Environmental Protection Technology Series
UNDERGROUND MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN,
WEST VIRGINIA
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-114
June 1977
UNDERGROUND MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN, WEST VIRGINIA
FEASIBILITY STUDY
by
Baker-Wibberley & Associates, Inc.
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
Contract No. S-802644
Project Officer
Robert B. Scott
Crown Mine Drainage Field Site
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Rivesville, West Virginia 26588
This study was conducted in cooperation with
Wfeist Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Charleston, West Virginia 25311
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory - Cincinnati (lERL-Ci), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency; nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on
our health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution
control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and
improved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and
economically.
The eastern United States has significant acid mine drainage problems
as a result of underground coal mining. A major portion of these mines are
no longer active. Techniques for controlling this pollution are limited,
because of technical problems and cost. This study was undertaken to
evaluate the feasibility of several innovative abatement methods. The
Snowy Creek-Laurel Run basin, West Virginia, was selected for the study.
The results of the study were that a lake to control mine pool level, a
continuous clay core dam, and marble wall bulkhead seals were best suited
for this watershed.
The results of this study should be of interest to those persons
planning abatement programs for abandoned underground mines and to 208
planning agencies. For further information contact the Resource Extraction
and Handling Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
A study was conducted at the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run basin near Terra
Alta, West Virginia, to determine the feasibility of demonstrating mine
drainage control by known abatement techniques in abandoned coal mine areas
having shallow overburden.
The basin contains two abandoned mining complexes that have extensively
deep-mined the Lower Kittanning coal found in the Mount Carmel syncline.
Associated mine pool discharges are responsible for 90 percent of AMD pol-
lution in Snowy Creek which discharges into the Youghiogheny River (now being
considered as a part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System). Only
one-third of the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run basin is affected by AMD.
Additional inundation and stabilization of the mine pools were judged
necessary to reduce the AMD pollution. The recommended approach was to
utilize continuous clay core dams, a mine pool level control lake and movable
wall bulkhead seals to increase the size of the mine pools. It was felt that
this abatement approach was feasible.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 802644 by
Baker-Wibberley & Associates, Inc., Hagerstown, Maryland, for the West
Virginia Department of Natural Resources under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period April 1, 1975
to March 1, 1977.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Conversions. viii
Acknowledgment ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 5
4. Jurisdictional Framework 6
Cognizant Authority 6
Existing and Proposed Standards 7
Site Acquisition 7
Authority for Funding. .... 9
Water and Mineral Rights 9
Prevention of Future Pollution 9
5. Inventory and Forecast 11
Physical Conditions 11
Water Resources 30
Social and Economic Environment 47
6. Preliminary Engineering 49
Abatement Method Description 49
Preliminary Design 50
Capital and Operating Costs 62
7. Implementation and Operating Plans 66
8. Effectiveness of Project 68
Demonstration Value 68
Public Benefits 69
References 71
Bibliography 72
Appendices 74
A. Mine Production Records 74
B. Metric Coordinates 79
C. Computerized Printout - Comprehensive Water Analyses 85
D. Movable Wall Bulkhead Mine Seal 128
Glossary 131
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Location of the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Drainage
Basin 2
2 Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Drainage Basin 12
3 Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Geology 14 & 15
4 Geologic Data for the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run
Basin 16
5 Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Subsurface Exploration . . 18
6 Legend for Test Boring Logs 19
7 Test Boring Log Number 1 20
8 Test Boring Log Number 2 21
9 Test Boring Log Number 3 and Number 4 23
10 Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Abandoned Mine Workings . 24 & 25
11 Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Active Surface Mine Map . 27
12 Climatological Data for the Terra Alta, West
Virginia Weather Station 31
13 Annual Precipitation Probability for the Terra Alta,
West Virginia Weather Station 34
14 Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Stream Sample Locations . 35
15 V-Notch Weir Used to Measure Small Flows 37
16 Comparison of 90ฐ V-Notch Weir Curve - Upstream
Bevel versus Downstream Bevel 38
17 Location of Snowy Creek Continuous Monitor .... 39
18 Section of Snowy Creek Stage Level Recorder .... 40
vi
-------
Number Page
19 Mean Flow Distribution in the Snowy Creek -
Laurel Run Basin 41
20 Mean Sulfate Loadings in the Snowy Creek - Laurel
Run Basin 43
21 Mean Net Acidity in the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run
Basin 44
22 Lima Mine Abatement Plan 51
23 Lima Mine Abatement Plan - Corinth Section ... 53
24 Lima Mine Abatement Plan - Freeport Section . . 54
25 Banner Mine Abatement Plan 58 & 59
26 Earth Dam Section Used for Quantity and Cost
Estimates 60
27 Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Project Implementation
Schedule 67
TABLES
Number Page
1 Water Quality Criteria Pertaining to Acid
Mine Drainage 8
2 Soils Classification 29
3 Climatological Data for the Terra Alta, West
Virginia Weather Station 32
4 Flow Data Evaluation 45
5 Recorded High Flows 47
6 Peak Flows 47
7 Lima Mine Abatement Cost Estimates 63
8 Banner Mine Abatement Cost Dam and Impoundment . 63
9 Estimated Costs for the Alternative Banner Mine
Design 65
vii
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
Divide
(Metric Units)
by
(Conversion)
To Obtain
(English Units)
cubic meters
cubic meters/minute
degrees Celsius
hectares
kilograms
kilometers
meters
metric tons
millimeters
1.308
1.700
(C x 1.8) +32*
.405
.4536
1.609
.9144
.907
25.4
cubic yards
cubic feet /second
degrees Fahrenheit
acres
pounds
miles
yards
short tons
inches
* Actual Conversion, not a division
This report was prepared during the period of national conversion to
the metric system. Wherever practical, metric units are used. A few con-
cessions were necessary for ease of readability. For example, elevations are
quoted in feet in the absence of suitable metric topographic controls or
mapping. Also, published tabulations or records are maintained in their
quoted form.
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Baker-Wibberley & Associates, Inc. wishes to acknowledge all and to
express our appreciation to all who provided assistance during the completion
of this project. Special gratitude is extended to:
- The property owners in the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run basin.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Robert B. Scott, Project
Officer.
- West Virginia Department of Natural Resources; Don E. Caldwell,
Project Director and Ben Greene, Edwin Deem, and JoAnn Irwin.
- Kray Coal Company, Crellin, Maryland; Stanley Ashby, Vice President.
- Grafton Coal Company, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Jim Roy.
- The project team, Richard G. Beegle, Project Manager; Michael
M. Dreisbach, Project Coordinator; Richard C. Ely, Mining
Engineer; and Edwin F. Koppe, Geologist.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The effects of abandoned mine drainage have been felt throughout
Appalachia and West Virginia is no exception. Many areas of this State have
been adversely affected by abandoned mine drainage. The Snowy Creek - Laurel
Run basin was chosen as an excellent example that could be used as a demon-
stration project for determining methods with the best potential for abate-
ment control designs. The demonstration of an abatement technique, once it
has been proven effective, can serve as a model for future abatement tech-
nology under similar conditions.
This study has investigated in great detail existing pollution control
laws affecting the basin, the physical environment (including the physio-
graphy and geology), present and past mining activities, water resources
(including its climatology and hydrology), chemical analyses of the waters in
the subject basin and the socio-economic environment found in the study
basin. Investigations into these areas yielded a wealth of background infor-
mation from which preliminary engineering of proposed abatement designs was
developed.
The feasibility study is in Preston County, West Virginia. The Snowy
Creek - Laurel Run basin (Figure 1) is situated on the Maryland - West
Virginia border approximately 48.3 km (30 miles) southeast of Morgantown and
south of the Pennsylvania - West Virginia border. The effects of mine
drainage result from two major sections of the basin that have been exten-
sively deep mined beginning in the early 1890*s.
The Snowy Creek - Laurel Run basin is also a major headwater tributary
draining into the Youghiogheny River. At present, the Upper Youghiogheny is
being considered as a part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as
established by Congress in 1968 (PL 90-542). In this act Congress proclaimed
that these scenic rivers, "shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and
that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit
and enjoyment of present and future generations." Thus this basin study has
a direct bearing on the "Scenic Rivers" classification for the Youghiogheny
River.
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
Cumberland
MARYLAND
organfown
SNOWY CREEK-LAURE . RUN
DRAINAGE BASIN
/ y
Petersburg
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
Kilometers
0
Figure I. Location of the Snowy Creek-Laurel Run Drainage Basin.
2
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1. This feasibility study proved that a demonstration project to abate AMD
pollution in the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run basin is feasible. Utilizing
a continuous clay core dam and a mine pool level control lake will abate
abandoned mine drainage in areas of mining having a shallow overburden.
2. Two major sources of acid mine drainage are found in the Snowy Creek -
Laurel Run basin-the Banner Mine and the Lima Mine. The Lima Mine pool
is controlled by an outfall at an elevation of 743 m (2,438 ft). Acid
mine drainage from the Lima Mine pollutes the portion of the study basin
drained by Snowy Creek, above Laurel Run. The Banner Mine pool is
controlled by the main borehole discharge located near the Maryland -
West Virginia border at an elevation of 729 m (2,393 ft). Discharges
associated with the Banner Mine complex pollute the portion of the study
basin drained by Laurel Run.
3. Additional inundation and stabilization of the Lima and Banner mine
pools is necessary to reduce acid mine drainage pollution. Abatement at
the Lima Mine is possible by constructing a subsurface dam (continuous
clay core dam). At the Banner Mine, a mine pool level control lake will
inundate additional deep mine workings and stabilize the mine pool.
Implementation of these two projects will eliminate 90 percent of acid
mine drainage discharges in the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run basin.
4. Areas affected by past surface mining will remain above the proposed
mine pool level control lake of the Banner Mine at an elevation of 750 m
(2,460 ft) and will require regrading and revegetation to improve the
aesthetic appearance of the basin.
5. Previous studies by the Maryland Water Resources Administration (WRA)
indicate that the Youghiogheny River is severely degraded by acid mine
drainage from the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Basin. Data collected during
this study shows that Snowy Creek contributes a mean acid load of 4,663
kg/day (10,282 Ib/day) to the Youghiogheny River.
6. The proposed abatement project will eliminate at least 3,437 kg/day
(7,383 Ib/day) of the acid load resulting from abandoned mine drainage
in the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Basin. This reduction will reduce mean
acid loadings on the Youghiogheny River by an equal amount. The affected
section of the Youghiogheny River from its confluence with Snowy Creek
-------
to its confluence with the Little Youghiogheny River, some 7 km (4.4
miles) can now be improved.
7. Abatement of abandoned mine drainage will result in a cleaner water
resource and a better environment for the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Basin
and the Youghiogheny River. By cleaning up 6.3 km (3.9 miles) of stream
in Maryland, 1.5 km (0.9 miles) of stream in West Virginia, and creating
a new lake having 17.4 km (10.8 miles) of shoreline, improvements to
fish and wildlife habitats will be expected.
8. The development of a wildlife refuge and/or recreational facilities may
result as secondary impacts of the proposed project.
9. Definite social and economic gains will result from the cleaner environ-
ment made possible through the demonstration project. Protection of the
Youghiogheny River and its environment will be achievable.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approval and funding should be granted to proceed with the detailed
design engineering, construction, and monitoring phases of the demon-
stration project.
2. Reclamation of the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Basin should be accomplished
according to the following priorities:
a. Reclamation of the Snowy Creek portion of the basin should be accomp-
lished by constructing a continuous clay core dam in the vicinity of the Lima
Mine to eliminate acid mine drainage responsible for the pollution of the
creek above Laurel Run.
b. Reclamation of the Laurel Run portion of the basin should be accomp-
lished by constructing an earth dam that will create a mine pool level
control lake to raise the Banner Mine pool which is responsible for 90 per-
cent of the acid mine drainage in Laurel Run.
c. Abandoned surface mines in the Arnold Run and Freeport areas, should be
regraded and revegetated above the impoundment shoreline.
3. A monitoring program should be constructed for sampling immediately
above and below areas under abatement and at the mouth of Snowy Creek to
assess the effectiveness of the project.
4. A new movable wall bulkhead mine seal design should be employed for
seals of underground entries in the Ashby-Pendergast mine.
5. Interstate agreements on funding, acquisition, responsibilities and
control should be set forth between the State of West Virginia and the
State of Maryland as soon as possible to implement the demonstration
project.
6. Involvement of Federal and State conservation agencies (such as U.S.
Fish and Wildlife) and/or regional planning agencies will prove bene-
fical toward the possible development of secondary benefits derived from
the abatement project.
-------
SECTION 4
JURISDICTIONAL FRAMEWORK
This section establishes the legal authority for the State or for
other agencies. A review of agencies involved with acquisition, design,
construction and protection, and the relevant regulations under which they
operate will be included to determine how effectively the demonstration
project could be implemented under such agencies and standards.
COGNIZANT AUTHORITY
The following report has been conducted under the direction of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Water Pollution Control
Acjt of 1972, PL 92-500, grants EPA its authority in water pollution matters.
Section 107 of the Water Pollution Control Act, "Mine Water Pollution
Control Demonstrations," addresses itself to selecting project watersheds
to be used as examples of techniques developed to control mine drainage
pollution. In the selection of project watersheds, EPA is directed to give
"preference to areas with the greatest present or potential value for
public use for recreation, fish and wildlife, water supply and other public
uses."
The Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Demonstration Project is funded through
a grant to the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. The Depart-
ment of Natural Resources is responsible for the supervision and adminis-
tration of the demonstration project. Legislative authority to conduct
such projects is granted to the Department of Natural Resources in the form
of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and the Water Pollution Control
Act of the Code of West Virginia. Administration of these laws under the
Department of Natural Resources is performed by the Division of Reclamation
and the Division of Water Resources.
The Division of Reclamation was established by the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act and is responsible for administering and enforcing all laws
related to surface mining. The Division has control over land, water, soil
restoration, and reclamation of all surface-mined lands. Section 20-6-3 of
the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act grants the Division of Reclamation
this authority.
The Division of Water Resources is charged with the Administration and
enforcement of the Water Pollution Control Act, Article 5A, Chapter 20 of
the Code of West Virginia, and it receives its authority from this Act.
Sections 20-5A-2, 20-5A-3, 20-5A-3a and 20-5A-4 of the Water Pollution
-------
Control Act set the parameters that guide the Division of Water Resources.
The Division of Water Resources has been designated as the water pollution
control agency for the State of West Virginia.
In summary, the Department of Natural Resources will be totally
responsible for the implementation of the demonstration project, either
through the Division of Water Resources or the Division of Reclamation or
both.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED STANDARDS
Snowy Creek and Laurel Run are considered public streams, and they are
therefore subject to the water quality standards regulated by the Division
of Water Resources. The Administrative Regulations of the State of West
Virginia, Series I, Sections 3 and 5 outline the general water quality
standards applicable to the State waters. Section 3, "General Conditions
Not Allowable in State Waters," establishes the general parameters on water
quality standards for the State. Section 5, "Acid Mine Drainage Control
Measures," sets forth specific conditions applicable to acid mine drainage
discharges.
Snowy Creek, a headwater tributary of the Youghiogheny River, is also
subject to more stringent water use and water quality criteria as estab-
lished by Sections 6 and 13 of the West Virginia Administrative Regulations,
Series II. Section 6, "General and Water Use Categories," defines the
types of water uses in the State. Section 13, "Water Uses and Water
Quality Criteria," develops the water quality standards that apply to all
tributaries of the Youghiogheny River that are interstate with Maryland and
Pennsylvania. Table 1 is a summary of water quality standards pertaining
to acid mine drainage discharge as found in Section 13.^
SITE ACQUISITION
Abatement plans for the Lima Mine and Banner Mine areas will require
that limited amounts of property be procured and that releases be obtained
to perform certain segments of construction on lands not purchased.
Land acquisition is not a major concern in the project. Both the
State of West Virginia and the State of Maryland have the legal capabilities
to acquire land for such a project. A joint venture between Federal and
State governments is considered necessary in order to fund the cost of the
project.
Abatement at the Lima Mine will require that a release or permission
to execute construction be obtained from the individual property owners.
Certain segments of the Lima Mine abatement design may be executed by the
active surface operator. Releases on approximately 4.9 ha (12 acres) will
be required at the Lima Mine site. Acquisition of these releases should be
obtained by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources.
-------
TABLE 1. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA PERTAINING TO ACID MINE DRAINAGE
Constituent Concentrations
Dissolved Oxygen -------- Not less than 5 mg/1 at any time.
pH ------- ______ Values normal for the waters in the
area in question; however, generally
held between 6.0 and 8.5, except
streams carrying significant
quantities of acid mine drainage
shall have a pH of not less than 5.5.
Threshold Odor -__--_-_- Not to exceed a threshold odor number
of 8 at 40ฐC. as a daily average.
Toxic Substance Not to exceed 1/10 of the 96-hour
median tolerance limit.
Nitrates Not to exceed 45 mg/1.
Chlorides Not to exceed 100 mg/1.
Phenol Not to exceed .001 mg/1.
Cyanide ---_________ Not to exceed .025 mg/1.
Fluoride ------------ Not to exceed 1.0 mg/1.
Selenium ______ Not to exceed .01 mg/1.
Arsenic ------------ Not to exceed .01 mg/1.
Barium ------------- Not to exceed .50 mg/1.
Cadmium ------___-__ Not to exceed .01 mg/1.
Chromium (Hexavalent) ----- Not to exceed .05 mg/1.
Lead -----_-_-__--- Not to exceed .05 mg/1.
Silver ------------- Not to exceed .05 mg/1.
Note: In special cases where the facts warrant, more stringent
standards, or exceptions to the above standards, may be
established in the individual case with the approval of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Source: Section 13 of the West Virginia Administrative
Regulations, Series II, "Water Uses and Water
Quality Criteria."
The Banner Mine abatement design will require approximately 270.3 ha
(668 acres) to relocate an existing right-of-way and provide an impoundment
area elevating the proposed mine pool. Areas located below an elevation of
749.8 m (2,460 ft) immediately behind the breast of the proposed earth dam,
will be inundated. A deep mine seal will be required at the Ashby-Pender-
gast Mine; therefore a release to enter and construct such a seal will be
necessary. Regrading and revegetation at the Arnold Run and Freeport areas
will also require a release to enter and perform necessary work.
The Banner Mine abatement design project is situated on the Maryland-
West Virginia border. The breast of the proposed dam is located in Mary-
land, and the impoundment is located largely in West Virginia. The Ashby-
Pendergast Mine is located near Crellin, Maryland. Therefore, while the
-------
impact of the abatement design and its physical construction are of inter-
state importance, acquisition of land and releases to perform work would
require interstate cooperation between the State of Maryland and the State
of West Virginia.
AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING
The abatement project for the Snowy Creek basin is considered an
interstate project. The State of West Virginia, with the assistance of the
U.S. EPA, has funded the feasibility study. Construction of the proposed
abatement designs will greatly reduce acid mine drainage entering Snowy
Creek and the Youghiogheny River, both of which are interstate streams.
With the reduction of acid mine drainage originating in West Virginia, both
the State of Maryland and of West Virginia derive benefits from the project.
Approximately 7.8 km (4.81 miles) of stream will be made cleaner with
the implementation of the proposed abatement project. On Snowy Creek, 6.2
km (3.83 miles) of stream will be made cleaner of which 76 percent, or 4.7
km (2.92 miles) is found in Maryland. Laurel Run, below the breast of the
proposed dam, will add another 1.6 km (0.98 miles) entirely in Maryland.
In addition to these cleaner stream reaches shared by both Maryland and
West Virginia, the proposed impoundment having 17.7 km (11.06 miles) of
shoreline will also be a direct benefit to each state.
Finally with the reduction of acid mine drainage in Snowy Creek -
Laurel Run, the Youghiogheny River can not return to its natural state, a
goal Maryland is presently striving toward.
In view of the nature of the proposed program it is recommended that
the State of West Virginia and the State of Maryland in cooperation with
Federal agencies develop a joint method of funding the demonstration project.
WATER AND MINERAL RIGHTS
A mineral evaluation of the Snowy Creek Basin as well as the remainder
of West Virginia is presently being conducted. Results of the evaluation
will not be made public at this time. However, it has been determined that
proposed abatement designs are in areas that have been economically mined
out. Therefore, purchase of mineral rights has not been included.'
The streams of Snowy Creek and Laurel Run are considered to be public
streams, therefore private ownership is not an issue.
PREVENTION OF FUTURE POLLUTION
It has been determined that sufficient water quality standards exist
and that proper authority has been granted the Division of Water Resources
to administer and enforce said standards. Since the Division of Water
Resources is the State's regulatory agency and has the authority to enforce
water quality standards, implementation of the demonstration project in
accordance to these regulations is anticipated.
-------
Active mining in the project basin could be continued without any
adverse effects to the proposed abatement project. Present standards and
reclamation laws are sufficiently stringent to protect the proposed project.
The most recent mining permit issued to the mining operation within
the basin included special conditions which were in harmony with the "clay
core dam" abatement plan outlined in this project.
This addition of the continuous "clay core dam" concept, added by the
operators in response to the project, and approved by the West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources, exemplifies the concern and willingness to
protect the project basin by all parties.
10
-------
SECTION 5
INVENTORY AND FORECAST
The section presents an inventory of physical, economic, and social
conditions found in the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Basin. An outline of
physical conditions, including information obtained during subsurface
explorations is presented. A complete water resource evaluation that
emphasizes the results of the water quality network, which was monitored
for 1 year, is summarized. Socio-economic conditions in the study basin
and the effects of outlying areas on the basin are observed.
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
The project is situated in Preston County, West Virginia and Garrett
County, Maryland, as shown on Figure 2. Areas affected by acid mine
drainage are situated in the lower portion of the basin and pollute clean
water derived from the upper segments of the basin before being discharged
into the Youghiogheny River. The basin is drained by two major streams,
Snowy Creek and Laurel Run. Laurel Run enters Snowy Creek just before the
Snowy Creek confluence with the Youghiogheny River.
Physiography
The Snowy Creek - Laurel Run study area in West Virginia is situated
in the headwaters of the Youghiogheny River Basin within the Allegheny
Mountain section of the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province. The
plateau in this area has been strongly dissected by erosion and the topo-
graphy reflects the lay and alternation of hard and soft bedrock. Typical
steep-sided, v-shaped valleys separated by rounded hilltops are noticeable
only where the drainage cuts though resistant sandstone bedrock layers.
Broader and more gentle rolling hills and valleys are commonly found
elsewhere in the immediate survey area.
Overall topographic relief is about 250 m (820 ft), with extremes
ranging from a low elevation of 727 m (2,385 ft) above sea level at the
confluence of Snowy Creek and the Youghiogheny River near Crellin, Maryland,
to a high elevation of 992 m (3,256 ft) on Brushy Knobs at the edge of the
watershed to the southwest. In the immediate area of concern, 60 m (200
ft) to 120 m (400 ft) of relief is more common. The configuration of the
watershed drainage system reflects both the northeast plunge of bedrock
structure as well as basinward dips of resistant bedrock units.
11
-------
Swallow Falls
State Park
PORTLAND
DISTRICT
UNION
DISTRICT
LOCATION
Area affected by A.M.D.
Watershed Area
ENNSYLVANIA
Election District Boundary
DRAINAGE BASIN
MARYLAND
Kilometers
0
Snowy Creek-Laurel Run Drainage Basin.
12
-------
Geology
The study area occupies the center and margins of the southwest-
northeast trending Mount Carmel syncline. The syncline is bounded by the
Briery Mountain anticline to the west and the Deer Park anticline to the
east. There is a northeastward plunge to the syncline, as shown by struc-
ture contours plotted on the accompanying geologic map (Figure 3). The
relatively broad and flat axis of the syncline here is bounded by a pro-
nounced steepening of bed attitude toward the paralleling anticlines.
About 260 m (853 ft) of coal-bearing strata are preserved in the syncline
referable to the Pottsville, Allegheny, and Conemaugh groups of the Penn-
sylvania System (Figure 4).
The basal Pottsville Group is made up mainly of massive sandstone and
siltstone, with only minor thin coal horizons. Coals in the Pottsville
Group are unimportant; they tend to be less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) and
generally are not minable. Exposures were found at the Mercer and Quaker-
town horizons. No pollution problems were found.
The Allegheny Group includes those strata found between the Lower
Clarion and the Upper Freeport coal horizons. The group includes cyclic
sequences of shale, sandstone, coal and clay. Light to dark shale, ranging
from sandy shale to clay shale, is more abundant than other lithologies.
Sandstone is common to the lower half of the Allegheny Group where it
laterally interfingers with, or massively replaces, a shaly sequence. The
persistent minable lower Kittanning coal horizon has been used as the key
horizon, providing both stratigraphic and structural control in the study
area.
The Lower Clarion coal near the base of the group was reported as 0.3
to 1.2 m (1 to 4 ft) thick and of poor quality but has been prospected only
at a few places. No significant mining of this bed was found anywhere in
the study area. This coal is found 24 and 30 m (79 ft and 98 ft) below the
Lower Kittanning coal datum.
The Lower Kittanning coal is the principal mined coal of the area.
This coal is very persistent and generally consists of a split bed con-
taining a middle 1.0- to 1.5- m (3 to 5 ft)- thick black shale parting.
The total coal thickness, including partings, is about 3 m (10 ft).
Generally, a massive to shaly sandstone 10 m (33 ft) or more thick is found
within a few meters of the top of the coal.
Coals noted above the Lower Kittanning in the Allegheny group tend to
be thin or lenticular and though prospected and mined very locally, they
are of little importance to the project.
The Conemaugh Group in the study area includes all consolidated
strata above the position of the Upper Freeport coal horizon. Originally
200 to 230 m (656 to 755 ft) thick, this unit has had all vestiges of its
upper two thirds removed by erosion. This group is made up of shale,
sandstone, and claystones with a few thin coals. Only the Lower Bakerstown
13
-------
X- - - ._v _
-------
n
LEGEND
-2300 STRUCTURE CONTOUR
(Based upon Lower KiManning cool)
LB LOWER BAKERSTOWN COAL
Figure 3. Snowy Creek - Laurel Run geology.
E UPPER FREEPORT COAL
B LOWER KITTANNING COAL
A LOWER CLARION COAL
-------
,v
2600
24.OO-
2200-
Terra Alto
Amboy
STUDY AREA
VICINITY MAP
i
-i
u
LOWER BAKERSTOWN
f*w prosptcts, nil/tops
BRUSH CREEK
rtpofttd only as shaly coal
UPPER FREEPORT "E"
0-4 thick; smoil local mints only
LOWER FREEPORT "D"
not mlntd south of Snowy Crttk
UPPER KITTANNINQ "c"'
local prosptcts
L9WER KiTTANNING "B"
4 -II thick ; minoblt; gmtrally split
LOWER CLARION "A"
1-4 thick; prosptcts only
MERCER
much split and sholy
QUAKERTOWN
0- 1' thick
SHARON
not sttn
unconformity ^/
INTERVW.
+400-420
+ 330
HปO
C90-IOO
-80 100
-I40-HO
-260 300
-39O-4OO
GROUP
i
i
0
:,:'v:''
' z "
x : '-;
> _|''t..
,:Xi:,;
;
J:
r
1
L-v^-^'V
i^ll
SYSTEM
z
z
3
V
Z
z
III
z
<
MISSISSIP
STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN
Feet
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
(vertical exaggeration 5ซ)
Meteri
Figure 4. Geologic data for the Snowy Creek-Laurel Run basin.
-------
coal has been prospected and opened for house coal. The Brush Creek
horizon 35 m (115 ft) above the Upper Freeport coal, is usually a car-
bonaceous.
A thin alluvial fill is present in the Snowy Creek and Laurel Run
valleys. The alluvium is seldom as much as 5 m (16 ft) thick in the
center of either valley.
Although no true faults were found, a possible fault was reported in
the mine workings and may have some displacement. The rocks of the area
are fractured both by natural jointing and as a result of subsidence in
some areas where the Lower Kittanning coal was extensively mined. Effects
of subsidence were particularly noticeable in places where coal was with-
drawn less than 30 m (98 ft) below surface. The opened fractures mate-
rially affect the hydrology in the vicinity of mining. In such areas,
normal perched groundwater supplies are either meager or absent. Depending
on the elevation, water either enters the mine or is discharged from the
mine when fractures are present in drainage courses.
jubsurface Exploration
Test borings were made during the study to prove geological inter-
pretations, to document the nature of the overburden, and to permit
monitoring of the Banner Mine pool level. Locations of these tests and
resultant logs are presented as Figures 5 through 9.
Broken strata were found above the B (Lower Kittanning) coal, espe-
cially in drill holes 3 and 4, where insufficient pillar support permits
varying degrees of subsidence. Test Boring No. 3 is being used to monitor
the level of the Banner Mine pool.
An attempt was made to rebore the existing drill hole which is now
providing a discharge to Laurel Run near the West Virginia - Maryland State
Line. The tools could not be held in alignment because of the presence of
a concrete plug and lateral voids in the broken strata. A large amount of
concrete had been injected into the hole during 1964 in an unsuccessful
attempt to halt this flow. The flow had channeled around the plug material
and widened the hole.
Mining
Extensive underground mining has taken place only on the Lower
Kittanning coal, and all significant pollution is from this horizon. The
extent of this mining and of peripheral strip mining is shown in the
accompanying mine development map (Figure 10). The workings shown are
principally taken from available mine maps. The direction and extent of
some minor workings are assumed in the absence of satisfactory information
(Figure 10). The assumed mains are based on position of the entries and
reported extent or interpretations of mining methods employed at the time
of development.
17
-------
:, ซKU1
{ . ,W
'',"
w- m
~^7S^ .. --x
LL HOL]E NO. 2
isir*- -
ft \ ' I
'x: ป /
r/-
-^ /
^.38 ?%J
Figures. Snowy Creek-Laurel Run subsurface exploration
18
-------
o
00
fe
UJ
c
z
o
at
o: E
UJCJ
gffl
5 Q
00.0
OVERBURDEN
10.0
CLAY SHALE
20.0
SANDSTONE
30.0
SHALE-SANDY
40.0
SHALE-DARK OR BLACK
50.0
SHALE-UNSPECIFIED; LIGHT OR MEDIUM COLOR
60.0
COAL
70.0
MINE WASTE
80.0
VOID
90.0
Figure 6. Legend for test boring logs.
-------
BORING I
1 > '
ri
rrr
00.0 Elev. 259606
Overburden
10.0
Brown shate/Clay Soft
156 Light and Dork Gray Clay
Shale-Soft
Coal(E)
203
208
306
Black Shate: Med Hd
(Badly Broken)
Light Gray Cloy Shale
(Bodly Broken)
458
Red Cloy Shale /Gray
Shale'Soft to Med. Hd.
529
Alternating Bands of Light
Gray and Red Shale
Med. Hd.(Broken)
71.7
815
862
Red and Gray Clay Shale:
Med. Hd. (Broken to Badly Broken)
Light Gray Shale Med. Hd.
(Broken to Massive)
Light Gray Sandstone /
Shale;Med Hd. to Hd.
94.5 (Broken to Massive)
Light Gray Sandy Shale
Med Hd to Hd (Broken
to Massive)
109.0
Dark Gray Shale = Med Hd
' ? ? Dork Gray Sandy Shate Med Hd
- (Broken to Massive)
Block Shale / Sandstone;
Med Hd.(Broken to Massive)
',',,>
*[ i?
Light Gray Sandstone Hard
Light to Dork Gray Shale
Med Hd (Broken to Massive)
W6.7
Light Gray Clay Shale;Med.
Hd (Badly Broken to Broken)
1620
1705
1773
Light Gray Sandy Shale:
Med Hd. (Broken to Massive)
Light Gray Shotey Sandstone
Hard (Broken to Massive)
Light Gray Shale /Soft Clay
Seams = Med Hd (Badly Broken)
2020
211.0
Light Gray Sandy Shate ' Med Hd
Light Gray Sandstone: Hard
iken to Massive)
Dark Gray Shote Med Hd
(Broken to Massive)
Light Gray Shale ' Med. Hd.
(Broken to Massive)
ooo o Dark Gray Black ShakrMedHd.
224 0 Ll9ht ^ So^y Shale
Light Gray Sholey Sandstone^
MedHd.toHdtBroken to Massive)
Dark GrayBlk. Sandy Sh ^Med Hd.
231 5
2362
239.5
2408
24Z5 f-.
?4*i ? ^-O01
2464 Black Shale / Coal
Coal
Black Shote
Gray Ctay Shale Soft
B
255.5
Light to DarkGray Shale
Med Hd (Broken to Massive)
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
10 0 20
Figure 7 Test boring log number
-
-------
V
r r
> r
rVl
> *
\ *\
'
BORING 2
00.0 Elev 2613.85
Overburden
195
Light/Dark Gray Clayey Shale-
Soft (Broken)
34.7
42 8
495
Dark Gray Clay Shale/Red Shale
Soft (Badly Broken)
Light Gray Cloy Shale Soft
(Badly Broken)
Light Gray Shale Med Hd (Broken)
605 Light Gray Sandy Shale Med. Hd
63 I (Broken to Massive)
Light Gray Sandstone /Soft
Seams Hard
70.5
Light Gray Sandstone :Hard
(Massive)
852 Dark Gray Shale'Med.Hd.
87.0 (Broken to Massive)
Light Gray Sandstone /Coal Spars
Hard (Broken to Massive)
j|| ^ Cool: Soft (Lower Bokerstown)
23 | Light Gray Sandstone : Hard
Dark Gray Cloy Shale/Very Soft
Clay Seam Med Hd (Broken to
Badly Broken)
J T AT 1
147.1
,151.4
151.9
159.1
1666
175.2
1764
1805
Light Gray Sandstone
Hard (Broken)
Dark Gray Shale: Hard
Light Gray Sandstone :Hard
(Broken to Massive)
Light Gray Sandstone: Hard
(Broken toMassivelCrystallized
Block Shale Med. Hd.
Carbonaceous, Fossils
Coal : Soft (Brush Creek)
Black Shale^ Med. Hd
Gray Shale: Med Hd
(Broken to Badly Broken)
194.8
Alternating Bonds of Red
Shale Med Hd. (Broken) and
Light Gray Shale : Med Hd
(Broken to Massive)
210.0 Light Gray Shale: Med. Hd.,
Fossils
-2155 (Bodly Broken to Broken)
Light Gray Shale Med. Hd.
(Broken to Massive)
-2280 Red/Groy Shale =Med. Hd
_,_- (Broken)
-2346 Red Shate : Med Hd-
Light Gray Clay Shate :
Med Hd (Badly Broken)
Light/Dork Gray Shole;
Med. Hd (Badly Broken)
-253.9 Red Shale/Gray Streaks
-2565 (Badly Broken)
Light Gray Shale ; Med Hd
(Broken)
Light Gray Sandstone:Hard
(Broken to Massive)
-2661
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
10 0 20
Figure 8. Test boring log number 2.
21
-------
BORING 2
(Cont.)
274.0
ซi*ป
2927
3105
Light Groy Sandy Shote Med Hd
to Hd (Broken to Mossive)
Light Gray Shale Med Hd(Mass)
Block Shale/Clay Seam; Med Hd
Cool /Shote Seams :Soft (E)
Bkxk Shote Hd (Broken toMassXE)
Cool'Soft (E)
Black Shote Med Hd
Ljght Groy Shale/ Clay Med Hd
Broken)
Light/Dark Gray Clay Shale Med
Hd.(Badly Broken)/Soft Clay
3300
3343
3375
Light Gray Shate; Med Hd (Massive)
Red/Groy Shole ^Med Hd (Massive)
Lt Gray Shote Med. Hd^Brkn-Moss.)
Red/Gray Shale Med Hd. (Broken)
Dark Gray Shale'Med Hd(Broken)
3454
Light Gray Sandy Shale Med
Hd to Hd (Broken to Massive)
3605
3679
3755
Light/Dark Gray Shale Med Hd.
(Broken to Mossive)
Light Gray Sandstonซ:Hard
(Broken to Massive)
Black Shale /Sandstone Streaks
Med Hd to Hd (Broken to Massive)
3924
Black Shale Med Hd. to Hd.
(Broken to Massive)
Cool (C')
Dark Groy Shale Med. Hd
(Badly Broken)
4100
Light Greenish Gray Shale /
Sandstone Streaks Med Hd
to Hd. (Broken to Mossive)
4255
4347
Light Gray Shale Med Hd.
(Badly Broken to Broken)
Dark Gray Shale Med Hd to Hd.
(Broken to Massive)
451 5
Light Gray Sandstone Hard
(Massive)
487.3
5205
Black Shale Med Hd(Brkn to Mass.)
Black Shale/Sondstn{MedHd-Hd )
Lt Gray Sandstone Hd(Broken)
Cool/Shale Soft
lock Shole Soft
toy :.
hole/Coal
lock Shale-Boney
Coal
Light/Dork Gray Shole /Cloy
Light Gray Shale/Sandstone
Med Hd to Hd
Figure 8 continued.
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
10 0 20
22
-------
BORING 3
BORING 4
129
202
290
309
335
T--- - -42 9
I *
_-^_-
3-
.'.(-.:
\>
^^_7
>. ^ *
:LH>:
Iz-Ir:
' J
r :
00.0 Elev 2458 38
Overburden
Light Gray Shaley Sandstone
Med Hd.(Broken to Badly Broken)
Light Gray Shale Med. Hd.
(Badly Broken)
Light Gray Cloy Shale Soft(Broken)
Dark Gray Shale-Soft (Broken)
Light Gray Sandy Shote (Broken)
52.9
540
-
-
-
-
:
-
>il-ii-7r--
00.0 Elev. 239884
145
203
252
255
31 0
31 5
Light Gray Sandstone Med Hd
to Hd{Broken to Mossive)
Brown Sandstone
Light Gray Sandstone^ Med Hd.
to Hd (Broken to Massive)
11 Light/Dark Gray Shote Med Hd (Broken)
878 Block Shale
Void
95ง Mine Waste (B)
424
450
Overburden
Light Gray Sandstone
Med Hd to Hd (Broken)
Light/Dork Gray Shale Med Hd
Void
Caved Mine Waste B
Black Shale/Cool J
Light/Dork Gray Clay Shale Soft
Black Shale Med Hd
1004
1.
Light Gray Clay She to'Soft
Dark Gray Shale-Med. Hd (Broken)
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
10 0
Figure 9. Test boring logs number 3 and number 4.
23
-------
LIMA MINE
-V M5&'7
if***ss*iijr
r ' ^
Corinth . '
% I ' \ , '
' '^, '
. i
' I
/ >N
v
i
V7 ฎ^*\
NORDIC MINE tgfK
^. ^'S&m
\:.\
;>
' ;
*^L \
-------
K3
LH
f .-. -. - ~~
<*&*&ฃ
.
i
*P v - w.
. > '"
M^J .
; ||| __,,
- .
ARNOLD NO. 2
MINE
ARNOLD NO. I
MINE
- - o
y-/-
/e-
KILDOW^MINE-*^
71*ฐ N fr;"
/j?/ ^-^
>a; C"H 2^ปa
^/^"S J8?F'
^ t
^ &>
/
.ฃS^l
7ASHBY- /
PENDERGAST'
MINE /
J
I
'
1000 0
240 0
reel
Meiers
1
720
Figure 10. Snowy Creek - Laurel Run abandoned mine workings.
-B-
LEGEND
LOCATION OF KNOWN MINE WORKINGS
LOCATION OF ASSUMED MINE WORKINGS
OUTCROP LINE-LOWER KITTANNING COAL
BOREHOLE LOCATION
-------
The presence of a mine pool in the Lima Mine about 14 m (46 ft) above
the elevation of the Banner Mine pool strongly suggests that no connection
exists between these pools at the present time.
Mining was started in the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Basin at Corinth in
1897. The first mine, the Corinth Mine, was opened by the Oakland Coal and
Coke Company in what they believed to be the Upper Freeport Coal seam (now
identified as the Lower Kittanning Coal Seam).
The mine portal was located approximately 700 m (2,297 ft) southwest
of the center of Corinth. The main heading was driven to the southwest to
allow for natural drainage from the mine. Most of the mine development was
to the west of the main heading, and mining was to the rise. Several butt
headings were driven almost due south and extended far enough to come very
close to if not actually intercepting, the workings in the Banner Mine.
The Oakland Coal and Coke Company mined coal in the Corinth Mine until
1910, when the records show that mining was continued under the name of the
Jorden Coal Company, which mined coal until 1912. From 1912 until 1922,
the records show no production recorded from the Corinth Mine. In 1922,
the Lindsey Coal Mining Company opened operations and named the mine the
Lima No. 1. Production records continue from the Lindsey Coal Mining
Company until 1932. Here again, no production records are available until
1942, when the Princess Pat Coal Company began reporting production and
continued until 1947. This we believe was the last of the production from
the deep mine.
In 1953, the L ,& L Coal Company and the Mersing Coal Company began a
surface mining operation along the outcrop of the Lower Kittanning Coal
Seam. Surface mining was carried on until 1960. In 1975, the Grafton Coal
Company began surface strip mining operations very near the portal of the
Lima No. 1 mine and continued the surface mine operation along the exist-
ing highwalls. All of these operations cut into the old mine workings of
the Lima Mine. Figure 11 locates the present active surface mine operations
of the Grafton Coal Company.
The majority of underground mining was done to the rise in- this mine
employing the room and pillar system. This was accomplished by driving the
main heading into the body of coal on the rise of the seam (up dip).
Branch entries (butt headings) were then driven off the main heading at
approximately 107 m (350 ft) intervals. The butt headings were driven
slighly up dip in order to provide natural drainage and to aid in hauling.
The rooms were also driven from the butt headings on the rise (up dip) and
were spaced at approximately 15 m (50 ft) intervals.
The area mined down dip is much smaller because of the inability to
properly handle the water created by mining down structure. We feel that
water rather than the quality of the coal was the controlling factor in the
extent of mining to the east of the main headings.
By 1897, there were two commerical mines in production in the Turner
Douglass area: the Arnold No. 1 and the Guthrie Mine (production figures
26
-------
TWE PERMIT
PENDING APPROVAL
DERORTMENT
eters
Figure II. Snowy Creek-Laurel Run active surface mine map.
27
-------
were not available until 1913). The original producer of coal was the
Preston Lumber and Coal Company. In 1905, the Kendall Lumber Company
purchased the Preston Lumber and Coal Company, and by 1919, coal producing
was its main enterprise. At this time there were four active mines in the
areathey were the Arnold No. 1 and No. 2, Guthrie, and Turner Douglass
(later named the Banner Mine).
The main portal of the Banner mine is located at the east end of
Turner Douglass and the main heading was driven almost due north and is
over 3.2 km (2 miles) long. Butt headings were driven off the main heading
to the left and right and rooms were then driven off the butt headings.
All of the work was done by hand in the Turner Douglass area until
1925, when the Kendall Lumber Company sold its holdings (which included the
Turner Douglass Mine) to the newly formed Stanley Coal Company. The
Stanley Coal Company, which named the Turner Douglass Mine the Banner No.
1, began a modernization program, and by 1927 it was 95 percent mechanized.
As shown on Figure 10, the deep mine workings were extended almost to
the "grass roots" on the western side of the main headings. It is also
shown that the Nordic, Laurel Valley, Vanwerth, Kerns, Banner, Kildow, and
Ashby-Pendergast Mines are all interconnected. We believe that the intent
was at one time to cut through and connect the Lima Mine with the Banner
Mine. Based on the mine development maps and productions reported by the
Grafton Coal Company, these mines show about 75 percent recovery. The
limiting factor in mining on the eastern side of the main heading was the
amount of water that could be handled economically.
The Arnold No. 1 and No. 2 mines were not connected to the Banner Mine.
(No mine maps were available for the area.) Mine production records indi-
cate the area was partially mined out.
An area of Lower Kittanning Coal partially deep-mined is located in
the study area south of Turner Douglass. The area has one small mine
driven only a short distance and then abandoned. According to information
furnished by local residents the thickness and quality of the coal changed
in the area and was not mineable. This has not been verified by drilling
and there does seem to be a potential mining area at this location.
Surface mining was. extensively carried out in the Turner Douglass-
Freeport area. Most outcrop coal was removed in surface mine operations.
During surface mining many old workings were cut into, thus demonstrating
the fact that deep mine headings were driven to the "grass roots."
Many of the mines were known by different names. Available mine
production records for the Snowy Creek Basin are presented in Appendix A.
Soils
Soils in the study area are typically residual soils derived from
interbedded acidic sandstone, siltstone, and shale. The Gilpin series
dominates the uplands grading downslope to the related, poorly drained
28
-------
Ernest and Atkins soils in the valley floor.
listed in Table 2.
The principal soils found are
The Gilpin soils are moderatly deep, well-drained silt loams with
variable amounts of slabby or stony material present. This series locally
includes patches of more sandy Dekalb soil on steeper slopes and patches of
claypan Wharton soil in flat upland areas.
All of the soils are acidic, ranging from pH 4.2 to pH 5.0, and tend
to be best suited for wildlife habitat, woodland, or pasture lands.
Disturbed areas can be returned to usefulness with minimal fertilizing and
liming.^
TABLE 2. SOILS CLASSIFICATION
Symbol
Name
Aa
Bm
Bn
Ca
Cb
Cd
Ce
Cf
eg
Cm
Co
Cp
Db
DC
Dg
Dk
Dr
Du
Dv
Dw
Eb
Ef
Gk
Gn
Go
Gp
Gr
Gv
Gw
Gx
Gy
(continued)
Calvin silt loam,
Calvin silt loam,
Cavode silt loam,
Atkins silt loam
Brinkerton silt loam, 3-10 percent slopes
Brinkerton stony silt loam, 0-15 percent slopes
Calvin silt loam, 3-10 percent slopes
Calvin silt loam, 10-20 percent slopes
Calvin silt loam, 20-30 percent slopes
Calvin silt loam, 20-30 percent slopes
30-40 percent slopes
30-40 percent slopes
3-10 percent slopes
Cavode silt loam, 10-20 percent slopes
Clarksburg silt loam, reddish variant, 3-10 percent slopes
Dekalb channery sandy loam, 10-20 percent slopes
Dekalb channery sandy loam, 20-30 percent slopes
Dekalb loam, 10-20 percent slopes
Dekalb loam, 20-30 percent slopes
Dekalb stony loam, 20-30 percent slopes
Dekalb stony sandy loam, 5-20 percent slopes
Dekalb stony sandy loam, 20-30 percent slopes
Dekalb stony sandy loam, 30-40 percent slopes
Ernest silt loam, 3-10 percent slopes
Ernest stony silt loam, 3-20 percent slopes
Gilpin silt loam, 3-10 percent slopes
gilpin silt loam, 10-20 percent slopes
Gilpin silt loam, 10-20 percent slopes
Gilpin silt loam, 20-30 percent slopes
Gilpin silt loam, 20-30 percent slopes
Gilpin stony silt loam, 3-10 percent slopes
Gilpin stony silt loam, 10-20 percent slopes
Gilpin stony silt loam, 20-30 percent slopes
Gilpin stony silt loam, 30-40 percent slopes
29
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
Symbol
Name
Lb
Mb
Me
Ra
Se
Wa
We
Wd
We
Wf
Lickdale stony silt clay loam, 0-15 percent slopes
Mine dumps
Melvin silt loam
Rayne silt loam, 3-10 percent slopes
Strip mine spoil
3-10 percent slopes
10-20 percent slopes
10-20 percent slopes,
Wharton silt loam, 20-30 percent slopes
Wharton silt loam, 20-30 percent slopes, severely eroded
Wharton silt loam,
Wharton silt loam,
Wharton silt loam,
severely eroded
Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conversation
Survey - Preston County, West Virginia
WATER RESOURCES
Climatology
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration maintains a
weather station at Terra Alta, West Virginia, in the northwest corner of
the study basin. The exact location of the weather station has been
moved once since 1952. Data collection, however, has remained in the
same general location. Therefore the early gage known as Hopemont (from
1952 to 1964) and the present Terra Alta No. 1 gage were combined to
obtain a longer historical data base. These climatological patterns are
summarized by the normal values found on Table 3 and Figure 12. The
normal values were then used as a base for comparison against the recorded
values also expressed on Table 3 and Figure 12.
Temperature
Generally the temperatures recorded during the sampling period were
above normal. Average temperatures for February and March 1976 ranged far
above normal. During this period, an extremely early spring thaw occurred,
with temperatures reaching as high as 19ฐ C (67ฐ F) on February 29.
These warmer temperatures caused the existing accumulation of snow and
ice to be melted, thus creating a high runoff on February 16. But because
of the shortened period in which water would have been stored in the form
of ice and snow, the runoff potential during this early spring thaw was
held to a minimum.
In summary, the recorded temperatures were generally 2.3ฐ C above
normal. The early spring thaw was directly responsible for lower than
anticipated flows recorded during the spring runoff.
30
-------
20
15
6
0
10
UJ
(E
3
ฃ 5
a:
UJ
CL _
Z 0
UJ
UJ -5
o
a:
> "10
**
"
__
~ ~
Z_
^
^**
_
^
-
.
^^ป
^^
__
""
' i
4
^
/
X
<
<
.^tf ^^
ป ^^
\ '
^
^
>
"^^
<
k
^*"^
\
\ <
V
>
k
-J
>
N
\ <
\
S
L
t
>
i
\
s
v
*
^^^
1
>
^.
*
<
^- J
<
JJ_ --
>
^^^^^^^
^ .
(
<
ป
f
s
s
'
_^-
J*1^ /
^1
> /
/
/
t
^^MOI^^MM
k
/
c.
^^
^
500 ฃ
UJ
1-
UJ
ซ
2
_J
^
z
z
o
^_
250 g
a.
o
UJ
a:
a.
iij
o
oc
UJ
MAY JUN JUL AU6 SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR "
Normal 1975-1976
Temperature Q
Precipitation A
Source : National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1951-1974 Cltmatological Data
Figure 12. Climotological data for the Terra Alta, W.Va. weather station.
-------
TABLE 3. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
TERRA ALTA. WEST VIRGINIA WEATHER STATION
Temperature Rainfall
C C) (mm)
Month R N R N *_
May 1975 16.3 13.2 136 120 40
June 1975 18.7 17.5 110 121 48
July 1975 20.2 19.3 121 122 36
August 1975 20.9 18.5 273 122 8
September 1975 14.9 15.5 116 94 28
October 1975 12.7 9.7 89 76 23
November 1975 7.8 3.9 55 85 85
December 1975 0.0 -2.0 120 109 42
January 1976 -3.9 -3.6 118 102 31
February 1976 3.1 -2.7 88 94 50
March 1976 6.8 1.9 97 117 62
April 1976 9.4 8.4 74 115 77
Average Total 10.6 8.3 1,397 1,272
R = Value recorded during sampling program
N = Normal value
* = Percent of time rainfall can be expected to be exceeded.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climatological
Data Summary.
Precipitation
Precipitation values recorded were also generally above normal.
The wettest month of this sampling period was August 1975, during which
time 272.5 mm (10.73 in) of rainfall was recorded. This recorded amount
was the second wettest August on record for the gage and was also the
wettest location in the State during August 1975. Total precipitation
recorded at the Terra Alta gage for the water year ending December 1975 was
1,599 mm (62.95 in).
Tabulation of total precipitation during the sampling period indicates
that 1,397 mm (55 in) was recorded from May 1975 to April 1976. Pre-
cipitation data collected during the periods of August 11 to September 2,
1975, and December 26, 1975, to January 1, 1976, deserve special emphasis.
Beginning on August 11 and ending on August 17, 127.3 mm (5.01 in) of
rainfall was recorded with 43.2 mm (1.7 in) recorded on August 14. This
initial storm quickly saturated the dry soil and recharged the groundwater
table. Four days later high stream flows were recorded, but they were less
than anticipated because of the increased groundwater storage.
A second period of rainfall began on August 23 and ended on September
2. During this period, 132.3 mm (5.21 in) was recorded, with 45.7 mm (1.8
in) of it recorded on August 24. By this time, the groundwater table had
32
-------
been recharged and soil conditions were in a semisaturated state.
Relatively high flows were therefore recorded on September 2.
The second period of marked precipitation occurred during the winter
holiday season beginning December 26, 1975, and ending January 1, 1976.
During this period, 90.4 mm (3.56 in) of rainfall was recorded, with 37.6
mm (1.48 in) of it occurring on January 1. This heavy rain, coupled with
temperatures reaching 8ฐ C (47ฐ F) caused rapid melting of existing snows
on the ground. Thus the highest flows for the entire study period were
recorded on January 1.
In summary, historical data show (Figure 13) that the 1,397 mm (55
in) of precipitation recieved during the sampling period can be expected to
be exceeded only 32 percent of the time.
Sampling Program
A detailed stream sampling network was constructed and maintained for
1 hydrologic year. Figure 14 identifies sample stations employed during
the study. Appendix B defines each sampling station using the Universal
Transverse Mercator system.
Beginning in May 1975 and ending in May 1976, over 900 sample locations
were checked and over 850 chemical analyses were performed. Generally,
routine chemical analysis for the basic mine drainage parameters of pH,
acidity, alkalinity, sulfates, total iron, ferrous iron, specific con-
ductance, aluminum, and manganese were conducted.
On each major pollution source, additional comprehensive water quality
analyses were also conducted. These samples include the routine analyses
mentioned above plus analyses for cadmium, calcium, chromium (hexavalant),
chromium (total), copper, cyanide, lead, magnesium, mercury, potassium,
zinc, arsenic, turbidity, total solids, suspended solids, total organic
carbon, chloride, fluoride, chemical oxygen demand and hardness. Methods
use in testing for these chemical parameters are a part of Appendix C.
Water samples from stations were grouped into four categories; weekly,
bi-weekly, monthly, or supplementary (grab) samples. Samples collected
weekly monitored discharges having major impact on Snowy Creek. Stations
sampled bi-weekly were either of secondary importance as pollution sources
or were stations established to survey the entire drainage basin. Monthly
water quality samples were collected in the headwaters of Snowy Creek and
Laurel Run. Additional supplementary samples were taken at random through-
out the basin. Data obtained during the study are recorded in Appendix C
and will be reviewed later in the report.
Flow measurements were recorded at all pollution sources and major
stream sampling stations. Measurements were obtained at stream sampling
stations using a Gurley pygmy-type current meter to measure the velocity
through a known cross section of the stream. Bridges and culverts were
used where possible to establish a constant cross section. After periods
of high water, cross sections were revised as required. Bench marks were
33
-------
l/J
or
UJ
UJ
.
Z
O
Q.
O
UJ
or
CL
2
2
<
2300
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
TOTAL RECORDED PRECIPITATION
MAY 1975-APRIL 1976
1397 MILLIMETERS
99 98
95 90
80 7O 6O 50 4O 30 20
IO
PERCENTAGE OF TIME RECORDED PRECIPITATION
MAY BE EXPECTED TO BE EXCEEDED
Source: Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1951-1974 Precipitation Data
Figure 13. Annual precipitation probability for the Terra Alta, W.Va. weather station.
-------
-
n
TURNER
DOUGLASS
11
Garret! Co
HO
Feet
400O
Figure 14. Snowy Creek-Laurel Run stream sample locations.
-------
established at each major stream section, and a gaging system was developed.
Data were collected for approximately 5 months at these stations, and
stage-discharge curves were plotted. Periodically the stage-discharge
curves were checked and revised as necessary. Flows obtained at the mouth
of Snowy Creek were correlated with the nearest U.S. Geological Survey gage
(number 03075500) on the Youghiogheny River. Details of this correlation
are presented later in this section under Hydrology.
Measurement of some discharges was obtained using a V-notch weir.
These weirs were installed with the 45ฐ bevel facing upstream as shown in
Figure 15. This modified construction has been found to pass more flow at
lower heads than a standard V-notch weir. The modified design also
provides better nappe separation for monitoring low flows. The comparison
of the modified construction curve with the standard construction curve is
seen on Figure 16. The modified weirs were calibrated using a bucket and
stop watch to measure the weight of water over the weir in a given amount
of time. Plotting the relationship of head over the weir and discharge
yielded a weir calibration curve.
A continuous monitoring station was also constructed at the mouth of
Snowy Creek just above its confluence with the Youghiogheny River. The
station is at the Underwood Road Bridge about a fourth of a mile south of
Crellin, Maryland. A monitoring unit recording pH and specific conductance
on a continuous basis was installed. Figure 17 is a plan of the installation
of the monitoring equipment. A stilling well for the station was con-
structed as shown in Figure 18 to allow the use of a Stevens A-35 stage
level recorder. Data collected at this station were used primarily to
complement the laboratory analyses and to check flow measurements of
unrecorded extremes that might have occurred during the sampling program.
Sampling Program Results
To tabulate and analyze the large quantity of sampling data generated,
two computer programs were prepared for use on General Automations Computer
Model 18-30. The first Acid Mine Drainage Metric Version (AMDMV) was
developed to express output in metric format. The second Acid Mine Drainage
English Version (AMDEV) was prepared to express data in English format.
Sample information collected was continuously summarized on a sample
run or individual sample location basis. The results of the sampling
program are presented in AMDMV format in Appendix C. Appendix C is divided
into three types of sample summaries: major sample locations, supple-
mentary (grab) samples and comprehensive water quality analysis summaries.
Sample locations are identified as a four digit character such as 0017.
The zeros preceeding alpha or numeric characters are dropped in subsequent
text references (0017 is reported as 17).
Graphic presentation of flow data collected is outlined in Figure 19.
Sample stations of weekly or bi-weekly importance are presented in this
figure and in following distribution diagrams. Data presented in Figure 19
indicates that the mean discharge for the Snowy Creek Basin was 128.2
m^/min (75.5 cfs) as measured at Station 10. Sixty-eight percent or 86.6
36
-------
STREAM WIDTH
PRIOR TO WEIR
CONSTRUCTION
FLOW.
POND WATER FOR
TRUE FLOW
EXCAVATION LINE
PLAN
ROCK TO SLOW EROSION
BACKFILL AREA W/ROCKS
TO SUPPORT WEIR
n
90
STAKES DRIVEN INTO
GROUND FOR SUPPORT'/
NAPPE
W. S. EL.
ORIGINAL >
STREAM BED
EXCAVATION LINE
NAIL PLASTIC TO WEIR
TO SEAL BOTTOM
UPSTREAM ELEVATION
SECTION A-A
NOTE-- BEVELED EDGE OF WEIR FACES UPSTREAM TO ALLOW
NAPPE TO SPRING FREE OF WEIR, MAKING SMALL FLOW
MEASUREMENTS MORE ACCURATE. A FLOW CURVE IS
THEN DEVELOPED BY PLOTTING MEASURED HEAD VS.
MEASURED POUNDS OF WATER PER SECOND.
(NO SCALE)
Figure 15. V-notch weir used to measure small flows.
37
-------
CO
00
CO
K
UJ
UJ
Ul
O
cT
Ul
SOURCE <
U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WATER MEASUREMENT MANUAL
(DOWNSTREAM BEVEL)
SOURCE'
BAKER-WIBBERLEY 8 ASSOC.
ACTUAL FIELD MEASUREMENT
(UPSTREAM BEVEL)
CO
ui
x
O
z
UI
X
.5 1.0
FLOW, CUBIC METERS / MINUTE
Figure 16. Comparison of 90ฐ V-notch weir curve - upstream bevel vs downstream bevel.
-------
pH AND SPECIFIC CONDUCT
ANCE MONITOR DEVICE
TO CRELLIN
UNDERWOOD
ROAD
BRIDGE
o
-J
u.
I
PLAN
TO UNDERWOOD
STEVENS A-35
STAGE LEVEL
RECORDER
'POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
(PVC) PIPE
CONCRETE
BRIDGE
STRUCTURE
CREEK
INVERT
CORRUGATED
METAL PIPE
PVC PIPE
SECTION
(NO SCALE)
Figure 17. Location of Snowy Creek continuous monitor.
39
-------
n
STEVENS A-35
RECORDER
MONITOR BOX
SUPPORT
METAL STRAP
W/LA6 BOLTS
STRING AND FLOAT-
INSIDE PIPE
MONITOR BOX
NO SCALE
PERFORATED
PVC PIPE
CORRUGATED
METAL PIPE
PLYWOOD FORM
IN TRENCH ~\
W. S.
_. \
>3
c-**V xi'.y*
ILIZE-'
;
'*' ?
,$&
ROAD
4
ROCKS TO STABILIZE
PIPE
EXCESS CONCRETE PLACED
HERE FOR STRENGTH
(NO SCALE)
'ป.'. ซ.*:*ป;
~v?v-.:<
^f:XT.
CONCRETE
BRIDGE
STRUCTURE
CONCRETE
METAL PLATE
-LIMIT OF BACKHOE
EXCAVATION
Figure 18. Section of Snowy Creek stage level recorder.
40
-------
^ West Virginia
Maryland
5( 89.2 )
LEGEND
SAMPLE POINT NUMBER
AND AVERAGE DISCHARGE
(Cubic Meters/Mmule)
500
Meters
0 5OO
'-
1000
2000
4000
Figure 19. Mean flow distribution in the Snowy Creek-Laurel Run basin.
-------
m^/min (51 cfs) of this total is referable to the portion of the basin
drained by Snowy Creek and is measured at Station 9. The remaining 41.6
m3/min (24.5 cfs) is contributed by that portion of the basin drained by
Laurel Run. Average flow measured at Station 3 was 71.7 m3/min (42.2 cfs)
or 56 percent of the total basin flow. Station 3 monitors water quality
just above the first acid mine drainage discharge into Snowy Creek. Laurel
Run enters Snowy Creek between station 9 and station 10, just before Snowy
Creek's confluence with the Youghiogheny River.
Sulfate loadings increase significantly as Snowy Creek enters areas of
past or present mining activity. Figure 20 shows two significant increases.
The first occurs between Stations 3 and 5, where loadings increase by 128
percent. This result is attributable to the Lima Mine, which is located
between these two stations. The second noticeable increase occurs between
Stations 9 and 10. An increase in loadings of 132 percent is directly
related to the dumping of Laurel Run, which drains the Banner Mine area,
into Snowy Creek.
Snowy Creek exhibited a marked net acidity throughout the lower half
of the basin (see Figure 21). It has been determined that the only alkaline
conditions found in the basin are located upstream of Station 3. Increased
acidity occurs between Stations 3 and 5. Introduction of discharges from
the Lima Mine area increased loadings from 4 kg/day (10 Ib/day), measured
at Station 3, to 1,902 kg/day (4,192 Ib/day) measured at Station 5. No
alkaline conditions were found in Laurel Run. Concentrations of natural
acids plus large quantities of acid mine drainage from the Banner Mine
complex are the sources of 54 percent of total acid loadings recorded at
the mouth of Snowy Creek.
Sampling program results strongly indicate that the Lima and Banner
Mine areas are the major sources of acid mine drainage found in the Snowy
Creek - Laurel Run Basin.
Samples collected by the Maryland Water Resources Administration (WRA)
between 1963 and 1970 indicated that the Youghiogheny River is severely
degraded by acid mine drainage from the Snowy Creek Basin. WRA computed
stream loadings based upon 1967 to 1970 data (12 sample collections).
These calculations show the acid load from the Snowy Creek Basin to vary
between 907 and 19,320 kg/day (2,000 and 42,600 Ib/day) with an average
daily load of 1,364 to 1,814 kg/day (3,000 to 4,000 Ib/day) being dis-
charged to the Youghiogheny River."
Grab samples taken during the last half of this study sampling program
show the Youghiogheny River above Snowy Creek to be alkaline and below its
confluence with Snowy Creek to be acidic.
Routine samples collected (38 samples) at the mouth of Snowy Creek
(Station 10) during this study, show the acid load contributed by Snowy
Creek to the Youghiogheny River ranged between 639 and 25,604 kg/day
(1,409 and 56,457 Ib/day) with a mean value of 4,663 kg/day (10,282 Ib/day).
42
-------
-.
TURNER
DOUGLASS \J H265,
West Virginio
Maryland
LEGEND
5( 2426 ) SAMPLE POINT NUMBER
AND AVERAGE SULFATE
LOADING ( Kg / Day )
Melurs
F.el
500 0
IOOO
20OO
4000
Figure 20. Mean sulfate loadings in the Snowy Creek-Laurel Run basin.
-------
West Virginio
Moryland
51 1902 )
LEGEND
SAMPLE POINT NUMBER
AND AVERAGE NET
ACIDITY (Kg / Da,)
SNOWY CREEK IS ALKALINE
UPSTREAM OF SAMPLE POINT 3
500
ZOOO
4000
Figure 21. Mean net acidity in the Snowy Creek-Laurel Run basin.
-------
Hydrology
Flow measurements recorded at Station 10 near the mouth of Snowy Creek
were correlated with the U.S. Geological Survey gage located on the
Youghiogheny River near Oakland, Maryland.^ Results of the 38 corres-
ponding measurements are presented in Table 4. On each date that a flow
measurement was recorded at Station 10, a corresponding flow measurement
was obtained for the U.S. Geological Survey gage. The average flow
recorded at Station 10, 128 mVmin (75 cf s), is approximately 26 percent of
the average flow, 488 m^/min (287 cfs), recorded at the U.S. Geological
Survey gage. The drainage area at Station 10 is 25 percent 88 km2 (34 nrf.2)
of the drainage area 347 km2 (134 mi2) contributing to the U.S. Geological
Survey gage.
TABLE 4. FLOW DATA EVALUATION
Snowy Creek3 Youghiogheny River15
(m3/min) (nH/min)
Date sampled cubic meter/minute cubic meter/minute
May 28, 1975
June 11, 1975
June 24, 1975
July 7, 1975
July 21, 1975
August 4, 1975
August 18, 1975
September 2, 1975
September 16, 1975
September 29, 1975
October 13, 1975
October 27, 1975
November 10, 1975
November 17, 1975
November 24, 1975
December 1, 1975
December 8, 1975
December 15, 1975
December 22, 1975
December 29, 1975
January 5, 1976
January 12, 1976
January 19, 1976
January 26, 1976
Feburary 2, 1976
February 9, 1976
February 16, 1976
February 23, 1976
March 1, 1976
77
83
36
61
75
27
296
468
66
83
95
77
44
82
66
63
87
139
99
136
309
92
116
207
82
102
471
224
73
275
230
105
194
105
54
1,170
1,499
143
362
248
216
104
233
155
148
209
469
308
432
1,204
394
332
1,244
411
400
1,561
896
342
(continued)
45
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Snowy Creek3 Youghiogheny River
(m3 /min) (nr /min)
Date sampled cubic meter/minute cubic meter/minute
March 8, 1976
March 15, 1976
March 22, 1976
March 29, 1976
April 5, 1976
April 12, 1976
April 19, 1976
April 26, 1976
May 3, 1976
Total
Average
29
163
377
61
219
49
19
88
32
4,873
128
170
699
1,601
372
1,290
318
145
292
216
18,546
488
a Measured at Station 10. Drainage area 88 m2 (34 in2).
b Obtained at U.S. Geological Survey stream gauge. Drainage area 347 km2
(134 mi2).
This comparison has proven valuable for several reasons. First, it
serves as a good check for indicating whether open channel flow measure-
ments recorded during the sampling program are of reasonable accuracy. The
fact that Snowy Creek does indeed contribute an average of 25 percent of
the total flow as measured at the Youghiogheny stream gage can be further
used on hydrographs to estimate high flows as recorded by the stage level
recorder at the mouth of Snowy Creek.
High flowsthose over 1,870 m^/min (1,100 cfs)- as recorded at the
Youghiogheny River gaging station for the sampling period are tabulated in
Table 5. Dates included are those on which a recorded high flow could have
been observed if a routine sample run had been scheduled. Using the 25-
percent relationship, a corresponding estimated high flow could be inter-
polated to have occurred on Snowy Creek. The estimated highest flows
probably occurred on January 1, 1976.
Based on historical records at the U.S. Geological Survey gage,
Table 6 estimates the magnitude of peak flows and suggested return
frequencies of historical floods applicable to Snowy Creek.ฎ
Finally, utilization of the 25-percent relationship has developed a
quick and accurate method of determining flows on Snowy Creek. Ease of
measurement of the estimated flows will be of great value in future
monitoring programs on the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Basin.
46
-------
TABLE 5. RECORDED HIGH FLOWS
Date of occurrence
U.S. Geological Survey*
measured flow
m3/min
August 16, 1975
August 17, 1975
August 23, 1975
August 24, 1975
December 31, 1975
January 1, 1976
January 2, 1976
January 3, 1976
February 11, 1976
February 12, 1976
February 14, 1976
February 17, 1976
February 18, 1976
2,754
2,312
2,431
2,278
2,261
5,287
2,567
1,887
2,788
2,057
2,193
1,972
1,921
* Recorded peak flows not occuring on regular sample runs measured on the
Youghiogheny River.
TABLE 6. PEAK FLOWS
Return frequency
Peak
U.S. Geological Survey
gauge
Estimated Peak*
Snowy Creek
(m3/min)
2-year
5-year
10-year
25-year
50-year
100-year
7,361
11,271
14,161
18,190
21,250
24,140
1,840
2,818
3,540
4,548
5,313
6,035
* Peak based on a contribution from Snowy Creek of 25 percent of total
flow to the U.S. Geological Survey gage.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Population trends in Preston County have generally reflected the trend
of decline in the State's population. A 7-percent decline was recorded
from I960 to 1970 according to published census data. Since 1970 however,
there has been an increase of 5-percent in Preston County's population.9
47
-------
The largest town, Klngwood, had a population of 2,550 in 1970. The largest
town in the Snowy Creek basin is Terra Alta, with an estimated 1970 popu-
lation of 1,600.
Major economic activities in Preston County and the Snowy Creek Basin
are limited to forestry, agriculture, and mining. At present, probably 50
percent of the county is covered by forest. The forest products industry,
however, is still very small. Agricultural activities are primarily
limited to small beef and dairy farms. Mining and related industries are
major employers in Preston County.^ As of October 1975, Preston County had
more active strip mines than any other county in West Virginia. Because
the county is in a mountainous region, tourism may be an important economic
contribution for the future. At present there are two State Parks, Cooper's
Rock and Cathedral.
Water requirements in the Snowy Creek basin are at present very
small. The largest town, Terra Alta, has its own reservoir to supply
present and future needs. Downstream on the Youghiogheny River, the town
of Oakland, Maryland, uses an average of 980 m^/day (259,000 gal/day) to
supplement its public water supply. Surface water use for recreational
purposes is also very limited, primarily due to existing substandard
quality caused by acid mine drainage.
In the event that the Youghiogheny River becomes a part of the National
Wild and Scenic River System, recreation possibilities and tourism will
increase in the area. The State of Maryland has already classified the
Youghiogheny River as a member of the State Scenic River System. Garrett
County, Maryland, according to its development plan, has already estab-
lished the Maryland sections of the Youghiogheny River, Snowy Creek, and
Laurel Run as areas to be utilized for "open space" and "public recreation"
needs. Therefore, proposed abatement in the Snowy Creek basin would
increase recreational possibilities for both Preston County, West Virginia,
and Garrett County, Maryland. ^
48
-------
SECTION 6
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
ABATEMENT METHOD DESCRIPTION
Only 30 percent of the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Basin is affected by
acid mine drainage. Two large pollution sources are responsible for 88
percent of the total acid load discharged from the basin. The two areas,
the Lima Mine and the Banner Mine, are the prime targets of major abatement
projects as outlined in this study.
Abatement designs in the report have therefore been developed to
handle these major pollution sources. Other areas in the study basin
exhibit some mine drainage problems, but when compared with the amount of
acid mine drainage loadings of the Banner and Lima Mines, their impact on
Snowy Creek is negligible.
The most effective abatement measure for the Snowy Creek Basin was
determined to be a plan that eliminated the more significant problem
areas.
The abatement plans are essentially two separate designs for two
individual problem areas. Each design relies on implementation of the
other to achieve a total of 75 percent or higher abatement for the Snowy
Creek basin. Each design will stand by itself, achieving a percentage of
the abatement plan total.
The basic concept of both abatement designs is to inundate additional
deep mine workings in the Banner and Lima Mines. With inundation at higher
levels, available oxygen will be prevented from reacting with a large
amount of acid-producing material, and the circulation and internal mixing
that is now present will be eliminated once the mine pools have been
stabilized.
Inundation at the Lima Mine should be accomplished by the use of a
continuous clay core dam. The Banner Mine will be flooded using an earth
dam to create a mine pool level control lake.
Depending on the condition of the barrier remaining between the
Lima and Banner Mines, the continuous clay core dam may require extension
or reduction in the Freeport area.
49
-------
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
The Lima Mine Abatement Plan
Presently, only 14 percent of the Lima Mine is flooded. The main
discharge point, at an elevation of 743 m (2,438 ft) delineates an approxi-
mate shoreline of the present mine pool. The existing mine pool is con-
trolled by the elevation of the existing outfall. Water quality at the
main discharge point is not within the acceptable standards for mine
drainage discharges as established by the West Virginia Department of
Natural Resources.
Data obtained during the sampling period at Station 1, the main dis-
charge point for the Lima Mine, indicate an average flow of 1,423 m3/min
(0.837 cfs), an average acid concentration of 457 mg/1, and an average
loading of 936 kg/day (2,063 Ib/day).
According to stream balances Snowy Creek is alkaline above the Lima
Mine area as measured at Sample Station No. 3. There is no acid mine
drainage above this point. Once Snowy Creek enteres the Lima Mine area it
now becomes an acidic stream picking up approximately 1,859 kg/day (4,099
Ib/day). Detailed sample analyses are found in Appendix C.
It has been concluded that the only sources of acid mine drainage
entering Snowy Creek upstream from Laurel Run are those in the Lima Mine
area. Loadings attributable to this area account for 86 percent of the
Snowy Creek total acid load above Laurel Run.
The Design
The abatement design proposed for the Lima Mine employs a continuous
clay core dam to be constructed around the perimeter of old deep workings
to an elevation of 772 m (2,532 ft). The clay core will function as an
inverted dam with further inundation of the old deep workings. Figure 22
illustrates the role of the continuous clay core dam. The shaded area
between the shoreline of the existing mine pool at an approximate elevation
of 743 m (2,438 ft) and the shoreline of the proposed mine pool at an
approximate elevation of 772 m (2,532 ft) represents the additional deep
mine workings to be flooded by the abatement plan. The clay core dam will
function both as a mine seal and an artifical barrier to separate mine
water.
Excavation to install the continuous clay core dam would be accomp-
lished in much the same manner as excavation to remove the overburden in a
stripping operation. A single box cut would be taken along the perimeter
of the deep-mine workings, exposing both the coal seam and related workings.
Excavation at the southern perimeter (Freeport side) would resemble a large
trench. On the northern perimeter (Corinth side), the eastern half of the
box cut would also be a large trench, with the western side excavated in
the form of an open-sided pit.
50
-------
PROPOSED DIVERSION DITCH
PROPOSED CLAY CORE DAM
LIMA VINE
DISCHARGE POINT S
PROPOSED
SETTLING PONDS
PERMIT PENDING
D.N R APPROVAL
FEBRUARY I, 197?
I
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF EXISTING MINE POOL
ELEV 2438-
PROPOSED LIMIT Of .
DESIGN MINE POOL
PPOPOSEO ADDITIONAL
INUNDATED AREA
EXCAVATION TO INSTALL
CONTINUOUS CLAY PACK,
BACKFILLED TO CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTINUOUS
CLAY CORE DAM
PROPOSED DIVERSION DITCH
I
PROPOSED SETTLING PONDS
Figure 22. Lima Mine abatement plan
:
-------
Once the earthwork has been completed and the removal of the coal
accomplished, the compacted clay core can be constructed as illustrated in
Figure 23 and Figure 24. Figure 24 indicates the trenching excavation that
will be required to install the clay core on the Freeport side and on the
eastern half of the Corinth side. The remaining earthwork configuration
will resemble Figure 23.
Installation of a continuous clay core is critical for the proposed
abatement plan. In areas where old deep mine workings are encountered, the
openings should be packed with impervious material to a minimum of three
times the widest opening. The clay core should also be compacted along the
entire length of the exposed highwall. The continuous clay core should be
at least 3.05 m (10 ft) above the top seam of coal. Figures 23 and 24
indicate the configuration of the proposed clay core.
The clay to be used in the core will be found locally and will be
encountered in the excavation for the seal. The clay was sampled and
tested by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and was
found to have a permeability of 6.869 x 10~7 cm/sec. The permeability of
this local clay is considered suitable for use in the clay core dam.
Backfilling will begin once the seal has been installed and will
approximate the original contour. The area should be fertilized, mulched
and seeded in accordance with recommendations of the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service and the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Tenta-
tively, a mixture of weeping lovegrass, birdsfoot trefoil, and Kentucky 31
tall fescue is suggested.
It has been determined that the active stripping operation will
reclaim the area adjacent to the proposed clay core dam. Old mine workings
and mine dumps will be regraded and revegetated as a part of their present
permit.
Conclusions
Once the clay core dam has been completed it will function in two
ways. First, additional flooding of the Lima Mine will inundate approxi-
mately 36 percent more of the workings now producing acid mine drainage.
Second, the clay core will act as a diversion dam, diverting runoff from
the active workings away from the old deep workings. Active surface
operations could extract coal above the shoreline of the design mine pool
at an elevation of 772 m (2,532 ft). If new stripping permits are issued
specifications and requirements to continue the clay core around the
perimeter of the design mine pool must be added on all first cuts and on
all down-dip ends of the operation joining existing successive segments of
the clay core.
If future mining is permitted, eventually the coal and mine workings
near the top of the hill above a structure contour of 772 m (2,532 ft) would
be daylighted. The recovery of a valuable resource will then be accomp-
lished, and total abatement of the Lima Mine completed.
52
-------
SECTION LOOKING WEST
(NO SCALE)
EXISTING GROUND
BACKFILL TO APPROXIMATE
EXISTING CONTOUR
7m *HIGHWALI
EXISTING
HIGHWALL
BADLY FRACTURED SANDSTONE
CONTINUOUS CLAY PACK
AGAINST FACE OF COAL
TO SEAL OLD MINE
HEADINGS.
COAL SEAM
EXISTING
SPOIL
COMPACTED INTO OLD MINE HEADINGS
CONTINUOUS CLAY CORE DAM
Figure 23. Lima Mine abatement plan Corinth section.
53
-------
SECTION LOOKING WEST
(NO SCALE)
EXISTING GROUND
BACKFILL TO APPROXIMATE
EXISTING CONTOUR
27m * HIGHWALL
BADLY FRACTURED SANDSTONE
CONTINUOUS CLAY PACK
AGAINST FACE OF COAL
TO SEAL OLD MINE
HEADINGS
COMPACTED INTO OLD MINE HEADINGS
CONTINUOUS CLAY CORE DAM
Eastern portion of Corinth side will also be excavated using this trench detail
Figure 24. Lima Mine abatement plan - Freeport section.
-------
Failure of the proposed clay core dams is remote. Trench section
excavation (Figure 24) will be restrained by the 18 to 24 m (60 to 80 ft)
height of the backfill material placed between the undisturbed trench
walls. Adjacent to the active surface mine (Figure 23) the clay core dam
will be restrained by the 18 to 24 m (60 to 80 ft) of the backfill material
placed between the highwall and the existing spoil. Also the minimum width
(to original contour) of existing restraining spoil will be approximately
75 m (246 ft) perpendicular to the highwall.
Clay core dams as proposed herein have been used by the mining indus-
try in Pennsylvania for many years. In Somerset County, Pennsylvania the
Glessner Mines, Scurfield Coal Company Inc. and Croner Inc. have used this
type of clay core dam for over eight years to separate and retain mine
water. At the Glessner Mines, the dams have been so successful that tracing
agents would not pass through the cores. Scurfield Coal Company Inc. and
Croner Inc., have used this type of clay core to seal off abandoned mine
workings from their active surface mine operations and have had excellent
success.
The Banner Mine Abatement Plan
The Banner Mine and its' immediate area have been the principal source
of acid mine drainage entering Snowy Creek.
Deep mining has caused many problems and has marred the landscape. At
Turner Douglass, the location of the Banner Mine portal nearly 1,007,000 m^
(1,317,156 yd3) of mine waste, with a pH ranging from 3.0 to 3.5, appar-
ently is a major source of acid production. Extensive subsidence resulting
from the underground mining has created a swampy area of approximately
42.5 ha (105 acres). The existing swamp, with an elevation of slightly
less than 732 m (2,400 ft), is located atop- the existing mine pool which
has an approximate elevation of 729 m (2,393 ft). Laurel Run, which drains
this section of the Snowy Creek basin, meanders through the mine waste and
swamp only a few feet above the mine pool.
A series of boreholes drilled when the Banner Mine was in production
was used to dewater the mine. Today, with partial inundation of the deep
mine, an artesian discharge exists at one of the holes. The borehole is
located near the Maryland-West Virginia border and is presently dumping
highly acidic waters of the mine pool into Laurel Run after circulation
through workings and the mine pool to a depth of about 45 m (148 ft). The
deep circulation prohibits stabilization of the pool. This borehole
controls the level of the existing mine pool. Earlier attempts to seal
this discharge were not successful.
Based on water quality data obtained during the sampling program the
Banner Mine can be held responsible for approximately 2,169 kg/day (4,772
Ib/day) of acid production. This total was derived by subtracting loadings
coming into the Banner Mine complex at Stations 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 from
Station 12. This total is then assumed to be the acid load picked up by
55
-------
Laurel Run as it passes through the Banner Mine area. Addition of the
borehole discharge at Station 11, which is below 12, yields the probable
total loading created by the Banner Mine area. Detailed sample analyses
for these stations can be found in Appendix C.
There are several additional, but minor, acid mine discharges in the
Freeport - Turner Douglass area. These minor discharges are located in
the Arnold Run, Freeport, and Kildow mine areas. These discharges are
extremely small when compared to the discharges of the Banner Mine complex.
The Arnold Run area at present contributes approximately 145 kg/day
(319 Ib/day) of acidity, which was measured at Station 16. Actual loadings
in the Freeport area were not ascertained, but acid mine drainage dis-
charges are very minor. Loadings created are primarily in response to
surface runoff over the mine waste. The problem here is the need for
aesthetic improvement. The two openings of the Kildow Mine were monitored
at Stations 13 and 14. An average loading of 5 kg/day (11 Ib/day) was
recorded at Station 13 and an average loading of 1 kg/day (2.2 Ib/day) was
recorded at Station 14.
The prime goal of the abatement project for the Banner Mine and other
outlying areas is a plan that will include elimination of pollution from
significant quantities of surface mine waste, sealing of boreholes, nega-
tion of the effects of subsidence, closing of mine entries, rechanneli-
zation, channel lining, regrading, and revegetation. The proposed abate-
ment design will handle the above problem areas quite adequately.
The Design
To achieve any significant abatement at the Banner Mine the mine pool
had to be raised first so that it could stabilize. Conventional designs
employing curtain grouting and borehole sealing could be expected to have
only limited success in the area that has a present mine pool only a few
feet beneath the surface. As a consequence, a mine pool level control
lake, employing an earth dam, was developed.
The plan would be to construct an earth-filled dam that would create
an impoundment area situated immediately over the existing mine pool. The
new impoundment would now become the surface control for the proposed mine
pool levels. Flooding the area to an elevation of 750 m (2,460 ft)
would eliminate about 90 percent of the Laurel Run acid mine drainage
problem.
This proposed impoundment then eliminates the need for the conven-
tional abatement methods of rechanneling, lining, sealing boreholes,
curtain grouting subsidence areas, removing and burying mine waste, regrad-
ing, and revegetation. These traditional techniques include a measure of
risk. The approach employing the earth dam ensures a higher percentage of
abatement for the total project and removes areas of doubtful success.
The earth dam would be placed at a strategic narrow site in the
Laurel Run Valley about 0.8 km (1.3 miles) into Maryland. Based on mine
maps it is concluded that no underground mining will be encountered at the
56
-------
proposed dam site. However, as in any project such as this, a detailed
subsurface exploration will be required during engineering design. The
actual location of the dam and the associated impoundment can be seen in
detail in Figure 25. The line indicating a topographic contour of 750 m
(2,460 ft) will be the shoreline or extent of the mine pool level control
lake. The shaded area inside a structure contour of 750 m (2,460 ft)
indicates the subsurface flooding that will be accomplished by the impound-
ment. Seventy-four percent of the Banner Mine and adjacent workings will
be inundated by flooding to an elevation of 750 m (2,460 ft).
A number of criteria were considered in selecting the design elevation
of the proposed mine pool. It was determined that the proposed Lima Mine
pool limits be established at a higher elevation than the Banner Mine pool.
By elevating the present mine pools there will be no adverse effects on
local ground water supplies due to the perched water table found in the
basin. The design pool at the Lima Mine can be raised to approximately 772
m (2,532 ft) and the Banner Mine pool is designed to an elevation of 750 m
(2,460 ft). There is a possibility that the two mines might be inter-
connected at some elevation above 743 m (2,438 ft).
An elevation of 750 m (2,460 ft) was selected as the maximum lake
elevation that could be justified by the size of the contributing water-
shed. This elevation will not endanger the existing mill owned by the E.G.
Grimm Lumber Company.
In flooding the Turner Douglass area, only limited amounts of personal
property are required. There are only 13 houses located in the impoundment
area, most of which are low-cost homes.
The proposed impoundment limits access for only a few persons. An
access road and right-of-way has been included as part of the abatement
project to service properties whose present access would be lost by the
lake.
The construction of an earth dam (Figure 26) will create the mine pool
level control lake. Figure 26 has been developed for preliminary design
and cost estimating purposes only. The typical dam section used in cost
estimates was derived from the Bureau of Reclamations manual "Design of
Small Dams." Detailed design and an onsite evaluation must be conducted
during the engineering phases for construction. The estimates obtained
using the preliminary design criteria, however, are considered to provide a
valid cost analysis for the proposed project.
In the flooding of the Banner Mine area, the possibility of a struc-
tural leak exists at the Ashby-Pendergast mine (Figure 25). It is possible
that the Banner Mine may have cut into the Pendergast Mine, but this is
conjecture. Bulkhead seals will be required at the Ashby-Pendergast Mine
to withstand about 29 m (60 ft) of head. A proposed design for a movable
wall bulkhead seal is included as Appendix D.
A dewatering borehole exists on Snowy Creek in Maryland at 4,362,229 m
north and 630,847 m east (Universal Transverse Mercator Projection). The
57
-------
Ln
00
.
X
f
^
\
- '
I
CONTINUOUS CLAY DAMS WITH DIVERSION DITCHES
AND SETTLING PONDS (FOR DETAILS SEE FIGURES
22. 23AND24- "LIMA MINE ABATEMENT PLAN*)
STRUCTURE CONTOUR 2460
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR 2460
(SHORE LINE OF PROPOSED LAKE)
FREEPORT STRIP MINE
i *
1
^X ?
;\
^ ' *
ft
PLUG BOREHOLE
-------
Lr
i
ARNOLD RUN
STRIP MINES
ASHBY-PENDERGAST
MINE
NEW ROAD
SURFACE
KILDOW
ENTRIES FLOODED
NEW ROAD ENTRY
LEGEND
INUNDATED MINE WORKINGS
AREAS TO REGRADED AND R^VEGETATEC
ABOVE ELEVATION 2460
MOVABLE WALL BULKHEAD MIME SEAL
Figure 25. Banner Mine abatement plan
-------
GRAVEL ROADWAY
MAXIMUM POOL ELEV. 2465-x RIP RAP
NORMAL POOL ELEV. 24GO
OUTLET WORKS
IMPERVIOUS
EMBANKMENT
115m * 1.5m x 1.5m
BOX CULVERT
ELEV. 2469 +
IMPERVIOUS CLAY
CORE AND KEY
L.
15m
(NO SCALE)
Figure 26. Earth dam section used for quantity and cost estimates.
-------
borehole is presently not discharging water and is plugged with caved
material. However the surface elevation is 733 m (2,405 ft) which is below
the elevation of the proposed control lake. This hole must be sealed with
a concrete plug before raising the Banner Mine pool.
The remaining areas requiring abatement as considered by the proposed
design would include only those locations situated above the level of the
control lake, such as the Arnold Run strip mine area and the Freeport mined
area. It is important to note here that the impoundment created by the
proposed earth dam should inundate the Kildow Mine entries at an elevation
of 747 m (2,452 ft).
Abatement in the Arnold Run area would include a standard regrading,
construction of diversion ditching, and revegetation done primarily to
limit the amount of water introduced to the old spoil area. The Freeport
area is also a regrading and revegetation scheme aimed primarily at improv-
ing the appearance of the area that lies immediately adjacent to the pro-
posed control lake.
Alternative Design
As previously mentioned, the conventional approach of rechanneling
and lining Laurel Run, sealing boreholes, curtain grouting subsidence
areas, removing and burying mine waste, regrading and revegetation might
also be used to abate acid mine drainage in the Banner Mine area. But this
approach was rejected because of the complex conditions that render the
abatement possibilities very questionable.
The alternative design considered an individual abatement method for
each problem area and includes subsidence area' grouting in the Turner
Douglass area, borehole sealing, rechanneling and lining Laurel Run over
the Banner Mine, removing and burying of the mine waste at Turner Douglass,
and regrading and revegetation in the Turner Douglass, Freeport, and Arnold
Run areas.
The alternative design addressed each problem area from the standpoint
of increasing the abatement percentage for the Laurel Run area as a whole.
An extensive curtain grouting program would be needed to seal the main
Banner Mine in the area immediately adjacent to the subsidence-formed
swampy area. But such a program would require some knowledge of the number
of blind seals needed to guarantee effective inundation of workings. Abate-
ment estimates using this approach are extremely questionable.
The alternative design also proved to be the most costly abatement
approach. A complete summary of cost is presented in the following section
on capital and operating cost.
Conclusions
Because the percentage of abatement would be relatively certain, the
design approach is the recommended abatement method. The project basin
will exhibit a better quality of discharge utilizing the recommended
design, and the aesthetic appearance of the project area will be enhanced.
61
-------
The recommended design is also the least expensive, based on the
preliminary cost analysis, presented in the following section.
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
The following presents estimated abatement costs for the Lima and
Banner Mine abatement plans. In presenting the Banner Mine cost estimates,
a detailed analysis of the proposed design and the alternative design are
included.
Lima Mine Abatement Cost
The cost analysis presented (Table 7) is based on the type of con-
struction and equipment found available in an active surface mining opera-
tion. The largest single cost item in the abatement work proposed for the
Lima Mine is the excavation of approximately 419,648 m3 (548,900 yd3) of
overburden. This large amount of earthwork is required to install the
continuous clay core dam.
Items such as diversion ditching, settling ponds, lime application,
and swale ditching are included to handle runoff during the construction
phases of the abatement work. All construction will conform to existing
State and Federal guidelines pertaining to this type of work.
In excavating the overburden to install the continuous clay core dam,
a sizable amount of marketable coal is likely to be recovered. Proceeds
from its sale could be used to reduce the total project cost.
Recovery figures presented here are based on at least 25 percent of
the coal remaining on the Corinth side and 20 percent of the coal remaining
on the Freeport side. The percentages used as recovery figures are based
on the existence of past underground mining activity. Therefore actual
coal recovered may vary according to the extent of underground mining. The
recovery of coal could lower the project cost by greater than 40 percent.
Banner Mine Abatement Cost
Cost estimates have been developed for both the design and the
alternative abatement plans at the Banner Mine area.
The Design
Abatement costs covered by the proposed design (Table 8) addresses
needs in four main areas. The main Banner Mine complex is handled by the
proposed earth dam creating the mine pool level control lake. The closing
of the Kildow Mines will also be completed by the impoundment inundating to
an elevation of 750 m (2,460 ft). The remaining areas above the impound-
ment, the Arnold Run strip area and the Freeport area, are covered by a
limited program of regrading and revegetation.
62
-------
TABLE 7 LIMA MINE ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATES
Item Amount
Drilling, 30,980 m @ $2.34/m $ 72,500.00
Blasting, 30,980 m @ $1.27/m 39,300.00
Excavation, 419,648 m3 @ $.72/m3 302,100.00
Diversion ditching, 1,218 m @ $3.61/m 4,400.00
Settling ponds, 64 dozer hr. @ $57.75/hr. 3,700.00
Swale ditching, 1,082 m @ $3.61/m 3,900.00
Lime application, Lump sum ---------------- 2,200.00
Move and install
Impervious clay, 20,325 m3 @ $1.80/m 36,600.00
Backfill to contour, 4.7 ha @ $4,620.00/ha 21,700.00
Revegetation, 4.7 ha @ $l,360.00/ha 6,400.00
Construction cost $ 492,800.00
Construction contingency @ 10% of construction cost 49,300.00
Total construction cost. $ 542,100.00
Engineering cost @ 7.9% of total construction cost 42,800.00
Administrative and legal contingency @ 5% of total
construction cost 27.100.00
Project cost $ 612,000.00
Project contingency @ 5% of project cost 30,600^.00^
Total project cost (Lima Mine) - 642,600.00
Potential credit for coal marketed during construction,
10,770 metric tons <ง $23.15/ton 249,300.00
Net project cost (Lima Mine) $ 393,300.00
TABLE 8 BANNER MINE ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATES: DAM AND IMPOUNDMENT
Item Amount
Pervious material, 282,137 m3 @ $2.75/m3 $ 775,900.00
Impervious clay core, hauled in --------------- 249,100.00
Rip rap, 3,755 m3 @ $24.72/m3 92,800.00
Dumped rock toe, 13,381 m3 @ $8.93/m3 119,500.00
Filter drain, 4,650 m3 @ $16.49/m3 76,700.00
Class A concrete, 1,008 m3 @ $343.75/m3 346,500.00
Class B concrete, for items such as a spillway, 994 m3 @
$274.65/m3 273,000.00
Topsoil, seeding, 10,869 m2 @ $2.51/m2 27,300.00
Storage shed and
parking area, lump sum ------------------- 42,000.00
(Continued)
63
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
Item Amount
Outlet tower, lump sum 17,900.00
Slide gate, stem and
mountings, lump sum --------------------- 21,000.00
Clearing and grubbing, lump sum 65,900.00
Movable wall mine seals, 2 @ $21,000.00/seal 42,000.00
Borehole grouting, lump sum -----____-_____-_ 5,300.00
Subtotal $ 2,154,900.00
New access road:
Excavation, 45,280 m3 @ $4.12/m3 188,800.00
Surfacing (gravel road), 4.8 km @ $34,440.00/km 165,300.00
Drainage, 171 m <ง $137.60/m 23,500.00
Clearing and grubbing, lump sum 5,300.00
Seeding and mulching, lump sum 10,500.00
Subtotal $ 393,400.00
Land acquisition:
Land for roadway and impoundment, 270 ha @ $418.00/ha 112,900.00
Improvements, lump sum ------------------- 68,300.00
Subtotal $ 181,200.00
Arnold Run strip area (east and west bank) :
Regrading, 39.8 ha @ $4,400.00/ha 175,100.00
Revegetation, 39.8 ha @ $l,360.00/ha .- 54,100.00
Diversion ditching, 4602 m @ $3.61/m 16.600.00
Subtotal $ 242,600.00
Freeport area:
Regrading, 5.9 ha @ $4,400.00/ha 26,000.00
Revegetation, 5.9 ha @ $l,360.00/ha 8,000.00
Subtotal $ 34,000.00
Construction cost $ 3,006,100.00
Construction contingency @ 10% of construction cost 300,600.00
Total construction cost $ 3,306,700.00
Engineering cost @ 5.5% of total construction cost 181,900.00
Administrative and legal contingency (? 5% of total
construction cost 165,300.00
Project cost $ 3,653,900.00
Project contingency @ 5% of project cost 182.700.00
Total project cost (Banner Mine) < - $ 3,836,600.00
Total project cost (Lima Mine) 642.600.00
Total abatement cost (proposed design) ' $ 4,479,200.00
Potential credit for coal marketed during construction 249,300.00
Net abatement cost (proposed design) - $ 4,229,900.00
64
-------
The Alternative
Areas requiring abatement were the same as outlined in the design,
however, a different method of abatement at the Banner Mine complex was
used. Estimated costs for the alternative design are shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE BANNER MINE DESIGN
Item Amount
Channel relocations, 3,292 m @ $69.30/m $ 228,100.00
Mine waste burial, 1,006,838 m3 @ $1.24/m3 1,248,500.00
Regrading, 30.4 ha @ $4,400.00/ha 133,800.00
Revegetation, 30.4 ha @ $l,360.00/ha 41,300.00
Blind seals (for subsidence area), 200 seals @ $10,500.00/seal 2,100,000.00
Movable wall mine seals (Kildow Mine + Ashby-Pendergast
Mines), 4 seals @ $21,000.00/seal 84.000.00
Subtotal $ 3,835,700.00
Arnold Run Strip Area (east and west bank):
Regrading, 39.8 ha @ $4,400.00/ha $ 175,100.00
Revegetation, 39.8 ha @ $l,360.00/ha 54,100.00
Diversion ditching, 4,602 m @ $3.61/m 16,600.00
Subtotal $ 242,600.00
Freeport area:
Regrading, 5.9 ha @ $4,400.00/ha $ 26,000.00
Revegetation, 5.9 ha @ $l,360.00/ha 8,000.00
Subtotal $ 34,000.00
Construction cost $ 4,112,300.00
Construction contingency @ 10% of construction cost ----- 411,200.00
Total construction cost -$ 4,523,500.00
Engineering cost @ 5.3% of total construction cost 239,700.00
Administrative and legal contingency @ 5% of total
construction cost 226,200.00
Project cost $ 4,989,400.00
Project contingency @ 5% of project cost ---------- 249,500.00
Total project cost (Banner Mine) $ 5,238,900.00
Total project cost (Lima Mine) 642,600.00
Total abatement cost (alternative design) $ 5,881,500.00
Potential credit for coal marketed during construction - - - 249,300.00
Net abatement cost (alternative design) --- $ 5,632,200.00
65
-------
SECTION 7
IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATING PLANS
Neither West Virginia nor Maryland alone can implement a feasible
successful abatement demonstration project for the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run
watershed. Such a project requires either interstate or State-Federal
cooperation, or solely Federal involvement.
Since a cooperation effort is needed for the success of the total
demonstration project a "lead" agency should be designated as rapidly as
possible to evaluate the general involvement of the various government
agencies. Screening must be .limited to general project scope relative to
agency programs. Once the joint venture of government agencies has been
assembled, the detailed negotiations between agency programs can be
resolved as the other phases of the demonstration project work are being
implemented.
Figure 27 presents a timetable of activities that delineates the time
periods necessary to accomplish major tasks relative to the proposed abate-
ment demonstration project. This schedule indicates that more than 2 years
will be required to perform the design and construction phases of the
proposed projects. One year will be required in order to fill and stabi-
lize the proposed lake. In addition, a minimum of 1 hydro logical year of
monitoring following completion of construction will be required to
evaluate the impact of the demonstration project on the water quality of
the Youghiogheny River Basin.
Development of engineering plans for construction of the proposed
demonstration projects will be in accordance with accepted procedures of
the mining industry. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service criteria and design considerations will be followed
for the development of the engineering plans for the earth structure for
the proposed impoundment at the Banner Mine site.
The primary purpose of the proposed demonstration project is to reduce
the abandoned mine drainage pollution load being discharged to the Snowy
Creek - Laurel Run watershed. Therefore, annual operation of the demon-
stration project would consist of downstream monitoring of water quality
and maintenance of the physical facilities. The proposed Lima Mine abate-
ment is a fixed condition not subject to manipulation. The proposed Banner
Mine abatement could be manipulated, but its success is contingent to a
major extent on maintaining a nearly constant, static impoundment. Thus
operation plans are reduced to routine monitoring and maintenance of physical
facilities.
66
-------
YEAR
QUARTER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
INTER AGENCY COORDINATION
ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION :
LI MA MINE ABATEMENT
BANNER MINE ABATEMENT
ESTABLISH MINE POOL
MONITORING
ADMINISTRATION 8 REPORTS
1975
1
2
3
4
-
1976
1
2
3
4
1977
1
2
3
0
4
1978
1
2
3
4
m
1979
1
2
3
4
1980
1
2
3
4
1981
1
2
3
4
() ^/>W7/ Feasibility Report
QD Final Engineering Report
(3) Final Demonstration Project Report
Figure 27. Snowy Creek-Laurel Run project implementation schedule.
-------
SECTION 8
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT
DEMONSTRATION VALUE
The true value of the proposed abatement depends on the effectiveness
of the impoundment structures in inundating deep mine workings. In the
Lima Mine project, a continuous clay core dam will be used to create an
increased mine pool size with a controlled level. This packing may be
envisioned as a subsurface trench dam. At the Banner Mine, an earth dam
will create an impoundment. The level of the control lake will raise the
mine pool and inundate large portions of the Banner Mine workings.
Surface water is now entering the Banner Mine through extensively
broken strata in the valleys, especially that of Little Laurel Run. This
water now mixes with the waters of the mine pool, circulates through the
workings at depth and reports to the surface at the two primary discharge
points (Station 11 and F). Establishing the level of the control lake
above most points where surface water enters the existing mine pool will
eliminate the hydraulic pressure differential responsible for water move-
ment within the mine workings and for the artesian flows at points of
discharge. Unpolluted water charging the proposed lake should not become
contaminated. Parenthetically, the pH in the underground mine pool will
also improve significantly with the stoppage of circulation.12 In addition,
the control lake will inundate mine waste in the vicinity of Turner-Douglass.
This action will prevent subaerial acid mine drainage production from the
piled and scattered mine waste at the surface.
It is felt that the Banner Mine abatement procedure will provide an
effective new approach for eliminating major pollution from favorably
situated abandoned mines that have significant fractured overburden and/or
surface subsidence.
Implementation of the proposed abatement project at the Lima Mine
would reduce acid loadings in Snowy Creek by 1,487 kg/day (3,279 Ib/day)
for a reduction of about 70 percent. At 80 percent effectiveness of the
proposed abatement, the total cost of $642,600 indicates that each kilogram
of acid abated cost $432 ($196/lb). This reduction of acid loading would
clean up approximately 6.2 km (3.83 miles) of Snowy Creek.
Construction of the proposed design to abate pollution at the Banner
Mine should reduce acid loadings from 2,169 kg/day (4,782 Ib/day) to 219
kg/day (478 Ib/day). Based on an abatement effectiveness of 90 percent,
68
-------
the total project cost of $3,836,600 would amount to $l,967/kg ($891/lb) of
acid removed. Laurel Run would then have 1.6 km (0.98 miles) of cleaner
discharge. More important, a new lake would be created with 250 ha (618
acres) of surface area and 17.4 km (10.8 miles) of shoreline. Aesthetic
improvement to the entire area both in terms of natural beauty and sanctuary
for fish and wildlife will be a definite bonus of the abatement project.
It has been recognized that when impoundments are properly designed
and constructed in areas of abandoned mining the resulting ponds can be
suitable for supporting and propogating aquatic life. The water quality
of the proposed lake should approach values for surface water in the
vicinity. It is estimated that the pH will range between 4.6 and 5.4,
acidity will be approximately 10-16 mg/1 and specific conductivity will
range from 50-60 micromhos. These values are similar to values of unpol-
luted waters as measured at Stations 15 and 16 (Appendix C).
Waters of the above composition will support panfish and other warm
water fish. The natural waters of the Laurel Run watershed should not be
expected to support fish intolerant to low pH water. Repeated attempts to
maintain trout in the natural waters of Laurel Run as found in the pond at
Grimm Lumber Company (Sample Station G) have failed. However, bass,
sunfish and panfish have flourished.
During construction of the demonstration project, a monitoring program
should be implemented during and after abatement to assess effectiveness of
the project. Together, both segments of the total Snowy Creek project
would cost an average of $1,200 for each kilogram ($544/lb) of acid removed.
PUBLIC BENEFITS
The proposed abatement project could eliminate 3,437 kg/day (7,583
Ib/day) of acid which is dumped into Snowy Creek - Laurel Run by abandoned
mines. This reduction of acid loads to the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run Basin
will clean up 6.3 km (3.9 miles) of stream in Maryland and 1.5 km (0.91
miles) of stream in West Virginia. The abatement project will also create
a lake, having 17.4 km (10.8 miles) of shoreline and 250 ha (618 acres) of
surface area, which will be situated in both Maryland and West Virginia.
With the elimination of 3,437 kg/day (7,583 Ib/day) of acid in the
study basin, the loads on the Youghiogheny River will also be reduced by an
equal amount. The reduced acid loads would now clean up the 7 km (4.4
miles) on the Youghiogheny River, (beginning at its confluence with Snowy
Creek and ending at its confluence with the Little Youghiogheny River)
recognized by Maryland's Water Resources Administration as severly affected
by acid mine drainage from Snowy Creek. Reduced acid loadings would also
be carried further downstream on the Youghiogheny River.
Although the lake is primarily a pollution control device, the result-
ing body of water will definitely have a positive effect in attracting new
recreational facilities and providing improved fish and wildlife habitats.
69
-------
The proposed abatement project could fit into the plan of making the
Youghiogheny River a National Wild River. The new segment on Snowy Creek
and Laurel Run would become another area deserving future preservation
under the program.
70
-------
REFERENCES
1. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Michie's West Virginia
Code - Laws. Charleston, West Virginia.
2. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Administrative
Regulations on Water Quality Criteria on Inter-Intrastate Streams.
Charleston, West Virginia, 1974.
3. Shaffer, R.C. History of Crellin, Maryland. Oakland, Maryland, 1975.
4. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey - Preston County, West
Virginia. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., 1959.
5. Baker-Wibberley and Associates. Mine Drainage Pollution Watershed
Survey - The Northern Youghiogheny River Complex. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, 1973.
6. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Youghiogheny River Basin
Water Quality Management Plan, April 1976.
7. U.S. Geological Survey. Mean Daily Discharges for the Youghiogheny
River Near Oakland, Maryland. 1975-1976.
8. Walker, P.M. Flow Characteristics of Maryland Stream. Report of
Investigations No. 16, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.
9. U.S. Department of Commerce. General Population Characteristics -
West Virginia 1970. Bureau of Census.
10. Preston County, West Virginia. Comprehensive Development Plan,
Kingwood, West Virginia. 1969.
11. Garrett County Planning Commission. A Development Plan for Garrett
County. Oakland, Maryland, 1974.
12. Braley, S.A. Mine Acid Control. Preprint 59-F-304. AIME, Soc.
Mining Engrs., Coal and Ind. Minerals Division Joint Meeting.
Bedford Springs, Pennsylvania 1959.
13. Rice, Cyrus Wm. and Company. Engineering Economic Study of Mine
Drainage Control Techniques, Appendix B to Acid Mine Drainage In
Applachia. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania January 1969.
71
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clark, W.B. Report on the Coals of Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey,
Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland, 1905.
Eggleston, J.R., and Larese, R.C. Index to Surface Mining in West Virginia,
West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey. Morgan town, West
Virginia, 1975.
Grimm, E.C., and Hill, R.D. Environmental Protection In Surface Mining of
Coal. Mining Pollution Control Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974.
Johnson, J.T. Report on Acid Mine Water Pollution in the Snowy Creek -
Laurel Run Area. State of West Virginia, Water Resource Commis-
sion, Charleston, West Virginia, 1961.
Swartz, C.K., and Baker, W.A., Jr. Second Report on the Coals of Maryland.
Maryland Geological Survey, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland, 1905.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey - Garrett County, Maryland.
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inactive and Abandoned Underground
Mines - Water Pollution Prevention and Control. Office of Water
and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C., 1975.
West Virginia Department of Mines. Annual Report (1890-1975), Mine
Production Records. Charleston, West Virginia.
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Drainage Handbook for
Surface Mining. Division of Reclamation, Charleston, West Virginia,
1975.
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Water Quality Network -
Compilation of Data. Division of Water Resources, Charleston,
West Virginia, 1968-1972.
West Virginia Geological Survey. Characteristics of Minable Coals of
West Virginia, Volume XIII-A, 1955.
West Virginia Geological Survey. Report on Coals. Volume 2, Morgantown,
West Virginia, 1903.
72
-------
West Virginia Geological Survey. Supplementary Coal Report Volume
2-A. Morgantown, West Virginia, 1908.
73
-------
APPENDIX A
MINE PRODUCTION RECORDS*
TABLE 1-A. MINE PRODUCTION. CORINTH - LIMA MINE AREA
Year
1898
1899
1900
1901
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1952
(continued)
Mine Owner
Corinth Oakland Coal +
Coke Company
Corinth "
Corinth "
1901-1902
Corinth "
Corinth "
'Corinth
Corinth "
it
Corinth "
Corinth "
Corinth Jorden Coal Co.
Corinth "
Corinth "
1913-1921
Lima #1 Lindsey Coal
Mining Company
Lima #1 "
Lima #1
Lima #1
Lima #1
Lima #1
Lima #1 "
Lima #1 "
Lima #1 "
Lima $1 "
1932-1941
Princess Pat Princess Pat
Coal Company
Princess Pat "
Princess Pat "
Princess Pat "
Princess Pat "
1947-1952
Production (tons)
6,330
8,653
24,000
No record
29,950
46,274
29,079
31,919
No record
20,200
9,000
25,780
18,210
20,099
No production
recorded
12,600
29,954
3,689
4,052
13,419
53,560
62,469
39,215
11,215
2,600
No production
recorded
1,623
9,603
7,765
3,744
5,959
No production
recorded
74
-------
Table 1-A. (continued)
Year
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1974
1975
Total production
Mine Owner
L+L #1 L+L Coal Co. +
Mersing Coal Co.
L+L #1
L+L #1
L+L 11
L+L 11
L+L 11 "
L+L #1 "
L+L #1
1961-1974
15-75 Graf ton Coal Co.
...
Production (tons)
4,894
3,826
14,883
61,164
67,061
17,910
1,517
885
No mining
88,829
791,930
* Source: West Virginia Department of Mines.
TABLE 2-A.
Year
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
Total
1920
1921
1922
1923
Total
MINE PRODUCTION TURNER DOUGLASS -
Mine Owner
Arnold #1 Kendall Lumber Co.
it M
n it
n n
u n
Arnold #1,
#2 + Guthrie "
ii n
ti n
n n
n ii
n n
M ii
Arnold #2 "
n it
n u
Kildow Kildow Coal Co.
n u
n n
n it
ซ.... ซ
BANNER MINE AREA
Production (tons)
10,714
9,030
10,564
4,000
5,400
37,310
48,397
46,335
45,316
23,119
33,353
990
10,407
15,154
10,501
310,590
21,728
12,039
8,110
13,790
55,667
75
-------
TABLE 3-A. MINE PRODUCTION FREEPORT - LAUREL RUN AREA
Year
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Total
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
Total
1921
1922
1923
Total
1953
1954
1955
1956
Total
Mine Owner Production (tons)
Crane Freeport Coal Co. 6,000
51,691
Crane * Kerns " 40,802
" " 30,633
Thayer #1, +
#2 " 55,910
8,805
" " 17,819
Thayer #1 " 34,512
" " 23,256
" Laurel Valley Coal
Company 8,729
41,121
56,208
11 " 40,111
23,318
" " 22,107
43,187
" " 21,580
525,789
Laurel Mine Laurel Run Coal
Company 14,414
0
6,702
Fern + Laurel Fern Coal Co. 5,755
13,469
13,264
ii ป 979
54,583
Freeport MDW Coal Co. 10,586
750
" " 9,000
20,336
Old Ben Nordeck Coal Co. 6,577
5,465
5,207
" " 2.846
20,095
76
-------
TABLE 4-A. MINE PRODUCTION. BANNER MINE
Year Owner
1919 Turner Douglass
Coal Company
1920
1921 "
1922 Oakland Coal Co.
1923 Stanley Coal Co.
1924 "
1925 "
1926
1927
1928
1929 "
1930
1931 "
1932
1933
1934 "
1935
1936
1937 "
1938
1939 "
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944 "
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950 "
1951
1952
1953 "
1954
1955 "
1956
Total
Comments
Introduced mining
machines
95% Mining machines
1927-1931 rank
3rd in production
in Preston County
100% mining machines
1932-1940 ranked
1st in production
in Preston County
1938 produced 41% of
Preston County total
1941 ranked 2nd in
production in
Preston County
Begin final decline
Last year of production
Production (tons)
8,714
21,281
0
15,622
49,176
63,919
145,649
177,210
207,993
207,707
217,164
197,741
126,299
105,198
116,203
170,611
172,838
143,708
180,578
144,197
221,647
209,637
194,100
164,357
123,222
90,916
83,193
85,622
91,295
94,265
141,199
92,010
12,082
11,231
51,461
26,413
43,347
20,970
4,228^775
77
-------
TABLE 5-A. MINE PRODUCTION PRESTON COUNTY
Year
1890
1894
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Total
Tons
159,664
39,936
120,211
169,044
277,173
403,610
No Record
No Record
574,741
689,139
651,122
827,772
No Record
874,786
654,333
1,033,902
8B8,202
841,801
999,141
1,281,181
980,322
1,246,189
1,106,378
1,400,961
1,325,451
1,704,579
1,439,506
939,769
2,182,164
1,668,552
2,733,880
2,165,139
1,970,942
1,921,522
1,934,441
1,600,755
972,289
613,973
597,892
744,699
736,479
Year
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Tons
634,467
596,005
353,412
588,701
784,389
1,444,752
1,355,898
1,808,594
1,858,175
1,863,163
2,476,625
2,614,357
2,512,016
2,388,443
2,142,305
1,538,846
1,213,433
1,228,513
1,068,265
2,224,145
1,468,742
2,193,702
1,814,341
2,062,663
2,882,567
2,640,876
2,960,702
3,089,065
3,240,422
3,922,021
2,188,234
2,717,493
2,239,483
2,415,342
2,470,330
1,906,580
1,641,960
1,666,572
2,822,038
117,509,277
78
-------
APPENDIX B
METRIC COORDINATES
METRIC COORDINATES
Universal transverse
mercator zone 17 coordinates (m) Type of
Sample No.
0001
0002
0003
0004
0005
0006
0007
0008
0009
Identification
Lima Mine
Lima Mine
Snowy Creek
(Above Corinth)
Snowy Creek
(Bridge)
Snowy Creek
Md.-W. Va. State
Line
Swamp Discharge
(Bridge)
Md.-W. Va. State
Line
Snowy Creek
(Crellin)
North
4,363,941
4,363,928
4,365,664
4,364,240
4,363,609
4,362,828
4,362,902
4,362,216
4,360,575
East
629,254
629,214
629,032
629,585
630,794
630,147
629,736
630,756
631,707
sample station
Weekly sample
Grab sample
Bi-weekly sample
Grab sample
(Monthly)
Bi-weekly sample
Grab sample
(Bi-weekly)
Grab sample
Grab sample
(Bi-weekly)
Bi-weekly
Control
Double 8" V-notch weir
Stage discharge curve
Stage discharge curve
36" CMP
Stage discharge curve
(continued)
-------
Metric coordinates (continued)
00
o
universal transverse
mercator zone 17 coordinates (m) Type of
Sample No.
0010
0011
0012
0013
0014
0015
0016
0017
0018
0050
0051
0052
(continued)
Identification
Snowy Creek
(Crellin) Below
Laurel Run
Slime Hole
Laurel Run
Kildow Mine
Kildow Mine
Laurel Run
Arnold Run
Little Laurel Run
South of Freeport
Little Laurel Run
(Road)
Out of GOB
(Near OOOF)
Grab
Grab
North
4,360,812
4,360,410
4,360,144
4,359,240
4,359,228
4,359,132
4,359,412
4,360,914
4,361,362
4,359,655
4,363,240
4,360,468
East
632,156
630,206
629,887
629,808
629,759
629,056
629,106
628,708
628,358
629,732
628,024
630,250
sample station
Weekly
*,-..
Weekly
Bi-weekly
Bi-weekly
Bi-weekly
Bi-weekly
Bi-weekly
Bi-weekly
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
Control
Stage discharge
curve
Double 8" V-notch weir
Stage discharge
8" V-notch weir
8" V-notch weir
Stage discharge
Stage discharge
Stage discharge
curve
curve
curve
curve
48" Concrete pipe
-------
Metric coordinates (continued)
00
Universal transverse
mercator zone 17 coordinates (m) Type of
Sample No.
0054
0100
0101
0102
0103
0104
0105
0106
0107
0108-F
0109
0110
(continued)
Identification
Grab
Reckhart Hole
Reckhart Stream
Stream at 0013
and 0014
Pond Drainage
Grafton Strip
Drain
Mine Pit Drain
into OOOA
Swamp Drain
into 0012
Pond above
Grafton
Simms Mine
North
4,363,549
4,360,012
4,359,448
4,359,225
4,364,928
4,364,279
4,364,137
4,364,072
4,364,663
4,360,171
4,364,387
4,358,760
East
629,556
630,408
630,360
629,770
628,981
629,011
629,037
629,136
629,465
629,861
628,817
630,660
sample station Control
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample 8" V-notch weir
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
(Bi-weekly)
Grab sample 12" Pipe
(Bi-weekly)
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
-------
Metric coordinates (continued)
oo
NJ
Universal transverse
mercator zone 17 coordinates (m) Type of
Sample No.
OOOA
OOAl
OOOB
OOOC
GOOD
OOOE
OOOF
OOOG
OOOH
0001
OOOJ
(continued)
Identification
Stream (Corinth)
Swamp Drain into
OOOA
Graf ton Settling
Pond
Stream At Corinth
Stream into
Laurel Run
Yellow Boy BH
Glory Hole
Grimms Pond Out-
fall
Headwater Laurel
Run at Bridge
Spring
GOB Fire
North
4,364,619
4,364,648
4,364,091
4,364,300
4,360,372
4,360,048
4,359,643
4,358,724
4,358,460
4,360,341
4,359,550
East
629,397
629,390
629,148
630,125
631,260
629,667
629,728
628,792
627,108
629,626
629,503
sample station Control
Grab sample
(Bi-weekly)
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample 36" Concrete pipe
(Bi-weekly)
Grab sample
(Bi-weekly)
Grab sample 8" V-notch weir
Weekly Double 8" V-notch weir
Grab sample
Monthly Stage discharge curve
Grab sample
Grab sample
-------
Metric coordinates (continued^
00
LO
Universal transverse
mercator zone 17 coordinates (ml Type of
Sample No.
OOOK
OOOL
DOOM
0000
OOOP
000V
OOOW
OOOX
OOOZ
OOAA
OOBB
OOCC
OODD
Identification
Valley Disch.
(Freeport)
Pond at 0000
Arnold Mine
Pendergast
Arnold Run
Headwater
Arnold Strip
Strip Outbreak
Strip Outbreak
Strip Mine
Highwall at
Grimms
Stream at Turner
Douglass
Road to Alpine
Lake
Pritt Farm
North
4,361,610
4,360,175
4,359,662
4,360,156
4,360,673
4,359,650
4,359,739
4,359,549
4,359,400
4,359,472
4,359,234
4,367,691
4,363,336
East
628,365
631,602
628,240
631,592
626,767
627,988
628,024
628,388
628,912
628,504
629,650
628,300
628,758
sample station
Grab sample
(Monthly)
Grab sample
Bi-weekly
Weekly
Grab sample
(Monthly)
Bi-weekly
Grab sample
Grab sample
Bi-weekly
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
(Monthly)
Grab sample
Control
8" V-notch weir
8" V-notch weir
8" V-notch weir
8" V-notch weir
8" V-notch weir
2 - 48" x 76" Concrete
pipes
(continued)
-------
Metric coordinates (continued)
oo
Universal transverse
mercator zone 17 coordinates (m) Type of
Sample No.
OOEE
OOFF
OOGG
OOXX
YR01
YR02
Identification
Stream to Lima
Core Drill
Arnold Strip
Yough Below
Snowy Creek
Yough Below
Snowy Creek
Bridge at
Monitor
North
4,366,051
4,365,014
4,360,964
4,359,621
4,361,094
4,358,096
4,360,677
East
626,920
627,290
629,676
628,000
632,345
632,465
632,312
sample station Control
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
Bi-weekly 8" V-notch weir
Grab sample
Grab sample
No sample
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPUTERIZED PRINTOUT* - COMPREHENSIVE WATER ANALYSES
Presented is a detailed summary of all samples collected during the
course of the study. The tables presented are from standard IBM computer
sheets that have been reduced photographically in order to be included in
the report. Comprehensive water analyses are also included in this section.
The chemical analyses of the Snowy Creek and Laurel Run samples for
aluminum, calcium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
potassium, sodium and zinc were completed by atomic absorption spectro-
photometry. The analyses for ferrous iron, sulfate, hexavalent chromium
and fluoride were performed colorimetrically using the reference, "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 13th Edition 1971
APHA, AWWA, WPCF. Acidity, total solids, suspended solids, and chemical
oxygen demand were determined in accordance with the methods expressed in
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," 1974, EPA. pH was
measured electrometrically. Specific conductance was determined at 25ฐ C
by using a Wheatstone bridge. Chloride was analyzed by using the mercuric
nitrate titration method found in "Annual Book of Standards, Part 23,
Water, Atmospheric Analysis," 1972, ASTM. Turbidity was determined in a
turbidimeter and all hardness values reported were calculated in accordance
with Standard Methods using the atomic absorption values obtained for Ca,
Mg, Fe, Al, Zn, and Mn.
* Headings on computer sheets labeled "IRON (FERR)" refer to ferrous iron.
85
-------
TABLE 1-C. SAMPLE STATION 0001. LIMA MINE
Analysis a
pH
Acidity
Alkalinity
Iron, (total)
Iron (ferrous)
Specific conductance
(uMhos)
Sulfate (as 804)
Aluminum
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (hexavalant)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Arsenic
Turbidity (APHA units)
Total solids
Suspended solids
Total organic carbon
Chloride
Fluoride
C.O.D.
Hardness
May 15, 1975
2.60
450.00
0.00
62,00
0.50
1,350.00
550.00
44.00
22.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.05
9.30
0.68
1.10
0.42
0.69
0.44
1,000.00
0.20
.
4.00
0.65
8.60
450.00
December 8, 1975
2.50
650.00
0.00
72.00
8.00
1,350.00
675.00
50.00
0.002
26.00
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.05
11.50
0.80
ND
1.30
0.50
0.82
0.011
1.30
980.00
0.80
0.65
5.00
0.70
6.50
522.00
May 3, 1976
2.90
464.00
0.00
66.00
11.00
960.00
580.00
43.00
0.007
28.00
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.06
0.05
11.50
1.30
0.001
1.20
0.47
0.81
0.002
1.50
916.00
14.50
5.90
5.00
0.72
17.00
479.00
Units expressed in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
86
-------
TABLE 2-C. SAMPLE STATION 0011. SLIME HOLE
Analysis
Ph
Acidity
Alkalinity
Iron (total)
Iron (ferrous)
Specific conductance
(uMhos)
Sulfate (as 804)
Aluminum
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (hexavalant)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Arsenic
Turbidity (APHA units)
Total solids
Suspended solids
Total organic carbon
Chloride
Fluoride
C.O.D.
Hardness
May 15, 1975
3.00
335.00
0.00
93.00
90.00
1,060.00
595.00
29.00
55.00
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.05
20.00
2.00
3.50
0.67
0.79
1.30
1,010.00
0.60
1.00
1.40
18.00
550.00
December 8, 1975
2.90
430.00
0.00
120.00
120.00
1,180.00
635.00
27.00
0.002
53.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.05
21.00
2.10
ND
2.90
0.83
0.77
0.011
3.10
976.00
0.30
0.45
1.00
1.10
18.00
589.00
May 3, 1976
2.90
368.00
0.00
100.00
96.00
1,080.00
570.00
28.00
0.008
50.00
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.07
0.05
24.00
1.7.0
0.001
2.80
0.71
0.70
0.009
2.20
1,000.00
0.20
4.40
2.00
1.20
20.00
564.00
Units expressed in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
87
-------
TABLE 3-C. SAMPLE STATION 0050, BELOW GLORY HOLE
Analysis December 8, 1975
pH 3.30
Acidity 50.00
Alkalinity 0.00
Iron (total) 0.63
Iron (ferrous) 0.05
Specific conductance
(uMhos) 280.00
Sulfate (as 804) 61.00
Aluminum * 2.50
Cadmium 0.002
Calcium 3.10
Chromium (hexavalant) 0.01
Chromium (total) 0.01
Copper 0.01
Cyanide 0.01
Lead 0.05
Magnesium 2.60
Manganese 0.42
Mercury ND
Potassium 0.89
Sodium 0.54
Zinc 0.10
Arsenic 0.002
Turbidity (APHA units) 1.00
Total solids 94.00
Suspended solids 0.20
Total organic carbon 0.40
Chloride 2.00
Fluoride 0.20
C.O.D. 2.10
Hardness 35.00
Units expressed in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
88
-------
TABLE 4-C. SAMPLE STATION OOOF, GLORY HOLE
Analysis
pH
Acidity
Alkalinity
Iron (total)
Iron (ferrous)
Specific conductance
(uMhos)
Sulfate (as S04)
Aluminum
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (hexavalant)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Arsenic
Turbidity (APHA units)
Total solids
Suspended solids
Total organic carbon
Chloride
Fluoride
C.O.D.
Hardness
May 15, 1975
3.10
110.00
0.00
12.00
4.70
640.00
255.00
13.00
28.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
12.00
1.90
1.80
0.50
0.31
2.60
760.00
0.20
7.00
2.00
4.10
206.00
May 3, 1976
3.40
89.00
0.00
1.90
0.86
440.00
156.00
10.00
0.007
17.00
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.05
9.70
1.60
0.001
1.40
0.53
0.25
0.003
0.55
345.00
6.10
3.90
9.00
1.10
5.00
145.00
Units expressed in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
89
-------
TABLE 5-C. SAMPLE STATION OOOJ, STREAM FROM GOB FIRE
Analysis - May 3. 1976
pH 2.00
Acidity 4,800.00
Alkalinity 0.00
Iron (total) 2,200.00
Iron (ferrous) 2,200.00
Specific conductance
(uMhos) 7,000.00
Sulfate (as 804) 5,800.00
Aluminum * 250.00
Cadmium 0.135
Calcium 29.00
Chromium (hexavalant) 0.01
Chromium (total) 0.12
Copper 0.11
Cyanide 0.01
Lead 0.05
Magnesium 120.00
Manganese 2.90
Mercury 0.003
Potassium 82.00
Sodium 35.00
Zinc 2.00
Arsenic 0.379
Turbidity (APHA units) 8.10
Total solids 10,000.00
Suspended solids 5.80
Total organic carbon 48.80
Chloride 39.00
Fluoride 6.50
C.O.D. 453.00
Hardness 5,930.00
Units expressed in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
90
-------
TABLE 6-C. SAMPLE STATION 0000, PENDERGAST
Analysis
PH
Acidity
Alkalinity
Iron (total)
Iron (ferrous)
Specific conductance
(uMhos)
Sulfate (as S04)
Aluminum
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (hexavalant)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Arsenic
Turbidity (APHA units)
Total solids
Suspended solids
Total organic carbon
Chloride
Fluoride
C.O.D.
Hardness
May 15, 1975
2.70
866.00
0.00
158.00
42.00
2,060.00
1,225.00
54.00
196.00
0.01
0.06
0.30
0.02
34.00
1.60
1.70
0.77
4.20
1.20
1,150.00
6.00
15.00
1.50
4.20
1,220.00
December 8, 1975
2.50
780.00
0.00
160.00
55.00
1,780.00
1,170.00
49.00
0.002
59.00
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.01
0.05
36.00
1.60
ND
1.20
0.73
3.40
0.005
5.10
1,670.00
0.50
0.40
5.00
1.10
18.00
858.00
May 3, 1976
2.60
952.00
0.00
200.00
65.00
1,860.00
1,290.00
60.00
0.009
89.00
0.01
0.05
0.25
0.01
0.05
43.00
1.60
0.001
1.60
0.61
3.30
0.003
4.00
1,860.00
0.60
2.70
8.00
1.40
13.00
1,100.00
Units expressed in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
91
-------
TABLE 7-C. SAMPLE STATION 000V, ARNOLD STRIP
Analysis December 8, 1975
pH 2.90
Acidity 80.00
Alkalinity 0.00
Iron (total) 0.48
Iron (ferrous) .10
Specific conductance
(uMhos) 390.00
Sulfate (as S04> 92.00
Aluminum 3.30
Cadmium 0.002
Calcium 6.90
Chromium (hexavalant) 0.01
Chromium (total) 0.01
Copper 0.01
Cyanide 0.01
Lead .05
Magnesium 3.70
Manganese 0.38
Mercury ND
Potassium 1.40
Sodium 0.33
Zinc 0.12
Arsenic 0.001
Turbidity (APHA units) 1.00
Total solids 128.00
Suspended solids 0.20
Total organic carbon 0.50
Chloride 2.00
Fluoride 0.25
C.O.D. 4.50
Hardness 53.00
Units expressed in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
92
-------
DATE
LOCATION 0001 LIMA MINE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID NINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOUT CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
IDENT
051475
052175
052875
060475
061175
061675
062475
063075
070775
071475
072175
072875
080475
081175
081875
082575
090275
090875
091675
092275
092975
100675
101375
102075
102775
110375
111075
111775
112475
120175
120875
121575
122275
122975
010576
C11276
011976
012676
C20276
020976
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR)
CUM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D
SULFATE ALUMINUM
NG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
0.523
0.867
0.855
0.867
0.625
0.748
0.471
0.460
0.285
0.267
0.253
0.260
0.224
0.214
2.066
2.839
4.910
1.009
0.510
0.826
1.009
0.564
0.693
1.614
0.765
0.629
0.510
0.765
0.693
0.693
0.904
2.209
1 .291
2.209
4.010
1.400
1.189
3.738
1 .736
1 .400
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.8
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.6 1350.
2.7 1290.
2.8 1040.
2.5 1140.
2.6 1050.
2.6 1160.
2.5 1290.
2.6 1320.
2.5 1500.
2.5 1280.
2.5 940.
2.4 1020.
2.6 1420.
2.5 1350.
2.6 1230.
2.6 1020.
2.8 845.
2.7 1225.
2.7 1210.
2.7 1180.
2.6 1280.
2.5 1480.
2.6 1370.
2.7 1350.
2.5 1380.
2.5 1500.
2.6 1280.
2.7 1210.
2.5 1280.
2.5 1330.
2.5 1350.
2.7 1190.
2.6 1230.
2.8 1000.
2.6 1190.
2.6 1320.
2.5 1360.
3.0 665.
2.7 1180.
2.7 1230.
450.
424.
334.
387.
456.
425.
514.
525.
670.
622.
440.
606.
674.
716.
597.
440.
282.
392.
645.
460.
655.
684.
479.
589.
680.
696.
659.
500.
677.
697.
650.
528.
702.
458.
574.
632.
642.
261.
472.
537.
339.
529.
411.
483.
411.
458.
348.
348.
275.
239.
160.
227.
218.
221.
1776.
1799.
1994.
570.
473.
547.
952.
556.
478.
1369.
749.
630.
484.
550.
676.
696.
846.
1679.
1305.
1457.
3314.
1274.
1099.
1405.
1180.
1083.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
62.0
59.0
39.0
47.0
59.0
58.0
64.0
70.0
72.0
82.0
68.0
80.0
100.0
105.0
89.0
42.0
27.0
52.0
72.0
60.0
64.0
71.0
57.0
66.0
70.0
75.0
70.0
64.0
76.0
78.0
72.0
65.0
78.0
60.0
72.0
86.0
90.0
37.0
70.0
73.0
46.7
73.6
48.0
58.6
53.1
62.4
43.4
46.4
29.6
31.5
24.8
29.9
32.3
32.4
264.8
171.7
190.9
75.6
52.8
71.3
93.0
57.7
56.9
153.4
77.1
67.9
51.4
70.5
75.9
77.9
93.7
206.7
145.0
190.8
415.7
173.4
154.1
199.2
175.0
147.2
0.5
1.3
0.8
.1.4
1.1
3.1
1.2
1.9
1.7
9.5
13.0
4.6
31.0
29.0
33.0
0.5
0.2
1.2
2.5
10.0
1.0
2.0
4.6
6.1
1.6
4.5
4.4
8.0
3.0
6.9
8.0
3.2
5.4
0.4
1.9
5.0
2.6
1.7
4.9
1.0
0.4
1.6
0.9
1 .7
1.0
3.3
0.8
1.3
0.7
3.6
4.7
1.7
10.0
8.9
98.2
2.0
1.1
1.7
1.8
11.9
1.5
1.6
4.6
14.2
1.8
4.1
3.2
8.8
3.0
6.9
10.4
10.2
10.0
1.3
11.0
10.1
4.5
9.2
12.3
2.0
550.
530.
445.
530.
575.
530.
635.
650.
700.
720.
615.
718.
762.
875.
670.
495.
313.
498.
625.
600.
625.
735.
610.
650.
748.
775.
708.
635.
742.
720.
675.
635.
710.
570.
645.
775.
780.
290.
628.
635.
414.
661.
548.
661.
518.
571.
430.
431.
288.
277.
224.
269.
246.
270.
1993.
2024.
2213.
724.
459.
713.
908.
597.
609.
1511.
824.
702.
520.
699.
741.
719.
879.
2020.
1320.
1813.
3724.
1562.
1336.
1561.
1570.
1280.
44.00
42.00
30.00
35.00
41.00
41.00
49.00
52.00
55.00
56.00
45.00
53.00
60.00
63.00
44.00
27.00
19.00
36.00
45.00
40.00
45.00
52.00
44.00
47.00
51.00
55.00
50.00
46.00
53.00
54.00
50.00
45.00
50.00
38.00
38.00
46.00
48.00
20.00
40.00
44.00
33.2
52.4
36.9
43.7
36.9
44.1
33.2
34.5
22.6
21.5
16.4
19.8
19.4
19.4
130.9
110.4
134.3
52.3
33.0
47.6
65.4
42.2
43.9
109.2
56.1
49.8
36.7
50.6
52.9
53.9
65.1
143.1
93.0
120.9
219.4
92.7
82.2
107.6
100.0
88.7
0.68
0.69
0.55
0.60
0.75
0.71
0.91
0.81
1.00
0.90
0.72
1.00
1.20
1.40
0.85
0.60
0.51
0.68
0.80
0.69
0.79
0.82
0.74
0.80
0.89
0.96
0.87
0.79
0.90
0.91
0.80
0.80
0.85
0.62
1.70
1.30
1.20
0.53
1.00
1.10
0.5
0.9
0.7
0,7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
2.5
2.5
3.6
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.7
0.7
1.9
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
2.5
1.6
2.0
9.8
2.6
2.1
2.9
2.5
2.2
-------
vo
DATE
021676
C22376
130176
C30876
C31576
132276
C32976
C40576
C41276
C41976
L42676
C50376
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION 0001 LIMA MINE
IDENT
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
LIMA
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/
4.914
2.875
1.400
0.826
2.464
4.914
1.189
4.333
1.189
0.765
1.189
0.826
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.7
750.
980.
2.7 1080.
2.6 1150.
2.6 1040.
2.7 960.
2.6 1080.
2.8 970.
2.7 1040.
2.6 1050.
2.8 870.
2.9 960.
293. 2073.
406. 1681.
510. 1028.
584. 694.
458. 1625.
334. 2363.
468. 802.
342. 2134.
482. 825.
562. 619.
380. 651.
464. 552.
ALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
MG/L
47.0
68.0
77.0
80.0
61.0
43.0
63.0
42.0
72.0
73.0
52.0
66.0
KG/D
332.6
281 .5
155.2
95.1
216.4
304.2
107.9
262.0
123.3
80.4
89.1
78.5
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
1.4
1.2
4.3
2.4
1.3
1.2
1.5
0.9
6.3
7.2
1.4
11.0
KG/D
9.9
5.0
8.7
2.9
4.6
8.5
2.6
5.6
10.8
7.9
2.4
13.1
SULFATE
MG/L
420.
510.
625.
748.
585.
425.
600.
560.
690.
700.
470.
580.
KG/D
2972.
2111.
1260.
889.
2075.
3007.
1028.
3494.
1182.
771.
805.
690.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
27.00
33.00
42.00
46.00
37.00
31.00
40.00
30.00
43.00
52.00
35.00
43.00
KG/D
191 .0
136.6
84.7
54.7
131.3
219.3
68.5
187.2
73.6
57.3
59.9
51.1
MANGANESE
MG/L
1.00
1.60
1.10
1.30
1.00
0.75
1.20
1.90
1.40
1.60
1.20
1.30
KG/D
7.1
6.6
2.2
1 .5
3.S
5.3
2.1
11.9
2.4
1.8
2.1
1.5
AVERAGES FOR 52 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
1.423 2.7 2.6 1172. 457. 936. 0. 0. 58.7 120.2 3.5 7.1 555. 1137. 36.90 75.6 0.99 2.0
-------
Oi
DATE
LOCATION 0002 LIMA MINE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
IDENT
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
Uil475
C52S75
C61175
G62475
070775
072175
C80475
081875
062575
C90275
C91675
C92V75
101375
1U2775
1110/5
112475
120875
122275
C10576
011976
C2U276
C21676
130176
031576
C32276
C32976
040576
C41276
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
LIMA MINE
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
0.019
0.151
0.567
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
0.474
DRY
DRY
0.284
DRY
0.151
DRY
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.9
3.0
2.6
2.6 2050. 1300. 35.
2.6 1020. 562. 122.
2.7 1070. 380. 311.
0.
0.
0.
2.8 1300. 446. 304.
2.7 1240. 507. 207.
2.6 1110. 497. 108.
0.
0. 310.0
0. 37.0
0. 28.0
8.3 128.0
8.1 4.0
22.9 0.1
3.4 1340.
0.9 429.
0.1 410.
36. 74.00
93. 30.00
335. 24.00
2.0
6.5
19.6
7.90 0.2
2.40 0.5
1.50 1.2
0. 63.0 43.0 0.5 0.3 635. 433. 41.00 28.0 2.80 1.9
0. 0. 55.0 22.5 0.4 0.2 620. 253. 47.00 19.2 3.50 1.4
0. 0. 52.0 11.3 1.8 0.4 630. 137. 46.00 10.0 3.80 0.8
AVERAGES FOR 28 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/0 MG/L KG/0 MG/L KG/0 MG/L KG/D
0.059 2.7 2.7 1298. 459. 39.
0.
0. 49.0 4.1 2.2 0.2 543. 46.167.99 14.2 12.07 1.0
-------
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION 0003 SNOWY CREEK
DATE
051475
C52875
061175
062475
070775
C72175
080475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
C10576
020276
C21676
030176
031576
C32976
041276
042676
IDENT
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
FLOW PH
CMM FIELD LAB
24.976
25.417
49.068
18.893
45.398
49.951
21 .612
171.091
283.906
40.029
54.437
61.759
38.245
24.857
33.980
51.446
49.272
160.727
80.449
218.664
52.602
97.524
49.221
40.386
49.221
5.7
5.8
5.5
6.2
6.5
6.6
6.8
5.5
5.6
7.0
6.4
6.3
6.9
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.3
5.8
6.0
5.8
6.5
6.3
6.8
6.0
6.5
6.4
6.8
6.2
6.5
6.8
6.3
6.6
6.4
6.5
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.2
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.4
6.2
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.4
SPEC
COND
78.
90.
75.
94.
103.
110.
139.
69.
63.
94.
82.
80.
95.
112.
77.
82.
81.
65.
112.
60.
73.
70.
74.
75.
91.
ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
3.
4.
8.
6.
10.
14.
4.
10.
1.
5.
0.
0.
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
108.
146.
565.
163.
654.
1007.
124.
2464.
409.
288.
0.
0.
551.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
76.
Q.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
2.
0.
7.
13.
9.
5.
5.
6.
2.
0.
2.
3.
6.
9.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
392.
178.
0.
251.
636.
667.
355.
1157.
695.
630.
0.
281.
213.
349.
638.
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.8
14.0
26.0
63.6
29.9
78.4
70.5
31.1
150.3
163.5
69.2
31.4
62.3
27.5
21.5
22.0
37.8
27.7
62.5
53.3
113.4
31.8
54.8
26.9
18.0
55.3
IRON(FERR)
MG/L KG/D
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
3.6
6.6
19.8
15.8
39.9
56.1
13.1
73.9
155.4
13.8
15.7
19.6
16.5
14.3
9.8
14.8
11.4
11.6
5.8
15.7
3.8
7.0
3.5
2.9
11.3
SULFATE
MG/L KG/D
10.
10.
10.
12.
10.
12.
10.
9.
10.
17.
8.
4.
10.
9.
9.
11.
10.
11.
11.
10.
15.
11.
12.
9.
11.
345.
366.
707.
326.
654.
863.
311.
2267.
4088.
980.
658.
329.
551.
322.
431.
815.
710.
2546.
1274.
3149.
1136.
1545.
851.
535.
780.
ALUMINUM
MG/L KG/D
0.10
0.25
0.29
0.38
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.6
9.2
20.5
10.3
33.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.0
15.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
0.05
0.16
0.14
0.21
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 ft
5 ll
9.9
5.7
13.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.6
0.0
6.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 25 SAMPLINGS/-
PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
71.725 6.3 6.5 86. 3. 262. 2. 258. 0.5 53.7 0.2 22.5 10. 1062. 0.15 15.6 0.08 7.8
-------
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION 0004 SNOWY CREEK
FLOW PH
CMM FIELD LAB
DATE
051475
052175
052875
C61 1 75
C62475
(J70775
072175
180475
061875
090275
091675
101375
111075
120875
020276
C21676
030176
C41276
C42676
SPEC
COND
ACIDITY
MG/L KG/D
IDENT
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
57.
54.
46.
52.
20.
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
580
454
553
619
558
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
6
.0
.3
.4
.5
.6
.3
.6
.4
.3
.2
.8
.7
.7
.3
.6
.8
.2
.4
.2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
5
6
6
.4
.5
.7
.3
.4
.8
.7
.6
.3
.3
.7
.7
.6
.5
.9
.0
.9
.1
.1
79.
83.
93.
94.
101.
105.
137.
132.
86.
68.
94.
84.
106.
86.
114.
68.
82.
83.
98.
22.
28.
29.
35.
30.
32.
24.
10.
31.
21.
2.
5.
6.
5.
7.
5.
10.
3.
1.
1824.
2196.
1944.
2652.
888.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Y IRON(TOTAL)
./D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
MG/L KG/D
1.Z 99.5
1.2 94.1
1.3 87.1
1.4 106.1
1.4 41.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.6
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.9
1.4
1.3
IRON(FERR)
MG/L KG/D
0.3 Z1.6
0.2 18.8
0.3 21.5
0.4 33.3
0.4 10.7
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
SULFATE
MG/L KG/D
19. 1575.
16. 1355.
20. 1341.
18. 1364.
20. 592.
16.
16.
17.
18.
16.
9.
20.
18.
20.
20.
17.
23.
20.
19.
ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L
0.30
0.81
0.95
0.79
1.00
0.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D MG/L
24.9 0.05
63.5 0.06
63.7 0.14
59.9 0.11
29.6 0.16
0.15
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/0
4.1
4.7
9.4
8.3
4.7
AVERAGES FOR 19 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMซ FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRONCFERR) SULFATE
MG/l KG/D MG/L KG/D
ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
46.353 5.4 6.5 90. 28. 1901.
0.
0. 1.3 85.7 0.3 21.2 18. 1225. 0.72 48.3 0.09 6.3
-------
vo
00
DATE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION 0005 SNOWY CREEK
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/
1DENT
C51475
C52875
C61175
062475
C70775
072175
C&0475
081875
090275
D91675
192975
101375
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
C11976
C20276
C21676
C30176
031576
032976
041276
C42676
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
CREEK
CREtK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
60.043
47.369
53.689
20.592
46.162
59.296
22.835
203.203
292.062
44.888
54.810
67.893
27.541
39.230
57.308
65.429
205.072
55.779
97.609
303.955
72.548
125.218
67.145
57.308
83.031
5.0
5.4
5.5
5.7
6.3
6.5
6.5
5.4
5.3
5.8
5.5
5.7
5.8
5.2
5.5
5.3
4.9
4.8
5.4
5.3
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.4
6.0
6.4
6.7
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.2
6.3
6.7
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.4
5.7
5.0
6.0
6.1
6.3
5.9
6.3
6.4
6.4
81.
90.
82.
106.
112.
120.
133.
87.
68.
96.
84.
88.
100.
89.
86.
92.
75.
93.
85.
66.
82.
76.
82.
88.
98.
22.
24.
35.
18.
18.
14.
12.
32.
22.
11.
18.
9.
5.
9.
5.
13.
9.
25.
12.
5.
11.
10.
8.
8.
9.
1902
1637
2706
534
1197
1195
395
9364
9253
711
1421
880
198
508
413
1225
2658
2008
1687
2188
1149
1803
774
660
1076
AL1NITY IRONCTOTALK
/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
MG/L
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.4
KG/D
78.7
75.0
77.3
41.5
93.1
128.1
42.7
468.2
504.7
71.1
94.7
107.5
43.6
79.1
99.0
131.9
383.9
144.6
196.8
437.7
198.5
216.4
106.4
99.0
167.4
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
KG/D
12.1
20.5
20.1
10.1
26.6
34.2
18.4
234.1
210.3
14.2
31.6
48.9
4.0
22.6
36.3
37.7
59.1
12.9
14.1
43.8
10.4
43.3
27.1
14.9
38.3
SULFATE
MG/L
19.
20.
18.
23.
19.
16.
18.
18.
15.
18.
18.
20.
20.
20.
23.
24.
21.
25.
22.
18.
16.
20.
18.
21.
19.
KG/D
1643.
1364.
1392.
682.
1263.
1366.
592.
5267.
6309.
1163.
1421.
1955.
793.
1130.
1898.
2261.
6201.
2008.
3092.
7879.
1672.
3606.
1740.
1733.
2272.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
0.2Q
0.40
0.55
0.75
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Q.55
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
17.3
27.3
42.5
22.2
53.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.3
0.0
83.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MANGANESE
MG/L
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.no
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
8 6
10.2
7.7
4.4
10.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Q
0.0
14.1
0.0
14.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 25 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(fERR)
MG/L KG/D
SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
89.201 5.5 6.4 90. 15. 1902.
0. 0. 1.3 163.5 0.3 41.8 19. 2428. 0.36 46.2 0.08 10.0
-------
LOCATION 0006 SNOWY CREEK
WEST VIRGINIA ACID NINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
IO
DATE
C51475
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
020276
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
IDENT
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
fLOU
PH
CUM FIELD
2.895
3.160
0.946
0.095
0.189
0.095
0.037
1.135
1.886
0.758
0.758
1.325
0.567
0.758
0.379
0.567
0.758
2.650
FROZEN
FROZEN
4.543
0.637
0.637
0.552
0.474
0.379
5.3
5.5
5.2
5.8
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.1
5.3
5.5
5.3
5.5
5.7
5.7
5.4
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.5
5.3
5.6
LAB
6.3
6.9
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.3
5.7
5.7
6.8
6.5
6.7
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.2
6.1
6.3
6.1
6.3
6.2
6.0
SPEC
COND
30.
32.
32.
36.
37.
45.
40.
37.
30.
40.
33.
30.
38.
38.
44.
42.
32.
32.
30.
32.
34.
33.
33.
47.
ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
MG/L
18.
33.
37.
36.
30.
36.
20.
20.
17.
11.
10.
8.
14.
11.
11.
11.
7.
5.
0.
11.
1.
10.
5.
10.
KG/D
75.
150.
50.
5.
8.
5.
1.
33.
46.
12.
11.
15.
11.
12.
6.
9.
8.
19.
0.
10.
1.
8.
3.
5.
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
i.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
NG/L
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
2.4
0.4
0.9
0.7
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.9
1.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.9
0.9
2.6
KG/D
4.6
6.4
1.6
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.0
1.4
2.0
1.3
1.0
2.3
0.8
1.7
1.0
1.4
0.6
1.1
1.8
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.6
1.4
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.8
KG/D
1.0
2.4
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.7
1.2
0.3
0.4
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
SULMTE
MG/L
8.
10.
8.
10.
9.
7.
5.
9.
6.
6.
5.
5.
5.
5.
8.
8.
6.
5.
3.
7.
7.
8.
6.
9.
KG/0
34.
46.
11.
1.
2.
1.
0.
15.
17.
7.
5.
10.
4.
5.
4.
7.
7.
20.
18.
6.
6.
6.
4.
5.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.21
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MANGANESE
MG/L
0.05
0.13
0.10
0.19
0.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 26 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D NG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
1.007 5.4 6.4 36. 13. 19. 0. 0. 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.4
6.
9. 0.18 0.3 0.15 0.2
-------
LOCATION 0008 SNOWY CREEK
WEST VIRGINIA ACID NINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
DATE
I DENT
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND M6/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR)
MG/L KG/0
SULFATE
MG/L KG/D
ALUMINUM
MG/L KG/D
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
051475
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
., 112475
0 120875
0 122275
010576
011976
020276
021676
030176
C31576
032976
041276
042676
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
1 .261
6.150
0.663
0.379
0.189
0.379
0.095
0.454
1.211
0.189
0.567
0.189
0.663
0.284
0.567
0.379
0.284
0.474
FROZEN
0.561
1 .893
0.474
0.663
0.284
0.284
0.379
5.4
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.5
5.7
5.5
5.0
5.0
5.2
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
4.9
4.2
5.2
4.3
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.8
5.2
6.6
6.9
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.6
6.2
5.7
5.7
6.5
6.2
6.0
6.4
6.6
6.3
6.4
6.3
5.7
6.4
6.4
6.2
5.9
6.3
6.0
6.2
25.
26.
25.
25.
29.
46.
32.
31.
26.
29.
28.
30.
29.
32.
28.
31.
28.
39.
30.
32.
29.
27.
28.
29.
31.
4.
8.
17.
25.
8.
20.
22.
23.
15.
9.
5.
7.
4.
0.
1.
2.
4.
3.
3.
5.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7.
7.
71.
16.
14.
2.
11.
3.
15.
26.
2.
4.
2.
4.
0.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
14.
3.
5.
2.
3.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ooo
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.1
0."
0.'
0.1
0.'
0.1
0.1
1 0.2
1 0.4
t 0.0
1 0.0
1 0.0
1 0.0
1 0.0
? 0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.
8.
6.
7.
6.
12.
7.
8.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
3.
9.
6.
6.
6.
6.
5.
6.
5.
6.
11.
69.
6.
4.
2.
7.
1.
5.
10.
2.
5.
2.
6.
2.
5.
2.
4.
4.
5.
16.
4.
5.
2.
2.
3.
0.10
O.Z1
0.10
0.20
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.2
1 .9
0.1
0.1
0.0
o .n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.02
o.oc
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.Of
0.00
O.OP
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.1
0.1
0.0
0. 0
0. 0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
o. n
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 26 SAMPLINGS*
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.727 5.1 6.3 30.
8. 8.
0.
0. 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
7.
7. 0.44 0.5 0.04 0.0
-------
LOCATION 0009 SNOWY CREEK
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
FLOW PH
CHM FIELD LAB
DATE
05U75
052875
061175
062475
070775
07Z175
080475
081875
090275
091675
C92975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
C10576
011976
020276
021676
030176
C31576
032976
041276
042676
SPEC
COND
ACIDITY
HG/L KG/D
IDENT
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
75.810
60.893
65.616
28.085
56.000
67.468
23.786
20S.S81
297.328
49.458
56.136
75.335
53.145
30.311
40.182
58.259
66.534
204.902
60.961
53.145
260.800
67.961
109.706
60.961
48.252
75.403
5.2
5.9
5.6
5.7
6.6
6.7
6.9
5.5
5.3
6.1
5.7
5.8
6.4
6.5
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.0
5.4
5.6
5.1
5.5
5.3
5.8
5.6
6.6
6.2
6.9
6.3
6.6
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.1
6.3
6.9
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.6
5.9
5.9
6.2
6.1
6.3
6.0
6.5
6.3
6.8
76.
84.
83.
99.
109.
120.
113.
95.
65.
94.
81.
86.
88.
107.
90.
85.
132.
71.
86.
94.
64.
80.
79.
76.
81.
100.
18.
22.
32.
24.
29.
16.
20.
44.
30.
20.
10.
5.
6.
19.
14.
10.
24.
16.
9.
8.
2.
7.
8.
2.
4.
3.
1965.
1929.
3024.
971.
2339.
1554.
685.
13026.
12845.
1424.
808.
542.
459.
829.
810.
839.
2299.
4721.
790.
612.
751.
685.
1264.
176.
278.
326.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
fV IRON(TOTAL)
!/D MG/L KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.9
1.5
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.3
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.6
1.3
69.9
87.7
86.9
52.6
104.8
116.6
31.2
444.1
471.0
71.2
56.6
85.7
53.6
56.7
52.1
73.8
105.4
354.1
48.3
62.0
266.6
78.3
158.0
46.5
43.1
141.2
IRON(FERR)
MG/L KG/D
0.1
0.4
0.3
' 0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
10.9
31.
30.
8.
25.
29.
4.
142.
162.
19.
16.
32.
23.
21.
20.
11.
23.
47.
4.
7.
37.
21.
25.
4.
3.
23.
6
2
9
0
1
1
1
7
9
2
5
0
8
8
7
0
2
4
7
6
5
3
4
5
9
SULFATE
MG/L KG/D
16.
17.
17.
19.
15.
19.
15.
18.
15.
16.
17.
20.
19.
17.
19.
18.
20.
20.
15.
18.
16.
19.
17.
16.
19.
19.
1747.
1491.
1606.
768.
1210.
1846.
514.
5329.
6422.
1140.
1374.
2170.
1454.
742.
1099.
1510.
1916.
5901.
1317.
1378.
6009.
1859.
2686.
1405.
1320.
2063.
ALUMINUM
MG/L KG/D
0.10
0.35
0.21
0.32
0.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.9
30.7
19.8
12.9
68.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
0.06
0.14
0.12
0..14
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oc
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.no
6.6
12.3
11.3
5.7
8.9
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 26 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
86.616 5.8 6.5 90. 17. 2152. 0. 0. 1.0 123.8 0.2 30.3 17. 2164. 0.23 28.6 0.07 8.9
-------
LOCATION 0010 SNOWY CREEK
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
DATE
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
111775
112*75
120175
120875
121575
122275
122975
010576
011276
011976
(J12676
020276
020976
C21676
022376
030176
130876
031576
032276
032976
040576
041276
041976
C42676
050376
IDENT
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
FLOW PH
CNH FIELD LAB
75.997
83.337
35.951
61.369
74.723
27.456
295.629
467.910
66.058
82.997
94.483
76.660
44.225
80.958
66.058
62.439
86.208
139.897
98.781
136.737
309.731
91.288
115.771
207.790
81.332
101.941
469.779
223.931
73.296
28.781
163.208
377.862
61 .505
219.853
48.813
19.284
8B.723
32.451
4.9
5.0
5.4
5.5
6.0
5.8
5.2
4.7
4.8
4.7
5.3
5.0
4.8
5.2
5.0
5.3
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.2
4.0
4.4
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.5
3.6
4.5
4.0
4.9
4.0
4.4
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.6
6.0
5.9
6.4
6.6
6.4
6.0
5.4
5.6
5.0
6.3
5.1
5.7
6.1
5.4
5.6
6.0
4.9
4.7
5.0
4.8
4.8
4.2
5.8
4.6
4.9
4.7
4.3
4.5
4.1
5.2
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.7
4.3
4.8
4.7
SPEC
CON6
94.
88.
106.
120.
126.
140.
88.
65.
150.
97.
93.
99.
119.
90.
94.
89.
89.
82.
138.
82.
91.
110.
135.
98.
98.
110.
76.
82.
102.
130.
79.
74.
98.
75.
103.
118.
119.
107.
ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
MG/L K6/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
37. 4049.
51. 6120.
41. 2123.
38. 3358.
22. 2367.
30. 1186.
30.12771.
38.25604.
32. 3044.
35. 4183.
28. 3810.
36. 3974.
28. 1783.
15. 1749.
21. 1998.
20. 1798.
11. 1366.
32. 6446.
35. 4979.
32. 6301.
36.16056.
37. 4864.
44. 7335.
30. 8977.
36. 4216.
32. 4697.
10. 6765.
16. 5159.
26. 2744.
26. 1078.
17. 3995.
6. 3265.
20. 1771.
8. 2533.
21. 1476.
23. 639.
14. 1789.
18. 841.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.3 251.7
1.8 216.0
1.9 98.4
1.7 150.2
2.0 215.2
2.2 87.0
1.5 638.6
1.3 875.9
2.5 237.8
2.4 286.8
1.9 258.5
2.3 253.9
2.6 165.6
2.1 244.8
2.5 237.8
2.3 206.8
2.0 248.3
1.9 382.8
2.8 398.3
1.9 374.1
2.71204.2
2.7 354.9
4.1 683.5
2.5 748.0
2.5 292.8
2.4 352.3
1.3 879.4
1.6 515.9
2.6 274.4
2.8 116.0
1.8 423.0
1.5 816.2
2.3 203.7
1.4 443.2
2.7 189.8
2.4 66.6
2.1 268.3
2.3 107.5
IRON(FERR)
MG/L KG/D
1.1 120.4
1.2 144.0
0.5 23.8
0.6 53.0
0.7 75.3
0.2 8.7
0.9 391.6
0.2 107.8
1.4 133.2
2.0 239.0
1.9 258.5
1.4 154.5
1.6 101.9
1.3 151.6
2.2 209.3
1.8 161.8
1.6 198.6
1.2 241.7
2.0 284.5
1.3 256.0
2.1 936.6
2.5 328.6
4.1 683.5
1.1 329.1
1.1 128.8
1.9 278.9
0.9 581.8
1.0 322.5
2.1 221.6
2.5 103.6
1.1 258.5
0.9 500.6
2.2 194.8
0.9 272.3
2.2 154.6
1.6 44.4
1.7 217.2
1.4 65.4
SULFATE
MG/L KC/D
36. 3940.
30. 3600.
36. 1864.
38. 3358.
35. 3766.
47. 1858.
20. 8514.
19.12802.
34. 3234.
44. 5259.
32. 4354.
35. 3864.
44. 2802.
27. 3148.
33. 3139.
33. 2967.
26. 3228.
28. 5641.
35. 4979.
27. 5316.
31.13826.
36. 4732.
45. 7502.
29. 8677.
29. 3396.
29. 4257.
22.14883.
26. 8384.
36. 3800.
41. 1699.
25. 5875.
17. 9250.
35. 3100.
18. 5699.
35. 2460.
40. 1111.
26. 3322.
32. 1495.
ALUMINUH
MG/L KG/D
1 .20
1.10
1.10
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
131 .3
132.0
56.9
106.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
104.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
104.9
0.0
89.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
250.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
O.?n
ฃ U
0.16
0.25
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
24 Q
1 ~
19.2
12.9
17.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.5
0.0
17.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 38 SAMPLINGS/
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D PlG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
128.242 4.7 5.2 101. 25. 4663. 0. 0. 2.0 362.3 1.3 235.2 27. 5029. 0.61 112.1 0.10 19.1
-------
LOCATION 0011 SLIME HOLE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
O
OJ
DATE
C5U75
052175
052875
060475
061175
C61675
062475
063075
070775
071475
072175
072875
C80475
081175
081875
082575
090275
090875
091675
092275
092975
100675
101375
102075
102775
110375
111075
111775
112475
120175
120875
121575
122275
122975
01U576
011276
011976
012676
020276
020976
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/
IDENT
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIflE
SLIME
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
1 .988
1 .886
1.686
1 .514
.100
1.986
2.153
1.583
1 .750
1.505
1.325
1 .147
1.210
1.084
1.704
2.090
2.735
2.735
2.273
2.865
2.469
2.338
2.338
2.338
2.735
2.469
2.338
2.209
2.338
2.338
2.338
2.600
2.739
2.600
3.437
2.865
1.855
1 .376
1 .500
1.393
2.7
2.8
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.8
2.?
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
3.0 1060.
2.9 1120.
3.1 1040.
2.6 1110.
2.8 1120.
2.9 1100.
2.7 1160.
2.7 1180.
2.7 1180.
2.8 1160.
2.7 1300.
2.8 1100.
2.8 1200.
2.8 1210.
2.7 1210.
2.7 1120.
2.8 1160.
2.9 1280.
2.9 1190.
3.0 1060.
2.8 1280.
2.9 1190.
2.8 1270.
3.0 1330.
2.9 1290.
3.0 1180.
2.9 1060.
3.1 1050.
3.0 1090.
3.0 1030.
2.9 1180.
3.0 1020.
2.8 1120.
3.0 980.
3.1 1340.
2.9 1280.
2.8 1180.
3.0 1040.
3.0 1100.
3.1 1020.
335.
365.
342.
393.
344.
344.
344.
340.
330.
354.
336.
350.
356.
390.
376.
368.
475.
419.
400.
394.
461.
415.
420.
442.
431.
450.
415.
388.
410.
412.
430.
411.
494.
410.
688.
571.
525.
460.
416.
430..
959.
991.
929.
857.
1040.
984.
1066.
775.
832.
767.
641.
578.
620.
609.
923.
1107.
1871.
1650.
1309.
1625.
1639.
1397.
1414.
1488.
1698.
1600.
1397.
1234.
1380.
1387.
1448.
1538.
1948.
1535.
3405.
2355.
1403.
912.
899.
863.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Y IRON(TOTAL)
I/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
HG/L
93.0
115.0
83.0
85.0
89.0
97.0
91.0
91.0
92.0
88.0
92.0
90.0
95.0
96.0
88.0
97.0
132.0
134.0
110.0
106.0
125.0
120.0
110.0
118.0
120.0
115.0
110.0
105.0
110.0
105.0
120.0
125.0
135.0
130.0
200.0
160.0
155.0
130.0
132.0
130.0
KG/D
266.2
312.3
225.4
185.3
269.1
277.4
282.1
207.5
231.8
190.8
175.6
148.6
165.5
149.8
215.9
291.9
519.9
527.8
360.1
437.2
444.4
404.0
370.3
397.2
472.7
408.8
370.3
334.0
370.3
353.5
404.0
467.9
532.4
486.6
989.9
660.0
414.1
257.6
285.2
260.8
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
90.0
98.0
51.0
79.0
(90.0
90.0
14.0
91.0
30.0
86.0
65.0
90.0
82.0
97.0
15.0
95.0
134.0
108.0
75.0
100.0
34.0
115.0
43.0
118.0
94.0
70.0
60.0
60.0
54.0
100.0
120.0
120.0
100.0
110.0
200.0
146.0
155.0
118.0
128.0
115.0
KG/D
257.6
266.1
138.5
172.2
272.2
257.4
43.4
207.5
75.6
186.4
124.0
148.6
142.8
151.4
36.8
285.9
527.8
425.4
245.5
412.5
120.9
387.1
144.8
397.2
370.3
248.8
202.0
190.8
181.8
336.7
404.0
449.2
394.4
411.8
989.9
602.2
414.1
233.8
276.5
230.7
SULFATE
MG/L
595.
630.
750.
585.
525.
550.
510.
500.
525.
550.
590.
590.
738.
765.
580.
558.
660.
748.
625.
620.
685.
648.
620.
650.
648.
645.
595.
598.
590.
620.
635.
650.
685.
660.
945.
850.
795.
675.
648.
645.
KG/D
1703.
1711.
2037.
1275.
1588.
1573.
1581.
1140.
1323.
1192.
1126.
974.
1286.
1194.
1423.
1679.
2600.
2946.
2046.
2557.
2435.
2181.
2087.
2188.
2552.
2293.
2003.
1902.
1986.
2087.
2138.
2433.
2702.
2471.
4677.
3506.
2124.
1338.
1400.
1294.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
29.00
30.00
27.00
26.00
28.00
28.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
28.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
30.00
31 .00
30.00
30.00
31.00
29.00
30.00
31.00
29.00
29.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
27.00
27.00
29.00
29.00
28.00
33.00
30.00
29,00
28.00
29.00
29.00
KG/D
83.0
81.5
73.3
56.7
84.7
80.1
89.9
66.1
73.1
62.9
53.4
44.6
48.8
45.3
68.7
81.3
118.2
122.1
98.2
123.7
110.2
97.6
101.0
104.4
114.2
103.1
94.3
89.1
94.3
90.9
90.9
108.6
114.4
104.8
163.3
123.7
77.5
55.5
62.6
58.2
MANGANESE
MG/L
2.00
2.00
1 .60
1.80
1.90
1.90
2.10
2.00
2.00
1.80
1.PO
1.80
2.00
2.10
1.90
2.00
2.40
2.40
1.90
2.00
2.30
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.90
2.00
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.20
2.70
2.10
2.10
2.00
2.00
1.90
KG/D
5.
5.
4.
3.
5.
5.
6.
4.
5.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
6.
9.
9.
6.
8.
8.
6.
6.
7
4
3
9
7
4
5
6
0
9
4
0
5
3
7
0
5
5
2
2
2
4
7
7.1
7.
7.
6.
6.
6.
6.
7.
8.
9.
8.
13.
8.
5.
4.
4.
3.
9
1
7
0
7
7
1
2
1
2
4
7
6
0
3
8
-------
LOCATION 0011 SLIME HOLE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
DATE
021676
022376
030176
030876
031576
032276
032976
040576
041276
041976
042676
050376
IDENT
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
SLIME
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
r k ww r i
CMM FIELD
2.046
1.563
1.206
1.470
1.640
1.714
1 .458
1.920
1 .570
1.293
1 .288
1 .558
2.7
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.8
T
LAB
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.9
arci
COND
1380.
1340.
1160.
1100.
1020.
950.
1080.
1100.
940.
1020.
1000.
1080.
null
MG/L
531.
550.
425.
410.
373.
371.
378.
405.
390.
390.
376.
368.
ni 1 1 f
KG/D
1564.
1238.
738.
868.
881.
916.
793.
1120.
882.
726.
697.
826.
LKALin
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
HIT IKONITOTAL)
KG/D MG/L KG/D
0. 160.0 471.3
0. 170.0 382.6
0. 145.0 251.9
0. 120.0 254.0
0. 110.0 259.7
0. 110.0 271.5
0. 105.0 220.4
0. 115.0 317.9
0. 100.0 226.1
0. 100.0 186.2
0. 98.0 181.7
0. 100.0 224.4
IRON
MG/L
160.0
140.0
115.0
98.0
107.0
105.0
105.0
91.0
95.0
98.0
98.0
96.0
(FERR)
KG/0
471.3
315.1
199.8
207.4
252.6
259.2
220.4
251.6
214.8
182.5
181.7
215.4
SU
MG/L
748.
825.
750.
710.
675.
670.
675.
680.
620.
605.
580.
570.
LFATE
KG/D
2203.
1857.
1303.
1503.
1594.
1654.
1417.
1880.
1402.
1126.
1076.
1279.
ALUMINUM
M6/L KG/D
30.00
31.00
26.00
27.00
27.00
27.00
27.00
29.00
28.00
29.00
28.00
28.00
88.4
69.8
45.2
57.1
63.7
66.7
56.7
80.2
63.3
54.0
51.9
62.8
MANGANESE
MG/L K6/D
2.20
2.10
1.90
1.80
1.80
1.90
1.80
2.00
1.80
1 .80
1 .80
1.70
6.5
4.7
3.3
3.8
4.2
4.7
3.8
5 5
* J
4.1
* L
J *9
3.3
3.8
AVERAGES FOR 52 SAMPLINGS/
r,r,/H ,. !!!" ACIDITY ปLK*LINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/0 HG/L KG/D B6/L KG/D MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D
1.978 2.7 2.9 1140. 421. 1199.
0.
0. 117.3 334.1 96.8 275.7 655. 1866. 28.85 82.2 2.05 5.8
-------
o
Ul
DATE
051475
052175
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
020276
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
LOCATION 0012 LAUREL RUN
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
IDENT
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/
27.507
26.963
13.082
15.869
6.066
3.568
4.961
2.039
73.941
140.764
14.204
23.888
16.565
18.213
11.944
18.638
22.716
25.230
103.164
1CEO
50.189
208.300
26.845
51.022
31.466
25.757
46.060
4.5
4.4
4.8
4.5
4.8
5.0
4.7
4.3
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.6
3.9
4.1
OVER
3.9
3.5
4.0
4.8
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.6
4.8
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.8
4.6
4.3
4.6
4.3
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.9
4.8
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.8
4.3
4.5
4.7
81.
59.
63.
61.
79.
94.
97.
133.
58.
69.
69.
86.
66.
59.
66.
55.
55.
73.
113.
85.
77.
85.
55.
86.
81.
78.
39. 1545.
42. 1631.
42. 791.
43. 983.
40. 349.
65. 334.
62.
58.
443.
170.
40. 4259.
47. 9527.
36. 736.
45. 1548.
26. 620.
16.
20.
9.
15.
19.
420.
344.
242.
491.
690.
48. 7131.
19. 1373.
15. 4499.
14. 541.
9. 641.
15. 680.
17. 631.
16. 1061.
IALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
i/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
HG/L
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.0
1.6
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
KG/D
25.7
22.1
16.0
13.7
8.6
8.2
8.6
3.5
54.3
143.9
U.1
31.0
15.0
13.1
13.8
16.1
19.0
25.8
208.0
59.3
243.0
31.7
30.1
34.0
28.2
53.1
IRON(FERR)
HG/L
0.5
0.3
0.9
Q. 4
0.4
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.*
KG/D
17.8
10.5
16.2
10.1
3.3
6.2
7.1
2.9
46.8
32.4
10.2
20.6
10.5
10.5
6.9
10.7
13.7
14.5
148.6
30.4
168.0
17.0
22.0
19.9
14.1
26.5
SULFATE
NG/L
22.
17.
19.
19.
22.
41.
29.
50.
16.
20.
22.
24.
23.
19.
21.
17.
17.
24.
34.
23.
22.
27.
17.
27.
25.
23.
KG/D
871.
660.
358.
434.
192.
211.
207.
147.
1704.
4054.
450.
826.
549.
498.
361.
456.
556.
872.
5051.
1662.
6599.
1044.
1249.
1223.
927.
1 526.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
1.00
0.64
0.84
0.75
0.75
1.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
KG/D
39.6
24.8
15.8
17.1
6.6
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
MANGANESE
MG/L
0.21
0.20
0.16
0.25
0.34
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
8.3
7.8
3.0
5.7
3.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 27 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRONCTOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
NG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D NG/L KG/D
38.806 4.3 4.4 76. 29. 1604. 0. 0. 0.8 43.8 0.5 26.8 22. 1257. 0.33 18.3 0.09 5.0
-------
LOCATION 0013 KILOOW MINE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID NINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
M
O
DATE
05U75
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
C81875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
020276
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
I DENT
KILDOW
KILOOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILOOW
.KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILOOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILOOW
KILDOW
KILOOW
KILOOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILOOW
KILOOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
MINE
MINE
NINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MIME
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IftON(FERR) SULFATE
CMH
0.005
0.037
0.012
0.003
0.005
0.007
0.012
0.029
0.034
0.008
0.024
0.017
0.012
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.017
0.029
0.008
0.029
0.063
0.008
0.063
0.017
0.017
0.003
FIELD
2.7
2.5
3.0
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.6
3.0
2.6
2.5
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.7
2.7
LAB
3.0
3.2
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.9
2i9
3.0
2.6
CONO
576.
649.
585.
808.
937.
1450.
1270.
840.
740.
860.
752.
872.
820.
825.
840.
860.
712.
560.
740.
630.
520.
630.
700.
655.
620.
760.
HG/L
110.
137.
180.
198.
274.
377.
418.
235.
200.
300.
192.
272.
213.
248.
218.
259.
176.
134.
189.
140.
111.
141.
166.
152.
155.
207.
KG/D
1.
7.
3.
1.
2.
4.
7.
10.
10.
4.
7.
7.
4.
3.
3.
3.
4.
6.
2.
6.
10.
2.
15.
4.
4.
1.
HG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
MG/L
4.2
5.6
8.9
13.0
19.0
28.0
33.0
14.0
9.7
12.0
8.9
12.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
9.5
5.5
8.8
4.7
4.0
4.3
5.9
5.2
5.8
11.0
KG/D
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
MG/L
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
1.2
1.3
2.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.4
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.0
KG/D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MG/L
165.
365.
250.
285.
330.
520.
720.
270.
223.
284.
224.
283.
259.
290.
266.
299.
214.
150.
244.
194.
148.
194.
214.
198.
188.
272.
KG/D
1.
20.
4.
1.
2.
5.
12.
11.
11.
3.
8.
7.
4.
4.
3.
4.
5.
6.
3.
a.
13.
2.
19.
5.
5.
1.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
9.50
10.00
18.00
20.00
28.00
38.00
41.00
16.00
14.00
21.00
15.00
21.00
18.00
20.00
19.00
21.00
15.00
8.10
15.00
13.00
9.10
12.00
14.00
12.00
13.00
20.00
KG/D
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.1
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
MANGANESE
MG/L
0.18
0.19
0.30
0.40
0.45
0.53
0.62
0.30
0.25
0.31
0.25
0.31
0.25
0.29
0.25
0.30
0.20
0.15
0.21
0.18
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.29
KG/D
0 0
u u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 26 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRONCFERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.019 2.7 2.8 777. 182. 5. 0. 0. 8.6 0.2 0.6 0.0 ?43. 7. 14.79 0.4 0.23 0.0
-------
LOCATION 0014 KILDOU MINE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
DATE
05U75
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
020276
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
IDENT
KILDOW
KILDOU
KILDOW
KILDOU
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
KILDOW
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
CHH FIELD LAB COND HG/L KG/
MINE
MINE
NINE
NINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
NINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
0.008
0.095
0.017
0.008
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.022
0.044
0.008
0.029
0.008
0.024
0.008
0.017
6.017
0.037
0.085
FROZEN
0.044
0.114
0.037
0.029
0.044
0.044
0.037
3.7
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.8
3.5
3.8
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.0
3.3
3.8
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.9
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
170.
177.
170.
198.
225.
254.
235.
175.
185.
218.
216.
255.
230.
235.
240.
260.
211.
152.
175.
16S.
185.
189.
180.
177.
200.
19.
23.
33.
31.
45.
42.
38.
31.
38.
50.
36.
53.
48.
47.
39.
58.
40.
26.
30.
27.
31.
32.
27.
29.
37.
0.
3.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
2.
4.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
rY IRON(TOTAL)
/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
MG/L
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
1.2
2.1
3.3
0.7
0.5
1.1
0.6
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
KG/D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
KG/D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SULFATE
MG/L
46.
52.
58.
57.
80.
1"00.
100.
52.
59.
72.
64.
74.
70.
77.
72.
80.
66.
35.
51.
42.
54.
55.
52.
46.
58.
KG/D
1.
7.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
2.
4.
1.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
4.
4.
3.
7.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
2.10
2.70
3.10
3.00
4.60
5.00
2.90
2.30
2.40
4.30
3.50
4.20
3.80
4.40
3.70
3.90
3.40
1.70
2.70
2.00
2.20
2.30
2.20
2.40
3.40
KG/D
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
MANGANESE
MG/L
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.39
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.12
0.13
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
KG/D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 26 SAMPLINGS*
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMH FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.030 3.3 3.6 203. 32.
1.
0. 0. 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 53.
2. 2.74 0.1 0.09 0.0
-------
LOCATION 0015 LAUREL RUN
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
FLOW PH
CMM FIELD LAB
SPEC
COND
DATE
IDENT
ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON
-------
LOCATION 0016 ARNOLD RUN
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
DATE
05U75
052875
061175
062475
070775
C72175
C80475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
020276
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
IDENT
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
FLOW PH
CMM FIELD LAB
7.968 4.3 4.1
2.052 4.2 4.2
1.983 4.5 4.1
0.890 4.1 3.9
0.782 4.0 3.9
1.257 4.7 3.8
0.048 4.3 3.9
11.315 4.0 .4.1
20.932 4.6 4.2
2.124 4.2 4.2
2.667 3.7 4.1
2.447 3.7 4.2
2.022 4.0 4.4
1.893 4.0 4.2
2.124 4.0 4.3
2.447
3.160
5.488
2.124
2.973
26.590
3.160
3.972
2.966
2.973
3.551
3.7
3.9
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.7
4.1
3.7
3.7
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
SPEC
COND
115.
141.
139.
147.
196.
175.
175.
94.
89.
135.
132.
149.
120.
147.
120.
111.
123.
116.
140.
128.
85.
123.
104.
100.
113.
122.
ACIDITY ALKALINITY
HG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
35. 402. 0. 0.
48. 142. 0. 0.
43. 123. 0. 0.
48. 62. 0. 0.
42. 47. 0. 0.
48. 87. 0. 0.
38. 3. 0. 0.
30. 489. 0. 0.
23. 693. 0. 0.
30. 92. 0. 0.
28. 108. 0. 0.
29. 102. 0. 0.
18. 52. 0. 0.
19. 52. 0. 0.
23. 70. 0. 0.
22.
20.
20.
20.
22.
9.
17.
15.
19.
19.
17.
78.
91.
158.
61.
94.
345.
77.
86.
81.
81.
87.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
IRON(TOTAL)
MG/L KG/D
0.5 5.7
0.4 1.2
0.7 1.9
0.7 0.8
0.7 0.8
0.6 1.1
0.7 0.0
0.5 8.1
0.4 12.1
0.6 1.9
0.5 1.9
0.5 1.8
0.5 1.5
0.6 1.6
0.7 2.1
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
2.3
2.7
3.8
1.5
2.6
15.3
2.0
2.2
1.7
1 .6
3.3
IRON(FERR)
MG/L KG/D
0.3 2.9
0.2 0.7
013 1.0
0.5 0.6
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.5
0.4 0.0
0.2 3.9
0.3 9.6
0.3 0.9
0.2 0.8
0.5 1.8
0.2 0.6
0.2 0.5
0.2 0.6
0.1 0.5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.2
2.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
SULFATE
HG/L KG/D
30. 344.
46. 136.
54. 154.
54. 69.
72. 81.
65. 118.
84. 6.
27. 440.
26. 784.
47. 144.
44. 169.
48. 169.
44. 128.
55. 150.
48. 147.
44.
46.
35.
41.
45.
27.
41.
32.
35.
38.
38.
155.
209.
277.
125.
193.
1034.
187.
183.
150.
163.
194.
ALUMINUM
MG/L KG/D
1.40 16.1
1.80 5.3
1.50 4.3
1.90 2.4
1.80 2.0
1.70 3.1
1.50 0.1
0.85 13.9
0.62 18.7
1.40 4.3
1.50 5.8
0.00 0.0
1.20 3.5
0.00 0.0
0.00 0.0
0.00
0.00
1.30
1.40
1.60
0.95
1.20
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.0
0.0
10.3
4.3
6.9
36.4
5.5
5.7
0.0
0.0
6.1
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
0.46 5.3
0.61 1.8
0.75 2.1
0.94 1.2
1.20 1.4
1.00 1.8
1.20 0.1
0.35 5.7
0.30 9.0
0.71 2.2
0.65 2.5
0.00 0.0
0.57 1.7
0.00 0.0
0.00 0.0
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.42
0.46
0.30
0.40
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.0
0.0
3.3
1.3
2.0
11.5
1.8
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
AVERAGES FOR 26 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CHM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D NG/L KG/D
4.612 4.0 4.1 128. 22. 145.
0.
0. 0.5 3.1 0.2 1.2 34. ?27. 1.22 8.1 0.47 3.1
-------
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION 0017 LAUREL RUN
DATE
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
IOENT
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
FLOW
CMM
4.706
2.718
1.145
0.284
0.133
0.056
15.393
37.446
4.927
3.738
6.320
5.437
3.364
1.704
1.529
1.893
4.536
50.478
4.757
12.287
S.614
2.277
3.789
PH
FIELD
4.9
4.8
5.1
4.9
5.3
4.7
4.7
4.5
5.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
5.0
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.8
4.4
4.0
4.1
4.4
LAB
5.5
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.1
5.2
4.8
5.2
5.2
5.2
4.9
4.9
5.2
5.4
5.2
5.2
5.4
SPEC
COND
37.
37.
37.
42.
41.
56.
42.
38.
39.
38.
40.
37.
40.
38.
39.
40.
41.
41.
40.
37.
43.
39.
38.
ACIDITY
MG/L
36.
44.
41.
50.
62.
49.
32.
29.
21.
11.
10.
8.
17.
9.
11.
9.
9.
5.
7.
7.
7.
9.
14.
KG/D
244.
172.
68.
20.
12.
4.
709.
1564.
149.
59.
91.
63.
82.
22.
24.
25.
59.
363.
48.
124.
57.
30.
76.
ALKALINITY
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
IRON(TOTAL)
MG/L
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.9
4.5
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
KG/D
2.9
2.2
1.5
0.8
0.9
0.1
10.4
15.6
4.6
2.2
2.6
2.3
2.4
1.2
0.9
0.8
1.6
21.1
2.1
4.4
2.0
0.8
3.5
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.6
1.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
KG/D
0.7
1.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.0
8.4
8.6
1.8
1.1
1.8
0.8
1.9
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.3
3.6
2.1
0.9
0.6
0.3
1.0
SULFATE
MG/L
11.
11.
12.
13.
19.
21.
11.
9.
12.
11.
13.
11.
12.
11.
11.
13.
12.
11.
11.
10.
11.
10.
12.
KG/D
75.
43.
20.
5.
4.
2.
244.
485.
85.
59.
118.
86.
58.
27.
24.
35.
78.
800.
75.
177.
89.
33.
65.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
0.35
0.10
0.50
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
2.4
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MANGANESE
MG/L
0.18
0.20
0.25
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
1 2
' *
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
b.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 23 SAMPLINGS/.
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
7.588 4.6 5.1 40. 16. 177. 0. 0. 0.3 3.8 0.2 1.7 11. 117. 0.09 0.9 0.06 0.6
-------
LOCATION OOOA SNOWY CREEK
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
DATE
C5U75
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
020276
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
IDENT
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
CHM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/
2.549
0.795
0.595
O.OS6
0.131
0.095
0.037
2.481
0.946
0.284
0.189
0.189
0.474
0.379
0.474
0.284
0.379
0.474
FROZEN
FROZEN
0.474
0.379
0.379
0.474
0.284
5.3
5.5
5.5
6.2
6.4
6.3
6.0
5.5
5.3
5.8
5.4
5.7
5.8
5.5
5.5
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.7
6.0
6.6
6.5
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.2
6.2
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.4
6.6
7.0
6.4
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.1
6.3
103.
96.
123.
162.
168.
174.
200.
101.
89.
141.
115.
140.
113.
156.
115.
114.
99.
100.
112.
97.
107.
106.
130.
0.
23.
17.
7.
3.
6.
0.
6.
5.
6.
3.
4.
3.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
26.
15.
1.
1.
1.
0.
21.
7.
2.
1.
1.
2.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
[ALIMITY IRON(TOTAL)
i/L
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
7.
0.
4.
3.
7.
2.
2.
KG/D
11.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
4,
0.
3.
2.
4.
1.
1.
MG/L
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.2
0.8
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
1.0
KG/D
2.5
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
2.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
6.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
KG/D
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
SULFATE
MG/L
12.
14.
13.
15.
16.
14.
13.
14.
15.
14.
13.
16.
12.
15.
13.
16.
14.
16.
14.
13.
13.
13.
15.
KG/D
44.
16.
11.
1.
3.
2.
1.
50.
20.
6.
4.
4.
8.
8.
9.
7.
8.
11.
10.
7.
7.
9.
6.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MANGANESE
MG/L
0.16
O.?f!
0.21
0.31
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
n.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 25 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.512 5.7 6.5 124.
4.
3.
1.
1. 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 14. 10. 0.16 0.1 0.29 0.2
-------
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION OOOC SNOWY CREEK
DATE
051475
052875
061175
C6Z475
070775
072175
080475
081875
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
020276
C30176
031576
032976
041276
042676
IOENT
SNOWr
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
SNOWY
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALI
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L
1.103
3.058
0.644
0.683
0.340
0.652
0.056
2.990
0.780
0.496
0.785
0.620
0.415
0.486
0.486
0.510
0.476
0.758
FROZEN
FROZEN
0.799
2.613
1.539
1.543
0.284
5.0
5.2
5.7
6.0
5.6
6.2
5.8
5.3
5.2
5.8
5.5
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.9
5.5
5.5
5.2
5.2
5.4
5.7
5.6
5.4
6.4
6.7
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.3
6.3
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.8
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.3
6.4
50.
48.
47.
51.
56.
70.
52.
50.
45.
62.
51.
48.
54.
64.
48.
53.
50.
49.
48.
50.
58.
50.
57.
18.
27.
34.
29.
24.
30.
26.
22.
12.
6.
5.
6.
10.
4.
0.
5.
0.
3.
1.
3.
7.
1.
3.
29.
119.
32.
29.
12.
28.
2.
95.
13.
4.
6.
5.
6.
3.
0.
4.
0.
3.
1.
11.
16.
2.
1.
Y IRON
-------
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
DATE
051475
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
020276
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
LOCATION OOOD LAUREL RUN
IDENT
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
LAUREL
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
CMM FIELD LAB CONO MG/L KG/
0.029
0.284
0.476
0.663
1.893
FROZEN
3.024
2.272
1.514
1.325
0.946
0.567
1.135
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.0
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.2
5.4
6.4
6.3
6.5
6.5
6.2
6.1
5.9
6.1
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.4
37.
42.
48.
40.
42.
41.
39.
40.
39.
40.
39.
51.
20.
6.
2.
3.
4.
1.
3.
5.
3.
1.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
3.
11.
4.
10.
11.
6.
1.
2.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Y IRON(TOTAL)
i/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
NG/L
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
KG/0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0;3
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.0
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
KG/D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
SULFATE
MG/L
11.
10.
11.
10;.
10.
10.
9.
10.
10.
10.
9.
13.
KG/D
0.
4.
8.
10.
27.
44.
31.
21.
19.
13.
7.
21.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
0.10
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MANGANESE
MG/L
0.10
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KG/D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 13 SAMPLINGS*
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
1.087 5.1 6.3 42.
3. 5.
0. 0. 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 10. 16. 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.0
-------
DATE
LOCATION OOOE YELLOW BOY BH
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
IOENT
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATC ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAS' COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
05U75
052175
C52875
060*75
061175
061675
C62475
063075
C70775
07U75
072175
072875
080475
081175
081875
082575
090275
090875
091675
092275
092975
100675
101375
102075
102775
110375
111075
111775
112475
120175
120875
121575
122275
C10576
020276
042676
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BOY
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
AVERAGES FOR 36 SAMPLINGS/
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.000 0.0 0.0
0. 0.
0.
0.
0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.
0. 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0
-------
DATE
LOCATION OOOF GLORY HOLE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
IDENT
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/0 MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
C5H75
052175
G52875
060475
061175
061675
062475
063075
C70775
07U75
072175
073875
C80475
081175
081875
082575
090275
090875
091675
092275
092975
100675
101375
102075
102775
110375
111075
111775
112475
120175
120875
121575
122275
122975
010576
011276
012676
C20276
021676
C22576
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
2.326
0.095
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
1.736
3.568
1.495
0.014
0.200
1 .098
0.126
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRY
CRY
DRY
0.629
0.693
6.254
1.400
0.187
DRY
3.028
2.272
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.0
640.
624.
700.
810.
720.
572.
590.
752.
630.
700.
652.
735.
685.
554.
650.
670.
110.
114.
138.
182.
150.
133.
164.
205.
157.
188.
164.
182.
166.
146.
154.
158.
368.
16.
345.
935.
323.
3.
47.
324.
28.
170.
164.
1639.
335.
39.
671.
517.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12.0
12.0
16.0
23.0
18.0
7.6
15.0
20.0
14.0
24.0
22.0
23.0
23.0
18.0
19.0
21.0
40.2
1.6
40.0
118.2
38.8
0.1
4.3
31.6
2.5
21.7
22.0
207.1
46.4
4.8
82.8
68.7
4.7
6.2
1.8
23.0
18.0
5.3
15.0
9.7
6.8
17.5
22.0
20.0
18.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
15.7
0.8
4.5
118.2
38.8
0.1
4.3
15.3
1.2
15.8
22.0
180.1
36.3
3.2
43.6
32.7
255.
265.
270.
299.
288.
206.
250.
294.
244.
304.
290.
324.
320.
274.
294.
310.
854.
36.
675.
1536.
620.
4.
72.
465.
44.
275.
289.
2918.
645.
74.
1282.
1014.
13.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
14.00
12.00
13.00
17.00
14.00
16.00
13.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
16.00
14.00
43.5
1.8
35.0
77.1
30.1
0.2
3.8
26.9
2.5
14.5
13.0
144.1
28.2
3.2
69.8
45.8
1.90
1.60
1.70
1.60
1.60
1.70
1.70
1.90
1.60
2.00
1.80
1.80
1.50
1.30
1.40
1.40
6.4
0.2
4.3
8.2
3.4
0.0
0.5
3.0
0.3
1.8
1.8
16.2
3.0
0.3
6.1
4.6
-------
DATE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
MATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION OOOF GLORY HOLE
IDENT
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRONUOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
030176
030876
031576
032976
040576
041276
041976
042676
050376
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
GLORY
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
HOLE
1.514
DRY
0.758
0.758
1.893
0.758
0.019
DRY
0.019
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.7
3.2
3.4
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.4
700.
660.
645.
620.
585.
470.
440.
138.
129.
133.
130.
134.
98.
89.
301.
141.
145.
354.
146.
3.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.0
18.0
18.0
17.0
15.0
3.3
1.9
43.6
19.6
19.6
46.3
16.4
0.1
0.1
11.0
11.0
12.0
6.7
6.0
2.4
0.9
24.0
12.0
13.1
18.3
6,5
0.1
0.0
290.
268.
272.
258.
244.
172.
156.
632.
292.
297.
703.
266.
5.
4.
12.00
12.00
12.00
13.00
13.00
11.00
10.00
26.2
13.1
13.1
35.4
14.2
0.3
0.3
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.20
1.60
1.60
2.8
1.4
1.4
3.5
1.3
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 49 SAMPLINGS/
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/0 MG/L KG/D
0.629 2.8 3.1 644. 158. 143.
0. 0. 19.7 17.9 13.7 12.4 293. 265. 30.80 27.9 3.40 3.1
-------
LOCATION DOOM ARNOLD MINE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
DATE
IDENT
FLOW PH SPEC
CNN FIELD LAB CONO
ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
05U75
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
C81875
082575
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
012676
020276
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
NINE
MINE
MINE
NINE
NINE
NINE
NINE
NINE
MINE
NINE
NINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
0.019
0.114
0.029
0.024
0.003
DRY
DRY
0.076
0.051
0.183
0.041
0.075
0.017
0.012
0.003
DRY
0.007
0.029
0.347
FROZEN
0.044
0.148
0.347
0.129
0.100
0.148
0.114
0.037
3.0
2.7
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.7
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.8
596.
676.
642.
734.
765.
640.
660.
640.
780.
747.
880.
885.
920.
920.
760.
580.
790.
635.
530.
580.
630.
570.
565.
680.
91.
120.
136.
147.
177.
120.
153.
136.
165.
191.
263.
217.
235.
249.
164.
148.
177.
135.
98.
98.
119.
100.
103.
131.
2.
20.
6.
5.
1.
13.
11.
36.
10.
21.
6.
4.
1.
2.
7.
74.
11.
29.
49.
18.
17.
21.
17.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.4
2.9
1.4
2.0
1.5
2.5
4.1
4.8
3.7
3.9
4.2
2.6
2.0
2.5
1.9
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.3
2.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
'0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
155.
180.
225.
245.
254.
164.
205.
168.
240.
234.
279.
299.
323.
339.
224.
160.
244.
194.
144.
172.
176.
168.
156.
204.
4. 6.60
30. 8.50
9. 14.00
8. 15.00
1. 20.00
18. 8.00
15. 11.00
44. 8.20
14. 16.00
25. 15.00
7. 18.00
5. 19.00
2. 21.00
3. 22.00
9. 11.00
80. 8.80
16. 13.00
41. 11 .00
72. 8.00
32. 6.10
25. 10.00
36. 7.30
26. 7.00
11. 12.00
0.2
1 .4
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.9
0.8
2.2
0.9
1.6
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.5
4.4
0.8
2.3
4.0
1.1
1.4
1 .6
1.1
0.6
0.46
0.69
.0.86
0.98
1.20
0.81
0.88
0.69
0.93
0.88
0.96
1.00
1.10
1.20
0.73
0.60
0.71
0.65
0.56
0.42
0.58
0.42
0.39
0.63
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 28 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CNN FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.075 2.8 2.9 700. 129. U.
0.
0. 1.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 177. 19. 10.89 1.2 0.73 0.1
-------
CO
DATE
LOCATION DODO PENDERGAST
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
IDENT
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL7 IRON(FEfiR) SULFATE ALUMINUM
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
052875
060475
061175
061675
062475
063075
070775
071475
072175
072875
080475
081175
081875
082575
090275
090675
091675
092275
092975
100675
101375
102075
102775
110375
111075
111775
112475
120175
120875
121575
122275
122975
010576
011276
011976
012676
020276
020976
021676
022376
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENOERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
0.019
0.008
0.019
0.019
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.010
0.012
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.017
0.012
0.085
0.029
0.017
0.017
0.044
0.029
0.100
0.063
2.7
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.7
0.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.7 2060. 866.
2.5 2010. 920.
2.6 1890. 875.
2.5 2010. 911.
2.5 2020. 908.
2.5 2040. 877.
2.5 2020. 890.
2.5 1900. 826.
2.5 1830. 824.
2.5 1550. 787.
2.6 1750. 842.
2.4 1980. 948.
2.5 1510. 744.
2.6 1340. 661.
2.7 1360. 689.
2.6 1570. 683.
2.7 1660. 793.
2.7 1430. 710.
2.6 1700. 781.
2.7 1800. 818.
2.6 1880. 846.
2.7 1720. 804.
2.6 1800. 873.
2.6 1750. 850.
2.7 1630. 828.
2.6 1880. 847.
2.6 1800. 826.
2.6 1760. 800.
2.5 1780. 780.
2i7 1630. 764.
2.6 1680. 844.
2.8 1330. 690.
2.6 1940. 980.
2.4 2040. 1080.
2.4 2000. 1110.
2.7 1990. 1170.
2.5 2060. 1180.
2.6 1940. 1060.
2.6 1670. 796.
2.5 1700. 924.
23.
11.
24.
25.
20.
17.
17.
10.
10.
8.
8.
9.
11.
11.
8.
8.
8.
9.
10.
10.
14.
14.
11.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
13.
13.
21.
12.
120.
45.
27.
29.
75.
44.
115.
84.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
158.0
195.0
200.0
220.0
205.0
185.0
190.0
194.0
188.0
180.0
187.0
185.0
135.0
96.0
112.0
130.0
142.0
105.0
130.0
145.0
155.0
140.0
170.0
170.0
165.0
170.0
170.0
165.0
160.0
160.0
170.0
140.0
190.0
200.0
230.0
240.0
245.0
235.0
175.0
220.0
4.3
2.4
5.4
5.9
4.5
3.6
3.7
2.4
2.3
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.8
2.7
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.7
2.7
4.2
2.4
23.2
8.3
5.6
5.9
15.6
9.8
25.3
19.9
42.0
30.0
64.0
45.0
57.0
43.0
18.0
66.0
71.0
66.0
60.0
46.0
61.0
32.0
22.0
33.0
35.0
33.0
15.0
36.0
36.0
46.0
36.0
33.0
15.0
44.0
49.0
49.0
55.0
66.0
31.0
22.0
15.0
0.6
3.8
15.0
25.0
46.0
2.2
2.0
1.1
0.4
1.7
1.2
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.4
1.8
0.0
0.1
0.4
1.6
1.9
0.3
0.2
1225.
1450.
1325.
1310.
1250.
1200.
1240.
1150.
1250.
1270.
1310.
1410.
920.
748.
760.
935.
1000.
820.
1020.
1080.
1220.
1070.
1170.
1150.
1120.
1170.
1090.
1120.
1170.
1065.
1095.
970.
1250.
1550.
1595.
1550.
1520.
1470.
1080.
1320.
33.
18.
36.
35.
28.
23.
24.
14.
15.
12.
13.
14.
14.
13.
9.
11.
10.
10.
12.
13.
21.
18.
14.
14.
14.
14.
13.
14.
20.
18.
27.
17.
153.
64.
39.
38.
97.
61.
156.
119.
54.00
59.00
59.00
61.00
63.00
61.00
61.00
57.00
58.00
53.00
54.00
55.00
40.00
32.00
33.00
43.00
48.00
37.00
43.00
53.00
52.00
50.00
50.00
52.00
51.00
50.00
50.00
49.00
49.00
47.00
51.00
46.00
59.00
61 .00
65.00
67.00
72.00
68.00
57.00
62.00
1.5
0.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.8
7.2
2.5
1.6
1.6
4.6
2.8
8.2
5.6
1 *A 0
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.10
1.80
1.80
1.70
1.90
2.00
1.40
1.10
1.20
1.50
1.70
1.10
1.40
1.60
1.70
1.60
1.60
1.70
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.70
1.60
1.60
1.70
1.50
1 .50
1.50
1.70
1.90
1.80
1.8C
1.20
1.40
Q ,Q
O.C
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
D.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
-------
DATE
030176
030876
031576
032276
032976
C40576
041276
041976
042676
050376
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION 0000 PENDERGAST
IDENT
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
PENDERGAST
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
COM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/
0.019
0.029
0.008
0.017
0.029
0.037
0.017
0.037
0.029
0.029
.6
.6
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.5
.6
2.6 1900.
2.5 1880.
2.6 1710.
2.6 1600.
2.6 1690.
2.6 1580.
2.5 1820.
2.5 1900.
2.5 1880.
2.6 1860.
994.
1040.
901.
770.
905.
850.
932.
930.
975.
952.
27.
43.
11.
19.
38.
46.
23.
50.
41.
40.
ALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
MG/L
230.0
220.0
210.0
180.0
200.0
185.0
210.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
KG/D
6.2
9.2
2.6
4.4
8.3
10.0
5.1
10.8
8.3
8.3
IRON(FERR)
,HG/L
19.0
55.0
68.0
21.0
52.0
40.0
25.0
44.0
38.0
65.0
KG/D
0.5
2.3
0.8
0.5
2.2
2.2
0.6
2.4
1.6
2.7
SULFATE
MG/L
1470.
1520.
1320.
1040.
1290.
1170.
1340.
1340.
1330.
1290.
KG/D
40.
63.
16.
25.
54.
63.
33.
72.
55.
54.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
658.00
62.00
56.00
54.00
56.00
55.00
65.00
64.00
60.00
60.00
KG/D
17.7
2.6
0.7
1.3
2.3
3.0
1.6
3.4
2.5
2.5
MANGANESE
MG/L
1.50
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.50
1.60
1 .70
1.60
KG/D
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
AVERAGES FOR 50 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTML)
CHM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.020 2.6 2.6 1785. 909. 26.
0.
0. 190.6 5.4 30.6 0.9 1252. 35. 69.04 1.9 1.57 0.0
-------
UEST VIRGINIA ACID NINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION 000V ARNOLD STRIP
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMH FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D MG/L K6/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE
HG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
DATE
IDENT
II
S3
0
052175
052875
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
081875
082575
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
C12676
C20276
C21676
C30176
031576
032976
041276
042676
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
0.076
DRY
DRV
DRY
DRV
DRY
DRY
0.474
0.284
0.413
0.037
0.129
0.012
0.037
DRY
DRV
0.075
0.085
0.347
FROZEN
0.114
0.114
0.748
0.114
0.347
0.114
0.063
0.024
3.4
2.8
2.9
2.7
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.7
2.8
3.0
2.7
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.9
3.1
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.2
304.
400.
310.
300.
348.
320.
372.
371.
390.
324.
285.
326.
298.
240.
255.
268.
254.
245.
340.
40.
62.
60.
49.
59.
60.
72.
69.
80.
49.
34.
50.
41.
33.
35.
39.
37.
38.
49.
4.
42.
25.
29.
3.
11.
1.
4.
9.
6.
17.
8.
7.
36.
6.
19.
6.
3.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
83.
77.
64.
55.
72.
64.
82.
90.
92.
72.
56.
72.
66.
52.
56.
67.
59.
56.
84.
9.
53.
26.
33.
4.
12.
1.
5.
10.
9.
28.
12.
11.
56.
9.
33.
10.
5.
3.
2.90
2.70
1.80
2.10
3.10
1.90
2.40
2.40
3.30
2.20
2.00
2.20
2.20
1.40
1.30
1.80
1.70
1.60
3.40
0.3
1.8
0.7
1.2
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.4
1.5
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.45
0.31
0.28
0.42
0.45
0.39
0.47
0.40
0.38
0.28
0.25
0.40
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.30
0.29
0.25
0.46
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 28 SAMPLINGS/
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FEftR) SULFATE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.129 2.9 3.2 313. 46. 9. 0. 0. 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 63. 12. 2.93 0.5 0.48 0.1
-------
LOCATION OOOZ STRIP MINE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
FLOW
PH
CMM FIELD
DATE
CS2175
052875
161175
062475
C70775
C72175
080475
C&1875
082575
090275
091675
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
012676
020276
021676
C30176
031576
032976
C41276
042676
LAB
SPEC
COND
ACIDITY
MG/L
KG/D
ALKALINITY
MG/L
KG/D
IRON(TOTAL)
MG/L
KG/D
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
KG/D
SULFATE ALUMINUM
MG/L
KG/D MG/L
KG/D
IDENT
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
MINE
0.051
0.056
0.012
0.017
GRAB SMPL
DRY
DRY
0.031
0.022
0.183
0.007
0.044
0.007
DRY
DRY
DRY
0.007
0.063
0.314
FROZEN
0.044
0.085
0.452
0.063
0.075
0.063
0.075
0.044
3.2
3.2
3.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.0
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.6
2.8
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.0
521.
545.
516.
570.
590.
600.
600.
560.
624.
587.
646.
650.
572.
470.
547.
505.
400.
502.
525.
490.
487.
570.
78.
82.
99.
100.
112.
95.
150.
107.
172.
115.
124.
138.
102.
82.
123.
92.
64.
74.
87.
74.
77.
92.
6.
7.
2.
2.
4.
5.
28.
2.
7.
1.
1.
9.
37.
8.
11.
42.
7.
9.
7.
8.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
b.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
3.7
3.1
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.3
1.3
2.5
.6
.2
.1
.3
.1
.1
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
'0.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
193.
183.
205.
230.
210.
175.
207.
184.
214.
209.
223.
248.
219.
150.
194.
174.
133.
170.
201.
175.
168.
204.
14. 9.00
15. 8.00
4. 8.70
6. 10.30
11.00
8. 8.30
7. 10.00
49. 7.90
2. 11.00
13. 10.00
2. 11.00
2. 13.00
20. 8.90
68. 5.80
12. 8.10
21. 7.60
87. 5.80
15. 5.80
22. 7.40
16. 5.90
18. 6.90
13. 10.00
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.3
2.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.8
2.6
0.5
0.9
3.8
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6
MANGANESE
MG/L
1.10
0.95
1.20
1.40
1.40
1.20
1.20
1.00
1.30
1.10
1.30
1.20
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.80
0.78
0.91
0.79
0.83
1.10
KG/D
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
AVERAGES FOR 28 SAMPLINGS/.
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRONCTOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/0 MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L K6/D MG/L KG/D
0.063 2.8 3.1 547. 85. 8. 0. 0. 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 167. 15. 9.03 0.8 1.17 0.1
-------
CO
DATE
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOUT CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
LOCATION OOXX ARNOLD STRIP
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRONCTOTALK IRON(FERR)
CHN FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D HG/L K6/D MG/L KG/D
SULFATE
MG/L KG/D
IDE NT
ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D
G52H75
061175
062475
070775
072175
080475
081875
082575
090275
091675
092975
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
011976
012676
020276
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
ARNOLD
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
STRIP
DRY
DRY
DRY
DRV
DRY
DRV
DRY
0.189 2.8 3.1 370. 80. 22. 0.
0.165 2.7 3.3 280. 52. 12. 0.
DRY
DRV
DRY
DRV
DRV
DRY
DRY
0.204 2.7 3.3 306. 60. 18. 0.
FROZEN
DRY
DRY
0.807 3.0 3.5 180. 25. 29. 0.
DRY
0.063 3.0 3.3 288. 41. 4. 0.
DRY
DRY
DRY
0. 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 74. 20. 2.30 0.6 0.30 0.1
0. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 54. 13. 1.20 0.3 0.21 0.0
0. 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 64. 19. 1.60 0.5 0.26 0.1
0. 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 40. 46. 1.20 1.4 0.21 0.2
0. 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 57. 5. 1.70 0.2 0.29 0.0
AVERAGES FOR 26 SAMPLINGS/
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
SULFATE
MG/L KG/D
ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.055 2.8 3.3 285. 41.
0. 0. 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 50. 4. 7.41 0.6 1.21 0.1
-------
LOCATION 0104 GRAFTON COAL
WEST VIRGINIA ACID NINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOUY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
K)
DATE
092975
101375
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
CMH FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/
IDENT
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
0.758
0.758
1.135
1.135
0.946
0.951
1.135
0.758
1.325
1.135
0.946
1.135
4.7
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.2
4.3
3.5
4.2
5.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.4
5.4
4.9
4.8
4.7
5.1
36.
37.
85.
33.
35.
36.
36.
40.
39.
41.
36.
36.
13.
9.
18.
14.
17.
14.
13.
5.
7.
9.
7.
10.
14.
10.
29.
23.
23.
19.
21.
5.
13.
15.
10.
16.
ALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
./L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
MG/L
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.4
KG/D
0.9
0.7
1.1
2.3
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
2.3
IRON(FERR)
MG/L
'0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
KG/D
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
SULFATE
MG/L
9.
10.
16.
9.
9.
9.
10.
10.
10.
10.
9.
10.
KG/D
10.
11.
26.
15.
12.
12.
16.
11.
18.
16.
13.
16.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
0.25
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.00
KG/D
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
MANGANESE
MG/L
0.09
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.00
KG/D
n.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
AVERAGES FOR 12 SAMPLINGS/
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRONCTOTAl.) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
1.010 4.3 4.8 41. 11. 17.
0.
0. 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.2 10. 15. 0.15 0.2 0.09 0.1
-------
is)
DATE
092975
101375
102075
102775
111075
112475
120875
122275
010576
020276
021676
030176
031576
032976
041276
042676
LOCATION 0106 GRAFTON COAL
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
1DENT
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
GRAFTON
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/
0.082
0.066
0.073
0.051
0.029
0.031
0.065
0.037
0.197
0.031
0.228
0.082
0.151
0.090
0.082
0.048
5.0
5.0
5.4
5.0
5.1
5.1
4.9
5.2
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.9
4.7
3.8
4.8
5.9
6.0
5.7
5.2
5.8
5.7
5.9
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.4
5.6
5.4
5.7
5.3
5.2
185.
180.
204.
102.
185.
200.
194.
211.
320.
295.
360.
306.
300.
330.
332.
400.
18.
15.
16.
9.
6.
16.
5.
10.
24.
20.
15.
19.
17.
19.
13.
14.
2.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
7.
1.
5.
2.
4.
2.
2.
1.
ALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR)
/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L
0. 0. 1
0. 0.
0. 0.
.6 0.2 1.4
.6 0.2 1.6
.7 0.2 1.7
0. C. 2.1 0.2 1.8
0. 0. 2.6 0.1 2.6
0. 0. 3.1 0.1 2.9
0. 0. 2.9 0.3 2.8
0. 0. 2.8 0.2 2.1
0. 0. 2.0 0.6 0.8
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
.6 0.1 1.6
.1 0.4 1.0
.5 0.2 1.5
.4 0.3 0.9
.6 0.2 1.5
.6 0.2 1.3
0. 0. 2.9 0.2 2.7
KG/D
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
SULFATE
MG/L
77.
62.
69.
33.
74.
74.
80.
79.
135.
130.
184.
164.
132.
155.
172.
184.
KG/D
9.
6.
7.
2.
3.
3.
7.
4.
38.
6.
60.
19.
29.
20.
20.
13.
ALUMINUM
MG/L
0.30
0.00
0.25
0.20
0.50
0.35
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.65
0.90
0.75
0.55
0.65
0.60
1.50
KG/D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
MANGANESE
MG/L
3
0
2
2
2
3
3
0
0
5
6
5
5
5
6
6
.00
.00
.90
.90
.50
.20
.50
.00
.00
.50
.80
.90
.50
.6C
.40
.40
KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
4
0
3
2
1
1
3
0
0
2
2
7
2
7
8
4
AVERAGES FOR 16 SAMPLINGS,
FLOW PH SPEC ACIDITY ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
CMM FIELD LAB COND MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.084 4.9 5.6 257. 16.
2.
0. 0. 1.8 0.2 1.4 0.2 128. 15. 0.59 0.1 4.92 0.6
-------
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
SUMMARY LISTING OF ALL GRAB SAMPLE POINTS
to
FLOW PH
CMM FIELD LAB
DATE
051475
051475
051475
052175
052875
052875
052875
062475
063075
070775
070775
071475
072175
072175
072875
072875
072875
080475
080475
080475
080475
080475
081875
081875
090275
090275
090275
090275
090275
091675
091675
091675
091675
091675
091675
092275
092275
092975
092975
100675
SITE
OOOG
OOOH
OOOK
OOOX
OOOH
OOOK
OOOP
0018
OOOB
0004
OOOZ
OOOG
0004
0018
OOEE
OOFF
OOGG
0004
0018
OOOH
OOOP
OOCC
0004
0018
0004
0052
OOOH
OOOK
ooec
0004
0018
0054
OOA1
OOOG
OOOP
0100
0101
0103
0107
0018
IDENT
GRIMMS PO
LAUREL RU
LAUREL RU
ARNOLD ST
LAUREL RU
LAUREL RU
ARNOLD RU
LAUREL RU
GRAFTON C
SNOWY CRE
STRIP MIN
GRIMMS PO
SNOWY CRE
LAUREL RU
CORE DRIL
SNOWY CRE
LAUREL RU
LAUREL RU
ARNOLD RU
SNOWY CRE
SNOWY CRE
LAUREL RU
SNOWY CRE
LAUREL RU
LAUREL RU
SNOWY CRE
SNOWY CRE
LAUREL RU
GRIMS PON
ARNOLD RU
RECKHART
RECKHART
GRAFTON C
BALT. COA
LAUREL RU
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SHPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SHPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SNPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
5
5
5
3
4
5
5
0
6
6
2
5
6
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
4
5
6
5
4
4
6
5
3
4
4
5
5
4
.0
.0
.3
.9
.8
.4
.5
.0
.4
.3
.7
.3
.6
.2
.6
.7
.1
.4
.3
.4
.2
.9
.3
.0
.2
.0
.5
.3
.5
.8
.4
.7
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.2
4
4
.4
.6
4.8
3.3
5
4
5
5
.0
.9
.3
.0
6.8
6
3
5
6
5
6
6
5
6
5
5
4
6
6
4
6
6
5
6
7
6
5
5
6
5
4
4
4
4
6
.8
.1
.4
.7
.8
.3
.5
.2
.6
.6
.1
.2
.8
.3
.7
.3
.5
.1
.1
.1
.7
.1
.5
.4
.1
.5
.7
.7
.6
.1
4.5
SPEC
COND
31.
30.
42.
506.
26.
54.
25.
32.
360.
105.
590.
31.
137.
42.
179.
43.
23.
132.
36.
29.
45.
155.
86.
45.
68.
35.
37.
38.
90.
94.
40.
21.
152.
26.
43.
29.
52.
39.
97.
45.
ACI!
MG/L
14
12
22
103
25
41
16
45
0
32
112
60
24
34
22
0
12
10
55
30
48
0
31
36
21
3
19
16
0
2
25
5
0
26
7
24
9
12
15
36
"
e
f
f
.
p
B
a
.
,
m
.
m
m
m
m
.
m
\
m
m
m
m
m
r ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR)
MG/L K6/D MG/L KG/0 MG/L KG/D HG/L KG/0
SULFATE ALUMINUM MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
48.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
27.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
3.6
1.0
1.4
1.4
4.6
1.4
4.4
1.3
0.6
0.1
1.2
6.2
0.5
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.6
1.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.4
1.4
65.0
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.3
11.0
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0,1
1.3
0.1
0.4
0.1
3.5
0.5
1.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
2.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
1.2
1.2
28.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
6.5
0.7
6.
7.
12.
194.
7.
16.
7.
13.
84.
16.
210.
16.
16.
32.
14.
9.
3.
17.
23.
7.
11.
10.
18.
11.
16.
5.
9.
9.
9.
9.
11.
40.
40.
7.
9.
10.
15.
9.
17.
12.
0.10
0.10
0.10
18.00
0.45
0.60
0.30
0.29
0.95
0.95
11.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.02
2.90
0.20
0.15
0.03
0.26
2.50
0.15
1.40
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.21
0.10
0.00
0.00
-------
WEST VIRGINIA ACID MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOWY CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
SUMMARY LISTING OF ALL GRAB SAMPLE POINTS
FLOW PH
CNM FIELD LAB
DATE
100675
101375
101375
101375
101375
102775
102775
102775
111075
111075
111075
111075
111075
111075
111075
111075
111075
111775
112475
112475
112475
112475
112475
120875
120875
120875
120875
122275
122275
122275
010576
010576
010576
010576
010576
020276
020276
020276
020276
020276
SITE
OOOK
0004
OOOH
OOOP
OOCC
0018
0109
OOOK
0004
0018
OOOG
OOOH
OOOK
OOOP
OOCC
YR01
YR02
0110
0018
OOOP
OOCC
YR01
YR02
0004
OOOG
YR01
YR02
OOOP
YR01
YR02
OOOK
OOOP
YR01
VR02
OOCC
0004
OOOG
OOCC
YR01
YR02
IDENT
LAUREL
SNOWY
LAUREL
ARNOLD
SNOWY
LAUREL
RU
CRE
RU
RU
CRE
RU
POND ABOV
LAUREL
SNOWY
LAUREL
GRINS
LAUREL
LAUREL
ARNOLD
SNOWY
YOUGH
TOUGH
SIMMS
LAUREL
ARNOLD
SNOWY
YOUGH
YOUGH
SNOWY
GRIMMS
YOUGH
YOUGH
ARNOLD
YOUGH
YOUGH
LAUREL
ARNOLD
YOUGH
YOUGH
SNOWY
SNOWY
GRIMMS
SNOWY
YOUGH
YOUGH
RU
CRE
RU
PON
RU
RU
RU
CRE
B S
B S
MIN
RU
RU
CRE
B S
A S
CRE
PO
B S
A S
RU
B S
A S
RU
RU
B S
A S
CRE
CRE
PO
CRE
B S
A S
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
SMPL
4
5
4
3
6
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
6
2
4
4
7
5
6
5
4
5
6
3
5
5
4
3
5
5
6
5
4
6
4
5
.0
.7
.0
.7
.7
.8
.4
.5
.7
.4
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.5
.6
.3
.0
.2
.4
.0
.3
.2
.4
.1
.5
.0
.9
.0
.7
.3
.5
.8
.6
.0
.9
.9
.8
4
.1
6.7
5
4
7
5
.4
.6
.2
.0
5.0
4
6
5
5
4
4
4
7
6
6
2
5
4
7
5
6
6
5
6
6
4
5
6
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
5
6
.8
.6
.4
.4
.9
.4
.5
.2
.1
.5
.7
.2
.6
.3
.9
.8
.5
.0
.4
.9
.4
.8
.8
.8
.8
.7
.4
.8
.9
.4
.7
.4
.2
SPEC
COND
100.
84.
29.
42.
115.
47.
35.
51.
106.
43.
26.
27.
73.
39.
135.
98.
69.
756.
37.
40.
127.
78.
56.
86.
29.
84.
70.
49.
86.
53.
40.
41.
75.
53.
83.
114.
28.
90.
88.
63.
ACI
MG/L
34.
5.
6.
10.
0.
38.
14.
18.
6.
18.
7.
17.
30.
9.
0.
17.
0.
256.
12.
7.
0.
10.
0.
5.
10.
5.
0.
10.
11.
0.
6.
9.
11.
0.
0.
7.
9.
0.
17.
0.
f ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL)
MG/L KG/D NG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
29.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
35.
0.
10.
0.
0.
0.
42.
0.
13.
0.
0.
0.
8.
0.
0.
13.
0.
0.
0.
5.
24.
0.
0.
26.
0.
1.
0.7
1.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
1.0
1.1
0.4
1.5
1.4
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.5
1.6
0.6
4.4
0.6
0.1
0.2
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.3
0.5
0.1
1.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
1.7
0.7
0.4
1.3
0.2
0.3
2.0
0.5
IRON(FERR)
MG/L KG/D
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
SULFATE ALUMINUM
NG/L KG/D HG/L KG/D
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.4
0.1
29.
20.
9.
10.
12l
10.
18.
18.
12.
7.
7.
23.
10.
9.
31.
12.
204.
10.
9.
9.
22.
7.
20.
7.
19.
12.
10.
21.
8.
8.
10.
20.
9.
10.
20.
7.
11.
22.
9.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.25
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.10
0.90
0.20
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.06
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.06
0.12
0.07
-------
WEST VIRGINIA ACID NINE DRAINAGE STUDY
SNOUT CREEK-LAUREL RUN
WATER SAMPLING DATA
SUMMARY LISTING OF ALL GRAB SAMPLE POINTS
FLOW PH
CMM FIELD LAB
SPEC ACIDITY
COND MG/L KG/D
DATE SITE IDENT
021676 0004 SNOWY CRE GRAB SMPL 4.8
021676 OOOK LAUREL RU GRAB SMPL 4.2
021676 OOOP ARNOLD RU GRAB SBPL 3.7
021676 YR01 YOUGH 8 S GRAB SMPL 5.2
021676 YR02 YOUGH A S GRAB SHPL 6.3
030176 0004 SNOWY CRE GRAB SMPL 5.2
030176 OOOK LAUREL RU GRAB SMPL 4.0
030176 OOOP ARNOLD RU GRAB SNPL 4.0
030176 OOCC SNOWY CRE GRAB SHPL 7.1
030176 VR01 YOUGH B S GRAB SMPL 4.9
030176 YR02 YOUGH A S GRAB SMPL 5.6
031576 0111 T.D.LAKE GRAB SMPL 3.9
031576 0112 T.D.LAKE GRAB SMPL 4.0
031576 YR01 YOUGH B S GRAB SMPL 5.3
031S76 YR02 YOUGH A S GRAB SMPL 6.0
032276 OAAA A COAL SP GRAB SMPL 3.2
032976 OOOH LAUREL RU GRAB SMPL 4.0
032976 YR01 YOUGH B S GRAB SMPL 5.2
032976 YR02 YOUGH A S GRAB SMPL 6.3
041276 0004 SNOWY CRE GRAB SMPL 5.4
041276 OOOP ARNOLD RU GRAB SMPL 3.5
041276 OOCC SNOWY CRE GRAB SMPL 7.0
041276 OOOJ GOB FIRE GRAB SMPL 2.0
042676 0004 SNOWY CRE GRAB SMPL 6.2
G42676 0018 LAUREL RU GRAB SMPL 4.0
042676 OOOG GRIMMS PO GRAB SMPL 4.1
042676 OOOH LAUREL RU GRAB SMPL 4.1
042676 OOOK LAUREL RU GRAB SMPL 4.0
042676 OOOP ARNOLD RU GRAB SMPL 4.2
042676 OOCC SNOWY CRE GRAB SMPL 7.0
6.0
5.6
4.5
5.6
6.4
5.9
5.2
4.8
6.8
5.9
6.5
4.6
4.6
6.2
6.6
3.4
5.0
5.8
6.4
6.1
4.7
6.6
1.9
6.1
4.8
5.0
4.9
4.4
4.8
6.8
68.
42.
48.
60.
62.
82.
41.
46.
118.
76.
57.
57.
58.
70.
58.
310.
30.
77.
59.
83.
40.
96.
7100.
98.
48.
27.
34.
66.
42.
117.
5.
3.
11.
5.
0.
10.
10.
u.
0.
14.
0.
11.
9.
3.
0.
60.
7.
8.
0.
3.
13.
0.
5300.
1.
13.
7.
9.
13.
12.
0.
ALKALINITY IRON(TOTAL) IRON(FERR) SULFATE ALUMINUM
MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D M6/L KG/D MG/L KG/D MG/L KG/D
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
20.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
24.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
1.0
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.6
1.9
0.2
0.1
0.7
1.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.3
0.3
1.4
0.1
0.3
2900.0
1.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
2120.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
17.
10.
9.
19.
10.
23.
13.
10.
9.
2?.
8.
15.
15.
16.
8.
90.
8.
19.
9.
20.
9.
9.
6000.
19.
13.
6.
8.
16.
9.
11.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.40
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
320.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MANGANESE
MG/L KG/D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.20
0.00
0.00
1.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
APPENDIX D
MOVABLE WALL BULKHEAD MINE SEAL*
Investigations of double bulkhead mine seals which had failed strongly
suggested that some employed seals failed as a result of inability of the
rigid keyed inner walls to withstand unanticipated hydraulic pressures.
Self-compaction of the central clay core by forces of gravity (including
horizontal lattice layering of minerals) over extended intervals of time
compounded the problem and often resulted in voids at the roof that render
the clay core ineffective as a sealant. Any minor leakage that bypasses
the inner wall OTf occurs upon failure of that wall permits unrestricted
water flow directly against the foreward bulkhead and also against the
peripheral coal and rock surfaces. The writer is convinced that many
failures of traditionally installed double bulkhead seals result from the
static force design criteria employed.
The movable wall bulkhead mine seal, illustrated in Figure D-l, is
similar in components to the rigid double bulkhead seal having an inner
wall, a central core of clay (or other impervious material), and an outer
bulkhead (Scott, Robert B. 1972. Evaluation of Bulkhead Seals). Office of
Research and Monitoring, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). However,
the proposed mine seal continually utilizes the pressure of the head of
water contained to assist in maintaining the integrity of the unit.
In principle, the inner movable wall serves as a ram dynamically
driven forward by the changing or constant hydraulic head of water behind
the seal. Stress and movement of the wall is transmitted through the
central core of clay (or other suitable pliable plastic sealant) pressing
that material firmly against all surfaces and weak areas of the center
chamber. Bentonite or other swelling clays may be used in the central core
area as well as for a thin layer between the inner wall and the mine floor,
pillars and roof to insure the integrity and obtain initial compression
throughout the core material. The force will continually maintain or
improve the efficiency of the clay core for sealing the entry.
In Figure D-l, the inner movable wall is maintained in alignment by
means of solid bars that pass through sleeving in the outer fixed or rigid
plug. Other alignment arrangements are possible to prevent tilting. The
* Reprints by permission from Edwin F. Koppe and Associates, Consulting
Geologist, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1976.
128
-------
!
(
MINE
ENTRANCE
SLACK RETAINER NUTS
STEEL RODS TO MAINTAIN ALIGNMENT
OF MOVABLE INNER WALL
CLAY (OR OTHER PLASTIC SEALANT)
HYDRAULIC
HEAD
(NO SCALE)
MOVABLE INNER MASONRY WALL
OUTER MASONRY PLUG GROUTED IN PLACE
Figure D-1. Movable wall bulkhead mine seal.
-------
illustrated bar connection provides a means of monitoring movement of the
inner wall. If the movable wall and bars are designed with sufficient
strength, the bars may be used to draw up the wall and effect the initial
compression of the core material before development of the hydraulic forces
of the water behind the seal.
The outer rigid masonry plug is designed with the strength of a
single bulkhead hydraulic seal for the maximum anticipated head of water.
This plug should be satisfactorily keyed and grouted into place. Any other
standard design may be used. The particular design is similar to one
illustrated in 1928 (Zern, E.N., editor, 1928, Coal Miner's Pocketbook.
12th edition, McGraw-Hill, 1928, p.889).
130
-------
GLOSSARY
adit: A nearly horizontal entrance to an underground mine.
anticline: A fold of sedimentary bedrock which dips down and away from
a common ridge or axis.
backfill: Material placed back into an excavation, returning the area to
a predetermined contour.
diversion ditch: Ditch constructed to control surface runoff.
gob: Mine refuse pile or other coal material removed from the coal through
a cleaning process.
highwall: The deeper exposed face of strata resulting from excavation
in surface mining.
lowwall: The shallower side of excavation in a surface mine cut.
mine pool: Flooded portions of abandoned deep mine workings.
mine pool level control lake: A mine pool controlled by the elevation of
a surface impoundment.
outcrop: A natural exposure or position of a geologic unit at the inter-
section of that unit with the ground.
overburden: Soil and rock strata overlying a minable mineral.
pH: Negative logarithm to the base ten of hydrogen ion activity. pH 7
is neutral. Values above pH 7 are basic, those below pH 7.0 is acidic.
regrade: To change the contour by the use of leveling or grading equipment.
spoil: Overburden material that is removed as a result of excavating for
a marketable mineral.
syncline: Fold in rocks in which the strata dip inward and downward
toward the axis. Opposite of anticline.
synclinal basin: A basin having characteristics of a syncline.
131
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-114
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Underground Mine Drainage Control
Snowy Creek-Laurel Run, West Virginia
Feasibility Study
5. REPORT DATE
June 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Baker-Wibberley & Associates, Inc.
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1B2040
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S-802644
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Feasibility 7/73 - 3/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This study was conducted in cooperation with West Virginia Department of Natural
Resources, Charleston, West Virginia 25311.
16. ABSTRACT
A study was conducted at the Snowy Creek - Laurel Run basin near Terra Alta, West
Virginia, to determine the feasibility of demonstrating mine drainage control by
known abatement techniques in abandoned coal mine areas having shallow overburden.
The basin contains two abandoned mining complexes that have extensively deep-
mined the Lower Kittanning coal found in the Mount Carmel syncline. Associated
mine pool discharges are responsible for 90 percent of AMD pollution in Snowy Creek
which discharges into the Youghiogheny River (now being considered as a part of
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System). Only one-third of the Snowy Creek -
Laurel Run basin is affected by AMD.
Additional inundation and stabilization of the mine pools were judged necessary
to reduce the AMD pollution. The recommended approach was to utilize continuous
clay core dams, a mine pool level control lake and movable wall bulkhead seals to
increase the size of the mine pools. It was felt that this abatement approach was
feasible.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI FJcld/GlOUp
Drainage - mine (excavation)
Sealing
Land reclamation
Acid mine drainage
Coal mine drainage
Earthen dam
Impoundment
West Virginia
13B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
142
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 222O-1 (ป-73)
132 -frU.S. GOVUMttm PKIN I ING OFFICE: 1977-757-056/6506 Region No. 5-11
------- |