of heaviest mining
activity in the basin.

     Generally, the streams in the Big Sandy River basin that are
affected by mine drainage, although highly mineralized, are not
characterized by high acidity concentrations.  Fine coal and silt are
often present in the streams of the basin due to surface runoff and
discharges from coal mining and preparation sites.   Concern has been
expressed over detrimental effects of coal washery discharges above
Fishtrap Reservoir on Levisa Fork near the Kentucky-Virginia line.

     Tug Fork of Big Sandy River receives some intermittent mine
drainage directly in its reach above Welch, West Virginia and from
the Elkhorn Creek, Dry Fork, and Panther Creek watersheds (Sta. 192)
in McDowell County. West Virginia.  Tug Fork near laeger, West
Virginia (Sta. 19U) reflected the mine drainage influence in total
mineralization, and high sulfate, iron, and manganese concentrations
(Table  19).

-------
     In the Mingo County, West Virginia reach of the Tug Fork
several small tributaries contribute mine drainage to the main
stream above Williamson, West Virginia.   Below Williamson,
Pigeon Creek in West Virginia and Big Creek and Wolf Creek in
Kentucky are affected.  Pigeon Creek (Sta. 196), had a minimum pH
of 6.U and a maximum conductivity of 1,300 micromhos per centimeter
during the survey.  It contained high hardness, sulfate, iron, and
manganese concentrations on occasion and had acidity in excess of
alkalinity on one occasion.

     Tug Fork below Pigeon Creek, near Kermit, West Virginia, (Sta.
had a minimum pH of 5.9, acidity in excess of alkalinity on one
occasion, and high concentrations of sulfate, iron, and manganese during
part of the study period.

     like Tug Fork, Levisa Fork is affected in its headwaters area.
Levisa Fork at the Kentucky-Virginia State line (Sta. 02) discharged an
average acid load of 15 tons per day.  The pH did not go below 6.7,
but the water contained high concentrations of mine drainage-
related constituents (Table 19).

     Russell Fork (Sta. 03) contributed an average net acid load of
20 tons per day to Levisa Fork.  The pH of this stream did not fall
below 6.2.

     Levisa Fork below Pikeville (Sta. 09) contained high residual
concentrations of sulfate, iron, and manganese from nine drainage
received in its upper reaches (Table 19)

     Below Pikeville there are several tributaries to Levisa Fork
that intermittently contribute additional quantities of mine drainage
in Floyd and Johnson Counties, Kentucky.  Beaver, Middle Johns,
Toms, and Greasy Creeks in these counties are intermittently polluted
by mine drainage*

     The Big Sandy River at Louisa, Kentucky (Sta. 06) contained
acidity in excess of alkalinity during part of the survey.  However,
the stream carried an average net acid load of 8.9 tons per day for
the entire survey period.  Sulfate, iron, manganese and hardness
concentrations were 52-320 mgA* 1.0-25.0 mg/1, 0.1 to 1.3 rag/!*
and 60 to 582 mgAt respectively.
                               89

-------
                             Table 19 - Hater quality data, Big Sandy River basin
  Map
Station
  No.
  02
  03
  01*
  05
  06
  07
  08
  09
ffin.
Max.
ffin.
Max.
Airg.

MLn.
Max.
Avg.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Airg.

Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
No.
of
Samples

6


6


6


6


6


6


6


6



2S
67?
7.8
7.2
6.2
7.9
7.2
6.7
7.8
6.9
6.1*
7.0
6.7
6.9
7.1*
7.1
6.2
7.1*
6.8
7.2
7.6
7.3
6.7
7.7
7.1

Acidity
(ngA)
0.0
28.0
U*.o
0.0
175.0
39.7
0.0
96.0
21.0
13.0
63.0
30.7
2.0
92.0
28.3
0.0
1*3.0
18.8
0.0
21*. 0
13.8
0.0
35.0
20.5

AHM-inlt-y
(agA)
13.0
56.0
32.8
20.0
55.0
36.2
35.0
66.0
1*8.7
15.0
38.0
21*.5
19.0
86.0
1*9.3
25.0
1*8.0
33.2
28.0
111.0
71*.0
29.0
65.0
1*1.3

Hardness
(agA)
103.0
31*8.0
251.7
18.0
12l*.0
69.0
11*1*. 0
656.0
336.2
190.0
920.0
1*55.0
60.0
582.0
190.3
58.0
mo.o
93.0
51*. o
186.0
11*2.2
60.0
152.0
105.0

Sulfate

80.0
1*00.0
233.3
1*0.0
100.0
70.0
15.0
50.0
29.2
12.0
30.0
23.2
52.0
320.0
139.5
1*5.0
uo.o
79.5
85.0
185.0
135.8
1*0.0
155.0
96.3
Total
Iron
(&A;
0.6
9.1
3.1
0.5
115.0
22.3
0.0
16.8
3.3
0.0
12.0
3.1
1.0
25.0
7.0
0.0
15.6
6.0
1.0
5.0
2.8
1.2
10.3
6.3

Manganese
1 (ngA)
0.3
1.6
0.8
0.7
12.1*
3.1
0.2
1.3
0.5
0.1
2.5
1.1
0.1
1.3
0.7
0.3
1*.6
1.1*
0.3
1.5
0.8
0.5
2.9
1.6

Aluminum
(mzA)
l.U
9.9
l*.o
1.3
107.0
21.1
0.0
63.8
11.2
0.6
25.2
7.3
1.2
19.1
6.1
0.0
21*.0
7.8
0.1*
3.1*
1.9
2.1
9.8
6.1*

Flow
(cfs)
^T?
1*300.0
759.3
27.3
31*70.0
1533.1
2.0
61.0
25.7
11.0
320.0
92.6
170.0
1680.0
889.2
105.0
11000.0
3980.5
8.1
690.0
225.6
190.0
6900.0
231*1.7

-------
  Map
Station
  No.
 191
 192
 193
 191*
Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.

Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples
6


6


6


6


6


6


6


6



Acidity
&
7.8
7.1*
7.U
8.1*
8.0
5.8
7.2
6.7
5.5
7.9
6.8
6.6
7.2
6.9
6.6
7.3
7.1
6.1*
8.6
7.7
6.8
8,1
7.7
(mgA)
0.0
25.0
10.3
0.0
25.0
6.5
0.0
1*8.0
18.7
5.0
59.0
26.8
5.0
5o.o
25.7
i*.o
1*6.0
25.7
0.0
31.0
8.0
0.0
57.0
20.2

Alkalinity
(rap/1)
1*6.0
125.0
80.7
56.0
167.0
93.5
10.0
87.0
1*6.3
2.0
27.0
17.5
9.0
60.0
33.0
12.0
1*6.0
29.0
1*7.0
326.0
191*. 2
52.0
299.0
193.3

Hardness
(ng/1)
50.0
130.0
80.7
25.0
128.0
77.5
15.0
255.0
11*6,0
107.0
350.0
21*9.8
37.0
273.0
139.2
13.0
67.0
1*6.2
38.0
110.0
87.7
67.0
188.0
ne.8

Sulfate
(mg/1)
36_0
195.0
86.7
1*0.0
21*5.0
105.2
35.0
270.0
139.8
80.0
1*15.0
21*0.8
1*0.0
300.0
138.8
25.0
86.0
51.5
l*5.o
130.0
80.8
50.0
220.0
133.2
Total
Iron
(ng/1)
0.1*
3.1*
1.2
0.1
1.6
0.6
0.5
16.8
3.6
0.1*
9.1
2.8
0.3
21.6
1*.5
0.3
6.0
2.3
0.0
13.U
3.2
0.0
H*.3
3.9

Manganese
(mg/1)
0.0
2.1*
0.8
0.0
1.3
0.1*
0.2
2.9
0.8
0.7
1.8
1.3
0.2
3.3
1.2
0.2
1.1
0.6
0.1
2.9
0.7
0.1
2,8
0.8

Aluminum
(ne/1)
0.3
2.5
1.2
0.1*
3.0
1.U
0.7
22.5
lt.8
0.0
9.1*
3.2
0.1
17.2
1*.3
0.1*
U.o
1.8
0.0
17.5
U.8
0.0
ll*.9
6.0

Flow
(eta)
0.5
228.0
57.1*
0.1*
98.2
29.8
0.3
11*00.0
265.2
1.7
360.0
73.7
0.2
1100.0
193.7
1.0
1630.0
292.8
18.6
880.0
230.1
63.0
2879.0
781*. 3

-------
  Map
Station
  No.
~l9f     Mln.
         Max.
         Avg.

 196     Min.
         Max.
         Avg.
No.
of
Sample
5
6
s pH
579
8.2
7.1
6.U
7.2
6.8
Acidity
(ng/1)
0.0
80.0
22.8
0.0
1*3.0
10.0
Alkalinity
(fflgA)
18.0
11*8.0
71.0
12.0
7U.O
30.8
Hardness
(me/I)
1*6.0
202.0
115.6
70.0
31*8.0
151.7
Sulfate
(ngA)
55.0
255.0
ni.o
60.0
610.0
187.8
Total
Iron Manganese
0.0
5.1
2.1*
0.0
2.8
1.6
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.0
1.2
o.U
Alusd.mm
I.I*
l*.o
2.8
0.0
2.8
1.7
Flow
(efs)
iBSTo
5232.0
2150.2
6.0
11*00.0
398.3

-------
         T ENN
                         N. CAROLINA
                   VICINITY  MAP
          LEGEND

         STREAMS  CONTINUOUSLY
         AFFECTED  BY MINE  DRAINAGE

         STREAMS  INTERMITTENTLY OR
         POTENTIALLY  AFFECTED BY
         BY MINE DRAINAGE

         APPROXIMATE  AREA UNDERLAIN
         BY COAL- BEARING DEPOSITS
   l08*  SAMPLING  STATION
    APFALACHIA  MINE  DRAINAGE POLLUTION
                  REPORT
      BIG SANDY  RIVER  BASIN

      US DEFftRTMENT OF THE NTERIOR
FEDERAL VWSTER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

                                FIGURE 12

-------
            OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM AND MINOR TRIBUTARIES

Description

     Areas along both banks of the Ohio River main stem from
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Meldahl Dam on the Ohio near Foster,
Kentucky, draining directly to the river, are included in this
section of the study (Figure 13, Hi, and 15).  The sum of the minor
tributary drainage areas along this U3& mile stretch of the Ohio
River is about Hi,000 square miles.  The largest of the tributaries
in this area so defined are Little Beaver Creek (Ohio-Pennsylvania);
Middle Island Creek (West Virginia); Raccoon Creek (Ohio);
Twelvepole Creek (West Virginia); Little Muskingum River (Ohio); and,
Ohio Brush Creek (Ohio).

     In Pennsylvania, the Ohio River flows within the unglaciated
part of the Appalachian Plateau.  Chartiers and Raccoon Creeks, the
major tributaries entering from the south in Pennsylvania, drain a
hilly, unglaciated section of the plateau.  Between the Pennsylvania
border and Wheeling, West Virginia the river continues to flow through
an area unmodified by glacial action, so the topography remains rather
rugged and dissected.  It is drained by many short streams entrenched
in fairly deep, narrow valleys.

     The valley of the Ohio River gradually widens downstream.  At
Point Pleasant, West Virginia, the valley contains alluvial deposits
about two and one-half miles wide and in some places these deposits
are more than 100 feet thick.  The Ohio Valley is bordered by an almost
continuous band of rough unglaciated land from the mountainous head-
water regions of western Pennsylvania through the hilly country of
southeastern Ohio into the Knobs section of Kentucky.  The minor
tributary drainage areas are generally hilly and rough.

     The Pennsylvania section of the main stem drainage area is
heavily industrialized with major manufacturing categories being
primary metals, fabricated metals including structural steel, electrical
and nonelectrical machinery, food processing, and other durable goods.
Primary metals, chemicals, and other durables are major employment
categories in the upper Ohio and Huntington reaches of the river.
The principal communities in this drainage area and their I960
populations are Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - 60U,332; Huntington, West
Virginia - 83,627; Wheeling, West Virginia - 53,100; and, Parkersburg,
West Virginia - UU,797.  These four cities are located directly on
the Ohio River.

     With the exception of Columbiana and Mahoning Counties (Ohio)
in the Pittsburgh to New Cumberland Dam reach of the Ohio River, and
Bracken and Mason Counties, Kentucky, in the Belleville to Meldahl
                                93

-------
Dam reach, the entire drainage area is contained in the Appalachian
Region.

     Approximately 30 million tons of coal were produced in this
watershed in 1965.  More than half of the tonnage was from the
State of Ohio, and the total tonnage was about equally divided between
surface and underground mining methods.  Production in this area will
greatly increase in the near future to supply fuel requirements of a
number of steam electric generating plants which are proposed to be
built along the Ohio River.  (Hi) (17) (19) (20) (23) (25)

Streams Affected and Present Quality
Pittsburgh to New Cumberland Dam

     The Ohio River in this upper drainage area (1,609 square miles)
is affected by mine drainage primarily due to the influence of the
Monongahela River.  The Ohio River at the Ohio-West Virginia-Pennsylvania
state boundary carried an average net acid load of about 350 tons
per day over the period 191*5 to I960.  The Ohio River is presently
considered to be intermittently polluted by mine drainage from its
origin to the entry of the Beaver River 25 miles downstream.

     In the drainage area of this reach of the Ohio River there are
195 miles of streams polluted by mine drainage. Table 20 presents
the miles of streams found by this survey to be polluted by mine
drainage in the Ohio River main stem and minor tributaries areas.
In the upper end of the drainage area defined by the Ohio River
main stem and its minor tributaries, Chart iers Creek, Montour Run,
Raccoon Creek, and Sixmile Run are polluted by mine drainage (Figure
13, and Table 21).  These tributaries enter the Ohio River between
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the Ohio state line.  Chart iers and
Robinson Creeks are the largest and most seriously affected of these
streams.

     Chartiers Creek was not an acid stream during the 1966 survey but
did contain high hardness, sulfate, iron, and manganese from mine
drainage discharged within its drainage area (Sta. 587).  Raccoon
Creek was an acid stream during the entire survey (Sta. 588).  The pH
ranged from 3.3 to 5.1 and the stream discharged an average net acid
load of 25 tons per day to the Ohio River.  Downstream at Steubenville,
Ohio, Yellow Creek is affected by mine drainage over most of its length,
but is not acidic (Sta. 681).
                                9h

-------
New Cumberland Dan to Eellevilln Dam

     The middle reach of the Ohio drains an area of 3,933 square miles
of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virgin: a.  Mine drainage stream
pollution in this area is more severe than in the upper drainage area.
Some LOO miles of streams are pollute:1 in varying degrees by mine
drainage in this watershed (Figure Ik and Table
     Listed in downstream order, tributary basins significantly
polluted with mine drainage are:  Harmon Creek (West Virginia) :
Cross, Short. Wheeling, McIIahon, Captira, Sunfish, and Duck Creeks (Ohic).
All these streams exhibit high concentrations of one or more of tlic
constituents prevalent in mine drainage (i.e., hardness, sulfate,
acidity, iron, and manganese) (Table 21).

     During the 1966 survey, Harmon Creek (West Virginia) (Sta. 17?-i)
and McKahon Creek (Ohio) (Sta. 685) were consistently acid and
discharged average net acid loads of 31 tons and 1.2 tons per day,
respectively, to the Ohio River.  The other streams sampled generally
contained alkalinity in excess of acidity but discharged large iron,
manganese, hardness, and sulfate loads to the Ohio River.

     Tributary watersheds carrying mine drainage in smaller amounts
include Kings, Cross, Buffalo, Shor1- , and Wheeling Creeks in West
Virginia and Rush Run and little Muskingum River in Ohio.  Additional
drainage enters the Ohio River from active and inactive mine sites
located along this reach of the Ohio Rfver valley.

     Two fish kills, resulting from acid mine drainage, were reported
in this portion of the river basin during 1966.

     Date          County          State         Watershed  Number of
_ Fish Killed

a.  8/11/66        Belmont         Ohic       Captina Creek  16,591

b.  9/13/66        Carroll         Ohio       Riley's Creek      8U

Belleville Dam to Meldahl Dam

     The lowermost minor tributary watershed area (7,090 square miles)
is more severely polluted than either of the upper tributary watersheds.
This section contains more than 700 miles of streams polluted by mine
drainage (Figure 15 and Table Hi) .  The Raccoon Creek basin, which
drains 68U square miles of southeastern Ohio contains 230 miles of

-------
polluted streams and is the most severely affected tributary
watershed in this reach.  Nearly all of the affected streams in this
area are in the state of Ohio.

     The tributary basins significantly polluted with mine drainage
are Shade River, Leading Creek, Raccoon Creek, Symmes Creek, and
Fine Creek, Ohio (Table 21).  Other affected watersheds include
Campaign Creek, Indian Gnyan Creek and Little Scioto River in Ohio
and Twelvepole Creek in Vest Virginia.

     Shade River (Sta. 68?), and Leading Creek (Sta. 688) in
Meigs County, Ohio, were sampled during the survey.  These streams
exhibited minimum pH readings of U.O and 6.7 and each discharged an
average net acid load of 2.5 tons per day.  Both streams were
acidic through most of the survey.

     Raccoon Creek enters the Ohio River near Gallipolis, Ohio, drain-
ing some of the oldest and most intensively mined areas of southeastern
Ohio.  Mining in this watershed began on a large scale in 1856
coincident with railroad construction.  Stream surveys by the Ohio
River Basin Project in 1965 and 1966 show that most of the streams
in the basin are grossly polluted by mine drainage and are acid in
character.  Acidity concentrations as high as U2U mgA and pH
readings as low as 2.8 were recorded during these studies.  Raccoon
Creek carried an average net acidity load of 100 tons per day,
seven miles below the mouth of Little Raccoon Creek.  Little Raccoon
Creek, principal tributary of Raccoon Creek, contributed an average
acid load of 13 tons per day during the same period (Figure 15)*
                               96

-------
                             Table 20

         Length of streams polluted by nine drainage upper
             Ohio River main stem and minor tributaries
STREAM
DRAINAGE
AREA
(Sq. Mi.)
Pittsburgh to 1609
New Cumberland
Minor tributaries
CONTIHroUSLY
POLLUTED
(Miles)
159
INTERMITTarrLT
POLLUTE)
(Miles)
2U
TCTA.L
(Miles)
21
159
New Cumberland to   3933
Belleville Dam
  Minor tributaries               365            38             1*03

Belleville Dam to   7090
Meldahl Dam
  Minor tributaries               6UO           101*             7lil*
                                l,3Bi      +    B5       -   1,330
                                9?

-------
                              Table 21 - Water quality data, main stem Ohio River basin
M3
03
Map
Station
No.
10


11


171*


175


176


199


200


201





Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples

6


6


7


6


6


1*


6


6




9
7.7
7.3
6.8
7.U
7.0
3.8
6.7
5.2
6.7
7.1*
6.9
6.6
7.6
7.0
5.3
7.U
6.6
6.7
7.5
7.1
6.7
7.1*
7.1

Acidity
CiBK/1)
0.0
20.0
6.2
0.0
18.0
6.8
20.0
125.0
70.1*
0.0
27.0
12.3
0.0
25.0
7.0
0.0
5.0
1.3
0.0
5.0
0.8
0.0
5.0
1.5

iffeHTi1t.y
C*/l)
91.0
119.0
100.8
21.0
1*2.0
28.7
0.0
15.0
5.U
26.0
53.0
37.2
69.0
138.0
119.0
50.0
88.0
61.3
52.0
63.0
56.8
62.0
81.0
68.8

Hardness

80.0
11*0.0
116.7
35.0
76.0
1*5.2
205.0
29l*.0
21*6.1*
71*7.0
1016.0
937.2
136.0
1061.0
1*15.8
60.0
9l*.0
71.8
65.0
lOli.O
86.2
69.0
98.0
81.2

Sulfate
(*A)
28.0
1*5.0
35.7
10.0
32.0
21.3
85.0
375.0
233.6
150.0
750.0
1*80.0
85.0
1*25.0
206.0
5.0
20.0
13.8
11*. 0
20.0
17.8
2.0
25.0
15.7
Total
Iron
(np/i;
0.0
2.7
0.9
0.0
3.2
0.8
1.3
71.0
32.7
0.2
U.8
2.2
1.1*
ll*.2
lt.1
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.6

Manganese
) Cag/l)
0.0
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.1
1.5
2.8
2.3
1.8
U.I
3.0
0.3
5.9
2.2
0.2
1.1
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.6

Almdnun
(mi/1)
0.0
3.1*
1.2
0.0
1.1
o.U
0.0
20.7
6.3
0.8
19.0
7.6
1.0
18.3
U.8
0.0
1.9
0.8
0.0
1.5
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.7

Flow
(efi)
2.9
300.0
99.3
1.7
77.U
17.8
160.0
186.0
175.1
0.5
10.0
U.7
6.0
6U.O
18.9
0.0
O.U
0.1
0.1
7.0
3.9
0.1
20.0
3.8

-------
Map
Station
No.
202


203


587


588


681


682


683


68U


Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Acidity Alkalinity
Samples p_H
7.0
6


6


6


6


6


6


6


6

7.2
7.1
6.8
7.2
7.0
6.3
7.1
6.6
3.3
5.1
l*.o
6.1
7.U
6.8
6.7
7.5
7.2
6.6
7.5
7.2
7.3
8.0
7.6
(mgA)
0.0
13.0
lt.7
0.0
18.0
9.2
5.0
1*1.0
22.3
131.0
362.0
21*1.8
1.0
20.0
9.2(5)*
0.0
22.0
6.5
0.0
15.0
5.o
0.0
11.0
2.0
(mgA)
35.0
60.0
50.7
15.0
5i.o
33.2
18.0
75.0
1*5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
18.0
13.2(5)
66.0
82.0
73.0
110.0
11*5.0
127.2
82.0
11*7.0
121.5
Hardness
(mgA)
U6.0
75.0
63.0
22.0
60.0
1*1*. 7
522.0
852.0
601*. 2
31*5.0
816.0
627.3
262.0
285.0
270.2
590.0
1005.0
820.3
920.0
2560.0
11*75.7
366.0
1363.0
1001.8
Sulfate
OittA)
12.0
35.0
21*. 2
7.0
27.0
17.7
1*00.0
800.0
1*91.7
305.0
800.0
1*63.3
185.0
350.0
250.0
300.0
850.0
510.8
300.0
1750.0
698.3
31*5.0
950.0
1*60.0
Total
Iron
(mgA)
0.8
1*.8
1.6
0.8
2.7
1.9
2.1*
9.6
5.7
0.1
7.2
3.1*
0.0
2.1*
0.5
0.0
2.1*
0.7
1.1
16.8
6.7
2.U
7.2
3.1*
Manganese
(mgA)
0.1
2.1*
0.9
0.2
0.7
0.1*
2.8
3.6
3.2
1.1
Ui.7
8.3
0.0
1.0
0.6
0.3
2.1*
1.0
0.0
3.3
1.2
0.2
1.1
o.h
Aluminum
(rag A)
0.1
3.6
1.5
0.9
2.6
1.6
5.5
27.U
13.6
0.0
69.1*
27.1*
0.2
7.7
2.0
0.0
8.1
2.0
U.o
16.2
10.0
0.0
21.8
8.3
Flow
(cfa)
0.0
80.0
16.0
1.0
90.0
20.7
62.0
80.0
70.8
11*.0
57.0
31*.2
9.0
25.0
11*.8
9.0
2l*.7
15.1
21*. 0
131.0
89.7
1U.O
29.0
22. U

-------
8
Map
Station
No.
685


686


687


688


700


701


702


703


701*


No.
of
Samplei
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. 6
Avg.
Min.
Max. U
Avg.
Acidity
* l!
" 76
6.6
5.1*
5.3
6.8
6.1*
1*.0
7.1
6.1
6.7
7.0
6.8
6.8
7.3
7.1
6,2
7.1
6.9
7.2
8.0
7.6
7.1*
8.0
7.7
7.5
8.1
7.8
(gA)
0.0
125.0
73.2
0.0
61.0
n*.o
9.0
178.0
56.7
15.0
37.0
25.7
0.0
28.0
12.3
0.0
27.0
7.8
0.0
27.0
7.7
li.0
103.0
39.5
0.0
33.0
18.8
Alkalinity
(ngA)
0.0
17.0
8.0
5.0
83.0
1*8.5
0.0
1*5.0
21*. 3
7.0
35.0
21*.7
17.0
68.0
1*5.8
22.0
50.0
31.8
91.0
210.0
163.2
103.0
201.0
169.0
133.0
152.0
11*1.3
Hardness
(rag/1)
730.0
1031.0
877.8
295.0
381,0
333.8
lltit.O
193.0
168.7
160.0
280.0
219.8
50.0
156.0
121,8
10.0
82.0
56.2
11*6.0
205.0
163.8
101.0
230,0
161.2
98.0
190.0
11*1.3
Sulfate
(ngA)
15.0
1*50.0
296.7
1U*.0
500.0
21*1.2
76.0
750.0
236.8
95.0
270.0
193.7
62.0
85.0
73.5
13.0
30.0
21*.5
22.0
1*0.0
33.8
28.0
1*0.0
35.5
31.0
1*3.0
36.8
Total
Iron
(gA)
0.6
9.6
1*.6
0.5
19.2
1*.7
0.0
3.8
1.1*
0.5
l*.l
2.0
1.2
8.7
3.0
0.6
1.8
1.0
0.2
6.1*
1.1*
0.0
2.9
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.1*
Manganese Aluninuw Flow
(gA)
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.3
2.9
1.7
0.6
7.3
3.1*
2.8
6.2
5.0
0.6
2.8
1.7
0.1
2.1
0.6
0.1
3.3
0.8
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.1
1.9
0.6
(gA)
0.0
2U.6
11.0
1.0
U.U
2.1*
o.li
9.2
3.6
1.0
3.6
2.1
1.5
10.5
l*.o
0.3
2.0
1.1
0.1
9.3
2.1*
0.0
6.7
1.9
0.1
0.8
0.6
- ^
9^0
7.1
1.8
7.0
1*.2
0.1
60.0
19.2
0.1
180.0
35.2
8.0
320.0
98.9
0.1
2.0
0.6
1.3
21*00.0
1*13.2
0.1
17.0
7.3
0.0
3.0
1.3

-------
Map
Station
No.
705


706


837


838


839





Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
No.
of
Samples

6


5


2


2


2



pH
7.6
8.6
8.1
7.4
9.0
8.0
7.2
7-3
7-3
7-6
7-8
7-7
4.0
4.2
4.1

Acidity
(mg/l)
2.0
42.0
IB. 7
4.0
37.0
23.2
0.0
9-0
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
128.0
130.0
129.0

Alkalinity
(rag/1)
103.0
165.0
130.5
90.0
188.0
132.2
111.0
ni.o
111.0
20.0
30.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Hardness
(rag/1)
110.0
200.0
160.0
91.0
236.0
152.6
112.0
156.0
134.0
140.0
156.0
148.0
192.0
260.0
226.0

Sulfate
(mg/l)
24.0
55-0
43.7
22.0
45-0
35.4
35.0
35-0
35-0
105.0
115.0
110.0
260.0
265.0
262.5
Total
Iron
taA]
0.0
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.9

Manganese
> (rag/1)
0.0
2.8
0.7
0.0
4.3
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
6.6
8.8
7-7

Aluminum
(mg/l)
0.0
2.5
1.1
0.5
1.7
1.2
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
5-6
12.0
8.8

Flow
(cfs)
0.1
6.0
3.4
0.1
12.4
5.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
13-3
23-7
18.5
27.8
51.0
39.4
*(5)  Indicates the number of samples used in averages  vhen other than the maximum.

-------
           C
                             r
                   PE N N.
                  Pittsburgh
                     INDIANA
Yellow Creek	"
Source Investigc
Area
    C  A
    VICINITY  MAP

 LEGEND

STREAMS  CONTINUOUSLY
AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE

STREAMS  INTERMITTENTLY OR
POTENTIALLY  AFFECTED BY
BY MINE DRAINAGE

APPROXIMATE  AREA UNDERLAIN
BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS

SAMPLING STATION
            ,PPALACHIA  MINE  DRAINAGE  POLLUTION
                           REPORT
            IAIN  STEM  OHIO RIVER  BASIN
                  (TO NEW CUMBERLAND DAM)
              U.S. DEPARTMENT  OF THE  INTERIOR
            L WATER POLLUTION CONTROL  ADMINISTRATION
            SIN REGION             WHEELING  FIELD STATION
                                                FIGURE 13

-------
 E  N  E
          toa,
 LEGEND

STREAMS  CONTINUOUSLY
AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE

STREAMS  INTERMITTENTLY OR
POTENTIALLY  AFFECTED BY
BY MINE DRAINAGE

APPROXIMATE AREA UNDERLAIN
BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS

SAMPLING STATION
 APPALACHIA  MINE  DRAINAGE  POLLUTION
                REPORT
 MAIN STEM OHIO RIVER  BASIN
 (NEW CUMBERLAND DAM TO BELLEVILLE DAM)
   U.S. DEPARTMENT  OF THE INTERIOR
!AL  WATER POLLUTION  CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
3ASIN REGION              WHEELING  FtELD STATION
                                    FIGURE 14

-------
                APPALACHIAN
                REGION
                BOUNDARY
       LEGEND
      STREAMS  CONTINUOUSLY
      AFFECTED BY MINE DRAIN;

      STREAMS  INTERMITTENTLY
      POTENTIALLY  AFFECTED  B	
      BY MINE  DRAINAGE       APPALACHIA  MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
                                           REPORT
108,
APPROXIMATE AREA UNDET
BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSIT!

SAMPLING STATION
MAIN  STEM  OHIO RIVER  BASIN
   ( BELLEVILLE DAM  TO MELDAHL DAM )
                               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF  THE INTERIOR
                           RAL WATER POLLUTION  CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
                           BASIN REGION             WHEELING FIELD STATION
                                                                FIGURE 15

-------
                       PROJECTED CONDITIONS

                   PRESENT MINE DRAINAGE SOURCES

     Fourteen small drainage areas, scattered over the upper Ohio
River basin were selected for examination and field inventory of mine
drainage sources.  From one to three small watersheds were selected in
each of the major drainage units comprising the study area of this
report.  A total of U6l mine openings and affected sites were inspected
in the field representing existing and potential drainage sources in
a total area of about 800 square miles.

     This random-sampling field survey was designed to yield
statistics on the number of mine drainage sources and loading magnitudes
of chemical constituents discharged to receiving streams.  The water-
sheds and mining areas                         a wide range of
geologic, topographic,                                  in the states
of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Westr^Hw^lnia and Virginia.  Underground mines,
surface mines, mine               ahd"IEo"iil^repa!ration areas were
examined in the
                                                   listed in Table 22.
Survey Re
     Qu
tions p
the tim
sites m
mile su
streams
percent 0
                          	 _ 	made
                           site dis
                   tdon.   The total disc
                        gallons per
                             Ioa4
                      equaled
The discharge volumes and aci
     ,ng calcula-
   elwater at
lumeffor the 237
     OQxSQuare
            ea
Eighty-
                                           s -arcr'summarized in Table 23.
     Based on results of the random sampling field inventory of mine
drainage, it is estimated that there are about 2,600 tons per day
of acid discharged to upper Ohio River basin streams from an estimated
19,000 significant abandoned or inactive coal mines (Table 2ii).
Assuming that the total acid drainage load in the basin is equally
divided between active and inactive sources, the total acid load
discharged at the sources is estimated to be about 5*200 tons per day.

     For purposes of this report it is assumed that water pollution
problems from the operating coal mining industry will be effectively
controlled by regulation at the state level.  Hopefully, such
effective control will be universally achieved within a few years.
                              102

-------
                        Table 22
            Mine drainage field survey areas
Watershed
Blacklegs Creek
East Branch
Clarion River
Paint Creek
Yellow Creek
Wheeling Creek
Captina Creek
Raccoon Creek
McLuney Creek
Sunday Creek
Lynch Run
Cabin Creek
Heizer Creek
Tommy and
Allen Creeks
Dismal Creek
TOTALS:
Area*
(sq. mi.)
U5

73
37
UU
U9
180
57
8
7U
2.5
75
25

3U
92
795
State
Pa.

Pa.
Pa.
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
W.Va.
W.Va.
W.Va.

W.Va.
Va.

Sites
Basin Examined
Allegheny

Allegheny
Allegheny
Minor Trib.
Minor Trib.
Minor Trib.
Minor Trib.
Muskingum
Hocking
Little Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha

Guyandotte
Big Sandy

61

12
27
11
75
12
99
22
20
19
6
65

2
30
U61
Sampled and
Measured
U2

12
11
U
53
5
36
16
15
17
0
22

2
2
237
*In some cases less than the total watershed area of the
 listed drainage basin was covered in the field survey.
 The drainage area of the survey portion is  reflected in
 the square mile figure.
                          103

-------
                             Table 23

                 Mine drainage inventory sumnary

                         Total Discharges            Total Mine Acid
                       (Gallons per mirute^                Load
Watershed	(Tons per day)
Blacklegs Creek (Pa.)
East Branch
Clarion River (Pa.)
Paint Creek (Pa.)
Yellow Creek (Ohio)
Wheeling Creek (Ohio)
Captina Creek (Ohio)
Raccoon Creek (Ohio)
Mcluney Creek (Ohio)
Sunday Creek (Ohio)
Lynch Run (W. Va.)
Cabin Creek (W. Va. )
Heizer Creek (W. Va. )
Tommy and Allen Creeks
Dismal Creek (Va.)
2,209

79
9Uh
11
1,096
103
137
2,507
982
15
0
519
(W.Va. ) 750
1
3.U

1.2
2.2
0.6
7.U
3.7
2.0
2U.3
2.7
0.6
0
3.6
0
0
TOTALS j                        9,353                      51.7
                              10U

-------
                             Table 2U

       Estimated acid mine drainage from abandoned sources
                      upper Ohio River basin
Sub- Basin
Allegheny
Honongahela
Beaver
Muskingum
Hocking
Little Kanawha
Kanawha
Scioto
Guyandotte
Big Sandy
Minor Trib. (1)
Minor Trib. (2)
Minor Trib. (3)
Drainage
Area
11,730
7,380
3AU5
8, QUO
1,200
2,310
12,2UO
6,510
1,680
U,280
1,610
3,930
7,090
Number of Signifi-
cant Mine Drainage
Sources*
U,ooo
U,ooo
300
1,500
700
200
1,200
200
800
1,000
700
i,5oo
3,000
Acid Load Dis-
charged to
Receiving Streams
(Tons/day)
800
600
25
200
100
5
175
5
50
150
50
200
250
TOTALS:
19,100
2,610
     *The estimated number of abandoned or inactive sources
      discharging continuous, significant, measurable acid
      loads.  The total number of sources including intermittent
      discharges, areas contributing acid only during periods
      of runoff, and seepage areas, is estimated to be three to
      four times the figures shown.

(l)  Ohio River reach from Pittsburgh, Pa. to new Cumberland Dam.
(2)  Ohio River reach from New Cumberland Dan to Belleville Dam.
(3)  Ohio River reach from Belleville Dam to Meldahl Dam.
                               105

-------
                 THE FUTURE MINE DRAINAGE FROBIEM

     Without the passage and implementation of effective mining
and water pollution control laws and physical abatement of the
residual mine drainage pollution problem, water pollution in the
coal mining regions will progressively worsen.  Each passing year
will see increases in acid and total mineral loadings in the streams
and the loss of use and productivity of additional streams and strean
reaches.

     Nearly a four-fold coal production increase has been projected
by the year 2020 for the upper Ohio River basin.  Among the principal
coal producing basins, the Minor Tributaries of the Ohio River,
Allegheny, and Muskingum basins are projected to show the greatest
percentage increases over the projection period.

     Acid load estimates have been made, based on projected production
in each basin, for the years I960, 2000, and 2020.  The projections
represent resultant acid loads discharged from coal production
facilities, assuming no corrective measures (regulatory or physical)
are applied during the projection period.

     Coal production projections, by bvsin, are presented in
Table 25.  Acid loading projections ar',. presented in Table 26.

     The total acid loadings projected for the years I960, 2000, and
2020 represent increases over the total load estimate for 1966 of
about UO, 90, and 170 percent, respectively.  As with projected
coal production, projected acid mine drainage loadings exhibit the
greatest percentage increases among the principal coal producing
basins, the Minor Tributaries of the Oliio River, Allegheny, and
Muskingum basins.

     On a regional basis the acid component of mine drainage is the
most significant and troublesome poll'itant entering the basin's
waters.  However, the total mineralization added to stream waters
by mine drainage is also quite significant to the lowering of stream
water quality.  Iron, manganese, and total hardness, are particularly
troublesome constituents of mine drainage, in addition to acidic pH
levels and total acidity content.

     Suspended materials, as well as dissolved materials, are quite
significant pollutant constituents emanating from coal mining and
related facilities.  The denudation of soil and unconsolidated materials
in surface mining and the construction of mine access roads and
haul roads usually makes available large quantities of silt for
runoff into nearby streams.
                               106

-------
     The discharge of fine coal particles from preparation and
loading facilities creates 'black water1  problems  in many streams.
These problems are particularly acute in the Quyandotte and
BLg Sandy River basins.
                              107

-------
                             Table 25
Allegheny
Monongahela
Beaver
Main Stem
Miiskingum
Hocking
Kanawha
Little Kanawha
Scioto
Big Sandy
Guyandotte

TOTALS
                   Coal production projections,
                      upper Ohio River basin*
Sub-Basin
1965
Coal
Production
(Million
Tons)
1980
Coal
Production
(Million
Ions)
2000
Coal
Production
(Million
Tons)
2020
Coal
Production
(Million
Tons)
 19.
 56.8
 91.2
 13.U
 60.9
 39.9
 10.0
 58.0
  5.0
288.0
  0.3
 8U.U
 39.0

U53.9
 98.3
131.7
 22.8
12U.3
 68.3
 25.0
 77.2
 10.0
  0.8
 98.6
   .0
                                               1U3.2
                                               167.0
                                                32.5
                                               207.0
713.0
931.6
*  Production figures are calculated from data presented in Protective.

   Economic Study of the Ohio River Basin, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
   August, 196U.
                              108

-------
                                Table 26

        Projected acid loads from active and abandoned coal nines
                         upper Ohio River basin
Sub- Basin
Allegheny
Monongahela
Beaver
Main Stem Minor
Tributaries
Muskingum
Kanawha
Little Kanavha
Scioto
Big Sandy
Quyandotte
Hocking
Drainage
Area
11,730
7,380
3,1U5

12,630
8, QUO
12,300
2,310
6,510
U,280
1,680
It200
Total
Acid Load
Tons/Day
1966
1,600
1,200
50

1,000
UOO
350
10
10
300
100
200
Total
Acid Load
Tons/Day
1980
2,500
1,UOO
120

1,500
610
U10
30
20
3UO
120
390
Total
Acid Load
Tons/Day
2000
2,700
1,800
190

2,600
890
510
60
50
370
1UO
690
Total
Acid Load
Tons/Day
2020
U,100
2,100
250

U,ooo
1,200
560
130
80
370
130
990
TOTALS
71,205     5,220
7,UiO
10,000
13,910
                                 109

-------
                     ESTIMATED ABATEMENT COSTS
     Estimated costs of acid mine drainage abatement in tributary
drainage areas of the upper Ohio River basin are shown in Table 27.

     The present total acid load in tons per day given in the
table is the total of both active and inactive or abandoned mining
operations.  It is estimated that $0 percent of the present total
acid load is being discharged from aii$e~nine operations.   If
adequate regulatory measures are ipaetSd* a6^j)m|erly implemented,
it is assumed that practically aLfc,4*the a
-------
                       Table 27

Estimated costs of acid nine drainage abatement progran
                upper Ohio River basin
Regulatory Correction by Remedial Abatement Programs




Basin
Allegheny
Mbnongahela
Beaver
Main Stem
Muskingum
Kaiuwha
Little Kanavha
Solo to
Big Sandy
Quyandotte
Hocking
Totals


Acres of
Unreclaimed
Strip Mines I/
79,000
79,000
20,000
Ii8,000
29,000
61t,000
U.OOO
1,000
31,000
11,000
U.OOO
370,000
I/ Totally unreclaimed acreage plus
2/ from Table 2lt

Ho. of
Significant
Abandoned
Pollution
Sources 2/
li.OOO
U.OOO
300
5,200
1,500
1,200
200
200
1,000
800
_700
19,100
State Agencies
(Active Mining)
Present
Total Acid
Load
Tons/Day 2/
1,600
1,200
SO
1,000
UOO
350
10
10
300
100
200
5,220

Acid Load
Reduction
Tons/Day
800
600
25
500
200
175
5
5
ISO
50
100
2,610
Strip Nine
Reclamation

Acid Load
Reduction
Tons/Day
200.0
150.0
6.3
125.0
So.o
1.3.8
1.3
1.3
37.5
12.5
25.0
652.7
Mine Sealing &
Related Construction

Acid Load
Reduction
Tons/Day
300.0
225.0
9.U
187.5
75.0
65.6
1.9
1.9
56.3
18.8
37.5
978.9

Residual
Acid Load
Tons/Day
300.0
225.0
9.3
187.5
75.0
65.6
1.8
1.8
56.2
18.7
37.5
987. U
Remedial
Abatement
Program Costs 3/
(UUiona
of
Dollars)
181..0
181..0
10.7
125.9
65.5
133.8
8.U
3.3
67.9
25.9
11.1,
850.8
partially reclaimed acreage.







                                    maintenance,  and other program  development coats.

-------
    ACID MINE DRAINAGE ABATEMENT
          UPPER OHIO RIVER  BASIN
                                 Total  Acid  Load
ACTIVE MINING
    ABANDONED
        and
 INACTIVE MINING
  REGULATORY
       CONTROL
                              STRIP MINE RECLAMATION
    MINE SEALING
        and
RELATED CONSTRUCTION
                                 RESIDUAL AC-ID LOAD
                                         v'.vI'X 'VX*'.' X**'X'X

                                             "" *' ***'
                                            FIGURE  16

-------
                           BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
2.
3.
 6.


 7.


 8.



 9.


10.


11.


12.


13.
U.S. Public Health  Service, 1962, Acid Mine Drainage,  a report
prepared for the  Committee on Public Works, U.  S.  House of
Representatives,  House Committee Print No.  18,  87th Congress,  2nd
Session, Washington,  D.  C., 23 p.

Kinney,  E. C., 196U,  Extent of Acid Mine Pollution in  the United
jJtates,  U. S. Bureau  of  Sport Fisheries  and Wildlife,  Circ.  191,
27 p.

U. S. Department  of the  Interior, Fish and  Wildlife Service, 1966,
Fish and Wildlif e Resource^j^^^^^o  River Basin, Appendix  0,
Ohio River Basin  Compre
U. S. Department of  t
National Survey of
Sidio, A. D., an
the Interstate Water
                                                                 1961,
                                                         , U. S. Depart-
    ment of Health

    U. S. Public
    Document No.
                               and Hunting,  ire. ]|2Cj Jjj p
                                                     on  ollution of
                                                       Service, hi p.
                                                   Coqtrol,  House
                                       Washington j  D  C.,  8I|6 p.
                                                     i-
Lewis,
and at
                                                           River Basin
                                                            161, .1.1/1 p

                                                the,Pollution and Natural
Hoskins, J.
Purificatio:
                                                          and Laboratory
                                                  No\jlli3, p. 1^9-166.
Drake,
Supply,
                                                   e on River Water
                                          al Mines in West Virginia,
    Tisdale,              	
    West Virginia State Department of Health, 2h p.

    Braley, S. A., 195U, Acid Mine Drainage V, Control of Mine Acid,
    Mechanization, V. 18, No. 5, p. 97-9b\

    American Public Health Association et al, 1965, Standard Methods
    for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 7Uii p.

    Rainwater, F.  H., and Thatcher, L.  L., I960, Methods for Collection
    and Analysis of Water Samples, U.  S.  Geological Survey, WSP 1U5U,
    301 p.

-------
lU.  Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries Bituminous
     Coal Division, Annual Report 196$, 273 p.

15.  Schneider and others, 1965, Water Resources of the Appalachian
     Region Pennsylvania to Alabama, U. S. Geological Survey HA-198.

16.  Shapiro, M. A., Andelman, J. B., and Morgan, P. V., 1966, Intensive
     Study of the Water at Critical Points on the Monongahela, Allegheny,
     and Ohio Rivers in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Area, University of
     Pittsburgh, 126 p.

17.  West Virginia Department of Mines, Annual Report 196$. 271 p.

18.  Maryland Bureau of Mines, Annual Report 1?6$, 18 p.

19.  Brant, R. A., and Belong, R. M., I960, Coal Resources of Ohio, Ohio
     Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bulletin 5>8,
     2U$p.

20.  Ohio Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Mines, Annual
     Report 196$, 1$U p.

21.  Pennsylvania Department of Health, 196$, Report on Pollution of
     Slippery Rock Creek, Division of Sanitary Engineering, Publication
     No. 8, 76 p.

22.  Doll, W. L., Meyer, Gerald, and Archer, R. J., 1963, Water Resources
     of West Virginia, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources,
     Division of Water Resources, 13U p.

23.  Huddle, J. W. and others, 1963, Coal Reserves of Eastern Kentucky,
     U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1120, 2U7 p.

2lu  Virginia Department of Labor and Industry, Division of Mines and
     Quarries, Annual Report 196$, 133 p.

2$.  Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals, Annual Report 196$, 1$$ p.

-------