•'7^pc^-py?%^p^.fry-' >• •••
      ijfc£$$

-------
                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES,  INC.
                                    A subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.
511 OLD LANCASTER ROAD
BERWYN, PENNSYLVANIA 19312
(215) 647-9000
      Project No.  611                                              March  1977
                                      FINAL  FEPORT
                                           on
                       ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS  OF THE NEW-SOURCE NPDES
                          PERMIT PROGRAM FOR  THE WEST VIRGINIA
                              SURFACE COAL MINING INDUSTRY,

                                        1977-1980
                       Submitted to:  Mr.  Robert Blaszczak
                                       Proj ect Monitor
                                       US-EPA Region III
                                       Sixth and Walnut Streets
                                       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19106
                       In Accordance With:

                                       Task  IV
                                       Directive of Work  No.  1, Action  1
                                       Contract No. 68-01-4157
                                       US-EPA
                                       Washington DC  20560
   Biological and Chemical            Inventories of Vegetation          Socio-economic             Environmental
 Water Analyses and Monitoring           and Wildlife Resources         Surveys and Analyses            Impact Analysis

-------
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

      This report was prepared to assist US-EPA III as it extends its
 regulatory purview to the West Virginia surface coal mining industry
 under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
 established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
 (FWPCA,  P.L. 92-500).  It (1) describes existing conditions and trends
 in the surface coal mining industry, (2) identifies known environmentally
 sensitive resources throughout the State, (3) comments on the probable
 future flow of applications for new-source NPDES permits and on policy
 alternatives which must be specified by US-EPA as the new program is
 implemented, and (4) presents the conclusions and recommendations of the
 consultant to US-EPA Region III for implementation of the NPDES program.

      West Virginia coal is mined by surface methods in 29 counties, and
 7 additional counties have surface minable reserves.  The mining activity
 can be grouped into five subregions, which in turn can be further sub-
 divided by drainage basins.  About 12% of employment in the West Virginia
 bituminous cpal industry is in surface mining, which accounts for about
 20% of State coal tonnage.  The West Virginia Department of Natural
 Resources annually issues from 100 to 300 mining permits to the surface
 mining industry.  All of these new-source mine operations apparently
 will need NPDES permits as soon as new-source discharge regulations are
 proposed by US-EPA for the industry in the Federal Register.  Most of
 the applications (about 90%) will be for mines that produce less than
 100,000 tons of coal per year, and fewer than 10 "applicants annually
 will propose to mine more than 200,000 tons per year.  During recent
 years the State of West Virginia has made increasing efforts to enforce
 State regulations that apply to planning, mining,  and reclamation by the
 surface mining industry.  Regulatory scrutiny of the industry will be
 essential in the future, as surface mines are opened at increasingly high
 elevations and on steeper and steeper slopes.

      Sensitive resources that in the past have been and in the future may
 be affected adversely by surface coal mining in West Virginia are present
 throughout the mining regions.  They include cultural, biological, agri-
 cultural, and geological resources.  The Federal mandates for protection
 of these resources, for interagency coordination,  and for public
 involvement are more comprehensive than those entailed by current West
 Virginia laws.

      US-EPA policies and procedures governing NEPA review of new-source
 NPDES permit applications from the mining industry have not yet been
 finalized.  Of special importance is the decision whether or not to
"* establish minimum tonnage production thresholds for identifying mines
 subject to forthcoming Best Practices guidelines and to routine detailed
 NEPA review.  Because the new-source NPDES program will be administered in
 accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190),
 alternative types of environmental impact statements (EISs)— areawide,
 individual-mine — are discussed, together with areawide in-house environ-
 mental reviews.  The alternatives for delineating areawide study areas are
 outlined, and priorities for inventory and analysis of recommended areas
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o jubsidiory of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    ii
are suggested.  Interagency coordination activities based on Federal
mandates other than NEPA also are described for the West Virginia surface
coal mining industry, and issues related to information routinely required
from applicants and to public involvement are noted.

     The conclusions drawn by the consultant from this report are that
US-EPA Region III should (1) initiate areawide environmental assessments,
(2) acquire the authority to recover costs of processing applications
(including NEPA reviews and EISs) from applicants, and in the interim
develop individual-mine EISs by third-party agreements whenever possible,
(3) routinely require sufficient information from applicants to facilitate
US-EPA environmental reviews and incorporate such data into ongoing area-
wide inventories, (4) develop a geographically tailored regulatory strategy
based on the varying environmental  conditions within West Virginia, (5)
apply the several non-NEPA coordination requirements to previously
unmined land in the current backlog of existing-source surface mining NPDES
permit applications, (6) coordinate the regulatory strategy developed for
areawide assessments of the surface mining industry with regulatory strategy
for deep mines and other point and  nonpoint sources of pollutants, (7)
avoid duplicating the regulatory effort of other agencies, and (8) consider
carefully the resources that will be needed for enforcement of NPDES regu-
lations and permit conditions in West Virginia.

     Implementation of the proposed new-source NPDES program for the West
Virginia surface coal mining industry will require a major and sustained
effort on the part of US-EPA Region III, if a conscientious effort is made
to comply with NEPA and other Federal environmental legislation.  Areawide
environmental inventories at the localized geographical scale necessary
to regulate the surface coal mining industry will never be complete.
Because such inventories are both costly and time-consuming to develop,
US-EPA should consider the careful  design of an ongoing environmental
inventory system which provides the minimum information essential to US-EPA
in assuring water quality pursuant  to FWPCA, but avoids duplication of
effort by other agencies and organizations.

     An appendix outlines current permit applications and surface mining
reports used by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources and
US-EPA Region III.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    ill
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS


 Executive Summary	 .  . ,	     1

 List of Tables	vii

 List of Figures	    ix

'GENERAL INTRODUCTION 	     1

 I.   SURFACE MINABLE COAL RESOURCES IN WEST VIRGINIA	  .     3

     Introduction	     3

     Geographic Distribution and Geologic Occurrence of  Surface
       Minable Coal in West Virginia	     8

     Current Production 	  .....     9

     The Probable Location of New Surface Coal Mines	    15

     Surface Mine Regions of West Virginia	    22

        Surface Mine Subregion 1^ .	. . ..  .	    22

        Subregion II	    24

        Subregion III	    28

        Subregion IV  	  ........    28

        Subregion V   	    28

     State-Mandated Reclamation of Surface Mines in West Virginia  ....    33


 II.   AREAS SENSITIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL DISRUPTION  BY SURFACE  COAL
      MINING IN WEST VIRGINIA	    38

     Introduction	    38

     Archaeological Resources 	  . 	    38

     Historic Resources 	    48

     Wilderness Areas   	    57

     Parks and Recreational Facilities   	    59

        Federally Administered Facilities 	    59

        State Administered Facilities    	  	    62

        Private Facilities  	    65

                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                iv

Wild and Scenic Rivers	65

   Federal Designation  	  65

   State Designation	65

Water Resources	73

   High Quality Streams	73

   Trout Waters	73

   Streams Polluted  by  Coalmine Wastes 	  90

   Lakes and Reservoirs	98

      Federal Installations   	  99

      State Lakes	  99

      Municipal and  Other Lakes  	  99

   Public Water Supplies  	 117

   Groundwater Resources  	 117

Floodprone Areas  	 120

Wetlands		120

Critical Habitats  for Imperiled Species  	 	 125

   Federal Designation  	 125

   State Designation	125

   Areas of General  Biological Interest	125

   Computerized Inventory System   	  .... 130

Prime Agricultural Lands  	 131

   Class I	131

   Class II	133

   Class III	133

   Valuable Farmland 	 133

Caverns	136
                                                 JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                      o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   V
III. .US-EPA RESPONSIBILITIES FOR NEW-SOURCE NPDES PERMIT  ENVIRONMENTAL
      REVIEW	146

    Activities That Will Require New-Source NPDES Permits   	   146

    NEPA Review of New-Source NPDES Permits   	   147

       The Expected Number of NPDES Permit Apnlications  from the
         West Virginia Surface Mining Industry  	   147

       Methods to Screen Surface Mining Applications  	   148!

    Alternative Types of Impact Statements and  Environmental
      Reviews  	 .....  	   152

       Program and Generic Impact Statements  	   152

       Areawide Impact Statements		153

       Individual Mine Approach  	   157

    Delineation-of- Study Areas ;	158

       Political Unit Basis	158

       Surface Coal Mining Regions  	   159

       Watersheds	162

    Priorities and Timing of EISs	164

    Cost of EISs and Assessments	165

    Environmental Review Independent of NEPA  	   166

       Historic, Archaeological, and Related  Resources  ....;....   166

       Wetlands	   167

       Coastal Zones and Coastal Waters   ....  	   167

       Floodplains	167

       Wild and Scenic Rivers	167

       Dams	4	168

       Imperiled Biota	   168

       Agricultural Land	168

    Information Required From Applicants  	   168

    Public Involvement 	   173

                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   VI
IV.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	174

    1.  Initiate Areawide Environmental Assessments of Priority Regions. .176

    2.  Pass Environmental Assessments Costs on to Applicants	177

    3.  Routinely  Require Sufficient Environmental Information From
          Applicants 	  .....  178

    4.  Develop Geographically Tailored Regulatory Strategy   	  .  178

    5.  Apply Coordination Requirements to Existing-Source Surface
          Mines	  178

    6.  Coordinate Surface Mine Strategy with Overall Water Quality
          Strategy	  179

    7.  Avoid Duplication of Regulatory Effort 	  	  179

    8.  Provide Adequate Enforcement 	  180

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND AUTHORSHIP  ... 	  181

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........ 	  203

APPENDIX:   Outlines of Selected Current Federal and State Surface
  Mining Reports and Permit Application Requirements . . 	  182

    NPDES New Source and Environmental Questionnaire (NS/EQ)  	  183

    NPDES Application for Permit to Discharge, Short Form C   ......  185

    West Virginia  Prospecting Permit for Surface Coal
      Resources (Form DR-3)	."....  187

    West Virginia  Surface Mining Permit Application (Form DR-4).  ....  188

    West Virginia  Mining and Reclamation Plan  (Form DR-5)  	  190

    West Virginia  Mine Drainage Application  	  192

    Drainage Plans in Accordance with WV-DNR Drainage Handbook  	  195

    Final Grading  Maps and West Virginia Final Planting Plan
      Report (Form DR-8) 	  197

    Final Inspection Report  (DR-9)  	  198

    West Virginia  Surface Mine Inspection Report (Form DR-6)  	 '  199

    West Virginia  Report of Non-Compliance  (Form DR-15)  	   200

    West Virginia  Inspection of Non-Compliance (Form DR-16)	   201

    West Virginia  Mine Production  Report .•	   20?

-------
                              LIST  OF  TABLES

 1.  1975 coal production by method and  county	   4

 2.  Minable coal seams	10

 3.  Number and size of  surface  coal seams	12

 4.  Number of .State mining permits, and of  successful prosecutions
       1967-1976  .  .  ...  .....  . .  .  .. ...  .  .  .	 _16
 5.  State coal mining permits by counties,  1972-1975 	  17

 6.  Expected tonnage and number of surface mines  through 1980  	  21

 7.  Expected changes in surface coal  production through 1980 	  23

 8.  1975 production from Subregion I  .	'	26

 9.  1975 production from Subregipn II	27
                                                                             IS
10.  1975 production from Subregion IV	30

11.  1975 production from Kanawha basin,  Subregion V.	31

12.  1975 production from Guyandotte basin,  Subregion V	  34

13.  1975 production from Big Sandy basin, Subregion V	  35

14.  Acreage of reclaimed land,  1961-1976 	  	  36

15.  Nomenclature of archaeological periods  .	, .  .  .  41

16.  National Register of Historic  Places 	  50

17.  Army Corps of Engineers recreational facilities  	  60

18.  gpecial interest areas in the  Monongahela National Forest  	  53

19.  State parks, forests, and related facilities  	  68

20.  Private recreational facilities	  71

21.  Public and private  recreational facilities  by regions	72

22.  High quality streams	75

23.  Trout waters	.35

24.  State water quality standards	Q]_

25.  Water quality-limited streams.  	 93
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                     viii

26.  Lakes administered  by the Army Corps of Engineers    	101

27.  Hydroelectric  installations ..,,., 	  .  	  .  .   103

28.  Locks and dams	,	,	105

29.  WV-DNR lakes	,	108

30.  Municipal lakes	,	113

31.  Sources of potable  water. .........  	  	   119

32.  Extent of floodprone area mapping	122

33.  Major wetlands	,	124

34.  Sites of unusual biological interest	127

35.  1967 land-use acreage in coal mining counties	132

36.  Prime agricultural  land 	  ......   135

37.  Watershed acreage	." 163

38.  Information  requirements in US-EPA industrial--new-source NPDES
        guidelines	170
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                      ix

                              LIST  OF FIGURES

 1.  Surface mining moratorium  counties	   5

 2.  Geology of West Virginia	   1

 3.  Surface mine areas	  13

 4.  1975 surface mine production	14

 5.  1975 total permitted  acreage	19

 6.  1975 mean permit acreage	20

 7.  Surface coal subregions	25

 8.  Number of known archaeological sites,  by  counties ........  39

 9.  Projectile point types	42

10.  Mounds and earthworks at Charleston	  44

11.  Areas of Adena culture	46

12.  Early Middle Woodland sites	46

13.  Late Middle Woodland  sites	46

14.  Late Prehistoric cultures	46

15.  Known sites occupied  at  time of European  contact	46

16.  National Register historic sites	49

17.  Established and proposed wilderness  areas 	  58

18.  State recreational  facilities  	  64

19.  Potentially protected rivers	  67

20.  High quality streams	  74

21.  Streams with acid mine drainage	  92

22.  Federal lakes	100

23.  Hydroelectric installations  	 102

24.  Locks and dams	,..,,..,,,.,... 104

25.  WV-DNR lakes	,	107
                                                      JACK McCORMICK 8. ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                           a tubtidiory of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                      X


26.  Municipal lakes	112

27.  Floodprone-area  quadrangles 	  121

28.  Sites of unusual biological interest	126

29.  Caves in Grant County	137

30.  Caves in Greenbrier  County	138

31.  Caves in Harrison  County	139

32.  Caves in Mercer  County	140

33.  Caves in Mineral County	141

34.  Caves in Monongalia  County	  142

35.  Caves in Randolph  County	143

36.  Caves in Preston County	144

37.  Caves in Tucker  County	'.	145

38.  State planning and development regions	160

39.  Surface mining provinces	161
                                                       JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
GENERAL INTRODUCTION

     This  report was  prepared  to  assist Region III, US-EPA, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania,  to implement  its environmental impact review responsibilities
for new-source NPDES  permits as applied to the surface coal mining
industry in the State of  West  Virginia.  West Virginia is the only State
in Region  III  which does  not (or  will not during the near future) administer
an approved NPDES  program.1

     The National  Environmental Policy Act of 1969  (NEPA, 42 USC 4321
et seq.) was implemented  by Executive Order 11514 of 5 March 1970, and
the Council on Environmental Quality's  (CEQ's)l973  (40 CFR 1500) Guidelines,
These  regulations  require that all  agencies of the  Federal Government
review major Federal  actions,  including the issuance of  permits, and
prepare detailed environmental statements on proposed actions which sig-
nificantly will affect the  quality  of the human environment.  The objectives
of NEPA are to build -into the  agency decision-making process an appropriate
and careful consideration of all  environmental aspects of proposed actions,
explain potential  environmental effects of proposed actions and their
alternatives for public understanding and comment,  avoid or minimize
adverse effects of proposed actions, and restore or enhance environmental
quality as much as possible.   Section 511.c.l. of the Federal Water
Pollution  Control  Act as  amended  (FWPCA, P.L.  92-500)  authorizes the
Administrator  to apply NEPA to the  issuance of a permit  under Section 402
for the discharge  of  any  pollutant  by a new source  as defined in Section
306.

     The discharge of a pollutant (defined in Section 502.12 of the
FWPCA)  means an addition  of any pollutant to the waters  of the United
States.  Regulations  for  environmental review of Federally administered
new-source NPDES permit applications under NEPA and other Federal statutes
were published on  11  January 1977 (40 CFR 6; 42 FR  2450-2459).  Those
regulations,  together with  in-house drafts of related US-EPA regulations,
provide the framework on  which this report was developed.
     As has been noted by US-EPA  (41 FR 19387, 13 May 1976), the waste-
water  situation evident  in  the mining segment of the coal industry is
unlike that encountered  in  most other industries.  Water enters mines
via precipitation,  groundwater infiltration, and runoff.  It may
become polluted by  contact  with materials in the coal, overburden,
spoil, or mine bottom.   Except for dust control and fire protection,
water  is not used in  the actual mining of coal in the United States at
the present time.   Wastewater handling and management are required and are
a part of most coal mining  methods or systems to insure the continuance
of the mining operation  during rainy periods and to improve the efficiency
of the mining operation  generally.
  Specific language in the current State statute that must be revised before
     the NPDES permit program can be delegated to West Virginia was iden-
     tified to the State by US-EPA early in 1976 (By letter, S. R. Wassersug,
     Director, Enforcement Division, US-EPA Region III to J. H. Hall, Chief,
     Division of Water Resources, WV-DNR, 6 February 1976).  As of early
     1977, the West Virginia Legislature had not revised the Water Pollution
     Control Act (West Virginia Code 20- 5A, amended December 1974) to conform
     to the 1972 requirements of FWPCA (P.L. 92-500).
2
  The actual language of the FWPCA is "navigable waters", a term which has
     been broadened to include virtually any waters of the Nation by
     various court decisions (US-EPA 1976f).

-------
     This wastewater is discharged from a mine as mine drainage.  Mine
drainage may be polluted and require treatment before it can be dis-
charged to streams.  The quality of wastewater from the actual mining
and from the coal storage, refuse storage, and coal preparation ancillary
areas of the coal mining industry essentially is unrelated to production
quantities.

     In addition to handling and treating often massive volumes of
wastewater during actual mining operations or coal loading, coal  mine
operators are  faced with the same burden during idle periods.  Mine
drainage also  may continue indefinitely after all mining operations
have ceased, if proper mining methods  and control technology are  not
employed, or even increase in intensity after mine closure if proper
mine reclamation technology is not employed.

    This report is divided into four major sections.  First, the  surface
coal mining industry in West Virginia  is described, the location  of
currently active and future mines is outlined, and the flow rate of
permit applications is estimated.  In  the second section the areas  known
to be sensitive to potential environmental disruption in West Virginia
are described  and depicted on maps; data gaps are identified; and sources
for updated information are listed.  The third section outlines issues,
alternatives,  and problems which must  be faced by US-EPA as it undertakes
timely environmental reviews of new-source NPDES applications from  the
West Virginia  surface coal mining industry.  Finally, the fourth  section
presents the conclusions and recommendations of the consultant for
consideration  by US-EPA as its regulatory procedures are formulated.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
I.  SURFACE MINABLE COAL RESOURCES IN WEST VIRGINIA

     Introduction
     West Virginia is a major coal-producing State.  During 1975 the total
tonnage produced was about 109 million tons of bituminous coal, and only
the production from Kentucky among 25 mining States exceeded that of
West Virginia (WVCA 1976).  About 19% of the total West Virginia produc-
tion (20.6 million tons) was produced by surface techniques (Table 1 ).
Production from surface mines in West Virginia was exceeded only in
Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania during 1975.  During 1974 West
Virginia coal made up 48% of the Nation's  coal  exports, (WV-DOC 1976).

     Surface mining is expected to continue to be a significant contri-
butor of coal production in the future.  Of the 39,590 million tons of
reserves-'- that have been estimated in West Virginia, 5,212 million tons
(13%) are estimated to be available for surface mining by current tech-
niques (WVCA 1976).

     Surface mining during the period  1977-1980 will be conducted in
approximately 29 counties in West Virginia (Figure 1).  New surface mines
currently are prohibited by the West Virginia Legislature in 22 counties.
It has been the practice of the Legislature to renew the moratorium for
two-year periods, and the next renewal is required during the current
(1977) session.  Four counties not under legislative moratorium (Cabell,
Putnam, Wayne, and Summers) have no significant coal production from
surface mines.

     Most of the land subject to mining has slopes greater than 25%.
Slope in itself is not a limitation on the feasibility of surface mining
in West Virginia, but it strongly influences the potential for adverse
effects of mining on the environment.  A longstanding practice in West
Virginia is for mining operations to follow the coal seams along the
contour of the mountains.  Top-of-mountain surface mining is becoming
more common in southern counties where slopes are steep.  Where over-
burden depths are too great to justify surface mining operations or
where the coal seam is highly weathered near the surface, the same coal
seams as are mined elsewhere by surface methods may be mined by under-
ground methods.  Augering typically is used at the base of the surface-
mine highwall to extract coal for distances of as much as 250 feet
beyond the highwall.

     The marketability of West Virginia coal is controlled by economics,
and relative coal prices are governed in large part by the sulfur
content and other properties of coals which determine their end use
potential.  Prices are affected only secondarily by the distance of the
coal mine from rail or water transportation facilities.  Most West
Virginia coal (70%) is consumed by power plants.  Coke and gas plants
1
  Reserve herein is defined as  the in-place coal that is technically and
     economically minable at  this time.  It is not a fixed quantity, but
    • changes as' new technology develops, as mining occurs,  or as coal
     economics changes.                               JACK MCCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
Table  1 .   Coal production by method and by county  in West Virginia
  1975  (WVDM 1975).  Data are short tons. An  asterisk  (*) denotes
  surface  mining moratorium counties.
COUNTY
UNDERGROUND
 SURFACE
   TOTAL
Barbour
Boone
Braxton
Brooke
Clay
Fayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Harrison
Kanawha
Lewis
*Lincoln
Logan
McDowell
Marion
*Marshall
*Mason
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
Nicholas
*0hio
Preston
Raleigh
Randolph
Summers
Taylor
Tucker
Upshur
Wayne
Webster
Wyoming
1,226,130
7,790,109
21,455
653,219
69,176
2,296,113
33,692
1,476,925
330,293
3,294,806
5,422,861
50,040
33,313
7,297,567
10,099,208
5,487,285
5,265,921
294,927
947,725
11,028
4,012,069
10,088,208
4,335,036
1,411,824
815,475
5,438,393
196,771
80,386
-
—
957,509
547,886
177,027
8,252,443
2,474,455
1,868,302
66,882
86,125
-
564,080
85,693
343,029
539,768
1,138,997
2,386,901
664,356
-
928,095
758,162
30,366
-
-
28,497
318,016
. 55,019
967*815
--'"1,271,766
-
1,732,605
825,890
691,668
-
173,023
357,040
1,041,713
-
266,182
469,633
3,700,585
9,658,411
88,337
739,344
69,176
2,860,193
119,385
1,819,954
870,061
4,433,803
7,809,762
714,396
33,313
8,225,662
10,857,370
5,517,651
5,265,921
294,927
976,222
329,044
4,567,088
11,056,023
5,606,802
1,411,824
2,548,080
6,264,283
888,439
80,386
173,023
357,040
1,999,222
547,886
443,209
8,722,076
TOTAL
88,414,820
20,634,078
109,048,898
                                                       JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                                                  NORTH
                                                             0     MILES    40
                                                          JACK McCORMICK 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                           A SUBSIDIARY OFWAPORA, INC.
Figure 1.   Surface coalmine moratorium Counties (stippled)
  in  West  Virginia,  1976.

-------
consume 15%; other industrial uses, 15%.  More of the high-quality
coal from southern West Virginia is consumed by coke and gas plants
(32%) and other industrial uses (21%) than by power plants (30%).

     Low sulfur (less than 1.5% S) coal generally is found in the
southern section; medium sulfur coal (1.5 to 3.0% S) , in the north-
central section; and high sulfur coal (3.0% S or more), in the north-
eastern section of West Virginia (Figure 2).  Of 2,118 million tons
of strippable reserves, 54% is low sulfur, 31% is medium sulfur, and
15% is high sulfur coal.  Low sulfur coal is more readily marketed
than high sulfur coal, because high sulfur coal cannot be burned under
existing technology within emissions limitations designed to protect
air quality and because significant quantities of low sulfur coals
are used for metallurgical purposes.  High sulfur coal typically is
blended with low sulfur coal to meet air quality standards.  Metallur-
gical coals command the highest market prices.

     Through 1980 it is expected that surface mining will focus on the
1,138 million-ton reserves of strippable low-sulfur coal in West
Virginia, which are found in the 28 beds situated in 20 central and
 southern counties.  Sixteen of the surface minable coalbeds contain
only low sulfur coal; the other 12 beds contain coal of variable
sulfur content.  The 16 coalbeds that have only low-sulfur coal contain
53% of the West Virginia total low-sulfur bituminous coal reserves.
Four coalbeds — the Lower Kittanning (203 million tons), the Stockton
(115 million tons), the Coalburg (216 million tons), and the Winifrede
(128 million tons) — contain 58% of the low-sulfur reserves,  in addition
to medium- and high-sulfur reserves.  These four coalbeds crop out and
are available for strip mining in 13 central and southern counties of
the State.  In the south, Boone County has the largest reserves of low-
sulfur coal estimated at 275 million tons, followed by Mingo, Logan,
Raleigh, and Kanawha Counties at 146, 124, 109, and 103 million tons,
respectively.  These five counties have over 66% of the State's low-
sulfur reserves.  The Pocahontas group of all low-sulfur coalbeds con-
tains an estimated 81 million tons of available strippable coal con-
centrated in six southern counties:  Fayette, Greenbrier, McDowell,
Mercer, Raleigh, and Wyoming.

     Because only 13% of the West Virginia coal is consumed within the
State, long distance transportation is important for coal marketing.
Trucks economically can move coal only relatively short distances to
rail and barge terminals.  Because only the lower reaches of the
Kanawha, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers can accommodate barges, rail is
the major long-distance transport mode, and all areas where increased
strip mining is anticipated through 1980 are within 20 miles of a rail
spur.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
        GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC MAP
                      OF THE

                 COAL FIELDS
                        OF

                WEST VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA GEOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC SURVEY
                              f "N
                          cr~--'  xv—s^-i
                          A MOBG.» r-'    J

                                    X
                                         Dunkard Group


                                         Monongahela Group


                                         Conemaugh Group


                                         Allegheny Formation


                                         Kanawha Formation



                                         New River Formation


                                         Pocahontas Formation
Pottsville
Group,
undivided.

-------
     The locations of coal cleaning plants do not affect current surface
mining operations.  Coal from small mines (less than 100,000  tons per
year) generally is moved from mines by truck to cleaning plants run by
large mine operators prior to long-distance shipment.  Portable
cleaning plants are moved from mine to mine where quantities  of coal
mined are sufficient to warrant an individual coal-cleaning plant.
Because most new activity is expected to be iu the same areas as
current surface mining operations, the locations of extant coal
cleaning plants will not affect surface mining through 1980.

     The coal industry's contribution to the West Virginia economy
has been increasing, although total tonnage has declined during the
mid 1970's.  During 1974 the bituminous coal mining industry  employed
more than 48,000 persons (9% of the total West Virginia labor force)
and provided $786 million in personal income (13% of the State total;
WV-DOC 1976).  Almost 12% of the 55,256 persons employed in coal mining
during 1975 were working for surface mines (WVDM 1975b).

     Geographic Distribution  and Geologic Occurrence of Surface
     Minable Coal in West Virginia

     The coal measures of West Virginia occur in the Pennsylvanian  and
Permian sediments that occupy a considerable part of West Virginia
(Figure 2).  Surface-minable coal occurs in all nonmoratorium counties
(Figure 1), as well as in Mason, Lincoln, Ohio, and Pocahontas Counties
(where surface mining of coal currently is restricted).

     The coal measures of West Virginia are situated entirely within
the Appalachian Plateau, which is formed by gently folded or  flat
Paleozoic age sedimentary rocks that dip regionally toward the
northwest.  Consequently, younger rocks and younger coal seams are
exposed in northwestern West Virginia than in southeastern West
Virginia.  The combined maximum thickness of these rock formations is
about 6,570 feet.  In ascending order the major formations are the
Pocahontas Formation (720 feet), the New River Formation (1,030 feet),
the Kanawha Formation (2,100 feet), the Allegheny Formation (330 feet),
the Conemaugh Group (410 feet), and the Dunkard Group (1,180  feet).

     As shown  in Figure 2, the coal measures can be divided into a
Northern Coalfield and a Southern Coalfield.  The boundary between these
two coalfields is formed by a geological hinge line that is oriented
northeast-southwest as shown on Figure 2.  The coals in the Southern
Coalfield generally are low in sulfur (1.5%) and ash (>6%).  They also are high volatile  coals,
and they are utilized for steam generation.  Some of the northern
seams contain more than 3% sulfur,-  and the  coal must be mixed with  low
sulfur coals to meet air quality compliance standards.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         o jubsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
     Current Production

     Of the 117 named coal seams in West Virginia, 62 are minable
(Lotz 1970).  Forty of the 62 seams produced coal by surface mining
operations during 1975 (Table 2).  Production from 12 of them
(Waynesburg, Redstone, Pittsburgh, Elk Lick, Bakerstown, Freeport  (2),
Kittannings (3), Stockton-Lewiston, and  Sewell)  exceeded 500,000 tons
during 1975, and their combined production was about  17 million
tons (82% of the total produced by surface mines; data  from US
Bureau of Mines).

     Production data and numbers of small and large mines from  1971
to 1975 are summarized in Table 3.  The  total number of operating mines
and the production of coal have ranged from 356 mines and 19.6  million
tons in 1974 to 525 mines and 25.4 million tons in 1971.  Production
(from about 466 mines) during 1976 is expected to have  been slightly
greater than 1975 production.  During the first 11 months of 1976,
production exceeded the 11-month 1975 production by slightly more
than 100,000 tons (WVDM, file data).

     The location of 466 mines operating during October 1976 is shown
in Figure 3.  The probable extent of surface minable coal also  is
shown and is considered to be inclusive  rather than exclusive of
areas in West Virginia that may be subject to extensive surface mining.
The area indicated on Figure 3 was based on geologic considerations and
was confirmed by interviews with Messrs.  Thomas Arkle (West Virginia
 Geological Survey) ,  John Sturm '(West  Virginia Surface Coal Mining
Association), and  Patrick Parks (West Virginia Division of Reclamation)
during January 1977.

     Production of surface-mined coal is greatest in two general
regions of West Virginia (Figure 4):  (1) a northern area  (Preston,
Barbour, Upshur,- Lewis, Harrison, and Monongalia  Counties); and  (2) a
southern area (Nicholas, Kanawha, Boone, Logan, Fayette, Greenbrier,
Raleigh, Wyoming, Mingo, and McDowell Counties).  This  regional dis-
tribution of production has occurred, in West Virginia at least  since
1971, and it is expected to remain about the same in the near future.
Production in the central part of the State may  increase.

     The number of permits issued by the West Virginia  Division of
Reclamation during recent years is indicated in  Table 4.  The maximum
number of permits issued was 616 during  1970.  This peak resulted  from
two factors:  (1) unemployment of coal miners subsequent to the
maximum production during 1968 resulted  in a large number of permit
applications for very small operations by unemployed miners, and  (2)
large companies were willing to purchase and process  (clean) small
quantities of coal from a large number of operators (Verbal communi-
cation, 12 October 1976, Mr. Thomas Arkle, West  Virginia Geological
Survey).  These conditions no longer exist and are not  expected to
recur, so relative stability with a slow increase in the number of
permit applications can be expected during the 1977-1980 period.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a tubsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    10

 Table 2.  Minable coal seams in. West Virginia  (Lotz  1970).   Seams are listed
   in order of geologic age.  Seams marked with an asterisk were mined by
   surface methods during  1975  (data from US. Bureau of  Mines).
 Coal Seam

 Washington
*Waynesburg
Geologic Unit


Dunkard Group
Age


Permian
 Uniontown
*Sewickley
*Redstone
^Pittsburgh
Monongahela Group
 Little Pittsburgh
 Little Clarksburg
*Elk Lick
*Harlem
 Upper Bakerstown
*Bakerstown
 Brush Creek
*Mahoning
*Upper Freeport
Conemaugh Group
*Lower Freeport
*Upper Kittanning
*Middle Kittanning
*Lower Kittanning
 Clarion
Allegheny Formation
 Upper Mercer
*Stockton-Lewiston
*Coalburg
 Buffalo Creek
*Winifrede
 Chilton "A"
*Chilton
*Hernshaw
 Dingess
 Williamson
*Cedar Grove
*Lower Cedar Grove
*Alma
*Peerless
*No, 2 Gas
*Powellton
 Matewan
*Eagle
*Bens Creek
 Little Eagle
 Cedar
 Lower War Eagle
*Glenalum Tunnel
^Gilbert
*Douglas
 Lower Douglas
 Kanawha Formation
                                     c
                                     CO
                                     CO

                                     CJ
                                     PM
                        JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                            a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                     11
 Table  2.  Minable  coal seams in West Virginia  (concluded)
 Coal  Seam
Geologic Unit
*Bradshaw
 Castle
 Sewell  "B"
*Sewell
*Welch
 Little  Raleigh
*Beckley
*Fire  Creek
*No. 9 Pocahontas
 No. 8 Pocahontas
New River Formation
*No.  7  Pocahontas
* No.  6  Pocahontas
*No.  5  Pocahontas
*No.  4  Pocahontas
*No.  3  Pocahontas
 No.  2  Pocahontas
Pocahontas  Formation
Age
                                   c
                                   ttf
 co
 C
 fi
 OJ
 PW
                                                        JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                             a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
Table 3.  Number and size of surface  coal mines, and total surface production, by counties, in West Virginia (data from US Bureau of Mines).
1971
COUNTY
Barbour
Bo one
Braxton
Brooke
Clay
Fayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Harrison
Kanawha
Lewis
Logan
Marlon
McDowell
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
Nicholas
Preston
Raleigh
Randolph
Taylor
Tucker
Upshur
Webster
Wyoming
TOTAL
A
2,457
2,778
22
283
74
1,125
79
612
188
1,244
3,450
541
1,771
147
1,081
83
265
1,471
432
526
1,265
1,779
521
192
376
885
51
1,287
25,385
B
24
51
1
7
1
22
2
8
1
25
52
18
40
3
36
5
8
35
12
13
14
28
8
6
1
16
3
27
467
(89%)
C
7
6
0
1
0
4
0
1
1
2
7
0
3
1
3
0
1
1
0
2
3
5
2
1
2
2
0
3
58
(11%)
D
31
57
1
8
1
26
2
9
2
27
59
18
43
4
39
5
9
36
12
15,
17
33
!° *
7
3
18
3
30
525
A
2,478
2,012
0
220
4
649
.50
486
455
1,358
3,703
393
1,053
95
848
90
211
999
635
1,316
970
1,231
676
288
143
625
17
800
21,805
1972
B
24
49
0
7
1
20
1
7
9
27
54
9
13
5
26
7
4
25
13
22
25
22
8
4
1
12
4
17
416
(89%)
C"
5
5
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
4
11
2
3
0
2
0
0
1
1
3
2
3
3
1
1
2
0
1
55
(11%)
D
29
54
0
8
1
21
1
8
11
31
65
11
16
5
28
7
4
26
14
25
27
25
11
5
2
14
4
18
471
A
3,192
2,221
0
142
0
911
0
201
260
779
2,455
250
990
20
696
71
. ' '251
519.
988
1,274
874
813
757
152
180
905
166
532
19,599
1973
B
20
15
0
4
0
23
0
2
5
13
42
22
12
2
16
9
3
14
7
22
16
14
14
4-
1
7
2
17
306
(83%)
C
11
7
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
6
0
5
0
2
0
1
2
3
5
4
1
3
0
1
4
1
1
. 62
(17%)
D
31
22
0
4
0
25
0
3
6
14
48
22
17
^
18
9
4
16
10
27
20
15
17
4
2
11
3
18
368
1974
A B
2,651 29
1,617 19
0 0
98 3
22 1
539 18
65 1
307 10
370 13
802 19
2,643 21
581 16
824 7
0 0
349 11
54 4
312 8
477 2
1,051 8
1,438 16
1,997 31
576 14
818 8
95 3
307 2
1,042 17
183 2
392 11
C
9
4
0
0
- 0
0
0
1
1
2
10
1
4
0
1
0
0
3
3
7
6
1
2
0
2
3
1
1
19,610 294 62
(82%) (18%)
D
38
23
0
3
1
18
1
11
14
21
31
17
11
0
12
4
8
5
11
23
37
15
10
3
4~
20
3
12
356
A
2,436
1,868
67
86
0
555
86
344
539
1,124
2,384
664
928
29
756
29
317
554
963
1,271
1,734
811
689
171
358
1,043
267
471
20,544
1975
B
19
15
3
4
0
20
1
10
16
34
30
19
11
3
12
3
14
11
10
23
44
22
13
10
9
20
9
11
396
(88%)
C
10
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
1
4
0
3
0
0
0
4
5
4
1
1
0
1
4
1
0
54
(12%)
D
29
23
3
4
0
20
1
10
17
35
35
20
15
3
15
3
14
11
14
28
48
23
14
10
10
24
10
11
450
A:Tons (OOO's)             B:0 Mines <100,000 tons/yr           C: V Mines *100,000 tons/yr             D:   Total 0 Mines

-------
    STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
SURFACE COAL MINING AREAS
 • ACTIVE SURFACE MINE, 1976.

-------
                                   15
     The number of surface mining permits issued by the Division of
Reclamation is considered to be a good approximation of the number
of NPDES mining applications that will be made to US-EPA(Table  4).   From
1972 to 1976 there was an 11% increase (from 246 to 278 permits).
It is expected that 250 to 300 State mining permits will be issued
per year through 1980 (Verbally, Mr. Benjamin Green, Director,  and
Mr. Roger Hall, West Virginia Division of Reclamation, 6,  12, 24
October and 24 November 1976).  It is probable that the number  of
prospecting permit applications will range between 150 and 300  annually.

     A summary of the number of permits and permitted acreage from
1972 to 1975 .is given by counties in Table  5.  A comparison of  pro-
duction by County (Table 3 ) and total permitted acreage by County
(Table 5) shows that (1) a correlation exists between permitted
acreage and production, and (2) that no great change in the relative
permitted acreage or production between counties occurred from  1972
to 1975.

     Figure 5, which depicts total acreage permitted during 1975, is
similar in pattern to Figure 4, which depicts production.  Because
the 1975 total permitted acreage reflects near-term future production,
and because there is a similarity between  production and permitted
acreage, most  mining in the" near future,  probably will be  concentrated
in the northern and southern  coalfields in  the  same general  areas where
mining currently  is concentrated.


     The size of surface mines in West Virginia varies from less than
10 acres to more than 1,000 acres.   The mean acreage of permits in
northern West Virginia is smaller than in southern West Virginia
(Table 5, Figure 6).  The mean size of permits in northern West
Virginia is less than 80 acres, because large tracts of single  owner-
ship land are not common, and extensive stripping in the past has
reduced the extent of unmined tracts.

     The Probable Location of New Surface Coal Mines

     The expected aggregate production and numbers of operating mines
through 1980 are summarized by counties in Table 6.  These projections
were prepared by coal seam for each county on the basis of the  follow-
ing data:

     1.  The location of existing surface coal mines as mapped
         by WV-DNR as of October 1976.

     2.  Surface minable reserves.

     3.  Coal  characteristics.

     4.  Information on surface mining activity in each county
         and county production by seams,  1971-1975.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
Table  4 .  Number and acreage of West Virginia prospecting  permits,  surface mining permits, and
  successful prosecutions, 1967-1976 (data from WV-DNR).
                           Prospecting Permits
Surface Mining Permits'
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Number
Issued
7
39
65
184
95
112
125
279
209
159 •
Total
Acreage
556
454
659
2,442
1,553
2,285
2,002
3,233
2,756
2,272
Mean
Acreage
8.0
11.6
10.1
13.3
16.3
20.4
16.0
11.6
13.2
14.3
Number
Issued
94
336
400
616
343
246
241
255
272
278
Total
Acreage
4,150
,13,435
15,711
31,802
30,000
24,508
20,587
18,919
16,966
22,249
Mean
Acreage
44.1
40.0
39.3
51.6 .
87.5
99.6
85.4
74.2
6?.. 4
80.0
Successful
Prosecution!
5
7
6
24
125
318
245 °
242
327
290
  Includes permits for quarries.   Permits for surface coal mines  comprise  95% or more of the
      surface" mining permits.

  Violations  for which WV-DNR allegations of improper mining practices were judged to be proper
    and legal by State courts.  No detailed breakdown of prosecutions by mine are available.

-------
Table  5.  West Virginia surface coal mining permits by counties,  1972 - 1975 (data  from WV-DNR).   Data are acres except as otherwise indicated.
1972
COUNTY
Barbour
Boone
Braxton
Brooke
Clay
Fayette
Cilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hancock
Harrison
Kanawha
Lewis
Logan
McDowell
Marion
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
Nicholas
Preston
Raleigh
No.
19
17
0
1
1
18
0
4
11
0
10
28
1
16
16
1
3
3
15
1
15
8
20
Max.
257
450
-
-
- .
300
0
90
400
-
116
250
-
342
630
-
120
130
225
-
400
87
450
Min.
11
27
.
-
- .
60
0
50
13
-
13
8
-
50
20
-
50
20
30
-
13
18 •
39
Mean
67
135
-
20
-50
111
0
70
109
-
41
90
17
155
141
24
78
78
120
133
141
44
113
Total
1285
2305
0
20
50
2000
0
250
1206
0
412
2547
17
2495
2271.
24
235
235
1803
133
2126
353
2269
No.
11
15
0
3
1
9
1
6
9
1
8
31
9
8
13
0
4
6
3
7
12
12
13
Max.
241
255
-
85
-
500
-
200
300
-
212
238
169
308
500
-
197
64
230
153
728
67
163
1973
Min.
13
20
-
13
-
25
' -
8
23
-
6
6
3
22
13
-
. 25
13
50
15
12
15
20
Mean
79
169
-
45
15
153
35
82
98
106
41
81
' 56
123
86
-
97
34
120
69
120
38
78
Total
796
2543
0
135
15
1382
35
497
888
106
331
2517
511
990
1119
0
391
204
361
487
1440
465
1023
No.
17
9
0
1
4
16
0
4
6
0
9
24
12
9
9
1
-
4
4
6
14
25
15
Max.
95
205
-
-
50
360
0
180
280
-
90
150
110
1156
289
—
-
170
150
125
145
115
284
1974
Min.
4
30
-
-
16
15
0
64
8
-
8
6
15
10
17
-
- •
16
50
6
7
7
13
Mean
41
118
-'
14
29
105
0
118
72
-
35
53
52
227
118
32
47
81
90
37
70
47
88
Total
701
1069
0
14
116
1695
0
475
435
0
318
1279
631
2050
1066
32
47
327
360
297
987
1179
1333.
No.
12
10
3
4 •
3
15
1
2
15
0
29
17
8
7
8
5
0
5
8
10
15
27
17
Max.
270
190
78
66
55
350
-
138
177
-
320
130
162
200
510
41
-
53
120
150
219
175
275
1975
Min.
11
16
44
25
10
3
-
42
6
-
5
7
34
32
31
13
-
16
19
13
12
15
15
Mean
68
109
59
45
32
86
27
90
55
-
40
51
84
164
159
21
0
-34
'•• 71
57
54
53
63
Total
816
1087
177
95
95
1286
27
180
821
0
1163
868
669
1148
1268
103
0
169
567
570
809
1428
1158

-------
Table  5 .  West Virginia surface coal mining permits by counties, 1972 - 1975 (concluded).
COUNTY
Randolph
Taylor
Tucker
Upshur
Webster
Wyoming
No.
6
0
3
7
4
13
Max.
85
-
72
40
79
311
Min.
30
-
13
13
21
25
Mean
51
-
20
21
Al
121
Total
310
0
62
152
165
1576
No.
8
0
A
7
3
12
Max.
80
-
190
141
80
225
Min.
20
-
13
8
21
11
Mean
38
-
63
62
A9
61
Total
310
0
25A
A36
148
7AO
No.
11
4
5
14
2
13
Max.
94
42
50
560
-
155
Min.
7
13
13
8
-
10
Mean
48
32
36
79
50
75
Total
529
128
181
1112
100
975
No.
8
5
2
11
7
8
Max.
230
83
73
45
102
118
Min.
14
11
36
13
14
10
Mean
79
. 41
54
29
46
45
Total
633
207
109
318
. 459
316
Total
241
101  24,331  216
84 18,101   240
84  20,076  262
63  16,546

-------
                                     19
                                                             0    MILES    40
                                                          JACK McCORMICK 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            * SUBSIDIARY OF WAPORA, INC.
                                                          More than  1,000
                                                           800 - 1,000
                                                         .  600 -

                                                    9     400 - 600
                                                    •      1-400
Figure  5.   1975  total acreage in which mining was permitted, by
  counties (data from WV-DNR).

-------
                                      20
                                                              0     MILES   40
                                                            JACK McCORMICK ft ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                             A SUBSIDIARY OF WAPORA, INC.
                                                           100 or  more

                                                           80  -  99
                                                           60  - 79

                                                           -40  - 59
                                                           1 -  '39
Figure  6.  1975 mean  acreage  of surface mining permits,  by counties
  (data from WV-DNR).

-------
           Table  6.   Expected tonnage and number of surface coal mines,  by  counties,  in West Virginia,  1977-
             1980,  based on projected tonnage by coal seams.   The projections were  prepared by Urbdata, Inc.
             Greensburg PA, based on US Bureau of Mines data  for individual coal  seams and on knowledge of
             the  West Virginia surface mining industry.   Because surface mines  are  short-lived,  there will
             be new mining applications even when the number  of  mines  in a  county is  constant.
COUNTY
Tons (000*s)  Mines

       1977
           Tons  (000's)   Mines

                   1978
                         Tone (000's)    Mines     Tons (000's)    Mines

                                1979                       1980
Barbour
Boone
Braxton
Brooke
Clay
Fayctte
'Jilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hancock
Harrison
Kanawha
Lewis
Logan
Marion
McDowell
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
Nicholas
Preston
Raleigh
Randolph
Taylor
Tucker
Upshur
Webster
Wyoming
2.350
1.920
90
80
50
580
90
380
590
5
1,080
2,480
660
1,020
40
665
50
220
540
1,005
1,340
1,690
780
650
160
310
1,100
360
420
34
25 -.
7
4
3
19
2
11
18
1
23
34
24
18
5
14
4 '
12
12
14
28
40
24
14
5
11
21
8
10
2,300
2,010
110
80
100
590
90
390
770
5
1,060
2,500
670
1,100
40
665
50
235
540
1,020
1,390
1,720
780
680
160
330
1,140
410
450
34
26
7
4
4
19
2
12
21
1
23
34
24
19
5
14
4
15
12
12
29
39
24
16
5
13
23
10
11
2,100
2,060
130
80
140
610
80
400
965
5
1,040
2,530
680
1,210
40
665
50
235
540
1,045
1,420
1,721
780
680
170
370
1,180
480
440
34
27
7
4
4
20
2
12
25
1
23
35
24
21
- r
14
4
13
12
13
29
39
26
15
6
14
23
10
11
2,200
2,120
150
80
160
615
70
410
1,095
5
1,020
2,580
700
1,310
40
665
50
235 .
540
1,065
1,475
1,770
780
660
170
400
1,230
550
450
33
27
7
4
5
20
2
12
18
1
21
35
25
23
5
14
4
13
12
15
30
39
26
13
6
15
25
13
11
Total
  20,705
445
21,385
                                                      462
21,846
                                                       473
                                                                                              22,595
484

-------
                                   22

The projections were made by Dr. J.  H. Kelley of Urbdata Associates,
Inc., with the assistance of T. Arkle, Jr., and 0. VandeLinde.  A
breakdown of county mining activity, production data, and projections,
by seams, was submitted to US-EPA  in a preliminary draft of  this
report on 1 December 1976.

     Total tonnage of surface mined  coal is expected to increase by
about 2 million tons (10%) from 1975 to 1980 (Table 7).  The
greatest decrease in production is expected to occur in northern
West Virginia (Barbour, Harrison, Mineral, and Upshur Counties).
Substantial declines in production also are expected in Raleigh and
McDowell Counties in the southern  part of the State.  Substantial
increases in production are projected to occur in the central and
southern counties, where low-sulfur  coals comprise the greatest
proportion of surface minable reserves.

     Surface Mine Regions of West Virginia

     To facilitate a regional review of selected characteristics of
the West Virginia surface coal mining industry and of the significant
environmental problems that may eventuate, the surface minable area
of the State has been subdivided into five subregions (Figure 7).
Except for the boundary between Subregions IV and V, the subregion boundaries
are natural boundaries and occur in  areas where surface mining is not
expected to occur to any great extent prior to 1980.  For convenience,
the boundary between Subregions IV and V is the divide between the Elk
River and the Gauley River drainage basins.
        Surface Mine Subregion I

     Surface mine Subregion I includes all of the northern
coalfield in West Virginia.  Two sections are recognized.  In Hancock
and Brooke Counties coal currently is being mined by surface techniques;
in Ohio and Marshall Counties coal may be mined if the moratorium on
surface coal mining ceases.  The other section includes Preston,
Barbour, northern Upshur, Lewis, 'northern Braxton, northeastern Gilmer,
Harrison, Taylor, Marion, and Monongalia Counties (Figure  7).

     Future production of surface coal from the northern panhandle
counties (Hancock, Brooke, and potentially Ohio and Marshall Counties)
is expected to be small, because the section already has been stripped
extensively, is highly urbanized in places, and contains strippable
reserves that generally are high-sulfur coals.  Total production,
new mine openings, and NPDES permit applications are expected to remain
at low levels through 1980.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK &• ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a tubiidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    23  .

Table  7.  Expected changes in West Virginia surface coal production by
  counties,  1975-1980.  Tonnage data are thousands of short  tons,  from WV
  Department of Mines for 1975 and projections by seams for  1980  from
  Urbdata, Inc.   + indicates an indeterminate percentage increase.
County
Barbour
Boone
Braxton
Brooke
Clay
Fayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hancock
Harrison
Kanawha
Lewis
Logan
McDowell
Marion
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
Nicholas
Preston
Raleigh
Randolph
Taylor
Tucker
Upshur
Webster
Wyoming
Total
1975
Rank
1
3
25
23
—
14
24
19
16
—
6
2
13
9
11
26
27
20
15
8
5
4
10
12
22
18
7
21
17
1980
Rank
2
3
24
25
23
15
26
19
8
29
10
1
12
6
13
28
27
21
17
9
5
4
11
14
22
20
7
16
18
1975
Tonnage
2,474
1,868
67
86
0
564
86
343
540
0
1,138
2,387
664
928
758
30
28
318
555
S6.8
1,272
1,733
826
691
173
357
1,042
266
470
20,632
1980
Tonnage
2,200
2,120
150
80
160
615
70
410
1,095
5
1,020
2,580
700
1,310
665
40
50
235
540
1,065
1,475
1,770
780
660
170
400
1,230
550
450
22,595
Change
1975-1980
-274
252
83
-6
160
51
-16
67
555
5
-118
193
36
382
-93
10
22
-83
-15
97
203
37
-46
-31
-3
43
-188
284
20
1,963
% Change
1975-1980
-11
13
124
_-i
+
9
-19
29
103
+
-10
8
5
41
-12
33
79
-26
-3
10
16
2
-6
-4
-2
12
-18
107
-4
10
                                                       JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            a lubiidiaty of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    24
     The larger eastern section of Subregion I also has had extensive
surface and underground coal mining.  The younger coal seams  (Pittsburgh,
Redstone, Waynesburg, and Sewickley) have supported most of the
previous surface mining.  In Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Lewis, and
Gilmer Counties they are the only seams that are expected to  produce
significant quantities of surface mined coal through 1980 (Table 8).
In Preston County, production from the Pittsburgh coal seam has
declined because past surface mining has almost exhausted Pittsburgh-
reserves.  Production in Preston County is expected to remain high,
however, as surface mining in the Elk Lick, Bakerstown, and Upper
Freeport coal seams increases.

     Production from surface mines in Subregion I has been mostly from mines
that produce less than 100,000 tons per year (Table 3).  Of the 184 mines that
produced an average of 42,800 tons of coal during 1975, only  22 (12%)
produced more than 100,000 tons per year.  Almost half of the large mines
(10) were situated in Barbour County.  The 162 mines that produced less than
100,000 tons each during 1975 together produced about 52% of  the total
coal produced by surface mines in Subregion I.  These small mines can be
expected to complete all operations in less than two years.

         Subregion II

      Subregion II comprises the coal mining areas of Grant,  Mineral,
 and Tucker Counties (Figure 7).   Coal has been mined extensively by
 surface and underground methods in the past,  primarily from the
 Bakerstown,  Elk Lick,  and Pittsburgh seams (Table 9).   Subregion II
 is situated in the Southern Coalfield of West  Virginia.   Except for
 the Pittsburgh coal seam,  which occurs at high elevations in the
 Subregion,  the coals are mostly low-sulfur steam coals.   Some of the
 production is  dedicated to several large utility plants  that are
 located nearby.

      Although  the increased production is not expecte.d to be  great
 through 1980 (Tables 6 and 7),  surface mining  will become more impor-
 tant as the coal reserves of existing underground mines  become exhausted.
 Unmined coal seams in Subregion III are too irregular and discontinuous
 to support  construction of large new underground mines (Verbally,
 17 January  1977,  Thomas Arkle,  West Virginia Geological  Survey).
 Permitted  acreage for individual mines is expected to remain at
 current levels,  and production  from the Elk Lick,  Bakerstown, and
 Pittsburgh  seams is expected to account for the moderate increase in
 production.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                                .-'fti A M P S H 1 RE  -7
                                                '• /. ; y. ••"•* :-.t^' 1  *
                                       HTATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
                             SURFACE COAL MINING SUBREGIONS
•*C'-,/ "*?*" - —w— ,*-£^l" -- *
_^_ » — ^^^3*r^« '  *_^*_ _
                                    • ACTIVE SURFACE MINE, 1976

-------
Table 8.  1975 production of surface-mined coal, by county and by seam,  in Subregion I,  West Virginia (based on US Bureau of Mines data).
     .     -A denotes number of mines,. .B denotes Short tons x 1000.

                                                                  COAL SEAMS
Waynesburg ' Sewickley Redstone . Pittsburgh Elk Lick
Counties A
Barbour
Braxton
Gllmer
Harrison
Lewis
Marion
Monongalia 9
Preston
Taylor
Northern Upshur
Totals 9
B A B A B A
16 1597 6
6
1
6 481 29
' 15 403 3
1 14 2
817 1 41 1 64
4
10
7 227 8
817 1 41 46 2*786 70
BAB
589
67 '
86
643
150 1 41
15

71 1 21
171
143 5 239
1,935 7 301
Bakerstown Freeport Kittanning z Total
A B A B A B • A
6 73 l 177 29
6
1
35
1 70 20
3
2 37 13
10 366 29 1101 3 173 47
10
20
16 439 29 1101 7 457 184
i
2,456
67
86
1,124
664
2S
95S
1,73:
173
60S
7,877
Includes Lower and Upper Freeport coal  seams.

Includes Lower, Middle,  and Upper Kittanning coal seams.

Includes production only in Subreg'ion I.
                                                   I   .)

-------
Table.   9.  1975 production of surface-mined coal, by county and by seam,  in Subregion  II, West Virginia  (based on US Bureau of Mines data).





                                                          .   COAL SEAMS
Pittsburgh Elk Lick Harlem Bakcrstown Mahoning Upper Freeport Kittanning A Total
COUNTIES A BABABA B A B A BAB AB
Grant 6 269 4 75
Mineral 6 151 3 126 16 -1 3 1 4
Tucker 17 4 187 5
Total 6 151 10 402 1 6 9 265 14 5
10 344
2 . 27 - 14 317
164 10 358
164 2 27 34 1,013
  Includes Lower, Middle, and Upper Kittanning coal  seams.


-------
                                    28
        Subregion III

     Subregion III consists of the Shavers Fork drainage basin in
Randolph and Pocahontas Counties.  No production of surface mined coal
occurred during 1975, but two surface mines were issued State mining
permits in 1976. (These two mines are not on Federally owned land, although
they are within the "Proclamation Line" of the Monorigahela National Foresti)
As of February 1976, US-EPA Region III had approved on existing source NPDES
permit for an auger mine in the Shavers Fork Basin; a second auger mining per-
mit was about to be issued.  These surface mining permits were pending (By
telephone, T. Fielding, US-EPA Region III, 23 February 1977).  As of March 1977,
WV-DNR reported 4 permitted surface mines and 3 pending surface mine appli-
cations (By telephone, Mr. W. Raney, Division of Reclamation, WV-DNR, 8 March
1977).

     Coal beds in Subregion III are discontinuous and podshaped (Verbally,
Mr. Thomas Arkle, West Virginia Geological Survey, 17 January 1977), so
that extensive prospecting will be required to assure successful mining oper-
ations.  The coal beds of the New River Formation, however, contain high
quality coals, including the metallurgical grade Sewell coal.  Because the
coal beds are high-quality but discontinuous, the area will be attractive
for surface mining, but the surface mines are likely to be relatively
small.

         Subregion IV

      Subregion IV comprises part of Clay, southern Braxton, southern
 Upshur, and northern Webster Counties, together with Nicholas County
 north of the Gauley River Basin.  This Subregion includes the
 central part of the State, where production to present has been
 relatively low and almost exclusively restricted to the Kittanning
 seams (Table 10).   Subregion IV may experience substantial increases
 in surface mining activity, because large corporations including
 oil,  steel, and coal companies  hold extensive leases in this region
 (Verbally,  Mr.  Thomas Arkle, West Virginia Geological Survey,
 17 January 1977; Mr. John Sturm, West Virginia Surface Mining
 Association; Mr. Roger Hall, West Virginia Division of Reclamation,
 17 November 1976).  Future coal production is expected to be from
 the Kittanning coal seams.

         Subregion V

      Subregion V includes the southern counties of West Virginia
 where production of surface coal historically has been great, where
 abundant surface-minable reserves remain, where multiple-seam mining
 of thin and discontinuous metallurgical grade coals is common, and
 where large-scale, mountaintop removal methods,- as well as contour surface
 mining along steep slopes, are typical.   The mines range from the
 southeastern outcrops of older coals to younger coals in Boone and
 Kanawha Counties.   Thirty two coal seams were mined by surface methods
 in Subregion V during 1975 (data from US Bureau of Mines).


                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidiory of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                     29
       Coal production exceeded 100,000 tons during 1975 at 27 surface
mines in Subregion V.  These mines represented 14% of the number of mines
but produced 41% of the coal.  The largest surface mine in the State  (the
Cannelton mine in Kanawha County)produced almost 650,000 tons from the
Lower. Kittanning coal seam.  Twenty one of the mines produced coal either
from the Kittanning coal seams or from the Stockton-Lewiston seams.   The
remainder of the large mines worked the Fire Creek, Welch, Alma, Lower Cedar
Grove, Sewell and Eagle coal seams.  To simplify the discussion of coal
production, Subregion V is subdivided into three watersheds (the Kanawha
River, the Guyandotte River, and the Big Sandy-Tug Fork drainage basins;
Figure 7).  Production data (1975) are summarized in Tables 11, 12, and 13
for each of these basins.  The Kanawha River Basin of Subregion V encom-
passes the largest area and includes the greatest number of mines with
the largest 1975 production among the subregions defined in this report.
Nineteen of 142 mines (13%) produced more than 100,000 tons during 1975.
In total, the large produced almost 3,000,000 tons (41%) of the production
in this basin.  One hundred twenty three mines (87%) produced 61% of  the
surface mined coal in this basin, which is about the same percentage  of
small mines as were previously described in Subregion I.

       Twenty six surface mines produce coal in the Guyandotte River  and in
the Big Sandy-Tug Fork drainage basins.  Production was similar in these two
basins.  The Big Sandy-Tug Fork drainage basin, however, is only partially
situated in West Virginia; there is extensive coal mining in the Kentucky
section of the basin also.

       The northern section of Subregion V is the Kanawha River Basin
exclusive of the Elk River (part of Subregion IV).  All surface minable
areas in Kanawha, Boone, Fayette, Raleigh, Mercer, Greenbrier, and
southern Nicholas Counties are included in this section.  The coals
range from the  Pocahontas to the Kanawha Formation (Table 11).  Total
production in this area is expected to increase about 17% from 7.3
million to 8.5 million tons through 1980.  Much of this increase will
occur from the low-sulfur, steam coal seams in the western part of
the basin, particularly the Kittannings, Stockton-Lewiston, and
Cedar Grove.  The demand for metallurgical coal will support small
operations that economically can mine saall quantities of the highest-
priced coals, as well as cause an increase in production of Sswell,
Beckley, and Fire Creek coal seams, particularly those that are
exposed in Greenbrier County.

       Production in Kanawha and Boone Counties is projected to increase
continued mining of the thick Coalburg, Stockton-Lewiston, and
Kittanning coal seams is expected to account for much of the production.
Because the still unmined outcrops of these coal seams occur primarily
at higher elevations, it is probable that much of the production may  come
from a few mines that utilize top-of-mountain techniques.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subiidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
Table 10.  1975 production of surface-mined coal, by county and by seam,  in Subregion IV,  West Virginia (based on US Bureau of Mines data).
  A denotes number of mines; B denotes thousands of short tons.
Kittanning Stockton-Lewiston Peerless Eagle Sewell Total

2
Southern Braxton
Clay
Northern Nicholas
Randolph
A
Southern Upshur
Northern Webster
Total
A
4
0
4
4
• 4
4
20
B A
80
0
172
445 1
434
172
1,303 1
B AB AB AB A
4
0
4
31 4 33 1 19 4 161 14
4
4 34 8
31 8 67 1 19 4 161 38
B
80
0
172
689
434
206
1,581
*                                                                       ' *f
  Includes Lower, Middle, and Upper Kittanning coal seams.                 Includes mines located in the Elk River drainage basin only.
2                                                                       4
  Includes all production except from Pittsburgh coal seams, which are    Includes all production except from  Elk Lick, Pittsburgh, and
     included in Subre^ion I.                                                Redstone coals,>which are included in Subregion I.

-------
Table  H  1975 production of surface-mined coal, by county and by seam,  in the Kanawha River Basin,  Subregion'V, West Virginia  (based
  of Mines data). . A denotes number of mines; B denotes thousands of short tons.
                                                                           COUNTIES.                      .
                                                                        Southern ,
                                                                                                                                      US Bureau
COAL
Pittsburgh
L. Freeport
2
Kittanning
Stockton-Lewis ton
Coalburg
Winifrede
N. Cedar Gro re
Cedar Grove
Peerless
Mo. 2 Gas
Powell ton
Eagle
Glenalum Tunnel
Gilbert
Bradshaw
Sewell
Beckley
Ninevah
Fire Creek
Pocahontas 6
Pocahontas 5
Pocahontas 4
Pocahontas 3
Total
1
Kanawha Boone Fayette Nicholas Raleigh Mercer Greenbrier Total
v A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B

1 114 . - i
19 1,737 16 1,426 1 70 14 813 50
9 457 4 271 ' - 13
1 67 1 81 . 1 70 3
2 59 2
12 1
1 99 1 17 2
r
29 2
1 64 1 11 2 75 4
3 45 3 24 . ... 6
1 1 5 144 5 . 79 2 203 13
1 27 1
19 1
1 61 1
3 32 1 82 9 251 10 251 23
3 140 1 67 4
1 18 1
„ 2 185 2
2 69 ' 1 9 3 26 5
3 61 ' 3
1. 57 1
121 10 3
35 2,384 23 1,868 20 555 24 1,099 23 811 3 29 17 539 142
2

114
4,046
728
218
59
2
106
9
150
69
427
27
9
61
616
207
18
185
104
61
57
12
7,285

Excludes production in the Elk River Basin .
                                                                     Includes production from Lower, Middle,  and Upper Kittanning coal seams.

-------
                                     32
       •Production  in  Fayette,  Greenbrier  and Mercer  Counties  is  projected
to increase by  51,  555,  and  22 thousand tons through 1980,  respectively.
Production probably will decrease  in  Raleigh,.  County by 46  thousand tons,
but small changes  in  marketability could  affect  the  number  of mines and
tonnage  production very  substantially.  Much of  the  production  in these
counties is for high-quality steam coals  and metallurgical  coal.   Past
surface  mining  in  Fayette County has  reduced the number of  large tracts of
unmined  land, so that small  mines  in  high-priced coal seams are  expected.
The large increase of surface mining  production  in Greenbrier County,
which has not been minedby surface methods  in  the past, is  espected from
mines that will open  in  the  Sewell and Fire Creek coal seams. The thin,
as-yet unmined  coal seams in Mercer County  are found in steep-slope
areas, but among them are the highest priced coals in the State.   Except
for some areas  in  Greenbrier County,  the  price of coal together  with topography
and geology, will  favor  small mines.

       The Guyandotte River  Basin  in  the central section of  Subregion V
encompasses Logan  and Wyoming Counties, as  well  as Lincoln  County
(which currently is a moratorium county).   Surface production from
these counties  has decreased in recent years,  because great production
from surface mines has depleted the readily accessible coal seams
(Table 12).  Four  of  the 15  mines  produced  71% of the surface coal in Logan-
County during 1975 from  the  Lower  Kittanning and Stockton-Lewiston coal
seams.   It is expected that  production of coal from  the Lower Kittanning and
Stockton-Lewiston  seams  that are exposed  at high elevations will account
for much of the net 41%  increase through  1980.
      The southern section of Subregion V is the West Virginia half
 of the Big Sandy-Tug Fork Basin.   This area encompasses Mingo and
 McDowell Counties,  as well as Wayne County (in which no production
 occurred during 1975; Figure 7).   During 1975 coal was produced from
 16 coal seams that range from the New River Formation to the Allegheny
 Formation (Table 13).

       Production from 5 of 26 surface mines that produced more than 100,000
tons during 1975 accounted for 48% of the total production of 1.3 million
tons.  Large tracts of in-place reserves are expected to be depleted in  the
near future, so future mining for high-quality coal will be from small
surface mines.

     As  recently  as  1971,  production of surface coal in Mingo County
was  about 1.5 million tons, much  of  which was  from the Cedar Grove,
Alma,  Winifrede,  and Coalburg seams.   Production declined  drastically
 to 554 thousand tons in  1975  and  is  expected to continue to  decrease
 slightly through  1980, because the easily accessible reserves
 have been depleted.   The remaining seams are irregular and are over-
 lain by  massive sandstones which  will increase the cost of surface
mining.

     Production in McDowell  County is mostly from underground mines,
because  the geology  and  topography make it  difficult to open large
 surface  mines  in  the high quality metallurgical coals of the County.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                     33
Three of the 15 mines in McDowell County produced more than 100,000 tons
from the Welch and Fire Creek coals during 1975.  Production from surface
mines is expected to decrease by 91 thousand tons through 1980 as reserves
(particularly in the Welch and Fire Creek coal seams) are depleted.

       Reclamation of Surface Mines  in West Virginia

       Promulgation of the West  Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation
  Act  of 1967 (Code of West Virginia Chapter 20)  established the Division
  of Reclamation within the Department of Natural Resources.   The Division
  enforces  the provisions  of the West Virginia law and has  issued regula-
  tions and procedures to  insure enforcement.   The Division primarily  is
  responsible for monitoring the operation and reclamation  of surface
  mines with active State  permits.   Secondarily,  the Division oversees
  and  directs the reclamation of orphaned surface mines —  mines that
  were not  reclaimed or were improperly reclaimed prior to  promulgation
  of the law.

       Since 1961 about 206,000  acres of surface mines have been reclaimed
  (Table 14).   Of this area about 21% (26,029  acres) have been reclaimed
  with monies from the Special Reclamation Fund administered by the
  Division  of Reclamation  (Table 14).   The fund is financed by a $60.00
  per  acre  tax on the land that  is permitted for the production of surface
  coal.   The use of monies of the fund, however,  is  restricted to the
  reclamation of orphaned  mines  and  mines for  which  performance bonds  are
  uncollectable.   It does  not cover  reclamation of mines which experience
  pollution problems after bonds have been released  in the  established
  manner following inspection.   (There  is no providion for such areas).

       The  primary legal responsibility for proper mining and reclamation
  resides with the operator of a surface coal  mine.   As part of an appli-
  cation for a surface mine permit or a prospecting  permit,  the operator
 .must.include a reclamation plan which includes regrading  specifications,
 growing-surface preparation plans,  fertilization and planting program, and
 most important, an estimated schedule  (Appendix A).  The Division of
 Reclamation issues no mining permit until the reclamation plan has been
 approved ,and a bond of $1,000.00 per acre of disturbed land has been posted.

        The operator has the responsibility to reclaim land in accordance
 with his approved plan, either directly or through contract with other
 organizations such as local Soil 'Conservation Districts.  In the event
 that a permit to prospect is followed by a permit to mine, the bond
 and approved reclamation plan  (if appropriate) are transferred to the
 mining permit.  In large operations reclamation typically begins as soon
 as mining ceases in one part of the mine, so that mining operations and
 reclamation are concurrent activities.  During the latter part of 1976,
 the Division of  Reclamation employed  32 surface-mine inspectors  whose
 responsibility included an inspection of  each operating surface mine in
 the State every 15 days.   Mine inspectors can issue warnings regarding
 procedures that require rectification, can issue formal notices of
 violations, and must follow up violation notices with reinspection reports
  (Appendix A).  In the event that violations are not rectified promptly,
 all mining operations can be suspended by order of the Division of Reclamation.

                                                       JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                           a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                      34
 Table 12.  1975  production of surface-mined  coal,  by county and  by
   seam, in the Guyandotte River'drainage basin area of Subregion V,
   West Virginia  (based on US Bureau of Mines data).    A denotes number of
   mines;  B denotes  thousands of  short tons.


                             COUNTIES
COAL SEAM Logan
A B
L. Kittanning 5 344
Stockton-
Lewiston 4 480
Winifrede 4 54
L. Cedar Grove 1 46
Ninevah 1 4
No. 2 Gas
Eagle
Bens Creek
Douglas
Sewell
Beckley
Pocahontas 3
Wyoming
A B
1
1



1
1
1
1
2
2
1
60
17



40
31
11
69
91
117
35
Total
A B
6
5
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
404
497
54
46
4
40
31
11
69
91
117
35
Total
15   928
11   471
                                                         26   1,399
                                                        JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                      35
 Table  13.   1975 production of surface-mined coal,  by county and by
    seam in the Big Sanely-Tug  Fork Basin,  Subregion V, West Virginia
    (based.on US Bureau of Mines  data).   A denotes "number of mines;
    B  denotes thousands of short  tons.
                              COUNTIES
 COAL  SEAM



 L. Freeport

 L. Kittanning

 Coalburg

 Winifrede

 Cedar Grove

 L. Cedar Grove

 Alma

 No. 2 Gas

 Bens  Creek

 Douglas

 Welch

 Hundred

 Fire  Creek

 Pocahontas 10

 Pocahontas 4

 Pocahontas 3
McDowell Mingo
A B A B
1 3
1 91
1 9
3 88
1 23
1 102
2 174
1 64
1 11
2 36
5 340
1 4
2 258
1 10
1 6
2 91
Total.
A B
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
5
1
2
1
1
2
3
91
9
88
23
102
174
64
11
36
340
- 4
258
10
6
91
Total
15
756
11   554
26  1,310
                                                       JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
Table 14.   Acreage  of surface
  Virginia, 1961 -  1976 (data

              Operator
                                      36
           coal mined  land reclaimed  in West
           from WV-DNR).

                    WV-DNR
YEAR
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Soil
Conservation
District
878
2,471
2,574
2,374
3,668
3,213
4,100
8,956
8,253
5,356
5,253
3,665
1,240
1,116
664
1,130
Operator
-
600
460
605
901
690
740
9,055
4,463
5,986
12,321
20,053
19,982
17,387
13,895
15,920
Special
Reclamation
-
-
-
25
787
2,754
2,553
1,141
3,874
1,016
2,660
3,422
4,045
1,942
928
882
Bond For-
feiture
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
59
527
888
36
183
65
172
53
12
Total
878
3,071
3,034
3,004
5,356
6,657
7,393
19,211
17,117
13,246
20,370
27,323
25,332
20,617
15,540
17,944
Total     55,011
123,058     26,029
1,995     206,093
                                                       JACK McCORMICK 8, ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                     37
Mine operators are specifically liable to lawsuits for damages within one
year of the release of final  reclamation  bonds,  and must  carry at  least
$10,000 worth of insurance to cover this liability (West Virginia Code
20-6-30).

      When the mine  ceases production,  reclamation must  begin in  accor-
  dance with the  approved reclamation  plan.   After final  grading is
  complete,  WV-DNR can release 75% of  the reclamation bond.   The operator
  also must reestablish vegetation,  and  his  bond cannot be  released fully
  until two growing seasons have  passed  following regrading  inspection.
  Any leachate breakthrough from  underground sources  or uncontrolled
  runoff  is the responsibility of the  operator and must be  controlled
  at his  cost, until  the Division of Reclamation releases him, following
  a final inspection  report from  a mine  inspector. If an operator
  fails to follow approved procedures  or fails to control leachate or
  erosion, his posted bond is subject  to  forfeiture,  whereupon the
  Division of Reclamation assumes responsibility for  appropriate
  reclamation.

      The Division of Reclamation conscientiously is enforcing the
  West Virginia surface mining laws and  regulations,  which  are intended
  to reduce adverse impacts to the surface waters of  West Virginia.
  A mine  drainage application (Appendix  A) must accompany the mining
  permit  application.  The 15-day mine inspections assure that improper
  practices are reported quickly.   The reduction in the number of  acres
  reclaimed by bond forfeiture (Table  14) concomitant with  an increase
  •in prosecutions (Table 4) is evidence  of increasing enforcement  during
  the 1970's.  Recent interagency mine tour  inspection reports also  testify
  to an overall improvement in reclamation procedures, but  there still is
  room for improvement (WV-DNR 1975 a,  197.6g).  Finally,the total acreage
  reclaimed annually approximates the total acreage permitted
  during  the previous year (Table 5),  so  there is at  least  a rough
  balance between current surface mining and reclamation.  Prior to the
 1970's,  there was relatively little enforcement of regulations that
 require reclamation in West Virginia (Stanford Reserach Institute 1972).
 As of early 1977, the 1967  Act had not been amended to rectify faulty
 requirements relating the maximum permissible width of benches to the
 degree of slope (Stanford Research Institute 1972:  55-56,  141 ff.), but
 operating regulations within WV-DNR apparently had been adopted which
 addressed the proper relation of benches to slopes  (Verbally, Mr. John Hall,
 WV-DNR,  4 March 1977).
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    38

                                                    A
 II.   AREAS SENSITIVE TOENVIRONMENTAL DISRUPTION BY SURFACE COAL
         MINING IN WEST'VIRGINIA

      Introduction

      This report section contains an inventory of available information on
 significant sensitive natural areas that potentially may be affected ad-
 versely by surface coal mining in West Virginia.  Special effort has been
 made to insure completeness of data,  within the limits of information avail-
 able through February 1977, in the 29 counties where  surface mining current-
 ly is permitted by the West Virginia Legislature.  The general conclusion
 which can be drawn from these data is that sensitive  resources of various
 types have in the past been affected adversely by surface mining throughout
 the surface coal mining regions of West Virginia.  Progress in reducing ad-
 verse effects has been made during the 1970's, and the regulations imposed
 by the State have been instrumental in securing that progress.  But at the
 present time Federal responsibility for environmental  review remains more
 comprehensive than that imposed by State or local statute in West Virginia.

      Archaeological Resources

      Archaeological remains of one or more groups of prehistoric inhabitants
 may be found in virtually every type of environmental  setting in West
 Virginia.  Sites have been discovered in river valleys, on river terraces,
 on hills and mountaintops, in rock shelters on mountainsides, and on
 cliffs.   Many archaeological sites remain to be discovered, because few
 •parts of the State have been subjected to professional reconnaissance.
 Consequently, there are many gaps in the record of prehistoric West Virginia.
 The distribution of 1, 751 known archaeological sites  indicated in Figure 8,
 should not be. interpreted as an accurate depiction of  the actual
 county distribution of archaeological sites.

      In addition to prehistoric archaeological sites,  many historic archaeological
, sites occur in West Virginia, only a few of which have been recorded and
 analyzed.  A growing awareness of the importance of"these sites probably will
 increase the number of recognized important historic archaeological sites in
 the future.  Known historic sites include Harpers Ferry and Camp Allegheny
 in Pocahontas County.  Potential sites exist in the Eastern Panhandle area,
 where historic Susquehannock tribes were known to have occupied sites on
 the South Branch River and on Blennerhassett Island in the Ohio River, where
 the remains of Blennerhassett Mansion are buried.  Sites of many Civil
 War battles, frontier forts, and early iron furnaces  are located in various
 sections of the State.

      Records of known archaeological sites are maintained by the West Virginia
 Archaeological Survey.  The State Archaeological Survey has no capability to
 undertake a comprehensive Statewide inventory, but it  has performed reconaissance
 of specific sites on a contract basis.  There is no requirement for identifi-
 cation or review of potential mining impacts on archaeological resources
 that may be situated on private lands as a result of  State or local statutes
 in West Virginia  (Verbally, Dr. Daniel Fowler, Archaeological Director, West
 Virginia Geological Survey, 10 October 1976).  The identification of
 archaeological resources in West Virginia, therefore,.together with any
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                       39
                                                             0    MILES    40
                                                           JACK McCORMICK a ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            A SUBSIDIARY OFWAPORA, INC.
Figure 8.    Number of known  archaeological sites  in West Virginia counties
  as of  January  1976 (data from West  Virginia Archaeological Survey).

-------
                                    40
minimization of or mitigation for adverse effects on these resources,  is
required only by the Federal laws which apply to the issuance  of NPDES
permits or other Federal actions.

     Archaeological resources are highly susceptible to damage by  surface
mining, which entails a drastic modification of surface deposits.   Because
the distribution of such resources  is  so poorly known, because professional
expertise is necessary to locate these resources and estimate  their
significance, and because these resources are irreplacable, TJS-EPA may
seek to take special cognizance of  these resources.

      The  following discussion summarizes  the distribution of known
 archaeological  sites,  and  it presents information on the distinct technological
 assemblages  and remains  of  prehistoric cultural  groups in West Virginia
 (Table 15 ).   The earliest  known inhabitants of West Virginia were groups
 known to  archaeologists  as  Paleo-Indians, who inhabited the State by 12000 B.C.
 No camp  sites or kill  sites attributable  to the  early inhabitants have been
 discovered,  but fluted projectile  points  (Figure 9  )  have been found on
 terraces  of  the Ohio River  and the Kanawha  River and on Blennerhassett Island
 in the Ohio  River.   Fluted  points  have been found elsewhere associated with
 mammoth  and  mastodon   remains,  and it is  postulated that the Paleo-Indians
 lived in  migratory bands  and subsisted by hunting large game.   At the time of
 the Valders  maximum of the  Wisconsin glaciation  of  the Pleistocene Epoch,
 the continental ice sheet  advanced to within 400 miles of the Central Ohio
 Valley.   In  open areas not  covered by ice and meltwater,  game such as caribou
 and mastodon grazed.   The  large herbivores  followed natural game trails
 along the water courses  through the hills of West Virginia to reach the level
 grazing  areas.   It is  believed that the Paleo-hunters  also utilized the game
 trails and ambushed the large mammals at  strategic  passes and stream fords.
 Salt springs also attracted game.

      Fluted  points and Paleo-Indian occupation sites have been found on
 high sandy alluvial hillocks elevated about 100  feet above water-laid silt
 and loam  of  major river valleys such as the Ohio and Kanawha,  as well as on
 upland flats a  few miles  from the  Ohio River.  Saline  springs  on these
 terraces  attracted the large herbivores,  and consequently early men also were
 drawn  to  these  areas.

      The  typical artifact  assemblage found  at known Paleo-Indian sites
 included  fluted projectile  points,  lanceolate projectile points, uniface
 blade-like snub-nosed  scrapers,  uniface side blades,  gravers,  and other
 blade and flake tools.   Evidence from known occupation sites in the Ohio
 River Valley indicates that individual sites were occupied temporarily or
 seasonally over a long period of time.
      By about 6000 B.C. the gradually changing climatic conditions had
 resulted in ecological changes which brought about the demise of large
 herbivores.  Evidence from archaeological sites occupied after about
 600 B.C. indicates that a concurrent change occurred in human food-gathering
 practices and settlement patterns.  The several distinct modes of human
 adaptation to changing conditions at this time are manifested in various
 cultural assemblages at separate locations in West Virginia.  It is likely


                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
             ARCHEOLOGICAL PERIODS AND CULTURES IN WEST VIRGINIA
Time and Period
Removal A.D. 1800
Historic A.D. 1750
A.D. 1675
Late
Prehistoric
A.D. 1000
Late
Middle
A.D. 500
Woodland
Early
100 B.C.
Early
Woodland
1000 B.C.
Late
Archaic 4000 B.C.
Early
7000 B.C.
Paieo-Indian
13000 B.C.+
Culture and Area
South
North -
Cherokee/Shawnee/Delaware/Seneca
Hiatus
W. Shawnee?
Fort Ancient
Buck Garden
Armstrong
Adena
Buffalo?
E. Shawnee?
Monongahela
Watson Farm
Wilhelm
Adena
Panhandle
E. Panhandle
Algonquian/Tusca-
rora/Susquehannock
Early Historic
Monongahela
Late Woodland
Montane
Hopewell
?
?
Montane Archaic
Kirk/St. Albans/Le Croy/Kanawha (
Cumberland Fluted
Clovis Fluted
Period Description
Disruption of native culture; no ab-
original artifacts; few settlements
in W. Va.
"Hunting Ground" Period.
Settled stockaded village fanners;
com, beans and squash; warfare;
burial within village; many material
remains.
Rise of village life and intensive
horticulture; decline of mound
building; Utilitarian material re-
mains; stone mounds.
"Classic Hopewell" period; burial
mounds and cult still important.
Scattered hamlets; hunting and
gathering economic base.
"Cult of Dead." Burial mounds very
important; scattered hamlets; hunt-
ing and gathering economy supple-
mented by minor horticulture (sun-
flower).
Semi-sedentary specialized food
gathering/hunting; beginning of
polished stone tools.
Generalized hunting and gathering;
little but chipped stone tools.
Nomadic big game hunters of now
extinct mammals. Fluted projectile
points.
Table 15. Nomenclature of West Virginia archaeological periods (McMichael 1968:2).

-------
                LATE PREHISTORIC
                     X STEU6ENVILLE
                                          BUCK GARDEN

                                             WATSON FARM 'Jf


                                     WOODLAND

                                     BOBBINS (LATE ADENA)


                                             A."
                                                  SAVANNAH RIVER
                                                                  2000-
                                                                  3OOO-
               I
               I
               I
6UILFORD !
                STANLY
               \    KANAWAH

                \

                 \        LE CROY
                                          ARCHAIC
                                                          BIG SANDY 4000-
                                                                  5OOO-
                                                     ST. ALBANS     6OOO-
                                                         MAC CORKLE
                                      KIRK
                          OALTON
                 CUMBERLAND
                CLOVIS
                                      PALMER
                                     PALEO-INDIAN
                                                                  7OOO-
                                                                 eooo-
                                                                 90OO-
                                                                 10,000-
                                                                11,000-
                                                                12,000-
Figure 9.   Chronological sequence of  identified projectile point types

  from West Virginia  (McMichael  1968:7).

-------
                                   43
that Paleo-Indians supplemented their diets with whatever small game,
vegetables, grains, and fruits they could gather;  as the large game became
scarce, however, human populations became more and more dependent upon the
full variety of food resources that could be collected in a given area.

     Some  of these groups,  known  as Archaic  cultures, subsisted primarily
on shellfish.   Evidence of  their  occupation  sites has been  found  in the
northern Panhandle of West  Virginia on  the lower terraces of  the  Ohio  River.
Large mounds of clam shells,  fish bones, and other refuse were found on
the  east bank  of  the Ohio River.  Typical artifacts  recovered from  the
shell middens  included broad  stemmed  and lanceolate  spearpoints,  grooved
adzes,  atlatl  weights, bone "awls,     and harpoon points.  It  is believed
that because of their more  constant food supply, the Archaic  peoples were
able to live in larger, more  settled  groups  than the Paleo-hunters.  They
perhaps changed their campsites  seasonally.

     Remains of Archaic cultural  groups have been found at  the St.  Albans
site within the City of St. Albans, Kanawha  County.  This site was  occupied
intermittently between 7500 B.C.  and  6000 B.C.  Seasonal  flooding of the
river sealed each occupation.  The site has  been excavated  to 18  feet  below
surface.   Six  different types of  projectile  points were uncovered,  each in
a separate zone.  In addition to  projectile  points,  chipped flint hoes,
flint scrapers, drills, and fragments of faceted hematite were recovered.

     Remains of an Archaic  tradition  known as  the Montane Archaic occur
in the  eastern extremity  of the  State.  Spearheads and other  tools
ordinarily manufactured from  flint elsewhere in the  State were shaped
by the  Montane groups from  quartz, quartzite,  hematite, and sandstone.
An Archaic component also was  found at  the Buffalo site in  Putnam County.

     The later Archaic sites  contain  evidence  of increasing dependence on
grain and  vegetables as food  sources.   Pigweed and goosefoot  may  have  been
cultivated.  Bowls of the mineral steatite were made price  to the intro-
duction of vessels made of  clay.  Grave offerings and red ocher often
accompanied burials.  The Archaic culture evolved into the  Woodland mani-
festation.  Pottery making  and mound  building  were associated with  most of
the  Woodland sites.

     Several types of mounds  built by distinct cultural groups occur
throughout West Virginia.   The earliest, the Adena burial mounds, occur
in the  Ohio River and Kanawha River valleys  and were built  between
1000 B.C.  and  1 A.D.  The Adena has more elaborate life-styles and
technology than the Archaic groups.   There was an increased dependence
on cultivation of crops such  as pumpkins, gourds, and sunflowers, which
permitted  larger  groups to  be supported in semi-permanent villages.
Ceremonialism  expanded to include burial in  mounds.  During the first
500  years  of Adena culture  burial mounds were modest and included
utilitarian objects such  as stemmed projectile points, plain  tubular
pipes,     cord-marked pottery tempered with grit, and whetstones.
Settlements consisted of  groups of circular  houses of pole  and bark
construction.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    44
Figure 10.  Mound and  earthwork group wast of Charleston (Dunbar-South
  Charleston), 1887.  Except for the South Charleston, Shawnee Reservation,
  and a few smaller mounds, this group of prehistoric remains has been
  destroyed totally (McMichael 1968:18).

-------
                                    45
     Late Adena sites  contained  evidence of cultural  influences  from groups
to the north and west, known as  Hopewell cultural  groups.   Circular
earthworks, such as  those  formerly  in  the  Charleston  area  (Figure. 10)
were good examples of  late Adena mounds.   Such mounds also  occurred  around
the bases of Grave Creek Mound  (Figure 11).  Mounds covered log  tombs  in
which one or more burials  had been  placed, and many tombs were destroyed
during the  later construction of a  mound.  Grave  goods  included  ornamental
offerings such as effigy pipes,  pendants,  gorgets, copper bracelets  and
rings, and  grooved stone tablets.   Late Adena houses  were of double-post
side wall construction.  Adena mounds  include Grave Creek Mound  at Mounds-
villa  (and  50  associated mounds, most  of which have been destroyed),
Cresap Mound,  Natrium  Mound, Welcome Mound, and the large group  of mounds
in and around  Charleston,  of which  one remains in the center of  Charleston.
The distribution of  Adena  sites  is  indicated in Figure  11.

     Influences from the Hopewell culture, which  reached its zenith  in
Ohio during Middle Woodland times,  were reflected in  late Adena  cultural
remains.  In the Kanawha Valley, cultural  remains from  the  period between
1 A.D. and  500 A.D.  contain a mixture  of Adena and Hopewell elements.
Small earthen  mounds contained  cremations.  Scattered villages were  composed
of circular houses,  simple agriculture was practiced, and  the tools  in-
cluded small flake knives  and corner and side-notched projectile points
made of  flint  that came from Flint  Ridge,  Ohio.   In central West Virginia
the Buck Garden Culture succeeded the  earlier mixed Adena-Hopewell culture,
known as the Armstrong culture  (Figures 11 and 12).   Burials of  the  Buck
Garden cultural group  were found in rock shelters and overhangs  in central
West Virginia. The  Buck Garden  people also built stone mounds and intro-
duced the cultivation  of corn, beans,  and  squash.  This new food resource
base permitted the Buck Garden  people  to live in  compact villages.  By
1200 A.D. these people had been  driven from the Kanawha alley,  but  they
persisted in the hills to  the north and south of  the  Kanawha River for some  time.

     While  the Armstrong people  inhabited  the Kanawha River  alley and
central  West Virginia, another Middle  Woodland group, known as the
Wilhelm  Stone  Cist Mound Builders lived in the Ohio River   alley section of
northern West  Virginia.  These  people  constructed earth mounds over  a
number of individual stone-lined graves.   Platform pipes,  Flint  Ridge flint
knives,  and notched  points were  among  the  remains of  the Wilhelm groups.
Succeeding  the Wilhelm tone  ist Mound Builders  in  the northern panhandle
of West  Virginia were  the  Watson Farm  Stone Mound Builders, who  built stone
mounds with multiple burials.   Individual  graves  or  grave  chambers (cists)
were absent from  the Watson Farm remains.  The mounds contained  both flexed
and extended corpses,  cremations, and  secondary burials.  These  people lived
in compact  villages  and utilized pottery that- was tenpered  for strength
using crushed  limestone.   Subsistence  was  based on corn-bean-squash
agriculture.

     During the Early  and  Middle Woodland  periods, the  mountainous sections
of the eastern part  of West Virginia were  inhabited  by  cultural  groups
whose remains  contain  evidence  of Hopewellian  influences,  and who built
numerous small mounds.  Such mounds occur  in  the  Tygart Valley of Randolph
County.  The Romney  Cemetery,  the Hyre Mound,  and the Don  Bosco  Mounds
were built  by  the Montane  Mound Builders.  Distributions of these sites are
indicated in Figure  13.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                          46
                                    Figure 11. Area of Adena Culture in West Virginia.  The
                                      four underlined mounds are the largest in the State;
                                      the other named mounds have been excavated by modern
                                      scientific methods and are the source of most informa-
                                      tion about Adena in West Virginia (after McMichael 1968).
  Figure 12.  Distribution of Early Middle Woodland sites
    in West Virginia, 1 to 500 A.D. (after McMichael  1968).
                                        Figure 13.   Distribution of Late Middle Woodland Sites
                                          in West Virginia,  A.D. 500 to 1000 (after McMichael 1968).
Figure 14. Distribution of Late Prehistoric Cultures
  in West Virginia.  The area of overlap of the Fort
  Ancient and Monongahela Cultures contains Monongahela-
  like sites in the earlier part of the period, but Fort
  Ancient sites later (after McMichael 1968).
                                    Figure 15.  Known sites in West Virginia at the time
                                      of European contact  (after McMichael 1968).
                                                             : JArr. McCORMlCIC 81 A4soCnCT»ft -j INC.
                                                                    *t O^ TNAfttCA . tMC.

-------
                                   '47
     In the Kanawha River and Ohio River valleys the final prehistoric
period of occupation between 900 and 1700 A.D. is represented by remains
of groups known as Fort Ancient people.  Influences from the Mississippian
culture near St. Louis affected these cultures in West Virginia.  The
Fort Ancient people lived in large, compact villages surrounded by stockades,
with rows of rectangular houses.  The villagers farmed corn, beans, and
squash.  There were open plazas in the centers of the villages, and as
many as 1,500 persons lived within the stockades.  Burials were no longer
made in mounds.  The dead were placed in pits inside the villages or inside
house walls.  Artifacts included small, triangular projectile points, drills,
scrapers, blades, hoes, celts, .awls, fish hooks, bird bone flutes, shell
beads, ear plugs, and pottery vessels and pipes.  Some late Fort Ancient
sites contained European trade goods.  Variations of the Fort Ancient
culture occurred at Parkersburg and in the New River-Bluestone River area.

     Stockaded villages of Fort Ancient groups were constructed in the
northern and eastern sections of the State (Figure 14) between 1000 and
1700 A.D.  At this time the Buck Garden people continued to manifest their
separate cultural identity in remote sections of central West Virginia.
In the eastern mountains Middle Woodland cultures, unaffected by Mississippian
traits, persisted much later than 1000 A.D.  The Monongahela Culture
developed in the Monongahela River  valleyof northern West Virginia.
Villages of these cultural groups consisted of 1- or 2-acre stockaded settle-
ments which contained circular huts of pole and bark construction.  Burials
were in pits.  Settlements of the Monongahela cultural groups were con-
siderably smaller than Fort Ancient villages.

     European goods were found in some Fort Ancient and Monongahela sites.
As there was only one recorded incident of European contact with a Fort
Ancient village, it is believed that most European goods were obtained
through trade.  Locations of sites known to have existed at the time of
European contact (ca. 1650 A.D.) are indicated in Figure 15.  By 1700,
Fort Ancient and Monongahela villages were abandoned.  The fate of the
former village occupants and their historic tribal connections are unknown.
There is some indirect evidence that Fort Ancient villages were built by
western Shawnee Indians, remnant populations of which were discovered by
Europeans in the Cumberland River sections of Tennessee and Kentucky.  It
is also possible that eastern Shawnees occupied the Monongahela villages
of late prehistoric times.  (The Eastern Shawnees inhabited sections of the
Carolinas at the time of earliest European contact.)  During historic times
Susquehannocks from western Pennsylvania entered West Virginia, and there
is evidence of their presence in the Eastern Panhandle between 1630 and 1677.
Their sites occur on the valley of the South Branch River in Hampshire
County.  Susquehannocks had no apparent connection, however, with the
indigenous prehistoric groups of West Virginia.  By 1700 A.D., except for
the Eastern Panhandle area where a few aboriginal Algonkian-speaking tribes
remained, West Virginia was devoid of its indigenous Indian populations,
and the State was utilized only as a hunting ground.  Later, Indian groups
returned to or moved into West Virginia.  Many of these were vassals or sub-
groups of the Iroquois.  Shawnees and displaced Delawares were the primary
groups to occupy sections of West Virginia during historic times.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    48
     Historic Resources

     At present  about 140 historically and culturally  significant  standing
structures, districts, and objects have been  determined eligible for the
National Register of  Historic Places  in West Virginia  (Table 16; Figure  16).
The majority of  the listed sites are  in settlements.  Many more  structures
exist whose significance  has not yet  been  discovered or  determined.

     There is an ongoing  survey to identify historic resources in  the
State under the  auspices  of the West  Virginia Antiquities Commission in
accordance with  the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665)
Copies of the State Preservation Plan for  historic preservation  are  not
available at present.  The Commission recommends a project-by-project
environmental review  of proposed surface mine sites  (By  letter,  Leonard  M.
Davis, State Historic Preservation Officer, WV Antiquities Commission,
Morgantown, 5 January 1977).

     No state or local statutes apparently require the identification of
historic sites or assessments of potential impacts of surface mining on
historic sites in West Virginia.  The WV-DNR is empowered to delete  land
from permit applications, the mining  of which will constitute a  hazzard
to dwellings, public  buildings, and various other sensitive receptors
(West Virginia Code 20-6-11).  This authority may protect known  historic
buildings and other sites already in  public ownership.   It presumably
offers little protection  to historic  sites that are not  widely known
and are not on public land.

     Public Law  94-429 requires that  the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be  consulted whenever surface mining activities may result  in
adverse effects  on properties designated as National Historic Landmarks.
National Historic Landmarks in West Virginia include the Grave Creek
Mound in Moundsville  (Marshall County) and the Wade-Alexander House  in
Morgantown (Monongalia County; NPS 1972).
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                        j^*'~~ •&&• ' T* .1 j-   x ISflMB
                 JPQ   --o^^^lAMP^-f?^/     ""xh^f
f;-/- P OCA W"6 Mft* s <
          "'fe "
           «*
                        STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
                    SURFACE COAL MINING AREAS
                          8 HISTORIC SITES
                     • ACTIVE SURFACE MINE, 1976.

-------
                                     •51
Table  16.   National Register historic sites (continued).

16.  Ansted.   Contentment,  Along U.S.  60, Fayette County.

17.  Clifftop vicinity.   Tyree Stone Tavern (Old Stone House, E of Clifftop
        off U.S.  19 on SR 10), Fayette County.

18.  Lahmansville vicinity.  Snyder,Noah, Farm,  1.5 mile S of Lahmansville on
        Route  5,  Grant County.

IS^a).   Petersburg vicinity.  The Manor,  N of Petersburg off WV 42, Grant County.

19.  William  vicinity.   Fairfax Stone site, N of William at corner of Grant,
        Preston,  and Tucker  Counties, Grant County.

20.  Petersburg  vicinity.   The Manor,  N of Petersburg off WV 42, Grant County.

21.  Caldwell.  Elmhurst, U.S. 60,  Greenbrier County.

22.  Lewisburg.   Greenbrier County Courthouse and Lewis Spring, Corner of
        Court  and Randolph Streets,  Greenbrier County.

23.  Lewisburg.   John Wesley Methodist Church, E. Foster Street, Greenbrier
        County.

23(a).   Lewisburg.  Mt.  Tabor Methodist Church,  Court and Foster Streets,
            Greenbrier County.

24.  Lewisburg.   North,  John A., House (Star Tavern, 100 Church Street),
        Greenbrier County.

25.  Lewisburg.   Old Stone  Church (Presbyterian), Church and Foster Streets,
        Greenbrier County.

26.  Lewisburg.   Price,  Gov. Samuel, House, 224 North Court Street, Greenbrier
        County.

27.  Lewisburg.   Supreme Court Library Building (Greenbrier County Library and
        Museum, U.S. 60W and Courtney Drive), Greenbrier County.

28.  Lewisburg.  Withrow, James, House, 200 N.  Jefferson Street, Greenbrier County.

29.  Lewisburg vicinity. Creigh, David S., House (Montescena, SW of Lewisburg
        off the Davis-Stuart Road), Greenbrier County.

30.  Lewisburg vicinity. Hartland (Rogers Farm, 2 miles W of Lewisburg on
        Houfnagle Road),  Greenbrier County.

31.  Lewisburg vicinity.  Stuart Manor, SW of Lewisburg off U.S. 210,
        Greenbrier County.

32.  Lewisburg vicinity.  Tuckwiller Tavern, 2 miles NW of Lewisburg on U.S. 60,
        Greenbrier County.

33.  Lewisburg vicinity.  Arbuckle, Alexander W. I., House (Baker, Michael,
        House), 2 miles N of Lewisburg on Arbuckle Lane, Greenbrier County.
                                                       JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                           a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    - 52

Table 16.  National Register  historic  sites  (continued).

34.  White Sulphur Springs.   Greenbrier, The, Off U.S.  60,  Greenbrier  County.

35.  Junction vicinity.  Sloan-Parker  House  (Stone House, E of  Junction on
       U.S. 50), Hampshire County.

36.  New Manchester.  Old Courthouse,  High and Elm Streets,  Hancock County.

37.  Weirton vicinity. Tar, Peter,  Furnace site, N of Weirton off  WV 2, Hancock
       County.

38.  Mathias vicinity.  Lee,  Lighthorse  Harry,  Cabin,  W  of Mathias in Lost
       River State Park, Hardy  County.

39.  Moorefield.  Old Hardy County  Courthouse, Winchester Avenue and Elm
       Street, Hardy  County.

40.  Moorefield vicinity.  Fort Pleasant, N  of Moorefield,  Hardy County.

41.  Moorefield vicinity.  Mill Island,  S of Moorefield,  Hardy  County.

42.  Moorefield vicinity.  Willows,  The, S of Moorefield, Hardy County.

43.  Old Fields vicinity.  Willow Wall,  S of Old Fields,  Hardy  County.

44.  Lost  Creek vicinity.  Smith, Watters, Farm on Duck Creek,  W of Lost Creek
       off U.S. 19 in Watters Smith Memorial State Park,  Harrison County.

45.  Shinneton.  Shinn, Levi, House, Clarksburg Rd.  (U.S. 19),  Harrison County.

45(a).  Clarksburg.   Groff, Nathan  Jr.,  House, 463 W. Main  Street, Harrison
           County.
46.  Good  Hope vicinity.  Indian Cave  Petroglyphs, County Route 2, Harrison
       County.

47.  Charles Town.  Cedar-Lawn, 3.5 mile W of Charles Town  off  VA 51,  HABS,
       Jefferson County.

48.  Charles Town.  Jefferson County Courthouse, N.  George  and  E.  Washington
       Streets, HABS, Jefferson County..

49.  Charles Town.  Richwood  Hall,  about 4 miles W of Charles Town off WV 51,
       Jefferson County.

50.  Charles Town vicinity.   Claymont  Court, SW of Charles  Town off U.S.  340,
       HABS, Jefferson County.

51.  Charles Town vicinity.   Harewood, W of  Charles  Town  off WV 51, Jefferson
       County.

52.  Charles Town vicinity.   Washington, Charles, House (Happy  Retreat),  S
       of  Charles Town off WV 9,  HABS, Jefferson County.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                      53

 Table  16.   National Register historic sites (continued).

 53.  Charles Town vicinity.   Worthington, Robert, House (Piedmont), 2 miles W
         of  Charles Town off WV 51,  HABS,  Jefferson County.

 55.  Halltown vicinity.   Beall-Air,  W of Halltown off U.S.  340, Jefferson County.

 56.  Harpers Ferry.   Harpers Ferry National Historical Park.  At confluence of
         Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers,  HABS, Jefferson County.

 57.  Harpers Ferry.   St.  Peter's Roman Catholic Church, Church Street and
         Jefferson Rock Trail, Jefferson County.

 58.  Kearneysville.  Traveller's Rest,  3.3 miles NW of Leetown on WV 48, NHL,
         HABS, Jefferson County.

• 59.  Leetown.   Prato Rio, WV 48, HABS, Jefferson County.

 60.  Leetown vicinity.  Woodbury.   NE of Leetown, Jefferson County.

 61.  Shepherdstown.   Rumsey  Hall (Entler Hotel, German and Princess Sts.) ? Jefferson Co,

 62.  Shepherdstown.   Shepherd's Mill,  High Street, Jefferson County.

 63.  Shepherdstown.   Shepherdstown Historic District, bounded roughly by
         Mill, Rocky,  Duke, and Washington Streets (Jefferson County).

 64.  Shepherdstown vicinity.  Cold Spring, S of Shepherdstown on CR 17,
         HABS, Jefferson County.

 65.  Shepherdstown vicinity.  Elmwood, S of Shepherdstown on CR 17, HABS,
         Jefferson County.

 66.  Shenandoah  Junction.  Hazelfield, NW of  Shenandoah Junction off Warm
         Springs Road,  Jefferson  County.

 67.  Cedar Grove.   Cedar  Grove  (William Tompkins House, SE  of Junction of U.S.
         60  and  Kanawha and James River  Turnpike, Kanawha County.

 68.  Cedar Grove.  Little Brick Church (Virginia's Chapel,  0.75 mile E of
         Kelley's  Creek on  U.S.  60),  Kanawha County.

 69.  Charleston.   Craik-Patton  House (Elm Grove),U.S.  60 in Daniel Boone
         Roadside  Park, Kanawha County.

 70.  Charleston.   Craik-Patton  House (Elm Grove), 1316 Lee  Street, Kanawha County.

 71.  Charleston.   Holly Grove Mansion, 1710 E. Kanawha Blvd., Kanawha County.

 72.  Charleston.   Sunrise (MacCorkle Mansion,  746 Myrtle Road), Kanawha County.

 73.  Charleston.   West Virginia Capitol Complex, Along Kanawha Blvd.  E, Kanawha
         County.

 *74.  Charleston.  Kanawha  County Courthouse, Kanawha County.


                                                        JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                           o lubiidlary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                     54

 Table 16.   National Register historic sites (continued).

 75.   Charleston.  Fort Scammon, Fort Circle Drive, Kanawha County.

 76.   Dunbar.   Dutch Hollow Wine Cellars, Dutch Hollow Road, Kanawha County.

 77.   Maiden.   African Zion Baptist Church, 4104 Maiden Drive, Kanawha County.

 78.   Marmet.   Ebenezer Chapel, Ohio Avenue  S at Hillview Drive, Kanawha County.

 79.   South Charleston.  South Charleston Mound (Criel Mound), Kanawha County.

 80.   St.  Albans.   St. Albans site, between U.S. 60 and the Kanawha River,
        Kanawha County.

*80(a).  St. Albans,  Chilton House, 439  B  Street, Kanawha  County.

 81.   Jackson Mill vicinity.  Jackson's Mill, E of Jackson Mill  on Route  1,
        Lewis County.

 82.   Barrackville.   Barraclcville Covered  Bridge, WV 21, over Buffalo Creek,
        Marion County.

 83.   Fairmont vicinity.  Prickett's Fort, E of Fairmont, off WV 73, Marion County.

 84.   Moundsville vicinity.  Grave Creek Mound, NHL,Marshall County.

 85.   Point Pleasant. Point Pleasant Battleground, SW corner of  Main and  1st
        Streets, Mason County.

 86.   Athens vicinity.  French, Colonel William Henderson, House, W of WV
        Route 20, Mercer County.

 87.   Princeton. Hale, Dr. James W.t House, 1034 Mercer Street,  Mercer County.

 88.   Fort Ashby.  Fort Ashby, South Street, Mineral County.

 89.   Cheat Neck vicinity.  Henry Clay Furnace, SE of Cheat Neck in Cooper's
        Rock State Forest, Monongalia County.

 90.   Morgantown.  Old Stone House, Chestnut Street, Monongalia  County.

 91.   Morgantown.  Wade-Alexander House, 256 Prairie Street, NHL, Monongalia
        County.

 92.   Morgantown.  Woodburn Circle, University Avenue, West Virginia University,
        Monongalia County.

 93.   Pentress vicinity.  Mason and Dixon  Survey Terminal Point  (Brown's  Hill),
        2.25 miles NE of Pentress on WV 39, Monongalia County.

 94.   Ringgold vicinity.  Hamilton Farm Petroglyphs, Monongalia  County.

 95.   Salt Sulphur Springs vicinity.  Indian Creek Covered Bridge, 1.5 mile
        S of Salt Sulphur Springs on U.S.  219, Monroe County.

                                                       JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            o subsidiory of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                      55

 Table 16.  National Register historic sites (continued).


 96.   Sweet Springs.  Old Sweet Springs, WV, Monroe County.

 97.   Union vicinity.  Rehoboth Church, 2 miles E of Union off WV 3, Monroe County.

 98.   Union vicinity.  Spring Valley Farm, NE of Union on U.S. 219, Monroe County.

 99.   Union vicinity.  Elmwood (Hugh Caperton House), N of Union off US 219,
        Monroe County.

100.   Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Morgan County.

101.   Berkeley Springs. Berkeley Springs State Park, S. Washington and Fairfax
        Streets, Morgan County.

102.   Kesslers Cross Lanes vicinity.  Carnifex Ferry State Park, S of Kesslers
        Cross Lanes off WV 129, Nicholas County.
                                                           s
103.   Wheeling.  Center Wheeling Market, Market Street between 22nd and 23rd
        Streets, HABS, Ohio County.

104.   Wheeling.  Independence Hall, 1524 Market Street, HABS, Ohio County.

105.   Wheeling.  Shepherd Hall (Monument Place), Monument Place and Kruger Street,
        HABS, Ohio County.

106.   Wheeling.  Wheeling Suspension Bridge, over Ohio River from 10th Street,
        Wheeling, to Virginia Street, Wheeling Island, NHL, HABS, Ohio County.

107.   Wheeling.  B & 0 Railroad Freight Station and Train Shed, Ohio County.
        [demolished 1975].
108.   Brandywine vicinity. Propst Lutheran Church, Pendleton County.

109.   Petersburg vicinity.  Old Judy Church, about 10 miles S of Petersburg on  U.S.
        200, Pendleton County.

110.   Cass.  Cass Scenic Railroad, along railroad tracks from Cass to Bald Knob,
        Pocahontas County.

111.   Green Bank vicinity.  Reber Radio Telescope, National Radio Astronomy
        Observatory, NE of Green Bank on WV  28, Pocahontas County.

112.   Hillsboro vicinity.  Buck, Pearl, House, NE of Hillsboro on U.S. 219,
        Pocahontas County.

113.   Marlinton vicinity.  Droop Mountain Battlefield, About 14 miles S of
        Marlinton on U.S. 219, Pocahontas County.

114.   Marlinton.  Hunter, Frank  and Anna, House, U.S. 219, Pocahontas County.

115.   Aurora vicinity.  Red Horse Tavern  (Old Stone House), 1 mile E of Aurora,
        Preston County.
                                                  T
116.  Buffalo vicinity.  Buffalo Indian Village Site, Putnam County.

                                                       JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                           a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                       56

  Table 16.   National Register historic sites (continued).


 117.   Beckley.  Wildwood (General Alfred Beckley Home), 117 Laurel Terrace,
         Raleigh County.

 118.   Beverly.  Blackman-Bosworth Store, Main and Court Streets, Randolph County.

 119.   Elkins.   Graceland (Henry Gassaway Davis Home), Davis and Elkins College
         campus, Randolph County.

 120.   Huttonsville.  Hutton, E. E., House, Junction of U.S. 219/250 and Union
         Street, Randolph County.

 121.   Lowell vicinity.  Graham,Col. James, House  (Graham's Fort), WV Route  3,
         Summers County.

 122.   Grafton.  Andrews Methodist Church  (Mother's Day Shrine), E. Main Street
         between St. John and Luzader  Streets, Taylor County.

 123.   Sistersville.  Durham, E. A.,House, 110 Chelsea Street, Tyler County.

 124.   Sistersville.  Sistersville City Hall, City Square, Main and Diamond
         Streets, Tyler County.

 125.   Sistersville.  Sistersville Historic District, from Chelsea to the Ohio
         River between Catherine and both  sides of Virginia Streets, Tyler County.

 126.   Sisterville.  Wells Inn  (Wells  Hotel, 316 Charles Street), Tyler County.

 127.   French Creek.  French Creek Presbyterian Church, Route 2, Upshur County.

 128.   Burning Springs.  Burning Springs Complex, along the N bank of the Kanawha
         River from the confluence of  Burning Springs Run, Wirt County..

 129.   Elizabeth.  Beauchamp-Newman House, Court Street, Wirt County.

 130.   Parkersburg vicinity.  Blennerhassett Island Historic District, on the Ohio
         River, 1.7 mile S of Parkersburg, Wood County.

*131.   Parkersburg.  Wood County Courthouse, Wood County.

*132.   Parkersburg.  Wood County Jail, Wood County.


 135,  Williamstown,. Tomlinson Mansion, 901 ₯, 3rd Street, Wood County.
                                                        JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                            o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                     57
       Wilderness Areas

       Wilderness Areas are particularly susceptible to adverse effects by
surface mining of coal.  Each mine site is disrupted completely during
mining, and may regain a pre-mining appearance only slowly following
reclamation.  Even if off-site effects on wate1" quality and other natural
resources are held to insignificant levels, every mining operation requires
transportation facilities to convey its products to market.  The construction
of rail and road facilities is virtually certain to reduce the isolation
which is essential for wilderness experience, and the adverse aesthetic
effects of both mining and transport activities on wilderness landscapes
are likely to be significant during and long after mine operations.

      Congress has classified the 20, 000-acre Otter Creek area of Randolph  and
 Tucker Counties and  the 10,215-acre Dolly Sods area of Randolph, Grant,
 Tucker, and Pendleton Counties  as wilderness areas within the Monongahela
 National Forest  (P.L. 93-622, 3 January 1975; Figure 17, Table 18).  The Cranberry
 Back Country(26,300  acres in Webster  and Nicholas Counties) was placed  in
 a wilderness study category, and recommendations are due to Congress by
 1980.  The Laurel Fork area also has  been proposed as a wilderness  area.
 It includes 11,656 acres, of which 1,154 are in West Virginia  (Wilderness
 Committee 1973).  The Outdoor Recreation Division of WV-DNR has underway a
 program to identify  and recommend measures  for the protection of other
 wilderness areas in  the State  (GOFSR  1975).

      Mineral ownership in most  sections of  the Monongahela National Forest
 where there are  minable coal resources is not by the Federal government,
 which owns 839,630 acres of land surface but only 497,895 acres (59%) in fee
 simple (USFS 1977).  .In the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, 8,500 acres  have mineral
 reservations which give the owner the right  to mine coal and other  minerals.
 Recent exploration for coal in  the Otter Creek Wilderness Area has  been
 conducted with equipment transported  by helicopter and on horseback
 (Verbally, Dr. James Rawson, WV-DNR,  Elkins, 15 December 1976).  Two under-
 ground mines are being opened in the  Cranberry Back Country, and two surface
 mines have been opened in the watershed of  Shavers Fork.  Only Laurel  Fork
 is situated entirely within the current surface coal mining moratorium
 area, and lies outside the area with  minable coal.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   58
                                                            NORTH
                                                        0     MILES    40
                                                     JACK McCORMICK 9 ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                       A SUBSIDIARY OF WAPORA, INC.
Figure 17.  Established and proposed wilderness areas  in West Virginia
  National Forests  (shaded).   The areas are A, Cranberry Back County
  (under study);  B,  Dolly Sods; C, Otter Creek; D,  Laurel Fork
  (proposed).  The boundaries  of  National Forests depicted  in this report .
   are generalized approximations of authorized boundaries;  actual patterns
   both of land ownership and  of  areas designated under  wilderness categories
   are irregular  in  detail and cannot be shown on sreall-scale maps.

-------
                                    59  .
     Parks and Recreational Facilities

     Parks and recreational areas in West Virginia are operated by
Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as by private interests.
Recreation is a major industry that employs 42,000 West Virginians,
and brings $680 million into the State annually (WV-DOC 1976).

        Federally Administered Facilities

     The Army  Corps of Engineers,  the National Park  Service,  the  Fish  and
Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service  administer  recreational  lands
in West Virginia.  Corps of Engineers lakes are inventoried  in  the section on
surface water  resources.  Recreational  facilities  administered  by the  Corps
of Engineers are  listed in Table 17,

     The- National Park Service administers  three  installations  which are
situated partly in West Virginia.   One  of these is the Appalachian Trail,
a National Scenic Trail about 2,000 miles long.   A 9-mile  long  segment of
the Appalachian Trail follows the  West  Virginia State Line southward along
the boundary of Jefferson County from Harpers  Ferry. In Harpers  Ferry, the
Service administers  the Harpers Ferry National Historical  Park, of which 564
acres  (47% of  the Federal acreage)  is situated in West Virginia.   The  Harpers
Ferry  National Historical Park may be expanded by the National  Park Service.
A small segment (3 of 10,366 Federal acres) of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
National Historical Park extends into Jefferson County  (NPS  1975).

       The National Park Service maintains the National Register of  Historic
Places, and the National Register of Historic Landmarks, which  are  dis-
cussed in the  section on Historic  Sites.  It also maintains  the R.gister
of National Natural History Landmarks, which is discussed  in  the  section on
biological resources.  These facilities are not Federally  owned or  Federally
administered.

      The Fish and Wildlife Service, like the National Park Service, is
 part of the Department of the Interior.  In West Virginia it administers
 three fish hatcheries at Bowden (Randolph County), Leetown  (Jefferson
 County),  and White Sulphur Springs (Greenbrier County;  GOFSR 1975).

      The Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture.   It
 administers almost 1 million acres in the sections  of three National Forests
 which are situated in West Virginia.  This land represents about  6% of
 West Virginia, but only about 0.5% of the National  Forest land in  the  Nation.
 The George Washington National Forest occupieslOO,386 acres  in Hampshire,
 Hardy, and Pendleton Counties, and the Jefferson National Forest  includes
18,245 acres  of Monroe County.  The largest Forest  Service unit  in West
 Virginia, however, is the Monongahela National Forest, which consists  of
839,630  acres in eight counties (Figure,18, GOFSR 1975).  Recreational use
of the Monongahela National Forest was described  in  detail by the  Forest
Service (USFS  1977).
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES/INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
Table 17.  Corps of Engineers recreational facilities  in West Virginia (GOSFR 1975)
  Army Corps of Engineers; WV-DNR,  West Virginia Department of Natural Resources.
                                               Abbreviations:   ACE,
             Project
Belleville Locks and Dam

Bluestone Lake
East Lynn Lake
Gallipolis Locks and Dam


Greenup Locks and Dam (Ohio River)
London Locks and Dam
Marnet Locks and Dam
Racine Locks and Dam

Summersville Lake
     Facility
Parkersburg
Williamstown

Downstream No, 1
Downstream No, 2
Bull Falls
Bertha
Mouth of Ind, Cr,
Shanklines Ferry
Cedar Branch
Bluestone State Park
Rt. 20 Roadside Park
Town Park

Dam Site
Below Dam
Lake Side
Lake Creek
East Fork

Gallipolis Lock
Pt. Pleasant Site
Mason City Site

Guyandotte Site

London Locks

Marnet Locks
Racine Locks
Ravenswood

Dam Site
Tailwaters
Battle Run
Salmon Run
Long Point
Long Point
Rt. 19 Roadside Park
Management Agency
Parkersburg
Williamstown

ACE
ACE
WV-DNR
WV-DNR
WV-DNR
WV-DNR
WV-DNR
WV-DNR
WV-DNR
WV-DNR

ACE
ACE
ACE
ACE
ACE

ACE
City of Pt. Pleas.
Mason City, WV

WV-DNR

ACE

ACE

ACE
ACE

ACE
ACE
ACE
ACE
ACE
Maridorbes Corp.
WV Highway Dept.
County
 Wood
 Wood

 Summers
 Summers
 Summers
 Summers
 Summers
 Summers
 Summers
 Summers
 Summers
 Summers

 Wayne
 Wayne
 Wayne
 Wayne
 Wayne

 Mason
 Mason
 Mason

 Corbell

 Kanawha

 Kanawha

 Mason
 Mason
" Nicholas
 Nicholas
 Nicholas
 Nicholas
 Nicholas
 Nicholas
 Nicholas
                                                                                                             ON
                                                                                                             O

-------
Table 17.  Corps of Engineers recreational 'facilities in West Virginia  (concluded)
Sutton Lake
            Project                         Facility

                                       Downstream '
                                       South Abutment
                                       Bee Run
                                       Baker Run Mill Cr«
                                       Kanawha River
                                       Brock Run
Winfield Lock and Dam  (Kanawha River)  Winfield Locks
Monongahela Waterway  (9 Locks and
  Dams)
Ohio River Mile 0-127  (6 Locks
  and Dams)

Tygart Lake
                                       Pool 8, Monongahela R,
                                       Morgantown L/D
                                       Hildebrand L/D
                                       Cockicha L/D
                                       Prickett Bay
                                       Kennedy Park
                                       Pike Island L/D
                                       Buffalo Creek

                                       Dam Picnic Area
                                       State Park
                                       Pleasant Creek
Management Agency

ACE
ACE
ACE
ACE
ACE
ACE

ACE
ACE
ACE
ACE
ACE
WV-DNR
Hancock County
Hancock County
Hancock County

Hancock County
WV-DNR
WV-DNR
County

Braxton
Braxton
Braxton
Braxton
Braxton
Braxton

Kanawha
Monongahela
Monongahela
Monongahela
Marion
Marion
Hancock
Hancock
Hancock

Taylor
Taylor
Taylor

-------
                                    62
     According  to  the Forest Service,  only  58%  of  the Monongahela National
Forest is  owned in fee simple (USFS  1970).   The rights to mine coal and
other minerals  are held by private interests beneath the remaining 42% of
the National  Forest.   Such lands  include most of the coal deposits within
the Forest boundaries.   None of the  categories  of  land designated by Congress
or by the  Forest Service bars mining from lands beneath which there is no
Federal  ownership  of  mineral rights.  Accordingly,  two underground mines  are
being opened  in  the Cranberry Back Country Wilderness Area^(in.which only
25% of the mineral rights  are Federally  owned),  and  two  surface mines  are
operating  in  the watershed  of the  Shavers Fork,  a tributary of the Cheat
River.

     Most  of  the Federal surface landholdings in the Monongahela  National
Forest were acquired  prior  to World  War  II,  before surface coal mining
was practiced in West Virginia.  Many  deeds  specified  that transfer of
surface rights did not  impair the rights of  the  mineral  owner  to  extract
minerals by methods generally in use at  the  time of  sale.  The Forest
Service, therefore, has adopted the  position that surface mining  can be pro-
hibited from  lands where the surface is  Federally owned  (By telephone,
S. F. Mumme,  Forest Supervisor, Monongahela  National Forest, 1 March 1977).
This position has been  upheld in Federal court  (US versus Sam  G.  Polmo et  al.
1955, 131  Fed.  Supp.  772),  and there has been  no surface mining  on National
Forest land in West Virginia since 1955.  The Forest Service apparently has no
control over  surface  mining on private lands surrounded  by or  adjacent to  Federal
lands.   The extent of non-Federal mineral ownership beneath the Monongahela
National Forest  has been mapped by the Forest Service  (USFS 1977:12).

     The Forest  Service has  acquired mineral rights in the Dolly  Sods
Wilderness Area during  recent years, but the high value  ($190 million
in 1973) of mineral resources beneath  the Cranberry Back Country  and in the
Shavers Fork basin make extensive Federal .acquisition there an unlikely
possibility (USFS 1977:11).   Specially classified areas  in the Monongahela
National Forest are listed  in Table  18.

     The State  Outdoor  Recreation  Division has  expressed interest in the
recreational  potential  of  the Allegheny  Historic Area,  the Headwaters  of
the Gandy  River, and  the Sinks of  Gandy  within  the Monongahela National
Forest  (GOFSR 1975).

       State  Administered  Facilities

     According  to  the State Outdoor  Recreation  Division, the  State of  West
Virginia held 276,265 acres of land  and  1,707 acres  of water  for  recreational
use in 1975 (GOFSR  1975).   This is less  than 2%  of the  State.  Fish and game
lands made up 50%;  State forests,  28%; and State park  lands,  22%  of the total.
The major  State  facilities  are mapped  in Figure  18 and  listed  in  Table 19.
In addition,  there were 197 State  roadside parks adjacent to highways  and
more than  400 roadside  tables during'1975 (GOFSR 1975).

     Funds have  been  appropriated by the West Virginia Legislature for the
creation of new  State Parks at Canyon  Rim (Region 4), Sandstone Falls  (Region 1),
Beech Fork Lake  (Region 2),  and Grave  Creek Mound (Region 10, Figure 38).


                                                     JACK McCORMICK &  ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    63
Table 18.  Specially classified  areas  in the Monongahela National
  Forest, West Virginia.   Ownership data are from US Forest Service
  (1977).  Data are acres.
DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS
  TOTAL AUTHORIZED   Federal
      EXTENT         Surface
         OWNERSHIP
                    Private
          Private   Subsurface
          Surface   Mineral
Otter Creek Wilderness
  Area (P.L. 93-622)

Dolly Sods Wilderness Area

Cranberry Back Country
  Wilderness Study Area

Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks
  National Recreation Area
  (P.L. 89-207)

    Seneca Creek Pioneer
      Area

    Hopeville Gorge Pioneer
      Area

    Smoke Hole Pioneer Area
      20,000

      10,215


      36,300
     100,000
(planned 55,000)
      11,600


       3,600

       6,100
20,000

10,215


36,300
0    (19,000+)

0         (0)


0    (32,540)
 9,645     1,955      (2,305)
 2,422     1,178      (1,584)
   388     5,712      (5,917)
CLASSIFIED BY REGIONAL FORESTER

Cranberry Glades Botanical  Area       750

Falls of Hills Creek  Scenic Area      114

Gaudineer Scenic Area                 140

Dolly Sods Scenic Area               2,500
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
14

                                                                                                —o
           /
          /
                                                                              OF WEST VIRGINIA
                                                                     SURFACE COAL MINING AREAS,

                                                                        NATIONAL FORESTS, 8

                                                                   STATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
                                                                      « ACTIVE SURFACE MINE, 1976.
FIGURE 18

-------
                                    65
      The  WV-DNR has  statutory responsibility to  review surface mining permit
 applications   and to prohibit mining adjacent to State lands in order to
 reduce  potential adverse effects.

        Private Facilities

      Private  recreational facilities are of substantial economic importance
 in West Virginia.  An inventory of such facilities conducted by the National
 Association of Conservation Districts,  with the  assistance of other organi-
 zations and agencies, during 1974  is being processed by the Bureau of Outdoor
 Recreation (GOFSR 1975).  Selected findings from this inventory are presented
 in Table  20.   Combined totals for  public and private recreational facilities
 in West Virginia are presented in  Table 21,

     Wild and Scenic Rivers

     Rivers that  possess outstanding scenic, recreational, cultural, or
natural values are important  State and National resources.   Such areas
have in the past, and in the  future can be, affected adversely by surface
coal mining in their watersheds.  Specific  resources that can be affected
include hydrology, water quality, vegetation, wildlife  (including fish),
 recreational  opportunities,  and aesthetics.

       Federal Designation

     No West Virginia stream  has yet been designated as a wild, scenic, or
recreational river under the  Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542).
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, however,  recommended  to Congress during
1975 that the New River Gorge be designated a part of the Federal rivers
system administered by the National Park Service  (GOFSR 1975) .  The State
concurred in this recommendation.  The State Outdoor Recreation Division,
together with the Governor of West Virginia, have recommended further that
the entire Gorge  area be acquired as a part of the National  Park System.
The plans of the  National Park  Service have been discussed widely and
described in detail  (NFS 1976).

       State Designation

     The West Virginia Legislature enacted  the Natural  Streams Preservation
Act during 1969  (West Virginia  Code 20-5-B).  This Act  established the
preservation and  protection,  in their natural condition, of  streams that
possess outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife,
botanical, historical, archaeological, or other scientific or cultural values
as a public policy of the State.  The act established a permit procedure
for the impounding, diverting,  or flooding  of any stream within the natural
stream preservation system.   Administrative action by WV-DNR under this
act comes under  the appeals purview of the  Water Resources Board; decisions
of the Board can  be appealed  to the Circuit Court of the affected county, and
ultimately to the State Supreme Court.  The Act does not address the effects
of industrial effluents, such as wastewater from surface coal mines.

     Streams which were designated by the Legislature for protection under
the Act through  1976 include  the following  (Figure 19).
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   66
1,  Greenbrier River from its confluence with Knapps Creek to its
       confluence with the New River.

2,  Anthony Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with the
       Greenbrier River.

3.  Cranberry River from its headwaters to its confluence with the
       Gauley River.

4,, Birch River from the Cora Brown Bridge in Nicholas County to
       the confluence of the River with the Elk River.

5.  New River from its confluence with the Gauley River to its
       confluence with the Greenbrier River.

     At present  three State parks have been  established along  the  rim of
the New River Gorge, and  three additional  State  parks  are  in the near
vicinity.  The State plans to acquire 5,200  acres  in  the vicinity  and to
develop two new  State parks (GOFSR 1975).  Surface  mining  applications from the
vicinity  to date have been resisted by the WV-DNR,  and the rejections had
not been  challenged by  the mining industry as of  late 1976  (Verbally, H. G.
Woodrow and R. Mathis, West Virginia Department  of  Natural Resources, 19
October'1976).

     The  West Virginia  Office of Federal-State Relations and WV-DNR have
established preliminary criteria and currently are  evaluating  other streams
for possible inclusion  in a new system of  State  wild,  scenic,  and
recreational rivers (GOFSR 1975).  The streams under  consideration include
the following:
  6. Bluestone River                   23.
  7. Indian  Creek                     24.
  8. Elk River                         25.
  9. Meadow  River                     26.
 10. Big Clear Creek                  27.
 11. Little  Clear Creek               28.
 12. Gauley  River                     29.
 13. Cherry  River                     30.
 14. Williams River                   31.
 15. Tea Creek                         32.
 16. Back Fork of Elk River           33.
 17. Holly River                      34.
 18. Knapps  Creek                     35.
 19. Deer Creek                        36.
 20. Shavers Fork of Cheat River      37.
 21, Little  Kanawha River             38.
 22. Middle  Island Creek
Cheat River
Blackwater River
Black Fork River
Red Creek
Glady Fork of Dry Fork River
Laurel Fork of Dry Fork River
Dry Fork River
Gandy Creek
South Branch River
North Fork of South Branch River
South Fork of South Branch River
Little Cacapon River
Cacapon River
Lost River
Sleepy Creek
Shenandoah River
      All of the streams mentioned in this section are indicated by number on
 Figure 19.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
      STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 SURFACE COAL MINING AREAS
POTENTIALLY PROTECTED RIVERS
   • ACTIVE SURFACE MINE, 1976.
  STATE PROTECTED RIVER PROPOSED FOR NATIONAL
   PROTECTION
  STATE PROTECTED RIVER

  RIVER PROPOSED JFOR STATE PROTECTION

                          FIGURE 19

-------
                                   68
Table 19.  State parks, State forests, and related facilities  in West
  Virginia (GOFSR 1975, WVGS 1966).   These facilities  are mapped by
  number in Figure 18.  Each facility is listed here for  only  one
  county, although several cross county boundaries.   Abbreviations:
  SP, State Park; PFA, Public Fishing Area; PHA, Public Hunting Area;
  PAS, Public Access Site; FH, Fish Hatchery;  WR, Wildlife Refuge;
  SF, State Forest.
Map No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
County
Hancock
.Brooke.
Ohio
Marshall
Marshall
Wetzel
Tyler
Ritchie
Wood
Wood
Wirt
Wirt
Jackson
Mason
Mason
Mason
Mason
Cabell
Cabell
Wayne
                                            Name

                                       Tomlinson Run SP

                                       Castleman Run PFA

                                       Bear Rock Lake PFA

                                       Birches Run PFA

                                       Grave Creek Mound SP

                                       Lewis Wetzel PHA

                                       Conaway Run PFA

                                       North Bend SP

                                       Leachtown PAS

                                       Lee Creek PAS

                                       Hughes River PHA

                                       Palestine FH

                                       Turkey Run Lake PFA
Acreage

  1,398

    111

    181

     39

      2

  9,126

    325

  1,382

      4

      4

(10,000 leased)

    127

     50
                                       Clements State Tree Nursery

                                       Point Pleasant Battle
                                         Monument                     2

                                       C.F.  McLintic WR           2,390

                                       Chief Cornstalk PHA       10,115

                                       Mill  Creek PFA

                                       Guyandotte River PAS          10

                                       Cabwaylingo SF.             8,036

-------
                                   69
Table 19.  State parks, State forests,  and related facilities in West
  Virginia (continued).
Map No.
County
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Upshur
Webster
Braxton
Webster
Nicholas
Fayette
Fayette
Fayette
Raleigh
Raleigh
Wyoming
Wyoming
McDowell
McDowell
McDowell
Mercer
Mercer
Summers
Summers
Monroe
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Pocahontas
      Name                Acreage


French Creek Game Farm        329

Holly River SP              7,702

Elk River PHA              13,741

Big Ditch PHA                 253
                                      Carnifex Ferry Battlefield
                                        SP

                                      Hawks Nest SP

                                      Babcock SP

                                      Plum Orchard PHA

                                      Grandview SP

                                      Little Beaver SP

                                      Horse Creek Lake PFA

                                      Twin Falls SP

                                      Panther Creek SF

                                      Berwind Lake PFA

                                      Anawalt Lake PFA

                                      Pinnacle Rock SP

                                      Camp Creek SF

                                      Pipestem SP

                                      Bluestone SP

                                      Bluestone PHA

                                      Moncove Lake PFA

                                      Greenbrier SF

                                      Calvin W. Price SF

                                      Watoga SP
                                                  156

                                                  237

                                                3,637

                                                2,955

                                                  873

                                                  385

                                                   35

                                                3,842

                                                7,810

                                                   46

                                                  302

                                                  244

                                                5,897

                                                4,004

                                                  211

                                              (19,886 leased)

                                                  126

                                                5,061

                                                9,482

                                               10,057

-------
                                   70
Table 19.  State parks, State forests, and related facilities in
  West Virginia (concluded).
Map No.
County
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Pocahontas
Pocahontas
Pocahontas
Pocahontas
Pocahontas
Pocahontas
Randolph
Randolph
Tucker
Tucker
Tucker
Tucker
Grant
Grant
Hardy
Hardy
Hampshire
Hampshire
Hampshire
^Morgan
Morgan
Morgan
Morgan
Morgan
Morgan
      Name                Acreage


Beartown SP                   107

Droop Mountain Battlefield
  SP                          278

Edray Trout Hatchery           29

Williams River PHA            784

Seneca SF                  11,686

Cass Scenic Railroad SP       230

Camp Elkwater SP               10

Kumbrabow SF                9,431

Parsons Nursery SF

Blackwater Falls            1,688

Fairfax Stone Monument SP       4

Canaan Valley SP            6,681

Spring Run Trout Hatchery      42

Petersburg Trout Hatchery       9

Lost River SP               3,680

Warden Lake PFA                87

Short Mountain PHA          8,020

Nathaniel Mountain PHA      8,876

Edwards Run PFA               393

Ridge Trout Hatchery           29

Cacopon SP                  3,107

Cacopon River PAS              22

Sleepy Creek PHA           22,630

Berkeley Springs SP             7

James Ruinsey Monument SP        4

-------
         Table 20.  Inventory of selected private recreational facilities in West Virginia,  by State Planning
           Region, conducted by the National Association of Conservation Districts during 1974 (GOFSR 1975).
           State Planning Regions are defined in Figure 38.  ORV indicates off-road vehicle.
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CAMPING
Transient
630
203
64
375
324
505
201
254
432
139
30
SITES
Vacation
110
167
31
576
89
6.65
306
1,013
1,427
75
0
Fishing
Acres
28
35
129
95
123
141
38
368
100
12
20
Golf Holes
Regulation
63
108
126
72
144
243
63
54
36
36
53
Hunt ing
Acres
750
3,759
13,340
17,200
30,741
12,595
5,492
11,591
15,729
1,275
804
Picnic
Tables
314
165
632
365
495
341
101
189
511
319
171
TRAIL MILES
Bicycle
0
0
5
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hiking
29
63
48
268
26
11
9
50
36
3
12
Horse
9
5
47
210
21
8
27
54
12
0
9
ORV
20
2
10
17
0
6
8
0
1
0
0
Pools
(sq.ft)
18,812
22,696
129,165
37,754
54,100
18,925
26,925
3,640
51,425
8,100
13,200
Tennis
Courts
7
27
25
33
26
16
7
i
0
14
1
. 100
Total     3,057      4,459   1,089          998      113,276    3,653        16        555      402      64    384,942      116

-------
          Table 21.  Public and private recreational  facilities  in West Virginia, by  State Planning  Region,
            inventoried by the National Association of  Conservation  Districts  during  1974  (GOFSR 1975).   State
            Planning Regions are defined in Figure 38.



         Impoundment   Fishing  - Golf    Hunting  Picnicking   Tennis  Swim Beaches    Pools     Camping  Foot     Bike    Horse
Region  Boating Acres  (Acres)   Holes   (Acres)    Tables     Courts  (Land Acres)   (sq.ft.)    Sites   Trails   Trails  Trail
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
. 9
10
11
2,349
1,100
32
3,338
65
1,826
1,584
40
211
38
62
2,663
1,150
164
3,638
188
1,971
1,624
442
311
51
82
108
109
180
81
144
243
90
54
54
117
53
33,873
40,516
28,787
523,592
40,716
26,570
284,834
202,826
37,729
1,275
954
1,861
619
1,471
1,218
1,094
1,085
819
554
878
1,008
416
19
42
69
35
34
28
7
11
22
36
21
4
1
0
2
0
5
3
1
1
0
0
60,862
81,336
173,665
74,454
87,300
45,125
38,245
18,410
61,225
67,600
41,325
878
194
60
664
238
104
507
536
342
80
0
86
92
79
358
32
38
65
97
78
12
22
13
0
12
7
4
2
0
0
0
2
0
27
5
47
217
21
17
31
57
16
3
15
Total       10,645      12,284   1,232  1,221,672    11,023     324         17      749,547    3,603     959      40     456

-------
     Water Resources
                                    73
     Surface mining of coal can affect adversely  the water resources
of a region by degrading chemical water quality parameters such  as
acidity and metals concentrations, as well as by  adding significant
quantities of sediment either as suspended solids or as bed  load.
The water resources impacted may include lakes, streams, and ground-
water resources.  The Director of the WV-DNR must delete from surface
mining permit applications any areas within 100 feet of public facilities,
and may delete other areas if mining in them is expected to  affect
public facilities adversely (West Virginia Code 20-6-11).  The major
impoundments constructed by the Corps of Engineers and other waterways
throughout the mining regions in the past have been degraded seriously
by sediment and by acid mine drainage from the coal mining industry in
West Virginia (Verbally, Lt. Col. John R. Hill, Assistant Director of
Civil Works  Environmental Programs, Army Corps of Engineers,  Washington
DC, 16 February 1977).

       High Quality Streams

     Streams of high quality have been identified by the Division of
Wildlife Resources, WV-DNR, in consultation with  the Soil Conservation
Service  (WV-DNR 1974).  There are about 8,000 streams in West
Virginia with 7,580 miles that support fish populations.  Of this total
mileage about 91%  (6,870 miles), are classed as  warm water habitats.

     The following criteria were used by WV-DNR to identify the 410 high-
quality streams  of West Virginia:

     (1)  All streams which contain native  trout  populations.

     (2)  All streams which are stocked with trout  (167 streams).

     (3)  Warmwater streams more than 5 miles long which have both
             desirable fish populations and public use.

WV-DNR pays special attention to surface mining applications that may affect
tfie streams designated as high-quality  (Table 22, Figure  20).  Nevertheless,
some of these streams are polluted by acid mine drainage (cf. Figure 21 and
TaT5.1e 25).  '

       Trout Waters•

     West Virginia Water Quality Regulations designate numerous  streams,
stream stretches, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds as Trout Waters (Table 23).
This designation  is made because trout  (Family Salmonidae) are quite  sensitive
to environmental  stresses, and they represent a wildlife resource of  great
recreational and  economic importance to the State.

     Trout are  cold water species and inhabit water with  temperatures less
than 70°F.  (21°C).  Spawning usually occurs  from late winter  to early  spring
in clean, gravelly riffles and requires temperatures of approximately
50°F. (10°C).  The continued propagation of  trout  populations in the waters of
West Virginia depends  upon control of water quality and habitat  suitability
in areas where  trout  currently are found.   The preservation  of sediment-free
spawning areas  is of  the utmost importance.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
    STATE OF ^' E8T \ I R( i INIA
SURFACE COAL MINING AREAS
  8 HIGH QUALITY STREAMS
 • ACTIVE SURFACE MINE, 1976.
                    FIGURE 20

-------
                                   75
Table 22.    High quality streams  of  West Virginia, based on  fishable
  resources (WV-DNR 1974).   Alphabetic  and numeric codes refer  to standard
  code adopted by USGS and  WV-DNR.   Alphabetic  codes refer to stream names.
  Numeric  codes refer to stream miles from mouth to river mile where
  tributaries  enter mainstem.

           BIG SAHDY RIVER. SYSTEM     .   	

                 Tug Fork River BST
                      Pigeon Creek BST-24
                           Trace  Fork BST-24-K
                      Panther Creek  BST-60      -   .
                      Dry Fork BST-70
                      Clear Fork  BST-76
           JAMES RIVER SYSTEM

                Potts  Creek J-l
                     Trout  Branch J-l-B
                     North  Fork Potts  Creek  J-l-C
                    . South  Fork Potts  Creek  J-l-E
           KANAWHA RIVER SYSTEM

                Kanawha River K
                     Threemile Creek K-5
                     Tenmile.Creek K-10
                     Thirteenmile Creek K-12              .
                     Sixteenmile Creek K-14
                     Eighteenmile Creek K-16
                     Five and Twentymile Creek K-19    .       .    .  •
                     Hurricane Creek K-22

                     Pocatalico River KP
                          Left Fork Pocatalico River KP-17
                               Middle Fork Pocatalico  River KP-17-B
                          Flat Fork KP-33
                     Coal River KG
                          Little Coal River KC-10
                               Spruce Fork KC-10-T
                                      Spruce Laurel Fork KC-10-T-ll
                               Pond Fork KC-10-U
                          Marsh Fork KC-46 .      '

-------
                                   76
Table 22.    High quality streams of West  Virginia  (continued)
                       Elk River KE
                            Little Sandy Creek KE-9
                            Blue Creek KE-14
                            Big Sandy Creek KE-23
                         .   Laurel Creek KE-37
                            Little Sycamore Creek KE-40
                            Sycamore Creek KE-41
                            Leatherwood Creek KE-46
                            Lilly Fork KE-50-B
                            Beech KE-50-B-8
                            Sand Fork KE-50-F
                            Flat Fork KE-50-i-l
                            Robinson Fork KE-50-0

                       Otter Creek KE-64
                            Bogg Fork KE-64-E
                       Grove Creek KE-69
                       Strange Creek KE-74
                       Birch River KE-76
                            Little Birch River KE-76-E
                            Anthony Creek KE-76-N
                           ' Poplar Creek KE-76-0
                            Strange Creek KE-39  -
                            Rock Camp Run KE-82
                            Wolf Creek KE-91
                       Holly River KE-98
                            Right Fork Holly River KE-98-B
                            Left Fork Holly River KE-98-C
                            Desert Fork KE-98-B-16
                            Old Lick Creek KE-98-C-2
                            Laurel Fork KE-98-C-11
                                 Fall Run KE-98-C-14
                       Back Fork Elk River KE-111
                            Sugar Creek KE-lll-K
                                 Little Sugar Creek KE-lll-K-2
                       Dry Fork KE-133
                       Big Run KE-135
                       Props Run KE-136
                       Cupp Run KE-138-B
                       Old Field Run KE-139
                       Crooked Fork KE-139-B
                       Slaty Fork KE-140

                       Loop Creek K-76

-------
                                   77
Table 22.    High quality streams  of West Virginia  (continued)
                        Gauley River KG

                             Twentymile Creek KG-5
                             Otter Creek KG-13-B
                             Meadow River KG-19
                                  Anglins Creek KG-19-G
                                  Wolfpen Creek KG-19-Q-2
                                  Big Clear Creek KG-19-U
                                         Southx Fork KG-19-U-2
                                  Little Clear^ Creek KG-19-V
                                         Laurel Creek KG-19-V-5
                                         Hominy Creek KG-24
                                         Deer Creek KG-24-B '
                             Cherry River KG-34
                                  Laurel Creek KG-34-E
                                  Little Laurel Creek KG-34-F
                                  Improvement Branch KG-34-F-2
                                  South Fork Cherry River KG-34-G
                                  North Fork Cherry River KG-34-H
                             Cranberry River KGC
                                  South Fork Cranberry River KGC-23
                                  North Fork Cranberry River KGC-24
                             Williams River KGW
                               •   Tea Creek KGW-20
                       New River KN                        .     .
                             Laurel Creek KN-5
                             Mill Creek KN-7
                             Wolf Creek KN-10
                             Glade Creek Mann Creek KN-17-A
                             Piney Creek KN-26
                             Glade Creek KN-29
                                 Pinch Creek KN-29-E
                             Meadow Creek KN-32
                             Turkey Creek KN-51-0
                             Indian Creek KN-51
                                 Laurel Creek of Indian  Creek KN-51-i
                             East River KN-60
                                 Pigeon Creek KN-60-B
                             Rich Creek KN-61

-------
                                   78
Table 22.   High quality streams of West Virginia (continued)
                       Greenbrier River KNG

                            Milligan Creek KNG(S)-1
                         .   Sinking Creek KNG(S)-2
                            Culverson Creek KNG(S)-3
                            Burns Creek KNG(S)-3-A
                            Roaring Creek KNG(S)-3-C-l
                         .   Hills Creek KNG(S)-4
                            Wolf Creek KNG-7
                            Wolf Creek KNG-18
                            Muddy Creek KNG-22
                            Second Creek KNG-23
                            Anthony Creek KNG-28
                                 Meadow Creek KNG-28-P
                                      Laurel Run KNG-28-P-1
                                 North Fork Anthony Creek KNG-28-Q
                            Laurel Run KNG-29
                            Spring Creek KNG-30
                            Locust Creek KNG-38
                            Laurel Run KNG-40
                            Beaver. Creek KNG-47
                            Swago Creek KNG-49
                            Knapps Creek KNG-53
                                 Brown Creek KNG-53-C
                            Stoney Creek KNG-55
                            Sitlington Creek KNG-66
                            Deer Creek KNG-68
                                 North Fork Deer Creek KNG-68-A
                            East Fork Greenbrier River KNG-78
                                 Xittle River KNG-78-C
                       ""^        Fivemile Run KNG-78-G
                                 Mullenax Run KNG-78-C
                                 Abes Run KNG-78-L
                            West Fork Greenbrier River KNG—79 *
                                 Little River KNG-79-C

                       Bluestone River KNB
                            Mountain Creek KNB-5
                            Camp Creek KNB-13
                            Mash Fork KNB-13-D

-------
                                   79
Table 22.    High quality streams  of  West  Virginia  (continued).
            LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER SYSTEM

                 Little Kanawha River LK
                      Worthington Creek LK-2
                      Tygart Creek LK-6
                      Stillwell Creek LK-7
                      Walker Creek LK-10
                      Hughes River LKH
                           Goose Creek LKH-4
                           South Fork Hughes River LKH-9
                                Indian Creek LKH-9-J
                                Leatherbark Creek LKH-9-M
                              ..Spruce Creek LKH-9-R
                                Slab  Creek LKH-9-W
                                Bone  Creek LKH-9-X
                  •. '            Middle Fork Hughes River LKH-9-AA
                      North Fork Hughes River LKH-10
                           Devilhole  Creek LKE-10-G
                           Bonds Creek LKH-10-R
                                Hushers Run LKH-lCh-R-1
                      Standingstone Creek LK-21
                      Tucker Creek LK-23
                      Reedy Creek LK-25
                           Right Reedy Creek LK-25-B
                           Middle Fork Reedy Creek (no code)
                     West  Fork Little Kanawha LKW
                           Henry Fork LKW-15
                           Beech Fork LKW-15-J   •

                     Steer Creek LKS
                           Bear Fork LKS-8
                           Right Fork Steer Creek  LKS-9
                           Left Fork LKS-14

                     Spring Creek LK-31
                     Straight Creek LK-39
                     Leading Creek LK-40
                     Tanner Creek LK-66
                     Cedar Creek LK-72
                     Leading Creek LK-75
                           Cove Creek LK-75-K
                           Fink Creek LK-75-N
                     Sand  Fork LK-86

-------
                                   8Q
Table 22.    High quality streams of West Virginia  (continued)
                       Little Kanawha River (cont'd)
                            Oil Creek LK-94
                            Saltlick Creek LK-95
                            Right Fork Little Kanawha River LK-115
                                 Left Fork Right Fork Little Kanawha LK-115-H
                  MONONGAHELA RIVER SYSTEM

                       Monongahela River M

                       Cheat River MC                           •
                          .  Morgan Run MC-2
                                 Darnell Run MC-2-A-1
                                 Blaney Hollow MC-2-B
                            Quarry Run MC-6
                            Big Sandy Creek MC-12
                                 Little Sandy Creek MC-12-B
                                 Beaver Creek MC-12-B-1
                            Laurel Run MC-15
                            Muddy Creek MC-17
                            Roaring Creek MC-18
                            Elsey Run MC-20                         ....
                            Saltlick Creek MC-32
                               •  Spruce Fork MC-32-B
                            Buffalo Creek MC-33
                                 Little Buffalo Creek MC-33-D '
                            Wolf Creek MC-32
                            Clover Run MC-51          ,
                            Horseshoe Run MC-54
                                 Maxwell Run MC-54-C
                            Slip Hill Mill Run MC-56
                            Dry Fork MC-60                           .
                                 Black Fork (no code)
                                 Elklick Run MC-60-C
                                 Blackwater River MC-60-D
                                      Little Blackwater River MC-60-D-8
                                 Otter Creek MC-60-F
                                 Glady Fork MC-60-K
                                      Three Springs MC-60-K-1
                                      East Fork Glady Fork MC-60-K-17
                                 Big Run MC-60-L
                                 Laurel Fork MC-60-N
                                 Camp Five Run MC-60-N-10
                                 Red Creek MC-60-0
                                 Gandy Creek MC-60-T

-------
                                   81
Table 22.   High quality streams  of  West  Virginia  (continued).
                   Cheat River (Cont'd)

                        Shavers Fork MCS
                             Little Black Fork MCS-13

                        Dunkard Creek M-l
                             West Virginia Fork of Dunkard Creek M-l-F
                        Cobun Creek M-9
                        Whiteday Creek M-16
                        Pricketts Creek  M-10
                        Paw-Paw Creek M-22
                        Buffalo Creek M-23

                   Tygart  River MT
                        Wickwire Run MT-8
                   '_  .   Three Forks Creek MT-12
                        Pleasants Creek  MT-15
                        Teter Creek MT-23-
                             Brushy Fork MT-23-C
                      .       Mill Run MT-23-F
                        Laurel Run MT-24       .
                        Leading Creek MT-43
                        Chenoweth Creek  MT-45
                        Files Creek MT-50
                        Mill  Creek MT-64
                        Beckys Creek MT-68
                        Elkwater Fork MT-74 .
                        Stewart Run MT-75
                      .Big Run MT-81 •

                        Buckhannon River MTB
                             French Creek MTB-18
                             Tenmile Creek MTB-25                   -.
                             Panther Creek MTB-27
                             Right Fork  Buckhannon MTB-31
                                  Left Fork Right  Fork Buckhannon MTB-31-F
                             Left Fork Buckhannon  MTB-32

                        Middle Fork River MTM
                             Right Fork  Middle  Fork River  MTM-21

                        West  Fork River  MW
                             Booths  Creek MW-2
                             Corbin Branch MW-2-E
                             Tenmile Creek MW-13
                                  Little Tenmile Creek MW-13-B

-------
                                   81c
Table 22.    High quality streams of West Virginia  (continued).
                      Tygart  River (cont'd)        .

                                Elk Creek MW-21
                                Hackers  Creek MW-31
                                Freemans Creek MW-36
                                Stonecoal Creek MW-38
                                     Right Fork MW-38-G
                                Skin Creek MW-46
                OHIO RIVER J3YSTEM

                     Ohio  River  0                             •
                           Twelvepole  Creek  0-2
                               Beech  Fork 0-2-H
                               West Fork  Twelvepole  Creek  0-2-P
                               East Fork  Twelvepole  Creek  0-2-Q

                        .   Guyandotte  River  OG
                               Mud River  OGM
                                    Trace Fork OGM-20
                                  '  Middle  Fork  OGM-25
                               Big Ugly Creek OG-38
                               Laurel Fork  OGC-16
                               Buffalo Creek OG-75
                               Big Huff Creek OG-76
                               Indian Creek OG-110
                               Pinnacle Creek OG-124

                         r  Quyan  Creek 0-9               ' .   •  - '
                           Eighteenmile Creek 0-10
                           Sixteenmile Creek 0-11
                           Crab Creek  0-13
                           Oldtown Creek 0-21
                           Mill Creek  0-32
                               Tug Fork 0-32-L
                               Elk Fork 0-32-M
                               Little Mill  Creek 0-32-N
                                    Frozencamp Creek 0-32-N-3
                           Sandy  Creek 0-36
                           Little Sandy Creek 0-38
                           Pond Creek  0-43
                               Little Pond  Creek 0-43-D
                           Lee Creek 0-44
                               South  Fork 0-44-A
                               Middle Fork  0-44-A-l
                               North  Fork 0-44-B

-------
                                   82
Table 22.    High quality streams of West  Virginia  (continued).
                  Ohio River  (cont'd)

                       Bull Creek 0-53
                       Calf Creek 0-54
                       Cow Creek 0-55
                       French Creek 0-57

                       Middle Island Creek OMi
                            McKim Creek OMi-4
                            Sugar Creek OMi-9
                            Point Pleasants  Creek OMi-23
                            Indian Creek OMi-29
                            McElroy Creek OMi-30
                                 Flint Run OMi-30-H
                                 Talkington  Fork OMi-30-N
                            Arnolds Creek OMi-40
                            Bluestone Creek  OMi-43
                            Meathouse Fork OMi-46
                                 Toms Fork OMi-46-E
                            Buckeye Creek OMi-47
                     .  Fishing Creek 0-69
                            Little Fishing Creek 0-69-C
                            South Fork Fishing Creek 0-69-N
                            North Fork Fishing Creek 0-69-0
                       Proctors Creek 0-72
                       Fish Creek 0-77
                            West Virginia Fork Fish Creek 0-77-0
                                 Knob Fork 0-77-0-3
                            Pennsylvania Fork Fish Creek 0-77-P
                       Grave  Creek 0-83
                       Wheeling Creek 0-88
                            Middle Wheeling Creek 0—8-D-2
                       Buffalo Creek 0-92
                       Cross  Creek 0-95
                       Kings  Creek 0-98
                            North Fork Kings Creek 0-98-A
                       Tomlinson Run 0-102
             POTOMAC RIVER SYSTEM

                  Town Run (no code)
                  Rocky Marsh Run P-3
                  Opequon Creek P-4
                       Tuscarora Creek P-4-C
                       Middle Creek P-4-J
                       Mill Creek P-4-M

-------
                                   83
Table 22.   High quality streams  of West Virginia  (continued)
             POTOMAC RIVER SYSTEM  (Cont'd)

                  Harlan Run P-5
                  Back Creek P-6
                       Tilhance Creek P-6-A
                       Mill Run (no code)
                  Sleepy Creek P-9
                       Middle Fork Sleepy Creek
                       Meadow Branch P-9-B
                  Cacapon River PC
                       North River PC-7
                            Hiett Run PC-7-C
                            Tearcoat Creek PC-7-F
                       Cold Stream PC-9
                       Edwards Run PC-10
                       Dillons Run PC-11
                       Moores Run PC-20
                       Waites Run PC-22
                       Trout Run PC-23
                       Lost River PC-24
                            Camp Branch PC-24-E-1
                            Lower Cove Run PC-24-H
                  Sir Johns Run P-12
                  Little Cacapon River P-19

                  Patterson Creek PNB-4
                       Grayson Gap Run PNB-4-D
                       North Fork Patterson Creek PNB-4-EE
                  New Creek PNB-7
                  Howell Run PNB-14
                  Stoney River PNB-17
                  Difficult Creek PNB-18
                  Big Buffalo Creek PNB-19
                       Little Buffalo Creek PNB-19-A
                  South Branch FSB
                       Mill Creek PSB-9
                       Mill Run PSB-13
                       South Fork PSB-21
                            Dumpling Run PSB-21-F
                            Little Fork PSB-21-GG
                       Mill Creek PSB-25
                            Brushy Run PSB-25-B-2
                            South Mill Creek PSB-25-C
                                 Spring Run PSB-25-C-2

-------
                                    84
  Table 22.    High quality  streams of West Virginia  (concluded)
     South Branch (cont'd)

          Lunice Creek PSB-26
               South Fork Lunice Creek PSB-26-D
                    Big Star Run PSB-26-D-2
               North Fork Lunice Creek PSB-26-E

          North Fork PSB-28
               Jordan Run PSB-28-A
               Big Run PSB-28-A-1
               Laurel Run PSB-28-14-2
               Seneca Creek PSB-28-K
                    Roaring Creek PSB-28-K-2  •
                    White Run PSB-28-K-6
               Big Run PSB-28-EE
               Laurel Fork PSB-28-GG
               Thorn Creek JPSB-47  .
                    Black Thorn Creek PSB-47-B
                    White.Thorn Creek PSB-47-C
SHENANDOAH RIVER SYSTEM  •

     Shenandoah River S

          Flowing Springs Run S-l
          Cattail Run S-2
          Evitts Run S-4
          Big Bullskin Run S-6
               North Fork Bullskin Run S-6-A
          Long Marsh Run S-7

-------
                                   85
Table 23.  Trout waters of West Virginia  (West  Virginia Administrative
  Regulations, State Water Resources  Board,  Effective 15 April 1974).
  The officially designated trout waters  include,  but are not limited
  to, the listed bodies of water.
Stream

Abes Run
Anglins Creek
Anthony Creek
Back Fork, Elk River
Beaver Creek

Big Bullskin Run
Big Clear Creek
Big Huff Creek
Big Run
Big Run

Big Sandy Creek
Blackwater River
Blaney Hollow & Morgan Run
Brushy Fork
Buckhannon River

Buffalo Creek
Camp Branch
Camp Creek
Camp Five Run
Cattail Run

Cherry River
Clear Fork
Clover Run
Cold Stream
Cranberry River

Cross Creek
Culverson Creek
Deer Creek
Deer Creek
Desert Fork
County

Pocahontas
Nicholas
Greenbrier
Webster
Pocahontas

Jefferson
Greenbrier
Logan, Wyoming
Pendleton
Randolph

Preston
Tucker
Monongalia
Barbour
Upshur

Preston
Hardy
Mercer
Randolph
Jefferson

Nicholas
McDowell
Tucker
Hampshire
Pocahontas, Webster,  Nicholas

Brooke
Greenbrier
Nicholas
Pocahontas
Webster
Dillons Run
Dry Fork
Dry Fork
Dumpling Run
East Fork, Glady  Fork
Hampshire
McDowell
Randolph, Tucker
Hardy
Randolph
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    86
Table 23.  Trout waters of West Virginia (continued),
Stream

East Fork, Greenbrier River
East River, New River
Edwards Run & Pond
Elklick Run
Elk River, Slaty Fork

Elk River  (Webster Springs)
Elk River  (Whit. F)
Elkwater Fork
Elsey Run
Evitts Run
County

Pocahontas
Mercer
Hampshire
Tucker
Pocahontas

Webster
Webster, Randolph
Randolph
Preston
Jefferson
Five Mile Run
Flowing Springs Run
Fall Run
Gandy Creek
Gauley River (Head)

Glade Creek (Babcock)
Glade Creek, New River
Glady Fork
Grave Creek
Harlan Run

Hills Creek
Horseshoe Run
Kings Creek
Knapps Creek
Laurel Creek

Laurel Creek
Laurel Creek
Laurel Fork
Laurel Fork
Laurel Fork

Laurel Run
Laurel Run
Laurel Run
Left Fork, Buckhannon River
Left Fork, Holly River

Left & Right Forks, Buckhannon R.
Left & Right Forks, Little Kanawha River
Little Clear Creek & Laurel Run  Trib,
Little Fork
Little Kanawha River (Head)
Pocahontas
Jefferson
Webster
Randolph
Randolph, Webster

Fayette
Raleigh
Randolph
Marshall
Berkeley

Pocahontas
Tucker
Hancock
Pocahontas
Fayette

Greenbrier, Nicholas
Monroe
Pendleton
Randolph
Webster

Greenbrier
Pocahontas
Preston
Upshur
Webster

Upshur
Upshur
Greenbrier
Pendleton
Upshur, Lewis
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    87
Table 23.  Trout waters of West Virginia (continued)
Stream

Little River  (East Fork)
Little River  (West Fork)
Long Marsh Run
Lost River
Lower Cove Run

Marsh Fork
Mash Fork
Maxwell Run
Meadow Branch
Meadow Creek

Meadow Creek
Middle Creek
Middle Fork River
Mill Creek (Grayson Gap)
Mill Creek

Mill Creek
Mill Creek
Mill Creek
Mill Run
Mill Run

Mill Run
Milligan Creek
Moores Run
Mullenax Run
New Creek
County

Pocahontas
Pocahontas
Jefferson
Hardy
Hardy

Raleigh
Mercer
Tucker
Morgan
Greenbrier

Summers
Berkeley
Barbour, Randolph, Upshur
Mineral
Fayette

Berkeley
Hampshire
Randolph
Barbour
Berkeley

Hampshire
Greenbrier
Hardy
Pocahontas
Mineral
North River
North Fork, Anthony  Creek
North Fork, Cherry River
North Fork, Deer  Creek
North Fork, Fishing  Creek Dam

North Fork, Lunice Creek
North Fork, Patterson Creek
North Fork, South Branch
Opequon  Creek
Paint Creek

Panther  Creek
Paw Paw  Creek
Pigeon Creek
Pinch Creek
Pinnacle Creek
Hardy
Greenbrier
Greenbrier, Nicholas
Pocahontas
Wetzel

Grant
Grant
Pendleton, Grant
Berkeley,  Jefferson
Fayette

McDowell
Marion
Mercer
Raleigh
Wyoming •
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    88
Table 23.  Trout waters of West Virginia (continued)
Stream

Red Creek
Rich Creek
Right Fork, Buckhannon River
Right Fork, Little Kanawha  River
Right Fork, Middle Fork River

Roaring Creek
Rocky Marsh Run
Saltlick Creek
Seneca Creek
Shavers Fork

Shavers Fork (Lower  Section)
Shavers Fork (Upper  Section)
Sitlington Creek
Slip Hill Mill Run
South Branch (Franklin Section)

South Branch (Smoke  Hole  Section)
South Fork, Cherry River
South Fork, Cranberry River
South Fork, Fishing  Creek
South Fork, Lunice Creek

South Fork, Potts Creek
South Mill Creek
Spring Creek
Spring Run
Spruce Laurel Fork

Stoney Creek
Sugar Creek
Summersville Lake (Tailwaters)
Sutton Lake (Tailwaters)
Swago Creek

Tea Creek
Three Spring Run
Tillhance Creek
Tomlinson Run
Town Run or 76 Stream

Trout Run
Turkey Creek
Tuscarora Creek
Tygart River (Head)
Waites Run
County

Tucker
Monroe
Upshur, Randolph
Webster, Upshur
Upshur

Preston
Jefferson
Preston
Pendleton
Randolph

Randolph
Randolph, Pocahontas
Pocahontas
Tucker
Pendleton

Pendleton
Greenbrier, Nicholas
Pocahontas
Wetzel
Grant

Monroe
Grant
Greenbrier
Grant
Boone

Pocahontas
Webster
Nicholas
Braxton
Pocahontas

Pocahontas
Randolph
Berkeley
Hancock
Jefferson

Hardy
Monroe
Berkeley
Randolph
Hardy
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          c subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    89
Table 23.  Trout waters of West Virginia  (concluded)
Stream

West Fork, Greenbrier River
West Fork, Twelvepole Creek
Wheeling Creek
Whiteday Creek
Wickwire Creek

Williams River
Wolf Creek
Wolf Creek
Wolfpen Creek
County

Pocahontas
Wayne
Marshall, Ohio
Marion, Monongalia
Taylor

Pocahontas, Webster
Fayette
Preston
Fayette
Lakes and Ponds
Bear Rock
Berwind
Buffalo Fork
Burches
Cacapon

Castleman Run
Chief Logan
Conaway
Coopers Rock
Dents Run
Ohio
McDowell
Pocahontas
Marshall
Morgan

Brooke
Logan
Tyler
Monongalia
Marion
Edwards Run
Fitzpatrick
Fort Ashby
French Creek
Hawse Run

Horse Creek
Laurel
Little Beaver
New Creek Dam  14
Seneca
Hampshire
Raleigh
Mineral
Upshur
Pendleton

Wyoming
Mingo
Raleigh
Grant
Pocahontas
 Spruce Knob
 Summersville  Reservoir
 Summit
 Sutton Reservoir
 Teter Creek
Randolph
Nicholas
Greenbrier
Braxton
Barbour
 Tomlinson Run
 Thomas  Park
 Trout Pond
 Warden
 Westover  Park
Hancock
Tucker
Hardy
Hardy
Monongalia
        JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
            o subildlory of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    90
     The mining counties of West Virginia with the most extensive adverse
potential impacts on trout due to surface coal mining are those in  the  east
central part of the State.  Pocahontas, Randolph, Webster, and Greenbrier
Counties each have twelve or more individual water resources that are
designated as Trout Waters.  The major drainage basins in these counties
include the Greenbrier, Gauley, Tygart, and Shavers Fork basins.  The
counties which have from six to eleven Trout Waters susceptible to
adverse surface coal mining impacts include Upshur, Tucker, Nicholas,
Preston, Fayette, and Grant.


       Streams Polluted by Coalmine Wastes

     Recent studies of the major river basins of West Virginia under
Section 303(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500)
have identified streams which are deemed to be "water quality limited"
because of acid- mine drainage.  Water quality limited stream segments
are not expected to attain West Virginia quality standards (Table 24)
even after the best practicable control technology has been applied to
point source industrial discharges and/or secondary treatment has been
applied to municipal wastewater discharges.  During the classification  of
stream segments, no distinction was made between polluted effluents from
underground mines and those from surface mines, and discharge standards
are uniform for both segments of the mining industry.  A priority ranking
for water quality limited streams affected by mine drainage was developed
by WV-DNR on the basis of population, potential growth of mining activity,
and known water quality problems.   More than 2,850. miles of West Virginia
streams are polluted by coal mine drainage (Table 25, Figure 21),
                                                    JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                        o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                  91
Table 24.    West Virginia water .quality standards (WV-DNR 1974).
               Parameter
               Arsenic
               Barium
               Cadmium
               Chlorides
               Chromium (Hexavalent)
                        2
               Coliforms
               Cyanide
                               3
               Dissolved Oxygen
                              4
               Fecal Coliforms
               Fluorides
               Lead
               Nitrates
               PH5
               Phenols
               Selenium
               Silver
               Temperature
               Threshold Odor
               Toxic Substances
    Standard
    0,01 mg/1
    0.50 mg/1
    0.01 mg/1
  100. mg/1
    0.05 mg/1
 1000. organisms/100 ml
    0,025 mg/1
    5.0 mg/1
  200. organisms/100 ml
    1.0 mg/1
    0.05 mg/1
   45. mg/1
  6-8.5 pH units
    1.0 ppb
    0,01 mg/1
    0.05 mg/1
73-87°F. (22.8-30.6°C)
No. 8 at 40°C
   10% of 96 hour TLiii
  Applicable for all flows greater than or equal to the 7 consecutive days
    drought flow with a 10 year return frequency.
  Monthly average 1000/100 ml; Maximum daily 2400/100 ml.
  D.O. minimum of 6 mg/1 in trout streams.
  30 day geometric mean 200/100 ml; maximum daily for 10% of samples, 400/100 ml.
  Acid mine drainage streams:  minimum pH 5.5.
  Trout waters:  October-April 50°K; September and May 58°F.; June-August 66°F-
    daily maximum.  Other waters:  89°F. maximum May-November; 73°F. maximum
    December-April.

-------
                               /  /V'H A. M P s H i RE
                               -	'      "

I • P O C A H O ISI/T AS <
  .-.-- \ ""£.
  ' " '.,•-.*,,
     «r..^
                        STATK OF \\KST VIRUIN A
                    SURFACE COAL MINING AREAS
                  STREAMS WITH ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                      • ACTIVE SURFACE MINE, 1976

-------
Table 25.   Water quality limited streams in West Virginia in which mine drainage is the prime source of
  pollution.  Streams affected also by municipal (organic) pollutants are indicated with an asterisk.
  Streams in Priority Group E are not classified as water quality limited, but are known to have mine
  drainage problems.  Dashes indicate that no data were listed by WV-DNR.  Stream lengths generally are for
  named streams exclusive of tributaries, so they are minimum estimates  (WV-DNR 1975b, 1976a, 1976b,
  1976c, 1976d, 1976e).
                                                                           Segment          Stream
River Basin           Priority Group                Stream                 Number           Length (miles)
Ohio
Monongahela
A
B
                           C
                           C
                           C
                           D
                           D
                           E
                           E
                           E
                           E
A*
A*
A
A
A
A
B
B
B*
B
B
B
B*
C*
C
C
Harmon Creek                  102
Wheeling, Little Wheeling,    104
  and Middle Wheeling
  Creeks
Short Creek                   101
Little Grave Creek            105
Buffalo Creek                 106
Cross Creek                   107
Lick Creek                    103
Rich Creek                    108
Tenmile Creek                 551
Ice Creek                     551
Sliding Hill Creek            551
Little Broad Run              551
Simpson Creek                 608
Scotts Run                    601
Indian Creek                  619
Muddy Creek                   636
Three Forks River & Tribs.    630
Rink Run                      633
Booths Creek                  622
Buffalo Creek                 637
Browns Creek                  610
Sandy & Little Sandy Creeks   631
Little Tenmile Creek          625
Snowy Creek                   640
Lost Creek                    611
Limestone Run                 609
Bingamon Creek                623
Isaac Creek                   628
23,
47,
                                                                     10.9
                                                                      8.6
                                                                     32.0
                                                                     20.0
                                                                      7.3
                                                                      6.5
29.1
 6.8
 5.7
13.2
31.6
 8.6
16.4
 9.6
 4.5
13.1
 7.2

10.3
 6.5
14.2
 5.6
                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                           156.3

-------
Table 25.   Water quality limited streams in West Virginia in which mine drainage is the prime source of
  pollution (continued),
River Basin
Monongahela (con't)
Little Kanawha
Priority Group

     C
     C.
     C
     C
     C
     D
     D
     D
     D*
     D
     D
     D*
     D*
     D*
     D*
     D
     D
     D
     E
     E
     E*
    •E
     E*
     E*
     A
     B
     C

     D

     E
                               Segment
                               Number
        Stream                 	

Big & Little Sandy Creeks       635
Pecks Run                       632
Blackwater River (Upper)        638
Cheat River                     614
Dunkard Mill                    620
Elk Creek & Tribs.              627
Rhine Creek                     639
Pyles Fork                      621
Deckers Creek                   602
Rockcamp Creek                  626
Middle Fork River               634
Paw-Paw & Little Paw-Paw Creeks 603
Tygart Valley River             612
Buckhannon River & Tribs.       613
West Fork River                 605
Monongahela Mainstem            616
Dunkards Creek                  617
Jones Creek                     624
Dents Run                       618
Skin Creek                      629
Buffalo Creek                   604
Shavers Fork                    615
Helens Run                      606
Salem Fork                      607
Copen Run
Cedar Creek
South Fork & Middle Fork,
  Hughes River
Sand Fork, Cove Lick,
  Indian Fork
Duck Run
                                505
                                504
                                403

                                502

                                551
Stream
Length (miles)

     6.5
     8.4
    12.8
    38.0
     8.2
    22.4
     4.8
    14.2
    22.5
     7.3
    15.8
    13.8
   156.0
    21.8
    74.3
    38.4
    14.4
     6.4
     6.2
    10.5
    16.2
    85.0
     4.2
     9.0
     6.3
    35.2
    16.2

   107.6
                                                                                                          812.4
                                                                                                          282.1

-------
Table 25.  Water quality limited streams in West Virginia in which mine drainage is  the prime source of
  pollution (continued),
River Basin
Kanawha
Priority Group

     A*
     A*

     A
     B*
     B*
     E
     C*
     C*
     c*
     C*
     C*
     C*
     C
     D*
     D*
     D*
     D*
     D
     D
     D
     'D
     D
     D
     E*
     E
     E
     E
     E
     E
                           E
                           E
                           E
                           E
                               Segment
        Stream                 Number

Cabin Creek & Tribs,            408 '
Meadow River & Little           412
  Sewell Creek
Gauley Mainstem                 440
Spruce Fork                     405
Piney Creek                     417
Peters Creek                    442
Little Coal River               404
Clear Fork & Sycamore Creek     406
Campbells Creek                 407
Paint Creek                     410
Cherry River                    413
Arbuckle Creek                  415
Marsh Fork                      429
Pocatalico River                403
Kelly Creek                     409
Smithers Creek                  411
Dunloup Creek                   416
Big Coal River                  424
Pond Fork                       426
West Fork                       427
Spruce Laurel Fork              428
Loop Creek                      439
Twenty Mile Creek               441
Marr Branch                     414
Logg Fork                       423
Peachtree Creek                 430
Sandlick Creek                  431
Blue Creek                      434
Birch River (MP 15-18) &        435
  Anthony Creek
Elk River (MP 147,6-149),       436
  Bergoo & Leatherwood Creeks
Hughes Creek                    438
Big & Little Clear Creeks       444
Bluestone Mainstem              446
Widemouth Creek                 447
Stream
Length (miles)

    21.4
    52.5

   106.4
    31.0
    33.5
    17.0
    28.0
    22.1
    14.5
    28.0
    28.0
     3.3
    40.0
    69.5
    10.4
     7.5
    15.6
    39.8
    45.5
    16.5
    15.6
                                                                                               19.1
                                                                                               25.5
                                                                                                2.0
                                                                                                4.9
                                                                                                6.2
                                                                                                9.2
                                                                                               21.5
                                                                                                8.8
                                                                         14.1

                                                                          7.5
                                                                         29.8
                                                                         62.0
                                                                         10.9
                                                                                                             VO
                                                                                                             Ln

-------
Table 25.  Water quality limited streams in West Virginia in which mine drainage  is  the  prime  source of
  pollution  (continued).
River Basin
Kanawha  (con't)
Guyandotte
Big Sandy-Tug Fork
Priority Group

     E
     F
     F
     F
     F
     F
     F
     F
     A*
     B*
     B
     B*
     B*
     C*
     C*
     C*
     C*
     C*
     D
     D
     D
     E*
     E*
     E*
     E*
     E
     A*
     A*
     B*
     B*
     B
                               Segment
        Stream                 Number

Widemouth Creek                 447
Turtle Creek                    425
Twomile Creek                   432
Little Sandy & Wills Creeks     433
Witcher Creek                   437
Anglins Creek                   443
Pinch Creek                     445
Slaughter Creek                 448
Toney Fork                      309
Stonecoal Creek                 314
Tommy Creek                     318
Slab Fork                       312
Barkers Creek                   311
Laurel Fork                     308
Clear Fork                      307
Island Creek                    303
Guyandotte Mainstem (MP 0-155)  301
Huff Creek                      306
Cub Creek                       315
Pinnacle Creek                  316
Cabin Creek                     317
Winding Gulf Creek              313
Dingess Run                     304
Rum Creek                       305
Indian Creek                    310
Rich Creek                      351
North Fork, Elkhorn Creek       209
Elkhorn Creek                   208
Rock House Fork                 202
Pigeon Creek                    201
Beech Creek                     211
Stream
Length (miles)

    10.9
     7.3
     9.5
    16.6
     8.0
    13.0
     7.5
     5.7
     9.1
     6.1
    14.6
    12.0
    22.6
    28.2
    18.5
   155.0
    19.6
     9.2
    15.2
     6.7
     9.5
     7.5
     6.9
     5.6
     7.6
    21.7
     9.9
    24.9
     6.8
                                                                                                            936.0
                                                                                                           352.0

-------
Table 25.   Water quality limited streams in West Virginia in which mine drainage is the prime source of
  pollution (concluded).
River Basin

Big Sandy-Tug Fork
  (con't)
Priority Group

     B
     B*
     C*
     C*
     C
     C
     D
     D
     E
     E
     E
     E
     E
     E
     E
                             Segment
      Stream                 Number

Left Fork                     212
Mate Creek                    203
Jacobs Fork                   207
Dry Fork                      204
Long Branch                   215
Big Sandy-Tug Fork            210
Meathouse Fork                214
Panther Creek                 213
Bradshaw Creek                205
Barrenshe Creek               206
War Creek                     251
Clear Fork                    251
Spice Creek                   251
Browns Creek                  251
Trace Fork, Panther Creek     251
Stream
Length (miles)

     4.2
    10.5
    12.3
    40.4
     5.4
    82.0
     3.8
     7.9
     5.2
     3.9
                                                                                                           254.2
Potomac
     A
     A

     A
     A
     B
     C
     C
     C
     C
     D
     D
     D
     D
Buffalo Creek                 751
Abrams Run, Emory Creek,      703
  Glade Run
Stony River                   706
Piney Swamp Run               751
Deakin-Elk Run                751
Lynwood Run                   751
Montgomery Run                751
Slaughterhouse Run            751
Dobbin Ridge Run              751
Difficult Creek               705
Red Oak Run                   751
Deep Run                      751
Powderhouse Run               751
                                                                                                 25.0

                                                                                                 25.7
                                                                                                  5.1
                                                                                                            55.8
                                                                                                         2,848.8

-------
                                    98


        Lakes and Reservoirs                                 *

     Except for the water that is (1) ponded in a few high-elevation
glades, (2) stored in naturally plugged sinkholes in the eastern part
of the State, or (3) present in stream channels and floodplains during
peak flow periods, surface water storage in West Virginia is restricted
to artificial impoundments.  Artificial lakes in the State range in
size from privately constructed farm ponds  (usually less than one  acre
in extent) to major reservoirs that occupy more than 1,000 acres.

     Surface mining potentially can affect lakes adversely in several
ways.  Sediment that is eroded from a surface mined site or from access
roads can alter channel configurations, can increase turbidity of  the
receiving waters and thereby decrease photosynthetic rates, and can
clog respiratory organs or other organs of zooplankton, larger inverte-
brates, and fishes ±n a lake.  Because lakes are quiet bodies of water,  sediments
can settle so rapidly that much of the benthic habitat and biota are
destroyed, at least temporarily.  Continued rapid sedimentation and filling
can decrease the life expectancy of a lake, reduce its storage effective-
ness for flood control or low-flow augmentation, and reduce its aesthetic
quality for fishing, swimming, or other recreational activities.   Sedi-
mentation is a particularly important problem in the coalfields of
southern West Virginia, where there are many steep slopes.

     Surface mining of coal traditionally has reduced the chemical
quality of the receiving waters by the addition of significant quantities
of acid and metals, particularly iron, to the dissolved constituents of
the receiving waters.  The overburden rock in many parts of northern
West Virginia contains much acid-producing material, and the high-
sulfur coals also can produce acid drainage.  Because the buffering
capacity of the surface waters in West Virginia generally is low,  small
amounts of acid drainage from surface mining operations can lower  the pH
of surface water significantly, but the drainage from underground  mines
generally is considered an even more severe problem.  A rapid change in
pH can affect aquatic biota adversely.  If pH shifts are great enough,
they can cause fish kills.  Various metals are more toxic to aquatic
biota under acid than under neutral conditions.

     Lakes contain large quantities of water which may dilute sudden
discharges of acid from a surface mining operation, but the residence
time of acid waters may be lengthy. Therefore, the adverse impacts
of diluted acid wastes on the aquatic biota may be equally severe  as
those caused by short exposures to undiluted discharges.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    99.
        Federal Installations
     Of the eight lakes owned and operated by the US government in
West Virginia (Figure 22, Table 26 ), five are situated in counties
where surface mining of coal occurs at the present time.  Bluestone
Lake, although located in Summers County, is downslope and within the
drainage basin of part of Raleigh County where operating surface mines
are located.  Beech Fork Lake and East Lynn Lake, both in Wayne
County, are downstream from areas that potentially could be surface
mined.  Together, the Federal land which surrounds the eight potentially
affected Federal lakes encompasses 94,280 acres  (WV-DNR 1972).

     Four of the hydroelectric dams (Figure 23 , Table 27 ) and 7 of the
navigational locks and dams (Figure 24 , Table 28) are located in
counties that produce coal from surface mines.   These reservoirs are
particularly sensitive to the effects of sedimentation, because mini-
mum depths must be maintained by dredging.  Sufficient depth is required
not only for navigation between successive dams  and locks but also for
the optimal generation of hydroelectric power.

        State Lakes
     The West Virginia Department of Natural Resources maintains 48
lakes that are utilized for recreation, for enhancement of fish and
wildlife habitats, and for flood control (Figure 25, Table 29).  Of
these, 27 are located in counties that produce coal from surface mines.
Adverse impacts to these lakes probably would be to the aquatic biota
and to the aesthetic quality of the lakes, whose recreational value
consequently would decline.

        Municipal and Other Lakes
     Thirty six lakes are municipally owned or owned by water supply
companies in West Virginia (Figure 26, Table 30).  Of these, 25 are
located in counties that currently produce coal  from surface mines.
Because groundwater, except along the Ohio River, is an unreliable
source of large quantities of water, surface reservoirs are necessary
to supply water to large communities in West Virginia.  Acid sediment
or discharges from surface mines can degrade water quality signifi-
cantly and thereby increase the cost of treatment prior to consumption.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                                                                                         Under construction «"•••«•
                                                                                                                     Lake
                                                                              VIRGINIA
                                                                                                                 figure
KENTUCKY
DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES
  DIVISION   OF  WATER   RESOURCES
      U.  S.    Government
                Lakes
                                                                                               K)   q   10  ZO  30  401  SO
                                                                                                      SCAU IN MIUS
                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                    o

-------
Table 26. Lakes administered by the Army Corps of Engineers  in West  Virginia  (WV-DNR 1972).   Uses are
  F,  sport fishing;  F & W,  fish and wildlife;  WQ, water  quality maintenance  during  low-flow periods;
  Rec., recreation;  N, navigation.   Asterisks (*)  denote  lakes near current surface  mining areas,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Name
Beech Fork
Blues tone*
Burnsvi lie*
East Lynn
R. D. Bailey*
Summersvi lie*
Sutton *
Tygart *
Stream
Beech Fork
New River
Little Kanawha
East Fork
(Twelvepole Cr.)
Guyandotte R.
Gauley River
Elk River
Tygart Valley
D.A.
(scj. mi.)
78
4, 602
165
133
540
803
537
1,184
Date
Comp.
1974-
1949
initiated
1971
U.C.
1968
1961
1938
Max. Cap.
A.F.
380,000
631,000
65,000
82,500
204 ,000
. 413,800
265,300
286,600
Use
F, F & W,
Rec.
F
F, F & W,
WQ, Rec.
F, F £ W,
Rec.
F, F £ W,
WQ, Rec.
F, WQ
F, WQ
.F, N
Height
of Dam
86'
165'
80'
122'
310'
350'
210'
230'
Federal
Land Acreage
8,373
.23,930. .
7,060 .
24,365
5,050
9,346.
:13,473. ..
2,683 - ,
County
Wayne
Summers
Braxton
Wayne. S
M
Wyoming
Nicholas
Braxton
Taylor
            River

-------
KENTUCKY
                                                                                                                Under  construction •"""*.*
                                                                                                                      Power plant •
                                                                                                                        Reservoir T
                                                                                                                    Lock and dam •>
                                                                                                        81 ,
                                                                                                       MARTINSMMG
                                                                                   VIRGINIA
Twetrapolo Cr.
Big Sandy R-
                                                                                                                         figure
                                                                                          DEPARTMENT   OF   NATURAL   RESOURCES

                                                                                            DIVISION   OF   WATER   RESOURCES

                                                                                                   Hydroelectric

                                                                                                    Installations

                                                                                                  g   0  10   20  30  40  50
                                                                                                           SCALE IN MILES

-------
Table 2.7. Hydroelectric installations in West Virginia  (WV-DNR 1972).   Entries with an asterisk  (*)
  are potentially affected by surface mining operations in their watersheds.
Name
. Dam #4
. Dam #5
. Harpers Ferry
. Hawks Nest*
Kanawha Falls*
(Glen Ferris)
. Lake Lynn *
London LSD*
. Marmet L & D*
. Millville
. Winfield L & D

Stream
Potomac River
Potomac River
Potomac River
New River
Kanawha River
Cheat River
Kanawha River
Kanawha River
Shenandoah River
Kanawha River

D.A.
(sq. mi.)
5,700
5,100
6,200
6,856
8,300
1,413
8,i»92
8,818
3,040
11,810

Date
Cony. ;
1909
1919
1925
1937
1901
1926
1932*
.93*
1939
1937

Use
P
P
P
P
P
P
• P, N
P N
P
P, N

Height
of Dam
20'
20'
18'
60'
56'
100'
50'
60'
26'
61 •

Owner
Potomac Edison
of W.Va.
Potomac Edison
of W.Va.
Potomac Edison
of V5 rginia
Union Carbide
Union Carbide
West Penn.
Power Co.
Kan. Valley
Power Co.
Kan. Valley
Power Co.
Potomac Edison
of W.Va.
Kan. Valley
Power Co.
County
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Fayette
Fayette h
c
<.
Monongal ia
Kanawha
Kanawha
Jefferson
Putnam


-------
                                                                                                        Under contf ruction «•«*•
                                                                                                           lock ond dam T
                                                                                                                figure
KENTUCKY
DEPARTMENT  OF   NATURAL  RESOURCES

  DIVISION  OF   WATER   RESOURCES
  Locks       And      Dams
                                                                                              10   0   10  20  30   40  50
                                                                                                     SCALE IN MILES

-------
Table 28. Locks  and  dams  in West Virginia  (WV-DNR 1972).  Entries marked with an asterisk (*)  potentially
   are affected by surface coal mining in their watersheds.   R indicated facilities scheduled  to be replaced.
   N denotes use for navigation; P, use for power generation.
Name
' OHIO RIVER
1 . New Cumberland *
2. Pike Island
3. L & D #12 (R)
4. L & D #13 (R)
5. L £ D #14 (R)
6. Hannibal
7. L & D #15 (R)
8. L & D #16 (R)
9. Willow Island
10. L & D #17 (R)
11. Belleville
12. L £ D #21 (R)
13. L & D #22 (R)
14. L 6 D #23 (R)
Stream
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
River
River
River
River
Ri ver
River
River
Ri ver
River
River
River
River
River
River
(sq
23
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
26

39
, 39
39
40
D.A.
. mi .)
,870
,400
,661
,183
,750
,960
,190
,270
,900
—
,350
,680
,843
,090
Date
Comp.:
1961
1965
1917
1911
1917
u.c.
1916
1917
U.C.
—
1969
1919
1918
1921
Use
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N .
N
N
N
N
Height
of Dam
28'
35'
18'
17'
18'
38'
18'
18'
30'
18'
35'
18'
17'
15'
Owner
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
Govt .
Govt .
Govt .
Govt .
Govt.
Govt.
Govt.
Govt .
Govt.
Govt.
Govt.
Govt.
Govt.
Govt.
County
Hancock
Ohio
Ohio
Marshall
Wetzel
H
C
Wetzel u
Tyler
Pleasants
Pleasants
Wood
Mason
Wood
Jackson
Jackson/Maso

-------
Table 28. Locks and  dams  (concluded).
Name
15. Racine
16. Gallipolis
KANAWHA RIVER
;1. Winfield
2. Marmet *
3. London
MONONGAHELA RIVER
1 . Opekiska*
2. Morgan town
3. Hildebrande*
Stream
Ohio River
Ohio River
Kanawha River
Kanawha River
Kanawha River
Monon gahe 1 a R i ver
Monongahela River
1 1
Monongahela River
D.A.
(sq. mi.)
40,130
—
11,810
8,818
8,492
2,530
2,584
2,544
Date
Comp,
U.C.
1937
1937
1934
1934
1968
1950
1959
Use
N
N
P, N
P, N
P, N
N
N
N
Height
of Dam
37'
35'
61'
60'
50'
37'
27'
34'
Owner
U. S. Govt.
U. S. Govt.
Kan. Valley
Power Co. 6
U. S. Govt.
Kan. Valley
Power Co. 6
U. S. Govt.
Kan. Valley
Power Co. &
U. S. Govt.
U. S. Govt.
U. S. Govt.
U. S. Govt.
County
Mason
Mason
Putnam
Kanawha
M
'O
Kanawha
Marion
Monongalia
Monongalia/
Marion

-------
                                                                      VIRGINIA
                                                                                               Under construction •»-«• .

                                                                                                        Lake A
                                                                                                      figure 25
KENTUCKY
    DEPARTMENT   OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES


      DIVISION  OF  WATER   RESOURCES

Department  of  Natural Resouces


      And   Other   Lakes



           p  0  K)  20  JO  40  50
                  SCALE IN MIUS

-------
           Table 29.   Department  of  Natural Resources and other' lakes in West Virginia  (WV-DNR 1972).  Entries
            marked with  an asterisk (*)  are  situated in surface coal mining counties.  Abbreviated  use designations
            are Rec.3  recreation;  F,  fishing;  and W, wildlife.
                                                                     Reservoir
1.
2.
3.,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Name
Anawalt *
Babcock State *
Park Lake
Babcock State *
Park Lake
Bear Rock Dam #1
Bear Rock Dam #2
Bear Rock Dam #3
Berwind Lake
Big Ditch Run #1
Blackwater Fal Is
Reservoi r
Bruceton Mills *
Buffalo Fork. *
j
Burches Run Lake
Stream
Tug Fork
Glade Creek
Glade Creek
Todd Run
Todd Run
Todd Run
Big Branch of
War Creek
* Big Ditch Run
(trib. of Gauley)
* Pendleton Creek
(Blackwater; R.)
Big Sandy Creek
Little River
Burch Run of
D.A.
(Acres)
1,100
--
290
640
640
640
3,138
—
3,600 .
'. 3,140
, 3,436
Date
Comp.
1964
•-„
1965
1954
—
—
1958
1968
1,957
1969
1962
Capacity .
; (A.F.)
6
2
18
3.4
8.0
3.2
20
595
160
20
21.5
--
Use
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
f
Rec.
Rec . , F
Rec.
Height
of Dam
19'
"*
30'
21 '
31'
17'
32'
23'
28'
8'
43'
35'
Owner
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
Coup ty
McDowell
Fayette
Fayette
Ohio
Ohio
' Ohio H
c
a
McDowel 1
Webster
Tucker
Preston
Pocahontas
Marshall
13.   Cacapon Lake
Wheel ing Creek

Indian Run of
Sleepy Creek
1937
Rec.
30'
State
Morgan

-------
        Table 29.   WV-DNR lakes (continued)
     Name

 14.   Cacapon  State
      Park  Lake

 15-   Camp  Caesar  Lake *
 16.   Castlemans  Run *
      Lake

 17.   Cedar  Lake

 18.   Chief  Cornstalk

 19.   Conaway  Lake

 20.   Coopers  Rock. *
      Lake

 21.   Crumps Bottom
      (Sub-impoundment)

 22.   Doe Run  (Sub- *•
      impoundment)

23.  Edwards  Run Pond

24.  Fork Creek  *

25.  French Creek*
     Game Farm Lake
Stream

Indian Run of
Sleepy Creek

Upper Glade Run
of Gauley River

Castlemans Run
Hill Creek

Kanawha River

Conaway Run

Glade Run
(Cheat River)
Edwards Run

Fork Creek

Flatwood Run
D.A.
(Acres)
3,200
796
5,500
260
922
700
'
«
. --
—
--
Date •
Comp.
—
1961
1954
1964
1963
1954
—
1961
I960
1965
—
Reservoir
Capacity
(A.F.)
6)
34.2
—
10
5
35
. —
3
I2i
2
1.06
2
Use
Rec.
Rec.
Rec . , F
F 6 W
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Height
of Dam
25'
17'
31'
so-
is1
40'
23'
10'
17'
10'
15'
--
Owner
State
4-H
State
FFA-FHA
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
County
Morgan
Webster
Brooke/Oh
Jackson
Mason
Tyler
Monongai i
Summers
Taylor
Hampsh i re
Boone
Upshur


i
i-
V£

a






-------
          Table  29.  WV-DNR lakes (continued).
                                                  D.A.      Date
   Name

26.  Jackson's  Mill *
     Lake

27.  Kanawha State *
     Forest
    '/.
28.  Laurel Creek  *
     Lake H\

29.  McClintic  Wild-
     life Area  (40
     ponds)

30.  Moncove Lake
31 .  North Bend Lake


32.  Pinnacle Rock *

33.  Plum Orchard Lk.*
34.  Raleigh Co. 4-H
     Camp

35.  Seneca Lake
Reservoir
Capacity             Height
Stream
Quarry Run
Davis Creek
Twelvepole Cr.
Oldtown Creek
Devil Creek
(Second Cr.)
North Fork
(Hughes R.)
Lick Branch
Plum Orchard Creek
of Paint Creek
Little Beaver Cr.
Little Thorny Cr.
(Acres)
76
..
6,830
—
2,284
.38
1,060
2,655
. 7,000
—
Comp.
1938
1961 .
—
1959
—
1966
1962
--
1952
(A.F.) Use
1.6 Rec., I
1 Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Water Fowl
144 Rec.
5 Rec.
14.7 x Rec.
Rec.
18 Rec.
3 Rec.
of Dam
28'
—
43'
—
30'
--
32'
50'
—
14'
Owner
4-H
, State
State
State
State
State
State ..
State
Raleigh Co.
4-H
State
County
Lewis
Kanawha
Mlngo
Mason
H
t-
C
Monroe
Ritchie
Mercer
Fayette
Raleigh
Pocahontas

-------
         Table 29.  WV-DNR lakes  (concluded).
   Name

 36.  Sherwood  Lake  *

 37.  Sleepy  Cr.  Lake

 38.  Spruce  Knob Lk.  *


 39.  Summit  Lake *


 40.  Teter Creek Lk.*
41.  Tomlinson  Run *
     State  Park Lk.

42.  Trout  Pond
43.  Turkey  Run  Lk.

44.  W. W. Warner
     Pond #1

45.  W. W. Warner
     Pond #2

46.  Walters Smith*
     State Park
47.  Warden Lake

48.  Watoga Lake
Stream
Meadow Creek
Meadow Branch
Narrow Ridge Run
of Gandy Creek
North Fork of
Cherry River
Teter Creek
(Tygart River)
Toml i nson Run
Trout Run of
Cacapon River
Turkey Run
Laurel Creek
D.A.
(Acres)
4,020
5,375
303
640

1 ,632
13,824
_ .»

1 ,660
•
Date
Cpmp.
1958
1962
-•
1956

1958
1942
•• M

1964
1946
. Reservoir
Capacity Height
(A.F.) Use of Dam
164 Rec.
Rec.
23 Rec.
43 Rec.

Rec.
\
30 Rec.
Rec. , F.

15 / F
Rec. ,
21'
36'
27'
25'

30'
43'
__

—
12.5'
Owner
State
State
State
State

State
State
State

State.
State
County
Greenbrier
Berkeley
Randolph
Greenbrier

Barbour H
H
h-
Hancock
Hardy

Jackson
Pocahontas
 (Williams River)

 Laurel Creek


 Duck Creek

Moores Run

 Island Lick Run
           1949
                                   F  6 W
Rec.
                                    Rec.
12.0'
State
                  State
6,528     1959

1,402     1936
Pocahontas
                     Harrison
36
11
Rec.
Rec.
31V
45'
State
State
Hardy
Pocahontas

-------
                                                                                                         UncSef construction «••»*•
                                                                                                                    Lake •
                                                                                                 MAXTINSUJRG
                                                                              VIRGINIA
                                                                                                                 figure  26
KENTUCKY
DEPARTMENT  OF   NATURAL  RESOURCES
  DIVISION   OF  WATER    RESOURCES
        Municipal     And
          Other   Lakes

        10   0   10   20  3O  40  SO
                                                                                                      SCALE IN MIUS

-------
        Table 30.  Municipal and other lakes  in West Virginia  (WV-DNR 1972).  ..Lakes in coal mining counties are
          indicated by an asterisk (*).  Abbreviated use designations are WS, water supply; F&W, fish.and wildlife; ,
          and Rec., recreation.
                                                                      Reservoir
                                                                      Capacity
                         D.A.     Date
                                           Height
Name
1.

2.
3.
4.

5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

Ballard

Beckley Water*
Company
Belington *
Buffalo Lake *

Camden-on-Gauley *

City of Bridge- *
port (Deegan
Lake)
City of Bridge- *
port (Hinkle
Lake)
City of Salem *
Cowen *

Stream
New River

Glade Creek
(New River)
Tygart Valley
River
Buffalo Creek
of West Fork
Gauley

Oavisson Run
Davisson Run
1 1 •
Dog Run
Birch River
(Elk)
(Acres) Comp.
1968

16,000 1941
576 ~ .' '
3,520 1956

1965

1 ,200 1954
800 1954
675 1970
__ __

(A.F.) Use of Dam
WS

1,227.6 WS 33'
— WS 21 '
920.7 WS 47.5'

WS

WS, 30'
F6W,
Boating
20'
153 ,WS 42'
WS

Owner
Ballard Water
Works Assoc.
Beckley Water
Company
City of
Bel ington
Clarksburg
Water Board
Camden-on-
Gauley
City of
Bridgeport
City of
Bridgeport
City of Salem
Cowen PSD

County
Mon roe

Raleigh
Barbour
Harriso

Webster

Harriso
Harriso
Harriso
Webster

10.  Culloden Water
     Reservoi r
Ball Creek
1,600     I960
13
WS
20'
Culloden PSD   Cabel1
                                                                                                                         M
                                                                                                                         M
                                                                                                                         OJ

-------
Table 30.  Municipal and other lakes  (continued)


Name
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.
13.
20.
Fairmont *
Filtration
Plant
Green Valley *
Gl en wood
Hurricane Water
Reserve i r
Kingwood *
Krodel Lak«;
Lashmeet *

Lumberport *
Lake
Mannington *
Lake
Ma son town *
Lake
Mill Creek *

O.A.
Stream (Acres)
Tygart Valley River
Brush Creek 592
Mill Creek of 75
Hurricane Creek
Ashpole Run 500
Kanawha 10
Pocosion Fork
of Rich Creek
West Fork River 248
Little Dents Run 572
Back Run of '1 ,450
Decker's Creek
Mill Creek 160
(Tygart)

Date
Comp.
1938
1965
1967
1930
1948
1970

1928
1969
1956
1968
Reservoir

Capacity Height
(A.F.) Use of Dam
289,550 Filtration
plant for
water
WS
60 WS
WS
4 Rec.
11 WS

3. WS
245.5 WS
21.5 WS
WS
217'
36'
8'
22'

14'

10'
54'
30'
4'

Owner
City of
Fairmont
Green Val ley
Glenwood PSD
City of
Hurricane
Town of
Kindwood
City of
Pt. Pleasant
Lashmeet PSD

Town of
Lumberport
Town of
Mannington
Town of
Mason town
Mill Creek

County
Marion
Mercer
Putnam
Preston
Mason
Mercer

Harrison
Marion
Preston
Randolph

-------
         Table  30.  Municipal and other  lakes  (continued)
   Name
                        Stream
21.  Milton Water
     Reservoir
                        Mud River


22.  Morgantcwn Lake *  Cobun Creek
23.  New Martlnsvllle   Ohio
2k.  Oglebay City
     Park

25.  Parsons Lake *


26.  Pennsboro


27.  Princeton*


28.  Princeton*


29.  Rowlesburg  *


30.  Rowlesburg*
                        Waddles Run
                        Elk Lick Run
                        (Cheat River)

                        Ho. Fork
                        Hughes River

                        Brush Creek
                        Brush Creek
                        Cheat River
                        Cheat River
31.  Salem-Gatewood     New River
  ,  Cunard-Brooklyn

D.A. Date :
(Acres) Comp.;
1962
. - jt->
4,800 1958
•MM ' •» •*•
«
100 1953
1 ,575 1934
•* «• • *»

4,956
1,766 1967
500 1929
500 1934
384 ' --


Reservoir
Capacity Height
(A.F.) Use of Dam Owner
WS 8' Town of
Milton
J92.8 WS 49' City of
Morgantown
•--' Rec. — City of
Martinsville
36 Rec. 24' City of
Wheel ing
15.4 WS 24' Town of
Parsons
WS — Town of
Pennsboro
1 ,469 F 6 Rec. 36.3' City of
Princeton
2,092.5 WS 74' City of
Princeton
4.0 WS 15' Town of
Rowlesburg
4.0 WS 18' Town of
Rowlesburg
1,150 WS — Salem-
Gatewood PSD



County
Cabell
Mononga
Wetzel
Ohio
Tucker
Ritchie

Mercer
Mercer
Preston
Preston
Fayette
H»
1 	 *
f— f
• Ln

-------
        Table 30.   Municipal and other  lakes  (concluded).
   Name

32.  Sunnybrook
33.  Teays Valley
     Pub lie Se rv i ce
     District

31*.  Thomas Lake *
35.  Wayne Water
     Reservei r

36.  Womelsdorff *

Stream
Kanawha
Poplar Fork
Creek

D.A.
(Acres)
—
100

Date
Comp.
1964
:' Reservoir
Capacity
(A.F.)
--
37

Use
WS
WS

Height
of Dam
—
10'
No. Fork of
Blackwater River

Twelvepole Creek
Roaring Creek
(Tygart)
                          850
                                                                             Owner

                                                                             Sunnybrook
                                                                             Water Assoc.

                                                                             Teays Va11ey
                                                                             PSD
39.9
0.23
--
WS
WS
WS
25'
6'
22'
Town of
Thomas
Town of
Wayne
Womelsck
County

Putnam


Putnam



Tucker


Wayne  ,

-------
                                    117
     In addition  to  these  lakes,  there  are 56 private  lakes  which are
used for recreation,  individual  industrial water  supplies, cooling
water, fish and wildlife management, and power  generation; 119  soil
conservation service lakes which were built primarily  to  give local
flood protection  in  small  stream basins and the headwaters of the
larger streams; and  363 farm ponds  1 acre or larger which were  built
to provide water  for livestock,  for recreational  purposes, for  fish
production, and for  supplementary occasional water supplies   in the
State as a whole  (WV-DNR 1972).

        Public Water Supplies
     Of the 806 public water purveyors  in West  Virginia,  458 systems
pump groundwater  and 209 systems utilize surface  water for municipal
water supplies.   Another 139 systems purchase water from  a supplier
(Verbally, Mr. James Hodges,  West Virginia Department  of  Health,
Charleston, 15 December 1976).   Thus, about 69% of the systems  that
produce their own water for  municipal consumption use  groundwater
from wells.

     Municipal water supplies for large communities, except  those
situated on the Ohio River and  for  the  City of  Martinsburg,  are derived
from surface reservoirs (Table  31).  About 36 surface  reservoirs  have
been constructed  in  West Virginia for water supply to  serve  these
larger communities  (Figure 26).   Storage reservoirs are necessary
because streamflow may decline  to low levels during periods  with  little
precipitation.  In 1960 about 64% of the population was served  by
public water systems from  surface water supplies  (Doll et al. 1963).
More recent data  were not  available, but it is  probable that no signi-
ficant change has occurred in the proportion of the population  supplied
from surface supplies.  Wells that  penetrate bedrock in West Virginia
generally do not  produce great  enough quantities  of water to supply
large populations.                                                       --

        Groundwater  Resources
     With the exception of Ohio  River valley communities, most  'supplies
of groundwater in West Virginia  are derived from  wells that  penetrate
bedrock.  These systems generally cannot supply large  populations reliably,
but they do supply water to  many small  communities in  West Virginia
where surface water  has not  been impounded, is  polluted,  or  is  an un-
• reliable-source-during the dry  periods  of the year.  In the  coal  mining
areas, the important aquifers typically are sandstones and conglomerates
that are associated  with coal seams.

     Many of the  groundwater-based  systems are  located in the southern
part of the State (Verbally,  Mr.  James  Hodges,  15 December 1976).   Wells
may penetrate deep mines,  mine  sumps, or strata where  deep mines  are
located.  Because the sulfur content of coal in southern  West Virginia
generally is low, the pH of  the  groundwater generally  meets  public health
standards, but treatment may be  required to reduce its iron  or  manganese
content.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                           118
        Table 31.    Sources of potable water  for  communities with population of
          9,000 or greater.  Counties marked  with an asterisk  (*) are surface-
          coal producing counties.   1973  data are from the West Virginia Depart-
          ment of  Health.
jCOUNTY

Berkeley

Brooke

Cabell

Fayette*

Harrison*

Kanawha *

Kanswha *

Logan *

Marion*

Marion*

Marshall

Mason

Mercer*

Mercer*

Mingo*

Monongalia51

Ohio

Raleigh*

Randolph*

Upshur*

Wood

Wood
^COMMUNITY.   -'

Martinsburg

Weirton

Huntington

Oak Hill

Clarksburg

Charleston

Saint Albans

Logan

Fairmont

Monongah

Moundsville

Point Pleasant

Bluefield

Princeton

Williamson

Morgantown

Wheeling

Beckley

Elkins

Buckhannon

Parkersburg

Vienna
  SOURCS

Kilmer Springs

Ranney Wells

Ohio River

Wells

West Fork River

Elk River

Coal River

Guyandotte River

Tygart River

Tygart River

4 Wells

Wells

Impoundments

Impoundment

Tug River

Monongahela River

Ohio River

Glade Creek

Tygart River

Buckhannon River

5 Ranney Wells

Wells (Ohio River)
PDI'DIA'TION^SERVEE

     •   18,400

        35,000

       120,000

        10,962

        43,368

       170,000

        20,000

        15,800

        40,000

        10,000

        17,000

        10,000

        17,498

        11,781

        9,500

        40,000

        65,000

        60,000

        11,000

        9,000

        60,000

        12,000

-------
                                    119
     Surface mining may disrupt groundwater flow, lower  local water
tables, intercept aquifers, and pollute aquifers if the  mining  activity
enhances acid production.  The potential for these problems  is
greatest where surface mining occurs in an aquifer recharge  area.

     Bedrock aquifers commonly are overlain by impermeable shales  in
West Virginia, so that recharge areas are present only where erosion
has removed the shale and exposed an aquifer to infiltration.   These
areas include anticlines that have been breached by erosion, such  as
the Chestnut Ridge Anticline in the Monongahela River Basin.

     No studies of the impact of surface mining on groundwater  systems
in West Virginia have been located.  Nonetheless? in areas where
groundwater from bedrock is an important source of water, specific
reviews of potential groundwater impact are appropriate  to individual
mine applications.  In particular, local perched water tables  should be
identified, because they may provide local supplies of potable  water.
The blasting and excavations associated with surface coal mining  may
disrupt local aquifers and terminate sources that traditionally were
used in the vicinity of  surface mines.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    120
     Floodprone Areas

     Floodprone areas are defined as those areas which are projected to
be flooded during a flood with an expected recurrence of once each
100 years.  Under contract to the Federal Flood Administration, the
US Geological Survey is mapping the floodprone areas of West Virginia
on 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.  As of 1976, 232 floodprone
area maps of the State were available (Figure 27, Table 32).

     Floodprone areas generally are not greatly affected by surface
mining operations, unless large quantities of overburden are lost
during landslides.  Water ponded above landslides can cause upstream
flooding, and can flow over downstream areas if the landslide gives
way suddenly.  Surface mines in West Virginia typically are located on
the slopes of valleys, so accelerated runoff from surface mines also
may affect floodprone areas.  If road or other construction activities
are induced in the areas surrounding surface mines, runoff and sedimen-
tation from such areas also may affect downstream floodplains.

     Except in some areas where flat hilltops occur, floodplains
typically are the only low-slope areas in West Virginia, so there may
be economic pressure to develop them.  Extensive surface mining in a
region indirectly may induce construction of support facilities on
floodprone sites.  These may include coal-cleaning facilities, other
industrial or commercial facilities, and housing for workers and their
families.  Such facilities can usurp the best agricultural land in
West Virginia.  They can also reduce the flood storage capabilities of
floodplains, especially if dikes are constructed to prevent flood damage
to the facilities.

        Wetlands

     Wetlands generally larger than 40 acres in extent were inventoried
by the WV-DNR during the early 1950's (US-FWS 1954).  This inventory
covered only a few parts of the State.  Altogether 3,810 acres of wetlands
were delineated in Preston, Tucker, Pocahontas, and Greenbrier Counties.
Fresh meadows constituted 27% of the total; shrub swamps, 25%; wooded
swamps, 45%; and bogs, 3%.  The occurrence of these types by county
is indicated in Table  33 .  Particular attention was called to wetlands
in the headwaters of Muddy Creek in eastern Preston County, to the
Canaan Valley in the upper Blackwater River watershed of eastern Tucker
County, to the upper Cranberry River watershed of western Pocahontas
County, and to the upper Meadow River and tributaries in western Green-
brier County.  Although wetlands are relatively scarce in West Virginia,
this inventory should not be regarded as exhaustive.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
             •nutrict cnuf, VRD  •
             U. S. Geological Survey
             200 M««c Craci Streat
             Ron 304
             lUchnooit, VlrjlnU 23220
                                            t-1
Figure  27.   Areas  of  West  Virginia
  in which floodplains have been
  mapped,  1976.

-------
                                        122
      Table 32.   Topographic quadrangles  in West Virginia for which floodprone areas
        have been mapped, 1976.
 1.  Alderson
 2.  Alum Creek
 3.  Amherstdale
 4.  Anawalt
 5.  Annaraoriah
 6.  Apple Grove
 7.  Arnett
 8.. Arnoldsburg
 9.  Athens
10.  Audra
11.  Baileysville
12.  Bancroft
13.  Barboursville
14.  Barnabus
15.  Beckley
16.  Beckwith
17.  Belington
18.  Belle  -
19.  Bens Run
20.  Bergoo
21,  Bethany
22.  Beverly East
23.  Beverly West
24.  Big Chimney
25.  Big Creek.
26.  Big Pool
27.  Blue Creek
28.  Bowden
29.  Bradshaw
30.  Bramwell
31.- Branchland-—
32.  Brandywine
33.  Bruceton Mills
34.  Burington, W V .
35.  Burning Springs
36.  Burnsville
37.  Businessburg
38.  Cairo
39.  Camden on Gauley
40.  Capon Bridge
41.  Capon Springs
42.  Cedar GRove
43.  Cedarville
44.  Century
45.  Chapmanville
46.  Charleston East
47.  Charleston West          93.
48.  Charles Town             94.
49.  Cheshire                 95.
50.  Circleville              96,
51.  Clarksburg               97.
52.  Clio                     98.
53.  Clothier                 99.
54.  Cottageville            100.
55.  Davis                   101.
56.  Davy                    1Q2
57.  Delbarton               103.
58.  Diana                  - 104.
59.  Dorothy                 105.
60.  Elizabeth               106.
61.  Elkins                  107.
62.  Elmwood                 108.
63.  Erbacon                 109.
64.  Eskdale                 no.
65.  Fairmont East           111.
66.  Fairmont West           112.
67.  Fayetteville            113.
68.  Franklin                114.
69.  Forest Hill             115.
70.  Fort Seybert            116.
71.  Fort Springs            117.
72.  Gallipolis (Ohio)-       118.
73.  Garretts Bend           119.
74.  Gary                    120.
75.  Gauley Bridge—         121.
76.  Gilbert                 122.
77-.—Gilmec:.              -  ,123.-
78.  Girta                   124.
79.  Glady                   125.
80.  Glen Easton             126.
81.  Glengary                127.
82.  Glenville               128.
83.  Glenwood                129.
84.  Gorman (Md.)            130.
85.  Grantsville             131.
86.  Great Cacapon           132.
87.  Green Bank              133.
88.  Griffithsville          134.
89.  Hager                   135.
90.  Hamlin    .              136.
91.  Harman                  137.
92.  Harrisville .            138.
Henlawson
Hinton
Holden
Hopeville
Huntington
Hurricane
laeger
Inwood
Julian
Junior
Kanawha
Keyser
Keystone
Kingwood
Lavalette  .
Lewisburg
Little Birch
Logan
Lorado
Lost City
Lost River State Park
Lubeck
Macfarlan
Madison  .. .
Majestic
Majorsville -
Mallory
Man
Martinsville
Matewan  (Ky.)
Matheny—-
Maysville
McGraws -
Meadow Creek.
Middlebourne
Milam
Millstone
Milton
Minnehaha Springs
Montgomery
Moorefield
Morgantown North
Morgantown South
Moundsville
Mount Clare
Mozart Mountain

-------
                                        123
      Table 32.    Topographic quadrangles in West Virginia (concluded)
139. Mullens
140'. Myrtle
141. Naugatuck
142. .Nestorville
143. New Haven
144. New Martinsville
145. New Matamoras  (Ohio)
146. Normantown
147. Oceana
148. Old Field
149. Onego
150. Orlando
151. Paden City
152. Panther
153. Parkersburg
154. Parsons
155. Petersburg East
156. Petersburg West
157. Petroleum
158. Philippi
159. Pine Grove
160. Pineville
161. Pocatalico
162. Pond Creek
163. Porters Falls
164. Powellton
165. Powhaton Pt.
L66. Prince
167. Quick
168. Racine
169. Ranger
170. Raven Rock (Ohio)
171. Ravenswood
172. Reedy
173. Rhodell
174. Richwood
175. Rig
176. Ripley
177. Rivesville
178. Roanoke
179. Robertsburg
180. Romance
181. Ronceverte
182. Rosedale
183. Round Hill
184. Rowlesburg
185. Saint Albans
186. Saint George
187. Sandyville
188. Scott Depot
189. Shinnston
190. Shirley
191. Sissonville
192. Smithburg
193. Smithville
194. South Parkserburg
195. Spring Field
196. Steubenville East
197. Sugar Grove
198. Sylvester
199. Tablers Station
200. Talcott
201. Tanner
202. Thornwood   ••  .
203. Thurmond
204. Tiltonsville (Ohio)
205. Upper Tract
206. Valley Grove
207. Valley Mills
208. Walton
209. War
210. Wardensville
211. Webb
212..Webster Springs
213. Weirton
214. Welch
215. Westernport
216. West Hamlin
217. West Milford
218. Weston •
219. West .Union
220. Wharncliffe
221. Wharton
222. Wheeling
223. White Sulphur Springs
224. Whitesville
225. Whitmer
226. Williams Mountain
227. Williamson (Ky.)
228. Willow Island  .
229. Winfield
230. Winona
231. Winslow
232. Yellow Springs -

-------
                                   124
Table 33.  Acreage of major wetlands in West Virginia (US-FWS  1954).
                 Fresh           Shrub       Wooded
County           Meadow          Swamp        Swamp       Bog         Total
Greenbrier        250             180         1,470         0           1,900

Pocahontas          0             290            30       130           •  450

Preston             0              60           210         0             270

Tucker            780             410             0         0           1,190



Total           1,030             940         1,710       130           3,810

-------
                                 .  -125

     Critical Habitats for Imperiled Species

        Federal Designation

     No species of plant has yet been determined to be endangered or
threatened in accordance with Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543, 87 Stat. 884).   About 1,700 vascular plant
taxa have been proposed for such classification by the US Department
of the Interior (41 FR 24523-24572, 16 June 1976).  The known range
of none of these plants, as listed by the Department of the Interior,
includes West Virginia.

     Animals listed as endangered which are listed as inhabiting West
Virginia include the following:  Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis),  longjaw
cisco (Coregonus alpenae), arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus
tundrius), Bachman's warbler (Vermivora bachmanii), and tuberculed-
bottom pearly mussel (Epioblagma torulosa torulosa).  No threatened
West Virginia species was listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service
during 1976 under the Endangered Species Act (41 FR 4339-43358,
30 September 1976).

    Critical areas have been designated pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 for only one species among those listed
in the preceding paragraph, the Indiana bat.  TO date the Department of
the Interior has designated only Hellhole Cave in Pendleton County, West
Virginia, a moratorium county for surface coal mining which has no surface
minable coal resources (41 FR 41916, 24 September 1976).

     Indiana bats are known to inhabit Big Springs Cave and Cave Hollow
Cave within Monongahela National Forest (USFS 1977:31).   The Forest Service
has installed gates on Big Springs Cave,  but Cave Hollow Cave is accessible
from private land as well as from Federal land.   The peregrine  falcon
formerly inhabited the~Forest, and populations may be reestablished on
suitable cliffs (USFS 1977:31).


        State Designation

     The State of West Virginia has no legislation protecting
imperiled biota specifically.   The WV-DNR publishes no lists of plants
or wildlife categorized by endangerment status in the State, and has
not designated critical habitats.   State attention has been given
primarily to harvestable species of fish and game.

        Areas of General Biological Interest

     The known stands of unusual vegetation in West Virginia are pre-
sented in Table 34 and Figure 28.    Two of these areas are listed by
the National Park Service as National Natural History Landmarks, and 13 addi-
tional sites have been declared eligible for such listing (40 FR 19508,
5 May 1975).  No further sites currently are being processed for
History Landmark eligibility determinations (Verbally, Mr.  John Bond,
Mid-Atlantic Region, National Park Service,  17 December 1976).   In
general the biotic resources of a surface mined site are destroyed
completely by mining operations.  Although some vegetation may  be
reestablished in accordance with State reclamation requirements, and
game animals may use such habitat, the post-mining biota bears  little
if any resemblance to pre-mining conditions.  Post-mining conditions
are not appropriate for plant and animal communities of high biological
interest until many decades have elapsed.

-------
                                      126
                                                                  NORTH
                                                            0     MILES    40
                                                          JACK McCORMICK » ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                           A SUBSIDIARY OF WAPORA, INC.
Figure 28.   Sites of  unusual  biological interest in West  Virginia.
  The sites  are described  in Table 34.

-------
                                   127

Table 34.  Sites of unusual biological interest in West  Virginia (USFS 1977:27;
   Core 1966; Goodwin and Niering 1975; 40 FR 19508).  Acreages of
  eligible (*) or registered (**) National Natural History Landmarks were
  provided by Mr. John Bond, National Park Service,  Philadelphia PA,
  17 December 1976,  Map numbers refer to Figure 28. MNF indicates that
  the site is within the Monongahela National Forest.  + indicates area
  specially  classified by  the US Forest Service.
Map No.        Name             Acreage

  1         Spruce Knob (MNF)
  3

  4
  6


  7
 10

 11


 12
            Canaan Valley *
Stony River Dam

Blister Run Swamp*+
 (MNF)

Sinks of Gandy
 (Private land, MNF)
                     15,400
                        280
                                     50
                         40
Blister Swamp
Cranesville Swamp
Nature Sanctuary***
 (MNF)
            Heath Barrens
            Cranberry Glades
            Botanical Area*         750
Pine Swamp

White Sulphur Springs
Shale Barrens

Sweet Springs Shale Barrens
  County            Remarks

Pendleton      Sparse red spruce,
               10-15 feet tall, '
               50 years old

Tucker         Numerous bogs, ponds;
               rhododendron thickets;
               balsam fir

Grant          Balsam fir at damsite

Randolph       Sphagnum bog with
               balsam fir

Randolph       Sphagnum glade with
               red spruce and mixed
               deciduous trees,
               twin flower, dwarf
               cornel, skunk currant,
               snowberry

Pocahontas     Sphagnum bog with balsam
               fir, twinflower
                                    251 (WV)  Preston
                                                 Bog with tamarack,
                                                 black spruce,  and
                                                 other northern biota
                                  Pendleton      Ericaceous scrub
                                                 plains,  several
                                                 thousand acres
                                  Pocahontas     Five glades  with
                                                 forest,  peat 11
                                                 feet deep

                                  Mineral        Sphagnum bog
                                  Greenbrier     Endemic plants

                                  Monroe         Endemic plants

-------
                                   128
Table 34.  Sites of unusual biological interest  in West Virginia  (continued).
Map No.
Name
Acreage
                                 County
Remarks
13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21

22

23
24

25
26

27
Burlington Shale Barrens
Dobbin Slashing
Fisher Spring Run*
(in Dolly Sods Scenic
Area+, MNF)
Red Run
Moore Run
Yellow Creek
Big Run Bog* (MNF)+ 1
Cathedral Park**
Gaudineer Scenic Area* +
(MNF)
Germany Valley Karst
Area* 8
Greenbrier Caverns* 2
Greenville Saltpeter
Cave*
Lost World Caverns*
Sennett-Thorn
Mountain Cave System*
Shavers Mountain Spruce-


410

100
25
30
,640
136



,200
,100

81
470

80

Hemlock Stand* 190
(in Otter Creek Wilderness Area)
28
29
Swago Karst Area* 6
Greenbrier County
,400

Mineral
Tucker
Tucker

Tucker
Randolph
Randolph
Tucker
Preston
Pocahontas

-
Pendleton
Greenbrier

Monroe
Greenbrier

Pendleton

Randolph
Pocahontas

                                                            Endemic plants

                                                            Alder sphagnum bog
                                                            with red spruce

                                                            Sphagnum bog with  -
                                                            beaver

                                                            Red spruce and
                                                            sphagnum

                                                            Sphagnum glade with
                                                            beaver

                                                            Glade  3 miles  from
                                                            nearest road

                                                            Sphagnum, hemlock,
                                                            red spruce
                                                             250-year old red
                                                             spruce forest
           Wetlands
                 1,900
                Greenbrier   Mixed  swamp  forest

-------
                                   129
Table 34.  Sites of unusual biological interest in West Virginia (concluded).
               Name             Acreage


         North Fork Mountain       50

         South Branch Mountain


         Ice Mountain

         Spruce Mountain

         Bald Knob

         Bald Knob

         New Creek Mountain

         Cowen Glade

         Glady

         Glade Farms

         Gum Springs Bog

         Cranberry Flat

         Pine Swamp

         Fanny Bennett Hemlock
           Grove  (MNF)             70

         Elklick  Cave  (MNF)

         Cave Mountain Cave  (MNF)


         Black Mountain Rhododendron
           Stand  (MNF)

         Showy Lady Slipper  Orchid
           Area  (MNF)               0.1
         White Pine Natural Area
            (MNF)

         Big  Springs Cave  (MNF)
County


Pendleton

Hardy


Hampshire

Pendleton

Tucker

Pocahontas

Mineral

Webster

Randolph

Preston

Monongalia

Randolph

Mineral
     Remarks


 Red pine forest

 Small stand  red
 pine forest

 Twinflower in talus

 Grassy bald
 Dwarf deciduous forest

 Sphagnum glade
            Virginia hemlock stand

            Bat population

            Largest known Virginia
            big-eared bat population
            in eastern US

            Purple rhododendron stand
            Stand of Cypripedium
            reginae  .
Tucker
Virgin white pine stand

Population of Indiana
bats

-------
                                    130
        Computerized Inventory System

     A computerized inventory of natural features is being compiled
by the Nature Conservancy in cooperation with the WV-DNR.  This
inventory covers the entire State, and is part of the West Virginia
Heritage Trust Program.  The information accumulated by  this  system
now comprehends about 1,600 entries that consist of aquatic habitats,
geologic features, exceptional individual organisms, plant communities,
and populations of endangered or threatened species.  The descriptive
information on such features is combined with data on geographic
location, protection status, ownership, and date of observations.
Because data can be retrieved rapidly by watershed, topographic quad-
rangle, or latitude and longitude, it is possible to have the computer
search for features within any desired radius of a proposed surface
mine site.

     The system is not yet fully operational, and the inventory will
never be complete, but the opportunity offered by this system for
efficient impact assessment is substantially in advance  of that
offered in most States.  The system is expected to be operationalized
during 1977 (Verbally, Mr. Frank Pelurie, The Nature Conservancy,
Charleston, 11 December 1976).
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    131
     Prime-Agricultural Lands

     In West Virginia about 22% of the inventoried acreage is suitable
for cultivation with varying degrees of limitations on use and varying
amounts of conservation treatments (SCS 1970).  The remainder is best
suited for permanent vegetation such as permanent pasture or forest.
There is some farming of lands which are incapable of sustaining
continued cultivation.

     West Virginia topography has prevented the development of extensive
areas of high-quality cropland, particularly in those counties where
the surface mining of coal is a significant activity.  The 29 counties
in which surface mining is practiced contained 58% of the land area
of the State, but only 42% of the acreage in crops and 48% of the
acreage in pasture, during 1967 (Table 34 ).  Forested land in these
counties represented 60% of the State total, and "other" land
(about half of which in these counties is surface-mined land)
accounted for 72% of the State total.

     The Soil Conservation Service classifies land according to its
suitability for various kinds of farming, based on limitations of the
soils, the risk of damage when they are used, and the way they respond
to treatment.  The broadest grouping in the classification is the
Capability Class, designated by Roman numerals I through VIII.  These
numbers indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower
choices for practical use.  Capability subclasses, designated by
small letters, show the nature of the main limitation on use.

        Class I

     Soils in Class I have few limitations that restrict their use.
Soils in this class are suited to a wide range of plants, and may be
used safely for cultivated crops, pasture, woodland, and wildlife.
The soils are nearly level, and erosion hazard is low.  They are deep,
generally well drained, and easily worked.  They hold water and
are either fairly well supplied with plant nutrients or highly
responsive to inputs of fertilizer.

     The soils in Class I are not subject to damaging overflow.
They are productive and suited for intensive cropping.  They typically
are used for crops and need ordinary management practices to maintain
soil fertility and soil structure.  For productivity such practices
may include the use of one or more of the following:  fertilizers and
lime, cover and green-manure crops, conservation of crop residues and
animal manures, and sequences of adapted crops.

      Capability subclass designations are not applied to Class I lands.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
o
VO
        Table ~35.  1967 land use acreage in surface coal mining  counties of West Virginia (SCS 1970).  The classification is based on a statistically
          randomized sample survey.  Urban land includes built-up  areas greater than 10 acres, industrial sites (excluding surface mines), railroad
          yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, and related lands.  Water includes reservoirs, ponds, and lakes greater than 40 acres, and rivers
          wider than 0.125 mile.  Forest includes both commercial  and non-commercial timbered, lands.  Other land includes surface mines, farmsteads, .
          farm roads, rural non-farra residences, and fencerows.  About 190,000 acres of surface-mined land were inventoried Statewide.
                                             NOT INVENTORIED
County

Barbour
Boone
Braxton
Brooke
Clay
Fayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hancock
Harrison
Kanawha
Lewis
Logan
McDowell
Marion
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Konongalla
Nicholas
Preston
Raleigh
Randolph
Taylor
Tucker  •
Upshur
Webster
Wyoming              .

Subtotal

West Virginia

Subtotal as % of State Total
                                      Federal
                                                    Urban
                                                               Water
0
0
10,500
0
0
0
0
14,529
99,350
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
438
0
' 500
30,100
3,900
0
170,400
0
93,000
0
64,700
0
487,817
947,132
52
5,998
9,800
6,100
7,600
3,200
15 , 160
3,999
3,015
9,542
11,100
13,509
49,700
5,187
14,100
16,821
14,800
14,702
4,394
12,512
12,505
6,826
10,493
21,230
10,393
4,000
4,000
5,000
3,311
8,563
307,560 '
468,419
66
400
600
900
100
1,500
2,600
300
650
2,530
0
1,000
3,400
322
500
400
700
1,100
645
500
500
400
2,120
1,000
1,300
300
300
500
500
2,300
27,367
47,561
58
Cropland
                                                                                          INVENTORIED

                                                                                      Pasture        Forest
                                                                                                                           Other
22,180
1,100
31,981
8,600
8,139
14,100
16,026
15,603
32,455
7,600
30,534
12,100
18,100
1,200
1,000
12,000
15,470
19,223
1,700
16,608
24,045
42,400
25,494
33,544
11,495
9,000
23,814
7,232
6,500
469,243
1,105,930
42
42,592
2,100
55,874
5,500
13,923
21,300
26,344
41,212
102,527
4,000
68,109
33,900
71,591
2,500
2,999
38,000
32,000'
26,200
300
25,881
20,950
58,900
30,852
50,945
26,864
13,500
52,996
6,238
9,500
887,597
. 1,836,993
48
130,327
290,000
213,633
23,900
189,350
352,400
167,468
219,014
401,860
24,600
115,079
453,500
134,300
260,500
302,200
120,000
186,445
156,900 '
242,300
144,940
312,923
247,200
295,115 •
382,218
55,900
139,600
131,400
266,099
287,637 •
6,247,808
10,429,867
60
13,543
17,000
11,912
11,300
2,788
16,200
2,863
10,167
8,216
5,200
39,289
28,100
21,400
13,000
17,700
12,300
17,183
3,400
13,408
32,566
' 17,356
21,287
12,539
13,300
10,241
10,000
11,590
4,520
8,100
406,468
565,818
72
                                                                                                                                           TOTAL
                                                            215,040
                                                            320,600
                                                            330,900
                                                             57,000
                                                            218,900
                                                            421,760
                                                            217,000
                                                            304,190
                                                            656,480
                                                             52,500
                                                            267,520
                                                            581,100
                                                            250,900
                                                            291,800
                                                            341,120
                                                            197,800
                                                            266,900
                                                            211,200
                                                            270,720
                                                            233,500
                                                            412,600
                                                            412,800
                                                            386,230
                                                            663,100
                                                            108,800
                                                            269,400
                                                            225,300
                                                            352,600
                                                            322,600

                                                         8,860,360

                                                        15,401,780

                                                                58

-------
                                   133
        Class II

     Soils in Class II have some limitations that reduce the choice of
plants or require moderate conservation practices.  Soils in this class
require careful soil management, including conservation practices,
to prevent deterioration or to improve air and water relations when
the soils are cultivated.  The limitations are few, and the practices
are easy to apply.  The soils may be used for cultivated crops,
pasture, woodland, or for wildlife food and cover.

     Limitations of soils in Class II may include singly or in combina-
tion the effects of (1) gentle slopes, (2) moderate susceptibility to
erosion or moderate adverse effects of past erosion, (3) less than
ideal soil depth, (4) somewhat unfavorable soil structure and worka-
bility, (5) occasional damaging overflow, and (6) wetness which can be
corrected by drainage but existing permanently as a moderate limitation.

     The soils in this class provide the farm operator less latitude in
the choice of either crops or management practices than soils in Class I.
They may also require special soil conserving cropping systems, soil
conservation practices, water control devices, or tillage methods when
used for cultivated crops.

     Capability subclasses recognized in West Virginia are:  e, erosion
hazard; w, wetness; and s, shallowness and/or stoniness.

        Class III

     Soils in Class III have severe limitations that reduce the choice
of cultivated plants, require special conservation practices, or both.

     Soils in Class III have more restrictions than those in Class II,
and when used for cultivated crops, the conservation practices are
usually more difficult to apply and to maintain.  They may be used for
cultivated crops, pasture, woodland, or for wildlife food and cover.

     Class III soils were not tabulated for this report.  Data on them
may be found in Soil Conservation Service (1970).

        Valuable Farmland

     The latest data, collected during 1967, indicate that 7% of West
Virginia as a whole was used for crop production, but only 5% of the
29 surface mining counties was cropped (Table 36 ).  The percentage
of total land in the surface mining counties that was classified as
I or II ranged from 1% in Logan, McDowell, Mingo, and Webster Counties
to 16% in Hancock and Preston Counties.  Overall, only 5% of the land
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   134
in the surface mining counties was classed as I or  II,  the  same pro-
portion as in West Virginia as a whole.  In some counties there
was substantially less land used to produce crops than  there was
high-quality cropland (e.g., Boone, Logan, and McDowell Counties),
whereas other counties had much more acreage of active  cropland than
their actual acreage of high-quality land  (e.g., Barbour, Brooke,
Harrison, and Taylor Counties; Table 36 ).

     Class I and II soils by definition are situated  on slopes  no
steeper than 8%.  In the surface mining areas of West Virginia  such
soils are situated almost entirely in stream valleys.

     Surface mining activities are more likely to affect steep,  non-
agricultural lands in West Virginia than to disrupt high-class  farm-
land, so long as landslides are prevented by proper mining  techniques.
Certain surface mining methods, such as the mountaintop removal which
is practiced increasingly in the southern West Virginia coalfields,
may create extensive areas of quality farmland, if  sound reclamation
measures are used.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidioiy of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
Table  36.  High-quality farmland that potentially could be affected  by surface  coal mining in West Virginia (SCS 1970).
  1967.  See text for explanation of classification.
                                                           Acreage data  are for

COUNTT
Barbour
Bo one
B rax ton
Brooke
Clay
rayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hancock
Harrison
Kanawha
Lev-Is
Logan
McDowell
Marion
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Mcnongalia
Nicbo] as
Preston
Raleigh
Randolph
Taylor
Tucker
Upshur
Webster
Wyoming
Subtotal'
We&t Virginia
Land In
Crops
22,180
1,100
31,981
8,600
8,139
14,100
16,026
15,603
32,455
7,600
30,534
12,100
18,100
1,200
1,000
12,000
15,470
19,223
1,700
16,608
24,045
42,400
25,494
33,544
11,495
9.000
23,814
7,232
6,500
456,843
1,105,930
Percent of
Total Land
10
0
10
15
4
3
7
5
5
14
11
2
7
0
0
6
6
9
1
7
6
10
7
5
11
3
11
2
2
5
7 "
                                                 Class I
Class Tie
                                                                           Class  IIw
                                                                                        Class Us
0
0
2,162
219
0
0
1,539
1,899
0
0
1,068
245
0
0
0
0
0
1,227
0
0
795
633
0
2,046
0
824
0
0
0
12,657
61,930
8,636
1,257
4,368
3,018
1,335
18,673
2,076
12,085
28,883
5,754
7,046
2,596
9,627
0
539
5,980
16,260
6,898
0
6,470
15,456
55,837
15,473 •
16,411
3,399
10,862
9,934
2,531
2,806
274,210
550,973
1,374
7,511
12,284
700
3,687
1,824
8,132
1,715
2,810
At"'*
5,767
9,824
6,844
3,869
1,467
3,304
1,032
7,027
3,852
3,883
3,740
7,601
2,351
7,682
1,455
978
2,552
2,431
4,761
120,921
339,148
0
2,070
0
0
0
2,026
0
620
0
2,010
0
2,073
1,217
0
1,067
0
507
0
0
0
0
0
1,297
4,925
0
1,515
0
0
887
20,214
46,202
 Total High
Quality Land

   10,010
   10,838
   18,814
    3,937
    5.022
   22,523
   11,747
   16,319
   31,693
    8,228
   13,881
   14,738
   17,688
    3,869
    3,073
    9,284
   17,799
   15,152
    3,852
   10,353
   19,991
   64,071
   19,121
   31,064
    4,854
   14,179
   12,486
    4,962
    8,454

  428,002

  998,253
High Quality Land
as Z of total Land

         5
         3
         6
         7
         2
         5
         5
         5
         5
        16
         5
         3
         7
         1
         1
         5
         7
         7
         1
         4
         5
        16
         5
         5
         4
         5
         6
         1
         3
High Quality Land
    as % of
 Land in Crops

         45
        985
         59
         46
         62
        160
         73
        105
         98
        108
         45
        122
         98
        322
        307
         77
        115
         79
        227
         62
         83
        151
         75
         93
         42
        158
         52
         69
        130

         94

         90

-------
                                    136
     Caverns

     Caverns are of recreational value to an increasing number of
speleologists and also can provide habitats for imperiled biota.
They are known to occur in 11 of the 29 counties where surface
mining of coal currently is practiced.  Surface mining activity, which
includes construction of haul roads, can affect caverns adversely
by sealing entrances, altering the groundwater hydrology, or other-
wise altering their aesthetic qualities.

     All West Virginia caves reported by Davies (1958, 1965) are
located in the Mississippian-age Greenbrier Limestone or older strata,
with the exception of the following:

     McKinney Cave (Preston County, Pottsville Formation),
     Cooper Rock Cave (Monongalia County, Pottsville Formation), and
     Indian Cave (Harrison County, Monongahela Formation).

     Thus, except for the caves noted above, there is a stratigraphic
separation of caves from coal bearing strata.  In addition, the caves
that have been located on county maps (Figures 29. through 37) are  separated
geographically from surface coal mining areas for a distance of 5 miles
or more in Grant, Greenbrier, and Mercer Counties.  One or more caves
in Harrison, Mineral, Monongalia, Preston, Randolph, and Tucker
Counties are located within 5 miles of a surface mine or area where
surface mining might occur.  In these areas potential surface mines
are located topographically above the cave openings; thus haul
roads, drainage ways, or sediments from the mining activity
may have adverse impacts on this natural resource.

     Caves are included on the computerized inventory of natural
resources currently being developed jointly by the WV-DNR and The
Nature Conservancy.  This inventory will provide an efficient means
to identify caves in the local vicinity of proposed surface mines.
Recent studies of caves in the current coal-producing counties include
those of Carton and others (1976; Barbour, Harrison, Marion, Monongalia,
Ohio, and Preston Counties), Jones (1973, Greenbrier County), and Medville
and Medville (1971, Randolph County).  Monroe County caves  (Hempel 1975)
and Pocahontas County caves (Medville and Medville 1976; Werner 1972)
also have received attention.

     Caves are afforded.no special protection by State or local statute
in West Virginia.  The Forest Service has installed gates at Big Springs
Cave.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                            137
                  MAP OF

               GRANT COUNTY
                  SOWING
           LOCATIONS OF CAVERNS
         1.  Cedar Hill.
         2.  Charles Knob.
         3.  Deaheart
         4.  Greenland Gap.
         5.  Hanline.
         6.  Jim.
         7.  Kesner.
         8.  Kessel.
         9.  Klines Gap.
        10.  Mays Gap.
11.  Munsing.
12.  Mongold (Elkhorn Mountain).
13.  Peacock.
14.  Smokehole Caverns.
15.  Spring Run.
16.  Veach.
17.  Williamsport Marl Caves.
18.  Wolf Den Rocks.
19.  Wolfpen Caves.
Figure  29.  Caves in Grant  County, West  Virginia  (Davies  1965)

-------
                                             138
                                                                   MAP or

                                                    I    GREENBRIER  COUNTY
                                                                   SHOWING
                                                     LOCATIONS  OF   CAVERNS
 1.  Alvon.                           35.
 2.  Anthony.                        35.
 3.  Arbuckle.                        37.
 4.  Arbuckle School.                 33.
 5.  Arbuckle Shafts.                 39;
 6.  Asbury.                         40.
 7.  Ballard  Mountain.                41,
 8.  Bob Gee.                        42.
 9.  Bone.                           43.
10.  Bransfords.                      44.
11.  Brants.                          45.
12.  Brushy  Ridge.                   46.
13.  Buckeye Creek.                  47.
14.  Bungers.                        48.
15.  Burnholt.                        49.
16.  a, b, Burns No. 1 and No. 2.       50
17.  Cabbie.                         51.
18.  Cadle.                           52.
19.  Carlisle.                        53.
20.  Cave Farm.                     54.
21.  Cliff.                            55.
22.  Coffman.                        56.
23.  Court Street.                    57.
24.  Culverson Creek.                58.
 25.  Davis.                          59.
 26. Erwins.                        60.
 27. Feamster.                       61.
 28. Fox.                            62.
 29. Foxhole No. 1.                  63.
 30. Foxhole No. 2.                  64.
 31. Fuells Drop.                    65.
 32. Fuells Fruit.
 33. Fuller.
 34. General Davis.
Grapevine.                       66.
Hanna.                      .    67.
Hedricks.                        68.
Hellems.                         69.
a,b,c,d,HigginbothamsNos. 1-4.    70.
Highlander Ridge.                71.
Hinkles Unus.                   72.
Horse Pit.                       73.
Hoyt                           74.
Hughart.                        75.
a, b, Jackson No. 1 and No. 2.      76.
Jarrets Water.                  77.
Jewel.                           78.
Johnson.                         79.
Judys.                           80.
Leggs.                           81.
Levisay.                         82.
Lewis.                           83.
Lewis Hole.                     84.
Lipps.                           85.
Lipps No. 2.                    86.
Lost.                           87.
Ludington.                      88.
McClung.                        89.
McFerrin.                       90.
McMillan.                       91.
Madison Knob, North.            92.
Madison Knob, South.            93.
Muddy Creek.                  '94.
Norman.                        95.
Organ.                          96.
Parlor.
Pecks.
Piercys.
Piercys Mill.
Pollock & Pollock Saltpeter.
Poor Farm.
Rainbows.
Rapps.
Reinhold.
Renick Bridge.
Renicks Valley  Pit
Richlands.
Richlands Northfield.
Scout Camp.
Seldomridge.
Simms.
Sinks of Sinking Creek.
Spencer.
Taylor No. 1.
Taylor No. 2.
Taylor Falls.
Thornbury.
Thrasher.
Tower.
Tuckwiller.
U. S. 219.
Walton.
Water.
Wilson Bluff.
Wind.
Yorks.
Figure  30.   Caves  in Greenbrier  County, West  Virginia.  (Davies 1965).

-------
                           139
           FIGURE 24
             WAP OF
        HARRISON COUNTY
             SHOWING
       LOCATION OF CAVERN
Figure  31.    Cave in Harrison County,  West Virginia (Davies 1965)

-------
                                     140
                                                           MAP OF
                                                       MERCER COUNTY
                                                           SHOWMG

                                                      LOCATION OF CAVERNS
                   1. Abbs Valley.
                   2. Beaver Pond.
                   3. Big  Spring.
                   4. Caldwell.
                   5. Dyepot.
 6.  Hales Gap.
 7.  Honacker.
 8.  Ingleside.
 9.  Nemours.
10.  Thompson School.
Figure  32.    Caves  in Mercer .County, West  Virginia  (Davies 1965)

-------
                                            141
                                                                    MAP Of

                                                                MINERAL COUNTY
                                                                    SHOWING

                                                              LOCATIONS OF CAVERNS
                        1.  High Rocks Fissure.
                        2.  Kites (Flaherty).
                        3.  Knobly  Mountain.
                        4.  Knobly  Mountain
                            Vertical Shaft.
5.  O'Neil Gap Pits.
6.  Ridgeville.
7.  Saltpeter.
Figure 33.    Caves  in Mineral County, West Virginia  (Davies  1965)

-------
                                   142
               1. Beaverhole Lower (Eagle).   3. Dellslow.
               2. Cooper Rock.              4. Maiden Eun.
Figure  34.    Caves in Monongalia  County, West Virginia (Davies 1965)

-------
                                            143
                                                      UAF Of
                                               RANDOLPH  COUNTY
                                                      >Hon«ta

                                            LOCATIONS  OF CAVERNS
             1. Aggregates.
             2. Alpena No. 1.
             3. Alpena No. 2.
             4. Armentrout Pit.
             6. Bazzle.
             6. Bickle Run (Bear Heaven)
                 Caves.
             7. Big Run.
             8. Bonner Mountain.
             9. Bowden No. 1.
            10. Bowden No. 2.
            11. Cooper.
            12. Crawford  (Wymers) No. 1.
            13. Crawford No. 2.
            14. Falling Spring Cavern.
            15. Fortlick.
            16. Glady.
            17. Harman.
            18. Harman Pits.
            19. Hazelwood.
20.  Jordan Drop.
21.  Keyhole (Chalk).
22.  Limekiln Run.
23.  Mill Creek.
24.  Mingo Pit.
25.  Nelson.
26.  Railroad Caves. '
27.  Rich  Mountain.
28.  Rouse.
29.  Schmidlen Shafts.
30.  Simmons-Mingo.
31.  Sinks of Gandy Creek.
32.  Stewart Run.
33.  Stillhouse (Hermit,
      Dead Mans).
34.  Stony Run.
35.  Swacker School.
36.  Tyre School.
37.  Ward.
Figure   35.   Caves  in  Randolph County,  West Virginia  (Davies  1965)

-------
                                      144
                                   MAP OF
                     /,-       PRESTON COUNTY
                     |f    •         SHOWING

                           LOCATIONS OF CAVERNS
                               01  2349
           1. Aurora Cave.
           2. Beaverhole, Upper.
           3. Brook Stemple.  '
           4. Collins.
5.  Cornwell.
6.  Cranesville.
7.  McKinney.
Figure 36.    Caves in Preston County, West Virginia (Davies 1965)

-------
                                      145
             1. Arbegast.                   11.
             2. Beall.                       12.
             3. Bennett.                     13.
             4. Big Springs (Blowing).        14.
             5. Cave  Hollow.                15.
             6. Falling Spring.              16.
             7. Hadey.                      17.
             8. Harmon Pits.                18.
             9. Harr.                       19.
            10. Lambert.
Laurel Run.
Limestone. Mountain.
Maxwell Run Caves.
Mill Run.
Moore (Red Run Quarry).
Otter Creek.
Red Run.
Stillhouse Hollow.
Wolford.
Figure  37.    Caves in Tucker  County, West Virginia  (Davies  1965)

-------
                                   146
III.  US-EPA RESPONSIBILITIES FOR NEW-SOURCE HPDES PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

     Activities That Will Require New-Source NPDES Permits

     All coal mines that are initiated on or following the date when new-
source standards of performance for the mining industry are proposed by
US-EPA in  the Federal Register, and that plan to discharge water  (as point
sources) to streams, will be required to obtain NPDES permits and meet National
new-source effluent limitations.  Issuance of the new-source regulations
for  the coal mining industry is expected during 1977.  Mines which operate
prior to the implementation of the new-source regulations are required to
apply for  existing-source NPDES permits and are subject to existing-source
effluent limitations (40 CFR 434; 41 FR 19832, 13 May 1976).  New-source
effluent limitations are expected to be more stringent than existing-
source limitations, and new-source NPDES permits (unlike existing-source
NPDES permits) are subject to NEPA review by US-EPA.  Notice of US-EPA's
intent to  issue new-source regulations for the coal mining industry was
given in the Federal Register on 30 September 1974, and potential new
source applicants were encouraged to schedule a pre-application conference
with the appropriate Regional Administrator 24 months prior to the expected
beginning  of discharge.  Few West Virginia surface mine operators have
contacted  US-EPA Region III.

     As of March 1977 the new-source regulations were still under review,
pending resolution of the definition of activities  which would be considered
to constitute a new source in the coal mining industry.   For surface mining,
one issue which will require administrative consideration is whether prospecting
applications will be subject to an environmental review as well as actual
mining permits.  At present there apparently is no  mechanism whereby NPDES
"prospecting permits" can be converted to "mining permits."

     The State of West Virginia considers prospecting to be a significant
activity,  and consequently requires a detailed plan and a bond for timely
reclamation following prospecting activities, should no mining begin within
three months of the completion of prospecting.  If  mining is undertaken, the
prospecting bond is applied to the reclamation bond required for the actual
surface mining operation.  Reclamation is postponed until the completion of
mining.  The number of prospecting permits issued by the State is substantially
smaller than the number of mining permits issued (Table 4); evidently, many
mine operators in West Virginia are able to prepare mining plans satisfactory to  the
State in the absence of on-site prospecting data (or prospect without a permit).

     A second issue, which could be of importance for a few years until existing
surface mines have been exhausted, is whether new-source requirements will be
applied to permitted surface mine acreage that has  not yet been mined as
of the date of issuance of the regulations.  West Virginia, unlike US-EPA,
does not issue mining permits for a specified period of time.  The rate and
duration of mining, consequently, heretofore have been governed largely by
economic considerations.  It is 'conceivable that a mine operator might seek
a permit with extensive acreage  that might require many years to exhaust
(given the current price of coal), in order to escape future, more stringent
regulations by State or Federal agencies.  The major disincentive for such
action, apparently, is the expense of the reclamation bond  (currently $1,000
per  acre?  required by the State at the time of application for a  surface
mining permit.  As  discussed in a subsequent  section,  US-EPA could apply non-
NEPA coordination requirements to  existing sources,  and extend a measure of
 protection to  certain  resources  not  currently protected under State law.

                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    •147.
     NEPA Review of New-Source NPDES Permits^

     The final regulations for application of NEPA to the new-source NPDES
permit program became effective on 10 February 1977 (40 CFR 6; 42 FR 2450-
2459; 11 January 1977).  According to the regulations, US-EPA intends to
apply NEPA substantively to all new-source industrial permits, including the
surface coal mining industry.  US-EPA requires that a New Source and
Environmental Questionnaire  (NS/EQ) be submitted by permit applicants and
that the entire environmental evaluation process be completed and the NPDES
permit issued prior to commencement of on-site "construction".

         The Expected Number of New-Source NPDES Permit Applications  from the
          West Virginia' Surface Mining Industry

      According to the latest annual report  of the West Virginia Department
 of Mines (1975),  there were 502  surface  mine operations by 278 companies
 in West Virginia  during 1975.   The WV-DNR issued  437  permits during 1976,
 of which 278 were for surface mining and 159 were for prospecting.   The
 1975 total  was 481 permits issued.   During  each fiscal year from FY 1977
 through FY  1980,  US-EPA Region III can expect to  receive as many as 500
 applications for  new-source NPDES permits for surface coal mining and
 prospecting in the State of West  Virginia.   This  number is approximately
 100 times as great as the combined number of new-source applications from
 all other regulated  industries in the State (Verbally,  Mr.  Matthew Miller,
 US-EPA Region III, 23 February 1977).  The  mean surface mining permit size
 during 1975 was  63 acres,  and about 20,000  (+10,000)  acres will be dis-
 turbed annually  (Table 5).  Recent experience has been that 50 to 60% of
 State prospecting permits  have been converted to  surface mining permits.

     Approximately 80 to 90% of the mining permit  applications are expected
to originate from relatively small operations, each of which will mine less
than 50 acres of land.  In total,  these smaller operations annually may
extract about 6 million tons of coal (less than one quarter of West Virginia
annual surface coal production) and may disrupt the surface over about
7,500 acres.

     Larger mines  for which applications  will be sought may number about 30 to
60 per year.  These mining operations generally will propose to extract coal on sites
of 100 acres or more.  Such mines  will disrupt the surface over a total of
more than 14,000 acres per year.   During 1970 two  companies each had"secured
more than 8% of the total acreage permitted, and the nine largest companies
together held about one third of the total acreage permitted for strip mining
in West Virginia (Stanford Research Institute 1972:41).  Recent large
applications have been for 2,000 acres in Webster County, 1,200 acres in
Boone County, and  1,200 acres in Raleigh  County near Beckley (Verbally,  Mr. Roger
Hall, Division of Reclamation, WV-DNR, 24 November 1976, and Mr. Patrick Parks,
19 January 1977).
-                                      ___                __

   It  is US-EPA policy not  to apply NEPA  to  the issuance of NPDES permits
      for  existing  sources  (40  CFR 125.43; 39  FR 27084, 24 July  1974).  By
      definition,  existing-source  permits are issued to  operating facilities.


                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    •148
     Large surface mines are expected to be most common in the central
(Subregion IV) and southern (Subregion V) parts of the State, because abundant
reserves occur there, large tracts of land are held in single ownerships,
and the steep slopes make top-of--mountain, multiple-seam surface mining
operations practical and economic.  As stated in Chapter I of this report,
the mean acreage of State mining.permits in the central and southern part of
West Virginia exceeds 100 acres in several counties.  Production from
individual mines in this area exceeds total production in some of the northern
counties, where small mine operations abound.

     The conclusion to be drawn from recent State experience is that US-EPA
Region III will have a very large number of new-source NPDES permits to process
each year, many of which will be for very small surface mines that will
operate for three years or less.  Consequently, the opportunity for piecemeal
decisionmaking is great.  As documented in Chapter II of this report, there are
numerous environmentally sensitive resources throughout the surface mining
regions of West Virginia.  There has been extensive damage to these resources
in the past, and the potential for future environmental damage from new-source
mining activities is great in the absence of regulatory overview (Stanford
Research Institute 1972).  It is the understanding of the consultant that
US-EPA Region III lacks the resources routinely to conduct comprehensive
environmental reviews for 500 West Virginia surface coal industry permit
applications annually, and therefore must concentrate its resources on those
applications which are most likely to generate adverse effects. (By telephone,
Mr. Peter Cook, US-EPA Office of Federal Activities, Washington DC,
3 February 1977).  The following section, therefore, discusses screening
procedures for selecting applications to receive comprehensive NEPA review.

        Methods to Screen Surface Mining Applications

     Every applicant for a new-source surface coal mining NPDES permit will
be required to file the NS/EQ as part of his application to US-EPA.  The
current NS/EQ used by US-EPA Region III is outlined in the Appendix of this
report, and is discussed in the subsequent section on Information Required
from Applicants.

     The US-EPA general new-source NPDES environmental regulations published
on 11 January 1977 indicated that it was not considered feasible to establish
a threshold defining minor Federal NPDES permit actions which will not signifi-
cantly affect the environment (comment on 40 CFR 6.904, 42 FR 2451), so
every permit application will have to undergo a NEPA review which culminates
in either a negative declaration notice (accompanied by an Environmental
Appraisal file report) or a notice of intent to prepare a formal EIS
(40 CFR 6.904, 6.906, 6.908) unless the regulations are amended.   No permit
can be issued until such environmental review is complete, and a specified
period has elapsed after Federal Register publication of the negative
declaration or filing of the final EIS with the CEQ (40 CFR 6.909.2.,
42 FR 2455).
                                                      JACK McCORMiCK 8, ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    149
     As regulations are developed for the coal mining industry, however,
it has come to be regarded as feasible to exempt small surface coal
mining applications from a formal NEPA review (By telephone, Mr. Peter
Cook, US-EPA Office of Federal Activities, Washington DC, 3 February 1977).
The draft US-EPA policy on the application of NEPA to new-source coal mines
suggests that thresholds be established, based on estimated average annual
tonnage coal production, to govern the routine application of NEPA by
US-EPA to NPBES permit applications from the industry (Draft memorandum, R. W.
Hanmer, Director, Office of Federal Activities, Washington DC, to Regional
Administrators, 16 February 1977).  Regional Administrators are encouraged
to develop additional screening criteria, based on environmental conditions,
to identify mines smaller than the National threshold tonnage which should
be subjected to a more detailed review.  Thus it may become important that
US-EPA Region III establish a partial environmental screening procedure
whereby certain applications of a size smaller than the Nationally recommended
threshold are subjected to environmental review.

     Several feasible methods to select projects for environmental review
can be envisioned.  The method selected and the nature of the surface
mining applications singled out for environmental scrutiny will be of great
concern, not only to parties concerned with environmental protection, but
also to the surface coal mining industry.  Negative declarations-'- are subject
to challenge by the public, and the full EIS procedure may delay signifi-
cantly the issuance of a surface mining permit.  At present the time span
from submission of a State surface mining application to the start of
mining operations is generally no more than three months; the full Federal  EIS
procedure may require one to several years.

     The US-EPA Office of Federal Activities has drafted a threshold based
on projected average annual tonnage of coal production as a guideline for
Regional Administrators.  Applications that propose  to mine less than
100,000 tons of coal annually are to be exempted from routine NEPA reviews;
applications that propose to mine between 100,000 and 200,000 tons are to
receive NEPA reviews only if the operators do not certify that they plan to
employ "Best Practices" (these practices have not yet been defined); and
applications to mine more than 200,000 tons annually routinely are to
receive full NEPA review, whether or not the "Best Practices" initially
were certified by applicants.  The tonnages are based on average proposed
production over the life of the NPDES permit (a maximum period of five years).

     If such an approach should be adopted for the West Virginia surface
mining industry, several results may be expected by US-EPA.  The strong
probability is that no application for more than 200,000 tons per year will
be made to US-EPA Region III.  Very large mines are not necessary in West
Virginia to provide economic justification for major expansion in infrastructure
1
  A "negative declaration" is a public notice that the Regional Administrator
     has decided not to prepare an EIS on a permit.  By determining that an
     EIS is not necessary, the US-EPA concludes that there will not be
     significant adverse impacts or that significant adverse impacts will
     be mitigated satisfactorily (42 FR 2451, 11 January 1977).

                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                     150.
(railroads, etc.), as is common in the western States.  Indeed, the permit
applications mainly will originate from small operators in any case.
It is impossible to predict how the industry may react to as-yet undefined
"Best Practices," but if the regulations withstand challenge, the inter-
mediate-size mines probably will certify "Best Practices" routinely in
order to escape detailed NEPA review.  (The more Best Practices resemble
State preplanning and reclamation requirements, the more likely will be
their routine acceptance by the mining industry).

     A rapid investigation of the relation between tons of coal produced
and permitted acreage in West Virginia was made for this report, but no
correlation was observed.  This ratio varies significantly across the
State.  The WV-DNR traditionally has been concerned with acreage, not
tonnage or duration of mining, during review of permit applications, and
West Virginia mine operators have never been required to provide antici-
pated production data.  A brief examination of summary production data
for the 1970's indicated that substantial fluctuations in annual production
were typical of individual West Virginia surface coal mines.

     It does not appear to be optimal to undertake a detailed NEPA environ-
mental review of a mine several years after it begins operations, if, for
example, US-EPA enforcement personnel should discover that the mine's
annual production suddenly increased from 80,000 to 300,000 tons, and it
therefore qualified for a higher category.  If mine operators, on the
other hand, are not allowed to respond to the traditionally fluctuating
market for coal by increasing or decreasing their production rapidly, it
is conceivable that economic dislocation could result.  Small-mine operators
who are speculating or recovering coal profitably from seams that may pinch
out irregularly probably cannot estimate their tonnage accurately, par-
ticularly if they have not conducted substantial on-site exploration and
prospecting.  US-EPA considered but rejected tonnage as a criterion for
applying its effluent guidelines, "because it .was not found to be a valid
indicator of pollution"  (41 FR 19839, 13 May 1976).  Finally, non-NEPA
environmental coordination must be completed prior to permit issuance
in any case, whatever the tonnage production.

     An exemption  for small mines potentially  even more serious  than the
detailed NEPA   environmental review is their proposed exemption also
from Federal Best Practices requirements (Draft memorandum, Hanmer  to Regional
Administrators, 16 February 1977).  Best Practices guidelines were in
an early draft form as this report went to press, so it was difficult to
estimate what effect the guidelines eventually may have on either the
surface mining industry or the environment.  The State of West Virginia,
however, makes no distinction between mines on the basis of size when it
requires preplanning for mining and reclamation.  Part of the US-EPA
rationale for the proposed exemption of small mines from routine, detailed
NEPA review was the supposed equivalence of pollution control that is to
be achieved by large and small mines.  It is not clear, however, that
the assumption of equivalence is appropriate, if small mines are held to
less stringent requirements than large mines.
                                                    "' JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    151
     A preliminary screen might gauge potential environmental effects
prior to full NEPA review based on the extent of proposed acreage  that is
to be disturbed.  A threshold exemption from review or requirements based
on acreage could serve to keep the acreage of each permit small, which
in itself might augment paperwork without increasing environmental pro-
tection.  Like tonnage, an acreage screen in itself does nothing to weigh
the actual environment in which the disturbance is to take place.  Pre-
viously surface-mined areas that were abandoned without reclamation gen-
erally are benefited environmentally by mining under current State environ-
mental and reclamation standards, according to the WV-DNR, and State policy
therefore is to encourage the maximum amount of acreage re-mined.  Acreage
disturbed may be a useful first approximation, however, to the potential
adverse impacts of surface mines on previously unmined land, even  though
water quality impacts are not readily inferred from mine acreage in the
absence of data on mining methods.  According to a recent draft US-EPA
manual for the review of mining-related EIS documents, "methods of mining
and handling the overburden are major factors influencing sediment yield
rather than the size of the operation" (US-EPA 1976b:43).

     Yet another way to screen applications might be by a randomized selection
procedure.   When US-EPA Region III knows  its resources and the number of
environmental reviews it reasonably can conduct during the fiscal year, it
could select, say, every twentieth or fiftieth application for a detailed
review.   If every applicant were aware that he was subject to a possible
detailed environmental review, the industry might respond by providing more
thorough internal planning for alternatives that minimize adverse  effects
than if almost all applications were subject to virtually no scrutiny by US-EPA
Region III.   If the probability of US-EPA environmental review were low enough,
however, sound business judgment might opt to minimize concern for environ-
mental aspects of the proposed mine that  are not otherwise covered by State
regulations,  because of the low risk of permit delay.

     A third way to screen projects rapidly to ascertain the need  for more
comprehensive environmental review is the development of a geographically
based inventory of known sensitive resources.  Within the areas known to
have sensitive resources that must be considered under NEPA according to
40 CFR 6.910 (42 FR 2455)  or that involve coordination with other  agencies
according to 40 CFR 6.920 (42 FR 2456), a comprehensive review probably will
be in order even if the application is for a small surface mine.   Outside
such areas,  small mines reasonably could  be issued permits in the absence of
environmental scrutiny, so long as they do not generate public controversy or
the opposition of other agencies.  For the West Virginia surface mining
industry such an inventory would have to  be prepared in sufficient local
detail to enable the precise placement of surface mines as small as three
acres (Table 5 ).   Data on certain parameters, such as the presence of
archaeological resources on a mine site,  probably will not be available until
the results of professional site surveys  are provided by an applicant.
(Existing statutes and regulations apparently require that archaeological
resources must be protected through coordination, whether or not a NEPA
review is performed, prior to NPDES permit issuance ; but the requirements
have not been enforced for existing-source permits).
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   .152
    Alternative Types of Impact Statements and Environmental Review

    Several options are available, to US-EPA Region III concerning  the overall
environmental assessment of its proposed NPDES permit program for  the
surface coal mining industry in West Virginia.  The following sections
discuss alternative approaches to fulfillment of agency responsibilities
under NEPA.

       Program and Generic Impact Statements

    In guidelines issued by the Council on Environmental Quality on
1 August 1973 (40 CFR 1500.6,f.1. ,. 38 FR 20550),  the use of program
and generic impact statements is encouraged.  These comprehensive  EISs
cover a number of related individual actions, and are intended to  be
more useful and efficient than would be separate analyses of the various
individual actions.

    Program statements that are sufficiently comprehensive and informative
and that present a suitable regulatory strategy which insures individual
project review, will eliminate or minimize the need for EISs on individual
projects.  Thus, these statements can reduce redundancy, eliminate un-
necessary paperwork, and thereby make the environmental review process
more meaningful and productive.  A separate, more detailed NEPA review  and
possibly an EIS will be required, however, for a proposed.action that has"the
potential for significant environmental impacts which are not covered ade-
quately in the program statement (CEQ 1973a).
                                                                       is :
    The specific wording of  the CEQ Guidelines  for program statements

       Agencies  should give  careful attention to identifying and
       defining  the purpose  and scope of the action which would
       most appropriately serve as the subject  of the statement.
       In many cases,  broad  program statements  will be required in
       order to  assess the environmental effects of a number of
       individual actions on a given geographical area (e.g. coal
       leases),  or environmental impacts that are generic or
       common to a series of agency actions (e.g., maintenance
       or waste  handling practices), or the overall impact of a
       large-scale program or chain of contemplated projects
       ( e.g., major lengths of highway as opposed to small
       segments).  Subsequent statements on major individual
       actions will be necessary where such actions have signi-
       ficant environmental impacts not adequately evaluated in
       the program statement.

This approach was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court during 1976 in the Northern
Great Plains case, Kleppe versus Sierra Club (CEQ  1976).
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   153.
       Areawide Impact  Statements

    Comprehensive EISs  are known as program statements, generic  statements,
or by other names.  The term,  "areawide statement," has been adopted by
US-EPA to describe comprehensive EIS's to be prepared  for anticipated
multiple permit actions in specific geographic areas.

    Section 6.910.a.2 of the US-EPA guidelines (42 FR  2455, 11 January 1977)
suggests that program statements also may be required  to assess  the cumulative
impacts of a number of  minor actions within a given geographic area:

          If EPA is proposing  to issue a number of minor, environ-
          mentally insignificant new source NPDES permits, during
          a limited time span  and1in the same general  geographic
          area, the responsible official may determine that the
          cumulative impact of the issuance of all these permits
          may have a significant environmental effect.

    An areawide EIS, thus, may be prepared to consider two or more
relatively major actions proposed for implementation in a region, or it
may cover the cumulative impact of a number of individually minor actions,
or it may include both  minor and major actions.  The validity and the
scope of the program statement, or areawide EIS, should be based on geo-
graphical proximity of  the project sites and on the degree of interdependence
of the actions or their  environmental effects.

    The Supreme Court reaffirmed this responsibility in Kleppe versus
Sierra Club:

          [W]hen several proposals for coal-related actions that
          will have cumulative or synergistic environmental impact
          upon a region are pending concurrently before an agency,
          their environmental  consequences must be considered
          together  (CEQ 1976:7).

    In regard to the issuance  of permits for surface mining in West Virginia,
the consideration of projects  that will be located within a particular
watershed ,  drainage area, or  river basin would satisfy both the proximity
test and the cumulative impacts test.  US-EPA already  has indicated  that
the "most effective way to comply with NEPA on new source coal mine
permits is to assess new coal  mining activity on an areawide basis"
 (41 FR 19840, 13 May 1976).

    To expedite the process of environmental review under NEPA,  US-EPA Region III
may opt to issue one or more areawide "umbrella" EISs  for the surface  coal
mining sections of West Virginia to identify the probable effects of  issuing an
undetermined  number of new source NPDES permits to the surface  coal mining
industry, in advance of receipt of the specific applications.  Such  EISs could
present inventories that define sensitive areas.

     A major concern will be the effects of'the permit granting  action on
water quality.   Presumably US-EPA would specify that new-source permit appli-
cants are required to demonstrate their ability to meet US-ETA discharge

                                                    JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                        a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                 154
standards and to satisfy State water quality standards by various
technological means and by carrying out self-monitoring and self-
reporting requirements.  The US-EPA presumably would have to present a
regulatory strategy based on the ability of West Virginia streams to
accept surface mine wastewater.  Such a strategy could involve a method
for the identification of surface mine wasteload-accepting capacity of the
many streams that potentially will receive surface mine wastes.  The US-EPA
could require that applicants prevent the discharge of any additional
pollutants to streams that had reached their safe mine-waste assimilating
capacities.  On streams where the natural waste-accepting capacity was
rated as nil, or where significant environmentally sensitive resources
could be affected downstream, new source mining could be prohibited unless
the applicant could demonstrate no adverse impact, adequate mitigation, and/or
overriding public need in a full individual-mine EIS.  Where the natural
assimilative capacity already was exceeded because of existing mine x^astes
or other pollution, new sources of surface mining wastes that could not
achieve "no additional pollutants" discharges would be prohibited, at least
until the existing pollution was terminated and the assimilative capacity
of the stream was deemed adequate to accept the proposed new-source discharge
without significant adverse effects.  Presumably US-EPA could pattern its
wastewater discharge control strategy after its current "tradeoff" strategy
to control airborne emissions under the Clean Air Act.

     A practical difficulty in the implementation of full areawide EIS
procedures will be the absence of precise information on the number of
new sources, their location, and the time period during which each will
operate and produce discharges.  Information on location and timing of
proposed discharges would be critical, for example, in determining the
severity or insignificance of cumulative impacts due to concurrent
surface-mine discharges into a waterway.  It probably is feasible to
develop realistic models for mine-affected water-quality parameters,
but data sufficient to calibrate the models for West Virginia streams
currently do not exist (By telephone, Mr. A. Maniktala, WV-DNR,
31 January 1977).  To collect essential field data and model every
stream potentially affected by surface mining in West Virginia would be
a major effort.  US-EPA Region III may have to stage any efforts in this
direction carefully to provide assessment data for streams in the
sequence that they are to be affected by proposed surface mines.  This
analytical effort should be  coordinated closely with any similar work
related to the underground mining NPDES program in West Virginia, which
is outside the purview of this report.  If the thrust of the US-EPA
effort is to generate useful regulatory models for West Virginia streams,
each applicant then can be expected to provide data sufficient to
calibrate the appropriate model locally for his minor watershed under
existing and forecast conditions at the time of his permit application.

     There are substantial potential problems that must be considered
by US-EPA, if a NEPA approach to water quality management resembling
that outlined in the preceding paragraphs were implemented.  First,
US-EPA will have to consider the resources which  it can allocate to a
comprehensive inventory effort and  supportive recordkeeping.
                                                   JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                       a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                 155
The effectiveness of the approach also depends upon the vigorous
enforcement of standards and monitoring requirements.  Historically
the Executive Branch of the State of West Virginia devoted little
effort to the actual enforcement of legislatively mandated controls
over the surface mining industry (Stanford Research Institute 1972:
104ff.), but recent State enforcement within the limits of the State
regulatory mandate has been increasingly effective (numbers of successful
prosecutions were presented in Table 4).  US-EPA, like the State, will
be faced with inspecting hundreds of remote, permitted mining operations
scattered over 29 counties with a total area of thousands of square
miles of rugged terrain.  Second, US-EPA has not promulgated regulations
to cover the long-term effects of surface mining on water quality.
Interim final existing point-source coal mining discharge regulations
specifically cease to apply to mines x^hen regrading (but not revegetation)
has been accomplished (40 CFR 1.434.32; 41 FR 19835, 13 May 1976).  No
mention is made of any requirement to bury or otherwise isolate toxic
or acid-producing overburden when the mine is "returned to final contour,"
or to continue the maintenance of surface drainage installations which
may be necessary to divert runoff from the regraded spoil.  Presumably
requirements of this nature will be part of the forthcoming "Best
Practices" regulations, but as presently conceived, those regulations
will not apply to 80% of West Virginia NPDES mining applications too
small to meet the Nationally based tonnage threshold.

     In West Virginia, surface ownership typically is separate from
mineral ownership, and the question of who has responsibility for main-
tenance of drainage installations after mining ceases is complex
(WV-DNR 1975a).  The State of West Virginia ordinarily releases 75%
of a reclamation bond at the time regrading is inspected and found
complete.  The remaining 25% cannot be released until inspection
following the close of the second growing season after replanting of
vegetation.  US-EPA is considering extending mine operators' liability
for a longer period, but as presently conceived, these regulations
will not apply to at least 80% of West Virginia mining applications,
unless Region III adopts more stringent criteria than the National
"Best Practices" guidelines.

     Alternatively, permits routinely could be conditioned so as to
require the applicant to provide 95% confidence that the risk of sheet
erosion from a regraded mine site would be no more than the maximum
rate associated with severe storms on comparable unmined areas, or ten
times the typical annual rate locally on unmined areas, whichever is less
(Stanford Research Institute 1972:147).  Such a provision might be
difficult to implement during the period after mining has ceased and the
5-year maximum NPDES permit presumably has expired.  The potential
for adverse water quality.impacts, however, does not decline substan-
tially until a permanent canopy of long-lived vegetation has been
established.  Typically this process requires decades in West Virginia.
This situation is one that makes surface mining quite different from
industries in which, when production stops, discharges also cease.
                                                  JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                       a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    156
     The techniques of assuring revegetation of regraded mine spoil are
still in the stage of development.  Unless surface mined land is returned
to timber production or placed in other beneficial use, it can become a
future source of sediments and acid wastes.  West Virginia State reclama-
tion funds can be used only for old, orphaned mine sites; they cannot be
used for sites reclaimed and released from bond, even if subsequent
denudation should occur on those sites subsequent to bond release.

     Environmental assessments (or EISs) prepared in compliance with NEPA
must address all categories of environmental components, not just water
quality.  US-EPA therefore presumably will have to present a strategy
whereby potential adverse effects of surface coal mining on the various non-
aquatic environmental resources also will be minimized or avoided.  One
means of accomplishing this goal would be to present a detailed inventory
of known sensitive components in each watershed.  Prospective applicants
could be warned that applications which are found upon review to.be likely
to affect known sensitive areas will be subjected to full individual
mine NEPA scrutiny. An obvious incentive thereby would be created for
applicants to seek out sites that can undergo a cursory environmental
screening.  Certain resources are amenable to areawide inventory by US-EPA
or its consultantss such as, for example, vegetation types, stream water
quality, State parks, and surface reservoirs used for drinking water supply.
Other resources may not be amenable to areawide inventory because of the
considerable effort and expense involved; for example, historic, archaeologic,
and architectural resources.  Such resources may be best identified by
applicants through specific professional surveys of individual sites proposed
for mining.  US-EPA Region III could review critically all aspects of the proposed
mining engineering, because these already must be presented in each State
mining application, if it were concerned with the engineering design aspects
of the NPDES permit applications and had sufficient resources to secure
engineering expertise in-house or through consultants.

     Those applications for new surface coal mine NPDES permits which
demonstrate (1) a capability to meet applicable discharge standards,
(2) a stream that acceptably can assimilate discharged wastewater of the
proposed quality, (3) an acceptable plan to minimize long-term adverse
effects on water quality and the means to effectuate such a plan, (4) an
avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas, (5) a conscientious review
of potential site-specific resources in consultation with appropriate
agency personnel, and (6) a sound engineering plan for the proposed mining
activity, presumably will be processed expeditiously,  and insofar as
possible through US-EPA reviews that eventuate in negative declarations
(pr comparable public disclosure), rather than by a full EIS procedure,
whatever their anticipated production tonnage.  Environmentally sound
aspects of proposals can be included as obligatory permit conditions, along
with the appropriate recommendations of agency review personnel.  An
areawide  program EIS  could propose  a  procedure  for  expediting  the issuance  of
permits to mines which meet these criteria.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   157
     Should US-EPA Region III decide not to. issue one or more formal
areawide EISs on its intent .to implement the West Virginia surface coal
mining NPDES permit program, it nevertheless may consider the preparation
of areawide inventories and reviews.  At minimum such an effort would
expedite the processing of NPDES permit applications.  Should US-EPA
be challenged successfully for not producing EISs on its regulatory pro-
gram for the West Virginia surface mining industry, the areax-?ide assess-
ments would facilitate the timely completion of draft EISs.  Preparation
of in-house areawide environmental reviews presumably would not stop the
issuance of permits to the industry, as a formal notice of intent to
prepare areawide EISs presumably would do (except for permits that were
covered by individual-mine EISs) in accordance with 40 CFR 6.909.a
(42 FR 2455, 11 January 1977).

        Individual-Mine Approach (Third-Party Agreements)

     To conserve its resources, US-EPA Region III may encourage develop-
ment, of the EIS by a third party, as provided in 40 CFR 6.908.6, when
the determination to prepare an individual-mine EIS has been made.  A
third-party agreement is an optional arrangement that can be initiated
at the request of either the responsible US-EPA official or the applicant,
and requires the mutual agreement of both parties.  The decision to enter
into a third party arrangement should be made prior to the submission of
an applicant's environmental impact assessment (EIA) to US-EPA.  The EIA
essentially is incorporated into the EIS, and is not prepared as a
separate document.  The third-party arrangement is not to be implemented
until a notice of intent to prepare an EIS has been published by US-EPA.
The applicant retains the services of a third-party consultant.  The
responsible US-EPA official must approve the third-party consultant based
on the consultant's objectivity and financial independence from the
applicant.  The responsible US-EPA official has the authority to specify
the type of information that is to be developed.  He is responsible for
supervising the gathering of the minimum necessary information, its
analysis, and its presentation in the EIS.  The responsible US-EPA official
also must provide the applicant a sufficient opportunity to review the
draft and final EIS documents prior to their publication.

     Third-party agreements are intended to expedite the. preparation of
the EIS and to economize on the human effort required in the preparation
of an EIS.  EPA benefits by its access to the services of a consultant,
and applicants benefit by reducing the time required to finalize their
applications.

     Under an individual-mine approach, US-EPA and the applicant, possibly
assisted by consultants, must agree upon the area to be assessed in each
environmental assessment report.  It is probable that the impact assess-
ment area will have to be larger, at least for selected information require-
ments, than the actual site of the mine itself and the adjacent land within
1,000 feet, which is described in the permit applications that currently
are required by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WV-DNR).
                                                     JACK McCORAMCK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   .158
     It has long been the policy of WV-DNR to consider each surface
mining permit in isolation from others, so the enlarged geographical, as
well as substantive, context required by US-EPA for NEPA review will
represent an expansion of analysis and increased costs for prospective
mine operators.  US-EPA-Region III specifically will have to adopt a
broad framework of reference when issuing NPDES permits for new-source
surface coal mines, and take cognizance of nearby mining activity in
the watershed:

          To prevent piecemeal decisionmaking, the new source
          should be described in as broad a context as necessary.
          The relationship of the proposed new source project
          to other projects and proposals directly affected by
          or stemming from the construction and the operation
          of the new source shall be discussed ... (40 CFR
          6.924.c.l; 42 FR 2457).

     As previously indicated, it is probable that forthcoming US-EPA
Nationwide guidelines for tonnage exemptions of small surface mines from
routine, detailed NEPA review and from "Best Practices" will mean that
few, if any, West Virginia new source surface coal mines will be subject
to detailed review, much less to EISs, unless Region III adopts more
stringent criteria or there are successful legal challenges.  Therefore,
no substantive determination of significant adverse or beneficial impact
will be made, and no negative declaration or EIS will be prepared.  It
is impossible to estimate the number of permit applications which US-EPA
Region III may be forced to review in detail under NEPA because of
public controversy.  Likewise uncertain is whether the threshold exemp-
tion policy for small surface mines will withstand court review, should
it be challenged.  Presumably any such exemption of new source mining
applications from NEPA review will have no effect on coordination require-
ments for environmental review under Federal laws independent of NEPA,
as discussed in a subsequent section of this report.

     Delineation of Study Areas

     Should US-EPA Region III adopt an areawide approach to environmental
reviews of applications or to EISs, it will have to delineate the regional
study areas.  These areas should be selected to maximize the probability
that adequate assessments can be prepared efficiently.  Alternatives for
this regionalization discussed here include political units, coal regions,
and watersheds.

        Political Unit Basis

     There are two prime categories of political units which might be
considered for areawide assessment or EIS purposes.  One is the State of
West Virginia as a whole.  The other is the individual counties or groups
of counties.  To assess adequately the effects of surface coal mining
throughout the State, a great deal of information must be assembled and
analyzed, and relatively few of these data are preserved by the WV-DNR.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   159
For some regions there is more information than for others, so action
in some regions could be delayed while E1S preparation was completed
for the last remaining areas, should US-EPA be compelled to elect to
follow the EIS route.  If the level of detail were not adequate
throughout the State, it is likely that a court challenge could force
supplementary analyses of specific areas, with substantial attendant
delay before permits could be issued, at least in those areas.

          [l]n Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, ...
          plaintiffs sought successfully to compel the Bureau
          of Land Management to prepare 'geographically indi-
          vidualized1 impact statements on the grazing program
          under the Taylor Grazing Act even though BLM was
          preparing an EIS on the entire grazing program.  The
          court held that substantial issues related to specific-
          areas should be dealt with in subsequent environmental
          impact statements  (CEQ 1975:646).

     A regionalization by county or groups of counties could overcome
some of the foregoing potential difficulties.  There is, however, no
current regulation of coal mines at the county level other than the State
moratorium prohibition on mining in 22 counties (of which only 7 have
potentially strippable coal resources), and there is not ongoing collection
of environmental information on this level.  (Census, mining production,
and employment statistics, however, generally are available by county.)
The boundaries of the 29 surface coal producing counties correspond only
in part with major drainage basins, although the effects of surface mining
are cumulated primarily within the drainage basins.

     Counties were grouped into eleven planning and development regions
by the West Virginia legislature during 1971 (Figure 38).  Regions consist
of from two to eight counties.  Only Region 7 consists entirely of surface
coal producing counties.  Regions 5, 9, and 10 currently produce no surface-
mined coal; all of the remaining regions contain both counties which do
and counties which do not produce surface-mined coal.  Like the counties
themselves, these regions do not strictly correspond to major watersheds.

     Surface Coal Mining Regions

     One regionalization of West Virginia "surface mining provinces" was
made by Smith and others (1974) on the basis of geological characteristics.
Mine drainage and water quality are influenced by the characteristics of
the overburden.  Three 'provinces were delineated in the State (Figure 39).
These provinces are rather large to serve as areas for environmental
analysis on surface mining, and they cut acress major river basins.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK 8, ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of VVAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                       160
                     Ritchne
                Win
        'Jackson i
 Cal-
i houn
                Roane
    !utnam
           Kanawha  f Clay
                                  ^Webstar
                                             Polahontas,
                          'Nicholas
Lincoln
                    Fsyette
                                 Greenbrier
                  Raieigh
                        ifSummsrs/
                                 Monroe
                     Mercer
         /icOoweil
                                                                    eral /Hampshire
                                                                     Hardy
                                                                                          /Jefferson
Figure  38.   West  Virginia planning and development  regions  established
    pursuant tc a  1971 Act of  the State Legislature  (West Virginia  Depar-
    ment of  Commerce 1976).

-------
                                           •^vji^   Horizon of ths Pittsburgh Cool



                                            /J?     BQS* of the Pennsylvania!) System
                           I   J;/
                           >- -h	
.Limit of minobie cool in Province 3



/Direction ef fhiehtning
of basins of depoaiiiori
                                                      Surface rmnit;§ provinces
           '">   r~'^f%ji*
    •<   <    -;^s    'ififN
    V^-V    \  JT*-  >
      X	i       \. ""
Figure 39.  Surface mining provinces of West Virginia based on geological

   characteristics  (Smith et al.  1974).

-------
                                   162
     Surface coal mining subregions were discussed in Chapter I of this
report.  These are areas of concentrated surface mining activity. Sub-
regions I, II, and III have generally similar coals throughout, but
Subregions IV and V include mining of dissimilar coals from one boundary
to another.  Mining operations within subregions tend to be characteris-
tic:  small mines in Subregions I and II; mountaintop operations in
Subregion V; a potential for markedly increased mining activity in Sub-
regions III and IV.  In Subregion I high sulfur concentrations in coal
and in some overburden rocks make acid mine drainage a prime environmental
concern; in Subregion V the steep slopes make erosion and sediment the
prime general hazards.  In Subregions II and IV sandstone overburden
presents reclamation difficulties.  Subregion III is primarily a little-
disturbed natural areas, and its major waterway has essentially no mine-
waste assimilation capacity.  Subregion III consists of one discrete
watershed.  The other Subregions can be subdivided internally by major
watersheds, as in the Chapter I discussion of their coal resources.

     Watersheds
     In West Virginia the mountains and drainage systems characteristically
extend through several counties.  The off-site effects of surface coal
mining on stream regimen, water quality, and aquatic biota are cumulative
in streams.  Several agencies have reported data on the major watersheds
of the State:  the US Geological Survey, the Army Corps of Engineers,
the several interagency committees which prepared comprehensive river
basin reports, and the ongoing Statewide river basin planning groups
funded by US-EPA under Section 303.e of FWPCA.  Thus at least partial data
bases are available for use in areawide watershed environmental reviews.

     It is reasonable to anticipate regulation of the surface coal mining
industry based in part on the capacity of receiving streams to accept
point and non-point discharges from the spoil banks, mine pits, and access
roads associated with both proposed or active coal mines and abandoned or
"reclaimed" inactive mine workings.  For this purpose areawide demarcation
by major watershed, with subdivision by minor basins, is essential.
The watershed basis for areawide assessment is amenable to rational sub-
division by subbasin as required by local circumstances, if the need
should arise to prepare separate areawide EISs for individual subbasins.

     There are fifteen major drainage basins in West Virginia which could
be the sites of new-source NPDES permits for surface coal mining.  Of
these, about twelve will have a substantial amount of permit activity
that may require priority attention.  The affected basin segments range
in size from about 300 square miles to more than 1,500 square miles,
with a mean size of about 900 square miles (Figure 37, Table 37), but
environmental inventory would be required only for the sections that
have surface minable coal reserves.
                                                    JACK McCORMICK 8. ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    163
 Table  37.   Watershed  sections  in West.Virginia  that will  be  affected  by
   surface  coal mining,  1977-1980.  An asterisk  (*) indicates major sub-
   basins that  probably  will  require  priority  treatment because  of  numerous
   permits.   Data on number of  active mines  from WV-DNR map current
   during October 1976.   Mines  and watersheds  are  depicted in Figure 7.
         BASIN


 Ohio (tributaries)

*Potomac (North Branch)
Approximate Size
 (square miles)

      500

      300
Number of Active
Surface Coal Mines

      6

     23
*Monongahela (Mainstem)
*Monongahela (West Fork)
*Tygart
*Cheat

 Little Kanawha (upper)
      600
      900
    1,400
    1,400

      500
     27
     76
     49
     50
*Kanawha (Mainstem)
*Coal
 Bluestone
*Gauley
*Elk

AGuya.ndotte

*Tug Fork
      600
      900
    1,100
      500
    1,400
    1,500

    1,000

      700
     37
     42
     21
      5
     64
     15

     25

     21
     Total
   13,300
    466

-------
                                   164
     Small mines (less than 100,000 tons/year) were scattered throughout
the State during 1975, the latest year for which production data are
available.  Large mines, more than 100,000 tons/year also were scattered
widely, but there were no large mines in the northern panhandle which
drains to the Ohio River or in Subregion II.  There were 26 large mines
in the Monongahela River basin (including tributaries)  and 20 in the
Kanawha River basin (including tributaries; data from US Bureau of Mines).

     A combination of watersheds and coal subregions probably would
constitute the best practical regionalization for areawide assessments
of the West Virginia surface mining industry.  The actual delineation
of areawide assessment regions can be made rationally on the basis of
the degree of geographical precision US-EPA can expect to develop.  The
smaller each region is, the more local detail can be developed, but the
greater the potential effort and expense.

     Priorities and Timing of EISs

     If US-EPA Region. Ill should adopt exclusively an individual-mine EIS
approach, rather than an areawide alternative, then the burden of effort
in production of information and the pressure for timely completion of
analyses would rest almost entirely with the applicant and/or his third-party
consultant for those mines that are judged to require EISs.  Applicants
who can provide timely environmental impact assessment reports (EIAs) or
third-party EISs probably would not be delayed by grouping with other
applicants into areawide EIS procedures, and US-EPA Region III could
process applications in the order received, rather than having to
designate its own regional priorities among areawide EISs.

     If US-EPA Region III should adopt an areawide EIS approach and
undertake the preparation of five, ten, or twelve drainage-basin area-
wide EISs, it then must determine which EISs are to be issued first, in
the event that it is not feasible administratively to process them all
simultaneously.  The same need for priorities probably would obtain if
the areawide environmental assessment option is selected, but presumably
such an option would not terminate issuance of permits in the same way
that a notice of intent to prepare EISs would.  Applications for permits
probably would be encouraged during the short run in those watersheds for
which areawide EISs are issued first.

     An additional influence on the timing of permit issuance under the
new-source NPDES program is the potential for court challenge of the EISs.
If an areawide EIS were challenged successfully, numerous permits pre-
sumably would be affected, whereas only one permit would be affected
under any single challenge, given an individual-mine EIS approach.

     Individual surface coal mine EISs from an area being covered in
an areawide EIS could'be issued during the period of preparation of the
areawide EIS.  This procedure was approved by the Supreme Court during
1976 in Kleppe versus Sierra Club:
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   165
          [w]hen approval of one proposal or action is independent
          of other proposed actions to be covered in a comprehensive
          impact statement — the single action may proceed before
          the final comprehensive EIS is complete if an impact state-
          ment is prepared on the single action and its effects are
          analyzed cumulatively, along with the likely effects of
          the other actions, in the comprehensive statement (CEQ 1976:11).

     Large surf ace-^mine operators typically hold more acreage under permit
at any one time than small operators, and therefore have a longer period
of operation during which they can mine in the absence of new permits than
small operators.  As of 1970, most companies held about one year's minable
acreage under permit in advance of mining operations (Stanford Research
Institute 1972:41).

     Cost of EIS and Assessment Preparation

     To maximize its capability to assure that environmental quality is
maximized in compliance with NEPA and FWPCA, US-EPA may attempt to
shift the costs of environmental review onto applicants to the maximum
extent possible.  US-EPA apparently lacks the statutory authority to
recover administrative costs from applicants for NPDES permits (Verbally,
Mr. Peter Cook, Office of Federal Activities, US-EPA, 15 February 1977).
For this reason, US-EPA recently adopted the procedure for third-party
agreements, as described in a previous section.

     It is probable that third-party agreements for areawide environmental
assessments or for areawide EISs virtually will be precluded, because
numerous competing mine operators of different sizes will be affected.
There consequently will be no opportunity for US-EPA Region III
equitably to shift the preponderant fraction of areawide costs onto the
applicants.  It is important, therefore, that US-EPA concentrate its funds
for areawide assessment or EIS 'preparation on those basins where new
surface mining activity will be greatest.  In geographical areas where
there are only a few, widely scattered new mines, the individual-mine
approach may be appropriate through 1980, or until the quantity of permit
applications increases.

     The assumption of areawide assessment or EIS costs by US-EPA probably
will benefit most the numerous small operators in West Virginia, who
typically have smaller profit margins than medium and large mining com-
panies (Stanford Research Institute 1972:76).  State permit and reclamation
requirements already are proportionately more expensive for small mines
than for large mines (Stanford Research Institute 1972:63), and the trend
during the past decade has been toward larger areas included in each
permit (Stanford Research Institute 1972:42).  It is reasonable to expect
that the environmental information US-EPA will have to require in order to
make negative declarations under an areawide procedure, however, will be
an additional operating cost for all applicants subjected to full detailed
NEPA review and "Best Practices".  As discussed in a subsequent section,
the first applicant who proposes to mine in a minor watershed may have to
bear a disproportionately large share of the cost of environmental
analyses for the watershed.

                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   166
     Environmental Reviex? Independent of NEPA

     Whether or not an areawide or individual-mine EIS is prepared, or a
detailed NEPA environmental review of new-source NPDES permit applications
is conducted, there are other Federal requirements for consultation and
review of Federcl permit actions under laws independent of the National
Environmental Policy Act.  For the surface coal mining industry in
West Virginia, these requirements will include in particular, but not
be limited to, the scrutiny of (1) historic, architectural, scientific,
and archaeologic resources, (2) wetlands, (3) floodplains, (4) wild
and scenic rivers, (5) threatened or endangered species, and (6)
agricultural land (40 CFR 6.920; 42 FR 2456-2457, 11 January 1977).

          Historic, Archaeological, and Related Resources

     The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593,
the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the 1973
Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation require that
care must be taken to identify cultural resources and minimize adverse
effects on them when Federal permits are issued.  Because surface mining
requires a drastic modification of existing conditions on the site of mining
and spoil disposal, and because it may affect adjacent lands adversely
through road construction, landslides, erosion, and flooding, the oppor-
tunity for adverse effects on historic, architectural, scientific, and
archaeological resources exists.  Contact with the West Virginia State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has confirmed that existing inventories
of West Virginia cultural resources are incomplete, and individual profes-
sional assessments of each proposed surface mine site will be necessary to
determine whether any resources that may be eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places are present (By letter, Mr. Leonard
M. Davis> SHPO, West Virginia Antiquities Commission, 5 November 1976).

     US-EPA proposed guidelines for EISs on new-source NPDES permits
allowed the US-EPA to request that applicants consult with the SHPO to
demonstrate US-EPA compliance with the requirements cited in the pre-
ceding paragraph (40 CFR 6.920.2.3; 40 FR 47717, 9 October 1975).
Reference to the SHPO was deleted from 40 CFR 6.920 in the final regu-
lations (42 FR 2456, 11 January 1977).  The West Virginia SHPO is likely
to insist that applicants routinely perform a professional survey of project
sites before his consultation can be completed.  At present, such surveys

1
  US-EPA apparently has not applied these non-NEPA coordination requirements
     to existing-source NPDES permits, although there is no published routine
     exemption of existing sources from any Federal law except NEPA.
     Because existing surface coal mines typically can affect the listed
     resources adversely to the same extent as proposed new sources 	
     at least on their holdings of as-yet unmined .-land	US-TSPA
     may seek to apply these requirements to existing-source permits in
     advance of any implementation of new-source regulations.  Because
     of its generally transitory nature, the surface coal mining industry
     differs substantially from many industries regulated under NPDES.
     A vigorous enforcement of the existing coordination requirements for
     existing mines at least would afford some partial measure of scrutiny
     to selected resources prior to the implementation of the new-source
     program.

-------
                                   167
are not routinely accomplished by applicants for surface mine permits.
It will be essential that US-EPA inform applicants of this responsibility,
so that timely surveys reduce the opportunity for avoidable delays during
the permit review process.  It is the opinion of the West Virginia SHPO
that unknown cultural resources probably exist in the" regions where
surface mining can take place, and that these resources must be identified
by professional survey, if adverse effects from future surface mining
are to be reduced, avoided, or mitigated.

     Wetlands

     There are limited areas of freshwater wetlands in West Virginia which
potentially can be affected through surface coal mining by means of erosion
and siltation or acid mine drainage in the watersheds above them.  Known
wetlands are inventoried in Chapter II of this report;  a current inventory
probably would reveal others.  Greenbrier, Preston, and Tucker Counties
currently have surface coal mining; Pocahontas County has surface minable
reserves.

     Coastal Zones and Coastal Waters

     West Virginia is an inland State, and coastal resources will not be
affected by surface coal mining, except for that fraction of surface-mined  coal
which enters international trade.

     Floodplains

     New surface coal mining in West Virginia potentially could affect agricultural,
industrial, commercial, or residential development in currently undeveloped
floodplains.   US-EPA, therefore, must be prepared during new-source NPDES
reviews to "take flood hazards into account when evaluating plans and  ...
encourage land use appropriate to the degree of hazard involved"
(Section 1.4., Executive Order 11296, 10 August 1966).
                              f                                 "
     Wild and Scenic Rivers

     The people of West Virginia derive a significant part of their income
from the tourist and recreation industry.  The travel industry accounts
for 7% of employed West Virginians, as compared with 8.4% in (underground
plus surface) mining and 4.8% in the chemical industry (WV-DOC 1976:58).
Wild and scenic rivers are important attractions for visitors to the State.
Such rivers have been designated, and others are in the process of being
designated, under State and Federal legislation, as indicated in Chapter II
of this report.  For example, the Cranberry River (a tributary of the Gauley
River) is protected from impoundments by the Natural Stream Preservation
Act of 1969 (West Virginia Code 20-5B).  The Cranberry River Basin contains
strippable coal reserves, and the degree of protection by the State Act
against adverse impacts from mining remains to be demonstrated.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    168
     Dams

     Surface coal mining probably will not entail the control or  structural
modification of streams, so coordination relating to these activities
seldom will be required for NPDES permit applications.

     Imperiled Biota

     A comprehensive, computerized inventory of known stands of unique
vegetation and of habitats for animals classified as threatened or
endangered is being completed by the WV-DNR in cooperation with The Nature
Conservancy.  When this inventory is operationalized (1977 or 1978), it
will be possible to ascertain conveniently whether proposed surface mining
on specific sites is likely to affect these known resources, by contacting
these agencies.  In order to protect the resources, the results of the
inventory are unlikely to be published.  US-EPA Region III therefore may
find it desirable to require routine formal coordination between  appli-
cants and these agencies to insure early identification of important biotic
resources.

     The data in the inventory will require cautious use.  It .is  doubtful
that the computerized inventory ever will be complete.   Such data,
however useful for rapid environmental screening, are no substitute for
on-site field inspection during full NEPA reviews.

          Agricultural Land

     It is possible that surface mining in West Virginia occasionally
will affect at least locally-significant amounts of prime agricultural
land adversely, and the Secretary of Agriculture occasionally may have to
be consulted.

 Information  Required From Applicants

     The US-EPA has prepared a New Source and Environmental Questionnaire
that is to be completed by applicants for NPDES discharge permits.  This
questionnaire provides a limited amount of undocumented information on
the environment and on potential impacts of new source industries, but
the questionnaire is not tailored specifically to the surface coal mining
industry in West Virginia.   The current questionnaire used by US-EPA
Region III is outlined in the Appendix.  On the basis of the NS/EQ, US-EPA
must decide (within 5 to 45 days after the proposed mine has been deter-
mined to be a new source)  upon the exact scope of the environmental
assessment that the applicant will be required to make — none,  an EIA,
or a third-party EIS (42 FR 2450, 11 January 1977).

     The US-EPA (1975a) also has prepared a manual of "Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines for Selected New Source Industries," which  is to
guide applicants for permits in preparing environmental impact assessment
reports (EIAs) on projects that will have significant adverse environmental
impacts.  These guidelines presumably would be used also by consultants
in developing third-party-agreement EISs.  The information required by
these guidelines is much more comprehensive than that required by  the NS/EQ.

                                                    JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                        a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    169.
To some extent the guidelines request information that an applicant
proposing a surface coal mine already must develop for the several West
Virginia mining permit applications.  Because the US-EPA (40 CFR 6.908.b;
42 FR 2452, 11 January 1977):

          shall not require the applicant to gather raw data
          or to perform analyses either of which duplicate
          existing data or the results of existing analyses
          available to EPA,

it presumably is essential that US-EPA Region III require the applicant
to submit completed copies of all State mining applications as part of
his EIA when a full NEPA review is conducted.   The content of the West
Virginia applications is compared to US-EPA guidelines in Table 38.

     The State applications require detailed information on the proposed
mining methods to be used, on reclamation plans including revegetation
and sediment control, and limited original data on existing water quality.
In addition, information on existing conditions of topography, geology,
soils, hydrology, and land uses at and in the immediate vicinity (within
1,000 feet) of the mine must be presented.  According to State law
the Director of the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources is
empowered to delete areas from mine applications that


           are impossible to reclaim either by natural growth or
          by technological activity [because] if surface mining
          is conducted in these certain areas such operations may
          naturally cause stream pollution, landslides, the
          accumulation of stagnant water, flooding, the destruction
          of land for agricultural purposes, the destruction of
          aesthetic values, [and] the destruction of recreational
          areas and the future use of the area and surrounding
          areas, thereby destroying or impairing the health and-
          property rights of others, and in general creating
          hazards dangerous to life and property so as to constitute
          an imminent and inordinate peril to the welfare of the
          State, and such areas shall not be mined by the surface-
          mining process  (Code of West Virginia 20-6-11).
1
  At present the West Virginia instruction booklet for surface mining permit
    applications advises applicants to submit the "Short Form C" existing-
    source NPDES application form to US-EPA well in advance of State appli-
    cations (West Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association 1974) .
    This procedure can be revised for new-source NPDES applications, to
    avoid needless duplication of effort. The current booklet does  not mention
    the new-source 'NPDES program, or the new-source pre-application consultation
    recommended by US-EPA during 1974.
                                                    JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    170
Table 38.  Outline of information requirements for environmental impact
  assessments of proposed new source permits for surface coal mines in
  West Virginia., based on US-EPA (1975a). Underscored information is
  required for current State mining permit applications.
Description of Proposed New Source
   Overview
   Summary of major features
   Detailed description of proposed mine operations
      Haul roads
      Mining schedule
      Methods to remove and stockpile topsoil
      Mining methods and sequence
      Blasting
      Handling of toxic and acid-forming materials
      Methods to control overburden after placement
      Underground workings to be encountered
      Methods to seal deep mines
      Methods to seal auger holes
      Methods for drainage, control and sediment retention
      Nature of wastewater discharges and methods to treat runoff
      Regrading methods and schedule
      Revegetation procedures
      State bond requirements
      Energy requirements
      Air and solid waste pollution sources
      Efficiency of proposed coal resource recovery
Environment Without the Proposed Action
   Description of baseline conditions
      Meteorology and climatology
      Air quality
      Topography
      Geology                                                ' ,
      Soils
      Water quantity
      Water quality
      Existing and potential water pollution problems
      Water uses
      Water quality management efforts in the watershed
      Flood hazards
      Terrestrial biology
      Other environmentally sensitive areas
      Local land uses and trends
      Population projections and economic forecasts
      Other projects  and public  programs  in  the  area
   Projection of conditions without the project

-------
                                                                      WAPORA
Table .38.  Outline of information requirements (concluded).
Assessment of Impacts
   Identification of impacts
      Pollution control facilities, equipment, and manpower
      Monitoring systems
      Regulations and performance standards
      Uncertainties of waste generation
      Appropriateness of treatment system
      Labor forcerequirements
      Payroll
      Noise generation
      Transportation requirements and effects
      Effects on project site
      Potentials for accidents and spills
      Effects on environmentally sensitive areas
      Effects on population levels
      Effects on other and public projects
      Effects on land use plans
   Description and evaluation of impacts
      Methodology
      Significance and magnitude
      Inevitable and possible effects
      Cumulative effects
      Primary and secondary effects
      Long-term and short-term impacts
      Reversibility of impacts
   Aggregation of impacts
   Comparison of impacts with future conditions without the project

Alternatives to the Proposed New Source
   Alternative mining methods
   Postponement pending development of new technology
   Alternative mine sites
   Alternative water quality control facilities
   Alternative reclamation and revegetation procedures

-------
                                   172

 The Legislature did not delineate "these certain areas" or cause them to be
 delineated on maps.  The Director of WV-DNR must delete from State
 surface mining permits any areas on which mine operations will constitute a
 hazard to any dwelling house,  public building, school,  church, cemetery,
 commercial or institutional building, public road,  stream, lake, or other public
 property; and he must not approve surface mining in areas within one hundred
 feet of any public road, stream, lake or other public property (except for
 haul roads or stream dredging),  or where the operation adversely will affect
 a State, National, or interstate park,unless adequate screening and other
 approved measures are to be utilized and the permit application so provides.

     Surface mine applicants must publish notice of  their permit applications
in the counties of the proposed mines according to a State-mandated format,
and evidence of this publication becomes a part of the State mining appli-
cation (See•the Appendix).  Written protests are- accepted by the State at
least 30 days following the initial date of notice publication.  Reputed
owners of land within 500 feet must be notified by certified or registered
mail and informed of their right to protest to the State during the 10 days
following notification.  Should US-EPA seek to utilize this opportunity for
public involvement in NPDES decisionmaking, it should explore a joint require-
ment with the State, so that public notices could include the information
that a Federal as well as a State permit will be required, together with
the address for letters of protest directed to US-EPA Region III.  The added
information probably would add a minimal additional  burden to an applicant,
if it were incorporated routinely in the text of public notices.  Protests
could alert US-EPA personnel to mines in need of special environmental
scrutiny.

     Information that is available from State mining applications differs
from the information requirements of the NPDES "Guidelines" document
 (US-EPA 1975a) in three basic ways.  First, the range of subjects addressed
by the State applications is less comprehensive than the new-source
guidelines.  The State requirements are specific to mining, reclamation,
and discharge aspects, but they do not cover the .environment generally.
Second, they present a single proposal by the applicant, with no considera-
tion of alternative methods of accomplishing the purpose of the applicant.
Third, they address only one mine, not the total and cumulative effects
of all surface, or surface plus deep, mines and other sources of pollutants
in the watershed.

     US-EPA Region III could develop a checklist that may be furnished to
applicants along with the NS/EQ to cover site-specific sensitive resources
and complement any areawide data compiled by US-EPA Region III, depending
on the usefulness of the additional information for screening applications
prior to  full NEPA review, and for providing a basis for non-NEPA coordination
activities which will be necessary irrespective of the NEPA review.

     The  following discussion of water quality aspects of  the current
NS/EQ may be useful to illustrate the need for such a checklist.  At
present,  only one question on the NS/EQ deals with potential impacts on
 the aquatic environment  (Question IV.l.d.):
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   173
          Are any of the normal expected pollutant concentrations
          in the discharge known to you likely to adversely affect
          human or other plant or animal health or the aquatic
          environment?  yes [  ]   no [  ]

          If yes, explain, indicating what steps will be taken
          to reduce or eliminate such potential damage.

No supporting information or analysis for the answer given to the question
is implied or requested, and no need for any professional competence to
make the required assessment of impacts is stated.  It will be difficult
for the US-EPA either to concur or to question the answer given by  the
applicant without supporting information.  The NS/EQ does not state
that such supporting information must be attached to the questionnaire
form.  This type of problem is characteristic of the NS/EQ, and it  may
affect any environmental screening or NEPA review based on the NS/EQ.

     Public Involvement

     As indicated on the preceding page, US-EPA Region III could cooperate
with the State of West Virginia to insert notice of the fact that Federal
as well as State permits will be required for new surface coal mines in
the State-mandated standard format for local public notices.  This  could
be part of the public notification required in 40 CFR 6.906.g.3.  A second
opportunity for the public notice is furnished by the required publication
of negative declarations or notices of intent at the conclusions of NEPA
environmental reviews  (40 CFR  6.908.d.l  and 2).   It is not  clear whether
there  is to be any public notice, if applications are  exempted  from NEPA
review because of threshold tonnage exemptions with or without  preliminary
environmental screening, because this potential procedure  is not covered  by
existing regulations.  Presumably there  still would be opportunity  for
public comment on the notice of intent  to issue the NPDES  permit.
                                                    JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   174
IV.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

     As US-EPA develops its final regulations for the coal mining industry
under the new-source NPDES permit program, it must weigh the potential
effects of those regulations on the West Virginia surface coal mining
industry and on the human environment.  During the near future, US-EPA
Region III will administer the new-source NPDES program for West Virginia.
It therefore must develop a regulatory strategy for compliance with NEPA,
other Federal environmental statutes, and the regulations of US-EPA
and other Federal agencies that are applicable to Federally issued new-
source NPDES permits.

     From the analyses conducted for this report, it appears that an
areawide approach to environmental review of new-source coal surface-
mining applications will be the soundest way to achieve compliance
with NEPA and other relevant Federal requirements.  As US-EPA has noted,

          [t]he most effective way to comply with NEPA on new
          source coal mine permits is to assess new coal mining
        .  activity on an areawide basis.  [An] environmental
          analysis ... will document the full range of impact ...
          apply NEPA effectively to new mining operations
          and at this same time avoid significant disruption
          to the permitting of new and needed operations that
          are environmentally sound (41 FR 19840, 13 May 1976).

The form such an analysis will take remains undefined.  US-EPA Region III
is reluctant to prepare one or more formal EISs on the West Virginia
surface mining industry, because such a procedure apparently will stop
the issuance of any new-source NPDES permits for the industry that have
not undergone their own formal EIS reviews.  It therefore appears to be
the prudent course for US-EPA to proceed immediately with areawide environ-
mental assessments on priority mining areas for in-house use during the
review of permit applications.  As these inventories and analyses become
available, they will facilitate the rapid, routine environmental review
of applications by comparison of proposals with maps of known sensitive
areas, in combination with routine consultations between applicants and
other agencies (for example, the SHPO and West Virginia Antiquities
Commission).  They therefore will form a crucial part of the NEPA environ-
mental review process that culminates in the public notice of either a
negative declaration or a notice of  intent  (and  eventual draft  and  final EISs)
They will help applicants prepare necessary environmental  analyses  with a
minimum of effort  devoted to  retrieval  of  known  facts,  and they  will  provide
information to related US-EPA programs  and  to. other  agencies  concerned  with
the environment of  the State.

     Depending on US-EPA resources available  to accomplish the areawide
inventories, they should be established as ongoing collations of environ-
mental information, which are updated routinely either continuously or  at
regular intervals.  US-EPA Region III should develop water quality models
for wastes from the mining industry in West Virginia, together with a
precisely specified list of the data requirements necessary to apply the
models.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   175
When an-individual applicant proposes to mine a minor watershed that
previously has not been inventoried, he legitimately may be required to
develop all sections of the inventory for the watershed to the appro-
priate level of detail, and calibrate the appropriate model.  Thus,
for example, he might be required to investigate aspects of surface
hydrology, water quality, aquatic biology, and existing point and non-
point discharges throughout his minor watershed; but archaeological
resources, only on and adjacent to his.proposed mine site.  Each
applicant should be expected to utilize all information previously
developed for his watershed, and to update and supplement the existing
information as appropriate.  In this way each applicant benefits by
environmental analysis that has gone on previously, and the risk that
US-EPA will make piecemeal decisions is minimized.  Sensitive areas
least able to accept further mining become increasingly well known,
and mine operators can plan means to minimize adverse effects or .
mitigate unavoidable adverse effects positively.

     Threshold exemptions from routine,  detailed NEPA review and from
"Best Practices" based on tonnage of coal produced are beset with practical
difficulties of implementation to the West Virginia surface coal
industry, as described in Chapter III.  They have not yet been described
by proposed regulations in the Federal Register or in final written
guidance to Regional Administrators, and their effects on (1) the public
involvement aspects of NEPA review and (2) the accomplishment of inter-
agency coordination requirements based on laws other than NEPA are
difficult to anticipate. Such exemptions will have to be justified  fully
in EISs on  the overall US-EPA new-source NPDES program  for  the surface
coal mining  industry in West Virginia.

     Finally, a comprehensive NEPA review and interagency coordination
in accordance with current US-EPA guidelines (40 CFR 6; 42 FR 2450-2459,
11 January 1977) cannot be achieved unless the NS/EQ questionnaire
currently being furnished by US-EPA Region III to West Virginia new-
source NPDES applicants is supplemented by additional information requests
to the surface coal mining applicants.  The summary questions of the
current NS/EQ do not address the full range of issues raised by the
US-EPA guidelines document for new-source industrial NPDES permits
(US-EPA 1975a).  Moreover, the current questionnaire does not require,
and indeed does not suggest, that documentation of assertions made in
it be attached.  Thus it will not be possible for US-EPA Region III
either to concur in or to challenge the conclusions of an applicant
based on his data.

     US-EPA  is embarking on a major, long-term regulatory program with
respect to the West Virginia surface coal mining industry.  The industry
has in the past caused vast, irreparable damage to the human environment
of the State and of the Nation.  It was not the charge of this report to
document such damage; the reader is referred particularly to the numerous
Congressional documents listed in the Bibliography.  State regulations have
curbed some  of the past excesses of the industry, but the Federal mandates
for environmental scrutiny and   •e.ulation of the industry are considerably
broader than parallel West Vir   •'--a requirements at the present time.  The
consultant therefore recommend--    •• following actions to US-EPA:

                                                    JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    176

     1.  Initiate Areawide Environmental Assessments

     US-EPA Region  III  should  identify  the resources  it realistically
 can allocate  to  environmental  assessment for  the West Virginia  new-
 source NPDES  program, and begin  to  compile assessments for  those  regions
 which it views as having the highest priority,  on  the basis of  infor-
 mation presented in Chapter I  of this report  and other sources.   US-
 EPA Region III may  opt  to consult directly the .public, the  surface mining
 industry, and the  State of West  Virginia in setting its priorities.   The
 data accumulated and analyses  performed for the West Virginia surface
 mining environmental inventory and  assessment should be coordinated
 closely with  any similar efforts for new-source NPDES environmental
 review of the underground mining industry and of other industries in
 the State, because  much of the information gathered will be equally
 applicable to other industrial activities as  to surface coal mining.

    The consultant  recommends  that  US-EPA Region III  give high  priority
 to areawide assessments in Mining Subregions  I  (main  section),  II, and  V
 (Figure 7).   These  are  the major current mining areas of the State, and
 clearly will  have major continuing  activity during the near-term  future.
 Interruptions to mining activity in these areas could cause substantial
 economic dislocation.

     Relatively  low priority can be given to  other regions  for  the follow-
 ing reasons:  The Ohio  River section of Subregion  I has only a  few small
 mines, which  can be reviewed individually.  Subregion III,  the  Shavers
 Fork Basin, is controlled mainly by the US Forest  Service,  which  at
 present opposes  surface mining and  has  received court support for its
 position.  The scattered, individual mines on surface land  not  owned
 by  the Federal Government can  be reviewed individually.  Subregion IV has
 relatively little  current surface mining, and most new activity will  be
 by  large mines   that may be covered by  "Best  Practices".  These can be
 given full environmental review  as  they are received.

     US-EPA Region  III  should  review its priorities periodically, and
 alter them as future circumstances  and  the flow of permit applications
 dictate.

     An appropriate geographical scale  for the  presentation of  environ-
 mental information  is  1:24,000,  the scale of  the 7.5-minute topographical
 quadrangles published by  the United States Geological Survey.   Excerpts
 from appropriate quadrangles already are required  by  the NS/EQ.  Any
 smaller scale is likely to preclude accurate  local delineation  of sensi-
•tive resources  in mountainous  West  Virginia.  State mining  applications
 currently require  engineering  drawings  at a scale  of  1:6,000.   Unless the
 US-EPA is unwilling to  accept  State review and  biweekly  inspection of
 mine engineering aspects  of  surface mining applications,  it probably  is
 not necessary for  US-EPA  routinely  to  conduct its  environmental review
 at  such a large  scale,  at least  until  significant  resources have  been
 identified and  proposed avoidance of  effects  or mitigation  for  unavoidable
 effects are under  scrutiny within individual  mine  sites during  detailed NEPA reviews.

     The areawide inventories  should be made  available to applicants
 for their use in avoiding areas  known to have sensitive .resources, and
 known therefore  to  require extended periods of  coordination to  reduce
 adverse effects.  Should there be successful  court challenges to  US-EPA
 procedures which require EISs, the  areawide effort already  accomplished
 will reduce the  time required  for completion  of the EISs by US-EPA.

                                                     JACK WcCORMICK &  ASSOCIATES,  INC.
                                                         a subsidiary  of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   177

     2.  Pass Costs of Environmental Analyses to Applicants

     US-EPA apparently lacks at present the statutory authority to impose
fees to cover the processing of NPDES applications (Verbally, Mr. Peter
Cook, Office of Federal Activities, US-EPA, Washington DC,  15 February 1977)
Other agencies^ have been granted such authority, and US-EPA should
investigate the potential for equivalent enabling legislation if necessary.
1
  The US Department of the Interior, for example,  was granted authority to
     charge fees for processing applications, for  other administrative
     costs, and for associated activities such as  environmental monitoring
     and EISs, related to rights of ways for oil and gas development
     across Federal lands by the Mineral Leasing Act (Title 1, Section 28;
     P.L. 93-153).  This authority has been implemented through a variable
     fee based on the extent of Federal lands utilized.  If the calculated
     non-returnable fee is less than $10 thousand, then it is the total
     payable fee.  If the fee is greater than $10  thousand, the Department
     has accepted segmented payments.  The Interior Department's authority
     to impose a filing and service (including environmental review) fee
     on applicants recently was reaffirmed by the  Organic Act (P.L. 94-579).
     Regulations for implementing this authority are under development
     (By telephone, Mr. W. Downey, Finance Division, USDI, Washington DC,
     22 February 1977).  USDI typically retains a  consultant directly to
     prepare an EIS, without need for third-party  agreements (Verbally/
     Ms. L.K. Stone, P.E., Chief, Energy Facilities Staff, USDI, 15 February 1977)

The Corps of Engineers recently established a fee  of $100 to process commercial
     permit applications under Section 404 of FWPCA and other acts which
     regulate activities in navigable waters (33 CFR 209.120; 41 FR 240:
     55524, 21 December 1976).

The Delaware River Basin Commission  (DRBC), an Interstate Agency, also
     imposes an environmental review fee on non-public applicants for
     projects that are within its purview under Section 3.8 of the Delaware
     River Basin Compact and  in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
     published by DRBC.  An environmental questionnaire must be submitted
     by the applicant as part of the information required by DRBC.  DRBC
     then  determines whether  the applicant must prepare an environmental
     assessment report.  DRBC has established a $1,500 fee to cover
     staff review of such a report.  The notice of intent to issue a negative
     declaration  (with a 15-day period for objections) or tiS then is
     published by DRBC in local newspapers.  Should an EIS be judged
     necessary, applicants are required to pay a $30 thousand environmental
     fee and are advised to expect a minimum delay of seven months in
     project approval.  In addition to these environmental processing fees,
     there is also a filing fee equivalent of 0.1% of the total estimated
     construction cost  (including land acquisition, planning, and related
     expenses) up to$ 1 million in construction cost plus 0.02% of the
     excess over $1 million:  the filing fee for any project, however, is
     not to exceed $50 thousand (exclusive of environmental'fees; by
     telephone, Mr. W. Thursby, Head, Environmental Unit, DRBC,
     22 February 1977).

Several States have similar cost-recovery mechanisms.  The State of
     Washington imposes a $25,000 fee on major projects that undergo
     comprehensive, review through its "one-stop" permit program.  The
     New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection also imposes

-------
                                   178

The internalization of the maximum portion of environmental assessment
costs within the surface coal mining industry, as opposed to the defray-
ment of these costs out of general public funds, is a desirable goal for  •
US-EPA, because the real environmental analysis, review, and protection
costs of surface mining should be reflected in the price of coal.
Such costs long were reflected only in the deterioration of the West
Virginia environment (-Stanford Research Institute 1972).           •  •

     Until US-EPA can obtain authority for direct pass-through of its
staff and consultant environmental costs to NPDES applicants, it should
encourage the adoption of third-party agreements for those applications
that will require individual-mine EISs.   In this way US-EPA resources
can be husbanded for use on areawide assessments and on regulatory
strategy development.  There is at present insufficient experience with
third-party agreements to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages
of this arrangement.  It would no doubt be preferable, however, for
US-EPA to hire its own consultant directly to prepare an EIS, because
any appearance of conflict of interest on the consultant's part that
could arise under a third-party agreement thereby can be eliminated.

     3.  Routinely Require Sufficient Information From Applicants

     The current New Source and Environmental Questionnaire used by
US-EPA Region III should be supplemented, so that it (1) routinely requires
interagency coordination (particularly for cultural resources and biological
resources) and (2) provides the documentation on which assertions are
based.  This supplement should be designed for maximum utility, given the
procedure US-EPA Region III adopts with respect to any threshold exemp-
tions of mines  from detailed  environmental review.

     4.  Develop Geographically Tailored Regulatory Strategy

     Probably the strongest justification for dispensing with a full-
scale NEPA review of new-source surface mining applications from West
Virginia would be that US-EPA Region III has developed a geographically
sensitive regulatory strategy to prevent damage to sensitive resources.
A comprehensive, ongoing environmental inventory and modeling analysis would
provide the basis for US-EPA Region III to issue surface-mine discharge
standards more stringent than those adopted Nationwide for appropriate
watersheds in West Virginia,  and could insure the maintenance of State
water quality standards.  Such a strategy cannot be developed on the
basis of existing information.  It would represent a significant advance
over the current State practice of water quality reviews aimed always
at single mines in isolation.

     5.  Apply Environmental Coordination Requirements to Existing-
         Source Surface Mines

     As discussed in Chapter III, US-EPA heretofore apparently has not
applied the several Federal laws and regulations that require interagency
coordination regarding certain classes of resources to the issuance of
existing-source NPDES permits.  There apparently is no specific authority


     a variable fee for projects  which it reviews  under  the Coastal
     Area  Facility Review Act (Chapter 185,  New Jersey Laws of  1973).
     For residential projects there is a  $500 filing fee plus $10 per
     proposed dwelling unit;  for  non-residential or mixed uses,  the
     fee  is $1,000 plus $10 per developed acre.
                                                    JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   179
for exempting existing sources from these regulations comparable to
40 CFR 125.43.  Given the fact that these requirements offer a measure
of environmental protection to resources not addressed by West Virginia
laws, and given the fact that numerous existing-source NPDES permits
covering an unknown, but presumably substantial, quantity of unmined
land are to be issued for the West Virginia surface mining industry,
there is apparently an opportunity for US-EPA to carry out its mandate
for environmental protection over and above its eventual implementation
of the new-source NPDES program.  As of March 1977, there were more than
1,000 existing-source NPDES permit applications pending with US-EPA
Region III (Verbally, Mr. L. Benning, Chief, West Virginia Section,
US-EPA Region III, 15 March 1977).  It appears unlikely that the anti-
cipated "batch processing" of these applications will optimize environmental
protection, unless care is taken to implement non-NEPA coordination prior
to permit issuance.  Granted that some of the mines will have completed
operations and reclamation prior to NPDES permit issuance, there never-
theless is likely to be previously unmined land with environmental resources
that, if they are recognized, could be afforded some measure of Federal
protection.

     6.  Coordinate Regulatory Program for Surface Mines With NPDES
         Analyses of Deep Mines and Other US-EPA Wastewater Programs

     US-EPA Region III should coordinate its regulatory strategy for
the West Virginia surface coal mining industry with any inventory or
monitoring efforts that may be underway for deep mines or other US-EPA
wastewater management programs in West Virginia.  Information on current
and proposed point and nonpoint discharges to waterways that are proposed
to be affected by new-source surface coal mines is basic to any assessment
of the impacts of the proposed new sources.  Likewise, information
generated through surface coal mine assessments will be valuable to
other regulatory efforts in West Virginia.  In particular, the new-source
NPDES program portends a major quantity of recordkeeping over a period of
many years.  US-EPA Region III should give careful thought to the design
of an appropriate information and retrieval system for the data, and
particularly for their display on file maps.

     7.  Avoid Duplication of Regulatory Effort

     Because the resources which US-EPA Region III can apply to environ-
mental review of new-source NPDES permit applications are limited, they
should be utilized in a manner which maximizes the amount of environmental
planning that actually is accomplished in accordance with the mandate of
NEPA.  US-EPA should avoid duplication of effort expended by other agencies,
and instead should rely on routine interagency consultation during the
processing of permit applications.  For example, it would be unnecessary
for US-EPA Region III to attempt to duplicate the engineering review of
surface mine applications that currently is performed by the WV-DNR
Division of Reclamation, unless there is an extraordinary concern with a
particular mine.  When there are violations of water quality standards
and discharge limitations, or other infractions or overlapping State and
Federal regulations, US-EPA should cooperate with the State to maximize
the likelihood that the violations are corrected and environmental damages
are repaired.  The central thrust of US-EPA efforts should be to make
 •                                                   JACK McCORMjCK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                        a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   180
certain that Federal environmental mandates are folloxved  for  those
aspects not covered by State or local authority.

     8.  Enforce "Best Practices" and NPDES Permit Conditions Vigorously

     The present report deals only with implementation of environmental
assessments under the new-source NPDES program for surface coal mines
in West Virginia, not with enforcement after permits are  issued.  The
consultant is struck, however, by the apparently massive  commitment  of
US-EPA Region III resources to enforcement that will be necessary to
insure actual mining in accordance with NPDES permit conditions and
especially with existing drafts of "Best Practices" guidelines.  Surface
coal mining in West Virginia increasingly takes place in  remote, high-
elevation areas spread geographically across much of the  State, where
the potential for environmental damage to sensitive resources is great.
It will be no small matter for US-EPA Region III to assure compliance
with detailed requirements of individual NPDES permits or "Best Practices",
Should enforcement be inadequate, however, regulations on paper will
have little meaning in the West Virginia mountains.
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    181
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND AUTHORSHIP

     Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc., is pleased to acknowledge the
generous assistance provided by various organizations, agencies, and
individuals during the preparation of this report, October 1976 through
March 1977. • Specific information is identified by source in  the
body of the text.  Special thanks are due to Mr. Roger Hall and his
colleagues at the Division of Reclamation (Benjamin Greene, Director),
to Mr. John Hall at the Division of Water Resources, to Mr. Robert
Mathis at the Division of Planning, and to Mr. James Rawson at the
Division of Wildlife Resources, West Virginia Department of Natural
Resources; to Mr. Thomas Arkle, Jr., and the West Virginia Geological
Survey (Robert Erwin, Director) both for guidance and for the map that
forms Figure 2; to John Sturm at the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining
and Reclamation Association; to the West Virginia Antiquitie's Commission;
and to Mr. Frank Pelurie at The Nature Conservancy.  Guidance concerning
US-EPA policy was provided by the project monitor, Mr. Robert Blaszczak,
and his colleagues at US-EPA Region III, Philadelphia PA, and by Mr.
Peter Cook and the staff at the Office of Federal Activities, Washington
DC.  Errors of fact, omission and interpretation are the responsibility
of Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc.

     Basis information for this report was compiled by Urbdata Associates,
Inc., Greensburg PA (coal production and projections, by seam and by
county), by Elizabeth C. Righter, M.A. (archaeological and historic
resources), by E. Clark Boli, M.F. (natural areas of biological interest),
by Frank A. Camp, Ph.D. (framework for aquatic chemical and biological
analyses), by Alfred M. Hirsch, Ph.D. (surface and groundwater resources),
and James A. Schmid, Ph.D. (other resources).  Coordination with West
Virginia personnel was the responsibility of Alfred M. Hirsch, Ph.D.,
who also prepared the .analysis of the West Virginia  coal mining industry.
Guidance on regulatory strategy was provided by Jack McCormick, Ph.D.
Graphics were prepared by William Bale and Jerome Gold; manuscript was
typed by Nancy Dyer and Elizabeth Shaffer.  Basis documents were edited
into final form and the analysis of regulatory issues was prepared by
James A. Schmid, Ph.D.
Approved by:
Frank A. Camp, Ph.D.                         James/A.  Schmid,  Ph.D.
Vice President                               /vice/President
Alt-fed M. Hirsch,  Ph.D.
Executive Manager
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   182
Appendix A.  Outlines of Current Permit Application Information Requirements


         1.  NPDES New Source Environmental Questionnaire (NS/EQ)

         2.  NPDES Permit Application, Short Form C

         3.  West Virginia Prospecting Permit for Surface Coal resources

         4.  West Virginia Surface Mining Permit Application (Form DR-4)

         5.  West Virginia Mining and Reclamation Plan (Form DR-5)

         6.  West Virginia Mine Drainage Application

         7.  Drainage Plans in Accordance with WV-DNR Drainage Handbook

         8.  Final Grading Maps and West Virginia Final Planting Plan
               Report (Form DR-8)

         9.  West Virginia Final Inspection Report (Form DR-9)

        10.  West Virginia Surface Mine Inspection Report (Form DR-6)

        11.  West Virginia Report of Non-Compliance (Form DR-15)

        12.  West Virginia Inspection of Non-Compliance (Form DR-16)

        13.  West Virginia Mine Production Report

-------
                                     183
NS/EQ   NEW SOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGES, NPDES SYSTEM


I.    Identification of Applicant and Facility
      1.  Applicant's name
      2.  Applicant's address
      3.  Location of proposed source
      4.  Applicant's contact person
      5.  SIC code, for facility
      6.  Date discharge is to begin
      7.  New facility or alteration of existing facility

II.   Status of Construction
      1.  Date of land purchase or lease
      2.  Date options expire on alternative sites
      3.  Contractual obligations committed to new source
      4.  Expected contractual obligations to be made
      5.  Date land clearing begins
      6.  Date excavation begins
      7.  Date other site preparation begins
      8.  Date erection of structures begins
      9.  Date equipment is installed
     10.  Expected total cost of facility

III.  Facility Description
      1.  Nature of wastewater discharge source
      2.  Site plan of facility
      3.  Features of site
          a.  Map showing location of source
          b.  Nature of land use in area
          c.  Natural features of area
          d.  Waterway affected
          e.  Site on public recreation or wildlife area or near Register-
                eligible historic or archaeologic site
      4.  Size of site, size of buildings, number of employees
      5.  Cost of construction (buildings, machinery, wastewater treatment facilities)

IV.   Impacts
      1.  Water
          a.  Volume of wastewater discharged
          b.  Frequency of discharge
          c.  Contents of discharge
          d.  Normal, expected pollutant concentrations expected to affect human or
                animal health or aquatic environment adversely
          e.  Source of water used and volume withdrawn
      2.  Air
          a.  Emissions sources during construction and operation
          b.  Quantity and nature of emissions from each source
          c.  Emissions subject to regulation and control measures proposed
          d.  Emission of odors and measures to reduce or eliminate offense to public
          e.  Emissions likely to affect human, animal, plant health adversely and
                measures to reduce or mitigate
          f.  Proposed facilities for which New Source Performance Standards or
                National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air pollutants have been
                promulgated

-------
                                    184'

NS/EQ  ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE (CONCLUDED)

      3.  Noise and Traffic
          a.   Ambient noise standards  violations outside property line and
                measures to reduce effects during construction and operation
          b.   Traffic problems in or around the new plant and measures to
                reduce problems
      4.  Solid Waste
          a.   Plans for disposal of construction solid wastes
          b.   Types of solid wastes generaced during operations
          c.   Plans to collect, store, and dispose each type of waste
      5.  Land Use
          a.   Effects of construction  and operation on surrounding area
              (1)  Residential or commercial development
              (2)  Traffic volume
              (3)  Land use changes
              (4)  Effects on future uses of plant site
          b.   Zoning restrictions on site and conformance of plans with zoning

V.    Miscellaneous
      1.  Alternative sites considered and reasons for rejecting them
      2.  Social and economic benefits expected from operation of proposed facility

-------
                                     185
 NPDES APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE, SHORT FORM C


 1.   Name, address, location of applicant and discharge
 2.   Standard industrial classification (SIC Code)
 3.   Number of employees
 4.   If all waste discharged to a publicly owned treatment facility, give
       a.  Name of organization that receives waste
       b.  Name and address of facility that receives waste
       c.  Do not complete remainder of form
 5.   Principal product of operation
 6.   Principal process
 7.   Maximum amount of principal product produced per day, month, or year
 8.   Units of measurement for item 7
 9.   Days per week and months during which discharge occurs
10.   Daily volume of wastes discharged, and volume of each treated before discharge
11.   Wastes discharged to other than surface waters
12.   Number of separate discharge points
13.   Name of receiving water
14.   Does discharge contain, or is it possible for discharge to contain one or
       more of the following, as a result of operating this facility:

                   aluminum                        lead
                   ammonia                         mercury
                   beryllium                       nickel
                   cadmium                         oil and grease
                   chlorine (residual)             phenols
                   chromium                        selenium
                   copper                          zinc
                   cyanide


 ADDITIONAL REGION III EXISTING SURFACE COAL MINING NPDES PERMIT INFORMATION


 1.   Maps
     Submit 8.5 X 10-inch copy of USGS topographic map to show
       a.  Existing work area
       b.  Existing discharge points
       c.  Proposed work area
       d.  Proposed discharge points
       e.  Wastewater receiving streams
 2.   Effluent Limitations
       a.    Indicate whether discharges meet the following limitations (new mines
             must meet the limitations)
           (1)  Mining Wastes

                Parameter               Monthly Average              Daily Maximum

                Total Suspended Solids     30 mg/1                      60 mg/1
                Total Iron                  4 mg/1                       8 mg/1
                pH                      6.0-9.0 at all times
                Alkalinity              greater than acidity

-------
                                     186

NPDES APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE (CONCLUDED)

          (2)  Sanitary Wastes

               Parameter              Monthly Average              Daily Maximum

               Total Suspended Solids    30 mg/1                     60 mg/1
               Biochemical oxygen
                 demand (5 day)          30 mg/1                     60 mg/1
               Fecal coliform bacteria  200/100 ml                  600/100 ml

          (3)  During and for four hours following a major storm event (number
                 of inches of rainfall greater than  [storm duration (minutes) t 100]
                 + 0.2), the total suspended solids may exceed 60 mg/1, but must not
                 exceed 1000 mg/1.
        b.  Provide compliance schedule for facilities not meeting limitations,
              no later than 1 July 1977.

3.  Water Quality and Flow Analysis
    Indicate average flows for all point source discharges.  For flows greater
      than 500,000 gpd, information on the following parameters is to be
      provided.  Analyses are by Standard Methods.

                       Flow                         pH
                       Total suspended solids       Alkalinity
                       Total iron                   Acidity

4.  Indiate State mining permit number

-------
                                     187
 WEST VIRGINIA PROSPECTING PERMIT APPLICATION   FORM DR-3

 Note:  Any landowner may mine coal (without permit or fee) on  his own
        property for household use (Code of West Virginia, Amended, 20-6-7).


 1.  Name of applicant
 2.  Address of applicant
 3.  Applicant's representative
 4.  Representative's address
 5.  Location of operation
 6.  Tract name
 7.  Minerals to be prospected
 8.  Geological name of deposit
 9.  Other prospecting or mining permits held and those now under bond
10.  Surface owner(s)
11.  Minerals owner(s)
12.  Source of legal right to enter and mine land under permit
13.  USGS map identifying oil/gas wells, deep mines, cemeteries, utilities
       on area of operations
14.  Past.revocation of permit or bond forfeiture
15.  Officers and owners of applicant
16.  Prospecting fee ($300 per permit); Reclamation bond ($500/acre)
17.  Notarization of signature
18.  Inspection by District Reclamation Inspector required prior to filing of
       application (not part of Form DR-3)


 RECLAMATION PLAN (must be attached to Form DR-3)

 1.  Detailed explanation of
       a.  Future land use                             d.  Seed.bed preparation
       b.  Drainage control measures                   e.  Soil preparation and treat-
       c.  Methods of regrading and topsoiling,              ment
             with time schedule                        f.  Mulch type and rate
 2.  Method and agent to complete revegetation
 3.  Seasonal revegetation schedule and rate
       a.  Pasture and meadowland species, rate,  location
       b.  Woodland and wildlife species, rate, location

-------
                                     188
 WEST VIRGINIA SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATION   FORM DR-4


 1.  Name of applicant
 2.  Address of applicant
 3.  Applicant's representative
 4.  Representative's address
 5.  Location of operation
 6.  Tract name
 7.  Mineral to be mined and method
 8.  Geological name of deposit
 9.  Other prospecting or mining permits under bond
10.  Surface owner(s)
11.  Minerals owner(s)
12.  Reputed owners of lands within 500 feet of proposed disturbed land
12a. Notification of reputed landowners
13.  Source of legal right to enter and mine land under permit
14.  Acreage to be disturbed (mine, access roads, drainage system)
15.  Prospecting permit to be converted
16.  Registration fee ($500 per permit)
17.  Prospecting fee converted
18.  Fee submitted
19.  Reclamation bond
20.  Converted prospecting bond
21.  Total bond submitted (minimum $10,000)
22.  Special reclamation tax ($60 per acre)
23.  Officers and owners of applicant
24.  Past revocation of permit or bond forfeiture

 A.  Pre-Plan Map must accompany this form.


 PRE-PLAN MAP (CODE OF WEST VIRGINIA, AMENDED, 20-6-9)

 1.  Base:  enlarged USGS topographic quadrangle or aerial photographs (sheets
       8.5 X 11 inches)
 2.  Preparation by qualified professional
 3.  Include all of area in mining application
 4.  Show limits of
       a.  Adjacent deep-mining operations
       b.  Adjacent inactive or mined-out deep-mined areas
       c.  Boundaries of surface and mineral ownership within 500 feet of disturbed area
       d.  Names of adjacent surface and mineral owners
 5.  Approved scale (1:6,000 preferred for drainage map)
 6.  Name and locate on and within 500 feet of land to be disturbed
       a.  Streams, creeks, or other bodies of public water
       b.  Roads
       c.  Buildings
       d.  Cemeteries
       e.  Active, abandoned, or plugged oil and gas wells
       f.  Utility lines
 7.  Show
       a.  Boundaries of land to be disturbed
       b.  Crop line of seam or deposit to be mined
       c.  Total acreage to be disturbed

-------
                                     189

 WEST VIRGINIA SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATION (CONTINUED)

 8.   Date of preparation,  north arrow,  topographic  quadrangle name,  latitude
       and longitude
 9.   Drainage plan on and  away from land to be mined
       a.  Directional flow of water
       b.  Streams or tributaries receiving discharge
10.   Location of acid-producing materials (overburden pH less than 3.5)  and
       preparation for revegetation
11.   Signature of preparer and notary
 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:  WEST VIRGINIA CLASS III LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND REPUTED
   ADJACENT OWNERS


       Upon approval of an applicant's application for a Surface Mining Application
 Number (SMA number), the applicant must publish notice of his permit application
 which contains the information from form DR-4, Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
 13, 14, 23 (officers only), and 24, together with identification of the affected
 watershed, latitude and longitude, and a location map showing the proposed
 operation, on a form provided by the WV-DNR for a Class III Legal Advertisement.
 Certification of publication becomes part of the permit application.

       The advertisement must be published in the newspaper of each county in
 which the mining is to take place.  The advertisement must run once each week
 for three consecutive weeks, with no more than six days between each ad and
 no more than 21 days between first and last.  The advertisement must specify
 that written protest to the subject application will be received by WV-DNR for
 thirty days from the original date of publication of the advertisement.

       All reputed owners of land within 500 feet of the area proposed for
 disturbance, bonded access haul roads, dugouts, ponds, and pond access roads
 must be notified by registered or certified mail.  Certification of notification
 becomes a part of the permit application.  Reputed landowners have no less than
 10 days to file written protest with WV-DNR after the date of notification.

-------
                                     190
 WEST VIRGINIA MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN    FORM DR~5
                                  (signed by approved professional or engineer)


 1.   Name of applicant
 2.   Proposed type of operation
 3.   Future land use
 4.   Average soil pH before mining
 5.   Principal seam(s) and thickness(es)
 6.   Estimated mining period
 7.   Overburden or seams classified as acid producing
 8.   Underground workings to be encountered
     pH and iron concentration of active  discharge from  abandoned deep mines
 9.   Mining procedures (drawings, supplements, 8.5 X 11-inch paper)
       a.  Mining sequence
       b.  Plans for haul roads with typical cross section and profile of proposed
             grade
       c.  Site preparation plans, including removal and disposition of trees and
             shrubs
       d.  Detailed blasting procedure, and list of reputed owners within 1,000 feet
       e.  Method for removing and stockpiling topsoil
       f.  Method for placement of all overburden, including acid-producing and
             toxic material
       g.  Method to control overburden after placement, especially on outer slope
       h.  Procedure for final stabilization of overburden
       i.  Mapped strike and dip of coal  seam
10.   .Grading procedures
       a.  Typical cross section of regrading
       b.  Equipment to be used for regrading
       c.  Method of spreading topsoil and approximate thickness of final topsoil layer
       d.  Method of drainage control for final regraded area
       e.  Method for testing soil after regrading
       f.  Plan to neutralize acidity if  pH less than 5.5
       g.  Mechanical seed bed preparation on bench, terrace, and outslope
       h.  Fertilizer analysis and application rate
11.   Revegetation procedures
       a.  Method and party to perform revegetation
       b.  Mulch type and rate
       c.  Seasonal revegetation schedule, species, and  rate (pasture or woodland)
       d.  Grazing and plans to protect vegetation
       e.  Maintenance of vegetation until final bond is released

-------
                                    191

WEST VIRGINIA MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN (CONCLUDED)


BLASTING PRE-PLAN

      A blasting plan must be filed with the WV-DNR for every mine where
blasting of overburden is necessary.  A formula for restricting the weight
of explosive detonated at one instant in time must be  adhered to.  The
allowable quantity of explosive increases with the square of the distance to
the nearest structure other than mine buildings.   Structures include gas lines,
telephone lines, electric lines, and oil or gas wells.   Methods to produce
delayed detonations (nine milliseconds or longer between detonations) must be
described in detail.  Records of each blast must be kept in a log for at least
three years.  For each blast other than boulder breaking, the log must show:

      a.  Date and time of blast
      b.  Number of holes
      c.  Typical explosive weight per delay period
      d.  Total explosive detonated at any one time
      e.  Number of delays used
      f.  Weather conditions
      g.  Signature of employee in charge of blast.

-------
                                    192
WEST VIRGINIA MINE DRAINAGE APPLICATION

1.  Applicant name and address
2.  Surface mine location
3.  Mineral to be mined
4.  Geological name of seam(s)
5.  Type of operation
6.  Affidavit and notary
7.  Professional who prepared application
8.  Substantive information
    A.  Receiving stream
        1.  Name of receiving stream
            a.  Tributary to
            b.  Tributary to
            c.  Major drainage basin
        2.  Minimum receiving stream flow and method used to determine flow
        3.  Chemical analysis, one sample for each receiving stream downstream
              from discharge point
            a.  Parameters to be analyzed by Standard Methods
                (1)  pH                      (6)  Total aluminum
                (2)  Total hot acidity       (7)  Total manganese
                (3)  Total mineral acidity   (8)  Total sulfates
                (4)  Total alkalinity        (9)  Total suspended solids
                (5)  Total iron             (10)  Dissolved solids
            b.  Other information
                (1)  Applicant and SMA file number
                (2)  Name of individual who collected water sample
                (3)  Date of water sample collection
                (4)  Sampling station number, keyed to drainage plan map
                (5)  Date of analysis
                (6)  Name, address, and telephone of analytical laboratory
                (7)  Signature of responsible analyst
                (8)  Units of measure for parameters
    B.  Proposal map
        Enlarged USGS topographic quadrangle (scale, 1:6,000) to show
        1.  Limits of land to be disturbed, haul roads, and drainage system
        2.  Crop line of seam or deposit to be mined
        3.  Location and extent of auger mining
        4.  Location of deep mine openings and extent of workings within 500 feet
              of proposed operation
        5.  Location and thickness of all barriers to adjacent deep mines
        6.  North arrow with dip and strike of seams to be mined
        7.  Location and number of each test drill hole
        8.  Legend and color code
    C.  Drainage plan
        1.  Enlarged USGS topographic quadrangle (scale, 1:6,000) to show
            a.  (Same as B.I.)
            b.  Location and name of all natural drainways and streams to be
                  used in the drainage system
            c.  Limits of drainage areas to be affected, with total area of all
                  affected drainage areas
            d.  Location of all sediment control ponds and structures

-------
                                    193

WEST VIRGINIA MINE DRAINAGE APPLICATION (CONTINUED)

            e.  Location of all diversion ditches or constructed drailways
            f.  Location of water sampling stations
            g.  Direction of flow in drainageways and streams
            h.  Location and sizes of bridges and culverts on haul roads within
                  the area of operation
            i.  North arrow with dip and strike of seam(s) to be mined
            j.  Location and rate of flow of all deep mine discharges
            k.  Legend and color code
            1.  See items C.4., C.5.,  D.I.a., D.2.a.
        2.  Specifications and drawings for drainage structures (see attached
              outline of required drainage plans)
        3.  Operation will encounter groundwater?
        4.  Show springs within 500 feet of operation on Drainage Plan Map
        5.  Show any domestic wells within 1,000 feet of proposed operation on
              Drainage Plan Map
    D.  Adjacent mines
        1.  For other surface mines within 500 feet of the proposed operation
              with ponds, pooled water, or seepage
            a.  Submit analysis as in A.3. and label sampling station on
                  Drainage Plan Map
            b.  Indicate surface condition
        2.  For deep mines within 500 feet horizontal distance or 100 feet vertical
              distance from the proposed operations
            a.  Submit analysis as in A.3. of any discharge, free-flowing or
                  pumped, and label station on Drainage Plan Map
            b.  Indicate whether adjacent deep mine works contain impounded water
            c.  Submit plans for sealing deep mines encountered by the proposed
                  operations, for both dry entries and entries with discharges
    E.  Auger holes
        1.  Indicate depth of auger holes, if any
        2.  Submit and explain cross-section with detailed plans to seal holes
    F.  Chemical treatment of wastewater
        1.  If information on adjacent mines, seams to be mined, receiving stream
              water quality, and location of the proposed operation indicate
              that chemical treatment will be necessary
            a.  Submit description and drawings of proposed treatment system
                (1)  Reagent for pH adjustment
                (2)  Dispenser or contact unit to be used (make, model of
                       proposed commercial unit) and limitations
                (3)  Aeration system
                (4)  Retention time to permit settling and stabilization
                (5)  Explain how chemical system will be used in conjunction
                       with proposed drainage system
            b.  For any part of chemical treatment facility that is subject to
                  flooding
                (1)  Probability that the system will be out of service is once
                       in     years
                (2)  Methods used for flood protection are
            c.  Chemical treatment system will be checked and maintained no less
                  than once every     hours

-------
                                     194

WEST VIRGINIA MINE DRAINAGE APPLICATION (CONCLUDED)

        2.  List reasons no system is being planned
        3.  If no system is planned, indicate actions that will be taken if
              unexpected pollution problems should arise in the course of
              the operations
    G.  Toxic materials
        Submit cross-section with explanation showing location of possible
          toxic material and plans for placement of such material to prevent
          contact with water from infiltration or auger hole and deep mine
          drainages
    H.  Stream crossings
        For any part of haul roads that contact or cross any stream, show
          location and sizes of culverts and bridges, with plans and specifi-
          cations for bridges.

-------
                                     195
DRAINAGE PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WV-DNR DRAINAGE HANDBOOK
A.  Each embankment-type sediment dam
    1.  Structure-proportioning computations sheet
    2.  Construction plans to show
        a.  Topographic map of reservoir area, embankment, emergency spillway
            (1)  Scale 1:600
            (2)  Contour interval:  4 feet
            (3)  Method:  transit-stadia survey or more accurate method
        b.  Profile view of embankment along certerline of principal spillway,
              with dimensions, elevations, and principal spillway design
        c.  Profile view of emergency spillway showing entrance and exit slopes
              and level section
        d.  Cross-section of emergency spillway showing bottom width, side
              slopes, type of material
        e.  Cross-section view along centerline of dam showing cutoff trench
              depth, original ground line, unsettled and settled dam heights,
              length of dam, etc.
    3.  Stage-Area-Storage curves and computations sheet
    4.  Construction specifications
B.  Each excavated sediment pond
    1.  (same as A.I.)
    2.  Construction plans to show
        a.  Plan and cross-section views with entrance and exit channels
        b.  Cross-section view of embankment and emergency spillway (if used)
        c.  Cross-sections at 50-foot intervals from the centerline showing
              original ground line and proposed excavation limits
    3.  (Same as A.4.)
C.  Each gabion sediment dam
    1.  (Same as A.I.)
    2.  Construction plans showing
        a.  (Same as A.2.a.)
        b.  Plan view showing all pertinent dimensions
        c.  Cross-section at the point of maximum depth of impoundment against
              the structure showing all pertinent dimensions and elevations
        d.  Cross-section along the centerline of the dam showing all pertinent
              dimensions and elevations
    3.  (Same as A.3.)
    4.  (Same as A.4.)                                                  /
D.  Each crib sediment dam                                              )
    1.  (Same as A.I.)
    2.  (Same as C.2.)
    3.  (Same as A.3.)
    4.  (Same as A.4.)
E.  Each excavated sediment channel
    1.  (Same as A.I.)
    2.  Construction plans, each to show toe and top of spoil slope proximate
          to excavated channel
          a.  Plan view of channel to scale
          b.  Cross-section through channel showing maximum existing ground
                slope to scale
          c.  Cross-section of typical barrier in channel

-------
                                    195

DRAINAGE PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WV-DNR DRAINAGE HANDBOOK (CONCLUDED)

F.  Each valley fill
    1.  Three-dimensional sketch of the fill
    2.  Profile of valley fill showing original ground line at 100-foot stations
    3.'  Cross-section through valley fill at midpoint of 2:1 outer slope with
          existing ground line as surveyed
    4.  (Same as A.4.)
G.  Each diversion ditch
    1.  Diversion design computation
    2.  Construction plans showing
        a.  Surveyed profile along centerline of diversion showing original
              ground line and diversion bottom
        b.  Channel cross-sections showing bottom width, side slopes, water
              depth
        c.  Soil type(s) in which ditch will be excavated, based on soil
              excavation and classification at intervals not greater than
              500 feet.
    3.  Construction and vegetation specifications

-------
                                     197
FINAL GRADING MAPS AND WEST VIRGINIA FINAL PLANTING PLAN REPORT (DR-8)
      Final maps shewing final grading are to be completed and submitted to
WV-DNR within 60 days of completion of mining.  After inspection and approval
of grading, the operator is entitled to a 75% ($750/acre) bond release, but a
minimum bond of $5,000 is retained by WV-DNR.

      After revegetation program is complete, the operator submits form DR-8.

      1.  Name, address of operator
      2.  Date mining completed
      3.  Date grading approved
      4.  Total acreage disturbed and planted
      5.  Planting completion date
      6.  Revegetation method
      7.  Species, rate/acre, location of planting
      8.  Actual cost of revegetation
      Regrading, backfilling, and water management must be kept current, and
progress grading reports may be required by WV-DNR.  Reclamation must be
completed witin 12 months of the cessation of mining.   Inspection and evaluation
of vegetation shall be made only after the planting has survived two growing
seasons.

-------
                                    198
 WEST VIRGINIA FINAL INSPECTION REPORT (DR-9)
 1.   Name, address of operator
 2.   Permit number
 3.   Permit acres
 4.   Date mining completed
 5.   Date grading approved
 6.   Total acres disturbed
 7.   Total acres planted
 8.   Date final planting plan approved
 9.   -Date planted
10.   Date(s) replanted
11.   Planting contractor
12.   Species planted
13.   Method of planting (conventional, aerial,  hydroseeding,  other)
14.   Haulageway properly abandoned
15.   All acid bearing material properly treated
16.   Vegetation satisfactory
17.   Release of bond recommended
18.   Comments and recommendations
19.   Signatures:  Inspector, date; Director, date

-------
                                    199
 WEST VIRGINIA SURFACE MINE INSPECTION REPORT (Form DR-6)
      As of January 1977 the West Virginia Division of Reclamation
 employed 32 inspectors, who were responsible for reporting on every
 surface mine in the State every 15 days.   Most entries require a
 simple yes or no response.   Warnings may  be issued.
 1.   Name of operator
 2.   Permit number
 3.   Date of last inspection
 4.   Permit acreage
 5.   Estimated disturbed acreage at time of inspection
 6.   Status of operation active, inactive (explain),  not started
 7.   Erection of signs according to regulations and approved plan
 8.   List of signs not in place
 9.   Implementation of drainage plan
10.   Comparison of (ponded) water with standards (pH, iron)
11.   Activity of discharge
12.   Comparison of discharge water with standards  (pH,  iron)
13.   Active chemical treatment of discharge
14.   Encounters with underground openings
15.   Active discharge from underground openings
16.   Active chemical treatment of underground discharge
17.   Haul road construction and maintenance according to
       regulations and approved plan
18.   Tree and brush removal according to approved  plan
19.   Topsoil or surface material stockpiled
20.   Execution of approved mining and reclamation  plan
21.   Adherence to blasting plan
22.   Bench widths in accordance with slopes
23.   Currency of reclamation
24.   Comments and recommendations
25.   Warning:  The following measures must be taken by (date).
26.   Signatures:  District Reclamation Inspector,  Company Representative

-------
                                   200
WEST VIRGINIA REPORT OF NON-COMPLIANCE (Form DR-15)
1.  Mining company, location of mine, permit number
2.  Date of inspection
3.  Violation of Section     of the Code of West Virginia and/or
      Section    of the Rules and Regulations of the West Virginia
      Reclamation Commission
4.  Description of violation
5.  Order:  operations must cease; permit is suspended; or,
      the following remedial measures must be accomplished by (date)
6.  Failure to accomplish remedial measures within the time
      specified may result in suspension or revocation of permit
      and forfeiture of appropriate bond.
7.  Date of issuance of report
8.  Signatures:  Director, Department of Natural Resources
      (by authorized agent); for operator
9.  Copy to prosecuting attorney

-------
                                   201
WEST VIRGINIA INSPECTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE (Form DR-16)
1.  Mining company, location of mine, permit number
2,  Date of inspection identifying violation
3.  Law and/or regulation violated
4.  Description of violation
5.  Remedial measures taken do (do not) release the operator
      from the non-compliance or violations
6.  Date of issuance of report
7.  Signatures:  Director, Department of Natural Resources
      (by authorized agent); for operator

-------
                                     202
 WEST VIRGINIA MINE PRODUCTION REPORT

 These data are presented on a computer-input  form monthly for the
 preceding month

 1.  Name of company

 2.  Name of mine

 3.  Mine permit number

 4.  Report date

 5.  County

 6.  Classification (gassy, non-gassy,  other)

 7.  Mine status (operating, idle,  closed temporarily,  closed
     permanently)

 8.  Mine type (underground, surface,  auger)

 9.  Haulage (track, belt, other)

10.  Employment (inside, outside, supervisor,  total man-hours,
     operating days)

11.  Injuries (all accidents, lost-time accidents)

12.  Underground production  (conventional,  continuous miner,
     hand loaded)

13.  Total production  (underground,  surface,  auger)

14.  Seam mined

15.  Rock dust applied  (tons)

16.  Distribution  (railroad, truck,  river,  used locally)

17.  Signature, title,  date
                                                      JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                           a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   203
                              BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adkins, James R. , N. Islam, and M. S. Baloch.  1976.  Comprehensive
     survey of the New River basin, Volume I Inventory.  West Virginia
     Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources,
     Charleston WV.  207 pp.

Applied Science Laboratories, Inc.  1971.  Purification of mine water
     by freezing.  USGPO, Washington DC.  US Environmental Protection
     Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series, 14018 DRZ02/71.
     64 pp.

Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District.  1973.  Floodplain infor-
     mation, Ohio River, Cabell County/Wayne County4 West Virginia.
     West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
     Resources.  Variously paged, 48 pp.

Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District.  1974.  Final environmental
     impact statement, R. D. Bailey Lake, Guyandotte River, Wyoming
     County and Mingo County, West Virginia.  By the District,
     Huntington WV.  Variously paged, 106 pp.

Army Engineer District, Huntington, West Virginia.  1975a.  Final
     environmental impact statement, Kanawha River navigation system,
     Fayette, Kanawha, Putnam, and Mason Counties, West Virginia.
     By the District, Huntington WV.  234 pp.

Army Engineer District, Huntington, West Virginia.  1975b.  Kanawha
     River navigation charts, mouth to head of navigation.  US Army
     Corps of Engineers, Huntington WV.  19 charts.

Babu, S; P.,  J. A. Barlow, L. L. Craddock, R. V. Hildago, and E. Friel.
     1973.  Suitability of West Virginia coals to coal-conversion
     processes.  West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey Coal-
     Geology Bulletin 1:1-32.

Bain, George L. , and E. A. Friel.  1972.  Water resources of the Little
     Kanawha River basin, West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological
     and Economic Survey, River Basin Bulletin 2:1-122.

Barlow, James A.  1974.  Coal and coal mining in West Virginia.  West
     Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Coal-Geology Bulletin
     2:1-63.

Bitumunous Coal Research, Inc.  1968.  Sulfide treatment of acid mine
     drainage.  Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., Monroeville PA.
     Variously paged, 87 pp.

Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.  1970.  Studies on limestone treatment
     of acid mine drainage.  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
     Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Pollution
     Control Research Series DAST-33 14010,EIZ 01/70.  USGPO, Washington
     DC.  96 pp.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         n subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   204
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.  1971.  Studies on densification of
     Coal Mine Drainage Sludge.  US Environmental Protection Agency,
     Water Pollution Control Research Series 14010 EJT 09/71.  USGPO,
     Washington DC.  113 pp.

Blair, John P.  1974.  The growth prospects of Nicholas County.
     Regional Institute, West Virginia University, Morgantown WV.

BOR (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation).  1976.  Final environmental
     statement [on the] proposed New River Gorge National Wild and
     Scenic River, West Virginia.  Prepared by the Northeast Regional
     Office, BOR, US Department of the Interior, Philadelphia PA.
     FES 76-42, variously paged, 148 pp.

Brooks, A. B.  1910.  Forestry and wood industries.  West Virginia
     Geological Survey Bulletin 5:1-481.  Acme Publishing Company,
     Morgantown WV.

Broyles, Bettye J.  1968.  Prehistoric man in the Kanawha and Ohio
     valleys.  Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science
     40:32a-4la.

Broyles, Bettye J.  1976.  A late component at the Buffalo site,
     Putnam County, West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and
     Economic Survey, Report of Archaeological Investigations 6:1-28.

Carlston, Charles W.  1958. . Groundwater resources of Monongalia
     County, West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and Economic
     Survey Bulletin 15:1-32.

Carlston, Charles W., and George D. Graeff, Jr.  1955.  Groundwater
     resources of the Ohio -River Valley in West Virginia.  West
     Virginia Geological Survey 22(3) : 1-131.'

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality).  1973a.  Environmental quality,
     the fourth annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality.
     Washington DC.  499 pp.   (Specifically, page 235).

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality).  1973b.  Preparation of
     environmental impact statements:  Guidelines.  38 Federal Register  148:
     20550-20562  (1  August).

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality).  1973c.  Coal surface mining
     and reclamation:  an environmental and economic assessment of
     alternatives prepared at the request of Henry M. Jackson,
     Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, US Senate,
     pursuant to S.  Res. 45, a national fuels and energy policy study.
     Committee print serial no. 93-9 (92-43).  USGPO, Washington  DC.
     143 pp.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK 8, ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   205
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality).  1975.  Environmental quality,
     the sixth annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality.
     Washington DC.  763 pp.

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality).  1976.  Memorandum to heads of
     agencies on Kleppe vs. Sierra Club and Flint Ridge vs. Scenic
     Rivers.  Washington DC, typescript.  20 pp.

Chapman, A. G.  1967.  Effects of spoil grading on. tree growth.  Mining
     Congress Journal 53(8):93~100.

Cole, Norman F., M. Ferraro, R. Mallary, J. F. Palmer, E. H. Zube.
     1976.   Visual design resources for surface mine reclamation.
     Institute for Man and Environment and ARSTECNICA Center for Art
     and Technology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA,
     Publication R-76-15:1-131.

Commissioners of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.
     1975.   Review of the Activities of the Commission in 1975.
     Orsanco, Cincinnati OH.  18 pp.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources,
     and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, US Department of the Interior.
     1976.   Northeast regional states scenic rivers planning workshop,
     summary of proceedings»[Philadelphia PA?]. 125 pp.

Continental Oil Company.  1971.  Microbiological treatment of acid
     mine drainage waters.  US Environmental Protection Agency,
     Water  Pollution Control Research Series, 14010 ENW 09/71.
     USGPO, Washington DC.

Core, Earl  L.  1966.  Vegetation of West Virginia.  McClain Printing
     Co., Parsons WV.  Second printing 1974.  217 pp.

Cross, A. T., and Schemal, M. P.  1955a.  Geology of the Ohio River
     valley in West Virginia    Geology and economic resources of
     the Ohio River valley in West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological
     Survey 22(1):1-149.

Cross, A. T., and Schemal, M. P.  1955b.  Economic resources of £he Ohio
     River  valley in West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological Survey
     22(2):1-129.

Cunningham, Roger N.  1973.  Paleo-hunters along the Ohio River.
     Archaeology of Eastern North America l(l):l-8.

Davies, William E.  1958  [Reprinted with supplement, 1965].  Caverns
     of West Virginia.  West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey,
     19a:1-330, supplement 1-72.                        >
                                                     JACK McCORMICK 8. ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    206

DePaulo, J. Raymond, Jr., and M. S. Baloch.  1968.  Comprehensive
     water resources study of the Greenbrier River sub-basin,
     Inventory Volume I.  West Virginia Department of Natural
     Resources, Division of Water Resources, Charleston WV.
     130 pp.

Doll, Warwick L., B. M. Wilmoth, Jr., and G. W. Whetstone.  1960.
     Water resources of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  West
     Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 20:1-189.

Doll, Warwick L., G. Meyer, and R. Archer.  1963.  Water resources
     of West Virginia.  West Virginia Department of Natural
     Resources, Charleston WV.  134 pp.

Eggleston, Jane R., and R. E. Larese.  1975.  Index to active
     surface mining in West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and
     Economic Survey, Morgantown WV.  54 pp.

Ferguson, Roland H.  1964.  The timber resources of West Virginia.
     Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby PA.  121 pp.

Flint, Russell F.  1972.  Fluvial sediment in Salem Fork watershed,
     West Virginia.  US Geological Survey,-Water-Supply Paper 1798-K:
     1-29.

Folsom, Franklin.  1971.  America's ancient treasures, guide to
     archaeological sites and museums.  Rand McNally & Co., New York
     NY.  202 pp.   (specifically, pp. 154-155).

Friel, Eugene A.,and George L. Bain.  1971.  Records of wells, springs,
     and test borings, chemical analyses of water, sediment analyses,
     standard streamflow data summaries, and selected drillers' logs
     from the Little Kanawha River basin in West Virginia.  Prepared
     by US Geological Survey in cooperation with West Virginia
     Geological and Economic Survey and West Virginia Department of
     Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, 76 pp.

Friel, Eugene A., W. A. Hobba, Jr., and J. L. Chisholm.  1975.  Records
     of wells, springs, and streams in the Potomac River basin,
     West Virginia.  Prepared by the US Geological Survey  in cooperation
     with the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey and West
     Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
     Resources.  96 pp.

Friel, E. A., B. M. Wilmoth, P. E. Ward, and J. W. Wark.   1967.  Water
     resources of the Monongahela River basin, West Virginia.  Prepared
     by the US Geological Survey in cooperation with the West Virginia
     Department of Natural Resources and the West Virginia Geological
     and Economic Survey, 118 pp.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   207
Frye, P. M.,and G. R. Runner.  1970.  A proposed streamflow data program
     for West Virginia.  US Department of the Interior, Charleston WV.
     Variously paged.

Carton, Ray, M. E. Carton, and A. Carpenter.  1976.  Caves of north
     central West Virginia.  (Barbour, Harrison, Marion, Monongalia,
     Ohio, and Preston Counties).  West Virginia Speleological Survey
     Bulletin 5:1-108.

Gillespie, William H., and John A. Glendening.  1964.  West Virginia
     geology, archaeology, and pedology:  A bibliography and index.
     West Virginia University Library, Morgantown WV.  241 pp.

GOFSR (Governor's Office of Federal-State Relations, Outdoor Recreation
     Division).  1975.  Statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan.
     Prepared in cooperation with the West Virginia Department of
     Natural Resources.  [Charleston WV].  Variously paged, 263 pp.

Gleason, Virginia E., and H. H. Russell.  1976.  Mine drainage biblio-
     graphy, 1910-1976.  (Coal and the Environment Abstract Series).
     Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., for the US-EPA and Pennsylvania
     Department of Environmental Resources, Monroeville PA.  288 pp.

Goodwin, Richard H., and W. A. Niering.  1975.  Inland wetlands of the
     United States evaluated as potential Registered Natural Landmarks.
     National Park Service Natural History Theme Studies 2:1-550.

Grim, Elmore C., and R. D. Hill.  1974.  Environmental protection in
     surface mining of coal.  National Environmental Research Center,
     Cincinnati OH.  EPA Document EPA-670/2-74-093.  USGPO, Washington
     DC.  292 pp.

Gulf Environmental Systems Company.  1971.  Acid mine waste treatment
     using reverse osmosis.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Water  •
     Pollution Control Research Series 14010 DYG 08/71.  USGPO, Washington
     DC.  85 pp.

Hanson, Lee,Jr.  1975.  The Buffalo Site, a late seventeenth century
     Indian village site in Putnam County, West Virginia.  West Virginia
     Geological and Economic Survey, Report of Archaeological Investi-
     gations 5:1-110.

Haigh, Martin J.  1976.  Environmental problems associated with
     reclamation of  old stri-mined land. Oklahoma Geology Notes 36(5):
     200-202.

Hayhurst, Ruth I.  (ed.).  1975.  Current geological research in West
     Virginia - 1974.  West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey,
     Morgantown WV.  17 pp.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   208
Headlee, A. J. W.  1955.  Characteristics of minable coals of West
     Virginia.  West Virginia Geological Survey 3(A):1-166.

Hempel, John C.  1975.  Caves of Monroe County.  West Virginia
     Speleological Survey Bulletin 4:1-152.

Hittman Associates, Inc.  1975.  Assessment of environmental impact
     of steep slope mining, baseline data survey, quarterly report 1.
     Prepared for West Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation
     Association. Columbia MD.  47 pp.

Hittman Associates, Inc.  1975b.  Assessment of environmental impact
     of steep slope mining, final baseline survey report.  Prepared
     for West Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association.
     Columbia MD.  Variously paged, 191 pp.

Hittman Associates, Inc.  1976.  Assessment of environmental impact
     of steep slope mining.  Quarterly Report 3, Baseline data survey.
     Prepared for West Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Asso-
     ciation.  Columbia MD.  Variously paged, 100 pp.

Horizons Incorporated.  1970.  Treatment of acid mine drainage.
     Federal Water Quality Administration ,  Department of the Interior ,
     Water Pollution Control Research Series 14010 DEE 12/70.  USGPO,
     Washington DC.

Horn, Victor T., and J. K. McGuire.  1960.  The climate of West Virginia.
     pp. 442-436 in Climates of the States, Volume I, Eastern states.
     Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington NY.  (1974).

Islam, M. N., and M. S. Baloch.  1973.  Comprehensive survey of the
     Greenbrier River basin.  Volume II >  Part 2:  Economic base  study.
     West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
     Resources.  Charleston WV.  133 pp.                       ~

Janssen, Raymond E.  1973.  Earth science:  A handbook on the geology
     of West Virginia.  Educational Marketers, Inc.  Clarksburg WV.
     350 pp.

Jensen, Richard E.  1970.  Archaeological survey of the Rawlesburg
     Reservoir area, West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and
     Economic Survey, Report of Archaeological Investigations 2:1-31.

Jones, William K.  1973.  Hydrology of limestone karst in Greenbrier
     County, West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and Economic
     Survey  Bulletin 36:1-49.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                          a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    209
Kanawha Basin Comprehensive Study Coordinating Committee.   1971.
     Kanawha River comprehensive basin study.  By the Committee
     [n.p.], 7 volumes, 3179 pp.

Katz, Max.  1969.  The biological and ecological effects of acid
     mine drainage with particular emphasis  to the waters  of the
     Appalachian region.  Prepared for the Appalachian  Regional
     Commission.  Seattle WA. 65 pp

King, Thomas F.  1975.  Recommended procedures for archaeological
     impact evaluation.  Los Angeles CA.  17 pp.

Lackey, James B.  1938.  The flora and fauna of surface waters
     -polluted by acid mine drainage.  US Public Health  Reports 53
     (34):1499-1507.

Landers, Ronald A.  1976.  A practical handbook for individual
     water-supply systems in West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological
     and Economic Survey, Morgantown WV.  102 pp.

Landers, Ronald A., and P. Lessing.  1973.  Bibliography of environ-
     mental geology in West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and
     Economic Survey, Environmental Geology Bulletin 8:1-33.

Landers, Ronald A., and R. A. Smosna.  1974.  Improving stream-water
     quality in the Elk River basin.  West Virginia Geological and
     Economic Survey.  Report submitted to the Joint Committee on
     Government and Finance, West Virginia Legislature.  44 pp.

Larese, Richard E., J. R. Eggleston, R. Allison, Jr., and  M.  C.
     Behling.  1976.  West Virginia mineral producers directory,
     Third Edition.  West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey,
     Mineral Resources Series 1:1-156.

Larese, Richard E., and E. B. Nuhfer.  1976.  Index to  surface mining
     in West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey.
     Morgantown WV, 55 pp.

Lessing, Peter.  1974.  Earthquake history of West Virginia.  West
     Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Environmental Geology
     Bulletin 12:1-12.

Lin, King L.  1976.  1976 coal  traffic annual.  National Coal
     Association, Washington DC.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   210
Lotz, Charles W.  1970.  Probable original minable extent of the
     bituminous coal seams in West Virginia.  West Virginia
     Geological and Economic Survey, 1 sheet.

McGinsey, Charles R., III.  1972.  Public archaeology.  Seminar
     Press, New York NY.  265 pp.

McMichael, Edward V.  1965.  Archaeological survey of Nicholas County,
     West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey
     Archaeological Series 1:1-100.

McMichael, Edward V.  1968.  Introduction to West Virginia archaeology.
     West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Educational Series
     3:1-68.

Mallary, Robert and C. A. Carlozzi.  1976.  The aesthetics of surface
     mine reclamation:  An on-site survey in Appalachia, 1975-1976.
     Institute for Man and Environment ARSTECNICA Center for Art
     and Technology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA,
     Publication R-76-5:l-54.

Medville, Douglas M., and H. E. Medville.  1971.  Caves of Randolph
     County.  West Virginia Speleological Survey Bulletin 1:1-218.

Medville, Douglas M., and H. E. Medville.  1976.  Caves and karst
     hydrology in northern Pocahontas County.  West Virginia Speleo-
     logical Survey Bulletin 6:1-174.

Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.  1975.  Inactive and abandoned underground
     mines:  Water pollution prevention  and control.  US Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Water  and Hazardous Materials,
     Washington DC.  338 pp.

Mineral Resources Research Center.   1971.  Flocculation and clarification
     of mineral suspensions.  US Environmental Protection Agency,
     Water Quality Office, Water Pollution Control Series, 14010 DRB
     05/71.  USGPO, Washington DC.

Michie's West Virginia Code.  1974.  Laws, Department of Natural
     Resources, State of West Virginia.  The Michie Company,
     Charlottesville VA.  259 pp.

Michie's West Virginia Code.  1975.  Laws, Department of Natural
     Resources, State of West Virginia,  1975 Supplement.
     Charlottesville VA.  48 pp.

Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration.  1975.  Final environ-
     mental  statement, regulations governing the disposal of coal  mine
     waste  (30  CFR Part  77, Sections 77.215 .h  through' 77.217).  United
     States  Department of the Interior,  Washington DC.  Variously
     paged,  230 pp.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   211
Mining Informational Services.  1975.  1975 Keystone coal industry
     manual.  McGraw-Hill, New York NY.  782 pp.

Nace, R. L., and P. P. Bieber.  1958.  Groundwater resources of
     Harrison County, West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and
     Economic Survey Bulletin 14:1-55.

National Coal Association/Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.  1976.  Third
     symposium on coal utilization, Louisville KY.  233 pp.

National Coal Association/Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.  1976.  Sixth
     symposium on coal mine drainage, Louisville KY.  By the Association,
     Washington DC.  291 pp.

Nielsen, George F.  (Editor).  1975.  1975 coal mine directory,
     United States and Canada.  McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York NY.
     319 pp.

Nolting, J. P., Jr.  1940.  Characteristics of minable coals of West
     Virginia.  West Virginia Geological Survey 13:1-272.

NPS (National Park Service).  1972.  Areas administered by the National
     Park Service and related properties as of January 1, 1972.
    USGPO, Washington DC, 192 pp.

NPS (National Park Service).  1973.  Preparation of environmental
    statements:  Guidelines for discussion of cultural (historic,
    archaeological, architectural) resources.  Prepared in cooperation
    with the Office of Environmental Project Review, Washington DC.
    Variously paged, 34 pp.

NPS (National Park Service).  1975.  Index of the National Park System
    and affiliated areas as of January 1, 1975.  USGPO, Washington DC,
    136 pp.

NPS (National Park Service).  1976.  The National Register of Historic
    Places:  Notification of pending nominations.  41 Federal  Register
    28:5841-5854.

NUS Corporation, Cyrus W. Rice Division.  1971.  The effects of various
    gas atmospheres on the oxidation of coal mine pyrites.  US Environ-
    mental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series
    14010 ECC 08/71.  USGPO, Washington DC.  144 pp.

Ohio River Basin Commission.  1975,  Monongahela River basin water and
    related land resources Level B study report and environmental
    impact statement.  Cincinnati OH.  216 pp.

Platt, Robert B.  1951.  An ecological study of the Mid-Appalachian
    shale barrens and of the plants endemic to them.  Ecological
    Monographs 21:269-300.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         Q subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   212
Renton, John J., and R. V. Hidalgo.  1975.  Some geochemical considera-
     tions of coal.  West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey,
     Coal-Geology Bulletin 4:1-46.

Renton, John J., R. V. Hidalgo, and D. L, Streib.  1973.  Relative
     acid-producing potential of coal.  West Virginia Geological and
     Economic Survey, Environmental Geology Bulletin 11:1-7.

Resource Planning Associates, Inc.  1975.  Energy supply/demand
     alternatives for the Appalachian Region.  A report to the
     Appalachian Regional Commission. Boston MA.  Variously paged.

Rex Chainbelt, Inc.  1970.  Treatment of acid mine drainage by reverse
     osmosis.  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Federal Water
     Quality Administration, US Department of the Interior.  Water
     Pollution Control Research Series 14010 DYK 03/70.  USGPO,
     Washington DC.  35 pp.

Rex Chainbelt, Inc.  1972.  Reverse osmosis demineralization of acid
     mine drainage.  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and US Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring. Water
     Pollution Control Research Series 14010 FQR 03/72.  USGPO,
     Washington DC.  Ill pp.

Rhodehamel, Edward C., and Charles W. Carlston.  1963.  Geologic
     history of the Teays valley in West Virginia.  Geological Society
     of America Bulletin 74:251-274.

Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc.  1969.  Mine drainage pollution and
     recreation in Appalachia.  Prepared for the Appalachian Regional
     Commission, Washington DC.  114 pp.

Robinson, Tully M.  1964.  Occurrence and availability of groundwater
     in Ohio County, West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and
     Economic Survey Bulletin 27:1-57.

Sack, W. A., C. R. Jenkins, B. R. Chamber, and R. W. Lange, II.  1976.
     Modeling of acid mine drainage and other pollutants in the
     Monongahela River basin under low flow conditions.  West Virginia
     Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources,
     Charleston WV.  159 pp.

Scenic Rivers Task Force.  1973.  Birch River - a pilot study.
     [WV-DNR? Charleston WV ]  Typescript,  9 pp.

Seals, Roger K.,and  others.  1972.  Failure of Dam No. 3 on the middle
     fork of Buffalo Creek near Saunders, West Virginia.  National
     Academy of Engineering, Committee on National Disasters. 32 pp.
                                                     JACK MeCORMICK &. ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   213
Shaw, Samuel P., and C. Gordon Fredine.  1965.   (Reprinted 1971).
     Wetlands of the United States, their extent and their value to
     waterfowl and other wildlife.  United States Department of the
     Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC.  67 pp.

Skelly and Loy, Engineers-Consultants, and Penn Environmental
     Consultants, Inc.  1973.  Processes, procedures, and methods
     to control pollution from mining activities.  EPA-430/9-73-011.
     USGPO, Washington DC.  390 pp.

Smith, Richard M., A. A. Sobek, T. Arkle, Jr., J. C. Sencindiver,
     and J. R. Freeman.  1976.  Extensive overburden potentials for
     soil and water quality.  EPA-600/2-76-184.  Office of Research
     and Development, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
     Cincinnati OH.  310 pp.

Smith, Richard M., W. E. Grube, Jr., T. Arkle, Jr., and A. Sobek.
     1974.  Mine spoil potentials for soil and water quality.  Report
     EPA-670/2-74-070 to the National Environmental Research Center,
     Office of Research and Development, US-EPA, Cincinnati OH.
     302 pp.

Smith, R. M., G. G. Pohlman, and D. R. Browning.  1945.  Some soil
     properties which influence the use of land in West Virginia.
     West Virginia University Bulletin 321.

Society for American Archaeology.  No date.  Archaeology and
     archaeological resources:  A guide for those planning to use,
     affect, or alter the land's surface.  Washington DC.  24 pp.

Soil Conservation Service.  1970.  West Virginia soil and conservation
     needs inventory.  Morgantown WV.  189 pp.

Southern Soil Conservation District and the State Soil Conservation
     Committee.  1969.  The story of Brush Creek, Mercer County,
     West Virginia.  Variously paged (85 pp.).

Stanford Research Institute.  1972.  Final report on a study of
     surface coal mining in West Virginia.  Prepared for West Virginia
     Legislature, Joint Committee on Government and Finance,
     Charleston WV.  Menlo Park CA, 180 pp.

Thompson, Robert D. and H. F. York.  1975.  The reserve base of US
     coals by sulfur content, I, The eastern states.  US Bureau of
     Mines Information Circular.

Tyco Laboratories, Inc.  1971.  Silicate treatment for acid mine
     drainage prevention.   Tyco Laboratories, Inc.,Watham MA.  US
     Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Series
     14010 DLI 02/71.  USGPO, Washington DC.  96 pp.
                                                    JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    214
US Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Sub-
     committee on Mines and Mining.  1971.  Interior Department mines
     and mining orientation briefing (19 May 1971), 92nd Congress,
     1st Session.  USGPO, Washington DC, 132 pp.

US Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Sub-
     committee on Mines and Mining.  1972.  Regulation of strip
     mining, hearings (20 September - 30 November 1971), 92nd
     Congress, 1st Session, on H. R. 60 and related bills.  USGPO,
     Washington DC, 890 pp.

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  1971a.
     The issues related to surface mining, 92nd Congress, 1st Session.
     Committee print serial no. 92-10.  USGPO, Washington DC, 255 pp.

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  1971b.
     Legislative proposals concerning surface mining of coal, 92nd
     Congress, 1st Session.  Committee print.  USGPO, Washington DC,
     25 pp.

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  1972a.
     Hearings, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, S. 1498, S. 2455, and S. 2777,
     pending surface mining legislation, Parts 1 and 2.  USGPO,
     Washington DC, 882 pp.

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  1972b.
     Hearings (24 February 1972) 92nd Congress, 1st Session, pursuant
     to S. Res. 45, a National fuels and energy policy study, on S. 2777
     and S. 3000, Part 3.  USGPO, Washington DC, pp. 883-1173.

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  1973a.
     Regulation of surface mining operations, hearings  (13-16 March 1973),
     93rd Congress, 1st Session, on S. 425 [and] S. 923, Parts 1 and 2.
     USGPO, Washington DC, 1,410 pp.

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Sub-
     committee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels.  1973b.  Coal surface
     mining and reclamation, hearings (30 April 1973).  USGPO, Washington
     DC, 85 pp.

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  1973c.
     Coal surface mining and reclamation, 93rd Congress, 1st Session.
     Committee print serial no. 93-8 (92-43).  USGPO, Washington DC,
     143 pp.

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  1973d.
     Factors affecting the use of coal in present and future energy
     markets, 93rd Congress, 1st Session.  Committee print serial no.
     93-9  (92-44), USGPO, Washington DC, 43 pp.

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  1973e.
     Surface mining reclamation act of 1972, report to accompany S. 425,
     93rd Congress, 1st Session.  Senate report 93-402.  USGPO, Washington
     DC,  94 pp.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         c subiidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                   215
USBM (Bureau of Mines).  1971.  Strippable reserves of bituminous coal
     and lignite in the United States, Bureau of Mines Information
     Circular/1971 1C 8531.  Washington DC.  148 pp.

USDA-SCS (US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service).
     1961.   Soil survey, Jackson and Mason Counties, West Virginia.
     Series 1957 (11):1-127.

USDA-SCS (US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
     Morgantown District).  1974.  Erosion and sediment control hand-
     book for urban areas.  Morgantown WV.  154 pp. with appendices
     A-D.

USDA-SCS (US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
     Morgantown District).  1975.  Draft environmental impact statement,
     North and South Mill Creek watershed.  Morgantown WV.  Variously
     paged, 115 pp.

USDA-SCS (US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
     Morgantown District).  1975.  Elk Creek Watershed, Barbour,
     Harrison, and Upshur Counties, West Virginia.  Environmental
     statement for watershed protection and flood prevention.
     Morgantown WV.  Variously paged, 170 pp.

USDI-GS (US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey).  1964, 1965,
     1970.   Water resources data for West Virginia.  US Geological Survey,
     Water Resources Division.  Charleston WV.

US-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1973.  Processes, procedures,
     and methods to control pollution from mining activities.  EPA-430/
     9-73-011.  USGPO, Washington DC.  390 pp.

US-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1975a.  Environmental impact
     assessment guidelines for selected new source industries.  -Office
     of Federal Activities, Washington DC, variously paged.

US-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  197J5b.  Review of mining
     and mining-related environmental impact statements (surface coal
     mining section draft).  Office of Federal Activities, Washington DC.
     Typescript, 153 pp.

US-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1975c.  Criteria for developing
     pollution abatement programs for inactive and abandoned mine sites.
     EPA-440/9-75-008.  Washington DC.  467 pp.

US-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  19/5d.  Development document
     for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and new source
     performance standards for the coal mining point source category.
     EPA-440/1-75-057.  Washington DC.  288 pp.

US-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1975e.  Inactive and abandoned
     underground mines:  Water pollution prevention and control.
     EPA-440/9-75-007.  Washington DC.  338 pp.

                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    216
US-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1975f.  Decision of the General
     Counsel on matters of law pursuant to 40 CFR 125.36.m. [the extent
     of regulatory authority over waterways].  Decision No. 7.  Mimeographed,
     US-EPA, Washington DC, 4 pp.

US-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1976.  Erosion and sediment
     control, surface mining in the eastern United States, planning
     and design.  EPA-625/3-76-006. -  USGPO Region 5-11.  238 pp.

US-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1976b.  Environmental assessment
     of surface mining methods:  head-of-hollow fill and mountaintop
     removal.  Monthly Progress Report, 31 July 1976.  Region III,
     Philadelphia PA.  17 pp.

USFS (United States Forest Service).  1970.  Coal mining, the situation
     and its management [in the] Monongahela National Forest.  US
     Department of Agriculture, Elkins WV. 4 pp.

USFS (United States Forest Service, Eastern Region).  1977.  Draft environ-
     mental impact statement and land management plan for the Monongahela
     National Forest.  USGPO, Region 5-1, 750-359/14.  Variously paged,
     239 pp.

US-FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service).  1954.  Wetland
     inventory of West Virginia.  Office of River Basin Studies,
     Boston MA, mimeographed, 19 pp.

US Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management.   [1976].  Surface
     management of federal coal resources (43 CFR 3041) and coal mining
     operating regulations (30 CFR 211), final environmental statement.
     US Department of the Interior, [Washington DC,]  Variously paged,
     676 pp.

Vogt, Sage, and Pflum, Consultants.  1970.  Phase II development plan
     report, comprehensive planning program, Jackson County, West
     Virginia.  Cincinnati OH.  82 pp.

Ward, Porter E., and B. M. Wilmoth.  1968.  Groundwater hydrology of
     the Monongahela River basin in West Virginia.  West Virginia
     Geological and Economic Survey, River Basin Bulletin 1:1-54.

Warner, Don L.  1974.  Rationale and methodology for monitoring
     groundwater polluted by mining activities.  General Electric Co.,
     Santa Barbara CA.  EPA-680/4-74-003, 68 01 0759.  85 pp.

Werner, Eberhard.  1972.  Development of solution features, Cloverlick
     Valley, Pocahontas County.  West Virginia Speleological Survey
     Bulletin 2:1-53.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    217
West Virginia Geological Survey.  1956.  Geology and economic  resources
     of the Ohio River valley in West Virginia.  West Virginia
     Geological Survey 22:1-408.

West Virginia Historic Commission.  1967.  West Virginia highway
     markers, historic, prehistoric, scenic,  geological.   Revised
     Edition.  Biggs-Johnston-Withrow, Beckley;WV.'  263 pp.

West Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation  Association.   [1974?]
     Procedure for obtaining a surface mining permit in West Virginia.
     Prepared for West Virginia surface miners in cooperation  with
     West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Divisions  of
     Planning and Development, Reclamation, and Water Resources.
     Charleston WV.  140 pp.

Wilderness Committee, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.  1973a.
     The Dolly Sods Area — 32,000 acres in and adjacent to the
     Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia.  Fourth Edition,
     mimeographed by the Conservancy, Huntington WV, 75 pp.

Wilderness Committee, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.  1973b.
     Otter Creek.  Fourth Edition.  West Virginia Highlands Conservancy,
     Huntington WV.  31 pp.

Wildlife Resources Division.  1974.  Species  status and recommendations
     for the West Virginia wildlife resources plan.  Department of
     Natural Resources, Elkins WV.  3 volumes.

Wilmoth, Benton N.  1966.  Groundwater in Mason and Putnam Counties,
     West Virginia.  West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey
     Bulletin 32:1-152.

Wilmoth, Roger C., and Ronald D. Hill.  1970.  Neutralization  of high
     ferric iron acid mine drainage.  US Department of the Interior,
     Federal Water Quality Administration.  Robert A. Taft Research
     Center.  Water Pollution Control Research Series 14010 ETV 08/70.
     USGPO, Washington DC.  42 pp.

WVCA (West Virginia Coal Association).  1975.  Coal facts.  By the
     Association, Charleston WV.  42 pp.

WVCA (West Virginia Coal Association).  1976.  West-Virginia coal facts,
     1976.  By the Association, Charleston WV.  42 pp.

WVDM (West Virginia Department of Mines).  1969, 1970, 1971, 1972,
     1974, 1975.  Annual report.  Charleston WV.

WVDM (West Virginia Department of Mines).  1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974,
     1975.  Directory of Mines.  Charleston WV.

WVDM (West Virginia Department of Mines).  1975 .  Annual  report to
     the Honorable Arch A. Moore,  Jr., Governor.  By the Department,
     Charleston WV.  74 pp.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                              218
\
           WV-DOC (West Virginia Department of Commerce).  1973.  1973 West Virginia
                economic profile.  West Virginia Department of Commerce, Charleston
                WV.   46 pp.

           WV-DOC (West Virginia Department of Commerce, Industrial Development
                Division).  1974.  West Virginia industrial data file.  Prepared
                for WAPORA, Inc.  Charleston WV.  Variously paged.

           WV-DOC (West Virginia Department of Commerce).  1976,  West Virginia
                economic profile.  Charleston WV.  64 pp.

           WV-DNR (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources).  1972.  Lakes
                of West Virginia.  Division of Water Resources, Charleston WV.
                82 pp.

           WV-DNR (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources).  1973a.  West
                Virginia water quality network, compilation of data 1969.  West
                Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
                Resources, Charleston WV.  151 pp.

           WV-DNR. (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources).  1973b.
                Comprehensive survey of Potomac River basin.  Vol. I Inventory.
                Division of Water Resources, Charleston WV.  220 pp.

           WV-DNR (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources).  1974.  West
                Virginia high quality streams, third edition.  Division of
                Wildlife Resources, Charleston WV.  47 pp.

           WV-DNR (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources).  1975a.  Annual
                interagency evaluation of surface mine reclamation in West
                Virginia.  Division of Reclamation, Charleston WV.  54 pp."

           WV-DNR (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources).  1975b.  State
                of West Virginia draft basin water quality management plan for
                the Kanawha River basin.  Division of Water Resources, Charleston
             ;   WV.  Variously paged, 615 pp.

           WV-DNR (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources).  1975c.  Drainage
                handbook for surface mining.  Division of Reclamation, Division of
                Planning and Development and Division of Reclamation in cooperation
                with Soil Conservation Service, USDA.  Variously paged, 136 pp.

           WV-DNR (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources).  1976a.  State
                of West Virginia draft basin water quality management plan for
                the Big Sandy-Tug Fork river basin.  Division of Water Resources,
                Charleston WV.  Variously paged,  270 pp.
                                                                JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                                    a subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------
                                    219
 WV-DNR (West  Virginia Department of Natural Resources).   1976b.  State
      of West  Virginia draft basin water quality management plan for
      the  Guyandotte river basin.  Division of Water Resources,
      Charleston WV.   Variously paged,  313 pp.

 WV-DNR (West  Virginia Department of Natural Resources).   1976c.  State
      of West  Virginia draft basin water quality management plan for
      the  Little Kanawha river basin.   Division of Water Resources,
      Charleston WV.   Variously paged,  201 pp.

 WV-DNR (West  Virginia Department of Natural Resources).   1976d.  State
      of West  Virginia draft basin water quality management plan for
      the  Monongahela river basin.   Division of Water Resources,
      Charleston WV.   Variously paged,  536 pp.

.WV-DNR (West  Virginia Department of Natural Resources).   1976e.  State
      of West  Virginia draft basin water quality management plan for
      the  Ohio river basin.   Division of Water Resources,  Charleston
      WV.   Variously paged,  287 pp.

 WV-DNR (West  Virginia Department of Natural Resources).   1976f.  State
      of West  Virginia draft basin water quality management plan for the
      Potomac  river basin.   Division of Water Resources,  Charleston WV.
      Variously paged, 257 pp.

 WV-DNR (West  Virginia Department of Natural Resources).   1976g.  Annual
      interagency evaluation of surface mine reclamation in West Virginia.
      Division of Reclamation,  Charleston WV.   73 pp.
                                                     JACK McCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                         o subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc.

-------