Coal Diver Everything you wanted to know about coal, but were afraid to ask.

This is a text-only version of the document "Spruce No 1 Mine - Draft Environmental Impact Statement - 2006". To see the original version of the document click here.
VOLUME 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. I SUMMARY OF IMPACTS.............................................................................................................................. II GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................. III WATER RESOURCES............................................................................................................................. III SOILS VI VEGETATION...........................................................................................................................................VI FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES .....................................................................................................VIII CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................................X AIR QUALITY.............................................................................................................................................X LAND USE AND RECREATION ..............................................................................................................XI SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES.......................................................................................................XII TRANSPORTATION................................................................................................................................XII NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................XIII HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................................................................................... XV PUBLIC HEALTH................................................................................................................................... XVI ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE................................................................................................................ XVI ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................ xvii 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT SETTING ..................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.1 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.1.2 DAL-TEX COMPLEX................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.1.3 INDEPENDENCE COAL COMPANY ASSOCIATED PERMITS.............................................. 1-2 1.1.4 MOUNTAIN LAUREL COMPLEX ............................................................................................. 1-3 1.1.5 APOGEE COAL COMPANY, LLC COMPLEX – “GUYAN AREA” ........................................... 1-3 1.1.6 STOLLINGS TRUCKING MINING COMPLEX ......................................................................... 1-3 1.1.7 OTHER CURRENTLY PERMITTED OPERATIONS................................................................ 1-3 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................................................... 1-4 1.2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE............................................................................................................... 1-4 1.2.2 PROJECT NEED....................................................................................................................... 1-4 AUTHORIZING ACTIONS............................................................................................................. 1-6 1.3 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIS ...................................................................................................... 1-7 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .............................. 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE USACE ........................................................................... 2-1 2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO MINGO LOGAN...................................................................... 2-7
xxi

2.4.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE ....... 2-7 2.4.2 ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE ............................................................................................................................................ 2-8 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.................................... 2-35 2.5 2.5.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2).......................................................... 2-39 2.5.2 OPERATIONS PHASE ........................................................................................................... 2-48 2.5.3 CLOSURE AND RECLAMATION........................................................................................... 2-53 2.5.4 SUMMARY OF COMMITTED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES.................. 2-61 2.6 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ........................ 2-80 2.6.1 PAST AND PRESENT ACTIONS........................................................................................... 2-80 2.6.2 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................................... 2-82 2.7 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 2-82 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.......................................... 3-1 3.1 GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................. 3-12 3.1.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS........................................................................................................ 3-15 3.1.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................... 3-17 3.1.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS .......................................................................................... 3-17 3.2 WATER RESOURCES................................................................................................................ 3-17 3.2.1 HYDROLOGIC SETTING ....................................................................................................... 3-18 3.2.2 WATER RESOURCE-RELATED REGULATIONS................................................................. 3-22 3.2.3 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................... 3-23 3.2.4 SURFACE WATER................................................................................................................. 3-43 3.2.5 WATERS OF THE U.S. INCLUDING WETLANDS .............................................................. 3-118 3.3 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................ 3-129 3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................... 3-129 3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-131 3.3.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................................................... 3-132 3.3.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................. 3-133 3.3.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 3-133 3.4 VEGETATION ........................................................................................................................... 3-134 3.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................... 3-134 3.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-139 3.4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................................................... 3-143 3.4.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................. 3-153 3.4.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 3-153 3.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES........................................................................................ 3-154 3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................... 3-154 3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-161 3.5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................................................... 3-168 3.5.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................. 3-172 3.5.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 3-172
xxii

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................ 3-172 3.6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 3-172 3.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-174 3.6.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 3-175 3.6.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................... 3-175 3.6.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS......................................................................................... 3-175 3.7 AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................................. 3-175 3.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 3-175 3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-177 3.7.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 3-179 3.7.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................... 3-179 3.7.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS......................................................................................... 3-179 3.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION ............................................................................................... 3-180 3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 3-180 3.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-183 3.8.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 3-184 3.8.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................... 3-197 3.8.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS......................................................................................... 3-198 3.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES......................................................................................... 3-198 3.9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 3-198 3.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-204 3.9.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 3-211 3.9.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................... 3-217 3.9.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS......................................................................................... 3-217 3.10 TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................................. 3-217 3.10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 3-218 3.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-218 3.10.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 3-220 3.10.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................... 3-222 3.10.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS......................................................................................... 3-222 3.11 NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 3-222 3.11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 3-222 3.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-225 3.11.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 3-231 3.11.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................... 3-233 3.11.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS......................................................................................... 3-233 3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS....................................................................................................... 3-234 3.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 3-234 3.12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-236 3.12.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 3-240 3.12.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................... 3-241 3.12.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS......................................................................................... 3-241 3.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY............................................................................................... 3-241 3.13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 3-241
xxiii

3.13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 3-242 3.13.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................................................... 3-245 3.13.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................. 3-247 3.13.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 3-252 3.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................................................................... 3-252 3.15 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL ......................................... 3-252 3.16 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY......................... 3-253 3.16.1 GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... 3-253 3.16.2 WATER RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 3-253 3.16.3 SOILS.................................................................................................................................... 3-253 3.16.4 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................................... 3-253 3.16.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES.................................................................................... 3-254 3.16.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 3-254 3.16.7 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................ 3-254 3.16.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION........................................................................................... 3-254 3.16.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES.................................................................................... 3-254 3.16.10 TRANSPORTATION............................................................................................................. 3-255 3.16.11 NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 3-255 3.17 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES.......................... 3-255 4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SCOPING .................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 LIST OF AGENCY CONTACTS.................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES.............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 STATE AGENCIES................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 COUNTY AND LOCAL AGENCIES.......................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND COMPANIES TO WHOM THE COPIES OF THIS STATEMENT ARE SENT ............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES.............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3.2 STATE AGENCIES................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.3 COUNTY AND LOCAL AGENCIES.......................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.4 LIBRARIES AND LOCAL REPOSITORIES.............................................................................. 4-3 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS ............................................................................................. 5-1 6.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................. 7-1 8.0 INDEX........................................................................................................................................................ 8-1

xxiv

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1 TABLE 1-2 TABLE 2-1 TABLE 2-2 TABLE 2-3 TABLE 2-4 TABLE 2-5 TABLE 2-6 TABLE 2-7 TABLE 2-8 TABLE 2-9 TABLE 2-10 TABLE 2-11 TABLE 2-12 TABLE 2-13 TABLE 2-14 TABLE 2-15 TABLE 2-16 TABLE 2-17 TABLE 2-18 TABLE 2-19 TABLE 2-20 TABLE 2-21 TABLE 2-22 TABLE 2-23 TABLE 2-24 TABLE 3-1 TABLE 3-2 TABLE 3-3 TABLE 3-4 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS.............................................................................................. 1-7 OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS ................................................................... 1-7 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND THEIR PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES .. 2-4 SUMMARY OF UNDERGROUND MINING SEAM EVALUATION.................................... 2-10 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR UNDERGROUND MINING................................................................................................. 2-11 SUMMARY OF SURFACE MINEABLE SEAMS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA............. 2-13 SUMMARY OF MINING AND RECLAMATION PHASE OPERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2........................................................................................................ 2-16 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR ALTERNATIVE 2............... 2-17 SUMMARY OF MINING AND RECLAMATION PHASE OPERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 ................................................................................................................ 2-19 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR ALTERNATIVE 3................ 2-20 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR ALTERNATIVE 4................ 2-21 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR ALTERNATIVE 5................ 2-23 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR ALTERNATIVE 6................ 2-26 SUMMARY OF MINING AND RECLAMATION OPERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 7... 2-28 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR ALTERNATIVE 7................ 2-29 SUMMARY OF VALLEY FILLS AND IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................... 2-33 SUMMARY OF PROPORTION OF IMPACTS TO MARKETABLE TONS FOR PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................... 2-34 SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE EQUIPMENT.................................................................................. 2-36 SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE EMPLOYMENT.............................................................................. 2-36 SUMMARY OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE AREA UNDER THE MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE............. 2-38 FUEL AND LUBRICANT TANK STORAGE ....................................................................... 2-46 SUMMARY OF RECLAMATION PLANT AND TREE SPECIES ....................................... 2-55 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION OF SHU’S FOR WATERS OF THE U.S............................. 2-58 SUMMARY OF REPLACEMENT/ESTABLISHMENT, RESTORATION, AND ENHANCEMENT FOR MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.............. 2-59 COMMITTED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES AND ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES UNDER CONSIDERATION .................................................... 2-62 SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF PROJECTED IMPACTS OF THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES............................................................ 2-83 BITUMINOUS COAL SEAMS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA............................................ 3-7 SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY IN THE SPRUCE FORK AQUIFER SYSTEM*.......... 3-30 BASELINE GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SITES............................................................. 3-34 SUMMARY OF BASELINE GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN VICINITY OF PROJECT AREA.......................................................................................... 3-35
xxv

TABLE 3-5 TABLE 3-6 TABLE 3-7 TABLE 3-8 TABLE 3-9 TABLE 3-10 TABLE 3-11 TABLE 3-12 TABLE 3-13 TABLE 3-14 TABLE 3-15 TABLE 3-16

TABLE 3-17 TABLE 3-18 TABLE 3-19

TABLE 3-20

TABLE 3-21

TABLE 3-22

TABLE 3-23

TABLE 3-24

MEAN ANNUAL FLOW AT THE TORNADO, WV USGS GAGE STATION (03200500).. 3-44 MEAN MONTHLY FLOW AT THE TORNADO, WV USGS GAGE STATION (03200500).................................................................................. 3-46 BASELINE WATER MONITORING SITES........................................................................ 3-48 BASELINE WATER MONITORING SITES FLOW DATA.................................................. 3-49 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDIES CONDUCTED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 3-55 SUMMARY OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING - ALL SAMPLES ........ 3-60 WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION BASED ON HBI .................................................... 3-66 SUMMARY OF METRICS USED AND EXPECTED RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE ... 3-66 BASELINE SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AND VICINITY ........................................... 3-69 DISTANCE FROM THE PROJECT AREA TO THE NEAREST FLOODWAY/FLOODPLAIN............................................................................. 3-89 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RUNOFF AND RESULTANT FLOWS FROM OUTFALLS FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................. 3-92 A COMPARISON OF THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN LOTIC ECOLOGY APPLICABLE TO FRESHWATER MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT AT VARIOUS SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL SCALES.............................................................................. 3-104 DERIVED SLOPE STATISTICS FOR 1ST, 2ND, 3RD, 4TH, AND 5TH ORDER STREAM SEGMENTS WITHIN THE SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED............................................ 3-107 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS ALONG THE RIVER CONTINUUM BY STREAM ORDER (AFTER CUMMINS 1988).................................................................. 3-108 SUMMARY OF PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF ENERGY FOR THE AFFECTED SUB-WATERSHEDS ATTRIBUTED TO ALTERNATIVE 3’S PROPOSED PROJECT AREA** ..................................................... 3-112 SUMMARY OF PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF ENERGY FOR THE SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED ATTRIBUTED TO ALTERNATIVE 3’S PROPOSED PROJECT AREA** AND THE AFFECTED SUB-WATERSHEDS ........................................................................... 3-112 SUMMARY OF PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF ENERGY FOR THE LITTLE COAL RIVER SUB-BASIN ATTRIBUTED TO ALTERNATIVE 3’S PROPOSED PROJECT AREA**, AFFECTED SUB-WATERSHEDS, AND THE SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED.............. 3-113 SUMMARY OF PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF ENERGY WITHIN THE COAL RIVER BASIN ATTRIBUTED TO ALTERNATIVE 3’S PROPOSED PROJECT AREA**, AFFECTED SUB-WATERSHEDS, SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED, AND THE LITTLE COAL RIVER SUB-BASIN ...................................................................................................................... 3-114 SUMMARY OF PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF ENERGY WITHIN THE MOUNTAINTOP MINING REGION ATTRIBUTED TO ALTERNATIVE 3’S PROPOSED PROJECT AREA**, AFFECTED SUB-WATERSHEDS, SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED, LITTLE COAL RIVER SUB-BASIN, AND THE COAL RIVER BASIN ................................................................. 3-115 PROPOSED POND SIZES AND STREAM VALLEY LOCATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE 3*............................................................................................................. 3-116

xxvi

TABLE 3-25

TABLE 3-26 TABLE 3-27 TABLE 3-28 TABLE 3-29 TABLE 3-30 TABLE 3-31

TABLE 3-32 TABLE 3-33 TABLE 3-34 TABLE 3-35 TABLE 3-36

TABLE 3-37

TABLE 3-38

TABLE 3-39

TABLE 3-40 TABLE 3-41 TABLE 3-42 TABLE 3-43 TABLE 3-44 TABLE 3-45 TABLE 3-46 TABLE 3-47

COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED ENERGY CONTRIBUTION OF TEMPORARY PONDS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3’S PROPOSED PROJECT AREA** AND AFFECTED SUBWATERSHEDS................................................................................................................. 3-116 WETLAND FUNCTION SUITABILITY.............................................................................. 3-120 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.......................................................................................... 3-123 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR ALTERNATIVE 3.............. 3-126 PROJECT AREA TOPSOIL SAMPLES SOIL QUALITY SUMMARY.............................. 3-130 SOIL QUALITY SUMMARY FOR PROJECT AREA TOPSOIL SAMPLES ..................... 3-130 LIST OF COMMON TREE, SHRUB, HERBACEOUS, AND VINE SPECIES FOUND IN THE UPLAND WOODLANDS AND RIPARIAN WOODLANDS OF THE PROJECT AREA................................................................................................ 3-136 LAND USE/LAND COVER BREAKDOWN FOR THE STUDY AREA ............................. 3-181 LAND USE/LAND COVER DIRECT IMPACT ANALYSIS COMPARISON BY ALTERNATIVE.................................................................................. 3-182 ACTIVE MINING BREAKDOWN (AS OF DECEMBER 2005) FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE 3 .................................................... 3-189 LAND USE LAND COVER BREAKDOWN FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE 3............................................................................ 3-190 PERCENT OF MOUNTAINTOP MINING REGION, COAL RIVER BASIN, LITTLE COAL RIVER SUB-BASIN, SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED, AND PROPOSED PROJECT AREA WITHIN WEST VIRGINIA FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE 3 .............................................................................................................. 3-191 PERCENT OF COAL RIVER BASIN, LITTLE COAL RIVER SUB-BASIN, SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED, AND PROPOSED PROJECT AREA WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN MINING REGION FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE 3 .............................................................................................................. 3-192 PERCENT OF LITTLE COAL RIVER SUB-BASIN, SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED, AND PROPOSED PROJECT AREA WITHIN THE COAL RIVER BASIN FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE 3............................ 3-193 PERCENT OF SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED AND PROPOSED PROJECT AREA WITHIN THE LITTLE COAL RIVER SUB-BASIN FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE 3............................................................................ 3-194 PERCENT OF PROPOSED PROJECT AREA WITHIN THE.......................................... 3-195 PERCENT FOREST AT THE VARIOUS SCALES OF ANALYSIS WITHIN THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE 3............................ 3-197 EMPLOYMENT IN LOGAN COUNTY............................................................................. 3-200 EMPLOYMENT IN WEST VIRGINIA................................................................................ 3-200 ONE-YEAR MINING EMPLOYMENT AND OUTPUT...................................................... 3-212 PREDICTED ANNUAL IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT...................................................... 3-212 PREDICTED ANNUAL IMPACT ON INCOMES .............................................................. 3-213 PREDICTED ANNUAL IMPACT ON OUTPUT ................................................................ 3-214
xxvii

TABLE 3-48 TABLE 3-49 TABLE 3-50 TABLE 3-51 TABLE 3-52 TABLE 3-53 TABLE 3-54 TABLE 3-55

PREDICTED IMPACT ON STATE AND FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS (PRESENT VALUE FOR MINE LIFE) ................................................................................................. 3-217 NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEPTORS (RESIDENCES) NEAREST TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITY AREAS .......................................................................................... 3-225 POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR SUBSTANCES TO BE USED AT THE SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE ...................................................................................................... 3-235 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POTENTIAL SPILLS RESULTING FROM TRUCK ACCIDENTS FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................ 3-237 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POTENTIAL SPILLS RESULTING FROM TRUCK ACCIDENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3. .................................................................................................... 3-239 MAXIMUM COMMUNITY DECIBEL LIMITS.................................................................... 3-248 VIBRATION GUIDELINES ............................................................................................... 3-249 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES BY THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................. 3-255

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2-1 FIGURE 3-1 FIGURE 3-2 FIGURE 3-3 FIGURE 3-4 FIGURE 3-5 FIGURE 3-6 FIGURE 3-7 FIGURE 3-8 FIGURE 3-9 WVDEP FINAL AOC/FILL OPTIMIZATION PROCESS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT – EXCESS SPOIL DISPOSAL ..................................................................... 2-32 WV HISTORICAL COAL PRODUCTION (WVOMHST, 2005; WVCA, 2004) ................... 3-11 AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (NCDC, NOAA) ................................................ 3-20 EXAMPLE OF AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF DYNAMIC RIVER ECOSYSTEMS........ 3-106 DERIVED RATIO OF STREAM LENGTH (BY STREAM ORDER) TO TOTAL AREA FOR THE SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED......................................... 3-109 ESTIMATED PRIMARY CARBON CONTRIBUTION – SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED ....................................................................................... 3-117 ESTIMATED SECONDARY CARBON CONTRIBUTION – SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED ....................................................................................... 3-117 BREEDING BIRD SURVEY (BBS) TREND MAP FOR CERULEAN WARBLER: A) 1966-1996, AND B) 1966-2003. .................................................................................. 3-152 COAL PRODUCTION IN LOGAN COUNTY.................................................................... 3-201 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE COMPARISON....................................................................... 3-201

LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1-1 EXHIBIT 1-2 EXHIBIT 1-3 EXHIBIT 2-1 EXHIBIT 2-2 EXHIBIT 2-3 EXHIBIT 2-4 PROJECT LOCATION PROPOSED PROJECT AREA MAJOR MINING COMPLEXES WITHIN THE SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED UNDERGROUND MINING ALTERNATIVE SLOPE CRITERIA FOR CONTOUR MINING ALTERNATIVE 2: ORIGINAL PERMIT S-5013-97 ALTERNATIVE 3: PERMIT S-5013-97, IBR 1
xxviii

EXHIBIT 2-5 EXHIBIT 2-6 EXHIBIT 2-7 EXHIBIT 2-8 EXHIBIT 2-9 EXHIBIT 2-10 EXHIBIT 2-11 EXHIBIT 2-12 EXHIBIT 2-13 EXHIBIT 2-14 EXHIBIT 2-15 EXHIBIT 2-16 EXHIBIT 2-17 EXHIBIT 2-18 EXHIBIT 2-19 EXHIBIT 2-20 EXHIBIT 2-21 EXHIBIT 2-22 EXHIBIT 2-23 EXHIBIT 2-24 EXHIBIT 2-25 EXHIBIT 2-26 EXHIBIT 3-1 EXHIBIT 3-2 EXHIBIT 3-3 EXHIBIT 3-4 EXHIBIT 3-5 EXHIBIT 3-6 EXHIBIT 3-7 EXHIBIT 3-8 EXHIBIT 3-9 EXHIBIT 3-10 EXHIBIT 3-11 EXHIBIT 3-12 EXHIBIT 3-13 EXHIBIT 3-14 EXHIBIT 3-15 EXHIBIT 3-16

ALTERNATIVE 4: MOUNTAINTOP TO THE STOCKTON ALTERNATIVE 5: MOUNTAINTOP TO THE STOCKTON WITH UNDERGROUND MINING ALTERNATIVE 6: INTERIM CONFIGURATION PERMIT S-5013-97, REVISION 1 ALTERNATIVE 7: APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MINE COMPONENT LOCATIONS GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS, PLAN VIEW GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A’ GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B’ GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C’ MINE AREAS MINING AND RECLAMATION PHASES PHASE 1 THROUGH PHASE 4 MINING AND RECLAMATION PHASES PHASE 5 THROUGH PHASE 8 MINING AND RECLAMATION PHASES PHASE 9 THROUGH PHASE 12 MINING AND RECLAMATION PHASES PHASE 13 THROUGH PHASE 15 GAS WELL AND GAS LINE RELOCATION AND CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION PHASE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES TEMPORARY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE LOCATIONS REGRADE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE LOCATIONS REGRADE TOPOGRAPHY (CONCEPTUAL) PRE-MINING TOPOGRAPHY MITIGATION AREA LOCATION MAP EXISTING AND FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS WITHIN THE SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF WEST VIRGINIA PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF WEST VIRGINIA MAJOR STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF WEST VIRGINIA GEOLOGIC MAP OF WEST VIRGINIA GEOLOGIC STRATIGRAPHY IN WEST VIRGINIA GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA COAL FIELDS GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS OF THE SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE VICINITY COAL FIELDS OF WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL SURFACE WATERS SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS IN THE KANAHWA RIVER BASIN GENERALIZED OUTCROP MAP OF THE SPRUCE FORK AQUIFER SYSTEM CONCEPTUEL MODEL OF GROUNDWATER FLOW SURFACE WATER, GROUNDWATER, AND SOIL SAMPLING SITES IN THE SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE VICINITY STREAM ORDERS IN SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED SURFACE WATER FEATURES IN THE SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE VICINITY BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING LOCATIONS BY STREAM REACH AND SEGMENT
xxix

EXHIBIT 3-17 WATERS OF THE US INCLUDING WETLANDS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT AREA EXHIBIT 3-18 STREAM AND WETLAND DELINEATION MAP FOR THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE EXHIBIT 3-19 FOREST FRAGMENTATION EXAMPLE FROM SHENANDOAH VALLEY EXHIBIT 3-20 VISUAL QUALITY AND NOISE RADIUS MAP EXHIBIT 3-21 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES EXHIBIT 3-22 LAND USE/LAND COVER DATA MODEL EXHIBIT 3-23 LAND USE/LAND COVER, MOUNTAINTOP MINING REGION EXHIBIT 3-24 LAND USE/LAND COVER, COAL RIVER BASIN EXHIBIT 3-25 LAND USE/LAND COVER, LITTLE COAL RIVER SUB-BASIN EXHIBIT 3-26 LAND USE/LAND COVER, SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED EXHIBIT 3-27 COMMUNITIES AND SERVICES WITHIN STUDY AREA EXHIBIT 3-28 POPULATION CENTERS CONTRIBUTING TO COAL WORKFORCE

VOLUME 2
LIST OF APPENDICES U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS EIS GUIDANCE PRELIMINARY SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT APPLICATION, CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404(B)(1) GUIDELINE ANALYSIS APPENDIX C PRE-DRAFT EIS PUBLIC COMMENTS APPENDIX D PRE-DRAFT EIS AGENCY COMMENTS APPENDIX E SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE, INDIVIDUAL WATER QUALITY STATE 401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION (APPLICATION FORM ONLY) APPENDIX F WETLANDS FINDING REPORT AND AGENCY CONCURRENCE APPENDIX G WVDEP FINAL AOC GUIDANCE DOCUMENT (WVDEP PERMIT HANDBOOK, SECTION 29) APPENDIX H BRAGG ET. AL. V. ROBERTSON ET. AL. CONSENT DECREE APPENDIX I COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MINGO LOGAN COAL COMPANY, SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE, WVDEP PERMIT NO. S-5013-97, IBR NO. 2 APPENDIX J SURFACE WATER RUNOFF ANALYSIS (SWROA) APPENDIX K BENTHIC DATA EVALUATION APPENDIX L ENERGY FLOW ANALYSIS APPENDIX M U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - SECTION 7 COORDINATION APPENDIX N SECTION 106 CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX O THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE BY MICHAEL J. HICKS AND MARK L. BURTON APPENDIX P COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX A APPENDIX B

xxx

SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION Mingo Logan Coal Company (Mingo Logan) proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Spruce No. 1 Mine, a surface bituminous coal mine that would be located along State Route 17 (SR17) in the eastern portion of Logan County, West Virginia. If all of the required permits and authorizations are received, construction is projected to begin in 2006, with operation commencing by 2007 and continuing for a period of approximately fifteen (15) years. The proposed project would include mining of an average of 2.73 million tons of bituminous coal annually via mountaintop mining methods with incidental contour, auger, and/or highwall/thin-seam mining. During the initial development, the extracted bituminous coal would be transported via SR17 to a preparation/loading facility located along Seng Camp Creek. The proposed mine would use several primary roadways, including Haulroads 1 and 2, Temporary Haulroad 2A, and Access Road 2 for access and coal haulage. The proposed project would also include construction of eight (8) valley fills, six (6) drainage control structures (ponds) and associated flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures, four (4) erosion protection zones (EPZs), an office and warehouse area, coal truck dump and transfer facility, and extension of an existing power line. The existing infrastructure would not be affected, with the exception of the relocated American Electric Power (AEP) power line. The proposed project requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Because the permit decision is a major Federal action with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment, the USACE has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. The USACE, with the assistance of a third-party contractor, is the Federal agency preparing the EIS in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The USACE’s permit area for this EIS comprises the SMCRA permit area for the Spruce No. 1 Mine, as described below. Alternatives available to the USACE include issuance of a Section 404 permit, issuance of a permit with conditions, or denial of the permit application. As part of the preparation of this EIS, the USACE has independently reviewed and evaluated the accuracy of the data contained and referenced in the EIS. Mingo Logan has also obtained a permit from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) under Title 5 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and the implementing WV surface mining reclamation regulations (WVSMRR). The WVDEP permit area for the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine consists of 2,278 acres. Of this total, approximately 500 acres would be disturbed for surface mining at any one time, based on sequential backfilling and concurrent reclamation of the mine areas. Mingo Logan controls these lands through lease agreements with the surface and mineral owners of the project area. Mingo Logan has also obtained, from the WVDEP, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under Section 402 of the CWA and a water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA. This EIS describes the proposed construction, operation and reclamation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine (the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative [Applicant’s PA]), including Mingo Logan’s proposed environmental protection measures; identifies alternatives to the Applicant’s PA available to Mingo Logan; describes the environmental consequences of implementing the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative; and, identifies alternatives available to the USACE relative to the Section 404 permit.
i

The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would involve a number of activities, which are discussed in much greater detail in Chapter 2.0, and would result in various environmental impacts, which are identified and discussed in Chapter 3.0. The basic construction, operation, and reclamation activities include the following: • • • • • • Clearing of vegetation from several hundred acres each year; Construction of support facilities, access and haul roads, and power line relocation upon project commencement; Excavation of mine pits to access bituminous coal seams, accompanied by selective stockpiling of the overburden; Removal of exposed bituminous coal from the pits and transport of the coal to the existing preparation plant; Selective handling of acid/toxic material prior to disposal in waters of the U.S.; Selective placement of excess overburden and soil materials in valley fill disposal sites, in accordance with the WVDEP’s Approximate Original Contour (AOC)/Fill Optimization Process, and concurrent reclamation/revegetation; Reshaping and recontouring of the previous mined area to the desired post-mine topography, in accordance with the WVDEP’s AOC/Fill Optimization Process; Reclamation and revegetation of the previously mined area; Removal of drainage control structures (ponds) and associated flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures and subsequent re-establishment and restoration of temporarily impounded stream segments during final reclamation; Establishment of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels on-site by modifying and enhancing postreclamation surface drainage channels, that would run along the perimeter of the project area, during final reclamation; and Final closure and reclamation of ancillary facilities.

• • •

•

•

These activities, with the exception of the initial construction and final closure and reclamation phases of the project, would continue repeatedly throughout the life of the mine until the bituminous coal has been removed from the entire mine area. This is the same process that has occurred at the adjacent Dal-Tex Complex for over twenty (20) years. The primary operational difference between the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine and the Dal-Tex Complex, aside from the location, is that the proposed project would conduct mountaintop mining via shovel, loaders, and trucks as opposed to the dragline operations at the Dal-Tex Complex. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The following sections summarize the environmental impacts that would be expected to result from development of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, as identified in this EIS. A table summarizing and comparing the impacts of the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (Applicant’s PA) and the No Action Alternative is provided in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2.0. Descriptions of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Applicant’s PA, Alternative 3, and the No Action Alternative, and monitoring and mitigation measures that may be appropriate are provided in Chapter 3.0 of this EIS.

ii

GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Bituminous surface coal mining at the Spruce No. 1 Mine would alter the topography considerably during mining by the creation of active mine pits, highwalls, and overburden stockpiles in order to permanently remove coal seams via mountaintop, contour, and auger/highwall mining methods. However, reclamation plans provide for the restoration of the project area to its approximate original contours, to the extent possible, in accordance with the AOC/Fill Optimization Process. The topography in the vicinity of the valley fills would be permanently altered with the construction of terraced slopes with 20-foot wide benches at a slope of three to five percent (3-5%) every 50 feet in elevation. No geologic hazards would be expected to affect the mine during operation, and none would remain in the project area following reclamation. Mining would permanently remove seventy-five percent (75%) of the bituminous coal reserves within the project area. Existing geologic strata of shales and sandstones would be replaced by a mixed unconsolidated substrate to depth of the lowest seam proposed to be mountaintop mined, ranging from four hundred (400) to four hundred fifty (450) feet. Based on the current bituminous coal production trends in West Virginia and foreseeable mining activity in the near future, the cumulative impacts of bituminous coal mining at the Spruce No. 1 Mine, relative to geology and mineral resources, appear to be minimal. WATER RESOURCES Groundwater Aquifers within and adjacent to the proposed project area consist of the alluvial aquifer and valley floor fracture system. Potential sources of groundwater within the proposed project area include coal seams (abandoned underground Chilton, Cedar Grove and Five Block seam workings) or sandstone units underlain by an impermeable shale or fireclay unit. The water table elevation associated with the alluvial aquifers varies from approximately 1,000 feet to 1,100 feet in the Spruce Fork area near White Oak Branch to approximately eight hundred (800) feet to eight hundred fifty (850) feet near the mouth of Seng Camp Creek. There would be no groundwater users within seven-tenths (0.7) mile of the proposed project area that are utilizing groundwater drawn from the strata proposed to be disturbed by the Applicant’s PA. No sizable or productive perched aquifers have been identified within the proposed mineral removal area that could be affected by the proposed project. Extraction activities are proposed to occur approximately three hundred fifty (350) feet to four hundred (400) feet above the alluvial aquifers found in the valley floors. No mining would take place in close proximity to the underground reservoirs in the abandoned workings beneath or adjacent to the proposed project area. Stress relief fractures would be removed along with the overburden down to the pavement of the Middle Coalburg horizon. No undermining is proposed which could dewater existing streams or significant aquifers. After coal removal has been completed, replacement of fractured overburden with more porous and permeable backfill and storage of excess spoil material in valley fills would potentially result in decreased runoff and increased infiltration of precipitation, and therefore, increased recharge to the groundwater system. Additionally, auger/highwall/thin-seam mining in the Lower Coalburg seam would create voids in the seam, thereby enhancing its permeability locally. The higher permeability of fill material, in combination with reclamation and regarding of the material to slopes less than those of premining conditions, would allow more infiltration of precipitation and reduce the amount of direct surface runoff. This would result in a reduction of peak flows and more constant baseflow in the streams while allowing for greater recharge of the groundwater system.

iii

Surface Water Approximately 10,630 linear feet (1.83 acres) of ephemeral stream channels, 26,184 linear feet (5.77 acres) of intermittent stream channels and 0.12 acre of emergent wetland would be permanently impacted during the life of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine. In addition, approximately 6,307 linear feet (1.04 acres) of intermittent stream channels and 825 linear feet (0.19 acre) of perennial stream channel would be temporarily impounded with sediment laden water in phases as mining progresses. The phased removal of surface water features would be offset at least in part by: enhancing Rockhouse Creek and Spruce Fork and their associated riparian zones downstream of the proposed project area; reestablishing and restoring the temporarily impounded stream segments and their associated riparian zones; implementing the riparian corridor restoration aspects of the post-mining land use plan; establishing intermittent and ephemeral stream channels and associated riparian zones by modifying and enhancing post-reclamation surface channels that run along the perimeter of the mined and reclaimed area; and establishing wetlands within the reclaimed mined area. An increase in total suspended solids would be expected in the early stages of the project when clearing and filling of each valley fill site begins. This temporary increase would be expected to return to pre-mining conditions as areas are regraded and revegetated. Construction and operation of the proposed drainage control system would reduce sediment yields, attenuate peak flows, lengthen the duration of base flows by routing runoff them through the system, and manage runoff water quality in accordance with the WVDEP regulations. Monitoring and compliance with the WVNPDES permit and CWA Section 401 water quality certification requirements would prevent and/or mitigate potential impacts to surface water quality. Precipitation, base flow, and groundwater permeating through the valley fill and adjacent areas would be routed via the valley fill underdrain system. The drainage control structures (ponds) constructed below the valley fill toes would receive water from the underdrains as well as surface water runoff. Although valley fill construction would permanently eliminate waters of the U.S. within their associated footprints, base flow would likely continue to flow via the underdrain system. Stream flow would be affected below the toes of the valley fills due to installation of flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the toes of the valley fills and the heads of the ponds and as the ponds’ pool areas become filled with water. After the water level reaches the decant elevation, water would then ultimately discharge into the receiving streams. During final site reclamation, the flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures and impounding embankments of the drainage control structures (ponds) would be eliminated and the temporarily affected stream segments reestablished and restored to their approximate pre-mining contours. Erosion and sedimentation would be limited during mining by phased, concurrent reclamation and by the proposed drainage control system. After mining, recontouring and revegetation in accordance with the WVDEP requirements would prevent and/or mitigate potential erosion and sedimentation impacts. Openings to the surface due to auger/highwall/thin-seam mining would be covered with rock fill material (in up-dip areas) or the most impervious material available (in down-dip areas) along the entirety of the length of mining. Durable rock drains would be provided along up-dip mining areas of the highwall in case of water buildup, although a buildup of water would not be anticipated. Little, if any, head would be expected in any auger/highwall/thin-seam mining hole due to the limited depth of penetration and minimal dip of the seams. Outcrop barriers would be left along the down-dip side of the mineral removal areas to prevent outcrop seepage where auger/highwall/thin-seam mining is planned in a down-dip direction. However, a potential for gravity discharge would exist since these seams are proposed to be developed in both an up-dip and
iv

down-dip direction. The quality of any discharges would be expected to be within effluent limits, while the quantity of discharges from any hole would be expected to be low due to the limited hole depths. No pumping is proposed and any gravity discharge or seepage would be minimal. Acid mine drainage (AMD) would not be expected to occur as a result of the Applicant’s PA. Analysis of the overburden proposed to be disturbed indicates it is predominantly alkaline. A few isolated and thin strata with AMD forming potential were identified. These strata would be blended with alkaline material to prevent AMD formation. A special handling plan has been developed for potentially acidic or toxic material. Pit cleanings, partings and other potentially acidic or toxic materials, including potentially selenium-toxic material, that cannot be neutralized by blending would be identified and segregated during the mining process and promptly placed in an isolation zone for final disposal in accordance with the special handling plan. Successful implementation of the material handling plan would be expected to prevent the formation of AMD. Cumulative impacts to surface water resources would result from the proposed construction, operation, and reclamation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. These impacts would include the permanent eradication of stream channels, impoundment of stream channels with sediment laden water, increases in total suspended solids content of waters within the project area, and control of flows in side drains and the underdrain system. These impacts would occur to varying degrees depending on the cumulative impact scenario. Overall, it would be anticipated that the Spruce No. 1 Mine would only contribute minimally to cumulative impacts on surface water quality. It would be anticipated that the Spruce No. 1 Mine would not contribute cumulatively to impacts on water quantity in the Spruce Fork watershed. Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands A total of approximately 8.95 acres of waters of the U.S. would be adversely impacted as a result of mine construction and operation. These impacts would include 0.12 acre of emergent wetland, 10,630 linear feet (1.83 acres) of ephemeral streams, 32,491 linear feet (6.81 acres) of intermittent streams, and 825 linear feet (0.19 acre) of perennial streams. The loss of waters of the U.S. (streams and wetlands), which would be disturbed and replaced incrementally over 15 years, would result in the temporary loss of their functional value (e.g. wildlife habitat, nutrient removal and sediment, and runoff retention), which potentially could create temporary effects on downstream water quality. Additionally, the filling of waters of the U.S. with excess overburden and soil materials would alter the flow pathways for runoff water. However, implementation of the proposed drainage control system, including the construction of in-stream flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.), erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.), and drainage control (ponds) structures and diversion channels, would likely provide comparable or greater storm water management and sediment removal capabilities than the affected water features. Implementation of Mingo Logan’s proposed Compensatory Mitigation Plan (CMP) would result in the on-site creation of approximately 26,361 linear feet (5.565 acres) of ephemeral and intermittent streams, on-site restoration of 6,307 linear feet (1.04 acres) of intermittent stream channels and 825 linear feet (0.19 acre) of perennial stream channel, off-site enhancement of 8,772 linear feet (11.31 acres) of Spruce Fork, off-site rehabilitation and enhancement 2,500 linear feet (3.27 acres) of Rockhouse Creek, and on-site creation of 0.48 acre of emergent wetlands. The proposed off-site mitigation would be conducted prior to or concurrently with the proposed project and would provide early, partial mitigation for the anticipated impacts related to the mine. Mingo Logan also proposes to provide for no net loss in Stream Habitat Units (SHUs).
v

Minor temporary increases in sediment loading to ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams would likely result during initial construction activities while drainage control systems are being installed. Subsequently, sediment yields to area streams would likely be less than under pre-mining conditions, potentially resulting in a change in substrate in receiving streams. However, during the life of the mine this change would be expected to be minor and would be substantially attenuated at the nearest downstream impoundment. Construction and operation of the proposed drainage control system would be expected to reduce sediment yields, attenuate peak flows, lengthen the duration of base flows by routing runoff them through the system, and manage runoff water quality in accordance with the WVDEP regulations. Although it is difficult to quantify the number and extent of impacts to waters of the U.S. including wetlands on a regional level, the USACE has determined that a net gain of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, would occur as a result of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Based on the anticipated minor and localized effect on sediment yields and associated substrates in receiving streams under the Applicant’s PA, the proposed project would not contribute to sediment-related cumulative effects for waters of the U.S. SOILS A total of 2,278 acres of soils would be disturbed as a result of the Applicant’s PA. Potential adverse impacts resulting from soil erosion and slope instability would be controlled or prevented through implementation of erosion control, slope design, and reclamation measures. Reclamation would include the use of selected growth media (topsoil substitute), soil amendments, and revegetation practices that have been demonstrated to be effective under similar conditions at the adjacent Dal-Tex Complex. Accelerated erosion and sedimentation would not be anticipated due to the nature of the reclaimed growth media and Mingo Logan’s commitment to implement measures to control erosion and sedimentation through concurrent reclamation, best management practices, and long-term revegetation. No prime farmlands would be affected as a result of the proposed project. Potential impacts to soils as a result of the Applicant’s PA would include the disturbance of native soils within the project area as a result of the mining activity. However, the native topsoil of the proposed project area, defined in §38CSR2.2.127 as the A- and E-horizon soil, would be recovered to the extent practical and redistributed as a component of the backfill subsoil material Surface disturbances resulting in the removal or disturbance to native soils within the cumulative effects area include those discussed in Section 2.6. The total acreage associated with the past and present mining projects in the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately 17,892 acres. The total acres associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine that have not previously been mined or disturbed are approximately 2,233 acres. Approximately seven hundred fifty-six (756) acres of the total acreage associated with the reasonably foreseeable future mining operations in the Spruce Fork watershed have not been previously mined or disturbed. The reasonably foreseeable future operations of the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines have similar topsoil substitute plans as discussed for the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The total estimated loss of native topsoil within the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately 20,125 acres or 24.93 percent of the watershed acreage. Some of this acreage is currently transitioning back to forestland and a majority of the active mining areas have been permitted with a post-mining land use of forestland or combined forestland and fish and wildlife habitat. VEGETATION A total of 2,278 acres of vegetation would be directly affected as a result of surface disturbance within the project area. Vegetation would be removed incrementally via clearing and grubbing of trees and shrubs in
vi

advance of mine development over the 15-year life of the mine. Of the total of 2,278 acres, approximately 2,183 acres of forestland vegetation, 50 acres of woodland riparian vegetation, and 45 acres of reclaimed mine lands vegetation would be removed. Long-term but temporary and permanent impacts to vegetation would occur as a result of project construction and operation. Short-term impacts would result from the removal of herbaceous and woody (i.e., trees and shrubs) species within the project area. Reclamation of the project area would begin the transition of the project area back to a mixed deciduous hardwood forest. To minimize these impacts, disturbance areas would be reclaimed contemporaneously, as specified in the WVDEP permit. In addition, reclamation of the project area would proceed concurrently with mining operations as mined areas are backfilled and regraded that no more than 500 acres would be disturbed at any given time. Ancillary facility areas would be reclaimed following the completion of mining. Indirect impacts to native vegetation that would likely occur as a result of the Applicant’s PA include: 1) increased potential for encroachment of invasive plant species and 2) economic impacts to commercially harvestable vegetation, including trees and herbaceous vegetation that provide for hardwood timber harvesting, and potential reduction in wild root gathering. Disturbance areas would be prone to the establishment of invasive plants from adjacent, undisturbed areas. Successful reclamation and implementation of the recommended invasive plant species controls would minimize the encroachment of invasive species into reclaimed areas. The loss of commercially harvestable herbaceous vegetation would be minimal since the property is privately owned by land companies in large tracts, trespassing is prohibited, and it is anticipated that ginseng in the area has been heavily harvested by trespassers in the past. The salvage of trees removed during construction is infeasible due to safety and liability concerns that would outweigh the benefits of utilizing this resource. This loss would be minimized through the planting of trees in the disturbance area during reclamation; however, any commercial value would not be realized for a number of years. The disturbance areas would be reclaimed to achieve the post-mining land use of forestland as approved by the WVDEP. Once backfilling and grading would be completed, the site would be revegetated per the revised revegetation plan (Mingo Logan has agreed to revise its current revegetation plan to include the use of only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies). In addition to the reclamation of disturbed areas, Mingo Logan has developed a Compensatory Mitigation Plan (CMP), which would provide for the off-site restoration/enhancement of approximately 12.9 acres of riparian vegetation along Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek in conjunction in-stream mitigation activities; establishment of approximately 30.3 acres of riparian vegetation associated with the construction of aquatic resources along the perimeter of the project area during reclamation; and on-site restoration/re-establishment of approximately 8.2 acres of riparian vegetation in areas temporarily impacted by drainage control structures (ponds), including flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, for a total of approximately 51.4 acres (see Exhibit 2-25, Table 219, and Table 2-20). Prior to the recognized spring and fall planting seasons, the Applicant would review all areas that were seeded and/or planted during the previous planting seasons. The Applicant would then retreat (regrade, seed, plant, mulch, etc.) those areas deficient in vegetative cover to establish the required level of vegetative success. Additionally, the operator would examine the project area for rills and gullies which may form in areas that would be regraded and topsoiled, and which disrupt the approved post-mining land use, interfere with the establishment of the vegetation cover, or cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water
vii

quality standards would be filled, regraded, stabilized, topsoiled, and reseeded or replanted, as necessary. The project area of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be planted to successfully achieve the proposed postmining land use of forestland. Specifications for success rates and minimum standards set forth in Section 9.3.g of the West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations would be followed. To date, no impacts have been identified for any Federally threatened or endangered species, as protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), any state listed species, any species of special concern, or their habitats as a result of mine-related development, water level changes, or discharges. Measures for restoration, enhancement, or re-establishment of riparian vegetation would be site-specific, depending on the existing condition or health of the plant species present, channel geometry and stability, and wildlife grazing intensity and season of use. The reduction in stream, riparian, and wetland habitats in the Spruce Fork watershed would be mitigated by the on-site creation and/or restoration of these habitats and the off-site restoration of these habitats as proposed in the CMP (Appendix I). FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES Implementation of the proposed project would include the phased (over the 15-year life of the mine) direct disturbance of 2,278 acres of land, most of which currently offers some value as wildlife habitat. Wildlife would be expected to incrementally return to the majority of this area as concurrent reclamation proceeds behind the mining operations. Impacts to wildlife would include direct mortalities from construction activities, incremental habitat fragmentation, animal displacement, increased noise, additional human presence, and the potential for increased vehicle-related mortalities. Incremental short-term habitat loss throughout the life of the mine has the potential to adversely affect big game, upland game birds, waterfowl, raptors, songbirds, amphibians, and reptiles. The limited amount of habitat affected, relative to that available in the surrounding area, is not expected to result in substantive population reductions of any local wildlife species. These populations would be expected to recover during and following mine reclamation. Mine-related filling activities would reduce the amount and extent of surface water and associated riparian and wetland habitats of ephemeral and intermittent streams within the affected area that are used by a variety of wildlife. Potential reduction or loss of available water could affect wildlife resources as a result of: 1) a decrease in available water for consumption; 2) loss of breeding, foraging, and cover habitats; 3) reduction in regional carrying capacity; and 4) displacement and loss of animals. The extent of these effects would depend on the species’ use of the affected area and their relative sensitivity, the extent of habitat reduction, and the availability of similar habitats in the area. These effects would temporarily be offset during the life of the mine as a result of mine-related water discharges which would increase water availability and riparian habitat downstream of the discharge points during the life of the mine and the establishment of drainage control features that run along the perimeter of the mine. Extension of AEP’s electric power line would increase collision potential for migrating and foraging bird species that occur within the project area by a small increment due to the increased route length. Additionally, the power line would pose an electrocution hazard for raptor species attempting to perch on the structures. The USACE is evaluating potential mitigation to address these impacts. Potential impact to the Federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) could include incremental habitat loss through the clearing of several hundred acres of forest annually over the life of the mine. Mist net surveys were completed within the proposed project area on two separate occasions during July 2000 and May 2004 in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Draft Indiana Bat Recovery Plan guidelines (USFWS, 1999). No Indiana bats were captured during either of the survey efforts. The USFWS
viii

concurred with the latest survey in a letter dated April 8, 2005. The May 2004 survey will remain valid until May 15, 2007. Any areas that have not been timbered prior to this date would be required to be resurveyed. Prior approval of the survey plan must be obtained from the USFWS. Open, abandoned portals or other similar features could provide summer and winter habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat and hibernaculum for the Indiana bat. The proposed project area was investigated for the presence of these openings or features. No portals or other similar features were identified within the proposed project area that provide habitat for these endangered bats. No impacts to the Federally endangered bald eagle or eastern cougar would occur as a result of the proposed project. No impacts to rare species, including the green salamander, golden-backed skipper, redside dace, Diana fritillary butterfly, gemmed satyr, purple clematis, old-field roadflax, and rock skullcap, that have been found in Logan County would be anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project, as none of these species were observed in the proposed project area. Potential impact to the cerulean warbler, a “Species of Concern”, could include incremental loss and fragmentation of breeding habitat through the clearing of several hundred acres of tall, deciduous trees. The USACE is evaluating potential mitigation to address these impacts. Potential impact to the eastern woodrat, a “Species of Concern”, could include incremental loss of mountain tops and valley sides, as well as rocks and boulders and subsurface crevices that shelter the rat. The USACE is evaluating potential mitigation to address these impacts. Potential impact to the hellbender, a “Species of Concern”, could include the incremental loss of rocks or submerged logs, boulders, snags, and other large loose debris found in the fast-moving, mid-sized streams in the project area. The USACE is evaluating potential mitigation to address these impacts. Potential impact to the southeastern big-eared bat, a “Species of Concern”, could include incremental habitat loss through the clearing of several hundred acres of forest annually over the life of the mine. However, mist net surveys were completed within the proposed project area on two (2) separate occasions during July 2000 and May 2004 and this bat species was not captured during either of the survey events. Potential impact to the Diana fritillary butterfly, a “Species of Concern”, could include incremental loss of moist, well-shaded forests annually over the life of the mine. The USACE is evaluating potential mitigation to address these impacts. Potential impact to the butternut, a “Species of Concern”, could include incremental loss of this species through the clearing of forest annually over the life of the mine. This species was observed in the project area. The USACE is evaluating potential mitigation to address these impacts. Potential impact to the Gray's saxifrage, a “Species of Concern”, could include incremental loss of rocky wooded areas annually over the life of the mine. The USACE is evaluating potential mitigation to address these impacts. Surface disturbance would affect aquatic communities by incrementally removing approximately 0.12 acre of emergent wetland, 10,630 linear feet (1.83 acres) of ephemeral streams, 32,491 linear feet (6.81 acres) of intermittent streams, and 825 linear feet (0.19 acres) of perennial stream during the life of the mine. Aquatic communities affected by this habitat loss would include macroinvertebrates, periphyton, and fish species that occur seasonally in intermittent/ephemeral reaches and perennial pools. The duration of impacts would be
ix

approximately 12 months in each phased-disturbance area. These incremental losses of aquatic habitat in the Spruce Fork watershed would be offset, in part, by the enhancement/restoration of in-stream aquatic and riparian habitat of waters of the U.S. in Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek prior to or concurrently with impacts, as provided in the Mingo Logan’s Mitigation Plan (CMP). CULTURAL RESOURCES Implementation of the Applicant’s PA would result in direct disturbance to ten (10) archaeological sites. Fifteen (15) previously recorded archeological sites (46LG116-130), three (3) historic Euro-American cemeteries (46LG131-133), and one (1) historic property (HP#1) were identified and recorded. The three (3) historic cemeteries would not be disturbed by the proposed project. A 100-foot buffer zone would be established between these cemeteries and the proposed activities. In addition, two (2) previously recorded sites (46LG15 and 46LG20) and two (2) historic properties (LG74 and LG75) were re-identified. Another previously reported site, 46LG19, could not be relocated. Analysis of artifact assemblages indicated that nine (9) sites (46LG15, 20, 117-122, and 124) were prehistoric in origin, while thirteen (13) sites (46LG74, 75, 116, 123, 126-130, 131-133, and HP#1) were of historic Euro-American affiliation. In addition, one (1) site (46LG125) contained mixed prehistoric and historic deposits. Seven (7) of these were historic EuroAmerican residential sites (46GL116, 125-130). Three (3) buildings were identified near the mouth of Pigeonroost Branch. Properties LG74 and LG75 were first recorded in 1991 as part of the Coal Heritage Survey, while HP#1 was recorded in this survey. All three (3) properties are one-story wood frame structures that date to the early twentieth century and are typical vernacular architecture in much of the southern West Virginia coalfields. Prehistoric site types observed within the mine area included lithic scatters (chipped stone flakes scattered in varying concentrations) that infrequently have associated formal tools (i.e., projectile points, scrapers, blades, etc.) or features (i.e., hearths, etc.) present. These prehistoric sites are predominantly located along ridgelines where an unobstructed view of the surrounding terrain was afforded. Partially based on the low occurrence of ground stone, these sites have been interpreted to be brief occupation campsites that primarily focused on the procurement of food through hunting activities. The West Virginia Division of Culture and History (WVDCH) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has determined none of the historical or cultural sites or structures are eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP). Additionally, the project area is in close proximity to the Battle of Blair Mountain Site (also known as the Battle for Spruce Fork Ridge), which was a clash between the union and non-union forces among West Virginia coal miners. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially have adverse viewshed impacts on this historical site. This site is currently not listed in the NRHP. Although difficult to quantify, cumulative impacts to cultural resource sites would include natural impacts (i.e., erosion and dilapidation), as well as direct disturbance and removal of cultural sites that were located or are currently located, within the interrelated actions’ areas of disturbance. Based on the distance between the interrelated actions, no cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated. AIR QUALITY Construction and operation activities at the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would be sources of total suspended particulate and particulate matter of less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter and would affect air quality in the vicinity of the mine. Air emissions associated with mining operations (such as blasting, earth and rock removal, transport-related dust) are considered “fugitive emissions” under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Surface mining does not meet the criteria for major source air quality permits (Title V of the CAA), because
x

mining does not qualify as a permanent/stationary source that emits a minimum of 250 tons/year of a regulated pollutant. Mining is not considered a permanent/stationary source producing air emissions greater than limits established by the CAA and the potential fugitive dust emissions would be minimized by implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), both for the proposed project and other existing and proposed projects in the vicinity. Measures to limit fugitive dust would include controlling the speed of coal haulage trucks, covering coal haulage trucks to control coal dust emissions, spraying water on roads and stockpiles, applying chemical bonding agents on the road surface where warranted, and paving (if warranted) sections of roads that are in close proximity to populated or high traffic areas. No additional measures are anticipated to be necessary to limit fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions from the Spruce No. 1 Mine would diminish as the operations there are phased out. Fuel-burning mobile (on-road and off-road) sources would emit low levels of gaseous pollutants (e.g., SO2, NOx, CO, and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]). Storage tanks for fuels, oil, and chemicals are also potential sources of VOCs. Levels of gaseous air contaminants and particulates are anticipated to remain well below levels determined to be detrimental to public health. The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would have minor incremental impacts from gaseous pollutants since the mine would contribute only a small fraction of such pollutants compared to the gaseous pollutants originating from power plants in the region. Cumulative impacts to air quality would include impacts from the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, impacts from nearby existing and proposed mining operations, and impacts from background emission sources including natural sources such as windblown dust and manmade sources such as public traffic on paved and unpaved roads. The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would have minor incremental impacts from fugitive emissions since the mine would contribute only a small fraction of such pollutants compared to other mobile and nonmobile sources in the area. LAND USE AND RECREATION Approximately 2,278 acres of land would be incrementally disturbed over the 15-year life of the Applicant’s PA. Of this total, approximately 500 acres would be disturbed for surface mining at any one time due to sequential backfilling and concurrent reclamation of the mine areas. Nearly fifty-one percent (51%; 1,170 acres) of the total project area would be the actual mineral extraction areas. Existing land uses of the disturbance area include oil and gas exploration, timbering, and mining. Current structures or facilities within the project area include a 765-kV AEP transmission line and one (1) gas well and associated lines. Development is sparse with only seventy-nine (79) residences within 1,000 feet of the project area and one hundred thirty-five (135) within one-half (0.5) mile of the project area. Most of the residences are in the small rural communities of Blair, Five Block, and Spruce Valley. Post-mine land uses would be similar to existing land uses as the project area would be returned to a post-mining land use of forestland. There are no state or local land use plans or regulations that would conflict with the Spruce No. 1 Mine current or post-mining land uses. The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would have minimal effects on recreation resources. There are no existing public recreation facilities in the project area, as the project area is privately owned and trespassing is prohibited. Any recreational activity that is currently occurring would be a result of trespass. Negligible impacts on recreation are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project and cumulative effects on recreation would be unlikely. Long-term use for coal extraction would temporarily replace a mixed deciduous hardwood forest and woodland riparian vegetation with disturbance. Cumulatively, land disturbance at the Spruce No. 1 Mine
xi

would be offset by the successful, contemporaneous implementation of the reclamation plan. The mine area would be returned to its approximate original contour (AOC) and revegetated to achieve a post-mining land use of forestland after reclamation. Resources would be available after closure of the mine to restore and enhance recreational opportunities, although there is no plan to provide public access for recreational use. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES The Applicant’s PA would employ approximately two hundred eighteen (218) direct workers and ten (10) contract workers during construction and operation activities. Approximately twenty-five (25) additional mining activity jobs would be created during operation of the project. The proposed project would increase mine-related tax revenues, including property, severance, and equipment taxes, in Logan County. Approximately $3,875,905 of the projected severance taxes paid for Spruce No. 1 Mine would directly benefit the state, while the remaining $291,735 would directly benefit counties and municipalities through the Coal County Revenue Fund and the All Counties and Municipalities Revenue Fund. State agencies use approximately ninety percent (90%) of severance tax revenues to pay for local education, health and judicial services, and infrastructure projects. Although a considerably larger sum is directed to the state, the vast majority of these revenues benefit localities. No substantive population change would be expected from development of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. There would be little or no change expected in the number of school children in any of the school districts in the study area. Similarly, there would be very little, if any, change in housing needs in the study area. Project-related effects on property values would likely be minor and temporary. Residential properties in close proximity to the mine disturbance area may experience a shortterm decline in property values while the actual mining is taking place nearby; however, their values should rebound as the mining moves farther from them and reclamation is implemented. There would be a slight increase in mine-related demand for emergency services in Boone and Logan Counties. The effects would be minor as the Logan General Hospital would be the closest to the mine. More serious cases would be sent to Logan General Hospital or one of the many hospitals in Charleston, West Virginia. Cumulative effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would be short-term to long-term, but temporary. Upon depletion of the economically recoverable bituminous resource at the Spruce No. 1 Mine, mining would cease and reclamation would be completed. At that time, the social and economic effects of the project would cease or gradually decline. Spruce No. 1 Mine employment would cease, as would payment of wages and purchases of materials and equipment. Tax revenues to local jurisdictions would be reduced, as would the demand for local public services and facilities. Housing vacated by departing workers would potentially change the local demand/supply ratio, tending to put downward pressure on housing prices. The actual dollar value of these effects would depend on what else was occurring in the local economy at the time of the closure, although continued growth in the study area would increase the base of population, employment, and economic activity available to absorb the adverse effects of the closure. TRANSPORTATION The Applicant’s PA would increase peak hour traffic on SR17 from approximately fifty-five (55) vehicle trips to two hundred nine (209) trips. While it is not possible to quantify the net effect of the project on highway safety, increased risk is anticipated from project-related traffic increases. The operations phase would generate additional traffic for SR17 from Madison, West Virginia to the mine site throughout the life of the project, which would include workers commuting to the site and deliveries of materials and supplies. Due to the limited traffic in the area of the mine, patterns would be minimally
xii

affected during the operation phase. Increases in traffic on SR17 from the mine site through Madison would slightly increase over current levels, but would be less than the road has experienced in the past. Increases would not raise traffic levels to above that which the highway has experienced in recent history. Of the existing mining operations, the only operation that is expected to increase traffic from the site in the foreseeable future is the Mountain Laurel Complex. At peak production, the employment levels are anticipated to be three hundred eighty-three (383) employees with a peak in traffic at shift change of approximately two-thirds of the employees (255) entering and/or leaving the site and deliveries estimated at one (1) per hour for a total of two hundred fifty-seven (257) trips. The average trips per day associated with the complex would be approximately eight hundred fourteen (814) trips per day (including in and out flow). Reasonably foreseeable future projects within the Spruce Fork watershed include the North Rum Surface Mine and the Adkins Fork Surface Mine. The North Rum Surface Mine would be a continuation of the Apogee Coal Company, LLC complex and also would not result in increased traffic above the complex’s current operating levels. Also, the primary access to the Apogee Coal Company, LLC complex is from CR10 and only a limited number of employees who live in the Madison area currently travel along SR17 to the complex; these levels would not increase. The Adkins Fork Surface Mine would be a relatively small operation located to the southwest of the Spruce No. 1 Mine across the Spruce Fork valley. The mine access/haulroad is proposed to intersect SR17 approximately 2.8 miles south of the Access Road 2 intersection with SR17. Coal from the operation would likely be transported via SR17 (approximately 6.8 miles) to the Mountain Laurel Complex or off-road to an adjacent operation. Over the estimated 4.5-year mine life, the additional truck traffic would be approximately sixty (60) round trips per day. During this period, safety risks related to coal haulage would be slightly increased over existing levels. Total employment at the mine is projected to be approximately seventy-five (75) employees with a peak in traffic at shift change of approximately two-thirds of the employees (50) entering and/or leaving the site. Assuming one (1) delivery per hour and five (5) trips per hour (2.5 trucks/per hour in and out) for coal haulage, the total peak level for the operation would be fifty-seven (57) trips. Average daily trips for the operation would be approximately three hundred eighteen (318) per day (including in and out flow). Cumulatively, the overall Level of Service (LOS) is projected to decrease from an “A” to a “B” as a result of the cumulative effects of these projects, although an LOS of “B” is still above the design criteria of LOS “C” for rural roadways. The overall LOS rating for SR17 in the vicinity of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine and to Madison would not be anticipated to fall below a “C” rating throughout the life of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The existing and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be expected to result in minimal effects on transportation in the study area. NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES Construction noise from the proposed mine would only slightly exceed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 65 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) (acceptable day-night average noise level standard) at sensitive receptors in the study area, although it would raise noise levels above ambient background levels. These slight exceedances would be limited to Phases 8 and 9 of the project, when active mining operations would approach and reach their closest distance to the nearest residences. The area surrounding the project area is sparsely populated. There are seventy-nine (79) occupied structures within the primary 1,000-foot blasting zone, one hundred thirty-five (135) occupied structures within the secondary

xiii

(one-half [0.5] mile) blasting zone, and one hundred forty (140) occupied structures within the seven-tenths (0.7) mile blasting zone. The principal existing sources of noise in the study area are the present mining and mine-related facilities in the area. The closest surface mine that is actively mining is located approximately 4.7 miles to the southeast (Apogee Coal Company, LLC’s Guyan Surface Mine, WVDEP Permit S-5007-01). In addition, the Mountain Laurel Complex located at the mouth of Seng Camp Creek is currently under construction. The Mountain Laurel Complex includes underground mining activities and preparation plant and loadout facilities. The Daniel Hollow Coarse Refuse Facility (Mingo Logan’s WVDEP Permit O-5016-04) would also be constructed as part of the Mountain Laurel Complex near the mouth of Daniel Hollow of Seng Camp Creek during operation of the proposed project. The Spruce No. 1 Mine would change the visual character of the project area for the life of the mine. The greatest effects would be to the mine disturbance area with lesser effect in the project area beyond the disturbance area. Visual impacts of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would result from construction of the mine ancillary facilities, as well as active mining and reclamation activities. Visual effects of the project would be the result of modification of the viewshed via clearing of vegetation, removal of overburden, creation of highwalls, construction of new roadways and ancillary facilities (office and shop area), and reclamation activities. Vegetation removal together with pit development, active mining and backfilling of the mining area, and excess overburden disposal areas would have the greatest effect on the visual resources. In addition, the general topography in the mineral removal area would be lowered as a result of the mining operation and in the valley areas would be affected where the excess overburden disposal structures would be located. Access Road 2 along the initial portion of the road would be partially visible throughout the life of the mine. Haulroads 1 and 2, located in the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek watershed, would not be visible to the public from any access point. The proposed office and warehouse facilities would also not be visible by the public. Other than the potential for coal haulage from the site along SR17 during the construction phase, coal haulage routes would not be visible by the public. Additional visual quality effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would include increased night-time lighting and, possibly, fugitive dust generated by vehicles and equipment. Night-time operations would introduce lighting into what is now a rural and generally dark area. Although the lights used at the pit area would be shielded by the topography and backfilling barriers, there would be an overall increase in ambient light levels in the area. Lighting would be least noticeable in clear weather, whereas low clouds or hazy conditions would tend to reflect the light outward to a greater degree. As with other visual features of the project, the effects of night-time lighting would vary with proximity to the active mining area. Dust suppression measures would be implemented throughout the life of the project, and any fugitive dust would likely be minor. The visual effects of fugitive dust would be most problematic when internal haulroads would be located along the contour cuts proposed along the edge of the mineral removal area. All of the residences within the viewshed of the mine could be affected. There are one hundred thirty-five (135) occupied dwellings within one-half (0.5) mile of the project area, some of which are controlled by the land management subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc. In addition, there are twelve (12) additional dwellings located from one-half (0.5) mile to eight-tenths (0.8) mile of the mine that could possibly see a portion of project area. In addition to the residences in the area, portions of the Spruce No. 1 Mine may be partially visible to travelers on an approximately five (5) mile segment of SR17 and an approximately 3.5-mile segment of CR15. The proposed mine may be somewhat visible from the residences
xiv

and/or the public roads. Most of the residences are considered moderately sensitive with fairly high interest in the landscape, mitigated by distance from the proposed project disturbance area. The residences in the foreground of the proposed mine area (within one-half [0.5] mile) are considered to have a higher level of sensitivity to visual effects. Approximately nineteen (19) residents have existing vegetation and topographic features between them and the proposed project disturbance area that would most likely act as a screen making the project area not visible from these locations. Most of the residents within the viewshed of the project live in the small communities of Five Block, Spruce Valley, and Blair located along SR17 east of the project area. The only additional visually sensitive areas identified in the study area are four (4) cemeteries (including the three historic cemeteries) and four (4) churches. The visual sensitivity of the cemeteries is considered to be low to moderate because the frequency of visitation is low and existing vegetation and topographic features between them and the proposed project disturbance area would most likely act as a screen making the project area not visible from these locations. Certain visual effects, particularly removal of mature trees, would persist for a number of years; however, in the long-term, the adverse visual effects would be largely obscured by successful reclamation and vegetation. Few cumulative noise effects would be anticipated from the Spruce No. 1 Mine or other reasonably foreseeable future actions. Population growth in the study area would tend to raise background noise levels in the area; however, growth is expected to be minor. Long-term, reversion of the Spruce No. 1 Mine disturbance area to a post-mining land of forestland would tend to off-set increased background noise levels from population growth. There may be very short-term cumulative noise level increases along SR17 during the period of time when bituminous coal is transported via public roads to the existing preparation plant; however, the effects would be for a very limited period of time during the initial mining phase of the operation. Cumulative visual effects from the Spruce No. 1 Mine and other reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimal. Foreseeable future activities would only have very minor visual effects. There would be a gradual shift in visual character from the current rural, forested land to active mined lands. During the life of the mine, the combined visual effects would be slightly greater than the effects of the proposed project alone. Following completion of mining and successful reclamation, the mined lands would be returned to forestland, thus, over time eliminating any potential visual impacts associated with the project. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Operation of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would potentially involve the transport, handling, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. With the exception of fuels, lubricants, anhydrous ammonia, and caustic, these materials would be used in small quantities. Fuels would be transported in the greatest volume and, thus would pose the greatest risk of a spill. The analysis indicates that there would be a nineteen percent (19%) chance of a spill resulting from an accident during the 15-year project life. All hazardous materials would be transported and stored in accordance with Federal and State regulations. All hazardous wastes also would be stored, packaged, and manifested in compliance with applicable Federal and State regulations. These wastes would be transported by approved transporters to licensed hazardous waste disposal facilities. The implementation of spill prevention and emergency response plans would minimize potential impacts in the event of an accidental release of fuel or hazardous materials. Cumulatively, the Spruce No. 1 Mine would result in an incremental increase in the amount of hazardous materials being transported along the identified routes. No cumulative impacts associated with the storage and use of hazardous substances would be anticipated based on the proper implementation of spill
xv

prevention and emergency response plans. In addition, the Spruce No. 1 Mine is not anticipated to result in cumulative impacts on the generation of hazardous waste. PUBLIC HEALTH The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine is not anticipated to adversely affect the health of local residents. Potential mine-related impacts associated with the water quality, air quality, noise, and lighting effects were evaluated. Specifically, the impact assessment addressed the potential effects of trace metals in bituminous coal upon, effects of dust generated by the mining operations, effects of chemical constituents used during mining and reclamation, and the effects of increased noise and night lighting from the mine operation. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Minority populations in the vicinity of the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area do not surpass the population thresholds specified in Federal guidelines that would trigger environmental justice concerns. Consequently, no disproportionate adverse effects on minorities have been identified. An extensive effort was made to disseminate information on the project and solicit public comments from all interested parties in a nondiscriminatory manner.

xvi

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
ACHP AD/MT AEO AEP AMD AML AOC ARC/INFO BBS BMP BNA BPD BTU BTU/lb CAA CAAA CEED CEQ CERCLA CFR cfs CHIA CMP CR CSR CWA dBA dbh DEM DOE DOH DOI DOJ DWR EIA EIS Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Acreage Disturbed per Marketable Ton Annual Energy Outlook American Electric Power Acid Mine Drainage Abandoned Mine Lands Approximate Original Contour Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Software Breeding Bird Survey Best Management Practices Block Numbering Area (U.S. Census) Barrels Per Day British Thermal Unit British Thermal Unit per pound Clean Air Act Clean Air Act Amendment Center for Energy and Economic Development President’s Council on Environmental Quality Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Code of Federal Regulations cubic feet per second Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment Compensatory Mitigation Plan County Route/Road Code of State Regulations Clean Water Act of 1972 decibels on the A-weighted scale diameter at breast height Digital Elevation Model U.S. Department of Energy Division of Highways U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Justice Division of Water Resources Energy Information Administration Environmental Impact Statement
xvii

EPCRA EPZ ERIIS ESA ESDA FEIS FEMA FHWA FIRM ft GIS gpm HAV HBI HEP HSI HU HUD IBR IP Ldn LF/MT LU/LC LOM LOS km MSDA MSHA m µg/cm µg/m3 mi mg/l MM NAAQS NEMS NEPA NHPA

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Erosion Protection Zone Environmental Risk Information and Imaging Service Endangered Species Act Excess Spoil Disposal Acreage Final Environmental Impact Statement Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration Flood Insurance Rate Maps feet or foot Geographic Information Systems gallons per minute Habitat Assessment Value Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index Habitat Evaluation Procedure Habitat Suitability Index Habitat Unit U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Incidental Boundary Revision Individual Permit Acceptable day-night average noise level Linear Footage per Marketable Ton Land Use/Land Cover Life-of-Mine Level of Service kilometer(s) Material Safety Data Sheet Mine Safety and Health Administration meter(s) micrograms per centimeter micrograms per cubic meter mile(s) milligram per liter Million National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Energy Modeling System National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 National Historic Preservation Act
xviii

NOAA NPDES NPL NRCS NRHP NWI NWP21 OHWM OMR OSM OWR PA PEM PFO PHC PLF/MT PM2.5 PM10 ppm PSS RCRA ROW SARA SHPO SCI SHU SI SIP SMCRA SPCC SR SWROA TMDL TSS U.S. USACE USDA USDOT

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Priority List Natural Resources Conservation Service National Register of Historic Places National Wetlands Inventory Nationwide 21 Permit Ordinary High Water Mark Office of Mining and Reclamation - A program office within WVDEP Office of Surface Mining Office of Water Resources - A program office within WVDEP Preferred Alternative Palustrine Emergent Wetland Palustrine Forested Wetland Probably Hydrologic Consequences Permanent Linear Footage per Marketable Ton Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less Parts per million Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Right-of-Way Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act State Historic Preservation Office Stream Condition Index Stream Habitat Unit Suitability Index State Implementation Plan Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure State Route Surface Water Runoff Analysis Total Maximum Daily Load Total Suspended Solids United States U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Transportation
xix

USEPA USFWS USGS VOC WV WVDCH WVDEP WVDNR WVDOT WVSMRR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Volatile Organic Compound West Virginia West Virginia Division of Culture and History West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection West Virginia Division of Natural Resources West Virginia Department of Transportation West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations (or Rule)

xx

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Mingo Logan Coal Company (Mingo Logan) proposes to construct and operate the Spruce No. 1 Mine (as proposed under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative [PA]). The Spruce No. 1 Mine is a surface mine proposed to be located in Logan County, West Virginia (Exhibit 1-1). The proposed project would include the use of the mountaintop mining method for coal extraction and require the unavoidable placement of excess overburden into waters of the United States (U.S.). The project would also include construction of drainage control structures (ponds and surface water diversions) and associated flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures. The proposed project requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). As the permit decision is a Federal Action with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment, the Applicant recommended to the USACE that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. The USACE is the Federal agency preparing this Draft EIS (referred to as EIS throughout the remainder of the document) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and the USACE Procedures for Implementing NEPA (33 CFR 230). This EIS has also been prepared in accordance with the USACE Guidance on Environmental Impact Statement Preparation for the Corps Regulatory Program, which specifies compliance with the above listed provisions (Appendix A). A Section 404(b)(1) evaluation of the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (Applicant’s PA) is provided in Appendix B of this EIS. The project also requires a permit from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) under Title 5 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and the implementing WV Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations (WVSMRR). The WVDEP permit area for the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine consists of 2,278 acres. Of this total, approximately 500 acres would be disturbed for surface mining at any one time, based on sequential backfilling and concurrent reclamation of the mine areas. Mingo Logan controls these lands through lease agreements with the surface and mineral owners of the project area. Upon receiving all of the required permits and authorizations, construction is projected to begin in 2006, with operation commencing by 2007 and continuing for a period of approximately 15 years. The proposed project would include mining of an average of 2.73 million tons of bituminous coal annually via mountaintop mining methods with incidental contour, auger, and highwall/thin-seam mining. Section 2.5 of Chapter 2 contains a detailed description of the Applicant’s PA. The USACE's permit area for this EIS comprises the Applicant’s coal reserve area, as permitted (Exhibit 1-2) by the Applicant’s WVDEP Surface Mine Permit (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2), as described above. Alternative 3, identified as a practicable alternative in Chapter 2, was proposed in the WVDEP Surface Mine Application Incidental Boundary Revision 1 (IBR 1) that was submitted in December 1998 and was subsequently approved on January 13, 1999. However, the required

1-1

accompanying National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit modification was denied, subsequently, the entire permit was terminated by the WVDEP. The Applicant’s PA is as proposed in the WVDEP Surface Mine Application IBR 2 that was submitted to the state in April 2004 and was subsequently approved under Title 5 of SMCRA on April 26, 2005. The corresponding NPDES permit modification was also submitted for approval by the WVDEP in April 2004 and was subsequently approved on April 29, 2005. These applications are available for review at the following location: Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District 502 Eighth Street Huntington, West Virginia 25701 This EIS describes the proposed construction, operation, and reclamation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine including: the Applicant’s proposed environmental protection measures; public and agency scoping activities to date (Appendix C and Appendix D); an assessment of location and mine plan alternatives to the Applicant’s PA; and analysis of the affected environment and environmental consequences of implementing the Applicant’s PA, Alternative 3, and the No Action Alternative. 1.1 1.1.1 PROJECT SETTING PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would be located approximately two (2) miles northeast of Blair, West Virginia. The project area would be southeast and adjacent to Mingo Logan’s existing Dal-Tex Complex, southwest of Independence Coal Company associated permits, south of the Mountain Laurel Complex (including the Daniel Hollow Coarse Refuse Facility), northwest of Apogee Coal Company, LLC Complex - Guyan Area, and north of the Stollings Trucking Mining Complex. Locations of these complexes are included on Exhibit 1-3. 1.1.2 DAL-TEX COMPLEX Mingo Logan’s Dal-Tex Complex is located 2.5 miles to the west of the proposed operation with a majority of the mining area located in the Beech Creek of Spruce Fork watershed. The Dal-Tex Complex encompasses approximately 6,630 acres and includes eleven (11) surface mining permits, of which two (2) are fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; nine (9) underground mining permits, of which three (3) have been fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released and four (4) have not been started; and eleven (11) surface ancillary facilities permits, of which two (2) have been fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released. The complex is currently inactive with the majority of the mining permitted having previously occurred and been reclaimed. Re-activation and future mining of existing permitted areas could occur in the future. 1.1.3 INDEPENDENCE COAL COMPANY ASSOCIATED PERMITS

The Independence Coal Company associated mining operations are primarily operations located along the Spruce Laurel Fork of Spruce Fork watershed. The total permitted acreage encompasses approximately 2,792 acres and includes eight (8) surface mining permits, of which three (3) are fully
1-2

reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; three (3) underground mining permits all of which are fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; and two (2) surface ancillary facilities permits. The total current active mining area associated with these permits is approximately 1,647 acres, which includes one (1) surface mining permit that has not been started, but would have begun operation by the time that the proposed project would occur. Approximately 1,145 acres are currently reclaimed and transitioning back to forestland. 1.1.4 MOUNTAIN LAUREL COMPLEX The Mountain Laurel Complex is located in the Seng Camp Creek of Spruce Fork watershed. The complex encompasses approximately three hundred twenty-one (321) acres and includes seven (7) underground mining permits that have not been started, one (1) active underground mining/plant/loadout permit, and one (1) coarse refuse facility permit pending construction (Daniel Hollow Coarse Refuse Facility, WVDEP Permit O-5016-04). The complex includes the Cardinal Preparation Plant and Loadout, which would receive coal from the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The current disturbance associated with the deep mines and surface facilities totals approximately one hundred sixty-six (166) acres and will be active for approximately twenty-seven (27) years. The Mountain Laurel Complex and the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would be connected by proposed Haulroad 1. 1.1.5 APOGEE COAL COMPANY, LLC COMPLEX – “GUYAN AREA” Portions of the Apogee Coal Company, LLC Mining Complex fall within the Spruce Fork watershed are identified by the complex as the “Guyan Area”. There permitted operations within the “Guyan Area” that fall within the Spruce Fork watershed encompass a total of nine hundred ninety (990) acres and include three (3) surface mining permits; one (1) active underground mining permit; one (1) underground mining/plant permit, which has been fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; and one (1) impoundment permit that is inactive and is approximately forty-one percent (41%) reclaimed. The acreage of the current permitted complex area that is located in the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately nine hundred ninety (990) acres, of which approximately seven hundred thirty-four (734) are actively being mined and/or disturbed. 1.1.6 STOLLINGS TRUCKING MINING COMPLEX Located in the head of the Garland Fork of Spruce Fork watershed, the Stollings Trucking Mining Complex encompasses approximately eight hundred fifty-eight (858) acres and includes four (4) surface mining permits, of which one (1) is fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; two (2) underground mining permits, of which one (1) which is completely overbonded; one (1) haulroad permit; and one (1) coarse refuse facility permit. Active mining disturbance associated with the complex within the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately three hundred thirty-seven (337) acres. Most of the permitted area has been reclaimed and is currently transitioning back to forestland. 1.1.7 OTHER CURRENTLY PERMITTED OPERATIONS The remaining approximately twenty-three (23) active permitted mining operations located within the Spruce Fork watershed encompass approximately 3,658 acres. Of these permits, six (6) are fully reclaimed and one (1) is active but not started. The total active mining area associated with these permits is approximately nine hundred sixty-six (966) acres.
1-3

1.2 1.2.1

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION PROJECT PURPOSE

The USACE believes its decision to issue, issue with conditions, or deny Mingo Logan’s Section 404 permit is considered a major Federal action with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, the USACE is preparing this EIS to analyze the impacts of Mingo Logan’s proposed project and reasonable alternatives. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines make a specific distinction between basic and overall project purpose (40 CFR 230.10(a)). This basic project purpose is the fundamental, essential, and irreducible purpose of the proposed project that is used in the analysis to determine if the Applicant's project is water dependent. The basic purpose of the proposed project is bituminous coal removal. The overall project purpose serves as the basis for the alternative analysis. The overall project purpose is determined by further defining the basic purpose to logically describe the applicant’s specific project. The overall project purpose also considers the feasibility and need for the project. The overall purpose of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine is to recover high-quality coal reserves from the Six-Block seam, Five-Block seam, Stockton seam, Coalburg seams [Upper and Middle], Buffalo seam, as well as all associated splits thereof, for energy production. Reserves from the project site would be sold on the market to satisfy the currently high demand for coal. The overall project purpose is feasible and capable of being accomplished, in light of existing technology, logistics, and cost, when considering the need for the project. 1.2.2 PROJECT NEED The applicant proposes to perform surface mining activities in an effort to remove bituminous coal reserves. To achieve a reasonable level of overall cost effectiveness through continued construction, operation, and reclamation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, the applicant seeks to recover approximately 40.91 million tons of coal from the above mentioned coal seams over a period of fifteen (15) years. The Applicant has made reasonable efforts to design the project in a safe, cost-effective manner and proposes to undertake a number of measures designed to minimize overall adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed project. 1.2.2.1 Energy and Mineral Needs Several factors contribute to the demand for energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas. The demand for these fuels is inextricably linked and contingent on variables such as availability, demand for electricity, environmental regulation, and weather. The demand for electricity, in particular, has an effect on the demand for coal, as coal resources play a major role in fulfilling the nation’s energy needs. An increasing demand for electricity coupled with changes in regulations, shifts in electricity-producing fuels, and economic growth indicates that the supply of coal must be increased to meet projected demands. The total estimated amount of coal reserves to be recovered over the duration of this project (40.91 million tons) would represent nearly 1.1 years of coal consumption at West Virginia’s current reported rate of consumption of over 34.45 million tons/year according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration’s (EIA), Annual Coal Report 2004 (DOE, EIA, 2005). Based upon reported coal production for West Virginia in 2005 of 152.9 million tons (West Virginia
1-4

Office of Miners’ Health and Safety Training [WVOMHST], 2005) the projected production from the Spruce No. 1 Mine operation (2.73 million tons annually) would represent approximately two percent (2%) of West Virginia’s annual production. Much of the information presented below is derived from the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO2006)(DOE, EIA, 2006). The EIA, an independent statistical and analytical agency within the DOE, generates forecasts using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), which is developed and maintained by the Office of Integrated Analysis. The EIA’s findings are not reflective of the DOE’s policies. Forecasting of the EIA is used in analytical studies for the U.S. Congress and other DOE offices. Analysts and planners in other government agencies and outside organizations also use the AEO forecasts. Long-Term Energy Needs Although coal prices are currently high, power sector demand for coal continues to increase as oil and gas prices remain high and hydroelectric power availability remains low, a trend apparent in the shortterm forecasts as well. With the recent increase in natural gas prices due to lower production per well and higher drilling costs in the lower 48 states, earlier projections for increased gas-fired electricity have been reduced. Based on current trends, the projected increase in natural gas prices would cause increasing demand for coal-fired base-load capacity; therefore, coal is projected to continue to play a major role in meeting the electricity generation requirements of the United States through 2030. Total electricity consumption is projected to increase at an annual average rate of 1.6 percent through 2030, reaching 5,619 billion kWh. In order to meet this demand, electricity producers will need to increase the total generation to 5,926 billion kWh to account for on-site consumption and distribution losses. Of this total, coal-fired generation is expected to contribute 3,380 billion kWh or fifty-seven percent (57%), as opposed to a fifty percent (50%) share of total electricity generation in 2004 (DOE, EIA, 2006). In order for coal to meet the increasing demand for electricity, production will need to grow at an annual average rate of 1.1 percent through 2015, reaching a total production of 1,272,000,000 tons, and then at a rate of two percent (2%) through 2030 as substantial coal-fired generating capacity is added. This increase is anticipated to be gradual due to use of existing facilities, but will increase as new plants begin to operate over time. The majority of this growth is expected to occur in the Western coal mines, primarily from the Powder River Basin. Production from the Western coal mines is expected to increase to 1,010,000,000 tons in 2030 from the 2004 level of 575,000,000 tons. Appalachian coal mine production is expected to remain fairly stable with only minimal growth from the 2004 level of 403,000,000 tons to 412,000,000 tons in 2030. Short-Term Energy Needs The AEO2006 indicates that U.S. electricity demand will continue to increase in 2006 by approximately one-half percent (0.5%) and by an additional two percent (2%) in 2007. According to the AEO ShortTerm Energy Outlook (STEO), weather conditions and continuing growth in the electric sector is responsible for increased coal demand. Oil and natural gas prices, which have increased fairly steadily since the beginning of 2000, influence coal demands. Higher oil and natural gas prices generally result in an increased demand for less expensive coal-generated electricity (DOE, EIA, 2006). If there is higher demand for electricity and it is relatively inexpensive, as forecasts suggest, the demand for coal will increase. Coal-fired generation is expected to continue growing, with coal demand in the power
1-5

sector growing by 1.2 percent in 2006 and an additional 1.4 percent in 2007. Coal resources play a major role in fulfilling the nation’s energy needs. It was estimated that in 2006 coal will provide fuel for the generation of approximately 51% or 21.22 Quadrillion Btus of the nation’s energy needs. In 2006 demands for coal are expected to increase to 1,141,300 tons of coal, an increase approximately 1% over the previous year. Based on the West Virginia MHST, total tonnage for 2005 in WV was 152,859,368. Total U.S. coal production is anticipated to increase by 2.7 percent in 2006 and an additional 1.2 percent in 2007 to meet this increasing demand for coal. West Virginia Ninety-eight percent (98%) of electricity generated in West Virginia is generated from coal, almost twice the rate of the national figure (51.8%). West Virginia has the 8th lowest retail electricity prices in the nation. This can be attributed to the proximity of the coal sources to the utilities. Because the coal is relatively inexpensive to ship, the utilities pay less and pass the savings on to consumers (Center for Energy and Economic Development [CEED], 2005). Coal consumption for electricity generation (excluding industrial cogeneration) is expected to increase approximately fifty-six percent (56%) from 1,095 million tons in 2003 to 1,708 million tons in 2030, due to increased utilization of existing generation capacity and, in later years, additions of new capacity (DOE, EIA, 2006). In summary, the factors that indicate a high national and regional demand for coal are as follows: • • • • • 1.3 Coal is used to generate over fifty percent (50%) of all electricity in the U.S.; Coal is used to generate ninety-eight percent (98%) of all electricity in West Virginia; Demand for electricity, and therefore coal, is predicted to continue to rise over the next twenty (20) years; Coal from the coalfields of southern West Virginia is close in proximity to utility plants that consume it; therefore, the prices of West Virginia coal are competitive; and The present resurgence of the national and West Virginia economies contributes to a higher demand for coal. AUTHORIZING ACTIONS

Mingo Logan submitted revised applications to the USACE on October 11, 2005, for an individual permit under Section 404 of the CWA and to the WVDEP on April 23, 2004, for State Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the CWA. These permits would allow Mingo Logan to discharge dredge and fill material into waters of the U.S. in association with the construction and operation of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine. The USACE’s Section 404(b)(1) alternatives evaluation is provided in Appendix B; Mingo Logan’s application to the WVDEP for Section 401 Water Quality Certification is provided in Appendix E. Mingo Logan also submitted a Surface Mine Application to the WVDEP, Office of Mining and Reclamation, on March 28, 1997, for an Article 3 Surface Mining Permit. The WVDEP approved the original permit configuration in November 1998. Subsequently, the mine plan was revised numerous times. The current revision (IBR 2) was approved by the WVDEP on April 26, 2005 with the corresponding NPDES permit modification approved on April 29, 2005. The application provides information on the construction, operation, and reclamation procedures that would be
1-6

implemented for the proposed project. Federal and State permits and approvals required for Mingo Logan to conduct mining operations at the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine are shown in Tables 1-1 and 12. (Mingo Logan’s applications to the WVDEP for a Section 401 State water quality certification and an Article 3 Surface Mine Permit are available for review at the USACE Huntington District Regulatory Branch). The Applicant’s PA mining and reclamation plan and post-mining land use are in accordance with the Logan County Master Land Use Plan. 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIS

This EIS complies with the CEQ’s EIS requirements (40 CFR 1502.10) and the USACE’s requirements (33 CFR 325). Chapter 1.0 provides descriptions of the purpose of and the need for the proposed project, the role of the USACE in the EIS process, and the required regulatory actions for the proposed project. Chapter 2.0 describes the alternatives, including the two practicable alternatives for the proposed project (Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3) and the No Action Alternative. Chapter 3.0 describes the affected environment; the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and any residual adverse effects following the implementation of mitigation. Chapter 4.0 summarizes public participation and the scoping process, and the consultation and coordination undertaken to prepare the EIS. Chapter 5.0 presents the list of EIS prepares and reviewers. Chapter 6.0 provides the list of references. Chapter 7.0 contains the glossary. Chapter 8.0 contains the index. Copies of supporting documents are available for public review at the USACE Huntington District Office in Huntington, West Virginia. Table 1-1 Environmental Permits
Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit State of West Virginia Surface Mine Permit Clean Water Act Section 401 (State Water Quality) Certification Clean Water Act Section 402 (West Virginia National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit [WVNPDES])

Table 1-2 Other Requirements and Approvals
Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Wetlands finding in compliance with Presidential Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

1-7

Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Federal Communications Commission (FCC) West Virginia Division of Culture and History (WVDCH) West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry (WVDNR, DOF) West Virginia Public Land Corporation (WVPLC) Floodplain finding in compliance with Presidential Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Migratory bird finding in compliance with Presidential Executive Order 13186 MSHA Identity Report Training Plan Radio Station Authorization State of West Virginia Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 and Archaeological Resource Protection Act Notification of Open Burning

Public Lands Permit

1-8

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the alternatives available to the USACE and Mingo Logan, including the No Action Alternative and the development of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, (WVDEP Permit S-501397), as proposed under the two practicable alternatives: the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (IBR 2) and Alternative 3 (IBR 1). This chapter also describes a variety of alternatives that have been considered by the USACE and Mingo Logan, but which have been rejected as infeasible for one or more reasons including environmental, technological, and economic considerations (see Section 2.4); these alternatives are not analyzed in detail in this EIS. Table 2-1 summarizes the alternatives considered in this document and their primary attributes. These alternatives, including the rationale for their consideration in the EIS, are discussed in detail in the following sections of this chapter. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE USACE In accordance with 33 CFR Part 325.9(5), the USACE is neither an opponent nor a proponent of the applicant’s proposal; therefore, the applicant’s final proposal is identified as the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (PA). The USACE has determined that the Applicant’s PA requires authorization under an individual permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA (see Chapter 1.0). There are three (3) alternatives relative to the Applicant’s PA available to the USACE: 1) issue the permit, 2) issue the permit with special conditions, or 3) deny the permit. Permit denial is referred to as the No Action Alternative (see Section 2.3). In accordance with 33 CFR Part 320.4(b)(4) and 40 CFR 230.10, the USACE performed an independent evaluation of the Applicant’s alternatives, as described below. In order for an alternative to be practicable, it must be available and capable of being done. The cost, existing technology, and logistics of the alternative must be considered in light of the overall project purpose. Considerations of cost, however, do not necessarily mean that the least costly alternative would be selected over the most environmentally preferable alternative. The environmentally preferred alternative is based on an assessment of the aquatic resources within each potential fill site and areas of indirect impacts. An area not presently owned by the Applicant which could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic project purpose may be considered practicable [40 CFR 230.10(a)(2)]. Haulage costs to alternative upland sites, alternative mining methods, and property acquisition were considered. Technological considerations included a demonstration by the Applicant that mining methods other than valley fills, such as underground mining, were considered in extracting the coal reserves. For instance, the ability to conduct underground mining is dictated by coal seam thickness and depth of cover. Examples of the logistics of evaluating alternative disposal site design included upland excess spoil disposal sites, such as abandoned mining benches, placement on previous mining backfill (adjacent permitted areas), and use for reclamation of coal mine waste embankments. The considerations of cost, technology, and logistics are included in the determination of whether or not some or all of the upland alternatives are practicable, thus demonstrating that the avoidance of fills in
2-1

waters of the U.S. has been achieved to the maximum extent practicable. If additional disposal sites within waters of the U.S. are required to accomplish the project purpose, an applicant must then demonstrate that fills in waters have been minimized. 2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the USACE would deny Mingo Logan’s application for an individual Section 404 CWA permit. As a result, the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would not be developed, and the potential impacts to the natural or human environment identified for the Applicant’s PA or Alternative 3 would not occur. However, there would be impacts associated with the No Action Alternative, as described in Chapter 3.0, and the existing, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with inter-related actions would likely continue (described in Section 2.6). Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project. However, the No Action Alternative must be addressed, because a permit cannot be issued by the USACE if such issuance would be contrary to the public interest and/or would not comply with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Also, its inclusion in this analysis is required under provisions of NEPA and serves as a basis for comparison of environmental impacts among alternatives. Under this alternative, the identified reserves at the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would not be mined and sold on the market for electricity generation. The No Action Alternative does not mean, however, that there would be no impacts to the lands in and near the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The No Action Alternative is not considered identical to existing or baseline conditions of the affected environment. There are other on-going mining, timbering, and oil/gas operations in the general area and subject watersheds of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. These operations would continue independently of this proposal. The area within the boundaries of this proposed operation has pre-existing mining impacts, timbering activities, and oil/gas operations. Future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the Spruce No. 1 Mine is permitted. If this proposed project were not constructed, the coal reserve would still be geologically in-place and the potential would exist for partial or total mining of the identified reserves at a later date by Mingo Logan or a future lessee of the reserves, thereby resulting in a delay in the disturbance of the site, not elimination of the disturbance. Additionally, future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, logging activities, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. Since timber is a renewable resource, timber operations in the project would likely occur in the future, either in conjunction with mining operations or independently of them. The full extent of the impact of timber harvest upon the environment depends upon the success of the best management practices employed by the timber harvest operation, as required by regulations of the West Virginia Division of Forestry, which oversees the activity. Impacts to forests, streams, riparian areas, and wildlife may reasonably be expected by timber harvest operations. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Oil and gas operations usually operate independently of mining operations and would continue to operate regardless of mining activity. Exploration, drilling, and recovery of natural gas are expected to occur within the proposed project area
2-2

in the future. These processes require the construction of roads and drill sites and the installation of pipe gathering lines. This construction results in the disturbance of earth, the removal of trees, and the penetration of the earth by drilling machines. Activities of this type are regulated and overseen by the West Virginia Office of Oil and Gas, an entity within the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). If mining of this operation were to not occur, it is reasonable to assume that landowners may choose to increase timbering, oil and gas, and other development activities in an effort to recoup investment. The Applicant is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the frequency of these disturbances. The USACE has chosen not to speculate on the nature of the future land use, and has not predicted these possible future impacts of the No Action Alternative. Also note that with the No Action Alternative, there still would be regional impacts, as identified in the analyses of cumulative impacts, which would be caused by activities other than the Spruce No. 1 Mine. For purposes of this analysis, the USACE assumes that the No Action Alternative is considered to be “the future without the project.” The Applicant has determined that the No Action Alternative would result in the total loss of: 40.91 tons of recoverable coal reserves; 218 direct employees; major severance and property tax revenues that would have been generated for a period of approximately 15 years; and royalties paid to surface and mineral owners of the tracts of property leased by the applicant. While the No Action Alternative is traditionally environmentally preferred, it does not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project.

2-3

Table 2-1 Summary of Alternatives Considered and Their Primary Attributes
Alternatives Advantages Alternatives Considered in Detail No Action Alternative Eliminates the Spruce No. 1 Mine, IBR 2 or IBR 1 related environmental impacts. Provides economic boost to region and coal production for supply of energy needs and provides for maximum utilization of a natural resource. Triggers adverse socioeconomic impacts. Fails to meet Mingo Logan’s purpose and need for future mining operations related to energy needs. Retained for analysis as the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative as it meets the purpose and need of the project. Disadvantages Reason for Elimination from Consideration, if Applicable

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Spruce No. 1 Mine, IBR 2 (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2) 2-4 2-4 Alternative 3 - Spruce No. 1 Mine, IBR 1 (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 1) Off-Site Project Location Underground Mining

Triggers various adverse environmental impacts as discussed in detail in Chapter 3.0

Provides economic boost to region and coal production for supply of energy needs and provides for maximum utilization of a natural resource. Occurrence of environmental impacts would be over a shorter period of time as compared to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.

Triggers various adverse environmental impacts as discussed in detail in Chapter 3.0, greater than those identified under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.

Retained for analysis as practicable and for comparison to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Eliminates the Spruce No. 1 Mine, IBR 2 or IBR 1, related environmental impacts in the project area. Reduced environmental impacts compared to Triggers adverse socioeconomic impacts and does not provide for utilization of the natural resource and would have adverse environmental impacts to another site. Limited resource recovery and Fails to meet Mingo Logan’s purpose and need for future mining operations related to energy needs. Fails to meet Mingo Logan’s

Alternatives

Advantages the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.

Disadvantages sterilization of ninety-six percent (96%) of originally permitted reserves and inconsistent with provisions of SMCRA requiring maximum utilization of recoverable resource to avoid/minimize re-impacting the area in the future. Not economically viable. Impracticable and not feasible for the recovery of identified reserves outside of valley fill contour areas. Inconsistent with provisions of SMCRA requiring maximum utilization of recoverable resource to avoid/minimize re-impacting the area in the future. Increased environmental impacts compared to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. Sterilization of sixty-four percent (64%) of originally permitted reserves and inconsistent with provisions of SMCRA requiring maximum utilization of recoverable resource to avoid/minimize re-impacting the area in the future.

Reason for Elimination from Consideration, if Applicable purpose and need for future mining operations related to energy, company, and landowner needs.

Contour/Auger/Highwall/Thinseam Mining 2-5 Original WVDEP Permit S-501397

Reduction in environmental impacts compared to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.

Fails to meet Mingo Logan’s purpose and need for future mining operations related to energy, company, and landowner needs.

Provided greatest amount of resource recovery and was originally considered a practicable alternative at the time of submittal, but has since been dismissed as practicable.

No longer considered a practicable alternative due to regulatory changes which rendered the alternative not feasible. Fails to meet Mingo Logan’s purpose and need for future mining operations related to energy, company, and landowner needs.

Mountaintop to the Stockton

Reduced environmental impacts compared to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.

Alternatives

Advantages

Disadvantages Sterilization of sixty-two percent (62%) of originally permitted reserves and inconsistent with provisions of SMCRA requiring maximum utilization of recoverable resource to avoid/minimize re-impacting the area in the future. Alternative would involve increased environmental impacts compared to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. Additional trucking requirement of seven (7) to eight (8) times the number of haulage units, additional capital investment and development costs, operating costs, and would exceed the real market value of the recovered reserves, while generating an additional 9.07 million cubic yards of excess overburden.

Reason for Elimination from Consideration, if Applicable Fails to meet Mingo Logan’s purpose and need for future mining operations related to energy, company, and landowner needs. Interim configuration that would include the future mining of the entire original permit area.

Mountaintop to the Stockton with Underground Mining

Reduced environmental impacts compared to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.

Interim Configuration (WVDEP Permit No. S-5013-97, Revision 1)

Delays implementation of environmental impacts over a longer period of time.

2-6 2-6 Off-Site Disposal Potential for reduction in overall environmental impacts.

Not a feasible alternative due to not being economically viable.

2.4

ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO MINGO LOGAN

Mingo Logan considered various alternatives during feasibility studies for the Spruce No. 1 Mine Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. In addition, the USACE identified potential alternatives to the Spruce No. 1 Mine Applicant’s Preferred Alternative based on issues identified during the scoping process and project evaluation. The alternatives considered included alternatives to constructing and operating the Spruce No. 1 Mine as proposed under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative that involved alternate locations for mineral extraction (see Section 2.4.1); and alternate plans for constructing, operating, and reclaiming the Spruce No. 1 Mine (other mining methods and configurations) itself (see Section 2.4.2). These alternatives were considered relative to their technological and economic feasibility, as well as their apparent likelihood to reduce environmental impacts as compared to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. The USACE has reviewed the data and analyses provided by Mingo Logan and has conducted an independent review of the associated alternatives. Based on the available data, the USACE believes Mingo Logan’s analysis to be reasonable. Based on the USACE's evaluation, these other alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 3, have been considered but subsequently eliminated from detailed analysis in this EIS as not being practicable or feasible. This section describes the rationale for their elimination. 2.4.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE

Mingo Logan has evaluated the possibility of an off-site location alternative for the proposed project. This alternative was determined not to be a practicable alternative. Relative to the evaluation of alternate locations, the USACE has determined that unlike many projects that could be readily redesigned to avoid or minimize resource impacts, projects that involve the recovery of mineral resources have two main constraints that dictate the location and extent of earth disturbance. These constraints, which limit an applicant’s ability to avoid and/or minimize resource impacts, include the specific location of the mineral resource being sought and the large expanses of land required for staging, stockpiling, and establishing surface water control facilities, transportation corridors, and other activities. Geologic exploration of the reserve body indicates that the area under consideration for the proposed surface mine operation is the most appropriate and practicable location based on the Applicant’s current mineral rights; workforce, equipment, and infrastructure location; and long-term planning. Unlike commercial, residential, or industrial development, extractive industries, such as coal mining operations, are limited to locations where reserves are present and economically recoverable. As part of the planning process, the Applicant continually evaluates its mineral rights, budget forecasts, manpower availability, and equipment availability to determine the most appropriate time, location, and method to develop and recover mineral reserves that it controls. Planning generally is based on a 5-year schedule that takes into consideration market conditions, in-house fiscal parameters, and geological studies. Coal reserves in Central Appalachia have been depleting due to over one hundred fifty (150) years of mining, so the options for locating a new mining project have become more limited. The stationary nature of coal reserves precludes the selection of a practicable off-site project location alternative. The analysis of alternate locations indicates other locations do not meet the proposed project’s overall purpose and, therefore, other locations were eliminated as practicable alternatives for this project.

2-7

2.4.2 2.4.2.1

ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED SPRUCE NO. 1 MINE Mine Layout and Sequencing Alternatives

Mingo Logan evaluated different mine layouts/configurations and mining sequences for the proposed project area. The mine layout and mine sequencing alternatives were evaluated and designed to maximize recovery of the identified reserves while facilitating the reclamation of the mining area, as Mingo Logan performed core drilling and geological analyses on the proposed project’s reserve area to determine the most efficient and cost effective method of recovering the available reserves. The Applicant considered both underground and surface mining methods for recovery of available reserves. Specific criteria have been established for surface and underground mining of coal reserves. To be practicable, the alternative must be capable of accomplishing recovery of coal resources consisting of sufficient quality, quantity, and size while maintaining effective and economical ratios to achieve the overall project purpose in light of existing technology, cost, and logistics. A discussion of each method follows. 2.4.2.2 Mine Operation Alternatives

Mingo Logan initially considered two (2) general mining methods: underground and surface. As underground mining criteria are more stringent and underground mining tends to be the least environmentally damaging alternative, the practicability of underground mining was evaluated first to determine if the underground mining method would be practicable or feasible to remove the targeted coal reserves. Underground Mining
In analyzing this alternative, it was determined that the recovery of coal reserves by underground mining methods, if practicable, could avoid or significantly reduce potential impacts to waters of the U.S., as it would only require construction of one (1) valley fill in conjunction with the development of the mine face-up and operational area (Exhibit 2-1). The following discussion then concerns the practicability of underground mining within the project area compared to the project's overall purpose. All coal seams within the proposed projects area were evaluated for underground mining potential in accordance with the following criteria:

• • • • • • • •

Minimum seam height of three (3) feet; No rider seams within twenty (20) feet; A maximum in-seam parting of eighteen (18) inches; Minimum of 100 feet of vertical cover; Individual seam has no overlying or underlying existing underground workings within forty (40) feet; Individual seam must not have been previously underground mined within the targeted reserve area, such that there are no potentially underground mineable reserve areas remaining; An individual reserve area must contain a minimum of 250,000 clean recoverable tons; Individual seam must not have been previously underground mined within the targeted reserve area, such that within the remaining un-mined areas an individual reserve area does not meet the above criteria;

2-8

• •

A minimum cumulative resource recovery of sixty (60) percent of the total reserves proposed for development within the project area; and A coal cleaning or preparation plant must be available to clean or process the run-of-mine product to create a marketable product and have an approved facility available to accept the rock, clay, and shale separated from processing of the run-of-mine product.

These criteria are site-specific to the coal seams and infrastructure present or available in the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area. Criteria for other locations and coal seams may vary depending on infrastructure, available preparation technologies, coal seam properties (metallurgical or non-metallurgical), etc. The following discussion outlines the positives and negatives related to the underground mining alternative for the mineral removal area and individual seams of this project. The coal seams originally proposed for development in the project area are the Six-Block, Five-Block, Little Five-Block, Upper Stockton (Nos. 1 and 2 combined), Middle Stockton (Nos. 1 and 2 combined), Lower Stockton, Upper Coalburg, Middle Coalburg, Lower Coalburg, Buffalo A, Buffalo B, Winifrede, Chilton A, and Chilton. Of these seams, the Little Five-Block, Lower Stockton, Lower Coalburg, Winifrede, and Chilton A failed to satisfy the criteria for minimum seam height of three (3) feet. The Middle Coalburg, Buffalo A, and Buffalo B failed due to having a rider seam present within twenty (20) feet of the seam, which were the Upper Coalburg, Lower Coalburg, and Buffalo A, respectively. The Middle Stockton failed due having an in seam parting greater than eighteen (18) inches. The Chilton has been extensively underground mined throughout the project area and there we no remaining reserve areas that could be practicably underground mined. The Six-Block failed to satisfy the minimum criteria for an individual reserve area having a minimum of 250,000 clean recoverable tons. The remaining seams (Five-Block, Upper Stockton, and Upper Coalburg) satisfied the initial seven (7) criteria and were further evaluated for underground mining operations. For each of these seams there was one block of potentially underground mineable reserves (Exhibit 2-1). Underground mining of the Five Block, Upper Stockton, and Upper Coalburg would yield approximately 0.56 million, 0.40 million, and 1.13 million clean tons, respectively. Underground mining would yield a total of approximately 2.09 million clean tons, or less than four percent (4%) of what the most productive alternative would recover (Alternative 2 with recovery of 54.48 million tons). Table 2-2 lists each major coal seam and summarizes the evaluation of these seams based upon the underground mining evaluation criteria.

2-9

Table 2-2 Summary of Underground Mining Seam Evaluation
Seams within the Targeted Reserve Area Criteria Minimum Seam Height of 36 inches No Rider Seams within 20 feet Maximum InSeam Parting of 18 inches Minimum of 100’ Cover No Overlying Works within 40 feet Previous Underground Mining Precludes additional Underground Mineable Reserve Areas Minimum of 250,000 Recoverable Clean Tons 60 Percent Minimum Cumulative Resource Recovery Prep Plant Facilities Available Six Block Pass Five Block Pass Little Five Block Fail Upper Stockton Pass Middle Stockton Pass Lower Stockton Fail Upper Coalburg Pass Middle Coalburg Pass Lower Coalburg Pass Buffalo A Pass Buffalo B Pass Winifrede Chilton A Fail Chilton

Fail

Pass

Pass

Pass

--

Pass

Pass

--

Pass

Fail

Pass

Fail

Fail

--

--

Pass

Pass Pass Pass

Pass Pass Pass

----

Pass Pass Pass

Fail ---

----

Pass Pass Pass

----

Pass Pass Pass

----

----

----

----

Pass Pass Pass

2-10

Pass

Pass

--

Pass

--

--

Pass

--

Pass

--

--

--

--

Fail

Fail

Pass

--

Pass

--

--

Pass

--

Pass

--

--

--

--

--

Fail - (four percent [4%] resource recovery)

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

The proposed project area for underground mining would be eighty-four (84) acres. Table 2-3 provides a summary of potential impacts to waters of the U.S. that would result from development of this alternative. Additionally, this alternative would impact one (1) small palustrine wetland (Wetland 2, see Section 3.2 and Appendix F). Wetland 2 encompasses approximately 0.12 acre within the proposed project area for this alternative. Table 2-3 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for Underground Mining
Valley Fill Valley Fill # and Jurisdictional Water Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Valley Fill Deck Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary Total Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe At Outlet Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary -0.89 ---0.89 Total -0.98 ---0.98

VF1 Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek VF2 Main Pigeonroost Branch* VF3 Unnamed Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch VF4 Oldhouse Branch VF5 White Oak Branch Total

N/A

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

N/A

0.92

2,299

5,044

7,343

608.15 821.05

0.09

N/A

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

N/A

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

N/A

-0.92

-2,299

-5,044

-7,343

--

--

-0.09

*Permanent impact includes jurisdictional water lengths/acres from the toe of the fill up to the upstream extent of waters of the U.S. (ordinary high water mark), including mined through areas.

Underground mining was determined not to be a reasonable or practicable alternative due to the limited amount of coal that would be recovered. Underground mining yields the fewest marketable tons of all alternatives (2.09 million), roughly one-tenth (1/10) as many tons recovered as the next lowest producing alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5, with recovery of 19.5 and 20.62 million tons, respectively), and less than four percent (4%) of what the most productive alternative would recover (Alternative 2 with recovery of 54.48 million tons).

2-11

Additionally, underground mining would result in the unnecessary sterilization of approximately ninety-six percent (96%) of the reserve proposed to be developed in the original permit (Alternative 2), which is inconsistent with provisions of SMCRA requiring maximum utilization of the recoverable resource to avoid/minimize re-impacting the proposed project area in the future. The significant reduction in the reserve base would not satisfy the Applicant’s landowner and lease obligations, nor meet the project purpose and need. Underground mining was, therefore, rejected as a practicable alternative. Underground alternative was not considered as a reasonable and practicable alternative and as such was eliminated from further evaluation. Surface Mining The following concerns the practicability of surface mining within the project area in light of the project's overall purpose. All coal seams within the proposed project area were evaluated for surface mining potential in accordance with the following criteria: • • • • The coal seam must be of sufficient desirable qualities to be marketed to the end user; A minimum cumulative resource recovery of sixty (60) percent for the reserve area; The coal seam must be recoverable without the need to remove excessive amounts of overburden from the coal energy resource, arriving at a mining ratio that is economical; and If the excess overburden cannot be returned to the mining operation, a location adjacent to the proposed project must be available for the placement of the overburden that cannot be safely placed back within the mineral removal area.

The criteria for surface mining methods are used to determine the practicability of surface mining in general. If surface mining is practicable, additional factors may determine how the surface mining may actually take place and which further methods may be utilized such as mountaintop removal, contour mining, auger/highwall/thin-seam mining, or any combination thereof. The following discussion outlines the positives and negatives related to the surface mining alternative for the individual seams proposed to be removed in this project. As such, each of the seams to be mined was evaluated based upon the criteria listed above and are summarized in Table 2-4 on the following page.

2-12

Table 2-4 Summary of Surface Mineable Seams within the Project Area
Seams to be Mined under the original WVDEP Permit S-5013-97 Criteria1 Six Block Pass Five Block Pass Little Five Block Pass Upper Stockton Pass Middle Stockton Pass Lower Stockton Pass Upper Coalburg Pass Middle Coalburg Pass Lower Coalburg Pass Buffalo A Pass Buffalo B Pass Winifrede Pass Chilton A Pass Chilton Pass

Sufficient Quality 60 Percent Minimum Cumulative Resource Recovery Mining Ratio of less than 15:12

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

Pass (12:1)

2-13

Available Excess Overburden Disposal Sites

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

1The criteria for the surface mining methods are used to determine the practicability of surface mining in general. If surface mining is practicable, additional factors may determine how the surface mining may actually take place and which further methods may be utilized such as mountaintop removal, contour mining, auger/highwall mining or any combination thereof. 2A mining ratio is the amount of in-place overburden to be removed (in cubic yards) in relation to the recovery of each clean ton of coal. Based upon the current and projected market conditions, landowner obligations, compliance with applicable environmental regulations and policies, infrastructure requirements, and criteria determined by existing equipment availability at the time of the originally article 3 mining permit submittal, the Applicant had determined that a mining ratio of less than 15:1 was economical and therefore practicable. This project as originally proposed had an effective mining ratio of 12:1 (660 million cubic yards of in-place overburden divided by 54.78 million tons of recoverable coal energy resource).

The surface mining process allows for the coal to be primarily recovered in such a manner that the coal can be marketed directly from the surface mining pit to the customer without the need for preparation or cleaning of the coal product. Although, in many instances, “pit-cleanings”, and some of the seams mined are processed through a preparation plant along with seams recovered by combined surface mining methods (i.e. highwall and/or augering). Surface mining was considered a practicable alternative and was further analyzed by the Applicant to determine the most practicable method of surface recovery. Seven (7) on-site surface mining alternatives were evaluated by Mingo Logan for further consideration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Alternative 1 – Contour/Auger/Highwall/Thin-seam Mining; Alternative 2 – Original WVDEP Permit S-5013-97; Alternative 3 – WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 1; Alternative 4 – Mountaintop to the Stockton; Alternative 5 – Mountaintop to the Stockton with Underground Mining; Alternative 6 – Interim Configuration - Permit S-5013-97, Revision 1; and Alternative 7 – WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2.

The evaluation of these alternatives was based upon current and projected market conditions, landowner obligations, compliance with applicable environmental regulations and policies, infrastructure requirements, and criteria determined by existing equipment availability. The alternatives were based on operationspecific criteria for resource development and recovery. As used herein, the term off-site refers to areas not situated within the proposed project area and on-site refers to the 2,278-acre project area. Evaluation of these potential surface mining operational alternatives is detailed in the following sections. Alternative 1 – Contour/Auger/Highwall/Thin-seam Mining Current WVDEP mining and reclamation regulations (38CSR2.14.15a) require that any regraded areas be designed to achieve and maintain a long term static safety factor of 1.3. This requirement is established for safety concerns and to prevent landslides on surface mined areas. The requirement is also established to prevent damages to off-site areas resultant from land instability/mass movement from a permitted area into non-permitted (off-site) areas. Additionally, the WVDEP mining and reclamation regulations require that erosion and drainage control structures be designed to provide 0.125 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity per acre of surface disturbance. Furthermore, the WVDEP regulations require that these structures be maintained such that the volume of trapped sediments does not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the original design capacity. The structures must be maintained in this manner upon completion of mining, regrading, and through Phase II permit release status, typically a period of four (4) plus years from completion of regrading activities, thereby resulting in the need for establishment of an access/maintenance road situated at an area near the elevation of the erosion and drainage control structures. Due to the steepness of the terrain where the coal bearing strata is located, application of contour mining has limited feasibility. Based upon geologic considerations, stability requirements, and drainage requirements, contour mining on this project is limited to areas with original ground slopes less than fortyeight to fifty percent (48-50%). Areas falling within or less than this range of original ground slopes are isolated and separated by areas exceeding fifty percent (50%) slope and, therefore, can not be developed in compliance with the requirements of the regulations. As shown in Exhibit 2-2, the areas that fall within the contour development slope criteria comprise less than 16.4 percent of the mineral removal area of the
2-14

project and, if developed, would only extract only 7.3 percent of the original reserve base. This includes an area of Five-Block and Upper Stockton mining that would be classified as mountaintop mining. If the area of mountaintop mining were excluded, then the total reserves that could be developed would represent only 5.9 percent of the reserve base, while impacting 12.8 percent of the project area. Excluding access road development, the excavation associated directly with the areas of potential contour mining development would generate 6.8 million cubic yards of excess overburden that would require placement in valley fills. These isolated areas are not economical or practical to develop. Contour mining in the proposed project area is reasonable or practicable only in those areas where it is incidental to development of the valley fills or overlying mountaintop mining areas. Auger/highwall/thin-seam mining of the reserves on-site was considered. Auger/highwall/thin-seam mining requires an area wide enough to accommodate the auger/highwall/thin-seam mining machine and the loading of trucks. Although a highwall mining machine appears to set on the surface, highwall mining is only capable of being accomplished where coal seam conditions would otherwise lend themselves to successful underground extraction by continuous mining methods. For an auger/highwall/thin seam mining operation to be practicable and capable of being done, the seam to be mined should not contain old workings. Under this alternative, suitable areas would be created only by the contour mining. The contour bench and associated operational area for the auger/highwall/thin seam mining operation must remain available, thus requiring the construction of a spoil disposal area somewhere along the operation; therefore, the elimination of valley fills would not be accomplished by this alternative. In addition, the auger/highwall/thin-seam mining operations associated with the contour mining areas would recover an additional 1.5 percent of the original reserve base in addition to contour mining alone. The maximum tonnage recovered from contour/auger/highwall/thin-seam mining operations would be approximately 8.8 percent of the original reserve base. This lower rate of coal recovery lessens the overall total coal reserve recovery from the project thereby rendering the project uneconomical, when considering the cost of road and valley fill construction. The land and mineral owner for this property does not consider the reduced recovery rate to be the highest and best use of their property and attempting the lower recovery rate is not the preferred practice for the property. Like contour mining, areas of potential development of auger/highwall/thin-seam mining areas would also take place only in those areas where it is incidental to development of the valley fills or overlying mountaintop mining areas, thereby allowing for the recovery of additional reserves without the disturbance of any additional surface area. Alternative 1 was not considered a reasonable or practicable alternative due to the inability to comply with the regulations, the limited amount of reserve recoverable and, thereby, not meeting project purpose, and was, thus, eliminated from further evaluation. Alternative 2 – Original WVDEP Permit S-5013-97 Mountaintop mining is defined as the removal of an entire coal seam or seams in an upper fraction of a mountain, ridge, or hill and creating a level plateau or a gently rolling contour with no highwalls. Once the alternative evaluation process has lead to the decision to surface mine rather than underground mine, consideration is then given to the mining ratios practicable or economical for the project. A mining ratio is the amount of in-place overburden to be removed (in cubic yards) in relation to the recovery of each clean ton of coal. If the application of the ratios leads to extraction or removal of an entire coal seam or seams, as defined above, then the project may be considered a mountaintop mining project. Mountaintop mining
2-15

can only occur in limited areas where the geologic column contains coal seams near the surface or top of the mountain, ridge, or hill. The geologic conditions for this project under this alternative, would result in removal of entire coal seams through portions of the upper fraction of the ridges within the project area. Alternative 2 was presented in the Original Surface Mine Application (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97) and is depicted in Exhibit 2-3. The original permit proposed to conduct surface mining via mountaintop mining of the coal seams overlying and including the Middle Coalburg seam. Equipment that would be utilized under this alternative was selected to complement the major excavating unit, a 72-cubic yard walking dragline. Secondary development would include contour mining of the Buffalo B coal seam. Limited auger mining would take place in areas of the operation that would not be reasonable or practicable to mine by other surface mining methods. The original project configuration was permitted prior to the AOC/Fill Optimization Process developed by the WVDEP (Appendix G) and Office of Surface Mining (OSM), which resulted from litigation in the Bragg vs. Robertson lawsuit filed in July 1998. Alternative 2 would take place over nine (9) phases and would disturb approximately 3,113 acres. Table 2-5 provides a summary of the proposed mining and reclamation activities for all phases. Alternative 2 would involve the most impacts to waters of the U.S. of any of the alternatives evaluated. Table 2-6 provides a summary of potential impacts to waters of the U.S. that would be incurred under Alternative 2. Additionally, this alternative would impact one (1) small palustrine wetland (Wetland 2, see Section 3.2 and Appendix F). Wetland 2 encompasses approximately 0.12 acre within the proposed project area for this alternative. Table 2-5 Summary of Mining and Reclamation Phase Operations for Alternative 2
Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Undisturbed (ac) 2,519.15 1,861.90 1,138.72 1,186.80 901.55 646.15 378.26 46.58 0.00 Disturbed and Ancillary Regraded Total Disturbed (ac) Ratio %* Unreclaimed (ac) Area (ac) Area (ac) 489.95 874.58 968.27 968.68 1,097.84 1,043.14 1,047.74 729.80 0.00 76.93 167.95 489.55 306.99 342.18 359.25 387.30 280.64 0.00 26.97 208.57 516.46 650.53 771.43 1,064.46 1,299.70 2,055.98 3,113.00 593.85 1,251.10 1,974.28 1,926.20 2,211.45 2,466.85 2,734.74 3,066.42 3,113.00 15.7% 28.1% 31.1% 31.1% 35.3% 33.5% 33.7% 23.4% 0.0%

*Represents the percentage of the total project area (3,113 acres) that is both disturbed and unreclaimed at the end of the phase (ancillary areas are exempt). For non-dragline operations, this percentage is limited for any given point in time to less than thirty-five percent (35%)(§38CSR2 14.15.b.6.A); dragline operations are not restricted in this way.

2-16

Table 2-6 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for Alternative 2
Valley Fill Valley Fill # and Jurisdictional Water Valley Fill Deck Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Ponds/ Temporary Permanent* Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Ponds/ Temporary Permanent*

At Outlet

VF1 Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek

Buffalo

25.64

7,300

--

7,300

Total

491.20

527.10

1.49

--

1.49

VF2 Main Buffalo Pigeonroost Branch VF3 Unnamed Tributary of Buffalo Pigeonroost Branch VF4 Oldhouse Branch VF5 White Oak Branch Totals Buffalo

147.56

25,852

1,130

26,982

1,099.90

1,167.50

4.92

0.34

5.26

3.99

1,970

510

2,480

118.00

143.60

0.45

0.22

0.67

55.03

11,200

1,000

12,200

529.10

591.70

2.57

0.28

2.85

Buffalo

31.57 263.79

8,193 54,515

600 3,240

8,793 57,755

665.40

678.20

2.42 11.85

0.15 0.99

2.57 12.84

*Permanent impact includes jurisdictional water lengths/acres from the toe of the fill up to the upstream extent of waters of the U.S. (ordinary high water mark), including mined through areas.

Although Alternative 2 would mine the greatest amount of coal (54.48 MM tons) and was originally considered a practicable and reasonable alternative when the permit was initially submitted, it is no longer considered reasonable or practicable for a number of reasons. In addition to the considerations discussed above (i.e., use of a dragline resulting in more acres disturbed at any given time) and potential impacts to White Oak Branch, a presumptive Tier 2.5 stream, agency comments on the original permit indicated that the proposed project would not be approved as proposed. Also, the dragline proposed to be utilized in this alternative is no longer owned by the Applicant and the originally proposed access to the mine site has been eliminated as a result of the development of a deep mine/plant/loadout complex (Applicant’s Mountain Laurel Complex). Finally, as a result of the Bragg vs. Robertson litigation, the Applicant redesigned the operation to comply with additional regulatory requirements, which ultimately rendered this alternative not
2-17

Total

feasible. Alternative 2 would require disturbing the greatest acreage (3,113 acres) and would require the placement of the greatest volume of excess spoil (264 MM cubic yards) and was, therefore, identified as the most environmentally damaging of the alternatives. Alternative 3 – WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 1 Alternative 3 was described in the Applicant’s Surface Mine Application IBR 1 (WVDEP Permit S-501397, IBR 1), and is presented in Exhibit 2-4. Review and processing of the surface mine permit for this alternative was terminated by the WVDEP. IBR 1 was originally submitted in response to regulatory changes for fill optimization. Alternative 3 would utilize a 72-cubic yard dragline along with a 51-cubic yard electric shovel and loader units to remove overburden material down through the Middle Coalburg coal seam. In conjunction with this, loader unit(s) would conduct contour mining, along with augering and/or highwall/thin-seam mining within fill areas to recover coal seams located below the proposed limit of mountaintop mining or are not feasible to mine by the mountaintop mining method. Generally, the contour mining, with augering and/or highwall/thin-seam mining following closely behind, would take place first within the lowest coal seams to be mined in order to prevent sterilization of the seams in areas where spoil from the upper seams would be placed. Mining of the upper seam horizons would then follow with overburden being placed within the proposed valley fill areas or in previously-mined pits. The dragline would then proceed, placing spoil ridges behind the dragline pits. As the operation progressed, contour-generated spoil would be predominantly placed within the dragline spoil ridges, due to a lack of available backfill storage capacity on the previously-mined lower seam contour benches. As described, these operations would include augering and/or highwall/thin-seam mining where economic, geologic, or socio-political factors prevent mining by other methods. Mountaintop mining down through the Middle Coalburg coal seam would take place throughout most of the proposed project area. Within the proposed valley fills, the Buffalo B, Winifrede, and Chilton seams would be contour mined with augering and/or highwall/thin-seam mining in both the up-dip and down-dip directions where access to those seams would be later eliminated by placement of fill material. No updip augering would occur within the Buffalo A seam or any of the Stockton coal seams. In addition, augering and/or highwall/thin-seam mining would occur in the Middle and Upper Coalburg seams in the up-dip direction beneath the adverse tract near the mouth of White Oak Branch. Alternative 3 was designed to minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance within and adjacent to the proposed disturbed area and to prevent material damage outside the proposed project area. Based on previous mining in these seams within adjacent areas, the Applicant anticipates no adverse impact on the hydrologic balance of waters of the U.S. downstream of the drainage control structures from any augering and/or highwall/thin-seam mining proposed under this alternative. The proposed changes to the original permit configuration reflected in IBR 1 were a result of the regulatory changes with regard to the AOC/Fill Optimization Process developed by the WVDEP. All drainage areas within a reasonable vicinity of the proposed operation were investigated as potential valley fill locations, as described in the Valley Fill Location Alternative. Alternative 3 was designed to minimize, to the extent practicable, impacts to waters of the U.S. by optimizing overburden placement. This was achieved by adhering to the AOC/Fill Optimization Process developed by the WVDEP and

2-18

OSM. It has been determined, through extensive interagency review and coordination, that an applicant can demonstrate optimized overburden placement in waters of the U.S. to the extent practicable by utilizing these procedures. Alternative 3 has a proposed project area of 2,914 acres with ninety-five percent (95%) of the coal targeted for extraction within the project area being recovered. Operations would take place during nine (9) phases over a ten (10) year period. A variance to the contemporaneous reclamation standards promulgated by the WVDEP was requested due to projected movement of overburden throughout the life of the proposed operations. Some areas were to be initially regraded and seeded behind the dragline, but would have been re-disturbed when mining progressed as overburden was placed in order to bring the backfill material to the final regrade design configuration; therefore, a variance was requested. Table 2-7 provides a summary of the proposed mining and reclamation activities for Alternative 3. Table 2-8 provides a summary of potential impacts to waters of the U.S. that would result from development of Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would have the second greatest impacts to waters of the U.S. of any of the alternatives. Additionally, this alternative would impact one (1) small palustrine wetland (Wetland 2, see Section 3.2 and Appendix F). Wetland 2 encompasses approximately 0.12 acre within the proposed project area for this project alternative. Table 2-7 Summary of Mining and Reclamation Phase Operations for Alternative 3
Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Undisturbed (ac) 2,054.35 1,632.94 1,364.05 729.15 459.96 404.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 Disturbed and Unreclaimed (ac) 760.36 1,058.36 1,067.98 1,491.42 1,296.56 1,185.82 1,202.79 629.57 0.00 Ancillary Area (ac) 99.29 119.32 293.59 357.81 360.29 340.66 317.85 243.46 0.00 Regraded Area (ac) 0 103.38 188.38 335.62 797.19 982.94 1,393.36 2,040.97 2,914.00 Total Disturbed (ac) 859.65 1,281.06 1,549.95 2,184.85 2,454.04 2,509.42 2,914.00 2,914.00 2,914.00 Ratio %* 26.1% 36.3% 36.6% 51.2% 44.5% 40.7% 41.3% 21.6% 0.0%

*Represents the percentage of the total project area (2,914 acres) that is both disturbed and unreclaimed at the end of the phase (ancillary areas are exempt). For non-dragline operations, this percentage is limited for any given point in time to less than thirty-five percent (35%)(§38CSR2 14.15.b.6.A); dragline operations are not restricted in this way.

2-19

Table 2-8 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for Alternative 3
Valley Fill Valley Fill # and Jurisdictional Water Valley Fill Deck Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Ponds/ Temporary Permanent* Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Ponds/ Temporary -0.34 0.22 0.28 0.15 0.99 Permanent*

At Outlet

Total

VF1 Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek

Coalburg

21.21

7,300

--

7,300

491.20

527.10

1.49

1.49

VF2 Main Coalburg Pigeonroost Branch VF3 Unnamed Tributary of Coalburg Pigeonroost Branch VF4 Oldhouse Branch VF5 White Oak Branch Totals Coalburg

84.61

25,852

1,130

26,982

1,099.90 1,167.50

4.92

5.26

4.21

1,970

510

2,480

118.00

143.60

0.45

0.67

38.33

11,200

1,000

12,200

529.10

591.70

2.57

2.85

Coalburg

31.57 179.94

8,193 54,515

600 3,240

8,793 57,755

665.40

678.20

2.42 11.85

2.57 12.84

*Permanent impact includes jurisdictional water lengths/acres from the toe of the fill up to the upstream extent of waters of the U.S. (ordinary high water mark), including mined through areas.

Alternative 3 was originally considered to be a reasonable and practicable alternative by Mingo Logan, but is no longer being considered by the Applicant. As described earlier, Alternative 3 was proposed as a result of the regulatory changes resulting from the Bragg vs. Robertson litigation (Appendix H). As a result, the Applicant redesigned the operation to comply with additional regulatory requirements for the WVDEP’s AOC/Fill Optimization Process. Since the IBR 1 was initially submitted, there have been several subsequent regulatory and operational changes that have led Mingo Logan to pursue another alternative as its Preferred Alternative (Alternative 7). The subsequent development of anti-degradation regulations by the WVDEP identified White Oak Branch as a presumptive Tier 2.5 resource. Further more, during the regulatory review process, the
2-20

Total

Applicant was informed by the reviewing agencies that the IBR 1 configuration would not be approved and, subsequently, the WVDEP terminated the application. Operationally, the dragline proposed to be utilized in this alternative is no longer owned by the Applicant and the originally proposed access to the mine site has been eliminated as a result of the development of a deep mine/plant/loadout complex (Applicant’s Mountain Laurel Complex). These occurrences/factors resulted in Alternative 3 no longer being considered as the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. In addition to these factors, the earth disturbance and jurisdictional water impacts affected the dismissal of this alternative. Alternative 3 would require the second largest amount of disturbed acreage (2,914 acres) and the placement of the second greatest volume of excess spoil (179.94 MM cubic yards) of all the alternatives. Additionally, although Alternative 3 would recover 51.53 MM tons of coal, it would recover fewer tons of coal per linear foot of impact to waters of the U.S. than several other alternatives. The permanent linear footage (PLF) of waters of the U.S. impacted per marketable ton (MT) of coal (PLF/MT) ratio for this alternative would be much higher than that of Alternative 7 (1,058 linear feet/ton vs. 882 linear feet/ton, respectively; refer to Table 2-15). Alternative 3 as proposed would also require the use of a dragline, resulting in a larger amount of unreclaimed disturbed acres at any given time during mining. Additionally, as mentioned above, this alternative proposes filling activities and permanent impact to waters of the U.S. including White Oak Branch, a presumptive Tier 2.5 stream. Alternative 3, although deemed practicable, was determined not to be reasonable due to the inability to retain the necessary State and Federal permits, but was carried forward in the evaluation for comparison to Mingo Logan’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 4 – Mountaintop to the Stockton Alternative 4 consists of mountaintop mining to recover reserves from all seams overlying and including the Upper Stockton coal seam (Exhibit 2-5). Only thirty-six percent (36%) of the coal targeted for extraction within the project area would be recovered under this alternative. The proposed project area for Alternative 4 would be 1,582 acres. Table 2-9 provides a summary of potential impacts to waters of the U.S. that would be incurred under Alternative 4. Additionally, this alternative would have the potential to impact one (1) small palustrine wetland (Wetland 2, see Section 3.2 and Appendix F). Wetland 2 encompasses approximately 0.12 acre within the proposed project area for this alternative. Table 2-9 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for Alternative 4
Valley Fill Valley Fill # and Jurisdictional Water Valley Fill Deck Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary --

At Outlet

VF1 Right Fork of Seng Camp

Upper Stockton

47.67

7,300

--

7,300

Total

491.20 527.10

1.49

1.49

2-21

Total

Valley Fill Valley Fill # and Jurisdictional Water Valley Fill Deck

Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary

Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe

Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary 0.24 -0.21 -0.45

At Outlet

Total

Creek VF2 Main Pigeonroost Branch VF3 Unnamed Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch VF4 Oldhouse Branch VF5 White Oak Branch Total Upper Stockton 38.00 7,000 1,000 8,000 291.50 324.90 1.33 1.57

Upper Stockton

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Upper Stockton Upper Stockton

16.23

4,900

1,000

5,900

232.00 268.43

0.99

1.20

-101.90

-19,200

-2,000

-21,200

--

--

-3.81

4.26

*Permanent impact includes jurisdictional water lengths/acres from the toe of the fill up to the upstream extent of waters of the U.S. (ordinary high water mark), including mined through areas.

Although Alternative 4 would not impact White Oak Branch, Alternative 4 was determined not to be reasonable due to the limited amount of coal that could be recovered, which renders this alternative impracticable. Only thirty-six percent (36%) of the coal targeted by the original permit application would be recovered by this alternative. The significant reduction in the recoverable reserve base does not satisfy the Applicant’s landowner and lease obligations and, as such, rendered the alternative neither reasonable nor practicable. This alternative would result in sterilization of approximately sixty-four percent (64%) of the reserve proposed to be developed in the original permit, based on current market conditions and available mining technology, which is inconsistent with provisions of SMCRA requiring maximum utilization of the recoverable resource to avoid/minimize re-impacting the proposed project area in the future. Alternative 4 was not considered a reasonable or practicable alternative due to the limited amount of coal recoverable resulting in the inability to meet the landowner and lease obligations, comply with the SMCRA provisions requiring maximum utilization of the recoverable resource, or meet the project purpose; thus, this alternative was eliminated from further evaluation.

2-22

Total ---

Alternative 5 - Mountaintop to the Stockton with Underground Mining Alternative 5 consists of mountaintop mining to recover reserves from all seams overlying and including the Upper Stockton coal seam (Exhibit 2-6). It is estimated that only thirty-eight percent (38%) of the coal reserves targeted for extraction within the project area would be recovered. Contour mining would not be performed under this alternative; however, underground mining would be used to recover reserves from the Upper Coalburg seam. As described in the Underground Mining Alternative, the Upper Coalburg met the minimum criteria for an individual reserve area. The total disturbed area for Alternative 5 would be 1,607 acres. Table 2-10 provides a summary of potential impacts to waters of the U.S. that would result from development of Alternative 5. Additionally, this alternative has the potential to impact one (1) small palustrine wetland (Wetland 2, Section 3.2, and Appendix F). Wetland 2 encompasses approximately 0.12 acre within the proposed project area for this alternative. Table 2-10 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for Alternative 5
Valley Fill Valley Fill # and Jurisdictional Water Valley Fill Deck Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe At Outlet Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary -0.24 -0.21 -0.45

VF1 Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek VF2 Main Pigeonroost Branch VF3 Unnamed Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch VF4 Oldhouse Branch VF5 White Oak Branch Total

Upper Stockton

47.67

7,300

--

7,300

Total

491.20 527.10

1.49

1.49

Upper Stockton

38.00

7,000

1,000

8,000

291.50 324.90

1.33

1.57

Upper Stockton

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Upper Stockton Upper Stockton

16.23

4,900

1,000

5,900

232.00 268.43

0.99

1.20

-101.90

-19,200

-2,000

-21,200

--

--

-3.81

4.26

*Permanent impact includes jurisdictional water lengths/acres from the toe of the fill up to the upstream extent of waters of the U.S. (ordinary high water mark), including mined through areas.

2-23

Total ---

Although Alternative 5 would not impact White Oak Branch, a presumptive Tier 2.5 stream, Alternative 5 was determined not to be a reasonable alternative due to the limited amount of coal recoverable, which renders this alternative impracticable. The acreage disturbed (AD) per marketable ton (MT) of coal recovered (AD/MT) ratio for Alternative 5 is 77.98 acres/ton, the second highest of the alternatives under consideration (refer to Table 2-15). Alternative 5 has a higher PLF/MT ratio than only one other alternative, Alternative 7 (931 linear feet/ton vs. 882 linear feet/ton, respectively). However, only thirty-eight percent (38%) of the coal targeted by the original permit application would be recovered by Alternative 5. The significant reduction in the recoverable reserve base would not satisfy the Applicant’s landowner and lease obligations and would result in a sterilization of approximately sixty-two percent (62%) of the reserve proposed to be developed in the original permit. Sterilization of reserves is inconsistent with provisions of SMCRA, which require maximizing utilization of the recoverable resource to avoid/minimize re-impacting the proposed project area in the future. Alternative 5 was not considered a reasonable or practicable alternative due to the limited amount of coal that could be recovered by the alternative resulting in the inability to meet the landowner and lease obligations, comply with the SMCRA provisions requiring maximum utilization of the recoverable resource, or meet the project purpose; thus, this alternative was eliminated from further evaluation. Alternative 6 – Interim Configuration – WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, Revision 1 The original Surface Mine Application for the Spruce No. 1 Mine (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97/Alternative 2) was submitted in March 1997 to the WVDEP and, thereafter, underwent review by State and Federal agencies (Exhibit 2-7). The plaintiffs in Bragg vs. Robertson filed legal action in July 1998 and among the many legal claims in their suit was that 1) the USACE was not authorized under Section 404 of the CWA to issue a permit for a valley fill constructed as part of a surface coal mine, and 2) that if the USACE was so authorized, it could not utilize the Nationwide 21 General Permit (NWP 21) for the Spruce No. 1 Mine because the environmental impacts were more than minimal. Following the USACE’s refusal to authorize the operation, representatives of the Applicant met with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), USACE, and USEPA representatives in Washington D.C. in November 1998. At that meeting, representatives of the agencies agreed that a Nationwide Permit could be authorized for the operation if the permit was revised to a configuration smaller than originally sought in the application. At the November 1998 meeting, the Applicant stressed that the revised configuration was sufficient for only thirty (30) to thirty-six (36) months of mining. The smaller configuration represented a final attempt by the Applicant to continue current operations and thereby preserve existing jobs and satisfy the market for the coal to be mined from the property. The Applicant stated that it would submit a Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) application for the remaining portion of the proposed project area, so that the total project area as originally proposed (Alternative 2) could be mined eventually, although the agencies explained that the remaining portion of the project area might not receive IP approval. As the smaller configuration represented an opportunity to continue the existing operations, with at least the potential to eventually develop the entire original project area under a separate IP, the Applicant decided to seek the NWP 21 authorization for the portion of the mine identified as Stage One, and later submitted the Spruce No. 1 Mine, Revision 1 Surface Mine Application (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, Revision 1) to the WVDEP for review. This configuration was proposed as an Interim Configuration that would require subsequent permit modifications to achieve a material handling balance, in the event the discussed IP application was not
2-24

approved. The modifications would have required reduction of the mineral development area, and thereby the volume of overburden storage required, to achieve a material balance. On December 23, 1998, the USACE and the Bragg plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement. It dismissed the USACE from the lawsuit and required the plaintiffs to drop the claim alleging that the USACE had no authority to permit valley fills under Section 404 of the CWA. The settlement also limited the use of the NWP 21 permit for projects requiring valley fills in West Virginia to watersheds of less than 250 acres. The plaintiffs then amended their suit claiming that the reconfigured Spruce No. 1 Mine project had been illegally segmented in violation of NEPA, not withstanding the Applicant’s testimony that the smaller mine did have economic viability and the absence of any commitment by the USACE that a subsequent Section 404 permit would be issued for the remainder of the mine. In the language quoted from the March 3, 1999 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the U.S. District Court found that the operations had been, “split intentionally to allow the commencement of mining operations under a less critical agency review.” With this order, the Applicant commenced the IP process for the entire mineral reserve as proposed by the original NWP 21 Pre-Construction Notification (Alternative 2). Subsequently, in July 2004 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia ruled that the USACE did not comply with the Clean Water Act in issuing NWP21 authorizations and enjoined the USACE from issuing authorizations pursuant to NWP21 in the Southern District of West Virginia. Alternative 6 includes staging designations contained in the originally approved NPDES permit. The revised permit application submitted to the WVDEP was subsequently approved on January 13, 1999. The proposed disturbed area for Alternative 6 would be 2,534 acres with forty-three percent (43%) of the coal targeted for extraction within the project area being recovered. The WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, Revision 1 did not remove or delete any bonded or specified mineral removal acreages from that approved in the original permit (Alternative 2), nor did it alter the method of mining; it simply delineated a restricted area of operation under the aforementioned 404 IP permit being sought. Table 2-11 provides a summary of potential impacts to waters of the U.S. that would be incurred under Alternative 6. Additionally, this alternative has the potential to impact one (1) small palustrine wetland (Wetland 2, see Section 3.2 and Appendix F). Wetland 2 encompasses approximately 0.12 acre within the proposed project area for this alternative.

2-25

Table 2-11 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for Alternative 6
Valley Fill Valley Fill # and Jurisdictional Water Valley Fill Deck Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Ponds/ Temporary Permanent* Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Ponds/ Temporary -0.22 -Permanent*

At Outlet

Total

VF1 Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek VF2 Main Pigeonroost Branch VF3 Unnamed Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch VF4 Oldhouse Branch VF5 White Oak Branch Total

Buffalo

13.20

7,300

--

7,300

491.20 527.10

1.49

1.49

Buffalo

39.60

21,736

1,090

28,226

848.70 986.00

4.17

4.39

Buffalo

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Buffalo Buffalo

9.80 -62.60

7,610 -36,646

960 -2,050

8,570 -38,696

363.00 437.50 ---

1.68 -7.34

0.39 -0.61

2.07 -7.95

*Permanent impact includes jurisdictional water lengths/acres from the toe of the fill up to the upstream extent of waters of the U.S. (ordinary high water mark), including mined through areas.

Alternative 6 was determined not to be a reasonable or practicable stand-alone alternative, as it was an Interim Configuration proposed and designed for a project life of only thirty (30) to thirty-six (36) months of mineral removal within only a portion of the original project area (Alternative 2). In addition, Alternative 6 would require additional future impacts through extension of the valley fills constructed during Stage One in conjunction with mining of the remaining original project area (under a separate IP), result in less than optimal ratios of total and permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. per ton of marketable coal recovered, and would impact White Oak Branch, a presumptive Tier 2.5 stream. Alternative 7 – WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2 (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative) This alternative represents a substantial reduction in the scope and scale of the originally proposed project (Alternative 2), as depicted in Exhibit 2-8. Through the development of Alternative 7, the Applicant made additional modifications to further avoid and minimize impacts to the environment while satisfactorily meeting the purpose and need for the project.

2-26

Total --

Alternative 7 proposes to conduct mountaintop mining of the seams overlying and including the Middle Coalburg coal seam in the western portion of the proposed project area. In the eastern portion of the proposed project area, mountaintop mining would be limited to those seams including and overlying the Upper Stockton seam, with auger and/or highwall/thin-seam mining utilized to recover the Middle Coalburg seam. In addition, the Buffalo B seam would be contour mined with augering and/or highwall/thin-seam mining within the designated valley fill areas only. The Middle Coalburg and Buffalo B would be augered and/or highwall/thin-seam mined in both the up-dip and down-dip directions. Excess overburden, beyond the volume required to reconfigure the mineral removal area to an AOC configuration, would be placed within the proposed valley fill areas. Backfilling of the previously-mined areas would be accomplished by placing and regrading excavated overburden to the configuration established by the WVDEP AOC/Fill Optimization Process Guidance Document procedures. Equipment that would be utilized during the project in this alternative was selected to complement the revised configuration with a 51-cubic yard electric shovel as the primary excavation unit; a dragline is not proposed to be utilized in Alternative 7. Alternative 7 was designed to minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance within and adjacent to the proposed project area and to prevent material damage outside the proposed project area. Based on geologic and geo-chemical factors and as indicated by the previous mining of these seams in a similar manner in adjacent areas, no adverse impact on the hydrologic balance of waters of the U.S. located downstream of the runoff and erosion control structures would be anticipated from augering/highwall/thinseam mining development proposed in Alternative 7. Drainage areas within a reasonable vicinity of the proposed project were investigated as potential valley fill locations, as described below in the Valley Fill Location Alternative. Alternative 7 was designed to minimize, to the extent practicable, impacts to waters of the U.S. by optimizing overburden placement. This was achieved by adhering to the AOC/Fill Optimization Process developed by the WVDEP and OSM. This process is considered acceptable avoidance and minimization under the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. The Applicant also specifically revised the permit configuration to avoid direct impacts to White Oak Branch, a presumed Tier 2.5 stream. Alternative 7 would have a total disturbed area of 2,278 acres and recover seventy-five percent (75%) of the coal targeted for extraction within the project area during fifteen (15) phases. Table 2-12 provides a summary of the projected sequence of development, disturbance, and subsequent reclamation for this alternative. The maximum disturbed acreage of the project would be maintained in accordance with the contemporaneous reclamation standards set forth in §38CSR2 14.15.b.6.A.

2-27

Table 2-12 Summary of Mining and Reclamation Operations for Alternative 7
Phase No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Undisturbed (ac) 2,127.02 1,653.84 1,507.36 1,343.54 1,136.02 998.95 878.18 763.35 600.95 447.45 300.05 130.35 0 0 0 Disturbed and Unreclaimed (ac) 150.98 457.98 497.44 495.38 496.82 496.16 497.19 497.05 489.75 397.95 345.45 406.45 397.15 243.25 0 Ancillary Area (ac) 0 150.98 145.17 157.40 157.40 167.89 170.34 185.27 184.57 181.07 164.47 164.47 173.97 176.37 0 Regraded (ac) 0 15.2 128.03 281.68 487.76 615.00 732.29 832.03 1,002.73 1,251.53 1,468.03 1,576.53 1,706.88 1,858.38 2,278.00 Total Disturbed (ac) 150.98 624.16 770.64 934.46 1,141.98 1,279.05 1,399.82 1,514.35 1,677.05 1,830.55 1,977.95 2,147.45 2,278.00 2,278.00 2,278.00 Ratio% * 6.6% 20.1% 21.8% 21.7% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 21.5% 17.5% 15.2% 17.8% 17.4% 10.7% 0.0%

*Represents the percentage of the total project area (2,278 acres) that is both disturbed and unreclaimed at the end of the phase (ancillary areas are exempt). For non-dragline operations, as proposed in Alternative 7, this percentage is limited for any given point in time to less than thirty-five percent (35%) (§38CSR2 14.15.b.6.A); dragline operations are not restricted in this way.

Table 2-13 provides a summary of potential impacts to waters of the U.S. that would result from Alternative 7 (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2). Additionally, this alternative would impact one (1) small palustrine wetland (Wetland 2, see Section 3.2 and Appendix F). Wetland 2 encompasses approximately 0.12 acre within the proposed project area for this alternative.

2-28

Table 2-13 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for Alternative 7
Valley Fill Valley Fill Deck Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Valley Fill # Location Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Permanent** Ponds/ Temporary* Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe At Outlet Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Permanent** Ponds/ Temporary

1st

VF1A Unnamed Right Tributary of the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek VF1B Unnamed Right Tributary of the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek

Upper Stockton Upper Stockton Upper Stockton Upper Stockton Upper Stockton

11.82

3,400

--

3,400

Total

164.13

542.73

0.6055

--

0.6055

2nd 2-29

1.53 39.30 13.85 3.43 40.07 110.00

750 19,294 2,080 11,290 36,814

-5,952 355 825 7,132

750 25,246 2,435 12,115 43,946

55.67 475.84 296.05 131.34 526.03

542.73 1167.50*** 143.60 591.70

0.0700 3.8344 0.4770 2.6172 7.6041

-0.9464 0.0931 0.1887 1.2282

0.0700 4.7808 0.5701 2.8059 8.8323

VF2A and VF2B Pigeonroost Branch and its 3rd Unnamed Right Tributary 1st VF3 Unnamed Right Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch VF 4 Oldhouse Branch Total

*The contributing drainage area provided is for the furthest downstream structure, which is Pond No. 2 and under this alternative Valley Fill No. 2 has two separate fill faces and are labeled 2A and 2B and volumes and acreages are as indicated. **Permanent impact includes jurisdictional water lengths/acres from the toe of the fill up to the upstream extent of waters of the U.S. (ordinary high water mark), including mined through areas.

Total

Alternative 7 was selected as the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative as it was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative available that would meet the purpose and need of the project and be economically feasible. Off-Site Disposal Alternatives for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Alternatives for disposal of excess overburden for the Applicant’s PA were considered including: hauling fill offsite, fill placement alternatives, and valley fill location alternatives. • Placement of Overburden on the Mining Bench Alternative

Under the Preferred Alternative, the Applicant explored the option of placing all overburden materials and sediment control on the mining bench, thereby eliminating the need for valley fills and in-stream sediment ponds. One of the typically accepted techniques utilized to determine the quantity of overburden material required to achieve AOC and that can practicably be returned to the mine bench is the WVDEP's AOC/Fill Optimization Guidance. The Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine, as proposed under IBR 2, was designed and approved utilizing the WVDEP’s Permit Handbook of Policies and Procedures for Permit Applications in Section 29. Only those excess materials not used to return the mining bench to AOC were proposed to be placed in proposed disposal sites. The backstack areas as proposed would accommodate 401.1 million cubic yards, leaving one hundred ten (110.0) million cubic yards of excess overburden requiring storage. Per the permit's approved overburden handling design, the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine proposes to ultimately return eighty percent (80%) of total swelled overburden material back to the mining bench. The average for approved AOC+ permits is approximately seventy percent (70%) being returned to the mine bench and thirty percent (30%) being placed in excess disposal sites (valley fills). Generally, the flatter the pre-mining terrain, the higher the percentage that can be returned to the bench becomes. Conversely, as terrain becomes steeper and ridgelines narrow, this percentage decreases. The Applicant's proposal falls within this observed range of reasonableness. Because as much overburden as practicable is proposed to be placed back on the mining bench, this alternative is eliminated from further consideration as a practicable alternative for all overburden storage. To the extent practicable, valley fills were located in areas previously impacted by mining and construction related activities and discharges. • Hauling Fill Off-Site Alternative

Approximately one hundred ten (110.0) million cubic yards of fill material would require hauling offsite via Pigeonroost Branch to eliminate the valley fills proposed in the Applicant’s PA (WVDEP S-5013-97, IBR 2). The Applicant evaluated hauling fill material off-site to the regraded Old Hickory operation located in the Beech Creek watershed as a possible alternative to construction of valley fills. This option would require construction of a 109-foot wide haulage route across the Pigeonroost Branch and Spruce Fork valleys that would accommodate two-way traffic due to the operating requirements of the equipment and the steep terrain. This route would be located in close proximity of local residents along these valley floors and would result in one-way haulage distances of over 40,000 feet (7.57 miles). In addition to this distance, the haulage equipment would be required to consistently traverse adverse grades of ten percent (10%). These factors would result in an additional trucking requirement of seven to eight (7-8) times the number of haulage units, additional capital investment and development costs, operating costs, and would exceed the real market value of the recovered reserves, while generating
2-30

an additional 9.07 million cubic yards of excess overburden that would require storage. The operating costs and increased expenditure of fossil fuels to operate the trucks required to transport this fill material, render this alternative impracticable from an environmental and cost/benefit standpoint. The Applicant also evaluated hauling fill material off-site to an adjacent permitted area in Seng Camp Creek controlled by the Applicant and to existing pre-SMCRA mining areas in close proximity to the proposed project, as well as on-site to contour mining benches. The Applicant controls the Mountain Laurel Complex which includes adjacent existing permitted areas (WVDEP Permits U-5031-97 and O5016-04) located in the Seng Camp Creek watershed, north of the proposed project area. WVDEP Permit U-5031-97 is for underground mining of the Alma and Cedar Grove coal seams and construction of the Cardinal Preparation Plant and railroad loadout and WVDEP Permit O-5016-04 is for the Daniel Hollow Coarse Refuse Facility in the same area. Disposal of excess spoil from the proposed project on WVDEP Permits U-5031-97 and O-5016-04 would interfere with the planned activities on these permits and would violate WVDEP permit regulations that prohibit placement of excess spoil from one permit onto another unless the receiving permit is specifically designed for that purpose, which WVDEP Permits U-5031-97 and O-5016-04 were not. • Fill Placement Alternative

Because excavated overburden has a greater volume than in its pre-mined state, it is not feasible to return the landscape to its exact pre-mining topography. Therefore, excess overburden must be placed in disposal areas adjacent to the mine operation in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Excavated material must be returned to the mined area and placed within designated excess overburden storage areas in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the WVDEP Final AOC/Fill Optimization Process Guidance Document (Appendix G) developed in accordance with the Bragg vs. Robertson Consent Decree (Appendix H). This document details an extensive yet reproducible method for determining valley fill locations such that fill sizes are optimized to reduce watershed impacts. The Final AOC/Fill Optimization Process Guidance Document is an extensive document detailing the proper procedure for valley fill design; however, the primary objectives and requirements of the procedure are to: 1. Develop a volumetric model that: a) Determines the maximum volume of overburden that can be returned to the area of mineral removal in a configuration that is stable, controls drainage, and prevents stream sedimentation. b) Determines the remaining volume that can be placed in excess overburden storage areas. The AOC Model requires that the excess overburden disposal fill be raised to an elevation above the lowest seam to be mined. This requirement results in additional backfill volume returned to the mined area, reducing the volume of excess overburden volume to be placed in the valley fills. This requirement is demonstrated by Figure 2-1, taken from the Guidance Document.

2-31

2. Evaluate each potential valley fill site within the proposed project area to achieve the most efficient placement of excess overburden. Each valley fill is evaluated to determine its excess overburden capacity per specified length. 3. Allocate or assign the total volume of excess overburden to the valley fills in descending order based on each valley fill’s relative efficiency. Relative efficiency is determined by cubic yards of material storage per foot. The result is the optimum placement of excess overburden in terms of cubic yards per acre of Excess Spoil Disposal Area. 4. Develop the final regrade configuration and excess overburden storage areas for the Mine Plan such that the final configuration does not exceed the Excess Spoil Disposal Acreage plus the acreage allowance developed in the AOC/ ESDA Model. While groups have advocated compaction of valley fills for the purpose of minimizing their volume, such an approach is not practicable. Studies indicate that physically compacting the overburden results in a minimal percent decrease in the volume of the valley fill compared to fill that is left to compact under its own weight as it is deposited (CBC, 2001).

ABKF – Additional Backfill MBR – Maximum Backfill Requirement TFE – Target Fill Elevation

Figure 2-1

WVDEP Final AOC/Fill Optimization Process Guidance Document – Excess Spoil Disposal

Source: WVDEP Final AOC/Fill Optimization Process Guidance Document (WVDEP Permit Handbook, Section 29). (Appendix G)

•

Valley Fill Location Alternative

Drainage areas within close proximity of the proposed project were investigated as potential valley fill locations. Part of this evaluation included a slope stability analysis predicated on §38CSR2 14.14.e.2, which states that fill material must be sufficiently compacted or otherwise mechanically stabilized so as to ensure stability with a static safety factor of 1.5. Candidate drainages immediately adjacent to the proposed project area were analyzed for slope sufficiency and stability. Valley fill locations were then
2-32

determined using the “ESDA Bank” Analysis procedure specified in the WVDEP Final AOC/Fill Optimization Process Guidance Document developed by WVDEP and OSM to optimize AOC reclamation and minimize excess overburden from mountaintop mining jobs. 2.4.2.3 Summary and Comparison of Alternatives

Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 were not considered to be reasonable or practicable alternatives. Alternative 3 and Alternative 7 were both considered to be practicable alternatives by Mingo Logan and by the USACE. Due to reasons discussed above, Mingo Logan selected Alternative 7 as its Preferred Alternative. Along with Alternative 7, Alternative 3 (original EIS submission), and the No Action Alternative were carried forward in the EIS for detailed study (see Chapter 3). Table 2-14 and Table 2-15 provide a summary and comparison of Alternatives 3 and 7 with respect to potential impacts to waters of the U.S., size of valley fills, and amount of disturbed acreage. In addition to the numerical criteria detailed in the tables, fulfillment of the project purpose and need, current mining technology, environmental and legal restrictions, rules, and regulations, and agency consultation were considered in selection of the Applicant’s PA. Table 2-14 Summary of Valley Fills and Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for Practicable Alternatives
Valley Fill Valley Fill Deck Fill Volume (Million Yrds3) Waters of the U.S. Channel Affected (Feet) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary Waters of the U.S. Channel Affected (Acres) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary 0.99 1.23 Total 12.84 8.83

Alternative 3 Alternative 7

Coalburg Upper Stockton

179.94 110.00

54,515 36,814

3,240 7,132

57,755 43,946

Total

Alternative

11.85 7.60

*Permanent impact includes jurisdictional water lengths/acres from the toe of the fill up to the upstream extent of waters of the U.S. (ordinary high water mark), including mined through areas.

2-33

Table 2-15 Summary of Proportion of Impacts to Marketable Tons for Practicable Alternatives
Linear Feet (LF) of Waters of the Acres U.S. Channel Impact per Disturbed per Marketable Marketable Marketable Ton Total Acres Case Tons (MT) of Ton (LF/MT) Disturbed Coal Description (AD/MT) (MMs) (AD) (MMs) (MMs) Permanent Total (PLF/MT) 2,914 51.53 56.54 1,121 1,058

Alternative

WVDEP Alternative 3 Permit S-501397, IBR 1 WVDEP Alternative 7 Permit S-501397, IBR 2
Note: MM = million.

2,278

40.91

55.68

1,074

882

Disturbed Acreage A useful tool for comparing mining alternatives is the ratio between the number of acres disturbed (AD) and the tonnage of marketable recoverable coal the alternative can produce (MT). This ratio is referred to as the AD/MT ratio, for “acres disturbed per million marketable tons” (Table 2-15). A low AD/MT ratio is one indicator of minimized temporary impacts resulting from an excavation activity; however, this factor should also be considered in conjunction with other factors such as the potential to re-effect the area in the future due to piece-meal extraction activities. Another consideration in evaluating alternatives is the amount of disturbed acreage (at a given time) during the active mine phases of the project. Reduced excavation rates typically associated with smaller scale equipment result in smaller areas of disturbance (at a given time) throughout the life of the project. Within this specific reserve body, dragline operations would produce greater excavation rates, which while complying with applicable performance standards (§38CSR2 14.15.b.6.B), would result in temporary exposure of larger areas of disturbance during a given phase compared to operations utilizing smaller scale equipment. Total Impacts to Waters of the U.S. The linear footage of potential impacts to waters of the U.S. were determined for each of the alternatives providing a basis for quantifying and evaluating the proportion of temporary and/or permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. to marketable tons of coal recoverable (LF/MT and/or PLF/MT)(Table 2-14). These ratios provide a fundamental basis for comparison of alternatives. Low LF/MT or PLF/MT ratios are indicators of avoidance and/or minimization of potential impacts to waters of the U.S. A comparison of Alternative 3 (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 1) and the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 7, WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2) demonstrates a reduction in the PLF/MT of the project from 1,058 linear feet/ton to 882 linear feet/ton through the most recent revision.

2-34

Tier 2.5 Protection The State of West Virginia additionally has an anti-degradation rule (60 CSR5) which outlines four (4) levels of protection for state waters: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2.5, and Tier 3. Tier 1 protection applies to all waters. Existing water uses and water quality necessary to maintain the existing uses must be protected for Tier 1 waters. This protection level must be applied to permit application reviews. The Tier 2 category is the default level of protection. Although all of West Virginia’s surface waters receive broad protection through the state’s water quality standards, explicit protection is proposed to be given to Tier 2.5 waters. The WVDEP has identified waters of special concern which are proposed to be provided Tier 2.5 protection. Tier 2.5 waters include naturally reproducing trout streams and WVDEP-determined reference streams or streams with a high biological score indicating high water quality. The list was developed by the WVDEP’s Division of Water Resources (DWR) and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). These “waters of special concern” originally include four hundred forty-four (444) streams covering over 2,000 miles across the state (WVDEP, 2002). No significant degradation of a Tier 2.5 stream will be permitted, although short-term (non-permanent) degradation may be allowed. At this time, the presumptive list (three hundred ninety-four [394] streams) does not include any of the streams within the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative project area (WVDEP, 2005). However, the proposed alternatives detailed in the previous sections differ in their impacts to White Oak Branch of Spruce Fork, a currently listed water of special concern. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 6, White Oak Branch of Spruce Fork would be directly impacted. Alternative 7 was designed to avoid direct impacts to White Oak Branch while maintaining adherence to the project purpose and AOC/Fill Optimization Process requirements. A more detailed description of Mingo Logan's Preferred Alternative is provided in the following sections. 2.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternatives were evaluated based upon their practicability. An alternative is practicable if it is available to the applicant and capable of being done after taking into consideration, cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of the stated overall project purpose. It is concluded constructing the proposed valley fills and associated sediment ponds as described under Alternative 7 and mitigating impacts to waters of the U.S., is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative. It would be expected the mitigation proposed to compensate for the adverse environmental impacts to aquatic resources would be commensurate with impacts associated with the preferred alternative. In accordance with state and local regulatory requirements, the applicant has included procedures to mitigate construction and operation related impacts to environmental resources. The proposed project would be located on a 2,278-acre site in the East District of Logan County, approximately two (2) miles northeast of Blair. The equipment proposed to be utilized in operation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine in the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative is listed in Table 2-16. The number of personnel to be employed at the operation is shown in Table 2-17. The estimated annual payroll for the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be approximately $13 million. In addition, taxation income to Logan County would be generated from real and personal property taxes, severance taxes, and sales taxes related to the mine.
2-35

As shown in Exhibit 2-9, the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would utilize the existing infrastructure at the Cardinal Preparation Plant Facility and Unit Train Loadout Facility located at the mouth of Seng Camp Creek for coal shipment. A truck dump and transfer facility would be constructed in Seng Camp Creek and a belt line would be extended from the Plant and Loadout complex to the truck dump facility. Table 2-16 Spruce No. 1 Mine Equipment
Equipment Item 54-cubic yard Electric Shovel 28-cubic yard Overburden Front-End Loader 15-cubic yard Overburden Front-End Loader 150-ton Overburden Haul Trucks 300-ton Overburden Haul Trucks Coal Front-End Loader D11 Production Dozers Utility Dozers Production Drills Coal Haul Trucks Motor Grader Water Trucks Miscellaneous Service Vehicles Other Mobile Equipment Number 1 1 1 6 12 10 6 12 5 15 3 3 20 4 Average Annual Operating Hours/Unit 4,140 4,580 4,580 4,580 4,140 4,580 4,140 4,140 4,580 4,580 4,580 4,580 4,580 4,140

Note: These are estimates only, variations may occur based on equipment availability.

Table 2-17 Spruce No. 1 Mine Employment
Time Frame Construction Period (Phase 1-2) 2 Operations Period (Peak Production-Phase 3-13) Closure and Final Reclamation Period (Phase 14-15)
1

Mingo Logan Employees 4 218 218

Contractors1 60 10 10

Total 64 228 228

The number of contractors working on the various construction projects in Phases 1 and 2 and throughout the life of the operation will vary widely. These numbers are estimates only. During Phase 2 of the construction period, the employee level will ramp up to peak employment levels. These numbers are estimates only.
2

As shown in Table 2-15, Alternative 7 would have the lowest PLF/MT ratio (882) of the two (2) remaining practicable on-site alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 7). Comparison of Exhibits 2-3 and 2-7 depicts the reduction in impacts to waters of the U.S. achieved in the development of Alternative 7. Notably, Alternative 7 would not impact White Oak Branch, and it represents an approximately seven
2-36

percent (7%) reduction in the acreage impacted within the mainstem of Pigeonroost Branch, as compared to the originally proposed project (Alternative 2). Alternative 7 would also disturb the fewest acres per ton of marketable coal (AD/MT of 55.68) of the two alternatives carried forward. Compared to the originally proposed project (Alternative 2), the Applicant’s PA represents a twenty-seven percent (27%) reduction in the overall acreage of land disturbance (2,278 acres vs. 3,113 acres, respectively) and a twenty-five percent (25%) reduction of the recoverable reserve base. This alternative would recover substantially fewer tons of coal than Alternative 2, but the Applicant has determined that the proposed operation as currently proposed would remain an economically viable alternative. For this project, the use of smaller equipment, as opposed to the dragline proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, would effect a reduction in temporary land disturbance acreages during any given phase. The reduced operation would afford flexibility, but also restrict the project to the performance standards set forth in §38CSR2 14.15.b.6.A, which restrict disturbed and unreclaimed areas, for operations not involving a dragline, to less than 500 acres during any stage of the proposed activity. Consequently, the Alternative 7 operations would generally have less land exposure at any given time. The percentage of disturbed and unreclaimed land to overall project area would be considerably lower for the Alternative 7 than for the original permit or IBR 1 (Alternatives 2 and 3). In addition, by not utilizing a dragline, the Alternative 7 operations would not require construction of a large access road along the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, thereby resulting in less disturbance. Alternative 7 was found, by Mingo Logan, to best meet the purpose and need of the project while minimizing, to the extent practicable, impacts to the human and natural environment. Alternative 7 has been selected as the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and will be referred to as such for the remainder of the EIS. Chapter 3 presents the affected environment and the environmental consequences of the Applicant’s PA, Alternative 3, and the No Action Alternative. Provided below is a detailed description of the proposed mining and reclamation plan associated with the Applicant’s PA. The mine plan or development sequence was designed to avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the U.S., to the extent reasonable and practicable, while meeting the stated project purpose. The proposed project would consist of the mountaintop mining of multiple seams of coal, including the Six-Block, Five-Block, Stockton, and Coalburg seams, and splits thereof, through the use of multiple units of “Truck-Shovel-Loader” equipment. As the proposed operation would consist of multiple coal seams being mined by multiple units of equipment, the mine plan was developed to maintain the “disturbed and unreclaimed acreage” at less than 500 acres, in compliance with §38CSR2 14.15.b.6.A. The operations would also include incidental contour mining of the Buffalo coal seam and incidental contour mining with auger/highwall/thin-seam extraction of the Coalburg coal seam in the proposed valley fill areas. Development of the coal seams would also include auger and/or highwall/thin-seam mining operations in areas unsuitable for development by other methods. The disturbance associated with the incidental contour operations are included in the “disturbed and unreclaimed acreage” shown for each mining phase and would also adhere to §38CSR2 14.15.b.6.A. The following sections, and Table 2-18 below, outline the mining and reclamation plan (Section N of S5013-97, IBR 2), which has been defined in fifteen (15) phases corresponding to individual 12-month

2-37

periods of project life, and includes planned disturbance and subsequent regrading and reclamation. Information presented in Attachment O-2 of S-5013-97, IBR 2 provides specific overburden balance information for the proposed project, as discussed below. Geologic cross-sections are presented in Exhibits 2-10 through 2-13 and the mining areas are illustrated in Exhibit 2-14 (Mining Area Locations). The extent of mining within an area or phase may vary due to market conditions, geologic conditions, etc.; however, it will be restricted to the areas identified within the mining and reclamation plan. Material placement locations utilized throughout this document refer to material transported or placed outside of the mining area from which it originates. Cast, push, and short haul dumps within the immediate mining area are included within the timing and sequence development of the mining and reclamation plan. Average annual production for the life of the operation is estimated at 27.64 million yards and 2.81 million tons per year. Each phase represents an approximate 12-month period at designed equipment production rates. In addition, each phase of the project is illustrated in Exhibits 2-15 through 2-18. Table 2-18 Summary of Surface Disturbance Area under the Mining and Reclamation Plan for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative
Phase No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Undisturbed (ac) 2,127.02 1,653.84 1,507.36 1,343.54 1,136.02 998.95 878.18 763.35 600.95 447.45 300.05 130.35 0 0 0 Disturbed and Unreclaimed (ac) 150.98 457.98 497.44 495.38 496.82 496.16 497.19 497.05 489.75 397.95 345.45 406.45 397.15 243.25 0 Ancillary Area (ac) 0 150.98 145.17 157.40 157.40 167.89 170.34 185.27 184.57 181.07 164.47 164.47 173.97 176.37 0 Regraded (ac) 0 15.2 128.03 281.68 487.76 615.00 732.29 832.03 1,002.73 1,251.53 1,468.03 1,576.53 1,706.88 1,858.38 2,278.00 Total Disturbed (ac) 150.98 624.16 770.64 934.46 1,141.98 1,279.05 1,399.82 1,514.35 1,677.05 1,830.55 1,977.95 2,147.45 2,278.00 2,278.00 2,278.00 Ratio% * 6.6% 20.1% 21.8% 21.7% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 21.5% 17.5% 15.2% 17.8% 17.4% 10.7% 0.0%

*Represents the percentage of the total project area (2,278 acres) that is both disturbed and unreclaimed at the end of the phase (ancillary areas are exempt). For non-dragline operations, this percentage is limited for any given point in time to less than thirty-five percent (35%) (§38CSR2 14.15.b.6.A); dragline operations are not restricted in this way.

The proposed project area would not result in the relocation of any roads and/or utilities with the exception of the closure of one (1) gas well (Jackson Resources API #450-0299) and associated 2-inch gas line located within the confines of proposed Valley Fill 4 and the relocation of the 4-inch
2-38

transmission line that the 2-inch line feeds. The 2-inch line connecting the gas well to the 4-inch transmission line would be removed and the 4-inch line would be relocated to below the toe of the fill and around proposed Pond 4. Mingo Logan has agreed to purchase the gas well and would have the well plugged and lines abandoned and/or relocated prior to the activation of the valley fill which would occur during Phase 4. Exhibit 2-19 shows the current location of the gas well and associated gas lines, as well as the approximate location proposed for relocation. The proposed project area is depicted in Exhibit 2-7. The area of new surface disturbance and disturbed/not reclaimed area associated with the project during the individual phases is shown in Table 2-18. As a result of sequential backfilling of the mining areas and concurrent reclamation, the maximum acreage of mining disturbance at any given time during the mine operations would be approximately 683 acres in Phase 8, which includes the disturbed unreclaimed acreage and the ancillary areas within the project area (i.e. exempt areas - ponds, roads, office area, and support facilities areas). For the purposes of this discussion, the activities associated with the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine are addressed in three (3) general phases: • • • Construction or development activities (primarily in Phases 1 and 2 of the mining and reclamation plan); Operations or steady-state mining activities (primarily in Phases 3-13); and Closure and final reclamation activities (primarily in Phases 14 and 15).

The mining phases are not mutually exclusive, and various activities associated with each phase would occur concurrently in different portions of the project area. The three (3) general phases are discussed in detail in the following sections. 2.5.1 2.5.1.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2) Phase 1

Upon receipt of all required local, State, and Federal permits, Mingo Logan would commence development of the mine. Development activities and mine components developed during the initial phase are described below. Development would start in the Pigeonroost Branch watershed and would be accessed utilizing existing County Route 17/13, which extends to the project boundary. Initial development would consist of construction of Ponds 2 and 3. Concurrently, construction of Access Road 2 would be initiated with associated clearing and removal of vegetative material within the construction area. Upon construction of Pond 3, excavation would commence on Access Road 2 with excavated material being hauled to and placed within the lower fifty (50)-foot lift of Valley Fill 3. Placement of this material would be necessary to construct Access Road 2 to the designed grade and configuration. Construction would progress in a westerly direction until Access Road 2 is completed. Concurrent with construction of Access Road 2, additional construction would be on-going in the Pigeonroost Branch area. This construction would consist of developing the office and warehouse area to grade and developing access to the toe area of Valley Fills 2A and 2B, where clearing and grubbing activities would be initiated. Pond 2A would be constructed during this stage in the development.

2-39

Within the perimeter of Valley Fill 2A, construction would continue to advance in an easterly direction with the construction of Temporary Haulroad 2A. Temporary Haulroad 2A would be constructed by developing a “primitive” access road for equipment to move to the head of the Fourth (4th) Unnamed Right Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch. From this location, access around the head of Pigeonroost Branch would be accomplished by utilizing an existing pre-SMCRA contour mine bench along the Stockton seam horizon. Reconstruction of the mine bench within Area 2 and Area 2A (as shown on Exhibit 2-14) would begin with continued development of Temporary Haulroad 2A. Material excavated from within these areas during this phase would be utilized to develop a durable road surface on the existing pre-SMCRA contour bench or placed within the lower fifty (50)-foot lift Valley Fills 2A and 2B. Construction of Temporary Haulroad 2A would progress along the Middle Coalburg seam horizon, in a westerly direction to a location near the proposed final crest of Valley Fill 2A, where the road will leave the Middle Coalburg seam elevation and ramp over the ridgeline separating the right hand fork of the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek from Pigeonroost Branch and tie into Haulroad 1. As construction of the Temporary Haulroad 2A progresses in the Valley Fill 2A area, additional construction activities would be initiated in the First (1st) Unnamed Right Tributary of the Right Fork of Seng Camp. This development would start with construction of Pond 1AB. Upon completion of construction of Pond 1AB, construction of Haulroad 2 would be initiated along the Middle Coalburg seam horizon near the head of Valley Fill 1A. From this location, construction would progress in a northerly direction and would complete construction of the proposed coal truck dump and transfer facility to the operating grade. 2.5.1.2 Phase 2 Phase 2 would commence within the areas of Valley Fills 2A and 2B with contour and auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining of the Buffalo coal seam. Concurrently, Middle Coalburg contour and auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining within the confines of Valley Fill 2A would be initiated near the head of Pigeonroost Branch and would advance along both flanks of Valley Fill 2A with the generated overburden being placed in the lower lift of Valley Fill 2A by dumping and/or pushing from the Middle Coalburg seam elevation. The second unit would move from contour and auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining of the Buffalo seam within the confines of Valley Fill 2B (Area 3A) to contour mining of the Coalburg seam within the confines of Valley Fill 2A (Area 2A) with development beginning along the eastern edge of Area 2A and progressing in a westerly direction into and through Valley Fill 2B until contour and auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining of the Middle Coalburg reserve has been completed. Excavation of overburden on the Upper Stockton seam within the project area would start in Area 3 during this phase with excavated overburden being placed in Valley Fill 2A. 2.5.1.3 Surface Water Control Facilities

Surface water control facilities would be constructed prior to any disturbance associated with other project components to provide runoff and sediment control from disturbed areas, including the initial mining areas and infrastructure or support facilities construction areas. These facilities would include a
2-40

combination of diversion ditches, sediment ponds, and other control structures or techniques designed to minimize erosion and control surface water volumes and quality discharged from the site. Exhibit 220 shows each of the structures that would be constructed during the initial project phase prior to any mining within the proposed project area. The drainage control structures for the project have been designed to minimize sediment discharges into waters of the U.S. downstream of the structures. Before disturbance of the fill areas, the required drainage control structure(s) would be constructed and certified. Drainage control structures have been designed to provide 0.125 acre-feet of storage capacity for each acre of disturbance controlled by the structure. The drainage control plan for the proposed project includes diversion ditches, drainage ditches, durable rockfill channels, underdrains, flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures, and drainage control ponds. Runoff from the mining area would be routed through drainage and erosion control channels, leading into drainage control structures (ponds) providing drainage control for overburden backfill areas. Potential runoff from the valley fills would be controlled by in-stream ponds placed near the toes of the valley fills. As required by the State 401 Water Quality Certification, the drainage control structures (ponds) would be located as close as practicable to the toes of the proposed valley fills. The drainage control structures (ponds) are required to control drainage only for the faces of the valley fills. Each structure would be placed and constructed according to the requirements set forth in the approved WVDEP permits (SMA, Section 401, and Section 402 permits). The proposed operation would utilize two (2) existing sediment ponds (Ponds 1 and 2 associated with the existing WVDEP Permit S-5070-91). In addition, structures that would be constructed during this initial phase would include: • • Ponds 1-3A, 1AB, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3; and Temporary sediment ditches 2A-1 through 2A-3, 2B-1 through 2B-7 and part of sediment ditch 2-7.

Other control structures or techniques that would be utilized include the following Best Management Practices (BMPs): • • • • • • • Riprap channels; Check dams or low-sill weirs with plantings of wetland vegetation in the retention areas; Temporary vegetation in diversions; Booms (i.e., floating tubular devices with submerged curtain which route water in ponds) to prevent short-circuiting of surface water control facilities; Chemical treatment, if needed, to maintain receiving water quality; Managed discharges of ponds to control flow; and Haulroad sumps.

There are twenty-four (24) outfalls (discharge locations) proposed from the drainage control system to downstream drainages. During the initial stage of mining, three (3) NPDES outfalls (Outfall 001, 002, and 004) would be constructed. Outfall 001 would involve discharges of effluent from the in-stream series of Ponds 2, 2A, 2B, and 2C, of which Pond 2 is the most downstream structure, into Pigeonroost Branch of Spruce Fork. Outfall 002 would involve discharges of effluent from Pond 3, which discharges into the First (1st) Unnamed Right Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch of Spruce Fork. Outfall 014 would
2-41

involve discharges of effluent from Sediment Ditch 1-3A to Seng Camp Creek of Spruce Fork. Spruce Fork then flows into the Coal River. These outfalls would discharge mine drainage from the associated mining areas within the project area. Discharges from the surface water control system would be monitored by Mingo Logan as required by the approved NPDES permit conditions to control the quality of water released to local drainages. Water quality and flow parameters to be monitored at the outfalls include flow, total suspended solids, total iron, total dissolved solids, aluminum, selenium, manganese, and pH. Additional monitoring would occur in both receiving drainages below the outfall points to satisfy the requirements of the Section 401 and 402 permits. This monitoring would include quarterly and annual sampling for a broader suite of physical and chemical parameters. As mining progresses throughout the project area, the drainage control structures would be constructed prior to disturbance within each of the receiving drainage areas. Exhibits 2-21 and 2-22 show the locations of all of the drainage control structures proposed to be constructed as part of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. 2.5.1.4 Clearing and Grubbing Once control structures (ponds) have been constructed, removal of trees and vegetation would be completed utilizing clearing and grubbing equipment. All areas needed for support facilities, infrastructure, and the initial areas of disturbance proposed in the initial mining phase would be cleared. Within the proposed project area, all areas proposed to be disturbed would be cleared, incrementally, and all of the trees, brush, shrubs would be windrowed and burned during the approved burning season or with a permit from the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) for controlled burning during the fire seasons. Within the proposed valley fills, all areas within which the fill material is to be placed would be progressively cleared of all trees, brush, and shrubs, with all organic material removed from the critical toe foundation area. The critical toe foundation would be defined as the area within the first two (2) lifts (fifty [50] feet per lift) of the proposed valley fill. This material would be disposed of by burning, mulching, or other approved methods, within the limits of the valley fill. Any residual organic material remaining after disposal operations, which could affect the stability of the valley fill, would be removed from the footprint of the valley fill. Topsoil in the majority of the project area is very thin due to the steep slopes and stability analyses performed indicate that it need not be removed or handled specially. 2.5.1.5 Topsoil Salvage and Stockpiling Under the Applicant’s PA (approved WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2), a topsoil substitute is proposed to be utilized during reclamation of the project area. The existing topsoil, which is very thin within the project area, would however be salvaged or stockpiled, to the extent practicable, for redistribution along with the topsoil substitute during reclamation.

2-42

2.5.1.6

Mine Utilities Construction

Electrical Power Supply Power supply for the proposed office and warehouse facilities area would be provided by extending the existing American Electric Power (AEP) distribution lines from the mouth of Pigeonroost Branch to the office and warehouse location. Power for the truck dump and transfer facilities and the internal mining areas would be supplied from the Applicant’s adjacent 46-kV substation at the Cardinal Preparation Plant Facility and Unit Train Loadout Facility located near the mouth of Seng Camp Creek of Spruce Fork. Distribution lines would be constructed between the substation and the truck dump area and transmission lines would then traverse internally throughout the project area as needed. Telephone Service Telephone service would be provided to the proposed office and warehouse facilities for the Spruce No. 1 Mine by extending phone lines from the main phone lines located along Spruce Fork up Pigeonroost Branch to the proposed office and warehouse structures. These lines would be extended in conjunction with the power lines that would supply power to the proposed office and warehouse. Phone lines would then traverse internally throughout the project area as needed. Water Supply Separate water supplies would be used at the Spruce No. 1 Mine to service potable and non-potable needs. Potable water would be obtained from the local municipal water supplier. Mingo Logan plans to provide the water supply for non-potable uses from on-site drainage control structures that would be constructed as part of the mining operation. Non-potable water would be required for various applications, including dust control on haul roads and the truck dump and transfer facilities. Water supply facilities for non-potable water would include pipelines, pumps, water storage tanks, elevated discharge structures for loading water trucks, and associated power supplies and control systems for each particular use and area. Those systems associated with dust suppression activities would be relocated as necessary throughout the life of the mine to facilitate efficient road watering throughout the project area. Wastewater Collection and handling of wastewater associated with both potable and non-potable water supplies would be completed in accordance with applicable permits and building codes. Two general types of wastewater would be produced by operations at the Spruce No. 1 Mine: sewage (treated) and runoff from operations or watering facilities (untreated). Treatment of sewage from the office and warehouse facilities would be provided by an approved system. This system would be designed and constructed to comply with all applicable local and state regulations to ensure groundwater protection. Lavatory facilities within the active mining area would be provided by portable facilities supplied by a contractor who would maintain and properly dispose of any waste generated from the portable lavatories in compliance with all applicable local and state regulations to ensure groundwater protection. Wastewater associated with proposed operations and watering facilities would be collected by the drainage control structures (ditches, diversions, and ponds) that would be built during the initial operations to control all runoff from the project area. Discharge of excess water would be occur
2-43

through outfalls in compliance with NPDES permit conditions and would not be anticipated to require treatment to comply with water quality standards. In conjunction with proper maintenance procedures, solids retained in the drainage control structures would be removed prior to structure reaching sixty percent (60%) capacity and disposed in the mine pit or backstack areas of the project. 2.5.1.7 Transportation

Within the operating area of the Applicant’s PA, the project will use several primary roadways, including Haulroads 1 and 2, Temporary Haulroad 2A, and Access Road 2, for access and internal coal haulage. Haulroad designs, including typical profiles and cross-sections, are included in Section Q of the Applicant’s Surface Mine Application (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2). Haulroads 1 and 2 are located in the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek area, while Temporary Haulroad 2A is located at the head of Pigeonroost Branch. Access Road 2 extends from Spruce Fork along Pigeonroost Branch to the toe of proposed Valley Fills 2A and 2B. This road would be used as general access for employees and suppliers to the office and warehouse facilities located along Pigeonroost Branch, as well as to the actual mine operations. Coal from the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area would be transported to the existing Cardinal Preparation Plant Facility and Unit Train Loadout Facility near the mouth of Seng Camp Creek via Temporary Haulroad 2A and Access Road 2, internally, and by a segment of SR17 during the initial construction phase of the project only. Once constructed, transportation of coal from the project area to the processing facilities would be internally along Haulroad 2 and/or to the truck dump and transfer facility which would then be belted to the plant. Haulroads 1 and 2, Access Road 2, and Temporary Haulroad 2A The access/haulroads would be constructed during the initial mining phase (Phase 1) and would provide haulage routes for the transportation of the coal throughout the project life. Temporary Haulroad 2A would be eliminated as mining progresses to the south and Valley Fill 2A is filled. The location of these structures can be seen in Exhibit 2-9. The running surface of the proposed haulroads would average forty (40) feet, to allow for the passage of off-road haulage trucks while the Access Road 2 would average thirty (30) feet in width. Gradient of the access/haulroads would range between one-half and ten percent (0.5% and 10%). The roads would be surfaced with a durable, non-toxic material. Ditch relief culverts would be installed along the roads at a thirty degree (30o) angle downgrade with a minimum grade of three percent (3%). These ditches have been designed to convey runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Upon completion of construction, all primary roads would be certified by a registered professional engineer. Any exception to the approved plans would be noted, with a description of the deviation in both the certification and as-built plans submitted. Operation and maintenance procedures would consist of keeping a durable surface and keeping ditches and sumps clean. The roads and drainage control structures would be inspected monthly and after all major storm activity. Additionally, dust would be suppressed through the watering utilizing a water truck with a sprinkler system. The roads would be maintained to meet the performance standards of the WVSMMR (38CSR2).

2-44

2.5.1.8

Ancillary Support Facilities

Offices and Maintenance Area The proposed office and warehouse area would initially provide office space for mine employees. In addition, as the mining advances and regraded area is made available, a mine maintenance area would be developed with an additional warehousing area, maintenance area, fuel islands, parking area, and storage area. The exact location of the facilities would be determined once mining has begun. Infrequently Used Access Roads Infrequently used access roads would be constructed at the mine site to facilitate construction of and future access to the proposed drainage control structures at the toes of Valley Fills 1B and 4. The infrequently used access roads are shown on Exhibit 2-9. Maintenance of the infrequently used access roads would be conducted to prevent erosion and related degradation of the waters within the project area through increased suspended solids which could impact transitory wildlife which have strayed from their adjacent habitat. The roads would be inspected as necessary to ensure proper maintenance. Proper damage control measures would be utilized for the access roads. Ditches which would handle a 10-year, 24-hour storm event would be provided. Ditch relief culverts, which would also handle a 10-year, 24-hour storm event, would be installed, where necessary, to ensure proper drainage of surface water beneath or through the access road. Culverts would cross the access road at a thirty degree (30°) angle downgrade with a minimum grade of three percent (3%) from inlet to outlet. However, any culverts installed in connection with stream crossing would be straight to coincide with normal flow in that reach. The culvert openings would have an area of one hundred (100) square inches or greater and would be capable of transmitting a peak discharge of a 10-year, 24-hour storm event within the contributing watershed. In addition, the culverts would receive the necessary maintenance to ensure proper operation at all times. Fuel and Lubricant Storage Gasoline and diesel fuel would be stored on-site in above-ground storage tanks to provide fuel for mine vehicles and equipment. These tanks would be located at the mine maintenance area and would be installed within proper spill containment structures to allow for identification and containment of accidental spills, in accordance with an approved site specific Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. Hydraulic fluid and lubricants (i.e., oil and grease) would be stored and used on-site for vehicle maintenance. The estimated number and size of fuel and lubricant storage tanks are provided in Table 2-19. The total number and capacity of tanks to be used at the Spruce No. 1 Mine have not yet been designed. These materials would be transported to the site in accordance with the requirements of the WVDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and would be handled and stored in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Waste oils and lubricants would be shipped to a licensed recycler both during construction and operation.

2-45

Table 2-19 Fuel and Lubricant Tank Storage
Fuel/Lubricant Diesel Gasoline 15W-40 Antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol) 85W-140 Gear Oil 10W Oil 30W Oil 50W Oil 90W Oil Dexron Waste Oil Anhydrous Ammonia Number of Tanks 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Tank Size (gallons) 20,000 10,000 6,000 15,000 1,500 500 4,000 500 2,000 1,000 6,000 6,000

*Number and capacity of tanks are estimates only based on operations with similar equipment fleets.

Refuse and Solid Waste Disposal During construction and operation, all non-hazardous wastes would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable State and Federal regulations, as well as any waste disposal permits or registrations issued for the site. Non-hazardous wastes could include paper, wood, bricks, stones, concrete, fencing materials, and other waste materials. Fencing and Site Security During the construction phase, fencing, gates, earthen berms, and appropriate signage would be installed to restrict public access to the proposed project area. These security measures would be maintained throughout the life of the project to restrict public access. Mingo Logan would have employee or contract security personnel continuously on-site throughout construction and operation. Outside Storage Mingo Logan support facilities would include outside storage of large equipment parts, wire rope, electrical trailing cable, pallets of consumable parts, conveyor belting, idlers and drums, tires, buckets, and other large repair or spare equipment needed for normal operations. The storage areas would be located at the mine warehouse and/or maintenance areas and would be graded to control storm water drainage, finished with a graveled surface, and fenced for security. Parking Employee, contractor, and visitor parking areas would be part of the support facilities area. Equipment parking also would be constructed adjacent to the proposed maintenance facilities. These sites would be graded to control storm water drainage and graveled, as required.

2-46

Lighting The facility’s areas would be equipped with lighting for safety and security reasons. Mobile light plants would be used in the active pit areas, as required by Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), to provide for night-time mining activity. 2.5.1.9 Bituminous Coal Handling System During the construction phase (Phases 1 and 2 of the mining and reclamation plan), the haulroads and truck dump and transfer facilities would be constructed. The truck dump and transfer facilities have been designed to accommodate delivery of the anticipated annual coal production. The coal handling system would include the following: • • • • • • • Two (2) truck dump stations; Two (2) crusher stations; Two (2) transfer conveyors, one (1) to the Cardinal Preparation Plant’s raw coal stockpile and one (1) to the clean coal stockpiles; Dust control equipment; Two (2) stockpiles; Two (2) sampling systems; and Two (2) on-line analysis systems.

2.5.1.10 Initial Mining Area The initial mining area for the proposed project would be areas in the uplands of the Pigeonroost Branch watershed. These areas would include Area 2, Area 2B, and Area 3 as shown in Exhibit 2-14. Development of these areas is described in the construction phase details (Section 2.5.1). From the development of this initial mining area and the construction of the access/haulroads, mining of the remaining reserves would advance to both the north and south as described in the mining and reclamation phases of the general operations phase. 2.5.1.11 Utility and Road Relocations Utilities As shown in Exhibit 2-19, only one gas well and associated lines would be affected by the proposed project. One gas well (Jackson Resources API #450-0299) and associated 2-inch gas line located within the confines of proposed Valley Fill 4 would be removed and the 4-inch transmission line that the 2-inch line feeds would be relocated to below the toe of proposed Pond 4. Mingo Logan has agreed to purchase the gas well and would have the well plugged and lines abandoned and/or relocated prior to the activation of the valley fill which would occur during Phase 4. Public Roads There would not be any state or county roads relocated as a result of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine.

2-47

2.5.2

OPERATIONS PHASE

The operations phase of the proposed project would include activities associated with normal mining operations through full production to commencement of planned closure and reclamation. The operations phase primarily includes Phases 3 through 13 of the mining and reclamation plan; a description of these phases is included in the following paragraphs. Phase 3 Mining and development would continue within Area 3 while development progresses concurrently into and through Area 3A and into Area 4. Material from development in Areas 3A and 4 would be placed within Valley Fill 2B. Excess overburden from the continued mining on Area 3 would be placed in Valley Fill 2A. Phase 4 As mining progresses within Area 3, Pond 4 would be constructed. Following construction of Pond 4, development of the Buffalo B seam through contour and auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining within the confines of Valley Fill 4 would begin. Access into the area for coal transportation and equipment access would be accomplished by constructing a series of temporary internal haul roads to the on-going mining within Area 4. Primary mining activities would be on-going in Areas 2A, 3, 3A, and 4 during this operational phase of the project. Continued production of excess overburden would be placed within Valley Fills 2A and 2B during this phase. Phase 5 This phase of the operation reflects the completion of mining activities within Area 3 with the equipment that would have been operating within Area 3 relocating into Area 4. Continued development of the lower contour mining cuts within the confines of Valley Fill 4 would continue in advance of placement of excess overburden from the mining on upper seam horizons. Primary overburden placement during this phase would continue within Valley Fill 2B and would be hauled back into previously mined Area 3. Initial placement of excess overburden within Valley Fill 4 would be initiated from the upper horizon mining in Area 4. Dumping or pushing from the Stockton horizon mining at the head of the hollow would place this material into the valley fills. Phase 6 During this phase, mining activities would be primarily focused within Area 4. Primary overburden placement during this phase would be into previously mined Area 3 and Valley Fill 2A. Excess overburden from Area 4 mining within the Valley Fill 4 watershed would be placed in Valley Fill 4. In addition, a contour cut would be established on the Coalburg horizon in Area 4 to provide haulage access to the lower seam horizons within the area and to provide additional drainage control. Excess overburden from the contour cut would be placed within Valley Fills 2B and 3. Phase 7 This phase reflects a progression of the area mining activities in Area 4. Excess overburden generated during this phase would be primarily placed into Valley Fill 4 with a portion of the excess overburden hauled to Valley Fill 2B and previously mined Area 3.
2-48

Phase 8 In Phase 8, operations would progress along the northern flank of Valley Fill 4 in Area 4 with material from this excavation being placed primarily within Valley Fills 3 and 4. A portion of the excess overburden would be placed in previously mined Area 3. Phase 9 This phase of the operation reflects final extraction/mining activities within the ridge north of Valley Fill 4 with continued development in Area 4 south of the valley fill. Excess overburden generated during this phase would be placed within Valley Fill 4 and in previously mined portions of Area 4. Phase 10 Operations would continue within Area 4 south of Valley Fill 4 with the excess overburden being placed in previously mined areas of Area 4 during this phase. Concurrently, mining operations would be initiated within Area 2 north of Pigeonroost Branch. The initiation of mining activities in Area 2 would be projected to occur during the latter third of this phase. Excess overburden from the Area 2 mining would be placed within Valley Fills 2A and 1B. Phase 11 Extraction activities would be completed in Area 4 south of Valley Fill 4 during this phase. Development would continue in the area north of Pigeonroost Branch progressing from Area 2. Excess overburden from mining in Area 2 would be placed primarily into Valley Fills 2A and 1B with some limited material being placed in Valley Fill 1A. Phase 12 Mining operations would continue to progress in a westerly direction in Area 2 during this phase. Excess overburden from mining activities during this phase would be placed in Valley Fill 1A and in previously mined Area 2. Phase 13 This phase would consist of final extraction activities within Area 2 while mining would be initiated in Area 1. Excess overburden from this phase would be placed in Area 2 and the upper lifts of Valley Fill 1A. The following sections describe the routine mining activities associated with this phase, as well as associated infrastructure modifications, maintenance activities, and concurrent reclamation activities required at the mine. 2.5.2.1 Surface Water Control Facilities

Before and during operations, Mingo Logan would use BMPs to limit erosion and reduce sediment transport as a result of storm water runoff from proposed project facilities and disturbance areas. These BMPs may include, but would not be limited to, installation of erosion control devices such as sediment traps, silt fences, straw bales, and rock or gravel cover. In addition to the diversion ditches and sediment control ponds installed during the construction phase, a series of additional diversions and sediment control ponds would be constructed incrementally over the life of the project to divert and

2-49

route storm water and control sediment in surface water runoff from lands newly disturbed during advancement of the mine pits (see Exhibits 2-21 and 2-22). The design, construction, and operation of these facilities would be the same as those described in Section 2.5.1.3, Surface Water Control Facilities (Construction Phase). Structures that would be constructed during various periods of the project during the operational phase (beyond those already listed in Section 2.5.1.3) include the following: • • Pond 4 – Phase 4 Temporary sediment ditches (throughout the operations phase) 1-6, 1-7, 1-10, 3-2, 3-3, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 • Sediment ditches (throughout the operations and closure and reclamation phases) 1-5, 1-8, 1- 9, 1-12, 2-2, through 2-7, 2A-3, 2B-1, 4-3, 5-1 through 5-7, 6-1 through 6-3, 7-1 through 7-7, and 8-1 through 8-3 • Regrade perimeter/sediment ditches (throughout the operations and closure and reclamation phases) 1-6, 1-7, 1-10, 1-11, 2A-1, 2A-2, 2B-2, 3-2, and 4-2 • Regrade perimeter ditches (throughout the operations and closure and reclamation phases) 1-4A1, 1-4A2, 1-4B1, 1-4B2, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4, 1-6, 1-7, 1-10, 1-11 2A-1, 2A-2, 2B-2, 3-2, and 4-2 Additionally, all of the proposed valley fills would be constructed with rock rip-rapped groin ditches that would be constructed as each of the associated valley fill faces are reclaimed during the life of the operation. 2.5.2.2 Clearing and Grubbing

Clearing and grubbing to remove trees and vegetation would be conducted incrementally in advance of benching and drilling activities. Vegetative material would be windrowed and burnt. 2.5.2.3 Topsoil Removal and Replacement

Under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (approved WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2), a topsoil substitute is proposed to be utilized during reclamation of the project area. The existing topsoil, which is very thin within the project area, would however be salvaged or stockpiled, to the extent practicable, for redistribution along with the topsoil substitute during reclamation. 2.5.2.4 Haul and Access Road Construction Haulroads would be extended internally to the mining pits to facilitate continued mining. Additionally, access roads would also be constructed incrementally to provide access for clearing, benching, and drilling activities. Haulroads internal to the active mining areas would be continually changing. These roads would be surfaced and maintained in accordance with the appropriate regulations. The access/haulroads would be designed, installed, and maintained in the same manner as discussed in Section 2.5.1.7, Transportation and Section 2.5.1.9, Bituminous Coal Handling System, respectfully.

2-50

2.5.2.5

Overburden and Inter-burden Removal

The mining pits within the mineral removal areas would be of varying lengths and widths. Benches of varying heights would be established to coincide with the various overburden and interburden strata above each of the seams to be mined. The equipment listed in Table 2-16 would be utilized during the life of the operation for overburden and interburden removal. In addition, mobile equipment such as dozers, graders, backhoes, end-dump trucks, and front-end loaders also may be used to prepare and load coal seams for transport to the plant and loadout facilities. Sequential overburden and interburden removal and pit backfilling would continue throughout the life of the mine as demonstrated in the mining and reclamation plan from approved WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2. Mingo Logan's handling plan for overburden and interburden has been developed to ensure segregation of suitable topsoil substitutes and for blending and/or isolation of potentially acid-producing and/or toxic materials naturally occurring within these geologic materials. Core samples have been collected and analyzed to identify the suitable topsoil substitute materials within the geologic interval proposed to be disturbed. The potentially acid-producing and/or toxic materials encountered would be appropriately handled. Based on the drill hole acid-base accounting information (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, Section I), there is an excess of neutralization potential available in the units to be excavated by the mining operation. The Applicant proposes to blend the potentially toxic materials with those units having an excess neutralization potential. This is and would be accomplished by the mixing occurring during the excavation process. Care would be exercised to ensure that the overburden is placed such that the potentially acid-toxic material would be blended with equal or greater volumes of material having an excess neutralization potential. In addition, prior to activation and mining within the proposed project area, the WVDEP has required the Applicant to conduct additional drilling within the project boundary to test for selenium. Any strata identified as having a concentration of selenium in excess of 1 mg/kg would be placed in isolation zones as described above. This does not apply to the coal seams that would be mined, which would be excavated and removed from the site. Materials, such as pit cleaning, partings, and selenium-enriched strata, not suitable for blending would be segregated during the mining process and isolated within the backstack areas. A minimum of ten (10) feet of non-toxic, non-acid producing material would be utilized for construction of a pad to separate the isolation cell from the pavement. A minimum of twenty (20) feet of separation would be used between acid/toxic material and the highwall. A minimum of four (4) feet of non toxic, non-acid producing, impervious material would be utilized to cover the isolation cell followed by at least ten (10) feet of ordinary backfill. Overburden and interburden material would be expected to swell to a loose volume of twenty-five percent (25%) greater than its in-place volume after excavation. The proposed regrade configuration has been designed to meet all regulatory requirements with regard to reclamation to the approximate original contour.

2-51

2.5.2.6

Bituminous Coal Mining and Transport

Mingo Logan plans to use backhoes and/or front-end loaders to prepare and load the coal into off-road, end-dump haul trucks (or on-road coal haul trucks during initial construction phase). The coal seams to be mined would not require blasting to be loaded. The off-road haul trucks would transport the coal to designated temporary stockpiles within the mining area or to the truck dump and transfer facilities, while on-road trucks would haul coal directly to the processing facilities along a segment of SR17, although haulage on public roads would only be conducted during the initial construction phase. 2.5.2.7 Bituminous Coal Handling System

The bituminous coal stockpile/blending system is described in Section 2.5.1.9, Bituminous Coal Handling System (Construction Phase). The truck dump and transfer facility constructed during the two year construction phase of the project would be connected to the plant and loadout facilities by a conveyor belt system. This facility would include a two (2) truck dumps, two (2) crushers, and two (2) stockpiles. The truck dump crushers would become the primary crushers for the mine. In addition to the truck dump and transfer facilities, there would be temporary stockpile areas for placement of coal during periods of downtime for the truck dump facilities. Although the location of the stockpiles would be continually moving due to the dynamics of the mining and reclamation of the project area, all bituminous coal stockpiles would incorporate appropriate erosion control measures, such as diversion channels and/or berms around the stockpiles to prevent storm water runoff entering from surrounding areas and erosion from overland runoff from the stockpiles. BMPs, such as silt fences or staked straw bales, also may be used to control sediment transport. All perimeter disturbances would be stabilized, revegetated in accordance with the specifications in the project's mining and reclamation plan, and maintained through BMPs. All coal stockpiles would be removed either as part of the mining process or during final reclamation. To control fugitive dust emissions from the truck dump and transfer facility, the area would be inspected for problems. Water and/or chemical sprays would be used at the truck dump and transfer points to control dust. In addition, crushers would be equipped with a dust suppression system. The coal would be transferred from the project area to the plant and loadout facilities through a beltline. 2.5.2.8 Equipment and Site Maintenance

Mingo Logan would conduct routine maintenance and repair of mine production and support equipment throughout the life of the operation. Cranes, maintenance vehicles, boom trucks, welding equipment, and service trucks would be used, as appropriate, for these tasks. Maintenance activities would include the use of lubricants, hydraulic fluids, engine coolants, and other fluids used in the industry. Handling and containment would be conducted in compliance with safety and health regulations and according to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations for storage and transport of these fluids. Mingo Logan personnel would be trained in the proper handling methods and clean-up requirements and would implement such requirements should a spill occur. Site maintenance would be completed on a routine and seasonal basis and would include: inspection and repair of drainage and sediment control facilities and installed erosion controls; routine grading and related landform maintenance to maintain site drainage patterns; the cleanout and disposal of sediment
2-52

from sediment ponds and ditches; and the resurfacing of roads, as needed. Mingo Logan would use Mingo Logan employees and/or outside contractors and equipment for these tasks. 2.5.2.9 Utilities Section 2.5.1.11, Utility and Road Relocations (Construction Phase), details the only utility closure and relocation associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine; no additional such activities would be performed during the operations phase. Public Roads There would not be any state or county roads relocated as a result of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine. 2.5.3 CLOSURE AND RECLAMATION Reclamation would be initiated following the construction phase and excavation of the initial mining area and would continue concurrently with mining operations throughout the life of the project through final closure. The projected reclamation schedule for the Spruce No. 1 Mine and reclaimed areas (seeded and graded) by year are shown in Table 2-20. The general sequence of mining and reclamation activities is depicted in Exhibits 2-15 through 2-18, (Mining and Reclamation Phase Maps). Reclamation would be performed as backfilling of an area is completed as contemporaneously as practicable. Restoration of the ground surface to the approximate original contour is required by the WVDEP coal mining regulations and is conceptually designed in the Mingo Logan’s WVDEP Permit S5013-97, IBR 2. Reclamation for the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would include both short-term and long-term goals for the project area. The short-term goals would include soil stabilization and maintenance of vegetative cover, providing for safety. The primary objective of revegetation would be the rapid establishment of ground cover for erosion control purposes. The long-term goal of reclamation would be the establishment of a sustainable vegetative cover that would promote reforestation and thereby restore the project area to the desired post-mining land use of forestland. Reclamation of the entire permit area (2,278 acres) to forestland is proposed. WVDEP regulations require that Mingo Logan post a reclamation bond equal to the estimated costs of reclamation incrementally at 1-year permit term intervals throughout the life of the mine through final closure. Bond money would assure that reclamation would be completed regardless of Mingo Logan’s financial ability to do so. The closure and reclamation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be completed in the final two (2) phases (Phases 14 and 15), as summarized in the following paragraphs. Phase Fourteen Mining and development activities would be completed during this phase as regrading activities progress through Area 2. Overburden generated during this phase would be utilized to regrade the final mining area, Area 1. Mine Infrastructure and Relocation Projects

2-53

Phase Fifteen During this phase, mineral extraction would have been ceased and regrading activities would be completed. The reclamation steps planned for and required by WVDEP regulations are described in the following sections. 2.5.3.1 Rough and Final Grading Following selective placement of backfill and excess overburden in the mining pits and valley fills, equipment necessary to accomplish reclamation of the site, including excavators, haulage trucks, dozers, and any other necessary equipment, would be utilized to reclaim the site to the configuration proposed in the approved permit application. Dozers would be used to complete rough grading. Mingo Logan would backfill and regrade the operations as designed in the approved WVDEP permit. Per the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations (38CSR2), Mingo Logan would initiate regrading and backfilling of disturbed areas within 180 days of completion of mineral removal within each mine pit. The operation would utilize multiple spreads of equipment to mine various seams simultaneously; however, disturbance will be limited to the 500 acres as required by Section 14.15.b.6.A of the WVDEP regulations. Spoil material would be backfilled and graded to the approximate original contour to a slope that would achieve a minimum long-term static factor of safety of 1.3. Once backfilling and grading would be completed, the site would be revegetated per the revised revegetation plan (Mingo Logan has agreed to revise the current revegetation plan for the proposed project contained in its WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2 to include only native, non-invasive species). Should site or weather conditions make adherence to these timelines impractical, a reasonable extension of the period may be requested from the WVDEP. 2.5.3.2 Post-Mining Topography The conceptual post-mining topography for disturbed areas associated with the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine is illustrated in Exhibit 2-23, while the existing topography of the disturbance area is illustrated in Exhibit 2-24. The post-mining topography would be consistent with the project's established reclamation goals and proposed post-mining land use of forestland. The result would be a post-mining topography similar in appearance and drainage pattern to the surrounding topography. 2.5.3.3 Drainage Reconstruction and Sediment Control Once mining would be completed and the project area reclaimed to achieve Phase II bond release, all drainage and sediment control structures not retained by the landowner for personal use would be removed. All in-stream structures would be removed and the stream channel segments impacted would be restored, as per the approved stream restoration plan described in Section P of approved WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2 and the proposed mitigation plan (Appendix I). 2.5.3.4 Topsoil Replacement Under the Applicant’s PA (approved WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2), a topsoil substitute is proposed to be utilized during reclamation of the project area. The existing topsoil, which is very thin within the project area, would however be salvaged or stockpiled, to the extent practicable, for redistribution along with the topsoil substitute during reclamation. Core samples have been collected and analyzed to

2-54

identify the suitable topsoil substitute materials within the geologic interval proposed to be disturbed; the most suitable materials identified would be utilized as topsoil during reclamation. 2.5.3.5 Revegetation Areas where final grading would be completed during the summer usually would be revegetated with a temporary cover; permanent revegetation would occur in the spring as required to meet post-mining land uses (i.e., forestland). Tree planting would occur during the winter to ensure maximum survival rate of seedlings. Temporary revegetation also would be implemented to minimize erosion and soil loss. Concurrent reclamation activities would be conducted throughout the life of the project. Table 2-20 lists each of the plant and tree species proposed to be planted within the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area, as provided in the approved WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2. However, the Applicant has agreed to revise its current revegetation plan to include the use of only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies. Table 2-20 Summary of Reclamation Plant and Tree Species
Plant Redtop Perennial Ryegrass Birdsfoot Trefoil White Clover Niagara Big Bluestem Camper Little Bluestem Indian Grass Shelter Switchgrass Tree Species Red Oak Sugar Maple Black Cherry Yellow Poplar Hemlock White Ash Basswood Cucumber/Magnolia Yellow Birch Black Walnut White Pine White Oak Chestnut Oak Scarlet Oak 2-55 Pounds/Acre 2 2 10 3 5, fall seeding 2, fall seeding 2, fall seeding 1, fall seeding 680 Total Stems/Acre Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern and Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix

Plant American Beech Hickory Red Maple Black Oak

Pounds/Acre Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix

* Some of the species listed in this table, and the Applicant’s current revegetation plan, are non-native and/or invasive; therefore as stated, the Applicant has agreed to revise the revegetation plan to include only native, non-invasive species as requested by the USACE.

Seed Mixtures The tree-compatible ground cover mixture of redtop, perennial ryegrass, birdsfoot trefoil, and white clover would be hydro-seeded within the AOC area as contemporaneously as practicable with backfilling and grading. The legumes would be inoculated with the appropriate specific inoculums (bacteria) before seeding. Kentucky-31 Fescue, Serecia lespedeza, all vetches, clovers (except ladino and white clover), and other aggressive or invasive species would not be used. For south- and westfacing slopes with a soil pH of 6.0 or greater, the four (4) grass mixture would be altered to consist of 20 pounds/acre of warm season grasses including: Niagara big bluestem, Camper little bluestem, Indian grass, and Shelter switchgrass, or other varieties of these species approved by the WVDEP and USACE. Seeding and Planting Techniques Mine soils would be loosely placed in a non-compacted manner while meeting static safety factor requirements. Mine soils would be graded only when necessary to maintain stability or on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%) unless otherwise approved by the WVDEP. Grading would be minimized to reduce compaction. When the WVDEP approves grading, grading of the tops of the piles would be roughly leveled with no more than one or two passes. Temporary roads, equipment yards, and other tracked areas shall be deep ripped (24-36 inches) to mitigate compaction. Seeding of the prepared seed beds would be accomplished using two methods: hydroseeding and hand planting of tree seedlings. Prior to the recognized spring and fall planting seasons, the operator would review all areas that were seeded and/or planted during the previous planting seasons. The operator would then retreat (regrade, seed, plant, mulch, etc.) those areas deficient in vegetative cover to establish the required level of vegetative success. Additionally, the operator would examine the project area for rills and gullies. Only those identified rills and gullies which may form in areas that would be regraded and topsoiled, and which disrupt the approved post-mining land use, interfere with the establishment of the vegetation cover, or cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards would be filled, regraded, stabilized, topsoiled, and reseeded or replanted, as necessary. The project area of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be planted to successfully achieve the proposed postmining land use of forestland. Specifications for success rates and minimum standards set forth in

2-56

Section 9.3.g of the West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations would be followed. It is proposed that two (2) tree species mixtures be utilized for plantings: Northern Mix and Southern Mix. Table 2-20 lists the species that would be planted for each mix. Irrigation There would not be any irrigation performed as a result of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine. Seedbed Amendments As per section 7.r.b. l.F.2 of the WVDEP regulations, fertilizer would be applied at 300 - 400 pounds/acre of diammonium phosphate (18-46-0) and 100 pounds/acre of potassium chloride (0-0-52) with ground cover seeding. Additionally, with proper documentation and notification alternative rates may be substituted. This mix would reduce the height of the ground cover, but not its density, thus allowing better growth of woody plants (trees and shrubs). In addition, mulch would be utilized during seeding. Mulch would consist of straw or hay distributed at a rate of one (1) to two (2) tons/acre of wood fiber or cellulose applied at a rate of 600 pounds/acre and may be anchored with asphalt emulsion or other approved techniques. There would be no pesticides, herbicides, or insecticides used under the proposed revegetation plan. 2.5.3.6 Restoration of Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands

Mingo Logan has committed to long-term protection and mitigation measures related to waters of the U.S. including one (1) small palustrine wetland. The proposed mitigation measures include both onsite replacement (restoration of temporarily impacted waters and enhancement of erosion control channels into waters of the U.S.) of surface water features removed within the area disturbed by mining and enhancement of additional surface water features off-site in areas along Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek (Exhibit 2-25). The goals of the proposed mitigation project are as follows: • • • Offset the permanent and temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with the planned mining operations for the Spruce No. 1 Mine; Result in a “no net loss” of habitat based on stream habitat units (SHUs) displaced by the proposed activities; Offset the permanent and temporary impacts to stream habitat units by providing restoration, reconstruction, or enhancement of waters of the U.S. by generating steam habitat units in designated mitigation areas; and Offset the permanent and temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with the planned mining operations for the Spruce No. 1 Mine by providing restoration, reconstruction, or enhancement of waters of the U.S. at a minimum one-to-one (1:1) ratio. Offset the permanent impacts to the palustrine wetland associated with the planned mining operations for the Spruce No. 1 Mine by replacement of the wetland area at a 4:1 ratio.

•

•

For purposes of this analysis, the USACE has assumed that through successful implementation of the proposed Compensatory Mitigation Plan (CMP, Appendix I), the full area of mitigation and enhancement subsequently would meet the USACE's criteria of waters of the U.S. and constitute acceptable mitigation for the anticipated disturbances.
2-57

Stream channels exhibiting “ordinary high water marks” (thus, meeting the primary criteria as waters of the U.S.) within the proposed disturbance area have been evaluated and assessed through determination of habitat assessment values (HAVs) utilizing methods outlined in the USEPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (USEPA, 1999). The Compensatory Mitigation Plan attached value to each stream or stream segment based on the acreage and HAVs within that stream, which were combined to create a stream habitat unit (SHU). The SHU is a dimensionless unit that incorporates both the areal extent of a channelized water reach and its corresponding HAV. The HAV assigns a qualitative value to the station or channelized stream reach (as an average of several stations along a defined reach). A constant is applied to the formula depending on the classification of the stream; ephemeral (x = 0.5); intermittent (x = 1.0); and perennial (x = 2.0). Table 2-21 presents a summary of the SHU inventory that would result from mitigation in waters of the U.S., while Table 2-22 presents a summary of the linear footage for waters of the U.S. that would be impacted compared to those that would be mitigated representing a minimum 1:1 ratio. See Section 3.2.5 and Appendix I (Compensatory Mitigation Plan) for more details regarding mitigation in waters of the U.S. Table 2-21 Summary of Mitigation of SHU’s for Waters of the U.S.
Location Affected Segment Acres 1.2282 1.2282 Habitat Score Segment Classification1 Classification Value (x) Stream Habitat Units (SHU)

On-Site Mitigation Areas Ponds/EPZ Areas Ponds/EPZ Areas On-Site Erosion Control Channels EXISTING On-Site Erosion Control Channels ENHANCED On-Site Erosion Control Channels EXISTING On-Site Erosion Control Channels ENHANCED 0 110 Gain: 2.2478 0 E 0.5 I P 1.0 2.0 0 108.082 108.082 0

2.2478

110 Gain:

E

0.5

49.453 49.453

3.3174

0

I

1.0

0

3.3174

110 Gain:

I

1.0

145.968 195.420 303.502

Total Gain – On-Site Mitigation Areas:

2-58

Location

Affected Segment Acres

Habitat Score

Segment Classification1

Classification Value (x)

Stream Habitat Units (SHU)

Off-Site Mitigation Areas Rockhouse Creek EXISTING Rockhouse Creek ENHANCED Spruce Fork EXISTING Spruce Fork ENHANCED 3.2719 3.2719 0 110 Gain: 11.3114 11.3114 129 155 Gain: Total Gain – Off-Site Mitigation Areas: TOTAL OVERALL GAIN (ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE): TOTAL DISPLACEMENT (LOSS): REMAINING SHUs:
1I

I I

1.0 1.0

0.000 359.909 359.909

P P

2.0 2.0

2918.341 3506.534 588.193 948.102 1251.604 1028.439 223.165

= Intermittent; E = Ephemeral; and P = Perennial

Table 2-22 Summary of Replacement/Establishment, Restoration, and Enhancement for Mitigation of Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
Replacement Mitigation of by Establishment Temporary of Segments by Reestablishment Channelized Waters of the and Enhancement U.S. Enhancem ent of OffSite Waters of the U.S. in Spruce Fork Enhanceme nt of OffSite Waters of the U.S. in Rockhouse Creek

Type of Waters of the U.S.

Length of Impacts (feet)

Replacement Ratio

Total Mitigated Length (feet)

Permanent Impacts Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Subtotal 26,184 10,630 36,814 1:1 1:1 1:1 0 26,184 10,630 36,814 15,488 10,873 26,361 8,772 2,500 8,772 2,500

2-59

Type of Waters of the U.S.

Length of Impacts (feet)

Replacement Ratio

Total Mitigated Length (feet)

Replacement by Mitigation of Temporary Establishment of Segments by Reestablishment Channelized Waters of the and U.S. Enhancement

Enhancem ent of OffSite Waters of the U.S. in Spruce Fork

Enhanceme nt of OffSite Waters of the U.S. in Rockhouse Creek

Temporal Impacts Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Subtotal TOTAL 825 6,307 0 7,132 43,946 1:1 1:1 1:1 825 6,307 0 7,132 43, 946 7,132 26,361 44,765 8,772 2,500 825 6,307

2.5.3.7

Final Pit Reclamation

Reclamation of the final pit area would be graded to allow blending into the natural drainage configuration. Material in the adjacent backstack would be used to backfill the final pit and shape the area to the approximate original contour. 2.5.3.8 Reclamation of Ancillary Facilities and Disposition of Equipment Closure of ancillary facilities and disposition of equipment would be conducted in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. All ancillary structures (e.g., buildings, power lines, etc.) would be dismantled and removed from the site. Concrete foundations and pads would be broken up and covered. These sites would be re-contoured to blend with the surrounding topography to the extent practical. Revegetation would be completed as described in Section 2.5.3.5, in accordance with the post-mining land use. All equipment would be transported off the site. Roads At abandonment any roads not requested to be left for landowner use would be reclaimed by grading and/or filling to allow compatibility with surrounding topography, post-mining land use, and to complement the natural drainage pattern of the surrounding area. Reclamation of the roads would begin as soon as practicable after they are no longer needed for mining or reclamation operations. The road would be closed to traffic and all culverts removed unless approved as part of the post-mining land use. Water bars or earthen berms would be installed across the roads and spaced at recommended intervals. The durable road surfacing material would be removed and all disturbed ground would be topsoiled and revegetated according to the revised revegetation plan (Mingo Logan has agreed to revise its revegetation plan to include the use of only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies). Immediately upon the completion of road reclamation, as described above, the area would be seeded and mulched, as described in Section 2.5.3.5 in accordance with the post-mining land use.
2-60

Fuels and Lubricants Following the completion of mining and reclamation, materials not consumed on-site would be returned to the supplier or shipped to a licensed recycler, as appropriate. In addition, all storage tanks for these materials would be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Following the completion of mining and reclamation, any remaining refuse and/or solid waste would be transported to and disposed of at a licensed disposal facility. Fencing and Site Security Mining areas undergoing reclamation would not be fenced, but access roads would be gated and provided with security personnel through final reclamation to control public access and to facilitate revegetation. 2.5.3.9 Monitoring of the Reclaimed Site A reclamation success program is set forth by the regulatory agencies and would be conducted in coordination with appropriate jurisdictional agencies throughout the life of the project. The revegetation and post-mining land use success would be monitored and approved by the WVDEP and OSM based upon the approval of the Phase I, II, and Phase III (final bond release) of the Spruce Mine No. 1 project area. Standard requirements for success are outline in the WVDEP regulations and are summarized below. Forestland The standards for successful establishment of forestland are defined in Title 38 Series 2 Section 7.6.f. . Minimum success standard would be tree survival (including volunteer tree species) and/or planted shrubs per acre equal to or greater than four hundred fifty (450) trees per acre and a seventy percent (70%) ground cover, where ground cover includes tree canopy, shrub and herbaceous cover, and organic litter during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility period. Also, at the time of final bond release, at least eighty percent (80%) of all trees and shrubs used to determine such success would have been in place for at least sixty percent (60%) of the applicable minimum period of responsibility. Trees and shrubs counted in determining such success would be healthy and would have been in place for not less than two (2) growing seasons. Developed Water Resources Mingo Logan, as part of the proposed CMP, has proposed on-site and off-site mitigation areas and proposes to monitor the sites for success of said proposed mitigation for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of mitigation activities for each area. 2.5.4 SUMMARY OF COMMITTED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES

Table 2-23 summarizes Mingo Logan’s proposed environmental protection measures to reduce environmental impacts of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine. In addition, Table 2-23 identifies potential mitigation measures currently being considered by the USACE based on the environmental impacts identified in this EIS.

2-61

Table 2-23 Committed Environmental Protection Measures and Additional Mitigation Measures under Consideration
Environmental Resource Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures Œ As required by WVDEP regulations the mineral removal area would be regraded to the approximate original contour prior to being revegetated. Œ All mineral removal areas (mountaintop, contour, and auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining areas) would be backfilled and graded to attain a safety factor of 1.3 and valley fills would be constructed to attain a static safety factor of 1.5 to ensure stability and minimize geologic hazards. Œ Groundwater monitoring would be required by the WVDEP permits for the project (SMA and NPDES) to be conducted both during-mining and post-mining. The results of this monitoring would be reported to the WVDEP to verify and ensure compliance. 2-62 Groundwater Œ Should any water supplies currently being used for a legitimate purpose be impacted by the proposed project, such that water quantity or quality is adversely affected, Mingo Logan would restore or replace the water supply of the affected users as required by the WVDEP. Œ The Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Analysis (CHIA) prepared by the WVDEP found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the hydrologic balance and would have little potential to adversely affect local groundwater users. Œ Acid-base testing of the strata and coals that would be excavated and extracted by the proposed operation has been completed at eight (8) corehole locations within the proposed project area. Acid-base testing of the overburden strata was performed by Sturm Environmental Services (Sturm), while acid-base testing of the coal was performed by Standard Laboratories, Inc. The overburden analyses indicated that the overburden in the project area contains an abundance of alkaline materials with excess neutralization potential and only a few thin units having acid-producing potential. Acid-producing materials identified are associated with the Stockton, Buffalo A, and Chilton A coal seams, but are of insufficient volumes, compared to the volume of available alkaline material to be encountered in the project area, to result in overall net acidity. None of the overburden strata were noted in all the coreholes as consistently having a maximum needed CaCO3 deficiency greater than 5.00. Since there is an excess of neutralization potential available in the units to be excavated by Œ The Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Analysis (CHIA) prepared by the WVDEP found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the hydrologic balance and would have little potential to adversely affect local groundwater users. Œ Groundwater samples would be collected at the following sites, three (3) of which are baseline monitoring sites: Site 643 – Chilton Seam discharge at Blair; Site G-1 – Well at Sharples Elementary School; Site G-905A – Well that would be located in Pigeonroost Branch downstream of Pond No. 2; and Site G-906 – Well near mouth of Oldhouse Branch. Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration Œ No additional monitoring or mitigation is being considered.

Geology and Mineral Resources

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures this mining operation, Mingo Logan proposes to blend the potentially acid-toxic materials with those units having an excess neutralization potential during the excavation process, as part of the approved materials handling plan. Care would be exercised to ensure that the overburden is placed such that the potentially acid-toxic material would be blended with equal or greater volumes of material having an excess neutralization potential. Pit cleanings, partings, and other potentially acid-toxic materials, including selenium-enriched strata, not suitable for blending would be identified and segregated during the mining process and promptly placed in an isolation zone for final disposal within the backstack. Isolation of these materials would involve utilization of a minimum of ten (10) feet of non-toxic, non-acid-producing material for construction of a pad to separate the isolation cell from the pavement (floor of the basal seam removed). A minimum of twenty (20) feet of separation would be maintained between acid/toxic material and any highwall. A minimum of four (4) feet of non toxic, non-acid producing, impervious material would be utilized to cover the isolation cell followed by at least ten (10) feet of ordinary backfill. Material to be isolated would be buried as quickly possible within the backfill to minimize exposure to weathering elements. The excess carbonate-rich rocks in the overburden would be anticipated to minimize the potential for this material to produce acid water and/or adversely affect revegetation during and/or after mining. However, this special handling plan does not apply to the coal seams to be mined and marketed. In addition to complying with the special handling techniques previously defined, all handling and placement of overburden or strata defined as potentially acid-producing or toxic, including potentially selenium-toxic materials, would adhere to the following general guidelines: not be placed in close proximity to drainage courses; be placed such that a minimum of ten (10) feet of non-toxic, non-acid producing, durable material separates potentially toxic material from the floor of the basal seam and at least four (4) feet of non-toxic, alkaline material covers the isolated material; not be placed within a durable rock fill (valley fill); be separated from the final regraded surface by a minimum of ten (10) feet of overburden with an excess neutralization potential; and be handled and placed in accordance with time and acreage requirements of the contemporaneous reclamation plan.

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration The frequency of monitoring would be quarterly with laboratory analyses sent to the WVDEP. These sites would, at a minimum, be analyzed for the following parameters: Total Dissolved Solids and/or Specific Conductance (corrected to 25 degrees centigrade); Total Suspended Solids; Flow; pH; Acidity; Alkalinity; Total Iron; Total Manganese; and Sulfates.

2-63

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures Œ Drainage control structures (ponds) would be constructed below the toes of the valley fills, with on-bench and temporary drainage control structures (ditches, diversions, etc.), as previously described, controlling runoff for the area of mineral removal. Runoff from all disturbed areas would be routed through the drainage control structures (ponds, ditches, etc.) and monitored before leaving the permitted area. Œ Mingo Logan would employ Best Management Practices (BMPs), which would include temporary erosion controls. In-stream erosion control would also be established and be limited to material that would degrade and not require removal. Stream bank erosion control may consist of silt fences, staked hay or straw bales, compacted earth, sand bags, or other appropriate materials. Temporary silt basins and ditches would also be constructed, if warranted. Œ Surface water monitoring of streams would be conducted at the following locations until Phase II bond release status of the project area has been achieved (at least five (5) years postmining and possibly longer based upon the discretion of the WVDEP):

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration ΠMingo Logan would incorporate the use of native, non-invasive species into the planting plan for upland areas disturbed by the project and in areas where on-site and off-site mitigation are proposed.

2-64 Surface Water

Site 300 – Spruce Fork below Seng Camp Creek; Site 301 – Spruce Fork above Seng Camp Creek; Site 302 – Mouth of Seng Camp Creek; Site 305 – Seng Camp Creek above Right Fork; Site 505 – Spruce Fork below Pigeonroost Branch; Site 507 – Mouth of Pigeonroost Branch; Site 513 – Spruce Fork above Oldhouse Branch; Site 514 – Mouth of Oldhouse Branch; Site 518 – Spruce Fork above Adkins Fork; Site 519 – Mouth of White Oak Branch; and Site 523 – Spruce Fork above Little White Oak Branch. These sites would, at a minimum, be analyzed for the following parameters: Total Dissolved Solids

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures Specific Conductance; Total Suspended Solids; Flow; pH; Acidity; Alkalinity; Total Iron; Total Manganese; and Sulfates. Œ Additionally, Mingo Logan would monitor and report all discharges, as per the Section 402 (NPDES) CWA permit approved by the WVDEP. Œ Mingo Logan would monitor surface water runoff from active areas of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, as required by §38CSR2-5.6.b. Daily precipitation would be monitored via a rain gauge located at the mine office and recorded on a daily basis. Records would be maintained and available for monthly reporting, as required. Any 1- year, 24-hour or greater rainfall event would be reported within twenty-four (24) hours of the event and include a report of observations of drainage system function with respect to the rainfall event. Surface water runoff monitoring would occur at the constructed on-bench discharge outlets (outfalls) with reporting of the following monitoring parameters: Rain Gauge ID; Precipitation Date; Precipitation Time; Precipitation (inches); Flow Measuring Station ID; Peak Flow Date; Peak Flow; and Peak Flow (cfs) Œ To ensure compliance with SWROA conditions, Mingo Logan would monitor flow from outlet structures for twelve (12) hours, the average time to peak, after a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Œ Mingo Logan would continue to monitor SWROA conditions at the outlet structures (outfalls)

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

2-65

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures until the area is completely regraded and vegetation has been established for at least two (2) growing seasons. In order to comply with this requirement, Mingo Logan would cleanout all drainage control structures when sediment reaches sixty percent (60%) of the structure’s capacity. Œ Mingo Logan would have macroinvertebrate and water chemistry sampling and analysis conducted as required by the Section 402 (NPDES) CWA permit approved by the WVDEP. Œ Mingo Logan would handle all petroleum and petroleum by-products in accordance with the Groundwater Protection Plan (GPP) set forth in the Section 402 CWA (NPDES) permit. The GPP identifies the material, practices for contaminant handling, storage, inspection, reporting, personnel training procedures, and contains a spill response plan to be used in the event of a spill. The inventory of man-made potential contaminants lists petroleum products (i.e., diesel fuel, hydraulic liquids, etc.), and includes proposed containment controls that are routinely used in the mining industry. Although none of these items are currently present at this particular site, the GPP would be updated upon project startup. Œ Mingo Logan would comply with the State and Federal laws and regulations pertaining to any substance designated as hazardous that would be used, stored, or disposed of at this facility. Œ Mingo Logan’s mitigation plan is proposed to offset the stream habitat units (SHUs) of the aquatic resources permanently and temporarily impacted by proposed activities within waters of the U.S. while also providing compensatory mitigation (creation/enhancements/restoration/reconstruction/establishment activities) at a minimum one-to-one (1:1) ratio. The goals of plan are as follows: Œ Result in a “no net loss” of habitat based upon SHUs displaced by the proposed activities; Œ Offset the permanent and temporary impacts to SHUs associated with the planned mining operations for the Spruce No. 1 Mine by providing creation, restoration, reconstruction, and/or enhancement of waters of the U.S by generating SHUs in designated mitigation areas; and Œ Offset the permanent and temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with the planned mining operations for the Spruce No. 1 Mine by providing creation, restoration, reconstruction, and/or enhancement of waters of the U.S. at a minimum one-to-one (1:1)

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

2-66

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures ratio to those impacted. These goals would be met by meeting the following objectives: Œ Restoration upon final reclamation of on-site waters of the U.S. that would be temporarily impacted (7,132 linear feet/1.2282 acres) to offset temporary impacts to waters of the U.S.; Œ Provide in-kind, on-site stream habitat units upon final reclamation through establishment of waters of the U.S. in erosion control channels (26,361 linear feet/5.5653 acres) that are to be located along the southern side of Pigeonroost Branch and along the ridge north of Pigeonroost Branch and south of Spruce Fork to offset permanent and secondary impacts to waters of the U.S.; Œ Enhance off-site waters of the U.S. in Spruce Fork (8,772 linear feet/11.3114 acres), concurrent with impacts, to offset permanent and secondary impacts to waters of the U.S. and temporal losses; and

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

2-67 Soils

ΠEnhance off-site waters of the U.S. in Rockhouse Creek (2,500 linear feet/3.2719 acres) located upstream of an existing public access lake (Rockhouse Lake), concurrent with impacts, to offset permanent and secondary impacts to waters of the U.S. and temporal losses. ΠAcid-base testing of the strata and coals that would be excavated and extracted by the proposed operation has been completed at eight (8) corehole locations within the proposed project area. Acid-base testing of the overburden strata was performed by Sturm Environmental Services (Sturm), while acid-base testing of the coal was performed by Standard Laboratories, Inc. The overburden analyses indicated that the overburden in the project area contains an abundance of alkaline materials with only a few thin units having acid-producing potential. Acid-producing materials identified are associated with the Stockton, Buffalo A, and Chilton A coal seams, but are of insufficient volumes, compared to the volume of available alkaline material to be encountered in the project area, to result in overall net acidity. None of the overburden strata were noted in all the coreholes as consistently having a maximum needed CaCO3 deficiency greater than 5.00. Since there is an excess of neutralization potential available in the units to be excavated by this mining operation, Mingo Logan proposes to blend the potentially acid-toxic materials with those units having an excess ΠNo additional monitoring or mitigation is being considered.

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures neutralization potential during the excavation process, as part of the approved materials handling plan. Care would be exercised to ensure that the overburden is placed such that the potentially acid-toxic material would be blended with equal or greater volumes of material having an excess neutralization potential. Materials, such as pit cleaning, partings, and selenium-enriched strata, not suitable for blending would be segregated during the mining process and isolated within the backstack areas. A minimum of ten (10) feet of non-toxic, non-acid producing material would be utilized for construction of a pad to separate the isolation cell from the pavement. A minimum of twenty (20) feet of separation would be used between acid/toxic material and the highwall. A minimum of four (4) feet of non toxic, non-acid producing, impervious material would be utilized to cover the isolation cell followed by at least ten (10) feet of ordinary backfill. Material to be isolated would be buried as quickly possible within the backfill to minimize exposure to weathering elements. The excess carbonate-rich rocks in the overburden would be anticipated to minimize the potential for this material to produce acid water and/or adversely affect revegetation during and/or after mining. However, this special handling plan does not apply to the coal seams to be mined and marketed. Œ In addition to complying with the special handling techniques previously defined, all handling and placement of overburden or strata defined as potentially acid-producing or toxic, including potentially selenium-toxic materials, would adhere to the following general guidelines: not be placed in close proximity to drainage courses; be placed such that a minimum of ten (10) feet of non-toxic, non-acid producing, durable material separates potentially toxic material from the floor of the basal seam and at least four (4) feet of non-toxic, alkaline material covers the isolated material; not be placed within a durable rock fill (valley fill); be separated from the final regraded surface by a minimum of ten (10) feet of overburden with an excess neutralization potential; and be handled and placed in accordance with time and acreage requirements of the contemporaneous reclamation plan. Œ The native topsoil of the proposed project area, defined in §38CSR2.2.127 as the A- and Ehorizon soil, would be recovered to the extent practical and redistributed as a component of the backfill subsoil material; however, this topsoil recovery would be insufficient to reclaim the entire project area, and thus utilization of topsoil substitute has also been proposed. Subsoil material would consist primarily of unweathered gray sandstone and would be placed in an

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

2-68

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures un-compacted state in order to promote tree growth. This unweathered gray sandstone material would have initial pH values near 8.5; however, would yield pH values in the range of 6.5 to 7.5 within two (2) years, which would be a suitable medium for hardwood tree species. If weathered sandstone is available, it may also be utilized for the subsoil. Coreholes were sampled and analyzed for the strata to be considered as topsoil substitute material (Holes DTC06037 (A), DTC06044 (E), DTC06042 (F), DTC06038 (H), DTC05031 (K), DTC05029 (N), and DTC05030 (P)). The near surface samples from all of the holes represent geologically weathered soils, sandstones and shales with pH values ranging from 4.7 to 7.2 with lime requirements from 0.4 to 2.8. These soils and rocks have low plant available phosphorus values, low to medium calcium and magnesium values, and low to high potassium values. If used for topsoil after mining, these soils will require moderate lime (2 to 4 tons per acre) and fertilizer (1000 pounds of 10-20-20 or equivalent) additions to sustain plant growth. Soils developed in the weathered materials should have sandy loam to loam textures with moderate permeabilities and water holding capacities. The remaining unweathered shales and sandstones, with a few exceptions, are neutral to alkaline with pH values ranging from 6.6 to 9.8 with no lime requirements. The few exceptions (10 samples out of 316) are Hole A Sample 5, Hole F Samples 11 and 12, Hole H Samples 11 and 49, Hole K Samples 7, 9 and 10, Hole N Samples 7 and 41. These rocks have pH values ranging from 4.4 to 6.3 and lime requirement of .4 to 2.0 tons per acre. If segregated for topsoil substitute they would require lime and fertilizer additions as described above for the weathered soils and rocks. The unweathered rock stratum in all holes have low plant available phosphorus levels, low to high calcium levels, and medium to very high magnesium and potassium levels. The rocks represented by the samples analyzed for the evaluation are suitable for topsoil substitute and are equal to or better than the native soils. The weathered rocks would require addition of lime but at a rate less than the native soils. The remaining rocks would not need lime and only minimum fertilizer rates (600 pounds of 10-20-20 or equivalent) to ensure seedling vigor and rapid plant growth. Amendment rates should be based on soil tests after grading and prior to seedbed preparation. Rocks used for topsoil substitute should be crushed by blasting and/or traffic. Soils developed in these materials would have sandy loam to loam textures with moderate to rapid permeabilities and adequate moisture holding capacities. These substitute soils would require less maintenance and have greater productivity than the native soils. The predicted minesoil character that would result

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

2-69

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures from the mining and reclamation activities would be expected to have sandy loam to loam textures with moderate permeability and water holding capacities. Œ Mingo Logan would conduct soil sampling in the regraded areas periodically, if necessary, to ensure that a suitable substitute growth media is present for revegetation. Any areas that are deemed as unsuitable would be covered by suitable material or amended to create a suitable growth medium. Œ Mingo Logan would implement erosion control measures (e.g. drainage control structures [ponds], flow attenuation structures [i.e. rock check dams, etc.], riprap, matting, diversion ditches, silt fence, straw bales, and revegetation measures) in order to reduce the potential for soil erosion. As a result, erosion of soil attributed to surface water runoff would be anticipated to be low. Œ Mingo Logan would reclaim the project area concurrently with mining operations as mined areas are backfilled and regraded. Ancillary facility areas would be reclaimed following completion of mining and closure of the facilities. Successful reclamation would minimize the encroachment of invasive species into reclaimed areas. Mingo Logan, as required by WVDEP approved planting plan, would plant trees in the disturbance area to achieve a postmining land use of forestland; however, any commercial value would not be realized for a number of years. Reclamation for the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would include both shortterm and long-term goals for the project area. The short-term goals would include soil stabilization and maintenance of vegetative cover, providing for safety. The primary objective of revegetation would be the rapid establishment of ground cover for erosion control purposes. The long-term goal of reclamation would be the establishment of a sustainable vegetative cover that would promote reforestation and, thereby, restore the project area to the desired post-mining land use of forestland. Restoration of the ground surface to the approximate original contour is required by the WVDEP coal mining regulations and was conceptually designed in Mingo Logan’s WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2. Œ Reclamation of the entire permit area (2,278 acres) to forestland is proposed. WVDEP regulations require that Mingo Logan post a reclamation bond equal to the estimated costs of reclamation incrementally at 1-year permit term intervals throughout the life of the mine through final closure. Bond money would assure that reclamation would be completed

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

ΠMingo Logan has agreed to revise

2-70 Vegetation

the current revegetation plan to eliminate non-native, invasive species in accordance with USACE policies.
Œ Mitigation for each species of concern identified within the project area or having the potential to occur within the project area will be provided as follows: o Butternut (Juglans cinerea) was identified as being present within the project area. In order to mitigate for loss of the butternut, this species will be incorporated into the revised planting plan. o Gray’s saxifrage (Saxifraga caroliniana) may potentially occur

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures regardless of Mingo Logan’s financial ability to do so. The closure and reclamation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be completed in the final two (2) phases (Phases 14 and 15), Œ Areas where final grading would be completed during the summer usually would initially be revegetated with a temporary cover; permanent revegetation would occur in the spring where required to achieve the post-mining land use (i.e., forestland). Tree planting would occur during the winter to ensure maximum survival rate of seedlings. Temporary revegetation also would be implemented to minimize erosion and soil loss. Concurrent reclamation activities would be conducted throughout the life of the project. The following table lists each of the plant and tree species proposed to be planted within the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area, as provided in the approved WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2. However, the Applicant has agreed to revise its revegetation plan to include the use of only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies. Summary of Reclamation Plant and Tree Species
Plant Redtop Perennial Ryegrass Birdsfoot Trefoil White Clover Niagara Big Bluestem Camper Little Bluestem Indian Grass Shelter Switch Grass Tree Species Red Oak Sugar Maple Black Cherry Yellow Poplar Hemlock White Ash Basswood Cucumber/Magnolia Yellow Birch Pounds/Acre 2 2 10 3 5, fall seeding 2, fall seeding 2, fall seeding 1, fall seeding 680 Total Stems/Acre Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix Northern Mix

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration within the project area. In order to mitigate for the potential loss of Gray’, this species will be incorporated into the revised planting plan.

2-71

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures
Black Walnut White Pine White Oak Chestnut Oak Scarlet Oak American Beech Hickory Red Maple Black Oak Northern Mix Northern and Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix Southern Mix

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

* Some of the species listed in this table, and the Applicant’s current revegetation plan, are non-native and/or invasive; therefore as stated, the Applicant has agreed to revise the revegetation plan to include only native, non-invasive species as requested by the USACE.

Seed Mixtures The tree-compatible ground cover mixture of redtop, perennial ryegrass, birdsfoot trefoil, and white clover would be hydro-seeded within the AOC area as contemporaneously as practicable with backfilling and grading. The legumes would be inoculated with the appropriate specific inoculums (bacteria) before seeding. Kentucky-31 Fescue, Serecia lespedeza, all vetches, clovers (except ladino and white clover), and other aggressive or invasive species would not be used. For south- and west-facing slopes with a soil pH of 6.0 or greater, the four (4) grass mixture would be altered to consist of 20 pounds/acre of warm season grasses including: Niagara big bluestem, Camper little bluestem, Indian grass, and Shelter switchgrass, or other varieties of these species approved by the WVDEP and USACE. Seeding and Planting Techniques Mine soils would be loosely placed in a non-compacted manner while meeting static safety factor requirements. Mine soils would be graded only when necessary to maintain stability or on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%) unless otherwise approved by the WVDEP. Grading would be minimized to reduce compaction. When the WVDEP approves grading, grading of the tops of the piles would be roughly leveled with no more than one or two passes. Temporary

2-72

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures roads, equipment yards, and other tracked areas shall be deep ripped (24-36 inches) to mitigate compaction. Seeding of the prepared seed beds would be accomplished using two methods: hydroseeding and hand planting of tree seedlings. Prior to the recognized spring and fall planting seasons, the operator would review all areas that were seeded and/or planted during the previous planting seasons. The operator would then retreat (regrade, seed, plant, mulch, etc.) those areas deficient in vegetative cover to establish the required level of vegetative success. Additionally, the operator would examine the project area for rills and gullies. Only those identified rills and gullies which may form in areas that would be regraded and topsoiled, and which disrupt the approved post-mining land use, interfere with the establishment of the vegetation cover, or cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards would be filled, regraded, stabilized, topsoiled, and reseeded or replanted, as necessary.

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

2-73

The project area of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be planted to successfully achieve the proposed post-mining land use of forestland. Specifications for success rates and minimum standards set forth in Section 9.3.g of the West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations would be followed. It is proposed that two (2) tree species mixtures be utilized for plantings: Northern Mix and Southern Mix. Seedbed Amendments As per section 7.r.b. l.F.2 of the WVDEP regulations, fertilizer would be applied at 300 - 400 pounds/acre of diammonium phosphate (18-46-0) and 100 pounds/acre of potassium chloride (0-0-52) with ground cover seeding. Additionally, with proper documentation and notification alternative rates may be substituted. This mix would reduce the height of the ground cover, but not its density, thus allowing better growth of woody plants (trees and shrubs). In addition, mulch would be utilized during seeding. Mulch would consist of straw or hay distributed at a rate of one (1) to two (2) tons/acre of wood fiber or cellulose applied at a rate of 600 pounds/acre and may be anchored with asphalt emulsion or other approved techniques. ΠThere would be no pesticides, herbicides, or insecticides used under the proposed revegetation plan.

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures Œ Mingo Logan would incorporate the following specifications for revegetation of the on-site and off-site mitigation areas: Œ Ground cover would be established by planting a minimum of four (4) of the following species within the riparian zone extending 25-feet from each bank:
Rice cutgrass Spangle Grass Panic Grass (with exception of Panicum capillare, Panicum dichotomiflorum, and Panicum miliareum) Mannagrass Redtop Wild Rye

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

ΠA minimum of four (4) tree species from the following list would be planted within the riparian zone extending 25-feet from each bank:
Pin Oak Cherrybark Oak Swamp Chestnut Oak Green Ash Sawtooth Oak Virginia Pine Shellbark Hickory Bur Oak Red Maple Sycamore White Pine

2-74

ΠA minimum of three (3) shrub species from the following list would be planted within the riparian zone extending 25-feet from each bank:
Deciduous Holly Persimmon Spice Bush Viburnums Black Willow Silky Dogwood Gray Dogwood American Plum Elderberry Alder (with exception of Alnus glutinosa)

Crabapple

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures Œ The final riparian tree/shrub spacing after planting would be a minimum of 680 trees and shrubs (proportioned at a minimum of 400 trees and 100 shrubs) per acre. The survivability rate of these plantings are required to be a minimum of eighty percent (80%)(544 trees and shrubs per acre) including natural invasion of regenerated natural species. Œ In addition to vegetative species introduced to the wetland by the donor substrate, additional hydrophytic vegetation may be introduced to the constructed wetland. This vegetation would include, but not be limited to, green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), deer-tongue grass (Dichanthelium clandestinum), various rushes (Canadensis and Tenius), sedges (Carex vulipinoidea and lurida), and spotted touch-me-nots (Impatiens capensis). In order to enhance productivity, a slow-release fertilizer would optionally be applied, as deemed appropriate. Œ Allowances for natural regeneration: Œ Fertilizer, mulch, and native grass seed would be applied to the exposed stream banks and floodplain areas to prevent soil erosion and promote germination. The combination of mulch and the selection of native grasses and ground covers would be expected to be sufficient to allow for natural vegetation to re-establish itself. The avoidance of exotic species, both woody and herbaceous, would further promote the succession of native species from adjacent natural seed sources. Natural introduction of vegetative species is proposed for the constructed wetland area. This introduction would occur via the introduction of donor substrate materials.

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration

2-75 Œ

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures Œ Disturbance of natural vegetation would be avoided, where practical, in areas scheduled for ancillary activities to minimize disturbance to wildlife habitat. Œ Land clearing operations would be minimized in advance of the mining operation, where practical. Œ Fish and wildlife habitat, as a percentage of the permit area, would increase during concurrent reclamation. Section 38CSR2.14.15.b.6.A of the WVDEP surface mining regulations establishes the maximum amount of disturbance for any given point in time to be less than thirty-five percent (35%) of the total permitted acreage. Œ Mingo Logan has conducted mist net surveys for endangered bat species in accordance with State and Federal regulations and did not capture any endangered bats. Œ Given that no Indiana bats were caught during two surveys conducted in accordance with USFWS protocol for Indiana bat surveying, and no portals or other similar features were identified within the project area, the proposed operations would no be expected to result in direct impacts to the species. Œ The proposed project area was investigated for the presence of open, abandoned portals or other features that could provide summer and winter habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) or hibernaculum for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). No portals or other features were identified within the proposed project area that would provide habitat for these endangered bats. Œ Aside from the Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats, there are no other species that are afforded protection under Section 7 of the ESA expected to potentially inhabit the proposed project area. However, consideration was also given to rare species, both flora and fauna, that have been found in Logan County. These species include the green salamander (Aneides aenus), golden-backed skipper (Autochton cellu), redside dace (Clinostomus elongates), Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana), gemmed satyr (Cyllopsis gemma), purple clematis (Clematis occidentalis var occidenta), old-field roadflax (Nuttallanthus canadensis) and rock skullcap (Scutellaria saxatilis). None of these species were observed in the proposed project area. Œ In addition to the Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats, the only other endangered or threatened

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration ΠMingo Logan would have macroinvertebrate and water chemistry sampling and analysis conducted as required by the Section 402 (NPDES) of the CWA permit approved by the WVDEP. ΠMingo Logan has designed and would install the stream diversion associated with the office and warehouse area in such a manner to minimize/prevent obstructions of normal flow which could impact migration of fish and other aquatic life. ΠMingo Logan does not propose any major fences or other potential barriers to wildlife migration; should any such structures be necessary, appropriate wildlife crossing sites would be provided. ΠMingo Logan would observe power lines and poles to determine if nesting or perching of raptors is occurring and, if necessary, would install protection devices to minimize the potential for electrocution of raptors. ΠMitigation for each species of concern identified within the project area or having the potential to inhabit the project area would be provided as follows:

2-76 Fish and Wildlife

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures species that are listed as potentially having habitat located within the project area are the bald eagle and the eastern cougar (USFWS Website http://ecos.fws.gov/tess public/servlet/gov.doi.tess public.servlets.UsaLists? state=WV. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as a threatened species for the State of West Virginia and the eastern cougar (Felis concolor couguar) although listed as endangered is believed to be extinct in the state. Species of special concern (fish and wildlife) within the region that may potentially utilize the project area include: hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), eastern woodrat (Neotoma magister), southeastern big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), and Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana).

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration - In order to mitigate for disturbance of potential habitat for the hellbender, the temporarily impacted stream segments on-site would be restored to their approximate existing condition during reclamation, streams would be created along the perimeter of the project area during reclamation, and stream enhancement would be performed in other streams off-site within the Spruce Fork watershed resulting in no net loss of habitat (aquatic or riparian) for the hellbender. It is anticipated that any individuals utilizing the project area would migrate to other suitable habitat during the project and migrate back into the area when habitat is restored/created. - Mitigation for disturbance of potential habitat for the eastern woodrat, southeastern big-eared bat, cerulean warbler, and Diana fritillary butterfly would be provided through contemporaneous reclamation of disturbed areas, including revegetation to return the project area to its pre-mining land use of forestland. It would be expected that during disturbance of any given portion of the project area, these

2-77

Environmental Resource

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration species would migrate to adjacent undisturbed habitat within or adjacent to the project area until such time as the disturbed area within the project perimeter would be reclaimed and capable of supporting these species.

Paleontological Resources

ΠNo environmental protection measures are proposed. ΠMingo Logan had a Phase 1 archeological survey conducted to identify historic resources within the proposed project area and seven (7) historic Euro-American sites, three (3) EuroAmerican cemeteries, and one (1) Euro petroglyph were identified.

ΠNo monitoring or mitigation is being considered. ΠNo monitoring or mitigation is being considered.

2-78 Cultural Resources Air Quality

Œ The potential historic sites were further evaluated through a Phase II survey for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and none were considered eligible. Œ The cemeteries would be avoided by Mingo Logan during mining operations by maintaining a minimum 100-foot boundary around each of these resources, in accordance with SMCRA regulations. Œ In the event of unanticipated discoveries, Mingo Logan would contact the USACE and WVSHPO and protect the discovery in accordance with appropriate State and Federal laws. Œ Mingo Logan would surface access/haulroads with approved materials and apply water and/or chemical dust suppressants, as needed, to minimize dust. Mingo Logan would also limit vehicle speeds to control dust and ensure safety. Œ Dust suppression systems would be included on any crushers and screens, conveyors and transfer points would be covered, and other BMP’s would be incorporated to minimize fugitive dust. Œ No monitoring or mitigation is being considered.

Environmental Resource Land Use and Recreation Social and Economic Values Transportation

Mingo Logan’s Committed Environmental Resource Protection Measures Œ The proposed post-mining land use would result in the restoration of the current pre-mining land use within the project area. The reclaimed site would be planted with trees to return the site to a forested landscape, compatible with adjacent land uses. Œ No environmental protection measures have been proposed. Œ Other than potentially hauling coal off-site temporarily during the initial construction phase, all coal haulage would be internal to the project and the adjacent plant and loadout complex and would not require any upgrade to public roads adjacent to the project area. Œ The proposed project would be required to comply with any applicable noise restrictions imposed by regulatory agencies.

Additional Mitigation Measures Under Consideration ΠNo monitoring or mitigation is being considered. ΠNo monitoring or mitigation is being considered.

ΠNo monitoring or mitigation is being considered. ΠNo monitoring or mitigation is being considered.

Noise and Visual Resources

ΠEquipment noise effects would be reduced by the distance between the various noise sources. When possible, the equipment would be oriented such that the loudest noise sources would not be directed toward nearby residences. ΠMingo Logan would minimize visual impacts to nearby travelers and residents through contemporaneous reclamation of disturbances, as quickly as practicable, and the mining of the project in a sequence to disturb the most visible areas later in the mine life.

2-79

Hazardous Materials

ΠFuel storage facilities would include spill containment structures designed to meet State and Federal regulations and would allow for the identification and containment of accidental spills. ΠWaste oils and lubricants would be disposed of by a licensed recycler during both construction and operation.

ΠNo monitoring or mitigation is being considered.

2.6

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

The evaluation of cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine is dependent on identification of those past, present, and future actions in the vicinity that cause impacts affecting the same resources and overlap in a geographic and/or temporal manner with the anticipated impacts from the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. The geographic areas considered for these potentially interrelated actions vary among resources (see Chapter 3.0), since a remote activity may contribute to cumulative impacts for one resource (e.g., aesthetics) while not contributing to cumulative impacts for other resources that are affected primarily by site-specific activities (e.g., noise). Within the Spruce Fork watershed, there are several existing mining operations in various stages of their mine life, including active-mining, active-reclaimed, active-not started, and Phase I Bond Release. Based on the information on the WVDEP website and GIS database, there are approximately eighty-nine (89) active permits in the watershed. The total acreage associated with these permitted areas totals approximately 15,248 acres or 23.82 square miles (total watershed size - 80,717 acres or 126.12 square miles). In addition, there are currently two pending mining permits that fall totally or partially within the Spruce Fork watershed. Most of these permit areas are part of larger mining complexes within the watershed. The following section outlines the mining complexes in the watershed whose potentially inter-related actions would be likely to contribute to cumulative impacts to one or more of the resources under consideration in this EIS. Exhibit 2-26 shows the currently permitted areas and the foreseeable future projects located within the watershed. In addition there has been pre-law mining within the watershed and mined lands in the post-mining transitional stages. 2.6.1
Past and Present Actions

The land uses in the Spruce Fork watershed have been relatively stable over recent decades. The continuation of active mining has been on-going with new operations being created as others are closing and being reclaimed. The past and present actions anticipated to contribute to cumulative impacts to those resources affected by the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine are listed below. 2.6.1.1 Pre-Law and Post Mining Transitional Mining Activity The pre-law and post-mining transitional activities within the watershed were derived from the land use/land cover analysis included in Section 3.8.3 of this document. Using published mine data from the WVDEP, active mining and post-mining transitional lands were broken out from the data for LU/LC Codes 32 (Quarries/ Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits/ Permitted Surface Mines) and 33 (transitional/ herbaceous/ planted/ cultivated). “Active Mining” has been assigned LU/LC Code 32A and “Post Mining Transitional” has been assigned LU/LC Code 33A. The remaining areas within LU/LC Code 32, with the exception of the active permitted areas, primarily represent un-reclaimed pre-law mining areas. Whereas, the amended LU/LC Code 33A includes WVDEP permitted surface and underground mines that are Phase II (or greater) bond released. These permitted mine operations (including underground mines with permitted surface activities) are now re-vegetated and are mostly in various stages of forest succession unless community economic plans call for development. Within the Spruce Fork watershed, the acreage of estimated un-reclaimed pre-law mining activities (LU/LC Code 32) totals approximately 659 acres and the post mining transitional areas (LU/LC Code 33A) totaled approximately 1,229 acres.

2-80

2.6.1.2

Dal-Tex Complex

Mingo Logan’s Dal-Tex Complex is located to the west of the proposed project with a majority of the mining area located in the Beech Creek of Spruce Fork watershed. The Dal-Tex Complex encompasses approximately 6,630 acres and includes eleven (11) surface mining permits, of which two (2) are fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; nine (9) underground mining permits, of which three (3) have been fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released and four (4) have not been started; and eleven (11) surface ancillary facilities permits, of which two (2) have been fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released. The complex is currently inactive with the majority of the mining permitted having previously occurred and been reclaimed. Re-activation and future mining of existing permitted areas could occur in the future. 2.6.1.3 Independence Coal Company Associated Permits The Independence Coal Company associated mining operations are primarily operations located along the Spruce Laurel Fork of Spruce Fork watershed. The total permitted acreage encompasses approximately 2,792 acres and includes eight (8) surface mining permits, of which three (3) are fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; three (3) underground mining permits all of which are fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; and two (2) surface ancillary facilities permits. The total current active mining area associated with these permits is approximately 1,647 acres, which includes one (1) surface mining permit which has not been started, but would have begun operation by the time that the proposed project would occur. Approximately 1,145 acres are currently reclaimed and transitioning back to forestland. 2.6.1.4 Mountain Laurel Complex The Mountain Laurel Complex is located in the Seng Camp Creek of Spruce Fork watershed. The complex encompasses approximately 321 acres and includes seven (7) underground mining permits that have not been started, one (1) active underground mining/plant/loadout permit, and one (1) coarse refuse facility permit pending construction (Daniel Hollow Coarse Refuse Facility, WVDEP Permit O5016-04). The complex includes the Cardinal Preparation Plant and Loadout, which would receive coal from the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The current disturbance associated with the deep mines and surface facilities totals approximately 166 acres and will be active for approximately 27 years. The Mountain Laurel Complex and the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would be connected by proposed Haulroad 1. 2.6.1.5 Apogee Coal Company, LLC Complex –”Guyan Area” Portions of the Apogee Coal Company, LLC Mining Complex fall within the Spruce Fork watershed. The operations that fall within the watershed are identified by the complex as the “Guyan Area”. There permitted operations within the “Guyan Area” that fall within the Spruce Fork watershed encompass a total of 990 acres and include three (3) surface mining permits; one (1) active underground mining permit; one (1) underground mining/plant permit, which has been fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; and one (1) impoundment permit that is inactive and is approximately forty-one percent (41%) reclaimed. The acreage of the current permitted complex area that is located in the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately 990 acres, of which approximately 734 are actively being mined and/or disturbed.

2-81

2.6.1.6

Stollings Trucking Mining Complex

Located in the head of the Garland Fork of Spruce Fork watershed, the Stollings Trucking Mining Complex encompasses approximately 858 acres and includes four (4) surface mining permits, of which one (1) is fully reclaimed and Phase 1 bond released; two (2) underground mining permits, of which one (1) which is completely overbonded; one (1) haulroad permit; and one (1) coarse refuse facility permit. Active mining disturbance associated with the complex within the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately 337 acres. Most of the permitted area has been reclaimed and is currently transitioning back to forestland. 2.6.1.7 Other Currently Permitted Operations.

The remaining approximately twenty-three (23) active permitted mining operations located within the Spruce Fork watershed encompass approximately 3,658 acres. Of these permits, six (6) are fully reclaimed and one (1) is active but not started. The total active mining area associated with these permits is approximately 966 acres. 2.6.2
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Future actions considered in this analysis include those considered to be reasonably foreseeable, rather than speculative. This categorization is based on the best available information from the agencies and proponents involved or from credible published sources. For the purposes of evaluation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine project, reasonably foreseeable future actions would include the mining of areas within the Spruce Fork watershed that have mining permit applications currently pending with the WVDEP. There are only two (2) currently pending surface mining applications located within the Spruce Fork watershed. The North Rum Surface Mine (pending WVDEP Permit S-5006-05) would be approximately 801 acres on the dividing ridge between Garland Fork and Brushy Fork, both tributaries of Spruce Fork. The area proposed to be mined in the North Rum Surface Mine project contains extensive pre-law mining and would result in the reclamation of several thousand feet of existing “prelaw” highwall. The second pending application is for the 333-acre Adkins Fork Surface Mine (pending WVDEP Permit S-5005-03) located in Adkins Fork of Spruce Fork. 2.7 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Table 2-24 summarizes and compares the projected environmental impacts of the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. Detailed descriptions of the impacts are presented in Chapter 3.0, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. Impacts are referred to as “long-term, but temporary” if only occurring during the project life (through reclamation) or “long-term” if they persist beyond mine closure and reclamation.

2-82

Table 2-24 Summary and Comparison of Projected Impacts of the Applicant’s Preferred and No Action Alternatives
Resource/Impact Issue Geology and Mineral Resources Modification of topography in the project area Geologic hazards Topography would be altered by the removal of overburden and coal, and placement of the excess overburden in the associated valley fills. No adverse impacts due to compliance with regulatory requirements and standards for stability of regraded areas. Approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of the targeted reserves or 40.91 million tons of bituminous coal would be extracted and utilized for power generation. Would result in the plugging of one (1) existing gas well, closure of the associated 2-inch gas line, and relocation of a 4-inch transmission line fed by the 2-inch line. Topography would be altered by the removal of overburden and coal, and placement of the excess overburden in the associated valley fills. No adverse impacts due to compliance with regulatory requirements and standards for stability of regraded areas. Approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of the targeted reserves or 51.53 million tons of bituminous coal would be extracted and utilized for power generation. No modification of topography by proposed mine construction or operation. No effects on geologic hazards by proposed mine construction or operation. No bituminous coal resources would be removed by proposed mine construction or operation. Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Impact Alternative 3 Impact No Action Alternative Impact

Removal of bituminous coal resource making it unavailable in the future

Oil and gas resources

Would result in the plugging of one (1) existing gas well, closure of the associated 2-inch gas line, and relocation of a 4-inch transmission line fed by the 2-inch line.

No effects on oil and gas by proposed mine construction or operation.

Groundwater Groundwater level declines in private and municipal wells No anticipated adverse impacts to groundwater users, as all adjacent groundwater users appear to be obtaining water from wells tapping the alluvial aquifer and/or the valley floor fracture system associated with Spruce Fork. Proposed activities would occur at elevations well above these aquifers and would not be anticipated to affect the groundwater supply of these users. No anticipated adverse impacts to groundwater users, as all adjacent groundwater users appear to be obtaining water from wells tapping the alluvial aquifer and/or the valley floor fracture system associated with Spruce Fork. Proposed activities would occur at elevations well above these aquifers and would not be anticipated to affect the groundwater supply of these users. No anticipated adverse impacts to groundwater users, as all adjacent groundwater users appear to be obtaining water from wells tapping the alluvial aquifer and/or the valley floor fracture system associated with Spruce Fork. Proposed activities would occur at elevations well above these aquifers and would not be anticipated to affect the groundwater supply of these users. No affect to groundwater users by proposed mine construction or operation.

Groundwater levels in the project and surrounding areas

No anticipated adverse impacts to groundwater users, as all adjacent groundwater users appear to be obtaining water from wells tapping the alluvial aquifer and/or the valley floor fracture system associated with Spruce Fork. Proposed activities would occur at elevations well above these aquifers and would not be anticipated to affect the groundwater supply of these users.

No affect to groundwater levels by proposed mine construction or operation.

2-83

Resource/Impact Issue Surface Water Removal of surface water features

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Impact

Alternative 3 Impact

No Action Alternative Impact

Approximately 36,814 linear feet of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels would be permanently removed (filled). No net impacts would be anticipated following implementation and successful achievement of the proposed reclamation and mitigation plans. Peak flows would be not be affected by the proposed project. The Storm Water Runoff Analysis (SWROA)(Appendix G) prepared for the project indicated that proposed activities would result in “no net increase” in the peak discharge from the project area during a 100-year/24-hour storm event either during-mining or post-mining, as compared to the premining configuration. Flow augmentation from groundwater discharges at the toes of the proposed fills would occur following mining operations. Valley fills with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a more consistent perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills on downstream, which would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime downstream of valley fills, isolation of potentially acidic or toxic materials encountered away from drainage courses, and utilization of natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like) of temporarily impacted streams within the project area, as well as habitat enhancement in these streams’ riparian zones, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of at least a portion of the streams on-site. No effects on flooding hazards in receiving streams as a result of the construction and operation of the mine would be anticipated. The SWROA analysis prepared for the project indicated that proposed activities would result in “no net increase” in the peak discharge from the project area during a 100-year/24-hour storm event either during-mining or post-mining, as compared to the pre-mining configuration.

Approximately 54,515 linear feet of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels would be permanently removed (filled). No net impacts would be anticipated following implementation and successful achievement of reclamation and mitigation plans that would be required. However, this alternative would directly impact White Oak Branch, a presumptive Tier 2.5 listed stream. Peak flows would be not be affected by the proposed project. A Storm Water Runoff Analysis (SWROA) would need to be prepared to verify that the drainage control system designed for this alternative would result in “no net increase” in the peak discharge from the project area either during-mining or post-mining, as compared to the pre-mining configuration. If these conditions were not met, the drainage control system for this alternative would have to be revised to comply. Flow augmentation from groundwater discharges at the toes of the proposed fills would occur following mining operations. Valley fills with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a more consistent perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills on downstream, which would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime downstream of valley fills, isolation of potentially acidic or toxic materials encountered away from drainage courses, and utilization of natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like) of temporarily impacted streams within the project area, as well as habitat enhancement in these streams’ riparian zones, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of at least a portion of the streams on-site.

No removal of surface water features by proposed mine construction or operation.

Flow effects of watershed modifications

No watershed modifications by proposed mine construction or operation.

Flow effects from groundwater discharges to streams

No effects on groundwater discharges to streams by proposed mine construction or operation.

Flooding hazards

No effects on flooding hazards in receiving streams as a result of the construction No effects on flood hazards by proposed mine construction or operation. and operation of the mine would be anticipated. A Storm Water Runoff Analysis (SWROA) would need to be prepared to verify that the drainage control system designed for this alternative would result in “no net increase” in the peak discharge from the project area either during-mining or post-mining, as compared to the premining configuration. If these conditions were not met, the drainage control system for this alternative would have to be revised to comply. No effect on floodplains. FEMA mapping indicated that there would be no floodways/ floodplains in the proposed project area. No effects on floodways/floodplains by proposed mine construction or operation.

Affect on floodways/floodplains

No effect on floodplains. FEMA mapping indicated that there would be no floodways/ floodplains in the proposed project area.

2-84

Resource/Impact Issue Water quality

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Impact No adverse impacts following implementation of the drainage control plan and compliance with NPDES permit provisions.

Alternative 3 Impact No adverse impacts following implementation of the drainage control plan and compliance with NPDES permit provisions. However, this alternative would directly impact White Oak Branch, a presumptive Tier 2.5 listed stream; this listing requires that no degradation of the stream be allowed to occur. No adverse impacts following implementation of the drainage control plans, employment of best management practices, reclamation and compliance with NPDES permit provisions. A total of 12.96 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be impacted as a result of mine construction and operation. This includes a 0.12-acre palustrine wetland and 12.84 acres of ephemeral and intermittent stream impacts. Mingo Logan's would be required to propose mitigation that would enhance, restore, and/or replace the streams impacted in association with the project at a minimum 1:1 ratio, both on the basis of stream habitat units (SHUs) and linear footage. Off-set of stream impacts through proposed mitigation would be performed both on-site and off-site. The wetland would be replaced on-site at a 4:1 ratio, on an acreage basis.

No Action Alternative Impact No effect on water quality from proposed mine construction or operation.

Erosion and sedimentation.

No adverse impacts following implementation of the drainage control plans, employment of best management practices, reclamation and compliance with NPDES permit provisions. A total of 8.95 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be impacted as a result of mine construction and operation. This includes a 0.12-acre palustrine wetland and 8.83 acres of ephemeral and intermittent stream impacts. Mingo Logan's proposed mitigation plan would enhance, restore, and/or replace the streams impacted in association with the project at a minimum 1:1 ratio, both on the basis of stream habitat units (SHUs) and linear footage. Off-set of stream impacts through proposed mitigation would be performed both onsite and off-site. The wetland would be replaced on-site at a 4:1 ratio, on an acreage basis. No impacts to special aquatic sites from proposed project.

No effect on erosion and sedimentation from proposed mine construction or operation.

Loss of waters of the U.S., including wetlands

No change in wetlands or waters of the U.S. in the project area caused by proposed mine construction or operation.

Impacts to special aquatic sites

No impacts to special aquatic sites from proposed project. However, this alternative would directly impact White Oak Branch, a presumptive Tier 2.5 listed stream; this listing requires that no degradation of the stream be allowed to occur.

No impacts to special aquatic sites from proposed mine construction or operation.

Soils Accelerated erosion in disturbed areas Impacts to soils would be minimized through the implementation of erosion control measures, best management practices, and contemporaneous reclamation measures. Impacts to soils would be minimized through the implementation of erosion control measures, best management practices, and contemporaneous reclamation measures. No effect on erosion from proposed mine construction or operation in the project area.

Vegetation Impact to native vegetation Long-term, but temporary, loss of woody species and herbaceous vegetation would occur, but would be rectified during reclamation of the project area to forestland and implementation of the proposed mitigation plan riparian enhancement/restoration measures. The Applicant has agreed to revise the current revegetation plan to include only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies. Long-term, but temporary, loss of woody species and herbaceous vegetation would occur, but would be rectified during reclamation of the project area to forestland and implementation of the proposed mitigation plan riparian enhancement/restoration measures. The Applicant would revise the revegetation plan to include only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies. Vegetation would not be affected by proposed mine construction or operation.

2-85

Resource/Impact Issue Establishment of invasive species

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Impact No anticipated increase of invasive plant species within the project area. The Applicant has agreed to revise the current revegetation plan to include only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies. Long-term, but temporary, loss of trees used for commercial uses would occur, rectified during reclamation of the project area to forestland. The Applicant has agreed to revise the current revegetation plan to include only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies. No impact to special status plant species or potential habitat would occur.

Alternative 3 Impact No anticipated increase of invasive plant species within the project area. The Applicant would revise the revegetation plan to include only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies.

No Action Alternative Impact Vegetation currently present within the project area would remain intact and would minimize the potential for establishment of invasive species.

Impacts to economically harvestable vegetation

Long-term, but temporary, loss of trees used for commercial uses would occur, rectified during reclamation of the project area to forestland.

Native vegetation would not be removed by proposed mine construction or operation.

Impacts to special status plant species

No impact to special status plant species or potential habitat would occur.

No impact to special status plant species or potential habitat from proposed mine construction or operation.

Fish and Wildlife Loss of aquatic habitat from mining Approximately 36,814 feet (7.60 acres) of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels and one small palustrine wetland (0.12 acre) would be permanently impacted by the project resulting in the loss of aquatic habitat. Following reclamation and mitigation, there would be 26,361 feet (5.56 acres) of stream created and a 0.48-acre wetland created within the project area. In addition, 11,272 feet (14.58 acres) of intermittent and perennial steam would be enhanced off-site. No adverse effect to the water levels in receiving streams downstream of the project area during operation would be expected to occur. Valley fills with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a more consistent perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills on downstream, which would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime downstream of valley fills, isolation of potentially acidic or toxic materials encountered away from drainage courses, and utilization of natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like) of temporarily impacted streams within the project area, as well as habitat enhancement in these streams’ riparian zones, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of at least a portion of the streams on-site. Approximately 54,515 feet (11.85 acres) of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels and one small palustrine wetland (0.12 acre) would be permanently impacted by the project resulting in the loss of aquatic habitat. Alternative 3 would require similar, but greater mitigation than proposed for the Applicant’s PA due to the greater stream impacts under this alternative. No loss of stream or wetland habitat would result from proposed mine construction or operation.

Habitat reduction due to runoff and water level changes

No adverse effect to the water levels in receiving streams downstream of the project area during operation would be expected to occur. Valley fills with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a more consistent perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills on downstream, which would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime downstream of valley fills, isolation of potentially acidic or toxic materials encountered away from drainage courses, and utilization of natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like) of temporarily impacted streams within the project area, as well as habitat enhancement in these streams’ riparian zones, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of at least a portion of the streams on-site.

No affect to water levels and runoff from proposed mine construction or operation.

2-86

Resource/Impact Issue Habitat increases due to mine water discharges

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Impact Potential long-term increases in stream channel could develop in perimeter sediment ditches, most likely ephemeral along up-dip areas and intermittent along down-dip areas, as a result of infiltration of precipitation through backfill. Infiltration migrates vertically through the backfill to the mine pavement and then flows along the dip of the pavement (subsurface) until it outcrops along the perimeter of the project area in constructed sediment ditches utilized to control surface runoff. Long-term, but temporary, impacts within the project area resulting from direct disturbance of 2,278 acres, most of which currently provides wildlife habitat. The entire project area would not be disturbed at once, and disturbed areas would be reclaimed, as contemporaneously as practicable, to allow for revegetation returning the area to forestland.

Alternative 3 Impact Potential long-term increases in stream channel could develop in perimeter sediment ditches, most likely ephemeral along up-dip areas and intermittent along down-dip areas, as a result of infiltration of precipitation through backfill. Infiltration migrates vertically through the backfill to the mine pavement and then flows along the dip of the pavement (subsurface) until it outcrops along the perimeter of the project area in constructed sediment ditches utilized to control surface runoff.

No Action Alternative Impact No increase in stream habitat would result from proposed mine construction or operation.

Direct habitat loss or alteration

Long-term, but temporary, impacts within the project area resulting from direct disturbance of 2,914 acres, most of which currently provides wildlife habitat. The entire project area would not be disturbed at once, and disturbed areas would be reclaimed, as contemporaneously as practicable, to allow for revegetation returning the area to forestland. However, due to proposed use of a dragline under this alternative, disturbed area at any given time would be greater than under the Applicant’s PA, which does not propose use of a dragline, as dragline operations are not restricted to a maximum thirty-five percent disturbance unlike non-dragline operations. Possible long-term, but temporary, loss of nesting habitat through removal of forestland habitat within the project area during mining operations. However, the project area would be returned to a land use of forestland during reclamation. Mingo Logan would observe power lines and poles to determine if nesting or perching of raptors is occurring and, if necessary, would install protection devices to minimize the potential for electrocution of raptors.

No habitat loss from proposed mine construction or operation.

Disturbance to nesting raptors and other migratory birds

Possible long-term, but temporary, loss of nesting habitat through removal of forestland habitat within the project area during mining operations. However, the project area would be returned to a land use of forestland during reclamation. Mingo Logan would observe power lines and poles to determine if nesting or perching of raptors is occurring and, if necessary, would install protection devices to minimize the potential for electrocution of raptors. No impacts to special status wildlife, endangered, or threatened species would be affected by mine construction and operation.

No disturbance to nesting habitat or potential for electrocution of raptors from proposed mine construction or operation.

Impacts to special status wildlife, endangered, or threatened species

No impacts to special status wildlife, endangered, or threatened species would be No impacts to special status wildlife, endangered, or affected by mine construction and operation. threatened species from proposed mine construction or operation.

Cultural Resources Potential impacts to cultural resources Direct impacts to seven (7) historic Euro-American sites and one (1) Euro petroglyph identified during the Phase I archeological survey. A Phase II survey determined that none of these sites were considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Indirect impacts to the three cemeteries and other cultural resources in the vicinity, including the Blair Mountain site, due to visual impacts would be to be minimal Direct impacts to seven (7) historic Euro-American sites and one (1) Euro petroglyph identified during the Phase I archeological survey. A Phase II survey determined that none of these sites were considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Indirect impacts to the three cemeteries and other cultural resources in the vicinity, including the Blair Mountain site, due to visual impacts would be to be minimal No impacts to cultural resources from proposed mine construction or operation.

2-87

Resource/Impact Issue Air Quality Affects of fugitive dust on air quality

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Impact

Alternative 3 Impact

No Action Alternative Impact

Potential effects of fugitive dust on air quality in the project area and areas immediately adjacent to the project. Affects would be minimized with the implementation of proper measures for controlling fugitive dust.

Potential effects of fugitive dust on air quality in the project area and areas immediately adjacent to the project. Affects would be minimized with the implementation of proper measures for controlling fugitive dust.

No impacts on air quality from proposed mine construction or operation.

Land Use and Recreation Compliance with local development plans and policies The post-mining land use of forestland would be in compliance with the Logan County Master Land-Use Plan. The post-mining land use of forestland would be in compliance with the Logan County Master Land-Use Plan. No effect to Logan County Master Land-Use Plan from proposed mine construction, operation, or reclamation. No impact on prime farmland from proposed mine construction or operation.

Potential destruction of prime farmland

No impact on prime farmland as a result of the mine construction and operation, as there are no prime farmlands within the project area. No impacts to recreational activities in the project area, or areas adjacent to the project, as these areas are privately-owned and have restricted access. Potential impacts to recreational users of the areas adjacent to the project could result from increased ambient noise levels. No impacts on public recreation areas would occur, as the closest public recreation area would be the Rockhouse Lake Public Recreation area which would be located approximately four (4) miles northwest of the project area. No impacts to wildlife viewing or hunting opportunities related to habitat loss, as the project area is privately-owned and trespassing is prohibited.

No impact on prime farmland as a result of the mine construction and operation, as there are no prime farmlands within the project area.

Impacts on recreational activities

No impacts on recreational activities from proposed No impacts to recreational activities in the project area, or areas adjacent to the project, as these areas are privately-owned and have restricted access. Potential mine construction or operation. impacts to recreational users of the areas adjacent to the project could result from increased ambient noise levels.

Impacts on pubic recreation areas and/or state parks

No impacts on public recreation areas would occur, as the closest public recreation area would be the Rockhouse Lake Public Recreation area which would be located approximately four (4) miles northwest of the project area.

No impacts on public recreation areas and/or state parks from proposed mine construction or operation.

Loss of wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities due to habitat loss

No impacts to wildlife viewing or hunting opportunities related to habitat loss, as the project area is privately-owned and trespassing is prohibited.

No impacts on wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities from proposed mine construction or operation.

Social and Economic Values Population change Long-term, but temporary, maintenance and potential increase in local population due to available employment. Long-term, but temporary, maintenance and potential increase in mining employment of approximately 218 employees (direct) at peak production and employment in other industries that are supportive of the mining industry. Long-term, but temporary, maintenance and potential increase in local population due to available employment. Long-term, but temporary, maintenance and potential increase in mining employment of approximately 218 employees (direct) at peak production and employment in other industries that are supportive of the mining industry. No impact on area population from proposed mine construction or operation. No impact on employment and income from proposed mine construction or operation.

Employment and income change

2-88

Resource/Impact Issue Change to local public finance

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Impact Long-term, but temporary, increased tax revenues (income, property, severance, etc.) for Logan County and its municipalities. Minimal change to service demands due to increase in workers in the area. Long-term, but temporary, potentially decline in residential values in close proximity to active mining due to noise and visual impacts. Long-term decreases in mineral property values due to depletion of bituminous coal resources would result from the project. Long-term, but temporary, increases in noise and visual effects in close proximity to active mining could affect quality of life for nearby residents.

Alternative 3 Impact Long-term, but temporary, increased tax revenues (income, property, severance, etc.) for Logan County and its municipalities. Minimal change to service demands due to increase in workers in the area.

No Action Alternative Impact No change in tax revenue in Logan County from proposed mine construction or operation. No change in demand for public services from proposed mine construction or operation. Potential decline in Logan County property values due to declining population with related reduction in demand for property.

Change in demand for public services

Decline in property values

Long-term, but temporary, potentially decline in residential values in close proximity to active mining due to noise and visual impacts. Long-term decreases in mineral property values due to depletion of bituminous coal resources would result from the project. Long-term, but temporary, increases in noise and visual effects in close proximity to active mining could affect quality of life for nearby residents.

Loss of quality of life

No effect in Spruce No. 1 Mine area. Potential impacts on unemployment rates for Logan and surrounding counties.

Transportation Heavy truck traffic Long-term, but temporary, potential for minor increases would exist during the initial construction phase, as initial coal haulage may use State Route (SR) 17. Coal haulage during the operation phase would be on internal private roads. Long-term, but temporary, minor increases in accident risk on public roads during initial construction phase. Coal haulage during operation would be on internal private roads. Long-term, but temporary, potential for minor increases would exist during the initial construction phase, as initial coal haulage may use State Route (SR) 17. Coal haulage during the operation phase would be on internal private roads. No increase in truck traffic from proposed mine construction or operation.

Highway safety

Coal haulage during all phases of the operation would be on internal private roads.

No improvements to area roadways from proposed mine-related construction.

Noise and Visual Resources Loss of landscape and vegetation diversity Long-term, but temporary, impacts to landscape of the proposed project area would occur, however, the reclaimed mine site would blend in to the surrounding landscape upon final reclamation. Vegetation diversity would decrease from the time of initial clearing until reclamation has been successfully completed. Long-term, but temporary, aesthetic impacts for travelers and residents located along an approximately 6.4 mile section of SR17. Long-term, but temporary, increases in ambient noise levels during the life of the mine operation. Long-term, but temporary, impacts to landscape of the proposed project area would occur, however, the reclaimed mine site would blend in to the surrounding landscape upon final reclamation. Vegetation diversity would decrease from the time of initial clearing until reclamation has been successfully completed. No proposed mine-related change in landscape character or vegetation diversity.

Aesthetic impacts

Long-term, but temporary, aesthetic impacts for travelers and residents located along an approximately 6.4 mile section of SR17. Long-term, but temporary, increases in ambient noise levels during the life of the mine operation.

No aesthetic impacts from proposed mine construction or operation. No increase in noise levels related to proposed mining activities.

Increase in ambient and annoyance noise levels

2-89

Resource/Impact Issue Hazardous Materials Generation of hazardous wastes

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Impact

Alternative 3 Impact

No Action Alternative Impact

Hazardous waste would be used and generated during mine construction and operation. Hazardous waste would be disposed of in accordance with current regulations. There would be an approximately twelve percent (12%) probability of one spill of hazardous waste occurring during the project life. Hazardous material transporters are required to have spill response plans that can be implemented in the event of an accidental spill. Hazardous materials could be spilled during their storage and use within the project area. The potential risk would be minimized by storage in appropriate containment structures and implementation of the spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCC) in the event of a spill.

Hazardous waste would be used and generated during mine construction and operation. Hazardous waste would be disposed of in accordance with current regulations.

No hazardous wastes would be generated by proposed mining activities.

Spill of hazardous materials during transportation

There would be an approximately thirteen percent (13%) probability of one spill of Mine-related hazardous material transportation would not be necessary. hazardous waste occurring during the project life. Hazardous material transporters are required to have spill response plans that can be implemented in the event of an accidental spill. Hazardous materials could be spilled during their storage and use within the project area. The potential risk would be minimized by storage in appropriate containment structures and implementation of the spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCC) in the event of a spill. No mine-related hazardous materials would be stored or used.

Spill of hazardous materials during storage and use

Public Health Impacts to health of local population No adverse health impacts to the local population would be anticipated to occur due to effects on water quality, air quality, or noise. No adverse health impacts to the local population would be anticipated to occur due to effects on water quality, air quality, or noise. No impacts on public health from proposed mine construction or operation.

Environmental Justice Low income or minority population disproportionately affected No disproportionate effects on low income or minority populations. No disproportionate effects on low income or minority populations. No disproportionate effects on low income or minority populations from proposed mine construction or operation.

2-90

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter describes the environment that would be affected by the development of the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (PA), Alternative 3, and the No Action Alternative. The environmental baseline information summarized in this section was obtained from numerous field and laboratory studies of the project area, the Surface Mine Application (SMA; original and revisions), published sources, unpublished materials, and comments and coordination with the public and relevant government resource agencies. The affected environment for individual resources was delineated based upon the area of potential direct and indirect environmental affects for the proposed project. For some resources, such as geology and soils, the area of potential affect was determined to be the physical location and immediate vicinity of the areas proposed to be disturbed by the project. For other resources, such as surface water resources, socioeconomics, and wildlife habitat, the area of potential affect comprised larger areas as appropriate to the resource (e.g. Mountaintop Mining Region, State of West Virginia, Logan County, local communities, major river basins, watersheds, sub-watersheds, etc.). This chapter also describes the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Applicant’s PA, Alternative 3, and the No Action Alternative. Evaluation of potential impacts assumes the implementation of Mingo Logan’s proposed environmental protection measures (See Table 2-21). Potential additional monitoring and mitigation measures to compensate for identified impacts may be recommended by the USACE for individual resources. These measures are not part of Mingo Logan’s proposed project, but could be added as special conditions to any DA Section 404 permit that may be issued by the USACE or as stipulations of approval or authorizations of other regulatory agencies. This chapter also identifies the residual adverse effects, that is, the effects that would remain after the proposed environmental protection measures and additional recommended mitigation measures have been implemented. The proposed project may result in impacts inter-related with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the area. For resources where project-specific impacts are identified, the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project were evaluated together with other interrelated projects. The period of potential cumulative impact is defined as the 15-year life of the project plus approximately 5 years for reclamation. This chapter is organized by environmental resource. Sections 3.1 through 3.15 describe the existing conditions and potential environmental impacts associated with each resource. The short-term use of the environment relative to the long-term productivity of resources is discussed in Section 3.16. Longterm, but temporary, for Alternative 3 and Applicant’s PA respectively, is defined as a 10-year and 15year period of project construction and operation, and a 5-year period of reclamation. Long-term effects on productivity are defined as effects that would continue post-reclamation (i.e., Alternative 3 beyond ten [10] years and Applicant’s PA – fifteen [15] years). The irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources is described in Section 3.17. Numerous technical reports were prepared or used as supporting documents for this EIS (including referenced sections of the SMA). Copies of these technical reports are available for review at the following location:
3-1

Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District 502 Eighth Street Huntington, West Virginia 25701 3.1 GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Environmental issues associated with geology and mineral resources include topographical changes, alteration of the geologic column through removal of mineral resources, and potential geologic hazards related to project development within the proposed project area. 3.1.1 3.1.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Physiographic and Topographic Setting

The Spruce No. 1 Mine project area is located in the unglaciated portion of the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province of West Virginia (Exhibit 3-1). The Appalachian Plateau province in West Virginia covers the northwestern two-thirds of the state and is separated from the Valley and Ridge province in the southeastern third of the state by the Allegheny Front. The Appalachian Plateau is where the majority of the mineable coal in West Virginia is located. In West Virginia, the Allegheny Plateau province is characterized by relatively flat strata, aside from several distinct folds and faults in the eastern portion of the province, moderately to heavily-dissected by narrow, steep-sloped, v-shaped valleys displaying a dendritic drainage pattern whose streams and rivers ultimately drain to the Ohio River, the major river system in the region, with a minor amount of the drainages along the extreme eastern edge of the Allegheny Plateau flowing to the Potomac River. The major topographic features throughout the province range from moderately flat to hilly to mountainous uplands consisting of moderately wide to narrow ridges, knobs, and saddles separated by steep, narrow, deep valleys. Elevations in the Appalachian Plateau range from 1,000 to 4,500’. The study area for geology encompasses the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area. The project area lies in a region called the Mountaintop Mining Region of West Virginia which encompasses portions of Mingo, Logan, Lincoln, Wayne, Boone, Wyoming, Raleigh, Kanawha, Fayette, Clay, Nicholas, Webster, and Braxton Counties (Exhibit 3-2). Elevations in the project area range from 1,000 to 2,050 feet, and the area is characterized by narrow ridges that are cut by dendritic drainages. The specific project area is located within the upper headwaters of the Spruce Fork of the Little Coal River watershed along State Route (SR) 17 in the eastern portion of Logan County, West Virginia (Exhibit 1-1). The project area is in the Coal River Basin, adjacent to the rural communities of Blair to the east and Five Block to the southeast (Exhibit 1-2). The Applicant’s PA would result in disturbances to the following four (4) subwatersheds of Spruce Fork: Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch. The cumulative effects area includes the project area in addition to other mining projects in the Spruce Fork watershed. 3.1.1.2 Regional Geologic Setting The regional dip of coal-bearing Pennsylvanian strata is to the northwest at a rate of seventy-five (75) feet per mile (Kelafant et al., 1988). Major structural features of the Appalachian Plateau geology are the several distinct folds and faults in the eastern portion of the province, which includes West Virginia
3-2

(Exhibit 3-3). In southern West Virginia, the Warfield Anticline, Coalburg (Handley) Syncline, and Wake Forest Anticline comprise the major fold sequence, which has a southwest-northeast trend. There are no major faults in the region. The only faults occurring within the southern portion of West Virginia is the Warfield Fault, which is situated at the southeastern state boundary near Kermit, West Virginia and Warfield Kentucky, and the St. Clair Thrust Fault, situated along the southeastern West VirginiaVirginia border, which like the folds, bear a southwest-northeast trend. The only other faults in the state are a few unnamed, minor faults located in the eastern panhandle. The predominant structural features of the geology in this region are the lineaments identifiable paralleling major drainage courses related to the occurrence of a stress-relief fracture system defined by Wyrick and Borchers (1981) as a “system of fractures that developed due to local de-stressing of the nearly flat-lying strata during downcutting of the deeply incised stream valleys.” The system is a near-surface phenomenon, with fractures probably not occurring at depths greater than one hundred or two hundred (100 or 200) feet. The stress-relief fracture system has a substantial affect upon the hydrology of the region, as discussed in later sections of this chapter. The Allegheny Plateau is composed of late Ordovician, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, and Permian strata overlain by Quaternary alluvium, with the oldest rock formations occurring in the eastern portion of the province within the fold sequences. The majority of the plateau region is composed of Pennsylvanian and Permian strata. During the Precambrian period, approximately 1,000 million years ago, lava was deposited in the extreme eastern part of West Virginia, which constitutes the oldest exposed rocks in the state. The age of strata decreases as one proceeds northwestward across the state. Subsequent to the lava deposition, a trough began to form allowing a shallow, marine sea to cover most of the area leading to the deposition of marine limestones, sandstones, and shales, which extended throughout the Cambrian and Ordovician periods approximately four hundred to eight hundred million years ago (400-800 mya)(WVGES, 1915). Near the end of the Ordovician, the Taconic Orogeny occurred signifying the initial production of the Appalachian Mountains to the east. Erosion of these mountains provided a source of clastic and carbonate sediments that were carried by large river systems and deposited as deltas along the fringes of this shallow sea during the late Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian periods. Clastic sediments dominated the deposits in the eastern portion of the province, while evaporites were deposited in the more northern areas. During the Middle to Late Devonian, the Acadian Orogeny occurred expanding the creation of the Appalachian Mountains to the northeast, which provided a greater source of sediment, mainly clastic, to be deposited in the shallow sea. However, by the end of the Devonian period, sea level was rapidly regressing to the west leading to the formation of continental (non-marine) deposits consisting of red beds of the Hampshire Formation (early Mississippian age). During the Middle Mississippian period, approximately three hundred thirty million years ago (330 mya), sea level again transgressed eastward into the area depositing the Greenbrier Formation, which is predominantly limestone and signifies the last major marine insurgence. By the end of the Mississippian period, approximately twenty (20) million years later, sea level had once again regressed, which continued through the Pennsylvanian period. During this time, and for approximately fifty (50) million years following, the area was dropping in elevation, near to and sometimes below sea level, at
3-3

approximately the same rate at which deposition was occurring leading to the deposition of thousands of feet of non-marine sandstone, shale, and coal. Due to the area being at or below sea level, the geographic setting was persistently that of a swampy deltaic system that allowed for the deposition of clastic sediments while vegetation flourished in separate areas during various periods. It was this fluctuation between dominance of sediment deposition compared to organic deposition that led to the formation of the coal seams dispersed throughout the Pennsylvanian deposits. The coal seams represent periods during which sediment deposition was minimal allowing long periods of accumulation of pure organics under sufficient water to prevent oxidation. The deposits formed during the Pennsylvanian period are the result of large deltas of meandering rivers that were periodically submerged by marine transgressions. It was during this period that the Allegheny Formation and the Pottsville Group, which contains the Kanawha Formation, were deposited. The cyclic sequences of sandstone, shale, coal, and limestone in these formations serve as a record of the various transgressions and regressions of sea level during that period. The Permian period followed, roughly two hundred seventy to two hundred twenty-five million years ago (27-225 mya), during which the Appalachian Orogeny occurred involving folding and thrust faulting, which was the dominant geologic event contributing to the formation of the Appalachian Mountains. During this event, the area was uplifted signifying the end of deposition and the beginning of erosion and the lack of any future transgressions of sea level into the area. The dominance of erosional processes over the next couple hundred million years is evident in the lack of Mesozoic period deposits. However, igneous processes related to the orogenic activity lead to intrusion of hundreds of igneous dikes. Finally, the Cenozic period, which extends from approximately sixty-five million years ago (65 mya) into the present, is the period during which glaciation of the northern part of North America occurred, but did not extend into the Allegheny Plateau. A large lake was created by an ice dam resulting in lake deposits (mainly clays) in the northern portion of West Virginia and altered drainage patterns producing alluvial deposits in the southern portions of the state; aside from Quaternary alluvium, these are the only deposits of Cenozoic age within the region (Exhibit 3-4). The geologic units relevant to the Spruce No. 1 Mine are the Allegheny Formation of Middle Pennsylvanian Age and the Kanawha Formation of Lower Pennsylvanian Age (Exhibit 3-5). The geologic units generally thicken toward the southwest and generally dip gently (approximately 2 percent [2%] or seventy-five [75] feet per mile) to the northwest. The following discussion of the Allegheny Formation and the Kanawha Formation of the Pottsville Group addresses an area along the Allegheny-Kanawha Formation outcrop, which roughly parallels the hinge line of the Coalburg Syncline, from Mingo and Wayne Counties in the southeastern portion of West Virginia extending northeast to Upshur and Randolph Counties in the eastern-central part of the state (Exhibit 3-6). The Allegheny Formation is considered to begin at the top of the Upper Freeport coal seam and extend down to the top of the Homewood Sandstone or base of the Five-Block coal seam. The Kanawha Formation comprises the upper member of the Pottsville Group and begins at the top of the Homewood Sandstone and extends down to the top of the Nuttall Sandstone. The deposits of both formations are composed of massive sandstones, shales, fire clays, bituminous coals, and occasional limestones that were deposited in a fluvial-deltaic system which experienced periodic transgressions and regressions of sea level (WVGES, 1915).
3-4

Allegheny Formation The Allegheny Formation is not part of a geologic group, but represents the uppermost strata of Middle Pennsylvanian age, approximately three hundred to three hundred five million years ago (300-305 mya). This formation is composed mostly of massive gray sandstones interstratified with sandy shales, fire clays, red beds, coal seams, and occasional thin limestones; this formation varies in thickness from approximately two hundred seventy-five (275) feet to less than one hundred fifty [150] feet along a southwestern progression (WVGES, 1915). The Allegheny Formation contains three major coal seams, as follows in descending order, known to occur in at least seven splits: Freeport (Upper and Lower), Kittanning (Upper [also known as Seven-Block], Middle [also known as Six-Block], and Lower [also known as Five-Block]), and Clarion (main and Lower). The Allegheny Formation was deposited in a fluvial-deltaic environment. Kanawha Formation The Kanawha Formation is the upper formation of the Pottsville Group deposited during the Middle and early Late Pennsylvanian age, approximately three hundred five to three hundred twenty million years ago (305-320 mya). This formation is composed of massive sandstones, impure fire clays, shales, and coal seams, with very few thin lenses of marine limestone. Sandstone is the predominant rock type. The Kanawha Formation varies in thickness from approximately 1,200 feet to 1,900 feet along a southwestern progression and was also deposited in a fluvial-deltaic system (WVGES, 1915). The Kanawha Formation contains sixteen major coal seams, as follows in descending order, with most seams known to occur in various splits: Little Five-Block, Stockton, Coalburg, Buffalo Creek, Winifrede, Chilton, Hernshaw, Dingess, Williamson, Cedar Grove, Alma, Peerless, No. 2 Gas, Powellton, Matewan, and Eagle. 3.1.1.3 Site Geology Stratiqraphy The Spruce No. 1 Mine project area lies almost entirely within the outcrop of the Kanawha Formation (Section I of West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection [WVDEP] Permit S-5013-97). The Allegheny Formation overlies the Kanawha Formation only in some of the ridges within the project area (Exhibit 3-7). Geologic cross sections of the project area are shown in Exhibits 2-11 through 2-13 . The proposed project, under both the Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3, has targeted the following coal seams for mining: Six-Block, Five-Block, Little Five-Block, Upper Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Middle Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Lower Stockton, Upper Coalburg, Middle Coalburg, Lower Coalburg, and Buffalo A and B. Although both the Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3 involve removal of most of the same coal seams, they differ in the methods and equipment by which these seams would be mined. Coal seams targeted for mountaintop mining under the Applicant’s PA, are the Six-Block, Five-Block, Upper Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Middle Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Lower Stockton, Upper Coalburg, and Middle Coalburg, as well as all associated splits thereof. Additionally, contour mining of the Buffalo coal seams and contour mining with auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining in the Lower Coalburg coal seam are proposed. Under Alternative 3, the Six-Block, Five-Block, Little Five-Block, Upper Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Middle Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Lower Stockton, and Upper Coalburg, as well as all associated splits thereof, are targeted for mountaintop mining, while the Middle and Lower Coalburg,
3-5

Buffalo, Winifrede, and Chilton seams are targeted for contour mining and associated auger/highwall/thin-seam mining in the Buffalo, Winifrede, and Chilton seams. Under both of these alternatives, the areas of proposed contour and/or auger/highwall/thin-seam mining are incidental to the development of the proposed valley fills. Geologic cross-sections of the proposed project area are provided in Exhibits 2-9 through 2-12. Augering/highwall mining is proposed for both alternatives for most of the seam horizons that are not developed by the mountaintop/area mining method either due to geologic or economic conditions. Section S of Mingo Logan’s SMA identifies the areas and seams that would be mined by augering/highwall methods and contains a Subsidence Control Plan. The Allegheny Formation consists of massive gray sandstones interstratified with sandy shales, fire clays, red beds, coal seams, and occasional thin limestones. The bituminous coal seams within the Allegheny Formation that are present in the proposed project area and are targeted for mining include the Six-Block and the Five-Block, which occur in the lower portion of the formation. The bituminous coal seams in the project area are depicted in Table 3-1. The Six-Block seam cannot be continuously correlated throughout the proposed project area. As evidenced by numerous exploratory borings, the Six-Block seam varies throughout the project limits from zero (0) to five (5) feet thick. The Five-Block seam is present throughout the proposed project area, and can be continuously correlated; however, it does split in some drillholes. Subsurface exploration indicates the bedrock between the ridgetops down through the Six-Block and Five-Block seams is predominantly sandstone. The Kanawha Formation consists of massive sandstones, impure fire clays, shales, and coal seams, with very few thin lenses of marine limestone; sandstone is the predominant rock type. The bituminous coal seams within the Kanawha Formation that are present in the proposed project area and are targeted for mining occur in the upper half of the formation (Table 3-1) and include the: Little FiveBlock, Upper Stockton, Middle Stockton, Lower Stockton, Upper Coalburg, Middle Coalburg, Lower Coalburg, Buffalo A, Buffalo B, Winifrede, Chilton A, and Chilton (Section I of WVDEP Permit S-501397). The first coal seam encountered in the Kanawha Formation is the Little Five-Block seam. This seam is erratic and is only present in some portions of the proposed project area. Where present, this seam is situated approximately ten (10) feet to sixty (60) feet below the base of the Five-Block seam of the Allegheny Formation and is separated by sandstone or shale. The next seam descending through the formation is the Upper Stockton No. 1, which is located from twelve (12) feet to seventy-five (75) feet below the base of the Five-Block and can be continuously correlated throughout the proposed project area. The interval between the Five-Block and Upper Stockton No. 1 increases in thickness to the west and consists predominantly of sandstone. Beneath the Upper Stockton No. 1 seam, approximately 20 feet to 75 feet of shale and sandstone units separate the Upper Stockton No. 1 seam from the Upper Stockton No. 2, Middle Stockton No. 1, and Middle Stockton No. 2 seams. None of these three seams are present throughout the entire proposed project area, and only approximately 20 feet separate the top of the Upper Stockton No. 2 and the base of the Middle Stockton No. 2. The Lower Stockton seam is located 20 feet to 45 feet below the Middle Stockton No. 2 and is consistent throughout the proposed project area. The Upper Coalburg horizon is located forty (40) feet to sixty (60) feet below the Lower Stockton seam, with the separation consisting

3-6

mostly of shale except in the northeastern portion of the proposed project area, where sandstone is located directly above the coal. The Upper and Middle Coalburg seams are located in close proximity to each other, with the Upper Coalburg seam having as many as three (3) splits. Generally, twenty (20) feet to twenty-five (25) feet separate the top of the Upper Coalburg seam and the base of the Middle Coalburg seam, with the intervening material consisting predominantly of shale. The Lower Coalburg seam is located approximately fifty (50) feet to one hundred (100) feet below the Middle Coalburg seam, with the interburden consisting predominantly of sandstone. The Buffalo seam is the lowest seam to be mined by the Applicant’s PA operations. The Buffalo A seam is separated from the Lower Coalburg seam by approximately fifteen (15) feet to twenty (20) feet of shale in the northern part of the proposed project area, while the thickness increases to forty (40) feet to fifty (50) feet in the southwestern portion of the project area and contains interbeds of sandstone. In the southeastern portion of the proposed project area, this seam is not present. Approximately fifteen (15) feet to thirty (30) feet of shale separate the Buffalo A seam from the underlying Buffalo B seam. Coal seams identified beneath the Buffalo seam, in descending order with respect to stratigraphic position, include: Winifrede, Chilton A, Chilton, Hernshaw, Williamson, Cedar Grove, Alma, No. 2 Gas, Powellton, and Eagle coal seams. Of these seams, the Winifrede, Chilton A, and Chilton seams were also targeted for contour and/or auger/highwall/thin-seam mining under Alternative 3. Table 3-1 Bituminous Coal Seams within the Project Area
Formation Allegheny Bituminous Coal Seam Six-Block Five-Block Little Five-Block Upper Stockton No. 1 Upper Stockton No. 2 Middle Stockton No. 1 Middle Stockton No. 2 Lower Stockton Kanawha Upper Coalburg Middle Coalburg Lower Coalburg Buffalo A Buffalo B Winifrede Chilton A Chilton Average Thickness (Inches) 39 132 30 38 19 23 25 19 88 27 33 32 36 85 21 45

3-7

Within the proposed project area and vicinity, several of the above listed seams have been previously mined. The Five-Block coal seam has been underground mined and augered in the head of Pigeonroost Branch and underground mined north of Pigeonroost Branch. The Chilton seam has been previously augered in a small area near the mouth of the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek and has been underground mined in both the northern and southern sections of the lower portion of the Oldhouse Branch watershed. Finally, the Cedar Grove seam, situated approximately two hundred fifty (250) feet to three hundred (300) feet below drainage, has been extensively underground mined in the southeastern portion of the proposed project area. Acid-base testing of the strata and coals to be excavated and/or extracted by the proposed project has been completed at eight (8) corehole locations within the proposed project area, as shown on the Geohydrologic Map: S-93-7 (DTC 05030), S-93-8 (DTC 05029), S93-9 (DTC 05031), S-93-11 (DTC 06034), S-93-14 (DTC 06037), S-93-15 (DTC 06038), S-93-18 (DTC 06042), and S-93-19 (DTC 06044). Acid-base testing of the overburden strata was conducted by Sturm Environmental Services (Sturm), while acid-base testing of the coal was conducted by Standard Laboratories, Inc. (Section I of WVDEP Permit S-5013-97). Overall, the acid-base accounting identified only a few strata as having a maximum calcium carbonate (CaCO3) equivalent deficiency of five (5) tons/1,000 tons of material. Generally, with the exception of coal seams which would be removed, the overburden demonstrated excess CaCO3. Strata possessing a maximum deficiency greater than five (5) tons were generally thin (1 foot or less) and located in close proximity to coal seams. No strata were found to consistently have a maximum CaCO3 deficiency greater than five (5) tons in all the coreholes. Structure The structure of the strata, regionally and specifically within the proposed project area, is a result of the geologic processes involved in its formation and weathering processes, and their related effects, which have resulted in its current characteristics. The structural characteristics of the strata also have a direct influence upon the surface and subsurface drainage processes occurring upon and within them; therefore, a general reference to these effects is provided below. The dip of the strata regionally averages two percent (2%) northwest while specifically within the proposed project area is generally two to three percent (2 to 3%) northwest. This is also the anticipated direction of groundwater movement since the ultimate groundwater flow would be expected to closely parallel regional dip. No faults or axial traces of synclines, anticlines, or monoclines are known to exist within the proposed project area. The axis of the Warfield Anticline has a southwest-northeast trend and is located approximately seven (7) miles northwest of the proposed project area. The Coalburg (Handley) Syncline runs approximately parallel to the Warfield Anticline and is located approximately two (2) miles northwest of the proposed project area. The strata southeast of the Coalburg Syncline, which includes the proposed project area, dip to the northwest at two to three percent (2 to 3%). The axis of the Wake Forest Anticline also has a southwest-northeast trend and is located approximately three (3) miles southeast of the proposed project area. Some stratigraphic units sampled were classified as being weathered, broken, or fractured in the exploratory drillhole data (Attachment I-10 of Mingo Logan’s SMA). Generally, the sandstone rock
3-8

units located along the ridgetops above the Five-Block and Six-Block coal horizons show the greatest weathering. The depth of this weathering appears to vary from nearly twenty (20) feet to one hundred (100) feet and, within areas of isolated strata, to as much as one hundred fifty (150) feet below the surface. Typically, weathered strata have less potential acidity and are more susceptible to fracturing. The potentially weathered strata have been identified by descriptions of weathered, brown, or red, while fractured strata have been identified as being fractured or broken. Fracturing and weathering of the coal and/or overburden would be expected to have little or no effect on the extraction of coal since surface mining methods would be employed that would remove any weathered or fractured units during the extraction of the coal and overburden. The dominant structural feature of these strata is the stress-relief fracture system defined by Wyrick and Borchers (1981) as a “system of fractures that developed due to local de-stressing of the nearly flat-lying strata during down cutting of the deeply incised stream valleys.” As reported by Wyrick and Borchers (1981), “A hydrologic study in Black Fork Valley of Twin Falls State Park”, in southern West Virginia, revealed that the hydraulic properties of the near surface rocks are controlled to a great extent by valley stress-relief fractures. The system is a near-surface phenomenon, with fractures probably not occurring at depths greater than one hundred (100) feet or (200) feet. Natural fractures occur in rock units as a result of the erosion and removal of overlying rock layers and the resulting loss of compressional stress. These stress-relief fractures are generally vertical along valley walls and are generally horizontal under valley floors. Factors that affect the availability and movement of groundwater in the area are permeability features associated with the strata. Primary permeability is related to the inter-granular pore space of a lithologic unit, while secondary permeability is provided by the presence of open fractures within and across lithologic units, which provide pathways for the vertical and horizontal migration of groundwater. The development of stress-relief fractures allows for the interconnection of perched aquifers with underlying bedrock and alluvial aquifers. This then allows perched aquifers to contribute recharge water to underlying aquifers. Unfractured rocks beneath the hills flanking the valley appear to act as barriers to the flow of groundwater and effectively separate the shallow groundwater flow system of one valley from that of adjacent valleys. Linear and curvilinear features appearing on satellite imagery and depicted on the Geohydrologic Map are known to correlate with fractures and jointing patterns in concealed bedrock. Linear features generally have surface traces corresponding to or paralleling stream valleys. Three (3) linear features have been identified from Landsat imagery within or near to the proposed project area (Section I of WVDEP Permit S-5013-97). These linear features work in conjunction with stress-relief fractures in providing pathways for migration of groundwater. 3.1.1.4 Geologic Hazards Highwalls The proposed project, as it currently exists, does not contain any highwalls that were not reclaimed by previous contour, auger, and/or highwall/thin-seam mining activities; therefore, no geologic hazards associated with such features exist.

3-9

Subsidence An evaluation of the existing underground mines was conducted for both Alternative 3 and the Applicant’s PA. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the State of West Virginia, Title 38, Legislative Rule, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Mining and Reclamation, Series 2, West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Rule (38CSR2) Section 3.6.h.3 which state, “A survey describing the potential effect on the structure from subsidence of the subsurface strata resulting from past underground mining operation if underground mining has occurred.” As part of the evaluation process, and in accordance with 38CSR2 Section 3.23.a.8, “the location and extent of known workings of any underground mines, including mine openings to the surface,” all of the existing underground works and openings have been located and identified. Previous underground mining has taken place beneath the proposed project area and to the south and east in the Cedar Grove seam that lies approximately two hundred fifty (250) feet to three hundred (300) feet below the valley floor. These abandoned workings are filled with water that currently discharges through a borehole on Adkins Fork of Spruce Fork. This is an artesian type discharge with the pressure head forcing the water to the surface. No subsidence problems from mining of this seam are known at this time. Some underground mining of the Five-Block and Chilton seams has taken place within or beneath the proposed project area, but these workings are limited in extent and no problems are known relating to these workings. Landslides Landslides are a known hazard in the region due to the steep topography and inherent instability. Landslides can be major burying roadways or, more commonly, small scale slippages along hillsides and stream banks. Landslides are commonly triggered by or related to groundwater seepage, which is extensive due to the fractured nature of the strata in the region. No major landslides are known to have occurred within the proposed project area. Although specific locations of any slippage that may have occurred within the project area are not known, it is likely that there are at least a few such features along steep slope areas. As only small scale slippage features are likely to be present, any hazards from such occurrences are believed to be minimal. 3.1.1.5 Mineral Resources Bituminous Coal Resources Total coal resources in West Virginia are estimated to be 52.98 billion tons (West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health and Safety Training [WVOMHST], 2005; West Virginia Coal Association [WVCA], 2004). The mineable bituminous coal resources are found in 65 coal seams belonging to the Monongahela Formation, Conemaugh Group, Allegheny Formation, and the Kanawha, New River, and Pocahontas Formations of the Pottsville Group, all of Pennsylvanian age (Exhibit 3-8). The Kanawha Formation of the Pottsville Group contains the most mineable coal seams of any of the geologic formations. Mining conducted in West Virginia in 2003 produced approximately one hundred forty-six (146) million tons of coal from fifty-two (52) coal seams, more than half (52.10 percent) of which came from the Kanawha Formation. The total production from these resources between 1900 and 2003, as shown in Figure 2-1, total over twelve (12) billion tons (WVOMHST, 2005; WVCA, 2004).

3-10

As described above, the mineable bituminous coal in the project area is found in sixteen seams. The bituminous coal resource contains an average moisture content of approximately six percent (6%), average ash content of approximately thirteen percent (13%), average sulfur content of 0.80 percent, and a heat value of 12,150 BTU/lb on a marketable coal basis (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97). The mineable resource within the project area consists of approximately 51.53 million tons for Alternative 3 and 40.91 million tons for the Applicant’s PA and (WVDEP Permit No. S-5013-97, IBR 1 and IBR 2). Both of these alternatives would mine the same general resource but would utilize different mining methods and equipment as previously discussed above.
WV Historical Coal Production
Coal Production

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Million Tons Produced

Year

Figure 3-1 WV Historical Coal Production (WVOMHST, 2005; WVCA, 2004) Oil and Gas Resources There are no oil wells, four (4) plugged/inactive gas wells, and one (1) active gas well within the project area. There are five (5) active producing gas wells within the immediate vicinity of the project area. The proposed project would not result in the relocation of any roads and/or utilities with the exception of the closure of one (1) gas well (Jackson Resources API #450-0299) and associated 2-inch gas line located within the confines of proposed Valley Fill 4 and the relocation of the 4-inch transmission line that the 2-inch line feeds. The 2-inch line connecting the gas well to the 4-inch transmission line would be removed and the 4-inch line would be relocated to below the toe of the fill and around proposed Pond 4. Mingo Logan has agreed to purchase the gas well and would have the well plugged and lines abandoned and/or relocated prior to the construction of the valley fill which would occur in Phase 4.

3-11

Industrial Minerals
Industrial mineral production in West Virginia includes clays, gemstones, sand and gravel, salt, and

crushed stone, with crushed stone being the leading non-fuel mineral representing thirty-nine percent (39%) of the state’s non-fuel mineral production. Industrial minerals are not currently or planned to be mined within the project area or its immediate vicinity. There are no major non-fuel mineral production areas located in Logan County (USGS, 2003). 3.1.2 3.1.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Applicant’s Preferred Alternative

Topography The topography of the project area would be altered considerably during mining by the creation of active mine pits, highwalls, and overburden stockpiles in order to remove coal seams via mountaintop, contour, and auger/highwall/thin-seam/ thin-seam mining methods. However, reclamation plans provide for the restoration of the project area to its approximate original contours, to the extent possible, in accordance with the AOC/Fill Optimization Process. The topography in the vicinity of the valley fills would be permanently altered with the construction of terraced slopes with 20-foot wide benches at a slope of three to five percent (3-5%) every fifty (50) feet in elevation. Geology In the mine area, coal and overburden would be removed, and the original characteristics of the material would be permanently altered by the disruption of any existing stratification. Potential effects of this alteration are addressed in Section 3.3, Soils. Under the Applicant’s PA, only approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of the bituminous coal resources within the project area are proposed for mining. The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of the coal reserves would be sterilized and have no potential for future surface disturbances associated with mining. Geologic Hazards Natural geologic hazards would not be expected to affect the proposed project. The proposed project would not be anticipated to create long-term geologic hazards in relation to highwalls, subsidence, or landslides, as detailed below. Highwalls The proposed project, as planned under the Applicant’s PA would involve contour mining of the Buffalo and Lower Coalburg coal seams, and additional auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining of the Lower Coalburg coal seam. Contour mining methods result in the creation of benches and highwalls. Auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining utilizes the benches created by contour mining as operational area for mining of the exposed coal seams by these methods. Section S of Mingo Logan’s SMA identifies the areas and seams that would be mined by auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining methods, and contains a Subsidence Control Plan. As required by state mining regulations, all highwalls created would be completely backfilled and reclaimed to a static safety factor of 1.3. The auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mine openings would be backfilled with overburden and materials excavated from the site. This manner of backfilling would prevent water from flowing freely out of the auger holes. The highwalls would be anticipated to be stable and dewatering and depressurization not
3-12

expected to cause subsidence. Highwall hazards resulting from the Applicant’s PA would be expected to be minimal as they would be eliminated during reclamation. Subsidence Previous mining in the project area and immediate vicinity has not resulted in any known subsidence problems. Any subsidence from auger and/or highwall/thin-seam mining would be expected to be minimal due to the limited extraction area and percentage of extraction. Subsidence from this mining could cause or increase vertical fractures from the mined seam up into the overlying strata, which could increase the amount of infiltration. However, due to the proposed limited extent of these workings, little effect on the geohydrologic system would be anticipated. Additionally, subsidence control and underground mine abandonment plans have been developed as detailed in the SMA. Openings to the surface due to auger/highwall/thin-seam mining would be covered with rock fill material (in up-dip areas) or the most impervious material available (in down-dip areas) along the entirety of the length of mining. Durable rock drains would be provided along up-dip mining areas of the highwall in case of water buildup, although a buildup of water would not be anticipated. The highwalls would be anticipated to be stable and dewatering and depressurization would not be expected to cause subsidence. Landslides Landslide hazards resulting from natural conditions would be expected to be minimal. Proposed valley fills for the Applicant’s PA, as well as the proposed final regrade (backfill) configuration, have been designed in accordance with State and Federal mining regulations. Title 38, Legislative Rule, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Mining and Reclamation, Series 2 (38CSR2), West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations (WVSMRR) Section 14.14.g.6 state that “The foundation of the fill and the fill shall be designed to assure a long-term static safety factor of 1.5 or greater, and meet an earthquake safety factor of 1.1.” All proposed valley fills have been designed to exceed the minimum static and seismic safety factors for valley fill construction. Also required under 38CSR2, all mineral removal areas (mountaintop, contour, and auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining areas), would be completely backfilled and reclaimed to a static safety factor of 1.3. The proposed valley fills would be inspected and certified in accordance with 38CSR2 Section 14.14.b. (Certification - Inspections and Reporting) and “Excess Spoil and Valley Fill Certification Requirements” policy dated May 12, 2004. During construction, the valley fills would be inspected quarterly by a registered professional engineer experienced in the design of earth and durable rock fill embankments, or other qualified professional specialist under the direct supervision of such professional engineer. The inspections would be done in accordance with the following schedule: • • Œ Œ Œ Œ • Regularly, but not less than quarterly, during construction. During critical construction periods. Such periods defined as: Foundation preparation, including the removal of all organic material Placement of underdrains Installation of surface drainage systems Final regraded revegetation. Upon completion of construction.
3-13

A qualified registered professional engineer experienced in the design of earth and durable rock fill embankments would promptly, within no more than two weeks following the completion of the inspections, provide a certified report that the facility has been constructed and maintained as designed and in accordance with the approved plan. The certified report shall contain a statement that the fill is being constructed and maintained as designed in accordance with the approved plan and these specifications. The report would also note any instances of apparent instability, structural weakness, and other hazards. The regraded project area and valley fills would be anticipated to be stable; therefore, the proposed project would not be anticipated to create landslide hazards. Mineral Resources Seventy-five percent (75%) of the available bituminous coal resources would be permanently removed from the project area. Due to the sterilization of the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of bituminous coal resources, there would be no potential for future surface disturbances associated with mining. Oil and gas resources beneath the mining area would not be affected; however, as previously stated, the closure of one (1) gas well (Jackson Resources API #450-0299) and associated 2-inch gas line located within the confines of proposed Valley Fill 4 and the relocation of the 4-inch transmission line that the 2inch line feeds are proposed prior to active mining. 3.1.2.2 Alternative 3 Topography The proposed project under Alternative 3 would affect the topography of the project area in the same manner as would the Applicant’s PA, as detailed above. Geology In the mine area, coal and overburden would be removed, and the original characteristics of the material would be permanently altered by the disruption of any existing stratification. Potential effects of this alteration are addressed in Section 3.3, Soils. Under Alternative 3, approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of the bituminous coal resources within the project area are proposed for mining. The remaining five percent (5%) of the coal reserves would be sterilized and have no potential for future surface disturbances associated with mining. Geologic Hazards Natural geologic hazards would not be expected to affect the proposed project. The project, as planned under Alternative 3, would involve contour mining of the Lower Coalburg, Buffalo, Winifrede, and Chilton seams with associated auger/highwall/thin-seam/ thin-seam mining in the Buffalo, Winifrede, and Chilton seams. Other than the specific differences in which coal seams would be mined by which methods and within what specific area, the activities and/or structures proposed under Alternative 3 would have the same affect on geologic hazards as would the Applicant’s PA, as detailed above, and not be anticipated to create long-term geologic hazards in relation to highwalls, subsidence, or landslides.

3-14

Mineral Resources Ninety-five percent (95%) of the available bituminous coal resources would be permanently removed from the project area. Due to the sterilization of the remaining five percent (5%) of bituminous coal resources, there would be no potential for future surface disturbances associated with mining. Oil and gas resources beneath the mining area would not be affected; however, as previously stated, the closure of one (1) gas well (Jackson Resources API #450-0299) and associated 2-inch gas line located within the confines of proposed Valley Fill 4 and the relocation of the 4-inch transmission line that the 2inch line feeds are proposed prior to active mining. 3.1.2.3 No Action Alternative The impacts to topography, geology, and mineral resources as described for the Applicant’s PA would not occur under the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not mean, however, that there would be no impacts to the lands in and near the Applicant’s PA. The No Action Alternative is not considered identical to existing or baseline conditions of the affected environment. Future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the Applicant’s PA is chosen. The potential exists for full or partial mining of the identified reserves within the project area at a later date by Mingo Logan or a future lessee of the reserves. Additionally, future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the frequency of these disturbances. The USACE has chosen not to speculate on the nature of the unreasonably foreseeable future land use, and has not predicted these possible future impacts from the No Action Alternative. Also note that with selection of the No Action Alternative, there still would be regional impacts, as identified in the analyses of cumulative impacts, which are caused by activities other than the Applicant’s PA. For purposes of this analysis, the USACE considers the No Action Alternative to be the future without implementation of the Applicant’s PA. 3.1.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The past and present impacts to topography, geology, and mineral resources of the previous mining along the western side of Spruce Fork are similar to the anticipated impacts of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, as mining is proposed to occur in the same strata. Overburden removed above and between the coal seams would be placed in excess spoil fills located in valley areas or placed back on the mining areas after coal removal has been completed. Activities conducted on WVDEP Permits S-5081-87, S-5101-86, and S-5063-91, which have been mined and reclaimed by Hobet Mining, Inc. on the western side of Spruce Fork, exhibit similar geologic characteristics to the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine. Additionally, previous mining of the seams proposed for development on the Spruce No. 1 Mine has occurred in the area north of Beech Creek under WVDEP Permits S-5024-86, S-5005-91, and S-5011-88. This mining occurred from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, resulting in the construction of eight (8) valley fills. Cumulatively, the previous mining along the western side of Spruce Fork and the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, under the Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3, would alter the topography of approximately 15,654 acres or 16,290 acres, respectively.

3-15

As stated above, there are no non-fuel mineral resource extraction activities occurring or planned within Logan County or the project area. As such, there would be no anticipated impacts, direct, indirect, or cumulative, to non-fuel mineral resources associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine project. Although oil resources have not been discovered to-date in the project area, economical resources, including gas, may be or are present. Although mining operations may make potential future oil and gas drilling problematic, it would not preclude the recovery of oil and gas. Therefore, neither the Applicant’s PA nor Alternative 3 would not result in cumulative impacts related to oil and gas production. Potential cumulative impacts relate to potential future bituminous coal mining of the Allegheny and Kanawha Formations within the Spruce Fork watershed. The 40.91 million tons of coal that would be mined over 15 years at the Spruce No. 1 Mine under the Applicant’s PA represents only 0.08 percent of the mineable bituminous coal reserves of the Pennsylvanian strata in West Virginia. The 51.53 million tons of coal that would be mined over 10 years at the Spruce No. 1 Mine under the Alternative 3 represents only 0.10 percent of the mineable bituminous coal reserves of the Pennsylvanian strata in West Virginia. Several factors contribute to the demand for energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas. The demand for these fuels is inextricably linked and contingent on variables such as availability, demand for electricity, environmental regulation, and weather. The demand for electricity, in particular, has an effect on the demand for coal. An increasing demand for electricity coupled with changes in regulations, shifts in electricity producing fuels, and economic growth indicate that the supply of coal must be increased to meet projected demands. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO2006) forecast predicts a rise in domestic coal demand by six hundred eighty-nine (689) million tons over the next twenty-four (24) years, a trend apparent in the short-term forecasts as well, due to increased utilization of existing generation capacity and, in later years, additions of new capacity (DOE, EIA, 2006). The AEO2006 indicates that U.S. electricity demand will continue to increase in 2006 by approximately one-half percent (0.5%) and by an additional two percent (2%) in 2007 due to weather conditions, continuing growth in the electric sector, and increasing oil and natural gas costs. Coal-fired generation is expected to continue growing, with coal demand in the power sector growing by 1.2 percent in 2006 and an additional 1.4 percent in 2007, generally as a result of increased demand for less expensive coal generated electricity (DOE, EIA, 2006). Total U.S. coal production is anticipated to increase by 2.7 percent in 2006 and an additional 1.2 percent in 2007 to meet this increasing demand for coal The graph in Figure 2-1 shows a discernable upward trend for future bituminous coal production. Coal production at the Spruce No. 1 Mine is intended to contribute to overall West Virginia coal production. However, mines are continually opening and closing, such that one cannot predict whether the production of an individual mine would contribute to an overall increase or simply maintenance of state coal production. In addition, WVDEP information indicates that, other than the Spruce No. 1 Mine, there are two (2) currently pending permit applications for new mining facilities which have been submitted for future mining in the Spruce Fork watershed and one (1) coarse refuse facility permit pending construction (Daniel Hollow Coarse Refuse Facility, WVDEP Permit O-5016-04), located in the Daniel Hollow watershed of Seng Camp Creek, as part of the Mountain Laurel Complex. The Daniel Hollow Coarse
3-16

Refuse Facility project was approved by the WVDEP on November 3, 2005 and does not involve mineral removal, but only proposed construction of a coarse refuse storage facility and, therefore, would not directly contribute to coal production in West Virginia or impacts to the geology or mineral resources of the area. The Daniel Hollow project would however contribute to the cumulative effects upon the topography of the watershed. The other two (2) pending permit applications are for surface mines. The North Rum Surface Mine (pending WVDEP Permit S-5006-05) would encompass approximately 801 acres on the dividing ridge between Garland Fork and Brushy Fork, both tributaries of Spruce Fork. The North Rum Surface Mine proposes to mine the Five-Block, Stockton Rider, Stockton, Coalburg, and Buffalo seams via mountaintop, contour, auger/highwall/thin-seam mining methods. The area proposed to be mined in the North Rum Surface Mine project area has been extensively pre-law mined and would result in the reclamation of several thousand feet of existing “prelaw” highwall. The second pending application is for the Adkins Fork Surface Mine (pending WVDEP Permit S-5005-03) located in Adkins Fork of Spruce Fork which would encompass approximately 333 acres. The Adkins Fork Surface Mine proposes to mine the Kittanning, Five-Block, Clarion, and Upper Stockton coal seams through mountaintop mining methods. Cumulatively, the previous mining (including pre-law, post-mining transitional areas, and active permits) within the Spruce Fork watershed, the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, under the Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3, and the reasonably foreseeable future actions outlined above would alter the topography, geology, and/or bituminous coal resources of approximately 20,548 acres (25.46 percent) or 21,184 acres (26.25 percent), respectively, of the Spruce Fork watershed. Based on the anticipated coal production trends in West Virginia and the reasonably foreseeable mining activities in the watershed, no unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts of bituminous coal mining upon the topography, geology, and mineral resources would occur. 3.1.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES No additional monitoring or mitigation is being considered for geology or mineral resources. Mingo Logan proposes to regrade overburden to the approximate original contour within the project area, in compliance with AOC requirements. 3.1.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS Under the Applicant’s PA, twenty-five percent (25%) of the available bituminous coal resource would be sterilized and under Alternative 3, five percent (5%) would be sterilized, as a result of the proposed project. 3.2 WATER RESOURCES The principal groundwater issues associated with the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine include the potential impacts on water quantity and water quality in the affected aquifers. The principal surface water issues include the potential impacts to streams and wetlands due to mining activities and construction of the proposed valley fills and associated drainage control structures (ponds), including flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, as proposed under both action alternatives, surface water discharges, and the potential impacts from mine-related surface disturbance and changes in watershed areas.

3-17

This section describes the affected environment for groundwater, surface water, and waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and the anticipated environmental consequences as a result of implementing the Applicant’s PA, Alternative 3, and the No Action Alternative. The analyses detailed herein are necessary in quantifying baseline conditions and in determining if potentially significant impacts to the referenced resources may occur as result of the referenced alternatives. For purposes of this investigation, the analysis of surface water resources included evaluating potential direct impacts of the project on waters of the U.S. within the proposed project area (i.e., mineral removal areas, valley fills, and drainage control structures [ponds] ), including flow attenuation [i.e. rock check dams, etc.] and erosion control [i.e. riprap, matting, etc.] structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds), potential impacts to surface waters downstream of the proposed project (indirect impacts), and potential cumulative impacts on the Spruce Fork watershed, Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region as a whole. 3.2.1 HYDROLOGIC SETTING The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine project area is located in the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province of West Virginia (WVGES, 2001). Topography in the region is dominated by moderately flat to hilly to mountainous uplands consisting of moderately wide to narrow ridges, knobs, and saddles separated by steep, narrow, deep valleys cut by dendritic drainages. Elevations in the proposed project area range from 1,000 to 2,050 feet, and both higher and lower elevations occur in the region around the project area. The Spruce No. 1 Mine project area drains entirely to Spruce Fork of the Little Coal River of the Coal River of the Kanawha River (Exhibit 3-9). Spruce Fork, the Little Coal River, and the Coal River all have a distinctively meandering, but generally north-northwestern flow path. The Kanawha River, like all other major drainages in the region, ultimately drains to the Ohio River, which marks the border between West Virginia and Ohio. Within the Spruce Fork watershed, the specific sub-watersheds, at least partially encompassed within the project area, include Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch. Spruce Fork in the vicinity of the project area is identified as perennial, while the above listed sub-watershed drainages are identified as intermittent in their lower segments and intermittent or ephemeral in their upper reaches and tributaries, with the exception of Oldhouse Branch where perennial flow has been identified in the lower reach. The soils in the vicinity of the project area (based upon soil character of an area in Boone County approximately one to two (1-2) miles from the project area in similar topographic setting, as no soil survey for Logan County is available) are generally composed of material weathered from sandstones and inter-bedded siltstones and shales generating acidic, stony, weathered, moderately to poorly nutrient-rich, moderately deep (approximately twenty [20] to forty [40] inches to bedrock), well-drained, sandy loam soils. Additional information regarding soil resources is presented in Section 3.3, Soils. Their hydrologic characteristics are further discussed below in Section 3.2.4, Surface Water. The project area occurs within the Central Appalachian Broadleaf forest province of the Northern Cumberland Mountains section, with oak/hickory forest being the most common and mature forest group of the region. These vegetation types are interspersed with riparian communities along drainages and in isolated depressions and rare wetland cells. Additional information on the vegetation types within this eco-region is presented in Section 3.4, Vegetation.

3-18

3.2.1.1

Hydrometeorology

The project area occurs in a continental humid temperate climatic type (Friel et al., 1984). The regional climatic characteristics are largely determined by the orogenic effect of the Appalachian Mountains, which creates a rain shadow on the leeward side of the mountains and channels maritime tropical air masses moving up from the south in a northeasterly direction along the mountains where they come into contact with continental polar air masses. The general climate is that of warm, humid summers and moderately cold, mild to severe winters, varying with elevation, with prevailing winds coming from the southwest. Although fairly well-distributed throughout the year, precipitation amounts are typically greater in late winter and early spring. The wettest months of the year generally are March, April, May, June, and July. The driest months of the year typically are February, August, September, October, November, and December. During late winter, snowmelt gradually saturates the ground as it thaws and produces minimal runoff. As spring arrives, precipitation increases in the form of light, sustained showers often from a series of low-pressure systems (cyclones) moving slowly across the region. The high precipitation and low evapotranspiration rates produce a surplus in the water budget during spring months. This surplus allows for high antecedent soil moisture, recharge rates, and high baseflow and runoff, which sustain streamflow. Headwater streams tend to be “flashy” due to their rapid response to precipitation. In summer, large volumes of precipitation, from short but intense convective thunderstorms, are consumed by high evapotranspiration rates. As summer progresses and fall arrives, precipitation decreases while evapotranspiration remains high leading to a deficit in the water budget during these seasons. The average annual precipitation in this area is 40 inches (15.75 cm) per year in accordance with global precipitation patterns (Ahrens, 1994). Due to soil infiltration, evapotranspiration, and interception by topographic features (including lakes and ponds) and vegetation, only approximately twenty-seven percent (27%) of the annual rainfall forms runoff and streamflow and, on average, approximately five percent (5%) recharges groundwater via infiltration under natural conditions (Friel et al., 1984); these are general estimates and vary according to site-specific watershed factors. In West Virginia, annual precipitation ranges from thirty-eight (38) to fifty (50) inches, with monthly precipitation ranging from three (3) to five (5) inches during all months, with the exception of July when precipitation generally ranges between five (5) to six (6) inches. The driest months are February, October, and November. Average daily temperatures range from eighteen (18) to eighty-six (86) degrees Fahrenheit. Snowfall averages thirty (30) to fifty (50) inches annually, but one must remember that one (1) inch of snow is the equivalent of only one-tenth (0.1) of an inch of rain (PDEIS; USEPA, 2003). Average monthly total precipitation amounts for representative stations (average of Madison and Pineville station data) in the vicinity of the project area are shown in Figure 3-2 and were derived from data collected over a long period of record (1951 through 1980) (NCDC, NOAA). Precipitation can vary widely between months and years. For example, the average monthly precipitation in October is 2.81 inches, while in July is 4.93 inches. Precipitation also varies between locations. Data for Madison indicate that the area experienced an average annual rainfall of 43.90 inches, while in Pineville data indicate that the area experienced an average annual rainfall of 45.37 inches (NCDC, NOAA). Within the project area, the average annual rainfall is approximately 44.64 inches.

3-19

Average Monthly Precipitation
Average Precipitation 6.00

Average Preceipitation (Inches)

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 3-2 Average Monthly Precipitation (NCDC, NOAA) Precipitation in the project vicinity primarily develops from the movement of warm humid air from the south into West Virginia. Severe thunderstorms often form as these air masses meet land-based frontal systems. Tornadoes are a rarity in the region. The most severe storms generate precipitation over several days, creating moist watershed conditions. Significant flooding then may occur when more intense periods of precipitation fall within a day. In southern West Virginia, a review of FEMA disaster declarations indicates that the area is one of the most disaster-prone in the nation, with as many as ten (10) to twenty-two (22) declarations per county over the past forty (40) years (FEMA, 2005). These disaster declarations in West Virginia, like the entire country overall, have been mainly related to flooding. Recent examples of these severe and widespread floods occurred in June through September 2004, and specifically in the Spruce Fork watershed in July 2002, in which flooding events resulted from one or more severe storms. In July 2002, a 10-foot wall of water was reported to have rushed down Spruce Fork near Kelly Mountain (Logan Banner, 2002; Coalfields Community Website:www.wvcoalfield.com/FLOODS2002.htm). Both short-term droughts and extended droughts occur periodically in the region. The shorter droughts have the potential to create severe damage as a result of their timing in relation to seasonal water needs. The most recent severe extended drought occurred over fifteen (15) months encompassing 1999 (Senate Congressional Record, September 28, 1999; NCDC, NOAA). Evaporation rates are generally low, with precipitation being greater than evaporation (surplus), except during the summer and early fall months.

3-20

3.2.1.2

State and Local Water Resource Management

State and local water resource management organizations include the WVDEP, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR) Public Lands Corporation (PLC), and regional water planning groups. Numerous other Federal, State (including WVDEP), and local organizations have water resource roles, and these organizations frequently cooperate under memoranda of understanding. The USACE civil works mission within the state includes the development and operation of water supply and flood control facilities (reservoirs, levees, and flow conveyances), recreational facilities, and hydropower plants. Additional activities include streambank protection, fish and wildlife mitigation, environmental services for other government facilities, and a regulatory role with respect to locks and dams, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the CWA, as previously described in Chapter 2. The USACE facilities and programs are operated in coordination with other Federal, State, and local water management organizations. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is the State of West Virginia’s primary environmental regulatory authority. The agency was formed in 1992 by the state legislature (then called the Division of Environmental Protection) and was elevated to cabinet-level status in 2001. The WVDEP is responsible for enforcing water rights, state water quality regulations, and Section 401 of the CWA. The WVDEP also administers the WVNPDES program through Section 402 of the CWA, under which it regulates municipal and industrial discharges to both surface and underground waters of the state. The WVDNR-PLC requires a right-of-entry permit be obtained prior to conducting any work in waters of the state. In West Virginia, the state has ownership of the stream beds. The water quality aspects of WVDEP programs relevant to the project are described in general below. Water rights in West Virginia pertain to both surface water and groundwater; however, only groundwater rights can be individually owned. Surface water is considered property of the state, whereas groundwater is considered the property of the owner of the surface state. Further regulation with respect to water rights is included in 38CSR2-3.22f of the WVSMRR. This rule state that any person who conducts mining activities shall replace the water supply of an owner of interest in real property who obtains all or part of his or her supply of water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or other legitimate use from an underground or surface source, where the water supply has been adversely impacted by contamination, diminution, or interruption proximately resulting from the mining activities. The CWA requires that all municipal and industrial point-source discharges obtain and comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Storm water discharges from facilities such as coal mines are also regulated under the NPDES system. Nationally, the NPDES program is controlled by the USEPA. Authority for implementation of the NPDES program in West Virginia was delegated to the state by the USEPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region in August 1993 following approval by the USEPA. NPDES permits are developed to ensure that discharges to receiving waters (e.g., streams) are protective of human health and the environment. These permits establish discharge limits, monitoring and reporting requirements, and may stipulate measures to reduce or eliminate pollutant discharges to receiving waters. All permit discharges from the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be subject to applicable regulatory review and approval processes through the WVDEP. The proposed locations of the NPDES outlets/outfalls, or locations of discharge release to receiving waters, are
3-21

depicted on the Drainage Map and within the NPDES application for the proposed project (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, Section K). There are twenty-four (24) proposed outlets for discharges leaving the proposed project area, three (3) of which would be located in-stream while the remainder would be located along the bench (on-bench) created by the proposed project: three (3) on-bench outlets would discharge to White Oak Branch, fourteen (14) on-bench outlets would discharge to Spruce Fork, one (1) in-stream outlet would discharge to Oldhouse Branch, one (1) in-stream and four (4) on-bench outlets would discharge to Pigeonroost Branch, and one (1) in-stream outlet would discharge to Seng Camp Creek (see Exhibit 2-21, Temporary Drainage Structure Locations). The CWA Section 401 Certification Program, as administered by the WVDEP, requires the selection and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and, in the case of Tier II projects, such as the Spruce No. 1 Mine, also require that an analysis of project alternatives be performed in order to identify alternatives that may satisfy the purpose and need of the project in ways that do not adversely affect surface water resources of the state. Such alternatives and their costs and other criteria must be compared. The Individual Water Quality State 401 application and associated alternative analysis are presented in Appendix E. Permits may be issued by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA only if the WVDEP has certified under Section 401 that the proposed discharges from the project would comply with the state water quality standards. The probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) of a proposed operation are required to be analyzed by the Applicant in accordance with 38CSR2-3.22a of the WVSMRR (addressing requirements of the Hydrologic Restoration Plan), as administered by the WVDEP. The PHC analysis for the Spruce No. 1 Mine is presented in Section J of WVDEP Permit S-5013-97. The PHC is largely based upon data from regional investigations and baseline data collected from the project-specific water resources inventory. In order to design runoff control structures and comply with permit requirements, Mingo Logan has conducted a surface water runoff analysis (SWROA) for the project using industry-standard tools, including SEDCAD modeling software. 3.2.2 WATER RESOURCE-RELATED REGULATIONS Proposed mine construction, operation, and reclamation activities for the Spruce No. 1 Mine would require water protection measures in accordance with applicable regulations and agency programs as discussed under State and Local Water Resource Management in Section 3.2.1, Hydrologic Setting. These requirements include: • • • • • Section 404 of the CWA administered by USACE; WVDEP Surface Mining Reclamation Rule containing coal mining performance standards regarding protection of the hydrologic balance (§38 CSR 2); Water quality regulations from the WVDEP pertaining to Section 401 certification (§47 CSR 5A, §46 CSR 1, §60 CSR 5, and related guidelines); WVNPDES program; and PLC right-of-entry permittance by the WVDNR.

Compliance with these regulations and programs, and agency requirements for project reviews and approvals, would reduce the potential for impacts to water resources. The effectiveness of the
3-22

proposed project activities for the Spruce No. 1 Mine with respect to these regulatory programs was evaluated in the impact assessment, as applicable, as discussed below. 3.2.3 GROUNDWATER The groundwater study area includes the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine project area and the surrounding area within the Spruce Fork watershed. The cumulative effects area includes the project area and the surrounding area within the projected cumulative area of the Spruce Fork aquifer system. 3.2.3.1 Affected Environment Regional Hydrogeology of the Spruce Fork Aquifer System The Spruce Fork aquifer system is one of the substantial aquifer systems of southwestern West Virginia and is a sub-system of the Kanawha River Basin, which is the major aquifer system of the region (Exhibit 3-10). The Spruce Fork aquifer system, extending along the length of the Spruce Fork watershed, like the majority of the Kanawha River Basin aquifers, is actually composed of two interrelated aquifers: the unconsolidated alluvial materials (alluvial aquifer) and the consolidated bedrock below the alluvium and colluvium material in the valley floors (valley floor fracture system). The alluvial materials consist of clay, silt, sand, and gravel sediments eroded from the ridges which divide each valley into an isolated hydrologic basin which contributes to the larger sub-regional and regional hydrologic systems (Sheets and Kozar, 2000; Heath, 1983). As shown in Exhibit 3-11, the alluvial aquifer is a minor component of the aquifer system, as the alluvial deposits are to minimal to appear on the mapping for any stream smaller than the Kanawha River. The consolidated bedrock of the ridge and valley floor in the region is of Pennsylvanian age, particularly the Allegheny and Kanawha Formations which outcrop in and underlie the region, dominated by sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal strata, with minor limestone beds. Groundwater occurrence, storage, and flow in the region are controlled by topography and geology, both lithologic and structural. The bedrock aquifer system (particularly the sandstone and coal strata) tends to be far more productive than the alluvium due to its thickness and fracture system (Ehlke et al., 1982). In the Appalachian Plateau coal region, rapid, shallow fracture flow is dominant over the slower, deep porous flow in groundwater systems, though both do occur (Moebs and Sames, 1989; Miller and Thompson, 1974; Wyrick and Borchers, 1981; and Hobba, 1991). This aquifer, through usage of the inter-related localized sub-aquifers, is the main source of groundwater for municipal, industrial, and private users in the region. A discussion of the hydrogeology of Mingo Logan’s existing Dal-Tex Complex, which has been in operation since the 1970s, is included in this regional discussion as the complex is part of the existing regional environment. Mining began in this area during the 1910s, but it was in the 1970s that the DalTex Complex came into existence, originally under Zapata Coal Company. The property has changed hands various times over the past thirty (30) years until finally ending up under the control of Arch Coal, Inc. The mining techniques proposed for the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be similar to those previously used at the Dal-Tex Complex. The Dal-Tex Complex, located on the west side of Spruce Fork, and the Spruce No. 1 Mine site have similar geologic and hydrologic conditions. In addition, the available groundwater data for the existing Dal-Tex Complex provides insight into the existing conditions and the potential groundwater impacts that may occur as a result of development of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine. The existing and proposed mine sites in the Spruce Fork watershed are shown in Exhibit 2-26.
3-23

Regional Stratigraphy and Structure As stated above the Spruce Fork aquifer is found in unconsolidated alluvial materials (alluvial aquifer) and in consolidated bedrock below the alluvium and colluvium material in the valley floors (valley floor fracture system), which are inter-connected. The regional stratigraphy and structure are discussed in detail in Section 3.1. The regional aquifer is actually composed of local and sub-regional aquifers created by the ridges, which act as drainage divides (Sheets and Kozar, 2000; Heath, 1983; Hawkins et al., 1996). Flow from these local and sub-regional aquifers, both alluvial and bedrock, move along the regional dip to either discharge to surface waters within their local basins or contribute recharge to the larger regional aquifer (minimal), which may or may not discharge at the surface within the region (Ehlke et al., 1982; Heath, 1983). The alluvium present in the valley floors of West Virginia, which act as unconfined alluvial aquifers, is of Quaternary age and consists of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. The main influence upon the hydraulic properties and, therefore, the productivity within the alluvial aquifer system is the proportion of coarse compared to fine-grained sediments and their distribution. The alluvium of the Spruce Fork region has a high percentage of fine-grained sediments making its specific capacity and transmissivity fairly low (Kozar and Mathes, 2001). The alluvial blanket in the Kanawha River Basin has an average thickness of fifty (50) to fifty-eight (58) feet with typical depths to water of eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) feet, resulting in a saturated thickness of thirty-four (34) to forty (40) feet. Within the Spruce Fork watershed, a sub-watershed of the Kanawha River Basin, the alluvial characteristics are very similar, but lesser due to thinner, finer-grained alluvium. The productivity of the alluvial aquifers in the Spruce Fork region is much less than that of the bedrock aquifers (Ehlke et. al., 1982). The valley floor strata of the Spruce Fork region, which contain semi-confined to confined aquifers, belong to the Kanawha Formation of the Pottsville Group of Pennsylvanian age (USGS, 1984). The valley floor system is confined by alluvial clay and silt deposits capping aquifers (Wyrick and Borchers, 1981; Schmidt, 1989; and Sames and Moebs, 1989). The dip of the strata within the proposed project area is generally to the northwest at an average grade of two to 3 percent (2-3%). This is also the anticipated direction of groundwater movement since the ultimate groundwater flow would be expected to closely parallel regional dip. The potential sources of groundwater within the consolidated strata of the region consist of sandstone units or coal seams underlain by an impermeable shale or fireclay unit which can act as perched aquifers in the strata above drainage or confined aquifers in the strata below drainage. Sandstones within the region are permeable, but discontinuous and, therefore, are not the primary aquifers within the system. Groundwater availability and movement in the area is controlled by both primary and secondary permeability features, as described by Wyrick and Borchers (1981). Primary permeability is related to intergranular pore space of the lithologic unit. Secondary permeability consists of bedding planes, open fractures, and joints within and across lithologic units, which provide pathways for the migration of groundwater. Natural fractures and joints occur in rock units as a result of the erosion and removal of overlying rock layers and the resulting loss of compressional stress, referred to as valley rebound. These stress relief fractures are generally vertical along the near surface valley walls and floors (tensile) and are generally horizontal under ridges and valley floors (Exhibit 3-12). The stress relief fractures provide pathways for the vertical and horizontal migration of groundwater. The development
3-24

of stress relief fractures allows for the interconnection of perched aquifers with underlying bedrock and alluvial aquifers. This then allows perched aquifers to contribute recharge water to underlying aquifers. These joints and fractures can form interconnected conduits directly linking the surface and deeper flow systems (Moebs and Clar, 1990). Linear features appearing on satellite imagery are known to correlate with fractures and jointing patterns in concealed bedrock. Linear features generally have surface traces corresponding to or paralleling stream valleys. These linear features work in conjunction with stress relief fractures in providing pathways for migration of groundwater. The main influence upon the hydraulic properties and, therefore, the productivity within the regional bedrock aquifer system, is the structure related to the size, density, and inter-connectivity of fractures as porosity of the strata is generally low (Kozar and Mathes, 2001). Fracture flow, and therefore permeability, in these units, is best developed near the surface (less than 300 feet deep) and localization of flow along joints, fractures, or cleats creates anisotropic conditions in the groundwater system resulting in a stair-step flow pattern (Hobba, 1991 and Harlow and LeCain, 1993). However, permeability within coal seams can be much higher at greater depths than within other overburden strata. Typically, the direction of maximum transmissivity in both the coal and overburden strata tends to parallel joints and/or face cleats. Flow within coal seams is typically horizontal due to the greater permeability within the seam than vertically between strata. Due to the fracturing and jointing characteristic of the region, as discussed above, the occurrence of perched aquifers tends to be very local and they are typically insufficient in storage capacity to support continual withdrawal, most likely due to at least partial dewatering through the fracture system. Below drainage, sandstone units or coal seams underlain by an impermeable shale or fireclay unit are known to constitute at least partially-confined aquifers with variable production rates. Wells are commonly drilled fifty (50) to three hundred (300) feet deep and typically produce one (1) to five hundred (500) gallons per minute (gpm)(Moebs and Clar, 1990; Friel et al., 1984; USGS, 1984; Trapp and Horn, 1997; and Lloyd and Lyke, 1995). The maximum aquifer thickness in the region is approximately three hundred (300) feet less the depth to water and occurs in the valleys (Kozar and Mathes, 2001; Sheets and Kozar, 2000). This maximum thickness corresponds to the maximum depth of fracturing in the valleys due to confining pressure indicating the degree to which the aquifer system is dominated by fracture flow, as discussed below. The saturated thickness in the hilltop and hillside settings is approximately one hundred thirty (130) to two hundred (200) feet minus the depth to water (Kozar, 1998; Sheets and Kozar, 2000). Depth to water varies from approximately forty (40) feet in the valleys and one hundred twenty (120) to two hundred (200) feet in the hillsides and hilltops, respectively. Underground mining of coal seams is known to alter subsurface structure and, therefore, the hydrogeology of an area including the speed, path, and quality of groundwater flow (Moebs and Clar, 1990). Underground mining can lead to increased infiltration rates and dewater overburden due to enhancement of fractures in overlying strata, in addition to creating underground voids which act as sinks capable of groundwater storage in large volumes, which can potentially lower the water table locally. The water stored in the mine void can be tapped increasing baseflow to streams causing slower recession after precipitation events (Hobba, 1993; Friel et al., 1984; and Brant and Moulton, 1960). Underground mining of coal seams located above the valley floor has the potential to create perched aquifers, but, as discussed, the value of these potential aquifers is minimal due to dewatering
3-25

through the fracture system. Overall, underground mining drastically increases the permeability and storage capacity of the coal seams creating a highly productive aquifer, which is the reason that in southern West Virginia, many wells draw from abandoned mine workings (Kozar and Mathes, 2001). Interconnectivity of the underground mine voids through fracture flow can create sub-regional flow patterns. Within the Spruce Fork watershed, the Chilton seam is located just above the valley floor, therefore the Cedar Grove is the first coal seam encountered below drainage. Underground mining within the area has been conducted in the Five-Block, Stockton, Coalburg, Buffalo, Winifrede, Chilton, and Cedar Grove seams as part of the Dal-Tex Complex and other mining facilities in the region. In particular, mining in the Cedar Grove seam (250-300 feet below drainage) has been rather extensive in the region leading to the creation of a highly productive confined aquifer in the abandoned workings which is known to produce artesian discharges. No subsidence problems leading to excessive fracturing or dewatering of the locally important aquifers are known to have resulted from mining of these seams at this time, and due to the fact that they have been mined for over thirty (30) years, none are anticipated. Surface mining in the region generates spoil used to backfill the project area and placed in valley fills for storage, which creates alluvial aquifers where previously fractured bedrock occurred containing perched aquifers. The alluvial aquifer of the fill material has greater porosity, recharge, and storage capacity than the fractured bedrock aquifers, which still remain below the lowest mined seam, and therefore, have enhanced the hydraulic properties of the Spruce Fork aquifer system. Groundwater Hydrology and Hydraulic Properties of the Aquifer The four principal hydraulic properties of an aquifer that determine the rate of groundwater movement, the amount of water stored in an aquifer, and the amount of water that can be withdrawn from an aquifer are the hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, porosity, and storage coefficient. The hydrology and hydraulic properties of the Spruce Fork aquifer system in southwestern West Virginia are described below (Kozar and Mathes, 2001). Groundwater in the Spruce Fork aquifer system is under either unconfined (water table), semi-confined, or confined (artesian) conditions. Groundwater in some of the aquifers is under artesian conditions due to the overlying, confining stratigraphic units. In these aquifers, the water levels rise in wells to their potentiometric surface (level to which the water will rise in the well casing due to the pressure in the aquifer) and in some cases may actually flow out on to the surface. As stated above, the Cedar Grove coal seam behaves as a confined aquifer known to produce artesian discharges. Water table conditions only exist in the unconfined alluvial aquifer and are located less than fifty (50) feet below the surface (Kozar and Mathes, 2001). Under water table conditions, the groundwater is under atmospheric pressure and will exist in a well at the level of saturation in the aquifer. As a result, water levels fluctuate in response to changes in the volume of water stored in the aquifer. The productivity of the alluvial aquifers in the Spruce Fork region is much less than that of the bedrock aquifers, with average yields between nine (9) and twenty-seven (27) gpm, the greatest of which are from valley floor strata (Ehlke et. al., 1982). The alluvial and bedrock aquifers are however connected and interflow does occur. The average yield from wells drilled into both the Quaternary alluvium and Pennsylvanian sandstone strata ranged between one-half (0.5) and three hundred forty (340) gpm.

3-26

More than thirty-five percent (35%) of the rural residents in the region draw water from wells drilled into the fractured bedrock aquifers (McCulloch and Kramer, 1993). The specific capacity of the alluvial aquifers along streams in the region varies between 0.40 to 10.50 gpm/foot, which is fairly low related to the fine grain-size and thinness of alluvium. Transmissivity of the alluvial aquifer varies between 110 to 2800 square feet/day. Within the alluvial aquifer, the average specific yield and storage coefficient are both less than 0.003 and the indicating semi-confined to unconfined properties (Kozar and Mathes, 2001). The bedrock aquifers in the region (Kanawha Formation of Pottsville Group) are characterized by variable specific capacity (0.01 to 113 gpm/foot) and transmissivity (3 to 31000 square feet/day). Storage coefficients ranged from 0.0001 to 0.3 with a median value of 0.007 indicating semi-confined to confined conditions. Median specific yield in the bedrock aquifer is also approximately 0.007. Some of the extremely high values within the Kanawha Formation are not natural conditions, but are the result of underground mine voids creating extreme porosity and permeability within the coal seams and serving as major water sources in the region (Kozar and Mathes, 2001). These abandoned underground mines, occurring extensively in six (6) seams, are a major component of groundwater flow system of Spruce Fork providing the most extensive aquifers in the region. Due to extreme variability in transmissivity and saturated thickness of the alluvial and bedrock aquifers, hydraulic conductivity can not be accurately estimated. The principal aquifer in the Dal-Tex Complex area is the Spruce Fork aquifer system. The Quaternary alluvium lining the valley floors serve as unconfined alluvial aquifers. The Kanawha Formation contains sandstone and coal strata that serve as semi-confined to confined aquifers within the Spruce Fork aquifer system. The coal seams which contain abandoned workings are the most highly productive strata of the formation and are tapped by many wells. There are many local aquifers which contribute to the Spruce Fork aquifer system (Sheets and Kozar, 2000). Each individual valley in the region typically contains a separate disconnected aquifer which is bound by the ridges surrounding the valley which act as hydrologic divides (Heath, 1983). These individual aquifers discharge to nearby streams as well as providing minimal recharge to the larger, deeper regional Spruce Fork aquifer. It is the small individual local aquifers that supply most of the local usage, rather than the larger deeper regional system. No adverse impacts to the hydrology or hydraulic properties of the aquifers are known to have resulted from surface and underground mining of these seams at the Dal-Tex Complex at this time, and due to the fact that they have been mined for over thirty (30) years, none are anticipated. Surface mining has altered the hydraulic properties of the aquifer system by creating alluvial aquifers where fractured bedrock aquifers previously existed along ridgetops and hillsides, which are the primary regions of recharge to the aquifers, although fractured bedrock aquifers still remain deeper within the ridges below the lowest seam mined. The fill material has greater porosity, and therefore storage capacity, and permeability resulting in increased infiltration and recharge through backfill and valley fill materials. Underground mining also has changed the hydraulic properties of the aquifer system by creating underground voids within coal seams, thereby drastically increasing the porosity, permeability, and storage capacity within the mine extents (Trapp and Horn, 1997; and Lloyd and Lyke, 1995). No dewatering of locally important aquifers or other adverse impacts is known to have occurred as a result of the activities of the Dal-Tex Complex.

3-27

Recharge and Groundwater Movement Recharge or replenishment of groundwater in the Spruce Fork aquifer system comes mainly from precipitation infiltration (direct), seepage from streams, and migration and seepage through the alluvial aquifer and the local fractured bedrock aquifers (indirect)(see Exhibit 3-12). The major controlling factors for aquifer recharge are the amount of annual precipitation and evaporation, topography, vegetation, subsurface structure, and the depth to the water level in aquifers. Stress relief fractures along the valley walls and valley floors contribute the majority of the recharge water to aquifers in the area. Recharge to the Spruce Fork aquifer system is estimated at approximately 11.9 inches per year, or thirty percent (30%) of average annual precipitation across all of the formations (corresponding to the western part of the Kanawha River basin, Kozar and Mathes, 2001). Recharge rates regionally can vary between five (5) and 31.5 percent (5-31.5%). Since the aquifers of the valley floor fracture system are fully saturated, it is believed that recharge to the regional aquifer is low, and much of the potential recharge is to the local aquifers, which contribute minor amounts of their recharge to the regional Spruce Fork aquifer system (Heath, 1983). Recharge to both the local and regional aquifers in the area is controlled by the permeability of the alluvium and underlying strata, both primary (grain size and heterogeneity within alluvial sediment and inter-granular pore space within strata) and secondary features (fractures, joints, and cleats within and across strata and bedding plane separations)(Wyrick and Borchers, 1981, and Harlow and LeCain, 1993). Recharge was found to occur mainly along hilltops and move through the local fracture system, the majority of which discharges to the surface at some point within the local watershed as springs along hillsides where fractures intersect the surface or baseflow to streams in the valleys, with lesser amounts recharging the regional aquifer system in which porous and fracture flow is driven by the regional dip (Sheets and Kozar, 2000; Kozar, 1998; and Heath, 1983). These stress relief fractures are generally vertical along valley walls and are generally horizontal under valley floors. The stress relief fractures provide pathways for the vertical and horizontal migration of groundwater allowing interconnection of perched aquifers with underlying bedrock and alluvial aquifers. This then allows perched aquifers to contribute recharge water to underlying aquifers. Groundwater in the water table portions of the aquifers (alluvial) also moves from areas of high elevation to areas of lower elevation, forming local groundwater flow lines and resulting in local seeps and springs in low areas during and after periods of heavy rainfall. Rates of groundwater movement in the Spruce Fork aquifer system are highly variable and depend on the localized hydraulic properties of the alluvium (coarse- or fine-grained dominance) and the underlying strata (lithology and fracture properties). Laterally extensive sandstones and coal seams have the highest rates of groundwater movement; strata that are predominately clay have the lowest. Sandstone and coal beds, found dispersed throughout the Allegheny and Kanawha Formations, have the highest groundwater flow rates. As observed by Harlow and LeCain (1993), transmissivity decreases with increasing depth below the surface, but occurs at a lesser rate in coal. Coal has been found to be permeable down to depths greater than two hundred (200) feet, and as much as three hundred (300) feet, whereas other strata are typically permeable only to approximately one hundred (100) feet. Flow through both sandstone and coal is through fractures, but horizontal flow is dominant within coal due to the greater permeability within the seam (natural joint pattern) than vertically through fractures between other strata. The coal seams of these formations, particularly those located below drainage, have been deep
3-28

mined extensively in the Spruce Fork watershed. In addition, mining has created large underground voids in coal seams thereby drastically increasing the permeability and storage capacity, making these aquifers a major source of groundwater regionally. Interconnection of underground mine voids through fractures create sub-regional flow patterns. Discharge from the aquifers is to rivers and springs, interformational leakage, evapotranspiration, and to domestic, municipal, and industrial wells. In the vicinity of the Dal-Tex Complex, groundwater flow in the Spruce Fork aquifer generally follows the regional dip of two to three percent (2-3%) northwest, although localized flow path direction varies in relation to fracture orientation. Due to the proximity of the Dal-Tex Complex and proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine project (on either side of Spruce Fork), the groundwater levels in the Spruce Fork aquifer within the Dal-Tex Complex are assumed to be the same for the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area. The water table elevation associated with the alluvial aquifer varies from approximately 1,000 to 1,100 feet in the Spruce Fork area near White Oak Branch to approximately eight hundred (800) to eight hundred fifty (850) feet near the mouth of Seng Camp. In the bedrock aquifers, due to the fracturing and jointing characteristic of the region, as discussed above, the occurrence of perched aquifers tends to be very local and they are typically insufficient in storage capacity to support continual withdrawal, most likely due to at least partial dewatering through the natural fracture system. Below drainage, sandstone units or coal seams underlain by an impermeable shale or fireclay unit are known to constitute at least partially-confined aquifers with variable production rates. Wells are commonly drilled fifty (50) to three hundred (300) feet deep and typically produce one (1) to five hundred (500) gpm (Moebs and Clar, 1990; Friel et al., 1984; USGS, 1984; Trapp and Horn, 1997; and Lloyd and Lyke, 1995). The Cedar Grove seam in the area of the proposed project and Dal-Tex Complex, approximately two hundred fifty (250) to three hundred (300) feet below drainage, has inundated workings known to produce artesian discharges. The maximum bedrock aquifer thickness in the region is approximately three hundred (300) feet less the depth to water and occurs in the valleys (Kozar and Mathes, 2001; Sheets and Kozar, 2000). This maximum thickness corresponds to the maximum depth of fracturing in the valleys due to confining pressure indicating the degree to which the aquifer system is dominated by fracture flow. The saturated thickness in the hilltop and hillside settings is approximately one hundred thirty (130) to two hundred (200) feet minus the depth to water (Kozar, 1998; Sheets and Kozar, 2000). Depth to water varies from approximately forty (40) feet in the valleys and one hundred twenty (120) to two hundred (200) feet in the hillsides and hilltops, respectively. None of the mines in the Dal-Tex Complex are being pumped, however, as stated above, many rural residents in the region draw water from the Cedar Grove and other seams deep mined in association with Dal-Tex Complex or other properties within the Spruce Fork watershed. Drawdown from pumping has not been observed, nor is it anticipated due to abundance of groundwater in the region. No pumping from local or regional aquifers is proposed in association with the Spruce No. 1 Mine project. Groundwater Quality in the Spruce Fork Aquifer Groundwater quality in the Spruce Fork aquifer system is characteristic of the Kanawha River Basin and known to have the best alluvial aquifer water quality in the state. The Kanawha Formation bedrock, coal and overburden, which is location of a significant portion of the Spruce Fork aquifer system, is characteristically low in sulfur and, therefore, not as susceptible to production of acid mine drainage as are the Upper Pennsylvanian formations in West Virginia. Regionally, water quality is fresh and variable in pH from slightly acidic to slightly alkaline (pH of 4.5 to 8.9 standard units) and useable for domestic
3-29

consumption and irrigation. In the region, salinity is encountered at approximately seventeen hundred (1700) feet below the surface, but may occur as shallow as three hundred (300) feet below. Water quality in the alluvial and bedrock aquifers is characterized in Table 3-2, providing the range and typical value of various constituents in the groundwater of the Spruce Fork aquifer system of southwestern West Virginia (Ehlke et al., 1982). The groundwater type is generally calcium or sodium bicarbonate, depending upon the topographic setting, with cation exchange occurring mainly in the valleys through interaction with brines resulting in a dominance of sodium compared to a predominance of calcium in the hills/ridges due to dissolution of carbonate cements (Sheets and Kozar, 2000). Table 3-2 Summary of Water Quality in the Spruce Fork Aquifer System*
Aquifer Alluvial Parameter pH (SU) Min Max Typical Min Max Typical Min Max Typical Min Max Typical Min Max Typical Min Max Typical Min Max Typical Min Max Typical Typical Typical 5.5 8.3 6.6 12 435 36 11 1200 29 55 1930 115 0 180 0.03 0 9.90 0.01 26 2600 144 0 1000 12 25 8.5 Lower Pennsylvanian Bedrock (Kanawha Formation) 4.5 8.3 7.1 9 435 78 0 172 15 21 696 122 0.01 16.5 2.60 0 8.90 0.22 3 333 88 0.8 304 2.3 25 8.0

Alkalinity (mg/l)

Sulfate (mg/l)

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l)

Iron (mg/l)

Manganese (mg/l)

Hardness (mg/l)

Chloride (mg/l)

Calcium (mg/l) Sodium (mg/l)

*Data provided for the Spruce Fork aquifer corresponds with the western to south-western portion of the Kanawha River Basin data provided in Sheets and Kozar, 2000 and Ehlke et al., 1982.

3-30

Activities conducted on WVDEP Permits S-5081-87, S-5101-86, and S-5063-91 (Dal-Tex Complex), which have been mined and reclaimed on the west side of Spruce Fork, exhibit similar geologic characteristics to the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine. Additionally, previous mining of these seams proposed for development on the Spruce No. 1 Mine has occurred in the area north of Beech Creek under WVDEP Permits S-5024-86, S-5005-91, and S-5011-88. This mining occurred from the mid1980s to the mid-1990s, resulting in the construction of eight (8) durable rock fills. Ground and surface water discharging from these operations have exhibited pH values ranging from 7.0 to 8.0, moderately to highly buffered, with iron and manganese concentrations averaging less than 0.50 mg/l. Groundwater drawn from the abandoned Chilton works characteristically produces alkaline, high quality water. Groundwater from the Cedar Grove seam is variable within the Spruce Fork watershed with elevated iron and in some areas moderately low pH, however, the pH levels in the vicinity of the DalTex Complex are known to be alkaline due to the dominance of alkaline materials in the overburden. Groundwater Supply in the Spruce Fork Aquifer Groundwater in the Spruce Fork aquifer system is currently used for municipal, industrial, domestic, and agricultural purposes. As stated above, wells in the region have been known to produce one (1) to five hundred (500) gpm drilled at depths between fifty (50) and three hundred (300) feet below the surface. However, artesian discharges from the Cedar Grove abandoned workings have been known to exceed 1,000 gpm. The overall yield of wells drilled in the Quaternary alluvium and Pennsylvanian sandstones in the region ranges from five (5) to three hundred forty-nine (349) gpm (Ehlke et al., 1982). Total estimated withdrawal from bedrock aquifers in the region was estimated at two hundred eightytwo (282) million gallons per day in 1985. Domestic usage comprised forty-seven percent (47%) of this usage, while forty-one percent (41%) of usage was for industrial purposes. The remainder of usage is comprised of municipal and agricultural use, both of which are fairly low as most municipal use is drawn from large surface water sources and agriculture use within the region is minimal. In southwestern West Virginia, underground mines supply a substantial amount of groundwater usage (Kozar and Mathes, 2001). Previous underground mining has taken place beneath the Dal-Tex Complex, the proposed project area, and to the south and east in the Cedar Grove seam that lies approximately two hundred fifty (250) to three hundred (300) feet below the valley floor. These abandoned workings are filled with water that currently discharges through a borehole on Adkins Fork of Spruce Fork. This is an artesian type discharge with the pressure head forcing the water to the surface. No subsidence or aquifer dewatering problems from mining of this seam or others in the vicinity are known at this time. Some underground mining of the Five-Block and Chilton seams has taken place within or beneath the proposed project area, but these workings are limited in extent and no problems are known relating to these workings. Hydrogeology of the Spruce No. 1 Mine Area The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine project area lies to the east of Mingo Logan’s Dal-Tex Complex separated by Spruce Fork, within the southern West Virginia coalfields, as shown in Exhibit 1- 2. The geology and groundwater conditions in the Spruce No. 1 Mine area are characteristic of those in the Spruce Fork aquifer system, including the Dal-Tex Complex, as discussed above. Within the Spruce Fork watershed, the specific sub-watersheds, at least partially encompassed within the project area,

3-31

include Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch. Spruce Fork in the vicinity of the project area is identified as perennial, while the above listed sub-watershed drainages are identified as intermittent in their lower segments and intermittent or ephemeral in their upper reaches and tributaries, with the exception of Oldhouse Branch where perennial flow has been identified in the lower reach. Stratigraphy and Structure The geology of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine area is shown in Exhibits 3-6 and 3-7 and discussed in more detail in Section 3.1, Geology and Mineral Resources. Hydrostratigraphic units in the project area include the Quaternary alluvium and the fractured bedrock of the upper portion of the Pottsville Group, specifically the Kanawha Formation. The Allegheny Formation is only present in ridgetops of the project area. No groundwater was noted in the boreholes drilled within the proposed project area. Potential sources of groundwater (perched aquifers) within the proposed project area are coal seams or sandstone units underlain by an impermeable shale or fireclay unit. These potential sources are not currently being utilized and are generally not capable of supporting continual usage. Any strata capable of containing perched aquifers are dewatered by the naturally occurring fracture system within the strata which routes flow in a stair-step pattern into the valleys. As discussed above, the regional aquifer system is composed of many local and sub-regional aquifer systems. The local aquifers at least partially encompassed within the project area, include Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch, all direct tributaries of Spruce Fork. Linear features appearing on satellite imagery have surface traces corresponding to or paralleling these stream valleys which correlate with fractures and jointing patterns in concealed bedrock. These linear features work in conjunction with stress relief fractures in providing pathways for migration of groundwater. Stress relief fractures along the valley walls and valley floors contribute the majority of the recharge water to these local aquifers. The only other significant hydrologic feature of the strata within the project area is the abandoned underground mine workings. Within the proposed project area and immediate vicinity, several of the coal seams have been previously mined (Section I of WVDEP Permit S-5013-97). The Five-Block coal seam has been underground mined and augered in the head of Pigeonroost Branch and underground mined only north of Pigeonroost Branch. The Chilton seam has been previously augered in a small area near the mouth of the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek and has been underground mined in both the northern and southern sections of the lower portion of the Oldhouse Branch watershed. Finally, the Cedar Grove seam, situated approximately 250 to 300 feet below drainage, has been extensively underground mined in the southeastern portion of the proposed project area. Below drainage, groundwater is stored in these mine voids making them high capacity and productivity aquifers, some of which produce artesian discharges. Groundwater Hydrology and Hydraulic Properties of the Aquifer The principal aquifer underlying the project area is the Spruce Fork aquifer system, composed of the interconnected alluvial and fractured bedrock aquifers, as described above. The Kanawha Formation contains local aquifer units in the major sandstone beds and coal seams; which are the dominant source of groundwater in the aquifer system. Potential sources of groundwater (perched aquifers)
3-32

within the proposed project area are coal seams or sandstone units underlain by an impermeable shale or fireclay unit. These potential sources are not currently being utilized and are generally not capable of supporting continual usage. Any strata capable of containing perched aquifers are dewatered by the naturally occurring fracture system within the strata which routes flow in a stair-step pattern into the valleys. The Kanawha Formation strata are overlain by a fairly thin blanket of Quaternary alluvium. The water table elevations associated with the alluvial aquifers varies from approximately 1,000 to 1,100 feet in the Spruce Fork area near White Oak Branch to approximately eight hundred (800) to eight hundred fifty (850) feet near the mouth of Seng Camp Creek. The connectivity within and between both the alluvial and bedrock aquifers is portrayed in Exhibit 3-12, which is attributable to the dominance of fracture flow in the aquifer system. It is also this connectivity that links the hydrologically isolated local aquifer systems of the project area (Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch) to the regional Spruce Fork aquifer. Groundwater users in the vicinity (one-half [0.5] mile) of the project area have wells dug fourteen (14) to two hundred (200) feet deep, most less than one hundred (100) feet, in the valley floor alluvial and bedrock aquifers used for domestic purposes. Some users obtain water from springs or mine voids of the abandoned Chilton works located just above drainage known to be good of quality and produce consistent flows. In the Spruce Fork region, some residents are known to draw water from the inundated abandoned Cedar Grove works, located two hundred (200) to three hundred (300) feet below the surface, which produce artesian discharges in Adkins Fork, although this is not a known source to groundwater users in the vicinity of the Spruce No. 1 Mine project. As in the regional Spruce Fork aquifer, the local aquifers are far more productive from the fractured bedrock than from the alluvium. Data presented by Kozar and Mathes (2001) included some hydraulic analysis sites specific to the proposed project vicinity which draw from aquifers of the Kanawha Formation of Pottsville Group, particularly various sites throughout Logan County, including one site in the immediate project vicinity, the now closed Sharples Elementary School well. The bedrock aquifers in the vicinity of the proposed project are characterized by variable specific capacity (0.20 to 25.7 gpm/foot) and transmissivity (62 to 2100 square feet/day). Wells drawing from these aquifers in Logan County displayed discharge ranging from 19.6 to 340 gpm. Analysis of data from the Sharples Elementary School well, which has since been sealed and abandoned, characterize the aquifer as having a specific capacity of 0.44 gpm/foot and transmissivity of 100 square feet/day and an average production of 20 gpm. These values of these hydraulic properties, especially at the Sharples Elementary School well, indicate that the aquifer in the vicinity of the Spruce No. 1 Mine project is not highly productive. Recharge and Groundwater Movement The Spruce Fork aquifer has not been studied in detail in the project area. The regional properties of the Spruce Fork aquifer system are presented earlier in this section. Recharge of the local aquifers in the study area is mainly from precipitation infiltration along the ridges, which moves through the fracture system to the valleys with directional characteristics of the fractures trends. Recharge to the local and regional aquifers can be as much as 11.9 inches per year,
3-33

depending on soil and vegetation conditions in the recharge area, as inferred from data collection in the western portion of the Kanawha River Basin (Kozar and Mathes, 2001). Recharge from the local aquifers in the project area to the regional Spruce Fork aquifer also occurs along these fractures systems, but is also more strongly influenced by the regional dip, which within the proposed project area is generally to the northwest at an average grade of two to three percent (2-3%). Recharge to the regional Spruce Fork aquifer system is assumed to be low due to saturated conditions. Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality in areas immediately adjacent to and in the project area varies and is dependent on the individual aquifer and whether the well is screened in sand, silt, clay, or coal. Groundwater samples taken in and adjacent to the project area are presented in the Section J of the Spruce No. 1 Mine SMA (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97). Identification and description of the ten (10) baseline groundwater sampling sites is provided in Table 3-3 and are depicted in Exhibit 3-13). A summary of the analysis from the ten (10) sites monitored is provided in Table 3-4 below. Table 3-3 Baseline Groundwater Sampling Sites
Station ID G-1 G-1A 643 582 583 G-2 G-901 G-902 G-905 G-906 Station Description Well at Sharples Elementary School Sharples Elementary School Well Chilton Mine Discharge Blair Chilton Mine Discharge – Adkins Fork Cedar Grove Mine Discharge – Adkins Fork Well in Seng Camp Rick Walker’s Old Well near Five-Block John Stafford’s old well near Blair Well at Hobert Conley residence (Owned by Allegheny) in Pigeonroost Branch Well near mouth of Oldhouse Branch Latitude 37 54’ 30” 37 54’ 41” 37 52’ 20” 37 51’ 31” 37 51’ 47” 37 54’ 04” 37 53’ 39” 37 52’ 53” 37 52’ 51” 37 52’ 36” Longitude 81 48’ 26” 81 48’ 27” 81 50’ 15” 81 49’ 41” 81 49’ 47” 81 47’ 11” 81 49’ 39” 81 49’ 44” 81 47’ 51” 81 49’ 41” Elevation 884’ 875’ 1030’ 1058’ 1074’ 1047’ 940’ 982’ 1160’ 990’

3-34

Table 3-4 Summary of Baseline Groundwater Quality in Vicinity of Project Area
Flow Station ID
MIN G-1 G-1A 643 582 583 G-2 G-901 G-902 G-905 G-906 ND ND 100.00 20.00 100.00 ND ND ND ND ND (gpm) a, b MAX ND ND 1,194.00 45.00 600.00 ND ND ND ND ND AVG ND ND 385.35 34.29 470.00 ND ND ND ND ND MIN 7.70 7.20 6.90 6.60 6.50 6.10 6.60 7.60 7.10 6.70 pHa MAX 8.80 7.70 8.00 7.70 7.80 7.50 7.60 8.50 8.20 8.30 AVG 8.42 7.50 7.34 7.06 6.99 6.74 7.19 7.95 7.36 7.18 Total Hot Acidity (mg/l CaCO3) a, c MIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAX 0.00 0.00 282.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 AVG 0.00 0.00 9.45 0.37 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.12 0.13 0.21

Total Alkalinity (mg/l CaCO3) a
MIN 160.00 160.00 80.00 33.00 34.00 12.00 6.00 5.00 98.00 29.00 MAX 208.00 200.00 773.00 160.00 500.00 210.00 198.00 380.00 450.00 160.00 AVG 170.82 173.33 147.74 93.35 71.11 89.94 70.71 101.67 361.70 114.53

Total Iron (ppm) a, c
MIN 0.015 0.015 0.820 2.380 0.140 0.025 0.060 0.025 0.030 0.005 MAX 1.38 2.65 4712.00 84.00 326.00 58.16 53.31 0.15 2.05 0.21 AVG 0.34 1.31 354.17 29.78 63.45 6.88 4.52 0.04 1.05 0.05

Total Manganese (ppm) a, c MIN 0.005 0.060 0.100 0.100 0.050 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 MAX 0.05 0.13 44.83 5.39 1.36 2.88 4.60 0.03 0.50 0.04 AVG 0.03 0.09 6.16 1.72 0.46 0.35 0.36 0.01 0.07 0.01 MIN 2.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 0.50 0.50

TSS (ppm) a, c MAX 61.00 10.00 5632.00 239.00 485.00 136.00 33.00 9.00 9.00 18.00 AVG 7.36 2.21 594.77 73.95 97.50 8.85 5.50 1.86 1.60 2.41

Specific Conductance (umhos) a
MIN 310.00 270.00 183.00 104.00 100.00 78.00 70.50 271.00 430.00 370.00 MAX 520.00 306.00 587.00 1350.00 259.00 1090.00 578.00 1020.00 1710.00 1194.00 AVG 386.00 287.75 276.19 722.19 181.97 332.41 248.01 410.86 1153.95 471.76

Sulfate (ppm) a, c
MIN 1.04 0.50 0.50 16.00 8.50 8.90 18.00 70.00 110.00 66.00 MAX 29.00 17.00 71.00 923.00 72.00 400.00 80.00 190.00 360.00 110.00 AVG 11.23 2.88 22.57 350.02 34.01 75.65 38.93 110.26 215.25 91.05

Aluminum (ppm) a, c MIN 0.050 0.050 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.050 0.025 0.025 0.025 MAX 0.60 0.21 48.00 2.30 7.87 0.94 0.50 0.72 0.30 0.31 AVG 0.13 0.09 3.24 0.36 0.58 0.12 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.12

MIN = Minimum detected value in all samples MAX = Maximum detected value in all samples AVG = Average detected value in all samples ND = No Data available (groundwater flow values are only available for mine discharges) aNumbers represent average values for 11-31 sampling dates collected between February 1992 and December 2000. For some of the sampling dates, there may have been no flow for collecting a sample. bAverage is for dates when samples were collected; therefore, no zero flow values were factored into the average flow presented in this table. cOccasional samples measured less than the detection limit of the analysis for certain analytes: total suspended solids (detection limit of 4 ppm for 1996 and 1ppm for 1996), total acidity (detection limit of 1 mg/l), manganese (detection limit of 0.01 ppm), iron (detection limit of 0.05 ppm for 1993 and 0.03ppm for 1996),and aluminum (detection limit of 0.1ppm). For a conservative (high) estimate of the average of all samples, half the detection limit itself was used to represent the measured values of these samples.

3-35

3-36

As can be seen, groundwater quality in the project area and immediate vicinity is fairly good with circum-neutral pH, corresponding with generally low acidity and moderate alkalinity, relatively low sulfate concentrations, and low to moderately high metal (iron, manganese, and aluminum) concentrations. Overall, the parameters measured indicate quality consistent with that of fresh waters. The overburden in the project area was found to have an abundance of alkaline material. Groundwater Supply and Demand There are no known public water systems in the area withdrawing water from aquifers. The nearest public service district (PSD) is located near Madison and draws water from the Little Coal River, as most PSDs in the area draw from surface waters. Groundwater users in the vicinity (one-half [0.5] mile) of the project area have wells dug fourteen (14) to two hundred (200) feet deep, most less than one hundred (100) feet, in the valley floor alluvial and bedrock aquifers used for domestic purposes. Some users obtain water from springs or mine voids of the abandoned Chilton works located just above drainage known to be good of quality and produce consistent flows. In the Spruce Fork region, some residents are known to draw water from the inundated abandoned Cedar Grove works, located two hundred (200) to three hundred (300) feet below drainage, which produce artesian discharges in Adkins Fork, although this is not a known source to groundwater users in the vicinity of the Spruce No. 1 Mine project. Based upon the studies conducted, there is sufficient groundwater to meet the demands of local residents. Currently there are no groundwater users within the project area. In addition, the information presented in Section J of Mingo Logan’s SMA (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2) concluded that there are no groundwater users within seven-tenths (0.7) miles utilizing the strata to be disturbed by the proposed project under either the Applicant’s PA or Alternative 3. Furthermore, the study concluded that there are no significant aquifers in the proposed project area, immediately adjacent areas, and/or areas over the proposed mineral extraction. 3.2.3.2 Environmental Consequences Sections H, I, J, K, N, O, P, Q, S, and U, of the SMA (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR No. 2) and Section J of the Original SMA (WVDEP Permit S-5013-97) address issues concerning water quality (within one-half (0.5) mile of the proposed project area), quantity, and the potential impacts to users (both human and natural environments) of both groundwater and surface water resources as a result of the proposed project. Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Groundwater Quantity Impacts No adverse affect would be anticipated on groundwater quantity or supply as a result of the proposed project under the Applicant’s PA. Any potential impacts would be to the local aquifer systems within the project area, which as detailed above, contribute only minimally to the regional aquifer system. In actuality, the proposed project would likely enhance hydraulic properties of the project area resulting in greater recharge to both local and regional aquifers.

3-37

As detailed in the Applicant’s PA, mining of the Six-Block, Five-Block, Upper Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Middle Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Lower Stockton, Upper Coalburg, and Middle Coalburg seams is proposed utilizing mountaintop removal methods, and of the Lower Coalburg seams using contour and auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining, and of the Buffalo coal seams utilizing contour mining. Mountaintop mining of the above listed coal seams would involve the removal of any perched aquifers occurring in the fractured bedrock strata overlying the Middle Coalburg seam in the project area. Potential sources of groundwater (perched aquifers) within the proposed project area are coal seams or sandstone units underlain by an impermeable shale or fireclay unit. These potential sources are not currently being utilized and are generally not capable of supporting continual usage. Any strata capable of containing perched aquifers are dewatered by the naturally occurring fracture system within the strata which routes flow in a stair-step pattern into the valleys. There are no seeps or springs within the proposed project area which would suggest the presence of perched aquifers. No groundwater was noted as being encountered in the boreholes drilled within the proposed project area. The valley floors are the predominant location of the aquifers and as the proposed disturbance would be entirely located above drainage, no impact to these aquifers productivity would be anticipated. In association, these fractured bedrock strata would be replaced with more permeable backfill material, which would generally constitute creation of an alluvial aquifer in upland areas and should allow for less runoff, greater infiltration, and therefore, greater recharge to the aquifer systems. With the removal of the stress relief fractures in the mined area, new stress relief fractures may develop in the underlying strata. These newly developed stress relief fractures, along with the more porous backfill material would create increased infiltration rates. The same effect would result from construction of valley fills, in which highly permeable fill material would be placed along the valley walls. This increased infiltration would ultimately travel along the pavement of the lowest seam mined and exit at the interface with original ground; enter fractures in the pavement of the lowest seam mined and enter the groundwater system; or, go through the internal drainage system (underdrain) of the valley fills and exit at the fill toe area. These alluvial aquifers would have much greater storage capacity (as much as seven [7] times greater) than that of the existing fractured bedrock and, therefore, would provide recharge to valley floor aquifers and baseflow to streams and over longer periods. This replacement of fractured bedrock with more permeable backfill and storage of excess spoil material within the valley fills, along with regrading of the material to lesser slopes than currently exist, would reduce peak flows in local streams by reducing runoff rates. Auger/highwall/thin-seam mining of the Lower Coalburg would not be anticipated to significantly affect groundwater quantity due to the limited extraction area and percentage of extraction. Auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining would create voids in the coal seam thereby enhancing its permeability and storage capacity. In addition, subsidence from this mining could cause or increase vertical fractures from the mined seam up into the overlying strata, which could increase the amount of infiltration. Due to the proposed limited extent of these workings, little effect on the geohydrologic system would be anticipated. Additionally, subsidence control and underground mine abandonment plans have been developed as detailed in WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2. Openings to the surface due to auger/highwall/thin-seam mining would be covered with rock fill material (in up-dip areas) or the most impervious material available (in down-dip areas) along the entirety of the length of mining. Durable rock drains would be provided along up-dip mining areas of the highwall in case of water
3-38

buildup, although a buildup of water would not be anticipated. Little, if any, head would be expected in any auger/highwall/thin-seam mining hole due to the limited depth of penetration and minimal dip of the seams. Outcrop barriers would be left along the down-dip side of the mineral removal areas to prevent outcrop seepage where auger/highwall/thin-seam mining is planned in a down-dip direction. However, a potential for gravity discharge would exist since these seams are proposed to be developed in both an up-dip and down-dip direction. The quality of any discharges would be expected to be within effluent limits, while the quantity of discharges from any hole would be expected to be low due to the limited hole depths. No pumping is proposed and any gravity discharge or seepage would be minimal. Overall, it would be predicted that changes in aquifer characteristics would present a water table with yields that would be more consistent rather than the dramatic fluctuations that are currently observed a result of seasonal variations in precipitation events. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted both during mining and post-mining, as specified in Section J (Original and IBR 2) and U (IBR 2) of the Spruce No. 1 Mine WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, and reported to the WVDEP to verify and ensure compliance. Finally, should any water supplies currently being used for a legitimate purpose be impacted by the proposed project such that water quantity or quality is adversely affected, Mingo Logan would restore or replace the water supply of the affected users, as required by the WVDEP. The Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Analysis (CHIA) prepared by the WVDEP found that the project would not have significant adverse affects on the hydrologic balance and would have little potential to adversely affect local groundwater users. Groundwater Quality Impacts Based upon the findings of the CHIA and various studies conducted in preparation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine WVDEP Permit S-5013-97 (Original, IBR 1, and IBR 2), it is anticipated that there would be no substantial adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to groundwater quantity or quality, as a result of the proposed project under the Applicant’s PA. Replacement of fractured overburden with more porous and permeable backfill and storage of excess spoil material in valley fills would potentially result in decreased runoff and increased infiltration of precipitation, and therefore, increased recharge to the groundwater system. Auger/highwall/thin-seam/thin-seam mining in the Lower Coalburg seam would create voids in the seam, thereby enhancing its permeability locally. Both of these activities would involve greater exposure of materials to weathering, which can lead to greater dissolution and, therefore, higher constituent concentrations in the groundwater. The following discussion supports the WVDEP’s finding that no substantial adverse affect on water quality would result from the Applicant’s PA. Acid-base testing of the strata and coals that would be excavated and extracted by the proposed operation has been completed at eight (8) corehole locations within the proposed project area. These coreholes are S-93-7 (DTC 05030), S-93-8 (DTC 05029), S93-9 (DTC 0503 1), S-93-11 (DTC 06034), S-93-14 (DTC 06037), S-93-15 (DTC 06038), S-93-18 (DTC 06042), and S-93-19 (DTC 06044). Acid-base testing of the overburden strata was done by Sturm, while acid-base testing of the coal was done by Standard Laboratories, Inc. The overburden analyses indicated that the overburden in the project area contains an abundance of alkaline materials with only a few thin units associated with the

3-39

Stockton, Buffalo A, and Chilton A coal seams, having acid-producing potential, but are of insufficient volumes compared to the volume of available alkaline material to be encountered in the project area to result in acid mine drainage (AMD). No strata were noted in all the core holes to consistently have a maximum CaCo3 deficiency greater than five (5). Since there is an excess of neutralization potential available in the units that would be excavated by this mining operation, Mingo Logan proposes to blend the potentially acid-toxic materials with those units having an excess neutralization potential. This would be accomplished by the mixing occurring during the excavation process. Care would be exercised to ensure that the overburden is placed such that the potentially acid-toxic material would be blended with equal or greater volumes of material having an excess neutralization potential. In addition, prior to activation and mining within the proposed project area, the WVDEP has required the Applicant to conduct additional drilling within the project boundary to test for selenium. Information contained in Section I of Mingo Logan’s WVDEP Permit S-5013-97 suggests that higher concentrations of selenium in some areas has been linked to coal beds and associated dark shale strata and also contains information on drilling and selenium test data for drill hole DT0417, which was recently drilled. Any strata identified as having a concentration of selenium in excess of one (1) mg/kg would be placed in isolation zones as described below. Materials, such as pit cleaning, partings, and selenium-enriched strata, not suitable for blending would be segregated during the mining process and promptly placed in an isolation zone for final disposal within the backstack. A minimum of ten (10) feet of non-toxic, non-acid-producing material would be utilized for construction of a pad to separate the isolation cell from the pavement. A minimum of twenty (20) feet of separation would be used between acid/toxic material and the highwall. A minimum of four (4) feet of non toxic, non-acid producing, impervious material would be utilized to cover the isolation cell followed by at least ten (10) feet of ordinary backfill (Section O of WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2). Material to be isolated would be buried as quickly possible to minimize exposure to weathering elements. The excess carbonate-rich rocks in the overburden would be anticipated to minimize the potential for this material to produce acid water and adversely affect revegetation during mining and post-mining. However, this special handling plan does not apply to the coal seams to be mined, removed from the site, and marketed. In addition to complying with the special handling techniques previously defined, all handling and placement of overburden or strata defined as potentially acid or toxic, including potentially seleniumtoxic, would adhere to the following general guidelines: not be placed in close proximity to drainage courses; be placed such that a minimum of ten (10) feet of non-toxic, non-acid-producing material separates that potentially toxic material from the floor of the basal seam and at least four (4) feet of non-toxic, alkaline material covers the isolated material; not be placed within a durable rock fill; be separated from the final regraded surface by a minimum of ten (10) feet of overburden with an excess neutralization potential; and be handled and placed in accordance with time and acreage requirements of the contemporaneous reclamation plan. Based on the results stemming from Mingo Logan’s comprehensive studies conducted on variables that could affect groundwater resources as a result of the Applicant’s PA, it is has been demonstrated that the Applicant’s PA would have minimal impacts to groundwater quality and quantity for public users or to wildlife outside of the proposed project boundary.
3-40

Alternative 3 Potential impacts to groundwater resources under this alternative would be similar to those discussed for the Applicant’s PA, except that under Alternative 3, the Six-Block, Five-Block, Little Five-Block, Upper Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Middle Stockton Nos. 1 and 2, Lower Stockton, and Upper Coalburg, as well as all associated splits thereof, are targeted for mountaintop mining, while the Middle and Lower Coalburg, Buffalo, Winifrede, and Chilton seams are targeted for contour mining and associated auger/highwall/thin-seam mining in the Buffalo, Winifrede, and Chilton seams. No groundwater quality impacts would be anticipated. Groundwater Quantity Impacts The activities associated with the proposed project under Alternative 3 and their associated effects would be the same as those described for the Applicant’s PA, but would include direct effects within the White Oak Branch watershed, a presumptive Tier 2.5 listed stream. Groundwater Quality Impacts The activities associated with the proposed project under Alternative 3 and their associated effects would be the same as those described for the Applicant’s PA. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Spruce No. 1 Mine would not be developed. As a result, impacts to groundwater quantity and quality resulting from the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, as described above for either practicable project alternative, would not occur. Annual and seasonal changes in groundwater levels, quantity, and quality characteristics would continue as they have in the past. 3.2.3.3 Cumulative Groundwater Impacts Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHIA) Potential cumulative groundwater impacts would be associated with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable mining at the existing Dal-Tex Complex, Mingo Logan’s Mountain Laurel Complex, Independence Coal Company associated permits, Apogee Coal Company, LLC’s Complex “Guyan Area”, Stollings Trucking Mining Complex, other individual mining projects, proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, and the pending WVDEP Permits for the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines by other operators. Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessments (CHIA) were prepared for the project by the WVDEP during the mining permitting process, with consideration given to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable (pending approval) actions within the Spruce Fork watershed. Despite extensive surface and underground mining in the Spruce Fork watershed, in-stream water quality is within NPDES and CWA standards. The WVDEP determined that based upon past, present, and reasonably foreseeable mining in the watershed, the proposed project has little potential to negatively impact local groundwater users’ quantity or quality. Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Based upon the findings of the CHIA and various studies conducted in preparation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine WVDEP Permit No. S-5013-97 (Original, IBR 1, and IBR 2), it is anticipated that there would be no substantial adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to groundwater quantity or quality as a
3-41

result of the proposed project under the Applicant’s PA. Replacement of fractured overburden with more porous and permeable backfill and storage of excess spoil material in valley fills would potentially result in decreased runoff, increased infiltration of precipitation, and therefore, recharge to the groundwater system. The cumulative effect of the existing Dal-Tex Complex, Mingo Logan’s Mountain Laurel Complex, Independence Coal Company associated permits, Apogee Coal Company, LLC’s Complex “Guyan Area”, Stollings Trucking Mining Complex, other individual mining projects, the proposed project under the Applicant’s PA, and reasonably foreseeable actions (pending WVDEP Permits for the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines) would be increased infiltration and, therefore, greater recharge and availability of groundwater in the region. The overburden analyses in both the Dal-Tex Complex and Spruce No. 1 Mine project area have indicated that the overburden in the project area contains an abundance of alkaline materials with only a few thin units associated with the Stockton, Buffalo A, and Chilton A coal seams having acidproducing potential, but are of insufficient volumes compared to the volume of available alkaline material to be encountered in the project area to result in AMD. None of the existing surface or underground operations on the Dal-Tex property have required chemical treatment of their discharges and have maintained compliance with water quality standards. In addition, previous underground mining has taken place beneath the proposed project area and to the south and east in the Cedar Grove seam that lies approximately two hundred fifty (250) to three hundred (300) feet below the valley floor. These abandoned workings are filled with water that currently discharges through a borehole on Adkins Fork of Spruce Fork. This is an artesian type discharge with the pressure head forcing the water to the surface. This water is highly buffered with a pH of 7.5 to 8.5 having an iron concentration of approximately two (2) mg/l. Some underground mining of the Five-Block and Chilton seams has taken place within or beneath the proposed project area, but these workings are limited in extent. No subsidence or other problems are known relating to any of these workings. As the geology and hydrology of the Spruce No. 1 Mine is distinctly similar to that of the existing DalTex Complex and other nearby mining operations, and the utilization of special material handling plans for any potentially acid-producing or toxic materials encountered, the proposed project would not be anticipated to create or contribute to cumulative adverse effects upon groundwater quality or noncompliance with water quality standards. Alternative 3 The activities associated with the proposed project under Alternative 3 and their associated effects would be the same as those described for the Applicant’s PA, but would include direct effects within the White Oak Branch watershed, a presumptive Tier 2.5 listed stream. No Action Alternative Although the Spruce No. 1 Mine would not be developed under this scenario, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed Applicant’s PA is chosen. These future actions could include other mining projects, on-going oil and gas activities (estimated construction of three [3] to four [4] new additional oil/gas wells and associated access roads over the next five [5] years), silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially
3-42

contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. These potential future activities could have adverse effects on groundwater, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. 3.2.3.4 Monitoring and Mitigation Measures

Baseline groundwater monitoring to establish the existing conditions has been conducted as part of the preparation of the WVDEP Permit S-5013-97 (Original, IBR 1, and IBR 2) and is provided in Section J of the SMAs, as discussed and summarized in Section 3.2.3.1 above. Groundwater monitoring during and post-mining would be conducted at three (3) of the baseline groundwater sampling sites (634, G-1, and G-906) and a new well which would be installed (G-905A). These sites are located near Blair in a Chilton seam discharge (643), at a well near Sharples Elementary School (G-1), a well near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch (G-906), and a well which would be located in Pigeonroost Branch downstream of proposed Pond 2. The frequency of the monitoring would be quarterly with lab analysis reports submitted to the WVDEP. These sites would be analyzed for total dissolved solids and/or specific conductance, total suspended solids, flow, pH, acidity, alkalinity, total iron, total manganese, sulfates, and aluminum. Under WVDEP regulations, monitoring and reporting of groundwater quality analysis must continue through Phase II bond release after all drainage control structures have been removed. Phase II bond release constitutes a period of at least five (5) years post-mining, and possibly longer based upon the discretion of the WVDEP. These analyses would be utilized to determine the potential mine-related impacts on groundwater in the Spruce Fork aquifer system near the Spruce No. 1 Mine. 3.2.3.5 Residual Adverse Effects

There would be minimal, if any, residual adverse effects to groundwater quantity or quality as a result of Spruce No. 1 Mine project. 3.2.4 3.2.4.1 SURFACE WATER Affected Environment

Regional Surface Water Features Major components of the surface water network in the study area include the Spruce Fork watershed and its numerous tributaries. Directly impacted tributaries include Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, Seng Camp Creek, and White Oak Branch are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order headwater streams systems (See Exhibit 3-14). The study area for surface water resources includes these drainages within the project area. The primary cumulative effects area includes these drainages within the project area and the Spruce Fork watershed and its many tributaries, however, there is also discussion of impacts included for the Little Coal River Sub-basin, the Coal River Basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region. There are no USGS stream gage stations located in the Spruce Fork or Little Coal River watersheds. The nearest downstream USGS stream gage is located at Tornado, West Virginia on the Coal River. The mean annual and monthly flows are shown in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6, respectively. Monthly streamflow varies substantially at the baseline surface water sampling sites in the area. The stream gage at Tornado exemplifies this, as shown in Table 3-6. Low flow to no flow conditions exist in
3-43

nearly all of the baseline water monitoring sites, as can be seen in Table 3-8. There were twelve (12) baseline water monitoring sites located from just below the confluence with Seng Camp Creek to just above Little White Oak Branch, covering approximately 7.8 miles of Spruce Fork adjacent to the proposed project area (see Exhibit 3-13). Table 3-5 Mean Annual Flow at the Tornado, WV USGS gage station (03200500)
Year 1909 1910 1929 1930 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Annual mean streamflow (cfs) 1,012 919 1,354 484 1,750 1,164 983 1,147 1,052 1,775 1,511 1,326 1,276 1,348 1,876 1,240 1,554 1,562 926 1,045 1,254 1,870 1,170 Annual mean flow/area (cfs/sq mi) 1.17 1.07 1.57 0.56 2.03 1.35 1.14 1.33 1.22 2.06 1.75 1.54 1.48 1.56 2.18 1.44 1.80 1.81 1.07 1.21 1.45 2.17 1.36 Year 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Annual mean streamflow (cfs) 915 1161 982 1116 1,132 1,072 1058 589 1,763 1,138 1,224 1,009 1,131 1,674 1,068 1,716 1,052 1,266 673 859 1,070 1,137 2,097 Annual mean flow/area (cfs/sq mi) 1.06 1.35 1.14 1.29 1.31 1.24 1.23 0.68 2.05 1.32 1.42 1.17 1.31 1.94 1.24 1.99 1.22 1.47 0.78 1.00 1.24 1.32 2.43

Cfs = cubic feet per second Cfs/sq mi = cubic feet per second per square mile

It is not known to what degree the flows in the Spruce Fork watershed reflect mine discharges, topographic differences, other man-made sources, or groundwater contributions. Mining discharges may have augmented stream flows in the Spruce Fork watershed.

3-44

During large precipitation events, the flows in the channels increase rapidly. For example, in sharp contrast to the average flows, the peak annual flows for the Coal River near Tornado have ranged from approximately 400 to 2,100 cubic feet per second (cfs). Local Surface Water Features Within and near the proposed project area, the major drainages include Spruce Fork of the Little Coal River. Local tributaries to Spruce Fork include Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch. These local area streams are shown in Exhibit 3-15. Within the project area and immediate vicinity, streams are generally classified as intermittent with some ephemeral segments. The USGS has classified Spruce Fork as perennial. All tributaries within the project area are classified as intermittent or ephemeral, except for the extreme lower segment of Oldhouse Branch, near its confluence with Spruce Fork, which has been classified as perennial (Decota, 2000) The proposed project area is situated in four (4) sub-watersheds of the Spruce Fork watershed, which in turn makes up a portion of the headwaters of the Little Coal River. The Little Coal River is a subbasin of the Coal River basin, which makes up a portion of the Mountaintop Mining Region. Affected sub-watersheds include those watersheds in which the Applicant’s PA would be situated (as defined for each action alternative). Affected sub-watersheds include the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, and White Oak Branch (Mingo Logan’s PA would not result in filling activities, only mineral removal and water discharge activities, within the White Oak Branch watershed). The predominant surface water resources within the proposed project area are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order headwater stream systems (Exhibits 3-14 and 3-15). For this analysis, stream order was based on Hynes (1970) and is summarized as follows: 1st order streams include segments of waters of the U.S. in the headwaters that, when intersecting a similar segment, create a 2nd order stream segment; likewise, the intersection of two 2nd order segments demarcates the creation of a 3rd order stream and so on. Stream orders only increase to a higher order when segments of the same order intersect. The proposed project potentially impacts 1st through 3rd order systems. The only impacts to 3rd order segments would be temporary impacts along Pigeonroost Branch (below Valley Fills 2A and 2B).

3-45

Table 3-6 Mean Monthly Flow at the Tornado, WV USGS Gage Station (03200500)
YEAR 1908 1909 1910 1911 1928 1929 1930 1931 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Jan 1,000 1,821 2,449 1,624 983 209 2,552 1,636 1,332 2,503 570 1,408 2,607 1,288 2,154 2,032 2,723 841 4,309 2,753 2,309 372 2,661 4,433 1,691 487 Feb 2,141 1,671 1,700 2,366 1,838 631 3,753 2,366 2,075 1,528 1,543 2,117 1,275 1,607 3,973 3,227 4,749 1,550 1,386 3,003 1,957 1,601 1,045 2,812 1,629 1,843 Mar 2,601 757 1,874 3,554 1,781 2,179 3,472 5,634 3,065 3,116 1,199 5,390 3,157 1,373 2,196 1,603 1,620 2,619 3,207 4,453 1,746 1,660 3,120 2,286 2,698 1,573 Apr 2,010 1,092 2,727 1,250 923 3,235 2,465 760 1,724 2,867 1,956 1,683 2,142 2,277 2,355 968 3,575 2,867 2,134 2,651 858 2,474 1,625 2,145 2,736 2,208 May 1,397 1,368 473 2,428 234 1,096 1,234 960 389 985 1,727 3,821 2,137 1,495 1,234 2,147 1,398 1,759 1,381 2,153 381 579 1,768 1,639 1,429 1,181 Jun 950 1,930 103 454 47.2 203 846 989 213 490 352 882 1,326 955 540 901 800 755 2,011 647 168 202 387 1,883 500 2,548 Monthly Mean Streamflow (cfs) Jul Aug Sep 240 70.1 25.9 1,394 189 288 1,216 76.6 343 73.7 77.9 112 441 65 15.8 8.67 26.1 7 163 460 172 519 201 1,639 334 203 428 263 85.9 152 108 59.3 519 316 325 321 398 548 1,105 560 376 646 1,394 549 1,491 1,064 626 524 454 405 1,531 673 911 504 1,248 337 414 201 119 521 363 458 284 206 350 119 150 199 152 1,286 218 249 388 206 926 1,009 821 1,424 615 265 378 127 118 Oct 28.9 50.8 50 437 3.05 390 312 34.4 639 384 793 514 590 464 252 462 406 256 253 351 1,516 820 87.6 1,256 173 117 Nov 44.7 83.3 130 2,525 10.5 720 2,077 319 509 370 1,082 810 996 718 563 668 1,574 1,927 534 859 614 1,424 96.9 1,852 443 105 Dec 371 126 641 1,335 1,153 46.7 2,293 2,267 530 1,555 375 2,168 2,557 1,270 2,562 878 1,170 3,723 1,629 2,037 1,118 1,105 1,813 3,313 1,459 434 428 Min 25.9 50.8 50 73.7 1,335 16 3.05 163 201 203 34.4 59 316 321 376 549 464 252 462 337 119 253 206 119 152 88 821 173 105 Max 371 2,601 1,930 2,727 1,335 3,554 1,838 3,235 2,293 3,753 5,634 3,065 3,116 2,168 5,390 3,157 2,562 3,973 3,227 4,749 2,867 4,309 4,453 2,309 2,474 3,313 4,433 2736 2548 Avg 130 1019 925 1,066 1,335 1,359 492 928 825 1,763 1,167 985 1,148 1,055 1,769 1,507 1,327 1,294 1,358 1,888 1,245 1,550 1,569 927 1,050 1,246 1,877 1,170 926

3-46

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Mean monthly streamflow

Jan 1,129 559 927 1,479 712 1,529 727 1,222 2,157 2,346 1,338 936 3,977 2,072 3,363 1,345 1,396 2,020 314 863 943 1,268 2,226

Feb 2,665 1,597 1,257 3,086 3,004 2,243 1,028 2,878 2,945 2,548 1,140 1,508 4,464 2,268 1,975 1,227 4,047 746 1,954 1,495 479 5,296 2,385

Mar 2,770 1,371 2,088 1,845 1,502 1,339 977 2,558 1,377 3,575 2,454 4,806 5,224 1,678 2,507 3,877 2,428 2,544 1,036 1,287 1,968 1,344 1,617

Apr 966 2,686 2,698 1,058 509 4,812 1,645 2,003 2,119 1,592 1,721 1,543 2,287 895 2,110 1,338 2,770 663 2,169 1,166 3,091 2,025 3,505

May 977 2,138 2,411 2,249 1,038 829 931 3,886 1,065 426 1,041 727 2,088 2,822 5,122 1,259 1,974 422 776 3,154 2,475 2,130 1,373

Jun 1,891 859 230 596 344 499 210 2,468 655 326 734 753 326 1,053 781 1,507 1,287 141 856 1,130 376 2,839 2,169

Monthly Mean Streamflow (cfs) Jul Aug Sep 756 548 268 355 199 75 331 259 154 231 176 58.4 764 286 450 238 81.2 136 132 105 143 502 888 1,108 347 275 137 194 139 210 547 1,104 315 228 174 176 288 688 315 233 286 125 375 371 793 699 380 154 524 284 130 96.5 130 70.5 1,008 912 536 2,248 686 253 493 172 134 838 1,201 1,484 552 360 1,153

Oct 215 326 215 95.8 438 98.8 146 1,832 270 98.3 122 230 127 181 433 144 85.4 179 201 166 402 514 -

Nov 648 689 1,028 1,592 1,944 197 474 1,356 273 351 235 765 130 497 1,183 294 128 473 206 140 1,303 4,457 -

Dec 1,220 999 1,791 1,262 2,026 854 590 558 2,168 2,933 1,339 1,717 321 764 1,534 387 382 557 423 242 1,758 2,154 -

Min 215 75 154 58 286 81.2 105 502 137 98 122 174 127 125 371 144 85.4 70.5 201 140 134 514 360

Max 2,770 2686 2,698 3,086 3,004 4,812 1,645 3,886 2,945 3,575 2,454 4,806 5,224 2,822 5,122 3,877 4,047 2,544 2,169 3,154 3,091 5,296 3,505

Avg 1,171 988 1,116 1,144 1,085 1,071 592 1,772 1,149 1,228 1,008 1,130 1,686 1,073 1,712 1,051 1,286 670 866 1,069 1,133 2,129 1,704

3-47

1,706

2,196

2,451

2,022

1,594

880

577

438

328

357

821

1,313

223

3,257

1,206

Cfs = cubic feet per second

Stream channels in the project area have average main channel gradients ranging from approximately one hundred (100) to nineteen hundred (1,900_ feet per mile (two to thirty-six percent [2-36%]). Channel crosssections are typically incised with fairly steep banks that are eroded and undercut in places, transitioning to broader, shallower channels near the confluence of larger streams. Bank material grain sizes range from clay to gravel depending on site-specific geologic formations (both directly underlying the stream and upstream in the watershed) and in-channel flow velocities. Channel banks are sparsely vegetated and considered moderately unstable with erosion occurring at some locations. Mingo Logan has conducted flow measurement and water quality sampling on streams in and near the project area (Section J of WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, original and IBR 2). Current WVDEP regulations require minimum monitoring duration of six (6) consecutive months for a surface mining permit application. Mingo Logan’s monitoring program involved initial data collection between December 1988 and May 1989. As required by the current regulations, this initial data was supplemented in subsequent permit revisions with data collection extending from September of 1996 through February 1997, April 1997 through December 2000, and October 2003 through May 2004. Exhibit 3-13 shows the monitoring locations for streamflow measurements and water quality sampling. The designated locations are identified in Table 3-7. Table 3-7 Baseline Water Monitoring Sites
Station ID 300 301(501) 502 503(305) 304(172) 504 501A 505 506 507 507A 684 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 682 683 515 Station Description Spruce Fork below Seng Camp Creek Spruce Fork above Seng Camp Creek Seng Camp Creek below Right Fork Seng Camp Creek above Right Fork Mouth of Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek Head of Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek Spruce Fork between Five-Block and Seng Camp Creek Spruce Fork below Pigeonroost Branch Spruce Fork above Pigeonroost Branch Mouth of Pigeonroost Branch Mouth of 1st Right Fork of Pigeonroost Branch Pigeonroost Branch above 1st Right Fork Pigeonroost Branch above 2nd Right Fork Mouth of 2nd Right Fork of Pigeonroost Branch Mouth Upper Left Branch of Pigeonroost Branch Mouth of Upper Right Branch of Pigeonroost Branch Spruce Fork below Oldhouse Branch Spruce Fork above Oldhouse Branch Mouth of Oldhouse Branch Mouth of Right Fork of Oldhouse Branch Oldhouse Branch above Right Fork Spruce Fork above Blair 3-48 Latitude 37-54-41 37-54-35 37-54-12 37-54-06 37-54-08 37-53-38 37-53-36 57-53-29 37-53-05 37-53-03 37-52-59 37-52-58 37-52-48 37-52-42 37-52-41 37-52-38 37-52-46 37-52-35 37-52-46 37-52-16 37-52-18 37-52-20 Longitude 81-48-24 81-48-21 81-47-25 81-47-10 81-47-23 81-47-24 80-48-29 81-49-29 81-49-35 81-49-27 81-49-26 81-48-58 81-47-45 81-47-46 81-47-08 81-47-11 81-49-44 81-49-53 81-49-40 81-49-10 81-49-07 81-49-40 Elevation 880 885 980 1030 1000 1040 920 949 866 981 1020 1021 1210 1211 1350 1345 976 980 980 1218 1215 990

Station ID 516 517 518 519 521 522 523 307A 302

Station Description Spruce Fork below Adkins Fork Mouth of Adkins Fork Spruce Fork above Adkins Fork Mouth of White Oak Branch Head of White Oak Branch Mouth of Little White Oak Branch Spruce Fork above Little White Oak Branch Seng Camp Creek just below Cedar Grove Discharge Mouth of Seng Camp Creek

Latitude 37-51-44 37-51-36 37-51-35 37-51-37 37-51-46 37-51-30 37-51-15 37-53-42 37-54-37

Longitude 81-49-34 81-49-31 81-49-21 81-48-30 81-48-10 81-48-21 81-48-30 81-47-23 81-48-21

Elevation 1020 1021 1021 1078 1201 1110 1081 1120 878

Flow data for these stations are shown in Table 3-8. The streamflow measurements indicate that nearly all of the streams within the project area have periods of low or no flow throughout their length. Spruce Fork even experiences periods of no flow during extended periods without rain during dry summers. The upper reaches of the streams in the project area are driven primarily by precipitation events. Table 3-8 Baseline Water Monitoring Sites Flow Data
Station ID 300 301(501) 302 304(172) 307A 501A 502 503(305) 504 505 506 507 507A 508 509 510 Flow (gpm) MIN 0 0 20 0.88 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAX 200,000 196,000 680 100 2,783 370,000 8,425 3,000 3,151 360,000 150,000 5,000 4,700 4,500 4,000 3,000 Station ID 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 521 522 523 682 683 684 Flow (gpm) MIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAX 2,500 345,000 487,000 2,000 320,000 34,000 11,723 75,000 30,000 1,377 25,000 75,000 268 1,005 90

MIN = Minimum observed value in all samples MAX = Maximum observed value in all samples

3-49

Flows within the tributaries varied widely, as is typical of the region. For example, in Pigeonroost Branch, flows at the mouth of the tributary range from only 0 gpm to as much as 45,000 gpm depending on the location in the watershed. As previously discussed, stream segments within the project area are predominantly intermittent and ephemeral streams, with the exception of the lower segment of Oldhouse Branch near its confluence with Spruce Fork. Low to no flow periods would be expected during the summer months and early fall. Typically, flows at these sites are much smaller during these periods of late summer and early fall of each year. Most of the springs in the area are fed by coal seams which have been previously been mined. For example, flow in Seng Camp Creek is fed in part by a deep mine discharge from the Cedar Grove coal seam. Discharge amounts and durations vary at the spring location depending on recharge from rain events in the area. There are only two (2) existing ponds located in the project area. Both of these ponds are located on existing permitted mine land and would be incorporated into the projects drainage control system. Additional description of the distribution of USACE jurisdictional water features is presented in Section 3.2.5, Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands. Regional Surface Water Quality The WVDEP administers surface water quality regulatory programs in West Virginia, with substantial involvement from the WVDNR. Activities by these organizations include those conducted under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, and other enabling legislation. Surface water quality regulations, standards, criteria, and their application have been promulgated in the WVCSR, Titles 46, Series 1. Appendix E of 46 CSR 1provides the surface water criteria for classified stream segments. Drinking water standards have been adopted from national standards promulgated under 40 CFR Parts 141, 142, and 143. In addition, WVNPDES permit requirements (Title 47, Series 10) and the 401 Certification process also apply to activities that may affect water quality. Five general categories of use are identified for West Virginia surface water quality standards. These categories include public water supply (A), aquatic life use (propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life)(B), water contact recreation (C), agricultural and wildlife uses (D), and industrial water supply, transport, cooling, and power (E). Revised WVDEP regulations provide surface water quality provisions (including anti-degradation) to habitat for aquatic life uses, wetland water quality functions, and discharge of dredged or fill material under Section 401 of the CWA. Within the Coal River watershed there are one hundred twenty-seven (127) streams extending over five hundred ninety-one (591) miles that are listed in the West Virginia CWA Section 303(d) list of water bodies that do not meet, or are not expected to meet, water quality standards (WVDEP, 2005a). Streams listed on the Section 303(d) list are not in compliance with the site-specific water quality criteria as listed in 46 CSR 1, therefore, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are determined by the WVDEP in order to prevent further degradation and attempt to bring these waters back into compliance with water quality standards. The WVDEP has prepared a Draft TMDL report for non-compliant streams within the Coal River watershed (September 16, 2005). The impairments are related to numeric water quality criteria for fecal coliform, bacteria, dissolved aluminum, total iron, total manganese, total selenium, and pH. Many of the listed waters are also biologically impaired based on the narrative water quality criterion of 46 CSR 1–3.2.i, which prohibits the presence of wastes in state waters that cause or contribute to significant adverse impacts on the
3-50

chemical, physical, hydrologic, and biological components of aquatic ecosystems. The Draft TMDL report for the Coal River watershed divided impaired waters into six (6) sub-watersheds with two hundred ninety-nine (299) sub-watersheds occurring within them, including the Spruce Fork watershed. Within the Spruce Fork watershed, there are twenty-six (26) streams identified as impaired for at least one of the seven (7) criteria and TMDLs have been developed for the streams based upon their impairment criteria. As stated, this report is only in draft form and, therefore, streams listed as impaired and/or the criteria for which they are classified as impaired may change in the final report. Appendix 6 of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Selected Streams in the Coal River Watershed, West Virginia (Tetra-Tech, Inc., 2005) includes the TMDLs proposed within the Spruce Fork watershed. West Virginia high quality streams and trout stocked streams were identified utilizing the sixth edition of the published list of West Virginia High Quality Streams (WVDNR, 2001), and WVDNR’s website (http://www.wvdnr.gov/Fishing/Fishing.shtm). The criteria used to designate a stream as high quality are as follows: • • All streams which are stocked with trout or that contain native trout populations; and Warmwater streams over five (5) miles in length with desirable fish populations (i.e., game species) and public fishing.

In addition to high quality stream designations, West Virginia also classifies streams as National Resource Waters (NRW). NRW is the West Virginia designation for streams that are afforded the highest level of protection. The following criteria qualify a stream as a NRW: • • • • Presence of threatened or endangered species or critical habitat; Presence of naturally reproducing trout populations; All Federally designated rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; and Located within a State or Federal forest or recreational area.

West Virginia’s anti-degradation rule (http://www.wvsos.com/csr/verify.asp?TitleSeries=60-05) outlines four levels of protection for state waters: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2.5, and Tier 3. Tier 1 protection applies to all waters. Existing water uses and water quality necessary to maintain the existing uses must be protected for Tier 1 waters. This protection level must be applied to all permit application reviews. The Tier 2 category is the default level of protection. Although all West Virginia’s surface waters receive broad protection through the state’s water quality standards, explicit protection was proposed to be given to 444 streams covering over 2,000 miles across the state in the initial presumptive Tier 2.5 list. No significant degradation of a Tier 2.5 stream would be permitted, although short-term degradation may be allowed. Significant degradation in this case is defined as reducing the assimilative capacity of the receiving water by more than ten percent (10%). Existing permittees discharging into a Tier 2.5 stream may be required to submit an alternatives analysis during the permit renewal process. New or renewal permits are subject to the same public notice procedures as required under the Water Pollution Control Act, but would also contain information on the anti-degradation review. The WVDEP has updated the initial presumptive Tier 2.5 list (list as of September 29, 2005) and identified 394 waters currently of special concern that are to be provided Tier 2.5 protection (WVDEP, 2005b). Tier 2.5 waters include naturally reproducing trout streams and WVDEP determined reference streams or streams with a high biological score indicating high water quality. The list was developed by the
3-51

Division of Water and Waste Management (DWWM) and the Division of Natural Resources (DNR). Within the Spruce Fork watershed, the only Tier 2.5 listed stream is White Oak Branch, which is located just south of the project area and is listed for its entire 2.1-mile length as a reference stream. Tier 3 protection affords the highest levels of protection to Outstanding National Resource Waters. Tier 3 applies to waters within West Virginia’s five (5) wilderness areas, including, Dolly Sods, Laurel Fork North, Laurel Fork South, Otter Creek, and Cranberry. The final stream list has not yet been completed by the DWWR. The Tier 3 list of waters can also be expanded based on a public nomination process. Tier 3 waters cannot be degraded, but can be improved by a new or existing operation, although short-term changes to water quality may be allowed. Discharges upstream of a Tier 3 segment are prohibited from degrading the water quality of a Tier 3 water. No Tier 3 (presumptive listed) streams exist within the proposed project area or Spruce Fork watershed. The USEPA and WVDEP have conducted water quality sampling within the region in order to assess compliance with water quality standards and develop programs to bring waters back into compliance. Regional sampling results generally indicate good water quality, with constituent levels typically within general criteria for the categorical uses. In general, levels for both total and dissolved metals and metalloids (non-metallic elements having some of the chemical properties of metals) are within water quality standards, with the exception of iron, aluminum, and selenium. Where trace metals were detected, their amounts were often below drinking water standards (Section J of WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, original and IBR 2). Sources of metals within the region are identified by the WVDEP as being water treatment, industrial manufacturing, abandoned mine lands, active mining, construction, and other earth disturbing activities, such as logging, oil and gas exploration, road construction. The greatest source of impairment within the Spruce Fork watershed appears to be from fecal coliform contamination related to sewage and septic tank discharges of human waste, directly (straight pipes) or indirectly through seepage, as well as direct and indirect contributions of wildlife waste. The West Virginia Bureau for Public Health has estimated that approximately seventy percent (70%) of septic tanks fail within the first ten (10) years after installation (Tetra Tech, Inc., 2005). Mingo Logan has conducted additional water quality sampling in the vicinity of the existing Dal-Tex Complex as part of monitoring programs for that facility. The surface water quality in the Dal-Tex Complex area (directly west of Spruce Fork and the proposed project area) can be characterized as moderately to highly buffered with pH ranging from 7.0 to 8.0 standard units, and total iron and manganese levels generally less than 0.50 mg/l. Discharges from NPDES outlets in the Dal-Tex Complex area meet effluent limits and do so without requiring chemical amendment. Local Surface Water Quality Within and near the proposed project area, the major drainage is Spruce Fork of the Little Coal River. Local tributaries to Spruce Fork include Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch. These local area streams are shown in Exhibit 3-15. Within the project area and immediate vicinity, streams are generally classified as intermittent with some ephemeral segments. The USGS has classified Spruce Fork as perennial, although segments of the stream are known to go dry during periods of low precipitation. The streams within the project area are classified as mainly intermittent and ephemeral segments, except for the extreme lower segment of Oldhouse Branch, near its confluence with Spruce Fork, which has been classified as perennial (Decota, 2000). A perennial stream is defined as “a stream or portion of a stream which flows continuously”.
3-52

In general, an intermittent stream is defined by the WVDEP (38 CSR 2) as “a stream or reach of a stream that drains a watershed of at least one (1) square mile; or a stream or reach of a stream that is below the local water table for at least some part of the year, and obtains its flow from both surface runoff and groundwater discharge”. An ephemeral stream is defined as “a stream which flows only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate watershed or in response to the melting of a cover of snow and ice, and which has a channel bottom that is always above the local water table”. More specific stream type definitions are given with regard to water quality standards in 46 CSR 1 where intermittent streams are defined as “streams which have no flow during sustained periods of no precipitation and which do not support aquatic life whose life history requires residence in flowing waters for a continuous period of at least six (6) months”, and ephemeral or “wet weather” streams are defined as “streams that flow only in direct response to precipitation or whose channels are at all times above the water table”. Resource values, in the form of beneficial uses of surface water, are associated with the WVDEP stream classifications described above. In accordance with 46 CSR 1, all of the streams in the proposed project area are capable of supporting uses under categories A, B, C, and D. However, as the majority of the streams are either intermittent or ephemeral in nature, they are assumed to have limited aquatic life use (a regulatory classification with attendant water quality standards). Additional information is available from the surface water inventory conducted for the project area in response to WVDEP Mining and Reclamation regulations (Section J of WVDEP Permit No. S-5013-97, original and IBR 2). Results of flow monitoring investigations within the project area indicate that only the extreme lower segment of Oldhouse Branch near its confluence with Spruce Fork is classified as perennial, with the remainder of streams in the project area having long reaches with intermittent flow conditions in the mainstems and some tributaries, and ephemeral conditions being typical on most tributaries (see Exhibit 3-15). Ephemeral streams flow only in direct response to rainfall/runoff events. In the project region, flow is sustained in such drainages only for short periods, usually a matter of hours or days. Mingo Logan has developed a surface water control plan and a monitoring plan for the proposed project. Monitoring of surface waters for the project would include baseline water sampling performed in preparation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine SMA, in addition to proposed during-mining and post-mining monitoring required under the SMCRA permit. Mingo Logan is also subject to monitoring requirements under the NPDES permit issued for the project, including in-stream sites as well as on-bench discharges from permitted outlets. In addition, regulatory processes are required that involve the USACE and WVDEP in the review of permit applications and related control measures for surface drainage, discharge, and water quality. The applicability of specific water quality standards and detailed approaches to compliance would be determined during these processes. Compliance monitoring and reporting would be conducted during operations and for a subsequent period extending through Phase II bond release, which is typically a duration of at least five (5) years. Review of the permits and practices would be conducted every five (5) years as part of the continuing regulatory program. This assessment of potential impacts to surface water resources considers these factors. Surface waters within the proposed project area are not currently classified as High Quality aquatic systems by the State of West Virginia, nor are they listed on the Wild and Scenic Rivers list or Candidate rivers under study for designation to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NPS, 2004a and 2004b). Surface waters within the proposed project area are not trout stocked, nor do they contain native or naturally reproducing trout populations. Although surface waters within the proposed project area are not officially
3-53

classified as high quality, the “quality” of surface waters within the proposed project area has been evaluated by Mingo Logan and is discussed below. Analysis of the quality of surface water resources utilized in the development of this EIS included water chemistry and benthic data derived from numerous studies detailed in Table 3-9. As part of the agency scoping process, these studies were reviewed and evaluated for inclusion into this EIS and are incorporated by reference (33 CFR 325 9(b)(6)/40 CFR 1502.15). The detailed results of the evaluation of data from the various benthic studies are provided in Appendix K while a general summation of the findings within each watershed is presented within this section along with the water chemistry results. Benthic macroinvertebrate studies have been undertaken by Mingo Logan, as performed by two private consulting firms (Sturm Environmental Services [Sturm] and Biological Monitoring Inc. [BMI]) and by two Federal resource agencies (USFWS and USEPA) in order to determine the quality of surface water resources within the proposed project area specifically, and within the Spruce Fork watershed in general. In all, over 100 benthic samples have been collected within and adjacent to the proposed project area in the last fourteen (14) years. A detailed summary of the benthic data collected for the proposed project is presented Table 3-10. Locations of the benthic sampling sites are shown on Exhibit 3-16. It is important to note that the substantive studies discussed below and detailed in Table 3-9 are incorporated by reference into this EIS. This EIS does not attempt to substantiate summary conclusions drawn by the authors of those studies. This EIS evaluates the raw data collected by each of the authors. The primary reason is that a number of studies attempt to evaluate potentially impacted streams relative to a regional reference stream (e.g., Caney Fork). Unfortunately, the reference stream data utilized for these comparisons was based on only one sampling point (C-7) located at the mouth of Caney Fork (a stream outside of the project area). The reference sampling point chosen does not reflect the assemblage of macroinvertebrates collected within Caney Fork (i.e., substantially more taxon and individuals were collected at other sampling sites upstream of C-7). In addition, Caney Fork is not similar in watershed size (i.e., substantially larger) or stream length (i.e., substantially longer) compared to watersheds within the proposed project area. Differences in stream order preclude making comparisons to Spruce Fork or Beech Creek. Other studies attempted to use Rockhouse Creek and Bend Branch as reference streams for comparison to those within the proposed project area. Varying levels of macroinvertebrate sampling and identification make comparison of the multiple studies to a unified standard unreasonable. The Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI) is used for comparison because it represents the highest level of macroinvertebrate identification common to all studies.

3-54

Table 3-9 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Studies Conducted for the Proposed Project
Investigator Sturm Environmental Services Sturm Environmental Services Title Dal-Tex Coal Corporation Seng Camp Mine No. 2 Benthic Evaluation Dal-Tex Coal Corporation Seng Camp Mine No. 1 Benthic Evaluation Right Fork and Daniel Hollow Submission Date Sampling Date(s) Stream Identification April 1991 October 19, 1990 Seng Camp Creek and tributaries Seng Camp Creek and tributaries Methodology “Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - Draft” USEPA Report RT 171A. “Rapid Bioassessment Protocol for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates-Draft,” USEPA report 171A, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Monitoring and Data support division 40 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

March 1992

October 16-17, 1991

USEPA, Jim Green A Survey of Aquatic Life In Streams In The Area of The and Maggie Proposed Hobet Mining Passmore Spruce No. 1 Mine USEPA, Jim Green and Maggie Passmore

August 1998

July 7, 1998

Seng Camp Creek USEPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols II (1989, Pigeonroost Branch, USEPA) Results analyzed using a multi-metric index Oldhouse Branch, and developed by Reese Voshell at Virginia Tech. MAIS scoring used for analysis. White Oak Branch

3-55

December 1998 A Survey of Aquatic Life and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitats on the Proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hobet Mining, Inc. Spruce September 1998 No. 1 Surface Mine Benthic Evaluation for: Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch October 13-14, 1997 Pigeonroost, Oldhouse and White Oak Branch “Rapid Bioassessment Protocol for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates-Draft,” USEPA report RT171A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Monitoring and Data support division 40 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

Sturm Environmental Services

Investigator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services

Title A Survey of Aquatic Life and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitats on the Proposed Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine in Logan County, West Virginia Structure and function of streams in the Pigeonroost Branch watershed, and the influence of mountain top removal and valley fill on southern West Virginia watershed-ecosystems

Submission Date Sampling Date(s) Stream Identification December 1998 July 27-28, 1998 Pigeonroost, Oldhouse and White Oak Branch

Methodology Macroinvertebrates field and Laboratory methods for evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. USEPA/600/4-90/030.

Dr. Ben Stout

March 31,1999

No Data Collected by Author

Various

Author provides comments on four reports: 1) An evaluation of mountaintop mining and valley fill construction effects upon the surface hydrologic and benthic systems. Sturm Environmental Services, undated. 2) Letter from David W. Fisher, Sturm Environmental Services, to John McDaniel, Mingo Logan Mining, Inc. July 30, 1998, with attachments relating benthic sampling from the Spruce No. 1 mining area. 3) A survey of the aquatic life and terrestrial habitats on the proposed Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, West Virginia. USFWS, 1998. 4) Analysis of valley fill impacts using benthic macroinvertebrates. Draft final report. Science Applications International Corp. McLean VA, USEPA Contract 68-C4-0034, September 30, 1998. Techniques used - Plafkin, et al. 1989. Macroinvertebrate sampling - Merrit and Cummins, 1996; BMI QAPP, 1999. FPOM - APHA, 1998; BMI QAPP, 1999. Bottom Organic Material APHA 1998 Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastes: Method 10200 H. Fish - BMI QAPP, 1999; TVA, 1995. Used Surber Sampler. Data analyzed using analysis of variance (Bonferroni method) to compare sites. Development of null and alternative hypotheses were set up, Null – No difference between sites, and Alternative – there is a difference between

3-56 Dr. Albert C. Hendricks, Ph.D. Biological Monitoring Inc. Blacksburg, VA 24060 A Benthic Invertebrate, Fish, FPOM, and Flow Survey of Spruce Fork, Pigeonroost Branch, Bend Branch and Rockhouse Branch, to evaluate the Impact of Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills on the Spruce Fork Ecosystem May 14, 1999 March 27, 1999April 27, 1999 Pigeonroost Branch, Rockhouse Branch, Bend Branch, and Spruce Fork

Investigator

Title

Submission Date Sampling Date(s) Stream Identification

Methodology the sites. Each hypothesis was analyzed on the following streams Spruce Fork, Pigeonroost and Rockhouse Branch. Assumptions of the analysis were 1) Numerical measurements at a given site may be modeled as coming from a Normal (Gaussian) distribution, 2) The means of the sites may differ but there is not difference in the variance, and 3) The measurements are independent of each other. Probability plots were used to evaluate normality and transformations used to increase the validity of the normality and homogeneity of variance assumption.

John J. Hutchens, Jr. 3-57 Dr. Albert C. Hendricks, Ph.D. Biological Monitoring Inc. Blacksburg, VA 24060

Further Analysis of Benthic Macro-invertebrates from Pigeonroost Branch, Rockhouse Branch, and Bend Branch, West Virginia: Effects of Mountain-top Removal and Valley Filling

June 17, 1999

No Data Pigeonroost Branch, Collected. Rockhouse Branch, Interpretation of and Bend Branch collected data only

The author evaluated data presented in Dr. Hendricks' report (May 14, 1999) to calculate the proportion of total abundance comprised of EPT insects and the proportion of total abundance of insects of the family Chironomidae. The author theorized that with increased perturbation, EPT percentage decreases and Chironomidae percentage increases (USEPA 1999). Based on one possible correlation, the author concluded that macroinvertebrates in the stream draining a valley fill (Rockhouse Branch) were in poorer condition than other sites surveyed in the Hendricks study. Techniques used - Plafkin, et al. 1989. Macroinvertebrate sampling - Merrit and Cummins, 1996; BMI QAPP, 1999. FPOM - APHA, 1998; BMI QAPP, 1999. Bottom Organic Material, APHA 1998 Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastes: method 10200 H. Fish - BMI QAPP, 1999; TVA, 1995.

A Second Benthic Invertebrate, Survey of Spruce Fork, Pigeonroost Branch, Bend Branch and Rockhouse Branch, to evaluate the Impact of Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills on the Spruce Fork Ecosystem

June 18, 1999

May 14, 1999

Pigeonroost Branch, Rockhouse Branch, Bend Branch, and Spruce Fork

Investigator John J. Hutchens, Jr.

Title Comments on “A second Benthic invertebrate survey of Pigeonroost Branch, Bend Branch and Rockhouse Branch, to evaluate the impact of mountaintop mining and valley fills on the Spruce Fork Ecosystem”, prepared by Albert C. Hendricks, PhD., June 18, 1999. Spruce No. 1 Mine: Fall Period 1999

Submission Date Sampling Date(s) Stream Identification N/A No Data Collected Pigeonroost Branch, Rockhouse Branch, and Bend Branch

Methodology No Data Collected. Comments on June 18, 1999 report by Dr. Hendricks.

Biological Monitoring, Inc. 3-58 Science Applications International Corporation

January 23, 2000 November 16-18, 1999

Seng Camp Creek, Assessed several areas that are proposed to contain valley fills during future mining activities. The Pigeonroost Branch, assessments followed the guidelines laid out in the Oldhouse Branch, Interim Discussion Draft Guidance Document White Oak Branch, provided by the USEPA. Rockhouse Creek, Bend Branch Spruce Fork Honey Branch, Beech Plafkin, et al., 1990 and USEPA QAPP USEPA 1995. Creek, Spruce Fork, East Fork of Twelvepole Creek

Analysis of Valley Fill Impacts using Benthic Macroinvertebrates - Draft Final Report

September 30, 1998

June 18, 1987, June 1998

Investigator

Title

Submission Date Sampling Date(s) Stream Identification Spring 1999 Spring 2000

Methodology

Green, Passmore, A Survey of the Condition of Draft April 2000, and Childers Streams in the Primary Final November Region of Mountaintop 2000 USEPA/ Signal Mining/Valley Fill Coal Corporation Mining

White Oak Branch, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) single habitat sampling protocol (USEPA, 1999). Samples were Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, collected in riffle habitat only. A 0.5 meter wide dip net Rockhouse Creek, was used to collect organisms in a 0.25 square meter Beech Creek, Left area upstream of the net. Four samples, each Fork of Beech Creek representing 0.25 square meters of riffle habitat, were composited. The total area sampled for each sample was approximately 1 square meter. Current velocities were measured in the riffle where the benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled. Sites with residences were excluded from the group comparisons because data indicated that the residences may be having an additional impact on stream condition. Spruce Fork Square meter kick net; both slow riffles and fast riffles sampled.

Sturm Environmental Services

No Report

N/A

May, 2000

3-59

Table 3-10 Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling - All Samples
Investigator Sample ID
USFWS USFWS Sturm_5_00 USEPA_7_98 USFWS Sturm 97 USFWS Sturm 97 WB01 WB02

Stream

Reach

% Sample % Technique1 Season2 Year Individuals Families EPT Dominance Loc ID
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 KN KN KN KN KN HP HP HP HP HP KN KN KN SS KN KN SS KN HP HP KN SS KN SUM SUM AUT SPR SUM SUM AUT SUM AUT AUT SUM SPR AUT AUT AUT SUM SPR SPR AUT AUT AUT SPR SPR 1998 1998 1999 2000 1998 1998 1997 1998 1997 1997 1998 2000 1999 1999 1999 1998 1999 1999 1997 1997 1999 1999 1999 124 137 97 1,669 103 4 37 63 74 65 193 2,065 0 133 104 255 87 739 32 48 35 50 391 16 14 14 20 15 4 5 16 3 4 21 25 0 17 15 24 12 21 5 3 5 13 16 31 52 77 59 67 75 81 67 84 29 38 48 0 87 85 58 86 92 59 69 37 72 93 52 20 35 34 25 25 73 17 62 54 32 26 0 44 31 25 53 51 38 44 49 22 48

HBI
5.790 4.146 2.814 4.179 4.524 2.500 3.676 3.238 4.000 3.831 4.777 3.517 -2.677 3.788 4.063 1.736 1.721 3.750 4.000 2.943 3.960 2.197

pH Temperature
--7.70 ---7.00 -7.30 7.40 --7.30 7.30 7.60 -7.47 7.70 7.30 7.50 7.20 6.97 7.40 --6.00 ---15.80 -15.30 14.90 --5.00 5.00 4.00 -8.60 15.30 13.70 14.20 7.00 8.80 13.70

White Oak Branch WO1 White Oak Branch WO1

BMI_11_99 SPR5WOB2_KN White Oak Branch WO1 SF/WO/Total White Oak Branch WO1 H4_WO OH-RP OH No. 1 OH01 OH No. 2 OH No.3 H3_OH SF/OH_Total White Oak Branch WO1 Oldhouse Branch Oldhouse Branch Oldhouse Branch Oldhouse Branch Oldhouse Branch Oldhouse Branch Oldhouse Branch OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1

3-60

Sturm 97 USEPA_7_98 Sturm_5_00

BMI_11_99 SPR4OHB1_KN Oldhouse Branch BMI_11_99 SPR4OHB1_SS Oldhouse Branch BMI_11_99 SPR4OHB2_KN Oldhouse Branch USFWS Hendrick 3_99 Hendricks_99 Sturm 97 Sturm 97 Hendrick 3_99 Hendricks_99 PB01 PRB5_SS PRB5_KN PR No. 2 PR No. 1 PRB6_SS PRB6_KN

Pigeonroost Branch PR4 Pigeonroost Branch PR4 Pigeonroost Branch PR4 Pigeonroost Branch PR4 Pigeonroost Branch PR3 Pigeonroost Branch PR3 Pigeonroost Branch PR3

BMI_11_99 SPR2PRB3_KN Pigeonroost Branch PR3

Investigator Sample ID
USFWS Sturm 97 Hendrick 3_99 Hendricks_99 PB02 PR No.3 PRB4_SS PRB4_KN

Stream

Reach

% Sample % Technique1 Season2 Year Individuals Families EPT Dominance Loc ID
7 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 KN KN SS KN KN SS KN SS KN KN SS KN HP KN SS SS KN HP KN SS HP KN SS KN KN SUM AUT SPR SPR AUT AUT SUM SPR SPR SUM SPR SPR AUT AUT AUT SPR SPR AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT 1998 1997 1999 1999 1999 1999 1998 1999 1999 1998 1999 1999 1997 1999 1999 1999 1999 1991 1999 1999 1991 1999 1999 1990 1990 87 58 195 1,013 116 376 155 202 1,811 281 127 1,398 118 116 292 106 1,125 63 95 30 23 114 138 765 364 13 5 14 22 14 15 21 15 20 18 17 19 6 11 15 15 26 11 13 12 10 13 12 12 20 75 67 84 90 55 39 59 72 63 78 79 84 69 73 49 76 59 44 56 40 83 82 53 7 89 28 60 42 61 25 46 27 32 42 30 29 32 54 24 29 16 24 49 22 20 35 37 39 84 56

HBI
2.943 3.776 2.667 2.091 4.034 3.678 3.568 2.827 2.578 3.651 3.213 2.785 3.898 2.931 3.401 3.670 4.115 3.952 4.347 4.033 3.348 2.939 4.551 7.427 2.442

pH Temperature
-7.40 7.23 6.40 7.00 7.00 -7.20 7.50 -7.10 6.30 7.50 8.10 8.10 6.90 7.10 7.20 7.30 7.30 -7.40 7.40 7.90 7.40 -13.90 10.97 15.10 5.00 5.00 -12.37 15.10 -11.83 14.50 14.20 6.00 6.00 9.03 12.40 12.00 5.00 5.00 -5.00 5.00 15.10 11.60

Pigeonroost Branch PR3 Pigeonroost Branch PR3 Pigeonroost Branch PR3 Pigeonroost Branch PR3

BMI_11_99 SPR2PRB2_KN Pigeonroost Branch PR2 BMI_11_99 SPR2PRB2_SS Pigeonroost Branch PR2 USFWS Hendrick 3_99 Hendricks_99 USEPA_7_98 Hendrick 3_99 Hendricks_99 Sturm 97 PB03 PRB3_SS PRB3_KN H2_PR PRB2_SS PRB2_KN PR No.4 Pigeonroost Branch PR2 Pigeonroost Branch PR2 Pigeonroost Branch PR2 Pigeonroost Branch PR2 Pigeonroost Branch PR2 Pigeonroost Branch PR2 Pigeonroost Branch PR2

3-61

BMI_11_99 SPR2PRB1_KN Pigeonroost Branch PR1 BMI_11_99 SPR2PRB1_SS Pigeonroost Branch PR1 Hendrick 3_99 Hendricks_99 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 PRB1_SS PRB1_KN Pigeonroost Branch PR1 Pigeonroost Branch PR1

Sturm_10_91 SC_B3RF_HP Seng Camp Creek SC3 SPF1RF3_KN Seng Camp Creek SC3 SPR1RF3_SS Seng Camp Creek SC3 SPF1RF2_KN Seng Camp Creek SC3 SPR1RF2_SS Seng Camp Creek SC3

Sturm_10_91 SC_B4RF_HP Seng Camp Creek SC3

Sturm_10_90 SC_B3SCh_KN Seng Camp Creek SC3 Sturm_10_90 SC_B2CC_KN Seng Camp Creek SC3

Investigator Sample ID
BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 USEPA_7_98 USEPA_7_98

Stream

Reach

% Sample % Technique1 Season2 Year Individuals Families EPT Dominance Loc ID
7 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 KN SS KN KN KN HP HP KN KN KN KN SS KN KN SS KN KN SS SS KN KN KN KN SS KN AUT AUT SUM SUM AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT AUT SPR AUT AUT AUT AUT SPR SPR AUT AUT AUT 1999 1999 1998 1998 1990 1991 1991 1990 1990 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 1999 1999 1999 104 121 586 332 427 9 18 0 450 22 29 482 106 114 453 228 145 310 397 125 90 2,442 130 279 116 8 4 15 12 14 5 7 0 14 6 9 11 9 9 15 11 8 9 9 11 14 24 10 16 12 34 1 67 83 62 89 78 0 36 27 45 24 50 35 32 28 63 29 8 20 41 62 58 46 47 36 63 23 40 31 33 33 0 29 55 31 60 36 54 38 48 26 34 53 48 34 26 39 38 46

HBI
4.538 2.479 4.435 3.593 4.251 3.000 3.500 -5.142 5.455 3.966 6.191 4.972 4.079 5.300 5.675 3.834 4.474 5.892 4.840 5.222 4.126 2.962 3.871 2.974

pH Temperature
8.40 8.40 --7.30 7.40 7.20 -7.60 --8.60 8.60 9.00 9.00 7.90 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.80 -8.70 8.70 8.70 5.00 5.00 --12.80 9.00 12.00 -14.20 --7.00 7.00 10.00 10.00 7.70 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 -5.00 5.00 4.00

SPF1RF1_KN Seng Camp Creek SC2 SPR1RF1_SS Seng Camp Creek SC2 H1R2_SC H1R1_SC Seng Camp Creek SC2 Seng Camp Creek SC2

Sturm_10_90 SC_B1SC_KN Seng Camp Creek SC2 Sturm_10_91 SC_B2DH_HP Seng Camp Creek SC2 Sturm_10_91 SC_B1DH_HP Seng Camp Creek SC2 Sturm_10_90 SC_B4DH_KN Seng Camp Creek SC2 Sturm_10_90 SC_B5SCm_KN Seng Camp Creek SC1 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 Hendrick 3_99 SPF5SF8_KN SPR5SF7_KN SPR4SF6_SS SPR4SF6_KN SPR4SF5_KN SPR4SF5_SS SPR2_KN Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork SF7 SF6 SF6 SF6 SF5 SF5 SF5 SF5 SF5 SF4 SF4 SF4 SF4 SF4 SF4 SF3

3-62

BMI_11_99 SPR23SF4_KN BMI_11_99 SPR23SF4_SS BMI_11_99 SPR23SF3_SS BMI_11_99 SPR23SF3_KN Hendrick 3_99 Sturm_5_00 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 BMI_11_99 SPR1_KN SF/PR SPR1SF2_KN SPF1SF2_SS SPR1SF1_KN

Investigator Sample ID
BMI_11_99 Sturm 98 Sturm_10_97 Sturm_9_94 USEPA_7_98 USEPA_7_98 Sturm 98 Sturm_10_97 Sturm_9_94 Sturm_5_00 Sturm_5_00 Sturm_5_00 Sturm_10_97 Sturm 98 Sturm 98 Sturm 98 USEPA_7_98 Sturm 98 Sturm_4_93 Sturm_7_97 Sturm 98 Sturm_5_86 Surm_4_93 Sturm_7_97 Hendrick 3_99 SPF1SF1_SS SFaBC SFaBC_KN SFaBC_HP D3_SFaBC D2_SFbBC SFbBC SFbBC_KN SFbBC_HP SF/BB SF/USBC SP/DSBC BC_KN BC No. 1 BC No. 2 BC No.3 D1_BC HB HB_HP20 HB_HP30 RH RH_SS RH_HP20 RH_HP30 RHB1_SS

Stream
Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Spruce Fork Beech Creek Beech Creek Beech Creek Beech Creek Beech Creek Hurricane Branch Hurricane Branch Hurricane Branch Rockhouse Creek Rockhouse Creek Rockhouse Creek Rockhouse Creek Rockhouse Creek

Reach
SF3 SF3 SF3 SF3 SF3 SF2 SF2 SF2 SF2 SF1 SF3 SF2 BC1 BC1 BC1 BC1 BC1 HB1 HB1 HB1 RC1 RC1 RC1 RC1 RC1

% Sample % Technique1 Season2 Year Individuals Families EPT Dominance Loc ID
11 12 12 12 13 14 15 15 15 16 12 15 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 SS KN KN HP KN KN KN KN HP KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN HP HP KN SS HP HP SS AUT SUM AUT AUT SUM SUM SUM AUT AUT SPR SPR SPR AUT SUM SUM SUM SUM SUM SPR SUM SUM SPR SPR SUM SPR 1999 1998 1997 1994 1998 1998 1998 1997 1994 2000 2000 2000 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1993 1997 1998 1986 1993 1997 1999 254 53 90 33 714 228 211 182 25 631 517 1,296 156 99 117 422 342 78 72 22 146 63 7 39 104 13 7 6 5 21 12 9 7 7 19 21 22 7 11 8 8 11 7 4 2 9 16 5 4 7 43 51 97 94 52 53 63 96 72 94 83 67 92 82 50 62 40 76 1 95 82 67 71 74 38 43 32 91 76 28 32 32 77 28 46 66 29 72 48 35 49 36 58 82 95 43 27 43 49 61

HBI
3.472 3.170 3.989 1.909 4.345 4.803 3.626 4.082 3.280 1.586 2.629 3.292 4.006 4.343 3.795 3.969 5.374 3.731 7.528 4.091 4.267 3.349 2.857 3.923 6.106

pH Temperature
8.70 ------------7.90 -------7.30 8.00 7.60 6.90 ----------13.80 4.00 -------------

3-63

Investigator Sample ID
Hendricks_99 USEPA_7_98 BMI_11_99 Hendrick 4_99 Hendricks_99
1KN 2March

Stream
Rockhouse Creek Rockhouse Creek Bend Branch Bend Branch

Reach
RC1 RC1 RC1 BB1 BB1

% Sample % Technique1 Season2 Year Individuals Families EPT Dominance Loc ID
4 5 4 1 1 KN KN SS SS KN SPR SUM AUT SPR SPR 1999 1998 1999 1999 1999 1,464 629 119 59 386 19 12 10 10 19 78 73 68 71 90 45 58 29 25 39

HBI
3.714 4.720 3.101 3.254 2.544

pH Temperature
8.20 --7.90 8.60 13.70 --12.70 10.40

RHB1_KN D4_RH BNB1_SS BNB1_KN

SPRRHB_SS Rockhouse Creek

= Kick Net; HP = Hand Picked; SS = Surber Sample to end of May = SPR; June to end of August = SUM; September to end of November = AUT

3-64

The benthic data that is presented in this EIS demonstrates the variability associated with sampling headwater stream systems (i.e., 1st through 3rd order) at different times of the year. The primary reason for the variability appears to be due to low or no-flow conditions, sampling period, sampling bias, and a number of other extrinsic factors that increase sample variability from expected probabilities. However, it is hypothesized in this EIS that the variability in flow rates (i.e., low flow or no flow) impacted observed abundances and species richness for samples collected on White Oak Branch, Oldhouse Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, and the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek. For example, all investigators reported sampling difficulties, at one time or another, due to low-flow conditions attributed to drought. Sampling protocols had to be modified in order to sample streams. This resulted in a large range for minimum and maximum values for benthic samples collected within the same segment depending on sampling period, independent of which investigator sampled or the technique that was used to sample. This variability is probably not the result of sampling techniques or methodology, but the result of physical stream conditions. Similarly, some investigators reported no flow conditions within monitored segments that are otherwise reported as intermittent/perennial segments during a good portion of the year. Because of these confounding factors, no attempt is made to utilize the data from a statistical standpoint, thereby avoiding inappropriate use of parametric statistical analysis and inferences. However, given the totality of the data collected, the wide range of environmental conditions under which it was collected, knowledge of stream conditions within this region of West Virginia, and the number of samples collected, the data represents a best approximation to the natural variation that headwater systems exhibit within the Spruce Fork watershed. As presented in Table 3-10, the primary measures of benthic communities focused on evaluating the following: taxa richness, percentage of population composed of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (% EPT), percentage of population composed of dominant taxa (% Dominance), and Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI) based upon the number of individuals and the number of families those individuals belong to within a sample or set of samples. Taxa richness (number of families) is a measurement of the total number of macroinvertebrate families identified at a sample site. In general, taxa richness (diversity) generally increases with increasing water quality, habitat diversity, stream size, and habitat suitability, and is a reliable indicator of water quality (Lenat, 1988). Low taxa richness may indicate low water quality or degraded aquatic habitat. However, many headwater streams, which have low organic enrichment, naturally possess low species richness due to a variety of limiting factors. The Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI: Hilsenhoff, 1988) weights each taxon in a sample by its proportion of individuals composing the population and the family’s tolerance value. Tolerance values are assigned to each taxon on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 identifying the least tolerant (most sensitive) organisms, and 10 identifying the most tolerant (least sensitive) organisms. The HBI metric can be thought of as an average organic pollution tolerance value for the sample (Hilsenhoff, 1982, 1987, 1988; Bode, 1988), weighted by the abundance of organisms; this metric increases with degrading stream conditions, especially where organic enrichment is present. Since some of the organic-tolerant organisms are also tolerant to other stressors, the HBI is often used as a general indication of stress. It is not uncommon for healthy streams with good water quality to have HBI values in the range of 3 to 4 (Table 3-11). The percentage of EPT species (%EPT) is calculated by dividing the total number of individuals in the families Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) by the total number of organisms in the sample. The percentage of the sample represented by these relatively intolerant families would be expected to decrease with degraded water quality and habitat. The percentage of the dominant taxon (% Dominance) present in the sample measures the dominance of the single most
3-65

abundant taxon present in the sample. It is assumed that with greater disturbances, the percentage of dominant taxon is expected to increase. The percentage of dominant taxon measures the redundancy of a taxon in a sample. In addition to the above metrics, some investigators analyzed the relative abundance and conversion of coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM) to fine particulate organic matter (FPOM) within the stream systems of the potentially affected basins; this analysis did not incorporate this information due to inconsistency of data. The metrics above are used in hypothesis testing by assuming that a significant increase or decrease in the metric is attributed to anthropogenic disturbance (i.e., watershed disturbance). Expected changes in the metrics are listed in Table 3-12. Table 3-11 Water Quality Classification Based On HBI
HBI 0.0-3.75 3.76-4.25 4.26-5.00 5.01-5.75 5.76-6.5 6.51-7.25 7.26-10.00
Source: Hilsenhoff, 1988

Water Quality Excellent Very Good Good Fair Fairly poor Poor Very Poor

Table 3-12 Summary of Metrics Used and Expected Response to Disturbance
Metric Taxa Richness % EPT % Dominant Taxa Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI) Expected Response to Perturbance Decrease Decrease Increase Increase

Mingo Logan conducted baseline surface water quality inventories in the proposed project area and adjacent downstream areas in preparation for the Spruce No. 1 Mine SMA. The water quality sampling locations are identified in Table 3-7. Water quality from the baseline surface water analyses generally corresponds to that described for the region, except that none of the streams within the project area are included on the 303(d) list as being impaired. None of the streams within the project area are classified as Tier 3; however, in accordance with West Virginia’s anti-degradation rule, White Oak Branch is identified as Tier 2.5 stream on the current list. White Oak Branch would be encompassed and directly impacted by Alternative 3. Mingo Logan’s PA was developed (in part) to avoid impacts to this Tier 2.5 resource. Water chemistry analyses results from the baseline water quality sampling within the project area and immediate vicinity are shown in Table 3-13.

3-66

The following sections provide a summary discussion of the baseline benthic macroinvertebrate communities and water chemistry within the potentially affected sub-watersheds of Spruce Fork. These sampling results are discussed below by watershed and by station. The purpose of this study is to characterize baseline conditions of waters of the U.S. that would be potentially impacted by mine-related activities, and to predict, with a level of certainty, the probable impacts to surface water resources downstream of the Applicant’s PA (independent of which practicable alternative is chosen). White Oak Branch White Oak Branch is a forested 1st and 2nd order tributary within the Spruce Fork watershed. It has a contributing watershed size of approximately 792 acres (Exhibit 3-15). White Oak Branch would not be directly impacted by the Applicant’s PA, but would be directly impacted under Alternative 3. White Oak Branch is included in this analysis to characterize baseline conditions within the vicinity of the proposed project for the Applicant’s PA and assessment of direct impacts under Alternative 3. The surface water system is generally characterized as possessing “good” water quality for resident flora and fauna. Although the affected sub-watershed has been previously disturbed by timbering and mining activities, there has not been in-stream disturbance in recent years. Dominant riparian vegetation consists primarily of American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and yellow-popular (Liriodendron tulipifera) on the lower slopes and valleys with a scattering of eastern hemlocks (Tsuga Canadensis) and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) providing understory along the primary drainages.

3-67

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

3-68

Table 3-13 Baseline Surface Water Quality Sampling Results within the Proposed Project Area and Vicinity
pHa Station ID 300 301 (501) 302 304 (172) 307A 501A 502 503 (305) 504 505 506 507 507A 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 521 522 523 682 683 684 MIN 7.15 7.10 7.30 6.30 6.63 6.60 6.30 6.60 5.70 6.60 6.60 6.10 3.20 6.20 6.30 4.90 6.20 6.70 6.20 6.10 7.20 6.70 7.12 6.60 6.50 6.60 6.20 6.50 7.01 6.80 6.50 MAX 8.64 8.60 7.90 7.90 8.40 8.90 8.50 10.00 8.50 8.90 9.10 8.90 8.50 8.40 8.90 8.30 8.30 8.80 9.00 9.10 8.70 8.00 8.80 8.60 8.60 8.60 10.60 8.50 8.60 8.50 8.40 AVG 7.83 7.91 7.70 7.18 7.56 8.02 7.64 7.71 7.18 7.97 8.09 7.70 7.45 7.47 7.73 7.11 7.44 8.11 8.01 7.60 8.05 7.75 7.93 7.80 7.66 7.65 7.98 7.55 7.56 7.56 7.69 Total Hot Acidity (mg/l CaCO3) a, c MIN 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAX 0.50 0.50 0.00 10.00 12.00 8.00 2.00 0.50 17.00 0.50 0.50 9.00 37.00 10.00 10.00 22.00 9.80 0.50 0.50 11.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 20.00 96.00 10.00 4.00 6.00 17.00 AVG 0.23 0.13 0.00 2.73 0.40 0.29 0.14 0.10 2.22 0.11 0.10 0.49 2.53 0.51 0.72 1.60 0.76 0.10 0.10 1.19 0.17 0.23 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.62 2.55 0.36 0.26 0.19 0.62 Total Alkalinity (mg/l CaCO3) a MIN 0.00 20.00 20.00 2.00 10.00 30.00 9.00 10.00 2.00 27.00 31.00 7.00 0.50 8.00 8.00 1.00 7.00 31.00 28.00 2.00 44.00 39.00 77.00 25.00 17.00 4.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 MAX AVG Total Iron (mg/l) a , c MIN 0.015 0.010 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.010 0.010 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.010 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.025 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.160 0.010 0.040 0.005 0.010 0.025 0.025 0.015 0.015 0.015 MAX 17.30 2.68 0.13 0.31 2.65 2.74 1.43 1.20 0.71 3.13 2.64 6.20 4.70 5.00 9.39 2.90 51.90 2.51 3.34 1.64 15.00 2.36 1.74 1.99 2.16 2.18 32.40 3.03 3.58 10.70 0.95 AVG 0.69 0.30 0.07 0.12 0.63 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.16 0.47 0.38 0.26 0.26 0.35 0.41 0.28 1.34 0.38 0.40 0.17 1.02 0.86 0.51 0.44 0.47 0.22 1.39 0.61 0.36 0.52 0.15 Total Manganese (mg/l) a, c MIN 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.030 0.005 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 MAX 0.53 0.21 0.04 0.15 0.50 0.30 0.73 0.43 0.23 0.32 0.33 0.23 1.09 0.14 0.28 0.27 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.37 0.37 0.22 0.52 0.96 0.41 5.10 0.93 0.21 0.78 0.87 AVG 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.09 0.17 0.04 0.47 0.15 0.02 0.04 0.04 MIN 0.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.05 2.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 TSS (mg/l) a ,c MAX 590.00 57.00 14.00 10.00 180.00 84.00 34.00 80.00 19.00 69.00 54.00 184.00 111.00 152.00 314.00 75.00 7.00 59.00 76.00 35.00 26.00 36.00 35.00 23.00 30.00 22.00 44.00 290.00 22.00 28.00 32.00 AVG 21.23 6.23 4.00 2.73 23.95 4.76 4.26 7.41 3.51 6.70 4.70 6.86 5.37 8.56 10.18 5.06 2.06 4.54 4.70 3.17 5.08 8.23 2.90 4.41 5.26 2.75 7.28 13.38 4.06 3.16 3.71 MIN 64.00 115.00 62.00 36.00 56.00 70.00 64.00 68.00 32.00 117.00 120.00 50.00 28.00 52.00 10.00 10.00 81.00 138.00 26.00 155.00 138.00 93.00 56.00 34.00 TDS (mg/l) a, MAX 598.00 600.00 340.00 226.00 191.00 635.00 574.00 667.00 180.00 610.00 630.00 191.00 270.00 260.00 720.00 313.00 350.00 641.00 610.00 655.00 670.00 720.00 840.00 759.00 AVG Specific Conductance (umhos) a MIN MAX AVG Sulfate (mg/l) a, c MIN 0.21 MAX 250.00 240.00 170.00 86.00 80.00 230.00 291.00 308.00 100.00 260.00 260.00 130.00 140.00 190.00 49.00 190.00 230.00 254.00 280.00 130.00 267.00 270.00 333.00 250.00 500.00 362.00 940.00 62.20 24.00 130.00 AVG 127.50 129.00 87.83 43.15 52.84 130.39 75.15 82.67 42.64 116.04 137.33 60.22 39.93 107.43 17.61 109.83 150.68 136.69 134.25 21.28 158.35 171.09 175.64 128.01 84.82 41.46 103.22 24.10 16.16 71.39 Aluminum (mg/l) a, c MIN 0.010 0.025 0.050 0.050 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.050 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.050 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.010 0.025 MAX 7.05 0.95 0.30 0.59 2.00 1.28 1.66 0.76 0.60 1.51 1.09 2.72 1.60 2.48 4.55 2.03 8.78 1.00 1.39 0.98 0.85 0.98 0.60 1.05 1.31 1.16 1.96 2.23 2.91 2.18 16.00 AVG 0.37 0.22 0.10 0.22 0.48 0.23 0.29 0.20 0.19 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.31 0.24 0.35 0.22 0.34 0.17 0.33 0.29 0.18 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.31 0.41 0.35 0.24 0.63

340.00 123.84 330.00 156.06 140.00 46.00 160.00 139.00 172.00 58.00 64.33 19.00 44.10 40.37 46.00 14.75

330.16 140.00 1,080.00 569.94 40.00 356.63 194.00 1,030.00 592.47 167.33 170.00 91.09 63.00 130.23 130.00 149.09 126.00 81.33 616.00 404.00 300.00 645.00 340.33 43.00 164.73 14.00 205.48 5.90

310.00 160.44

347.26 180.00 1,480.00 614.62 34.00 246.54 25.00 0.50 178.34 131.00 1,010.00 293.24

52.70 7,639.00 319.43 13.00

320.00 145.19 350.00 185.41 180.00 44.00 46.00 32.00 53.00 27.20 16.73 24.95 15.86 26.32

326.67 215.00 1,100.00 554.04 45.10 389.73 206.00 1,100.00 659.15 45.00 118.33 105.00 77.39 49.10 180.18 24.00 181.42 10.00 249.98 140.00 318.00 466.00 417.00 462.00 540.00 188.90 29.00 140.43 8.60 0.50 286.85 23.00 284.53 38.40 392.63 39.00

520.00 103.31

151.47 10.00 1,100.00 262.17

360.00 191.02 340.00 184.74 350.00 26.27 360.00 194.50 302.00 162.73 410.00 307.65 360.00 132.95 60.00 250.00 250.00 61.00 51.00 40.00 63.00 34.29 46.45 38.49 35.54 24.58 17.40 25.15

392.76 246.00 10,910.00 902.05 43.00 63.86 60.30 649.00 98.16 11.00

54.00 2,300.00 435.98 112.00 1,130.00 656.17 11.00 428.21 287.00 1,200.00 736.63 63.00 418.00 251.00 1,200.00 747.27 59.00 326.29 155.00 1,280.00 541.98 40.00 163.74 89.30 1,260.00 276.11 19.00 128.16 56.00 1,200.00 184.13 10.00

150.00 6,621.00 735.30 287.00 1,500.00 989.70 38.40

96.00 1,600.00 742.24 187.00 3,010.00 1,076.72 45.00 4,810.00 545.54 40.00 1,200.00 189.03 102.00 1,620.00 307.21 16.00 20.00 0.42 52.00 120.00 270.00 190.00 69.55 53.63 61.40 52.90 163.00 447.00 339.00 108.21 90.24 217.52 8.70 1.60 5.00

128.26 94.70

MIN = Minimum detected value in all samples MAX = Maximum detected value in all samples AVG = Average detected value in all samples aNumbers represent average values for 6-51 sampling dates collected between May 2004 to October 2003, April 1997 to December 2000, September 1996 to February 1997, and between December 1988 to May 1989. For some of the sampling dates, there may have been no flow for collecting a sample. bAverage is for dates when samples were collected; therefore, no zero flow values were factored into the average flow presented in this table. cOccasional samples measured less than the detection limit of the analysis for certain analytes: total suspended solids (detection limit of 4 ppm for 1996-1998 and 2003-2004, and 1 ppm for 1988-1989 and 1999-2000), manganese (detection limit of 0.01 ppm for 1989-2004), iron (detection limit of 0.01 ppm for late 2004, 0.02 ppm for 2003early 2004, 0.05 ppm for 1999-2000, and 0.04 ppm for 1988-1998), hot acidity (detection limit of 1 mg/L for 1988-2004), sulfate (detection limit of 0.5 ppm for 2000), and aluminum (detection limit of 0.02 ppm for 2003-2004, 0.05 ppm for 1999-2000, and 0.1 ppm for 1988-1989 and 1996-1997). For a conservative (high) estimate of the average of all samples, half of the minimum detection limit was used to represent the measured values of these samples.

3-69

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

3-70

Four (4) investigators have examined White Oak Branch during five (5) separate sampling periods (Table 3-9). All investigations employed qualitative kick net sampling for collection of benthic macroinvertebrates samples. The size and duration of the kick varied between investigators. Some investigators identified macroinvertebrates to genus while others identified only to family. In order to compare the data, the use of family-level information was carried throughout the analysis performed on the dataset. The results of the sampling ranged from no benthic macroinvertebrates collected during no flow conditions in October 1997, to twenty-eight (28) genera representing twenty (20) families collected in May 2000. Sturm performed both of these sampling events. The USEPA, USFWS, and Biological Monitoring, Inc. (BMI) found results similar to the May 2000 sampling. The greatest number of individuals collected (Sturm) was 1,669 and the least was 97 (BMI). Interestingly, the large variation in individuals collected did not affect the calculated metrics. For example, the lowest derived HBI value was from the BMI study (HBI = 2.81) while the USFWS WB01 sample resulted in the highest HBI value (5.79). Likewise, the greatest percentage of EPT was derived from the BMI study (77.32%) and the lowest from the USFWS study (30.65%). Given the differing methods of sampling and time of sampling, the data collected by these independent studies demonstrates similar trends. The USEPA and USFWS conducted sampling in July 1998. The USEPA gave White Oak Branch a Macroinvertebrate Aggregate Index for Streams (MAIS) score of sixteen (16) on a scale from 0-18. This indicates that the stream is in very good condition and that it supports a good diversity and abundance of aquatic life. The USFWS sampled the stream in two (2) locations, one (1) in an upper reach and one (1) in a lower reach. There were twenty (20) families found at each station. Both stations exhibited relative balance between tolerant and intolerant taxa. Data collected from the lower station had representation from every functional feeding group. The number of EPT taxa made up fifty percent (50%) of the total taxa at both the upper and lower stations, indicating good water quality and habitat variability. BMI, sampling in November 1999, found fourteen (14) genera of fourteen (14) families in White Oak Branch. Nine (9) of the families were EPT taxa, making up sixty-four percent (64%) of the total population. BMI compared White Oak Branch to Rockhouse Creek, a tributary of Spruce Fork subject to mining and reclamation activities. White Oak Branch was considered to be comparable to Rockhouse Creek based on the habitat assessment. The benthic macroinvertebrates data collected on White Oak Branch compared to Rockhouse Creek data indicates that White Oak would be classified as Non-Impaired. Mingo Logan has assessed the quality and quantity of surface water within White Oak Branch. Exhibit 3-13 identifies the locations of water chemistry sampling sites for White Oak Branch. The following paragraphs summarize water chemistry data and flow rates collected at each identified sample location. White Oak Branch is subject to substantial variations in flow rates, which is typical for 1st through 4th order stream systems in this region. • Station 519 – Mouth of White Oak Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.50 to 8.60. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 1.00 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 17 to 60 mg/l, with an average concentration of 34.29 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.16 mg/l, with an average value of 0.47. Total manganese concentrations ranged from 0 below the detection limit to 0.96 mg/l and averaged 0.17 mg/l. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 30 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 56 to 840 mg/l, with an average value of approximately 163 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 89.30 to 1260 umhos, with an average value of 276.11 umhos.
3-71

Sulfate concentrations ranged from 19 to 500 mg/l, with an average value of 84.82 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.31 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 30,000 gpm. • Station 521 – Head of White Oak Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.60 to 8.60. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 20 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 4 to 250 mg/l, with an average concentration of 46.45 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.18 mg/l, with an average value of 0.22 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.41 mg/l and averages 0.04 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 22 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 34 to 759 mg/l, with an average value of 128.16 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 56 to 1,200 umhos, with an average value of 184.13 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 10 to 362 mg/l, with an average value of 41.46. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.16 mg/l, with an average value of 0.22 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 1,377 gpm. Oldhouse Branch Oldhouse Branch, a tributary of Spruce Fork, is classified as a 2nd order stream system. It is a steep gradient stream with a dense forested canopy. It has a contributing watershed of approximately 597 acres. Oldhouse Branch has been previously disturbed as a result of clear cutting, natural gas exploration and production, and mining activities. An existing primitive access road intercepts and crosses the stream in a number of locations. Vegetation within this sub-watershed is composed of a mixed deciduous forest typical of the region. Six (6) investigations by four (4) investigators have been conducted on Oldhouse Branch. Sampling techniques included handpicking by Sturm and the USFWS; kick netting in a variety of areas by Sturm, the USEPA, the USFWS, and BMI; and Surber sampling by BMI. As noted above, some investigators identified macroinvertebrates to genus while others only identified to family; therefore, the use of family-level information was carried throughout the analysis performed on the dataset to allow for comparison. The data includes the number of families observed, number of individuals, percent EPT, percent dominance, and Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI). The total number of individuals collected varied from a low of 0 (dry channel) and 4 individuals (BMI and USFWS studies, respectively) to a high of 2,065 individuals collected by Sturm in May 2000. Results of these studies are similar to those performed for White Oak Branch. However, no discernable relationship or correlation is evident with respect to number of individuals collected and % EPT, % Dominance, and HBI. It is interesting to note that even with the extreme variation in the number of individuals collected between the studies, the calculated metrics are representative of the physical conditions that the samples were collected under. For example, the USFWS collected 4 individuals (Sample OH-RP), which is a low number of individuals. Under RBP protocol this sample size would be unacceptable for use in assessing the degree of departure (i.e., deviation) from a regional reference stream. However, when comparing the calculated metrics between samples, there is no discernable difference in HBI values to that of BMI’s (Sample SPR4OHB1_SS) sample which collected a total of 133 individuals. Likewise, percent dominance for the USFWS study (Sample OH-RP) was calculated to be 25.00 which is in agreement with Sturm’s values (Sample SF/OH_Total), even though Sturm collected an additional 2,061 individuals (Table 3-10). Based on the available data, it is concluded that Oldhouse Branch is of good water quality. It is
3-72

speculated that the observed variability in samples collected is directly associated with the variable flow regime (e.g., low and no flow conditions), which is not unexpected. Sturm conducted a second investigation in May 2000. Higher flows allowed for kicknet sampling at one (1) sampling station near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch. Both fast and slow riffle segments were also sampled. The combined results of the samples contained forty (40) genera representing twenty-four (24) families. This investigation resulted in the collection of the highest number of individuals and taxa of any of the compared investigations. The dominant taxon for the slow riffle segment was the Coleopteran Elmidae, representing thirty-one percent (31%) of the total number of individuals. Elmidae was second in abundance to Chironomidae in the fast riffle segment. These two taxa represented forty-four percent (44%) of the total number of individuals collected. EPT individuals accounted for approximately half the population of both riffle environments (forty-six percent [46%] within the fast riffle and fifty-one percent [51%] within the slow riffle). The USEPA and USFWS conducted investigations of Oldhouse Branch in July 1998. In early July, the USEPA combined kicknet samples from a slow and a fast riffle segment. Later that month, due to low flow conditions the USFWS turned over several rocks in the stream to collect a sample. The USEPA assigned Oldhouse Branch a MAIS score of 14, indicating good conditions; the number and composition of benthic taxa supported this score. Of eighteen (18) total taxa, nine (9) were EPT families. The USFWS collected a similar assemblage of benthic macroinvertebrates with twenty (20) families, twelve (12) of which were EPT taxa. All functional feeding groups were represented in the USEPA and USFWS samples. The USFWS concludes that the tolerance and functional feeding groups indicate that the community in Oldhouse Branch has experienced little human disturbance affecting water quality. In addition to the downstream sampling station, the USFWS also handpicked from rocks in an area near the upper headwaters of Oldhouse Branch. Four (4) individuals representing four (4) families were collected, indicating that aquatic life is present in the upper headwater segments of Oldhouse Branch. BMI conducted an investigation of Oldhouse Branch in November 1999. One (1) sample was collected by kicknetting at a specific location. Four (4) replicate samples were collected at a second location with a Surber sampler. There were fifteen (15) families collected by the kicknet sample at the first location. Eighteen (18) unique families were found when the replicate samples were combined at the second location. BMI concluded that when compared to Rockhouse Creek, Oldhouse Branch is “Non-impaired” based on the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Mingo Logan has assessed the quality and quantity of surface water within Oldhouse Branch. Exhibit 3-13 identifies the locations of water chemistry sampling sites for Oldhouse Branch. The following paragraphs summarize water chemistry data and flow rates collected at each identified sample location. Oldhouse Branch is subject to substantial variations in flow rates, which is typical for 1st through 4th order stream systems in this region. • Station 514 – Mouth of Oldhouse Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.10 to 9.10. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 11 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 2 to 350 mg/l, with an average concentration of 26.27 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.64 mg/l, with an average value of 0.17 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.11 mg/l and averaged 0.02 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 35 mg/l. Total dissolved solids
3-73

concentrations ranged from 26 to 610 mg/l, with an average value of 63.86 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 60.30 to 649 umhos, with an average value of 98.16 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 11 to 130 mg/l, with an average value of 21.28 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.98 mg/l and averaged 0.17 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 2,000 gpm. • Station 682 – Mouth of Right Fork of Oldhouse Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 7.01 to 8.60. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 4 mg/l. Total alkalinity range from below the detection limit to 51 mg/l, with an average concentration of 24.58 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 3.58 mg/l, with an average value of 0.36 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.21 mg/l and averaged 0.02 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 22 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 20 to 120 mg/l, with an average value of 69.55 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 61.4 to 163 umhos, with an average value of 108.21 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 8.70 to 62.20 mg/l, with an average value of 24.10 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.91 mg/l, with an average value of 0.35 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 268 gpm. • Station 683 – Oldhouse Branch above Right Fork

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.80 to 8.50. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 6 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from below the detection limit to 40 mg/l, with an average concentration of 17.40 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 10.70 mg/l, with an average value of 0.52 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.78 mg/l and averaged 0.04 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 28 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 0.42 to 270 mg/l, with an average value of 53.63 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 52.9 to 447 umhos, with an average value of 90.24 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 24 mg/l, with an average value of 16.16 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.18 mg/l, with an average value of 0.24 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 1,005 gpm. Pigeonroost Branch Pigeonroost Branch, a tributary of Spruce Fork, is classified as a 3rd order stream system (Exhibit 3-15). It has a contributing watershed of approximately 1,489 acres. This watershed is dominated by a hardwood forest that has been subjected several times to previous logging and timbering activities; the most recent harvests occurred within the past 25 years. These were selective harvests that removed only the commercially valuable trees, primarily oaks (Quercus spp.). Following logging, smaller trees and all sizes of “noncommercial” trees remained uncut. Many large (>30 inches dbh) American beech (Fagus grandifolia) were not removed and these are co-dominant with yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) in the canopy of the streamside stands. Pigeonroost Branch is accessible by an unpaved road that runs parallel along the main valley floor. The road intercepts and crosses the stream in a number of locations. The watershed of Pigeonroost Branch is the largest watershed within the proposed project area. For this reason, twenty-five (25) macroinvertebrate samples (a total of 67 including replicates) have been collected (Table 3-10). As within the White Oak and Oldhouse Branch watersheds, Sturm, USEPA, USFWS, and BMI have conducted investigations within the Pigeonroost Branch watershed. Due to its size and the abundance
3-74

of data, the stream has been divided into four (4) segments beginning at the mouth (PR 1) of Pigeonroost Branch and extending to the headwaters (PR 4) for the purposes of discussion of the data collected. The study data comparison for Pigeonroost Branch indicates a large variability in sampling headwater systems within this region. Comparison of study data by segment shows trends similar to White Oak Branch and Oldhouse Branch in that overall water quality can be characterized as good to very good. • Pigeonroost Branch Segment 1 (PR 1)

Three (3) investigators conducted five (5) sampling events by either taking a square meter kicknet sample or a Surber sample within the segment of Pigeonroost Branch near its confluence with Spruce Fork (PR 1). The data includes the number of families observed, number of individuals, percent EPT, percent dominance, and Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI). As noted, some investigators identified macroinvertebrates to genus while others identified only to family. BMI (Dr. Albert Hendricks) collected four replicate Surber samples in this stream segment in March 1999. The abundance of each sample was low with a range of twelve (12) to thirty-nine (39) individuals. There were seventeen (17) unique genera from fifteen (15) unique families collected in the combined Surber samples. BMI conducted kicknet sampling in this segment prior to June 1999 (an exact date is unknown). The kicknet samples resulted in a greater number of individuals and taxa compared to the earlier Surber samples. When the results of the four (4) kicknet samples were combined, there were thirty-five (35) unique genera identified representing twenty-six (26) unique families, fifteen (15) of which were EPT families. The most abundant family was Chironomidae. The next most abundant families were the Tricopteran Hydropsychidae. Both families are generally Collector-Filterers. All functional feeding groups were represented in the sample. Shredders were the least abundant type collected within this segment. In May 2000, Sturm sampled the segment near the mouth of Pigeonroost Branch. Two kicknet samples were taken: one (1) in a slow riffle area and one (1) in a fast riffle area. There were thirty-six (36) unique genera representing twenty-one (21) unique families. Baetidae was the dominant family in the fast riffle. The two (2) Baetidae genera made up approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of the total individuals. The next most dominant family in the fast riffle was Chironomidae, which also composed thirty-five percent (35%) of the slow riffle sample making it the most dominant taxa in that area. BMI collected two (2) types of sample from PR 1 in November 1999, one (1) kicknet sample and four (4) replicate Surber samples. The kicknet sample resulted in eleven (11) families. The four (4) replicates Surber samples in combination resulted in six (16) unique genera from fifteen (15) unique families. All functional feeding groups were represented in the combined sample, with shredders making up a greater percentage compared to the spring sample collected during the same year. • Pigeonroost Branch Segment 2 (PR 2)

The next segment upstream, PR 2, was sampled by five (5) investigators using kicknet, handpicking, and Surber sampling. The data includes the number of families observed, number of individuals, percent EPT, percent dominance, and Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI). As noted, some investigators identified macroinvertebrates to genus while others identified only to family. Sturm conducted the first investigation in October 1997. Because of low flow conditions, the benthic sample was collected by handpicking from substrate for thirty (30) minutes. Eight (8) families were identified from the one hundred eighteen (118) individuals collected. Hydropsychidae was the dominant family making up
3-75

fifty-seven percent (57%) of the sample. Hydropsychidae in combination with other EPT families accounted for sixty-nine percent (69%) of the sample. The USEPA and USFWS sampled this stream segment in July 1998. The USEPA described the segment as being in very good condition based on the benthic assemblage. Nineteen (19) families were collected, ten (10) of which were EPT taxa. The stream received a MAIS score of 16. The USFWS identified twenty-four (24) genera from twenty-one (21) families. The USFWS concluded that the biological condition of the segment was good based on the high number of EPT taxa (14 genera), balance between tolerant and intolerant taxa, as well as the representation of all major functional feeding groups. Hendricks (BMI) collected samples from two (2) sites within the segment with four (4) replicates of both Surber and kicknet samples. Between each sampling technique, Hendricks did not find any substantial difference for taxa richness, EPT abundance, or EPT richness between any of the sites along Pigeonroost Branch. Each individual kicknet sample resulted in greater abundance and richness collected at each site compared to the results of the individual samples collected using the Surber sampling technique. When considering all eight (8) Surber samples combined, there were twenty-six (26) unique genera representing eighteen (18) unique families. Similarly, twenty-nine (29) unique genera and twenty-one (21) unique families were found when all replications were combined from the kicknet samples. When looking at all samples collected by Hendricks in this stream segment between March and June 1999, there were thirty-one (31) unique genera and twenty-two (22) unique families. The overall most abundant taxa was Drunella, of the Ephemeropteran family Ephemerellidae. • Pigeonroost Branch Segment 3 (PR 3)

Four investigators collected samples from PR 3 using Surber samplers, kicknetting, and handpicking. The data includes the number of families observed, number of individuals, percent EPT, percent dominance, and Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI). As noted, some investigators identified macroinvertebrates to genus while others identified only to family. Sturm handpicked at two (2) biostations (1 and 3) for thirty (30) minutes each in October 1997. In combination, there were one hundred six (106) individuals collected making up five (5) unique genera and families. The Tricopteran Hydropsychidae was the dominant taxa. This, with the other EPT families, accounted for sixty-seven percent (67%) of the benthics collected. BMI collected one (1) sample in this segment in November 1999 by kicknet sampling. BMI collected five (5) families, four (4) of which were present in earlier samples collected by Sturm. In July 1998 the USFWS collected thirteen (13) families using a kicknet. This was the second sample segment that was sampled by the USFWS in Pigeonroost Branch. The number of families at this sample point is lower compared to the other samples collected from the segment. The USFWS suspected that this segment may have undergone some type of human disturbance and was recovering during the period of data collection. BMI (Dr. Hendricks) collected four (4) replicate Surber samples from two (2) sites in the segment for a total of eight (8) Surber samples in March 1999. When combined, there were two hundred forty-five (245) individuals collected from twenty (20) unique families. Similar to PR 2, the dominant taxon was Ephemerellidae, which are generally collector-gatherers or scrapers. The second most dominant family was Hydropsychidae, a collector-filterer. All functional feeding groups were represented in the sample, with shredders being the least abundant group. Data collected by Hendricks in this segment did not reflect the
3-76

substantial reduction in the benthic sample as did the USFWS sample. There was no substantial difference in taxa richness, EPT abundance, or EPT richness between any of the sites sampled by Hendricks. • Pigeonroost Branch Segment 4 (PR 4)

The headwaters of Pigeonroost Branch, segment PR 4, were sampled by BMI (Hendricks), Sturm, and the USFWS. The data includes the number of families observed, number of individuals, percent EPT, percent dominance, and Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI). As noted, some investigators identified macroinvertebrates to genus while others identified only to family. The USFWS found a diverse and balanced benthic macroinvertebrate community. Among the thirty (30) taxa collected there was a balance of pollution tolerant, intermediate, and pollution intolerant families, indicating good water quality. However, the dominant family was Chironomidae. The next two most abundant families were Hydropsychidae and Heptageniidae. Sturm collected a sample from this segment in October 1997 by handpicking for thirty (30) minutes. Five (5) distinct families were identified, all of which were also collected by the USFWS. BMI (Dr. Hendricks) collected four (4) replicate Surber samples in March 1999. Ephemerellidae was the most dominant family out of fourteen (14) distinct families in the combined replicate samples. Mingo Logan has assessed the quality and quantity of surface water within Pigeonroost Branch. Exhibit 313 depicts these locations. The following paragraphs summarize water chemistry data and flow rates collected at each identified sample location. • Station 507 – Mouth of Pigeonroost Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.10 to 8.90. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 9 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 7 to 180 mg/l, with an average concentration of 27.20 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 6.20 mg/l, with an average value of 0.26 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.23 mg/l and averaged 0.02 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 184 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 50 to 191 mg/l, with an average value of 118.33 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 105 to 318 umhos, with an average value of 188.90 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 29 to 130 mg/l, with an average value of 60.22 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.72 mg/l, with an average value of 0.20 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 5,000 gpm. • Station 507A – Mouth of 1st Right Fork of Pigeonroost Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 3.20 to 8.50. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 37 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from below the detection limit to 44 mg/l, with an average concentration of 16.73 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 4.7 mg/l, with an average value of 0.26. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.09 mg/l and averaged 0.06 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 111 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 28 to 270 mg/l, with an average value of 77.39. Specific conductance ranged from 49.1 to 466 umhos, with an average value of 140.43 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 8.60 to 140 mg/l, with an average value of 39.93. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.60 mg/l, with an average value of 0.20 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 4,700 gpm.
3-77

•

Station 684 – Pigeonroost Branch above 1st Right Fork

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.5 to 840. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 17 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from below the detection limit to 63 mg/l, with an average concentration of 25.15 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.95 mg/l, with an average value of 0.15 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.87 mg/l and averaged 0.04 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 32 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 52 to 190 mg/l, with an average value of 128.26 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 94.7 to 339 umhos, with an average value of 217.52 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 5 to 130 mg/l, with an average value of 71.39 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 16 mg/l, with an average value of 0.63 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 1 to 5,547 gpm. • Station 508 – Pigeonroost Branch above 2nd Right Fork

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.20 to 8.40. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 10 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 8 to 46 mg/l, with an average concentration of 24.95 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 5.00 mg/l, with an average value of 0.35 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.14 mg/l and averaged 0.02 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 152 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 52 to 260 mg/l, with an average value of 180.18. Specific conductance ranged from 24 to 417 umhos, with an average value of 286.85 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 23 to 190 mg/l, with an average value of 107.43 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.48 mg/l, with an average value of 0.35 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 4,500 gpm. • Station 509 – Mouth of 2nd Right Fork of Pigeonroost Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.30 to 8.90. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 10 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 8 to 520 mg/l, with an average concentration of 103.31 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 9.39 mg/l, with an average value of 0.41 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.28 mg/l and averaged 0.03 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 314 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 10 to 720 mg/l, with an average value of 151.47 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 10 to 1,100 umhos, with an average value of 262.17 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 49 mg/l, with an average value of 17.61. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 4.55 mg/l, with an average of 0.31 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 4,000 gpm. • Station 510 – Mouth of Upper Left Branch of Pigeonroost Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 4.90 to 8.30. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 22 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 1 to 32 mg/l, with an average concentration of 15.86 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.90 mg/l, with an average value of 0.28 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.27 mg/l and averaged 0.03 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 75 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 10 to 313 mg/l, with an average value of 181.42 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 10 to 462 umhos, with an average value of 284.58 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from
3-78

38.4 to 190 mg/l, with an average value of 109.83. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.03 mg/l, with an average value of 0.24 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 3,000 gpm. • Station 511 – Mouth of Upper Right Branch of Pigeonroost Branch

Field pH values measured at this station since the time of the original permit application submittal ranged from 6.20 to 8.30. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 9.8 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 7 to 53 mg/l, with an average concentration of 26.32 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 51.90 mg/l, with an average value of 1.34 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.34 mg/l and averaged 0.03 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 7 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 81 to 350 mg/l, with an average value of 249.98 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 140 to 540 umhos, with an average value of 392.63 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged 39 to 230 mg/l, with an average value of 150.68 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 8.78 mg/l and averaged 0.35 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged 0 to 2,500 gpm. Seng Camp Creek Seng Camp Creek is 3rd order stream with a watershed size of approximately 3,257 acres. The proposed project area would be located in a 2nd order tributary, the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek (Exhibit 3-15). The watershed of Seng Camp Creek has been subject to contour mining and a number of other land use/land cover changes as a result of the installation of a high voltage aerial utility lines, reclamation of surface mining, logging, and the construction of drainage control structures (ponds). Four (4) investigations by three (3) investigators have been conducted on Seng Camp Creek: Sturm sampled five (5) biostations in 1990 and 1991, BMI sampled six (6) sites in 1999, and the USEPA sampled two (2) sites in 1998. As noted above, some investigators identified macroinvertebrates to genus while others identified only to family; therefore, the use of family-level information was carried throughout the analysis performed on the dataset to allow for comparison. The data includes the number of families observed, number of individuals, percent EPT, percent dominance, and Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI) as presented in Table 3-10. The data collected in the main stem of Seng Camp Creek showed good populations of clean-water benthics, with very little organic or inorganic environmental stress noted. As none of the samples were located in the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, it is extrapolated that the resources within the Right Fork would be similar to the main stem, but possibly less populated due to lesser flows in the tributary. Mingo Logan has assessed the quality and quantity of the surface water chemistry and flows within Seng Camp Creek and its Right Fork. Exhibit 3-13 depicts these locations. The following paragraphs summarize water chemistry data and flow rates collected at each identified sample location. • Station 304 (172) – Mouth of Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.30 to 7.90. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 10 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 2 to 46 mg/l, with an average concentration of 19 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below detection limit to 0.31 mg/l, with an average value of 0.12 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.15 mg/l and averaged 0.04 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 10 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations
3-79

ranged from 36 to 226 mg/l, with an average value of 91.09 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 63 to 404 umhos, with an average value of 164.73 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 14 to 86 mg/l, with an average value of 43.15 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below detection limit to 0.59, with an average value of 0.22 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0.88 to 100 gpm. • Station 302 – Mouth of Seng Camp Creek

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 7.30 to 7.90. Total acidity was 0 mg/l for all samples. Total alkalinity ranged from 20 to 140 mg/l, with an average concentration of 64.33 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.13 mg/l, with an average value of 0.07 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.04 mg/l and averaged 0.02 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 14 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 62 to 340 mg/l, with an average value of 167.33 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 170 to 616 umhos, with an average value of 340.33 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 43 to 170 mg/l, with an average value of 87.83 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.30 mg/l and averaged 0.10 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 20 to 680 gpm. • Station 502 – Seng Camp Creek below Right Fork

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.30 to 8.50. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 2 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 9 to 139 mg/l, with an average concentration of 40.37 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.43 mg/l, with an average value of 0.32 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.73 mg/l and averaged 0.09 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 34 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 64 to 574 mg/l, with an average value of 149.09 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 126 to 645 umhos, with an average value of 246.54. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 25 to 291 mg/l, with an average value of 75.15 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.66 mg/l and averaged 0.29 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 8,425 gpm. • Station 503 (305) – Seng Camp Creek above Right Fork

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.60 to 10.00. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.5 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 10 to 172 mg/l, with an average concentration of 46 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.20 mg/l, with an average value of 0.24. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.43 mg/l and averaged 0.06 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 80 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 68 to 667 mg/l, with an average value of 178.34 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 131 to 1,010 umhos, with an average value of 293.24 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 308 mg/l, with an average value of 82.67 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.76 mg/l and averaged 0.20 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 3,000 gpm. • Station 504 – Head of Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 5.70 to 8.50. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 17 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 2 to 58 mg/l, with an average concentration of 14.75 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.71 mg/l, with an average value of 0.16 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.23 mg/l and averaged 0.04 mg/l. Total
3-80

suspended solids ranged from below the detection limit to 19 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 32 to 180 mg/l, with an average value of 81.33 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 52.70 to 7,639 umhos, with an average value of 319.43 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 13 to 100 mg/l, with an average value of 42.64 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.60 mg/l and averaged 0.19 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 (no flow) to 3,151 gpm. • Station 307A – Seng Camp Creek just below Cedar Grove Discharge

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.63 to 8.40. Total Acidity ranged from 0 to 12 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 10 to 160 mg/l, with an average concentration of 44.10 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.65 mg/l and averaged 0.63 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.50 mg/l, with an average value of 0.07 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 180 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 56 to 191 mg/l, with an average value of 130.23 mg/l. Specific conductivity ranged from 130 to 300 umhos, with an average value of 205.48 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 5.9 to 80 mg/l, with an average value of 52.84 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2 mg/l and averaged 0.48 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0.05 to 2,783 gpm. Spruce Fork The proposed project area lies wholly within the four (4) sub-watersheds summarized above. All four (4) watersheds are tributaries to the Spruce Fork between Laurel Fork (upstream of Little White Oak Branch) and Beech Creek (downstream of Seng Camp Creek). Spruce Fork is classified as a 4th order stream in the vicinity of the proposed project area (Exhibits 3-14 and 3-15). It lies within a sizable valley and is a lower gradient stream than those within the proposed project area. Spruce Fork is also fairly sinuous and possesses a forested canopy along much of its length to its confluence with Pond Fork, which forms the upper reach of the Little Coal River. The water quality of Spruce Fork has been impacted by a number of anthropogenic activities. It is difficult to quantitatively isolate the potential impact the proposed project would have on the water quality of Spruce Fork, which is the major receiving stream, due to a multitude of factors (i.e., uncontrolled variables) that affect water quality within the Spruce Fork watershed. The primary factors include untreated human waste from residential households and small businesses, leaking septic tanks/fields, and surface water runoff from activities associated with natural gas exploration and development, other mining and related earth disturbances, and timbering. However, baseline water quality and benthic data have been monitored for an extended period in the segment of Spruce Fork relative to the proposed project. Six (6) investigations by four (4) investigators have been conducted on Spruce Fork: Sturm sampled two (2) biostations in 1997 and 1993, and four (4) biostations in 2000, BMI sampled fourteen (14) sites in 1999, Hendricks sampled two (2) sites in 1999, and the USEPA sampled two (2) sites in 1998. As noted above, some investigators identified macroinvertebrates to genus while others identified only to family; therefore, the use of family-level information was carried throughout the analysis performed on the dataset to allow for comparison. Exhibit 3-16 details the approximate locations of macroinvertebrate sampling locations for Spruce Fork. The data includes the number of families observed, number of individuals, percent EPT, percent dominance, and Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (HBI) as presented in Table 3-10. The data collected in the main stem of Spruce Fork showed good populations of clean-water benthics, with very little organic or inorganic environmental stress noted.
3-81

Mingo Logan has collected water chemistry and measured flow rates within the referenced Spruce Fork segments. Exhibit 3-13 depicts the sampling and monitoring locations. The following paragraphs summarize water chemistry data and flow rates collected at each identified sample location. • Station 300 – Spruce Fork below Seng Camp Creek

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 7.15 to 8.64. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.5 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 0 to 340 mg/l, with an average concentration of 123.84 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 17.3 mg/l, with an average value of 0.69. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.53 mg/l and averaged 0.04 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 590 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 64 to 598 mg/l, with an average value of 330.16 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 140 to 1,080 umhos, with an average value of 569.94 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 40 to 250 mg/l, with an average value of 127.50 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 7.05 mg/l, with an average value of 0.37 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 200,000 gpm. • Station 301 (501) – Spruce Fork above Seng Camp Creek

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 7.10 to 8.60. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.5 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 20 to 330 mg/l, with an average concentration of 156.06 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.68 mg/l, with an average value of 0.30 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.21 mg/l and averaged 0.04 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 57 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 115 to 600 mg/l, with an average value of 356.63 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 194 to 1,030 umhos, with an average value of 592.47 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 0.21 to 240 mg/l, with an average value of 129 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.95 mg/l. and averaged 0.22 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 196,000 gpm. • Station 501A – Spruce Fork between Five Block and Seng Camp Creek

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.60 to 8.90. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 8 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 30 to 310 mg/l, with an average concentration of 160.44 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.74 mg/l, with an average value of 0.32. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.30 mg/l and averaged 0.05 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged below the detection limit to 84 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 70 to 635 mg/l, with an average value of 347.26 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 180 to 1,480 umhos, with an average value of 614.62 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 34 to 230 mg/l, with an average value of 130.39 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.28 mg/l and averaged 0.23 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 370,000 gpm. • Station 505 – Spruce Fork below Pigeonroost Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.60 to 8.90. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.5 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 27 to 320 mg/l, with an average concentration of 145.19 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 3.13 mg/l, with an average value of 0.47 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.32 mg/l and averaged 0.07 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 69 mg/l. Total dissolved solids
3-82

concentrations ranged from 117 to 610 mg/l, with an average value of 326.67 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 215 to 1,100 umhos, with an average value of 554.04 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 45.1 to 260 mg/l, with an average value of 116.04 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.51 mg/l and averaged 0.27 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 360,000 gpm. • Station 506 – Spruce Fork above Pigeonroost Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.60 to 9.10. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.5 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 31 to 350 mg/l, with an average concentration of 185.41 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.64 mg/l, with an average value of 0.38 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.33 mg/l and averaged 0.05 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 54 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 120 to 630 mg/l, with an average value of 389.73 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 206 to 1,100 umhos, with an average value of 659.15 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 45 to 260 mg/l, with an average value of 137.33. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.09 mg/l and averaged 0.23 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 150,000 gpm. • Station 512 – Spruce Fork below Oldhouse Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.70 to 8.80. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.50 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 31 to 360 mg/l, with an average concentration of 191.02 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.51 mg/l, with an average value of 0.38 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.31 mg/l and averaged 0.05 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 59 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 138 to 641 mg/l, with an average value of 392.76 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 246 to 10,910 umhos, with an average value of 902.05 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 43 to 254 mg/l, with an average value of 136.69 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.00 mg/l and averaged 0.22 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 345,000 gpm. • Station 513 – Spruce Fork above Oldhouse Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.20 to 9.00. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.5 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 28 to 340 mg/l, with an average concentration of 184.74 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 3.34 mg/l, with an average value of 0.40 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.31 mg/l and averaged 0.06 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 76 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 54 to 2,300 mg/l, with an average value of 435.98 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 112 to 1,130 umhos, with an average value of 656.17 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 11 to 280 mg/l, with an average value of 134.25 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.39 mg/l and averaged 0.34 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 487,000 gpm. • Station 515 – Spruce Fork above Blair

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 7.20 to 8.70. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.50 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 44 to 360 mg/l, with an average concentration of 194.50 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 15 mg/l, with an average value of 1.02 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.37 mg/l and averaged 0.08 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 26 mg/l. Total dissolved solids
3-83

concentrations ranged from 155 to 655 mg/l, with an average value of 428.21 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 287 to 1,200 umhos, with an average value of 736.63. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 63 to 267 mg/l, with an average value of 158.35. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.85 mg/l and averaged 0.33 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 320,000 gpm. • Station 516 – Spruce Fork below Adkins Fork

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.70 to 8.00. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.50 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 39 to 302 mg/l, with an average concentration of 162.73 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from 0.16 to 2.36 mg/l, with an average value of 0.86 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from 0.03 to 0.37 mg/l and averaged 0.13 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 36 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 138 to 670 mg/l, with an average value of 418 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 251 to 1,200 umhos, with an average value of 747.27 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 59 to 270 mg/l, with an average value of 171.09 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.98 mg/l and averaged 0.29 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 34,000 gpm. • Station 517 – Mouth of Adkins Fork

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 7.12 to 8.80. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.5 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 77 to 410 mg/l, with an average concentration of 307.65 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.74 mg/l, with an average value of 0.51 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.22 mg/l and averaged 0.04 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 35 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 150 to 6,621 mg/l, with an average value of 735.30 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 287 to 1,500 umhos, with an average value of 989.70 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 38.4 to 333 mg/l, with an average value of 175.64 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.60 mg/l and averaged 0.18 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 11,723 gpm. • Station 518 – Spruce Fork above Adkins Fork

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.60 to 8.60. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 0.50 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 25 to 360 mg/l, with an average concentration of 132.95 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 1.99 mg/l, with an average value of 0.44 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.52 mg/l and averaged 0.09 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from 1 to 23 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 93 to 720 mg/l, with an average value of 326.29 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 155 to 1,280 umhos, with an average value of 541.98 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 40 to 250 mg/l, with an average value of 128.01 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.05 mg/l and averaged 0.26 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 75,000 gpm. • Station 522 – Mouth of Little White Oak Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.20 to 10.60. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 96 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from 0 to 250 mg/l, with an average concentration of 38.49 mg/l. Total iron concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 32.40 mg/l, with an average value of 1.39 mg/l. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 5.10 mg/l and averaged 0.47 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 44 mg/l. Total dissolved solids
3-84

concentrations ranged from 96 to 1,600 mg/l, with an average value of 742.24. Specific conductance ranged from 187 to 3,010 umhos, with an average value of 1,076.72 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 45 to 4,810 mg/l, with an average value of 545.54 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 1.96 mg/l and averaged 0.31 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 25,000 gpm. • Station 523 – Spruce Fork above Little White Oak Branch

Field pH values measured at this station ranged from 6.50 to 8.50. Total acidity ranged from 0 to 10 mg/l. Total alkalinity ranged from below the detection limit to 61 mg/l, with an average concentration of 35.54 mg/l. Total iron concentration ranged from below the detection limit to 3.03 mg/l, with an average value of 0.61. Total manganese concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 0.93 mg/l and averaged 0.15 mg/l. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 290 mg/l. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 40 to 1,200 mg/l, with an average value of 189.03 mg/l. Specific conductance ranged from 102 to 1,620 umhos, with an average value of 307.21 umhos. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 16 to 940 mg/l, with an average value of 103.22 mg/l. Aluminum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 2.23 mg/l and averaged 0.41 mg/l. Measured flow rates ranged from 0 to 75,000 gpm. Surface Water Uses and Discharges As discussed in Section 3.2.1.2, surface water is considered property of the state, whereas groundwater is considered the property of the owner of the surface estate. Further regulation with respect to water rights is included in 38CSR2-3.22f of the WVSMRR. This rule states that any person who conducts mining activities shall replace the water supply of an owner of interest in real property who obtains all or part of his or her supply of water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or other legitimate use from an underground or surface source, where the water supply has been adversely impacted by contamination, diminution, or interruption proximately resulting from the mining activities. No surface water users, other than wildlife, are located within the proposed project area or immediate vicinity. The nearest public water intake would be the WVAmerican Water – Madison District intake located in the Little Coal River more than ten (10) miles downstream of the project area. 3.2.4.2 Environmental Consequences Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Surface Water Quantity Impacts • Removal of Surface Water Features

A total of approximately 43,946 linear feet (8.83 acres) of existing perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams would be impacted through mining or construction of drainage control and valley fill structures, including flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, in the proposed project area; 36,814 linear feet (7.60 acres) of these impacts would be permanent. This disturbance would occur incrementally over the life of the mine. The majority of these streams (approximately 32,491 linear feet or 6.81 acres) consist of intermittent streams, and to a lesser extent, ephemeral streams (approximately 10,630 linear feet or 1.83 acres) that flow only in direct response to rainfall/runoff events. Only 825 linear feet or 0.1887 acre of perennial stream would be directly impacted and these impacts would only be temporary, as the stream segment would be restored upon removal of the drainage control structure (pond), and associated flow attenuation and
3-85

erosional control structures, during final reclamation of the project area. Of the intermittent streams, approximately 26,184 linear feet (5.77 acres) would be permanently filled, as would all of the ephemeral stream segments. In the project area, the disturbance or removal of stream channels would result in both temporary and permanent impacts. During final reclamation, approximately 26,361 linear feet (5.5653 acres) of waters of the U.S. (15,488 linear feet [3.3174 acres] of intermittent stream and 10,830 linear feet [2.2478 acres] of ephemeral streams) would be reconstructed on-site through modification and enhancement of proposed drainage/erosion control channels during final reclamation. In addition, the temporarily impacted areas (7,132 linear feet/1.228 acres of intermittent/perennial) would be restored and approximately 11,272 linear feet of intermittent/perennial stream in Spruce Fork (8,772 linear feet/11.3114 acres) and Rockhouse Creek (2,500 linear feet/3.2719 acres) would be enhanced through mitigation activities. In accordance with the stream buffer zone variance granted in the WVDEP Permit, areas within one hundred (100) feet of intermittent or perennial waters would be disturbed by mineral removal activities and construction of valley fills, drainage control structures, including flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, office and warehouse facilities, erosion protection zones, access/haulroads, and temporary stream crossings below the toes of the valley fills and upstream of the areas of pond construction. The valley fill areas would be necessary to store excess overburden material generated by the mining operation. The drainage control structures (ponds) would be necessary to provide drainage control for the fill areas. The office and warehouse facility construction would be necessary to support the proposed mining operation, and the stream crossings would be needed to provide access to the site. The erosion protection zones (EPZ) would required by §38CSR2 Section 14.14.g.1 where all single-lift fills proposed after January 1, 2004, must have an EPZ constructed, seeded, and certified prior to activation of the valley fill. The EPZ is required to be designed to have a length of at least one half the height of the valley fill measured to the target fill elevation or fill design elevation. The proposed drainage control system is described in Section 2.5, Applicant’s PA. For each valley fill, an underdrain would be constructed beneath the fill in order to carry expected base and maximum groundwater flows permeating through the fill and adjacent areas. The underdrain would be created at the approximate gradient of the original channel. Although the channel would be covered with fill material, the base stream flow would continue to flow through the underdrain at its approximate original gradient. In fact, greater infiltration rates allowed by the more porous and permeable fill material, would be expected to result in greater baseflow volumes and lesser peak flow volumes at the toe of the valley fills. This is supported by USGS studies conducted on durable rock fills (Wiley et al., 2001). The drainage control structures (ponds) constructed below the toes of the valley fills would receive water from the valley fill underdrains, as well as surface water runoff from the face of the valley fill. The ponds would be constructed prior to clearing, grubbing, or placement of fill material within the confines of the proposed valley fill area. The ponds would be temporary, i.e. life-of-the-project structures, that would be removed upon final reclamation of the mine site. During the time that the ponds are in place, water would be pooled to the designed decant elevation. During the active phase of the operation, the segments between the toes of the fills and the pond spillways would contain two (2) different habitats. The lentic habitat (standing water) would result in a different biological community than those described in the benthic study, since those are all lotic habitats (flowing water). This effect would be temporary since the ponds would be removed and the segment restored as per the Stream Restoration Plan during final reclamation of the project
3-86

area. The restored stream would be expected to support a biological community similar to that of pre-mine conditions. The downstream habitat would be expected to remain similar to that of pre-mining conditions; therefore, the biological communities would be expected to remain similar. The proposed post-mining topography and the position of many of the proposed reclamation drainage control structures are shown in Exhibit 2-22. Impacts to the streams would occur as mining advances and would be sequentially replaced and mitigated by the reclamation of the mine site and implementation of the mitigation measures. Mitigation for impacted streams has been designed and is planned to occur as proposed in the Applicant’s compensatory mitigation plan (CMP). As summarized above, the mitigation is proposed to offset the losses of habitat and function associated with the project. Further descriptions of the extent of mitigation of waters of the U.S., including stream channels, ponds, wetlands, and related habitats, are presented in Section 3.2.5, Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands. Mingo Logan has proposed a CMP (Appendix I) that addresses reclamation of surface water features, including streams and wetlands, and establishment/restoration of riparian vegetation bordering these features. The objectives of mitigation are to create features of similar nature and function to those existing prior to mining and improve existing off-site areas to result in no net loss. The mitigation measures outlined in the CMP include both on-site replacement of features removed within the area disturbed by mining plus enhancement of additional features in off-site protected areas along Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek. The goal of the off-site mitigation would be to restore and enhance intermittent (Rockhouse Creek) and perennial (Spruce Fork) streams and riparian habitats to the highest quality reasonable achievable. The total mitigation proposed to compensate for direct impacts is 44,765 linear feet (21.38 acres) composed of 26,361 linear feet (5.57 acres) of on-site reconstructed/established stream channels, 7,132 linear feet (1.23 acres) of on-site restored and enhanced stream channels, and 11,272 linear feet (14.58 acres) of offsite enhanced stream channels, and an 0.48-acre constructed wetland, as described on Mingo Logan’s Compensatory Mitigation Plan (see Appendix I). A minimum of 33,493 linear feet (6.79 acres) of streams and 0.48 acre of wetlands would be restored/enhanced/created on-site within the project area. Additional mitigation for stream disturbances would occur at the off-site Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek mitigation sites. As shown above, 0.48 acre of wetland would be created by the proposed mitigation. This would be constitute replacement of an only 0.12-acre palustrine wetland that would be eliminated as a result of the Applicant’s PA at a 4:1 (mitigated: impacted) ratio. • Effects from Watershed Modifications

The tributaries of Spruce Fork that are within the proposed project area have been classified as intermittent and ephemeral, with the exception of an approximately 825-foot perennial segment near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch. Baseline investigations indicate that the permanently impacted streams are ephemeral or intermittent (Decota, 2000). Proposed mining activities and construction of drainage control systems may affect both flow rates and runoff volumes of downstream waterways; these drainage control systems are described in Section 2.5. Peak flows would be anticipated to decrease and baseflows downstream of the proposed valley fills would be anticipated to increase as a result of the Applicant’s PA. Discharge attenuation structures have been designed and would be utilized in runoff control structures where necessary to achieve this goal.

3-87

Baseflows in the streams downstream of the valley fills would be anticipated to increase due to construction of valley fills and underdrains constructed beneath the valley fills and the nature of the fill and regrade materials. For each valley fill, an underdrain would be constructed in order to carry expected base and maximum groundwater flows permeating through the valley fill and adjacent areas. The underdrain would be created at the approximate gradient of the original channel. Although the channel would be covered with fill material, the base stream flow should continue to flow through the underdrain at its approximate original gradient. In fact, greater infiltration rates allowed by the more porous and permeable fill material would be expected to result in greater baseflow volumes and lesser peak flow volumes at the toe of the valley fills. Studies have indicated that in many instances the baseflows below the fills are stabilized and often increase slightly over that of the pre-mining flows (Wiley et al., 2001). Flow changes would be expected to have minimal impacts on any perennial pools that occur along Spruce Fork. Peak flows are projected to decrease during mining as a result of the proposed drainage control structures for surface water runoff, since these structures would reduce flooding and the potential for erosion of the channels and banks, and the greater porosity and permeability of the valley fill and backfill material. Discharges from the ponds, which provide storage of runoff particularly during storm events, would sustain flows for a somewhat greater length of time after a runoff event thereby increasing baseflow. The modeling has shown there would be a reduction in runoff volumes into Spruce Fork. In addition, the reduction in overall steepness of the terrain and increased permeability of the reclaimed mine area would be anticipated to aid in the reduction of runoff rates and, therefore, flooding potential in the Spruce Fork watershed downstream of the project area. This effect would be lesser in the larger watersheds due to the relatively smaller percentage of disturbance within them. Mining disturbance would comprise a comparatively smaller proportion of the watershed at the Coal River monitoring station at Tornado, as the project area only represents less than one-half percent (0.5%) of the watershed at the station. Following mine closure, reclamation, and Phase II bond release, the drainage control structures, including flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, would be removed. Despite the removal of drainage control structures, the greater porosity and permeability, and less severe slopes, of the project area post-mining and reclamation would continue to result in lesser runoff rates and concurrently lesser peak flow rates and greater baseflow rates in streams, as compared to the existing conditions. Mingo Logan has conducted a Surface Water Runoff Analysis (SWROA) in order to compare peak runoff levels during a 100-year/24-hour storm event in the receiving streams downstream of the proposed project during mining and post-mining to pre-mining peak runoff levels. The full study can be found in Appendix J. Current results of the SWROA indicate that the proposed project would not result in an increase in the peak discharge from the 100-year/24-hour storm event at designated critical modeling locations, including at the confluences of Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and Seng Camp Creek with Spruce Fork, during mining or post-mining. The overall peak flow in Spruce Fork downstream of Seng Camp Creek, as determined by the SWROA, would be reduced from 17,235 cfs to approximately 17,020 cfs during active mining and to 17,172 in the post-mining configuration (Appendix J). In addition to the reduction in peak flows and increase in baseflows resulting from the proposed activities within the project area, flooding-related concern would be the potential for the project to impact the floodplains and floodways associated with Spruce Fork. Protection of floodplains and floodways is required by Presidential Executive Order 11988 (EO), Floodplain Management. The intent of this EO is to avoid or
3-88

minimize encroachments within the floodplain, where practicable, and to avoid supporting land use development that is incompatible with floodplains. Within the proposed project area, floodplains and floodways would be regulated by the Logan County Flood Zone Administrator. Officially designated floodplains and floodways were identified based on mapping provided by the National Flood Insurance Program. This program was established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is administered and enforced through local governments. FEMA produces Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs) that delineate the floodplains and floodways based on detailed hydraulic studies. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) produced by FEMA are based on the same hydraulic studies as FBFMs, but provide flood rate zones and estimated flood elevations. FIRMs and FBFMs for Logan County and adjacent Boone County, West Virginia were obtained to determine the limits of the 100-year floodplain and regulatory floodways within the Spruce Fork watershed. The location of FEMA floodplains and floodways were entered into a geographic information system (GIS) and the distances from the proposed project area to a designated floodway/floodplain were calculated (Table 3-14). Table 3-14 Distance from the Project Area to the Nearest Floodway/Floodplain
Nearest Floodway/Floodplain Stream Seng Camp Creek Pigeonroost Branch Oldhouse Branch White Oak Branch Distance (Feet) from Project Area to Nearest Floodway/Floodplain Applicant’s Preferred Alternative 6,770 3,620 290 N/A Alternative 3 6,868 3,731 487 13,119

The analysis indicated that there would be no FEMA designated 100-year floodplains or floodways within the proposed project area. The nearest designated floodway/floodplain would be located along the mainstem of Spruce Fork, and is designated by FEMA as Zone A, defined as an area inundated by 100-year flooding, for which no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) have been determined. • Effects from Road Improvements/Construction

Three (3) culverts associated with the construction of Access Road 2 would be installed to provide drainage control for the road (outlets for ditches) where the pipe discharges from such culverts would not pass through other drainage control structures (ponds). Details of the haulroad are included in the WVDEP Permit S5013-97, Section Q. The peak flows that each culvert would be required to convey were determined from the results of a SEDCAD computer model used to determine the peak flows for a 10-year storm event within each contributing drainage area. The culverts themselves were designed using the peak flow determined and the Pipe-Culvert Design Method in the hydrology model of the SurvCadXML computer design program. Each of the culvert structures would have a rip-rap lined channel section at the outlet to prevent channel
3-89

erosion. Culverts having flow velocities greater than 9 feet per second (fps) would have grouted outlets followed by a rip-rap section downstream. Haulroad ditches were also designed in accordance with the state regulations and, based on the worst-case flow and slope, would have a 4-foot bottom width with a 0.25:1 inside slope lined with rock and a 2:1 outside slope. Rock lining would be utilized at appropriate locations in accordance with hydraulic modeling to minimize scouring. Silt fences and other BMPs would be utilized during and after construction to control erosion and promote revegetation. • Effects to Surface Water Resources from Water Level Changes

The majority of stream flow in the study area originates from valley floor alluvial aquifer systems associated with Spruce Fork and its tributaries. Additionally, flows from indirect groundwater contribution (baseflows from seeps, underground mine discharges, valley fill toes, etc.) appear to exist for some of the stream segments, specifically for the intermittent streams, in the study area. Ephemeral streams in the area flow only in direct response to precipitation events or snowmelt. For the approximately 15-year period during and after construction of the ponds, stream flow would be affected as the ponds’ pool areas become filled with water. During the time that the ponds are in place, water would be pooled to the designed decant elevation. After the water level reaches the decant elevation, water would then discharge approximating the inflow, with exception of surge capacity designed to reduce the peak discharges from the structure. During the active phase of the operation, the segments between the toes of the fills and the pond spillways would contain two (2) different habitats. The lentic habitat (standing water) would result in a different biological community than those described in the benthic study, since those are all lotic habitats (flowing water). During final reclamation of the site, the impounding embankment would be eliminated and the channels would be restored to their approximate pre-mining conditions as approved in the Stream Restoration Plan and CMP. The restored stream would be expected to support a biological community similar to that of premine conditions. The effects below the ponds would be limited by compliance with NPDES limits for suspended solids and settleable solids. No chemical flocculants are proposed to be used as the natural settling of the sediment particles within the drainage control structure (pond) would be expected to be sufficient to meet water quality standards. Baseflows would be anticipated to increase in the segments located downstream of the project’s proposed valley fills. Valley fills constructed with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills on downstream, which would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime with natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like), as well as habitat enhancement in the streams, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the receiving streams. These factors would be anticipated to result in an increase in available water and aquatic habitat in the segments downstream of the valley fills. Increased flows may better support existing plant communities of riparian woodlands and emergent vegetation immediately adjacent to these intermittent streams. The increased availability of water and aquatic habitat downstream of the valley fill drainage control structures during mining and downstream of the toe of the valley fills upon final reclamation would help to offset the loss of aquatic habitat in the upper reaches of these streams as a result of the filling activities.
3-90

Effects from water discharge would be most prevalent along the stream segments within close proximity to the discharge points (NPDES outlets); effects would progressively decrease as the distance from the discharge points increases. Natural baseflows in the project area are commonly small, and during the summer month’s seepage into the channels is typically taken up by evapotranspiration over comparatively short reaches, particularly under drought conditions. Groundwater recharge and the associated volume of groundwater contribution to a stream varies seasonally and annually due to precipitation and other meteorological conditions. In addition, direct precipitation contributions to a stream also varies based on the rainfall during a given time period. Due to the fact that most streamflows in the area rely on precipitation, baseflow reductions in the study area typically would have the greatest impact on surface water quantity in gaining reaches during times of low precipitation. Thus the potential increases in baseflows would be anticipated to benefit the stream segments located downstream of the project area. • Effects of Discharges to Streams

Mingo Logan currently proposes to use storm water runoff collected in drainage control structures and pit areas and pumped to supply watering of the roads and other non-potable water needs. Projected water usage is estimated at approximately 200 to 500 acre-feet per year at the mine. Excess water would be recycled back to the drainage control structures and would be discharged through the drainage control system outlets. Also, it should be noted that runoff collected in the pits would be routed through the storm water control system. Openings to the surface due to auger/highwall/thin-seam mining would be covered with rock fill material (in up-dip areas) or the most impervious material available (in down-dip areas) along the entirety of the length of mining. Durable rock drains would be provided along up-dip mining areas of the highwall in case of water buildup, although a buildup of water would not be anticipated. Little, if any, head would be expected in any auger/highwall/thin-seam mining hole due to the limited depth of penetration and minimal dip of the seams. Outcrop barriers would be left along the down-dip side of the mineral removal areas to prevent outcrop seepage where auger/highwall/thin-seam mining is planned in a down-dip direction. However, a potential for gravity discharge would exist since these seams are proposed to be developed in both an up-dip and down-dip direction. The quality of any discharges would be expected to be within effluent limits, while the quantity of discharges from any hole would be expected to be low due to the limited hole depths. No pumping is proposed and any gravity discharge or seepage would be minimal. Flows in the receiving streams would be augmented by releases from the NPDES outfalls during the life of the mine. During this 15-year operational phase, the augmentation would provide flow on a more continuous basis than under baseline conditions. Effects from water discharge would be most prevalent along the stream segments within close proximity to the discharge points (NPDES outfalls); effects would progressively decrease as the distance from the discharge points increases. This augmentation of flow would be anticipated to continue after mine closure in streams containing valley fills as a result of previously described modifications to baseflows. There are twenty-four (24) NDPES outfalls (discharge points) proposed in addition to one (1) existing outfall located on an adjacent NPDES permit. Of the twenty-five (25) outfalls that would discharge water associated with the project, twenty-one (21) discharge from on-bench drainage control structures and four (4) discharge from in-stream drainage control structures (ponds) to stream channels. These outfalls are shown in Exhibit 23-91

21 and Exhibit 2-22. Two (2) outfalls would discharge into Seng Camp Creek, five (5) outfalls would discharge into Pigeonroost Creek and associated unnamed tributaries, three (3) outfalls would discharge into Oldhouse Branch, three (3) outfalls would discharge into White Oak Branch, and twelve (12) outfalls would discharge directly into Spruce Fork. The outfall peak flows are calculated on a minimum of a 25-year/24-hour storm event. Using calculated outfall peak flow rates as a maximum and no-flow as a minimum for on-bench structures and minimum recorded flows from nearest baseline stations for the in-stream structures, the potential range of annual runoff and resultant flows from each outfall are included in Table 3-15. This flow estimate is anticipated to be very high. Investigations at most on-bench outlets at existing surface mines indicate that the on-bench structures only discharge during storm events, with the exception being many of the outlets receiving drainage from structures located on the down-dip side of the mine bench. Table 3-15 Summary of Estimated Runoff and Resultant Flows from Outfalls for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative
Outfall 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 012 014 015 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 007 (WV1013289) Estimated Flows (cfs) Min Max 0 1,175 0 274 0.002 866 0 92 0 67 0 80 0 109 0 98 0 74 0 52 0 63 0 68 0 68 0 80 0 268 0 51 0 109 0 109 0 70 0 70 0 77 0 40 0 199 0 188 0.01 3.841 Estimated Run-off (ac-ft/yr) Min Max 0 850,661 0 198,367 2 626,955 0 66,605 0 48,506 0 57,917 0 78,912 0 70,949 0 53,574 0 37,646 0 45,610 0 49,230 0 49,230 0 57,917 0 194,023 0 36,922 0 78,912 0 78,912 0 50,678 0 50,678 0 55,745 0 28,959 0 144,069 0 136,106 8 2,778

Min – Zero unless in-stream outfall Max – Based on peak flows from NPDES Permit which are based on 25-year/24-hour storm event 1Peak flow for Outfall 007 (WV1013299) taken from NPDES Permit Renewal.

3-92

With average annual runoff included in the discharge estimates, the potential releases from the permitted outfalls ranges from an estimated 0 to 1,175 cfs (0 to 851,000 acre-feet per year). The maximum is considered to be extremely overestimated. Actual maximum discharges from the on-bench outlets are would be expected to be primarily storm event driven and the range from the in-stream ponds would be expected to be similar to the range of outlet 007 (NPDES Permit WV1013289). It should be noted that these discharge estimates are based on worst-case conditions; the actual rates are anticipated to be much lower depending on the occurrence of large storm events. Typical discharge rates likely would be somewhat smaller than the ranges presented, but may increase substantially for periods of days or weeks following storms. During these periods, it would be expected that flows in the downstream channels also would increase as a result of more widespread watershed conditions, and effects from mine discharges would not increase the peak flows during the storm events. The flow rates of the discharges to the Spruce Fork watershed would not be expected to increase peak flow rates and therefore, would not affect channel or bank morphology or flooding hazards. It is assumed that outlet structures would be designed to ensure stream stability through the use of designs similar to those used for sediment pond outlets and diversion channels. Channel and bank morphology typically are determined by bankfull flows (i.e. 1.5-2 year event). Less frequent flood events (e.g., a 10-year event) are larger still, and the magnitude of channel-forming flows increases farther downstream in Spruce Fork. Lowflow channels are not anticipated to be substantially modified due to the small discharge flow. There may be slight, isolated downcutting in the low-flow portion of the main channels; however, this would not be expected to contribute substantially to additional erosion and sedimentation. As stated in Section 3.2.4.1, suspended sediment concentrations in the streams vary greatly, but are substantially higher during higher flows. During and after the mining phase, baseflows are anticipated to increase slightly and continuous streamflow would be anticipated to occur over a longer reach of channel, and water may stand temporarily in isolated pools for a longer period than prior to mine-related discharges. These discharge rates would vary over time. Surface Water Quality Impacts Surface water quality issues associated with coal mining generally involve the potential for increased sediment transport and acidic or toxic drainage resulting in increased concentrations of iron, manganese, aluminum, selenium, or TDS. The drainage control structures (ponds) below the valley fills have been designed and would be constructed to retain sediment loads carried to them from other drainage structures (underdrains and side drains). Effluent levels are anticipated to be within the limits set forth in the NPDES permit. If effluent levels would occur above the acceptable limits, the discharges would be treated through the use of flocculant or other chemical methods to reduce the sediment, metal, and/or metalloid concentrations. Total dissolved solids may increase in mine area discharges, depending on the nature and timing of groundwater contributions to the sediment pond/storm water management system. However, discharges during the life of the mine would be anticipated to meet the requirements of the CWA Section 401 and 402 water quality standards. If discharges would exhibit concentrations out of compliance with effluent limits, the discharges would be treated as necessary to meet WVNPDES and state water quality standards. No impacts to surface water quality would be expected to result from dissolved or total metals, metalloids, and/or non-metals content in runoff or groundwater. For example, material considered to be selenium-toxic would be isolated from the water courses and would not be placed in the valley fills as discussed in Section O and Section R of the approved WVDEP permit. Baseline sampling within the project area does not
3-93

indicate that effluent levels would be out of compliance. Water quality data from active mining in the adjacent areas have been found to be within the acceptable limits. A review of overburden and interburden data indicate few, thin isolated strata to be potentially acidic. These strata would be specially handled as discussed in the approved material handling plan. In addition, Mingo Logan would drill additional exploration holes within the project area when the permit is activated, if approved. The overburden samples would be collected from the cores for the purpose of performing acid-base accounting and analysis for selenium in accordance with the standard procedures in EPA 600/2-78-054 (Field and Laboratory Methods Applicable to overburden and Mine soil) as required in sub-section 3.23f.s of Title 38, Series 2, Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations. Overburden identified as potentially selenium-toxic would be selectively handled and isolated within the backstack areas and would not be placed within the watercourses or the valley fills. However, it is anticipated that selenium-toxic material would included only a small portion of the overall overburden and would not pose a threat to the water resources with utilization of proposed isolation measures. Selective handling of overburden and interburden would prevent acidic or toxic drainage from the proposed project. Pit cleanings, partings, and other potentially acidic-toxic materials (including selenium-toxic) that cannot be neutralized by blending would be identified and segregated during the mining process and promptly placed in an isolation zone for final disposal. A pad composed of non-toxic, non-acidic, durable material at least ten (10) feet in thickness would be placed on the basal seam pit floor. This pad would be located at least twenty (20) feet from the nearest highwall. Potentially acid-toxic and selenium-toxic material would be placed on this pad and compacted then covered with at least four (4) feet of non-toxic, alkaline material that would be suitably compacted to reduce its permeability. Such isolation zones would be covered with at least ten (10) feet of ordinary backfill material and revegetated in accordance with the approved plan (which the Applicant has agreed to revise to include only native, non-invasive species). This material would not be placed in close proximity to drainage courses nor would it be placed within a durable rock fill and would be handled and placed in accordance with time and acreage requirements of the contemporaneous reclamation plan. In combination with Mingo Logan’s approved special materials handling plan and NPDES provisions, no sources of selenium that could affect surface water quality would be expected to occur. Surface water runoff would be discharged to local drainages. The drainage control structures (ponds) were designed to pass the design storm events. Spillway configurations were designed to safely pass the projected peak flow with a minimum of 1-foot of freeboard. Adequate water treatment technologies (including retention, settling, and the use of flocculants) would be implemented as part of the Applicant’s PA based on the requirement for agency review and approval of the drainage control system. Based upon surface water resource inventories, no drinking water supplies are known to occur in downstream areas near the proposed project area. The nearest public water intake is the WV-American Water – Madison District intake located in the Little Coal River more than ten (10) miles downstream of the most downstream outfall from the project area. Appropriate drainage control structure (pond and ditch) maintenance performed during mining and early reclamation phases, in addition to successful reclamation and revegetation practices, would help ensure adequate functioning of the proposed system designed to protect water quality. Peak flows and event runoff volumes were derived using standard procedures, local data, and inputs as approved by the WVDEP regulations. Pond sizing was designed to provide 0.125 acre-foot of capacity per acre disturbed. In addition, structures are required to be cleaned when the structure reaches sixty percent (60%) sediment capacity, in
3-94

accordance with the WVDEP regulatory requirements. Based on the design and utilization of the drainage control system, streams downstream of the project area would not be expected to be impacted by sedimentation. Mingo Logan would contract qualified individuals or companies to apply fertilizers on reclaimed areas, as needed, to ensure successful reclamation. These contractors would operate in accordance with manufacturer recommendations and appropriate agency regulations regarding application rates and handling of materials. Use of fertilizers on the reclaimed areas in accordance with recommended application rates and procedures would not be anticipated to constitute a risk to water quality in local streams or groundwater, based on recent water quality monitoring data from locations downstream of mining operations in the region. However, nutrient-rich runoff from the reclaimed areas could result in periodic increases in nutrient levels in nearby sediment ponds and diversions. These runoff episodes could produce corresponding increases in algal species abundance in these waters. Fertilizers would only be applied during the initial hydroseeding of the reclaimed areas and any increases would only be for a brief period after initial seeding. Water quality impacts from nutrient-enriched runoff would be expected to be negligible. Water from pit dewatering and surface runoff from disturbed areas would be used for dust control on roads, as discussed above. Remaining water would be discharge through the approved NPDES outfalls. As discussed in the Section J of the approved WVDEP Permit, an evaluation of water quality impacts downstream of the permitted outfalls was conducted. Adverse effects on water quality downstream of the project area would not be anticipated. In addition to the previously discussed materials handling plan and drainage control system, protection of surface water quality would be further ensured by required regulatory monitoring programs downstream of the project. Based upon water quality sampling and analysis from the adjacent Dal-Tex Complex and the provisions of the CWA Section 401 and 402 permits, post-mining water quality in the receiving streams would be expected to meet the applicable standards and be suitable for establishment of the proposed post-mining land use. Additional potential erosion and sedimentation impacts may result from access/haulroad construction. Impacts from road construction would be minimized by adherence to BMPs and drainage control measures. Additional culvert and channel stabilization installations would minimize erosion below the culvert outlets. Access/haulroad construction would be expected to have only minor adverse impacts on drainage. As discussed in Section 3.2.3.2, the Applicant’s PA would not affect groundwater quality in the alluvial/valley floor fracture aquifers of Spruce Fork and/or its tributaries, which provide baseflow to streams in the area. In addition, the baseflows below the valley fills would be anticipated to show slight increases. By adherence to the material handling plan, these increases are not anticipated to adversely affect the quality of the baseflows. As a result, neither the quality of the baseflow nor the increases in baseflow would substantially affect water quality in the receiving streams. In addition, discharges into streams would be required to meet applicable surface water quality standards as required by NPDES regulations. No adverse surface water quality impacts would be expected to result from the increase in baseflows below the valley fill toes. The primary determining factor of surface water quality in the region is rainfall runoff and discharges from the groundwater systems associated with the valley streams. During the mining phase, surface water quality would be expected to reflect the effectiveness of the surface water control system. Following reclamation, surface water quality would be expected to largely reflect rainfall runoff from the reclaimed areas.

3-95

Water quality data from field sampling indicate that the groundwater discharge temperature would be similar to surface water temperatures in the vicinity. It would be expected that both temperature and dissolved oxygen parameters would meet state water quality standards at the discharge point of the valley fill underdrains discharge or within a short mixing zone downstream. There would be no anticipated impact on overall water quality in Spruce Fork and/or its tributaries as a result of the Applicant’s PA due to required compliance with the CWA Section 401 and 402 water quality standards and monitoring to verify this compliance. Effects on Surface Water Rights As previously discussed, surface waters in West Virginia are property of the state. No permitted surface water users are known to exist within the project area or immediately downstream of the project area. The nearest public water intake would be located over ten (10) miles downstream of the most downstream NPDES outfall. There may be unpermitted riparian water uses (primarily livestock watering) that occur periodically along Spruce Fork downstream of the project area. Neither the flow regimes nor the quality of waters in Spruce Fork and/or its tributaries would be expected to be adversely affected; therefore, surface water users and/or the uses of the waters of Spruce Fork would not be expected to be impacted by the Applicant’s PA. Alternative 3 Surface Water Quantity Impacts • Removal of Surface Water Features

Impacts from removal of surface water features would be similar to the Applicant’s PA with the exception of an additional 13,809 feet/4.01 acres of intermittent stream impacts. Under Alternative 3, permanent impacts would increase by 17,701feet/3.02 acres, while temporary impacts would decrease by 3,892 feet/ 0.99 acre compared to the Applicant’s PA. Under Alternative 3, mitigation would be similar to the mitigation measures proposed in the current CMP (Appendix I), but additional mitigation would be required to offset the greater impacts. In addition, Alternative 3 would include direct impacts through fill placement in White Oak Branch, which is a presumptive Tier 2.5 stream. The proposed drainage control system and placement of more porous and permeable spoil material where previously consolidated strata occurred would be similar to that under the Applicant’s PA and would have similar effects on the water resources, resulting in greater baseflows and lesser peak flows below the valley fills, as discussed above. • Effects from Watershed Modifications

Watershed modifications and results of such modifications would be similar to those of the Applicant’s PA with the exception of the additional filling activities that would lead to the additional permanent stream impacts identified above. In addition, a SWROA would be required to be completed for Alternative 3 to verify the drainage control system designed for this alternative would result in “no net increase” in the peak flows at the critical evaluation points downstream of the project area. The location of FEMA floodplains and floodways were entered into a GIS and the distances from the proposed project area for Alternative 3 to a designated floodway/floodplain were calculated (Table 3-14). Like the Applicant’s PA, the permit configuration would not be located in any floodway/floodplain and would actually be located further from the nearest floodway/floodplain.
3-96

•

Effects from Road Improvements/Construction

Under Alternative 3, impacts would be similar to the Applicant’s PA with the exception of Access Road No. 2. Under Alternative 3, the road would not be constructed and an existing road from the mining area in Pigeonroost Branch would be utilized to access the ponds to be constructed for the associated valley fills. No other major access/haulroads would be constructed outside of the primary project area or would discharge through a drainage control structure within the project area. • Effects to Surface Water Resources from Water Level Changes

Effects to surface water resources related to water level changes would be basically the same as those discussed under the Applicant’s PA, but would include direct effects within the White Oak Branch watershed, a presumptive Tier 2.5 listed stream. • Effects of Discharges to Streams

Impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to the Applicant’s PA with the exception of the additional surface disturbance and slight differences in size, location, and peak discharge levels from the proposed outfalls. In addition, Alternative 3 would permanently fill an additional 17,701 linear feet (3.02 acres) of waters of the U.S. and would place fill in White Oak Branch constituting direct impact to a presumptive Tier 2.5 stream. Surface Water Quality Impacts Surface water quality impacts would be similar to the Applicant’s PA, but would additionally impact White Oak Branch, a presumptive Tier 2.5 stream listed as a high quality reference stream. With the exception of the filling of White Oak Branch, there would be similar effects on water quality as those anticipated to result from the Applicant’s PA, with minimal impact on overall water quality in Spruce Fork and/or its tributaries as a result of Alternative 3. Effects on Surface Water Rights Effects on surface water rights would be the same as the effects of the Applicant’s PA. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Spruce No. 1 Mine would not be developed. As a result, impacts to surface water quantity and quality resulting from the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, as described above, would not occur. Annual and seasonal changes in water level, flow, and water quality characteristics would continue as they have in the past. Future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances. 3.2.4.3 Cumulative Surface Water Impacts

Cumulative impacts to surface water resources would result from previous and on-going disturbance associated with the existing mining operations in the Spruce Fork watershed and the proposed and reasonably foreseeable actions located in the watershed. These impacts to surface water quality and/or
3-97

quantity would largely be related to the filling of streams and discharges into the receiving streams from the existing and future projects. Removal of Surface Water Features Surface water features within the watershed have been removed by mining operations which have occurred over the last century. Currently, most of the operations that are actively mining are required to provide mitigation similar to that proposed under Mingo Logan’s mitigation plan (Appendix I) for the direct impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, associated with their filling and drainage control activities. The Applicant’s PA and reasonably foreseeable future actions are required to provide for restoration, enhancement, and/or establishment of surface water features to offset the impacts to waters of the U.S. By providing mitigation to offset the impacts associated with such activities, the proposed and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not be expected to result in or cumulatively contribute to a net loss of surface water features that has resulted from previous actions. Effects from Watershed Modifications The existing and reasonably foreseeable future actions located within the watershed, like the Applicant’s PA, encompass portions of intermittent and ephemeral streams in which mining activities or construction of valley fill and drainage control structures would occur. These operations would provide mitigation for permanently impacted streams through establishment, enhancement, and/or protection of streams and riparian habitats within the project areas or at least within the Spruce Fork watershed and restoration and/or enhancement of temporarily impacted streams on-site. As in the proposed project, the proposed areas of disturbance associated with existing and reasonably foreseeable future projects would likely not fall within or near to floodways/floodplains associated with Spruce Fork. Proposed mining activities and construction of valley fills and drainage control systems may affect both flow rates and runoff volumes of downstream waterways. The existing and future actions are required to comply with the SWROA requirements of the WVSMRR regulations and, therefore, should not result in any increases in peak discharge rates in the receiving streams for a storm as great as a 100-year/24-hour storm event either during or post-mining. As with the Applicant’s PA, drainage control structures would remain in effect during much of the project life. As landscape restoration proceeds, the drainage controls implemented during the operational phases would be converted to their final reclaimed configurations. Reclamation and revegetation will mitigate potential impacts from runoff and/or erosion on the existing mine sites. Following mine closure, reclamation, and Phase II bond release, the drainage control structures, including flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, would be removed. Despite the removal of drainage control structures, the less severe slopes and greater porosity and permeability within the project area post-mining and reclamation would continue to result in lesser runoff rates and concurrently lesser peak flow rates and greater baseflow rates in streams, as compared to the existing conditions. This is supported by USGS studies conducted on durable rock fills (Wiley et al., 2001). Studies have indicated that in many instances the baseflows below the fills are stabilized and often increase slightly over that of the pre-mining flows. In addition, the reduction in overall steepness of the terrain and increased permeability of the reclaimed mine areas would be anticipated to aid in the reduction of runoff rates and, therefore, flooding potential in the
3-98

Spruce Fork watershed downstream of the project areas. This effect would be lesser in the larger watersheds due to the relatively smaller percentage of disturbance within them. The mining operations in the watershed would be expected to cumulatively result in increased base flow volumes and/or durations combined with slight decreases in the peak flows and, thereby, reduced flooding potential in Spruce Fork and/or its tributaries. Flow changes would be expected to have minimal impacts on any perennial pools that occur along Spruce Fork. Due to required compliance with WVSMRR regulations regarding SWROA, drainage control system design, and mitigation of adverse effects to the hydrologic system, the proposed and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not anticipated to add to any existing impacts resulting from previous activities in the watershed resulting from watershed modifications. Effects to Surface Water Resources from Water Level Changes The majority of stream flow in the study area originates from valley floor alluvial aquifer systems associated with Spruce Fork and its tributaries. Additionally, flows from indirect groundwater contribution (baseflows from seeps, underground mine discharges, valley fill toes, etc.) appear to exist for some of the stream segments, specifically for the intermittent streams, in the study area. Ephemeral streams in the area flow only in direct response to precipitation events or snowmelt. Surface mining operations within the watershed are not expected to cumulatively impact water levels in the watershed. Some of the historic underground mining in the watershed may have affected water levels in some of the tributaries by creating a local sink or dewatering of streams due to undermining. Similar impacts would not occur as a result of the Applicant’s PA or the reasonably foreseeable future actions within the watershed based on compliance with current and, likely stricter, future regulations. The Mountain Laurel Complex includes underground mining activities in the Seng Camp Creek watershed, but, due to compliance with regulations and implementation of a subsidence control plan, these activities would not be anticipated to result in subsidence which would significantly alter the hydrogeology of the local strata. Surface water flows would potentially be positively affected in the receiving streams immediately downstream of the future actions. Impacts associated with the pending Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines and currently permitted operations would be similar to those of the Applicant’s PA. Baseflows would be anticipated to increase in the segments located downstream of proposed valley fills. Valley fills constructed with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills on downstream, which would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime with natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like), as well as habitat enhancement in the streams, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the receiving streams. These factors would be anticipated to result in an increase in available water and aquatic habitat in the segments downstream of the valley fills. Increased flows may better support existing plant communities of riparian woodlands and emergent vegetation immediately adjacent to these intermittent streams. The increased availability of water and aquatic habitat downstream of the valley fill drainage control structures during mining and downstream of the toe of the valley fills upon final reclamation would help to offset the loss of aquatic habitat in the upper reaches of these streams as a result of the filling activities. Effects from water discharge would be most prevalent along the stream segments within close proximity to discharge points (NPDES outlets); effects would progressively decrease as the distance from the discharge
3-99

points increases. Natural baseflows in the project area are commonly small, and during the summer month’s seepage into the channels is typically taken up by evapotranspiration over comparatively short reaches, particularly under drought conditions. Groundwater recharge and the associated volume of groundwater contribution to a stream varies seasonally and annually due to precipitation and other meteorological conditions. Thus the potential increases in baseflows would be anticipated to benefit the stream segments located downstream of the project area. Effects of Discharges to Streams The flow rates from the operations’ discharges in the watershed would not be expected to increase peak flow rates and therefore, would not affect channel or bank morphology or flooding hazards. Potential affects from the existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are anticipated to be similar to those of the Applicant’s PA. Flows in the receiving streams would be augmented by releases from the NPDES outfalls from the existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future actions located within the Spruce Fork watershed. The augmentations would provide flow on a more continuous basis than under baseline conditions. Effects from water discharge would be most prevalent along the stream segments within close proximity to the discharge points (NPDES outfalls); effects would progressively decrease as the distance from the discharge points increases. This augmentation of flow would be anticipated to continue after mine closure in streams containing valley fills as a result of previously described modifications to baseflows. Stream segments located downstream of the proposed valley fills associated with the projects would, over the long term, potentially benefit from the mining activity. Valley fills with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills on downstream, which would expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime with natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like), as well as habitat enhancement in the streams’ riparian zones, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the streams in the watershed. This would result in an increase in available water and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. The proposed and active projects located within the local watersheds are required to be designed to meet the SWROA requirement of resulting in “no net increase” in peak flow from the project area during a 25year/24-hour storm event. The existing operations that are not Phase I eligible are required to complete a SWROA and provide documentation that they are resulting in “no net increase” in the peak flow from the project area when compared to the pre-mining condition. If they cannot demonstrate “no net increase” in the current configuration then they must modify the drainage control plan to comply with the requirement. The timeline for implementation of the regulation was tiered based on the acreage of the existing operation, with the larger operations (greater than 400 acres) being required to comply by June 30, 2004, and the smallest permits (less than 50 acres) being required to comply by June 19, 2006. All of the active or proposed operations within the local watersheds are currently required to result in “no net increase” in the peak flow from the pre-mining condition; thus, minimizing potential flooding impacts within the watershed. As a result, cumulative effects to streams related to discharges from operations in the watershed are anticipated to be negligible or positive.

3-100

Surface Water Quality Impacts Existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future mining projects in the study area are or would be designed to meet the effluent limits of their NPDES permits. Additionally, the proposed and future actions would be required to specially handle/isolate potentially selenium-toxic material. As a result, no cumulative impacts to surface water quality would be expected. Effects on Surface Water Rights The potential effects on surface water rights under this cumulative scenario would be similar to those discussed under the Applicant’s PA. Additional Cumulative Impact Analysis Based on comments obtained during the interagency scoping meetings, resource agency letters, and public scoping comments, this EIS evaluates the potential cumulative impact of carbon conversion loss as a result of the proposed project. The evaluation was performed for Alternative 3, the original EIS submission for the proposed project, as it would result in the greatest impacts to waters of the U.S. of all the alternatives considered. The following sections provide an overview of the fundamental concepts in lotic ecology and an energy analysis that assesses energy flow at various scales of analysis. Lotic Ecology Overview The Applicant’s PA would result in the loss of waters of the U.S. within the project area and a subsequent temporary reduction in organic matter emanating from those segments transported downstream; however, it is not clear to what extent this direct loss from mountaintop mining and valley fill (MTM/VF) activities indirectly affects downstream aquatic life. Rivers are formed by a network of tributaries (Perry and Golden, 2000). Intermittent and perennial headwater streams demarcate the transition between terrestrial and lotic environments. It has been hypothesized that, since small headwater streams are the origin of larger river systems, they are critical in determining the characteristics of the tributaries they feed. Furthermore, it is generally agreed that land use, geology, and precipitation patterns in these smaller sub-watersheds interact to affect the water chemistry and the flow patterns in all downstream tributaries in the watershed (Perry and Golden, 2000). A number of theories and concepts have been postulated to determine the ecological significance of lower order stream contribution on energy flow/balance to higher order stream systems (Cummins, 1974; Vannote et. al., 1980; Dale et al., 1984; Bott et. al., 1985; Statzner and Higler, 1985; Minshall et. al., 1985; Thorp et. al., 1998; and many others). The River Continuum Concept (RCC: Vannote et al., 1980) states that rivers are a continuum from headwaters to the mouth. Along this continuum, there is a change in the important food sources for stream organisms. In headwater areas, vegetation in the form of leaves from the surrounding watershed vegetation is the most important food source. In fact, inputs from the watershed have been found to account for up to ninety-nine percent (99%) of the energy budgets for small forested streams (Fisher and Likens, 1973). As the stream becomes larger downstream, in-stream periphyton (algae) becomes the most important food source. Finally, in the largest downstream areas, food particles transported from upstream areas are the main source of food for stream organisms. Therefore, energy in stream systems is derived primarily in the headwater catchments and transported downstream by the unidirectional flow of water. It is thought by some researchers that the entire productivity and existence of larger streams is predominantly dependent on
3-101

inputs from the upstream areas. However, a fundamental assumption of the RCC is that energy flow/balance from the source to the mouth is based on unperturbed stream systems. Statzner and Higler (1985) concluded: The River Continuum Concept (RCC) is a generalized conceptual framework for characterization of pristine running water ecosystems. Of the numerous tenets of the concept, we particularly reevaluated the following: biological analogues of energy equilibrium and entropy in the physical system; maximization of energy consumption through continuous species replacement over a year; absence of succession in stream ecosystems, which can thus be viewed in a time-independent fashion; and maximization of biotic diversity in midreaches of streams as a result of the occurrence of highest environmental variability there together with spatial abundance shifts of insects, mollusks, and crustaceans. When emphasis is placed on rapid changes in the downstream hydraulics dependent on discharge and slope (both of which are expressed by stream order in the RCC and are key factors of the concept) and on results from tropical studies, some of these tenets are partly refuted or need extension. Some of them are in conflict with the current state of knowledge in other domains of stream ecology or are at least open to various interpretations. Therefore, we advocate modifications of the theoretical background of the RCC. The RCC concept is not an applicable concept to be used in determining or predicting energy flow within the Spruce Fork watershed, Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, or the Mountaintop Mining Region. The affected sub-watersheds (i.e., Pigeonroost Branch, Seng Camp Creek, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch) are not pristine or unperturbed stream systems. Similarly, Spruce Fork, the Little Coal River, and the Coal River are subject to anthropogenic disturbances, independent of surface mining, that disrupt energy flow to each successive higher order stream system. Additionally, the RCC (Vannote et al., 1980) is but one of a number of ecological concepts that attempt to model or predict the structure and function of stream systems. Although there may be studies that validate individual tenants of the RCC within a defined stream segment, there are studies that call into question the linear relationship (or impact) that headwater streams have on higher stream orders (e.g., fourth through eighth order). The RCC does not present a comprehensive model for describing the effects. Stream ecologists have tested the RCC framework within a variety of settings and found it lacking and, consequently, numerous other models and concepts have been proposed. Table 3-16 presents a listing of concepts/models along with their applicable spatial scales of reference. This listing has been extracted from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) publication entitled “Guidelines for the Integrated Management of the Watershed: Phytotechnology and Ecohydrology” (UNEP, 2000). The RCC provides an essentially unidirectional (longitudinal) perspective. It does not account for the influence of lateral and vertical interactive pathways, and only somewhat incorporates a temporal pathway. Stream ecology is evolving to allow for more natural processes that are non-deterministic, highly heterogeneous, and scale dependent. Ward et al. (2002a) examined the conceptual foundations of lotic ecology, including the RCC, and how they relate to the current state of knowledge. The result was an integrated framework composed of five (5)
3-102

specific theoretical frameworks: gradient analysis, disturbance, hierarchy, ecotones, and connectivity. Each of these existing theoretical frameworks is represented by different stream ecology models and concepts. The RCC and stream zonation concept are gradient analysis frameworks. The hyporheic corridor concept (Stanford and Ward, 1993) is another gradient analysis framework, but which defines an alternating series of constrained reaches and alluvial floodplain reaches. Whereas the RCC and stream zonation concept are essentially unidirectional perspectives, the hyporheic corridor concept also includes interactive pathways in the lateral and vertical dimensions within alluvial floodplains (Ward et al., 2002b). Several concepts that have developed since the RCC (Vannote et al., 1980) follow a disturbance framework. Notably, the flood pulse concept (Junk et al., 1989) can add both lateral and temporal dimensions to the RCC. Nutrients are regularly exchanged between the river and the floodplain. Cycles and extents of floodplain inundations can override longitudinal patterns along changing stream orders. The ecotone framework is exemplified by the aquatic-terrestrial ecotone concept (Naiman and Dechamps, 1990). Ecotones operate across a broad range of spatial and temporal scales (e.g., lotic-lentic transitions and oxic-anoxic zones in sediment). The hierarchy framework operates along both longitudinal and temporal pathways and is exemplified by the catchment hierarchy concept (Frissel et al., 1986). This framework recognizes that influences on one hierarchical level may or may not operate on another level (Ward et al., 2002a). Although studies have focused in glacial floodplain waterways, the hydrologic connectivity concept (Amoros and Roux, 1988) is another example of incorporating both lateral and temporal perspectives, as well as somewhat longitudinal. As put forth by Statzner and Higler (1986), stream hydraulics are thought to be some of the most important controls on aquatic communities; however, hydrologic modeling does not account for other physical factors such as temperature, or non-physical controls, such as interspecies interactions. Additionally, the RCC is limited when accounting for disturbances. The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) notes a limitation of the RCC is that disturbances can disrupt the connections between the watershed and its streams and the river continuum as well (FISRWG, 2001). Human interferences decrease the predictability of the RCC, rendering it of limited usefulness when predicting results of mining disturbance, especially when the impact would be to streams already impacted by logging and inputs of other allochthonous sources (e.g., roadway runoff, untreated sewage, residential gray water).

3-103

Table 3-16 A Comparison of the Fundamental Concepts in Lotic Ecology Applicable to Freshwater Monitoring and Management at Various Spatial and Temporal Scales
Ecological Concepts Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis River Continuum Concept Nutrient Spiraling Concept Serial Discontinuity Concept Biotic and Abiotic Control Concept Key Thesis Spatial Scale stream, valley References

Disturbance intensity and frequency vs. species diversity Longitudinal gradients; energy input and transfer; maximization of energy utilization through species replacement; longitudinal biodiversity patterns (maximum of species richness in the mid-reaches); Longitudinal nutrient cycling (average distance associated with one complete cycle of a nutrient) Discontinuity through human interference

Connell, 1978.

stream, valley stream, valley stream, valley

Vannote et al., 1980. Newbold et al., 1981. Ward and Stanford, 1983. Zalewski and Naiman, 1985; Power et al., 1988. Statzner and Higler, 1986. Amoros et al. 1987; Petts and Amoros, 1996. Hildrew and Townsend, 1987. Naiman et al., 1988.

Shift in the hierarchy of abiotic factors regulating aquatic communities along a river continuum under different temperature regimes Hydraulic transition zones; physical characteristics of flow (stream hydraulics) as a major determinant of faunistic zonation patterns in pristine streams A scaling of fluvial hydrosystem into (a) the drainage basin,(b) functional sectors, (c) functional sets, (d) functional units, and (e) mesohabitats Predictive trends of species richness and productivity along a gradient of disturbance frequency Transitional zones, with specific physical, chemical, and biological properties, possessing unique interactions with adjacent ecological systems Lateral transfer of substances; flow dynamics (wetlands and forests minimize pulse effects)

stream, valley

Stream Hydraulics Concept Fluvial Hydrosystem Concept DisturbanceProductivity Concept Riparian Ecotones Concept

stream, valley stream, valley stream, valley stream, valley lower stream reaches, valley

Flood Pulse Concept

Junk et al., 1989.

3-104

Ecological Concepts

Key Thesis Ecosystem processes and functions operating at different scales form a nested, interdependent system, where one level influences other levels above and below it Spatial and temporal heterogeneity vs. biodiversity, species competition and disturbances Longitudinal, lateral, vertical, and temporal processes and patterns

Spatial Scale multiple spatial scales multiple spatial scales multiple spatial scales multiple spatial scales

References Allen and Starr, 1982; O’Neil et al., 1989. Pictet and White, 1985; Townsend, 1989. Ward, 1989 Southwood, 1977; Statzner et al., 1994; Townsend and Hildrew, 1994. Zalewski et al., 1997.

Hierarchy Theory

Patch Dynamic Concept Four-Dimensional Nature of Lotic Systems Habitat Template Concept Biological and Ecological Species Traits Concept Ecohydrology Concept

K, r, and A selection within spatial and temporal scales; resistance and resilience of biocommunities; functional diversity Improved buffering capacity of ecosystems against human impacts, ecological engineering and ecosystem biotechnologies as management tools for sustainable water resources use

multiple spatial scales

Source: Table copied from UNEP, 2000.

As discussed above and presented in Table 3-16, there is no unifying model for dynamic river ecosystems, but much work has been conducted since the RCC and with the inclusion of the RCC, toward rectifying theory and observation. A framework for developing such a model is presented in Ward et al. (2002a), and shows the RCC to be but one piece of this holistic concept (Figure 3-3).

3-105

Figure 3-3 Example of an integrated model of dynamic river ecosystems
Source: Ward 2002a.

Energy Flow Analysis A detailed theoretical energy model that encompasses the Spruce Fork watershed, the Little Coal River subbasin, the Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region as a whole was prepared to evaluate the potential cumulative impact of the Applicant’s PA on energy flow downstream of the project area. A detailed discussion of the energy flow analysis conducted, including the development of this model, its application at various scales of cumulative impact analysis, and detailed results are provided in Appendix L, while a general summation of the findings of the analysis is presented within this section along with the results at the various scales of analysis.
3-106

Alternative 3 was utilized in the development of the energy model. It was selected for analysis because the proposed impact area would be larger than the Applicant’s PA and would result in greater impacts to waters of the U.S. than the Applicant’s PA. ARC/INFO, a GIS software program, was utilized to develop the energy model. The GIS database was built from USGS hydrographic data edited to reflect the field surveyed information provided by Mingo Logan, small scale watershed boundaries (the scale of Spruce Fork watershed, a 5th order stream near its confluence with Pond Fork) derived from the WVDEP “Watersheds” GIS data layer, lower order sub-basins were digitized from USGS quadrangles, and topographic data derived from digitizing of USGS quadrangles and the USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED). Representative 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th order streams within the area of high topography to hydrography correlation (in and around the proposed project area) were used to establish an estimate of the total wetted area represented by all streams in the affected sub-watersheds: Spruce Fork watershed, Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region. Slope categories and estimated wetted widths for each stream order were derived (Table 3-17). Derived wetted widths and slopes by stream order were found to be in general agreement with other published information (Table 3-18), however, it is important to note that wetted width is not the same as stream width as measured from bank to bank. Wetted width, for this study is an estimated cross-sectional width that factors in low-flow conditions on a seasonal basis. Table 3-17 Derived Slope Statistics for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Order Stream Segments Within the Spruce Fork Watershed
1st Order Slope 0-10 10-12 12-16 16-20 20-30 +30 Width (ft) 4.00 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.00 1.50 2nd Order Slope 0-5 5-7 7-10 Width (ft) 8.00 6.50 4.50 3rd Order Slope 0-4 4-6 6+ Width (ft) 10.00 8.00 6.00 4th Order Slope 0-1 1-2 +2 Width (ft) 15.00 12.00 9.00 5th Order Slope 0-1 Width (ft) 30.00

3-107

Table 3-18 General Characteristics of Streams Along the River Continuum by Stream Order (after Cummins 1988)
Stream Order Description Width (M) P/R Ratio Light WITH OR WITHOUT CPOM Organic Material* Invertebrate Functional Group Shredders, Collectors, Scrapers Shredders (2550%); Collectors (50-60%); Scrapers (< 10%) Fish

0

Intermittent

0.5-1

Heterotrophic or Autotrophic

Periphyton

None

1-3

Headwater

0.5-8

Heterotrophic

Shading

Riparian CPOM and derived FPOM

Eat Invertebrates

4-6

Mid-Size River

10-50

Autotrophic

Open; Low Sediment Load Heavy Sediment Load

Transported Shredders (<5%); Collectors (50FPOM 75%); Scrapers Periphyton (25-50%) CPOM Transported FPOM Collectors (7590%);

Eat Invertebrates and Other Fish Eat Plankton and Invertebrates

7-12

Large River

75-500

Heterotrophic

The key factors that affect channel morphology are reasonably constant throughout the Coal River basin and Mountaintop Mining Region. These factors, according to Rosgen (1996), include land cover, sediment load, underlying geological structure, climate, and disturbance patterns. The representative distribution (frequencies by slope gradient) of channel gradient by stream order was determined by weighting the slope categories based on their dominance in the sample (Table 3-17). Actual cross-sectional widths of stream segments were correlated to channel gradient using data provided by the USEPA and USGS (USGS Draft Document: Reconnaissance of Stream Geomorphology, Low Stream Flow, and Stream Temperature in Mountaintop Coal Mining Region, Southern WV 1999-2000). The distribution was applied to all streams in the affected sub-watersheds and applied to streams within the Spruce Fork watershed (defined as the headwaters to its confluence with Pond Fork). After deriving wetted perimeter widths and stream lengths, the total acres of stream were calculated by stream order to estimate the amount of primary and secondary carbon production based on grams of carbon (dry weight) per meter square per year (g C/m2/y) for the affected sub-watersheds and the Spruce Fork watershed. Some general trends and conclusions are apparent from the derived data. The Spruce Fork watershed contains 1st through 5th order streams with a cumulative total length of approximately 285 miles of stream. Although first order streams make up approximately fifty-two percent (52%) of the total length of streams within the watershed (Figure 3-4), they are estimated to only contribute twenty-one percent (21%) of the total area (wetted perimeter; Figure 3-4). Likewise, over forty-two percent (42%) of the estimated wetted perimeter within the Spruce Fork watershed is derived from only fourteen percent (14%) of the total stream
3-108

lengths, composed of 4th and 5th order streams. This implies that impacting higher order stream systems (i.e., 4th –5th order) would result in a substantially greater impact on wetted perimeter on a marginal basis, thus, impacting lower order stream systems (i.e., 1st and 2nd order), on a marginal basis, results in less wetted perimeter loss. Lastly, neither the Applicant’s PA nor Alternative 3 would impact any 4th or 5th order stream systems. Based on this analysis, streams within the project area of Alternative 3 (greatest impacts to waters of the U.S. of the alternatives considered) contributes approximately three percent (3%) of the wetted perimeter in the Spruce Fork watershed and forty-five percent (45%) of the four (4) affected sub-basins (note that White Oak Branch would not be directly impacted under the Applicant’s PA.
100

90

80

70 21.24

60

%

50

% Total Stream Area % of Stream Length

40 23.66 30 51.63 20 12.07 10 24.50 9.44 0 1 2 3 Stream Order 4 5 8.87 18.64 24.39

5.55

Figure 3-4 Derived Ratio of Stream Length (By Stream Order) to Total Area for the Spruce Fork Watershed After deriving wetted perimeter widths and total wetted area of streams within Alternative 3’s proposed project area, affected sub-watersheds, and the Spruce Fork watershed, an analysis estimating the amount of primary and secondary carbon production (based on grams of carbon [dry weight] per meter square per year [g C/m2/y]) was undertaken. In order to estimate the amount of carbon conversion on a wetted area basis for watershed scales larger than the Spruce Fork watershed (i.e., Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region), it was necessary to estimate the acreage of stream by stream order frequency for each of the drainage basins.
3-109

The drainage density analysis revealed that the drainage density factor was scale-dependent; thus, headwater watersheds (i.e., 1st and 2nd order stream systems) possess proportionally more stream length than 5th order stream systems (Figure 3-4). The derived drainage density factor for the proposed project area and affected sub-basins was calculated to be 2.18 and 2.28, respectively, only including subwatersheds with 1st through 3rd order stream systems. The drainage density factor was substantially lower (51%) when evaluating the Spruce Fork watershed, which includes 1st through 5th order stream systems. Diminution in the drainage density factor as watershed size increases is consistent with the stream length to stream order frequency relationship summarized in Figure 3-4. In order to estimate the total length of streams by stream order within the Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region, the drainage density factor derived for the Spruce Fork watershed (1.17) was multiplied by the total area for each drainage basin. To estimate the area (acres) of stream by drainage basin, the derived stream lengths were multiplied by the stream order frequencies previously derived. An estimate of primary and secondary macroinvertebrate production was then calculated for Alternative 3’s proposed project area, the affected sub-watersheds, the Spruce Fork watershed, the Little Coal River sub-basin, the Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region based on carbon conversion rates reported by Perry and Golden (2000). Based on the above analysis, it is estimated that streams within Alternative 3’s proposed project area contribute, on an annual basis, approximately 24,626 lbs and 535 lbs of primary and secondary production, respectively, to the Spruce Fork watershed (Table 3-19). Alternative 3’s proposed project area accounts for approximately forty-five percent (45%) of the energy contribution within the affected sub-watersheds (Table 3-19) and 2.74% of the Spruce Fork watershed (Table 3-20). The Alternative 3 proposed project area’s contribution to the Little Coal River sub-basin and the Coal River basin accounts for approximately 0.9% and 0.39% of the energy conversion, respectively (Table 3-21 and Table 3-22). Lastly, streams within Alternative 3’s proposed project area contribute approximately 0.11% of the energy conversion within the Mountaintop Mining Region (Table 3-23). The energy analysis can also be applied to the contribution of energy created by the pond structures at the base of each valley fill. Table 3-24 identifies the location and size of the proposed structures for Alternative 3. Table 3-25 provides a comparison of the estimated energy contribution of the pond structures. Based on the size of the ponds, they would be estimated to contribute or replace over ninety percent (90%) of the primary and secondary energy contribution lost as a result of implementing Alternative 3. As Perry and Golden (2000) noted, primary production is probably higher in lakes and ponds than in streams because of the area open to solar radiation and, if zooplankton are included, it appears that lakes also have higher invertebrate production than rivers and streams. Based on the above assessment and studies cited (Perry and Golden, 2000; Neely and Wetzel, 1995; Wohl et al., 1995; Borgman and Whittle, 1994; Griffith et al., 1994; Kirk and Perry, 1994; Griffith et al., 1993; Wen, 1992; Fuller and Bucher, 1991; Rosenfield and Roff, 1991; Lugthart et al., 1990; Huryn and Wallace, 1987; Perry et al., 1986; Mullen and Moring, 1988; Georgian and Wallace, 1984; O'Hop et al., 1984; Krueger and Waters, 1983; Wetzel, 1983; Waters and Hokenstrom, 1980; Petersen and Cummins, 1974; Fisher and Likens, 1973; Cummins and Wuycheck, 1971), it is anticipated that the cumulative loss of energy (Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6) as a result of implementing Alternative 3 on the affected sub-watersheds would not result in a measurable indirect or cumulative impact on carbon conversion or downstream energy contribution within the Spruce Fork watershed, Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, or the Mountaintop Mining Region.
3-110

As the cumulative loss of energy under Alternative 3 would not be anticipated to result in a measurable indirect or cumulative impact on carbon conversion or downstream energy contribution within the Spruce Fork watershed, Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, or the Mountaintop Mining Region, the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, which involves lesser impacts to waters of the U.S. and overall land disturbance area, would also not be anticipated to result in a measurable indirect or cumulative impact on carbon conversion or downstream energy contribution within these watersheds.

3-111

Table 3-19 Summary of Percent Contribution of Energy for the Affected Sub-watersheds Attributed to Alternative 3’s Proposed Project Area**
*Primary Production Unit Proposed Project Area Affected Subwatersheds Estimated Acres % of Acres 6.46 45.28% *Secondary Production lbs/year 535.07 1.17 g C/(dry wt)/m2/d Sub-basin 9.279 g C (dry Square Feet Square Meters Converted to Years lbs/year wt)/m2/yr 281,546.24 26,156.49 11,170,129.16 33,886.91 242,706.07

14.28

621,838.75

57,770.69

24,670,971.20

54,390.12

536,054.19

1,181.80

*Based on values reported by Perry and Golden, 2000. ** Alternative 3 is presented here for comparison to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, which would have a smaller project area, less impacts to waters of the U.S., and no direct impact to White Oak Branch.

Table 3-20 Summary of Percent Contribution of Energy for the Spruce Fork Watershed Attributed to Alternative 3’s Proposed Project Area** and the Affected Sub-watersheds
*Primary Production Unit Proposed Project Area Affected Subwatersheds Spruce Fork Watershed Estimated Acres % of Acres 6.46 2.74% *Secondary Production lbs/year 535.07 1.17 g C/(dry wt)/m2/d Sub-basin 9.279 g C (dry Square Feet Square Meters Converted to Years lbs/year wt)/m2/yr 281,546.24 26,156.49 11,170,129.16 24,625.89 242,706.07

3-112

14.28

6.05%

621,838.75

57,770.69

24,670,971.20

54,390.12

536,054.19

1,181.80

236.08

10,283,644.80

955,381.45

407,995,649.44

899,475.37

8,864,984.50

19,543.92

*Based on values reported by Perry and Golden, 2000. ** Alternative 3 is presented here for comparison to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, which would have a smaller project area, less impacts to waters of the U.S., and no direct impact to White Oak Branch.

Table 3-21 Summary of Percent Contribution of Energy for the Little Coal River Sub-basin Attributed to Alternative 3’s Proposed Project Area**, Affected Sub-watersheds, and the Spruce Fork Watershed
*Primary Production Unit Proposed Project Area Affected Subwatersheds Spruce Fork Watershed Little Coal River Sub-basin 3-113 Estimated Acres 6.46 % of Acres 0.90% Square Feet 281,546.24 1.17 g C/(dry wt)/m2/d Square Meters Converted to Years 26,156.49 11,170,129.16 Sub-basin lbs/year 24,625.89 *Secondary Production 9.279 g C (dry wt)/m2/yr 242,706.07 lbs C/year 535.07

14.28

1.99%

621,838.75

57,770.69

24,670,971.20

54,390.12

536,054.19

1,181.80

236.08

32.91%

10,283,644.80

955,381.45 2,903,332.36

407,995,649.44

899,475.37

8,864,984.50 19,543.92

717.43

31,251,222.92

1,239,868,085.45

2,733,437.98

26,940,020.99 59,392.51

*Based on values reported by Perry and Golden, 2000. ** Alternative 3 is presented here for comparison to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, which would have a smaller project area, less impacts to waters of the U.S., and no direct impact to White Oak Branch.

Table 3-22 Summary of Percent Contribution of Energy Within the Coal River Basin Attributed to Alternative 3’s Proposed Project Area**, Affected Sub-watersheds, Spruce Fork Watershed, and the Little Coal River Sub-basin
*Primary Production Unit Proposed Project Area Affected Basins Spruce Fork Little Coal River Sub-basin 3-114 Estimated % of Acres Acres 6.46 14.28 236.08 0.39% 0.85% Square Feet Square Meters 1.17 g C/(dry wt)/m2/d Sub-basin lbs Converted to Years C/year 11,170,129.16 24,670,971.20 407,995,649.44 24,625.89 54,390.12 899,475.37 *Secondary Production 9.279 g C (dry wt)/m2/yr 242,706.07 536,054.19 8,864,984.50 lbs C/year

281,546.24 621,838.75

26,156.49 57,770.69 955,381.45

535.07 1,181.80 19,543.92

14.14% 10,283,644.80

717.43

42.96% 31,251,222.92 72,747,745.91

2,903,332.36 6,758,483.84

1,239,868,085.45 2,886,210,523.02

2,733,437.98 6,362,997.44

26,940,020.99

59,392.51

Coal River Basin 1,670.06

62,711,971.53 138,256.07

*Based on values reported by Perry and Golden, 2000. ** Alternative 3 is presented here for comparison to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, which would have a smaller project area, less impacts to waters of the U.S., and no direct impact to White Oak Branch.

Table 3-23 Summary of Percent Contribution of Energy within the Mountaintop Mining Region Attributed to Alternative 3’s Proposed Project Area**, Affected Sub-watersheds, Spruce Fork Watershed, Little Coal River Sub-basin, and the Coal River Basin
*Primary Production Unit Proposed Project Area** Affected Basins Spruce Fork Little Coal River Sub-basin Coal River Basin Mountaintop Mining Region Estimated Acres 6.46 14.28 236.08 % of Acres 0.11% 0.25% 4.16% Square Feet 281,546.24 621,838.75 10,283,644.80 1.17 g C/(dry wt)/m2/d Square Meters Converted to Years 26,156.49 57,770.69 955,381.45 11,170,129.16 24,670,971.20 407,995,649.44 Sub-basin lbs C/year 24,625.89 54,390.12 899,475.37 *Secondary Production 9.279 g C (dry wt)/m2/yr 242,706.07 536,054.19 8,864,984.50 lbs C/year 535.07 1,181.80 19,543.92

717.43 1,670.06

12.64% 29.42%

31,251,222.92 72,747,745.91

2,903,332.36 6,758,483.84

1,239,868,085.45 2,886,210,523.02

2,733,437.98 6,362,997.44

26,940,020.99 62,711,971.53

59,392.51 138,256.07

3-115

5,675.69

247,233,180.22 22,968,704.14

9,808,785,103.68

21,624,643.82

213,126,605.73

469,863.18

*Based on values reported by Perry and Golden, 2000. ** Alternative 3 is presented here for comparison to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, which would have a smaller project area, less impacts to waters of the U.S., and no direct impact to White Oak Branch.

Table 3-24 Proposed Pond Sizes and Stream Valley Locations under Alternative 3*
Valley Fill Pond 1 2 3 4 5 Stream Valley Right Fork Seng Camp Pigeonroost Branch 1st Unnamed Right Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch Oldhouse Branch White Oak Branch Total Acres Pond (acres) 1.07 1.85 0.24 1.17 1.52 5.85

* Alternative 3 is presented here for comparison to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, which would have a smaller project area, less impacts to waters of the U.S., and no direct impact to White Oak Branch.

3-116 Unit Proposed Ponds Affected Subwatersheds

Table 3-25 Comparison of Estimated Energy Contribution of Temporary Ponds for Alternative 3’s Proposed Project Area** and Affected Sub-watersheds
*Primary Production 1.17 g C (dry wt)/ m2/d Converted to Years % of Acres Square Feet Square Meters 90.56% 254,826.00 281,397.60 23,674.10 26,142.68 10,110,024.35 11,164,232.02 *Secondary Production 9.279 g C (dry wt) m2/yr 219,671.97 242,577.94

Acres 5.85 6.46

lbs C/year 33,886.91 24,612.89

lbs/year 484.29 534.79

*Based on values reported by Perry and Golden, 2000. ** Alternative 3 is presented here for comparison to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, which would have a smaller project area, less impacts to waters of the U.S., and no direct impact to White Oak Branch.

Figure 3-5 Estimated Primary Carbon Contribution – Spruce Fork Watershed

Figure 3-6 Estimated Secondary Carbon Contribution – Spruce Fork Watershed

3-117

3.2.4.4

Monitoring and Mitigation Measures

Surface and groundwater monitoring would be required to be conducted at the NPDES outfalls and at instream monitoring points upstream and downstream of the project area throughout the life of the project and through final bond release. In addition, benthic sampling in the receiving streams would be conducted during mining and after reclamation. Measures proposed in the approved WVDEP permit would be anticipated to protect the streams downstream of the proposed project area. 3.2.4.5 Residual Adverse Effects No residual impacts would be anticipated with the exception of increases in baseflows and decreases in peak flows in the stream segments immediately below the proposed valley fills. 3.2.5 3.2.5.1 WATERS OF THE U.S. INCLUDING WETLANDS Affected Environment

Field surveys were conducted in March, June, July, August, and October 2000 to identify waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the project area (Decota Consulting Company, 2000, and Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker), 2001, respectively); identified waters of the U.S. including wetlands are shown in Exhibit 3-17. Prior to conducting wetland delineation activities in the field, Baker reviewed NRCS soil survey information, USGS topographic maps, aerial photography, and USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping to identify the general locations of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Wetland delineations were conducted according to the methodology described in the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE Manual) (Environmental Laboratories, 1987). Wetlands were classified in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979) with reference to the USFWS’ 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands. The study area for waters of the U.S., including wetlands, encompasses the proposed disturbance area of the Spruce No. 1 Mine (direct impacts), which would be limited to within the project boundaries, and the area of potential effect, which extends outside of the project boundaries to the waters just downstream within the watersheds in which the proposed project would be located (indirect impacts), and the potential cumulative impact area, including the Spruce Fork watershed, Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region. Waters of the U.S. identified in the project area varies between the two practicable alternatives, as the project boundaries vary between the two practicable alternatives. Wetlands in the project area and in the affected watersheds outside the project area were the same under both practicable alternatives; however, the stream lengths encompassed within the project area were distinctively different for each alternative. The watersheds at least partially encompassed within the project boundaries include the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch of Spruce Fork; although the Applicant’s PA encompasses a portion of the White Oak Branch watershed, it does not include any waters of the U.S. within this watershed, while under Alternative 3, portions of White Oak Branch itself would be directly impacted. The general locations of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, which occur outside of the proposed disturbance area, but within the Spruce Fork watershed, in the immediate vicinity of the project area were identified based on National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps developed by the USFWS. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, identified on these maps have not been field verified. These wetlands identified in the NWI are small areas along Spruce Fork and some of its tributaries, not encompassed within the project area, most of which in actuality are not wetlands, but are drainage control structures (ponds and/or ditches) associated with previous or currently active mining.
3-118

The USACE has determined that the Applicant’s delineation of the limits of waters of the U.S. within the project site associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine to be accurate and consistent with a jurisdictional determination (JD) conducted by Decota Consulting Company, Inc. (2000). Based on a review of the JD report submitted and subsequently verified by the USACE, approximately 43,946 to 57,755 linear feet of waters of the U.S. (i.e., ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams) totaling approximately 8.8323 to 12.84 acres, respectively, under the two practicable alternatives (Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3) are located within the project area (2,278 acres for the Applicant’s PA and 2,914 acres for Alternative 3). Additionally, a 0.12-acre wetland is located within the project area of both practicable alternatives. The unnamed tributaries and mainstems of the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch flow into Spruce Fork of the Little Coal River of the Coal River, which flows into the Kanawha River, a navigable (Section 10) water of the U.S. Only a small segment of one stream within the project area (approximately 825 linear feet/0.1887 acre near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch) is classified as perennial and would only be temporarily impacted by the proposed project; all other streams within the project area, under either practicable alternative, are classified as either intermittent or ephemeral. The predominant surface water resources within the proposed project area are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order headwater stream systems (based on Hynes, 1970). The proposed project would directly impact 1st through 3rd order stream systems (Exhibit 3-15). The only impacts to 3rd order stream segments would be temporary impacts along Pigeonroost Branch (below Valley Fill Nos. 2A and 2B). Detailed descriptions of these streams are provided in Section 3.2.4, Surface Waters. Additionally, there is approximately 0.12 acre of wetland located within the proposed project area (Wetland 2), under both practicable alternatives, which would be directly impacted (Baker, 2001). Wetland reconnaissance encompassed the entirety of the White Oak Branch, Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, and Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek valleys, including areas outside the project boundaries, and identified one (1) wetland area within the area of potential indirect effect (see Appendix F). This wetland was an approximately 0.06-acre wetland located in the Oldhouse Branch watershed approximately 725 feet upstream of the confluence with Spruce Fork on a previously constructed mine bench (Wetland 1). Within the area of potential indirect impact for both alternatives and within one (1) of the directly affected watersheds just outside the project area, a highly disturbed, isolated, 0.06-acre wetland was identified and classified as palustrine emergent (PEM) and palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetland associated with a previously created mine bench. Review of USGS topographic maps indicate that within the portion of the study area located outside of the proposed project disturbance area, there are approximately 3,950 linear feet of waters of the U.S. Field surveys of this area were limited by lack of access. Based on limited field observations, this portion of the study area outside of the project boundaries was estimated to contain approximately 0.91 acre of waters of the U.S. As a result, a total of approximately 47,896 to 61,705 linear feet of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial stream channel qualifying as waters of the U.S. and totaling approximately 9.74 to 13.75 acres are estimated to occur within the study area under the Alternative 3 and Applicant’s PA and, respectively (Exhibit 3-17). The 0.12-acre wetland (Wetland 2) observed within the project area was classified as palustrine emergent (PEM; 0.04-acre) and palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB; 0.08-acre) wetland associated with a manmade, abandoned farm pond that was utilized for various farm-related activities located in the Pigeonroost Branch valley bottom adjacent to the stream (Baker, 2001). Dominant herbaceous species observed within these wetlands included cattails (Typha latifolia), joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium purpureum), rice cut-grass
3-119

(Leersia oryzoides), and soft rush (Juncus effusus). A few black willow (Salix nigra) shrubs were identified interspersed throughout the wetland. Wetland soils are primarily considered sandy and exhibited distinctive hydric characteristics (e.g., mottling) (Baker, 2001). Wetland vegetation is discussed further in Section 3.4.1.1, Vegetation Types. The dominant functionality observed within the two (2) delineated wetlands is summarized in Table 3-26. Wetland 1, which would not be impacted by the proposed project, was found to provide four (4) principal functions, including production export, wildlife habitat, sediment/toxicant retention, and nutrient removal. The primary function of Wetland 1 is wildlife habitat. Wetland 2 was found to provide seven (7) principal functions, including groundwater recharge/discharge, floodflow alteration, fish and shellfish habitat, wildlife habitat, sediment/toxicant retention, recreation, and nutrient removal (Table 3-26). The primary functions are wildlife habitat, floodflow alteration, and groundwater recharge/discharge. None of the wetlands were determined to provide any special values to society based on the assessment model. This can be attributed to their physical location (i.e., area inaccessible to the public), limited size, degree of disturbance, and lack of educational/scientific value, uniqueness/heritage, visual quality/aesthetics, and endangered species habitat. Neither Wetland 1 nor Wetland 2 is connected to water bodies that are hydrologically connected to other palustrine wetlands within the Pigeonroost Branch or Oldhouse Branch watersheds or the regional Spruce Fork watershed. The data presented is necessary to determine the goals to be met for an approved mitigation plan. The mitigation plan has been developed in consultation with the resource and regulatory agencies. In-kind replacement of functions and values would be performed in compliance with Section 404 guidelines. In-kind mitigation “reflects hydrological, structural, and functional equivalency of the lost wetland community” (USEPA, 1994). Table 3-26 Wetland Function Suitability
Function/Value Groundwater Recharge/Discharge Floodflow Alteration Fish and Shellfish Habitat Sediment/Toxicant Retention Nutrient Removal Production Export Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization Wildlife Habitat Recreation Educational/Scientific Value Uniqueness/Heritage Visual Quality/Aesthetics Endangered Species Habitat*** Suitability Wetland 1 No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Wetland 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No

***The absence of threatened and endangered species was obtained from previous agency coordination.

3-120

Riparian woodlands within the project area are located along the edges of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. These riparian corridors are characterized by a dense overstory canopy and a well developed understory consisting of a variety of shrub and herbaceous species. These riparian woodlands did not meet the requirements for waters of the U.S. An additional description of riparian woodlands is provided in Section 3.4.1.1, Vegetation Types. The cumulative effects area for waters of the U.S., including wetlands, includes the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine disturbance area; the area of potential effect immediately downstream of the project area; and the Spruce Fork watershed. (Exhibit 3-17). Wetlands within the cumulative effects area were identified using NWI maps, aerial photography, and field survey data, where available. Review of the NWI maps and aerial imagery indicates the presence of numerous drainage control structures (ponds and ditches) in the region, as are known in relation to the Dal-Tex Complex and other previous and currently active mining operations in the Spruce Fork watershed. The isolated drainage control structures (ponds and ditches) generally are not classified as functional wetlands, but as open waters which, due to their intended function are of little ecological value. Most of these ponds had limited vegetation around their perimeters, while a few had substantial stands of hydrophytic vegetation. Any truly functional wetlands occurring within the cumulative effects area are small, isolated emergent wetlands. Wetland development in the region is limited by topography. It is assumed that the conditions within wetlands of the Spruce Fork watershed are similar to the conditions identified in the wetlands delineated within the project area and its affected watersheds just outside the project area. Ephemeral and intermittent channels also occur within the cumulative effects area. Due to the lack of access, field verification of NWI mapped waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the cumulative effects area could not be performed (other than within the project area and immediate vicinity). However, as the majority of channels in the region are intermittent or ephemeral, the streams are likely to be waters of the U.S. similar to those in the proposed project area. 3.2.5.2 Environmental Consequences

Unavoidable permanent and temporary impacts to waters of the U.S., which have been minimized through the AOC/Fill Optimization Process, have been quantified with respect to both length and acreage for both Alternative 3 and the Applicant’s PA, as discussed below. Direct impacts to waters of the U.S. would be mitigated as per USACE requirements. Under current regulations, the USACE requires permittees to perform compensatory mitigation to replace aquatic resource functions unavoidably lost or adversely affected by authorized activities. The USACE has traditionally used acreage as the standard measure for determining impacts and required mitigation, but in recent years has encouraged reliance on functional assessment of the aquatic resources impacted to determine the mitigation required to offset the functional loss. There are several methods currently being employed, which merge the concepts of acreage-based and functional-based mitigation. As detailed in the December 24, 2002 Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 02-2), mitigation may be in-kind or out-of-kind and may consist of establishment, restoration, enhancement, and/or preservation of aquatic resources and their riparian corridors. The guidance specifies that mitigation should, when practicable, be in-kind and be performed within areas adjacent (on-site) or contiguous to those impacted, i.e. within the same streams or watersheds as the impacts would occur. Compensatory mitigation plans must incorporate a monitoring and contingency plan as methods of ensuring the mitigation is provided to adequately offset functional loss within the aquatic system.

3-121

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Physical Disturbance, Removal, and Replacement of Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands A total of 0.12 acre of wetlands (Wetland 2), which are waters of the U.S., occur within the project area, all of which would be directly impacted as a result of the proposed project. No direct or indirect impacts to the 0.06-acre wetland located outside the project area (Wetland 1) would be anticipated to result from the proposed project activities. The direct impacts to the 0.12 acre would occur as a result of construction of temporary drainage control structures (Pond Nos. 2A and 2B) and development of ancillary facilities, including office and warehouse buildings and parking lots. The loss of 0.12 acre of wetlands during mining operations would result in the loss of functions associated with the wetland including wildlife habitat, floodflow alteration, and groundwater recharge/discharge (e.g., runoff and sediment retention), which due to its minimal size would not be expected to result in any adverse effects to the hydrologic regime. This loss would be mitigated by creation of 0.48 acre of additional wetlands in the reclaimed project area concurrent with reclamation, thereby constituting replacement of wetlands at a 4:1 ratio (mitigated:impacted). A total of 8.8323 acres and 43,946 linear feet of waters of the U.S., including 825 linear feet (0.1887 acre) of perennial stream channel, 32,491 linear feet (6.8131 acres) of intermittent stream channel, 10,630 linear feet (1.8305 acres) of ephemeral stream channel, and 0.12 acre of PEM/PUB wetland would be directly impacted during the mine operation. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands that would be affected within the project area, are shown in Exhibit 3-18 and summarized in Table 3-27. Of these impacts, only 36,814 linear feet (7.6041 acres) of intermittent and ephemeral stream and 0.12 acre of wetland would be permanently impacted through construction of valley fills and mining through of upper segments. The remaining 7,132 linear feet (1.2282 acres) of perennial and intermittent stream would only be temporarily impacted by construction of drainage control structures (ponds) and associated flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, erosion protection zones (EPZs), and ancillary facilities, as these segments would be restored to their approximate original configuration and enhanced during reclamation of the project area and completion of the proposed mitigation plan. These impacts would be minimized through implementation of the proposed reclamation plan that would be initiated following backfill of the initial mine pit and would continue concurrent with mine operations.

3-122

Table 3-27 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative
Valley Fill Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Valley Fill # Location Valley Fill Deck Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Ponds/ Temporary** Permanent* Total Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe At Outlet Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary --Total 0.6055 0.0700

VF1A 1st Unnamed Right Tributary of the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek VF1B Unnamed Right Tributary of the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek 2nd VF2A and VF2B Pigeonroost Branch and its 3rd Unnamed Right Tributary 1st VF3 Unnamed Right Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch VF 4 Oldhouse Branch Total

Upper Stockton

11.82

3,400

--

3,400

164.13

542.73

0.6055

Upper Stockton

1.53

750

--

750

55.67

542.73

0.0700

Upper Stockton

39.30 13.85

19,294 5,952 25,246

475.84 1167.50*** 3.8344 0.9464 4.7808 296.05

Upper Stockton

3.43

2,080

355

2,435

131.34

143.60

0.4770 0.0931 0.5701

Upper Stockton

40.07 110.00

11,290

825

12,115 526.03 --

591.70 --

2.6172 0.1887 2.8059 7.6041 1.2282 8.8323

36,814 7,132 43,946

*Permanent impact includes waters of the U.S. lengths/acreages from the toe of the fill up to the end of waters of the U.S. and mined through areas. ** Temporary impacts include waters of the U.S. lengths/acreages from the toe of the fill to the outlet of the farthest downstream pond, including the erosion protection zones (EPZs), ancillary facility construction area, and ponds. **The contributing drainage area provided is for the furthest downstream structure, which is Pond 2.

3-123

Mingo Logan, with guidance from the USACE, has prepared a mitigation plan (Appendix I) for the Applicant’s PA that would restore or replace surface waters impacted by the proposed mining activities, including mineral removal and the construction of valley fills, erosion protection zones, and drainage control structures. The mitigation plan was prepared in accordance with the December 24, 2002 USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter. This plan identifies the mitigation sites and measures to be utilized to compensate for the quality and function of habitat lost, and not just the quantity impacted by the Applicant’s PA. The primary purpose of the mitigation plan would be to offset the loss of aquatic resources permanently and temporarily impacted by the proposed activities in waters of the U.S. while providing compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio for channelized waters of the U.S. and at a 4:1 ratio for wetlands. The proposed mitigation for channelized waters of the U.S. would result in the establishment/restoration/enhancement of 44,765 linear feet (21.38 acres) thereby providing mitigation at a greater than 1:1 ratio. As discussed in Section 2.5.3.6, Restoration of Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands, and as contained in Mingo Logan's Compensatory Mitigation Plan (Appendix I), the goal of the mitigation plan for wetlands, riparian zones, and stream channels would be to create features of similar nature and function to those existing prior to mining, but enhance them as appropriate for the hydrogeomorphic setting. As such, the direct loss of aquatic habitat and associated functions and values within the project area would be replaced through the mitigation plan activities to ensure that the Applicant’s PA does not create an adverse indirect or cumulative impact on waters of the U.S. downstream of the Applicant’s PA within the Spruce Fork watershed. Mingo Logan’s mitigation of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, would involve a combination of on-site restoration of waters of the U.S. temporarily impacted by construction of drainage control structures (ponds), including flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, erosion protection zones (EPZs), and ancillary facilities (office and warehouse); on-site establishment of waters of the U.S., both wetland and stream, on the reclaimed project area; and off-site enhancement of waters of the U.S. in segments of Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek which would be protected by restrictive covenants. On-site mitigation activities would be performed during or after final reclamation of the project area, while off-site mitigation would be performed prior to or concurrent with impacts to minimize temporal loss. Mitigation of waters of the U.S. will include restoration and/or enhancement of a 50-foot riparian corridor along these water resources. Water Quantity and Quality Impacts The activities associated with the proposed project under the Applicant’s PA and their associated effects upon water quantity and quality would be the same as those described for surface water resources under Section 3.2.4.2, Environmental Consequences, Applicant’s PA (Spruce No. 1 Mine, IBR 2). The filling of channelized waters of the U.S. would reduce the available flow pathways for runoff water. However, the implementation of the proposed drainage control system, including the construction of instream drainage control structures (ponds), flow attenuation and erosion control structures, and diversion channels, would likely provide comparable or greater storm water management and sediment removal capacities than the affected waters of the U.S, as verified in the SWROA prepared for the proposed project. In addition, Mingo Logan's commitment to reclamation and mitigation for the direct impacts to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and wetlands that were determined to be
3-124

waters of the U.S. would further enhance conveyance of runoff and sediment retention, within the proposed project area (temporarily impacted stream segments and wetland mitigation), within the receiving watersheds downstream of the project area, including Spruce Fork, and in the watersheds containing off-site mitigation (Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek). The net increase in wetlands following reclamation/mitigation would provide for additional capture of runoff and increased storm water and sediment retention within the project area and its immediate receiving watersheds. Alternative 3 Physical Disturbance, Removal, and Replacement of Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands Direct impacts from removal of surface water features would be similar to the Applicant’s PA with the exception of an additional 13,809 feet/4.01 acres of intermittent stream impacts. Under Alternative 3, permanent impacts would increase by 17,701feet/3.02 acres, while temporary impacts would decrease by 3,892 feet/ 0.99 acre compared to the Applicant’s PA. A total of 0.12 acre of wetlands (Wetland 2), which are waters of the U.S., occur within the project area of Alternative 3, all of which would be directly impacted as a result of the proposed project. No direct or indirect impacts to the 0.06-acre wetland located outside the project area (Wetland 1) are anticipated to result from the activities as proposed under Alternative 3. The direct impacts to the 0.12 acre of wetland would occur as a result of construction of Valley Fill 2. The loss of 0.12 acre of wetlands during mining operations would result in the loss of functions associated with the wetland including wildlife habitat, floodflow alteration, and groundwater recharge/discharge (e.g., runoff and sediment retention), which due to its minimal size would not be anticipated to results in any adverse effects to the hydrologic regime. This loss would likely be mitigated by creation of 0.48 acre of additional wetlands in the reclaimed project area concurrent with reclamation of the disturbed area, as proposed in the CMP for the Applicant’s PA. A total of 57,755 linear feet 12:16 acres of waters of the U.S., including 825 linear feet (0.19 acre) of perennial stream channel, 46,300 linear feet (10.82 acres) of intermittent stream channels, 10,630 linear feet (1.83 acres) of ephemeral stream channels, and 0.12 acre of PEM/PUB wetland would be directly impacted during the mine operation. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands that would be affected within the project area, are summarized in Table 3-28. Of these impacts, only 54,515 linear feet (11.85 acres) of intermittent and ephemeral stream and 0.12 acre of wetland would be permanently impacted. The remaining 3,240 linear feet (0.99 acre) of perennial and intermittent stream would only be temporarily impacted, as these segments would be restored to their approximate original configuration and enhanced during reclamation of the project area and completion of mitigation. These impacts would be minimized through implementation of the proposed reclamation plan that would be initiated following backfill of the initial mine pit and would continue concurrent with mine operations.

3-125

Table 3-28 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. for Alternative 3
Valley Fill Valley Fill Deck Fill Volume (Million Yrd3) Valley Fill # Location Waters of the U.S. Affected (Feet) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary Total Drainage Area (Acres) At Fill Toe At Outlet Waters of the U.S. Affected (Acres) Permanent* Ponds/ Temporary -0.34 0.22 0.28 0.15
0.99

VF1 Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek VF2 Pigeonroost Branch VF3 Unnamed Right Tributary of Pigeonroost Branch 1st VF4 Oldhouse Branch VF5 White Oak Branch
Totals

Coalburg

21.21

7,300

--

7,300

491.20

527.10

1.48

1.49

Coalburg

84.61

25,852

1,130

26,982

1,099.90

1,167.50

4.92

5.26

Coalburg

4.21

1,970

510

2,480

118.00

143.60

0.45

0.67

Coalburg

38.33

11,200

1,000

12,200

529.10

591.70

2.57

2.85

Coalburg

31.57
179.94

8,193
54,515

600
3,240

8,793
57,755

665.40 --

678.20 --

2.42
11.85

2.57
12.84

*Permanent impact includes water or the U.S. lengths/acres from the toe of the fill up to the end of waters of the U.S. and mined through areas.

As under the Applicant’s PA, Mingo Logan would be required to provide mitigation for the temporary and permanent impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, resulting from the activities proposed under Alternative 3. Mitigation would be similar to the mitigation measures proposed in the current CMP for the Mingo Logan’s PA (Appendix I); however, under Alternative 3, additional mitigation would be required to offset the greater impacts. Water Quantity and Quality Impacts The activities associated with the proposed project under Alternative 3 and their associated effects upon water quantity and quality would be the same as those described for surface water resources under Section 3.2.4.2, Environmental Consequences, Alternative 3 and similar to those discussed under the Applicant’s PA in this section. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Spruce No. 1 Mine would not be developed. As a result, impacts to quantity and quality of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, resulting from the proposed Spruce No. 1
3-126

Total

Mine, as described above, would not occur. The existing features, flow regimes, and water quality characteristics would remain in their existing conditions. Annual and seasonal changes in water level, flow, and water quality characteristics would continue as they have in the past. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include ongoing oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances. 3.2.5.3 Cumulative Impacts to Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Physical Disturbance, Removal, and Replacement of Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands The existing Dal-Tex Complex, as well as many other mining operations within the Spruce Fork watershed, have directly, indirectly, and cumulatively affected waters of the U.S., possibly including wetlands, as a result of mine development and construction of ancillary facilities. The extent of impacts to waters of the U.S. within the Spruce Fork watershed as a whole cannot be quantified, as many of these mining activities occurred prior to implementation of SMCRA and, therefore, impacts were not determined or reported to regulatory agencies. Therefore, consideration of cumulative impacts is related to the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project and any other future projects which could potentially contribute to the cumulative affect of the various activities occurring in the watershed. Reasonably foreseeable future projects within the Spruce Fork watershed include the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines. These projects would involve direct and potential indirect impacts to waters of the U.S.; however, these impacts, like those resulting from the proposed project, would require mitigation to ensure no overall loss of waters of the U.S. Although it is difficult to quantify the number and extent of impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, in the region, it is assumed that a net cumulative gain of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, would occur as a result of these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions including the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine. This gain is mainly attributed to the inadvertent creation of intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands within the drainage control structures upon reclaimed mine areas, constructed in accordance with the required erosion and sediment control plans, and along mine benches due to discharges within prelaw mined areas. These occurrences have substantially increased the acreage of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, in the cumulative effects area. This net gain, however, occurs in the context of overall impacts associated with changes in the natural dynamics of these watersheds. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to wetlands within the Spruce Fork watershed expected due to their minimal occurrence, lack of hydrologic connection to larger surface water systems, and mitigation requirements associated with both the USACE and WVDEP permits required for the proposed project and any other similar activities. In addition, the proposed mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. occurring in association with the Spruce No. 1 Mine would result in the establishment/restoration/enhancement of 44,765 linear feet (21.38 acres) of stream, thereby providing mitigation at a greater than 1:1 ratio, and establishment of 0.48 acre of wetland, thereby providing 4:1 acreage replacement, resulting in an overall functional gain in waters of the U.S. within the region.

3-127

As described, the cumulative affect upon waters of the U.S. with the inclusion of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, as proposed under the Applicant’s PA and with consideration given to mitigation measures, would be anticipated result in an overall gain in quality and quantity of waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Water Quantity and Quality Impacts The activities associated with the proposed project under the Applicant’s PA and their associated effects upon water quantity and quality, in relation to cumulative affects within the region, would be the same as those described for surface water resources under Section 3.2.4.3, Cumulative Surface Water Impacts, Applicant’s PA (Spruce No. 1 Mine, IBR 2). Alternative 3 Physical Disturbance, Removal, and Replacement of Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands Under this scenario, direct impacts to waters of the U.S. would be similar to the surface disturbance discussed for the Applicant’s PA. In addition, mitigation to offset impacts to waters of the U.S. would still be required for the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects within the watershed to ensure no cumulative impact. As with the Applicant’s PA, the cumulative affect upon waters of the U.S. with the inclusion of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, as proposed under Alternative 3 and with consideration given to mitigation measures that would be required, would be anticipated to be an overall gain in quality and quantity of waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Water Quantity and Quality Impacts The activities associated with the proposed project under Alternative 3 and their associated effects upon water quantity and quality, in relation to cumulative affects within the region, would be the same as those described for surface water resources under Section 3.2.4.3, Cumulative Surface Water Impacts, Alternative 3 and similar to those discussed under the Applicant’s PA in this section. No Action Alternative Physical Disturbance, Removal, and Replacement of Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands Under this scenario, direct impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, would not include the development of the proposed project and, therefore potential impacts would be limited to future surface disturbing activities. Reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Spruce Fork watershed (pending WVDEP and/or USACE permit approval) include the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines. Direct impacts resulting from these reasonably foreseeable future projects and any other future projects, in accordance with current regulations, would be required to be mitigated under both WVDEP and USACE permit requirements. Direct impacts and offsetting beneficial effects of potential mitigation associated with these facilities would not be anticipated to result in cumulative impacts. Water Quantity Impacts The No Action Alternative would not include the development of the proposed project and, therefore, the related potential impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) associated with the proposed project would not occur. Water quantity and quality impacts could still result from other future activities, including the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines, although effects on waters of the U.S., including wetlands, resulting from such similar activities would be expected to be similar to those described above for the proposed project.
3-128

3.2.5.4

Monitoring and Mitigation Measures

Mingo Logan’s Mitigation Plan (Appendix I) currently is being reviewed by the USACE. Additional monitoring and mitigation measures may be considered for waters of the U.S. pending the outcome of this review. 3.2.5.5 Residual Adverse Effects

No residual adverse effects to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been identified. 3.3 SOILS Soils issues include the potential disturbance and alteration of native soil profiles and structure, increased soil erosion and compaction and the loss of soil productivity. 3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The study area for soils includes the project area. The cumulative effects area is the same as the study area with the addition of surface disturbance associated with the inter-related actions (see Section 2.6). Regionally soils are predominantly colluvial in nature. 3.3.1.1 Native Soils Soils in the region are typically very thin with overall depths to bedrock being shallow (twenty [20] to forty [40] inches) and topsoil layers being only zero (0) to three (3) inches thick. The native topsoil of the proposed project area has been classified as Clymer-Dekalb complex, characterized by its stoniness, loamy texture, and occurrence on steep slopes of the region. This characterization is based on EPA Manual Nos. 600/278-054 and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Section I (Attachment I-13) of the Applicant’s approved WVDEP Permit S-5013-97 contains a response from a soil scientist confirming this soil classification. This soil is associated with wooded areas, wildlife habitat, and recreation. 3.3.1.2 Prime Farmlands and Prime Farmland Soils Prime farmland soil is defined by the NRCS as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and also is available for these uses (NRCS, 2000). Prime farmland has the soil quality that, in combination with the regional growing season and moisture supply, can produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water management. Prime farmland soils are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding. In addition, prime farmlands in West Virginia are considered to form on a maximum ten percent (10%) slope (WVDEP, 2005c). The project area is characterized by steep slopes and narrow ridges and the soil present is identified as belonging to the Clymer-Dekalb Complex which forms on steep slopes (steep slopes are typically classified as those ranging from fifteen to thirty-five percent (1535%), therefore, the soils within the project area cannot be classified as prime farmland soils. 3.3.1.3 Soil Quality Sturm analyzed six (6) topsoil samples taken from within the project area for available plant nutrients, lime requirements, and textural analysis (particle size) (Sturm, 1997). All methods used for chemical and physical analysis were standard procedures found in EPA 600/2-78-054, Field and Laboratory Methods Applicable to Overburden and Minesoils. The native soils represented by the six (6) topsoil samples are acidic with pH
3-129

values ranging from 4.6 to 5.7 with lime requirements ranging from 2.4 to 4.8 tons per acre. Plant available calcium levels were low, phosphorus levels were low to medium, magnesium levels were low to high, and potassium levels were medium to high. These soils were weathered and low in exchangeable bases. If used for topsoil after mining, these soils would require heavy lime (three [3] to [5] tons per acre) and fertilizer (1000 pounds of 10-20-20 or equivalent) additions to sustain plant growth. These soils have sandy loam textures and moderate permeabilities and water holding capacities. A summary of the quality of the topsoil sites and the textural analysis for each of the soil samples from the project area are included in Table 3-29 and Table 3-30 and the locations of the sites are identified on Exhibit 3-13. Table 3-29 Project Area Topsoil Samples Soil Quality Summary Sample Number TS-1 TS-2 TS-3 TS-4 TS-5 TS-6 Average
* Pound/acre **Tons/acre

Phosphorus* (P) 9.7 7.9 10.5 14.3 10.4 9.5 10.4

Potassium* (K) 257 160 95 111 125 154 150

Calcium* (Ca) 889 815 524 213 223 96 460

Magnesium* (Mg) 444 312 127 32 36 30 164

1:1 pH 5.7 4.9 4.9 4.8 5.2 4.6 5.0

Lime Req.** 2.4 2.4 4.0 4.0 3.2 4.8 3.5

Table 3-30 Soil Quality Summary for Project Area Topsoil Samples Sample Number
TS-1 TS-2 TS-3 TS-4 TS-5 TS-6 Average

Sand (%)
65.2 75.2 75.2 84.2 73.2 59.0 72.0

Silt (%)
18.6 15.6 15.6 9.6 17.6 22.8 16.6

Clay (%)
16.2 9.2 9.2 6.2 9.2 18.2 11.4

Classifications
Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam

3-130

3.3.2 3.3.2.1

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Applicant’s Preferred Alternative

Surface Disturbance Incremental surface disturbance as a result of mine construction and operation, including ancillary facilities, would total 2,278 acres of soil, 45 acres of which has been previously mined/disturbed. Potential impacts to soils as a result of the Applicant’s PA would include the disturbance of native soils within the project area as a result of the mining activity. However, the native topsoil of the proposed project area, defined in §38CSR2.2.127 as the A- and E-horizon soil, would be recovered to the extent practical and redistributed as a component of the backfill subsoil material. The soils in the area are typically very shallow and have limited available nutrients, as discussed in Section 3.3.1.3. As a result, the Applicant’s PA has proposed utilization of a topsoil substitute. Subsoil material would consist primarily of unweathered gray sandstone and would be placed in a non-compacted state in order to promote tree growth. Grading of the topsoil substitute would be minimal in order to prevent compaction and would only be performed where necessary to maintain slope stability. This unweathered gray sandstone material would have initial pH values near 8.5, but would yield values in the range of 6.5 to 7.5 within two (2) years, which would be considered a suitable medium for hardwood tree species. If weathered sandstone is available, it may also be utilized for the subsoil. Seven (7) core holes (Holes DTC06037 [A], DTC06044 [E], DTC06042 [F], DTC06038 [H], DTC05031 [K], DTC05029 [N], and DTC05030 [P]) were sampled and analyzed to identify strata that would be considered suitable as topsoil substitute material (Sturm,1997). The near surface samples from all of the holes represent geologically weathered soils, sandstone and shales with pH values ranging from 4.7 to 7.2 and lime requirements from 0.4 to 2.8. These soils and rocks have low plant available phosphorus values, low to medium calcium and magnesium values, and low to high potassium values. If used for topsoil after mining, these soils would require moderate lime (two [2] to four [4] tons per acre) and fertilizer (1000 pounds of 1020-20 or equivalent) additions to sustain plant growth. Soils developed in the weathered materials would have sandy loam to loam textures with moderate permeabilities and water holding capacities. The remaining unweathered shales and sandstones (lower in the cores), with a few exceptions, are neutral to alkaline with pH values ranging from 6.6 to 9.8 and no lime requirements. The few exceptions (10 samples out of 316) are Hole A Sample 5, Hole F Samples 11 and 12, Hole H Samples 11 and 49, Hole K Samples 7, 9 and 10, Hole N Samples 7 and 41. These rocks have pH values ranging from 4.4 to 6.3 and lime requirements of 0.4 to 2.0 tons per acre. If segregated for topsoil substitute, they would require lime and fertilizer additions, as described above for the weathered soils and rocks. The unweathered rock in all holes had low plant available phosphorus levels, low to high calcium levels, and medium to very high magnesium and potassium levels. The rocks represented by the samples analyzed for the evaluation are suitable for use as topsoil substitute based upon the general suitability criteria set forth in the WVSMMR and are equal to or better than the native soils. The weathered rocks would require lime amendment but at a rate less than the native soils. The remaining rocks would not require lime and only minimum fertilizer rates (600 pounds of 10-20-20 or equivalent) to ensure seedling vigor and rapid plant growth. Amendment rates should be based on soil test after grading and prior to seedbed preparation. Rocks used for topsoil substitute would be crushed by blasting and/or traffic. Soils developed in these materials would have sandy loam to loam textures with moderate to rapid permeabilities and adequate moisture holding capacities. These substitute soils would
3-131

require less maintenance and have greater productivity than the native soils. These predictions are based upon a report by Sturm (dated March 17, 1997) that was included in Section I of the Applicant’s WVDEP Permit S-5013-97. Backfilling and regrading of the project area to the designed final configuration, as presented in the approved WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2, in accordance with AOC and stability requirements set forth by the WVDEP, and establishment of vegetation would be expected to minimize the potential for impacts resulting from erosion and/or instability. Water Discharge Based on the planned implementation of erosion and drainage control measures, best management practices (e.g. ponds, flow attenuation and erosion control structures, diversion ditches, silt fence, straw bales, and revegetation measures), and long-term revegetation, the potential for soil erosion as a result of surface water discharge would be anticipated to be low. No indirect impacts to soils would occur as a result of water discharge. 3.3.2.2 Alternative 3 Surface Disturbance Incremental surface disturbance as a result of mine construction and operation, including ancillary facilities, would total 2,914 acres, 103 acres of which has been previously mined/disturbed. Potential impacts to soils as a result of Alternative 3 would, aside from the greater area of disturbance, would be the same as those described for the Applicant’s PA. Water Discharge Based on the implementation of erosion and drainage control measures, best management practices (e.g. ponds, flow attenuation and erosion control structures, diversion ditches, silt fence, straw bales, and revegetation measures), and long-term revegetation similar to those proposed in the Applicant’s PA, the potential for soil erosion as a result of surface water discharge would be anticipated to be low and no indirect impacts to soils would be anticipated to occur as a result of water discharge. 3.3.2.3 No Action Alternative

The Spruce No. 1 Mine-related disturbance of 2,278 acres (2,914 acres for Alternative 3) of native soils would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As a result, the direct and indirect impacts as described for the Applicant’s PA would not occur under this alternative. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances. 3.3.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects area that has resulted and will result in the removal and disturbance of native soils include those discussed in Section 2.6. Most of the existing mining operations utilized topsoil substitute. The total acreage associated with the past and present mining projects in the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately 17,892 acres. The total acreage
3-132

associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine that have not been previously mined or disturbed is approximately 2,233 acres (2,812 acres for Alternative 3). Approximately 756 acres of the total acreage associated with the reasonably foreseeable future mining operations in the Spruce Fork watershed have not been previously mined or disturbed. The future operations of the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines have similar topsoil substitute plans as discussed for the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The total estimated loss of native topsoil within the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately 20,125 acres (20,704 acres for Alternative 3) or 24.93 percent (25.65% for Alternative 3) of the watershed acreage. Assuming that the past and present operations have similar topsoil substitute characteristics as the proposed and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the alternative topsoil substitutes of these operations would be an equal or better growth medium than that of the existing native soils, as described above. 3.3.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES Mingo Logan would conduct soil sampling in the regraded areas periodically to ensure that a suitable substitute growth media is present for revegetation. Any areas deemed as unsuitable would be covered by suitable material or amended to provide a suitable growth medium of sufficient depth (minimum of four [4] feet. Prior to the recognized spring and fall planting seasons, the operator would review all areas that were seeded and/or planted during the previous planting seasons. The operator would then retreat (regrade, seed, plant, mulch, etc.) those areas deficient in vegetative cover to establish the required level of vegetative success. Additionally, the operator would examine the project area for rills and gullies which may form in areas that would be regraded and topsoiled, and which disrupt the approved post-mining land use, interfere with the establishment of the vegetation cover, or cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards would be filled, regraded, stabilized, topsoiled, and reseeded or replanted, as necessary. The project area of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be planted to successfully achieve the proposed postmining land use of forestland. Specifications for success rates and minimum standards set forth in Section 9.3.g of the West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations would be followed. In addition to the reclamation of disturbed areas, Mingo Logan has developed a Compensatory Mitigation Plan (Appendix I), which would provide for the off-site restoration/enhancement of approximately 12.9 acres of riparian vegetation along Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek in conjunction in-stream mitigation activities, establishment of approximately 30.3 acres of riparian vegetation associated with the construction of aquatic resources along the perimeter of the project area during reclamation, and on-site restoration/reestablishment of approximately 8.2 acres of riparian vegetation in areas temporarily impacted by drainage control structures (ponds), including flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, for a total of approximately 51.4 acres (see Exhibit 2-25 and Table 2-19 and Table 2-20). The monitoring and success standards for riparian zones in the CMP are consistent with USACE mitigation requirements. 3.3.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS Residual effects resulting from the Spruce No. 1 Mine would potentially include a total net loss of approximately 2,278 acres of native soils, resulting from the use of a topsoil substitute. Based upon the findings in the soil scientists report (Sturm letter dated March 17, 1997 provided in Section I of WVDEP Permit S-5013-97), the topsoil substitute would likely be an equivalent or better growth medium within the project area; therefore, no unacceptable adverse effects would be anticipated.

3-133

3.4

VEGETATION

The principle issues associated with vegetation resources include: 1) disturbance and removal of native vegetation, particularly with respect to the loss of large forested tracts and issues related to forest fragmentation; 2) loss of riparian/wetland vegetation due to direct disturbance; and 3) successful reclamation of disturbance areas to achieve the post-mining land use of forestland and to inhibit the establishment of invasive plant species. The vegetation present within the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area, as well as the surrounding cumulative effects area, can be categorized into distinct vegetation types, which include grassland, upland and riparian woodland, reclaimed mine lands, and aquatic and wetland habitat. In the project area, the predominant vegetation type is the upland woodland vegetation. 3.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The study area for vegetation (including special status plant species) includes the project area and the Spruce Fork watershed. The boundary for the cumulative effects area includes the project area and similar actions in the Spruce Fork watershed. Riparian, aquatic, and wetland vegetation) occur within the study area and cumulative effects to these resources are described in detail in Section 3.2. In addition, discussion of the Little Coal River sub-basin, the Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region is included in the cumulative impacts. 3.4.1.1 Vegetation Types Grassland There were no grassland areas identified within the proposed project area. Upland Woodland The study area occurs within the Central Appalachian Broadleaf forest province of the Northern Cumberland Mountains section. Narrow steep sided valleys dissect the plateaus. Elevations range from 1,000 feet along the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek in the northern most portion of the proposed project area to 2,050 feet on the ridge top between White Oak Branch and Pigeonroost Branch. The predominant cover type in the project area is upland woodland mixed deciduous hardwood forest that has been logged several times during its history. The most recent harvests occurred during the past 25 years. These were selective harvests that removed only the commercially valuable trees, which were primarily oaks (Quercus sp.). Many large (>30 inches dbh) American beech were not removed during recent timber harvests and these are co-dominant with yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) in the canopy of the streamside stands. A mixed-age hardwood forest dominates the proposed project area, with ridgetop stands at an elevation of 1,800 to 2,050 feet and streamside stands at an elevation of 1,000 to 1,600 feet. Mixed-age forest comprises approximately ninety-eight percent (98%)(2,234 acres) of the project area. Dominant tree species include: oaks (Quercus sp.), hickories (Carya sp.), maples (Acer sp.), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), basswood (Tilia americana), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and birch (Betula sp.). Understory species include: spicebush (Lindera benzoin), blackberry (Rubus sp.), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), dogwood (Cornus florida), and ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), plus seedlings of canopy tree species.
3-134

Ridgetop and streamside stands differ in that oaks and hickories dominate the ridgetop stands while American beech and yellow poplar are dominant in the streamside stands. A few scattered eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) occur along the streams and a few pitch pine (Pinus rigida) occur on the ridgetops. Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) are common in the understory along the ridgetops, whereas spicebush (Lindera benzoin) is the most common understory shrub species along the streams. A complete list of tree, shrub, herbaceous and vine species can be found in Table 3-31. Mast-producing plants are common throughout the proposed project area. These are a common food source for many species of wildlife in the proposed project area. “Mast” refers to fruits produced by oak, hickory, beech, gum, cherry, ash, and other tree and shrub species, and of a variety of understory plant species such as flowering dogwood, wild grape, serviceberry, and others (Yoakum and Dasmann, 1969). The valleys in the study area support a mix of mast-producing tree species, fruiting shrubs, and vines. By number, soft mast trees dominate the forest canopy within the area. With the exception of white oak and American beech, hard mast trees occur in low numbers. Fruiting shrubs, such as flowering dogwood, are common in the understory. The proposed project area contains relatively few mature trees (>18 inches dbh), other than the large beech that remain at lower elevations. The proposed project area has a closed canopy, characteristic of a young- to-middle-aged forest, which reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor; this inhibits the growth of understory shrubs and herbaceous ground cover. A reconnaissance-level terrestrial habitat survey of the Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch valleys was conducted on October 27, 1998 by a team made up of biologists from the USFWS, USEPA, and USGS. This study identified five (5) cover types within the proposed project area: south-facing slope deciduous forest, north-facing slope deciduous forest, south-facing slope selectively cut, northfacing slope selectively cut, and south-facing slope clearcut. The joint-study concluded that there were obvious differences between plant communities present on north-facing slopes when compared to those on south-facing slopes (USFWS, 1998). The north-facing slopes supported species typically found in moist forests, such as ginseng, sweet cicely, goldenseal, and Virginia waterleaf. Yellow poplar and sugar maple were co-dominant tree species on north-facing slopes, while oaks and hickories were uncommon. In contrast, south-facing slopes were xeric, with thin or non-existent organic or litter layers. Herbaceous cover was sparse, and the dominant tree species were red maple, black birch, American beech, and white oak. Sourwood, mockernut hickory, butternut, white oak, scarlet oak, chestnut oak, black oak, and black locust were only found on the south-facing slopes, whereas white ash, umbrella magnolia, princess tree, and sassafras were only found on the north-facing slopes. Species diversity was higher on the north-facing slopes compared to the south-facing slopes. However, stem density was higher on south-facing slopes, largely due to a higher number of sapling red maple and black birch.

3-135

Table 3-31 List of Common Tree, Shrub, Herbaceous, and Vine Species Found in the Upland Woodlands and Riparian Woodlands of the Project Area
Class Common Name
Sugar maple Black birch Pignut hickory Shagbark hickory Mockernut hickory American beech Sycamore White ash Butternut Yellow poplar Cucumber magnolia Trees Umbrella magnolia Black gum Sourwood Princess tree White oak Scarlet oak Chestnut oak Red oak Black oak Black locust Red maple Ironwood Tulip tree Eastern hemlock Sassafras

Scientific Name
Acer saccharum Betula lenta Carya ovalis Carya ovata Carya tomentosa Fagus grandifolia Acer pseudo-platanus Fraxinus americana Juglans cinera Liriodendron tulipifera Magnolia acuminata Magnolia trietala Nyssa sylvatica Oxydendrum aboretum Paulownia tomentosa Quercus alba Quercus coccinea Quercus prinus Quercus rubra Quercus velutina Robinia pseudo-acacia Acer rebrum Carpinus caroliniana Liriodendron tulipifera Tsuga canadensis Sassafras albidum Tilia americana Asimina triloba Baptisia tinctoria Carpinus caroliniana Cercis canadensis Cornus florida Hamamelis virginiana Lindera benzoin Ostraya virginiana Rhus sp. Rubus sp.

AMERICAN BASSWOOD
Pawpaw Indigo bush American hornbeam Redbud Flowering dogwood Witch hazel Spicebush Shrubs Ironwood Sumac Blackberry

3-136

Class

Common Name
Mapleleaf arrowwood Common greenbrier Black haw Poison ivy Wild grape Maidenhair fern Aster Black cohosh White snakeroot Touch-me-not Roundlobe hepatica Virginia knotweed Cutleef toothwort Spring beauty Dutchman’s breeches Wild stonecrop Great blue lobelia

Scientific Name
Viburnum acerifolium Smilax rotundifolia Viburnum prunifolium Toxicodendron radicans Vitis sp. Adiantum pedatum Aster sp. Cimicifuga racemosa Eupatorium rugosum Impatiens capensis Hepatica americana Polygonum virginiana Dentaria laciniata Claytonia caroliniana Dicentra cucullaria Sedum ternatum Lobelia siphilitica Solidago sp. Ambrosia trifida Gaultheria procumbens Hydrastis canadensis Hydrophyllum virginianum Laportea canadensis Mitella diphylla Osmorhiza longistylis Panax quinquefolius Panicum sp. Polystichum acrostichoides Sanguinaria canadensis Solidago spp. Viola sp. Ziza aptera

Vines

Herbaceous

Goldenrod Giant ragweed Teaberry Goldenseal Virginia waterleaf Wood nettle Miterwort Sweet cicely Ginseng Panic grass Christmas fern Bloodroot Goldenrod Wood violet Golden alexander

Riparian Woodland/Aquatic and Wetland The riparian woodlands within the project area occur primarily along the banks of ephemeral and intermittent streams (Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, White Oak Branch [only within project area under Alternative 3], and their unnamed tributaries), with the exception of an 825-foot perennial segment near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch. The valleys in the study area support a mix of mastproducing tree species, fruiting shrubs, and vines. By number, soft mast trees dominate the forest canopy
3-137

within the area. With the exception of white oak and American beech, hard mast trees occur in low numbers. Fruiting shrubs, such as flowering dogwood, are common in the understory. Common riparian plant species found in the area include: sycamore, tulip tree, eastern hemlock, red maple, red oak, ironwood, sourwood, sassafras, pawpaw, flowering dogwood, black haw, maple leaf arrowwood, blackberry, wild hydrangea, spicebush, poison ivy, summer grape, touch-me-not, roundlobe hepatica, Virginia knotweed, cutleaf toothwort, spring beauty, Dutchman's breeches, wild stonecrop, great blue lobelia, white snakeroot, goldenrod, and giant ragweed (Table 3-31). There is only one (1) small palustrine wetland located within the project area (see Sections 3.2, Water Resources). Aquatic habitat within or near the project area is limited to ephemeral and intermittent streams, with the exception of an 825-foot perennial segment near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch. The primary drainage located within and near the project area is Spruce Fork of the Little Coal River and its tributaries (Right Fork of Seng Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch [only within project area under Alternative 3] within the project area). The mainstem portions of Spruce Fork are located outside of the project area. The ephemeral streams exhibit seasonal flow solely as a result of rainfall events or snowmelt in the region, where as intermittent streams are supported by precipitation in addition to seasonal groundwater influx. Aquatic sampling identified only one 825-foot segment of perennial stream within the project area near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch, which indicates a year-round contribution of groundwater in this segment. The aquatic vegetation was limited in the project area, primarily being observed only in the one (1) small palustrine wetland (0.12 acre). The ponded portion of the wetland is mostly devoid of submergent aquatic vegetation and the perimeter is comprised of less than ten percent (10%) hydrophytic emergent vegetation. The dominant herbaceous species include cattails (Typha latifolia), joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium purpureum), rice cut-grass (Leersia oryzoides), and soft rush (Juncus effusus). A few black willow shrubs are interspersed throughout the wetland. The primary hydrologic source is surface runoff from the adjacent hillside and potential groundwater inputs. 3.4.1.2 Vegetation Attributes Commercially Important Plant Species Several commercially important tree species occur within the project area. Hardwood species, such as oaks, hickories, and walnut are harvested for lumber production in the region. As mentioned above, the area has undergone extensive timbering with the latest timbering occurring within the last 25 years. Also, several of the wild plant species have historically been harvested in the area as a means of supplemental income. Throughout the history of the region, ginseng, snakeroot, yellowroot, and bloodroot have all been harvested and sold. Ginseng, being the most profitable, has continued to be harvested throughout southern West Virginia. Important Plant Species for Wildlife Several plant species that occur within the project area provide valuable cover and forage for wildlife. These species include various oaks, hickories, beech, greenbrier, and various berry producing vines, among others, as listed in Table 3-31. Large Forested Tracts Large forested tracts are important habitat for area sensitive species and species requiring large territories. These forested areas contain other micro-habitats, such as streams and associated riparian corridors, that
3-138

are utilized by a wide variety of wildlife species for feeding and/or breeding purposes. To assess the effects disturbance or fragmentation may have on species and biological communities, indicator species were chosen to represent area sensitive and landscape dependent (sensitive to changing land use patterns) species. Forest interior neotropical migrant bird species were used to assess the potential impacts of forest fragmentation on area sensitive species. Changing land use patterns were assessed to determine the potential effects on landscape dependent species, such as wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), black bear (Ursus americanus), and bobcat (Felis rufus) (Brooks and Croonquist, 1990)(refer to Section 3.5). 3.4.1.3 Special Status Species and Species of Special Concern As of February 21, 2006, the listing of endangered and threatened plant species for West Virginia is on the USFWS website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html#Species). Based upon review of the recovery plans for each of the six (6) species listed, none were known to have potential habitat within the project area and none of the species are currently known to inhabit Logan County. These species include the northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus), running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum), harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), , small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), shale barren rock-cress (Arabis serotina) and Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana). Based upon this information, none of the threatened or endangered plant species would be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impacted by the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions located within the Spruce Fork watershed. Consideration was also given to rare flora species or species of concern that have been found in Logan County. These species include the purple clematis (Clematis occidentalis var occidenta), old-field roadflax (Nuttallanthus canadensis), butternut (Juglans cinerea), Gray’s saxifrage (Saxifraga caroliniana) and rock skullcap (Scutellaria saxatilis). None of these species were observed in the proposed project area. 3.4.1.4 Weeds and Invasive Species Since 1964, the total number of non-native plant species in the state has increased by approximately sixtyfive percent (65%). Populations of invasive plant species may occur in the proposed project area. The WVDEP has prohibitions and restrictions on use of noxious weed seed. Information regarding prohibited species (species not allowed in revegetation seed mix) are included in the West Virginia 38CSR27.4.b.1.G.1. Kentucky-31 fescue, Serecia lespedeza, all vetches, clover (except ladino and white clover), and other aggressive or invasive species would not be used in reestablishment of vegetation during reclamation of the project area. Once backfilling and grading would be completed, the site would be revegetated per the revised revegetation plan (Mingo Logan has agreed to revise its current revegetation plan to include the use of only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies). 3.4.2 3.4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Applicant’s Preferred Alternative

General Vegetation Surface Disturbance Under the Applicant’s PA, a total of 2,278 acres of vegetation would be directly affected as a result of surface disturbance within the project area. As discussed in Section 2.5.2.2, Clearing and Grubbing, trees and vegetation (forestland) would be removed incrementally in advance of mine development over the 15year life of the mine. Of the total of 2,278 acres, approximately 2,183 acres of forestland vegetation, 50 of woodland riparian vegetation, and 45 acres of reclaimed mine lands vegetation would be removed.
3-139

Long-term but temporary (limited to the life of the mine and reclamation) and long-term (extending beyond the life of the mine and reclamation) impacts to vegetation would occur as a result of project construction and operation. Short-term impacts would result from the removal of herbaceous and woody (i.e., trees and shrubs) species within the project area. Reclamation of the project area would begin the transition of the project area back to a mixed deciduous hardwood forest. To minimize these impacts, disturbance areas would be reclaimed as discussed in Section 2.5.3.5, Revegetation. In addition, reclamation of the project area would proceed concurrently with mining operations as mined areas are backfilled and regraded. Ancillary facility areas would be reclaimed following the completion of mining. Indirect impacts to native vegetation that would likely occur as a result of the Applicant’s PA include: 1) increased potential for encroachment of invasive plant species and 2) economic impacts to commercially harvestable vegetation, including trees and herbaceous vegetation that provide for hardwood timber harvesting, and potential reduction in wild root gathering. Disturbance areas would be prone to the establishment of invasive plants from adjacent, undisturbed areas. Successful reclamation would minimize the encroachment of invasive species into reclaimed areas. The loss of commercially harvestable herbaceous vegetation would be minimal since the property is privately owned by large landowners, trespassing is prohibited, and it is anticipated that ginseng in the area has been heavily harvested by trespassers in the past. The salvage of trees removed during construction would be infeasible due to safety and liability concerns that would outweigh the benefits of utilizing this resource. This loss would be minimized through the planting of trees in the disturbance area during reclamation; however, any commercial value would not be realized for a number of years. The disturbance areas would be reclaimed to achieve the post-mining land use of forestland as approved by the WVDEP and discussed in Section 2.5.3, Closure and Reclamation. Once backfilling and grading would be completed, the site would be revegetated per the revised revegetation plan (Mingo Logan has agreed to revise its current revegetation plan to include the use of only native, non-invasive species, in accordance with USACE policies). Prior to the recognized spring and fall planting seasons, the operator would review all areas that were seeded and/or planted during the previous planting seasons. The operator would then retreat (regrade, seed, plant, mulch, etc.) those areas deficient in vegetative cover to establish the required level of vegetative success. Additionally, the operator would examine the project area for rills and gullies which may form in areas that would be regraded and topsoiled, and which disrupt the approved post-mining land use, interfere with the establishment of the vegetation cover, or cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards would be filled, regraded, stabilized, topsoiled, and reseeded or replanted, as necessary. The project area of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be planted to successfully achieve the proposed post-mining land use of forestland. Specifications for success rates and minimum standards set forth in Section 9.3.g of the West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations would be followed. In addition to the reclamation of disturbed areas, Mingo Logan has developed a Compensatory Mitigation Plan (Appendix I), which would provide for the off-site restoration/enhancement of approximately 12.9 acres of riparian vegetation along Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek in conjunction in-stream mitigation activities, establishment of approximately 30.3 acres of riparian vegetation associated with the construction of aquatic resources along the perimeter of the project area during reclamation, and on-site restoration/reestablishment of approximately 8.2 acres of riparian vegetation in areas temporarily impacted by drainage control structures (ponds), including flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, for a total of
3-140

approximately 51.4 acres (see Exhibit 2-25 and Table 2-19 and Table 2-20). The monitoring and success standards for riparian zones in the CMP are consistent with USACE mitigation requirements. Water Discharge Discharge into waters of the U.S. would not affect upland vegetation. Riparian vegetation associated with the receiving streams below the valley fills would be temporarily impacted by the construction of drainage control structures (ponds), and associated flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, which would remain in place during mining and throughout final reclamation. However, upon final reclamation, these structures would be removed and the stream segments restored to their approximate original configuration, but modified as necessary to be suitable for the hydrogeomorphic setting, as detailed in the CMP, including restoration/re-establishment of a riparian zone. Baseflows in the receiving streams of Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, and the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek where valley fills are proposed are anticipated to increase from that of pre-mining levels. Valley fills with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills on downstream, which would expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime with natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like), as well as habitat enhancement in the streams’ riparian zones, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the streams in the Spruce Fork watershed. This would result in an increase of available water, foraging and breeding habitat, and cover for terrestrial wildlife. Increased flows may better support existing plant communities of riparian woodlands and emergent vegetation immediately adjacent to these predominantly intermittent streams. Measures for restoration, enhancement, or re-establishment of riparian vegetation would be site-specific, depending on the existing condition or health of the plant species present, channel geometry and stability, and wildlife grazing intensity and season of use. The increased availability of water and riparian vegetation downstream of the valley fill drainage control structures during mining and toe of the fills upon final reclamation, along with other proposed mitigation measures, would help to offset the loss of riparian and wetland habitat in the upper reaches of these streams as a result of the filling activities. The reduction in stream, riparian, and wetland habitats would be mitigated by the on-site creation and/or restoration of these habitats and the off-site restoration of these habitats as proposed in the CMP (Appendix I). Effects to riparian and wetland vegetation from discharge from proposed NPDES outlets would be most prevalent along the stream segments within close proximity to the discharge points; and any affects to riparian and wetland vegetation would progressively decrease as the distance from the discharge points increases. No impacts to riparian or wetland vegetation are anticipated to result from sedimentation, as the proposed discharge rates would not be anticipated to contribute to channel erosion. Indirect impacts, as a result of water discharges, would potentially include an increased potential for invasive plant species establishment along the stream channels. Mine-related flows into the receiving streams would be anticipated to increase flow volumes and/or durations, which would create a more desirable environment for establishment of all plant species, including invasive species.

3-141

Special Status Species and Species of Special Concern As discussed in Section 3.4.1.3, the special status species and species of special concern that were identified by the USFWS (2006) as potentially inhabiting the project area have been eliminated from further consideration based on site evaluations and their known distribution or habitat requirements, which verified that the project area for the Applicant’s PA either does not provide suitable habitat or does not contain such species. 3.4.2.2 Alternative 3 General Vegetation Surface Disturbance Under Alternative 3, a total of 2,914 acres of vegetation would be directly affected as a result of surface disturbance within the project area. Trees and vegetation (forestland) would be removed via clearing and grubbing incrementally in advance of mine development over the 10-year life of the mine. Of the total of 2,914 acres, approximately 2,746 acres of forestland vegetation, 102 acres of reclaimed mine lands vegetation, and 66 acres of woodland riparian vegetation would be removed. Potential impacts to vegetation as a result of Alternative 3 would, aside from the greater area of disturbance and inclusion of a greater portion of the White Oak Branch watershed, be the same as those described for the Applicant’s PA. Water Discharge Potential impacts to vegetation related to water discharges from the project as a result of Alternative 3 would, aside from difference in the location, size, and discharge volume of the NPDES outlets that would be required for this alternative, would be the same as those described for the Applicant’s PA. Special Status Species and Species of Special Concern As discussed in Section 3.4.1.3, the special status species and species of special concern that were identified by the USFWS (2004) as potentially inhabiting the project area have been eliminated from further consideration based on site evaluations and their known distribution or habitat requirements, which verified that the project area for Alternative 3 either does not provide suitable habitat or does not contain such species. 3.4.2.3 No Action Alternative The direct mine-related disturbance of 2,278 acres (2,914 acres for Alternative 3) of vegetation would not occur under the No Action Alternative. In addition, the potential impacts to vegetation associated with minerelated water level changes and surface water discharges would not occur. As a result, the impacts to vegetation, direct and indirect, as described for the project area would not occur. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances.

3-142

3.4.3 3.4.3.1

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS General Vegetation

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects area that resulted and will result in the removal and disturbance of native soils include those discussed in Section 2.6. Most of the existing mining operations utilized topsoil substitute. The total acreage associated with the past and present mining projects in the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately 17,892 acres. The total acreage associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine that have not been previously mined or disturbed is approximately 2,233 acres (2,811 acres for Alternative 3). Approximately 756 acres of the total acreage associated with the reasonably foreseeable future mining operations in the Spruce Fork watershed have not been previously mined or disturbed. The future operations of the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines have similar topsoil substitute plans as discussed for the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The total estimated loss of native topsoil within the Spruce Fork watershed is approximately 20,125 acres (20,704 acres for Alternative 3) or 24.93 percent (25.65% for Alternative 3) of the watershed acreage. Some of this acreage is currently transitioning back to forestland and a majority of the active mining areas have been permitted with a post-mining land use of forestland or combined forestland and fish and wildlife habitat and, therefore, would eventually be returned to forestland as well. As with the Spruce No. 1 Mine, a majority of the land in the Spruce Fork watershed that would be disturbed is a mixed deciduous hardwood forest with some areas of previous and pre-law mining area. Long-term but temporary (limited to the life of the mine and reclamation) and long-term (extending beyond the life of the mine and reclamation) impacts to vegetation would occur as a result of project construction and operation. Short-term impacts would result from the removal of herbaceous and woody (i.e., trees and shrubs) species within the project area. Reclamation of the project areas would begin their transition back to a mixed deciduous hardwood forest. Throughout the region, there are operations that are in all phases of mining and reclamation as well as transitioning back to forestland. To minimize these impacts, disturbance areas are typically reclaimed as contemporaneously as possible. Ancillary facility areas would be reclaimed following the completion of mining. Indirect impacts to native vegetation that would likely occur as a result of the Applicant’s PA include: 1) increased potential for encroachment of invasive plant species and 2) economic impacts to commercially harvestable vegetation, including trees and herbaceous vegetation that provide for hardwood timber harvesting, and potential reduction in wild root gathering. Disturbance areas would be prone to the establishment of invasive plants from adjacent, undisturbed areas. Successful reclamation would minimize the encroachment of invasive species into reclaimed areas. Cumulative impacts on commercially harvestable herbaceous vegetation would be anticipated to be minimal due to the historically periodic heavy harvesting of these plant species. Most of the active operations, the proposed project, and all of the reasonably foreseeable future projects would be required to develop a Compensatory Mitigation Plan (CMP) similar to that proposed by the Spruce No. 1 Mine. As a result, the cumulative impacts of surface disturbance on vegetation would be limited. Impacts would be minimized through revegetation of disturbed areas associated with these projects during reclamation. A major concern within the Mountaintop Mining Region is the deforestation impacts on species that require large forested tracts. Large forested tracts are important habitat for area sensitive species and species requiring large territories. These forested areas contain other micro-habitats, such as streams and associated riparian corridors, that are utilized by a wide variety of wildlife species for feeding and/or breeding
3-143

purposes. To assess the effects disturbance or fragmentation may have on species and biological communities, indicator species were chosen to represent area sensitive and landscape dependent (sensitive to changing land use patterns) species. Forest interior neotropical migrant bird species were used to assess the potential impacts of forest fragmentation on area sensitive species. Changing land use patterns were assessed to determine the potential effects on landscape dependent species, such as wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), black bear (Ursus americanus), and bobcat (Felis rufus) (Brooks and Croonquist, 1990) (refer to Section 3.5). Natural landscapes are typically composed of a mosaic of habitats differing in size, shape, and vegetative structure and composition (Verner, 1986). If left undisturbed for a long enough period of time, such landscapes tend to reach a stage in which units of the mosaic retain fairly stable local plant communities or climax patterns (Whittaker, 1953). However, natural disturbances in the form of fires, storms, landslides, earthquakes and erosion contribute to the reduction of the patch size of existing habitat units and the alteration of their vegetative composition, often to earlier successional stages. These activities can produce a variety of direct and indirect impacts to existing plant and animal communities. Verner (1986) suggests that because so many species of terrestrial vertebrates are adapted to breed successfully in disturbed habitats, it might be inferred that natural disturbance has been a frequent and widespread occurrence in geologic history. In addition, many plant species have evolved to pioneer disturbed landscapes, serving to begin the vegetational succession process (Verner, 1986). Therefore, it is not possible to present all fragmentation of habitat as either “good” or “bad” since it operates at varying scales on each species (USDA, Final Environmental Impact Statement: George Washington National Forest, 1993). Human activities such as the construction of powerlines, residential and industrial developments, agricultural practices, surface mining, and roadways can produce varying degrees of habitat fragmentation resulting in a change to the vegetation of the successional community. Of particular concern in the central and eastern United States is the fragmentation of forest habitat and its resulting effect on biodiversity. Forest fragmentation is the process whereby large, continuous, and often homogenous areas of forest are broken into smaller often isolated tracts surrounded by a matrix of cultivated land, residential development, or other non-forest land use. Exhibit 3-19 provides an example of forest fragmentation due to land use/land cover modifications resulting from agricultural practices and residential/commercial development. Forest fragmentation is a function of several parameters. These include:
• • • • • Patch size - the areal extent of the resulting habitat fragments; Patch isolation - the characteristics of the surrounding land use; Total reserve area - the sum of patches and contiguous forest; Edge - the transition area between two or more habitat types; and Connectivity - the habitat linkages among patches.

Minimizing forest fragmentation promotes the natural patterns and connectivity of wildlife habitats that are key components of biodiversity (CEQ, 1993). The physical alteration of existing land use and changing land use patterns, which lead to habitat simplification and fragmentation, disrupt species interactions and ecosystem processes. For this study, a multi-tiered regional assessment of forest fragmentation was used to determine potential effects on existing biodiversity within the Mountaintop Mining Region of West Virginia, the Coal River basin, Little Coal River sub-basin, and Spruce Fork watershed.

3-144

A great deal of research has been done to evaluate the effect of forest fragmentation on the distribution and abundance of wildlife species. Most published scientific literature to date deals with avian species and their response to this phenomenon. A review of this literature was conducted to examine and summarize the major research findings on this topic. Many researchers have studied the associated effects of forest fragmentation on avian communities. Robbins et al. (1989) determined that gaps greater than 100 meters (330 feet) in contiguous forest habitats produced isolation characteristics in the small habitat fragments created. Anderson (1979) showed that transmission-line corridors wider than 61 meters (200 feet) created grassland/shrub habitats within the forest. These corridors created new vegetative communities that, when considered with the total bird population of the deciduous forest, resulted in a greater variety and diversity of birds in the region. Rosenberg and Raphael (1986) found that bird and amphibian species richness increased significantly on more fragmented stands of Douglas-fir forests and in study plots containing more edge. A variety of species were able to utilize the more diverse vegetative component of the edge-forest ecotone. A major topic of research has focused on the potential impact of forest fragmentation on neotropical migrant and interior forest dwelling songbirds. Neotropical migrants winter in Central America and the Caribbean, and to a lesser extent in South America, but breed in North America. A number of researchers have reported on the population decline of these species between the late 1940s and the late 1980s (Finch, 1991). Several causes have been suggested for this decline: the loss of winter habitat in Latin America (Hall, 1984; Ambuel and Temple, 1982), brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) (Brittingham and Temple, 1983), a low rate of colonization and a high rate of extinction in small, isolated woodlots (Whitcomb et al., 1981), the lack of critical micro-habitats (Lynch and Whigham, 1984), and higher rates of nest predation in small woodlots compared to large forest tracts (Robbins et al., 1989; Ambuel and Temple 1983; Wilcove, 1985). Hall (1984) suggests that some decreases in the number of neotropical species may be density dependent and result from the movement of bird species from optimal to sub-optimal habitat as populations fluctuate over time. Forest succession should be considered another potential factor influencing the changing diversity and population numbers of forest bird species. Martin (1960) reported on the changing bird populations that accompany plant succession. Freemark and Merriam (1986) found that habitat heterogeneity (spatial variability in habitat conditions within forest stands) was an important factor in determining bird species assemblages. Baird (1990) analyzed population changes in breeding birds in a western New York forest from 1930 to 1980. He found the largest population decline among forest species that generally build nests less than two (2) meters (6.6 feet) above the ground. He attributed this decline to the heavy browsing of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), which has dramatically altered the understory vegetative composition. Baird observed both local increases and decreases over the past 50 years in a number of neotropical and short-distance migrants, as well as several permanent residents. Baird's study did not provide clear evidence that species which migrate to the Neotropics are declining more rapidly than shortdistance migrants or permanent resident species. Several research efforts on the effects of forest fragmentation on avian species have been conducted in the mid-west. In this area, once large expanses of contiguous forest have been replaced by small woodlots that have been extensively isolated by surrounding agricultural land. These woodland “islands” have served as study areas where the theories of island biogeography have been explored for terrestrial ecosystems. MacArthur and Wilson (1967) proposed that the number of species resident on an island is influenced
3-145

primarily by area, but also by habitat diversity, age of the island, and its isolation. The mid-west's landscape mosaic has provided researchers the opportunity to study a number of fragmentation parameters such as patch size and edge effect. Temple (1986) defined the functional habitat unit for area sensitive species (core area) as the area of forest more than one hundred (100) meters from an edge, instead of the total forest area observed. Further studies by Temple and Cary (1988), found significant differences in nesting success (18%, 58%, 70%) of forest interior dwelling birds within three distances from edge categories (<100 meters, 100 to 200 meters, >200 meters) and classified these as poor, marginal, and good quality habitat, respectively. They attributed these differences to nest predation, brood parasitism, and competition that are associated with edge habitats. Robinson (1992) found that small isolated woodlots (<70 hectares [173 acres]) appeared to serve as population sinks for many species of neotropical migrants and contained several species that are considered area-sensitive elsewhere in their range, including the worm-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus) and ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus). However, most species suffered high nest predation and parasitism rates due to the edge-dominated forest patch configuration. Blake and Karr (1987) studied breeding bird communities of isolated woodlots in Illinois. They found that the number and type of bird species breeding in these habitats were primarily dependent on the area of the woodlot. Differences observed among woodlot bird populations were attributed to the degree of isolation of each woodlot. Woodlots in this study were typically separated by many kilometers. They suggested that woodlots that were by themselves too small to support certain species, could do so if there were additional habitat located nearby. Lynch and Whigham (1984) studied breeding bird communities in upland forest patches of Maryland and found that vegetation characteristics, rather than patch geometry, appeared to play the dominant role in determining community composition and local abundance for the majority of bird species. Woodland patches in this study did not display the same degree of isolation as the Illinois study and were generally separated by small distances (0.1 to one [1] kilometer). The complex inter-relationship between area, isolation, and vegetative habitat characteristics influenced almost every bird species within the study area. Robbins et al. (1989) found many similarities with the above study, but also some important differences. A more comprehensive sampling effort yielded data on a wider variety of habitat components and bird species. This study determined that fifty-one percent (51%) of the bird species were correlated with forest area as opposed to twenty-six percent (26%) in the Lynch and Whigham (1984) study. Some researchers have attempted to determine the optimal forest patch size necessary to provide breeding habitat for all species of forest nesting birds. Blake and Karr (1984) found that forest interior species were not well represented in woodlots less than thirty (30) hectares (seventy [70] acres). However, species differ in many life history characteristics that influence occurrence in isolated patches of habitat and determination of optimal reserve size is dependent on species-specific ecology. Robbins et al. (1989) studied area requirements of forest birds in Maryland and adjacent counties in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia. Twenty-six (26) avian species showed a significant increase in probability of occurrence as forest area increased and were considered to be area-sensitive. The authors emphasize that even in forest tracts greater than 3,000 hectares (7,410 acres), species such as the northern parula warbler (Parula americana) and cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) had occurrence probabilities less than 0.4. They suggest that if smaller forest tracts containing streams and bottomland habitat (preferred by these species) were preserved, these birds could likely reside there. As in other studies, proximity to other forest stands (isolation) was also found to influence the minimum breeding area for some species.
3-146

In landscapes dominated by agricultural use (cropland, pastures), much of the remaining forest is in linear tracts along streams. These forested strips provide habitat for a variety of bird species, including several areasensitive neotropical migrants (Keller et al., 1993). In addition, these areas have been found to improve water quality by reducing the sediment and nutrient content of agricultural runoff (Peterjohn and Correll, 1984; Paterson and Schnoor, 1993). Croonquist and Brooks (1993) found that naturally vegetated riparian corridors greater than 125 meters (410 feet) were needed to support the full complement of bird communities. However, protecting at least a 25-meter (80-foot) wide corridor on each bank provided feeding, resting, or migrating corridors for uncommon, sensitive species including forest interior and neotropical migrant birds. While some researchers (Whitcomb et al., 1981) indicate that populations in fragmented habitats are declining at a rapid rate for reasons associated with such fragmentation (e.g., habitat island size, high predation, and frequent brood parasitism), bird population declines have also been observed in relatively undisturbed forests. Holmes et al. (1986) conducted studies in an unfragmented (3,075 hectares [7,600 acres]), temperate, deciduous forest (Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire) for sixteen (16) consecutive breeding seasons. Bird community dynamics varied over time with many species (70%) declining during this period. Individual species responded to a variety of environmental factors that operated on local, regional, and global scales. Five (5) major factors were identified that influence bird numbers in the forest: food abundance, breeding season weather, successional habitat changes, interspecific aggression, and winter mortality. Hall (1984) found that both the number of species and population of neotropical migrants had declined in an undisturbed portion of the Cheat Mountains in West Virginia. The author state that a precise reason for this decline cannot be assigned, but suggests that tropical deforestation as well as local climatic and weather factors may be contributing components. Holmes and Sherry (1988) suggest that there is little agreement on the factors that regulate songbird populations. At the unfragmented Hubbard Brook research area, forty-two percent (42%) of the regularly occurring species declined from 1969 to 1986, including four neotropical migrant species. Based on their research findings, the authors conclude that forest fragmentation is probably not a factor in the observed decline of avian species over most of New Hampshire, where forests predominate and urban development is only beginning to affect the landscape. One neotropical migrant species that declined considerably was the least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus). This decline was attributed to the gradual maturing of the woodlands throughout the State of New Hampshire. This species favors conditions of intermediate succession with open sub-canopies beneath dense upper canopy vegetation. Population trends varied for the least flycatcher from nearby state suggesting that regional land-use patterns may be an important factor in affecting habitat suitability for this species. Other species that may have been affected by changing habitat structure were the American redstart (Setophagus ruticila) and the wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina). Both species reach maximal densities in mid-successional forests. The authors suggest that it is premature to attribute observed population trends in North American songbirds to any one causal factor. Böhning-Gaese et al. (1993) used the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data to analyze trends in breeding populations of forty-seven (47) insectivorous passerines in central and eastern North America, including long distance neotropical migrants. BBS data may be useful for identifying large-scale trends in bird abundance and for providing perspective about the generality of those trends. The results suggest that those species that winter in the tropics did not experience strong decreases in their populations. Long distance neotropical migrants experienced a small, non-significant decreasing trend, whereas residents and short-distance
3-147

migrants increased strongly. The declines observed were attributed to breeding ground predation and not to deforestation of wintering habitat in tropical America. Finch (1991), as part of the USDA Forest Service's role in the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program, reviewed and summarized then current information on population trends of neotropical migratory birds and the factors affecting migrant populations on the wintering and breeding grounds. The author concluded that sufficient information was lacking on the population status and causes of population changes of neotropical migrants to develop an effective management plan to conserve these species. Recent research findings have placed increased emphasis on the importance of regional land-use patterns in assessing habitat suitability for neotropical migrant bird species. Results provide evidence that the nesting success of neotropical migrant birds is less in regions of low forestation compared to areas of higher forestation (Robinson et al., 1995; Hartley and Hunter, 1998; Rosenberg et al., 1998; Trzcinski et al., 1999). For both of their study areas in the agriculturally dominated mid-west, Donovan et al. (1995) found nest failures to be significantly higher for both the ovenbird and wood thrush in forest fragments compared to contiguous forest tracts. Friesen et al. (1999) found a similar trend in the nesting success of wood thrush in the agriculturally dominated landscape of southwestern Ontario. Conversely, King et al. (1995) found no significant difference in nesting success between near edge and interior dwelling ovenbirds in the predominantly forested landscape of northern New Hampshire. In southern Illinois, even large forest tracts (>1,100 hectares [2,718 acres]) were population sinks for the wood thrush (Trine, 1998; Robinson et al., 1995), while near Newark, Delaware, Weinberg and Roth (1998) found that even a 15-hectare fragment most likely acted as a population source for wood thrush in the region. For the worm-eating warbler, the results of Gale et al. (1997) followed the same trend as those for the ovenbird and wood thrush. In a southern New England forested landscape, the authors found that nesting success was not significantly different in contiguous forest tracts compared to forest fragments. Roberts and Norment (1999) also concluded from their study of the scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) in western New York that the amount of forest area, as well as the surrounding forest covers within one (1) kilometer, influenced the breeding success. The tanagers were the focus of an important comparative study conducted by Rosenberg et al. (1998). For “Project Tanager,” four (4) tanager species, including the scarlet, were studied at over 1,100 sites throughout the United States and parts of Canada. They found that, although the degree of fragmentation had an effect on breeding success throughout the United States, effects were less severe in the forested landscape of the northeast, and were most severe in the largely deforested mid-west and Atlantic coastal regions. The authors concluded that, “results from single species or local studies cannot be extrapolated to other species or regions,” (Rosenberg et al., 1998). In the mid-western United States, Robinson et al., (1995) tested the hypothesis that the reproductive success of nine (9) bird species, eight (8) of which were neotropical migrants, was related to regional landscape patterns. They measured nest predation and parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird in a variety of landscapes ranging from greater than ninety percent (90%) agricultural to greater than ninety percent (90%) forested. The study included monitoring over 5,000 nests from 1989 to 1993. Brown-headed cowbird parasitism was found to have a significant negative correlation with percent forest cover in the region, while nest predation also declined with increasing forest cover for all species.

3-148

Not all studies fall into categories of agriculturally-dominated compared to forested landscapes or mid-west compared to east. For example, Hoover et al., (1995) conducted a study of wood thrush in a mixed suburban landscape of Berks County, Pennsylvania. The fragments in the study were separated by suburban developments and highway, and none had greater than fifty-one percent (51%) area forested within a 2-kilometer radius. Their results showed a significant positive trend of breeding success with forest fragment size. In contiguous forest, eighty-six percent (86%) of nests were successful, while in large fragments (greater than 100 hectares [247 acres]) it declined to seventy-two percent (72%), and in the smallest patches (less than eighty [80] hectares [198 acres]) nesting success was only forty-six percent (46%). Bayne and Hobson (1997) conducted a study considering regions deforested by logging, and compared results to those from agricultural landscapes. They found that artificial nests were destroyed more often in patches within the agricultural landscape than in either the contiguous forest landscape or the logged landscape. The latter experienced less predation than even the interior of forest patches in the agricultural landscape. In the four-year study by Robinson et al., (1995), migratory birds still persisted in areas with very low nesting success. Their results buttress the argument that extensive forests with low levels of predation and parasitism act as sources of colonists to maintain challenged populations in fragmented forests (a sourcesink model). Therefore, the existence of adequate numbers of large, unfragmented forests is an important factor in the persistence of migrant birds within small fragments. The cerulean warbler is a species of particular concern in the region of the proposed project area due to its rapid decline on an international basis. A USFWS study has noted that the Ohio Hills province supports more than half of all cerulean warblers in the northeast (Rosenberg et al., 2000). Studies have struggled to find a common denominator among the varied descriptions of cerulean warbler habitat structure and tree species use (Hamel, 2000a). However, primary habitat for this species is most often described as mature deciduous forest, typified by structurally mature hardwood species in mesic or floodplain conditions with a closed or semi-open canopy. Rosenburg et al. (2000) specify that the most important characteristic is a mature forested oak-hickory habitat type with white oak, red oak, black oak, scarlet oak, and chestnut oak as dominant species. Habitat data confirms the wide range of habitat types used by cerulean warblers throughout their range. Large populations occur in both riparian bottomland forests and in a variety of upland situations. Perhaps under-appreciated in past accounts is the importance of dry slope and ridgetop habitats to cerulean warblers. Although many of these slopes and ridges are in relatively close proximity to major river valleys, suggesting that populations may “spill” up the slopes from the bottomlands, this is not always the case (Hamel, 2000a). A tall, but broken forest canopy seems to be important, along with large area requirements. On dry ridges, tall oaks form a linear “internal edge,” where warbler territories may look out over the surrounding canopy. This same linear canopy edge is a prominent feature of mature riparian forests, especially where tall sycamores form an emergent layer above the other trees. On slopes with a diverse mixed mesophytic forest, the presence of trees with a variety of canopy structures is probably key to providing the same sort of canopy-edge effect desired by cerulean warblers (Hamel 2000a). Hamel (2000a) summarized the broad range of habitat descriptions that exist for this species, concluding that cerulean warblers may be somewhat opportunistic in seeking the most mature forest conditions
3-149

available in each region. Dominant tree species and understory species described in the literature also tend to vary by region; tree size is thought to be primary and tree species of secondary importance. In West Virginia, 1,124 ceruleans were reported from 254 (74%) of 345 sites surveyed during the Cerulean Warbler Atlas Project (CEWAP; Rosenberg et al., 2000). The CEWAP found that cerulean warblers occupied extremely diverse forests in West Virginia. Substantial portions of the ceruleans found in West Virginia were on the many state-owned lands that were surveyed. Although this may be a small fraction of the total state population, it may represent a reasonable estimate of the number of birds under potential management or protection by the State of West Virginia. There were no important cerulean warbler breeding areas identified for Logan County, West Virginia. Hamel (2000a) reports the bird to be widespread and common in the western hills of West Virginia, scarce or missing in the Allegheny Mountains Region, and to occur sparingly in the Ridge and Valley Region. In the Ridge and Valley Region of West Virginia, the birds are limited to river valleys. Much literature calls into question using BBS data for monitoring the cerulean warbler, as well as other interior forest species. As noted by Hamel, who is credited with the USFWS status assessment of the cerulean warbler (Hamel, 2000a), the BBS data show a general decline in the cerulean warbler population. Hamel (2000b) also notes reason for caution in the use of this data by stating the: “Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data show populations declining significantly during the years 19661996. Mean relative abundance for the continent was 0.41 birds/route over the entire survey period. Sauer (1993) indicated that, while sufficient sampling intensity in the BBS existed to detect a 50% decline in population of the species over a 25-yr period with probability 0.9, low relative abundance of this species mandated caution in interpretation of trend results. The BBS estimate of the average annual trend 1966-1996, -3.7%/yr (95% confidence interval -2.5 to -5.0), is based on 236 routes. Trend for 1966-1979 (-5.5%/yr, n = 113) indicates a significant decline over the first half of the survey period. That for the remainder of the period, 1980-1996 (-0.4%/yr, n = 183), is not significant. These trend estimates suggest that the population declined most dramatically prior to 1980. Whether this represents the primary period of decline or perhaps indicates that, by 1980, populations were reduced to the point that the BBS became a less useful monitoring tool rangewide is not clear. In some parts of the range where the birds were formerly numerous, such as the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, BBS trend estimates can no longer be calculated with any statistical confidence (Smith et al. 1996). Trend estimates in other areas, particularly the Northeast, may not reflect adequately the apparently increasing populations there. “The adequacy of the BBS as a method to monitor forest birds such as Cerulean Warblers has been questioned (Peterjohn et al. 1995; James et al. 1996). Concerns focus on changes in habitat along roadside routes, which would reduce detectability of the birds potentially more than their numbers, and the fact that because BBS routes are along roadsides to begin with, BBS coverage may be biased against forest birds like Cerulean Warblers.” Further, the BBS website itself describes biases in the data (http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/introbbs.html), for example the roadside and habitat biases, which are of particular importance with respect to the interior dwelling cerulean warbler. Additionally, the site reports that “BBS routes near human population centers tend to be surveyed consistently but remote routes are not surveyed every year, which causes regional variation in the efficiency of the survey (Robbins et al., 1986).” The biases of the survey methodologies may explain why results from the BBS can vary widely from year to year for the cerulean warbler. By entering the USGS website http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/trend/tf02.html, one can retrieve the following trend result: -3.27, with a p-value of 0.00006 and variance of 0.62, for the years 1966 to 2002 in West Virginia. However, with the addition of the
3-150

year 2003 data, one gets a considerably lower trend: -2.98, with a p-value of 0.00052 and variance of 0.53 (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/tf03.pl) (Sauer et al., 2004). The variance is extremely high (violating homogeneity of variance), and it is doubtful that statistics can be applied without normalizing the data. Additionally, if one were to use the BBS model to map trends in population change, it is not clear that the cerulean warbler’s distribution is at all correlated to forest fragmentation. Figure 3-7 shows BBS trend results between 1966 and 1993 compared to those between 1966 and 2003 (figures from http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/htm96/trn626/all.html and http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/htm03/trend2003.html). The addition of the seven (7) years of data shows drastic changes in survey trends. These trend changes cannot be attributed to forest fragmentation that may or may not be occurring in the mid-Atlantic state, of which West Virginia is included.

3-151

A

B

Figure 3-7

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) Trend Map for Cerulean Warbler: a) 1966-1996, and b) 19662003.

Sources: Sauer et al., 2003, 2004.

3-152

Although the BBS data is not the appropriate tool for revealing specific numeric trends in cerulean warbler population, the complete body of study on the species supports the hypothesis that part of the reason the cerulean warbler is difficult to detect is that the species indeed occurs in low population densities and may be experiencing declines. However, given that the cerulean warbler is not a Federally listed threatened or endangered species with defined critical habitat, it would be speculative to assert that the cerulean warbler’s population is seriously harmed by surface mining activities. 3.4.3.2 Special Status Species and Species of Special Concern The proposed project would not impact any special status species (see Special Status Species and Species of Special Concern in Section 3.4.2.1). As a result, the proposed project would not contribute cumulatively to impacts for these species. 3.4.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES Mingo Logan proposes concurrent revegetation of the entire project area in accordance with the appropriate State and Federal regulations. Mingo Logan would conduct soil sampling in the regraded areas periodically to ensure that a suitable substitute growth media is present for revegetation. Any areas deemed as unsuitable would be covered by suitable material or amended to provide a suitable growth medium of sufficient depth (minimum of four [4] feet). Prior to the recognized spring and fall planting seasons, the operator would review all areas that were seeded and/or planted during the previous planting seasons. The operator would then retreat (regrade, seed, plant, mulch, etc.) those areas deficient in vegetative cover to establish the required level of vegetative success. Additionally, the operator would examine the project area for rills and gullies which may form in areas that would be regraded and topsoiled, and which disrupt the approved post-mining land use, interfere with the establishment of the vegetation cover, or cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards would be filled, regraded, stabilized, topsoiled, and reseeded or replanted, as necessary. The project area of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be planted to successfully achieve the proposed postmining land use of forestland. Specifications for success rates and minimum standards set forth in Section 9.3.g of the West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations would be followed. In addition to the reclamation of disturbed areas, Mingo Logan has developed a Compensatory Mitigation Plan (Appendix I), which would provide for the off-site restoration/enhancement of approximately 12.9 acres of riparian vegetation along Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek in conjunction in-stream mitigation activities, establishment of approximately 30.3 acres of riparian vegetation associated with the construction of aquatic resources along the perimeter of the project area during reclamation, and on-site restoration/reestablishment of approximately 8.2 acres of riparian vegetation in areas temporarily impacted by drainage control structures (ponds), and associated flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, for a total of approximately 51.4 acres (see Exhibit 2-25 and Table 2-19 and Table 2-20). The monitoring and success standards for riparian zones in the CMP are consistent with USACE mitigation requirements. 3.4.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS No long term residual affects are anticipated due to the entire project area being revegetated for reforestation which was the predominant pre-mining vegetation within the project area.

3-153

3.5

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES

The primary issues related to fish and wildlife include the loss or alteration of wildlife habitat within the project area and associated changes in aquatic and riparian habitat as a result of the loss of waters of the U.S. and mine water discharges into the local drainages. 3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The study area for fish and wildlife species (including special status species) includes the project area and the areas downstream of the mine water discharges into the primary receiving streams including the Spruce Fork watershed, Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region as a whole depending on the resource being reviewed. Information regarding fish and wildlife resources and current habitat conditions within the project area and the larger study area was obtained from existing published sources and several site specific field surveys and reports, as discussed below. Surveys for benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, and endangered species (bats) and other resident species were conducted in and adjacent to the project area. Consultation with the WVDNR and USFWS was conducted for species potentially encountered within and adjacent to the project area. Aquatic habitat, fish, and benthic macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted by the USFWS and several independent contractors over the past fourteen (14) years, which focused on waters of the U.S. within or adjacent to the project area. A summary of these studies is included in Section 3.2.4. Survey specifics pertaining to sensitive aquatic and wildlife resources are discussed further in Section 3.5.1.5, Special Status Species. 3.5.1.1 Habitat As discussed in Section 3.4, Vegetation, the study area occurs within the Central Appalachian Broadleaf forest province of the Northern Cumberland Mountains section. Narrow steep sided valleys dissect the plateaus. Elevations range from 1,000 feet along the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek in the northern most portion of the proposed project area to 2,050 feet on the ridge top between White Oak Branch and Pigeonroost Branch. The Oak/Hickory forest-type group is the most common and mature forest group of the region. These forests commonly include northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), hickories (Carya sp.), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Presently, the forested cover in the proposed project area is mostly a mosaic of second growth woodland communities intermixed with early successional habitats in the form of mixed rangeland. Riparian woodlands within the study area occur primarily along the banks of ephemeral and intermittent streams, with the exception of an 825-foot perennial segment near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch. There is only one (1) small palustrine wetland located within the project area (see Sections 3.2, Water Resources, and 3.4, Vegetation). Michaels (1998) conducted a modified HEP (Habitat Evaluation Procedure) of the project area to determine the wildlife habitat value of the upland hardwood forest prior to mountaintop mining. The modified HEP model that was used in this study was originally designed to rate habitat for forest game species (USFWS, 1976; Flood et al., 1977). The study used twelve (12) habitat variables to evaluate ridgetop and streamside stands. Variables evaluated included: (1) tree size class/canopy closure, (2) hard mast species, (3) percent canopy closure of hard mast trees, (4) soft mast species, (5) understory density, (6) herbaceous cover, (7) openings, (8) external edge, (9) number of snags, (10) average dbh of snags, (11) number of stumps and logs, and (12) water availability. The final habitat rating was calculated by following the procedure recommended by Flood et al., (1977).
3-154

Michaels concluded that the overall wildlife habitat rating for ridgetop stands was 68.3 out of 100, while that for streamside stands was 55.6 out of 100, resulting in an overall rating of 61.9, or “average” based upon the scale described below. Michaels indicated that a rating of 90 or higher would result in a habitat rating of “excellent” and would indicate a very high carrying capacity, with the potential to support a large abundance and diversity of forest wildlife. A rating of 80-89 would correspond to a habitat rating of “good” and would indicate a moderately high carrying capacity. A rating of 70-79 would be “fair” and would indicate an aboveaverage carrying capacity. A rating of 60-69 would indicate an “average” carrying capacity. Michaels concluded that both ridgetop and streamside stands within the proposed project area had high ratings for the following variables: number of stumps and logs; shape of external edge; and distance to water. In addition, ridgetops stands also had high ratings for diversity of hard mast species, while streamside stands also had high ratings for density of herbaceous cover. In turn, ridgetop stands had distinctively low ratings for only two variables (diversity of soft mast producers and number of canopy openings), while the streamside stands had distinctively low ratings for five (5) of the twelve (12) variables (diversity of hard mast producers, canopy closure of hard mast producers, diversity of soft mast producers, number of snags, and size of snags. The mixed-age forest that occurs within the proposed project area contains relatively few mature trees (less than 18 inches dbh), other than the large beech that remain at lower elevations. The wildlife value is limited due to a shortage of large den trees (especially along the ridgetops) and the presence of a closed canopy (less than 85%). Large den trees provide nesting and escape cover for a variety of wildlife in general, including: flying squirrels (Glaucomys volans), gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoons (Procyon lotor), screech owls (Otus asio), barred owls (Strix varia), and pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus). Mast production (acorns and nuts) and tree cavities increase as trees mature and increase in diameter. The proposed project area has a closed canopy, characteristic of a young- to middle-aged forest, which reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor. This inhibits the growth of understory shrubs and herbaceous ground cover. The relatively open forest floor that now exists limits the diversity of songbirds that might otherwise occur in the forest. Natural openings occur as a result of trees dying or falling and subsequently forbs, shrubs, and tree seedlings become established. The absence of a diverse vegetative community can be a limiting factor in the relative abundance and species richness of songbirds in a forested landscape. In the unlikely event that logging were to cease in the proposed project area, it is probable that older (greater than 100 years old), more mature tree species (greater than 22 inches dbh) would become more abundant. These trees would provide habitat that produces a higher rating than does the existing forest. Given the historical logging practices in this watershed, it is unlikely that logging would cease. In addition to the Michaels study (1998), a reconnaissance-level terrestrial habitat survey of the Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch valleys was conducted on October 27, 1998 by a team made up of biologists from the USFWS, USEPA, and USGS. This study identified five (5) cover types within the proposed project area: south-facing slope deciduous forest, north-facing slope deciduous forest, southfacing slope selectively cut, north-facing slope selectively cut, and south-facing slope clearcut. The team selected one representative sample station within each of the five (5) mapped habitat types for field evaluation.

3-155

At each station, various observations were made of the habitat within a circle having a 50-foot radius from a center point. The variables measured were selected from various wildlife species models (developed as part of the USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures), and were based on the general habitat requirements of forest interior wildlife species. The dbh of all trees taller than twenty (20) feet was recorded within the circle; trees beyond the 50-foot radius were noted but not measured. Ocular estimates of herbaceous cover, tree canopy closure, tree height, shrub height, stem density, and percent brush cover were recorded. All other variables were measured and averages calculated for each station. All herbaceous and shrub species within sight of the recorder were used for the estimated values, and listed for each sample location. The joint-study concluded that there were obvious differences between plant communities present on northfacing slopes when compared to those on south-facing slopes (USFWS, 1998). The north-facing slopes supported species typically found in moist forests, such as ginseng, sweet cicely, goldenseal, and Virginia waterleaf. Yellow poplar and sugar maple were co-dominant tree species on north-facing slopes, while oaks and hickories were uncommon. In contrast, south-facing slopes were xeric, with thin or non-existent organic or litter layers. Herbaceous cover was sparse, and the dominant tree species were red maple, black birch, American beech and white oak. Sourwood, mockernut hickory, butternut, white oak, scarlet oak, chestnut oak, black oak and black locust were only found on the south-facing slopes, whereas white ash, umbrella magnolia, princess tree, and sassafras were only on the north-facing slopes. Species diversity was higher on the north-facing slopes compared to the south-facing slopes. Stem density was higher on south-facing slopes, largely due to a higher number of sapling red maple and black birch. The USFWS study concluded that if the forest were allowed to mature, more mast would be produced, further enhancing its value to wildlife. This conclusion is consistent with the Michaels (1998) modified HEP study and supports the conclusion that the forest within the proposed project area is of average quality for wildlife in its present state. Large forested tracts are important habitat for area sensitive species and species requiring large territories. These forested areas contain other micro-habitats, such as streams and associated riparian corridors, utilized by a wide variety of wildlife species for feeding and/or breeding purposes. To assess the effects disturbance or fragmentation may have on species and biological communities, indicator species were chosen to represent area sensitive and landscape dependent (sensitive to changing land use patterns) species. Forest interior neotropical migrant bird species were used to assess the potential impacts of forest fragmentation on area sensitive species. Changing land use patterns were assessed to determine the potential effects on landscape dependent species such as the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), black bear (Ursus americanus), and bobcat (Felis rufus) (Brooks and Croonquist, 1990). There is only one (1) small palustrine wetland located within the project area (see Sections 3.2, Water Resources). Aquatic habitat within or near the project area is primarily limited to ephemeral and intermittent streams, with the exception of an 825-foot perennial segment near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch. The primary drainage located within and near the project area is Spruce Fork of the Little Coal River and its tributaries (Right Fork of Seng Creek, Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch [only within project area under Alternative 3] within the project area)(see Exhibit 3-15). The mainstem portions of Spruce Fork are located outside of the project area. The ephemeral streams exhibit seasonal flow solely as a result of rainfall events or snowmelt in the region, where as intermittent streams are supported by precipitation in addition to seasonal groundwater influx. Aquatic sampling (benthic and water quality)

3-156

identified only one 825-foot segment of perennial stream within the project area near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch, which indicates a year-round contribution of groundwater in this segment. 3.5.1.2 Terrestrial Game Species White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is the most prevalent game species in the study area. This species occurs throughout the study area and utilizes all of the habitats in the area for both food and cover. Other big game species found in all or portions of the study area include black bear (Ursus americanus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa). Upland game birds in the study area include mourning dove, Eastern turkey, ruffed grouse, and woodcock. Wild turkey is the most important game bird in West Virginia. Wild turkey are found throughout the forestland and reclaimed mined lands of the study area. As with other game species, a diversity of cover is important for maintaining healthy turkey populations. Shrubs, weeds, vines, grasses, and forestland crops provide adequate cover for this species. Important small game mammals in the study area include fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). The fox and gray squirrels are found in upland and bottomland woodlands. Hard mast (e.g., acorns) provides the bulk of both species' diets. The eastern cottontail inhabits bottomland woodland fringes, brush-dotted pastures, brushy edges of fields, and riparian zones of well-drained streams. In many places it is common along country roads, especially where the sides are grown up to dense vegetation, and adjoining areas. Fur-bearers are of economic and recreational importance in West Virginia. Within the Central Appalachian Broadleaf forest, the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) are typically abundant within the study area. Additional fur-bearers that occur within the study area include beaver (Castor canadensis) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Other game species identified for the study area include a number of waterfowl that are present as migrant or summer residents. Waterfowl are found in limited numbers in the study area, including mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos), wood ducks (Aix sponsa), and resident Canada geese (Branta canadensis). 3.5.1.3 Terrestrial Non-game Species

Diverse non-game wildlife species (e.g., small mammals, passerines, raptors, amphibians, and reptiles) are associated with the habitats occurring within the study area. General habitats found within the study area support a variety of resident and seasonal non-game species. Passerines (songbirds) are numerous and use the range of native habitats and man-made features (e.g., reclaimed mined lands, residential sites, etc.) within the study area. Mammal species also occur within habitats throughout the study area; however, certain habitats support a greater density and diversity of species than other habitats. In general, small mammals tend to be more widely distributed than larger mammals, occupying a variety of habitat types. Non-game species known to inhabit the Mountaintop Mining Region may also inhabit the project area. Nongame mammals, particularly small mammal species, provide a substantial prey base for the region's mammalian predators and raptor species. Non-game small mammalian species that have the potential to be found in the proposed project area include the northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), whitefooted mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), short-tailed shrews (Blarina brevicauda and B. carolinensis), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus).
3-157

Non-game birds encompass a variety of passerine and raptor species. Non-game birds include a diversity of neotropical migrants (birds that breed in North America and winter in the neotropical region of South America). These bird species are considered integral to natural communities and act as environmental indicators based on their sensitivity to environmental changes caused by human activities. Non-game bird species found within the project area are typical of the species found in the Central Appalachian Broadleaf forest province of the Northern Cumberland Mountains section. Frequently encountered bird species within the region include the red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), wood thrush (Hylcichla mustelina), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). A variety of raptor species, such as owls, vultures, and hawks, are known to inhabit the Mountaintop Mining Region and may also inhabit, nest, forage, and/or breed within the project area and surrounding habitats. Other non-game species in the study area would include amphibian and reptile species. A number of these non-game species depend on the limited riparian and aquatic habitat associated with the streams and wetlands within the study area. Common reptiles and amphibians of the region include the eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), American toad (Bufo americanus), and spring peeper (Hyla crucifer). Special consideration has been given to salamanders potentially inhabiting the area. The most common streamside salamanders potentially occurring within 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order streams include three (3) Desmognathus species (D. monticola, D. f. fuscus, and D. ochropheaus), the spring salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus), and the southern two-lined salamander (Eurycea cirrigera). While seeps and headwater streams represent the most common habitat for these salamanders, they will inhabit larger ordered streams. In addition, the southern two-line salamander is known to inhabit ponds. A survey of the wildlife and drainage control structures (ponds) at a mine facility in Boone County, found that among other vertebrates (mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and other amphibians), both Ambystoma (mole salamanders) and Notophthalmus v. viridescens (Red-spotted newt) make use of drainage control structures (ponds) during and after treatment of the surface water. 3.5.1.4 Aquatic Species Streams within the project area are primarily classified as intermittent and ephemeral, with the exception of an 825-foot perennial segment near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch. Aquatic species found within the project area are benthic macroinvertebrate species. No fish species, catadromous or anadromous in nature, were identified as being present within waters of the proposed project area. Benthic surveys were conducted in the streams within the project area and in the receiving streams downstream of the proposed project to describe composition of species and the quality of surface water resources within the proposed project area specifically, and within the Spruce Fork watershed immediately adjacent to the mine area. Exhibit 3-16 shows the sites that were sampled for the Applicant’s PA. In all, over one hundred (100) benthic samples have been collected within and adjacent to the proposed project area in the last fourteen (14) years. Aquatic data, primarily benthic data, derived from numerous studies are detailed in Table 3-9. Table 3-10 provides a summary of the data from each of the samples collected within and near the project area. The studies incorporated by reference into this EIS were conducted by two Federal resource agencies (USFWS and USEPA) and two private consulting firms (Sturm Environmental Services [Sturm] and Biological Monitoring Inc. [BMI]) under contract with Mingo Logan.

3-158

3.5.1.5

Special Status Species and Species of Special Concern

Special status species are those that are listed as Federally threatened or endangered. Federally listed and proposed species and Federally designated areas of critical habitat receive protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.). The ESA declared the intention of Congress to conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems on which those species depend. The ESA requires Federal agencies to utilize their authority by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered or threatened species. The USFWS is the primary environmental regulatory agency responsible for enforcing the ESA. West Virginia does not have state legislation to protect threatened or endangered species but relies solely upon Federal legislation to protect this resource. Under the ESA, the USACE, as lead Federal agency for the proposed project, must determine if the proposed activities may affect a Federally listed species or species proposed for Federal listing. If such a determination is made, the USACE is required under Section 7 of the ESA to consult with the USFWS regarding the scope and magnitude of the effects. A Biological Assessment (BA) is required under 7(c) of the ESA, if a Federally listed species or critical habitat may be present in the project area. Within the State of West Virginia, there are currently fourteen (14) threatened or endangered species listed. Through coordination with the USFWS it was determined that only two of the Federally listed endangered species, the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) have the potential to be present within the proposed project area (Appendix M, Agency Comments on Notice of Intent, USFWS letter dated March 20, 2000). The USFWS has determined that the entire State of West Virginia is potential summer habitat for the Indiana bat and that open, abandoned portals or other similar features (caves) could provide summer and winter habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat or hibernaculum for the Indiana bat. Sections 4(d) and 9 of the ESA, as amended, prohibit the “taking” (i.e., harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or wildlife without first obtaining an incidental take permit. A “taking” is termed incidental if the “taking” results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by a Federal agency. In this case, the activity is the issuance of a Federal permit. The USFWS and state natural resource agencies currently accept two (2) options to avoid the possibility of an incidental take of the Indiana or Virginia bigeared bat. The first option is potential roost tree (PRT) removal during times of bat hibernation, between November 15th and March 31st. If the trees are removed during this period, no further consultation is required. The second option is to conduct mist net surveys between May 15th and August 15th to determine the possible presence or absence of Indiana bats within a specific area. Aside from the Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats, there are no other species that are afforded protection under Section 7 of the ESA expected to potentially inhabit the proposed project area. However, consideration was also given to rare species that have been found in Logan County. These species include the green salamander (Aneides aenus), golden-backed skipper (Autochton cellu), redside dace (Clinostomus elongates), Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana), gemmed satyr (Cyllopsis gemma), purple clematis (Clematis occidentalis var occidenta), old-field roadflax (Nuttallanthus canadensis) and rock skullcap (Scutellaria saxatilis). None of these species were observed in the proposed project area. Potential impacts to species of concern were also considered and include the following: hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), eastern woodrat (Neotoma magister), southeastern big-eared bat
3-159

(Corynorhinus rafinesquii), cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana), butternut (Juglans cinerea), and Gray’s saxifrage (Saxifraga caroliniana). The red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber), which is listed as a state sensitive species, may occur within streams in Logan County, but most often are found in slow sluggish streams. As waters of the U.S. within the proposed project area are not of this geomorphological type, it is unlikely that red salamander utilize them. In addition to the Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats, the only other endangered or threatened species that are listed as potentially having habitat located within the project area are the bald eagle and the eastern cougar (UFWS WEBSITE http://ecos.fws.gov/tess public/servlet/gov.doi.tess public.servlets.UsaLists? state=WV). The bald eagle is listed as a threatened species for the State of West Virginia and the eastern cougar (endangered) is believed to be extinct in the state. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) The closest live capture of an Indiana bat to the proposed project area occurred during a mist net survey conducted in the summer of 2005 in Boone County, in an area roughly twelve (12) miles northeast of the Spruce No. 1 Mine (USFWS, 2006). Summer habitat, however, is not listed by the USFWS as critical habitat. Critical habitat, as defined in the ESA (16 USC 402.03 (5) (A)), is the specific location within the geographic area occupied by the species essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat does not include the entire geographic area, which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species (16 USC 402.03 (5) (C)). Areas of critical habitat for the Indiana bat have been designated in Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia. Presently, one “critical habitat” area has been designated for this species within West Virginia. This area, commonly called Hellhole Cave, is located in Pendleton County, West Virginia, and is well outside the proposed project area. Mist net surveys and surveys for open, abandoned portals or other similar features (caves) which could provide hibernaculum for the Indiana bat have been conducted within the proposed project area (as detailed below in Section 3.5.2.1) and neither the bat or such habitat were identified. Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) Although the Virginia big-eared bat is not known to inhabit the project area, it could inhabit any potential underground openings in the area. Open, abandoned portals or other similar features (caves) could provide summer and winter habitat for the Virginia big-eared. Surveys for open, abandoned portals or other similar features (caves) which could provide summer and winter habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat have been conducted within the proposed project area (as detailed below in Section 3.5.2.1) and neither the bat nor such habitat were identified. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The bald eagle’s potential habitat includes the entire State of West Virginia. The bald eagle was first listed on March 11, 1967. It is currently designated as threatened in the coterminous U.S. (lower 48 state). Within the area covered by this listing, this species is known to occur in West Virginia with populations primarily being located in the northeastern portions of the state. Based upon site reconnaissance of the area, there are currently no bald eagles utilizing the study area.

3-160

Eastern Cougar (Felis concolor couguar) The eastern cougar was once found throughout the State of West Virginia. Development and overharvesting led to its presumed extinction in the state. The eastern cougar was first listed on June 4, 1973. It is currently designated as endangered in the entire range. Within the area covered by this listing, this species is known to occur in West Virginia. Although, there have been a few reported sightings throughout the state, none of them have been confirmed as being the eastern cougar. The eastern cougar is presumed extinct in the wild. 3.5.2 3.5.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Applicant’s Preferred Alternative

Terrestrial Wildlife The potential impacts of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine on terrestrial wildlife can be classified as longterm, but temporary, and long-term. Long-term, but temporary, impacts arise from habitat removal and disturbance due to activities associated with the mine operation; these impacts would cease upon mine closure and completion of successful reclamation. Long-term impacts consist of permanent changes to habitats and the wildlife populations that depend on those habitats, irrespective of reclamation success. Direct impacts to wildlife populations would include limited direct mortalities from mine development, habitat loss or alteration, incremental habitat fragmentation, and physical displacement. Indirect impacts would include increased noise, additional human presence, and the potential for increased vehicle-related mortalities. Surface Disturbance The greatest impact to wildlife from surface disturbance would be the temporary and permanent loss or alteration of habitat caused by construction and operation of the mine and its associated facilities. Habitat loss or alteration would result in direct losses of smaller, less mobile species of wildlife, such as small mammals and reptiles, and the displacement of more mobile species into adjacent habitats. Displacement could also result in some local reductions in wildlife populations if adjacent habitats are at carrying capacity. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.1, the Applicant’s PA would result in the direct loss of approximately 2,278 acres of vegetation and aquatic resources. In the mine area, a related direct loss of habitat would occur incrementally over the 15-year life of the mine, with approximately 682 acres (includes exempt ancillary areas) of mine disturbance at any given time. The disturbed areas would be reclaimed to the pre-mining land use of forestland discussed in Section 2.5.3, Closure and Reclamation. In addition, water resources would be reestablished within the project areas, as shown on Exhibit 2-25. Approximately 38.5 acres of riparian habitat would be developed along the restored and created channels. As a result, there would be minimal losses of riparian habitat related to the project. In addition, off-site enhancement of Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek would further offset the losses of riparian habitat in the Spruce Fork watershed in the general vicinity of the proposed project (see Exhibit 2-25). The direct loss of habitat would be a short-term impact in much of the mine area because vegetation would become re-established following project reclamation, which would be conducted concurrently with mining such that only portions of the project area would be disturbed at any given time. Facilities that would be in place throughout the life of the project (e.g., offices, mine maintenance, truck dump facility, haulroads, and drainage control structures) would result in a
3-161

long-term impact to habitats until closure and final reclamation have been completed. Acreages of disturbance by mine-year and mine component are presented in Table 2-16. Game Species Potential direct impacts to big game species (i.e., white-tailed deer) would include the incremental short-term reduction of potential forage habitat and the incremental increase of habitat fragmentation from construction and development activities (i.e., vegetation removal for mine area development, ancillary facilities, and haulroad construction). This anticipated loss of habitat would result in a small, incremental reduction in the amount of available habitat and would be expected to have little impact on the existing deer population densities that occur in the study area. In most instances, suitable habitat adjacent to the project areas would be available for use by these species. No important big game corridors or key seasonal habitats have been identified within the study area; therefore, impacts to deer and other big game populations would be expected to be low. Direct impacts to small game species from surface disturbance would include the incremental short-term loss of potentially suitable breeding, nesting, and foraging habitat in upland and riparian areas; in most instances, suitable habitat adjacent to the project areas would be available for use by these species. However, as discussed above, displacement would increase competition and could result in some local reductions in wildlife populations if adjacent habitats are at carrying capacity. This displacement would be temporary and short-term until vegetation is re-established following project reclamation, as only portions of the project area would be disturbed at any given time. Potential direct adverse impacts also could include nest or burrow abandonment or loss of eggs or young. These losses would reduce productivity for that breeding season. Non-game Species As indicated in Section 3.5.1.3, a variety of resident and migratory bird species (e.g., raptors, songbirds, waterfowl), small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles have been identified as potentially occurring in the study area. It is possible that nesting birds or other resident species could be present within or adjacent to construction or development areas associated with the Applicant’s PA. Potential direct adverse impacts to these species would include the incremental short-term loss of potentially suitable breeding, roosting/shelter, and foraging habitat. However, this incremental loss would be expected to have little effect on local populations based on the amount of potentially suitable habitat in the surrounding area. If construction were to occur during the breeding season, direct impacts to breeding species could include the possible direct loss of nests or indirect effects (e.g., abandonment) from increased noise and human presence within close proximity to an active nest site. Impacts to nesting birds or other species residing within the project area would be limited to incremental habitat loss associated with mine development. This loss, however, would be anticipated to have little effect given the extent of native habitats in the surrounding region and the lack of unique habitats or documented rare species in the project area. The primary concern regarding impacts on non-game and game species is the potential impacts on biodiversity and forest fragmentation. A detailed discussion of forest fragmentation is included in the cumulative impacts discussion of Sections 3.4, Vegetation, and Section 3.8, Land Use and Recreation.

3-162

Human Presence and Noise The most common wildlife responses to noise and human presence are avoidance or accommodation. Avoidance would result in displacement of animals from an area larger than the actual disturbance area. The total extent of habitat lost as a result of wildlife avoidance response is impossible to predict since the degree of response varies from species to species and can even vary between different individuals of the same species. Also, after initial avoidance of human activity and noise-producing areas, certain wildlife species may acclimate to the activity and begin to reoccupy areas formerly avoided. For example, during the initial development phases, it is likely that deer would be displaced from a larger area than the actual disturbance sites due to the avoidance response. However, deer have demonstrated the ability to acclimate to a variety of mining activities as long as human harassment levels do not increase substantially. It is possible, therefore, that the extent of deer displacement would approximate the actual disturbance area after the first few years of mine operation. In addition to avoidance response, increased human presence intensifies the potential for wildlife/human interactions ranging from harassment of wildlife to poaching and legal harvest. Increased human presence and related increases in traffic levels on project access roads also increases the potential for wildlife/vehicle collisions. The greatest increases in traffic levels on access roads to the project area would occur during the shift change. The posting of appropriate speed limits along the access roads would further minimize the potential of wildlife/vehicle collisions. Most wildlife species tend to rapidly reinvade the reclaimed areas and human activities in and around the mine have little effect on the numbers and diversity of wildlife using these reclaimed areas (Silvy, 2000). In general, the numbers and diversity of wildlife observed in the reclaimed areas would be anticipated to be comparable to or greater than the numbers and diversity observed within the project area prior to mining. Water Discharge Baseflows in the receiving streams of Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, and the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, where valley fills are proposed, would be anticipated to increase from that of pre-mining levels, however peak flows would be expected to be reduced. Valley fills constructed with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills continuing downstream; this would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime with natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like), as well as habitat enhancement in the streams, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the receiving streams. This would result in an increase of available water, foraging and breeding habitat, and cover for terrestrial wildlife, including white-tailed deer, upland small game species, waterfowl, songbirds, raptors, and other terrestrial species within the study area. Increased flows may better support existing plant communities of riparian woodlands and emergent vegetation immediately adjacent to these intermittent streams (see Section 3.4.2.1). Increased riparian vegetation would be site-specific, depending on the existing condition or health of the plant species present, channel geometry and stability, wildlife grazing intensity, and season of use. The increased availability of water and riparian vegetation downstream of the valley fill drainage control structures during mining and toe of the fills upon final reclamation would help to offset the loss of riparian habitat in the upper reaches of these streams as a result of the filling activities. As discussed in Section 3.4, Vegetation, the reduction in riparian and wetland habitats would be mitigated by the on-site recreation/restoration of these habitats and
3-163

the on-site and off-site restoration of riparian habitats as proposed in the CMP (Appendix I). However, the extent of these indirect effects on wildlife would depend on the species' use of the affected area and their relative sensitivity, as well as the availability of similar habitat types in the area. Aquatic Species Surface Disturbance The potential effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine on aquatic resources are closely related to impacts on groundwater and surface water resources, which are discussed in Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.4.2, respectively. Mine construction and operation would remove aquatic habitat consisting of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial stream segments. Approximately 43,121 feet (8.64 acres) of intermittent and ephemeral streams, 825 feet (0.19 acre) of perennial stream, and a single palustrine wetland covering 0.12 acre would be incrementally removed during the life of the mine. Due to the lack of water on a consistent basis, existing aquatic communities are mainly limited to benthic macroinvertebrates and attached algae (periphyton) that can persist in intermittent and perennial streams. No fish were identified during studies within the project area (see Section 3.2). Short-term, local increases in suspended sediment could occur during mining and construction of roads. These short-term increases in sediment could result in localized effects on macroinvertebrate communities and bottom substrate composition. Fish species, if present, in the perennial segment and seasonally present in intermittent segments of streams, would be able to tolerate short-term increases in sediment. Sedimentation resulting from mining activity would be confined to the project area as the proposed drainage control structures have been designed to meet the applicable effluent limits proposed in the NPDES permit. After water has been detained in the drainage control structures, suspended sediment levels in discharges would be similar to background conditions. Suspended sediment concentrations would stabilize and return to typical background concentrations after the mineral removal and road construction activities are completed. By implementing proper drainage control plans including detention ponds and erosion control measures during and after construction, the impact of potential increased sediment levels on aquatic species and their habitat would be minimal. Any localized increases in sediment would not be expected to affect downstream areas of Spruce Fork. Water Discharge
The SWROA prepared for the Applicant’s PA, indicated that the during- and post-mining peak flows resulting from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event would have “no net increase” over the pre-mining peak flows at the evaluation points for the study. Thus, during storm events, the aquatic species in the receiving streams would not be impacted by greater peak storm event flows when compared to the pre-mining equivalent storm event, and would actually be expected to be less.

Baseflows in the receiving streams of Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, and the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek, where valley fills are proposed, would be anticipated to increase from that of pre-mining levels, however peak flows would be expected to be reduced. Valley fills constructed with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills continuing downstream; this would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime with natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like), as well as habitat enhancement in the streams’ riparian zones, would be expected to assist in
3-164

preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the streams downstream of the valley fill toes. Impacts to aquatic resources would be offset, as discussed in Section 3.2, Water Resources, by the increase in baseflows downstream of the fill toes, the on-site replacement of aquatic and riparian habitats, and the on-site and off-site restoration of these habitats as proposed in the CMP (Appendix I). Special Status Species Indiana Bat In accordance with USFWS guidelines, a mist net survey was conducted for the Indiana bat within the proposed project area during July of 2000 (Baker, 2000). No Indiana bats were captured. Results of the survey indicated that the Indiana bat was not present within the proposed project area and USFWS concurrence on this issue was obtained (Appendix M, USFWS letter dated November 8, 2000). Due to the fact that this survey took place over three years prior to the issuance of WVDEP Permit S-501397, IBR 2 (approved April 26, 2005), the determination of probable absence of the Indiana bat from the proposed project area was considered out-of-date (Appendix M, USFWS letter dated March 20, 2003). Consequently, another mist net survey was conducted in May 2004 during which no Indiana bats were captured. Results of the May 2004 mist netting survey indicated that the Indiana bat is not present within the proposed project area (BHE, 2004). A report dated August 5, 2004 summarizing these findings is included with Appendix M. Concurrence from the USFWS was received on this survey in 2005 (Appendix M, USFWS letter dated April 8, 2005). Given that no Indiana bats were caught during either of the two (2) surveys conducted in accordance with USFWS protocol for Indiana bat surveying, and no portals or other similar features were identified within the project area, the proposed project would not be expected to have direct impacts on this species. The concurrence with the findings of these two (2) surveys from the USFWS concluded Section 7 consultation requirements for the proposed project. Virginia Big-Eared Bat In addition to the mist net surveys conducted, as described under the discussion of the Indiana bat, the proposed project area was investigated for the presence of open, abandoned portals or other similar features (caves) that could provide summer and winter habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat or hibernaculum for the Indiana bat. No portals or other features were identified within the proposed project area that provide habitat for these endangered bats. Given that no Virginia big-eared bats were caught during either of two (2) surveys conducted in accordance with USFWS protocol for bat surveying, it is highly unlikely that the proposed project would have direct impacts on this species. The concurrence with the findings of these two (2) surveys from the USFWS concluded Section 7 consultation requirements for the proposed project.

3-165

Bald Eagle There are currently no known bald eagles utilizing the study area for breeding or nesting. There would be no anticipated impacts to the bald eagle as a result of the proposed project. Eastern Cougar Although the proposed project area could be utilized as habitat for the cougar, it is presumed to be extinct in the State of West Virginia. Therefore, there would be no anticipated impacts to the cougar as a result of the proposed project. 3.5.2.2 Alternative 3 Terrestrial Wildlife The potential impacts of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine under Alternative 3 on terrestrial wildlife would be very similar to those described for the Applicant’s PA, except that Alternative 3 would have a greater area of disturbance and be of shorter duration. Surface Disturbance The potential impacts to wildlife from surface disturbance under Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as those for the Applicant’s PA, but for the greater area of disturbance and shorter duration of the project under this alternative. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, Alternative 3 would result in the direct loss of approximately 2,914 acres of vegetation and aquatic resources. In the mine area, a related direct loss of habitat would occur incrementally over the 10-year life of the mine, with approximately 1,849 acres (includes pre-strip and ancillary exempt areas) of mine disturbance at any given time. As proposed under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, disturbed areas would be reclaimed to the pre-mining land use of forestland and aquatic and riparian habitat would be reestablished within the project areas similarly under this alternative. Additional off-site mitigation would be required to offset the losses of riparian habitat in the mining area. Direct and indirect effects on habitat would be the very similar to t he Applicant’s PA. Acreages of disturbance by mine-year and mine component are presented in Table 2-4. Game Species Potential direct impacts to game species under Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as described for the Applicant’s PA, and would be expected to be minimal. Non-game Species Potential direct impacts to non-game species under Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as described for the Applicant’s PA, and would be expected to be minimal. Human Presence and Noise Wildlife responses to noise and human presence under Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as described for the Applicant’s PA and would also be anticipated to result in comparable or greater numbers and diversity of wildlife within the project area post-reclamation.

3-166

Water Discharge The potential effects of the project under Alternative 3 on water discharges from the project area and downstream receiving streams would be essentially the same as described for the Applicant’s PA. Aquatic Species Surface Disturbance The potential effects of Alternative 3 on aquatic resources are closely related to impacts on groundwater and surface water resources, just as in the Applicant’s PA, except for the greater impacts that would occur under Alternative 3. Mine construction and operation would remove aquatic habitat consisting primarily of ephemeral and intermittent streams, with the exception of an 825-foot perennial segment near the mouth of Oldhouse Branch. Approximately 56,930 feet of intermittent and ephemeral streams, 825feet of perennial stream, and a single palustrine wetland covering 0.12 acre would be incrementally removed during the life of the mine. Due to the lack of water on a consistent basis, existing aquatic communities are mainly limited to macroinvertebrates and attached algae (periphyton) that can persist in intermittent and perennial streams. No fish were identified during studies within the project area. Any localized increases in suspended sediment would occur within the project area and would not be expected to affect downstream areas of the receiving streams or Spruce Fork. Water Discharge The potential effects of the project under Alternative 3 on water discharges from the project area and downstream receiving streams and aquatic species would be essentially the same as described for the Applicant’s PA and would require similar mitigation be performed. Special Status Species Potential impacts upon special status species that could potentially be located or have habitat within the project area of Alternative 3, specifically the Indiana bat, Virginia big-eared bat, bald eagle, and eastern cougar, would be highly unlikely based upon the findings of studies performed for the Applicant’s PA located in the same general area during which none of these species were found to be present. 3.5.2.3 No Action Alternative Terrestrial Species Under the No Action Alternative, the Spruce No. 1 Mine-related impacts to approximately 2,278 acres of vegetation and aquatic habitat, as described for the Applicant’s PA (2,914 acres for Alternative 3), would not occur. As a result, the potentially related animal displacement or mortality and/or habitat fragmentation would not occur, and the current habitat mosaic would be retained. No effects to riparian or wetland habitat due to mine water discharge, or net increases in these habitats as a result of Spruce No. 1 Mine operation, reclamation and mitigation, would occur. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances.

3-167

Aquatic Species Under the No Action Alternative, no flow alterations and associated changes in aquatic habitat would occur in the receiving watersheds and no loss of intermittent, ephemeral, or perennial streams or net change in aquatic habitats related to the Spruce No. 1 Mine operation, reclamation, and mitigation would occur. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances. Special Status Species and Species of Special Concern No impacts to special status species or species of special concern associated with surface disturbance or surface water discharge related to the Spruce No. 1 Mine would occur under this alternative. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances. 3.5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Terrestrial Species Surface Disturbance The cumulative effects area for surface disturbance examined for wildlife resources included the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Spruce Fork watershed. Detailed discussion of the land use/land cover changes and forest fragmentation are included in Sections 3.4, and 3.8. As discussed in Section 3.4.3, an area of approximately 2,278 acres (2,914 acres for Alternative 3) would be disturbed incrementally over the project life of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The disturbed areas of the project would be reclaimed to the pre-mining land use of forestland habitat. Existing operations within the watershed have a variety of proposed post-mining land uses, with the majority being fish and wildlife habitat and/or forestland. The reasonably foreseeable future projects (currently pending mining permits) include the Adkins Fork Surface Mine and the North Rum Surface Mine. Within the proposed boundary of the Adkins Fork Surface Mine (approximately 333 acres), the two (2) major land cover types are forestland (305 acres/92.2%) and active mining (22 acres/6.8%). Upon reclamation, approximately 227 acres would be planted for reforestation and 106 acres utilized for a post-mining land use of industrial/commercial. Within the proposed project area of the North Rum Surface Mine (approximately 801 acres), the three (3) major land cover types are post-mining transitional (415 acres/51.8%), forestland (303 acres/37.8%) and active mining (83 acres/ 10.4%). Upon reclamation, the entire 801 acres would be reclaimed for reforestation. Based upon the pending permit applications, the maximum potential disturbance during any phase of operation for the Adkins Fork Surface Mine and North Rum Surface Mine are 114 and 468 acres, respectively. Assuming that the worst-case disturbance for the Spruce No. 1 Mine and these other project areas occurred simultaneously, the increase of disturbance for the Spruce Fork watershed would be 1,264
3-168

acres or 1.6 percent of the total watershed (2,431 acres or three percent [3%] for Alternative 3). This would be a short-term affect as the areas would be contemporaneously reclaimed. In addition, total disturbance associated with the existing operations within the watershed would most likely be decreasing over time. Cumulative impacts associated with disturbance in the watershed would be limited due to the on-going reclamation and revegetation of disturbed areas associated with the existing operations and transition of most of these areas back to forestland. Water Discharge
Affects on water quality are included in Section 3.2, Water Resources. Potential affects from the existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are anticipated to be similar to those of the Applicant’s PA. Potential effects on areas downstream of the proposed valley fills associated with the projects would, over the long term, likely be positive due to providing greater baseflows and lesser peak flows. Valley fills constructed with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills continuing downstream; this would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime with natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like), as well as habitat enhancement in the streams, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the receiving streams. This would result in an increase of available water, foraging and breeding habitat, and cover for terrestrial wildlife, including white-tailed deer, upland small game species, waterfowl, songbirds, raptors, and other terrestrial species within the study area. Increased flows may better support existing plant communities of riparian woodlands and emergent vegetation immediately adjacent to streams. Increased riparian vegetation would be site-specific, depending on the existing condition or health of the plant species present, channel geometry and stability, wildlife grazing intensity, and season of use. The increased availability of water and riparian vegetation downstream of the valley fill drainage control structures during mining and toe of the fills upon final reclamation would help to offset the loss of riparian habitat in the upper reaches of these streams as a result of the filling activities. As discussed in Section 3.4, Vegetation, the reduction in riparian and wetland habitats would be mitigated by the on-site recreation/restoration of these habitats and the on-site and off-site restoration of riparian habitats required for mining projects. Many of the existing operations have proposed mitigation for the enhancement and/or replacement of the permanently impacted streams at a 1:1 ratio, while, the Applicant’s PA and the reasonably foreseeable future projects would provide mitigation of impacts by on-site and off-site reestablishment, enhancement, and/or replacement of the impacted streams at a minimum 1:1 ratio and SHU basis. However, the extent of indirect effects on wildlife would depend on the species' use of the affected area and their relative sensitivity, as well as the availability of similar habitat types in the area.

Aquatic Species Impacts on aquatic resources are associated with the changes in the duration and magnitude of flows, as discussed in Section 3.2.4.3. The following information summarizes impacts on aquatic biota and their habitat in relation to various cumulative project activities. Surface Disturbance Construction and operation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, Adkins Fork Surface Mine, and North Rum Surface Mine would remove aquatic habitat consisting mainly of ephemeral and intermittent, streams during the life of
3-169

the mines. In addition, past and present surface mining operations have removed aquatic habitat. However, most of the previously mined and reclaimed operations have created ephemeral and intermittent streams and aquatic habitat on the down-dip side of reclaimed areas as the groundwater flow through reclaimed areas often create flow in the perimeter ditches. In addition, potential effects on areas downstream of the proposed valley fills associated with the projects would, over the long term, likely be positive due to providing greater baseflows and lesser peak flows. Valley fills constructed with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a perennial flow pattern from the toes of the valley fills continuing downstream; this would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime with natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like), as well as habitat enhancement in the streams, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the receiving streams. The reduction in aquatic and riparian habitats would be mitigated by the on-site recreation/restoration of these habitats and the on-site and off-site restoration of riparian habitats required for mining projects. Many of the existing operations have proposed mitigation for the restoration, enhancement, and/or replacement of the permanently impacted streams at a 1:1 ratio, while, the Applicant’s PA and the reasonably foreseeable future projects would provide mitigation of impacts by on-site and off-site reestablishment, enhancement, and/or replacement of the impacted streams at a minimum 1:1 ratio and SHU basis. However, the extent of indirect effects on wildlife would depend on the species' use of the affected area and their relative sensitivity, as well as the availability of similar habitat types in the area. Water Discharge Existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future mining projects in the study area have been or would be designed to meet the effluent limits of their NPDES permits. In addition, operations are required to complete a SWROA. The proposed and active projects located within the local watersheds are required to be designed to meet the SWROA requirement of resulting in “no net increase” in peak flow from the project area during a 25-year/24-hour storm event. The existing operations that are not Phase I eligible are required to complete a SWROA and provide documentation that the projects are currently resulting in “no net increase” in the peak flow from the project area when compared to the pre-mining condition. If they cannot demonstrate “no net increase” under the current configuration then they must modify the drainage control plan to comply with the requirement. The timeline for implementation of the regulation was tiered based on the acreage of the existing operation, with the larger operations (greater than 400 acres) required to comply by June 30, 2004, and the smallest permits (less than 50 acres) required to comply by June 19, 2006. All of the active or proposed operations within the local watersheds are currently required to result in “no net increase” in the peak flow from the pre-mining condition, thereby minimizing potential flooding impacts on the aquatic species located downstream of the projects.
Potential effects from the existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be anticipated to be similar to those of the Applicant’s PA. Potential effects on areas downstream of the proposed valley fills

associated with the projects would, over the long term, likely be positive due to providing greater baseflows and lesser peak flows. Valley fills constructed with rock underdrains would be expected to alter the flow regime downstream of the valley fill sites by generally creating a perennial flow pattern from the toes of the
3-170

valley fills on downstream, which would be expected to result in a reduction in extreme hydrological events (flooding and drought) directly downstream of the discharges. Combining a more constant flow regime with natural stream channel design techniques for restoration (Rosgen-like), as well as habitat enhancement in the streams, would be expected to assist in preserving the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the receiving streams. This would result in an increase of available water, foraging and breeding habitat, and cover for terrestrial wildlife, including white-tailed deer, upland small game species, waterfowl, songbirds, raptors, and other terrestrial species within the study area. Increased flows may better support existing plant communities of riparian woodlands and emergent vegetation immediately adjacent to streams. Increased riparian vegetation would be site-specific, depending on the existing condition or health of the plant species present, channel geometry and stability, wildlife grazing intensity, and season of use. The increased availability of water and riparian vegetation downstream of the valley fill drainage control structures during mining and toe of the fills upon final reclamation would help to offset the loss of riparian habitat in the upper reaches of these streams as a result of the filling activities. As discussed in Section 3.4, Vegetation, the reduction in riparian and wetland habitats would be mitigated by the on-site recreation/restoration of these habitats and the on-site and off-site restoration of riparian habitats required for mining projects. Many of the existing operations have proposed mitigation for the restoration, enhancement, and/or replacement of the permanently impacted streams at a 1:1 ratio, while, the Applicant’s PA and the reasonably foreseeable future projects would provide mitigation of impacts by on-site and off-site reestablishment, enhancement, and/or replacement of the impacted streams at a minimum 1:1 ratio and SHU basis. However, the extent of indirect effects on wildlife would depend on the species' use of the affected area and their relative sensitivity, as well as the availability of similar habitat types in the area. Special Status Species Surface Disturbance There would be no anticipated cumulative impacts associated with surface disturbance on the bald eagle or the eastern cougar as a result of the existing, proposed, or reasonably foreseeable future actions as neither of these species are known to exist in the study area. Potential affects on the Indiana bat associated with older existing permits are not known and cannot be quantified. Older operations were not required to conduct bat surveys. Recent projects, including the proposed project, have been required to conduct winter timbering or conduct bat mist net surveys to determine if the area is being used as summer habitat by the Indiana bat. Project areas must be surveyed to determine the existence of open, abandoned portals or similar features that may provide hibernaculum for the Indiana bat or habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat. The proposed project area was mist netted and surveyed for portal features, neither of which were found to be present. The study area is generally not believed to provide prime habitat; as such, no cumulative impacts to the Indiana bat or Virginia big-eared bat would be anticipated as a result of the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area. Water Discharge Potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species as a result of the water discharge would be expected to be similar to those discussed for terrestrial species.

3-171

3.5.4

MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Surface and groundwater monitoring is required to be conducted at the NPDES outfalls and at in-stream monitoring points upstream and downstream of the project area throughout the mine life and through final bond release. In addition, benthic and, if present, fish sampling in the receiving streams would be conducted during mining and post-reclamation. 3.5.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS Residual adverse effects to terrestrial and aquatic species, including special status species and species of special concern, would include the temporary loss of terrestrial forestland habitat and permanent net loss of approximately 2.04 acres of aquatic habitat as a result of the Applicant’s PA. This loss would be offset by the replacement, restoration, and enhancement of aquatic and riparian habitat as proposed in the CMP (Appendix I). For fisheries, stream flows downstream of the valley fills would be anticipated to increase to more perennial flow regimes which would be beneficial to fish which could migrate into these areas. 3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resource issues include the potential direct or indirect impacts of the disturbance within the project area to cultural sites. 3.6.1 3.6.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Prehistoric Background

The cultural resources study area and cumulative impacts area is comprised of the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area and its viewshed. Investigations into the prehistory of this region of West Virginia have revealed evidence of human activity from the Paleo-Indian age through the Late Prehistoric (11,500 B.C to 1560 A.D.). However, the prehistoric sites identified in the project area only reflect prehistoric utilization from the Early Archaic to Intermediate Prehistoric. This long span of activity is believed to mainly include huntergatherers organized into small groups or bands that exploited floral and faunal resources during their migratory rounds. The prehistoric site types observed within the mine area are generally lithic scatters (chipped stone flakes scattered in varying concentrations) that infrequently have associated formal tools (i.e., projectile points, scrapers, blades, etc.) or features (i.e., hearths, etc.) present. These prehistoric sites are predominantly located along ridgelines where an unobstructed view of the surrounding terrain was afforded. Partially based on the low occurrence of ground stone, these sites have been interpreted to be brief occupation campsites that primarily focused on the procurement of food through hunting activities. 3.6.1.2 Historic Background Logan County was named for Chief Logan of the Mingo Indians and was formed in 1824. Its mountainous terrain was suited to hunting, grazing by domesticated animals, and growing crops, such as corn, where the forest was cleared. The county seat, originally named Lawnville, was founded in 1824. It was later called Aracoma after Chief Cornstalk's daughter who resided there with her white husband. Finally, in 1907, the town was renamed Logan, also in honor of Chief Logan. Beginning in the 1850’s, timber was an important resource for the people of the county. Early in the history of the county, coal was used for domestic purposes by the inhabitants. Most residents used coal mined from the hillsides of their own back yards. At Branchland, coal was loaded on barges bound for Guyandotte and to various markets. But the coal resources remained largely untapped until the
3-172

introduction of the railroads. The first coal shipped out of Logan was from Gay Coal and Coke Company in the early 1900’s. After World War I, coal miners became eager to organize the work force through unions. Although many mines were already organized, new ones were not. Attempts to organize were fought by the companies. In 1921, the Battle of Blair Mountain, considered the greatest domestic armed conflict in American labor history (CRA, 1996), marked a high point in the organizational efforts of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA). Approximately 7,000-10,000 union miners marched against a force of 3,000 state constabulary, deputy sheriffs, volunteers, and 2,100 Federal troops. The 88th Squadron-Army Air Corps, headed by General Billy Mitchell, flew reconnaissance missions for the Federal troops and marked the only occasion in which an Air Corps unit was used in a civil disturbance (CRA, 1996). The battle, in essence was the last stand in the attempts of the UMWA to unionize the southern coalfields of West Virginia. Possible “fox-holes’ and battle-related artifacts have been identified west of Blair within a mile of the project area, similar findings have not been identified in the project area. Based on available information, important sites or areas associated with the battle are not located in the project area. Coal mining has been the predominant economic driver for Logan County since the early 1900’s. Mining within and/or near the proposed project area has occurred from the early 1900’s through the last decade. Mining activities are currently on-going adjacent to the project area at the mouth of Seng Camp Creek. The historic sites within the project area consist of the remnants of homesteads, and their associated debris, and mining-related sites. Three (3) cemeteries were identified in the areas surrounding the project area and are not located within 100 feet of any proposed disturbance. 3.6.1.3 Cultural Resources Identified in the Project Area Between May 24 and July 2, 1996, personnel from Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (CRA) conducted a Phase I archeological survey for the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine (CRA, 1996). Fifteen (15) archeological sites (46LG116-130), three (3) historic cemeteries (46LG131-133), and one (1) historic property were identified and recorded during the survey of approximately 4,704 acres. In addition, two (2) previously recorded sites (46LG15 and 46LG20) and two (2) historic properties (LG74 and LG75) were re-identified. Another previously reported site, 46LG19, could not be relocated. Analysis of artifact assemblages indicated that nine (9) sites (46LG15, 20, 117-122, and 124) were prehistoric in origin, while thirteen (13) sites (46LG74, 75, 116, 123, 126-130, 131-133, and HP#1) were of historic Euro-American affiliation. In addition, one (1) site (46LG125) contained mixed prehistoric and historic deposits. Seven (7) of these were historic Euro-American residential sites (46GL116, 125-130). The cemeteries (46GL131-133) were Euro-American cemeteries. Residential sites were clustered in the floodplain of Pigeonroost Branch. Information obtained from an analysis of artifacts and local residents indicate that the sites date to the early to mid-twentieth century. These sites have been extensively disturbed by earthmoving activities during the destruction of the structures. Cemetery sites were identified on steep side slopes. Information derived from grave markers and local informants indicate that one (1) of the active cemeteries was formed as early as 1865. The remaining two (2) cemeteries are more recent in age, with most burials dating to the mid to late-twentieth century. The petroglyph site is believed to have a minimum age of eighty (80) years.

3-173

Based on an analysis of artifacts and the context from which they were recovered, it was recommended that a Phase II National Register evaluation be conducted for site 46LG20 and that site 46LG123 (historic petroglyph) be avoided if possible. It was also recommended that historic cemetery sites 46LG 131 - 133 be avoided or relocated. Other sites and historic properties identified in the project area were not considered to be eligible for the National Register, and it was recommended that no additional archeological investigations be conducted. The WVDCH concurred with the findings of the Phase I survey in a letter dated November 5, 1997 (in original WVDEP Permit S-5013-97). Phase II testing of site 46LG20 was conducted by CRA (1999), as requested by the WVDCH. A Phase II scope of work was submitted to and approved by the WVDCH (Letter dated March 18, 1998 in Original WVDEP Permit S-5013-97). Avoidance was recommended for site 46LG123 and the three (3) cemetery sites, 46LG 131-133. By letter dated July 7, 1999, the WVDCH concluded that no known historical, architectural or archaeological sites listed on or eligible for inclusion in the Federal Register of Historic Places would be affected by this project. However, the WVDCH requested that 46LG131 (White Oak Cemetery) and 46LG132 (Mullens Cemetery) be avoided, and that a buffer zone of at least 100 feet be in place around each cemetery. The Applicant has agreed to restrict activities within 100 feet of these resources in accordance with the SMCRA law. In a concurrence letter dated September 3, 1998 the WVDCH stated that the site (46LG20) was not considered as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Three (3) buildings were identified near the mouth of Pigeonroost Branch. Properties LG74 and LG75 were first recorded in 1991 as part of the Coal Heritage Survey. The third property (HP#1) was first recorded during the Phase I survey conducted by CRA (CRA, 1996). All three (3) properties are one-story wood frame structures that date to the early twentieth century and are typical vernacular architecture in much of the southern West Virginia coalfields. However, all three (3) structures were determined to not meet the minimal criteria of the National Register (WVDCH letter dated November 5, 1997) and are not afforded protection under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. No pre-historic sites or structures were determined to meet the minimal criteria of the National Register and are not afforded protection under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. Appendix N of this EIS provides agency correspondence on these issues. 3.6.2 3.6.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Applicant’s Preferred Alternative

Development of the mine area and construction of the ancillary facilities would result in direct impacts to cultural resources due to ground-disturbing activities. These impacts would include the elimination of ten (10) sites. The proposed project would not create disturbance within 100 feet of any of the three (3) cemeteries. Indirect impacts to cultural resources could include potential erosional effects from runoff or mine water discharge and an increased potential for illegal collection and vandalism within or adjacent to the project area due to increases in both surface disturbance and the number of people in the area. Potential erosional effects would be anticipated to be minor based on the proposed surface water control system and implementation of erosion control measures as discussed in Section 2.5, Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. Additional indirect impacts could result from visual impacts upon other cultural resources in the viewshed of the proposed project, such as the Blair Mountain Site within approximately one (1) mile. However, the Blair Mountain site is not currently listed on the NRHP, and thus is not afforded any protection.

3-174

Physical modification of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites would affect the physical integrity of the resource; modification of the surroundings could affect integrity with respect to site setting. Based on the surveys conducted in the proposed areas of disturbance, a total of nine (9) archaeological sites would be directly impacted as a result of mine construction and operation in the proposed disturbance areas; however, none of these sites were considered NRHP-eligible sites. 3.6.2.2 Alternative 3

Development of the mine area and construction of the ancillary facilities under Alternative 3 would result in the same direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources as described for the Applicant’s PA. 3.6.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the archaeological sites within the proposed mine disturbance area and vicinity, none of which are eligible for placement on the NRHP, would not be affected as a result of miningrelated activities associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine, but could potentially be disturbed by later mining activity, timbering, or gas exploration activities. As a result, impacts to cultural resources within the project area would be limited to exposure to the elements and deterioration from natural impacts (i.e., erosion). 3.6.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Although difficult to quantify, cumulative impacts to cultural resource sites would include natural impacts (i.e. erosion and dilapidation), as well as direct disturbance and removal of cultural sites that were located, are currently located, or would be located within similar projects’ areas of disturbance. Based on the distance between these actions, no cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated. 3.6.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES

No additional monitoring or mitigation is being considered. 3.6.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS Insignificant sites within the project area would be lost; therefore no residual adverse effects would be anticipated to occur. 3.7 3.7.1 AIR QUALITY AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The study area for air quality includes the area within 1,000 feet of the project. The cumulative effects area for air quality would include two separate areas: 1) to the north of the Applicant’s PA where it would be in close proximity of the Mountain Laurel Complex and 2) to the southeast of the Applicant’s PA where the areas that are within 1,000 feet of the Applicant’s PA would also be bordered by the proposed Adkins Fork Surface Mine (reasonably foreseeable future project). Although there are no residences that fall within 1,000 feet of both the Applicant’s PA and the Adkins Fork Surface Mine, the cumulative area was expanded to include the area that lies between the two operations. This area would include approximately eighteen (18) residences. 3.7.1.1 General Climatic Setting The project area occurs in a continental humid temperate climatic type (Friel et al., 1984). The regional climatic characteristics are largely determined by the orogenic effect of the Appalachian Mountains, which creates a rain shadow on the leeward side of the mountains and channels maritime tropical air masses
3-175

moving up from the south in a northeasterly direction along the mountains where they come into contact with continental polar air masses. The general climate is that of warm, humid summers and moderately cold, mild to severe winters, varying with elevation, with prevailing winds coming from the southwest. Although fairly well-distributed throughout the year, precipitation amounts are typically greater in late winter and early spring. The wettest months of the year generally are March, April, May, June, and July. The driest months of the year typically are February, August, September, October, November, and December. During late winter, snowmelt gradually saturates the ground as it thaws and produces minimal runoff. As spring arrives, precipitation increases in the form of light, sustained showers often from a series of lowpressure systems (cyclones) moving slowly across the region. The high precipitation and low evapotranspiration rates produce a surplus in the water budget during spring months. This surplus allows for high antecedent soil moisture, recharge rates, and high baseflow and runoff, which sustain streamflow. Headwater streams tend to be “flashy” due to their rapid response to precipitation. In summer, large volumes of precipitation, from short but intense convective thunderstorms, are consumed by high evapotranspiration rates. As summer progresses and fall arrives, precipitation decreases while evapotranspiration remains high leading to a deficit in the water budget during these seasons. The average annual precipitation in this area is 40 inches (15.75 cm) per year in accordance with global precipitation patterns (Ahrens, 1994). 3.7.1.2 Air Quality

Air quality is defined by the concentration of various pollutants and their interactions in the atmosphere. Pollution effects on receptors have been used to establish a definition of air quality. Measurement of pollutants in the atmosphere is expressed in units of parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). Both long-term climatic factors and short-term weather fluctuations are considered part of the air quality resource, because they control dispersion and affect concentrations. Physical effects of air quality depend on the characteristics of the receptors and the type, amount, and duration of exposure. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the USEPA and WVDEP establish acceptable air quality standards and upper limits of pollutant concentrations and duration of exposure. Air pollutant concentrations within the standards are generally not considered to be detrimental to public health and welfare. The U.S. Congress has established the framework for air quality regulations through passage of the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA). The CAA requires the administrator of the USEPA to establish national ambient air quality standards for air contaminants for which emissions, in the judgment of the USEPA, cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The presence of emissions in the ambient air results from numerous and diverse mobile and stationary sources. National primary ambient air quality standards define levels of air quality that the USEPA has determined are necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health. National secondary ambient air quality standards define levels of air quality that the USEPA has determined are necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Air quality issues associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be associated with fugitive dust. Air emissions associated with mining operations (such as blasting, earth and rock removal, transport-related dust) are considered “fugitive emissions” under the CAA. Surface mining does not meet the criteria for major source air quality permits (Title V of the CAA), because mining does not qualify as a permanent/stationary source that emits a minimum of 250 tons/year of a regulated pollutant.
3-176

3.7.2 3.7.2.1

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Applicant’s Preferred Alternative

Mining is not considered a permanent/stationary source producing air emissions greater than limits established by the CAA and the potential fugitive dust emissions would be minimized by implementation of BMPs, both for the proposed project and other existing and proposed projects in the vicinity. Measures to limit fugitive dust would include controlling the speed of coal haulage trucks, covering coal haulage trucks to control coal dust emissions, spraying water on roads and stockpiles, applying chemical bonding agents on the road surface where warranted, and paving (if warranted) sections of roads that are in close proximity to populated or high traffic areas. No additional measures are anticipated to be necessary to limit fugitive dust emissions. Construction, Operation, and Reclamation Impacts Construction and mining activities at the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would be sources of TSP, PM10, and PM25. Fuel-burning mobile (on-road and off-road) sources would emit low levels of gaseous pollutants (e.g., S02, NOx, CO, and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]). Storage tanks for fuels, oil, and chemicals are also potential sources of VOCs. Reclamation activities associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine would also result in an increase in fugitive and gaseous emissions in the local area during reclamation. Construction would result in temporary air quality impacts due to increases in local fugitive dust levels. Dust generated from these open sources is termed “fugitive” because it is not discharged to the atmosphere in a confined flow stream (e.g., stack, chimney, or vent). The principal sources of fugitive dust would include land clearing, earth moving, scraping, hauling, and materials storage and handling; truck loading operations; and wind erosion from stockpiles. During construction, operation, and reclamation, vehicle exhaust emissions would be generated; however, such emissions would be small compared to potential fugitive dust emissions from earth moving, hauling, and other construction activities. Particulate concentrations due to construction, operation, and reclamation activities would vary, and impacts would depend on the activity location and the daily wind and weather. Watering of road surfaces and stockpiles, posting and enforcing of speed limits, placing gravel on coal haul roads, or other measures would be taken to limit fugitive dust emissions. While measures such as watering would reduce the emissions from such activities, some level of fugitive dust emissions would be unavoidable due to the nature of the work. Although some air quality impacts inevitably would occur during construction and reclamation, they would be transitory and limited in duration relative to the mine operations phase, and they would end at the completion of that particular phase of the work. Once reclamation is completed, emissions from that source would cease, and nearby pollutant concentrations would return to background levels. Air quality impacts due to emissions from mining operations would occur throughout the operational phase of the project. The primary pollutant would be fugitive dust (TSP and PM10) generated by the electric shovel, excavator, loaders, haul trucks, dozers, crushers, screens, conveyors, stockpiles, and other processes. All criteria pollutant emission rates from individual sources (not fugitive sources) would be less than 250 tons per year; therefore, the Spruce No. 1 Mine would not be a “major stationary source” as defined by the USEPA. Emissions generated by wind erosion are dependent on the frequency of disturbance of the erodible surface, because each time a surface is disturbed, its erosion potential is restored. A disturbance is defined as an
3-177

action that results in the exposure of fresh surface material. On a storage pile, this would occur whenever aggregate material is either added to or removed from the surface. A disturbance of an exposed area may also result from the turning of surface material to a depth exceeding the size of the largest pieces of material present. The emission factor for wind-generated particulate emissions from mixtures of erodible and nonerodible surface material subject to disturbance may be expressed in units of tons per acre per year or other appropriate units. Dust emissions may be generated by wind erosion of open storage piles and exposed areas within an industrial facility. These sources typically are characterized by non-homogeneous surfaces impregnated with non-erodible elements (particles larger than approximately 1 centimeter in diameter). Coal stockpiles would primarily be located toward the northeastern portion of the project area near Haulroad 2. Based on the anticipated location of the stockpiles, fugitive dust emissions should not impact any of the residents or traveler on the public roads located within 1,000 feet of the proposed project area. In addition, any natural crusting of the surface binds the erodible material, thereby reducing the erosion potential. Due to the low emission levels of gaseous pollutants (i.e., NOx, CO, S02, and VOCs) the impacts from these pollutants are not anticipated to exceed State or Federal AAQS. The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would be anticipated to comply with all applicable air quality standards. The proposed mining operation would not be a significant source of gaseous pollutants. Emissions and Correction Parameters The air quality impact of a fugitive dust source depends on the quantity and drift potential of the dust particles released into the atmosphere. The larger dust particles settle out near the source, while fine particles are dispersed over much greater distances. Theoretical drift distances, as a function of particulate diameter and mean wind speed, have been computed for fugitive dust emissions. For a typical wind speed of 10 mph, particles larger than 100 micrometers are likely to settle out within 20 to 30 feet from the source. (For comparison, a human hair has a thickness of about 100 micrometers.) Particles of 30 to 100 micrometers, depending on the extent of atmospheric turbulence, would be expected to settle within a few hundred feet. Dust particles smaller than 30 micrometers are generally recognized as emissions that may remain suspended indefinitely. Ambient Air Quality Impacts Ambient air quality outside of the project area would not be anticipated to be impacted by the Applicant’s PA. The potential impacts would be mitigated by the implementation of the measures for controlling fugitive dust, as discussed above. Measures to limit fugitive dust would include controlling the speed of coal haulage trucks, covering coal haulage trucks to control coal dust emissions, spraying water on roads, applying chemical bonding agents on the road surface where warranted, and treating the surface of Access Road 2 (if warranted) along segments that are in close proximity to residences. No additional measures are anticipated to be necessary for the proposed project. 3.7.2.2 Alternative 3 Impacts to air quality would be virtually the same as Applicant’s PA with the exception of not hauling adjacent to residences along Access Road 2 and potentially increased fugitive dust in the areas immediately adjacent to the dragline.

3-178

3.7.2.3

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, air quality emissions would be limited to existing and potential future sources of fugitive dust in the area, such as paved and unpaved roads. Air emissions associated with the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would not occur. 3.7.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts would include impacts associated with fugitive dust and ambient air quality. Fugitive dust in the areas to the north of the proposed project would have some cumulative impacts associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine and the Mountain Laurel Complex. The primary source of impacts would be the Mountain Laurel Complex, which is currently planned to process coal from deep mines in the Alma and Cedar Grove seams, and to the lesser extent the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The cumulative impacts upon residences, ambient air quality, and fugitive dust emissions in the area would be expected to be limited to the north of the project area. To the south, cumulative impacts associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine and the Adkins Fork Surface Mine would also be anticipated to be limited by the implementation of proper measures to control dust. In addition, both operations would not likely be mining in the areas immediately adjacent to each other during the same mining phase. Fugitive dust impacts from mining operations tend to be localized in the vicinity of the source; therefore, the spatial extent of impacts would be anticipated to be limited and not to cumulative affect air quality. Cumulatively, the mining operations would also not be a significant source of gaseous pollutants. The combustion of fuel in vehicles and heavy equipment generates emissions of NOx, CO, SO2, and VOCs. Due to the rural nature of the region around the project area and the low density of combustion sources (e.g., vehicles and other fuel-fired equipment), levels of gaseous air contaminants associated with the Spruce No. 1 and inter-related operations are anticipated to remain well below levels determined to be detrimental to public health. The Spruce No. 1 Mine would have minor incremental impact. 3.7.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES Mingo Logan proposes measures to reduce dust emissions on haul roads and from utilization of mining and crushing equipment. Measures to limit fugitive dust would include controlling the speed of coal haulage trucks, covering coal haulage trucks to control coal dust emissions, spraying water on roads and stockpiles, applying chemical bonding agents on the road surface where warranted, and paving (if warranted) sections of roads that are in close proximity to populated or high traffic areas. No additional measures are anticipated to be necessary to limit fugitive dust emissions, and therefore air quality impacts, for the proposed project. 3.7.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS Some air quality impacts are unavoidable due to the nature of the proposed mine operations. The primary air quality effects would be fugitive dust and minor decrease of ambient air quality in the immediate vicinity of the mine. By supplementing natural rainfall with watering of roads and stockpiles and other forms of dust control, the impacts would be expected to remain well below State and Federal AAQS and, thus, would not adversely affect human health or welfare. There would be no residual adverse impacts to air quality from the proposed mine following mine closure and final reclamation. Reclamation and revegetation would stabilize exposed soil and control fugitive dust
3-179

emissions. Once the disturbance ceases and wind erodible surfaces are reclaimed and revegetated, air resources would return to the pre-mining condition. 3.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION Issues associated with land use include changes to and conflicts with the existing land uses and effects to environmental resources associated with recreation areas and opportunities. 3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The land use study area comprises the project area and the primary receiving Spruce Fork watershed. Analysis of cumulative impacts on land use/land cover extended to include the Little Coal River sub-basin, the Coal River basin, the Mountaintop Mining Region, and the entire State of West Virginia. The study area for recreation includes the project area and nearby properties within approximately two (2) to five (5) miles of the project area and the analysis primarily considered direct impacts and indirect nuisance impacts resulting from noise and visual resources. 3.8.1.1 Land Use/Land Cover The area surrounding the proposed project area is rural with few residences in the valleys and predominantly deciduous forest elsewhere. Within the project area, the land uses available are limited due to the steep terrain. Currently the only land uses available are oil and gas exploration, timbering, and mining. Current structures or facilities within the project area include a 765-kV AEP transmission line and one (1) gas well and associated lines. There are no other land uses currently available, such as recreation, as the property is privately owned and trespassing is prohibited. Development is sparse with only seventy-nine (79) occupied dwellings within 1,000 feet of the project area and one hundred thirty-five (135) occupied dwellings within one-half (0.5) mile of the project area, some of which are controlled by the land management subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc. (see Exhibit 3-20). Most of the residences are in the small rural communities of Five Block, Spruce Valley, and Blair. There is a small amount of non-forested land within the project area, comprised mainly of a utility corridor for a single gas well and associated lines and an AEP 765-kV transmission line. Within the Spruce Fork watershed, current land use/land cover is also predominantly forestland supporting oil and gas exploration, timbering, mining, and limited recreational uses. Approximately ninety-eight percent (98%) of the project area under the Applicant’s PA, 96.4 percent of the project area under Alternative 3, and 76.6 percent of the Spruce Fork watershed is forestland. Following forestland, active mining activities comprise the second greatest land cover, approximately twenty percent (19.7%) of the watershed area; portions of this area are currently reclaimed and transitioning back to forestland. The percentage of the watershed that consists of residential land cover is only 0.43 percent of the total watershed area. In addition to the current land use land cover, there has been a master land use plan developed for Logan County. The proposed project land use and post-mining land use are acceptable for the project area. There are no bicycle or pedestrian trails within the proposed project area. There are no prime, unique, or statewide important farmlands within the proposed project area. Another major concern within the region is the potential increases in forest fragmentation and the impacts to forest species and migratory birds. The land use/land cover breakdown within the study area is provided in Table 3-32.
3-180

Table 3-32 Land Use/Land Cover Breakdown for the Study Area
Applicant’s % Applicant’s Preferred Alternative 3 % Alternative LU/LC % Spruce Fork Preferred Land Use / Land Cover Spruce Fork Alternative Project Area 3 Project Area Alternative Code Watershed Project Area Project Area 11 21 Open Water Low Intensity Residential 0.15 0.54 0.05 1.03 23.82 2.03 1.92 88.59 0.28 7.69 0.01 0.002 126.12 0.12% 0.43% 0.00% 0.04% 0.82% 18.89% 1.61% 1.52% 70.24% 0.22% 6.10% 0.00% 0.01% 0.002% 100% 0.070 3.160 0.010 0.320 0.0002 3.560 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.97% 0.00% 0.00% 88.76% 0.281% 8.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.006% 100% 0.160 3.930 0.010 0.380 0.0002 3.560 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.57% 0.00% 0.00% 87.72% 0.223% 8.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.006% 100%

22 High Intensity Residential 23 32 32A 33 Commercial/Industrial/ Transportation Quarries/Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits Active Mining1 Transitional/Herbaceous/ Planted/Cultivated2

33A Post Mining Transitional3 41 42 43 85 91 92 Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Urban/Recreational Grasses Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands4

Total Area in Square Miles

Notes: Areas given in square miles. Values based upon the NLCD, which contains a minimum error of ± 5%. NLCD was developed from 30-meter Landsat thematic mapper (TM) data acquired by the Multi-resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium. 1 LU/LC Value 32A (Active Mining) includes published permitted mine data adopted from the WVDEP (geographic data updated December 2003, permit and status information updated December 2005). This category represents permit boundaries for mining permits issued by the WVDEP Division of Mining and Reclamation. “Active Mining” includes surface mines, haulroads, prep plants, quarries, underground mines and other various activities that require permittance (i.e., refuse reprocessing areas, impoundments, etc.). Permit boundaries for underground mines do not represent the extent of underground mines, but only areas of surface disturbance. 2 Due to the similar reflectance between Row Crops, Pasture/Hay, and Transitional/Herbaceous, land use/land cover for these values were pooled. 3 LU/LC Value 33A (Post Mining Transitional) includes published permitted mine data adopted from the WVDEP (geographic data updated December 2003, permit and status information updated December 2005). This category represents permitted mines that have been, or are in the process, of being reclaimed. “Post Mining Transitional” includes mines and associated areas that are currently categorized by the DEP as Completely Released, Incremental Phase 2 Released, Phase 2 Released, or Incremental Phase 3 Released. 4 0.0001906 sq. mi. of PUB/PEM wetland is within the proposed project area; this resource is addressed in Section 3.2 of this EIS.

3-181

Table 3-33 identifies land use/land cover types within Applicant’s PA and the Alternative 3 project boundaries and the difference between them. The predominant land use/land cover for both alternatives is deciduous forest. Table 3-33 Land Use/Land Cover Direct Impact Analysis Comparison by Alternative
LU/LC Code 11 21 22 23 32 32A 33 33A 41 42 43 85 91 92 Land Use / Land Cover Open Water Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Industrial/Transportation Quarries/Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits Active Mining1 Transitional/Herbaceous/Planted/Cultivated2 Post Mining Transitional3 Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Urban/Recreational Grasses Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands4 Total Area in Square Miles Alternative 3 0.160 3.930 0.010 0.380 4.480 Applicant’s Preferred Alternative 0.070 3.160 0.010 0.320 3.560 Difference -0.09 -0.77 -0.06 -0.92

Notes: Areas given in square miles. Values based upon the NLCD, which contains a minimum error of ± 5%. NLCD was developed from 30meter Landsat thematic mapper (TM) data acquired by the Multi-resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium. 1 LU/LC Value 32A (Active Mining) includes published permitted mine data adopted from the WVDEP (geographic data updated December 2003, permit and status information updated December 2005). This category represents permit boundaries for mining permits issued by the WVDEP Division of Mining and Reclamation. “Active Mining” includes surface mines, haulroads, prep plants, quarries, underground mines and other various activities that require permittance (i.e., refuse reprocessing areas, impoundments, etc.). Permit boundaries for underground mines do not represent the extent of underground mines, but only areas of surface disturbance. 2 Due to the similar reflectance between Row Crops, Pasture/Hay, and Transitional/Herbaceous, land use/land cover for these values were pooled. 3 LU/LC Value 33A (Post Mining Transitional) includes published permitted mine data adopted from the WVDEP (geographic data updated December 2003, permit and status information updated December 2005). This category represents permitted mines that have been, or are in the process, of being reclaimed. “Post Mining Transitional” includes mines and associated areas that are currently categorized by the DEP as Completely Released, Incremental Phase 2 Released, Phase 2 Released, or Incremental Phase 3 Released. 4 0.0001906 sq. mi. of PUB/PEM wetland is within Alternative 3 and the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.

3-182

3.8.1.2

Recreation

There are no recreational resources within the proposed project area. However, there are several recreation areas located in the surrounding region (Exhibit 3-21). The distances and direction of those recreation areas located within approximately ten (10) miles of the proposed project area, are as follows: • • • • • Rockhouse Lake Public Recreation Area – 3.8 miles to the northwest Riverview Country Club – 8.1 miles to the north Chief Logan State Park – 8.8 miles to the west Logan County Country Club – 10.0 miles to the northwest Triadelphia Country Club – 10.0 miles to the southwest

The nearest public recreation area is the Rockhouse Lake Public Recreation area which is located approximately 3.8 miles northwest of the project area. The state park has camping facilities. There are no wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, or other specially designated recreation or open space facilities in the project area or vicinity. 3.8.2 3.8.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Applicant’s Preferred Alternative

Land Use/Land Cover Approximately 2,278 acres would be disturbed under the Applicant’s PA over the 15-year life of the project. However, a maximum of approximately 682 acres (includes exempt ancillary areas) would be actively disturbed by mining and associated activities at anyone time due to sequential backfilling of the pits and concurrent reclamation (see Section 2.5). Public use of the land in the project area would not be affected, as the land is privately owned and trespassing is prohibited. Use of private land would be curtailed in the mine disturbance area for the life of the mine with compensation paid to current owners through lease agreements. Existing land uses in all disturbance areas would be modified for the life of the mine. The disturbance would be primarily to forestland. The proposed project would result in an approximately 2.8 percent decrease in forested land cover and associated land uses within the Spruce Fork watershed. The decrease would be short-term, as the proposed post-mining land use is forestland and reclaimed areas would transition back to forestland. One gas well and associated 2-inch gas line would be removed and one (1) 4-inch gas line would be relocated within the disturbance area (Exhibit 2-19) as part of the Applicant’s PA. It is expected that the proposed development and operation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would result in some conflict with other nearby land uses, primarily residences within approximately 1,000 feet of the disturbance area. Conflicts may result from noise and light generated by the mine, especially during night-time hours. These issues are addressed in more detail in Section 3.11.2. Traffic also would increase slightly on area roads, but the effects are expected to be minor (see Section 3.10.2). Subsequent to closure of the Spruce No. 1 Mine and completion of final reclamation, the disturbance area within the project boundaries would be returned to the predominant pre-mining land cover of forestland.

3-183

Recreation The proposed project would cause minimal effects on recreation resources. There are no identified recreation resources or opportunities for the public to utilize within the proposed project area. However, noise may have a short-term audible impact on recreation (hunting) in areas adjacent to blasting areas, active mining, and haulage routes (see Sections 3.10, Transportation and 3.11, Noise and Visual Resources). In addition, the nearest public recreation area would be the Rockhouse Lake Public Recreation Area located approximately 3.8 miles northwest of the proposed project area. Water-related recreation encompasses activities undertaken for amusement and relaxation. Activities encompass two (2) broad categories of use: consumptive and non-consumptive. The proposed project area is located primarily near the ridgetop, where the absence of water precludes water-dependent recreational opportunities. The proposed activities would not adversely affect any waters of the U.S. used for waterrelated recreation. There are no public water-related recreation opportunities within the proposed project area. The proposed project area is located wholly on private property and has been posted “No Trespassing.” Unauthorized activities, such as hunting or four-wheeling within the proposed project area, are not permitted. 3.8.2.2 Land Use Approximately 2,914 acres would be disturbed under Alternative 3 over the 10-year life of the project. However, a maximum of approximately 1,849 acres (includes pre-strip and ancillary exempt areas) would be actively disturbed by mining and associated activities at anyone time due to sequential backfilling of the pits and concurrent reclamation (see Table 2-4). Affects on land use/land cover and public use of lands in and around the project area would essentially be the same as described for the Applicant’s PA, except for the greater area and duration of disturbance for Alternative 3. Recreation The proposed project under Alternative 3 would cause minimal effects on recreation resources, similar to those described for the Applicant’s PA. 3.8.2.3 No Action Alternative Alternative 3

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no mine-related changes to existing land uses or recreation activities in the project area. Future timbering and potential reduced mining could occur under the No Action Alternative. 3.8.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Potential changes in land use/land cover patterns were assessed using digital image processing and a combination of multi-tier remote sensing techniques (Exhibit 3-22). The land cover data set used in this analysis was produced as part of a cooperative project between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to produce a consistent land cover data layer for the conterminous U.S. based on 30-meter Landsat thematic mapper (TM) data. National Land Cover Data (NLCD) was developed from TM data acquired by the Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies that produce or use land cover data. Partners include the USGS (National Mapping, Biological Resources, and Water Resources Divisions), USEPA, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The
3-184

West Virginia NLCD set was produced as part of a project area encompassing portions of Federal Region III, including the state of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. This data set was produced under the direction of the MRLC Regional Land Cover Characterization Project of the USGS EROS Data Center (EDC), Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The sensitivity of this analysis has been refined from the use of the NLCD. Using published mine data from the WVDEP, active mining and post-mining transitional lands were broken out from the data for LU/LC Codes 32 (Quarries/ Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits/ Permitted Surface Mines) and 33 (transitional/ herbaceous/ planted/ cultivated). For purposes of this analysis “Active Mining” has been assigned LU/LC Code 32A and “Post Mining Transitional” has been assigned LU/LC Code 33A. The Active Mining category (amended NLCD LU/LC Code 32A) overestimates the actual physical disturbances due to active mining, because this category (normally included with Code 32) includes mining operations that have yet to begin disturbance activities for both surface mines and underground mines with permitted surface activities. From a cumulative impact standpoint, however, they are reasonably foreseeable actions and are included in the cumulative impact analysis at the state, Mountaintop Mining Region, basin, sub-basin, and watershed scales of analysis. Similarly, amended NLCD LU/LC Code 33A (Post Mining Transitional) has been factored out of LU/LC Code 33 (Transitional/Herbaceous/Planted/ Cultivated). Amended LU/LC Code 33A includes WVDEP permitted surface and underground mines that are Phase 2 (or greater) bond released. These permitted mine operations (including underground mines with permitted surface activities) are now re-vegetated and are mostly in various stages of forest succession unless community economic plans call for development. The land use/land cover comparisons were also assessed within the State of West Virginia, the Mountaintop Mining Region of West Virginia, the Coal River basin, the Little Coal River sub-basin, the Spruce Fork watershed, and the proposed project area. These studies encompassed an area of approximately 24,446.52 square miles for the state, 1,901.63 square miles for the Mountaintop Mining Region, 892.17 square miles for the Coal River basin, 383.26 square miles for the Little Coal River sub-basin, 126.12 square miles for the Spruce Fork watershed, 4.55 square miles for Alternative 3, and 3.56 square miles for the Applicant’s PA. The land use analysis provides a broad overview of the existing land use/land cover within a large geographic/regional area and provides an assessment of potential changes at the basin, sub-basin (regional watershed) and watershed scale. Land use/land cover for the assessed scales of analysis is presented in Table 3-32. For the entire State of West Virginia, the dominant land use/land cover is deciduous forest (roughly 16,535 square miles or approximately sixty-eight percent [68%] of the land use/land cover). Evergreen Forest and Mixed Forest (LU/LC Codes 42 and 43 respectively) make up an additional fourteen percent (14%) of the land use/land cover. In total, it is estimated that approximately eighty-two percent (82%) of West Virginia is of a forested land use/land cover. Of the remaining eighteen percent (18%), LU/LC Codes 33 and 33A make up approximately fourteen percent (14%) of the land use/land cover, with 0.32 percent comprised specifically of Post Mining Transitional lands, much of which have post-mining land use designations of forestland. Approximately 502 square miles was identified within the entire state as being of LU/LC Codes 32 and 32A (2.05%), of which the majority (1.73%) is accounted for by pre-reclamation permitted mines, which may not have commenced operations. The analysis of land use/land cover within the Mountaintop Mining Region displayed similar percentages of forest, but a different trend in mining activity as compared to the state-level analysis. As Table 3-32
3-185

demonstrates, eighty percent (80%) of the approximate 1,901.63 square miles that make up the Mountaintop Mining Region is forested land use/land cover (summation of LU/LC codes for deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest). However, Codes 33 and 33A account for approximately 4.52 percent (compared to fourteen percent [14%] at the state level), and Codes 32 and 32A accounts for just over fourteen percent (14%) (compared to 2.05 percent at the state level). This can, in part, be explained by examining the active mining acreages. There are relatively more permitted mine operations in the earlier stages of project life within the Mountaintop Mining Region (13.38%) than there are in the state as a whole (1.73%). Also, the state as a whole has a much higher percentage of non-mining related transitional lands (Code 33), with 13.34 percent compared to 2.55 percent in the Mountaintop Mining Region (Table 3-32). Land use/land cover within the Coal River basin (approximately 892.17 square miles) demonstrates a similar trend to that shown in the Mountaintop Mining Region (Table 3-32). Roughly eighty-two percent (82%) of the land use/land cover within the Coal River basin is forested (summation of LU/LC codes for deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest). Active mining (Code 32A) accounts for approximately 10.80 percent (96.31 square miles) of the basin’s land use/land cover, while approximately 1.30 percent (11.59 square miles) of the basin has been mined and is most likely in various stages of forest regeneration (Code 33A). It should be noted that an additional 5.91 square miles (LU/LC Code 32) and 29.90 square miles (LU/LC Code 33), which account for approximately four percent (4%) of the land use/land cover for the Coal River basin, are composed of land use/land cover largely associated with either farming activities or pre-law surface mining, respectively (i.e., they are not identified as permitted surface mine activities by the WVDEP). Similar to the Coal River basin, Mountaintop Mining Region, and the state as a whole, the Little Coal River sub-basin, is dominated by forest (Table 3-32). Over eighty-one percent (81%) of the land use/land cover within the sub-basin is forested (summation of LU/LC codes for deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest). Compared to the Mountaintop Mining Region, the Little Coal River sub-basin demonstrates a similar trend in the percent of Active Mining (13.38% vs. 14.49%, respectively) and Post Mining Transitional (1.97% vs. 1.49%, respectively) land uses/land covers. Land use/land cover within the Spruce Fork watershed (approximately 126.12 square miles) is predominantly forested (seventy-seven percent [77%] deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest combined). Active Mining accounts for a higher percentage of the land use/land cover in the Spruce Fork watershed (18.89%) than in either the Coal River basin (10.80%) or Little Coal River sub-basin (14.49%), while Post Mining Transitional land use/land cover constitutes a similar percentage to that of the Mountaintop Mining Region, Big Coal River basin, and Little Coal River sub-basin. Table 3-36 through Table 3-40 provide breakdowns of the relative percentage of land use/land cover within each evaluated region. For example, Table 3-36 provides a breakdown of land use/land cover for the Mountaintop Mining Region and the relative percent contribution of each of the sub-regions within it (i.e., Little Coal River Sub-Basin, Spruce Fork Watershed, and the proposed project area). When compared to the State of West Virginia, the Mountaintop Mining Region encompasses approximately 7.78 percent of the total land area in the state, while the Applicant’s PA project area accounts for 0.015 percent of the state (0.019% for Alternative 3) (Table 3-36). At the Mountaintop Mining Region scale of analysis (Table 3-37), the Little Coal River sub-basin accounts for 20.15 percent of the total land area and the Applicant’s PA project area accounts for 0.187 percent of the total land area (0.239% for Alternative 3). At the Coal River basin scale of analysis (Table 3-38), the Little Coal River sub-basin accounts for approximately 42.96 percent of the land area and the Applicant’s PA project area accounts for approximately 0.399 percent of the
3-186

land area (0.510% for Alternative 3). The Little Coal River sub-basin accounts for over half of the Active Mining (57.65%) within the Coal River basin, and the Spruce Fork watershed accounts for 24.73 percent of the Active Mining. It should be noted that the Applicant’s PA project area and the Alternative 3 project area encompass a small amount of “Active Mining.” Active surface mining is not occurring within the proposed project boundary and is an artifact of the NLCD/WVDEP data set (i.e., there are a number of permits that may or may not be actively mined [either for surface mines or underground mines with permitted surface activities] within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project). At the Little Coal River sub-basin scale of analysis, the Spruce Fork watershed accounts for approximately 32.91 percent of the sub-basin land area and the Applicant’s PA project area accounts for approximately 0.929 percent (1.188 percent for Alternative 3) of the sub-basin (Table 3-39). Of the 55.52 square miles of active mining within the sub-basin, roughly 42.9 percent is occurring within the Spruce Fork watershed. Despite the fact that approximately forty-three percent (43%) of all active mining within the Little Coal River sub-basin is within the Spruce Fork watershed, nearly seventy-seven percent (77%) of the watershed remains forested (96.56 square miles which is the summation of LU/LC codes for deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest; Table 3-32). In addition, of the 5.72 square miles of Post Mining Transitional land use/land cover (LU/LC Code 33A), approximately 33.57 percent is within the Spruce Fork watershed. These areas are largely in various stages of forest regeneration. Of the 1.70 and 6.99 square miles of LU/LC Code 32 (Quarries/Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits/ Surface Mines) and LU/LC Code 33 (Transitional/Herbaceous/Planted/ Cultivated), roughly sixty-one percent (61%) and twenty-nine percent (29%), respectively, are within the Spruce Fork watershed. It is assumed (for this region of West Virginia) that the majority of these areas are pre-law surface disturbances that have not been reclaimed. When evaluating the Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3 at the Spruce Fork watershed scale (Table 3-40), the Applicant’s PA proposed project area comprises approximately 2.82 percent (3.61 percent for Alternative 3) of the Spruce Fork watershed. Of the 88.59 square miles of deciduous forest within the Spruce Fork watershed, the Applicant’s PA proposed project area contains approximately 3.57 percent (4.52 percent for Alternative 3) of the deciduous forest, while at the Little Coal River sub-basin scale, the Applicant’s PA proposed project area makes up approximately 1.11 percent (1.40 percent for Alternative 3) of the subbasin’s deciduous forest (Table 3-39). In summary, land use/land cover within each region (i.e., West Virginia, the Mountaintop Mining Region, the Coal River basin, the Little Coal River sub-basin, the Spruce Fork watershed, and the proposed project area) demonstrated similar trends with respect to dominant land use/land cover trends. Forested land use/land cover is the dominant land use/land cover in each of the evaluated regions. The Spruce Fork watershed, although containing a substantial portion of the active and reclaimed surface mine disturbances within the Little Coal River sub-basin on a percentage basis, is still dominated by forest.

3-187

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

3-188

Table 3-34 Active Mining Breakdown (as of December 2005) for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3
% Active Mining Applicant’s PA Project Area % Active Mining Little Coal River Sub-Basin

% Active Mining Alternative 3 Project Area

% Active Mining Spruce Fork Watershed

% Active Mining Mountaintop Region

Alternative 3 Proposed Project Area

% Active Mining Coal River Basin

% Applicant’s PA Project Area 3

% Active Mining West Virginia

% Little Coal River Sub-Basin

Mountaintop Mining Region2

Active Mining

Not Started Underground Permitted Surface Activities 32A1 Not Started Surface Mines, Quarries, Prep Plants, Haulroads, Other Active Underground Permitted Surface Activities Total Active Surface Mines And Associated Areas1

1.24 15.82 50.65

0.29% 3.75%

0.01% 0.06%

0.77 11.40 29.57

0.30% 4.48% 11.62%

0.04% 0.60% 1.55%

0.41 5.57 12.69 77.64 96.31

0.43% 5.78% 13.18% 80.61% 100%

0.05% 0.62% 1.42% 8.70% 10.79%

0.21 1.82 7.14 46.35 55.52

0.38% 3.28% 12.86%

0.05% 0.47% 1.86%

0.07 0.85 0.94 21.96 23.82

0.29% 3.57% 3.95%

0.06% 0.67% 0.75%

% Spruce Fork Watershed

% Mountaintop Region

LU/LU Code

0.00 0.00 0.005 0.065 0.07

0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 92.86% 100%

0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 1.83% 14.49%

0.00 0.00 0.0010 0.150 0.160

0.00% 0.00% 6.25%

0.00% 0.00% 0.22%

11.99% 0.21%

354.57 83.97% 1.45% 212.71 83.60% 11.19% 100% 1.73% 254.45 100% 13.38%

83.48% 12:10% 100% 14.49%

92.19% 17.41% 100% 18.89%

93.75% 3.35% 100% 3.57%

Total Active Mining Area 422.28 (Square Miles)

Notes: Areas given in square miles. 1LU/LC Value 32A (Active Mining) includes published permitted mine data adopted from the WVDEP (geographic data updated December 2003, permit and status information updated December 2005). This category represents permit boundaries for mining permits issued by the WVDEP Division of Mining and Reclamation. “Active Mining” includes surface mines, haulroads, prep plants, quarries, underground mines and other various activities that require permittance (i.e., refuse reprocessing areas, impoundments, etc.). Permit boundaries for underground mines do not represent the extent of underground mines, but only areas of surface disturbance.
2 The 3The

Mountaintop Mining Region area was adopted from the WVDEP web site, and is based on the region defined by the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, October 1998 (2004; http://www.dep.state.wv.us/rs/mt/).

Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3 project areas identify a small amount of “Active Mining” LU/LC Code 32A. Active surface mining is not occurring within the proposed project boundary and is an artifact of the NLCD/WVDEP dataset (i.e., there are a number of permits, that may or may not be actively mined [either for permitted surface mines or underground mines with permitted surface activities] within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project.

3-189

% Alternative 3 Project Area3

Applicant’s PA Project Area

Little Coal River Sub-Basin

% Coal River Basin

Coal River Basin

% West Virginia

West Virginia

Spruce Fork

Table 3-35 Land Use Land Cover Breakdown for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3
LU/LC Code 11 21 22 23 32 32A 33 33A 41 42 43 85 91 92 Land Use / Land Cover Open Water Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Industrial/ Transportation Quarries/Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits Active Mining1 Transitional/Herbaceous/ Planted/Cultivated2 Post Mining Transitional3 Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Urban/Recreational Grasses Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands4 Total Area in Square Miles West Virginia 221.69 207.21 4.67 112.01 79.89 422.28 3,261.06 77.79 16,535.10 868.60 2,588.43 6.97 37.38 23.44 24,446.52 % West Virginia 0.91% 0.85% 0.02% 0.46% 0.33% 1.73% 13.34% 0.32% 67.64% 3.55% 10.59% 0.03% 0.15% 0.10% 100% Mountaintop Mining Region5 5.63 10.80 0.07 4.68 17.58 254.45 48.58 37.46 1,365.40 17.82 140.06 0.0003 1.41 0.61 1,901.63 % MTM Region 0.30% 0.57% 0.004% 0.25% 0.92% 13.38% 2.55% 1.97% 71.80% 0.94% 7.37% 0.00002% 0.07% 0.031% 100% Coal River % Coal River Little Coal River % Little Coal River Spruce Basin6 Basin Sub-Basin Sub-Basin Fork 3.12 6.73 0.01 2.57 5.91 96.31 29.90 11.59 668.29 6.38 63.80 0.15 0.27 0.06 892.17 0.35% 0.75% 0.001% 0.29% 0.66% 10.80% 3.35% 1.30% 74.91% 0.72% 7.15% 0.02% 0.03% 0.007% 100% 0.92 1.99 1.75 1.70 55.52 6.99 5.72 288.47 0.82 22.28 0.01 0.01 383.26 0.24% 0.52% 0% 0.46% 0.44% 14.49% 1.82% 1.49% 75.27% 0.21% 5.81% 0% 0.003% 0.003% 100% 0.15 0.54 0.05 1.03 23.82 2.03 1.92 91.51 0.28 7.69 0.01 0.002 126.12 % Spruce Fork Watershed 0.12% 0.43% 0% 0.04% 0.82% 18.89% 1.61% 1.52% 72.56% 0.22% 6.10% 0% 0.01% 0.002% 100% Applicant’s % Applicant’s Alternative 3 PA Project PA Project Project Area Area Area 0.070 3.159 0.010 0.320 0.0002 3.559 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.97% 0% 0% 88.76% 0.281% 8.99% 0% 0% 0.006% 100% 0.160 4.003 0.010 0.380 0.0002 4.553 % Alternative 3 Project Area 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.51% 0% 0% 87.92% 0.22% 8.35% 0% 0% 0.004% 100%

Notes: Areas given in square miles. Values based upon the NLCD, which contains a minimum error of ± 5%. NLCD was developed from 30-meter Landsat thematic mapper (TM) data acquired by the Multi-resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium. 1 LU/LC Value 32A (Active Mining) includes published permitted mine data adopted from the WVDEP (geographic data updated December 2003, permit and status information updated July 2004). This category represents permit boundaries for mining permits issued by the WVDEP Division of Mining and Reclamation. “Active Mining” includes surface mines, haulroads, prep plants, quarries, underground mines and other various activities that require permittance (i.e., refuse reprocessing areas, impoundments, etc.). Permit boundaries for underground mines do not represent the extent of underground mines, but only areas of surface disturbance. 2 Due to the similar reflectance between Row Crops, Pasture/Hay, and Transitional/Herbaceous, land use/land cover for these values were pooled. 3 LU/LC Value 33A (Post Mining Transitional) includes published permitted mine data adopted from the WVDEP (geographic data updated December 2003, permit and status information updated July 2004). This category represents permitted mines that have been, or are in the process, of being reclaimed. “Post Mining Transitional” includes mines and associated areas that are currently categorized by the DEP as Completely Released, Incremental Phase 2 Released, Phase 2 Released, or Incremental Phase 3 Released. 4 0.0001906 sq. mi. of PUB/PEM wetland is within the proposed project area; this resource is addressed in Section 3.2 of this EIS. 5 The Mountaintop Mining Region area was adopted from the WVDEP web site, and is based on the region defined by the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, October 1998 (2004; http://www.dep.state.wv.us/rs/mt/). 6Note that the Coal River Basin does not lie completely within the Mountaintop Mining Region.

3-190

Table 3-36 Percent of Mountaintop Mining Region, Coal River Basin, Little Coal River Sub-Basin, Spruce Fork Watershed, and Proposed Project Area within West Virginia for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3
LU/LC Land Use / Land Code Cover 11 21 22 % % Little Coal % Spruce West Virginia Mountaintop % Coal Fork River SubMining (sq miles) River Basin Basin Watershed Region 221.69 207.21 4.67 2.54% 5.21% 1.50% 1.41% 3.25% 0.21% 0.41% 0.96% 0.00% 0.07% 0.26% 0.00% % % Applicant’s Alternative PA Project 3 Project Area Area 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%

Open Water Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/ Industrial/ Transportation Quarries/Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits/ Surface Mines Active Mining Transitional/ Herbaceous/ Planted/Cultivated Post Mining Transitional Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Urban/Recreational Grasses Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Total Area

23

112.01

4.18%

2.29%

1.56%

0.04%

0.000%

0.000%

32 32A

79.89 422.28

22.01% 60.26%

7.40% 22.81%

2.13% 13.15%

1.29% 5.64%

0.000% 0.017%

0.000% 0.038%

33 33A 41 42 43 85 91

3,261.06 77.79 16,535.10 868.60 2,588.43 6.97 37.38

1.49% 48.16% 8.24% 2.05% 5.41% 0.004% 3.77%

0.92% 14.90% 4.02% 0.73% 2.46% 2.15% 0.72%

0.21% 7.35% 1.73% 0.09% 0.86% 0.00% 0.03%

0.06% 2.47% 0.54% 0.03% 0.30% 0.00% 0.03%

0.000% 0.000% 0.019% 0.001% 0.012% 0.000% 0.000%

0.000% 0.000% 0.024% 0.001% 0.015% 0.000% 0.000%

92

23.44 24,446.52

2.60% --7.78%

0.26% --3.65%

0.04% --1.57%

0.01% --0.52%

0.001% --0.015%

0.001% --0.019%

Percentage of WV Area Composed of Sub-region

3-191

Table 3-37 Percent of Coal River Basin, Little Coal River Sub-Basin, Spruce Fork Watershed, and Proposed Project Area within the Mountain Mining Region for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3
LU/LC Code 11 21 22 23 32 32A 33 33A 41 42 43 85 91 92 Land Use / Land Cover Open Water Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Industrial/Transportation Quarries/Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits/ Surface Mines Active Mining Transitional/Herbaceous/Planted/ Cultivated Post Mining Transitional Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Urban/Recreational Grasses Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Total Area Mountaintop Mining Region (sq miles) 5.63 10.80 0.07 4.68 17.58 254.45 48.58 37.46 1,362.48 17.82 140.06 0.00 1.41 0.61 1,901.63 % Coal River Basin* 55.42% 62.31% 14.29% 54.91% 33.62% 37..85% 61.55% 30.94% 48.94% 35.80% 45.55% N/A** 19.15% 9.84% --% % Alternative % Little % Spruce Applicant’s 3 Project Coal River Fork PA Project Area Sub-basin Watershed Area 16.34% 18.43% 0.00% 37.39% 9.67% 21.82% 14.39% 15.27% 21.13% 4.60% 15.91% 0.00% 0.71% 1.64% --20.15% 2.66% 5.00% 0.00% 1.07% 5.86% 9.36% 4.18% 5.13% 6.70% 1.57% 5.49% 0.00% 0.71% 0.33% --6.63% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.028% 0.000% 0.000% 0.232% 0.056% 0.228% 0.000% 0.000% 0.033% --0.187% 0.000% 0..000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.063% 0.000% 0.000% 0.294% 0.056% 0.271% 0.000% 0.000% 0.033% --0.239%

Percentage of Mountaintop Mining Region Area Composed of Sub-region 46.92%

*Note that the Coal River Basin does not lie completely within the Mountaintop Mining Region. **As shown in the table, there are more square miles of Urban/Recreational Grasses within the Coal River Basin than in the Mountaintop Mining Region as a whole, which is explained by the fact that that portions of the Coal River Basin do not coincide with the Mountaintop Mining Region.

3-192

Table 3-38 Percent of Little Coal River Sub-Basin, Spruce Fork Watershed, and Proposed Project Area within the Coal River Basin for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3
LU/LC Code 11 21 22 23 32 32A 33 33A 41 42 43 85 91 92 Land Use / Land Cover Open Water Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Industrial/ Transportation Quarries/Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits/ Surface Mines Active Mining Transitional/Herbaceous/Planted / Cultivated Post Mining Transitional Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Urban/Recreational Grasses Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Total Area Coal River Basin (sq miles) 3.12 6.73 0.01 2.57 5.91 96.31 29.90 11.59 665.37 6.38 63.80 0.15 0.27 0.06 892.17 % Little Coal % Spruce Fork % Applicant’s % Alternative 3 PA Project River SubWatershed Project Area Area basin 29.49% 29.57% 0.00% 68.09% 28.76% 57.65% 23.38% 49.35% 42.92% 12.85% 34.92% 0% 3.70% 16.67% --42.96% 4.81% 8.02% 0.00% 1.95% 17.43% 24.73% 6.79% 16.57% 13.31% 4.39% 12.05% 0% 3.70% 3.33% --14.14% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.073% 0.000% 0.000% 0.475% 0.157% 0.502% 0.000% 0.000% 0.333% --0.399% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.166% 0.000% 0.000% 0.602% 0.157% 0.596% 0.000% 0.000% 0.333% --0.510%

Percentage of Coal River Basin Area Composed of Subregion

3-193

Table 3-39 Percent of Spruce Fork Watershed and Proposed Project Area within the Little Coal River Sub-Basin for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3
LU/LC Code 11 21 22 23 32 32A 33 33A 41 42 43 85 91 92 Land Use / Land Cover Open Water Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Industrial/ Transportation Quarries/Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits/ Surface Mines Active Mining Transitional/Herbaceous/ Planted/ Cultivated Post Mining Transitional Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Urban/Recreational Grasses Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Total Area Little Coal River Sub-basin (sq miles) 0.92 1.99 0.00 1.75 1.70 55.52 6.99 5.72 285.55 0.82 22.28 0.00 0.01 0.01 383.26 % Spruce Fork Watershed 16.30% 27.14% 0.00% 2.86% 60.59% 42.90% 29.04% 33.57% 31.02% 34.15% 34.52% 0.00% 100.00% 20.00% --32.91% % Applicant’s PA Project Area 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.126% 0.000% 0.000% 1.107% 1.220% 1.436% 0.000% 0.000% 2.00% --0.929% 1.188% % Alternative 3 Project Area 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.288% 0.000% 0.000% 1.402% 1.220% 1.706% 0.000% 0.000% 2.000%

Percentage of Little Coal River Sub-basin Area Composed of Sub-region

3-194

Table 3-40 Percent of Proposed Project Area within the Spruce Fork Watershed for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3
LU/LC Code 11 21 22 23 32 32A 33 33A 41 42 43 85 91 92 Land Use / Land Cover Open Water Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Industrial/Transportation Quarries/Strip Mines/ Gravel Pits/Surface Mines Active Mining Transitional/Herbaceous/Planted/ Cultivated Post Mining Transitional Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Urban/Recreational Grasses Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Total Area
Spruce Fork Watershed (sq miles)

% Applicant’s PA Project Area 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.294% 0.000% 0.000% 3.567% 3.571% 4.161% 0.000% 0.000% 10.000% --2.823%

% Alternative 3 Project Area 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.672% 0.000% 0.000% 4.519% 3.571% 4.941% 0.000% 0.000% 10.000% --3.610%

0.15 0.54 0.00 0.05 1.03 23.82 2.03 1.92 88.59 0.28 7.69 0.00 0.01 0.002 126.12

Percentage of Spruce Fork Watershed Area Composed of Sub-region

3-195

The post mining land use for the proposed project is forestland. Reclaimed areas managed for forest regeneration can undergo succession to a forested climax state. With sufficient time, natural processes for mine soil improvement and succession can overcome conditions limiting reforestation, thus the resource loss would not be irreversible. The question of whether the Applicant’s PA (to mine approximately 3.560 square miles [4.55 square miles for Alternative 3] of the Spruce Fork watershed) would significantly impact the Spruce Fork watershed, Little Coal River sub-basin, Coal River basin, and the Mountaintop Mining Region, was evaluated by the following. Approximately 3.49 square miles (4.39 square miles for Alternative 3) of existing forested land use/land cover (summation of LU/LC codes for deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest; Table 3-32) would be temporarily converted to “Active Mining” (LU/LC Code 32A) due to permitting of the proposed project. In summary, the temporary conversion of this forested land cover represents approximately 3.61 percent (4.55% for Alternative 3) of the total forested land within the Spruce Fork watershed and 0.23 percent (0.29% for Alternative 3) of the total forested land within the Mountaintop Mining Region (Table 3-41). To put this in context, in order to decrease forested land use/land cover (summation of LU/LC codes for deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest; Table 3-32) by 10% within the Mountaintop Mining Region, it would require permitting 42.72 (33.39 for Alternative 3) surface mine projects of similar size (3.560 square miles [4.55 square miles for Alternative 3]) and scope. This would change the forested land use/land cover from roughly 79.95% forested to 69.95% forested. From a regional watershed perspective, a minimal change in land use/land cover patterns would occur due to permitting this specific mine operation. Large forest patches (>500 hectares [1,235 acres]) would still remain to accommodate species with wide ranging territory requirements. The NLCD land use/land cover (and modified WVDEP) data is presented in Exhibits 3-23 through 3-26. These areas depict relatively unfragmented forested landscapes when compared to a landscape fragmented by agriculture within the Shenandoah Valley (Exhibit 3-19). “Habitat specific species” dependent upon a diversity of mast-producing trees and shrubs, such as gray squirrel, chipmunk, white-footed mouse, and ruffed grouse, may be temporarily affected from the proposed mining operations. Wildlife species that are “generalists,” such as the white-tailed deer and wild boar, would use the temporary grasslands created by the mining operation for grazing and cover. Wild turkey would also feed on the more abundant insects present along the forest-grassland interface. Red or gray fox may also come to the opening to feed on small mammals. Typical grassland species, such as short-eared owl, northern harrier, meadowlark, chipping sparrow, field sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow may eventually find and inhabit these grassland habitats during mining.

3-196

Table 3-41 Percent Forest at the Various Scales of Analysis within the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3
Evaluation Scale Spruce Fork Watershed Little Coal River Sub-Basin Big Coal River Basin Mountaintop Mining Region State of West Virginia Total Acres of % Within Applicant’s PA % Within Alternative 3 Proposed Project Area Proposed Project Area Forest* 96.56 308.65 735.55 1,520.36 19,992.13 3.613% 1.130% 0.474% 0.229% 0.017% 4.550% 1.423% 0.597% 0.289% 0.022%

*Forest is the total of LU/LC Codes 41(Deciduous Forest), 42 (Evergreen Forest), and 43 (Mixed Forest).

Future actions considered in this analysis include those considered to be reasonably foreseeable, rather than speculative. This categorization is based on the best available information from the agencies and proponents involved or from credible published sources. For the purposes of evaluation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine project, reasonably foreseeable future actions would include the mining of areas within the Spruce Fork watershed that have mining permit applications currently pending with the WVDEP. There are only two currently pending surface mining applications located within the Spruce Fork watershed. The North Rum Surface Mine (pending WVDEP Permit S-5006-05) would be approximately 801 acres (378 acres being previously disturbed) on the dividing ridge between Garland Fork and Brushy Fork, both tributaries of Spruce Fork. The area proposed to be mined in the North Rum Surface Mine project contains extensive pre-law and/or previous mining (approximately 378 acres) and would result in the reclamation of several thousand feet of existing “pre-law” highwall. The second pending application is for the 333-acre Adkins Fork Surface Mine (pending WVDEP Permit S-5005-03) located in Adkins Fork of Spruce Fork. The total area associated with these two mines that has not previously been disturbed is approximately 756 acres. Cumulatively, the previous mining (including pre-law, post-mining transitional areas, and active permits) within the Spruce Fork watershed, the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, under the Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3, and the reasonably foreseeable future actions outlined above would affect the area of forestland by approximately 20,125 acres (24.93 percent) or 20,704 acres (25.65 percent), respectively, of the Spruce Fork watershed. However, due to revegetation plans for surface mines commonly involving planting of trees for establishment of forestland and fish and wildlife habitat, the most common post-mining land uses proposed, cumulative effects on forestland, as well as other land uses in the study area, are not anticipated to be unacceptable or adverse. Recreation would not be expected to cumulatively be affected by the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects; although, in some areas of the mountaintop mining region, previously mined areas are currently being utilized in conjunction with the “Hatfield and McCoy” trail system. 3.8.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES Mingo Logan is proposing to reclaim the project area to forestland. Prior to the recognized spring and fall planting seasons, the operator would review all areas that were seeded and/or planted during the previous planting seasons. The operator would then retreat (regrade, seed, plant, mulch, etc.) those areas deficient
3-197

in vegetative cover to establish the required level of vegetative success. Additionally, the operator would examine the project area for rills and gullies which may form in areas that would be regraded and topsoiled, and which disrupt the approved post-mining land use, interfere with the establishment of the vegetation cover, or cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards would be filled, regraded, stabilized, topsoiled, and reseeded or replanted, as necessary. The project area of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be planted to successfully achieve the proposed post-mining land use of forestland. Specifications for success rates and minimum standards set forth in Section 9.3.g of the West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations would be followed. 3.8.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS Most of the effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine land use would be temporary and would cease on or before closure of the mine and completion of reclamation. No residual adverse effects to recreation resources or land use have been identified. 3.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES Issues associated with social and economic values include potential impacts to local jobs and employment, tax and other revenue changes, impacts to public services, changes in property values, and impacts to local growth and development and quality of life. 3.9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The study area for social and economic values encompasses the area of Logan County where the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would be located, Logan County, and its contiguous counties of Boone, Lincoln, Mingo and Wyoming in West Virginia. The cumulative effects area for social and economic issues includes essentially the same area; however, it also considers projects or major economic activities outside the study area that would affect communities in the southern coalfields. Exhibits 3-27 and 3-28 present the communities, services, and population centers relative to the proposed project area. 3.9.1.1 Population Population in the southern coalfields has been declining in recent history. Since 1980 Logan County has seen a significant decline in population. Between 1980 and 2000, Logan County’s population declined 25.6% (12,969 persons) from 50,679 to 37,710 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1995 and 2000). This population loss was largely due to a decline in mining employment (Burton, et al., 2000). 3.9.1.2 Employment and Income

Compared to the State of West Virginia, Logan County is more dependent on the coal mining industry for employment and has a higher rate of unemployment. Mining accounted for 11.1 percent of the total employment in Logan County in 2004, while it accounted for three percent (3%) at the state level (West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs [WVBEP], 2005). Historically, mining accounted for a relatively large share of total employment in the counties, but the mining industry has been declining. Between 1995 and 2000, mining employment decreased more at the county level (62%) than at the state level (27%)(Table 3-42 and Table 3-43). This decline in employment is consistent with the drop in annual coal production from nearly eighteen (18) million tons in 1996 to about 8.5 million tons in 2000 (Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9). Coal production and employment have rebounded some from 2000 to 2005, but as Figure 3-8 indicates, most of the increase has occurred in underground mining.
3-198

A comparison of the top ten employers in Logan County in March 1999 and March 2005 also reflects the declines in mining employment. Five (5) of the ten (10) largest employers in Logan County were coal companies in 1999 as compared with four (4) in 2005. March 1999 1. Logan County Board of Education 2. Logan General Hospital 3. Mingo Logan Mining, Inc.* 4. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 5. Apogee Coal Company* 6. Pitt-Fair Coal Company* 7. Appalachian Regional Hospital 8. Copperas Coal Corporation* 9. Elkay Mining Company* 10. Southern WV Community College
*Coal companies Source: West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs, 2005

March 2005 1. Logan County Board of Education 2. Logan General Hospital 3. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 4. Phoenix Coal-Mac Mining, Inc.* 5. Aracoma Coal Company, Inc.* 6. Alex Energy, Inc.* 7. Southern West Virginia Community College 8. CDG Management LLC* 9. P.R.I.D.E. in Logan County, Inc. 10. Logan Park Care Center, Inc.

As shown in Figure 3-9, Logan County's unemployment rates throughout the past decade have been higher than the state and national unemployment rates (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006). However, the general trend in unemployment has been a decrease since the mid-1990s. Population loss (including a reduction in the civilian labor force) coupled with moderate job gains in the mining and manufacturing sectors resulted in a lower unemployment rate (5.2%) in Logan County in 2001. The twenty-first century unemployment rates in Logan County have remained above the national and state rates, similar to trends in the 1990s. While the services, retail trade, and government sectors employed the most workers between 1990 and 2000 (Table 3-42), the mining, utilities, and wholesale trade sectors provided the highest average wages in the county. In 2004 in Logan County, annual average mining wages ($57,072) were ninety-three percent (93%) greater than the annual average of all other sector wages in Logan County ($29,534) (WVBEP, 2005). It is anticipated that the average wage in Logan County would decrease substantially if negative changes in the mining industry continue to occur without positive changes occurring at a similar scale in other industries (Burton et al., 2000).

3-199

Table 3-42 Employment in Logan County
Percent Change 1990-1995 3% -21% 12% 2% 2,824 3,686 2,385 2,918 4,449 2,309 3,107 4,510 2,310 1,940 4,150 2,100 3% 21% -3% Percent Change 1995-2000 -11% -62% -16% -35% 6% 1% 0%

Logan County Total Employment1 Mining Manufacturing Trans. & public utilities Retail Services Government

1990 15,121 2,750 814 856

1995 15,602 2,184 909 871

2000 13,896 832 761 570

20052 12,160 1,490 590 490

Sources: West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs (2006). Notes: 1) Not all employment sector detail is provided, therefore sectors do not sum to total employment. 2) Comparison of 2005 data to prior data is not provided due to changes in the employment sector classifications after 2000.

Table 3-43 Employment in West Virginia
West Virginia Total Employment1 Mining Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Retail Services Government 1990 630,100 35,600 87,500 37,700 145,100 144,700 127,400 1995 687,800 27,200 82,400 40,200 158,000 183,800 136,400 2000 765,100 19,800 75,900 27,400 93,300 271,400 143,100 20052 756,200 24,100 62,400 26,200 88,400 294,900 143,300 Percent Change 1990-1995 9% -24% -6% 7% 9% 27% 7% Percent Change 1995-2000 11% -27% -8% -32% -41% 48% 0%

Sources: West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs (2006). Notes: 1) Not all employment sector detail is provided, therefore sectors do not sum to total employment. 2) Comparison of 2004 data to prior data is not provided due to changes in the employment sector classifications after 2000.

3-200

Annual Coal Mine Production (Millions of Tons)

18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Underground Surface

Sources: West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health and Safety Training (2006).

Figure 3-8 Coal Production in Logan County
16 14 12 Percent of Population 10 8 6 4 2 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year
U.S. W.V. Logan Co.

Figure 3-9 Unemployment Rate Comparison
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006. Note: U.S. and W.V. data are “seasonally adjusted” figures for June, whereas Logan County data are “not seasonally adjusted” annual figures.

3-201

The West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research produces an employment forecast for the state, which has been updated for 2005 (WVU BBER, 2005). In general state forecasts predict a continuation of the employment expansion trends in the 1990’s, but with a slow-down in growth rates. The forecast indicates that, nationally, the coal industry will experience a “mini-boom/bust cycle” from 2004 to 2006, with higher coal prices in the early phase driving up coal production, and the subsequent drop off in production as air quality restrictions on energy producers become more stringent thereby cutting the demand for the high sulfur coals produced by West Virginia. In the previous downturn (2002), West Virginia experienced more severe job losses in mining than the nation as a whole. In the long-term future, mining jobs are projected to continue to decline as the industry responds to intense competitive pressure and to risks related to regulatory concerns (WVU BBER, 2005). 3.9.1.3 Property and Severance Taxes The mining industry directly contributes to Logan County's economy through real and personal property taxes and the state coal severance tax. The mining industry contributes to the local tax base through taxes on real property and personal property, which fund public services. The primary beneficiary of Logan County's property tax is the county's Board of Education. Surface and subsurface real property values increase when land is active. For example, prime sites, which are sites where the industry (i.e., the mining equipment) is located, have a higher land value per acre. Property in reserve is valued lower than active property, but higher than property that is mined. Property values affect the tax base and, therefore, tax revenues. The tax rate on real property in Logan County is higher for active property than for property in reserve, property that has been mined out, and property with inaccessible coal. The mining industry is also assessed a personal property tax on business equipment in Logan County. The purchase of mining equipment drives the industry's sizable contribution to the personal property tax base because new equipment is very expensive and depreciates quickly. Based on the total assessed value of $875,116,215 for all property in Logan County, taxes for fiscal year 2004 totaled $19,146,692. This amount was comprised of $8,124,707 in real property taxes, $8,899,543 in personal property taxes, and $2,1223,442 in public utility property taxes (WV State Tax Dept., 2005). The state severance tax is a gross receipts tax levied on businesses that sever, extract, and/or produce natural resource products, including coal, in West Virginia. The severance tax base includes the processing and treatment of natural resource products as part of the production process. The tax rate for coal operations, with the exception of deep mines, is five percent (5%), which includes a 0.35 percent tax that directly benefits counties and municipalities. State agencies use approximately ninety percent (90%) of this money to pay for local education, health and judicial services, and infrastructure projects, including improved roads, new bridges, and extended water lines (Gorczyca, 2000). The 0.35 percent coal severance tax is allocated to localities through the Coal County Revenue Fund, which consists of seventy-five percent (75%) of the 0.35 percent tax, and the All Counties and Municipalities Revenue Fund, which consist of twenty-five percent (25%) of the 0.35% tax. Each coalproducing county receives as payment a percentage of the Coal County Revenue Fund, which is equivalent to the county’s share of total coal production in the state. The amount of each quarterly payment is based on production data for the previous quarter. In contrast to the money distributed through the Coal County Revenue Fund, money from the All Counties and Municipalities Revenue Fund is

3-202

distributed to all counties and municipalities, regardless of whether they are coal-producing. Money is distributed proportionately based on population (West Virginia Department of Tax and Revenue, 2000). During the 2004 fiscal year, Logan County received $1,378,667 in severance tax revenue through the Coal County Revenue Fund, and $102,378 through the All Counties and Municipalities Revenue Fund (West Virginia State Treasurer’s Office, 2005). In fiscal year 2004, coal severance taxes distributed on the basis of coal production average over $344,667 per quarter in Logan County. This is higher than the quarterly average of $203,153 distributed between 1999 and 2001. In Logan County, coal severance taxes have supported general government operating expenses, public safety, culture and recreation, social services, and education (The Herald-Dispatch, 2000). The six (6) municipalities in Logan County (Chapmanville, Davis, Logan, Man, Mitchell Heights, and West Logan) also receive distributions through the All Counties and Municipalities Revenue Fund. Distributions to these municipalities in 2004 collectively totaled $13,547.81 or approximately thirteen percent (13%) of all distributions from the All Counties and Municipalities Revenue Fund (West Virginia State Treasurer's Office, 2005). 3.9.1.4 Public Education

Public schools in the coalfields have been affected by the declining populations. As with the overall population decline, schools in the coalfields have also endured a steady decline in enrollment since 1980. The Logan County school system has seen a decline in enrollment during the same period. The Logan County school system has seen enrollment levels drop in conjunction with the overall population decline. All three (3) of the counties high schools have seen a significant decline in enrollment. Of the three public high schools located in Logan County two have dropped classification levels due to the declining enrollment. This has been the trend for the feeder schools as well. 3.9.1.5 Housing

Housing in the area is composed of a variety of owner occupancy and rental housing. Both types are readily available in Logan County and the surrounding counties. The availability of temporary housing (e.g., motels, campgrounds, etc.) in the study area is uncertain. There are motels located in the Logan, Chapmanville, and Madison areas. In addition, the Charleston area has several motels available. There are also various campgrounds in the region for public camping with recreational vehicle hookups. 3.9.1.6 Real Estate and Adjacent Property Values Property owners within the project area and within one hundred (100) feet of the proposed project boundary include four (4) land companies, CSX railroad, WVDOT, DOH roads, and one (1) private owner/resident (Section C of WVDEP Permit S-5013-97). Land in the vicinity of the Spruce No. 1 Mine is predominantly undeveloped. The potential for development in the coalfields is limited due to the topography. A majority of the land in the area has a natural ground slope of greater than ten percent (10%). In addition, a majority of the remaining developable land is located within the one hundred (100) year flood plain or is already developed. There are a few rural unincorporated communities near the project area, as well as a few scattered individual residences; however, most of the surrounding land is unmanaged forestland with areas of previously reclaimed mined lands.

3-203

3.9.1.7

Other Public Services

Emergency services are the principal additional public services that may be of concern regarding the development of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. Hospitals, ambulance services, and fire protection are often taken for granted in urban areas, but are less readily available in rural areas and smaller communities. Hospitals, in particular, are scarce in the study area. Boone Memorial Hospital and Logan General Hospital are the two (2) closest facilities to the proposed mine, located twenty-one (21) miles and thirteen (13) miles, respectively, from the mine entrance. The rural nature of a large portion of West Virginia and the southern coalfields affects response times and emergency services. The closest volunteer fire department is located in Sharples approximately six (6) miles from the mine entrance. Mingo Logan would also have its own fire fighting capability at the mine. Ambulance and emergency medical services (EMS) are provided by the Boone and Logan County emergency services out of Madison and Logan. 3.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section describes potential impacts to population, employment, income, public finance, public education, housing, other public services, and real estate values. Projected beneficial effects of employment would last through construction and operation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine (approximately 15 years). Potential impacts for the Applicant’s PA were analyzed assuming the development of the Spruce No. 1 Mine as proposed by Mingo Logan. The linkage between potential restrictions on mining practices and West Virginia’s fiscal well-being motivated the State’s Senate Finance Committee to commission a study from Marshall University’s Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) that quantified the dependence of state revenues on mining operations. This study, released in 2001, found that any restrictions that significantly limit the use of mountaintop mining as a surface mining process would lead to non-trivial short-run fiscal shortfalls (Burton et al., 2001). Depending on the form of the restrictions and the speed of their implementation, the CBER study estimated that significant restrictions on mountaintop mining could result in a loss of state and local revenues totaling more than $168 million annually. The methodology of the Marshall study combined a number of unique elements to produce county-specific depictions of mining-related economic activity, thereby interpreting the inter-relationships between surface and sub-surface mining. This methodology is summarized in Appendix O of the EIS. Reductions in mined tonnages resulting from permitting restrictions were then translated into reduced firm expenditures for labor and locally purchased equipment and materials. These effects were used to drive economic simulation software that translates isolated economic actions into broader economic impacts. Finally, the broader economic impacts were used to estimate the fiscal impact on state and local governments. The cumulative economic impact analysis focuses on the indirect and induced economic impacts that would occur if the planned mine investment is not permitted. Indirect impacts are the “multiplier” effects of the mine investment in equipment and services, as well as the wages paid to mine workers. The induced economic impacts further account for the effects of the mine investment on related industries (such as the ability for suppliers to stay in business, which in turn affects the opportunity for smaller mine operations to survive), as well as the effects of the tax benefits on workers in other industries. The analytical process is very similar to that employed in the 2001 Marshall study. County-specific relationships between underground and surface production were re-estimated based on three (3) additional years of data that are now available. The
3-204

appropriate parameter estimates were combined with production information for each the Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3 to generate estimates of both the underground and surface tonnages that would be mined if either alternative was undertaken. Tonnages were then converted to employment and income values using data from each permit application and from Statewide data describing worker productivity and earnings. The employment and income values are used as direct effect inputs within a regional economic simulation model based on software provided by IMPLAN, Inc. By relating direct economic activity to subsequent transactions, the simulation software provides estimates of the indirect and induced economic impacts that would be expected in association with new mining activity. The total of all three(3) impact categories reflects the total (or cumulative/induced) economic impact that would be foregone if the investment is not permitted. The cumulative impacts area of influence is defined as the county (or counties) where the investment is planned and all contiguous counties. This regional definition reflects the fact that workers within the mining community will commute substantial distances to gain employment. 3.9.2.1 Applicant’s Preferred Alternative The social and economic values analysis is driven by employment, taxes generated from the project, and expenditures for labor, materials, and equipment that would be associated with the proposed project. Population Development of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would aid in limiting the current rate of population decline for Logan County and the surrounding coalfield counties. As seen in Table 3-44 the total direct and indirect employment during peak activity was estimated at 243 workers. Due to the cyclical nature of the coal industry with mines opening and closing, new mines of the same scale as those that close must be permitted and developed in order to maintain production levels for the region. As a result, the population of the study area would not be expected to change measurably as a result of developing the Spruce No. 1 Mine. At most, the mine would potentially aid in the stemming of the continued population decline in the region during the mine life. Employment and Income Historically, mining accounted for a relatively large share of total employment in the county, but the mining industry has been declining rapidly. It is anticipated that the Spruce No. 1 Mine would stem this declining pattern. The direct employment of 218 mining workers would represent a 16.3 percent increase over the total mining jobs in Logan County when compared to 2004 and a one percent (1%) increase in total jobs in West Virginia when compared to 2004. In addition, average wages for these mining jobs are anticipated to be approximately ninetyseven percent (97%) higher than the average income of Logan County average wages in 2004. In addition to the direct mining jobs, it is estimated that the project would result in approximately twenty-five (25) additional mining activity jobs (indirect) and would aid in the increase and sustainability of jobs in the area that are directly and indirectly dependant on the mining industry. The Spruce No. 1 Mine would represent a short-term increase in employment and income for the study area for the life of the mine. Additional discussion on employment and income impacts related to the proposed project is included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Property and Severance Taxes For the Spruce No. 1 Mine, which has an anticipated 15-year mine life, it is estimated that the Applicant would be levied annual property tax payments (for Spruce No. 1 Mine) in the amount of $1,074,000 as presented in the Community Impact Statement prepared for the WVDEP Permit S-5013-97, IBR 2 application (Appendix P). The latter amount is equivalent to approximately 0.12 percent of the total property
3-205

taxes collected in 2004. Given that Spruce No. 1 Mine would be considerably larger than the typical mine for the county, it would potentially expand the local property tax base, albeit temporarily for the 15-year duration of its operation. In contrast, if Spruce No. 1 Mine is not permitted and developed, the local property tax base would not be likely to increase and may decrease, depending on the number and size of other new mines that are permitted and developed. A broader discussion of state tax impacts, with quantified results, is included in the cumulative impacts analysis. At full operation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, the applicant would be levied $4,167,640 in annual severance taxes. This figure is equal to 2.6% of the total severance taxes ($214,141,118) collected for the entire state in fiscal year 2003. Approximately $3,875,905 of the projected taxes paid for Spruce No. 1 Mine would directly benefit the state, while the remaining $291,735 would directly benefit counties and municipalities through the Coal County Revenue Fund and the All Counties and Municipalities Revenue Fund. Although a considerably larger sum is directed to the state, the vast majority of these revenues benefit localities. As previously noted, state agencies use approximately ninety percent (90%) of severance tax revenues to pay for local education, health and judicial services, and infrastructure projects. Logan County's severance tax revenue during the time that the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be in operation cannot be estimated at this time because it is dependent on future statistics (i.e., total severance taxes collected throughout the state, the county’s share of total coal production in the state, and the county's population proportionate to other West Virginia localities). However, permitting and developing Spruce No. 1 Mine would help maintain the county’s coal severance tax distributions and may help to increase the distributions. A quantified discussion of state-level severance tax impacts is included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Public Education and Housing As noted above, no substantive population change would be expected from development of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. As a result, there would be little or no change expected in the number of school children in any of the school districts in the study area. Similarly, there would be very little, if any, expected change in housing needs in the study area. Real Estate and Adjacent Property Values The proposed project may contribute to short-term changes in the value of surrounding properties. Conditions that may affect the value of surrounding properties include increased noise and dust levels, changes in visual quality/aesthetics, and increased traffic on existing roads. As noted in Section 3.11, Noise and Visual Resources and Section 3.13 Public Health and Safety, noise and dust impacts diminish with distance from the project. The Applicant’s PA would result in unavoidable temporary increases in ambient noise levels within a conservatively estimated five-mile radius of the proposed operations over the life of the project. Dust impacts would be anticipated to be localized within the immediate area of the mining site. As noted in Section 3.11, minor impacts on the viewshed (when viewed from the community adjacent to the project area) would be expected as a result of the proposed project, but the proposed project would most likely be only partially be visible from any public roads and would not be visible from any public recreation areas. As discussed in Section 3.10, Transportation, coal may be transported initially on SR17, and this route can and has accommodated similar traffic levels from past mining projects. During the mine’s operation, the Applicant’s PA has the potential to temporarily decrease the value of a surrounding property. To offset these short-term property value concerns, the Office of Coalfield Community Development (OCCD) is required by statute to assist property owners who desire to voluntarily to sell their property. The post-reclamation use would not be anticipated to result in long-term impact to adjacent property values, as it would involve transition back to the pre-mining land use of forestland.
3-206

Long-term, but temporary, and minor impacts on the viewshed (viewed from the communities of Five Block, Spruce Valley, Blair, and Kelly) would be expected as a result of the Applicant’s PA. The proposed project area would potentially be somewhat visible from the residences and from the public roads adjacent to the project area, but is dominated by rugged topography and dense forest vegetation that contains no unique or rare landscape patterns or forms, which would be expected to lessen the potential of visibility. The project would be located in an area that would not be viewable from places of public interest and would be temporary in nature and, therefore, would not result in degradation of features associated with design quality, art, or architecture. Therefore, based on the post-mining land use, the long-term impact of the Applicant’s PA would not be anticipated to have a negative effect on the value of adjacent properties or real estate values. The Applicant’s PA would not require the construction of new public roads. During the initial development (years 1 and 2) of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, coal may be transported on SR17 to the Mountain Laurel Complex Preparation/Loading facility located along Seng Camp Creek. Up to one hundred (100) round trips per day may occur during the two-year development period. SR17, prior to construction of US Route 119, was the main transportation artery in the area and can accommodate the expected traffic. Once the proposed project area has been mined, all 2,278 surface acres would be reclaimed. Revegetation would take place to stabilize the soil and control erosion. The post-mining land use would be forestland. Due to the removal of the mineral resources, the overall value of the property, specifically the mineral value, within the proposed project area would decrease after mining has been completed. The overall surface value of the property would be expected to be similar to the pre-mining value. The OCCD has prepared, and would update, the Coalfield Community Development Statement (CCDS) for Logan County to incorporate the impacts of the Spruce No. 1 Mine and other new surface mining operations into each county’s updated CCDS. This update would include providing notice to the public and soliciting comments from the public on the community impacts of the proposed mining and reclamation activities. The purpose of the CCDS is to: • • • • Summarize the impacts of proposed new surface mining operations in the county; Identify critical land and infrastructure needs of the county; Assess post-mining infrastructure and land assets that may be available to address these needs; and Recommend a plan to develop and utilize these assets to meet current and future development needs in the counties.

The proposed post-mining land use would be within the designated master land uses for Logan County and the economic viability has been verified. Other Public Services There would be a slight increase in mine-related demand for emergency services in Boone and Logan Counties. The effects would be minor as the Logan General Hospital would be the closest to the mine. More serious cases would be sent to Logan General Hospital or one of the many hospitals in Charleston. Long-term Effects Upon depletion of the economically recoverable bituminous resource at the Spruce No. 1 Mine, mining would cease and reclamation would be completed. At that time, the social and economic effects of the project would cease or gradually decline.

3-207

Spruce No. 1 Mine employment would also cease, as would payment of wages and purchases of materials and equipment. This would result in the loss of 218 full-time jobs and 10 contract jobs plus “indirect” and “induced” jobs in local businesses that are supported by the economic activity provided by these “direct” jobs. Tax revenues to local jurisdictions would be reduced, as would the demand for local public services and facilities. Housing vacated by departing workers would potentially change the local demand/supply ratio, tending to put downward pressure on housing prices. The actual dollar value of these effects would depend on other activities occurring in the local economy at the time of the closure, although continued growth in the study area (permitting of unforeseeable future operations) would sustain the base of population, employment, and economic activity available to absorb the adverse effects of the closure. 3.9.2.2 Alternative 3 The social and economic values analysis is driven by employment under Alternative 3, taxes generated from the project and expenditures for labor, materials, and equipment. Population Development of Alternative 3 would aid in limiting the current rate of population decline for Logan County and the surrounding coalfield counties. As seen in Table 3-44 the total direct and indirect employment during peak activity was estimated at 463 workers. Due to the cyclical nature of the coal industry with mines opening and closing, new mines of the same scale as those that close must be permitted and developed in order to maintain production levels for the region. As a result, the population of the study area would not be expected to change measurably as a result of developing Alternative 3. At most, the mine would potentially aid in the stemming of the continued population decline in the region during the mine life. Employment and Income Historically, mining accounted for a relatively large share of total employment in the county, but the mining industry has been declining rapidly. It is anticipated that the Spruce No. 1 Mine would stem this declining pattern. The direct employment of 409 mining workers would represent a 30.5 percent increase over the total mining jobs in Logan County when compared to 2004 and a 1.8 percent increase in total jobs in West Virginia when compared to 2004. In addition, average wages for these mining jobs are anticipated to be approximately ninety-seven percent (97%) higher than the average income of Logan County average wages in 2004. In addition to the direct mining jobs, it is estimated that the project would result in approximately fifty-four (54) additional mining activity jobs (indirect) and would aid in the increase and sustainability of jobs in the area that are directly and indirectly dependant on the mining industry. Alternative 3 would represent a short-term increase in employment and income for the study area for the life of the mine. Additional discussion on employment and income impacts related to the proposed project is included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Property and Severance Taxes For Alternative 3, based on the 10-year anticipated life of the mine, it is estimated that Mingo Logan would be levied annual property tax payments in the amount of ($8,688,351). This is equivalent to approximately one percent (1%) of the total property taxes collected in 2004. Given that Alternative 3 would be considerably larger than is typical for the county, it would potentially expand the local property tax base, albeit temporarily for the 10-year duration of its operation. A broader discussion of state tax impacts, with quantified results, is included in the cumulative impacts analysis.

3-208

Annual severance taxes levied for Alternative 3 is estimated, at full operation, to be $9,223,096 annually. This figure is equal to 4.3 percent of the total severance taxes ($214,141,118) collected for the entire state in fiscal year 2003. Under Alternative 3, approximately $8,577,479 of the projected taxes paid for Alternative 3 would directly benefit the state, while the remaining $645,616 would directly benefit the counties and municipalities through the Coal County Revenue Fund and the All Counties and Municipalities Revenue Fund. Although a considerably larger sum is directed to the state, the vast majority of these revenues benefit localities. As previously noted, state agencies use approximately ninety percent (90%) of severance tax revenues to pay for local education, health and judicial services, and infrastructure projects. Logan County's severance tax revenue during the time that the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be in operation cannot be estimated at this time because it is dependent on future statistics (i.e., total severance taxes collected throughout the state, the county’s share of total coal production in the state, and the county's population proportionate to other West Virginia localities). However, permitting and developing Spruce No. 1 Mine would help maintain the county’s coal severance tax distributions and may help to increase the distributions. A quantified discussion of state-level severance tax impacts is included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Public Education and Housing As noted above, no substantive population change would be expected from development of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, as proposed or under Alternative 3. As a result, there would be little or no change expected in the number of school children in any of the school districts in the study area. Similarly, there would be very little, if any, change in housing needs in the study area. Real Estate and Adjacent Property Values Alternative 3 may contribute to short-term changes in the value of surrounding properties. Conditions that may affect the value of surrounding properties include increased noise and dust levels, changes in visual quality/aesthetics, and increased traffic on existing roads. As noted in Section 3.11, Noise and Visual Resources and Section 3.13, Public Health and Safety, noise and dust impacts diminish with distance from the project. Alternative 3 would result in unavoidable temporary increases in ambient noise levels within a conservatively estimated five-mile radius of the proposed operations over the life of the project. Dust impacts would be anticipated to be localized within the immediate area of the mining site. As noted in Section 3.11, minor impacts on the viewshed (when viewed from the community adjacent to the project area) would be expected as a result of Alternative 3, but the project would most likely be only partially visible from any public roads and would not be visible from any public recreation areas. Under Alternative 3, coal would not be transported from the project area on public roads, but would be entirely internal. During the mine’s operation, Alternative 3 has the potential to temporarily decrease the value of a surrounding property. To offset these short-term property value concerns, the Office of Coalfield Community Development (OCCD) is required by statute to assist property owners who desire to voluntarily to sell their property. The post-reclamation use would not be anticipated to result in long-term impact to adjacent property values, as it would involve transition back to the pre-mining land use of forestland, like in the Applicant’s PA. Long-term, but temporary, and minor impacts on the viewshed (viewed from the communities of Five Block, Spruce Valley, Blair, and Kelly) would be expected as a result of Alternative 3. The project area would potentially be somewhat visible from the residences and from the public roads adjacent to the project area, but is dominated by rugged topography and dense forest vegetation that contains no unique or rare landscape patterns or forms, which would be expected to lessen the potential of visibility. The project would be located in an area that would not be viewable from places of public interest and would be temporary in nature and, therefore, would not result in degradation of features associated with design quality, art, or
3-209

architecture. Therefore, based on the post-mining land use, the long-term impact of Alternative 3 would not be anticipated to have a negative effect on the value of adjacent properties or real estate values. Alternative 3 would not require the construction of a new public road and all coal would be transported along internal private roads to the Mountain Laurel Complex Preparation/Loading facility located on Seng Camp Creek. Once the Alternative 3 project area has been mined, all 2,914 surface acres would be reclaimed. Revegetation would take place to stabilize the soil and control erosion. The post-mining land use would be forestland. Due to the removal of the mineral resources, the overall value of the property, specifically the mineral value, within the Alternative 3 project area would decrease after mining has been completed. The overall surface value of the property would be expected to be similar to the pre-mining value. The OCCD has prepared, and would update, the Coalfield Community Development Statement (CCDS) for Logan County to incorporate the impacts of Alternative 3 and other new surface mining operations into each county’s updated CCDS. This update would include providing notice to the public and soliciting comments from the public on the community impacts of the proposed mining and reclamation activities. The purpose of the CCDS is to: • • • • Summarize the impacts of proposed new surface mining operations in the county; Identify critical land and infrastructure needs of the county; Assess post-mining infrastructure and land assets that may be available to address these needs; and Recommend a plan to develop and utilize these assets to meet current and future development needs in the counties.

The proposed post-mining land use would be within the designated master land uses for Logan County and the economic viability has been verified.

Other Public Services There would be a slight increase in mine-related demand for emergency services in Boone and Logan Counties. The effects would be minor as the Logan General Hospital would be the closest to the mine. More serious cases would be sent to Logan General Hospital or one of the many hospitals in Charleston. Long-term Effects Upon depletion of the economically recoverable bituminous coal resources within the Alternative 3 project area, mining would cease and reclamation would be completed. At that time, the social and economic effects of the project would cease or gradually decline. Alternative 3 employment would also cease, as would payment of wages and purchases of materials and equipment. This would result in the loss of 409 full-time jobs plus “indirect” and “induced” jobs in local businesses that are supported by the economic activity provided by these “direct” jobs. Tax revenues to local jurisdictions would be reduced, as would the demand for local public services and facilities. Housing vacated by departing workers would potentially change the local demand/supply ratio, tending to put downward pressure on housing prices. The actual dollar value of these effects would depend on other activities occurring in the local economy at the time of the closure, although continued growth in the study area (permitting of unforeseeable future operations) would sustain the base of population, employment, and economic activity available to absorb the adverse effects of the closure.

3-210

3.9.2.3

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Spruce No. 1 Mine would not be developed and none of the minerelated impacts would be realized. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances. 3.9.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Within Logan County there are currently three (3) pending surface mine permit applications, of which; two are located within the Spruce Fork watershed. One (1) of these operations would be part of an existing mining complex (North Rum Surface Mine) while the other (Adkins Fork Surface Mine) would be a stand-alone project. Both projects would be anticipated to continue and maintain employment within the region. The Adkins Fork Surface Mine is not associated with any existing complex and would be expected to have similar short-term impacts as those associated with the Applicant’s PA, but to a lesser extent due to the limited size and life of the operation (4.5-year mine life). For Alternative 3, the mine operation would produce approximately 5.1 millions tons of coal annually with a projected value of $198 million in annual revenues (at a mine mouth price of $38.50 per short ton). Alternative 3 would be expected to provide the mining community with a full-time-equivalent workforce of 409 additional direct mining jobs (Table 3-44). For the Applicant’s PA, the mine operation would produce 2.8 millions tons of coal annually with a projected value of $107.8 million in annual revenues (at a mine mouth price of $38.50 per short ton). The Applicant’s PA would be expected to provide the mining community with a full-time-equivalent workforce of 218 additional direct mining jobs. Based on the above annual tonnage estimations, it is likely that by permitting Alternative 3 there would be an increase of roughly 464,000 tons at other nearby underground facilities within the study region. For the Applicant’s PA, the increase anticipated would be 218,000 tons at other nearby underground facilities within the study region. This is an important feature of coal production in the region. The presence of regional economies of scope suggests that a decrease in surface mining would result in a decrease in underground mining. For a full description of this impact see Burton et. al. (2001). Total output and employment values are provided in Table 3-44. IMPLAN simulation results describing the probable impact on employment, incomes, and output are provided in Table 3-45, Table 3-46 and Table 3-47. These tables present annual impacts for the mine at full production. With respect to cumulative impacts for Alternative 3 and the Applicant’s PA, the 10-year and 15year totals and present value dollar amounts, respectively, with a three percent (3%) real discount rate, are provided (see Appendix O for additional details on assumptions and methodology). Cumulative totals are based on projected year-by-year production. According to the cumulative impact analysis, the mining activities as a result of permitting the Spruce No. 1 Mine under Alternative 3 in Logan County would sustain 10,068 jobs cumulatively (1,007 jobs annually at peak production) that would pay $526,566,734 in income and produce $2,339,589,193 in goods and services (in present value terms). For the Applicant’s PA, mining activities would sustain 7,867 jobs cumulatively (537 annually at peak production) that would pay $308,725,120 in income and produce $1,443,323,087 in goods and services (in present value terms).

3-211

Table 3-44 One-Year Mining Employment and Output
Alternative 3 Direct Employment Spruce No. 1 Mine Additional Mining Activity Total Mining Activity in Peak Year 409 54 463 Annual Tonnage 5,100,000 464,000 5,564,000 Value of Annual Tonnage $198,000,000 $18,000,000 $216,000,000 The Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Direct Employment 218 25 243 Annual Tonnage 2,800,000 218,000 3,018,000 Value of Annual Tonnage $107,800,000 $8,393,000 $116,193,000

Source: Hicks and Burton (2004, 2005; Appendix O).

Table 3-45 Predicted Annual Impact on Employment
Alternative 3 Industry Agriculture Mining Construction Manufacturing Utilities* Finance** Trade*** Private Services Government Services Other Annual Total**** Mine Life***** Direct Effect 0 463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 463 4,634 Indirect Effect 2 113 12 5 35 34 14 52 2 0 270 2,695 Induced Effect 2 1 5 2 10 129 13 100 5 6 274 2,738 Total 3 577 18 7 46 163 28 152 7 6 1,007 10,068 The Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Direct Effect 0 243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 243 3,555 Indirect Effect 0.9 59.1 6.9 4.3 18.8 20.2 35.7 1.3 0 0 147 2,153 Induced Effect 0.9 0.4 3 1.2 5.6 70 60.8 2.7 3.1 0 147 2,159 Total 1.8 302.5 9.9 5.5 24.3 90.2 96.5 4 3.1 0 537 7,867

Source: Hicks and Burton (2004, 2005; Appendix O). *Utilities effects include transportation effects. **Finance effects include insurance effects. ***In the analysis performed for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (Hicks and Burton, 2004), wholesale trade and retail trade were broken out into separate industry categories. As the analysis for Alternative 3 (Hicks and Burton, 2005) considered wholesale and retail trade as a single industry category, the effects of wholesale trade and retail trade for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative analysis have been combined to provide for equal comparison. ****Columns and rows may not sum exactly due to rounding. *****The annual impacts reflect a fully operational production of 5.1 million tons for Alternative 3 and of 2.8 million tons for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. The cumulative impacts in employment, income and output reflect actual production which varies by year. Hence, the annual impacts are not 1/10 of the total cumulative/induced impact for Alternative 3 (with a 10-year mine life) nor 1/15 of the total cumulative impact for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (with a 15-year mine life).

3-212

Table 3-46 Predicted Annual Impact on Incomes
Industry Direct Effect Agriculture Mining Construction Manufacturing Utilities* Finance** Trade*** Private Services Government Services Other Annual Total**** Present Value***** (Mine Life) 0 $40,155,775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $40,155,775 $342,536,905 $25,379 $9,669,339 $390,884 $151,528 $1,866,953 $1,062,207 $305,611 $1,483,560 $68,115 0 $15,023,578 $128,154,164 Alternative 3 Indirect Effect Induced Effect $10,609 $21,119 $165,413 $52,425 $421,276 $2,202,914 $331,624 $3,141,193 $156,565 $47,195 $6,550,332 $55,875,665 Total $35,988 $49,846,233 $556,298 $203,953 $2,288,229 $3,265,121 $637,235 $4,624,753 $224,680 $47,195 $61,729,685 $526,566,734 Direct Effect 0 $13,208,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $13,208,000 $146,450,854 The Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Indirect Effect $11,460 $4,321,896 $186,913 $131,738 $839,411 $544,699 $824,281 $33,017 0 0 $6,893,416 $76,434,484 Induced Effect $4,945 $9,569 $78,644 $24,627 $193,008 $1,031,598 $1,576,342 $71,416 $21,287 0 $3,011,436 $33,390,928 Total $16,404 $22,269,684 $265,558 $156,365 $1,032,419 $1,576,297 $2,400,623 $104,433 $21,287 0 $27,843,070 $308,725,120

Source: Hicks and Burton (2004, 2005; Appendix O). *Utilities effects include transportation effects. **Finance effects include insurance effects. ***In the analysis performed for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (Hicks and Burton, 2004), wholesale trade and retail trade were broken out into separate industry categories. As the analysis for Alternative 3 (Hicks and Burton, 2005) considered wholesale and retail trade as a single industry category, the effects of wholesale trade and retail trade for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative analysis have been combined to provide for equal comparison. ****Columns and rows may not sum exactly due to rounding. *****The annual impacts reflect a fully operational production of 5.1 million tons for Alternative 3 and of 2.8 million tons for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. The cumulative/induced impacts in employment, income and output reflect actual production which varies by year. Hence, the annual impacts are not 1/10 of the total cumulative impact for Alternative 3 (with a 10-year mine life) nor 1/15 of the total cumulative impact for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (with a 15-year mine life).

3-213

Table 3-47 Predicted Annual Impact on Output
Alternative 3 Industry Agriculture Mining Construction Manufacturing Utilities* Finance** Trade*** Private Services Government Services Other Total**** Present Value***** (Mine Life) Direct Effect 0 $216,245,645 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $216,245,645 $1,844,619,214 Indirect Effect $38,193 $31,035,954 $676,661 $597,695 $4,847,914 $2,207,826 $1,502,899 $2,344,507 $209,500 0 $43,461,148 $370,732,409 Induced Effect $22,899 $100,159 $328,018 $174,608 $1,398,406 $4,118,917 $2,827,709 $5,087,158 $466,463 $40,098 $14,564,433 $124,237,570 Total $61,092 $247,381,758 $1,004,678 $772,303 $6,246,319 $6,326,742 $4,330,607 $7,431,665 $675,963 $40,098 $274,271,226 $2,339,589,193 Direct Effect 0 $67,590,624 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $67,590,624 $259,475,709 The Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Indirect Effect $20,317 $16,327,616 $380,264 $545,085 $2,570,111 $1,332,705 $2,105,177 $120,126 0 0 $23,401,401 $87,461,996 Induced Effect $12,791 $53,406 $182,277 $97,255 $753,776 $2,271,607 $4,245,036 $250,522 $21,287 0 $7,887,957 $1,096,385,382 Total $33,107 $83,971,648 $562,541 $642,339 $3,323,887 $3,604,312 $6,350,213 $370,648 $21,287 0 $98,879,982 $1,443,323,087

Source: Hicks and Burton (2004, 2005; Appendix O). *Utilities effects include transportation effects. **Finance effects include insurance effects. ***In the analysis performed for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (Hicks and Burton, 2004), wholesale trade and retail trade were broken out into separate industry categories. As the analysis for Alternative 3 (Hicks and Burton, 2005) considered wholesale and retail trade as a single industry category, the effects of wholesale trade and retail trade for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative analysis have been combined to provide for equal comparison. ****Columns and rows may not sum exactly due to rounding. *****The annual impacts reflect a fully operational production of 5.1 million tons for Alternative 3 (IBR 1) and of 2.8 million tons for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (IBR 2). The cumulative/induced impacts in employment, income and output reflect actual production which varies by year. Hence, the annual impacts are not 1/10 of the total cumulative impact for Alternative 3 (with a 10-year mine life) nor 1/15 of the total cumulative impact for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (with a 15-year mine life).

3-214

In addition to the impacts to the regional economy described above, the local, State and Federal governments rely on economic activity to generate tax revenues, which provide public services. The values for local government employment outlined above reflect demand changes to the local area calculated by the IMPLAN simulation software. However, there are additional revenues to local, State and Federal governments not included in the preceding analysis; these impacts are felt primarily outside the study region. West Virginia’s tax structure is dominated by state-level taxes. Local communities collect taxes only on excess levies on property taxes, and these are capped by the legislature (impacts to the local tax base are discussed in Section 3.9.2). The major state tax instruments, therefore, form the primary basis of the analysis. In estimating total fiscal impacts, a state fiscal model was employed that was developed in the earlier Marshall University studies. The primary state tax instruments are: Corporate Net Income Taxes, Personal Income Taxes, Sales & Use Taxes, Real and Personal Property Taxes, and Special Reclamation, and Coal Severance Taxes. Each of these tax instruments is described in the paragraphs that follow. At the Federal level, Personal Income Taxes form the bulk of lost revenues. Social Security, Medicaid, and ancillary corporate taxes at the Federal level also comprise part of the total impact of this mining activity. • Corporate Net Income Tax (CNIT) is a profit tax assessed on both foreign and domestic firms that produce goods or services or derive income in West Virginia. The current nine percent (9%) rate is among the highest nationwide. All non-S or 503 series corporations are subject to this tax instrument. Estimating the CNIT total impact at the regional level requires an estimate of the share of total economic activity, which was performed in the earlier cited analysis. Business Franchise Tax (BFT) is an equity tax for the right to do business in West Virginia. All businesses in West Virginia (except non-profits) are subject to this tax. Business & Occupation Taxes (B&O) are levied primarily within certain municipalities in West Virginia, and primarily on public utilities. Health Care Provider Tax (HCPT) is a service excise on some types of physician office visits and clinical services. This tax is designed to raise sufficient revenues to meet the state’s required Federal Medicaid match. Personal Income Tax (PIT) in West Virginia is a mildly progressive tax that ranges from four to six percent (4-6%) and is based upon Federally reported Adjusted Gross Income. Coal Severance Tax in West Virginia changed from an excise tax to a revenue tax during the early 1980s in order to capture revenues available during a sustained period of high prices. The levied value is five percent (5%) of total sales, but is subject to a number of credits, which lower its total value to roughly four percent (4%). This value has been rising steadily in recent years, and is likely much closer to five percent (5%) in FY 2005. Timber Severance Tax is a special tax on the value of lumber removed from private or publicly held woodlands. The entirety of this tax supports ongoing environmental and forestry management operations at West Virginia’s Division of Natural Resources.

• • •

• •

•

3-215

•

Special Reclamation Fund (SRF) began in 2001 as a source of revenue to treat acid mine drainage that had previously been mitigated with land revenues. The SRF is a 7/7 tax or seven cents per ton collection which is permanent with an additional seven cents which is scheduled to phase out in 2006. Personal Property Taxes are assessed against households and business, but usually include plants and equipment for businesses. There are four classes, and the total assessment for the state is fixed. However, local levies are permitted (not to exceed the state cap) which are typically employed to supplement local school activities. Real Property Taxes are assessed against households and business on the assessed value of real property. There are local supplements by levy to these taxes as with the Personal Property Taxes. Notably, property taxes are assessed on June 30 of each year and are effective on July 1 the following calendar year. For this reason, the losses to property taxes are felt with a single year lag. Thus, the losses that will occur from these taxes are estimated to have impacts in years 2-6. Sales and Use Taxes are a broad category that includes retail sales taxes and a variety of fees and licenses. These collections support a vast array of activities from parks to motor vehicle licensing activities to Karaoke bars. These are too numerous to review here. The West Virginia State revenue system collects CNIT, PIT, and BFT for the General Revenue Fund. Property Taxes are paid to county schools as per the state’s school funding formula. As previously noted, the Timber Severance Tax accrues to the Division of Natural Resources, and B&O taxes primarily accrue to a few municipalities. Sales and Use Taxes have a variety of dictated and general fund uses, while Severance Tax is distributed in a 75/25 formula. Three quarters of all coal severance taxes are paid directly to the counties from which the coal was mined, and the remainder is distributed by population to each of the state’s counties. The effect is that coal counties will typically receive one-quarter to one-half percent (0.25-0.5%) additional Severance Taxes. Federal FICA and MEDICAID taxes comprise a straightforward percent of income of 15.3 percent of payroll (National Center for Policy Analysis 2003). Federal Income Taxes are better estimated for this study’s purposes using the Congressional Budget Office’s Effective Federal Tax Rate Calculations. The most recent calculation of the effective Tax rate for all families in the United States is 21.5 percent as of 2001.

•

•

•

•

•

Combining the estimates of the changes to economic activity within the study region outlined above with the fiscal impacts, one can estimate each of these relevant taxes. The taxes that have minimal influence on the overall outcome, such as the Timber Severance or B&O taxes, are not included in this analysis. Results of this analysis for Alternative 3 and the Applicant’s PA are included in Table 3-48. In summary, if Alternative 3 were permitted and operated, it would sustain over $215 million in state and local tax revenues and over $194 million in Federal tax revenues over a 10-year period (net present value). If the Applicant’s PA were permitted and operated, it would sustain over $101 million in state and local tax revenues and over $113 million in Federal tax revenues over a 15-year period (net present value).

3-216

Table 3-48 Predicted Impact on State and Federal Tax Collections (Present Value for Mine Life)
Instrument State and Local Taxes Corporate Net Income Tax Personal Income Tax Sales & Use Taxes Property Taxes Coal Severance Total State and Local Taxes Federal Taxes FICA Income Total Federal Taxes $81,617,844 $113,211,848 $194,829,692 $47,234,943 $66,375,901 $113,610,844 $5,287,472 $15,428,405 $15,797,002 $86,883,511 $92,230,961 $215,627,351 $2,477,831 $9,045,646 $8,902,649 $18,079,395 $62,514,592 $101,020,113 Alternative 3 Amount The Applicant’s Preferred Alternative** Amount

Source: Hicks and Burton, 2004 and 2005 (Appendix O). *For Alternative 3, the Present Value amounts are for the 10-year mine life associated with this alternative. ** For the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, the Present Value amounts are for the 15-year mine life associated with this alternative.

The cumulative impact analysis compared the future condition without the Applicant’s PA (No Action) to the future condition with either Alternative 3 or the Applicant’s PA. The mining economy of Logan and surrounding counties relies on a continuing cycle of new mines opening as old mines close in order to sustain existing upstream and downstream services and the employment they offer. Without new mines, such as Spruce No. 1 Mine, the closing of existing mines over time would result in considerable negative effects to existing economics of scope, thereby escalating the decline of the mining industry and all the economic activities it supports. According to this analysis, not permitting the Applicant’s PA would result in 7,867 lost jobs over a 15-year period (537 jobs annually) that would pay over $308.7 million in income and produce close to $1.44 billion in goods and services (in present value terms). Total losses to State and Federal tax revenues, in present value terms over the same period, would be over $101 million and $113.6 million, respectively. 3.9.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES

No monitoring and mitigation measures are being considered for social and economic values. 3.9.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS There would be no residual adverse effects associated with social and economic issues as a result of the Applicant’s PA. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION The principal transportation issues relate to increased traffic as a result of coal haulage on public roads and public safety.
3-217

3.10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Spruce No. 1 Mine would be served by a single two-lane road, SR17, under West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) jurisdiction that connects to US Route 119 (US119) in Madison, which is the main route between Charleston and the coalfields of southern West Virginia. For purposes of this EIS analysis, the direct/indirect effects study area for transportation includes the project area and a distance of approximately four (4) miles north on SR17 from the intersection with Access Road 2 to the entrance to the Mountain Laurel Complex. The cumulative effects area includes the study area in addition to SR17 in the vicinity of the Spruce No. 1 Mine north to its intersection with US119, to the extent that other planned activities in this area may generate traffic that would interact with Spruce No. 1 Mine traffic. The operations with some access along SR17 are primarily comprised of those that are located within the Spruce Fork watershed. SR17, a two-lane, paved highway, is in fair to good condition. SR17, which previously served as the main transportation artery in the area prior to construction of US119, can accommodate the anticipated traffic from the Spruce No. 1 Mine. It follows a curvy route with numerous dips and hills as it travels along the river valley with several bridges crossing streams at several locations along its length. The paved surface is typically approximately 20 feet to 22 feet wide throughout the study area. Shoulders are typically narrow and minimally improved. The route is typical of the roads in southern West Virginia. SR17 in the vicinity of the proposed project area has limited traffic due to the rural nature of the area. Level of Service (LOS) is a method of qualitatively measuring the operational conditions of traffic flows on roadways and the perception of those conditions by motorists and passengers (Transportation Research Board [TRB] 2000). LOS is rated “A” through “F”; “A” generally represents free-flowing traffic conditions with few restrictions, and “F” represents a “forced or breakdown” flow with queues forming and traffic volumes exceeding the theoretical capacity of the roadway (TRB, 2000). Generally, level “E” represents traffic volumes at the capacity of the roadway. Existing traffic flow conditions on SR17 are somewhat restricted by lane geometry and road curvature. Current LOS on SR17 is estimated at an “A” level due primarily to the road originally being designed as the main artery into the southern coalfields prior to the completion of US119. Traffic volumes on SR17 averaged 900 vehicles per day in 2004 (WVDOH, 2005). Peak hour traffic volumes are estimated at approximately nine percent (9%) of daily average traffic. Existing peak hour traffic is estimated at approximately 2.4 percent of the hourly roadway capacity. Existing traffic conditions on SR17, near the project area, are estimated at LOS “A”. Traffic volumes on that section of roadway averaged 550 vehicles per day in 2004 (WVDOH, 2005). Peak hour traffic volumes on that section of roadway are estimated at approximately ten percent (10%) of daily average traffic. Existing peak hour traffic is estimated at approximately 3.5 percent of hourly roadway capacity (WVDOH, 2005). 3.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Transportation impacts are commonly evaluated relative to two criteria: compliance with applicable LOS planning standards and protection of safety conditions for the traveling public. The relevant LOS standard for evaluating traffic conditions near the Spruce No. 1 Mine is the commonly used criterion for rural highways of LOS “C” during peak hour periods. At LOS “C”, traffic flows are in the stable range, but most drivers are becoming restricted in their freedom to select speed, change lanes, or pass other
3-218

vehicles. Travel times are closely related to LOS as they are essentially a function of distance and speed, which is controlled by traffic flow conditions. For mining projects in the region, the primary transportation concern is public perception and concern regarding coal haulage along public roads and the associated safety concerns. Use of “safety” is a less well-defined concept as an impact criterion. Many factors contribute to highway safety, including sight distances, road conditions, roadway geometry, and even weather conditions. Particular factors of interest are those that might be modified by development of a mining project, such as the mix of different types of vehicles in the traffic stream, availability of gaps in the dominant traffic flow to accommodate traffic entering the highway from a side road, and increased levels of oversized vehicles. 3.10.2.1 Applicant’s Preferred Alternative The Spruce No. 1 Mine would maintain an estimated 64 employees during construction and 228 employees during operation of the mine. During the construction phase, there would be the potential for coal to be hauled along SR17 along the four (4) mile corridor from Pigeonroost Branch to the Mountain Laurel Complex. During this two-year period, the coal mined would be transported to the Mountain Laurel Complex via SR17. During peak periods, up to one hundred (100) round trips per day may occur. Once the development of Haulroad 1 and/or Haulroad 2 and associated truck dump facilities are completed, haulage would revert to internal private roads with restricted public access. The operations phase would generate additional traffic for SR17 from Madison to the mine site throughout the life of the project, which would include workers commuting to the site and deliveries of materials and supplies. Due to the limited traffic in the area of the mine, patterns would be minimally affected during the operation phase. Increases in traffic on SR17 from the mine site through Madison would slightly increase over current levels, but would be less than the road has experienced in the past. Increases would not raise traffic levels to above that which the highway has experienced in recent history. Through the late 1990’s, the Dal-Tex Complex, located approximately six (6) miles north of the intersection of Access Road 2 with SR17, had employment levels in excess of five hundred (500) total employees. In addition, the Dal-Tex Complex had a larger equipment fleet than that proposed for the Spruce No. 1 Mine. Comparatively, the in-flow and out-flow from the site would be substantially less than the highway experienced during the life of the Dal-Tex Complex. Heavy truck traffic related to deliveries is estimated at approximately one (1) vehicle trip per hour. Peak employee traffic would be during shift change with approximately two-thirds of the employees (152 people) utilizing SR17. Total project-related traffic would be approximately 154 round trips (in and out combined, including employees and deliveries [approximately 1 per hour in and out]). Combining project-related traffic with the existing traffic estimates would result in a total of approximately 209 vehicle trips during peak hours on SR17 in the vicinity of the mine. Total trips per day for SR17 in the vicinity of the mine would increase by approximately 504 trips per day (in and out flow). Employee traffic leaving the mine would be primarily towards Madison, and to a lesser extent, toward Logan. Highway safety effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine are difficult to predict. In general, increased traffic without LOS improvements may lead to an increase in accidents. While it is not possible to quantify the impacts on safety, increased risk would be anticipated from project-related traffic increases. Transportation impacts to the local roads would be minimal as a result of the Applicant’s PA.
3-219

3.10.2.2 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would maintain an estimated 64 employees during construction and a total of approximately 409 employees during operation of the mine. The main variation between Alternative 3 and the Applicant’s PA would be the incremental increase in deliveries per day, the approximately 121 trip increase in employee traffic during shift change, during the operation life and decrease in coal haulage traffic along SR17 during the construction phase. Alternative 3 would not be anticipated to result in coal haulage along SR17 during the life of the mine. Although the traffic patterns along SR17 would not be impacted by coal haulage from the project area, the additional mining equipment, greater employment, and accelerated mine life would result in additional traffic during the operations phase of Alternative 3. Deliveries and increased traffic patterns at shift changes would be nearly double that of the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative due to the approximate doubling in employment at the mine during operation under Alternative 3. The in-flow and out-flow from the site would be closer to those experienced when the Dal-Tex Complex was actively mining. Overall, transportation impacts would be slightly higher during the operational life of the mine under Alternative 3 than under the Applicant’s PA. 3.10.2.3 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in no identified project-related impacts on transportation in the study area. Traffic volumes would not be affected. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances, which could have an effect on traffic patterns in the region. 3.10.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Transportation effects of the past and present mining activities would not be expected to affect transportation in the study area. Traffic patterns in the area have historically involved mine-related traffic. Mines in the region are historically opening and closing on a relatively steady basis with slight increases and decreases in activity over short periods of time. The continuation of active mining has been on-going with new operations being created as others are being closed. The existing mining operations/complexes primarily accessed from SR17 that fall totally or partially within the Spruce Fork watershed are the Mountain Laurel Complex, the Dal-Tex Complex, and a limited amount of the Independence Coal Company’s associated permits. Of these, the Dal-Tex Complex is idle and is not expected to be actively mined within the reasonably foreseeable future. The Mountain Laurel Complex is not expected to result in coal haulage on public roads. Independence Coal Company operations involve primarily internal coal haulage on private roads and potential haulage along the terminal extents of County Routes (CR) 28 and 28/1, along which no residences are currently located; these routes are dead end roads and public access should be primarily limited to mine related traffic. All of these operations’ traffic production was included in the analysis of current traffic levels on the roadway. Overall traffic rates have slowly declined in the area over the past decades due to an overall decrease in mine-related jobs.

3-220

Of these existing mining operations, the only operation that is expected to increase traffic from the site in the reasonably foreseeable future is the Mountain Laurel Complex. At peak production, the employment levels would be anticipated to be 383 employees with a peak in traffic at shift change of approximately two-thirds of the employees (255) entering and/or leaving the site and deliveries estimated at one (1) per hour (one (1) trip in and out) for a total of 257 trips. The average trips per day associated with the complex would be approximately 814 trips per day (including in and out flow). Reasonably foreseeable future projects within the Spruce Fork watershed include the North Rum Surface Mine and the Adkins Fork Surface Mine. The North Rum Surface Mine would be a continuation of the Apogee Coal Company, LLC complex and also would not result in increased traffic above the complex’s current operating levels. Also, the primary access to the Apogee Coal Company, LLC complex is from CR10 and only a limited number of employees who live in the Madison area currently travel along SR17 to the complex; these levels would not increase. The Adkins Fork Surface Mine would be a relatively small operation located to the southwest of the Spruce No. 1 Mine across the Spruce Fork valley. The mine access/haulroad is proposed to intersect SR17 approximately 2.8 miles south of the Access Road 2 intersection with SR17. Coal from the operation would likely be transported via SR17 (approximately 6.8 miles) to the Mountain Laurel Complex or off-road to an adjacent operation. Over the estimated 4.5-year mine life, the additional truck traffic would be approximately sixty (60) round trips per day. During this period, safety risks related to coal haulage would be slightly increased over existing levels. As mentioned earlier, SR17 was the primary artery to the southern coalfields prior to the construction of US119, and the additional traffic should have minimal effect on the transportation for the area; transportation levels should be less than the historical levels. Total employment at the mine is projected to be approximately seventy-five (75) employees with a peak in traffic at shift change of approximately two-thirds of the employees (50) entering and/or leaving the site. Assuming one (1) delivery per hour (one (1) truck in and out) and five (5) trips per hour (2.5 trucks/per hour in and out) for coal haulage, the total peak level for the operation would be fifty-seven (57) trips during peak hour. Average daily trips for the operation would be 318 per day (including in and out flow). Cumulatively, at peak production levels at the Mountain Laurel Complex, the Adkins Fork Surface Mine, and the Spruce No. 1 Mine, the peak traffic levels for SR17 in the vicinity of the mines are estimated to increase to approximately 523 trips during the life of the Adkins Fork Surface Mine and are estimated to increase to approximately 466 trips outside of the 4.5 years of projected operation of the Adkins Fork Surface Mine. While the average trips per day for the area in the vicinity of the mines would increase from 550 to 2,186 (with Adkins Fork) and 1,868 (without Adkins Fork), the increase in peak levels would not be anticipated to exceed the LOS for SR17. Population levels in Logan County have continually declined over recent decades. From 1980 to 2000, population levels in Logan County have fallen by 25.6 percent. Increases in overall traffic rates that may occur in relation to the current and future mining operations would be somewhat offset as the population decreases in the region are anticipated to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future. The overall LOS is projected to decrease from an “A” to a “B” as a result of the cumulative effects of these projects, although an LOS of “B” is still above the design criteria of LOS “C” for rural roadways.

3-221

The overall LOS rating for SR17 in the vicinity of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine and to Madison would not be anticipated to fall below a “C” rating throughout the life of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The existing and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be expected to result in minimal effects on transportation in the study area. 3.10.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES No monitoring or mitigation measures are currently being considered. 3.10.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS There would be a minor reduction in the LOS on SR17 during the life of the Spruce No. 1 Mine due to increased traffic; however, increases in traffic would be anticipated to remain relatively constant as a result of the regional pattern of opening and closure of mines. As a result, there would be no residual adverse effects on transportation. 3.11 NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES Noise and visual resource issues relate to the potential impacts from the proposed and existing mine and ancillary facilities on residents within proximity of the proposed project. Potential impacts to other resources are addressed in wildlife (Section 3.5.2) and air quality (Section 3.7.2). 3.11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.11.1.1 Noise The study area for potential direct noise effects from the Spruce No. 1 Mine encompasses an area conservatively estimated at a distance within three (3) to five (5) miles of the project area. Noise effects from other land uses may cumulatively affect noise-sensitive receptors (residents) in the same area. Generally, this may include projects up to five (5) miles away from the proposed project area, depending on the nature of the project or activity. In addition to the residents in the area, potential noise impacts on public recreation areas are considered. The closest public recreation area would be the Rockhouse Lake Public Recreation Area located approximately four (4) miles northwest of the Applicant’s PA. Due to the distance from the Applicant’s PA and the topography of the region, no impacts to the noise levels within the recreation area would be anticipated. Describing the environment potentially affected by noise involves identifying noise-sensitive receptors and existing noise sources in the vicinity, characterizing terrain features that may affect noise transmission, and determining existing noise levels. Both the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and USEPA consider average outdoor noise levels in excess of 65 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) to be “normally unacceptable” for residential areas and other noise-sensitive land uses. The area surrounding the project area is sparsely populated. There are seventy-nine (79) occupied structures within the primary 1,000-foot blasting zone, one hundred thirty-five (135) occupied structures within the secondary (onehalf [0.5] mile) blasting zone, and one hundred forty (140) occupied structures within the seven-tenths (0.7) mile blasting zone. The structures closest to the proposed blasting zone are located approximately 685 feet from the blasting area (See Exhibit 3-20).

3-222

The principal existing sources of noise in the study area are the presently active mining and minerelated facilities in the area. The closest surface mine that is actively mining would be located approximately 4.7 miles to the southeast (Apogee Coal Company, LLC’s Guyan Surface Mine, WVDEP Permit S-5007-01). In addition, the Mountain Laurel Complex located at the mouth of Seng Camp Creek is currently under construction. The Mountain Laurel Complex includes underground mining activities and preparation plant and loadout facilities. The Daniel Hollow Coarse Refuse Facility (Mingo Logan’s WVDEP Permit O-5016-04) would also be constructed as part of the Mountain Laurel Complex near the mouth of Daniel Hollow of Seng Camp Creek during operation of the proposed project. Away from the human activity areas, noise emanates mainly from aircraft and from natural sounds, including wind, insects, birds, and domestic animals. Terrain in the study area is typical of the southern West Virginia coalfields, steep mountainous areas with narrow valleys and wide variations in elevation from the ridgetops to the valley floors. Terrain effects on noise would be expected to be high. Noise buffering would also be expected to be effected by the extensive forest cover in the study area. The study area is primarily deciduous forested landscape typical of the region, characterized by the typically steep mountain and narrow valley topography. 3.11.1.2 Visual Resources Potential visual effects of a proposed project typically are evaluated based on a combination of the quality of the existing landscape and the sensitivity of likely viewers to visual change. An additional factor is the capacity of the characteristic landscape to absorb visual changes. Visual quality is somewhat subjective and dependent on context. In an effort to minimize subjectivity and ensure that the results of an analysis for a given landscape are likely to be similar, even when performed by different visual analysts, Federal land management agencies developed standardized techniques for visual analysis (BLM 1986; USFS 1995). While not directly applicable to private lands, such as those in the vicinity of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, these visual resource management systems provided guidance on the approach used for this analysis. In general terms, visual quality is a function of scenic attractiveness, variety, and uniqueness of the characteristic landscape. A landscape with greater variety in landform, linear features, color, or vegetation type is considered to be higher in quality than one with little variety. A landscape that is similar in character to a large portion of the surrounding lands is of lesser quality than one with unique, attractive features. Visual sensitivity is generally a function of the number of people that will view a landscape, the duration of their views, their proximity to the landscape, and the reason they are in a position to observe the views. For example, a tourist stopping for a leisurely lunch at a scenic overlook is considered to be more sensitive than a commuter driving by the same spot on his/her way to work. A viewpoint hosting 1,000 visitors per day throughout the summer and fall is considered more sensitive than one visited by just a few people on occasional holiday weekends. Viewers within one-half (0.5) mile of a particular landscape are considered to be more sensitive to visual effects than viewers several miles away. For purposes of analysis, the visual resources study area for the Spruce No. 1 Mine is considered to be the viewshed of the mine area, or the area from which mine-related disturbance would be visible. The
3-223

cumulative effects area includes the mine area viewshed that would be visible from common viewpoints. In addition to the residents in the area, potential visual impacts on public recreation areas’ viewsheds are considered. The closest public recreation area is the Rockhouse Lake Public Recreation area located approximately four (4) miles northwest of the Applicant’s PA. Due to the distance from the Applicant’s PA and the topography of the region, the Applicant’s PA would not be visible from the recreation area. The visual study area primarily consists of deciduous forested landscape typical of the surrounding region. Much of the area is characterized by the region’s typically steep mountain and narrow valley topography. There is no cultivated cropland, with the exception of small private garden plots, in the study area. Development is sparse with only seventy-nine (79) occupied dwellings within 1,000 feet of the project area. The visual quality of the landscape is considered to be typical of the region, not unattractive, but lacking distinctive topographic or vegetative features that would make it unique. Populations in the area (Logan County) decreased substantially between 1980 and 2000. Sensitive viewpoints in the study area include the residents that live within the viewshed. There are one hundred thirty-five (135) occupied dwellings within one-half (0.5) mile of the project area, some of which are controlled by the land management subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc. In addition, there are twelve (12) additional dwellings located from one-half (0.5) mile to eight-tenths (0.8) mile of the mine that could possibly see a portion of project area. In addition to the residences in the area, portions of the Spruce No. 1 Mine may be partially visible to travelers on an approximately five (5) mile segment of SR17 and an approximately 3.5-mile segment of CR15. The proposed mine may be somewhat visible from the residences and/or the public roads. Most of the residences are considered moderately sensitive with fairly high interest in the landscape, mitigated by distance from the proposed project disturbance area. The residences in the foreground of the proposed mine area (within one-half [0.5] mile) are considered to have a higher level of sensitivity to visual effects. Approximately nineteen (19) residents have existing vegetation and topographic features between them and the proposed project disturbance area that would most likely act as a screen making the project area not visible from these locations. Most of the residents within the viewshed of the project live in the small communities of Five Block, Spruce Valley, and Blair located along SR17 east of the project area and the community of Kelly located along CR15 south of the project area. With regard to the segments of the public roads that fall within the viewshed, the level of interest in the landscape for most motorists is considered relatively low based on the lack of recreational opportunities. The resultant level of sensitivity is considered to be moderate. Sensitivity of viewpoints from SR17 and CR15 that fall within the study area is considered to be low, based on the low traffic volumes they support. The only additional visually sensitive areas identified in the study area are four (4) cemeteries (including the three historic cemeteries) and four (4) churches. The visual sensitivity of the cemeteries is considered to be low to moderate because the frequency of visitation is low and existing vegetation and topographic features between them and the proposed project disturbance area would most likely act as a screen making the project area not visible from these locations.

3-224

3.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.11.2.1 Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Noise Noise impacts are commonly evaluated according to two general criteria: 1) the extent to which a project would exceed Federal, State, or local noise regulations; and 2) the estimated degree of disturbance to people. There are no specific Federal, State, or local noise regulations that govern the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, with the exception of blasting-related noise regulations. HUD has developed standards for use in evaluating activities under its jurisdiction. Although HUD does not have regulatory authority over the Spruce No. 1 Mine, the standard is useful as a guide to human disturbance. The HUD standard for “acceptable” noise levels in residential areas is an acceptable day-night average noise level (Ldn) of 65 dBA (HUD, 1984). Other agencies and cities have differing standards, some less stringent and some more rigorous. Without specific legislative guidance, the degree of disturbance becomes the key factor in evaluating noise effects, with a focus, in this case, on residents near the proposed project. The concept of human disturbance is known to vary with a number of inter-related factors, including changes in noise levels, the presence of other non-project-related noise sources in the vicinity, peoples' attitudes toward the project, the number of people exposed, the type of human activity affected (e.g., sleep or quiet conversation as compared to physical work or active recreation), wind direction, and buffering features. Consequently, it is helpful to refer to the HUD standard as a quantitative measure of likely disturbance. As noted in Section 3.12.1, the principal noise-sensitive receptors near the Spruce No. 1 Mine are residences. Table 3-49 identifies the distances from each of the three (3) residences nearest to the major activity areas of the proposed project for each of the time periods identified in the mine plan. Table 3-49 Noise-Sensitive Receptors (Residences) Nearest to the Proposed Project Activity Areas
Approximate Distance from Major Activity Area to the Three Nearest Residences (feet) Component/Mining and Reclamation Phase Mining Activities 1 2 3 4 5 6-7 8-9 10 155/6,020 155/4,005 155/3,690 50/1,955 50/1,890 50/690 50/685 50/815 185/6,125 185/4,145 185/3,775 75/1,960 75/1,910 75/740 75/690 75/870 205/6,280 205/4,360 205/3,820 75/2,015 75/1,910 75/810 75/735 75/900 Nearest Residence1,2 Second Nearest Residence Third Nearest Residence

3-225

Approximate Distance from Major Activity Area to the Three Nearest Residences (feet) Component/Mining and Reclamation Phase Mining Activities 11 12 13-15 Ancillary Facilities Office/Warehouse Pond Areas/Infrequently Used Access Roads Transportation Routes Haulroad 1 Haulroad 2 Access Road 2 8,475 6,300 155 (existing) 185 (constructed) 8,610 6,410 205 (existing) 205 (constructed) 8,800 6,550 300 (existing) 225 (constructed) 3,580 50 3,775 75 3,935 75 155/900 155/1,365 155/880 185/920 185/1,455 185/900 205/1,085 205/1,560 205/900 Nearest Residence1,2 Second Nearest Residence Third Nearest Residence

1Distance from nearest ancillary area. In Phase 1, this would include construction of Access Road 2. In Phase 4, this would include the construction of Pond 4. 2Distance from nearest active mining (i.e. blasting/excavation/fill areas).

The potential noise effects of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would be complex due to the large disturbance area, the anticipated 15-year life of the mine (under the Applicant’s PA), the variety of noise-generating activities, and the mobility of the noise sources. This analysis addresses construction phase noise and operations phase noise separately, although there would be some overlap in timing between the two (2) phases. Construction activities would include two (2) major types: 1) earth-moving construction activities including access/haulroad and pond construction, and 2) construction of ancillary facilities, including the proposed office, warehouse, and truck dump/transfer facilities. Construction of the ancillary facilities would be anticipated to occur during Phase 2 of the mining and reclamation plan once active production has begun. Operations activities would include mine-related clearing, grubbing, and topsoil removal; blasting; overburden and interburden removal; coal loading and transport; and reclamation. Construction of the office and warehouse would be similar to that of a typical mining operation. Typical equipment required for construction of these ancillary facilities would include on-road dump trucks, backhoes, cranes, pumps, concrete trucks, compressors, generators, pneumatic tools, saws, vibrators, etc. Noisiest periods of construction would be estimated at 85 dBA at 50 feet from the center of the activity. Construction of the access/haulroads servicing the actual mining areas would occur during the initial mining phase. Internal roads would be continually changing and moving as mining advances throughout the mine life. Drainage control structure (pond) and associated flow attenuation (i.e. rock check dams, etc.) and erosion control (i.e. riprap, matting, etc.) structures between the valley fills and the drainage control ponds, construction would occur as indicated in (Section 3.2). Typical construction
3-226

equipment used during road and drainage control construction would include loaders, backhoes, dozers, on-road dump trucks, generators, etc. The equivalent sound level emitted by road construction was estimated to be 85 dBA at 50 feet from the center of activity. A maximum scenario for ambient environmental noise caused by construction activities would be the simultaneous construction of Access Road 2 and the proposed ancillary facilities. The closest residences to the office/warehouse facilities area would be located approximately 3,580 feet from the construction activities. The construction area of Access Road 2 would be approximately 185 feet from the nearest residence. Construction would only be this close to the residence along a short segment (approximately 900 feet) of the access road’s total length and is anticipated to only last for a few days within the immediate vicinity of the residences. This segment is an existing road that would be upgraded and widened to facilitate two-way traffic. These residences would also be separated from the road by forest and transitional vegetation, which should aid in buffering the residences from the construction noise. Conservatively estimating the noise level at the nearest residence during the construction of Access Road 2 would be approximately 74 dBA, using sound attenuation due to distance only. This is a conservative estimate and would decrease quickly as the construction moved away from the residence. In addition, construction in this area would be limited to daylight hours only. During the active mining operations, equipment noise levels can reach up to 95 dBA at 25 feet. The noise generated by the proposed mining operations would be typical of most construction and mining operations. Loading and handling of overburden and coal, and other mining processes, can generate noise levels up to 95 dBA at 25 feet, although typical average noise levels generated by the mining operations would be substantially lower. Safety backup alarms on haul trucks and other major equipment may generate 100 dBA at 25 feet. Sound wave divergence typically results in a six (6) dBA decrease for every doubling of distance from a noise source. This assumption is conservative as it does not account for noise attenuating factors such as topography, wind, temperature gradients, atmospheric pressure, and other atmospheric and site-specific factors. During Phases 8 and 9 of the mining and reclamation plan, active mining operations would approach and reach their closest distance to the nearest residence. The nearest residence during these phases would be approximately 685 feet from the closest mining activity. Conservatively, considering distance attenuation only, the noise at this residence would be approximately 67 dBA (HUD’s acceptable noise level standard for residential areas). This is a very conservative estimate due to the topography and elevation difference between the project area and the nearest resident’s location along the valley floor. Activities performed during these phases would occur within the smallest distance of the nearest residences as would occur during any of the active mining phases; average distances between active mining areas and the nearest residences would be considerably higher and noise levels would, on average, be considerably less. It is expected that maximum noise effects would occur when the main equipment groups are operating simultaneously and in close proximity to each other, as well as to noise-sensitive receptors (residences). Under the proposed operating plan, potential maximum noise scenarios would occur during contouring along the project area’s western perimeter (nearest to SR17 and the closest residences), where available working area would be limited. As such, several pieces of equipment

3-227

would be working in close proximity to one another and noise levels would be expected to be slightly higher than HUD’s acceptable level. Given that the maximum noise scenario would be expected only during contour mining along the western perimeter of the project area, the most common scenario for the majority of the Spruce No. 1 Mine project life would be for one or two major noise-generating activities to occur at any particular time or location. Based on observations at other mining operations in the region, ambient noise levels associated with the majority of such mining and reclamation activities are much lower than HUD’s acceptable 65 dBA level. It should be noted that noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale, so if two or more of these noise-producing activities were operating in close proximity of each other at the same time, the noise levels could not simply be added together. For example, if a piece of equipment is operating at a 90 dBA noise level, and another is operating at a 88 dBA noise level, were operating close together, the combined noise level on the logarithmic scale would be approximately 92 dBA. It is anticipated that only a few privately-owned residences would be affected by noise levels above the Ldn of 65 dBA, unless multiple major noise sources were operating simultaneously in close proximity. In addition to the raw numbers, a number of factors that are unquantifiable at this time would influence the effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine on detectable noise levels at nearby residences. Importantly, the mining process is highly dynamic and most major noise-generating activities are mobile, generally moving through a given area fairly rapidly. The shovel moves more slowly, although it, too, works its way steadily through a given area; though slower moving than most of the mining equipment, it would not be a stagnant source of noise. Considering the distances involved, the highest noise-producing activities would progress away from sensitive receptors within a few weeks or months, at most. Also, in most cases the topography in the area, along with topographic alterations resulting from mining activities, would effectively serve as noise barriers and improve as such over a period of time. In addition to mining operations, the noise levels at the instance of blasting would be higher. Noise is attenuated by distance, atmospheric conditions, and topography. Topography in the study area is steep and varying and would provide substantial noise attenuation in the vicinity of local communities. While efforts would be made to minimize the effects of this project on the human environment, substantially higher noise levels would be expected during the instant when blasting occurs. The Spruce No. 1 Mine would be required to comply with any applicable noise restrictions imposed by regulatory agencies. In summary, although the HUD standard is a guideline and not enforceable, there are a few instances where individual project-related noise sources would potentially exceed the 65 dBA (Ldn) standard at sensitive receptors in the study area. The standard also would be exceeded if several sources were to operate simultaneously in close proximity to a residence. Exceedance of this standard would likely continue for periods ranging from a few days to a few months, at most, at a single location. Also, exceedance of the HUD standard would be relatively limited; due to the topography and observations at other surface mining operations, limited increases in ambient noise levels would be expected during the majority of the projected mine life.

3-228

Visual Resources Visual impacts of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would result from construction of the mine ancillary facilities, as well as active mining and reclamation activities. Visual effects of the project would be the result of modification of the viewshed via clearing of vegetation, removal of overburden, creation of highwalls, construction of new roadways and ancillary facilities (office and shop area), and reclamation activities. Due to the nature and scale of the project, the location of activities within the project area that may affect visual resources would vary throughout the life of the project and would occur primarily within the specific portions of the project area that would be disturbed according to the phase of the operation, as the entire project area would not be disturbed at the same time. Vegetation removal together with pit development, active mining and backfilling of the mining area, and excess overburden disposal areas would have the greatest effect on the visual resources. In addition, the general topography in the mineral removal area would be lowered as a result of the mining operation and in the valley areas would be affected where the excess overburden disposal structures would be located. Access Road 2 along the initial portion of the road would be partially visible throughout the life of the mine. Haulroads 1 and 2, located in the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek watershed, would not be visible to the public from any access point. The proposed office and warehouse facilities would also not be visible by the public. Other than the potential for coal haulage from the site along SR17 during the construction phase, coal haulage routes would not be visible by the public. Additional visual quality effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine would include increased night-time lighting and, possibly, fugitive dust generated by vehicles and equipment. Night-time operations would introduce lighting into what is now a rural and generally dark area. Although the lights used at the pit area would be shielded by the topography and backfilling barriers, there would be an overall increase in ambient light levels in the area. Lighting would be least noticeable in clear weather, whereas low clouds or hazy conditions would tend to reflect the light outward to a greater degree. As with other visual features of the project, the effects of night-time lighting would vary with proximity to the active mining area. Given that dust suppression measures would be implemented throughout the life of the project, any fugitive dust would likely be minor (see Section 3.7, Air Quality). The visual effects of fugitive dust would be most problematic when internal haulroads would be located along the contour cuts proposed along the edge of the mineral removal area and all of the residences within the local viewshed (i.e. onehalf mile radius) of the mine could be affected. Implementation of the Applicant’s PA would notably change the overall visual character of the mine area during active disturbance, with lesser effects in the project area beyond the mine disturbance area. The effects to the viewshed would be short-term; however, the proposed conceptual post-mining topography would be lower the overall height of the skyline within the mineral removal area due to the inability to backfill the mineral removal area to the pre-mining elevations. Elevations within the mineral removal area would be decreased anywhere from approximately zero (0) feet to 1,000 feet, with an average difference in elevation of approximately 75 feet. Additionally, reclamation and planting plans would be executed as concurrently as possible with the proposed mining phase in order to return the

3-229

land to its pre-mining land use/land cover of forestland. As a result of concurrent reclamation, much of the mineral removal area would be transitioned back to the pre-mining land use/land cover of forestland by the end of the mine's life, although the topographic modifications would be essentially permanent. The remainder of the project area (i.e., ancillary facilities) would be reclaimed following the completion of mining. As previously discussed, the proposed project area is dominated by rugged topography and forest vegetation, which is neither a unique nor rare landscape in southern West Virginia. Effects of the Applicant’s PA on the visual environment would be short-term in nature. Overburden returned to the mineral removal area would be backfilled and regraded to the approximate original contour. All highwalls would be eliminated in the contour mining areas. The final graded slope shall not exceed either the angle of repose or a less degree of slope necessary to achieve a minimum long-term static safety factor of 1.3 and to prevent slides. 3.11.2.2 Alternative 3 Noise Alternative 3 noise levels and impacts to study area would be basically the same as the Applicant’s PA with the exception of the addition of a dragline to the equipment fleet, the decreased activity adjacent to the residences as a result of not constructing Access Road 2, coal haulage and transportation variations, and the variation in the mine life to ten (10) years for Alternative 3 compared to fifteen (15) for the Applicant’s PA. The use of a dragline would increase the ambient noise levels to a greater extent than the equipment proposed under the Applicant’s PA. In addition, draglines tend to demonstrate pure tones with harmonic components to their noise signatures. Pure tones are signal frequency sounds that stand out above the base sound level for a source, which have a tendency to increase the annoyance factors for a listener. This could lead to complaints from the public when the dragline would be working in the areas closest to human occupancy. The overall mine life would reduce the short-term impacts compared to that of the Applicant’s PA due to the difference in operation life of five (5) years. This would also decrease the potential for cumulative impacts over the life of the mine. Coal transportation for Alternative 3 would be totally internal (not on public roads), utilizing roads within the project area and/or controlled by Mingo Logan. This would eliminate the potential for increased travel patterns along the four (4) mile segment of SR17, which could potentially involve one hundred (100) round trips per day for a portion of the construction phase of the Applicant’s PA. Distances from residences would be similar to those of the Applicant’s PA, with the exception of not constructing Access Road 2 and, therefore, not incurring associated potential for coal haulage on this route during the initial construction phase. During the construction phase for Alternative 3, the nearest resident would be located approximately 305 feet from the nearest construction compared to 185 feet from the Applicant’s PA. Overall, impacts on the noise receptors in the study area would be similar to the Applicant’s PA.

3-230

Visual Resources Visual impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be virtually identical to the Applicant’s PA, with the exception of the shorter mine life, and therefore lesser duration of impact, visibility of a dragline profile, and the lack of external coal transport on SR17. The viewshed during mining along the edges of the project area (exposed highwalls) would remain disturbed for an extended period of time compared to that of the Applicant’s PA, due to pre-stripping of the upper seams in advance of the development of dragline pits. In addition the dragline would be more visible than the equipment proposed to be used in the Applicant’s PA. Individual mine areas would be disturbed for an incrementally longer period than in the Applicant’s PA and, the total disturbance during all phases of the operation would be substantially increased, presenting incremental increases in the aerial extent of impacts on visual resources in the study area. Although there would be incremental increases in their aerial extent of impacts for individual mining areas, the effects of these impacts would be somewhat offset by the decrease in overall mine life. 3.11.2.3 No Action Alternative Noise The No Action Alternative would produce no specific identifiable effects on the noise environment in the study area, as the proposed project would not occur. Over time, it is expected that there would potentially be new mining activity in the area, which would increase the ambient noise levels commensurate with the activities. Additionally, considering the anticipated continuation of population loss for the area, the overall ambient noise levels would likely decrease slightly as well. Visual Resources The No Action Alternative would result in no identified effects on the visual quality in the study area, as there would be no Spruce No. 1 Mine-related changes to the landscape. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances, which could have an effect on visual resources in the region. 3.11.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 3.11.3.1 Noise Cumulative affects associated with the Applicant’s PA primarily involve the adjacent Mountain Laurel Complex, including the Daniel Hollow Coarse Refuse Facility, and the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines, both of which would be located to the south of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The Adkins Fork Mine would be located along the ridgeline dividing Whites Trace Branch and Adkins Fork of Spruce Fork, across Spruce Fork to the southwest of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. During the 4.5year life of the Adkins Fork Surface Mine, ambient noise levels in the area would slightly increase. Impacts to the residences in the valley floor between the two operations (Adkins Fork Surface Mine and
3-231

the Spruce No. 1 Mine) could potentially have cumulatively increased noise levels if both operations are mining along the contours facing each other on either side of the valley. This is highly unlikely due to the limited mine life of the Adkins Fork Surface Mine and the large mining area associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The North Rum Surface Mine could also have an affect on the ambient noise levels in the area. The distance and topography separating the operations (North Rum Surface Mine and the Spruce No. 1 Mine) would aid in the buffering of the combined noise from both of the operations. Again, the limited mine life (6 years) and positioning of the North Rum Surface Mine in relation to the Spruce No. 1 Mine would provide natural barriers between a majority of the two (2) project areas. Also, the Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines would be separated from each other by a ridgeline and, therefore, would have limited combined affects on the noise levels in the area between them. Finally, the Mountain Laurel Complex, including the Daniel Hollow Coarse Refuse Facility, would be located to the north of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The residents located to the north and northwest of the mine would most likely realize slightly increased ambient noise levels resulting from combination of the noise emanating from each of the projects. Overall, the cumulative impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future mining operations in the study area would have minimal short-term impacts on the study area noise levels and ambient noise levels. During the life of the Mountain Laurel Complex, Adkins Fork and North Rum Surface Mines, and the Spruce No. 1 Mine, the cumulative noise impacts are anticipated to be only very slightly greater than the effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine alone. After completion of Spruce No. 1 Mine and reclamation activities, the projected future land use of the project area would result in a noise environment similar to the existing landscape. Cumulative noise impacts from any potential non-mining projects and the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be minor. Potential road maintenance and possible resurfacing would result in construction noise associated with this type of work. There are no known current construction or road projects planned for the study area in the reasonably foreseeable future. It is most likely that the effects of such activities, if any, would be minor and would be expected to be limited to daytime hours. 3.11.3.2 Visual Resources Visual effects of the past and present actions would include areas where both the Spruce No. 1 Mine and a reclaimed area associated with the Dal -Tex Complex would both be visible from the same locations. Along the entire length of SR17 where the Spruce No. 1 Mine would potentially be somewhat visible, there would be a few instances where the reclaimed areas of the Dal-Tex Complex would most likely also be partially visible. Cumulative impacts associated with the Dal-Tex Complex would be minimal due to the vegetative buffers and steep and varied topography of the region, in addition to the potentially visible areas of the complex being reclaimed and currently transitioning back to forestland. Cumulative impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimal. Both the Adkins Fork Surface Mine and the Applicant’s PA would potentially be somewhat visible simultaneously by some residents of Blair and Spruce Valley, and travelers along an approximately 2.2-mile segment of SR17 running from south of Blair through Spruce Valley and along an
3-232

approximately 1.4-mile segment of CR15 from the intersection of SR17 heading south. In addition, along a portion of these segments, some of the reclaimed areas of the Dal-Tex Complex may be somewhat visible as well. These impacts would be short-term and would be limited by the contemporaneous reclamation of the mine sites to forestland. Similarly, the North Rum Surface Mine and the Spruce No. 1 Mine could both be somewhat visible by ten (10) residents located along an approximately one-half (0.5) mile segment of CR15 near the community of Kelly. It is unlikely that both would be seen simultaneously due to the natural vegetative screening in the area and the topography. After completion of mining and reclamation activities, the projected future land use of forestland would have the mine sites transitioning back to the pre-mining land use/land cover. Cumulative visual impacts of any potential non-mining projects in the area and the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be minor to non-existent. 3.11.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.11.4.1 Noise Mingo Logan's proposed environmental protection measures for noise are listed in Table 2-21 Committed Environmental Protection Measures and Additional Mitigation Measures under Consideration. 3.11.4.2 Visual Resources Mingo Logan's proposed environmental protection measures for visual resources are listed in Table 221 Committed Environmental Protection Measures and Additional Mitigation Measures under Consideration. 3.11.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS 3.11.5.1 Noise Noise effects would be unavoidable with implementation of the proposed project. Noise emissions from mining activities would decrease over time and would be buffered by the rough terrain and backstack areas. However, it is anticipated that noise emissions would exceed the HUD standard of 65 dBA (Ldn) in some locations for limited periods of time. Following completion of mining and reclamation, residual noise effects would be essentially non-existent. The largely rural character of the area and planned future land use for the project area indicate long-term noise levels would return to pre-mine levels. 3.11.5.2 Visual Resources The steep topography in the vicinity of the proposed project area provides a natural barrier from most potential viewers. The proposed project area is dominated by rugged terrain and forest vegetation, which is neither unique nor a rare landscape in southern West Virginia. Effects of the Applicant’s PA on the visual environment would be short-term in nature. Overburden returned to the mineral removal areas would be backfilled and regraded to slopes conducive to establishment of the post-mining land use of forestland. Highwalls would be eliminated in contour mining areas. The final regraded slope would not exceed either the angle of repose or a lesser degree of slope as is necessary to achieve a
3-233

minimum long-term static safety factor of 1.3 and to prevent slides. Following completion of mining and reclamation of the project area, residual visual effects would be minimal. 3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues related to hazardous materials are the potential impacts to the environment from an accidental release of hazardous materials during transportation to and from the project site or from utilization, storage, or potential release at the site. Potential impacts that may occur from disposal of bottom ash as a result of the naturally occurring trace elements in the bituminous coal have also been addressed in Section 3.13, Public Health. 3.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The study area for hazardous materials encompasses the Spruce No. 1 Mine project area and the local public highways. The cumulative effects area encompasses the Spruce No. 1 Mine and the existing and reasonably foreseeable future mining projects located in the Spruce Fork watershed with delivery of materials along SR17. The affected environment for hazardous materials includes air, water, soil, and biological resources within the study and cumulative effects areas that could potentially be affected by an accidental release of hazardous materials during transportation to and from the proposed mine or during storage and use within the project area. In addition to the regulated materials that would be transported to and utilized at the mine site, there are naturally occurring trace elements in the bituminous coal that may become available during mining to be released to the environment as fugitive dust. Hazardous materials, which are defined in various ways under a number of regulatory programs, can represent potential risks to both human health and to the environment when not managed properly. The term hazardous materials includes the following materials that may be utilized or disposed of in conjunction with bituminous coal mining operations: • Substances covered under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) - the types of materials that may be used in mining activities and that would be subject to these regulations would include almost all of the materials covered by the regulations identified below. Hazardous materials as defined under the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations in 29 CFR, Parts 170-177 - the types of materials that may be used in mining activities and that would be subject to these regulations would include fuels, some paints and coatings, and other chemical products. Hazardous substances as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and listed in 40 CFR Table 302.4 - the types of materials that may contain hazardous substances that are used in mining activities and that would be subject to these requirements include solvents, solvent containing materials (e.g., paints, coatings, degreasers), acids, and other chemical products. Hazardous wastes as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) procedures in 40 CFR 262 are used to determine whether a waste is hazardous - the types of materials used in mining activities and that would be subject to these requirements could include

•

•

•

3-234

liquid waste materials with a flash point less than 140°F, spent solvent-containing wastes, and corrosive liquids. • Any hazardous substances and extremely hazardous substances, as well as petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, or propane, that are subject to reporting requirements (Threshold Planning Quantities) under Sections 311 and 312 of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) - the types of materials that may be used in mining activities and that would be subject to these requirements include fuels, coolants, acids, and solvent-containing products, such as paints and coatings. Petroleum products defined as “oil” in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) - the types of materials used in mining activities and that would be subject to these requirements include fuels, lubricants, hydraulic oil, and transmission fluids.

•

In conjunction with the definitions noted above, the following lists provide information regarding management requirements during transportation, storage, and use of particular hazardous chemicals, substances, or materials: • • SARA Title III List of Lists or the Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and Section 112(r) of the CAA. USDOT listing of hazardous materials in 49 CFR 172.101.

Potentially hazardous materials or substances that would potentially be transported to and used at the Spruce No. 1Mine are identified in Table 3-50. Table 3-50 Potentially Hazardous Materials or Substances to be Used at the Spruce No. 1 Mine
Materials On Road Diesel Off Road Diesel Hydraulic Oil Gasoline Grease (various weights) 15W-40 Oil Anti-Freeze (Diethylene Glycol) 30W Oil 50W Oil 85W-140 Gear Oil Motor Oil Anhydrous Ammonia Potassium Hydroxide Freeze Stop Caustic Kerosene Brake Fluid Engine Oil Dexron 90W Oil Antifreeze Lubricant Hydraulic Oil’s Paint Spray Cans Sealants Adhesive, Adhesive Cement Exterior Enamel Paint ANFO Emulsion 10W Oil

3-235

3.12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.12.2.1 Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Hazardous Materials Used in Mine Operations Operation of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would potentially involve the transport, handling, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials listed in Table 3-50. The proposed mining operation would require the use of the following materials classified as hazardous or potentially hazardous: diesel fuel, gasoline, oils, greases, anti-freeze, explosives, and solvents used for equipment operation and maintenance. Numerous other hazardous materials may be stored and utilized in relatively small quantities (e.g. materials in aerosol cans) during mining and maintenance operations. In addition to the hazardous materials that would be used or consumed during mining operations, hazardous waste, industrial waste, and used oil may potentially be generated. All of these materials would be managed in accordance with the appropriate State and Federal regulations and according to the other regulatory programs identified in the affected environment section. A release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous substance to the environment must be reported within twenty-four (24) hours to the National Response Center (40 CFR Part 302). Sections 327.1 to 327.5 of 40 CFR contain spill response and reporting rules. Also, West Virginia NPDES MR5 Module 14 contains contain provisions for reporting, containment, and abatement of a spill of a reportable quantity of a hazardous substance to the waters of the state. All reportable spills would be mitigated, and contaminated materials would be disposed of in accordance with Federal and State regulations. Non-hazardous solid wastes generated at the facility would be disposed of in accordance with State and Federal regulations. Hazardous wastes generated at the Spruce No. 1 Mine would be transported by approved transporters to licensed hazardous waste disposal facilities. All hazardous wastes would be stored, packaged, and manifested in compliance with applicable Federal and State regulations. Potential Transportation Impacts All hazardous substances would be transported by commercial carriers in accordance with the requirements of Title 49 of the CFR. Carriers would be licensed and inspected as required by the WVDOT. Tanker trucks would be inspected and would have to be properly certified by the State of West Virginia. These permits, licenses, and certificates would be the responsibility of the carrier. Title 49 of the CFR requires that all shipments of hazardous substances be properly identified and placarded. Shipping papers must be accessible and include Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) describing the substance, immediate health hazards, fire and explosion risks, immediate precautions, fire-fighting information, procedures for handling leaks or spills, first aid measures, and emergency response telephone numbers. Trucks would be used to transport a variety of hazardous materials to the mine. Shipments of hazardous materials would originate from cities such as Charleston, West Virginia and would be transported via US119. From US119, the substances would be transported along SR17 to a roadway accessing the mine facility area. The material with the greatest risk for a spill during transport would be diesel fuel. Mingo Logan anticipates a delivery frequency of approximately 906 diesel fuel trucks per year based on an
3-236

anticipated consumption of 6,521,600 gallons per year. Assuming 7,200 gallons per delivery would result in an average of 76 deliveries per month throughout the life of the mine. During the initial two (2) years and the final year of the mine life, the diesel usage would be substantially less than during the peak production years. For the analysis, it was will be assumed that the total usage for year one and two will equal one year of usage during full production and that year fifteen usage will equal usage during full production. This would result in a total of approximately 12,684 shipments of diesel fuel (906 shipments per year for 14 years). Due to the large number of deliveries, the risk of a spill during transport was evaluated for diesel fuel (Table 3-51). Table 3-51 Estimated Number of Potential Spills Resulting from Truck Accidents for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative
Truck Shipment Type Total Truck Deliveries1 Haul Distance Accident Rate per Million Miles Traveled Calculated Number of Accidents over Lifeof-Mine Probability of Release Given an Accident (%)2 Calculated Number of Spills Total Estimated Number of Releases.

Rural Freeway Diesel 12,684 Fuel Rural Two-Lane Road Diesel Fuel 12,684 36 0.64 0.292 18.8 0.055 0.118

12

2.19

0.333

18.8

0.063

0.118

1 Total truck deliveries = estimated number of truck deliveries (7,200 gallons per delivery) over 14 of the total 15 year life of the project for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. 2 Accident rates are based on the average number of truck accidents occurring per million miles traveled by road type. Spill probabilities are based on statistics from accident reports that indicate the percentage of truck accidents involving liquid tankers that resulted in a spill. Source: Rhyne 1994.

For this analysis, diesel fuel was assumed to be shipped from Charleston, West Virginia. The fuel would be transported approximately thirty-six (36) miles along US119 from Charleston to Madison, and then approximately twelve (12) miles along SR17 to the mine site. This route would transport these substances through the cities of Charleston, South Charleston, Madison, and Danville and communities of Powell Creek, Greenview, Secoal, Jeffrey, Ottawa, Mifflin, Dobra, Sharples, Five Block, and Spruce Valley. The probability of a release or spill was based on accident statistics for liquid tankers carrying hazardous materials (Rhyne 1994). These statistics indicate that on the average, 18.8 percent of accidents involving liquid tankers carrying hazardous materials resulted in a spill or release. Using the accident and liquid tanker spill statistics, the probability analysis indicates that over the 15-year-life of the project there would be approximately a twelve percent (12%) chance that one accident would occur resulting in a release of diesel fuel. Adding the other shipments of other materials listed in Table 3-50 would incrementally increase the odds of a release of a hazardous substance during a transport accident. The environmental effects of a release would depend on the substance, quantity, timing, and location of the release. The event could range from a minor oil spill on the mine site where cleanup equipment would be readily available, to a severe spill during transport involving a large release of diesel fuel or
3-237

another hazardous substance. Some of the chemicals could have immediate adverse effects on water quality and aquatic resources if a spill were to enter a flowing stream. With rapid cleanup actions, diesel fuel contamination would not result in a long-term increase in hydrocarbons in soils, surface water, or groundwater. However, these routes are regularly traveled by trucks hauling diesel fuel and other hazardous materials to other mines and other applicable industries, and as statistics show, the occurrence of such accidents is rare. A large-scale release of diesel fuel or several of the other substances delivered to the site could have implications for public health and safety. Again, the location of a release again would be the primary factor in determining the effects of a release. However, the probability of a release anywhere along a proposed transportation route was calculated to be low; the probability of a release within a populated area would be even lower; and the probability of a release involving an injury or fatality would be still lower. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a release involving a severe effect to human health or safety would occur during the life of the project. Potential Storage and Operational Impacts The volumes of fuels and lubricants to be stored on-site in tanks are listed in Table 2-8. Additionally, mobile tanker trucks would be used on-site to fuel and maintain dozers, haul trucks, and other equipment. Stationary tanks and vessels would be positioned within appropriate containment or diversionary structures to prevent oil or hazardous materials from reaching soils or water. In addition, secondary containment structures constructed of concrete or other impermeable materials would be sufficient to contain at least one hundred ten percent (110%) of the volume of the largest tank in the containment area. Portable tanks and drums also would be stored in a manner to prevent spills from reaching soils or water. Used oil would be recycled through a licensed used oil recycler during the life of the mine. Over the life of the project, the probability of minor spills of materials, such as fuel and lubricants, would be relatively high. These releases could occur during fueling operations or from equipment failure (e.g., hydraulic hose failure). Spills of this nature would be localized, contained, and disposed of in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. Accidents involving other hazardous materials also could occur during the project. Mingo Logan would develop and maintain a site-specific Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan as required by State and Federal regulations. Mingo Logan would also prepare an Emergency Response Plan that establishes procedures for responding to accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials to minimize health risks and environmental effects. The plan would include procedures for evacuating personnel, maintaining safety, and cleanup and neutralization activities; emergency contact information; procedures for internal and external notifications to regulatory authorities; and incident documentation. Proper implementation of the Emergency Response Plan would be expected to minimize the potential for significant impacts associated with potential releases of hazardous materials. Using proper handling and storage procedures, impacts resulting from spills of hazardous materials should be minimal. MSDSs for the hazardous materials stored and used at the mine would be maintained on-site.

3-238

3.12.2.2 Alternative 3 Hazardous Materials Used in Mine Operations Operation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine as proposed in Alternative 3 would potentially involve the transport, handling, storage, use, and disposal of the same hazardous materials listed in Table 3-50. The proposed mining operation would require the utilization, storage, and transport, as well as involve generation, of the same non-hazardous, hazardous, or potentially hazardous materials as the Applicant’s PA. All of these materials would be managed in accordance with the appropriate State and Federal regulations and according to the other regulatory programs just as they would be under the Applicant’s PA. Potential Transportation Impacts All hazardous substances would be transported by commercial carriers in accordance with the requirements of Title 49 of the CFR and conditions as described for the Applicant’s PA utilizing the same routes. As under the Applicant’s PA, the material with the greatest risk for a spill during transport would be diesel fuel. However, based upon the shorter life of operation and varied phasing under Alternative 3, spill risks would be slightly different than those for the Applicant’s PA due to the greater usage and transport of diesel fuel. The required annual deliveries of diesel fuel was estimated to be approximately 1506 diesel fuel trucks based on an estimated consumption of 10,845,700 gallons per year. Assuming 7,200 gallons per delivery would result in an average of 126 deliveries per month throughout the life of the mine. During the initial development and mine closure, the diesel usage would be substantially less than during the peak production years. For the analysis, it was will be assumed that the total usage would be carried over nine (9) years. This would result in a total of approximately 13,554 shipments of diesel fuel (1506 shipments per year for 9 years). Due to the large number of deliveries, the risk of a spill during transport was evaluated for diesel fuel (Table 3-52). Table 3-52 Estimated Number of Potential Spills Resulting from Truck Accidents for Alternative 3.
Truck Shipment Type Total Truck Deliveries1 Haul Distance Accident Rate per Million Miles Traveled Calculated Number of Accidents over Lifeof-Mine Probability of Release Given an Accident (%)2 Calculated Number of Spills Total Estimated Number of Releases.

Rural Freeway Diesel Fuel Diesel Fuel
1 Total 2 Accident

13,554

36

0.64

0.292

18.8

0.059

0.126

Rural Two-Lane Road 13,554 12 2.19 0.333 18.8 0.067 0.126

truck deliveries = estimated number of truck deliveries (7,200 gallons per delivery) over 9 of the total 10 year life of the project for Alternative 3. rates are based on the average number of truck accidents occurring per million miles traveled by road type. Spill probabilities are based on statistics from accident reports that indicate the percentage of truck accidents involving liquid tankers that resulted in a spill. Source: Rhyne 1994.

3-239

Based upon the same conditions as the Applicant’s PA, the probability analysis indicates that over the 10-year life of the project there would be approximately a thirteen percent (13%) chance that one accident would occur resulting in a release of diesel fuel under Alternative 3. Adding the other shipments of other materials listed in Table 3-50 would incrementally increase the odds of a release of a hazardous substance during a transport accident. The environmental effects and potential implications for public health and safety of a release would be the same as for the proposed project and similar protection measures would be employed during such an event. Potential Storage and Operational Impacts The potential storage and operation impacts under Alternative 3 would be the same as those anticipated under the Applicant’s PA. 3.12.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no Spruce No. 1 Mine-related impacts resulting form transportation, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would occur. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include ongoing oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances or other activities, which could have an effect on hazardous waste utilization, storage, and transport in the region. 3.12.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Applicant’s PA would result in an incremental short-term increase in the amount of hazardous materials shipped along the identified transportation routes. The additional amounts of hazardous materials being transported would increase the risk of release of hazardous materials from truck accidents for a portion of the mine life. On US119 this would represent a small incremental increase over existing conditions due to the existing truck transport volume. On SR17 from Madison to the project area, this increase would represent a larger incremental increase in the risk of a spill during transport since the roadway is a more rural road assumed to have a lower truck traffic volume and therefore lower risk of accidents. With proper implementation of spill prevention and/or emergency response plans, cumulative impacts associated with storage and utilization of hazardous substances at the project site are not anticipated. The Applicant’s PA would represent an incremental increase in the transportation of hazardous materials in addition to the existing operations within the Spruce Fork watershed. The mining industry, unlike other industries, is generally not self-perpetuating and does not build upon itself because mines operate for a limited duration. When a mine closes, a new mine of the same scale must be permitted and developed in order to maintain the mining industry and its associated benefits to the local economy (i.e., employment, income, and taxes, and the services they fund). The overall mining activities and production within the Spruce Fork watershed would increase slightly increase for a period of time after the Spruce No. 1 Mine would come on-line, but both would be anticipated to level back off after the
3-240

initial startup of the project. As a result, the cumulative potential risks associated with the transportation of hazardous waste would have a minimal increase for a period of time, but would also level off to pre-existing levels. Therefore, the Applicant’s PA would not be expected to have a cumulative impact on the generation of hazardous waste. 3.12.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES Mingo Logan proposes to construct spill containment structures at fuel storage facilities designed to meet State and Federal regulations and would allow for the identification and containment of accidental spills. All waste oils and lubricants would be disposed of by a licensed recycler. No additional monitoring or mitigation for hazardous materials is being considered. 3.12.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS Residual adverse effects associated with the transport of a hazardous material would include the potential effects of a spill on a populated area or a sensitive environmental resource along the proposed transportation routes. Residual adverse effects from the use of hazardous materials on the project site would depend on the substance, quantity, timing, location, and response involved in the event of an accidental spill or release. Prompt cleanup of spills and releases should minimize the potential for any residual adverse effects of such events. As previously discussed, due to the low probability of spills impacting water resources or populated areas, the potential for residual adverse impacts would be anticipated to be minimal. 3.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.13.1.1 Public Health Public health issues associated with the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine include its potential effects to water quality, air quality related to fugitive dust and ambient air quality, noise and light pollution on sensitive receptors, which would result from mining and/or blasting activities. The potential direct impacts to these resources are discussed in Sections 3.2, 3.7.2, and 3.11.2, respectively, as well as in 3.13.2 below. Public health issues related to potential cumulative impacts include potential effects from the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine and other existing and reasonable foreseeable activities within the vicinity upon water quality, air quality, noise and light pollution, which could cumulatively result from mining and/or blasting activities. This section summarizes the potential effects to public health of the local residents from mine-related direct and cumulative water quality, air quality, noise, and light effects. 3.13.1.2 Public Safety Public safety issues associated with the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine include potential effects on flooding in local watersheds related to mining activities, blasting effects on public safety and individual property, effects resulting from the construction of valley fills and associated structures, and effects associated with transportation and increased traffic levels associated with the mining operation.

3-241

3.13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.13.2.1 Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Public Health Water Quality Effects Degradation of groundwater and surface water quality can potentially affect human health. The Applicant’s PA would not be anticipated to affect the overall groundwater or surface water quality of the receiving streams and watersheds (see Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.4.2). The project would be required to meet the effluent limits of its NPDES permit. In addition, the project would not be expected to affect the Spruce Fork groundwater system; therefore, water quality affects would not be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health. Air Quality Effects Air quality in the areas immediately adjacent to the project area would slightly decrease as a result of the project, as fugitive dust levels would increase in the immediate area of a source (see Section 3.7.2). Ambient air quality in the area surrounding the project would not exceed the regulatory limits. Direct impacts to air quality (dust) would be localized within the immediate area of the mining site and would be temporary in nature. The decrease in ambient air quality and the increase in fugitive dust levels would not be expected to cause adverse health effects. Noise Effects There are no Federal, State, or local noise regulations that would govern the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine under the Applicant’s PA. However, ambient noise levels in the areas adjacent to the mine would be increased throughout the duration of the project (see Section 3.11.2). These impacts would be most noticeable during the night-time hours. In addition, for residences that are located along CR15 and in the community of Blair, ambient noise levels could potentially be affected by the proposed Adkins Fork Surface Mine as well. However, it is unlikely that the operations would be actively working in the areas closest to each other simultaneously due to the mining and reclamation phases. It is anticipated that temporary noise levels in the areas immediately adjacent to the construction areas would be slightly in excess of the HUD acceptable residential standard (65 dBA), but these increases are not expected to cause adverse health effects. A second issue related to noise would be the increase in noise levels during blasting. Increases in the noise levels at the instant of blasting are unavoidable. The noise at the instant of blasting can startle an individual and would be a nuisance to the residences located within a conservative seven-tenths (0.7) mile radius of blasting areas of the operation, but the blasting-related noise increases are not expected to cause adverse health effects. Light Effects As discussed in Section 3.11.2.1, there would be an increase in ambient light levels during night-time operations when activities would be occurring along the edge of the project boundaries and, therefore, closest to the residences. Night-time operations would introduce new lighting into what is now a rural and generally dark area. The night-time lighting would be most noticeable during weather conditions of
3-242

low clouds or hazy conditions, which would result in greater light reflection. The effects would vary depending on the location of the mining activity. Increased night-time lighting would not be expected to result in adverse health effects. Blasting Effects There would be potential affects on public health related to vibrations and flyrock resulting from blasting activities. Accidental excesses in ground vibrations above regulatory limits could indirectly cause harm to the public as a result of structural damage to homes during the instance of the blast. In addition, flyrock from blasting could strike an individual and cause bodily harm. By adhering to the regulatory requirements for blasting, it is not anticipated that blasting associated with the Applicant’s PA would result in adverse health effects. Public Safety Flooding Effects Potential impacts on public safety as a result of increased flooding would not be anticipated. The flooding potential within the receiving watersheds would not increase as a result of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. Under the regulations for surface mining, an operation must be designed to result in “no net increase” in the during-mining and post-mining peak flows from that of the pre-mining peak flow. The Spruce No. 1 has been designed in accordance with the regulations and would result in “no net increase” in the peak flows downstream of the operation; therefore, no adverse effects on public safety, with regard to flooding potential, would occur as a result of the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3.2.4.2, the Applicant’s PA would not be constructed within any 100-year floodplain and would not affect any floodways. Blasting Effects Blasting effects on public safety would be similar to those on public health, with the primary concern being instances of flyrock. Flyrock from blasting could strike an individual and cause bodily harm. By adhering to the regulatory requirements for blasting, discussed in the monitoring and mitigation procedures, effects on public safety resulting from blasting would not be anticipated. Valley Fill and Associated Structures Effects There are six (6) fills proposed to be constructed as a result of the Applicant’s PA. The end dumped valley fills would have erosion protection zones (EPZ) constructed at the toes to control potential failure of the material during reclamation of the fills. Upon completion of reclamation, the EPZ would be removed. There would be potential affects on public health related to construction of the valley fills and associated drainage control structures. Potential failure of the structures could impact the safety of the residences located downstream of these structures. Proper construction and inspection techniques for the structures, as required by regulations, would minimize the potential effects on public safety. The valley fills and associated drainage control structures (ponds) have been designed in accordance with all applicable regulations. As a result, there would be no anticipated effect on public safety as a result of the construction of the valley fills and associated structures.

3-243

Transportation There would be potential effects on public safety as a result of the Spruce No. 1 Mine due to the increased traffic levels that would be expected to occur over the life of the mine. In addition, the potential for coal haulage along SR17 during the construction phase of the operation would increase traffic levels in the area between Access Road No. 2 and the entrance to the Mountain Laurel Complex. As discussed in Section 3.10.2, SR17 was the main travel route for the area prior to the construction of US119 and the road has supported the anticipated traffic levels in the past. Effects on public safety resulting from increased traffic levels along SR17 would be anticipated to be minimal. 3.13.2.2 Alternative 3 Public Health Water Quality Effects Effects on water quality for Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as described for the Applicant’s PA, as it would also not be anticipated to affect the overall groundwater or surface water quality of the receiving streams and watersheds and would be required to meet the effluent limits of its NPDES permit. Air Quality Effects Effects on air quality for Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as described for the Applicant’s PA, as decreases in ambient air quality and the increases in fugitive dust levels would not be expected to cause adverse health effects. Noise Effects Effects on noise levels for Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as described for the Applicant’s PA. It is anticipated that temporary noise levels in the areas immediately adjacent to the construction areas would be slightly in excess of the HUD acceptable residential standard (65 dBA), but these increases are not expected to cause adverse health effects. Light Effects As discussed in Section 3.12.2.2, there would be an increase in ambient light levels during night-time operations when activities would be occurring along the edge of the project boundaries closest to the residences. The effects would be essentially the same as described for the Applicant’s PA, would vary depending on the location of the mining activity, and would not be expected to result in adverse health effects. Blasting Effects There would be potential affects on public health related to vibrations and flyrock resulting from blasting activities, just as in the Applicant’s PA, but by adhering to the regulatory requirements for blasting, it is not anticipated that blasting associated with the Alternative 3 would result in adverse health effects.

3-244

Public Safety Flooding Effects Potential impacts on public safety as a result of increased flooding, just as under the Applicant’s PA, would not be anticipated under Alternative 3. Blasting Effects There would be potential affects on public safety, similar to those on public health, related to vibrations and flyrock resulting from blasting activities, just as in the Applicant’s PA, but by adhering to the regulatory requirements for blasting, it is not anticipated that blasting associated with the Alternative 3 would result in adverse health effects. Valley Fill and Associated Structures Effects There would be potential affects on public health related to construction of the valley fills and associated drainage control structures as proposed under Alternative 3, similar to those described for the Applicant’s PA. Proper construction and inspection techniques for the structures, as required by regulations, would minimize the potential effects on public safety. It is not anticipated that the construction of the valley fills and associated structures would result in adverse effects on public safety. Transportation There would be potential effects on public safety as a result of Alternative 3, similar to those under the Applicant’s PA, due to the increased traffic levels that would be expected to occur over the life of the mine; however, effects on public safety resulting from increased traffic levels would be anticipated to be minimal. 3.13.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the potential effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine to public health and safety, under either of the alternatives as discussed above, would not occur. However, future changes may occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is permitted. These future actions could include on-going oil and gas activities, silviculture, commercial and industrial development, or other improvements to infrastructure as potentially contracted or performed by the surface owner of the project area. The typical frequency at which future logging activities might occur is estimated to be on a cycle of every forty (40) to fifty (50) years. Mingo Logan is the lessee of the property and, therefore, does not control the occurrence of these disturbances, which could have an effect on public health and safety in the region. 3.13.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Public Health Water Quality Effects All of the inter-related water quality and drainage control actions of the various past, present, and reasonably-foreseeable mining projects within the Spruce Fork watershed are required to meet the effluent limits of their individual NPDES permits. The Spruce No. 1 Mine would not contribute to any cumulative impacts on the Spruce Fork groundwater system as discussed in Section 3.2.3.3.
3-245

Air Quality Effects Cumulative impacts on air quality are discussed in Section 3.7.3. Ambient air quality in the areas the southeast between the proposed Adkins Fork Surface Mine and the Applicant’s PA and to the north in the areas adjacent to the Mountain Laurel Complex would be lowered slightly. In addition, the residences between the proposed Adkins Fork Surface Mine and Spruce No. 1 Mine could potentially be impacted by fugitive dust. Impacts to air quality (dust) would be localized within the immediate area of the mining site and would be temporary in nature. The decrease in ambient air quality and the increase in fugitive dust levels are not expected to cumulatively cause adverse health effects. Noise Effects Residences that are located along CR15 and in the community of Blair could potentially be cumulatively affected by increased ambient noise levels associated with the Spruce No. 1 Mine, the Adkins Fork Surface Mine, and the North Rum Surface Mine. However, it is unlikely that the operations would be actively working in the areas closest to each other simultaneously due to the mining and reclamation phases. It is anticipated that temporary noise levels in the areas immediately adjacent to these two operations would be slightly in excess of the HUD standard. But these increases are not expected to cause adverse health effects (see Section 3.11.3). Cumulative impacts associated with blasting noise could potentially include the Spruce No. 1 Mine, the Adkins Fork Surface Mine, and the North Rum Surface Mine. Potentially all three (3) of these operations could be active at the same time and there are a few residences that would be located within all three (3) operations’ blasting radii. These residences would be most impacted from the combination of the mining operations. During the time in which all three (3) operations would be active, there would be an increased number of blasts occurring. Although it would increase the nuisance, it would not be expected to cause any adverse health effects related to noise. Light Effects Slight cumulative increases in ambient light levels would be expected in the areas between the proposed project and the proposed Adkins Fork Surface Mine to the southeast of the proposed project and between the proposed project and the Mountain Laurel Complex to the north of the project (see Section 3.11.3).. The areas to the southeast are populated while the area to the north is not. The Adkins Fork Surface Mine would be of limited size and night-time light levels would most likely not be increased by the Adkins Fork Surface Mine. The effects would vary depending on the location of the mining activity. Increased night-time lighting would not be expected to result in adverse health effects. Blasting Effects As with noise, the residences that fall in all three (3) mines’ blasting radii would have increased potential for health affects related to vibration and flyrock from blasting activities. Accidental excesses in ground vibrations above regulatory limits could indirectly cause harm to the public as a result of the structural damage to homes during the instance of the blast. In addition, flyrock from blasting could strike an individual and cause bodily harm. By adhering to the regulatory requirements for blasting, it is not anticipated that blasting associated with the three operations would result in adverse health effects.

3-246

Public Safety Flooding Effects Potential impacts on public safety as a result of flooding within the Spruce Fork watershed would not be anticipated. All of the active, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future mining operations are or would be required to complete a SWROA ensuring that drainage control structures have been designed sufficiently to result in “no net increase” in the during-mining and post-mining peak flows from that of the pre-mining peak flows. No cumulative adverse effects on public safety, with regard to flooding potential, would occur as a result of the proposed project. Blasting Effects Blasting effects on public safety would be similar to those on public health, with the primary concern being instances of flyrock. Flyrock from blasting could strike an individual and cause bodily harm. By adhering to the regulatory requirements for blasting discussed in the monitoring and mitigation procedures, effects on public safety resulting from blasting at the three (3) operations would not be anticipated. Valley Fill and Associated Structures Effects All valley fills and associated structures at current or reasonably foreseeable future mining operations would be constructed in accordance with the regulations and, as a result, would not be expected to adversely affect public safety. Transportation There would be potential cumulative effects on public safety as a result of the existing and reasonably foreseeable future operations in the area. Increases in the overall traffic would increase the potential for accidents. But, as discussed in Section 3.10.2, Transportation, SR17 was the main travel route for the area prior to the construction of US119 and the road has handled the anticipated traffic levels in the past. In addition, some mining operations may be closing or decreasing employment levels in the Spruce Fork watershed, which would offset some of the increases associated with the proposed and reasonably foreseeable future mining projects. Cumulative effects on public safety resulting from transportation of materials and increased traffic levels would be anticipated to be minimal (see Section 3.10.3). 3.13.4 MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES Monitoring and mitigation measures associated with water quality, air quality, transportation, and noise and light are discussed in Sections 3.2, 3.7.4, 3.10.4, and 3.11.4, respectively. Monitoring and mitigation measures proposed for blasting and the construction of the valley fills and associated structures are included in the following sections. 3.13.4.1 Blasting In response to public concern over blasting during mountaintop mining activities, the State of West Virginia created the Office of Explosives and Blasting (OEB) in 1999. The OEB is responsible for determining the coal industry's compliance with West Virginia's blasting laws and regulations. It also oversees the pre-blast survey process, directs the certified blaster program, certifies the competency of
3-247

both pre-blast surveyors and surface mine blasters, and handles claims by residents whose property is damaged by flyrock, air blasts, or vibrations associated with blasting. It is concluded that existing regulations provide appropriate controls for preventing damage to structures and wells. Prior to commencement of mine activities, a letter of notification would be sent to all owners and/or residents, and a pre-blast survey would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22A, Article 3, Section 13a of the Code of West Virginia. When blasting is proposed to occur within 500 feet of a temporarily inactive mine, a certified blaster would prepare a blast design. Mingo Logan’s PA includes a sample blast plan in Section T of the Applicant’s WVDEP Permit (S-5013-97, IBR 2) and includes the following: • • • • • Maximum allowable airblast and ground vibration limits; Methods to control flyrock; Monitoring plan identifying equipment and procedures; Sample blasting log; and Description of blasting procedures and safety precautions.

The blasting operations at the proposed project area would follow the forthcoming final blasting plan. Efforts would be made to minimize the effects of blasting on the human environment. Public access to the area prior to blasting would be controlled by blocking all entrances to the mine site. The pre-blast audible warning would consist of three (3) short air horn blasts of five (5) seconds duration with five (5) seconds between each blast, and the “all clear” signal would consist of one (1) long air horn blast of twenty (20) seconds duration. Airblasts would not exceed the maximum limits listed in Table 3-53 at the location of any dwelling, public building, school, church, or community or institutional building outside the project area. Table 3-53 Maximum Community Decibel Limits
Lower Frequency Limit of Measure 0.1 Hz or lower - flat response (only when approved by Director) 2 Hz or lower - flat response 6 Hz or lower - flat response C-weighted - slow response Maximum Level (dB) 134 peak 133 peak 129 peak 105 peak

If necessary to prevent damage, the Director of operations may specify lower maximum allowable air blast levels for use in the vicinity of a specific blasting operation. The operator would conduct periodic monitoring to ensure compliance with the airblast standards. The Director may require airblast measurements of any or all blasts and may specify the locations at which such measurements would be taken. The airblast measurement systems used would have an upperend flat frequency response of at least 200 Hz. Ground vibration would comply with the vibration guidelines presented in Table 3-54.

3-248

Table 3-54 Vibration Guidelines
Seismograph Measurement 1.25 1.00 0.75 Distance to Nearest Protected Structure 0 - 300 feet 301 - 5,000 feet 5,001 feet or greater

The maximum allowable airblast and ground vibration standards would not apply at structures owned by the Applicant and not leased to another person; or if leased, a written waiver by the lessee would be submitted to the Director prior to blasting. Flyrock, including blasting material traveling along the ground, would not be cast from the blasting vicinity more than half the distance to the nearest dwelling or other occupied structure beyond the permitted area, or beyond the area of regulated access. Flyrock would be controlled by using proper stemming. The Applicant would post the final comprehensive blasting plan in a public venue and make all attempts to minimize the effects of the blasting. Structures identified within one-half (0.5) and seven-tenths (0.7) mile blasting radius of the Applicant’s PA are shown on Exhibits 3-20. There is one existing public building, school, church, or institutional building within 1,000 feet of the proposed project area. 3.13.4.2 Valley Fills and Associated Structures Proposed valley fills for the Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3 have been designed in accordance with the State of West Virginia requirements. Title 38, Legislative Rule, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Mining and Reclamation, Series 2, West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Rule (38CSR2) Section 14.14.g.6 states that “The foundation of the fill and the fill shall be designed to assure a long-term static safety factor of 1.5 or greater, and meet an earthquake safety factor of 1.1”. All proposed valley fills would exceed the minimum static and seismic safety factors for valley fill construction. For either action alternative, the proposed valley fills would be inspected and certified in accordance with 38CSR2 Section 14.14.b. (Certification - Inspections and Reporting) and “Excess Spoil and Valley Fill Certification Requirements” policy dated May 12, 2004. The proposed valley fills would be inspected and certified as follows: During construction, the fills would be inspected quarterly by a registered professional engineer experienced in the design of earth and durable rock fill embankments, or other qualified professional specialist under the direct supervision of such professional engineer. The inspections would be done in accordance with the following schedule: • • Œ Œ Œ Regularly, but not less than quarterly, during construction. During critical construction periods. Such periods defined as: Foundation preparation, including the removal of all organic material Placement of underdrains Installation of surface drainage systems
3-249

Œ •

Final regraded revegetation. Upon completion of construction.

A qualified registered professional engineer experienced in the design of earth and durable rock fill embankments would promptly, within no more than two weeks following the completion of the inspections, provide a certified report that the facility has been constructed and maintained as designed and in accordance with the approved plan. The certified report would contain a statement that the fill is being constructed and maintained as designed in accordance with the approved plan and these specifications. The report would also note any instances of apparent instability, structural weakness, and other hazards. The report would include the following: • Removal of organic materials and topsoil/foundation preparation, including color photographs. Œ Description of the clearing and grubbing activities Œ Documentation that the foundation preparation is in accordance with the approved design plans • Placement of the underdrain system including color photographs. Œ Color photographs of underdrain during construction Œ Documentation that natural segregation is occurring and proper underdrain material is forming in advance of fill placement • Reporting of fill construction status. Œ Œ Œ Œ • Designed fill volume Approximate volume of material disposed of in fill during reporting period Approximate current total volume Current status of fill

Reporting of surface drainage system including permanent and temporary structures. ΠStatement that sediment control was installed and certified ΠPermanent ditches and terraces were installed in accordance with the approved design

•

Placement of materials. ΠStatement attesting that the fill contains no more than twenty percent (20%) non-durable materials ΠStatement that prohibited materials are not being placed, deposited, or disposed of into the area

•

Drawings of each fill and supporting structures that are subject to the certification. ΠΠΠΠΠΠΠCurrent delineation of the fill Location of sediment control and drainage structures Number and location of completed lifts Limits of clearing and grubbing Location of any surface or groundwater discharges Current extent and location of underdrains Current location of toe (latitude, longitude, and approximate elevation

3-250

Also, EPZs have been designed at the toes of the fills, where required, for both the Applicant’s PA and Alternative 3. The EPZ is a designed structure constructed to provide energy dissipation to minimize erosion vulnerability and may extend beyond the designed toe of the fill. As per 38CSR2 Section 14.14.g.1, all single-lift fills proposed after January 1, 2004, must have an EPZ constructed, seeded, and certified prior to activation of the fill. The EPZ is designed to have a length of at least one half the height of the fill measured to the target fill elevation or fill design elevation. The in-stream ponds associated with the valley fills have been designed in accordance with the State of West Virginia requirements. Title 38, Legislative Rule, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Mining and Reclamation, Series 2, West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Rule (38CSR2) Section 5.4.d. state that “Prior to any surface mining activities in the component drainage area of a permit controlled by a sediment control structure, that specific structure shall be certified as to construction in accordance with the plans, designs, and specifications set forth in the preplan, or in accordance with as-built plans. If as-built plans are submitted, the certification shall describe how and to what extent the construction deviates from the proposed design, and shall explain how and certify that the structure will meet performance standards. Such certification shall be submitted on forms prescribed by the Secretary…..”. All proposed embankment ponds would be constructed to meet a minimum static safety factor of 1.3. For either action alternative, the proposed valley fills would be inspected and certified in accordance with 38CSR2 Section 5.4.d. (Certification), which includes certification and inspection requirements for drainage control structures. Inspections of impoundments, including sediment control or other water retention structures, would be in accordance with the following: • A qualified registered professional engineer or other qualified professional specialist, under the direction of the professional engineer, would inspect each impoundment or sediment control structures, provided that a licensed land surveyor may inspect those impoundments or sediment control or water retention structures which do not meet the size or other criteria of 30 CSR 77.216(a) or Chapter 22, Article 14 of the Code of West Virginia, and which area not constructed of coal processing waste or coal refuse. The professional engineer, licensed land surveyor, or specialist would be experienced in the construction of impoundments and sediment control structures. Inspections would be made regularly but not less than quarterly during construction, upon completion of construction, and at least yearly until removal of the structure or release of the performance bond. The qualified registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor would promptly, after each inspection, provide to the Director a certified report that the impoundment or sediment control structure has been constructed and maintained as designed and in accordance with the approved preplan. The report would include discussion of any appearance of instability, structural weakness or other hazardous conditions, depth and elevation of any impounded waters, existing storage capacity, and existing or required monitoring procedures and instrumentation and any other aspects of the structure affecting stability.
3-251

•

•

•

A copy of the report would be retained at or near the mine site.

No other monitoring or mitigation measures are proposed for public health and safety. 3.13.5 RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS There would be no residual adverse effects associated with public health and safety as a result of the Applicant’s PA. 3.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” seeks to minimize disproportionate impacts of Federal programs on minority and low-income populations. The objective of this regulation is to identify whether proposed Federal actions would have disproportionately high and adverse impacts to these populations, and also whether these populations would share equally in the benefits of the Applicant’s PA. The population of Logan County is predominantly Caucasian. Racial minorities (i.e., Black, Asian, Native American, or otherwise identified as another race) account for a comparable percentage of Logan County's population (3.7%) as they do at the state level (3.8%). Hispanic/Latino minority populations account for a slightly smaller percentage of Logan County’s population (0.5%) than they do at the state level (0.7%). Low-income populations are found throughout Logan County. In 1999, 24.1 percent of Logan County’s population was below the poverty level, compared to 17.9 percent at the state level (USBOC, 2000). School lunch program data reveal that a majority of students in all Logan County schools are eligible for free or reduced cost lunches. Also, fifty-four (54) of the sixty-two (62) elementary schools in the county are Title 1 schools, meaning that more than half of the students are from low-income families (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). The direct and indirect impacts of the mine would not be anticipated to have disproportionately high and adverse impacts to low income or minority populations. The community impacts would affect all households in the same way and would not have a greater or more adverse effect on minority or lowincome households. As the primary socioeconomic impacts of the project would be economic benefits (as discussed in Section 3.9, Social and Economic Values), the project would be anticipated to positively affect low-income residents who may be suffering through unemployment or underemployment. The positive impacts of the project to the local tax base may also help improve government services or reduce the tax burden for these low-income populations. There is no reason to expect that these populations would not share equally in the benefits of the project. Consequently, there is no evidence to suggest that minority populations would be disproportionately adversely affected by the development of the Spruce No. 1 Mine. 3.15 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL Energy for the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would be supplied primarily by bituminous coal (indirectly), electricity, and diesel fuel. Over ninety-eight percent (98%) of the electricity in West Virginia is supplied by coal. Coal fired power plants would supply the electricity to power the electric shovel and ancillary facilities, pump water used at the operation, and provide lighting for facilities areas. Diesel fuel would be used to power the mobile equipment.
3-252

Mingo Logan would use a preventative maintenance program to keep the equipment at optimum operational level, thus minimizing the fuel burn and operating efficiency. This would in turn conserve the energy resources being utilized in association with the Applicant’s PA. 3.16 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 3.16.1 GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Short-term coal mining at the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine would not affect the long-term potential for development of mineral resources in southern West Virginia. 3.16.2 WATER RESOURCES There would be no anticipated adverse affects on the groundwater resources as a result of the proposed mining activities. Following mining and reclamation, there would be an increase in the recharge rates for the groundwater systems in the project area. Long-term surface water impacts would include the beneficial anticipated increase in baseflows downstream of the proposed valley fills. The overall quality of the water resources downstream of the proposed Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine would not be anticipated to be impacted. Surface water discharges from the project would be to Spruce Fork and its tributaries of Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, White Oak Branch, the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek and Seng Camp Creek. The proposed project would result in the short-term loss of one (1) palustrine wetland (0.12 acre) and waters of the U.S. related to mine development. Recreation/restoration of wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur upon completion of mining and reclamation of the project area. Long-term impacts to wetland productivity would be limited to the one palustrine wetland. The loss of this wetland would be mitigated by the creation of an 0.48-acre wetland within the project area. In addition, additional mitigation would be provided through enhancement of the Spruce Fork and Rockhouse Creek (off-site) to offset any temporal loss of aquatic habitat. 3.16.3 SOILS The proposed project would result in short-term impacts to soil productivity. These impacts would be expected to cease upon the completion of mining operations and would be mitigated by reclaiming the disturbed areas. The topsoil substitute proposed for the operation would be expected to be of equal or greater quality as a growth medium than that of the native soils. The reclamation goal would be to develop more productive soils to ensure the success of revegetation, stabilization of the disturbed areas, and soil erosion control. 3.16.4 VEGETATION The proposed project would result in adverse short-term impacts, such as the temporary loss of vegetation. These impacts would be expected to end upon completion of mining operations and would be mitigated by reclaiming the disturbed areas. Impacts to the long-term productivity of the disturbed areas would depend primarily on the effectiveness of reclamation of the disturbed areas. The reclamation goal would be to return the disturbed areas to productive post mining land use of forestland. The revegetation also would be
3-253

expected to stabilize the disturbed surfaces, control soil erosion, and inhibit the establishment of invasive plant species on these areas. The entire project area would be revegetated for reforestation. With proper management, this initial vegetation should transition back to a forested habitat. 3.16.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES Short-term impacts associated with wildlife resources, not including special status species, would be anticipated as a result of habitat removal and disturbance within the project area related to mining or construction activities. As discussed above for vegetation, the reclamation goal would be to reestablish self-sustaining plant communities consisting of forestland. Long-term impacts to wildlife resources would be the reduction of total available surface water, riparian, and wetland habitat as a result of watershed modifications within the project area. No short-term impacts of reduced flows and loss of aquatic habitat in portions of Spruce Fork are anticipated as a result of mine development. Impacts to the long-term productivity of aquatic communities (primarily macroinvertebrates) would occur due to the permanent loss of loss of 26,184 (26,184 intermittent) feet of intermittent/ephemeral streams. These would be mitigated by the on-site replacement of 26,361 (15,488 intermittent) feet of intermittent/ephemeral streams, the restoration and enhancement of 7,132 (825 perennial) feet of intermittent/perennial stream and the off-site enhancement of approximately 11,272 (8,772 perennial) feet of intermittent/perennial stream. 3.16.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES Long-term impacts to cultural resources would include the permanent direct loss of nine (9) archaeological sites within the proposed disturbance area. None of the sites were determined to be NRHP-eligible. Potential short-term impacts could result from visual impacts upon other cultural resources in the viewshed of the proposed project, such as the Blair Mountain Site, within approximately one (1) mile. However, the Blair Mountain site is not currently listed on the NRHP, and thus is not afforded any protection. 3.16.7 AIR QUALITY Short-term impacts to air quality from fugitive dust and ambient air quality emissions associated with mine construction and operation would not be anticipated to have affects on the long-term productivity of the project area or surrounding region or public health. 3.16.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION Short-term use for coal extraction would temporarily replace a mixed deciduous hardwood forest and woodland riparian vegetation. The mine area would be revegetated to achieve a post-mining land use of forestland after reclamation. There is no existing private or recreational land use in the project area. Resources would be available after closure to restore and enhance recreation opportunities, although there is no plan to provide public access for recreation purposes. 3.16.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES The short-term increases in employment, population, and economic activity would accrue for the duration of the project. Continuation of economic activity beyond the 15-year life of the mine operation is unknown at this time.
3-254

3.16.10 TRANSPORTATION There would be project-related increases in traffic in the study area during the life of the mine. For the Applicant’s PA, there would be potential increases in coal truck traffic during the construction phase as a result of some of the coal being transported along SR17 until the internal haulroads are constructed. 3.16.11 NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES Elevated noise levels would occur in and near the project area for the life of the mine, but noise would revert to lower levels similar to the current state at closure. Visual degradation would occur during active mining, but the rural landscape character would be gradually reestablished throughout the disturbance area as reclamation progresses behind the mining. 3.17 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The Applicant’s PA could result in the irreversible commitment of resources (e.g., the loss of future options for resource development or management, especially of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals and cultural resources) or the irretrievable commitment or resources (e.g., the lost production or use of natural resources during the life of the operations). Irreversible and irretrievable impacts of the Applicant’s PA are summarized for each resource in Table 3-55 Table 3-55 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources by the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative
Resource Irreversible Impacts Irretrievable Impacts Description Coal mining would cause an irreversible change in the topography of the project area and an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the 40.91 million tons of bituminous coal that would be mined, which would not be available for future use. During and after mining, peak flows during storm events would be anticipated to decrease compared to the premining conditions in the receiving streams and the Spruce Fork watershed. Increased permeability of the mining area and valley fills constructed would decrease runoff and increase groundwater recharge within the mining area. Also, basal stream flows downstream of the valley fills would be anticipated to increase after mining, while peak flows would be reduced. There would be an irretrievable loss of approximately 7.72 acres (permanent impacts) of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including 5.77 acres of intermittent stream channel, 1.83 acres of ephemeral stream channel, and a 0.12-acre wetland during mine operations. Where practicable, native topsoil would be salvaged for use in reclamation. There would be an irreversible commitment (i.e., loss) of approximately 2,233 acres of soils. A total of 2,233 acres would comprise an irretrievable commitment of forest and woodland riparian vegetation resources during project operations; this acreage 3-255

Geology and Mineral Resources

Yes

Yes

Water Resources

Yes

Yes

Soils

Yes

Yes

Vegetation

Yes

Yes

Resource

Irreversible Impacts

Irretrievable Impacts

Description subsequently would be revegetated for forestland and riparian habitat. There would be an irretrievable loss of 7.72 acres of intermittent/ephemeral stream and a 0.12-acre wetland as a result of mining. There would be no net loss of surface water resources. A total of 2,233 acres of forestland and woodland riparian habitat would be incrementally lost during mining operations, an irretrievable commitment of this resource. This land would be reclaimed to forestland and riparian habitat subsequent to mining. Cultural resources would be irreversibly and irretrievably lost through disturbance; however, no significant cultural resources would be impacted. No irreversible or irretrievable impacts would result from visual impacts upon other cultural resources in the viewshed of the proposed project, such as the Blair Mountain Site within approximately one (1) mile. There would be no irreversible impacts to air quality. Project air impacts would not exceed Federal or State ambient air quality standards. The air quality would return to pre-mining levels after construction, mining, and reclamation activities ceased to be sources of pollutants. There would be no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to land use and recreation resources. Changes in land use or effects upon nearby recreational resources would be reversible through reclamation efforts and closure of the operation. Social and economic effects of the Spruce No. 1 Mine, though predominantly beneficial, would be reversible. The human and material resources invested in the project would be essentially irretrievable. Project-related traffic increases would continue for the life of the project. But would be reversible and would cease at project closure. Noise effects would be considered reversible, as they would cease on completion and closure of the project. Certain visual effects, particularly removal of mature trees, would persist for a number of years; however, in the long term, the adverse visual effects would be largely obscured by successful reclamation and vegetation. Not Applicable Adverse public health impacts would not be anticipated Not Applicable

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Yes

Yes

Cultural Resources

Yes

Yes

Air Quality

No

No

Land Use and Recreation

Yes

Yes

Social and Economical Values

No

Yes

Transportation

No

No

Noise and Visual Resources

No

No

Hazardous Materials Public Health Environmental Justice

No No No

No No No

3-256

4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

4.1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SCOPING

The public participation process for the Spruce No. 1 Mine includes an open forum for determining the scope if issues to be addressed in the EIS. The public involvement program was initiated following publication of the NOI in February 2000. On May 2, 2001 a formal Public Workshop/Hearing was held. The purpose of this meeting was to solicit public comment on the identified alternatives to be evaluated for inclusion in the EIS. An additional component of this meeting was to provide project information as efficiently as possible and to provide the public the opportunity to provide substantive comments to be addressed in the EIS. Public input and comments were used in the decision making process for determining substantive issues to be evaluated in the EIS. Public comments received from the May 2, 2001 meeting were a mix of opinions, recommendations, and statements. Many of the oral comments received during the scoping meeting and written comments thereafter, were not substantive in nature. Comments ranged from a strong desire to permit the project in its current configuration to denial of the permit for any alternative that includes mountaintop mining. A number of comments received expressed their gratitude that the Applicant supported the preparation of an EIS for the project, and reserved commenting on permit-specific issues until the EIS was publicly available. Signed letter petitions were received both supporting and rejecting permitting of the proposed project. Other comments related to information or issues that were valuejudgments and could not be quantified in the EIS. However, a number of comments were substantive in nature and are addressed in the EIS. The Preliminary Draft EIS public scoping process served as a forum for explaining the project history and established a framework for future communication with the resource agencies. Comments received from the public have been evaluated and considered during the development of this EIS. During the development of the Preliminary Draft EIS, the COE solicited input from interested parties. Comments on the Preliminary Draft EIS included a variety of issues: purpose and need; on-site and off-site mining alternatives; cumulative economic impacts; socioeconomics; air, noise, blasting, safety, and dust; environmental justice, perched groundwater; floodplains and floodways; endangered species; terrestrial and aquatic habitat value; neotropical birds, forest fragmentation and biodiversity; post-mine land use; aquatic resource energy model; hydrologic reclamation plan; water supply and conservation; geologic and hydrologic effects; visual quality/aesthetics; and mitigation. The scope of this EIS reflects input received from the public (Appendix C) and from appropriate government agencies (Appendix D). Key issues identified during the scoping process including the following: • • Potential impacts on surface water resources; Potential terrestrial impacts;

4-1

• • • • • • • 4.2

Potential impacts to native vegetation communities, biodiversity, and soil productivity; Potential impacts to wildlife fisheries and their habitats; Direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources; Potential air quality impacts from mine emissions and fugitive dust; Potential impacts to land use and recreation; Potential social and economic impacts on surrounding communities; and, Direct and indirect impacts of soil erosion and sedimentation from disturbed areas. LIST OF AGENCY CONTACTS

In preparing the EIS for the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, the USACE communicated with and received input from various Federal, State, and local agencies. The following sections identify these contacts. 4.2.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining (USDOI, OSM) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDOI, USFWS) U.S. Geological Service (USGS) U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (USDOI, OEPC) 4.2.2 STATE AGENCIES

West Virginia Division of Culture and History (WVDCH) - Charleston, WV West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) - Charleston, WV WVDEP Division of Mining and Reclamation (WVDEP, DMR) - Charleston, WV WVDEP Division of Water and Waste Management (WVDEP, DWWM) - Charleston, WV West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) - Elkins, WV and Charleston, WV 4.2.3 COUNTY AND LOCAL AGENCIES

Logan County Commission Boone County Commission 4.3 4.3.1 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND COMPANIES TO WHOM THE COPIES OF THIS STATEMENT ARE SENT FEDERAL AGENCIES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Huntington, WV U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDOI, USFWS) - Elkins, WV U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (USDOI, OEPC) Washington, DC
4-2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region III - Philadelphia, PA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining (USDOI, OSM), Morgantown, WV and Pittsburgh, PA 4.3.2 STATE AGENCIES

West Virginia Division of Culture and History (WVDCH) - Charleston, WV West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) - Charleston, WV WVDEP Division of Mining and Reclamation (WVDEP, DMR) - Charleston, WV WVDEP Division of Water and Waste Management (WVDEP, DWWM) - Charleston, WV West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) - Elkins, WV and Charleston, WV 4.3.3 COUNTY AND LOCAL AGENCIES

City of Madison City of Danville City of Chapmanville City of Logan City of Man Logan County Commission Boone County Commission 4.3.4 LIBRARIES AND LOCAL REPOSITORIES

Logan County Public Library Boone County Public Library Kanawha County Public Library

4-3

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

4-4

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS
Name Responsibility Degree(s) and Experience

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EIS Team Kim Courts-Brown Regulatory Project Manager/ EIS Reviewer Regulatory Specialist/ EIS Reviewer B.S. degree in Chemistry with 17 years experience as a Regulatory Project Manager. B.S. degree in Chemistry with 3 years experience as a Regulatory Specialist. Seven years experience as a chemist with the USACE. B.S. degree in Parks and Recreation with 6 years experience as a Regulatory Specialist. B.S. degree in Parks and Recreation, with focus on conservation and M.S. degree in Environmental Science with 5 years experience as a Regulatory Specialist. B.S. degree in Biology and M.S. in Environmental Studies with 16 years experience as a Regulatory Project Manager and four years experience as Chief of the Regulatory Branch. B.S. degree in Zoology and M.S. degree in Biological Sciences with 9 years experience as a Regulatory Project Manager. B.S. degree in Geology with 11 years experience as a professional geologist with focus on engineering geology. B.S. degree in Biological Sciences and M.A. degree in Biological Sciences with 8 years experience as a Regulatory Project Manager.

Susan Fields

Michael Hatten

Regulatory Specialist/ EIS Reviewer Regulatory Specialist/ EIS Reviewer

Rick Hemann

Ginger Mullins

Chief, Regulatory Branch/EIS Reviewer

Lee Pittman

Regulatory Project Manager/ EIS Reviewer Geologist

Steven Spagna

Teresa Spagna

Regulatory Project Manager/EIS Project Manager and Preparer

5-1

James Spence

Regulatory Specialist/ EIS Reviewer

B.S. degree in Environmental Science and M.S. degree in Physical Science with 3.5 years experience as a Regulatory Project Manager. B.S. degree in Biology with 6 years experience as a Regulatory Project Manager and 4 years experience as the Chief of the South Regulatory Section. B.S. degree in Biological Sciences and M.A. degree in Biological Sciences with 7 years experience as a Regulatory Specialist.

Mark Taylor

Chief, South Regulatory Section/EIS Reviewer

Sarah Workman

Regulatory Specialist/ EIS Reviewer

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. EIS Team (Third-party Consultant to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Amber Graham Environmental Scientist/EIS Preparer B.S. degree in Environmental Geology. M.S. degree in Environmental Geology (pending final thesis defense) with focus in hydrogeology with over 4 years experience in permitting, mitigation, water-related studies, and stream assessments and analysis. B.S. degree in Mining Engineering and M.S. degree in Environmental Engineering with 12 years experience in mining, engineering, and permitting. M.S. degree in Marine Biology with 18 years experience in NEPA and environmental compliance. M.S. degree in applied Economics with 17 years experience in socioeconomic impact analysis. M.S. degree in Environmental Science with 9 years experience in NEPA and environmental field studies.

Anthony Gatens

Project Manager/Mine Engineer

Laurence Gale

Project Director

Lorna Parkins

Senior Planner

Martha Young Dobyns

Environmental Scientist

5-2

Semaphore Hill Associates, LLC (Sub-consultant to Michael Baker Jr., Inc.) Andrea Griffith President, Cartographic and GIS Specialist M.A. degree in Anthropology, specializing in GIS and archaeological field studies, with 6 years experience in NEPA-related studies and GIS analysis.

Marshall University (Sub-consultant to Michael Baker Jr., Inc.) Dr. Mark Burton Research Professor, Center for Ph.D. in Economics with 13 years Business and Economic experience in performing transportation Research, Marshall University; and energy-related research. Research Associate Professor, Center for Transportation Research, University of Tennessee – Knoxville; Statistical Advisory Committee, US DOE, Energy Information Administration. Research Professor, Center for Business and Economic Research, Marshall University; Assistant Professor of Economics, Air Force Institute of Technology; Member, West Virginia Special Reclamation Fund Advisory Council. Ph.D. in Economics with 7 years experience in performing regional and energy-related research

Dr. Michael Hicks

5-3

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

5-4

6.0 REFERENCES
Ahrens, Donald C. 1994. Meteorology today: an introduction to weather, climate, and the environment. West Publishing Company. St. Paul, Minnesota. Allen, T.F.H. and T.B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Ambuel, B., and S.A. Temple. 1982. Songbird populations in southern Wisconsin forests: 1954 and 1979. Journal of Field Ornithology. 53:149-158. Ambuel, B., and S.A. Temple. 1983. Area-Dependent Changes In The Bird Communities And Vegetation of Southern Wisconsin forests. Ecology. 64:1057-1068. Amoros, C. and A.L. Roux. 1988. Interactions between water bodies within the floodplains of large rivers: function and development of connectivity. In Connectivity in Landscape Ecology, K.F. Schreiber, ed. Muenster, Germany: Muensterische geographische Arbeit, pp. 125–130. Amoros, C., A.L. Roux, J.L. Reygrobellet, J.P. Bravard and G. Pautou. 1987. A method for applied ecological studies of fluvial hydrosystems. Regulated Rivers. 1: 17-36. Anderson, S.H. 1979. Changes in forest Bird Species Composition Caused by Transmission-line Corridor Cuts. American Birds 33(1):3-6. Baird, T.H. 1990. Changes in Breeding Bird Populations between 1930 and 1985 in the Quaker Run Valley of Allegany State Park, New York. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 477. The University of the State of New York, Albany, New York. Bayne, E. M. and K. A. Hobson. 1997. Comparing the effects of landscape fragmentation by forestry and agriculture on predation of artificial nests. Conservation Biology. 11(6): 1418-1429. BHE Environmental, Inc. 2004. Mist Net Survey Report for the Indiana Bat (Myotis Sodalis) at the Spruce Mine No. 1 Logan County, West Virginia. Prepared for Arch Coal, Inc. Biological Monitoring, Inc. (BMI). 1999. A Benthic Invertebrate, Fish, FPOM, and Flow Survey of Spruce Fork, Pigeonroost Branch, Bend Branch and Rockhouse Branch, to evaluate the Impact of Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills on the Spruce Fork Ecosystem. Collected March – April 1999. Hendricks, Dr. Albert C. Biological Monitoring, Inc. (BMI). 1999. A Second Benthic Invertebrate, Survey of Spruce Fork, Pigeonroost Branch, Bend Branch and Rockhouse Branch, to evaluate the Impact of Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills on the Spruce Fork Ecosystem. Collected May 1999. Hendricks, Dr. Albert C.

6-1

Biological Monitoring, Inc. (BMI). 2000. Benthic Report for Spruce No. 1 Mine: Fall Period 1999. Collected November 1999. Blake, J.G., and J.R. Karr. 1984. Species Composition of Bird Communities and the Conservation Benefit of Large Versus Small forests. Biological Conservation 30:173-187. Blake, J.G., and J.R. Karr. 1987. Breeding Birds of Isolated Woodlots: Area and Habitat Relationships. Ecology 68(6):1724-1734. Bode, R.W. 1988. Quality assurance workplan for biological stream monitoring in New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Böhning-Gaese, K., M.L. Taper, and J.H. Brown. 1993. Are Declines in North American Insectivorous Songbirds Due to Causes on the Breeding Range? Conservation Biology 7(1): 76-86. Borgman, U. and D.M. Whittle. 1994. Particle-size-conversion efficiency, invertebrate production, and potential fish production in Lake Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 51: 693-700. Bott, T. L., J. T. Brooks, C. S. Dunn, R. J. Naiman, R. W. Ovink, and R. C. Peterson. 1985. Benthic community metabolism in four temperate stream systems: An inter-biome comparison and evaluation of the river continuum concept. Hydrobiologia. 123:3-45. Brant, R.A, and E.Q. Moulton. 1960. Acid Mine Drainage Manual. Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin, The Ohio State University. Brittingham, M.C., and S.A. Temple. 1983. Have Cowbirds Caused forest Songbirds to Decline? BioScience 33:31-35. Brooks, R.P. and M. J. Croonquist. 1990. Wetland, habitat, and trophic response guilds for wildlife species in Pennsylvania Journal of the Academy of Science 64(2): 93-102. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1986. Visual Resource Inventory, Bureau of Land Management Handbook 8410-1, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. TIC 241833. Burton, Mark L., Michael J. Hicks and Calvin A. Kent. 2000. "The Fiscal Implications of Judicially Imposed Surface Mining Restrictions in West Virginia.” Burton, Mark L., Michael J. Hicks and Calvin A. Kent. 2001. "Coal Production Forecasts and Economic Impact Simulations in Southern West Virginia: A Special Report to The West Virginia Senate Finance Committee.” CBC Engineers and Associates. 2001. CBC Report No. 3172-1-0601-01.

6-2

Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED). 2005. State Profiles: West Virginia. http://www.ceednet.org/ceed/index.cfm?cid=7503,7749. Coalfield Communities website (www.wvcoalfield.com/FLOODS2002.htm). The Two Floods In Logan County, Buffalo Creek and Blair, July 27, 2002. Discussion of flooding events during 2002 in the southern West Virginia coalfields. Connell, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rainforests and coral reefs. Science. 199: 1302-1310. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1993. Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations Into Environmental Impact Analysis Under The National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive office of the President, Washington, D.C. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. (1979) Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Report No. FWA/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC. Croonquist, M.J. and R.P. Brooks. 1993. Effects of Habitat Disturbance on Bird Communities in Riparian Corridors. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 48(1): 65-70. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (CRA). 1996. “Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Pigeonroost Surface Mine Near Blair, Logan County, West Virginia”. Prepared for Hobet Mining, Inc. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (CRA). 1999. Phase 2 National Register Evaluation Report for Archaeological Site 46LG20, Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine Permit Area, Logan County, West Virginia. Prepared for Hobet Mining, Inc. Cummins, K.W. 1988. The study of stream ecosystems: a functional view. Pp 247-262 in: Pomeroy, L.R. and J.J. Alberts (eds.). Concepts of ecosystem ecology: a comparative view. Springer-Verlag. N. Y. 384p. Cummins, K. W. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. BioScience. 24(11):631-641. Cummins, K.W. and J.C. Wuycheck. 1971. Caloric equivalents for investigating in ecological energetics. Internationalen Vereinigung furtheoretishce und Angewandte Limnologie 18: 1-158. Dale, A., G. Bruns, G., W. Minshall, C. E. Cushing, K. W. Cummins, J. T. Brock, and R. L. Vannote. 1984. Tributaries as modifiers of the river continuum concept: analysis by polar ordination and regression models. Arch. Hydrobiol. 99(2):208-220. Decota Consulting Company, Inc. 2000. Stream delineation performed for WVDEP Permit No. S-501397.

6-3

Donovan, T. M., F. R. Thompson, III, J. Faaborg and J. R. Probst. 1995. Reproductive success of migratory birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biology. 9(6): 1380-1395. Ehlke, T.A., Runner, G.S., and Downs, S.C., 1982, Hydrology of Area 9, Eastern Coal Province, West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Open-File Report 81-803, 63 p. Environmental Laboratories. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2005. National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS) referenced for southern West Virginia (http://www.fema.gov/library/images/dd-1964_gif.html). Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Maps and Flood Insurance Rate maps for Logan and Boone County, West Virginia. http://store.msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreCatalogDisplay?storeId=10001&catal ogId=10001&langId=-1&userType=G Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 2001. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN3/PT.653. Published October, 1998. Revised August, 2001. Finch, D.M. 1991. Population Ecology, Habitat Requirements, and Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM205, Fort Collins, Colorado. Fisher, S.G., and G.E. Likens. 1973. Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: An integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecological Monographs 43:421-439. Flood, B. S., M. E. Songster, R. D. Sparrow, and T. S. Basket. 1977. A handbook for habitat evaluation procedures. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 132. 77 pp. Freemark, K.E. and H.G. Merriam. 1986. Importance of Area and Habitat Heterogeneity to Bird Assemblages in Temperate forest Fragments. Biological Conservation 36:115-141. Friel, E.A., T.A. Ehlke, W.A. Hobba, Jr., S.M. Ward, and R.A. Shultz. 1984. Hydrology of area 8, eastern coal province, West Virginia and Ohio. United States Geological Survey Open File Report 84463. Friesen, L., M. D. Cadman and R. J. MacKay. 1999. Nesting success of neotropical songbirds in a highly fragmented landscape. Conservation Biology. 13(2): 338-346.

6-4

Frissel, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10:199-214. Fuller, R.L. and J.B. Bucher. 1991. A portable chamber for measuring algal primary production in streams. Hydrobiologia 209 155-159. Gale, G. A., L. A Hanners and S. R. Patton. 1997. Reproductive success of Worm-Eating Warblers in a forested landscape. Conservation Biology. 11(1): 246-250. Georgian, T. and J.B. Wallace. 1983. Seasonal production dynamic in a guild of periphyton-grazing insects in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecology 64: 1236-1248. Gorczyca, Beth, "Peering into a murky future," The Herald-Dispatch, September 17, 2000; http://www.wvaftercoal.org/stories/Day1/index.html. Green, J., Passomore, M., and H. Childers. 2000. A Survey of Streams in the Primary Region of Mountain Top Mining/Valley Fill Coal Mining. USEPA Region 3. Wheeling WV. Griffith, M.B., S.A. Perry and W.B. Perry. 1993. Growth and secondary production of Paracapnia angulata Hanson (Plecoptera; Capniidae) in Appalachian streams affected by acid precipitation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 735-743. Griffith, M.B., S.A. Perry and W.B. Perry. 1994. Secondary production of macroinvertebrate shredders in headwater streams with different baseflow alkalinity. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13: 345 356. Hall, G.A. 1984. Population Decline of Neotropical Migrants in an Appalachian forest. American Birds 38:14-18. Hamel, P.B. 2000a. Cerulean Warbler Status Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minneapolis, MN. Hamel, P.B. 2000b. Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea). In The Birds of North America, No. 511. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Harlow, G.E., and LeCain, G.D., 1993, Hydrologic characteristics of, and ground water flow in, coal bearing rocks of southwestern Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2388, 36 p. Hartley, M. J. and M. L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. A Meta-Analysis of forest Cover, Edge Effects, and Artificial Nest Predation Rates. Conservation Biology. 12(2): 465-469.

6-5

Hawkins, J.W., K.B.C. Bradley, S. Barnes, and A.W. Rose. 1996. Shallow groundwater flow in unmined regions of the northern Appalachian Plateau: Part 1. Physical Characteristics, in Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Knoxville, Tennessee, May 18-23. Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic Ground Water hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Sup ply Paper 2220, 84 p. Herald-Dispatch, The. 2000; West Virginia After Coal (www.wvaftercoal.org); http://miva.heralddispatch.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva/coal.mv?. Hicks, Michael J. and Mark L. Burton, 2004. The Economic Impact of Spruce No. 1 Mine. University Research Group, Huntington, West Virginia. Hicks, Michael J. and Mark L. Burton, 2005. The Economic Impact of Spruce No. 1 Mine, IBR No. 1. University Research Group, Huntington, West Virginia. Hildrew, A. G. and C.R. Townsend. 1987. Organization in freshwater communities. In: J. H. R. Gee, & P. S. Giller (Eds). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 347-372. Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality in streams. Wis. Dep. Nat. Resour. Technical Bulletin No. 132:1-23. Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist, 20:31-39. Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. "Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution with a Family-Level Biotic Index." Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 7(1):65-68. Hobba, W.A., Jr. 1991. Relation of fracture systems to transmissivity of coal and overburden aquifers in Preston County, West Virginia. United States Geological Survey Investigations Report 89-4137. Hobba, W.A., Jr. 1993. Effects of underground mining and mine collapse on the hydrology of selected basins in West Virginia. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2384. Holmes, R.T. and T.W. Sherry. 1988. Assessing Population Trends of New Hampshire forest Birds: Local vs. Regional Patterns. The Auk 105:756-768. Holmes, R.T., T.W. Sherry, and F.W. Sturges. 1986. Bird Community Dynamics in a Temperate Deciduous forest: Long-term Trends at Hubbard Brook. Ecological Monographs 56(3):201-220. Hoover, J. P., M. C. Brittingham and L. J. Goodrich. 1995. Effects of forest fragmentation on nesting success of Wood Thrushes. The Auk. 112(1): 146-155.

6-6

Huryn, A.D. and J.B. Wallace. 1987. Local geomorphology as a determinant of macrofaunal production in a mountain stream. Ecology 68: 1932-1942. Hutchens Jr., John J. 1999. Further Analysis of Benthic Macro-invertebrates from Pigeonroost Branch, Rockhouse Branch, and Bend Branch, West Virginia: Effects of Mountain-top Removal and Valley Filling (no data collected only review of BMI reports). Hynes, H.B.N., The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, 1970. James, F.C., C.E. McCulloch, and D.A. Wiedenfeld. 1996. New approaches to the analysis of population trends in land birds. Ecology. 77: 13-27. Junk, W. J. Bayley, P. B. & Sparks, R. E. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 106: 110-127. Kelafant, J. R., Wicks, D. E., Kuuskraa, V. A. March, 1988. A geologic assessment of natural gas from coal seams in the Northern Appalachian Coal Basin. Topical Report – Final Geologic Report (September 1986 – September 1987). Keller, C., C. Robbins, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian Communities in Riparian forests of Different Widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2): 137-144. King, D. I., C. R. Griffin and R. M. Degraaf. 1995. Effects of clearcutting on habitat use and reproductive success of the Ovenbird in forested landscapes. Conservation Biology. 10(5): 1380-1386. Kirk, E.J. and S.A. Perry. 1994. Macroinvertebrate production estimates in the Kanawha River, West Virginia. Hydrobiologia281: 39-50. Kozar, M.D., 1998, Ground water age data applied to understanding fractured bedrock aquifers in West Virginia: in Proceedings of West Virginia nonpoint source conference, Charleston, W. Va, October 1-3, 1998, p. 13. Kozar, Mark D. and Melvin V. Mathes, 2001 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4036 Krueger, C.C. and T.F. Waters. 1983. Annual production of macroinvertebrates in three streams of different water quality. Ecology 63: 840-850. Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 222-233.

6-7

Lloyd, Orville B. Jr. and William L. Lyke, 1995. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Groundwater Atlas of the United States: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, published 1995. Logan Banner, 2002; “Who’s at fault?” by Michael Browning, Managing Editor. Discussion of the July 27, 2002 flood in Buffalo Creek. Lugthart, G.J., J.B. Wallace and A.D. Huryn. 1990. Secondary production of chironomid communities in insecticide-treated and untreated headwater streams. Freshwater Biology 24:417-427. Lynch, J.F., and D.F. Whigham. 1984. Effects of forest Fragmentation on Breeding Bird Communities in Maryland, USA. Biological Conservation 28:287-324. MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Martin, N.D. 1960. An Analysis of Bird Populations in Relation to forest Succession in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Ecology 41(1): 126-140. McColloch, J.S., and Kramer, L., 1993, Water-use study of the Kanawha River Basin in West Virginia: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, West Virginia, 114 p. Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker) 2000. Mist Net Survey Report for the Indiana Bat (Myotis Sodalis) at the Spruce Mine No. 1 Logan County, West Virginia. Survey conducted by BHE Environmental, Inc. in July 2000. Prepared for Hobet Mining Inc. Madison, WV 25130. Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker) 2001. Spruce Mine No. 1 Wetland Findings Report. Prepared for Arch Coal, Inc. Madison, WV 25130. Michaels, E.D., 1998. Wildlife Habitat Evaluation of Upland Hardwood forests At Pigeonroost Branch of Spruce Fork, Logan County, WV. Prepared for Hobet Mining Inc. Madison, WV 25130 Miller, J.T., and D.R. Thompson. 1974. Seepage and mine barrier width. Paper in Fifth Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research (Louisville, KY, Oct, 1974). National Coal Association, Pittsburg, PA. Minshall, G. W., K. W. Cummins, R. C. Peterson, C. E. Cushing, D. A. Bruns, J. R. Sedell, and R. L. Vannote. 1985. Developments in stream ecosystem theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1045-1055. Moebs, N.N. and M.L. Clar. 1990. Feasibility of water diversion and overburden dewatering. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9024. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Hocking River Mainstem and Selected Tributaries. Report Number EAS/1991-10-6.

6-8

Moebs, N.N., and G.P. Sames. 1989. Leakage across a bituminous coal mine barrier. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 9280. Mullen, D.M. and J.R. Moring. 1988. Partial deforestation and short term autochthonous energy input to a small New England stream. Water Resources Bulletin 24: 1273-1279. Naiman, R. J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor and C.A. Johnstone. 1988. The Potential Importance of Boundaries to Fluvial Ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 7 (4): 289-306. Naiman, R.H. and H. Dechamps (eds). 1990. The Ecology and Management of Aquatic-Terrestrial Ecotones. Casterton Hall, Carnforth, UK: Parthenon Publishers. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 2004. Common Core of Data  National Parks Service (NPS). 2004a. National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State.” List available at http://www.nps.gov./rivers/wildriverslist.html#wv. Last updated May 5, 2004. National Parks Service (NPS). 2004b National Parks Service, Rivers and Trails. West Virginia Segments of Nationwide Rivers Inventory. List available at http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states/wv.html. Last updated January 28, 2004. NCDC, NOAA, Climatography of the U.S. No. 20 1951-1980, Report No. CLIM20, Station Climatologic Summaries for Madison and Pineville, West Virginia stations. Data can retrieved from the following website: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html. Neely, R.K. and R.G. Wetzel. 1995. Simultaneous use of ‘4C and 3H to determine autotrophic production and bacterial protein production in periphyton. Microbial Ecology 30: 227 237. Newbold, J.D., O’Neill, R.V., Elwood, J.W., and Van Winkle, W. 1981. Nutrient spiraling in streams: Implications for nutrient limitation and invertebrate activity. The American Naturalist. 120: 628652. O’Neil, R. V., A.R. Johnson and A.W. King. 1989. A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale. Landscape Ecology. 3: 193-205. O’Hop J., J.B. Wallace, and J.D. Haefner. 1984. Production of the stream shredder, Peltoperla maria (Plecopters: Peltoperlidae) in disturbed and undisturbed catchments. Freshwater Biology l4: 1321. Paterson, K.G. and J.L. Schnoor. 1993. Vegetative Alteration of Nitrate Fate in Unsaturated Zone. Journal of Environmental Engineering 119(5): 966-993.

6-9

Perry, S.A. and M.E. Golden. 2000. Importance and Productivity of Headwater Streams Literature Review and Valley Fill Mitigation Strategies (Draft). WV Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research Unit, WVU, Morgantown, WV. Perry, W.B., E.F. Benfield, S.A. Perry, and J.R. Webster. 1986. Energetics, growth, and production of a leaf-shredding stonefly in an Appalachian Mountain stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 6: 12-25. Peterjohn, B.G., J.R. Sauer, and C.S. Robbins. 1995. Population trends from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. In Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory birds. T.E. Martin and D. M. Finch, eds. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 3-39. Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient Dynamics in an Agricultural Watershed; Observations on the Role of a Riparian forest. Ecology. 65: 1466-1475. Petersen, R.C., and K.W. Cummins. 1974. Leaf processing in a woodland stream. Freshwater Biology 4: 343-368. Petts, G.E. and C. Amoros. 1996. The fluvial hydrosystem. In: Fluvial Hydrosystem, G.E. Petts, C. Amoros, eds., London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 1-12. Pictet, S.T.A. and P.S. White. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, New York. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross., and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. USEPA/440/489/001. Power, M. E., R.J. Stout, C.E. Cushing, P.P. Harper, F.R. Hauer, W.J. Matthews, P.B. Moyle, B. Statzner, and I.R. Wais De Bagden. 1988. Biotic and biotic controls in river and stream communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 7 (4): 456-479. Rhyne, W. R. (1994). Hazardous Materials Transportation Risk Analysis. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson and A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildlife Monographs. 103: 1-34 Robbins, C.S., D. Bystrak, and P.H. Geissler. 1986. The breeding bird survey: its first fifteen years, 1965-1979. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Resour. Publ. 157. 196pp. Roberts, C. and C. J. Norment. 1999. Effects of plot size and habitat characteristics on breeding success of Scarlet Tanagers. The Auk. 116(1): 73-82.

6-10

Robinson, S.K. 1992. Population Dynamics of Breeding Neotropical Migrants in a Fragmented Illinois Landscape. In Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. J.M. Hagan and D.W. Johnston, editors. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 408-418. Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267: 1987-1990. Rosenberg, K. V., J. D. Lowe, and A.A. Dhondt. 1998. Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding Tanagers: a continental perspective. Conservation Biology. 13(3): 568-583. Rosenberg, K.V. and M.G. Raphael. 1986. Effects of forest Fragmentation on Vertebrates in DouglasFir forests. In Wildlife 2000: Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. J. Verner, M. Morrison, C. Ralph, eds. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin. Pp. 263-272. Rosenberg, K.V., S.E. Barker, and R.W. Rohrbaugh. 2000. An atlas of cerulean warbler populations. Final report to USFWS: 1997-2000 breeding seasons. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. December, 2000. Rosenfield, J. and J.C. Roff. 1991. Primary production and potential availability of autochthonous carbon in southern Ontario streams. Hydrobiologia 224: 99-109.Rosgen, D. R. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minnesota. Sames, G.P., and N.N. Moebs. 1989. Hillseam geology and roof instability near outcrop in eastern Kentucky drift mines. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 9267. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2003. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 – 2002. Version 2003.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 – 2003. Version 2004.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Sauer, J.R. 1993. Monitoring goals and programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel, eds. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 245-251. Schmidt, R.D. 1989. Fracture zone dewatering to control ground water inflow in underground coal mines. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 8981. Science Applications International Corporation. 1998. Analysis of Valley Fill Impacts using Benthic Macroinvertebrates - Draft Final Report. Collected in June 1987 and June 1998.

6-11

Senate Congressional Record, September 28, 1999, Statement by Robert C. Byrd regarding flooding in West Virginia. Sheets, Charlynn J. and Mark D. Kozar. 2000. Ground-Water Quality in the Appalachian Plateaus, Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4269, National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Silvy, N. J. 2000. Attwater's prairie chicken. Pages 81-83 in I. Storch, Compiler. Smith, W.P., P.B. Hamel, and R.P. Ford. 1996. Mississippi Alluvial Valley forest conversion: implications for eastern North American avifauna. Proc. 1993 Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies, 47: 460-469. Southwood, T.R.E. 1977. Habitat, the template for ecological strategies. Journal of Animal Ecology. 46: 337-365. Stanford, J.A. and J.V. Ward. 1993: An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity and the hyporheic corridor. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 12: 48–60. Statzner, B. and B. Higler. 1985. Questions and comments on the river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1038-1044. Statzner, B. and B. Higler. 1986. Stream hydraulics as a major determinant of benthic zonation patterns. Freshwater Biology, 16: 127-139. Statzner, B., V.H. Resh and A. Roux. 1994. The synthesis of long-term ecological research in the context of concurrently developed ecological theory: design of a research strategy for the Upper Rhone River and its floodplain. Freshwater Biology. 31: 253-263. Stout, Dr. Ben. 1999. Structure and function of streams in the Pigeonroost Branch watershed, and the influence of mountain top removal and valley fill on southern West Virginia watershedecosystems (review of previously collected data). Sturm Environmental Services (SES). 1991. Dal-Tex Coal Corporation Seng Camp Mine No. 2 Benthic Evaluation. Collected October 1990. Sturm Environmental Services (SES). 1992. Dal-Tex Coal Corporation Seng Camp Mine No. 1 Benthic Evaluation Right Fork and Daniel Hollow. Collected October 1991. Sturm Environmental Services (SES). 1997. Overburden Analysis for Topsoil Substitution, Spruce No. 1 Mine. Prepared for Hobet Mining, Inc. March 17, 1997.

6-12

Sturm Environmental Services (SES). 1998. Hobet Mining, Inc. Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine Benthic Evaluation for: Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and White Oak Branch. Collected October 1997. Sturm Environmental Services (SES). 2000. Collection of benthic macroinvertebrates from Spruce Fork (no report just data). Temple, S.A. 1986. Predicting Impacts of Habitat Fragmentation on forest Birds: A Comparison of Two Models. In Wildlife 2000: Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. J. Verner, M. Morrison, C. Ralph, eds. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin. Pp. 301304. Temple, S.A., and J.R. Cary. 1988. Modeling Dynamics of Habitat-Interior Bird Populations in Fragmented Landscapes. Conservation Biology 2(4): 340-347. Tetra Tech, Inc., 2005. Draft Total Maximum Daily Loads for Selected Streams in the Coal River Watershed, West Virginia, prepared for the WVDEP Division of Water and Waste Management, Watershed Branch, TMDL Section. September 2005. Thorp, J. H., M. D. Delong, K. S. Greenwood, and A. F. Casper. 1998. Isotopic analysis of three food web theories in constricted and floodplain regions of a large river. Oecologia. 117(4):551563.Trine, C. L. 1998. Wood Thrush population sinks and implication for the scale of regional conservation strategies. Conservation Biology. 12(3): 576-585. Townsend, C.R. 1989. The patch dynamic concept of stream community ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 8: 36-50. Townsend, C.R. and A. Hildrew. 1994. Species traits in relation to a habitat template for river systems. Freshwater Biology. 31: 265-275. Trapp, Henry Jr. and Marilee A. Horn, 1997. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Groundwater Atlas of the United States: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, published 1997. Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2000. Photometry for Traffic Engineers Workshop held in May 2000 by the Committee on Visibility. Trine, C. L. 1998. Wood Thrush population sinks and implication for the scale of regional conservation strategies. Conservation Biology. 12(3): 576-585. Trzcinski, M. Kurtis, L. Fahrig, and G. Merriam. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications. 9(2): 586593.

6-13

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002. COE Regulatory Guidance Letter 02-2, Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Coprs Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. December 24, 2002. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey" using Selective Access and Most Requested Series; http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American FactFinder; Profile of General Demographic Characteristics, Census 2000 Summary File 1. Available on the internet: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_ DP1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&geo_id=05000US54005. U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. “West Virginia: Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990,” Compiled and edited by Richard L. Forstall. Accessed on the internet: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/wv190090.txt . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. George Washington National Forest. Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (revised December 2000), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 89 pages. Website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/table9.html U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2004. Annual Energy Outlook 2004. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Available on the internet: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2005. Annual Coal Report 2004. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006. Report #: DOE/EIA0383 (2006). Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 1984. Environmental Criteria and Standards 24CFR51C issued in 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. Mountaintop Mining/ Valley Fills in Appalachia Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS). EPA 9-03-R-00013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994. Mitigation Technical Guidance for Chesapeake
6-14

Bay Wetlands. Prepared for the Living Resources Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Program by the Chesapeake Bay Wetland Workshop. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. A Survey of Aquatic Life In Streams In The Area of The Proposed Hobet Mining Spruce No. 1 Mine. Collected July 1998. Also reported by USFWS in December 1998. Green, Jim and Maggie Passmore. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers. Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish. EPA 841-B99-002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1976. Habitat Evaluation Procedures. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services. Washington, D.C., 30 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapping website: http://wetlands.fws.gov/ (accessed in November 2005). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. A Survey of Aquatic Life and Terrestrial Habitats on the Proposed Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Agency Draft: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) revised recovery plan. Region 3 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. March 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Agency Draft: Supplemental Biological Opinion for the Laxare East and Black Castle Contour Surface Mining Projects. February 23, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website for threatened and endangered species current listings: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess public/servlet/gov.doi.tess public.servlets.UsaLists? state=WV U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Draft Document: Reconnaissance of Stream Geomorphology, Low Stream Flow, and Stream Temperature in Mountaintop Coal Mining Region, Southern WV 19992000. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1984. National Water Summary. Hydrologic events, selected waterquality trends, and ground-water resources. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper No. 2275. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. The Mineral Industry of West Virginia. United States Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook - 2003.
6-15

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Tornado, West Virginia gage station data from 1909 through 2003 from website: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual/calendar_year/?site_no=03200500 United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 2000. Guidelines for the Integrated Management of the Watershed - Phytotechnology and Ecohydrology. Newsletter and Technical Publications, Freshwater Management Series No. 5. International Environmental Technical Center. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:130-137. Verner, J. 1986. Summary: Predicting Effects of Habitat Patchiness and Fragmentation-the Researcher's Viewpoint. In: Wildlife 2000: Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. J. Verner, M. Morrison, C. Ralph, eds. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin. pp. 327-329. Ward, J. V. and J.S. Stanford. 1983. The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems. Ch. 2 in: Dynamics of lotic ecosystems, T.D. Fontaine and S.M. Bartell (editors). Ann Arbor Science Publishers. Ward, J.V. 1989. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. Journal of North American Benthological Society. 8: 2-8. Ward, J.V., C. T. Robinson and K. Tockner. 2002a. Applicability of ecological theory to riverine ecosystems. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 28: 443–450. Ward, J.V., F. Malard and K. Tockner. 2002b. Landscape ecology: a framework for integrating pattern and process in river corridors. Landscape Ecol. 17: 35–42. Waters, T.F. and J.C. Hokenstrom. 1980. Annual production and drift of the stream amphipod Gammarus pseudolimneaus in Valley Creek, Minnesota. Limnology and Oceanography 25: 700-710. Weinberg, H. J. and R. R. Roth. 1998. Forest area and habitat quality for nesting Wood Thrushes. The Auk. 115(4): 879-889. Wen, Y.H. 1992. Life history and production of Hyalella azteca (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in a hypereutrophic prairie pond in southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 1417-1424. West Virginia’s Anti-degradation Rule (60 CSR 05): http://www.wvsos.com/csr/verify.asp?TitleSeries=60-05 West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs (WVBEP). 2005 and 2006. West Virginia Data by County including "Employment and Wages 2004" and “West Virginia’s Top Ten Employers by County”. Available on the internet: http://www.wvbep.org/scripts/bep/lmi/cntydata.cfm.

6-16

West Virginia Coal Association, 2004. Coal Facts 2004. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), 2002. Presumptive Tier 2.5 stream list. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), Division of Water Resources. 2005a. 2004 Final 303(d) List from West Virginia 2004 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (1/7/05) http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=11&ss1id=720 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), Division of Water Resources. 2005b. Updated List of Waters of Special Concern being proposed for Tier 2.5 anti-degradation protection status (Updated Presumptive Tier 2.5 stream list, 9/29/05) http://www.wvdep.org/dwwm/antideg/new4web.htm West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), 2005c. Prime farmland determination under 38 CSR 2.10 available on website: http://www.wvsos.com/csrdocs/worddocs/38-02.doc West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), Permit Handbook. West Virginia Department of Highways (WVDOH), 2005. Traffic data for SR17 provided by WVDOH in December 2005. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR) list of trout stocked streams: http://www.wvdnr.gov/Fishing/Fishing.shtm). West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, 2001. West Virginia High Quality Streams, Sixth Edition. West Virginia Department of Tax and Revenue, 2000. Business Taxes. Generated by Jennifer Esway Smith; using http://www.state.wv.us/taxrev/97taxlaws/97tl_business.pdf. West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey (WVGES), 2001. West Virginia Geology: Physiographic Provinces (http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/geology/geolphyp.htm). West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey (WVGES), formerly the West Virginia Geological Survey. 1915. County Geologic Reports. Logan and Mingo Counties, by R.V. Hennen (out of print). West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health Safety and Training. 2006. Historical Coal Production in West Virginia from 1900 to 2005. Available on the internet at http://www.wvminesafety.org/STATS.HTM West Virginia State Tax Department. 2005; Classified Assessed Valuations Taxes Levied; http://www.state.wv.us/taxrev/ty2004cavtaxeslevied.pdf West Virginia State Treasurer's Office; Severance Tax distribution to Counties. Generated using Tax Distribution; http://www.wvtreaury.com/Tax Files/Coal Severance.

6-17

West Virginia University; Bureau of Business and Economic Research (WVU BBER). 2005. West Virginia Economic Outlook 2005. Available on the internet: http://www.bber.wvu.edu/PDF_Files/BBER-2005-03.pdf Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA. Whitcomb, R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, M.K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest Fragmentation on Avifauna of the Eastern Deciduous forest. In forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. Burgess, R.L. and D.M. Sharpe, eds. SpringerVerlag. New York. pp. 125-205. Whittaker, R.H. 1953. A Consideration of Climax Theory: The Climax as a Population and Pattern. Ecological Monographs 23:41-78. Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest Predation in forest Tracts and the Decline of Migratory Songbirds. Ecology 66(4): 1211-1214. Wiley, J.B., R.D. Evaldi, J.H. Eychaner, and D.B. Chambers, 2001. Reconnaissance of Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature in the Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern West Virginia, 1999-2000. USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 014092. Wohl, D.L., J.B. Wallace and J.L. Meyer. 1995. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure, function, and production with respect to habitat type reach and drainage basin in the southern Appalachians (U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology. 34: 447-464. Wyrick, G.G., and Borchers, J.W., 1981, Hydrologic effects of stress-relief fracturing in an Appalachian valley: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2177, 51 p. Yoakum, J., and W.P Dasmann. 1969. Habitat manipulation practices. In: Wildlife Management Techniques, R.H. Giles, Jr., ed. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 633pp. Zalewski, M. and R.J. Naiman. 1985. The regulation of riverine fish communities by a continuum of abiotic–biotic factors. In: J.S. Alabaster FAO UN Habitat Modification and Freshwater Fisheries. London: Butterworths Scientific, pp. 3-9. Zalewski, M., G.A. Janauer, and G. Jolankai. 1997. Ecohydrology. A new paradigm for the sustainable use of aquatic resources. UNESCO IHP Technical Document in Hydrology No. 7. IHP–V Projects 2.3/2.4, UNESCO Paris, 58 pp.

6-18

7.0 GLOSSARY
Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Acre-foot Lands that were previously mined and not reclaimed, or not fully reclaimed, typically resulting from pre-law (SMCRA) mining. Volume of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; equivalent to a volume of 43,560 cubic feet. The environment of the area to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration (40 CFR 1502.15). Surface or subsurface resources (including social and economic elements) within or adjacent to a geographic area that could potentially be affected by surface mining and valley fill activities. Any land or water surface area that is used to facilitate, or is physically altered by, surface coal mining and reclamation operations. Pertaining to material or processes associated with transportation or deposition of soil and rock by flowing water (e.g., streams and rivers). Unconsolidated or poorly consolidated gravel, sands, and clays deposited by streams The environment as it exists at the point of measurement and against which changes or impacts are measured. Total, all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment and time. A fold that is convex upward or had such an attitude at some stage of development. Anticlines may also be defined as folds with older rocks toward the center of curvature, providing the structural history has not been unusually complex. The surface configuration achieved by backfilling and grading of the mined area so that the reclaimed area, including any terracing or access roads, closely resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining and blends into and complements the drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain, with all highwalls and spoil piles eliminated. All mined areas are to be returned to AOC, unless they receive a variance from it [Subsection 701(2) of SMCRA]. A body of rock (zone, stratum, or strata) that is sufficiently porous and permeable to store and conduct/transmit groundwater in sufficient quantities for specific use, particularly to yield water to wells and springs. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Software
7-1

Affected Environment

Alluvial

Alluvium

Ambient

Ambient Noise Anticline

Approximate Original Contour (AOC)

Aquifer

ARC/INFO

Artesian

Refers to groundwater under sufficient hydrostatic head to rise above the aquifer in which it is contained. A method of mining coal at a cliff or highwall by drilling holes into an exposed coal seam from the highwall and transporting the coal along an auger bit to the surface. The operation of refilling an excavation or the material placed in an excavation in the process of backfilling. Noise from all sources other than that from a particular source of interest (e.g., other than mining noise if mining noise were being investigated). Specific to surface mining, this refers to the floor(s) of mining excavation areas where backfilling will occur. Relating to or occurring at the bottom of a body of water. The relative abundance of wildlife species, plant species, communities, habitats, or habitat features per unit of area. (1) Coal that ranks between subbituminous coal and anthracite and that contains more than 14 percent volatile matter (on a dry, ash-free basis) and has a calorific value of more than 11,500 Btu/lb (26.7 MJ/kg) (moist, mineral-matter-free) or more than 10,500 Btu/lb (24.4 MJ/kg) if agglomerating (ASTM). It is dark brown to black in color and burns with a smoky flame. Bituminous coal is the most abundant rank of coal; much is Carboniferous in age. Syn: soft coal. (2) A coal that is high in carbonaceous matter, having between 15 percent and 50 percent volatile matter. Soft coal. (3) A general term descriptive of coal other than anthracite and low-volatile coal on the one hand and lignite on the other. (4) A coal with a relatively high proportion of gaseous constituents; dark brown to black in color and burns with a smoky luminous flame. The coke yield ranges from 50 percent to 90 percent. The term does not imply that bitumen or mineral pitch is present.

Augering

Backfill

Background Noise

Bench

Benthic Biological Diversity

Bituminous Coal

Boom

To prevent short-circuiting of surface water control facilities. A floating tubular shaped device fabricated from woven or rubberized fabric designed to route water flow in an open pond. Most booms also include a submerged curtain that extends from the floating portion to the pond bottom and aids in lengthening the path that water would follow from the inlet to the outlet. The device would be positioned by shore-based anchor cables and adjusted as needed to maximize water retention time in the pond.

7-2

Bottom Ash

The non-airborne combustion residue from burning pulverized coal in a boiler; which then falls to the bottom of the boiler and is removed mechanically. Non-flowering plants such as mosses and liverworts. British Thermal Unit – a measure of the heat content of a material equal to the heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree An area between two different land uses that is intended to resist, absorb, or otherwise preclude developments or intrusions between the two use areas. The geologic span of time between 570 and 505 million years ago. The geologic span of time between 66 million years ago to the present. Council on Environmental Quality - An advisory council to the President established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs for their effort on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental matters. Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment - Before a SMCRA permit can be approved, an assessment of the cumulative hydrologic impacts of all anticipated mining on the hydrologic balance in the cumulative impact area is performed. Before a SMCRA permit can be approved, the CHIA must find that the proposed operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. CHIA preparation is an integrated process which embodies a specific application of hydrologic information management at each step of the process. The scope of a CHIA may initially include all components of the groundwater and surface water systems in the cumulative impact area. This initial scope can be systematically and logically reduced to those concerns of quantity and quality considered significant to maintaining the hydrologic balance of the area. The process focuses on those aspects of the hydrologic balance that are likely to affect designated uses of water. A sample outline is available at the Office of Surface Mining website http://www.osmre.gov//chiaint.htm The process of removing vegetation and large stumps and roots from a site in preparation for topsoil stripping or other excavation. A layer, vein, or deposit of coal.

Bryophyte BTU

Buffer Zone

Cambrian Cenozoic CEQ

CHIA

Clearing and Grubbing Coal Seam

Cone of Depression The depression of heads around a pumping well caused by the withdrawal of water.

7-3

Continuous Miner

A self-propelled mining machine for excavating coal within underground mines or from beneath surface mine highwalls, usually accompanied by a conveyor to carry the coal to a loading point. Surface mining that progresses in a narrow zone following the outcrop of a coal seam in mountainous terrain, and the overburden, removed to gain access to the mineral commodity, is immediately placed in the previously mined area, such that reclamation is carried out contemporaneously with extraction. The geologic span of time between 144 and 66 million years ago. Habitat that is present in minimum amounts and is the determining factor in the potential for population maintenance and growth. (1) In the aims of historic preservation, all of the physical manifestations of archeology and history are cultural resources. (2) Cultural resources include archeological sites, structures, and objects significant to American history and prehistory. May include battlefields, ships, places where treaties were signed, or places of significant events. (3) They are important for their representation of cultures, lifestyles, people, architecture, engineering, arts and events, or for the information they contain, or for associations they have with past people or events. (4) Cultural resources are considered fragile and non renewable resources, once they are removed, lost or destroyed, they are gone forever.

Contour Mining

Cretaceous Critical Habitat

Cultural Resources

Cumulative Impacts/Effects

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (40 CFR 1508.7) An excavation, generally applied to surface mining; to make an incision in a block of coal; in underground mining, that part of the face of coal that has been undercut. Division of Air Quality – A program office with WVDEP Unit of measure of sound pressure and sound power levels. Expresses relative difference in power between two signals equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the two levels.

Cut

DAQ Decibel (dB)

7-4

dBA

A-weighting. The most commonly used frequency weighting measure; simulates human sound perception and correlates well with human perception of the annoying aspects of noise. A delta, in the geographic sense, is a deltoid-shaped area determined by the major bifurcations of a river and resulting from relatively rapid deposition of riverborne sediment into a more or less still standing body of water. A delta, in the geologic sense, is defined as a deposit of sediment partly subaerial and made by a stream at the place of entrance into a permanent body of water (Barrell, 1912 and Twenhofel, 1939). The major portion of the deltaic sediment is deposited subaqueously in the permanent body of water where waves and currents aid in the transportation and deposition. The dendritic drainage pattern is characterized by irregular branching in all directions with the tributaries joining the main stream at all angles. Resembling the vein patterns in a tree leaf. Inclination in degrees of a planar geologic stratum from the horizontal. Impacts that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7); synonymous with direct effects. The volume of water flowing past a point per unit time, commonly expressed as cubic feet per second, gallons per minute, or million gallons per day. An area where natural vegetation and soils have been removed. Division of Mining and Reclamation - A program office within WVDEP The natural channel through which water flows some time of the year; natural and artificial means for affecting discharge of water as by a system of surface and subsurface passages. The collection, transfer, and/or treatment of direct precipitation and runoff from disturbed areas, or the water retention and sediment control structures utilized for this purpose. A type of excavating equipment that casts a cable-hung bucket a considerable distance; collects the dug material by pulling the bucket toward itself on the ground with a second rope; elevates the bucket; and dumps the material on a spoil bank, in a hopper, or on a pile. The lowering of the water level in a well as a result of withdrawal; the reduction in head at a point caused by the withdrawal of water from an aquifer.
7-5

Deltaic Environment

Dendritic

Dip Direct Impacts

Discharge

Disturbed Area DMR Drainage

Drainage Control

Dragline

Drawdown

Durable Rock

Naturally formed aggregates that will not slake in water or degrade to soil material. Federal law provide that durable-rock fills must consist of at least 80 percent durable rock [30 CFR §§ 816.73 and 817.73]. Division of Water and Waste Management - A program office within WVDEP The geologic span of time between 37.5 to 54 million years before present.

DWWM Ecocene Epoch/Series Edaphic EIS

Pertaining to soils. Environmental Impact Statement - A document prepared to analyze the impacts on the environment of a proposed project or action and released to the public for comment and review. An EIS must meet the requirements of NEPA, CEQ, and the directives of the agency responsible for the proposed project or action. Effects include direct effects and indirect effects. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effect and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures and functioning of affected ecosystems, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if in balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.(40 CFR 1508.8) Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of the Interior as endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act. A stream or portion of a stream that flows briefly in direct response to precipitation in the immediate vicinity and whose channel is at all times above the water table. The portion of precipitation returned to the air through evaporation and plant transpiration.

Effects

Endangered Species

Ephemeral Stream

Evapotranspiration

7-6

Excess Spoil

(1) Spoil in excess of that necessary to backfill and grade affected areas to the approximate original contour. The term may include box-cut spoil where it has been demonstrated for the duration of the mining operation, that the box-cut spoil is not needed to restore the approximate original contour. (2) Overburden material that is disposed of in a location other than the mine pit. [30 CFR § 701.5]

Face

The working surface of a coal seam where it is being excavated, usually applied to underground mining or the front of the downstream end of a valley fill. A fracture in rock units along which there has been displacement. Final Environmental Impact Statement A reagent added to water to aggregate minute suspended particles so that they may precipitate out of suspension. That portion of a river valley, adjacent to the channel, that is built of sediments deposited during the present regimen of the stream and that is covered with water when the river overflows its banks at flood stages. Braided and/or meandering river and stream systems. River channels, bars, levees, and floodplains are parts (or subenvironments) of the fluvial environment. Channel deposits consist of coarse, rounded gravel, and sand. Bars are made of sand or gravel. Levees are made of fine sand or silt. Floodplains are covered by silt and clay. Noncombustible residual particles from the combustion process. Vegetation used for food by wildlife, particularly big game wildlife, and domestic livestock. Any herbaceous plant other than a grass, especially one growing in a field or meadow. (1) Land with at least 25 percent tree canopy or that has been stocked with at least 10 percent forest trees of any size, including land that formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially reforested. (2) Land bearing a stand of trees of any stature, including seedlings, and of species attaining a minimum of 6 feet average height at maturity or land from which such a stand has been removed but on which no other use has been substituted. The term is commonly limited to land not in farms; forests on farms are commonly called woodland or farm forests.
7-7

Fault FEIS Flocculant

Floodplain

Fluvial Environment

Fly Ash Forage

Forb

Forestland

Fugitive Dust

Dust particles suspended randomly in the air from road travel, excavation, and rock loading operations. Segments of streams that receive a portion of their flow from groundwater sources. The study of the distribution and amounts of the chemical elements in minerals, coal, rocks, soils, water, and the atmosphere, and their circulation in nature on the basis of the properties of their atoms and ions. A branch of engineering concerned with the engineering design aspects of slope stability, settlement, earth pressures, bearing capacity, seepage control, and erosion. A slope stated in feet per mile or as feet per feet (percent); the content of precious metals per volume of rock (ounces per ton). Rubber-tired earthwork equipment with a center-mounted, underslung blade used for fine grading of roads or reclamation surfaces. Overpasses used to separate mine traffic from public roads. Rock-lined ditch used to carry runoff from slopes surrounding a valley fill to the toe of the valley fill. Subsurface water that fills available openings in rock or soil materials to the extent that they are considered water saturated. Change in head per unit of distance measured in the direction of flow.

Gaining Stream

Geochemistry

Geotechnical

Grade

Grader

Grade Separators Groin Ditch

Groundwater

Groundwater Gradient Groundwater Recovery

An increase in groundwater levels such that the groundwater elevations rise above initial baseline groundwater elevations. Used to refer to an increase in water levels following drawdown. The surface between the zone of saturation and the zone of aeration; that surface of a body of unconfined groundwater at which the pressure is equal to that of the atmosphere. Suitable material that may be used in place of topsoil for reclamation purposes.

Groundwater Table

Growth media

7-8

Headwater(s)

(1) The source (or sources) and upper part of a stream, including the upper drainage basin. (2) Non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are part of a surface tributary system to an interstate or navigable water of the United States upstream of the point on the river or stream at which the average annual flow is less than five cubic feet per second. The District Engineer may estimate this point from available data by using the mean annual area precipitation, area drainage basin maps, and the average runoff coefficient, or by similar means. For streams that are dry for long periods of the year, District Engineers may establish the point where headwaters begin as that point on the stream where a flow of five cubic feet per second is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of the time. [COE-33 CFR 330.2(d)]

Herbaceous Highwall

Term for soft-stemmed grass and forb plant species. The unexcavated face of exposed overburden and coal or ore in an opencast mine, or the face or bank on the uphill side of a contour strip mine excavation. Removal of coal from beneath a standing highwall without excavation of the overburden, using augers or continuous highwall mining machines. Also known as thin-seam mining. Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. The term “eligible for inclusion in the national Register of Historic Places” includes both properties formally determined as such by the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet the National Register listing criteria. A stratigraphic zone containing a coal seam or other mineral deposit. The horizontal and/or vertical extent of a planar coal seam or mineral deposit. The capacity of a rock to transmit water. It is expressed as the volume of water at the existing kinematic viscosity that will move in unit time under a unit hydraulic gradient through a unit area measured at right angles to the direction of flow. See groundwater gradient. The height of the free surface of a body of water above a given subsurface point.

Highwall Mining

Historic Property

Horizon

Hydraulic Conductivity

Hydraulic Gradient Hydraulic Head

7-9

Hydrologic Balance

The relationship between the quality and quantity of water inflow to, water outflow from, and water storage in a hydrologic unit such as a drainage basin, aquifer, soil zone, lake, or reservoir. It encompasses the dynamic relationships among precipitation, runoff, evaporation, and changes in ground and surface water storage. The science that relates to the water systems of the earth, or the principles of water flow, or the presence of surface or groundwater. Grouping of stratified, mainly sedimentary rocks that have similar hydrologic properties. Naturally occurring fluids (i.e., geothermal waters) at high temperatures, typically related to igneous or metamorphic activity. Hertz. Frequency of one cycle per second. A modification in the status of the environment brought about by any proposed action or an alternative. Impacts that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.8); synonymous with indirect effects. The movement of water or some other liquid into the soil or rock through pores or other openings. The basic framework or underlying foundation of a community or project, including road networks, electric and gas distribution, water and sanitation services, and facilities. Non-ore grade material interlayed with ore or located within or horizontally adjacent to the ore such that it must be removed in the process of extracting ore grade material. A stream that flows only part of the time or during part of the year. Those species that colonize natural or semi-natural ecosystems, are agents of change, and threats to native biodiversity. The words exotic, invasive, and nonindigenous are often used synonymously. Applies primarily to the lost production of renewable natural resources during the life of the project.

Hydrology

Hydrostratigraphic Unit Hydrothermal Fluids Hz Impact

Indirect Impacts

Infiltration

Infrastructure

Interburden

Intermittent Stream Invasive

Irretrievable

7-10

Irreversible

Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals, cultural resources, wetlands, or to those factors that are renewable only over long time spans, such as soil productivity. Irreversible also includes loss of future options. Applies to hydraulic properties that are the same in all directions; uniform. The span of time between 208 and 144 million years ago. A wetland area identified and delineated by specific technical criteria, field indicators, and other information for purposes of public agency jurisdiction. The public agencies that administer jurisdictional wetlands are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Sound level exceeded one percent (1%) of the time during a given period. Sound level exceeded ten percent (10%) of the time during a given period; often represents a short-term noise event associated with passing vehicles or airplanes flying over. Sound level exceeded fifty percent (50%) of the time during a given period; the median sound level. Sound level exceeded ninety percent (90%) of the time during a given period; sometimes used as an approximation for background noise. Day average sound level. Leq for the daytime period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Day-night average sound level. Leq for a 24-hour, midnight to midnight period with 10 dBA added to the sound levels from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Sometimes also represented as DNL.) Non-flowing aquatic systems such as ponds. Equivalent continuous sound level. Level of steady state sound that, in a specific time period, has an equal amount of sound energy as the actual time-varying sound. A low-grade form of coal. A discrete grouping of flakes of stone created as a byproduct in the tool making process. Often includes flakes used as tools as well as formal stone tools, such as projectile points, knives, or scrapers.

Isotrophic Jurassic Jurisdictional Wetland

L1 L10

L5D

L90

Ld Ldn

Lentic Leq

Lignite Lithic Scatter (Archaeology)

7-11

Lithologic Units Lmax

Rock formations. Maximum sound level. The greatest sound level measured on a sound level meter during a designated time interval or event, using “fast” time averaging on the meter. Night average sound level. Leq for the nighttime period from midnight to 7:00 a.m. and from 10:00 p.m. to midnight. Time period limited to the life of the project (through mining and reclamation).

Ln

Long-term but temporary Long-term

Time period extending beyond the life of the project (beyond mining and reclamation); also considered as permanent. A stream or reach of stream that contributes water to the saturated zone. Its channel lies above the water table. Flowing aquatic systems such as streams. Sound Pressure Level. A measure of the change in atmospheric pressure induced by sound; depends not only on the power of the sound source but also on the distance from the source and on the acoustical characteristics of the space surrounding the source. In decibels, 20 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of a sound pressure to the reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals. Peak sound level. Maximum instantaneous sound level during a specified time interval or event. Land Use/Land Cover Sound Power Level. A measure of the acoustic energy output of a sound source. In decibels, 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of a given power to the reference power of 1 picowatt. Large animals lacking a spinal cord. Non-metallic elements having some of the chemical properties of metals. A unit of measure for electrical conductivity in water. Higher values reflect greater levels of dissolved conductors, such as sodium, calcium, or magnesium salts. Mingo Logan Coal Company

Losing Stream

Lotic Lp or SPL

Lpk

LU/LC Lw

Macroinvertebrate Metalloids Micromhos per Centimeter Mingo Logan

7-12

Mitigate, Mitigation

To cause to become less severe or harmful; actions to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate, and compensate for impacts to environmental resources. To systematically and repeatedly watch, observe, environmental conditions in order to track changes.

Monitor

Mountaintop Mining Surface coal mining occurring on mountaintops, ridges, and other steep slopes (by definition those of 20 degrees or more) is often referred to as mountaintop mining. Removal of overburden from coal on mountaintop mining sites may result in generation of excess mine spoil in quantities that may not allow regrading of a mine site to its approximate original topographic contours or that must otherwise be disposed of to allow for regrading of a mine site to its approximate original topographic contours or that must otherwise be disposed of to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. One method of disposing of this excess spoil is to place it the heads of hollows or valleys of streams, a practice often referred to as valley fill. Multpile Seam Mining National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Surface mining in areas where several seams are recovered from the same hillside. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 - Declares the national policy to encourage a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment. Section 102 of that Act directs that “to the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2) all agencies of the federal government shall insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations “. (See Appendix B of 33 CFR Part 325.) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) A part of the Clean Water Act that requires point source dischargers to obtain Elimination System permits. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits and are administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The national program for issuing, modifying, revoking, and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under Sections 307, 402, 318, and 40 of the CWA. [EPA-40 CFR 122.2]

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

National Register of A list, maintained by the National Park Service, of areas that have been Historic Places designated as being of historical significance. (NRHP)

7-13

Nationwide Permit

Nationwide permits are a type of general permit and represent USACE authorizations that have been issued by the regulation (33 CFR Part 330) for certain specified activities nationwide. If certain conditions are met, the specified activities can take place without the need for an individual or regional permit. [33 CFR 325.5(c) (2)] Plants that originated in the area in which they are found (i.e., they naturally occur in that area). A measure of the ability of a material to neutralize acidity, expressed in terms of calcium carbonate equivalents. In overburden analysis, this is usually expressed as tons of calcium carbonate equivalent per 1,000 tons of overburden. The National geodetic vertical datum of 1929 is a vertical geodetic datum formerly called sea level datum of 1929 or “mean sea level”. It is based on sea level averages at 26 points along the U.S. and Canadian coasts over a period of many years. Unwanted sound; one that interferes with one's hearing of something; a sound that lacks agreeable musical quality or is noticeably unpleasant. A dip-slip fault in which the block above the fault has moved downward relative to the block below. The interval between two sounds having a frequency ratio of two. There are 8 octaves on the keyboard of a standard piano. A segment of the frequency spectrum separated by an octave. The integrated sound pressure level of only those sine-wave components in a specified octave band. A frequency band whose cutoff frequencies have a ratio of 2 to the one-third power, or approximately 1.26 (e.g., The cutoff frequencies of 891 Hz and 1,112 Hz define the 1,000 Hz third-octave band in common use). That line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. [COE-33 CFR 328.3(e)]

Native Species

Neutralization Potential

NGVD

Noise

Normal Fault

Octave

Octave Band Octave Band Level

One-third Octave Band

Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)

7-14

Outcrop

(1) The part of a rock formation that appears at the surface of the ground. (2) A term used in connection with a vein or lode as an essential part of the definition of apex. It does not necessarily imply the visible presentation of the mineral on the surface of the earth, but includes those deposits that are so near to the surface as to be found easily by digging. (3) The part of a geologic formation or structure that appears at the surface of the earth; also, bedrock that is covered only by surficial deposits such as alluvium. (4) To appear exposed and visible at the earth’s surface; to crop out.

Outfalls Overburden

Discharge points from the drainage control system to downstream drainages. Material that must be removed to allow access to an orebody, particularly in a surface mining operation. Unconsolidated organic and inorganic mineral material in which soil forms. The greatest flow attained during winter snowmelt or during a large precipitation event. Palustrine Emergent Wetland - Herbaceous march, fen, swale and wet meadow Unconfined groundwater separated from the main body of groundwater by unsaturated rock. A stream or reach of a stream that flows throughout the year. Organisms that live attached to underwater surfaces. Time period extending beyond the life of the project (beyond mining and reclamation). Palustrine Forested Wetland - Forested swamp or wetland shrub bog or wetland The measure of the acidity or basicity of a solution. Sequenced operational areas to divide the progression of a surface mine. A plant that obtains its water from the saturated zone and generally has a deep root system. A non-pumping well that is used to measure the elevation of a water table or a potentiometric surface.

Parent Material Peak Flow

PEM Perched Water

Perennial Stream Periphyton Permanent

PFO pH Phase Phreatophyte

Piezometer

7-15

Pit

In surface mining, the void left after removal of overburden to expose the coal in a cut. The primary uses of the land before and after mining. After mining, land is generally required to be returned to its pre-mining use. A site may be returned to an alternative postmining land use if certain requirements are satisfied. Permits involving mountaintop removal or steep-slope mining operations with variances from AOC may be issued by the regulatory authority only if they meet certain specified postmining land use as described in the approved state program. Some examples of postmining land uses include, but are not limited to: combined uses, commercial woodland, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation lands, forestland, residential, rangeland, or pasture. A surface that represents the total head in an aquifer; that is, it represents the height above a datum plane at which the water level stands in tightly cased wells that penetrate the aquifer. The PHC process consists of the following steps, repeated as many times as necessary to mitigate adverse impacts: Data collection; Characterization of the premining hydrologic balance; Prediction of mining disturbances; Design of measures to mitigate mining disturbances; and Documentation of residual impacts to the hydrologic balance remaining after implementation of mitigative measures. The remaining unmitigated impacts must be documented in the PHC determination. This iterative PHC process is intended to reduce the predicted adverse impacts to the hydrologic balance to an acceptable level. A sample outline for the PHC determination is available for downloading at http://www.osmre.gov//hyphc.htm. A facility where coal is subjected to chemical or physical processing or cleaning, concentrating, or other processing or preparation. A preparation plant's facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: loading facilities; storage and stockpile facilities; sheds, shops, and other buildings; water-treatment and waterstorage facilities; settling basins and impoundments; and coal processing and other waste disposal areas. Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland - Forested swamp or wetland shrub bog or wetland Used to refer to an increase in water levels following drawdown. An increase in groundwater levels such that the groundwater elevations return to approximate initial baseline groundwater elevations.

Pre-/Post-Mining Land Use

Potentiometric Surface

Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC)

Preparation Plant

PSS

Recovery (Groundwater)

7-16

Recovery Rate

The net percentage of the total coal in a reserve that is recovered by mining and not left in the ground. Can be applied either to the total reserve or to working areas within a reserve. Difference in elevation between the highest mountaintop, ridge, or hill and the lowest valley within a permit area. That portion of the demonstrated coal reserve base that is estimated to be recoverable at the time of determination. The reserve is derived by applying a recovery factor to that component of the identified coal resource designated as the demonstrated reserve base. Process of assessing the extent and value of coal reserves on a prospective mine site. Plants or growth that replaces original ground cover following land disturbance. Strip of land or corridor through which a power line, access road, or maintenance road would pass. Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a river, stream, or other body of water. Riparian is normally used to refer to plants of all types that grow along streams, rivers, or at spring and seep sites. That part of precipitation that appears in surface streams; precipitation that is not retained on the site where it falls and is not absorbed by the soil. Material suspended in or settling to the bottom of a liquid. Sediment input comes from natural sources, such as soil erosion and rock weathering, as well as construction activities or anthropogenic sources, such as forest or agricultural practices. The process of depositing sediments carried by water. A tax levied against coal as it is mined, based either on the value of the coal or at a flat rate per ton, used to compensate Federal, State, and sometimes local governments for the value of the portion of the reserve that is extracted. Procedures for separating suitable growth media from overburden and interburden sources. 2000 pounds.

Relief

Reserve

Reserve Evaluation

Revegetation Right-of-Way

Riparian

Runoff

Sediment

Sedimentation Severance Tax

Selective/Special Handling Short Ton

7-17

Shovel (Electric)

(1) Any bucket-equipped machine used for digging and loading earthy or fragmented rock materials. (2) There are two types of shovels, the square-point and the round-point. These are available with either long or short handles. The round-point shovel is used for general digging since its forward edge, curved to a point, most readily penetrates moist clays and sands. The square-point shovel is used for shoveling against hard surfaces or for trimming.

Siemen Significant

Per meter. A unit of electrical conductivity. “Significant” as used in NEPA (40 CFR 1508.27), requires consideration of both context and intensity: • Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts, such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of a proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. • Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity: 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exit even if the federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 2. The degree to which a proposed action affects public health or safety. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, and wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be

7-18

avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for the listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Slake Durability The ability of rock or spoil materials to resist dissolution or breakdown in water; used for assessing the suitability of spoil material for use in valley fill construction. A layer of soil material approximately parallel to the land surface differing from adjacent genetically related layers in physical, chemical, and biological properties. A vertical section of the soil through all its horizons and extending into the parent material or to a depth of 60 inches. The total sound energy radiated by a source per unit time. The unit of measurement is the watt or some fraction of a watt. The instantaneous difference between the actual pressure produced by a sound wave and the average or barometric pressure at a given point in space. Colloquial mining industry term for a working piece of production equipment (shovel, hydraulic excavator, loader, etc.) and its attendant group of haul trucks that carry away spoil as it is excavated. Overburden, non-mineral or other material removed in mining. Form, arrangement, geographic distribution, chronological succession, classification, and relationships of rock strata. A relatively straight excavation completed by dragline and/or other mobile equipment to uncover lignite seams that are oriented approximately parallel to the geologic strike of the lignite seam(s). The amount of water that can be store in a specific volume of rock. Geologic term for a sedimentary rock bed, plural strata.

Soil Horizon

Soil Profile

Sound Power

Sound Pressure

Spread

Spoil Stratigraphy

Strike-oriented Pit

Storage Capacity Stratum

7-19

Subsidence

Lowering of the ground surface resulting from collapse of underground mine voids. The tendency of soils and bedrock, on being removed from their natural, compacted beds, to increase or swell owing to the creation of voids or spaces between soil or rock particles. The volumetric increase, normally expressed as a percentage, that occurs as the consequence of changing undisturbed overburden (bank) into loose (excavated) material. A fold in rocks in which the strata dip inward from both sides towards the axis. The geologic span of time between 65 and 3 to 2 million years ago.

Swell

Syncline Tertiary

Threatened Species Any species of plant or animal that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Topsoil Toxic Total amount of dissolved material, organic or inorganic, contained in a sample of water. The A, O, and E soil horizon layers of the four master soil horizons. Alkaline-deficient or metal concentrations in excess of prescribed regulatory limits as described in WVDEP Regulations The rate at which water of the prevailing kinematic viscosity is transmitted through a unit width of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient; it equals the hydraulic conductivity multiplied by the aquifer thickness. Porous zone of large rock formed beneath a valley fill by rolling segregation during wing dumping. Also known as deep mining, a process by which coal is extracted by excavating within the horizon of a coal seam and without removing the overlying overburden for reasons other than primary seam access. A fill structure consisting of any material other than coal waste and organic material that is placed in a valley where side slopes of the existing valley measured at the deepest point are greater than 20 degrees, or the average slope of the profile of the valley from the toe of the fill to the top of the fill is greater than 10 degrees. The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetation patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for viewers.

Transmissivity

Underdrain

Underground Mining

Valley Fill

Visual Resource

7-20

Water Table

Level of water in the saturated zone at which the pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure. A jurisdictional term from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act referring to water bodies such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds. The use, degradation, or destruction of these waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce. Areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support (and under normal circumstances do or would support) a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.

Waters of the United States

Wetlands

COMMONLY USED METRIC CONVERSIONS
Quantity Metric Unit English Unit Factor to Convert Metric Units to English Units

Length Area Volume Mass Velocity

Kilometer (km) Meter (m) Square Kilometer (km2) Hectare (ha) Liter (l) Kilogram (kg) Kilometer per hour (kph)

Mile (mi) Foot (ft) Square Mile (mi2) Acre (ac) Gallon (gal) Pound (lb) Mile per hour (mph)

Kilometers x 0.62 = Miles Meters x 3.28 = Feet Sq. Kilometers x 0.39 = Sq. Miles Hectares x 2.47 = Acres Liters x 0.26 = Gallon Kilograms x 2.21 = Pounds kph x 0.62 = mph

7-21

8.0 INDEX

401 .......................................... 1-6–1-7, 2-30, 2-41–2-42, 3-21–3-22, 3-50, 3-61, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-214 404 ... 1-1, 1-4, 1-6–1-7, 2-1–2-2, 2-19, 2-24–2-25, 2-27, 3-1, 3-22, 3-69, 3-80, 3-120, 3-213, 6-14, 7-21 5-Block....................................................................................................... 3-4, 3-9–3-10, 3-31, 3-42, 3-82 6-Block.............................................................................................................................................3-6, 3-9 Acid Mine Drainage ................................................................................................................................ 6-2 Acidity ..................................................................................2-63, 2-65, 3-35, 3-69, 3-71–3-74, 3-77–3-85 Action Alternative.......1-2, 1-7, 2-1–2-4, 2-33, 2-37, 2-82–2-83, 3-1, 3-15, 3-18, 3-41–3-42, 3-97, 3-126, 3-128, 3-132, 3-142, 3-167, 3-168, 3-175, 3-179, 3-184, 3-211, 3-220, 3-231, 3-240, 3-245 Annual Energy Outlook 2000................................................................................................................ 6-14 Airblasts .............................................................................................................................................. 3-248 Alternative..... 1-1–1-2, 1-7, 2-1–2-38, 2-50, 2-80, 2-82–2-83, 2-86, 2-91, 3-1, 3-5, 3-7, 3-10–3-18, 3-37, 3-41, 3-42, 3-56, 3-66, 3-67, 3-85, 3-89, 3-92, 3-96, 3-97, 3-101, 3-107, 3-109–3-119, 3-121, 3-123, 3-125–3-128, 3-131–3-133, 3-137–3-139, 3-142–3-143, 3-156, 3-161, 3-166–3-169, 3-174, 3-175, 3-177, 3-178, 3-180–3-197, 3-205, 3-208–3-214, 3-216, 3-217, 3-219, 3-220, 3-225, 3-230, 3-231, 3-236, 3-237, 3-239, 3-240, 3-242, 3-244, 3-245, 3-249, 3-251, 3-255, 3-258 Aluminum.............................. 3-35, 3-69, 3-72, 3-74, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85 Aquifer................................................................... xxv, 3-23, 3-26, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-258, 6-7, 7-1 Article 3........................................................................................................................................1-6, 3-248 Augering................................................................................................................................ 2-18, 3-6, 7-2 Avian Communities................................................................................................................................. 6-7 Backfill .......................................................................................................................................... 2-19, 7-2 Beech Creek....................................................... 1-2, 2-30, 2-81, 3-15, 3-31, 3-54, 3-58, 3-59, 3-63, 3-81 Benthic...................................... 3-54–3-58, 3-60, 3-158, 3-258, 6-1, 6-2, 6-7, 6-10–6-13, 6-15, 6-18, 7-2 Big Coal River......... 3-18, 3-102, 3-107–3-111, 3-114, 3-115, 3-144, 3-185, 3-186, 3-187, 3-190–3-193, 3-196, 3-197, 3-259 Biodiversity.............................................................................................................................................. 6-3 Biotic ........................................................3-54, 3-65, 3-66, 3-72, 3-75–3-77, 3-79, 3-81, 3-104, 6-6, 6-10 Blair....................... 1-2, 2-35, 2-62, 2-87, 3-2, 3-34, 3-43, 3-48, 3-83, 3-173, 3-174, 3-180, 3-207, 3-209, 3-224, 3-232, 3-242, 3-246, 3-254, 3-256, 6-3 Blasting ..................................................................................................3-243, 3-244, 3-245, 3-246, 3-247
8-1

Boone County.... 2-76, 3-18, 3-89, 3-139, 3-158–3-160, 3-198, 3-200–3-203, 3-206, 3-209, 4-2, 4-3, 6-4 Bragg versus Robertson....................................................................................................................... 2-31 Buffalo ............................ 1-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-13, 2-16–2-18, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 2-37, 2-40, 2-48, 2-62, 2-67, 3-5–3-7, 3-12, 3-14, 3-17, 3-26, 3-38, 3-40–3-42, 3-123, 6-3, 6-8 Capacity..................................................................................................................................... 3-155, 7-19 Census ...................................................................................................................................... 3-198, 6-14 Cerulean Warbler ................................................................................................. 3-149, 3-150, 3-152, 6-5 Chilton Seam........................................................................................................................................ 2-62 Clarion ....................................................................................................................................3-5, 3-6, 3-17 Clean Air Act....................................................................................................................................... 3-176 Clean Water Act ................................................................................1-1, 1-7, 2-25, 3-50, 6-14, 7-13, 7-21 Coal County Revenue Fund............................................................................. 3-202, 3-203, 3-206, 3-209 Coalburg..................................1-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-13, 2-16, 2-18, 2-20, 2-23, 2-27, 2-33, 2-37, 2-40, 2-48, 3-3–3-8, 3-12, 3-14, 3-17, 3-26, 3-38, 3-39, 3-41, 3-126 Coke ................................................................................................................................................... 3-173 Compensation .................................................................................................................................... 3-234 Compensatory Mitigation .................................2-57, 2-58, 3-87, 3-124, 3-133, 3-140, 3-143, 3-153, 6-14 Contemporaneous reclamation .......................................................................................................... 2-19 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 3-160, 7-4 Cumulative Impact ............................................... 3-15, 3-101, 3-127, 3-132, 3-143, 3-168, 3-175, 3-179, 3-184, 3-211, 3-220, 3-231, 3-240, 3-245, 7-4 Delineation........................................................................................................................3-118, 3-258, 6-4 Dragline............................................................................................................................... 2-18, 2-19, 7-5 Drainage.................................................2-11, 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 2-21, 2-23, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 2-32, 2-41, 2-54, 2-64, 2-91, 3-22, 3-123, 3-126, 3-226, 6-8, 7-5 Dust ........................................................................................ 2-47, 2-78, 3-177, 3-178, 3-206, 3-209, 7-8 Educational/Scientific Value............................................................................................................... 3-120 Employers............................................................................................................................................. 6-16 Employment....................................................2-36, 2-88, 3-198, 3-199, 3-200, 3-205, 3-208, 3-212, 6-16 Endangered Species Act........................................................................1-7, 2-76, 3-159, 3-160, 7-6, 7-19 Energy Information Administration....................................................................................................... 6-14 Energy Contribution............................................................................................................................ 3-116
8-2

Energy Information Administration ............................................................................... 1-4, 3-16, 5-3, 6-14 Energy Needs......................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Environmental Impact Statement ........................................................................1-1, 3-144, 6-14, 7-6, 7-7 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 2-90, 3-252, 3-256 Environmental Protection Agency ..................................3-55, 3-184, 4-2, 4-3, 6-8, 6-14, 6-15, 7-11, 7-13 Ephemeroptera..................................................................................................................................... 3-65 EPT ........................................................3-57, 3-60, 3-65, 3-66, 3-71, –3-73, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-79, 3-81 Erosion................................................................................................................................. 2-58, 2-85, 3-3 Family Biotic Index..................................................... 3-54, 3-65, 3-66, 3-72, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-79, 3-81 Final Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................. 3-144, 6-14, 7-7 Floodflow Alteration ............................................................................................................................ 3-120 Floodplain ..................................................................................................................... 1-8, 3-88, 3-89, 7-7 Floodway............................................................................................................................................... 3-89 Flyrock ......................................................................................................................... 3-243, 3-247, 3-249 Forecasts .........................................................................................................................................2-7, 6-2 Forest Fragmentation ............................................................................................... 3-259, 6-8, 6-11, 6-18 Forest Succession .................................................................................................................................. 6-8 Fracturing................................................................................................................................................ 3-9 Geographic Information Systems........................................................................................................... 7-1 Geology...............................................2-62, 2-83, 3-2, 3-5, 3-12, 3-14, 3-32, 3-253, 3-255, 5-1, 5-2, 6-17 Geographic Information Systems........................................................................................................... 7-1 Groundwater........................................... 2-62, 2-66, 2-83, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26, 3-28–3-39, 3-41, 3-43, 3-91, 3-100, 3-120, 6-8, 6-13, 7-8, 7-16 Groundwater Recharge/Discharge..................................................................................................... 3-120 Habitat .............................................................2-58, 2-86, 2-87, 3-71, 3-105, 3-120, 3-149, 3-154, 3-156, 3-161, 3-196, 6-2–6-4, 6-8, 6-10, 6-11–6-18, 7-4 Habitat Evaluation Procedure........................................................................................ 3-154, 3-156, 6-15 Habitat Unit ........................................................................................................................................... 2-58 Hearing ................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 High Quality Streams...................................................................................................................3-51, 6-17 Income ....................................................................................... 3-198, 3-205, 3-208, 3-215–3-217, 3-252
8-3

Indiana Bat ...........................................................................................................................3-165, 6-1, 6-8 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................... 2-53, 7-10 Intermittent................................................................................................... 2-59, 2-60, 3-101, 3-108, 7-10 Iron....................................................................................... 2-63, 2-65, 3-30, 3-35, 3-69–3-74, 3-77–3-85 Kittanning....................................................................................................................................... 3-5, 3-17 Land Use/Land Cover ........................................................................................ 3-180–3-183, 3-259, 7-12 Lithologic Unit....................................................................................................................................... 7-12 Little Coal River......................... 3-2, 3-18, 3-37, 3-43, 3-45, 3-52, 3-81, 3-85, 3-94, 3-102, 3-106, 3-107, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-118, 3-119, 3-134, 3-138, 3-144, 3-154, 3-156, 3-180, 3-185–3-187, 3-189–3-194, 3-196, 3-197, 3-259 Logan County...............................1-1, 1-7, 2-35, 2-76, 2-88, 2-89, 3-1, 3-2, 3-12, 3-16, 3-18, 3-33, 3-55, 3-56, 3-89, 3-139, 3-150, 3-159, 3-160, 3-172, 3-173, 3-180, 3-183, 3-198–3-211, 3-221, 3-224, 3-252, 4-2, 4-3, 6-1, 6-3, 6-8, 6-15 Macroinvertebrates.................................................................................3-55, 3-56, 3-58, 6-10, 6-11, 6-15 Manganese.................................................................2-63, 2-65, 3-30, 3-35, 3-69, 3-71–3-74, 3-77–3-85 Memorandum ....................................................................................................................................... 2-25 Migratory Birds ....................................................................................................................................... 6-4 Minimum Seam Height......................................................................................................................... 2-10 Mining equipment............................................................................................................................... 3-202 Mining method..............................................................................................................................2-18, 3-6 Mist Net ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1, 6-8 Mitigation.2-58, 2-59, 2-62, 2-70, 2-76, 2-77, 2-91, 3-17, 3-43, 3-87, 3-118, 3-124, 3-126, 3-129, 3-133, 3-153, 3-172, 3-175, 3-179, 3-197, 3-222, 3-233, 3-241, 3-247, 6-10, 6-14, 7-13 Mitigation Plan........................................................................................................................... 2-58, 3-129 Monitoring....... 2-61, 3-17, 3-43, 3-48, 3-49, 3-53–3-58, 3-71, 3-104, 3-118, 3-129, 3-133, 3-153, 3-158, 3-172, 3-175, 3-179, 3-197, 3-222, 3-233, 3-241, 3-247, 3-248, 6-1, 6-2, 6-11, 6-17 Mountaintop Mining Region ...............................3-1, 3-2, 3-18, 3-43, 3-45, 3-102, 3-106–3-110, 3-115, 3-118, 3-134, 3-143, 3-144, 3-154, 3-157, 3-158, 3-180, 3-185–3-187, 3-189, 3-190–3-192, 3-196, 3-197, 3-259 National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................. 1-1, 6-3, 7-3, 7-13 Neutralization........................................................................................................................................ 7-14 No Action Alternative.............1-2, 1-7, 2-1–2-4, 2-33, 2-37, 2-82, 2-83, 3-1, 3-15, 3-18, 3-41, 3-42, 3-97, 3-126, 3-128, 3-132, 3-142, 3-167, 3-168, 3-175, 3-179, 3-184, 3-211, 3-220, 3-231, 3-240, 3-245

8-4

Noise.......... 3-163, 3-166, 3-184, 3-206, 3-209, 3-222, 3-223, 3-225, 3-228, 3-230, 3-231, 3-233, 3-242, 3-244, 3-246, 3-255, 3-256, 3-259, 7-1, 7-2, 7-14 Oldhouse Branch.....................2-11, 2-17, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 2-26, 2-29, 2-62, 2-64, 3-2, 3-8, 3-18, 3-22, 3-32–3-34, 3-43, 3-45, 3-48, 3-50, 3-52, 3-53, 3-55, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-72–3-75, 3-79, 3-81, 3-83, 3-87–3-89, 3-92, 3-102, 3-116, 3-118–3-120, 3-123, 3-126, 3-135, 3-137, 3-138, 3-141, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-158, 3-163, 3-164, 3-167, 3-253, 6-13 Original Permit......................................................... 2-14, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 2-27, 2-91, 3-79 Overburden................................2-13, 2-18, 2-19, 2-30, 2-31, 2-36, 2-51, 2-53, 2-62, 2-67, 3-6, 3-8, 3-9, 3-15, 3-39, 3-86, 3-94, 3-129, 3-230, 3-233, 6-12, 7-7, 7-15, 7-19 PEM ...................................................................................................................................................... 7-15 Perennial..........................................................................................................2-55, 2-59, 2-60, 2-71, 7-15 Permit Area...................2-18, 2-62, 2-67, 3-6–3-10, 3-18, 3-24, 3-31, 3-34, 3-37, 3-39, 3-42, 3-53, 3-54, 3-74, 3-79, 3-81, 3-107, 3-109, –3-116, 3-119, 3-135, 3-155, 3-158, 3-165, 3-181, 3-185–3-187, 3-190–3-195, 3-197, 3-207, 3-209, 3-248, 3-258, 6-3 pH ............ 2-42, 2-56, 2-63, 2-65, 2-69, 2-72, 3-29–3-31, 3-37, 3-42, 3-43, 3-50, 3-52, 3-60, 3-71–3-74, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79–3-85, 3-129–3-131, 7-15 Pigeonroost ............... 2-11, 2-17, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 2-26, 2-29, 2-30, 2-37, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-43, 2-44, 2-47, 2-49, 2-62, 2-64, 2-67, 3-2, 3-8, 3-18, 3-22, 3-32–3-34, 3-43, 3-45, 3-48, 3-50, 3-52, 3-55–3-61, 3-65, 3-74–3-79, 3-82, 3-83, 3-88, 3-89, 3-92, 3-97, 3-102, 3-116, 3-118–3-120, 3-123, 3-126, 3-134, 3-135, 3-137, 3-138, 3-141, 3-154–3-156, 3-163, 3-164, 3-173, 3-174, 3-219, 3-253, 6-1, 6-3, 6-7, 6-8, 6-12, 6-13 Plecoptera......................................................................................................................................3-65, 6-5 Preferred Alternative...........1-1, 2-1, 2-4–2-7, 2-20, 2-26, 2-30, 2-33–2-35, 2-37, 2-38, 2-50, 2-80, 2-82, 2-83, 2-91, 3-1, 3-12, 3-37, 3-41, 3-85, 3-89, 3-92, 3-111–3-116, 3-122, 3-123, 3-127, 3-131, 3-139, 3-161, 3-166, 3-174, 3-177, 3-181–3-183, 3-189–3-195, 3-197, 3-205, 3-212–3-214, 3-217, 3-219, 3-220, 3-225, 3-236, 3-237, 3-242, 3-255, 3-258 Pre-mining Topography...............................................................................................................2-31, 2-91 Production Export ............................................................................................................................... 3-120 Property Taxes ................................................................................................. 3-215, 3-202, 3-216, 3-217 Public ...........................................................................................................................................3-248, 4-1 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol........................................................................2-58, 3-55, 3-59, 6-10, 6-15 River Continuum Concept ............................................................................................. 3-101, 3-102, 6-16 Reclamation...........1-1, 1-6, 2-16, 2-19, 2-28, 2-36, 2-38, 2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 2-60, 2-70, 2-71, 2-91, 3-10, 3-13, 3-22, 3-53, 3-94, 3-98, 3-140, 3-143, 3-161, 3-177, 3-179, 3-181, 3-182, 3-189, 3-190, 3-215, 3-216, 3-225, 3-249, 3-251, 4-2, 4-3, 5-3, 6-6, 7-5

8-5

Recreation.............................................................. 2-79, 2-88, 3-120, 3-162, 3-180, 3-183, 3-184, 3-197, 3-222, 3-224, 3-253, 3-254, 3-256, 5-1 Regrade ............................................................................................................................ 2-19, 2-50, 2-91 Revegetation ....................................................................................2-55, 2-60, 3-140, 3-207, 3-210, 7-17 Revision No. 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 2-14 Rider Seams......................................................................................................................................... 2-10 Riparian ..............................3-104, 3-108, 3-121, 3-134, 3-136, 3-137, 3-141, 3-154, 6-3, 6-7, 6-10, 7-17 River Continuum Concept .................................................................................. 3-101, 3-102, 3-104, 6-16 Scrub-Shrub Wetland........................................................................................................................... 7-16 Seam Parting........................................................................................................................................ 2-10 Section 106.................................................................................................................................. 1-8, 3-174 Sediment Load ................................................................................................................................... 3-108 Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization ....................................................................................................... 3-120 Seepage ................................................................................................................................................. 6-8 Seng Camp Creek........1-3, 2-11, 2-17, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 2-26, 2-29, 2-31, 2-36, 2-37, 2-40, 2-42–2-44, 2-64, 2-81, 3-2, 3-8, 3-16, 3-18, 3-22, 3-32, 3-33, 3-43–3-45, 3-48–3-50, 3-52, 3-55, 3-58, 3-61, 3-62, 3-65, 3-79–3-82, 3-88, 3-89, 3-92, 3-99, 3-102, 3-118, 3-119, 3-123, 3-126, 3-134, 3-137, 3-141, 3-154, 3-163, 3-164, 3-173, 3-207, 3-210, 3-223, 3-229, 3-253 Severance Tax ................................................................... 3-202, 3-205, 3-208, 3-215, 3-216, 6-17, 7-17 SMA 5013-97......................................................................................................................2-14, 2-16, 2-18 Soils.......................................................... 2-67, 2-69, 2-85, 3-12, 3-14, 3-18, 3-129, 3-131, 3-253, 3-255 Specific Conductivity ......................3-71, 3-72, 3-74, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85 Spoil.............................................................................................. 2-31, 2-32, 2-54, 3-13, 3-249, 7-7, 7-19 Spruce Fork............. 1-2, 1-3, 1-9, 2-30, 2-35, 2-41, 2-43, 2-44, 2-57, 2-59, 2-64, 2-67, 2-77, 2-80–2-83, 2-91, 3-2, 3-10, 3-15–3-18, 3-20, 3-22–3-24, 3-26–3-34, 3-37, 3-41–3-45, 3-48–3-54, 3-56–3-59, 3-62, 3-63, 3-65, 3-67, 3-71, 3-72, 3-74, 3-75, 3-81–3-90, 3-92, 3-93, 3-95–3-100, 3-102, 3-106–3-115, 3-117–3-121, 3-124, 3-125, 3-127, 3-128, 3-132–3-134, 3-138–3-141, 3-143, 3-144, 3-153, 3-154, 3-156, 3-158, 3-161, 3-164, 3-167, 3-168, 3-180, 3-181, 3-183, 3-185, 3-186–3-197, 3-211, 3-218, 3-220, 3-221, 3-231, 3-234, 3-240, 3-242, 3-245, 3-247, 3-253–3-255, 3-258, 3-259, 6-1, 6-8, 6-13 Stability ................................................................................................................................................. 2-32 State Severance Tax.......................................................................................................................... 3-202 Stockton ...................................... 1-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-9, 2-10, 2-13–2-15, 2-18, 2-21–2-23, 2-27, 2-29, 2-33, 2-37, 2-40, 2-48, 2-62, 2-67, 2-91, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-17, 3-26, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-123
8-6

Stream ..............2-11, 2-17, 2-20, 2-21, 2-23, 2-26, 2-29, 2-58, 2-64, 3-45, 3-48, 3-55, 3-60, 3-86, 3-89, 3-90, 3-100, 3-102–3-104, 3-107–3-109, 3-116, 3-123, 3-126, 3-258, 6-3, 6-4, 6-12, 6-15, 6-18, 7-6, 7-8, 7-10, 7-12, 7-15 Stream Impacts.........................2-11, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19– 2-21, 2-23, 2-25, 2-26, 2-29, 2-34, 3-123, 3-126 Stream Order.......................................................3-108, 3-109, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-116, 3-258 Sulfates.................................................................................................. 2-63, 2-65, 3-72, 3-74, 3-77–3-85 Surface Mining.....1-1, 1-6, 2-12, 2-16, 2-54, 2-57, 2-73, 3-9, 3-10, 3-13, 3-22, 3-79, 3-94, 3-133, 3-140, 3-144, 3-153, 3-198, 3-249, 3-251, 4-2, 4-3, 6-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-15, 7-3 Surface Water Resources ................................................................................................. 3-90, 3-97, 3-99 Taxa Richness...................................................................................................................................... 3-66 Total Dissolved Solids ............................ 2-63, 2-64, 3-30, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 7-20 Tree Species................................................................................................................................2-55, 2-71 Trichoptera............................................................................................................................................ 3-65 Total Suspended Solids............................................ 2-63, 2-65, 3-712-63, 2-653-74, 3-772-63, 2-653-85 Underdrain ............................................................................................................................................ 7-20 Underground Mining ........................................................ 2-4, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 2-23, 2-91, 7-20 Unemployment.........................................................................................................................3-198, 3-201 Uniqueness/Heritage .......................................................................................................................... 3-120 Environmental Protection Agency ..................................................................................... 3-55, 3-184, 4-3 Valley Fill ..........2-11, 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 2-21, 2-23, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 2-32, 2-33, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-44, 2-45, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 3-11, 3-132-63, 2-653-15, 3-45, 3-562-63, 2-653-59, 3-116, 3-119, 3-123, 3-125, 3-126, 3-243, 3-245, 3-247, 3-249, 6-1, 6-5, 6-7, 6-10, 6-11, 6-14, 7-20 Visual Quality/Aesthetics.................................................................................................................... 3-120 Watershed ....................... 1-9, 2-91, 3-18, 3-51, 3-67, 3-73, 3-74, 3-87, 3-96, 3-98, 3-102, 3-107–3-115, 3-117, 3-144, 3-181, 3-186, 3-187, 3-189–3-197, 3-258, 3-259, 6-10, 6-13, 6-16 Wetland...............................2-11, 2-16, 2-19, 2-21, 2-23, 2-25, 2-28, 3-118–3-122, 3-125, 3-137, 3-258, 6-2, 6-4, 6-8, 6-15, 6-15, 7-11, 7-15, 7-16 White Oak Branch .......2-11, 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 2-22–2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 2-35, 2-36, 2-64, 2-84, 2-85, 3-2, 3-18, 3-22, 3-29, 3-32, 3-33, 3-41–3-45, 3-49, 3-52, 3-55, 3-56, 3-58–3-60, 3-65–3-67, 3-71–3-73, 3-75, 3-81, 3-84, 3-85, 3-89, 3-92, 3-96, 3-97, 3-102, 3-109, 3-112–3-116, 3-118, 3-119, 3-126, 3-134, 3-137, 3-138, 3-142, 3-154, 3-156, 3-253, 6-13 Wildlife Habitat.......................................................................................................... 3-55, 3-56, 3-120, 6-8

8-7

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

8-8