'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~--' xvs^-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 KNG79 *
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 08-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 (Seethe 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.
------- |