### ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY EPA-R03-OW-2009-0985 Technical Support Document Proposed Determination to Prohibit, Restri ct, or Deny the Specification, or the Use for Specification, of an Area as a Disp osal Site; Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine, Logan County, West Virginia

The following information was relied upon, in a ddition to other information identified in the List of References, to compile and support the Environmental Protection Agency Region III's (EPA) Proposed Determination on the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine, Logan County, West Virginia.

Aquatic Life

Macroinvertebrates

Macroinvertebrates are diverse in the Spru ce No. 1 project area as evidenced by the following tables. In 1999-2000, EPA colle cted eighty-five (85) distinct macroinvertebrate genera in riffle comp lexes of Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch but only 56 genera in the nearby Dal- Tex site. An even larger disparity was found between the number of more sensitive EPT (mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies) where the Spruce project area had 42 EPT ge nera and Dal-Tex only had 12 genera (Table 1).

Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) are a diverse, im portant and sensitive component of the macroinvertebrate assemblage. Table 2 indicat es the number of mayfly genera known to occur in the streams on the proposed project ar ea. These data are from combined reports in the Spruce No. 1 EIS, EPA database, a nd the WVDEP database. The data show that Oldhouse, Pigeonroost, and Seng Camp collectiv ely yielded 21 genera of mayflies. The frequency of occurrence of these mayfly genera across 20 WV mine sites where conductivity is > 500 μS/cm is presented for comp arison, in order to predict the effect of mining on these aquatic organisms. These comparisons show that the frequency of occurrence of these taxa at mined si tes is low or zero. For example, Ameletus , which has been collected in Oldhouse and Pigeonroost, was collected at only 10% of the mined sites.

As many as 9 genera have been collected in Oldhouse Branch in any one season-specific sample, with an average of 7 genera across multiple samples. This former observation ranks in the 95th percentile of all samples taken in from the Central Appalachian ecoregion (937 samples) by WVDEP. That mean s that less than 5% of all other streams in this ecoregion have had higher mayfly taxa richness than Oldhouse Branch.

Stoneflies (Plecoptera) also represent an important group of aquatic insects in the structure and functioning of stream ecosystem s. Table 3 shows data compiled from EPA, WVDEP, and the permittee’s consulting firm s which show that Oldhouse, Pigeonroost, and Seng Camp collectively yielded 16 genera of stoneflies. Ol dhouse and Pigeonroost

1

### combined had 11 genera.

A single collection in Oldhouse (Spring 2000) had 9 genera of stoneflies which ranks greater than the 98th percenti le of all Central Appalach ian streams sampled by WVDEP (937 samples). This means that only 2% of stream samples in this ecoregion had more stonefly genera than Oldhouse within a singl e sampling event. Fr equency of occurrence of particular stonefly genera across 20 si milar mine sites is also presented for comparison. Again, these comparisons show th at many of the genera comprising this stonefly community will likely be extirpated from the streams after mining.

2

### Table 1. EPA data from 1999-2000 comparing macr oinvertebrate taxa from Spruce No. 1 project and adjacent Dal-Tex mine.

Oldhouse+Pigeonroost Beech+Left Fork Beech

Order Family Spruce No. 1 Genus Dal-Tex Mine Oligochaet Oligochaet a Nematoda a Nematoda Oligochaeta X X Nematoda Proseriat ela Plagiostom ae X
ao Tricladida id Planariidae Hydrolimax X Planariidae X Basommatophora Basommatophora Lymnaeid ae Physidae Lymnaeidae

Basommatophora X Physella Planorbida X
e Dryopid Helisoma X Coleoptera Coleoptera ae Elmidae Helichus
Coleoptera Elmidae X Dubiraphia
Coleoptera Elmidae X Macronychus
Coleoptera Elmidae X Microcylloepus
Coleoptera Elmidae X Optioservus
Coleoptera X X Oulimnius
Coleopter X X Psephenidae Psephenida Ectopria
a Decapo e Cambaridae X Psephenus X X Cambarus da Diptera Diptera X Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogonidae Atrichopogon

Diptera Ceratopogonid e X Bezzia/Palpomyia X X
a X X Diptera Chironomidae Acricotopus X Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius X X Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura X X Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus X X Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa X X Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella X X Diptera Chironomidae Metriocnemus X Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra X X Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes X Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladius X X Diptera Chironomidae Parachaetocladius X Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus X X Diptera Chironomidae Paraphaenocladius X Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus X Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum X X Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus X X Diptera Chironomidae Smittia X Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella X Diptera Chironomidae Stenochironomus X Diptera Chironomidae Stilocladius X Diptera Chironomidae Sympotthastia X Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus X Diptera Chironomidae Thienemanniella X Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia X X Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia X X Diptera Chironomidae Zavrelimyia X Diptera Empididae Chelifera/Metachela X X Diptera Empididae Clinocera X Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia X Diptera Simuliidae Prosimulium X Diptera Simuliidae Simulium X X Diptera Tabanidae Tabanidae X Diptera Tipulidae Antocha X Diptera Tipulidae Cryptolabis X Diptera Tipulidae Dicranota X Diptera Tipulidae Hexatoma X Diptera Tipulidae Limnophila X Diptera Tipulidae Limonia X X Diptera Tipulidae Pseudolimnophila X Diptera Tipulidae Tipula X X Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus X Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella X Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis X X Ephemeroptera Baetiscidae Baetisca X Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Drunella X Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella X Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella X Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Ephemera X Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Cinygmula X Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Epeorus X Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron X Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium X Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia X X Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia X Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalus X Megaloptera Corydalidae Nigronia X X Odonata Aeshnidae Boyeria X Odonata Gomphidae Lanthus X X Plecoptera Capniidae Capniidae X Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Haploperla X Plecoptera Leuctridae Leuctra X Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura X X Plecoptera Nemouridae Ostrocerca X Plecoptera Nemouridae Prostoia X Plecoptera Peltoperlidae Peltoperla X Plecoptera Perlidae Acroneuria X Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla X Plecoptera Perlodidae Remenus X Plecoptera Perlodidae Yugus X Plecoptera Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys X Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae Taenionema X Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae Taeniopteryx X X Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Agapetus X Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Glossosoma X Trichoptera Goeridae Goera X Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche X Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche X X Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona X X Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche X X Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila X Trichoptera Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche/Hydatophylax X Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra X X Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes X Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropus X Trichoptera Psychomyiidae Psychomyia X X Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila X X Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax X Tricladida Planariidae Planariidae X Total Distinct Taxa 85 56 Total EPT Genera 42 12 Dasyhelea

3

### Table 2

. Presence/absence of mayfly genera in the permit area.

Family Genus Oldhouse Pigeonroost Seng Camp Frequency of Occurrence @ uS/cm* >500

Ameletidae
Baetidae
Baetidae
Baetidae
Baetidae
Baetiscidae Caenidae Ephemerellidae Ephemerellidae Ephemerellidae Ephemerellidae Ephemerellidae Ephemeridae Heptageniidae Heptageniidae Heptageniidae Heptageniidae Heptageniidae Isonychiidae Leptophlebiidae Leptophlebiidae Ameletus
Acentrella
Baetis Diphetor
Procloeon
Baetisca Caenis
Attanella
Dannella
Drunella Ephemerella Eurylophella Ephemera Cinygmula Epeorus Heptagenia
Maccaffertium Stenacron Isonychia Choroterpes Paraleptophlebia X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X 10%
15%
35%

NA
N A
N A
N A
N A
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%

0%
0 %
0 %

0 %
Note: Siphlonurus and Pseudocloeon reported by Sturm Env. are likely erroneous identifications. These genera have been excluded from this list. * Based on samples from 20 MTM/VF sites Pond et al. (2008) 0 %

N A

N A



### Table 3. Presence/absence of stonefly genera in the permit area.

Order Family Genus Oldhouse Pigeonroost Seng Camp Frequency of Occurrence @ >500 uS/cm* Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Plecoptera Capniidae Chloroperlidae Chloroperlidae Chloroperlidae
Leuctridae
Nemouridae
Nemouridae
Nemouridae Peltoperlidae
Perlidae
Perlodidae
Perlodidae
Perlodidae Pteronarcyidae Taeniopterygidae Taeniopterygidae Allocapnia Alloperla Haploperla
Sweltsa
Leuctra Amphinemura
Ostrocerca
Paranemoura Peltoperla
Acroneuria Isoperla
Remenus Yugus Pteronarcys
Taenionema Taeniopteryx X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X X

X

X
X
X

X

X 0%

10%
0%
20%
80%
0%
NA
10%
10%
25%
5%
0%
5%
0%
5%
Note: Podmosta, Paraleuctra, Megaleuctra, and Beloneuria reported by identifications. These genera been excluded from this list. * Based on samples from 20 MTM/VF sites Pond et al. (2008) Sturm Env. are likely erroneous 0 %



### EPA conservatively excluded two mayfly genera from Table 2 which were identified by the permittee’s consultant. Siphlonurus is exceedingly rare in this ecoregion and can be confused with Ameletus , a much more common inhabitant. EPA believes the identification may have been in error. Also, older taxonomic sources placed Pseudocloeon as Acentrella (formerly of the genus Baetis ), and was eventually placed in the genus Labiobaetis . This genus does not frequent headwater streams like those in Oldhouse, Pigeonroost, and Seng Camp. EPA be lieves that it is most probable that

4

### previous records of Pseudocloeon are in fact, Acentrella

. EPA conservatively excluded four stonefly gene ra from Table 3 which were identified by the permittee’s consultant. Podmosta is primarily a western U.S. genus, with only one species that occurs in eastern Canada. EPA belie ves this identification is in error. Also, Megaleuctra (while this would be an important, rare sighting) occurs in the eastern part of the state and is not recorded from this ecoregion. Similarly, Beloneuria is not known to occur in this ecoregion, but can be confused with the more common Acroneuria in early life stages. While Paraleuctra can occur in the study area, this genus is most often captured as adults while nymphs are exceedingly rare in benthic samples. We conservatively excluded this genus from th e list of stonefly genera found within the Spruce No. 1 project area.

Furthermore, Tables 2 and 3 may understate th e diversity and quality of the mayfly and stonefly population in Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonr oost Branch and Seng Camp Creek since the collection methods were not intended to provide a complete inventory of taxa.

5

### Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments

States routinely use macroinvertebrate assemb lage data to assess their narrative water quality standards and to dete rmine support of aquatic life us es. WVDEP uses a familylevel multi metric index called the WV Stream Condition Index or WVSCI. The WVSCI uses six (6) component metric s to summarize and analyze family-level macroinvertebrate taxa lists. The six metr ics are total number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera or maflies, stonefl ies and caddisflies) taxa, total number of taxa, % of organisms that are EPT, % of organisms that are Chironomidae (midges), the % of organisms in the top two dominant ta xa, and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index. All metrics are computed at the family-level with a 200 fixed count subsample. The metrics are scored against Best Standard Values (BSVs) for the entire dataset, as a % of the BSV and normalized to a score of 100. The aver age of all six metrics makes up the final WVSCI score. Simply put, the lower the scor e, the more degraded the macroinvertebrate assemblage. Index scores > 68 indicate full support of the aq uatic life use. For more information on the WVSCI, go to http://www.wvdep.org/Docs/536_WVIndex.pdf

. EPA sampled several streams within the Spruce Fork watershed for the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Programmatic Environmen tal Impact Study (MTM/VF PEIS) (Green et al. 2000; Bryant et al. 2002). These data indicate that the unmined streams within and near the project area, including White Oa k Branch, Oldhouse Branch and Pigeonroost Branch, were high quality streams that fully support the aquatic life use, based on the benthic macroinvertebrate (Tab le 4) and water quality (Table 5) data. The streams located in the historically MTM/VF mi ned areas located nearby (Rockhouse Branch, Beech Creek, and the Left Fork of Beech Creek) were impaired. These data indicate that the aquatic life in streams on the project area (i.e., Oldhouse Branch and Pigeonroost Branch) will likely be degraded to the c onditions exhibited in the Beech Creek and Rockhouse sub-watersheds after they are mined.

6

### Table 4. WVSCI scores for streams on and near the proposed project area. (USEPA MTM PEIS Study Green et al. 2000). WVSCI scores > 68 indicate full s upport of the aquatic life use.

Stream Classification Stream Name Spring 1999 Summer 1999 Fall 1999 Winter 2000 Spring 2000

UNMINED White Oak Branch 87 ** ** 67.8 90.2

UNMINED Oldhouse Branch 94.9 78.6 ** 91.4 90.2

MINED* Pigeonroost Branch 86.5 80.8 88.8 94.2 82.6

FILLED Rockhouse Creek 48.2 54.7 69.4 50.6 51.6

FILLED Beech Creek 55. 9 48.6 58.3 48.7 48.6

FILLED Left Fork of Beech Creek 56.4 59.8 ** ** 37.6

* Pigeonroost Branch has some limited mi ning (no valley fills) in the headwaters region of the watershed. ** Low Flow Conditions - Unable to Collect a Representative Sample



### Table 5 indicates average values for selected water quality parameters for the streams on the proposed project area and for the nearby mined streams. The data indicate water quality degradation at the mine d sites compared to the unmined sites. The PEIS study found that the changes in m acroinvertebrate assemblages and WVSCI scores were strongly correlated to water qu ality changes. Again, these data suggest that the water quality on the proposed mine area will likely be degraded in a similar fashion, and will likely result in impairment of the aqua tic life use in the mined tributaries.

7

### Table 5. Average water quality at streams on a nd near the proposed project area: August 2000 to February 2001 (USEPA MTM PEIS Study Bryant et al. 2002)

Site Description Alkalinity Calcium Sulfate Tot. Dissolved Category (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/l) Solids (mg/L)

White Oak Branch 34.7 11.8 21.6 78.7

Oldhouse Branch 21.7 9.6 18.1 55.7

Rockhouse Creek 255 108.1 415.8 848.7

Beech Creek 172.8 84.9 350.7 679.3

Left Fork Beech Creek 501.8 269 1110.7 2071.7

Range of Increase 5x to 23x 7x to28x 16x to 61x 8x to 37x (Mined / Unmined)

Table 6 shows WVSCI scores for macroinverte brate data collected by WVDEP in fall of 1997 and the summer of 2002 at a subset of site s in the Spruce Fork, Pond Fork and Little Coal watersheds.

The WVDEP data indicate that streams on the nearby Dal-Tex operation do not fully support the aquatic life use, ba sed on the WVSCI scores. Note that the WVDEP data indicate lower WVSCI scores for Pigeonroost Branch than the scor es in the earlier EPA dataset. Overall, these WVDEP data s upport the EPA data and the finding that the aquatic life use is impaired in nearby mined streams and on the mainstem of Spruce Fork, Pond Fork and the Little Coal River. Th is impairment represents an unacceptable adverse impact. This impact is due to mi ning in the tributarie s draining the Dal-Tex mine. The impacts in the mainstem of Spru ce Fork, Pond Fork, and the Little Coal are likely due to a combination of stressors, including mining and re sidential stressors.

8

### Table 6 . WVSCI scores for selected sites on Spruce Fork, Pond Fork and Little Coal River

Stream Name (mile point) WVSCI Fully Supports Aquatic Life Use

Tribs to Spruce Fork draining Spruce #1 Seng Camp Creek (at mouth) 73.8 X Pigeonroost Creek (mile 0.8) 62.9 Oldhouse Branch (at mouth) NA White Oak Branch (mile 0.5) 86.5 X

Tribs to Spruce Fork draining nearby mined areas Rockhouse Creek (mile 0.8) 52.9 Beech Creek (at mouth) 58.8 Left Fork Beech Creek 23.4 Trace Branch NA

Spruce Fork mainstem sites Spruce Fork (mile 0.3) 73.1 X Spruce Fork (mile 4.6) 72.5 X Spruce Fork (mile 6) 61.4 Spruce Fork (mile 11.4) 65.0 Spruce Fork (mile 14.4) 69.5 X Spruce Fork (mile 17.2) 67.9 Spruce Fork (mile 18.1) 67.1 Spruce Fork (mile 18.5) 53.8 Spruce Fork (mile 18.6) NA Spruce Fork (mile 23.7) 69.0 X

Pond Fork mainstem sites Pond Fork (mile 0.3) 68.1 X Pond Fork (mile 0.4) 73.1 X Pond Fork (mile 4.9) 64.3 Pond Fork (mile 6.3) 64.7 Pond Fork mile 9.0) 66.8 Pond Fork (mile 12.6) NA Pond Fork (mile 15.8) 64.1 Pond Fork (mile 21.6) 61.3 Pond Fork (mile 24.4) 59.1 Pond Fork (mile 26.6) 72.2 X Pond Fork (mile 32.3) 57.5

Little Coal mainstem sites Little Coal River (mile 0.2) NA Little Coal River (mile 3.6) 73.9 X Little Coal River (mile 4.7) NA Little Coal River (mile 10.2) NA Little Coal River (mile 16.5) NA Little Coal River (mile 17) 65.2 Little Coal River (mile 17.2) 64.5 Little Coal River (mile 17.8) NA Little Coal River (mile 21.7) 66.8 Little Coal River (mile 25.2) NA

9

### Fish

Available fish assemblage data collected in the mainstem of Spruce Fork, downstream of Pigeonroost Branch, downstream of Seng Cam p, and upstream of the confluence with Spruce Laurel Fork, indicate a diverse fish assemblage. While fish appear to be less sensitive to elevated TDS and conductivity th an the macroinvertebrate assemblage, it is important to ensure that the curren t fish assemblage is protected.

Note that WVDEP is currently conducting se veral studies on the s ublethal effects of selenium (Se) on fish. The fi sh assemblage data may not reflect all the impacts of Se to the fish population since these data may not reflect larval deformities and other sublethal reproductive endpoints associated with Se t oxicity. The preliminary results of the WVDEP studies are discussed in the Spruce No. 1 Proposed Determination.

Table 7. List of fish species collected and th eir disturbance tolera nce rating in Spruce Fork near the Spruce No. 1 Project. Both downstream of Pigeonroost and upstream of Spruce Laurel Fork sites were sampled by Penn State University as part of the PEIS 1 

### in 2000. The downstream of Seng Camp site wa s sampled by WVDNR in 2007. Note that these two sets of collections invol ved different sampling techniques.

Common Name Family Species Tolerance Downstream of Pigeonroost Downstream of Seng Camp Upstream of Spruce Laurel Fork

rock bass
central stoneroller mottled sculpin spotfin shiner greenside darter
rainbow darter johnny darter variegate darter
banded darter bigeye chub northern hog sucker least brook lamprey American brook lamprey green sunfish bluegill striped shiner
smallmouth bass golden redhorse silverjaw minnow
silver shiner rosyface shiner
sand shiner
mimic shiner
bluntnose minnow
western blacknose dace
creek chub Centrarchidae Cyprinidae
Cottidae Cyprinidae
Percidae
Percidae
Percidae
Percidae
Percidae Cyprinidae
Catostomidae Petromyzontidae Petromyzontidae
Centrarchidae
Centrarchidae Cyprinidae
Centrarchidae
Catostomidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Ambloplites rupestris Campostoma anomalum
Cottus bairdii Cyprinella spiloptera
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma variatum
Etheostoma zonale Hybopsis amblops Hypentelium nigricans Lampetra aepyptera Lampetra appendix Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Luxilus chrysocephalus Micropterus dolomieu Moxostoma erythrurum Notropis buccatus Notropis photogenis Notropis rubellus Notropis stramineus Notropis volucellus Pimephales notatus Rhinichthys obtusus
Semotilus atromaculatus M
M
I
M
M
M
M
I
I
I
M
M
M
T
M
M
M
M
M
I
I
M
I
T
T
T 2
86
7 9

2
74

1

20
1

1
47
9
4
19
10
86

12

12
23 1
358
5 5

12
344
5 4
9
73
278
71

4
6
1
80
32
2 4
81
133
214
4 4
142
6 1
5
15 8
14
6

14
218

22

40

2
19
12

8
66

1
1

I=Intolerant; M=Moderate Tolerance; T=Tolerant 1

1 5
9

1

4 6

4

1 

### Interagency Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Programmatic EIS (PEIS) finalized in October 2005 (PEIS) . The PEIS is available at www.epa.gov/Region3/mtntop/eis2005.htm

.

10

### Water Quality

Impairments based on the 303(d) listings

Using the 2008 West Virginia Impaired by Po llutant GIS data, percent and total stream impairments were calculated for the Coal Ri ver Sub-basin (HUC 8) and sub-watersheds (HUC 12) that comprise the sub-basin. Th ese stream impairments represent segments that are on the 303(d) list, have a TMDL or need a TMDL, or are a Category 4(c) type and include all years for which data is available. In Tabl e 8, approximately 33% of the streams in the Coal River Sub-basin are considered impaired. The percent of impaired streams per sub-watershed in the Coal Ri ver Sub-basin range from 21% to 45%. Specifically, the Headwaters Spruce Fork s ub-watershed, where Spruce No. 1 is to be located, has approximately 34% of the streams impaired. The streams in Headwaters Spruce Fork sub-watershed are impaired for biology, fecal, iron, and selenium (see Table 9). Please note that the total stream m iles calculated by impairment in Table 9 may include the same or portions of the same stream length if the stream has multiple impairments. Furthermore, the 2008 West Vi rginia Integrated Wa ter Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report lists the causes for th e most recent 303(d) listings as mining or unknown and Category 4(c) as coal mining. For more details, see http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/WATERSHED/IR/Pages/default.aspx

Table 8. Impaired Streams in the Coal River Sub-basin Subwatershed Name HUC_12 Impaired Miles Stream Miles (NHD 1:24k) Percent Impaired Headwaters Clear Fork 050500090101 30.51 107.68 28.33 Outlet Clear Fork 050500090102 27.27 73.05 37.33 Stephens Lake 050500090201 25.19 63.17 39.88 Upper Marsh Fork 050500090202 61.61 186.41 33.05 Middle Marsh Fork 050500090203 41.31 116.53 35.45 Lower Marsh Fork 050500090204 29.60 87.59 33.79 Spruce Laurel Fork 050500090301 24.51 77.03 31.82 Headwaters Spruce Fork 05050009030 2 39.55 116.19 34.0 4 Outlet Spruce Fork 050500090303 47.61 92.53 51.45 Upper Pond Fork 050500090401 17.83 63.25 28.20 West Fork 050500090402 33.32 99.87 33.36 Middle Pond Fork 050500090403 19.39 57.30 33.84 Lower Pond Fork 050500090404 25.49 85.94 29.66 Big Horse Creek 050500090501 21.76 88.02 24.72 Upper Little Coal River 050500090502 53.99 173.17 31.18 Lower Little Coal River 050500090503 22.63 64.32 35.19 White Oak Creek 050500090601 13.00 52.54 24.75 Laurel Creek 050500090602 42.20 128.04 32.96 Joes Creek-Big Coal River 050500090603 46.18 133.71 34.54 Drawdy Creek-Big Coal River 050500090604 36.99 103.23 35.83 Brier Creek 050500090605 8.96 36.31 24.67 Fork Creek-Big Coal River 050500090606 18.90 88.84 21.28 Smith Creek-Coal River 050500090607 38.97 85.04 45.82 Browns Creek-Coal River 050500090608 16.44 52.51 31.30

Subbasin Name HUC_8 Coal 05050009 743.21 2232.27 33.29

11

### Table 9

Subwatershed HUC12 A l Bio Fecal Impairments (miles of streams)* Fe LowFlow Mn pH Se Total Headwaters Clear Fork 050500090101 16.4 15.7 30.5 62.6 Outlet Clear Fork 050500090102 11.7 10.1 17.9 22.8 2.4 3.3 68.1 Stephens Lake 050500090201 10.2 9.2 23.9 43.3 Upper Marsh Fork 050500090202 1.1 20.6 47.1 44.0 1.1 113.8 Middle Marsh Fork 050500090203 2.7 5.7 24.8 34.7 2.7 70.6 Lower Marsh Fork 050500090204 1.8 11.3 29.6 4.9 47.7 Spruce Laurel Fork 050500090301 6.3 8.2 16.1 30.5 Headwaters Spruce Fork 050500090302 5.3 14.6 39.5 6.7 66.2 Outlet Spruce Fork 050500090303 2.7 5.9 44.9 28.4 2.7 84.5 Upper Pond Fork 050500090401 15.9 2.7 13.2 31.8 West Fork 050500090402 1.8 15.2 3.8 24.4 17.5 0.2 63.0 Middle Pond Fork 050500090403 5.5 11.9 18.6 6.7 42.6 Lower Pond Fork 050500090404 6.1 25.5 31.6 Big Horse Creek 050500090501 12.0 20.7 21.8 54.5 Upper Little Coal River 050500090502 29.1 49.0 5.7 2.2 86.0 Lower Little Coal River 050500090503 4.0 16.6 2.1 22.6 White Oak Creek 050500090601 13.0 1.8 11.2 26.0 Laurel Creek 050500090602 2.4 16.1 20.6 42.1 2.4 83.7 Joes Creek-Big Coal River 050500090603 5.0 5.6 29.6 26.7 5.0 5.6 77.6 Drawdy Creek-Big Coal River 050500090604 11.4 34.2 19.3 64.9 Brier Creek 050500090605 9.0 9.0 17.9 Fork Creek-Big Coal River 050500090606 0.0 11.5 7.4 18.9 Smith Creek-Coal River 050500090607 11.7 39.0 50.6 Browns Creek-Coal River 050500090608 5.7 16.4 22.2

Totals 27.4 223.4 456.5 481.3 33.6 4.9 20.3 33.7 1,281.1 *streams may have more than one impairment resulting in higher total calculations

12

### TDS/Conductivity

EPA and most state agencies do not have numeric water quality criteria for total dissolved solids or ion mixtures in order to protect aquatic life. A few states have numeric criteria for single component ions su ch as sulfate. WVDEP does not have any numeric water quality criteria for conductivity or the component ions in alkaline mine drainage, but WVDEP has developed guideline s for some water quality parameters for use in the TMDL stressor iden tification program. For exampl e, in the Coal River TMDL WVDEP eliminated conductivity as a potential stressor if the maximum measurement in a waterbody was < 300 μS/cm. In more recen t TMDLs, WVDEP indicates that sulfate levels > 202 mg/l or conductiv ity levels > 767 μS/cm indicate that these parameters are likely stressors causing or contri buting to biological impairment . It is important to note, however, that WVDEP does not id entify all waters with elevat ed conductivity and sulfate as impaired for ionic toxicity.

For example, for certain waters in the Coal River watershed (James Branch, Ellis Creek, Rockhouse Creek, Toney Fork, Buffalo Fork, Left Fork/Beech Creek, and Seng Creek), WVDEP concluded that the stressor identificat ion process determined ionic toxicity as the primary stressor. (Rockhouse Creek and th e Left Fork of Beech Creek drain the Mingo Logan Dal-Tex operation.) Other waters in the vicin ity of the project also had comparable elevated levels of conductivity and sulfate, but were not identified by WVDEP as impaired for ionic toxicity S ee Table 10 below for examples. Table 10 also shows the conductivity and sulfat e levels of the streams dr aining the proposed project area, which have good to excellent water quality.

EPA has found that conductivity levels > 500 μS/cm has been strongly associated with high probability of impairment to native biot a (Pond et al. 2008). As discussed in the Proposed Determination, EPA is also concerne d about the spread of golden algae, which can produce a toxin that is highly toxic to aquatic life. The lower TDS limits for the growth of golden algae appears to be ~500 mg/l TDS, or ~700μS/cm conductivity for the ion mixtures typical of alkaline mine draina ge. The waters draining the nearby Dal-Tex Mine operation have conductivity levels greate r than these values. Many of the sampling sites on the mainstem of Spruce Fork, Pond Fo rk and the Little Coal River also have conductivity levels excee ding these endpoints.

13

### Table 10. Conductivity and sulfate values for sel ected sites on Spruce Fork, Pond Fork and the Little Coal River (WVDEP data 1997-2003).

Stream Name (mile point) Avg. Conductivity (μcm) Avg. Sulfate (mg/l)

Tribs where WVDEP identified ionic toxicity as primary stressor James Branch (at mouth) 705 NA Ellis Creek (at mouth) 1068 427 Rockhouse Creek (mile 0.8) 1027 407 Toney Fork (at mouth) 1050 466 Buffalo Fork (at mouth) 1226 580 Left Fork Beech Creek (at mouth) 2426 1019 Seng Creek (at mouth) 794 328 Average 1185 538

Tribs to Spruce Fork draining Spruce #1 Seng Camp Creek (at mouth) 189 61 Pigeonroost Creek (mile 0.8) 199 99 Oldhouse Branch (at mouth) 90 28 White Oak Branch (mile 0.5) 118 24

Tribs to Spruce Fork draining nearby mined areas Rockhouse Creek (mile 0.8 – same site as above) 1027 407 Beech Creek (at mouth) 1432 557 Left Fork Beech Creek (at mouth – same site as above) 2426 1019 Trace Branch (at mouth) 972 569

Spruce Fork mainstem sites Spruce Fork (mile 0.3) 641 187 Spruce Fork (mile 4.6) 667 175 Spruce Fork (mile 6) 846 NA Spruce Fork (mile 11.4) 718 206 Spruce Fork (mile 14.4) 815 260 Spruce Fork (mile 17.2) 883 170 Spruce Fork (mile 18.1) 503 121 Spruce Fork (mile 18.5) 913 170 Spruce Fork (mile 18.6) 824 168 Spruce Fork (mile 23.7) 393 117

Pond Fork mainstem sites Pond Fork (mile 0.3) 813 187 Pond Fork (mile 0.4) 1016 NA Pond Fork (mile 4.9) 1028 260 Pond Fork (mile 6.3) 915 205 Pond Fork mile 9.0) 1037 240 Pond Fork (mile 12.6) 827 NA Pond Fork (mile 15.8) 858 220 Pond Fork (mile 21.6) 785 202 Pond Fork (mile 24.4) 1114 860 Pond Fork (mile 26.6) 816 256

14Pond Fork (mile 32.3) 806 321

Little Coal mainstem sites Little Coal River (mile 0.2) 660 NA Little Coal River (mile 3.6) 1030 280 Little Coal River (mile 4.7) 676 NA Little Coal River (mile 10.2) 679 NA Little Coal River (mile 16.5) 756 NA Little Coal River (mile 17) 1111 280 Little Coal River (mile 17.2) 1165 NA Little Coal River (mile 17.8) 685 NA Little Coal River (mile 21.7) 725 NA Little Coal River (mile 25.2) 767 NA

* Only one measurement available for these sites. Representative of baseflow conditions. NA - no WVDEP data available for that site

15

### Selenium

In West Virginia, coals that contain the hi ghest selenium concentrations are found in a region of south central West Virginia where the Allegheny and Upper Kanawha Formations of the Middle Pennsylvanian are mined (WVGES 2002). WVDEP reports that some of the highest coal selenium con centrations are found in the central portion of the Coal River watershed where significant ac tive mining and selenium impaired streams are located, in the immediate vici nity of the Spruce No. 1 project.

WVDEP and EPA have sampled selenium in the vicinity of the Spruce No. 1 project area. Table 11 provides a summar y of selenium averages an d ranges for streams draining the nearby Dal-Tex operation and for those draining the Spruce No. 1 project area. Streams draining the nearby Dal-Tex operation have selenium concentrations exceeding the 5 ug/l selenium criterion. Selenium concen trations have not decreased over the period of record in Beech Creek.

Table 11 . Selenium Concentrations (ug/l) Near Spruce No. 1 Project Area

Source and time period of data Stream Name Subbasin PEIS (2000-2001) WVDEP (2002-2003) WVDEP (2005-2007) Se (avg) Se (range) Se (avg) Se (range) Se (avg) Se (range)

Average and Range of Se in Tribs to Spruce Fork that drain Spruce No. 1 project area

White Oak Branch Spruce Fork <3 ND <5 ND NS Oldhouse Branch Spruce Fork <3 ND <5 ND NS Pigeonroost Branch Spruce Fork <3 ND <5 ND NS Seng Camp Creek Spruce Fork NS <5 ND NS

Average and Range of Se in Tribs to Spruce Fork draining Dal-Tex Operation

Beech Creek Spruce Fork 7.5 5. 6-9.5 6 5.0- 9.0 12.3 6.0-22.0
Left Fork of Beech Creek Spruce Fo rk 22.7 15.3-31.1 22 5.0-53.0 NS

Trace Branch Spruce Fork NS NS 7 5.0-10.0 NS

Rockhouse Branch Spruce Fork 5.3 3.8-8.0 < 5 ND < 5 ND NS ND: Se not detected. Detection limit shown. NS: Not sampled. Stream was not sampled for the study shown.

16

### Selenium concentrations in exceedance of the 5 ug/l Se criterion have been detected in several other mined streams throughout the Coal River Sub-basin (Table 12). For most of these streams, the WVDEP data indicate only one (1) sample exceeding the selenium criterion. Selenium concentrations have exceed ed the Se criterion at least three times in six (6) other mined streams in the Coal River Sub-basin. These streams are farther from the project area than those listed in the tabl e above. These include White Oak Creek (a tributary to the Coal River), the left Fo rk of White Oak Creek, Seng Creek (another tributary to the Coal River); and Casey Creek, James Creek, and Beaver Pond Branch, all tributaries to Pond Fork.

Table 12 . Other streams in the Coal River sub-ba sin where selenium concentrations have exceeded the 5 ug/l criterion. Data Sour ce: WVDEP monitoring data from 2002-2003.

Range of Values > 5 Stream Name Next Higher Watershed Avg of Values > 5ug/l ug/l
White Oak Branch Spruce Laurel Fork 7 1 sample Spruce Lick Big Horse Creek 7 1 sample Bragg Fork Big Horse Creek 6 1 sample Whites Trace Branch Spruce Fork 10 1 sample Robinson Creek Pond Fork 15 1 sample Bull Creek Pond Fork 6 1 sample West Fork/Pond Fork Pond Fork 6 1 sample James Creek West Fork/Pond Fork 8 6.0-11.0 Casey Creek Pond Fork 6 6.0-6.0 Beaver Pond Branch Pond Fork 10 7.0-22.0 Jarrell Branch Pond Fork 6 1 sample Left Fork/Joes Creek Joes Creek 6 1 sample White Oak Creek (mile 3.9) Coal River 9 6.0-20.0 Left Fork/White Oak Creek Coal River 9 6.0-20.0 Little Elk Creek Coal River 6 1 sample Seng Creek (mile 3.9) Coal River 14 8.0-45.0 Brushy Fork Marsh Fork 6 1 sample Sandlick Creek Marsh Fork 10 1 sample Right Fork/Sandlick Creek Sandlick Creek 10 10.0-10.0 Harper Branch Sandlick Creek 10 1 sample Dingess Branch Marsh Fork 10 1 sample Clear Fork Coal River 6 1 sample Rockhouse Creek Clear Fork 7 6.0-8.0 Toney Fork Clear Fork 10 1 sample Buffalo Fork/Toney Fork Clear Fork 8 6.0-10.0

Streams in Bold text are those streams where WVDEP has confirmed exceedances with more than two samples.

17

### The NPDES permit issued for the Spruce No. 1 project includes water quality based effluent limitations for selenium in only four of the 25 authorized outfalls. The permittee has commenced operations in the Seng Camp Cr eek area pursuant to an agreement with plaintiffs in litigation.

Recent NPDES discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) for the Right Fork of Seng Camp Creek demonstrate exceedances of West Virg inia’s numeric water quality criterion for selenium at Outfalls 017 and 028. Outfall 017 was sampled twice for the third quarter of 2009. One of those samples indicated a se lenium concentration of 19 ug/l.

Table 13 provides recent DMR data for Outf all 028. The NPDES permit for the Spruce No. 1 project does not contain e ffluent limits for selenium at this outfall, but requires only that the permittee monitor for selenium a nd report the results. The data from outfall 28 also document exceedances of the 5 ug/l Se criterion, indicating that the proposed project has the potential to cause or contri bute to exceedances of the Se water quality standard.

Table 13. Recent DMR Data from Outfall 028 of the Spruce No. 1 operation

permit_id inspectable_unit_code chemical_report_date chemical_short_desc min avg max WV1017021 028 12/31/2008 00:00:00 Selenium, Total Recoverable 5.70 5.70 5.70 WV1017021 028 1/31/2009 00:00:00 Selenium, Total Recoverable 9.80 9.80 9.80 WV1017021 028 2/28/2009 00:00:00 Selenium, Total Recoverable 3.90 3.90 3.90 WV1017021 028 3/31/2009 00:00:00 Selenium, Total Recoverable 0.60 1.00 1.40 WV1017021 028 4/30/2009 00:00:00 Selenium, Total Recoverable 1.70 1.70 1.70 WV1017021 028 5/31/2009 00:00:00 Selenium, Total Recoverable 2.50 2.50 2.50 WV1017021 028 6/30/2009 00:00:00 Selenium, Total Recoverable 3.20 3.30 3.40 WV1017021 028 8/31/2009 00:00:00 Selenium, Total Recoverable 1.25 3.48 5.70 WV1017021 028 9/30/2009 00:00:00 Selenium, Total Recoverable 4.60 6.05 7.50

18

### Trends in Water Quality

Trends Since 2002: WVDEP EQUIS Trends stations on Spruce Fork and Pond Fork

WVDEP maintains some water quality trend data at several sites statewide on its online GIS web server (http://gisonline.wvdep.org/equi s/equis.html ). These data span the period of 2003 to 2008 and provide some limite d information on trends. Unfortunately, these data do not represent the period prior to large-scale surface mining in the watersheds.

There are two sites located on Spruce Fork; one near the mouth of Spruce Fork (TS078) and one just upstream of Beech Creek (and henc e upstream of most of the drainage from Dal-Tex Mine) near Sharples, WV (TS058). The upstream site on Spruce Fork (TS058) is downstream of the Spruce No.1 project area. There are also tw o sites located on Pond Fork, one near the mouth (TS079) and one farther upstream in Barrett, WV (TS057).

The following figures represent trends in c onductivity using all the available data points and trends in flow-weighted annual means for conductivity. The conductivity readings represent the concentrations th at biota would be exposed to, and hence are the values that would be compared to any thresholds or aqua tic life advisory levels . The flow-weighted annual means for conductivity are an attempt to f actor in differences in flow from year to year at each site. A red line indicating a threshold of 500 μS/cm conductivity has been added to each graph for reference. EPA has found that conductivity values > 500 μS/cm are associated with a high probability of impairment of the aquatic life use.

Individual conductivity values ar e variable within individual years and over the period of record. Despite this seasonal variability, th e data indicate incr easing trends in both conductivity and flow-weighted conductivity at all four monitoring sites.

These data support the general trends seen in the WVDEP Watershed Assessment Program data. Levels are elevated in both Spruce Fork and in Pond Fork and the levels are higher in Pond Fork than in Spruce Fork.

At the downstream Spruce Fork site (TS 078), 59% of the samples (40 of 68) had conductivity > 500 μS/cm over the period of record (Table 14). At the upstream Spruce Fork site (TS058), 38% of the samples (26 of 68) had conductivity > 500 μS/cm. These data support the finding that the water quality in the headwaters of Spruce Fork is of better quality and is providing a source of clean er water to downstream reaches of Spruce Fork and farther downstream to the Little Co al River. At the downstream Spruce Fork site, the flow-weighted annual averages were > 500 μS/cm from 2004 to 2008. At the upstream Spruce Fork site, only one flow-weighted annual average was > 500 μS/cm (2007), but the trend is increasing.

At the downstream Pond Fork site (TS079) , 86% of the samples (57 of 66) had a conductivity > 500 μS/cm over the period of reco rd. At the upstream Pond Fork site

19

### (TS057), 85% of the samples (58 of 68) had conductivity > 500 μS/cm. At both the downstream and upstream Pond Fork sites, every flow-weighted annual average was > 500 μS/cm from 2003 to 2008.

Table 14. Conductivity Concentrations a nd Trends for the period 2003-2008

Stream Location Site # % samples > 500 μS/cm Trend in conductivity

Spruce Fork near mouth TS078 59 Increasing

Spruce Fork upstream of Beech Creek TS058 38 Increasing

Pond Fork near mouth TS079 86 Increasing

Pond Fork in Barrett, WV TS057 85 Increasing

20

### Figure 1

Spruce Fork near mouth (TS078 )



### 1400Con 

### 1200duc 

### 1000tivity (μ 

### 800S/cm) 

### 600

400

200

0 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

Date



### Figure 2

Spruce Fork near mouth (TS078)

700.00) 600.00mc/ 500.00Sμ (yt 400.00ivinduct 300.00 y = 17.23x - 34013 200.00 R 2o = 0.1647C 100.00

0.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year Flow Weighted Conductivity Linear (Flow Weighted Conductivity)

21

### Figure 3
Spruce Fork upstream of Beech Creek (TS058)



### 1200) 

### 1000mc/oh 

### 800m (μtyiv 

### 600itcudn 

### 400oC 

### 200

0 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

Date



### Figure 4

Spruce Fork upstream of Beech Creek (TS058)

600.00) 500.00cm/S
400.00(μytvi

300.00ticud
200.00no y = 22.618x - 44951C R 2 = 0.4241 100.00

0.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year Flow Weighted Conductivity Linear (Flow Weighted Conductivity)

22

### Figure 5

Pond Fork near mouth(TS079)



### 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

DateConductivity (μS/cm)



### Figure 6

Pond Fork near mouth (TS079)

1200.00) 1000.00mc/S
800.00μ (ytiv

600.00itonduc
400.00 y = 24.608x - 48508C R 2 = 0.1421

200.00

0.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year Flow Weighted Conductivity Linear (Flow Weighted Conductivity)

23

### Figure 7

Pond Fork Barrett, WV(TS057)

1400

1200)mc 1000/Sμ (y 800tivituc 600ndoC 400

200

0 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

Date



### Figure 8

Pond Fork Barrett, WV (TS057)

900.00

800.00)cm 700.00S/ 600.00μ (yt 500.00ivitonduc 400.00

300.00C 200.00

100.00

0.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year Flow Weighted Conductivity Linear (Flow Weighted Conductivity)

24

### Longer Term Trends: WVDEP Ambient Monitoring Site on Coal River

The WVDEP maintains a set of ambient monito ring sites around the state with a longer period of record in order to monitor water quality of West Virginia's streams over time. The Ambient Water Quality Network consists primarily of single sites on the main stem streams of 32 major watersheds, near the m ouths of the watersheds. The sites in the network are visited every three months, usually in January, April, July and October.

The site closest to the Spru ce No.1 project area is located on the Coal River at Tornado, WV, approximately 31 miles north of the proposed project area. This is the closest long term trend site downstream of the proposed pr oject area and has limited direct relevance to the headwaters of Spruce Fork, where the pr oposed project is located. This site does, however, reflect water quality changes in the entire Coal River basin. Graphs are available from the WVDEP website, but not th e raw data. These graphs display data from 1999 to 2007. The following graphs were downloaded from the WVDEP website: http://www.wvdep.org/Item.cfm?ssid=11&SS1ID=713 .)

The site on the Coal River was sampled 35 times between January 1999 and April 2007. The conductivity was > 500 μS/cm during 22 of the 35 sampling events (63% of the time). The conductivity follows a strong s easonal pattern with the highest values recorded during the low flow months (July and October). Sulfate conc entrations follow a similar seasonal pattern. Sulfate concentrations were > 202 mg/l during 13 of the 37 monitoring events (35% of the time). There is no obvious trend in either conductivity or sulfate over the period of record available.

WVDEP has some trend data for selenium at the Coal River ambient water quality site. The detection limit for selenium has changed over time, so it is difficult to evaluate trends with this dataset. Selenium was detected during the last 10 sampling events (October 2005 to June 2007), but has never exceeded th e 5 ug/l criterion. Th e highest value (4 ug/l) was observed during the most recent sampling event.

25

### Figure 9

26

### Figure 10

27

### Figure 11

28

### Toxicity Testing of Streams Domi nated by Alkaline Mine Drainage

Several studies have documented significan t and strong correlations between degraded instream resident biota and high specif ic conductivity or total dissolved solids concentrations downstream of mining (Green et al. 2000, Howa rd et al. 2001, Fulk et al. 2003, Kennedy et al. 2003, and Pond et al. 2008). Several component ions of alkaline mine drainage (magnesium, sulfate, bicarbon ate, potassium) are known to be toxic to aquatic life and models have been developed to predict the acute lethal toxicity of mixtures of ions to surrogate aqua tic organisms (Mount et al. 1997).

EPA research based on these ion toxicity mode ls indicates that i on concentrations in alkaline mine drainage in the Central Appa lachians commonly reach levels that could cause acute lethal toxicity to surrogate W hole Effluent Toxicity (WET) organisms such

as Ceriodaphnia dubia . There are no models availabl e to predict ch ronic sublethal toxicity of ion concentrations. However, the water quality degr adation and elevated conductivity caused by surface mining activities represent a chronic exposure level and chronic sublethal endpoints such as reproduction are thought to be the more relevant and sensitive endpoints that need to be protected. Generally, ch ronic sublethal effects occur at 2-3 times lower concentrations of ions than do acute lethal e ffects (Kennedy et al, 2003, Kennedy et al. 2005).

EPA toxicity testing data indicate that these alkalin e mining effluents can cause significant chronic subl ethal toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia , as measured by decreased reproduction, usually when the conductivity of the mixture is greater than 1500 μS/cm (EPA unpublished data 2007-2009). Table 15 summarizes these data. LC50 values are the instream waste concentrati ons that would be lethal to 50% of the test organisms. IC25 values are the instream waste concentr ations that would cause a 25% decrease in reproduction, compared to control organisms, which is an unacceptable sublethal effect. Any LC50 or IC25 values < 100 indicate potentia l instream toxicity and harm to biota. For many of these streams, the mining discharg e becomes the origin of the stream post mining, so there is little or no dilution avai lable downstream until the next intervening unmined tributary. Therefore, any toxicity in ambient samples should be considered evidence of potential instream harm to re sident biota, because the instream waste concentration is often near 100%.

29

### Table 15. Comparison of LC50 and IC 25 for repr oduction values for all stream samples

Stream Name Spec. Cond. LC50 IC25 100% sample a Survival Reproduction

Boardtree Branch 2582 28 14.8 Winding Shoals 2147 >100 31.6 Sugartree Branch 1383 >100 86.3 Upper Dempsey Branch 2143 >100 25.1 Grant Branch 939 >100 >100 Little Muncy Branch 1086 >100 >100 UNT to Cow Creek 1040 >100 >100 Jack's Run 1792 >100 31.8 Bee Run 2347 24 14.4 UNT 1 to Leatherwood 2115 >100 28.7 UNT 2 to Leatherwood 2372 >100 25.5 Venters Branch (2008) 2467 >100 4.8 Venters Branch (2009) 2270 >100 4.0 UNT Mudlick Branch 2223 >100 11.3 Jones Branch 2353 >100 11.1 Lick Branch 1444 >100 25.9 Laurel Fork 2697 >100 1.9 Long Fork 2638 >100 1.8 Knob Bottom Fork 2545 >100 7.6 Ballard Fork Pond 1446 >100 48.4 UNT to Straight Creek 1907 >100 4.5

a Specific conductivity is mean of 1 00% ambient sa mple treatment as measured in laboratory during testing.

30

### Maps

The following maps show the area of the pr oposed project in relation to the Dal Tex surface mining operation and in relation to ot her mining projects that are part of the Enhanced Coordination Process for review.

The first map shows the Dal Tex operation whic h is directly to the northwest of the proposed project area, across the mainstem of Spruce Fork. EPA believes the water quality and biological condition of the streams draining this operation are likely to be representative of the post-mining conditions of streams on the Spruce No. 1 project area. Data from streams draining Dal Tex have been provided as examples throughout this technical support document. The underlying aerial photograph does indicate some other mined areas that appear as light grey barren areas.

The second map shows the Spruce No. 1 projec t area in relation to other pending permits that are part of the USEPA and US Army Corps of Engineers Enhanced Coordination Process. Note that this map does not show all existing mined lands or all mining permits in the Coal River sub-basin. However, th e aerial photograph does indicate some mined areas that appear as light grey barren areas.

313233