sign in sign up
<<
Home , Abrams Creek (Virginia), Backbone Mountain, Blue Ridge sculpin, Canaan Valley, Casselman River, Cheat River

Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac

North Fork Watershed Project/Friends of Blackwater

MAY 2009

This report was made possible by a generous donation from the MARPAT Foundation.

DRAFT 2 DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF TABLES ...... 5

TABLE OF Figures ...... 5

Abbreviations ...... 6

THE UPPER NORTH BRANCH WATERSHED ...... 7

PART I ‐ General Information about the North Branch Potomac Watershed ...... 8

Introduction ...... 8

Geography and Geology of the Watershed Area ...... 9

Demographics ...... 10

Land Use ...... 11

Recreation ...... 12

History ...... 13

Mining Methods ...... 18

PART II – REPORT FROM DOWNSTREAM STRATEGIES ...... 20

METHODOLOGY ...... 20

General Background on the Watershed ...... 21

What is and how is it detrimental ...... 22

The legacy of early : An overview ...... 23

Impaired and total maximum daily loads ...... 25

Water chemistry...... 28

Aquatic life ...... 31

Impacts and remediation options ...... 36

Kempton/Coketon complex ...... 36

Other and dosers ...... 41

Other West tributaries ...... 44

OPPORTUNITIES and priorities FOR WATERSHED GROUP ENGAGEMENT ...... 52

Implement a water monitoring program ...... 53

Develop watershed‐based plans ...... 53

DRAFT 3 DRAFT

Establish partnerships and watchdog agencies ...... 54

Generate funding and build treatment systems ...... 54

FINAL WORDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 55

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... 56

References ...... 57

Appendix 1: Mining permits by subwatershed ...... 60

APPENDIX II: PHOTOS OF The NBP, , Maryland ...... 68

APPENDIX III: RECONNAISSANCE AND MONITORING FROM THE WV SIDE ...... 78

APPENDIX IV: PHOTOS – WORTH SAVING IT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS ...... 87

APPENDIX V: ADDITIONAL MAP ...... 95

DRAFT 4 DRAFT

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Trace element health effects ...... 22 Table 2: Impaired streams ...... 27 Table 3: status of the upper North Branch Potomac and its Maryland tributaries ...... 33 Table 4: Fish status in tributaries to the upper North Branch Potomac ...... 35 Table 5: Baseline loads and TMDLs for Maryland tributaries ...... 41 Table 6: Pre‐ and post‐doser pH data in the upper North Branch Potomac watershed, Maryland ...... 43 Table 7: Mining wasteload allocations for Abram Creek (aluminum) ...... 45 Table 8: Reductions to meet TMDL targets for abandoned and revoked mines ...... 46 Table 9: Mining wasteload allocations for Stony River ...... 49 Table 10: Reductions to meet TMDL targets for abandoned mine lands ...... 51 Table 11: Reductions to meet TMDL targets for abandoned mine lands ...... 52 Table 12: Abbreviations used in mine permit tables ...... 60 Table 13: Abram Creek watershed mining permits ...... 60 Table 14: Stony River watershed mining permits ...... 63 Table 15: Shields Run (headwaters) watershed mining permits ...... 64 Table 16: Buffalo Creek watershed mining permits ...... 65 Table 17: Lostland permits ...... 66

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 ‐Potomac Basin in Grant , WV ...... 11 Figure 2 Potomac Basin in Garrett County, MD ...... 12 Figure 3 Mining Methods ...... 18 Figure 4 The upper North Branch Potomac Watershed ...... 21 Figure 5 Historical pH data for mainstem ...... 23 Figure 6 ‐ Potential acid mine drainage sources in the upper North Branch Potomac watershed ...... 25 Figure 7 ‐ pH data and pH‐impaired streams ...... 29 Figure 8 ‐ Metal impaired streams ...... 30 Figure 9: Benthic community health ...... 32 Figure 10 ‐ Kempton Mine Complex hydrologic profile ...... 36 Figure 11 ‐ Laurel Run downstream of the doser ...... 37 Figure 12: North Branch Potomac headwaters impaired reaches and mining activity ...... 39 Figure 13 ‐ Before (2002) and after (2005) pictures of the Laurel Run project ...... 40 Figure 14 ‐ Abram Creek Watershed impaired reaches and mining activity ...... 45 Figure 15 ‐ Stony River watershed impaired reaches and mining activity ...... 48

DRAFT 5 DRAFT

ABBREVIATIONS

ag. agricultural Alum. aluminum AMD acid mine drainage AML abandoned mine land BIBI benthic index for biotic integrity Biol. Biological CCP combustion products lb pound Mang. manganese MBOM Maryland Bureau of Mines MBSS Maryland Biological and Survey MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources mg/L milligram per liter NBP North Branch Potomac River NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OSM Office of , Reclamation, and Enforcement POTOMAC RIVER Potomac Riverkeeper KEEPER RBP rapid bioassessment protocol RM river mile SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act TMDL total maximum daily load TSS total suspended solids µg/L microgram per liter UNT unnamed USACE Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection WVDNR West Virginia Department of Natural Resources WVSCI West Virginia stream condition index

DRAFT 6 DRAFT

THE UPPER NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED

DRAFT 7 DRAFT

PART I ‐ GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC WATERSHED

INTRODUCTION

The Potomac River, Our National River, has been used and abused since colonial times. The North Branch of the Potomac begins in the West Virginia Highlands as a small trickle at a near the Fairfax Stone and then delineates the Maryland/West Virginia boundary until Harpers Ferry where it then divides Maryland from Virginia. Widening and picking up speed it flows 382 miles before ending in the at Point Lookout , Scotland, Maryland.

European explorers discovered this massive waterway soon after they arrived, and began using it immediately to supply settlers with travel routes, trade, and food. Early explorers such as George mapped its upper reaches and sought to tame it but its wild nature has continued to this day. Much wealth has been extracted from the North Branch watershed in the form of coal and timber. The vast reserves of coal in the pulled business‐tycoons, miners, and railroads into the beginning after the Civil War. Tons upon tons of coal were mined during this time, and many of the most profitable areas were left in economic and environmental disarray. The small towns dotting its banks have gone through the boom and bust periods related to these extractive industries and now are in a quiescent period. However, recreation and second home development is on the rise.

The upper NBP watershed covers approximately 230 square miles, with the Stony River watershed draining 59 square miles and each of the other subwatersheds draining around 42 square miles. The watershed is predominantly rural.

In terms of volume, there are two major tributaries to the NBP: Abram Creek and Stony River, both located in West Virginia. Numerous smaller tributaries are of particular interest in this report, including Run and Buffalo Creek in West Virginia and Lostland Run and Laurel Run in Maryland.1

There are two large man‐made lakes in the Stony River watershed. The larger, 1,200‐acre Mt. Storm Lake was built in the early 1960s to serve as a cooling pond for the 1,600‐megawatt coal‐fired Mt. Storm Power Station (Dominion Virginia Power Company, 2008). The lake is a popular destination for tourists and locals, who boat, fish, and swim in its artificially warm waters. Upstream and to the south, the Stony River was created by the West Virginia Paper Company. The is currently drained. This has been done periodically over the years due to structural weakness of the dam (Moore, 2009). On the NBP itself, downstream from Kitzmiller, the Reservoir serves as an emergency reservoir for Washington, DC.

1At least three streams within the upper NBP watershed are known as Laurel Run. This report has a particular interest in two of them. On the Maryland side, Laurel Run in the Shields Run subwatershed drains the Kempton mine pool. In West Virginia, Laurel Run feeds in the Mount Storm/Stony River subwatershed.

DRAFT 8 DRAFT

In West Virginia, the Monongahela National Forest and two popular state parks—Blackwater Falls and —are adjacent to the NBP watershed. The Potomac State Forest is located within the watershed on the Maryland side.

Today, many people speak fondly of the Potomac; whether swimming in its waters as a child, or working alongside of it in the coal mines, the Potomac is just as large a presence now as it was hundreds of years ago. The full stretch of river is home to forest preserves, mansions, bait‐and‐crab shops, coal mines, deteriorating ship hulls, lighthouses, battle‐sites, past presidential homesteads, and so much more. The Potomac’s appeals are unlimited; a quiet place to get away, an adrenaline‐filled kayak trip, a romantic honeymoon, or a historical riverboat tour. In addition, the Potomac River supplies almost 90% of to the Washington D.C. area, and the entire watershed is home to 5.24 million people (1). However, problems are recognized in the 2002 National Water Quality Inventory, which states that 66% of assessed Potomac streams in Maryland were considered impaired, as well as 45% of assessed streams in West Virginia, 18% in Virginia, and 100% in Washington D.C. (1). These numbers indicate that the Potomac River is considered to be damaged, weakened, functioning poorly, and deficient.

Scars from the industrial past remain in the upper North Branch in the form of water pollution and mine scarred lands. This report will focus on the history of the River, the health of its waters and make suggestions for future improvements to water quality and community health.

Water quality assessments will be focusing on the effects of on the first 30 miles of the North Branch of the Potomac beginning at the headwaters at the Fairfax Stone. Along with the main stem, major tributaries discussed include Deakin Run, Red Oak Creek, Buffalo Creek, Difficult Creek, Stony River, and , on the West Virginia side, and on the Maryland side, major tributaries include Laurel Run, Sands Run, Shields Run, Nydegger Run, Glade Run, Steyer Run, Laurel Run, Crooked Run, Lostland Run, Short Run, and ‐den Run.

GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY OF THE WATERSHED AREA

The western headwaters of the Potomac River, also known as the North Branch of the Potomac, are located in the Allegheny , in the central Appalachian range. In the and northern West Virginia section, one can see the many folds and layers of rock along highways that were cut out of the mountains, exposing mostly shales, siltstones, and sometimes (2). Intermixed into these rock layers are seams of coal, formed from swamp plant matter compressed over millions of years (3). In varying depths and thicknesses, is the Bakerstown seam, the upper Freeport coal seam, the lower

DRAFT 9 DRAFT

Freeport coal seam, and, in some places, the upper and lower Kittanning coal seams. These coal seams are estimated to be as much as 320 million years old (4).

The western headwaters of the Potomac spring from the ground at the Fairfax stone, 3125 feet above sea level (1). It is quiet at this site, breezy, a perfect for the earth to give birth to a new presence. At Kempton it is ??? feet wide at Wilson it is ?? feet. This infant spring grows quickly larger and stronger as it is joined by many small and large streams from the highlands in both WV and MD. The North Branch travels 97 miles until it's with the South Branch of the Potomac, forming the main stem of the Potomac River near Green Spring in Hampshire County WV (5). Traveling along the Eastern side of , the North Branch of the Potomac makes up the between Maryland and West Virginia.

The North Branch lies just east of the Eastern Continental Divide, which is a geologic feature that separates major eastern watersheds. Waters that flow just west of the Continental Divide, including the Blackwater River, make their way into the River, while water to the east, including the Potomac, flows to the Atlantic Ocean. This is an interesting geological feature to have so close to home, where half of our rainfall makes its way into the Atlantic Ocean, and the other half flows to the Gulf of Mexico.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The first 30 miles of the Potomac headwaters are in Garrett County, Maryland, and Grant County, West Virginia. Found along this stretch of river are various coal boom towns, once thriving on the coal mining business. These towns, Kempton, Gorman and Steyer in Garrett County Maryland, and Henry, Dobbin, Bayard, Wilson, and Gormania in Grant County West Virginia, are now sparsely populated, just a memory of what they once were. Based on information from the year 2007, the estimated population of Garrett County Maryland is 29, 627 (6). 83% of Garrett county residents live in rural areas, and the estimated median of household income is $41,514 (6). Land area is 647.96 sq miles, and of these 46.1 persons lived per square mile in 2000 (7). The average wage per job in Garrett County is $23,730 (2003), and the unemployment rate is 3.8% (6). The most common industries for males in Garrett County are construction (18%), , forestry, , (6%) and public administration (6%). For females, the most common industry is health care (17%), followed by educational services (14%) and accommodations/food services (11%). 36% of residents in Garrett County are of German descent (6). In Grant County West Virginia, also based on 2007 information, the population is 11,925, and the estimated household income is $36,086 (6). The unemployment rate in Grant County is 4.4%. The most common industry for males is food services (14%), followed by construction (13%), and agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting (8%) (6). For females, industries include health care (20%), food services (12%), and educational services (11%). Places of origin include the United States or American (39%) Germany (30%), and Ireland (8%) (6).

DRAFT 10 DRAFT

The town of Bayard, West Virginia’s 2007 population was 288, with the average household income being $29,7000 (6). Bayard was incorporated in 1893, and the elevation is 2360 feet above sea level. The most common industries for males to be employed in is wood products (18%), construction (14%) and mining (13%), and for females is accommodation/food services (24%), health care (15%). 25.8% of Bayard residents are of German ancestry (largest), followed by U.S. born (14%) then English (12.4%). In 1999, 14.3% of Bayard residents lived below the poverty line (6).

LAND USE

Figure 1 ‐Potomac Basin in Grant County, WV

As one can see above, most of the Potomac basin in Grant County WV is forested, and much of the land is devoted to agriculture and strip mining (5).

DRAFT 11 DRAFT

Figure 2 Potomac Basin in Garrett County, MD

Land use in the Potomac basin in Garrett County is 74% forested, 3.2% is residential, 7.2% is used for commercial purposes such as coal mining, and farmland and pastures comprise approximately 15%. (9). The Potomac tributaries, as well as the Potomac River, serve many recreational, agricultural, developmental, and industrial uses in Grant County West Virginia and Garrett County. Add more detail on land use

DRAFT 12 DRAFT

RECREATION

The area just outside of the North Branch headwaters is Water sports also include a tourism magnet. Swimming, boating, and vacationing is canoeing and kayaking popular on the large in Garrett County created on the North Branch of the Potomac in 1923 by damming the Youghiogheny. White water kayaking River and its tributaries. Popular in the lower Blackwater attracts world class experts and flat trips include: water kayakers try the upper Blackwater. , camping, creek‐walking, and abound in the Monongahela National ‐‐‐ Abrams creek to the North Branch Forest, Blackwater Falls and Canaan Valley State Parks in West confluence (class 2‐3, 8.7 miles, put Virginia and State Forest, and in at Route 50 bridge), in Maryland. Other sports include caving, horseback riding, ‐‐‐the North Branch from Henry to , wildlife watching, golfing, and train Gormania, (8 miles class 1‐3, put in excursions. Winter ports include skiing at nearby resorts like where Route 90 comes close to river Timberline, Canaan Valley, White Grass, Wisp, and Backbone in Henry) Mountain Cross Country Ski Farm, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, and dog‐sledding at Husky Power Dog sledding in Garrett ‐‐‐Gormania to Kitzmiller (class 3‐4 County. Bird watching and huckleberry picking at Dolly are 15 miles, put in river left at Steyer, a must. Numerous recreational outlets are all dependent on Maryland). This particular run, from the use of the natural topography of this unique area, and, Gormania to Kitzmiller, is described many of the local businesses and residents are dependent on by a local boater as having very nice these activities. for a great intermediate boating experience. However, when Outdoor recreation on the North Branch is more the water is high, the route is harder. limited. West Virginia has no public lands along the first 30 ‐‐‐ Upper Stony River, from the miles of the river, although there are several road access points Vepco Dam to Route 50 is a known to boat and fish, and the Potomac State Forest on the Maryland route (class 3+, 7.6 miles) side has trails to the river. Fishing opportunities can be found in cold‐water streams in both Grant and Garrett County. Brook ‐‐‐Lower Stony River, from Route 50 trout, blacknose dace, creek chubs, white suckers, fantail to the North Branch of the Potomac. darters, Potomac , and Ridge Sculpins can all be (6.7 miles, class 3‐4, put in at the found in the Kempton area, the Maryland Department of Route 50 bridge). Natural Resources supervises a delayed harvest area in the ‐‐‐Laurel Run, from the Potomac Potomac State Forest, and a catch and release trout fishery in State forest to the North Branch the Gorman and Kitzmiller area. are also stocked (class 4, 1.7 miles; see in Gorman, Kitzmiller, and the Potomac State Forest area in the AmericanWhitewater.com for warmer months (11). Native brook trout can be found only at detailed put in directions). the head of Glade Run and Johnnycake Run, 2 tributaries of Abrams creek, as well as the lower end of Abrams main stem. (10). (12). Unfortunately, most fishing opportunities are primarily supported by human influence; the North Branch of the Potomac and much of its tributaries are too severely degraded to support their own reproductive fish populations.

DRAFT 13 DRAFT

HISTORY

NATIVE AMERICANS TO RAIL ROAD

Accounts of native tribes explain that the Potomac was considered a place of wealth; it was depended on and appreciated as a place for fishing and hunting where consistently came to drink. Native American tribes were interspersed around this region, recognizing its bounty of game and clean waters for drinking, travel, and direction. Although experts have varying opinions on the topic, the first speculated settlers to these areas could have been a tribe known as the Adena, or the” ”, known for the mounds in which they buried their dead around 3500‐1000 B.C. (13, 14). In the woodland period, anywhere from 1000/500 BC to 1000AD, natives found shelter in , one of which was discovered in 1950 near Friendsville and the headwaters of Laurel Run of the Youghiogheny. The pottery found at this , known as Indian Rocks, may be as old as 2,500 years (4). Also, a site known as Sand Cave was discovered near the historical Fairfax Stone in Maryland. Here was found ancient spear points and black sand from the many campfires held here (15, p.12). Native tribes are said to have competed for the use of this region along the Potomac and its tributaries, as the forest and water provided a healthy game population. The Hurons, the , , , and various other tribes occupied this area (16).

In 1688, after the arrival of colonists, the King of England granted to Thomas Lord Fairfax his inheritance from his grandfather (17) of a massive land tract between the Potomac River and in eastern Virginia (18). In 1745, Lord Fairfax’s land was mapped by a team of surveyors, including ’s father, . In October of 1746, the Fairfax Stone was erected, marking the boundary of Lord Fairfax’s lands and the western headwaters of the Potomac River (18). In 1744, Virginia purchased the property rights for much of what is now West Virginia from the tribe (14).

During the 1755 to 1763, the Iroquois sided with the French, and when they lost, Britain was free to settle the area at will. As the American Revolution raged on from 1776 to 1783, more and more Europeans continued to settle in the mountains as land was conquered. The Potomac highlands were slowly settled by Scottish, Irish, German, English (19), German‐Swiss, Amish and Mennonites (15). Many groups sought out fertile farmland, religious , and land to call their own (4). 1n 1787, land in Western Maryland was distributed to soldiers to pay for their participation in the Revolutionary War, furthering settlement. (20).

George Washington played a crucial role in settling this area and is recognized for much of westward expansion. In 1748, he began his career in land exploration and surveying, (21) when he led numerous journeys into the of the west, mapping the layout of the uncharted of the

DRAFT 14 DRAFT

Appalachian Mountains, including the Potomac area, western Maryland, and northern (West) Virginia. During his first trip (1748), at the early age of 16, Washington surveyed the south branch of the Potomac and the Valley (21). Washington explored the lower, bigger Potomac watershed ending at the South Branch for Lord Fairfax between 1754 and 1758 (21). In 1756, Washington led a personal endeavor of surveying the land from the Potomac to , with the intention of a north to south chain of forts to protect Virginia from the Natives during the French and Indian war (1754‐1758). Many of the 21 proposed forts, including Fort Ogden on Difficult Creek in West Virginia, were erected upon the recommendation of (21).

After the war, Washington explored the upper Potomac watershed many times between 1784 and 1799 (21). He kept a diary of his travels, faced illness, cold temperatures, hunger, vermin, and wildlife. Washington was eager to find a westward passage from the headwaters of the North Branch of Potomac River to the in order to increase trade and travel. He explored the , the , the River, and the looking for the shortest route to the mighty so he could make money off his many western land claims. During this time, he questioned settlers relentlessly, asking for advice and bits of information that might make this task possible (21).

Washington tried to find passage across the 30 mile gap which separates the North Branch of the Potomac River from the Cheat River, near Dunkard's Bottom (22). Dunkard’s Bottom is located near the intersection of Routes 7 and 72, just south‐east of Kingwood and west of Terra‐Alta, West Virginia. This common route of Washington’s, a pioneer/herding trail that spanned from Gormania to the Cheat River, eventually became a part of what is now US route 50. When in this area, Washington frequently visited his friends the Logston family, who lived in Gormania (22). This road, although not the waterway of Washington’s dreams, eventually connected the Potomac River at Winchester Virginia, with the Ohio River at Parkersburg WV. (23). Route 50 now connects places such as Romney, Fort Ogden, Difficult hill, Difficult Creek, Fort Pendleton, Gormania, Bridgeport, Clarksburg, and Parkersburg before heading all the way to (23).

George Washington’s persistent dream of connecting the Potomac with the Ohio unfortunately was not realized in his lifetime, although it did lead to the creation of The Potowmack Company in 1785. The Potowmack Company focused on creating numerous locks and dams, attempting to make the Potomac a navigable river from its mouth to its headwaters. The project, completed in the early 1800s, consisted of removing large boulders from the river, and creating water powered “lifts” to raise boats above treacherous rapids. The enterprise went only as far upstream as Savage River, making 220 of the river’s 287 miles navigable (24) leaving the upper North Branch untouched.

Other explorers, such as legendary hunter , and author spent time in these then untouched wilderness areas, as well as the Blackwater Falls area in Davis, West Virginia.

Also spanning westward, both the and Ohio Railroad and the Chesapeake and Ohio began construction in 1828, competing for the easiest and most affordable way to transport people and trade goods. The B&O railroad began construction in Baltimore; , soon‐to‐be railroad and coal tycoon, was said to be at the start of construction ceremony, age 5, eerily sighting his future (15). The railroad, which came through Cumberland, Maryland, 14 years later in 1842, allowed for faster transportation and trade than the canal, and the original routes passed through a

DRAFT 15 DRAFT

major trade towns. However efficient these original routes were, they barely skimmed the surface of extremely valuable natural resources being discovered in Western Maryland and Northern West Virginia: coal.

HENRY GASSAWAY DAVIS AND THE COAL INDUSTRY

Henry Gassaway Davis, a native of Baltimore, is credited for creating much of the coal industry in the North Branch of the Potomac. At age 20 in 1842, Davis got his start as a brakeman for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, quickly becoming manager of the train line between Cumberland and Baltimore (15). Recognizing the resources of the Potomac Highlands, he began to acquire land in the (now West Virginia) area with his pay. He and two of his brothers created the HG Davis and Company, first selling groceries and hardware, then supplying the B&O with coal and lumber for their expansions (25). This highly successful business resulted in his leaving the B&O in order to supply coal and lumber to the B&O for the Civil War (26). After the war, and after purchasing numerous lands to meet his lumber quotas (25), HGD became a very wealthy man. He was elected as the representative for Hampshire County in 1865 (26), then served 2 consecutive terms as a U.S. senator (25).

These influential positions, along with the money the HG Davis and Company brought in, allowed Davis to begin building his own railroad in the late 1870s (25). The Potomac and Piedmont Railroad Company, later known as the West Virginia Central and railway, was able conduct business in coal mining, timbering, real estate and saw mills, and was permitted to connect anywhere on the B&O line to his company owned lands on the North Branch of the Potomac River (25, 26). Davis also decided to lumber much of his 40,000 acres of purchased lands in the North Branch area and float them down the Potomac to mills Allegheny county and Piedmont (26).

His success continued, as he had bought 2 plots of land near Elk Garden, Maryland, that happened to contain 4,000,000 tons of coal in a 14 foot seam named the “big vein”, which he began to extract (26). In 1879, Davis was still successfully timbering on his lands on Three Forks Run (26) and by 1882, Davis was extracting and transporting 650 tons of coal per day from Elk Garden. By this time the railroad tracks had reached as far upstream as Abrams Creek. (26). As time went on, so did the West Virginia Central and Pittsburgh and Central Railway, springing up timber and coal‐company owned towns along the Potomac River. Gormania, Bayard, and Dobbin, towns also known for their timbering successes, as well as Gorman, Shaw, Kitzmiller, Henry, and Kempton, are all coal towns located on the North Branch in West Virginia and Maryland. Most of these towns were named for Davis’s company partners, fellow senators, and investors in his company (25).

DRAFT 16 DRAFT

After traveling through Thomas, West Virginia, the railroad challenged the As dreary as coal life could be, townspeople found dangerous and steep Blackwater ways to make life enjoyable. Kempton Maryland, down into Parsons and Hendricks, and established in 1913, had a lively community with garden contests, a boy’s band, an opera house, completed its route in Elkins, WV in 1889 bands, and dance halls (15). In Kempton, every two (25). The WVC&P became a part of the houses had an outhouse and water spigot between Western Maryland Railroad in 1905, and then them (27‐J. . 15), and in Shallmar, there were formed a series of mergers and junctions community water spigots at the end of the road (27‐ with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and the McIntyre). Ruth Ryan from Kitmiller remembers Chesapeake and Ohio Railway known as the regular baseball games between teams from Kitzmiller, Shallmar, Vindex, and Elk Garden. Shallmar . The Chessie System then is described by Charles McIntyre to be well kept, merged with other large rail lines and is clean and also had a ball team. In fact, the Wolf Den known today as CSX (26). coal Company would plant red rosebushes on the sides of everyone’s houses in Shallmar in order to Large operation coal mining began booming make the town look that nice (27‐George Brady). along the North Branch of the Potomac in the late19th century, with the arrival of the West Charles McIntyre remembers going to work Virginia Central and Pittsburg railroad. The in the mines with Italians, Scotch, Poles, Welsh and Mexicans. When the union came about, sometimes coal mining towns left in its wake filled people were beat up by hired “toughies” for striking, quickly with men and their families or a person might not hired for striking, says Howard encouraged by the prospects of money and Rees. The union or non‐union status among miners stability. Early coal‐towns were created and often amounted into tensions between workers; thrived solely because of the Coal industry some wanted to strike, others wanted to work even and its businessmen; families paid rent to live for low wages. In most cases, the atmosphere in the in coal‐company owned houses, and they mines among men was mostly jovial and lighthearted amidst a dangerous occupation (27‐John Grant). operated mainly on the “company store”, Grant describes the blackness in the mine, and how which were coal‐company owned general he believed that God was Light; one could panic or be stores that supplied food staples and scared, or just couldn’t see, and light was the only domestic goods. The company stores savior. He describes the pride in being a miner, operated on what was called Scrip, or having the “nerve” to go underground and face the coupons, which was a money equivalent used dangers there, and the friendships that develop. McIntyre says that miners were taught CPR at a to pay for the goods. Scrip was earned by young age in order to help each other, and they often working in the mines, only for it to be carried caged canaries with them; if the canary returned to the coal company via the store stopped breathing, a miner knew that he was in a for goods. Coal companies had a monopoly dangerous spot with no air, and he must leave over the townspeople; scrip was often un‐ immediately. Rats were also watched carefully for equivalent to dollar values, and they could this reason (27‐Jim Smith). Mine surveys were taken charge whatever they wanted (15). for mapping purposes, but also to insure that new tunnels were not made too close to each other, making a collapse more likely. Men, such as John Grant, were paid solely to survey, taking new measurements each time a tunnel was carved.

DRAFT 17 DRAFT

MINING METHODS

Mining methods have changed over time due to better technology and experience. In early times, most mines in the North Branch Potomac region were using mules to pull coal cars and miners to and from destinations, and head lamps and hand‐ cranked drills to release the coal. A coal seam was mined from the bottom up with sloping tunnel floors so ground water and rain water pooled at the bottom of the mine (28). As the void filled with water, miners retreated upwards with the pool following suit and the water was allowed it to sit in the tunnels. (28). Complex networks of tunnels criss‐crossed each other, and were frequently stacked on top of each other to reach the different coal seams.

Current mining methods are similar to earlier techniques, although done on a much larger scale. Today, water can be mechanically pumped out of the mines, and large machines haul loads of coal. To surface mine, the earth, or “overburden”, is removed in order to expose the coal seam, and the coal is blasted, drilled, or dug out. The overburden is placed in piles near the mine or is used to back fill the cut before it. A coal seam can be followed along the side of a mountain, or can be followed right through it. Drift mining, slope mining, and shaft mining are different ways to enter and exit a mine but all take place under the surface of the ground. “Room and pillar” mining is the most common practice; the coal is blasted and removed in a grid‐like pattern with pillars of coal left to hold up the roof. Long wall mining is the newest underground method where a large slicing machine cuts at the coal seam wall and the overburden is allowed to fall down and fill up the tunnel. Just like past mining techniques, the end result of removing large masses of coal from the earth is deep abandoned voids under the surface that are exposed to circulating water and air.

Acid mine drainage, or “AMD”, is a toxic discharge associated with mining. When the earth is excavated, sulfur‐bearing rocks and minerals usually contained underground, such as Pyrite (iron sulfide), come into contact with air and water. When mixed with air and water, Pyrite forms ferrous iron and sulfate; both of which have highly acidic properties. These acids dissolve heavy metals from nearby rocks, such as , lead, mercury, manganese, aluminum (29). The combination of acid producing elements with the release of heavy metals into the water is what is known as acid mine drainage. As abandoned voids, shafts and refuse piles are soaked with rain and ground water, they then drain out of various point and non‐point sources, unleashing Figure 3 Mining Methods AMD into streams and . Highly acidic and metal‐laden waters decreases the quality of water, kills

DRAFT 18 DRAFT

fish, benthic macro‐, native plants, can dissolve bridge supports and pipes, smells foul and is unsightly. It poses a threat to wildlife and , and can be a danger to human health and safety, recreation, public works and undermines the local economy.

The differences in location and geological makeup create unique situations for each acid mine drainage source. According to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the Bakerstown coal seam is surrounded by a lot of alkaline shale which neutralizes some of the acid, making it less toxic (30). However, the Bakerstown seam is also associated with high aluminum concentrations (31). Also, the Mahoning Sandstone, which lies above the Freeport coal seam, by nature, has a high iron concentration. This iron, combined with the permeability of sandstone, makes for high acid leaching. If not for the presence of mining, much of the Mahoning Sandstone would remain undisturbed. The Freeport seams in this area are associated with large amounts of pyrite and sulfur, making their discharges highly acidic (31).

Before 1977, mining companies were allowed to abandon mine sites when they were finished with them, leaving dangerous holes, buildings, ladders, explosives, water discharges and degraded land. Unfortunately, these abandoned mines account for the majority of the AMD problem in the Potomac River. Although much remediation work has been completed in these sites, old mines continue to pollute the water and landscape. To prevent this problem from continuing, the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, (SMCRA) was formed in 1977 to oversee and regulate all mining operations. Under SMCRA, the federal government provides each state the option to oversee its own coal mining practices within the boundaries of SMCRA performance standards (29). Each state manages all coal operations, facilities, NPDES permits, insurance, land restoration, water pollution limitations, inspections, safety, violations, and land prohibitions (29). Each state has this option only if they are in compliance with federal standards, if each mining operation has the necessary permits for their facilities, and each mining company reclaims and restores the land that was disturbed during mining operations. Also, according to SMCRA and the of 1972, mining companies must also regulate and minimize negative effects and discharges to waterways, and pH of those discharge waters must be between 6 and 9 (29)

DRAFT 19 DRAFT

PART II – WATER QUALITY REPORT FROM DOWNSTREAM STRATEGIES

METHODOLOGY Downstream Strategies was enlisted to pull together existing coal mine, water quality, and aquatic life data for the North Branch Potomac and its tributaries. These data were then brought into mapping software to help visualize the problem areas in the context of current and historic landuse practices in the watershed. Data that were initially collected at a specific point in the stream were applied to larger areas to represent water quality at the reachshed scale. The data used in the report were gathered from various sources, listed in the table below. While an attempt was made to ensure the report included the most up‐to‐date information possible, many of the water quality and aquatic life parameters are measured infrequently and/or irregularly, resulting in some streams’ data being several years old. Data Source Abandoned mine lands Office of Surface Mining

Acid mine drainage treatment facilities Office of Surface Mining

Active coal mine permits MD Bureau of Mines WV Department of Environmental Protection

Biological scores MD Biological and Stream Survey WV Department of Environmental Protection

Bond forfeiture sites WV Department of Environmental Protection

Fish data MD Department of Natural Resources WV Department of Natural Resources

Impaired streams MD Department of the Environment—303(d) list WV Department of Environmental Protection—303(d) list

Kempton-Coketon mine complex Frostburg State University

pH data MD Biological and Stream Survey WV Department of Environmental Protection

The West Virginia and Maryland 303(d) lists are documents required by the federal government to identify surface waters that do not meet water quality standards. Streams on these lists require plans for cleanup, known as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). The 303(d) lists and TMDLs were critical to identifying polluted streams and the pollution sources.

In addition to the raw data analysis, Downstream Strategies contacted several individuals and agencies who have worked (and fished) extensively in the watershed. These contacts included representatives from the Maryland and West Virginia Departments of Natural Resources, Trout Unlimited, Eastern Trophies Fly Fishing, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the Maryland Bureau of Mines, and Garrett College. These contacts added life to the numbers, providing anecdotal information about successes and challenges of projects that have been implemented in the watershed, the changing fish populations, and timelines for future projects.

DRAFT 20 DRAFT

GENERAL BACKGROUND ON THE WATERSHED

The North Branch Potomac River (NBP) forms the Maryland‐West Virginia border from its headwaters through the confluence of the South Branch Potomac River near Green Spring, West Virginia. This report focuses on the upper reaches of the NBP, above Jennings‐Randolph Reservoir, which drain portions of West Virginia and Maryland.

The NBP begins flowing at Fairfax Stone, near the intersection of Tucker, Preston, and Grant Counties in West Virginia (Figure 4). Upstream of Kitzmiller, Maryland, the NBP is fed primarily by streams originating in Garrett County, Maryland and Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia.

Figure 4 also shows the Kempton‐Coketon mine complex. As discussed below, this flooded underground coal mine underlies portions of the NBP and neighboring Blackwater River watersheds, and discharges polluted water to both watersheds.

Figure 4 The upper North Branch Potomac Watershed

DRAFT 21 DRAFT

WHAT IS ACID MINE DRAINAGE AND HOW IS IT DETRIMENTAL

Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a component of untreated runoff from mining operations. During the coal mining process, sulfur‐bearing rocks and minerals—including the coal itself—are disturbed and come into contact with air and water. Through a series of chemical reactions, AMD is formed in underground mine voids and on exposed coal seams, overburden, and spoil piles associated with surface mines. Often highly acidic, AMD can contain high concentrations of iron, aluminum, manganese, and other metals. The exact composition of AMD is determined by the composition of the coal and surrounding rocks and by the natural water chemistry.

When discharged from mines to streams, AMD harms the physical, chemical, and biological health of receiving streams. For example, dissolved iron in AMD will precipitate in streams and will coat stream beds with “yellow boy.” This armoring degrades the physical for fish and other wildlife.

In terms of water chemistry, the low pH and high metals concentrations can cause receiving streams to violate water quality standards for pH, iron, aluminum, and manganese, further stressing aquatic life. Trace elements including cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, selenium, and arsenic are also sometimes found at elevated levels in AMD (Kadlec and , 1996; Lee, et al., 2002; USEPA, 2003). Trace elements may have negative impacts on health for humans and wildlife; potential human health effects are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Trace element health effects

Contaminant Potential human health effects from excessive ingestion

Arsenic Skin damage; circulatory problems

Cadmium Kidney damage

Copper Gastrointestinal distress in the short-term; liver or kidney damage in the long-term

Lead Developmental delays in children; kidney problems and high blood pressure in adults

Selenium Hair or fingernail loss; circulatory problems

Source: USEPA (2003).

Biological stream health is often measured by indices based on the diversity and size of benthic macroinvertebrate or fish populations. If the stream beds become inhospitable habitat for reproduction, and if the stream water itself has high concentrations of harmful chemicals, then the aquatic life in the streams will be harmed. It is not uncommon to find only acid‐tolerant insect species or to find stream reaches with no fish downstream from AMD sources.

AMD can also harm native plants, dissolve bridge supports and pipes, smell foul, and detract from the natural aesthetic value of impacted waterways.

DRAFT 22 DRAFT

THE LEGACY OF EARLY MINING: AN OVERVIEW

Coal mining has been ongoing in the watershed since the 1700s (MDE, 2008b), and AMD has been affecting the streams at least since the (Morgan, 2000). Data from the mid‐1930s to the late 1990s show that pH values in the NBP mainstem have improved Figure 5). All data collected in 1999 meet both the West Virginia and the more stringent Maryland water quality standards for pH.2

While these data suggest that the NBP mainstem is not impaired for pH, the mainstem remains listed as impaired on Maryland’s 2008 303(d) list(MDE, 2008a). However, this is based on a 1996 listing; the 2008 total maximum daily load (TMDL), discussed below, only addresses impaired tributaries (MDE, 2008b). The mainstem has also been listed as impaired for total suspended solids (TSS)3 and for “combination benthic/fishes bioassessments”4 (MDE, 2008a).

8 Kempton

Wilson 7 Bayard

Steyer

6 Shallmar Kitzmiller

5 pH

4

3

2 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995

Figure 5 Historical pH data for mainstem

Source: Mills and Davis (2000). Note: Not all sites were evaluated in all studies. The sites are listed in the legend in order downstream to Kitzmiller, and are shown in Figure 4

2 In West Virginia, pH must be between 6 and 9, and in Maryland, pH must be between 6.5 and 8.5. 3 The TSS impairment is attributed to livestock operations; a TMDL was approved in 2008 (MDE, 2008b). 4 The biology impairment is for first through fourth order streams in the upper NBP. It is of unknown source, and is low priority, with no TMDL scheduled in the next two years.

DRAFT 23 DRAFT

While water quality has improved in recent years in the NBP itself, several tributaries are still significantly impacted by old and new coal mines. More specifically, AMD is often generated by abandoned mine lands (AMLs): coal mines that were abandoned prior to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. Mines in operation since that time are more closely regulated and cannot legally discharge waste of the same toxicity. Mining companies must pay a bond upfront before beginning operations, which is only refunded upon satisfactory remediation of the mining site. However, some mining companies choose to forfeit their performance bonds instead of meeting their SMCRA permit requirements, creating bond forfeiture sites (BFSs). This often happens when the cost of remediation is greater than the value of the bond.

Both AMLs and BFSs can discharge AMD, and it is generally the responsibility of government agencies, often with the support of local watershed organizations and other partners, to remediate these sites. Active coal mines, while regulated, may still sometimes discharge AMD in violation of their permits.

Figure 6 shows AMLs, AMD treatment facilities, BFSs, and active mine permits.5 AMLs are displayed as red circles when their listed problem is water quality‐related. In similar fashion to the AMLs, BFSs in Figure 6 are color‐coded according to the presence or absence of AMD. Many of these sites were recently forfeited by Buffalo Coal Company (distinguished on the map by a black outline around the BFS symbol). In this way, we can start to identify permitted and non‐permitted sources of pollutants.

5 Maryland BFS records are unavailable.

DRAFT 24 DRAFT

Figure 6 ‐ Potential acid mine drainage sources in the upper North Branch Potomac watershed

Source: MBOM (2009), OSM (2008a; b), WVDEP (2008a; d). Note: “Active permits” consist of all known current coal mining permits, including sites in various stages of reclamation, inactive operations, prospects, mines actively moving coal, and sites where coal removal has not yet begun.

IMPAIRED STREAMS AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS

In 1972, the enacted the Clean Water Act. Section 303(d) of this code mandated that states should create lists of surface waters (streams, lakes, and ) that do not meet prescribed water quality standards. This list of impaired water bodies is commonly known as the “303(d) list.” The West Virginia 303(d) list is managed by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). The Maryland list is managed by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The West Virginia and Maryland 303(d)‐listed streams in the upper NBP are listed in Table 2 and highlighted in the maps in Figures Figure 7 through Figure 9.

Once the 303(d) lists are compiled, cleanup plans called TMDLs are then developed for the impaired streams. TMDLs set limits on the discharge of the pollutants causing the impairment. The limits are often divided between point source discharges and nonpoint source discharges. As the names suggest,

DRAFT 25 DRAFT

point sources are discharges that emanate from a distinct point—a pipe or conveyance channel—and include active mines, wastewater treatment facilities, and other industrial facilities with permits. Nonpoint sources originate over broader areas—pastures, abandoned mine lands, stormwater runoff— and generally are not regulated.

While TMDLs are very important because they create a blueprint for cleaning up impaired waters, they are not sufficient. They do not include detailed implementation plans. Also, nonpoint source pollutant reductions are purely voluntary; therefore, additional effort is required after TMDLs are released to fund and coordinate nonpoint source projects such as the remediation of AMLs. While point source pollutant reductions are mandatory, dischargers can often take steps to significantly delay implementation of controls. For these reasons, watershed organizations—along with partner agencies—play a crucial role in ensuring that TMDLs are, in fact, implemented.

According to MDE, the NBP itself is impaired for biology, TSS, pH, and possibly iron and aluminum6 (TMDLs for TSS and pH were approved in 2008). It is important to note that Maryland generally creates their 303(d) list based on much larger watersheds than West Virginia. What this means is that while Maryland lists the entire NBP and all its tributaries as a unit, West Virginia lists tributaries individually. To add to the confusion, Maryland sometimes conducts additional water quality analyses (WQA) for particular pollutants in order to refine the TMDL and target the impaired tributaries rather than the entire watershed. A WQA was conducted for metals in the NBP in 2005. This is why the NBP mainstem and all tributaries are listed as impaired for biology, TSS and pH, while only a few specific Maryland tributaries are impaired for metals.

Also in Maryland, Laurel Run and North Fork Sand Run are new to the 2008 303(d) list and have not had TMDLs developed. According to the Potomac Riverkeeper (POTOMAC RIVER KEEPER) organization, a 2004 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and MDE extended Maryland’s deadlines for developing TMDLs (Potomac Riverkeeper, 2007b). POTOMAC RIVER KEEPER (2007b) estimates that at its current rate, Maryland will not complete all necessary TMDLs for 2004‐listed streams until 2038, and this does not take into account any new impairments added after 2004.

Several West Virginia tributaries are also impaired for one or more reasons. The entire mainstem of Abram Creek, for example, as well as several of its tributaries are impaired for a combination of metals, pH, and biology. TMDLs for these streams plus the impaired Little Buffalo Creek and Elk Run/Deakin Run7 were completed by WVDEP in 2006 (Tetra Tech, 2006). Also, much of Stony River is impaired for metals; some portions of the Stony River mainstem and tributaries are also impaired for pH. TMDLs for the impaired streams in the Stony River watershed were completed by USEPA in 2001.

6 The Maryland list has several subcategories; Category 3 includes streams for which there is insufficient data available to determine whether the stream is impaired.

7 Elk Run in its original and natural course flowed directly into the NBP; “however, because of mining activities, Elk Run was rerouted to join Deakin Run just downstream of a large pond and wetland” (Tetra Tech, 2006, p A2 1).

DRAFT 26 DRAFT

Table 2: Impaired streams

Subwatershed Stream Code Alum. Iron Mang. pH Biol. TSS TMDL

Upper N Branch Potomac River MD-02141005 X X X 2008*

Shields Run Elk Run/Deakin Run PNB-22-A X 2006

Laurel Run MD-021410050039 X X

North Fork Sand Run MD-021410050040 X

Buffalo Creek Little Buffalo Creek PNB-19-A X X X 2006

Stony River Helmick Run PNB-17-E X X X 2001

Laurel Run PNB-17-D X X X 2001

Fourmile Run PNB-17-C X X X 2001

Laurel Run PNB-17-B.5 X 2001

Stony River PNB-17 X X 2001

Stony River PNB-17 X X X 2001

Abram Creek Abram Creek PNB-16 X X X X 2006

Little Creek PNB-16-D X X X 2006

UNT/Abram Creek RM 15.9 PNB-16-C.8 X X X 2006

UNT/Abram Creek RM 13.6 PNB-16-C.4 X X 2006

Laurel Run PNB-16-C X X 2006

UNT/Glade Run RM 0.3 PNB-16-B.5-1 X X X 2006

Glade Run PNB-16-B.5 X X X 2006

UNT/Emory Creek RM 0.8 PNB-16-A-1 X X 2006

Emory Creek PNB-16-A X X X X 2006

UNT/Abram Creek RM 1.9 PNB-16-0.5A X 2006

Source: MDE (2008a), WVDEP (2008c) RM=river mile.

*The 2008 TMDL for the upper North Branch Potomac in MD is only for pH and TSS; the Aquatic Life and Wildlife impairment is considered low priority with no TMDL planned within 2 years (MDE, 2008a).

DRAFT 27 DRAFT

WATER CHEMISTRY

PH

pH measurements indicate whether water is acidic, neutral, or alkaline, and therefore help pinpoint the locations of water quality problems related to AMD. Figure 7 shows areas for which pH data are available. The colors represent the lowest pH recorded in a particular portion of the watershed, called a “reachshed.” Many reaches have no data available, and thus are not in. It is important to note that pH may vary within a stream: a stream may undergo a decrease in pH where AMD flows in; alternatively, the pH may increase downstream of an instream AMD treatment system. Thus, a given stream may be displayed as having a neutral pH (resulting in the reachshed being green), but if you went out tomorrow and tested the water at many points up‐ and downstream of the previously sampled location, you might find pH values outside of the desired range. For this reason, the pH map should be considered alongside other data sources when assessing the health of the watershed. As shown in Figure 7, the bulk of the sites with pH readings outside the 6.5‐8.5 range are in the Stony River and Abram Creek subwatersheds. Little Buffalo Creek (in the Buffalo Creek subwatershed), Laurel Run, and the North Prong of Lostland Run also display low pH values.

DRAFT 28 DRAFT

These sites generally correspond with the streams that are listed as impaired by WVDEP and MDE, and for which TMDLs have been, or will be developed.

Figure 7 ‐ pH data and pH‐impaired streams

Sources: MBSS (2008), MDE (2008a), WVDEP (2008b; c). Note: Data collected 2001-2007.

DRAFT 29 DRAFT

METALS

Aluminum, iron, and manganese are metals commonly associated with AMD. Violations of water quality criteria for these three metals are used for placing streams on the 303(d) list. Figure 8 shows streams appearing on the 303(d) list for aluminum, iron, and manganese impairments.8

Figure 8 ‐ Metal impaired streams

Sources: MDE (2008a), WVDEP (2008c).

8 Consistent data are not available by subwatershed for metals as they are for pH; therefore, reachsheds are not shaded green, , and red.

DRAFT 30 DRAFT

AQUATIC LIFE

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES

Benthic macroinvertebrates are animals without backbones that live on the bottom of streams during all or part of their life cycle and that are large enough to see with the naked eye. These organisms—mayflies, stoneflies, and many others—are important parts of and are also good proxies for measuring biologic health of streams.

While West Virginia and Maryland each have their own scale for measuring benthic health, both sides of the NBP show low scores distributed across the watershed (Figure 9). In Maryland, a benthic index for biotic integrity (BIBI) score below 3 indicates a reach is impaired, while in West Virginia, a West Virginia Stream Condition Index (WVSCI) score below 60.6 is used for listing streams as biologically impaired. Low species diversity and a high percentage of poor‐ water‐quality‐tolerant species both contribute to low benthic health scores.

Many of the sites with low benthic macroinvertebrate scores are on impaired streams such as Laurel Run, North Fork Sand Run, and Abram Creek and its tributaries; we would expect benthic scores to be low in these streams considering the low pH and high concentrations of metals. While no recent data are available for Stony River, data from 1997 indicate low benthic scores for this watershed at and above the confluence with the lower Laurel Run (PNB‐17‐B.5).

Low scores in the Lostland Run subwatershed of Maryland are upstream of the installed dosers there. Various measures of benthic health presented in Morgan (2000) show an improvement in the mainstem between 1991‐1999. Improvement in biologic indices often lags behind improvement in chemical measures. This is at least partially attributable to the high degree of substrate embeddedness resulting from years of precipitation of iron hydroxide on the stream bed.

DRAFT 31 DRAFT

Figure 9: Benthic community health

Source: MBSS (2008), MDE (2008a), WVDEP (2008b; c). Note: The BIBI is used for Maryland data, while the WVSCI is used for West Virginia data. Data collected 2000-2008.

FISH

MARYLAND

Alan Klotz (2009), of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), reported “Prior to the doser operation, there were very few fish, and the river had no recreational fishing. Today many native fish species have re‐colonized the river, and it has become a very popular fishing destination in Maryland.” However, several tributaries are still unable to support native fish populations (Table 3). Because trout are particularly sensitive to pollutants and warm waters, their presence is an indicator of healthy cold‐water streams.

DRAFT 32 DRAFT

Table 3: Brook trout status of the upper North Branch Potomac and its Maryland tributaries

Adult trout Young of the year Year Stream name sampled (#/mile) (#/mile)

North Branch Potomac, Upstream of J. R. reservoir 2001 Present only seasonally Present only seasonally

Laurel Run (includes Red Oak & Runs) 2003 Extirpated (AMD) Extirpated (AMD)

Sand Run (North & South Forks) 1989 Extirpated (AMD) Extirpated (AMD)

Shields Run (Mcmillan & Aronholt Forks) 1998 194 45

Nydegger Run 1994 Extirpated (ag. damage) Extirpated (ag. damage)

Glade Run 1994 154 None

Steyer Run 1992 102 None

Bradshaw Run Unknown Present in low numbers Unknown

Laurel Run (Potomac State Forest) 2003 100 17

Trout Run 2003 277 17

Riley Spring Run 2003 22 327

Lostland Run 1994 167 37

South Prong 1994 194 70

North Prong 1994 535 69

Short Run 2003 176 158

Wolfden Run 2003 113 – 220 203 – 271

Source: MDNR (2006).

A river restoration study from 2001 summarizes the changes in fisheries in the NBP:

“The diversity and abundance of fish in the NBPR upstream of [] has increased dramatically since limestone doser technology was implemented in the watershed beginning in 1993. We have identified sixteen fish species in the upper NBPR since 1996. Pavol (1987) collected low numbers of fish representing five fish species in the upper NBPR during a 1985 baseline biological study. No fish were collected in the Steyer area of the river during that study. The same site at Steyer yielded fifteen fish species during this study. AMD abatement efforts in the upper NBPR watershed have improved water quality in the mainstem, providing the opportunity for re‐colonization by fish species present in unpolluted tributaries.

DRAFT 33 DRAFT

Stockings of adult hatchery rainbow trout began in 1994, immediately creating the first recreational fishing opportunity in the upper NBPR in many decades…Approximately 13,000 adult rainbow trout are stocked in the upper NBPR annually. Over‐summer survival of stocked hatchery trout is minimal in the upper NBPR, primarily due to harvest and unsuitable temperature regimes in midsummer (Pavol and Klotz, 1995). The establishment of a wild brook trout fishery is also unlikely in this section of the river due to elevated stream temperatures (Pavol and Klotz, 1995).

Smallmouth have been collected in the upper NBPR from Kitzmiller to Bayard during this study, but not in sufficient numbers to support fishing opportunities…Maryland DNR Fisheries Service stocked spring fingerling smallmouth bass in the upper NBPR upstream of Abrams Creek during 1999 and 2000 with the objective of establishing a reproducing population and a warmwater recreational fishery. Our survey efforts in 1999 and 2000 indicated limited survival of these stockings. Smallmouth bass stocking will continue in 2001, extending from Wilson downstream to Lostland.” (Klotz and Pavol, 2001)

According to William Heresniak, owner of Eastern Trophies Fly Fishing, trout are still stocked bi‐ annually in the NBP upstream of Jennings‐Randolph. Additionally, the fish populations in the NBP are relatively young, the reintroduction of trout and smallmouth bass having occurred in the mid 1990s. Most of the fishing trips Heresniak leads are downstream of Jennings‐Randolph. While the trout fishing can be good above the lake, he does not go there often because most of his clients prefer floating to wading, river access is difficult above Jennings‐Randolph, and in the summer there are lots of rattlesnakes in the woods upstream of the lake (Heresniak, 2009).

In 2005, Skylstad reported the following fish in the upper reaches of the mainstem near Kempton, Maryland: blacknose dase, creek chub, , brook trout, and fantail darter.

Associated with the Mettiki Coal Corporation treatment facility near the headwaters of the NBP is a fishery jointly operated with MDNR Region 1. Currently; however, the fishery is not operational due to the presence of the parasite that causes whirling disease (Petzrick, 2008).

WEST VIRGINIA

Nearly all of the fish data since 2001 available through the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR) stream survey database are from the Stony River watershed (WVDNR, 2008). Additional sampling sites from this time period are in Abram Creek—at the mouth and at river mile 8; and near the mouth of Hindleg Run, between Wilson and Bayard.

DRAFT 34 DRAFT

Table 4: Fish status in West Virginia tributaries to the upper North Branch Potomac

Stony River Abram Creek

Laurel Mt Storm Run to to below Mouth of Mouth to below Mt Stony River mile Hindleg Mill Run Storm Reservoir Mouth 8 Run

Blacknose dace X X X X X

Blue Ridge X

Bluegill X X

Brook trout X X

Brown trout X

Central stoneroller X X

Channel catfish X X

Creek chub X X X X X

Emerald shiner X

Fantail darter X

Green sunfish X X X

Largemouth bass X X X

Mottled sculpin X

Rainbow trout X X

Smallmouth bass X X X X

Spotfin shiner X X

White sucker X X X X

Source: WVDNR (2008).

Data from 1980 and before tell a different story of Stony River, with brook trout present throughout the watershed, including above Mount Storm. Brook trout have not been recorded by the WVDNR in the Abram Creek subwatershed since 1980. However, these native fish are present in every year for which there are data in the Buffalo Creek and headwaters subwatersheds (few data have been recorded since the early 1980s, but there is the aforementioned data point from 2003 showing brook trout in Hindleg Run in 2003). More discussion of fish in the Abram and Stony subwatersheds is included in the subsection titled Other West Virginia tributaries.

DRAFT 35 DRAFT

IMPACTS AND REMEDIATION OPTIONS

While the mainstem of the NBP is impaired from the headwaters to Kitzmiller, water quality in the tributaries is variable. This section presents more specific information about the most severe AMD impacts in the watershed.

KEMPTON/COKETON COMPLEX

The abandoned Kempton coal mining operation is one of the primary sources of AMD in the Potomac watershed and is situated in Garrett County, Maryland and Tucker and Preston Counties, West Virginia. From the early 1900s to 1950, the Davis Coal and Coke Company mined the Freeport coal seam in Kempton and also owned the mines in Coketon, the two of which eventually became interconnected underground, separated only by an unmined coal barrier (see Figure 10). When the mines were closed, 160,000 cubic yards of refuse/spoil were left in the channel and flood plain of the NBP, along with improperly covered shafts and hazardous structures (Appalachian Regional Award, undated).

Figure 10 ‐ Kempton Mine Complex hydrologic profile

Source: Petzricket al (2002).

The Kempton pool discharges approximately 3.5 million gallons per day of highly acidic, and metal‐contaminated water into Laurel Run in Maryland (Skylstad, 2005), and Coketon discharges 2 million gallons per day into the North Fork of the Blackwater River in West Virginia (GAI Consultants, 1997).

DRAFT 36 DRAFT

In 1997, there was a proposal to transfer the contents of these pools to a nearby treatment facility operated by the Mettiki Coal Corporation (GAI Consultants, 1997). The proposal was controversial (Petzrick, 2008), having its efficacy, safety, or both called into question, and was never implemented. Mettiki has completed mining in Maryland, but continues operations in West Virginia (Petzrick, 2008).

While the pH at the Laurel Run headwaters above the Kempton discharge is around 6.4, the average pH of the Kempton discharge is 3.1 (Skylstad, 2005), and, consequently, Laurel Run is completely fishless below this point (Klotz and Rivers, 2007)9.

As shown in Figure 5, the large discharges of AMD from the Kempton operations were associated with instream pH measurements around 3. These conditions resulted in large volumes of yellow boy deposits that persist in the stream today, affecting its biologic health.

In the 1990s, the Maryland Bureau of Mines (MBOM) and WVDEP instituted treatment facilities to neutralize the AMD bound for their respective states (GAI Consultants, 1997). Maryland installed a doser at Laurel Run; West Virginia constructed a drain and wetland system. While Laurel Run improved following implementation of the Laurel Run doser, its waters are still impaired for aluminum, manganese and iron (MDE, 2006) and for pH. Laurel Run is listed as impaired on Maryland’s 303(d) list as a Category 5 water (meaning that it is impaired and that no TMDL has been developed) (MDE, 2008a).

In 1998, MBOM graded and revegetated the 160,000 cubic yards of spoil and topsoiled it, decreasing metal and acid leaching into the river. They then added drains to collect seeping water and transfer it to settling ponds where cattails “may have been planted to remediate iron precipitates” (Skylstad, 2005). MBOM capped the two shafts located right in Kempton, eliminating rainwater from entering the mine (Appalachian Regional Award, undated). While the airshaft and borehole of the abandoned mine remain open and exposed, allowing highly acidic water to escape from below, the discharge coming from the airshaft has been redirected and now is treated twice by dosers. The first doser is water‐

Figure 11 ‐ Laurel Run downstream of the doser

9 Fieldwork conducted in August 2007 at two sampling stations (one upstream of the Laurel ; one downstream) yielded no fish.

DRAFT 37 DRAFT

powered and is located at the airshaft. Two miles downstream, the second doser (which was actually the first to be installed) is an automated backup doser that operates only if sensors register a drop in pH, indicating a malfunction of the first doser (Appalachian Regional Award, undated). The second doser is important, as an acidic shock to the sensitive wetland could destroy all progress thus far.

While the dosers generally contribute to a reduction in acidity when they are working properly, a large amount of unreacted lime from these dosers is deposited downstream and tends to accumulate, creating an alkaline environment, and a consequent sludgy mass of metal precipitates in the stream bed (Figure 11). However, this excess alkalinity actually becomes an advantage when the dosers are temporarily shut down, as they must be for periodic maintenance (Loucks, 2009). There have been several observations in the past two years of the Laurel Run doser not operating (Petzrick, 2008; Skylstad, 2009). It is unclear how often the doser is shut down, but if it is shut down often, or for days at a time, the recovery effort may be set back significantly.

DRAFT 38 DRAFT

As shown in Figure 12, there are several AMLs near the headwaters of the NBP. Three of these are associated with the Kempton Mine complex (Kempton Refuse, Kempton Air Shaft, and Kempton Coal Waste Stabilization); a fourth at the headwaters is called the Fairfax Stone Refuse & Highwall. All Kempton sites have potential water‐related problems, including Dangerous Impoundments, Polluted Water (Agricultural and Industrial), and Clogged Stream Lands (OSM, 2008a).

Figure 12: North Branch Potomac headwaters impaired reaches and mining activity

Source: Frostburg State University (2009), MBOM (2009), MDE (2008a), OSM (2008a; b), WVDEP (2008a; c; d).

The MDNR Power Plant Research Program and MBOM are working with private industry and nonprofit environmental groups to develop, test, and evaluate coal combustion products (CCP)

DRAFT 39 DRAFT

as a component of grout used to pave abandoned underground coal mines and associated spoil, in order to reduce formation of AMD by shielding the water from the iron sulfides on the mine and spoil surfaces.10 One of the experimental sites is the Siege of Acre segment—the northernmost portion of the mine complex (Petzrick, et al., 2002).

As part of the evaluation, there has been extensive monitoring of the Laurel Run and North Branch wetlands (Skylstad, 2005). Both of these wetland areas have been severely impacted by AMD. A mine spoil reclamation project in the North Branch wetland resulted in significant improvements of the plant community there (Skylstad, 2005). The Laurel Run wetland is significantly more degraded, with sparser vegetation, fewer macroinvertebrates, and no fish. A successful project was implemented here to use plants to filter and clean pollutants from the environment, resulting in stabilization of the , an increase in pH, uptake of pollutants, and a general improvement of habitat (Figure 13) (Skylstad, 2005). However, according to a recent update from Peter Skylstad (2009), approximately 70% of the vegetation seen in the 2005 picture is now dead. He suspects that this is due to the sporadic operation of the Laurel Run doser and the cessation of an oxidizer that was installed circa 2006 (Skylstad, 2009).

Figure 13 ‐ Before (2002) and after (2005) pictures of the Laurel Run wetland project

Source: Skylstad (2005).

Scheduled for completion in spring 2009 (Zambelli, 2009), WVDEP is remediating a portion of the Kempton site at the Tucker‐Preston county line (State of West Virginia, undated). The project proposal includes sealing off mine portals, re‐grading spoil and refuse piles to achieve stable slopes against highwalls, covering the piles with soil, and revegetating the area. If successful, this project should significantly reduce AMD to the headwaters of the NBP.

10 Due to the high concentrations of heavy metals in CCPs, these practices are controversial.

DRAFT 40 DRAFT

OTHER MARYLAND TRIBUTARIES AND DOSERS

First through fourth order streams are listed as impaired for benthic and fish measures on Maryland’s 303(d) list. The sources of these impairments are unknown and they are listed as low priority. North Fork of Sand Run is also on Maryland’s 303(d) list as impaired for manganese, and possibly for iron.11 However, this listing is low priority, with no TMDL scheduled in the next two years.

There are acid discharges into both the North and South Prongs of Lostland Run. While the exact source is undetermined (by this report), the data suggest it is not one of the top concerns in the watershed: while a water sample in the upper North Prong had a pH around 5, all points tested downstream of this location on Lostland Run have pH values in the accepted range (perhaps as a result of the doser located on the South Prong, mentioned below), and Lostland Run is not listed as impaired for any metals (MDE, 2006).

As summarized in Table 5, a TMDL was completed for Maryland tributaries to the upper NBP. This report calculates baseline loads for several pollutants, as well as the reductions in these loads that will be necessary to return the tributaries to health. Some reductions are quite significant. For example, 97% reductions in iron and aluminum are required for Laurel Run.

Table 5: Baseline loads and TMDLs for Maryland tributaries

Station Iron Aluminum Sulfate Nitrate Ammonium code Station name Load (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr)

WOL0004 Wolfden Run Baseline 34,228 64,855 1,966,367 24,607 2,675

TMDL 22,248 42,112 1,226,387 14,328 2,655

% reduction 35 35.1 37.6 41.8 0.7

NPL0001 North Prong Lostland Run Baseline 36,322 70,015 2,161,796 26,678 2,899

TMDL 10,651 20,528 608,921 15,524 2,874

% reduction 70.7 70.7 71.8 41.8 0.9

NPL0018 North Prong Lostland Run Baseline 24,296 47,302 1,429,071 17,778 1,944

TMDL 6,803 13,253 384,072 10,344 1,934

% reduction 72.0 72.0 73.1 41.8 0.5

11 The Maryland list has several subcategories; Category 3 includes streams for which there is insufficient data available to determine whether the stream is impaired.

DRAFT 41 DRAFT

SPL0016 South Prong Lostland Baseline 17,893 34,529 1,043,066 13,032 1,421

TMDL 3,400 6,572 190,166 7,574 1,412

% reduction 81.0 81.0 81.8 41.9 0.6

SHO0016 Short Run Baseline 7,878 18,423 557,151 5,508 567

TMDL 4,254 9,942 290,979 3,208 558

% reduction 46.0 46.0 47.8 41.8 1.6

LNB0014 Laurel Run Baseline 303,540 281,473 2,511,018 8,608 907

TMDL 9,147 8,583 107,443 4,946 929

% reduction 97.0 97.0 95.7 42.5 -2.5

ULF0003 UT to Laurel Run Baseline 301,955 276,000 871,252 7,731 810

TMDL 9,059 8,306 25,576 4,444 830

% reduction 97.0 97.0 97.1 42.5 -2.5

GLR0031 Glade Run Baseline 12,175 23,024 681,250 8,640 952

TMDL 3,896 7,369 209,180 5,024 950

% reduction 68.0 68.0 69.3 41.9 0.1

Source: MDE (2008b).

Ray Morgan, of the University of Maryland, has studied the NBP extensively. In a 2000 report, he presents data from ten points along the mainstem above Kitzmiller, as well as two tributaries (Morgan, 2000). These sites were visited before and after construction of four dosers in the watershed (Table 6). A fifth doser was installed in 1998 to treat AMD from the Kempton mining complex. This doser was intended to become the primary treatment facility of the upper NBP, relegating the Laurel unit to backup status (Morgan, 2000). Due to the effectiveness of the dosers in the headwaters, the doser at Gorman has become obsolete and has not been operational for approximately 15 years (Loucks, 2009). MBOM plans to move this doser further downstream—to Mill Run on George’s Creek, where it is needed (Loucks, 2009). MBOM monitors pH around the dosers regularly, and does not currently have plans to install any additional dosers in the NBP watershed above Jennings‐Randolph.

DRAFT 42 DRAFT

Table 6: Pre‐ and post‐doser pH data in the upper North Branch Potomac watershed, Maryland

Pre-doser Post-doser I Post-doser II Station (1991-92) (1994-95) (1995-99)

Mainstem (upstream to downstream)

Henry Pond* 6.76 6.48 6.61

Henry Railroad* 6.76 6.75 6.73

Wilson 4.46 6.87 6.78

Bayard 5.00 6.94 6.88

Gormania 5.16 7.03 6.93

Steyer 6.82 7.07 7.01

Bradshaw 5.76 7.21 7.07

Schell 6.62 7.26 7.30

Lostland on North Branch 6.76 7.31 7.08

Shallmar 6.78 7.08 7.11

Kitzmiller 6.67 7.02 7.07

Tributaries

Laurel Run 3.24 4.21 5.40

Lostland Run 7.02 7.21 7.14

Source: Morgan (2000). Values outside the Maryland water quality standard are in bold type. *Henry Pond and Henry Railroad stations are upstream of the NBP confluence with Laurel Run, and thus unaffected by doser activity.

All stations described in Table 6 are on NBP mainstem with the exceptions of the Laurel Run and Lostland Run stations, which are on tributaries. Dosers relevant to this report are located on Laurel and Lostland Runs, downstream of Gormania and downstream of Kitzmiller. (The doser near Shallmar was not constructed until 2005.) The pre‐doser data (collected between May 1991 and May 1992) had a pH range of 3.24‐7.02. In comparison, post‐doser data collected 1995‐February 1999 had a range of 5.4‐7.3, with only one data point below the water quality standard. Fish Index for Biotic Integrity scores showed a more modest trend of improvement (Morgan, 2000).

Morgan (2000) notes that there is some concern over sediment accumulation downstream of the dosers, and that the treatment is not as effective in the winter. He also acknowledges that the BIBI has not improved to the same degree that water quality has. This is at least partially attributable to the high degree of substrate embeddedness resulting from years of precipitation of yellow boy on the stream bed.

DRAFT 43 DRAFT

Funding for the operation of the Maryland dosers is secure for the next two years through the OSM’s 30% set‐aside AMD account, and MBOM is seeking to secure funding farther into the future (Loucks, 2009).

OTHER WEST VIRGINIA TRIBUTARIES

ABRAM CREEK WATERSHED

Abram Creek is a significant source of AMD to the NBP. The watershed drains 44.2 square miles of land, most of which is forested (66%) or used for agriculture purposes (25%) (Tetra Tech, 2006). There are trout populations in several tributaries of Abram Creek, including Johnnycake Run (home to an “intact” trout population) and the headwaters of Glade Run (where trout have been sighted, but the health of the population is uncertain) (Berti, 2009). However, the mainstem of Abram Creek and many of its tributaries are impaired by acid and metals from past coal mining, and are not currently able to support trout.

Much of the Abram Creek stream network is listed on the 2008 West Virginia 303(d) list. One reach is listed as impaired only for biology. The others are all impaired for aluminum and pH; all but one of these are impaired for iron as well, and several for biology. Because of the known pollutants of the Abram Creek watershed, and because of its value as a cold water fishery, it has been heavily monitored in the recent past. Of the measurements taken by the WVDEP Watershed Assessment Program from 1997‐2003, well over half showed a pH below 6. Most of the measurements show elevated values for specific conductance, with the highest values occurring in unnamed tributaries at river miles 13.49 and 15.95. High specific conductance often indicates the presence of AMD.

Emory Creek is a tributary of Abram Creek. Emory Creek and its measured tributaries contribute significantly to the impairment of the NBP. Nearly all samples taken in this subwatershed returned pH less than 6; 25 of 34 samples exceed the total iron criterion, the dissolved aluminum criterion, or both.

There are eight National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued for mining‐related operations in the Abram Creek watershed (Tetra Tech, 2006). The TMDL calls for an 81% reduction in the discharge of aluminum from five of these permit sites (Table 7).

DRAFT 44 DRAFT

Figure 14 ‐ Abram Creek Watershed impaired reaches and mining activity

Baseline Allocated %

Stream NPDES Load load Reduc-

Stream name code permit Company (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) tion Abram Creek PNB-16 WV0051101 Vindex 1,446 275 81 WV1014048 Vindex 2,034 386 81

UNT/Emory Creek RM 0.8 PNB-16-A-1 WV0094749 D&L Coal 1,705 324 81 WV1014196 D&L Coal 469 89 81

Laurel Run PNB-16-C WV0095061 Vindex 2,363 449 81

Table 7: Mining wasteload allocations for Abram Creek (aluminum)

Sources: OSM (2008a; b), WVDEP (2008a; c; d).

DRAFT 45 DRAFT

Additionally, the TMDL calls for great reductions in iron and aluminum discharges from AMLs and BFSs (Table 8). Reductions are called for in the Emory Creek and Johnnycake Run subwatersheds as well, but these reductions target roads and barren land.

Table 8: Reductions to meet TMDL targets for abandoned and revoked mines

Abandoned mine lands Bond forfeiture sites

Stream name Baseline Allocated % Baseline Allocated load load load load % Stream code Metal SWS* (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Reduction (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Reduction

Abram Creek Alum. 1601 403 4 99

PNB-16 Iron 1601 243 2 99

Alum. 1615 1,772 18 99

Alum. 1619 798 18 98

Iron 1619 1,036 162 84

Alum. 1622 4,738 474 90

Iron 1622 2,863 716 75

Glade Run Alum. 1612 8,847 174 98

PNB-16-B.5 Iron 1612 21,623 2,532 88

Alum. 1614 385 4 99

UNT/Glade Run RM 0.3 Alum. 1613 1,106 194 83

PNB-16-B.5-1 Iron 1613 992 347 65

Laurel Run Alum. 1616 2,023 20 99

PNB-16-C Iron 1616 407 4 99

UNT/Abram Creek RM 13.6 Alum. 1618 3,818 115 97

PNB-16-C.4 Iron 1618 769 461 40

UNT/Abram Creek RM 15.9 Alum. 1620 1,082 4 100

PNB-16-C.8 Iron 1620 265 66 75

Little Creek Alum. 1623 5,201 103 98

PNB-16-D Iron 1623 14,035 1,078 92

Source: Tetra Tech (2006). *Load allocations are listed by subwatershed (SWS) in the TMDL.

DRAFT 46 DRAFT

In 2007, WVDEP released an extensive study of Abram Creek including an analysis of possible treatment plans. The study took into account the cost of each alternative and its ecological benefits. According to Gary Berti (2008a),“construction on [Abram Creek watershed] dosers is scheduled for spring of 2009. Glade Run, a small project which was to have been treated using passive treatment, is on hold. We need to develop a plan for the treatment flocculent which

was not considered in the first round.”

In addition to the Glade Run passive treatment system, the selected plan includes instream dosers in the Abram Creek headwaters and the subwatersheds of Little Creek and an unnamed tributary downstream of Morgan Site 25. The plan also includes limestone sand treatment systems in the Laurel Run and Emory Creek subwatersheds (WV Water Research Institute, et al., 2007). The dosers will be maintained by MBOM, but funded by WVDEP, through an agreement between the two agencies (Loucks, 2009)

The calcium oxide doser planned for the headwaters o Abram Creek, located near Bismarck, West Virginia, will target AMD from an abandoned coal mine owned by Allison Engineering. According to Gary Berti of Potomac Home Rivers Initiative, a division of Trout Unlimited, the stream habitat there is of good quality for trout, and he would like to introduce some wetland and shading components to further support trout (Berti, 2008b).

A second calcium oxide doser is planned for Little Creek, a tributary near the headwaters. Little Creek has already benefitted from the WVDEP Bismark Strip Drainage and Refuse remediation project(OSM, 2008b). Along with these proposed remediation projects, Gary Berti has been monitoring temperature at various points along Abram Creek to see if the waters stay cool enough during the summertime to support a year‐round reproducing trout system. Cool temperatures, along with the remediation of the Abram watershed, may allow trout from Johnnycake Run and Glade Run to migrate into the mainstem (Berti, 2008b).

STONY RIVER WATERSHED

Five stream segments in the Stony River watershed are impaired according to the 2008 West Virginia 303(d) list: Stony River (mainstem), Fourmile Run, Helmick Run and Laurel Run. Upper Laurel Run is impaired for iron, manganese, and pH, while lower Laurel Run is impaired for pH only (WVDEP, 2008c). Stony River is also listed for ammonia, biology, and water temperature; these listings are attributed to industrial point source discharges and are assumed to be ameliorated “in the near future” (WVDEP, 2008c).

Stony River watershed is affected by AMD and by Mt Storm Lake, which is used as cooling water for a coal‐fired power plant. The dam at Mt Storm is a run‐of‐the‐river dam, meaning that it does not have the capacity to control flow when water levels increase due to major precipitation events or other influxes of water (Hoar, 2005). Research for a master’s thesis by Cara Hoar found that variations in temperature and flow have little impact on current

DRAFT 47 DRAFT

abundance and species distribution of fish, but it is possible that thermal variations from the lake have altered the fish community over historic time (Hoar, 2005). In combination with the AMD, the increased temperature creates an inhospitable environment to fish that exist in other subwatersheds within the NBP watershed.

Figure 15 ‐ Stony River watershed impaired reaches and mining activity

Sources: (2008a), WVDEP (2008a; c; d).

Several readings from Fourmile Run itself and from locations downstream of its confluence with Stony River show high specific conductance, dissolved aluminum, iron, manganese, and both high and low pH readings. According to a WVDNR biologist, Fourmile Run is being treated with anhydrous ammonia, but is still a major contributor of AMD, impeding the migration of fish (Keplinger, 2009).

DRAFT 48 DRAFT

There is a relative abundance of smallmouth bass, , and between the Fourmile Run confluence and the Mt Storm dam (Keplinger, 2009), but fish abundance and species distribution are reduced downstream of Fourmile Run due to variations in pH associated with AMD treatment (pH range of 6.5‐9.7 reported by Hoar (2005)). In addition to the variable pH, the mainstem of Stony River immediately downstream of Fourmile Run also contains large amounts of metal precipitates associated with treated AMD. The precipitates are detrimental to benthic macroinvertebrates, which are a food source for fish (Hoar, 2005). All of these factors contribute to fish avoidance of Fourmile Run.

The 2001 TMDL for Stony River calls for reductions in permitted discharges for several of the NPDES outlets in the watershed for aluminum, and, to a lesser extent for iron and manganese (Table 9) (USEPA, 2001). AMLs account for much of the problem in this region, and also require reductions (Table 10). It should be noted that sixteen of the permitted facilities noted in the TMDL were operated by Buffalo Coal Company, Inc, and since have been forfeited (WVDEP, 2008d). Six of these BFSs (Figure 15) are documented as having associated AMD (WVDEP, 2008d). As part of the forfeiture, there was an agreement to put in a passive treatment facility at S005280, located just below the drained Stony River Reservoir (Moore, 2009). This facility should be installed by summer 2009 (Moore, 2009), and is expected to improve pH in the watershed. Remediation of the other Buffalo sites will primarily involve backfilling (Moore, 2009).

Table 9: Mining wasteload allocations for Stony River

Baseline load Allocated load Mining Subwatershed* permit Permittee Metal (lb/yr) (lb/yr) % Reduction

9 O001181 Vindex Energy Corp. Alum. 60 46 23

S012579 Vindex Energy Corp. Alum. 537 414 23

10 O004084 Vindex Energy Corp. Alum. 119 89 25

O009683 Vindex Energy Corp. Alum. 611 458 25

O009783 Vindex Energy Corp. Alum. 15 11 27

U003885 Alum. 20 15 25

13 H049900 Vindex Energy Corp. Alum. 45 11 76

Iron 35 26 26

Mang. 22 20 9

U013983 Laurel Run Mining Co. Alum. 4,397 1,099 75

Iron 3,331 2,498 25

Mang. 2,074 1,866 10

18 H049900 Vindex Energy Corp. Alum. 134 107 20

S005280 Buffalo Coal Co, Inc Alum. 593 356 40

DRAFT 49 DRAFT

19 H049900 Vindex Energy Corp. Alum. 253 203 20

S005280 Buffalo Coal Co, Inc Alum. 3,446 2,757 20

S010084 Buffalo Coal Co, Inc Alum. 2,779 2,223 20

S201300† Alum. 315 252 20

20 H049900 Vindex Energy Corp. Alum. 209 63 70

S005280 Buffalo Coal Co, Inc Alum. 1,501 450 70

Iron 1,146 1,089 5

S005380 Buffalo Coal Co, Inc Alum. 19 6 68

Iron 14 13 7

25 S010084 Buffalo Coal Co, Inc Iron 3,043 2,282 25

Mang. 1,891 1,513 20

S201300† Iron 2,392 1,794 25

Mang. 1,487 1,189 20

Source: USEPA (2001). Note: Due to the large number of mine permits in the Stony River watershed, only those with load reductions are presented here.

*Subwatersheds are delineated in the Stony River TMDL (USEPA, 2001). Subwatersheds 1-13 are below Mount Storm Lake; the remainder are above.

†This is listed as “s201300” in the TMDL, but no such permit number exists in the OSM permit list. However, there is a “u201300” listed, located in the same area, under Vindex Energy Corp.

DRAFT 50 DRAFT

Table 10: Reductions to meet TMDL targets for abandoned mine lands

Baseline load Allocated load % Subwatershed* Metal (lb/yr) (lb/yr) Reduction

15 Mang. 7,628 153 98

16 Iron 8,788 176 98

17 Mang. 50,246 1,005 98

18 Iron 10,144 9,129 10

Mang. 76,501 1,530 98

19 Alum. 10,519 7,889 25

Iron 165,019 3,300 98

20 Iron 7,071 2,475 65

Alum. 42,975 859 98

21 Mang. 49,050 12,263 75

Alum. 3,069 61 98

22 Mang. 17,444 2,617 85

Alum. 28,223 282 99

23 Iron 10,638 851 92

24 Alum. 126 3 98

25 Alum. 2,439 49 98

Source: *Subwatersheds are delineated in the Stony River TMDL (USEPA, 2001). Subwatersheds 1-13 are below Mount Storm Lake; the remainder are above.

ELK RUN

Elk Run is listed on the 2008 303(d) list as impaired for iron. While there are several active mine permits, none of these are listed as moving coal, and there are no documented AMLs or BFSs in this small subwatershed (see Figure 12). A TMDL was approved for Elk Run/Deakin Run in 2006. The iron impairment is blamed on non‐compliance with a SMCRA permit, and thus no reduction is called for in the TMDL.12

12 According to the TMDL, the iron impairment in Elk Run is caused by seepage from the refuse disposal area permitted under SMCRA Permit No. O‐130‐83 (Tetra Tech, 2006, p A2 8‐10).

DRAFT 51 DRAFT

LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK WATERSHED

Little Buffalo Creek is listed as impaired for aluminum, iron, and pH. There are four active mine permits, but two are listed as “reclaimed,” one as “no coal removed,” and the other as “completely released.” One data point from an unnamed tributary shows high temperature, low pH (2.55), and very high levels of iron, aluminum, and manganese. However, this point is singular in its violations in Little Buffalo Creek, and thus may not be a reliable measure. While the only AML in the drainage does not have any documented problems directly associated with water quality impairment according to the AML Inventory System, the TMDL suggests that the large area of barren land associated with abandoned mines in the watershed is a major source of the metals‐ and pH‐impairments, and calls for a 70% reduction of iron in two subwatersheds, and of aluminum in the Little Buffalo Creek subwatershed. No reductions are required here for point sources with NPDES permits.

Table 11: Reductions to meet TMDL targets for abandoned mine lands

Baseline Allocated Stream name % load load Stream code Metal SWS (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Reduction

Little Buffalo Creek Alum. 1906 1,426 106 70

PNB-19-A Iron 1906 862 451 70

UNT/Little Buffalo Creek RM 0.6 Iron 1905 5,670 1,701 70

PNB-19-A-1

Source: Tetra Tech (2006).

OPPORTUNITIES AND PRIORITIES FOR WATERSHED GROUP ENGAGEMENT

There are numerous opportunities for watershed groups to get involved in the remediation of the upper NBP. Some steps involve getting educated about specific water quality issues and helping to develop and implement TMDLs. Other steps involve developing partnerships and watchdogging agencies. The most effective strategies for watershed organizations will depend on the specific watershed and the skills and interests of the members.

When deciding on concrete actions for watershed organizations to take, it will be useful to first consider the broad steps needed to fully remediate the NBP and its polluted tributaries. In particular, watershed organizations should work toward implementing the following five steps:

• Permanently fix the Kempton/Coketon complex. This site is the largest AMD source in the watershed, and a permanent solution must be implemented. WVDEP, MDE, and partners have already installed dosers and other improvements here. These

DRAFT 52 DRAFT

improvements must be kept functioning into the future, and must be improved where necessary. • Keep the Maryland dosers on. While dosers are not a perfect solution because the metals in AMD are deposited in the streambed, dosers that are currently working in Maryland are clearly preferable to no treatment at all. Until new treatment systems are installed that remove metals from the stream entirely, funding will be needed year‐ after‐year to keep the current dosers operational. • Implement the Abram Creek TMDL. The Abram Creek TMDL calls for major reductions from permitted mines, as well as from AMLs and BFSs. Implementing this TMDL will return Abram Creek and its tributaries to health. While an implementation plan has been developed, this plan relies on dosers and may not fully remediate all AMD sources or ensure that streams meet water quality criteria. The long‐term goal for Abram Creek should be to fully remediate all impaired streams. • Implement the Stony River TMDL. Similarly, the Stony River TMDL calls for reductions from permitted mines and AMLs. Since the TMDL was released, Buffalo Coal Company forfeited bonds at numerous sites. Remediating this watershed will therefore require implementing the TMDL, as well as remediating the new bond forfeiture sites. • Implement the Maryland TMDLs. TMDLs for the Maryland tributaries require significant reductions of metals and other pollutants that are required to meet water quality criteria. • Develop additional TMDLs. TMDLs are needed for all impaired streams; these analyses will then provide roadmaps for returning all streams to health.

IMPLEMENT A WATER MONITORING PROGRAM

One important role for citizens’ groups is to establish scientifically sound water monitoring programs that track the physical, chemical, and biological health of streams over time. These data can then be used to help target new remediation projects to the most important sites, as well as to track progress over time.

While various agencies and permittees may conduct water monitoring at certain sites during certain time periods, citizens’ groups can establish a watershed‐based monitoring program that provides beneficial information not generated by others.

DEVELOP WATERSHED‐BASED PLANS

USEPA provides Section 319 funds for nonpoint source remediation projects such as those on AMLs. While other funding mechanisms are also available—the AMLTrust Fund, for example— Section 319 funds can be provided to watershed organizations and allow them to take an active role in designing and building treatment systems. However, these funds can only be directed to watersheds for which watershed‐based plans have been approved by USEPA.

DRAFT 53 DRAFT

Many watershed groups have taken the lead in developing such plans for their watersheds. Plans can be written by the group itself, or contracted out. In West Virginia, WVDEP may provide grants to support the development of these plans.

ESTABLISH PARTNERSHIPS AND WATCHDOG AGENCIES

Watershed groups should also consider organizing a working group through which citizens, local governments, and state and federal agencies meet periodically to share information and to plan remediation strategies. This model is succeeding in many watersheds in West Virginia. It helps ensure that government agencies are targeting sites deemed important to local residents, and that agencies stay focused on water remediation.

Watershed organizations can also watchdog permit compliance, especially permits targeted for action by TMDLs. POTOMAC RIVER KEEPER requests that citizens contact them at 301‐ POTOMAC when they see sources of pollution in the Potomac watershed. Citizens can also call the Emergency Spill Line in West Virginia (800‐642‐3074) or MDE (866‐633‐4686).

POTOMAC RIVER KEEPER also trains volunteers to become “riverwatchers” to help monitor and report conditions in the watershed. The organization is hoping to expand this and other programs to have a greater presence in the upper NBP (Potomac Riverkeeper, 2007a).

GENERATE FUNDING AND BUILD TREATMENT SYSTEMS

Watershed organizations themselves can receive funds to build treatment systems. One common solution is to match Section 319 funds with Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program grants from OSM. Technical assistance will likely be required to write these grant proposals and to design and build the treatment systems. Assistance is available in West Virginia from agencies, nonprofit organizations, and certain universities and private consultants.

DRAFT 54 DRAFT

FINAL WORDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DRAFT 55 DRAFT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A special thanks to the following, without which, this project would not have been possible. Please contact for any further information.

Barry Baumgardner, concerned citizen, geologist and caver (304) 463‐4292

Laura Beeman‐Michaels of Maryland’s Power Plant Research Program (301) 687‐0722

Gary Berti of Trout Unlimited’s Home Initiative Program 1‐800‐834‐2419

Mike Caplinger, historian (304) 293‐4555 x3357

Alan Clark, Railroad Historian and author (304)842‐4140

Steve Durst, mayor of Bayard, West Virginia (304) 693‐7134

Evan Hansen of Downstream Strategies (304) 292‐2452

Gail Herman, Garrett College Library (301) 387‐3009

Alan Klotz of Maryland DNR (301) 334‐8210

Jason Litten and Frostburg State Geospatial Group (301) 687‐4229

Brad Moore of West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (304) 457‐4588

Joe Mills of Maryland Department of the Environment (301) 689‐1440 x1457

Paul Petzrick of Maryland Department of Natural Resources (410) 260‐8669

Rob Rice of West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (304) 457‐4588

Paul Ziemkiewicz, Director of ’s National Mine Reclamation Center

293‐2867 x5441

DRAFT 56 DRAFT

REFERENCES

Appalachian Regional Award (undated) Appalachian Regional Award: Kempton coal waste stabilization and doser installation http://74.125.45.132/custom?q=cache:wYfX1lJ‐ R7oJ:www.osmre.gov/pdf/award02maryland.pdf+regional+award+kempton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us &client=google‐coop‐np Accessed 5 January 2009.

Berti G (2008a) Trout Unlimited. E‐mail to Hereford AG. 19 December.

Berti G (2008b) Trout Unlimited. Site visit to Abram Creek watershed with Kozan C. 14 November.

Berti G (2009) Trout Unlimited. E‐mail to Hereford AG. 9 January.

Dominion Virginia Power Company (2008) Mt. Storm Power Station http://www.dom.com/about/stations/fossil/mtstorm.jsp Accessed December 21 2008.

Frostburg State University (2009) Kempton‐Coketon ArcGIS shapefiles. Provided to Hereford, AG. 5 February.

GAI Consultants (1997) Kempton Mine Drainage Remediation Project.

Heresniak W (2009) Owner, Eastern Trophies Fly Fishing. Telephone conversation with Hereford AG. 13 February.

Hoar CC (2005) Fish response to discharge events from a power plant cooling reservoir in a river affected by acid mine drainage and thermal influences. Master of Science, West Virginia University

Kadlec RH, Knight RL (1996) Treatment Wetlands: Theory and Implementation CRC Press, Boca Raton, .

Keplinger B (2009) WVDNR. Telephone conversation with Hereford AG. 5 February.

Klotz AW (2009) MDNR, Fisheries. Fisheries and AMD treatment‐‐North Branch Potomac. E‐mail to Hereford AG. 5 January.

Klotz AW, Pavol KW (2001) Final Performance Report: North Branch Potomac River Restoration Study.

Klotz AW, Rivers S (2007) North Branch Potomac River and Laurel Run near Kempton, Garrett County, Maryland fish and benthic macroinverterbrate biological study annual report.

Lee G, Bigham JM, Faure G (2002) Removal of trace metals by coprecipitation with Fe, Al and Mn from natural waters contaminated with acid mine drainage in teh Ducktown Mining District, . Applied Geochemistry 17: 569‐581

Loucks C (2009) MBOM. Telephone conversation with Hereford AG. 30 January.

MBOM (2009) Active operators Excel Spreadsheet. Provided to Hereford AG. 8 January.

MBSS (2008) North Branch Potomac water chemistry and habitat Excel spreadsheet. Provided to Hereford AG. 16 December.

MDE (2006) Water quality analysis of metals in Upper North Branch Potomac River, Garrett County, Maryland. Watershed Protection Division, USEPA Region III.

MDE (2008a) The 2008 integrated report of surface water quality in Maryland.

DRAFT 57 DRAFT

MDE (2008b) Western Maryland pH TMDLs for the , Georges Creek, Savage River, Upper North Branch of the Potomac River, and Wills Creek Watersheds. Watershed Protection Division, USEPA Region III.

MDNR (2006) Maryland brook trout fisheries management plan. Fisheries Service.

Mills JE, Davis TL (2000) The Recovery of the North Branch: 1940 to 2000 and BeyondWest Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium, pp. 11.

Moore B (2009) WVDEP. Telephone conversation with Hereford AG. 13 February.

Morgan R (2000) Historical Aspects of the North Branch of the Potomac River.

OSM (2008a) Abandoned mine lands inventory system (AMLIS), http://ismhdqa02.osmre.gov/OSM.HTM2008a.

OSM (2008b) AML AMD Treatment Inventory, http://amd.osmre.gov/passtreat/2008b.

Pavol KW (1987) Stream investigations ‐ North Branch Potomac River. Prepared for MDNR.

Pavol KW, Klotz AW (1995) North Branch Potomac River restoration study. Prepared for Maryland DNR,.

Petzrick P (2008) MDNR. Telephone conversation with Hereford AG. 31 December.

Petzrick P, Wattenbach H, Williams B, Hemmings R, Lyons E (2002) Siege of Acre, Kempton Mine Complex, Kempton, MD. Prepared for Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program.

Potomac Riverkeeper (2007a) Strategic Plan: 2007‐2009.

Potomac Riverkeeper (2007b) TMDLs (State of Maryland) http://potomacriverkeeper.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=32 Accessed 16 February 2009.

Skylstad PL (2005) Final Report for the Kempton Mine Complex AMD monitoring project. Prepared for National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Skylstad PL (2009) Assistant Director/ Associate Professor of Natural Resources & Wildlife Technology, Garrett College, MD. Telephone conversation with Hereford AG. 17 February.

State of West Virginia, Division of Environmental Protection (undated) Kempton refuse & AMD, Tucker County, WV. Funded by US Department of the Interior,, Office of Surface Mining.

Tetra Tech, Inc (2006) Total maximum daily loads for selected streams in the North Branch/Potomac River Watershed, West Virginia. WVDEP, Division of Water and Waste Mangement.

USEPA (2001) Metals and pH TMDLs for the Stony River watershed, West Virginia. Region 3.

USEPA (2003) National primary drinking water standards. Office of Water.

WV Water Research Institute, National Mine Land Reclamation Center, Watershed Technical Assisstance Center, WVU (2007) Abram Creek watershed restoration plan. Prepared for WVDEP, Division of Land Restoration, Office of Abandoned Mine Land and Reclamation.

WVDEP (2008a) Mining Permits, Point Locations http://gis.wvdep.org/data/omr.html Accessed 24 November, 2008

DRAFT 58 DRAFT

WVDEP (2008b) Upper North Branch Potomac water quality and habitat data Excel spreadsheet. Division of Water and Waste Mangement, Watershed Assessment Section. Provided to Hereford AG. 8 December.

WVDEP (2008c) West Virginia Draft 2008 Section 303(d) List.

WVDEP (2008d) WV Bond Forfeitures Access database. Division of Land Restoration, Office of Abandoned Mine Land and Reclamation. Provided to Hereford AG. 22 December.

WVDNR (2008) Stream survey Access Database.

Zambelli JM (2009) WVDEP. Telephone conversation with Hereford AG. 7 January.

DRAFT 59 DRAFT

APPENDIX I: MINING PERMITS BY SUBWATERSHED

Table 12: Abbreviations used in mine permit tables

Permit ID Inspection Status Status

West Virginia A2: A2-Active, Reclamation only ?: Unknown

O: Other (includes haulroads, construction…) A3: Active, reclaimed A: Active

P: Prospect AM: Active, mining coal CR: Completely released

S: Surface NA: not available F: Forfeit

U: Underground NS: not started In: Inactive

IP3:Incremental Phase 3

P1: Phase 1 released (backfill, grading) Release

Maryland P2: Phase 2 released; revegetated P1: Phase 1 released

DM: Deep mine PG: Prospecting >250 tons Ren: Renewed

SM: Surface mine PR: Prospecting <250 tons Rev: Revoked

PV: Phase 1 released (60% revegetation or MR 2)

RC: Reclaimed, but chemical treatment of water

Table 13: Abram Creek watershed mining permits

Issue Expire Insp. Insp. Acres Acres Per. ID Permittee Facility date date stat date Lat. Long. (new) (now) status

1983 1988 S00428 Allegheny /06/ /06/0 no ‐ 3 Mining 02 2 NA date 39.2083 79.2333 92.0 0.0 CR

1984 1994 1995 S00568 New /08/ /08/1 /09/1 ‐ 4 Allegheny 10 0 P2 4 39.2125 79.2250 71.7 47.0 CR

1981 2012 2008 /01/ /05/1 /11/0 ‐ I063800 Vindex 18 8 AM 7 39.2314 79.2189 26.9 29.2 Ren.

1998 2013 2008 O20059 New Allegheny /11/ /11/1 /11/0 ‐ 8 Vindex Haulroad 19 9 AM 7 39.2431 79.2019 17.0 17.0 Ren.

P20039 New ‐ 6 Allegheny 1996 1998 PR 1999 39.2439 79.2003 3.0 3.0 CR /05/ /05/1 /09/0

DRAFT 60 DRAFT

10 0 2

1997 1999 1999 P20079 /06/ /06/1 /07/0 ‐ 7 Vindex 13 3 PR 8 39.2439 79.2003 1.0 1.0 CR

1998 2000 2002 P20119 /09/ /09/0 /10/2 ‐ 8 Vindex Vindex No. 1 01 1 PR 2 39.2650 79.1786 7.0 7.0 CR

1997 2002 2008 S20019 /07/ /07/0 /11/0 ‐ 6 Vindex Job 88 Extended 09 9 RC 7 39.2681 79.1736 69.0 82.7 New

1998 2003 2001 U20069 Job 88 Deep /08/ /08/2 /01/0 ‐ 6 Vindex Mine 27 7 NS 8 39.2694 79.1694 23.0 23.0 CR

1980 1992 S01208 Allegheny /11/ /07/1 no ‐ 0 Mining 21 3 NA date 39.2714 79.1794 57.0 0.0 CR

1974 1992 2008 S00887 /05/ /08/0 /11/0 ‐ 4 Vindex 23 2 P1 7 39.2714 79.1794 180.0 180.0 P1

1976 2002 1999 H02560 /12/ /06/2 /03/0 ‐ 0 Vindex 13 9 AM 5 39.2714 79.1794 11.8 11.8 CR

1981 2002 1999 O00048 /08/ /07/1 /01/0 ‐ 1 Vindex 17 3 AM 4 39.2717 79.1797 21.9 25.9 CR

1998 2013 2008 O20019 Vindex Refuse /07/ /07/2 /11/0 ‐ 8 Vindex Site 21 1 AM 7 39.2717 79.1797 106.0 106.0 Ren.

1999 2001 2001 P20279 /03/ /03/0 /12/2 ‐ 8 Vindex Vindex No. 3 02 2 PR 0 39.2733 79.2125 7.0 7.0 CR

1999 2001 2001 P20189 /03/ /03/2 /05/0 ‐ 8 Vindex Vindex No. 2 22 2 PR 8 39.2733 79.2125 6.0 6.0 CR

1989 1999 2008 S20078 /10/ /10/1 /11/0 ‐ 9 Vindex Rexrode Mine 12 2 A3 3 39.2778 79.1667 72.0 79.0 Ren.

2006 2008 2008 P20610 Wolf Run /11/ /11/2 /06/2 ‐ 6 Mining Bismark #1 28 8 PR 6 39.2800 79.2300 8.0 8.0 New

1981 1986 S06620 Chestnut /01/ /01/1 no ‐ 0 Ridge Coal 18 8 NA date 39.2903 79.1650 8.0 0.0 CR

1996 1998 P20139 Bakerstown /08/ /08/2 no ‐ 5 Mining 23 3 NA date 39.2947 79.2386 6.0 6.0 New

1978 1983 S01567 /07/ /07/0 no ‐ 8 L. C. Coal 05 5 NA date 39.2936 79.1667 47.5 0.0 CR

S00037 Glade Run no ‐ 2 Mining 1972 1977 NA date 39.2997 79.1856 50.0 0.0 Rev. /01/ /01/0

DRAFT 61 DRAFT

05 5

2008 2013 2008 O20080 Kitzmiller, /01/ /01/0 /11/0 ‐ 7 Harold Kitzmiller Stone 07 7 AM 7 39.3075 79.1867 2.0 2.0 New

2008 2010 2008 P20310 Kitzmiller, Kitzmiller /08/ /08/2 /11/0 ‐ 8 Harold Prospect 26 6 PG 7 39.3097 79.1931 5.0 5.0 New

1978 1983 S00147 Allegheny /01/ /01/2 no ‐ 8 Mining 24 4 NA date 39.3108 79.2125 71.0 0.0 CR

1983 1988 S00518 Allegheny /06/ /06/2 no ‐ 3 Mining 24 4 NA date 39.3117 79.1522 38.0 0.0 CR

1982 1992 S00358 Allegheny /03/ /03/2 no ‐ 2 Mining 29 9 NA date 39.3117 79.1522 18.6 0.0 CR

1976 1986 S01937 Allegheny /09/ /06/0 no ‐ 6 Mining 09 9 NA date 39.3292 79.1311 96.0 33.0 CR

1977 1982 S00927 Allegheny /06/ /06/2 no ‐ 7 Mining 28 8 NA date 39.3292 79.1311 72.0 54.8 CR

1989 1999 1999 S20138 /09/ /09/1 /04/1 ‐ 9 D & L Coal 11 1 P2 2 39.3317 79.1297 24.0 24.0 CR

1974 1997 1997 S02477 New /12/ /08/0 /06/2 ‐ 4 Allegheny 18 2 P2 4 39.3375 79.1422 134.0 134.0 CR

1976 1997 1999 S00037 /01/ /05/2 /06/1 ‐ 6 D & L Coal 09 4 P2 4 39.3400 79.1269 190.8 190.8 CR

1988 2008 2008 S20018 /05/ /05/0 /11/0 ‐ 8 D & L Coal 03 3 RC 5 39.3567 79.1467 112.8 112.8 Ren.

1985 2000 1999 S00808 /08/ /08/2 /08/1 ‐ 5 D & L Coal 23 3 P2 0 39.3597 79.1542 23.0 23.0 CR

1975 1980 S00817 /03/ /03/2 no ‐ 5 D & L Coal 21 1 NA date 39.3600 79.1603 41.7 0.0 CR

1980 1997 1999 S00598 /06/ /05/2 /08/1 ‐ 0 D & L Coal 24 4 P2 0 39.3617 79.1567 61.0 61.0 CR

1998 2008 2008 S20029 /03/ /03/0 /10/0 ‐ 7 D & L Coal MASON REMINE 02 2 PV 3 39.3625 79.1500 15.0 15.0 P1

1973 1987 2008 S01577 /08/ /05/2 /11/0 ‐ 3 D & L Coal 27 4 RC 6 39.3667 79.1667 37.0 9.6 P1

S20090 ‐ 6 D & L Coal Jones Remine 2007 2012 AM 2008 39.3667 79.1500 115.0 115.0 New /07/ /07/3 /11/0

DRAFT 62 DRAFT

30 0 6

1981 2007 2005 /01/ /07/2 /12/0 ‐ I059800 D & L Coal 18 3 A3 1 39.3714 79.1964 5.9 5.9 CR

1986 2001 1999 S20338 /09/ /09/3 /10/1 ‐ 6 D & L Coal 30 0 PV 8 39.3722 79.1922 71.8 71.8 CR

1992 1997 1999 S10549 /04/ /04/1 /07/2 ‐ 1 D & L Coal 10 0 P2 0 39.3722 79.1708 16.0 16.0 CR

1990 2000 2006 S20049 /07/ /07/1 /04/0 ‐ 0 D & L Coal 19 9 PV 4 39.3750 79.1833 184.0 184.0 CR

2007 2009 2008 P20010 Hanlin/Little /01/ /01/1 /09/0 ‐ 7 D & L Coal Clarksburg 11 1 NS 5 39.3750 79.1833 2.0 2.0 New

Source: WVDEP (2008a). Table 14: Stony River watershed mining permits

Issue Expire Insp. Insp. Acres Acres Per. ID Permittee Facility date date stat date Lat. Long. (new) (now) status

WPP/C‐1 2000/ 2002/ 2002/ ‐ P200600 Buffalo Prospect 05/17 05/17 PR 09/16 39.1319 79.2903 1.0 1.0 CR

Stoney River 2001/ 2003/ 2003/ ‐ P202901 Buffalo Dam 06/20 06/20 PR 03/28 39.1500 79.2778 2.0 2.0 CR

1983/ 2008/ 2008/ ‐ U013983 Laurel Run 07/20 07/20 A3 11/13 39.2083 79.2917 241.0 376.0 Ren.

1992/ 1997/ 2008/ ‐ S101091 Vindex 04/10 04/10 A2 11/03 39.2250 79.3000 65.0 65.0 New

1979/ 1997/ 2008/ ‐ S012579 Vindex 10/26 05/18 A3 11/03 39.2300 79.2969 159.3 182.3 Ren.

1981/ 2002/ 2008/ ‐ O001181 Vindex 10/02 07/13 A2 11/03 39.2300 79.2969 10.0 12.0 Ren.

1978/ 1992/ 1995/ ‐ S017678 Allegheny 10/10 05/18 P2 03/03 39.2300 79.2469 168.0 0.0 CR

1975/ 1980/ no ‐ S021375 Allegheny 09/15 09/15 NA date 39.2356 79.2717 138.0 12.6 CR

Vindex Surface 1999/ 2004/ 2008/ ‐ S200898 Vindex Mine No. 3 12/17 12/17 PV 09/24 39.2500 79.2500 85.0 85.0 P1

New 1984/ 1994/ 1995/ ‐ S010184 Allegheny 12/21 12/21 P2 09/14 39.2536 79.2442 17.2 20.0 CR

Bismarck Deep 2007/ 2012/ 2008/ ‐ U200107 Wolf Run Mine 11/16 11/16 NS 10/09 39.2672 79.2572 32.0 32.0 New

New 1983/ 1993/ no ‐ S001183 Allegheny 01/24 01/24 NA date 39.2764 79.2869 220.2 108.0 CR

Hanlin/ 2001/ 2003/ 2003/ ‐ P202801 Buffalo Halterman 06/20 06/20 PR 05/06 39.2833 79.2917 1.0 1.0 CR

DRAFT 63 DRAFT

Vindex Surface 1981/ 1988/ no ‐ H062100 Buffalo Mine No. 3 01/18 01/04 NA date 39.2833 79.2514 4.0 0.0 CR

1979/ 1992/ no ‐ S003779 Buffalo 03/19 09/14 NA date 39.2833 79.2514 113.0 45.2 CR

1995/ 1997/ 1997/ ‐ P201295 Buffalo 10/26 10/26 PR 07/24 39.2889 79.2861 10.0 10.0 CR

Halterman 1999/ 2001/ 2001/ ‐ P200799 Buffalo Prospect 09/17 09/17 PR 10/19 39.2972 79.2653 1.0 1.0 CR

Anker West Stony River # 3 1998/ 2000/ 2001/ ‐ P200898 Virginia Prospect 06/03 06/03 PR 08/14 39.2986 79.2458 8.0 8.0 CR

Anker West Stony Mine 2001/ 2003/ 2002/ ‐ P200801 Virginia Prospect 03/02 03/02 PR 12/19 39.2986 79.2458 3.0 3.0 CR

Anker West Stoney '01 2001/ 2003/ 2004/ ‐ P203501 Virginia Prospect 07/23 07/23 PR 04/20 39.2986 79.2458 2.0 2.0 CR

2006/ 2008/ 2007/ ‐ P200906 Wolf Run Stony 2006 03/10 03/10 PR 05/02 39.2986 79.2458 3.0 3.0 CR

Difficult/N. Pt 2002/ 2012/ 2008/ ‐ U200702 Vindex Deep Mine 11/13 11/13 IA 11/17 39.3083 79.2722 24.0 24.0 In.

Source: WVDEP (2008a). Table 15: Shields Run (headwaters) watershed mining permits

Issue Expire Insp. Insp. Acres Acres Per. ID Permittee Facility date date stat date Lat. Long. (new) (now) status

1981/ 1992/ 1996/ ‐ S002581 Buffalo 01/18 09/14 P2 11/18 39.1908 79.4858 101.0 47.5 CR

Notice of Intent 2006/ 2008/ 2007/ ‐ P204806 Mettiki to Prospect VI 10/03 10/03 PR 06/08 39.1914 79.4314 4.8 4.8 CR

1994/ 1996/ 1994/ ‐ P200294 Consol 04/22 04/22 AM 06/03 39.1942 79.4264 2.2 0.0 CR

2002/ 2004/ 2005/ ‐ P200902 Mettiki Prospect V 09/16 09/16 PR 04/05 39.1992 79.4858 2.1 2.1 CR

Elk Run Fresh 1998/ 2013/ 2008/ ‐ O201296 Mettiki Water Impdmt 08/11 08/11 A4 11/03 39.2017 79.4008 56.0 56.0 Ren.

Elk Run Fresh 1998/ No 1998/ ‐ W200198 Island Creek Water Impdmnt 07/15 Date A4 07/15 39.2017 79.4008 0.0 0.0 ?

1976/ 2003/ 2008/ ‐ U003000 Island Creek 11/03 02/24 A3 11/13 39.2078 79.4169 22.5 32.0 Ren.

1981/ 2008/ 2008/ ‐ P067400 Island Creek 01/18 02/24 A3 11/13 39.2086 79.4178 57.4 68.8 Ren.

1970/ 1975/ no ‐ S010670 Douglas 04/14 04/14 NA date 39.2083 79.3750 18.0 5.0 CR

1983/ 2003/ 2008/ ‐ O013083 Island Creek 10/26 10/26 A3 11/13 39.2139 79.4175 152.0 152.0 Ren.

S010880 Buffalo NA 39.2142 60.0 0.0 CR 1980/ 1992/ no ‐

DRAFT 64 DRAFT

10/28 09/14 date 79.4036

1980/ 1997/ 1999/ ‐ S007580 Buffalo 08/04 09/14 P2 04/05 39.2181 79.3894 120.0 30.8 CR

1991/ 2006/ 2008/ ‐ O103990 Laurel Run 07/31 07/31 A3 11/13 39.2189 79.4133 219.0 232.0 Ren.

1979/ 1984/ no ‐ S012779 Buffalo 10/29 10/29 NA date 39.2236 79.4097 67.0 17.0 CR

1981/ 2012/ 2008/ ‐ H057900 Mettiki 01/16 09/14 A4 11/03 39.2372 79.4117 18.0 21.0 Ren.

Mettiki . ‐ Mining No No 1996/ ‐ W200296 Mettiki Wi Date Date A4 10/16 39.2372 79.4117 0.0 0.0 ?

1993/ 1998/ 1997/ ‐ H017800 Mettiki 02/01 02/01 AM 09/15 39.2372 79.4042 2.0 2.0 CR

1991/ 1996/ 1999/ ‐ S100391 Buffalo 06/07 06/07 P2 10/05 39.2389 79.4083 40.0 40.0 CR

1985/ 1995/ 1996/ ‐ S012085 Buffalo 12/16 12/16 P2 07/16 39.2450 79.4033 62.0 72.4 CR

1999/ 2001/ 2002/ ‐ P200999 Mettiki Prospect II 11/17 11/17 PR 10/01 39.2606 79.3850 1.1 1.1 CR

‐ G859602 Mettiki 39.2461 79.4626

‐ G859602 Mettiki 39.2419 79.4658

DM‐84‐ ‐ 101 Mettiki 39.2583 79.4226 A

SM‐06‐ ‐ 452 WPO 39.2895 79.4248 A

SM‐84‐ 367 Buffalo 512000 98050 F

SM‐97‐ ‐ 428 Mettiki 39.2361 79.4710 A

Source: MBOM(2009), WVDEP (2008a).

Table 16: Buffalo Creek watershed mining permits

Issue Expire Insp. Insp. Acres Acres Per. ID Permittee Facility date date stat date Lat. Long. (new) (now) status

1981/ 2003/ 2008/ ‐ E010000 Island Creek 01/18 02/24 A3 11/13 39.2256 79.3514 0.5 9.9 Ren.

1981/ 2003/ 2008/ ‐ E006900 Island Creek 01/18 02/24 A3 11/13 39.2497 79.3689 3.0 8.9 Ren.

1986/ 2011/ 2008/ ‐ U204786 Wolf Run 10/07 10/07 A4 11/03 39.2539 79.3069 20.0 30.7 Ren.

P200297 Vindex Stony River No. 2 PR 39.2539 3.0 3.0 CR 1997/ 1999/ 1999/ ‐

DRAFT 65 DRAFT

06/02 06/02 07/08 79.3069

1983/ 1988/ no ‐ E007200 Island Creek 02/24 02/24 NA date 39.2567 79.3475 7.0 0.0 CR

1981/ 2013/ 2008/ ‐ P067200 Island Creek 01/18 02/24 A3 11/13 39.2594 79.3525 24.0 24.1 Ren.

1981/ 2013/ 2008/ ‐ I067800 Island Creek 01/18 02/24 A4 11/13 39.2625 79.3603 27.0 83.0 Ren.

1983/ 2013/ 2008/ ‐ O012983 Island Creek 10/26 10/26 A3 11/13 39.2642 79.3433 230.5 445.5 Ren.

1998/ 2000/ 1999/ ‐ P202498 Buffalo Gormania Field 11/13 11/13 PR 10/07 39.2697 79.3281 1.0 1.0 CR

1987/ 1997/ 2001/ ‐ S205786 Rostosky 03/18 03/18 P2 12/12 39.2717 79.3033 120.3 120.3 CR

1978/ 1992/ no ‐ S006978 Buffalo 04/25 09/14 NA date 39.2778 79.3097 158.0 0.0 CR

Jerry Huffman 2003/ 2005/ no ‐ P202303 Buffalo Prospect 10/08 10/08 NA date 39.2833 79.3219 0.2 0.2 CR

Difficult‐ 2003/ 2005/ 2005/ ‐ P200703 Buffalo Bakerstown 04/03 04/03 PR 03/25 39.2875 79.3194 1.0 1.0 CR

Difficult Cabin 1995/ 2010/ 2008/ ‐ U201094 Buffalo Mine 03/17 03/17 A2 09/22 39.2875 79.3186 12.0 15.0 Rev.

Difficult Haul 1997/ 2012/ 2008/ ‐ O201596 Vindex Road 03/28 03/28 IA 11/17 39.2908 79.2917 28.0 33.6 In.

1992/ 2002/ 1998/ ‐ O200392 Buffalo 05/26 05/26 A4 04/22 39.2917 79.3000 36.0 36.0 CR

1982/ 1992/ no ‐ S011282 Buffalo 11/08 11/08 NA date 39.2922 79.2906 70.0 20.1 CR

1983/ 1998/ 2002/ ‐ S004683 Buffalo 06/10 06/10 P3 08/19 39.3006 79.2869 176.0 176.0 CR

DM‐03‐ Backbone 112 Mt. 39.2883 ‐79.3543 A

DM‐90‐ 109 Wolf Run 39.3049 ‐79.2996 In.

Source: MBOM (2009), WVDEP(2008a). Table 17: Lostland permits

Issue Expire Insp. Insp. Acres Acres Per. ID Permittee Facility date date stat date Lat. Long. (new) (now) status

2000/ 2002/ 2001/ ‐ P200800 Vindex Schell Prospect 05/30 05/30 PR 09/10 39.3292 79.2667 1.0 1.0 CR

1997/ 1999/ 1999/ ‐ P202497 Buffalo Wpp Tract B‐27 11/07 11/07 PR 11/05 39.3500 79.2361 4.0 4.0 CR

New Potomac Manor 1981/ 1998/ 2003/ ‐ I058200 Allegheny No. 1 01/16 01/26 P2 06/19 39.3750 79.2083 24.0 24.0 CR

DRAFT 66 DRAFT

1980/ 1985/ no ‐ I050600 Allegheny 06/30 06/30 NA date 39.3750 79.1667 22.0 0.0 CR

1974/ 1979/ 1997/ ‐ S009674 D & L 05/23 05/23 P1 08/12 39.3750 79.1667 170.0 170.0 CR

1974/ 1992/ 1997/ ‐ S002974 D & L 03/01 09/24 P1 10/01 39.3750 79.1667 92.2 57.4 CR

Chestnut 1986/ 1991/ no ‐ O202986 Ridge 09/25 09/25 NA date 39.3772 79.1864 13.0 0.0 CR

Jones‐ Stullenbarger #2 1988/ 1998/ 2008/ ‐ S200788 D & L Mine 05/20 05/20 RC 11/05 39.3792 79.1583 72.0 72.0 IP3

Chestnut 1981/ 1993/ no ‐ Z004481 Ridge 01/26 01/26 NA date 39.3797 79.1872 29.0 0.0 CR

1984/ 1999/ 1999/ ‐ S003484 D & L 06/08 06/08 P2 05/10 39.3797 79.1656 97.0 97.0 CR

New Tanglewood 1981/ 1998/ 2004/ ‐ U068900 Mine #2 01/18 01/14 P2 06/23 39.3839 79.1928 11.0 12.9 CR

G859615 LAOC Paugh Tract Mine 39.3935 ‐79.2603

DM‐89‐ 108 Wolf Run 39.3666 ‐79.3152 Comp.

SM‐00‐ 435 G & S 39.4032 ‐79.1727 A

SM‐08‐ 455 G & S 39.4050 ‐79.1965

SM‐06‐ 450 LAOC 39.3923 ‐79.2616 NS

Source: MBOM(2009), WVDEP (2008a).

DRAFT 67 DRAFT

APPENDIX II: PHOTOS OF THE NBP, POTOMAC STATE FOREST, MARYLAND

DRAFT 68 DRAFT

DRAFT 69 DRAFT

DRAFT 70 DRAFT

DRAFT 71 DRAFT

DRAFT 72 DRAFT

DRAFT 73 DRAFT

DRAFT 74 DRAFT

DRAFT 75 DRAFT

DRAFT 76 DRAFT

DRAFT 77 DRAFT

APPENDIX III: RECONNAISSANCE AND MONITORING FROM THE WV SIDE

1 Headwaters of NBP near the Fairfax Stone in WV

2 Headwaters

DRAFT 78 DRAFT

3 Stream below headwaters

4 Small stream further below the headwaters

DRAFT 79 DRAFT

5 Tributaries in the Wetland dump into the North Branch

6 Confluence of a small tributary and the NBP after the wetland

DRAFT 80 DRAFT

7 NBP before Kempton

DRAFT 81 DRAFT

8 Wetland of the NBP after Kempton

9 NBP below Kempton Junction

DRAFT 82 DRAFT

10 North Branch of the Potomac River

11 Elk Run (tributary) at Henry, WV.

DRAFT 83 DRAFT

12 Monitoring Elk Run

13 Elk Run entering the NBP

DRAFT 84 DRAFT

14 Pipe Source along the NBP

15 Old Dobbing Saw Mill along the NBP

DRAFT 85 DRAFT

16 The NBP past the Mettiki Mine Complex

DRAFT 86 DRAFT

APPENDIX IV: PHOTOS – WORTH SAVING IT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS

DRAFT 87 DRAFT

DRAFT 88 DRAFT

DRAFT 89 DRAFT

DRAFT 90 DRAFT

DRAFT 91 DRAFT

DRAFT 92 DRAFT

DRAFT 93 DRAFT

DRAFT 94 DRAFT

APPENDIX V: ADDITIONAL MAP

This map Is viewable full size on the CD‐ROM accompanying this report. If you are viewing an electronic version of this report you can click on the image to view it full‐size.

DRAFT 95 DRAFT