John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment i

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment

Of the 

Pacific Coast Coal Company

John Henry No. 1 Mine

____________________________________________________________________________

Prepared By

United States Department of Interior

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Western Region – Denver, Colorado

January 2014
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment ii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction........................................................................................................1

1.1 Definitions.....................................................................................................................................2

1.1.1 Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).............................................................................................2

1.1.2 Material Damage to the Hydrologic Balance........................................................................2

1.1.3 Material Damage Criteria......................................................................................................3

1.2 CHIA Revision Rationale .............................................................................................................3

1.3 Cumulative Impact Area Delineation............................................................................................3

1.4 Background...................................................................................................................................5

1.4.1 History...................................................................................................................................6

1.4.2 Geology.................................................................................................................................7

1.4.3 Groundwater .........................................................................................................................9

1.4.4 Climate..................................................................................................................................9

1.4.5 Surface Water........................................................................................................................9

1.4.6 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................9

2 Water Resource Uses and Applicable Water Quality Criteria ...................10

2.1 Significant Water Uses................................................................................................................10

2.1.1 Black Diamond Water Supply ............................................................................................10

2.1.2 Lake Sawyer........................................................................................................................10

2.1.3 Other Water Users...............................................................................................................10

2.1.4 Designated Uses..................................................................................................................13

2.2 Water Monitoring Program.........................................................................................................14

2.2.2 EPA, WDOE, and OSM Water Quality Criteria.................................................................22

3 Characterization of Baseline Hydrologic Conditions...................................25

3.1 Surface Water..............................................................................................................................25

3.2 Groundwater ...............................................................................................................................26
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment iii

4 Hydrologic Impact Assessment ......................................................................27

4.1 Surface Water..............................................................................................................................29

4.1.1 Lake Sawyer........................................................................................................................29

4.1.2 Surface Water Quality.........................................................................................................33

4.1.3 Surface Water Quantity.......................................................................................................37

4.2 Groundwater ...............................................................................................................................40

4.2.1 Groundwater Quality...........................................................................................................40

4.2.2 Groundwater Quantity.........................................................................................................41

5 Material Damage Criteria...............................................................................45

5.1 Material Damage Definitions......................................................................................................45

5.2 Material Damage Summary Statement .......................................................................................45

6 References.........................................................................................................47

7 Appendix A.......................................................................................................48
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment iv

Figures

Figure 1: 2014 John Henry No. 1 Mine Cumulative Impact Area ................................................................4

Figure 2: Location of the John Henry Mine Site...........................................................................................6

Figure 3: Stratigraphic Section of the John Henry No. 1 Mine (US Dept of the Interior, 1985) ..................8

Figure 4: Water Monitoring Locations (PCCC, John Henry No. 1 Permit, Ch 6) ......................................15

Figure 5: Calibrated Phosphate Model of Lake Sawyer..............................................................................33

Figure 6: Phosphate Concentration at Monitoring Point 001......................................................................35

Figure 7: Phosphate Concentration at Monitoring Point 002......................................................................36

Figure 8: Phosphate Concentration at Monitoring Point 003......................................................................37

Figure 9: Discharge at Monitoring Point 001 .............................................................................................38

Figure 10: Discharge at Monitoring Point 002 ...........................................................................................39

Figure 11: Discharge at Monitoring Point 003 ...........................................................................................39

Figure 12: Reichert Well Water Depth .......................................................................................................42

Figure 13: PCCC Well Water Depth...........................................................................................................42

Figure 14: 12-4 Well Water Depth .............................................................................................................43

Figure 15: Drainage Control Plan (PCCC, John Henry No. 1 Permit) .......................................................44

Tables

Table 1: Additional Water Systems in the Black Diamond Area................................................................11

Table 2: Registered Wells near the John Henry No. 1 Mine.......................................................................12

Table 3: Designated Uses of Tributaries to the Green River.......................................................................13

Table 4; OSM Surface Water Monitoring...................................................................................................16

Table 5: 1992-2008 WDOE Surface Water Monitoring .............................................................................17

Table 6: 2008 –Current WDOE Surface Water Monitoring........................................................................18

Table 7: NPDES Effluent Limitations Permit No. WA-003083-0..............................................................19

Table 8: OSM Groundwater Monitoring.....................................................................................................20

Table 9: WDOE Groundwater Monitoring..................................................................................................21

Table 10: Triggering Limits for Groundwater Monitoring .........................................................................22

Table 11: New Source Coal Mining Water Quality Standards (40 CFR § 434.35) ....................................22

Table 12: USEPA and WDOE Groundwater Standards .............................................................................23

Table 13: Baseline Water Quality Averages for the John Henry No. 1 Mine.............................................25

Table 14: Pre Mine and Post Mine Drainage Basin Acreages....................................................................26

Table 15: Impact Intensity Designation and Minimization Techniques for Preventing Material Damage.28

Table 16: Percentage of Phosphate Loading to Lake Sawyer from John Henry Mine ...............................32

Table 17: Material Damage Criteria for the John Henry No. 1 Mine .........................................................45

Table 18: Material Damage Summary ........................................................................................................46
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment Page 1

1 Introduction

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is the Regulatory Authority for coal 

mining operations that occur in the state of Washington. As such, OSM is responsible for the review and 

decisions on all permit applications to conduct surface coal mining operations. The John Henry No. 1 

Mine, operated by the Pacific Coast Coal Company (PCCC), is required to have a Cumulative Hydrologic 

Impact Assessment (CHIA) prepared by the Regulatory Authority which assesses whether the proposed 

operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area 

(30 C.F.R. § 947.780.21(g)). A CHIA is an assessment of the Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) 

of the proposed operation and all anticipated mining upon surface and groundwater systems in the 

Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). The PHC is prepared by the applicant as required by 30 C.F.R. § 

947.780.21(f), and approved by the Regulatory Authority. Congress identified in the Surface Mining 

Coal and Reclamation Act that there is “a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural 

productivity and the Nation’s need for coal as an essential source of energy” (SMCRA, 1977 Sec 102(f)). 

The Hydrologic Reclamation Plan required by the rules at 30 C.F.R. § 947.780.21(h) recognizes that 

disturbances to the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent area should be minimized, material 

damage outside the permit area should be prevented, applicable Federal and State water quality laws 

should be met, and the water rights of present water users protected. Therefore, this document is being 

prepared in order to comply with specific regulations located at 30 CFR 947.780.21 that require a CHIA 

to be written or updated, for the purposes of permit approval, by the regulatory authority in order to make 

the aforementioned finding. 

This CHIA is organized as follows:

 Chapter 1 describes information on:

o CHIA definitions and concepts;

o Background of coal production and proposed mining at the John Henry No. 1 Mine;

o Regional conditions for geology, groundwater, climate, surface water, and vegetation; 

o Delineation of the Cumulative Impact Area.

 Chapter 2 provides a description of water resource uses and applicable water quality criteria.

 Chapter 3 presents baseline information provided in the 1984 CHIA.

 Chapter 4 contains an impact assessment of the operation on surface and groundwater quantity 

and quality, and includes a determination of:

o The minimization of impacts within the permit area;

o The impact designations for each potential effect on the hydrologic balance;

o The impacts of coal mining within the Cumulative Impact Area;

 Chapter 5 provides the material damage finding and impact criterion.
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 2

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Cumulative Impact Area (CIA)

A CIA is defined at 30 C.F.R. § 947.701.5 as, “. . . the area, including the permit area, within which 

impacts resulting from the proposed operation may interact with the impacts of all anticipated mining on 

surface- and ground-water systems.” The CIA is an area where impacts from the coal mining operation, 

in combination with adjacent coal mining operations, may cause material damage. The size and location 

of a given CIA will depend on the surface water and groundwater system characteristics, the hydrologic 

resources of concern, and projected impacts from the operations included in the assessment (OSM, 2007). 

1.1.2 Material Damage to the Hydrologic Balance

Sections 507(b) (11) and 510(b) (3) of SMCRA, and 30 C.F.R. § 947.780.21 (g) require OSMRE to 

determine that a mining and reclamation operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the 

hydrologic balance outside the permit area. “Hydrologic balance” is defined at 30 C.F.R. § 947.701.5 as, 

“the relationship between the quality and quantity of water inflow to, water outflow from, and water 

storage in a hydrologic unit such as a drainage basin, aquifer, soil zone, lake or reservoir. It encompasses 

the dynamic relationships among precipitation, runoff, evaporation, and changes in ground and surface 

water storage.” 

“Material damage to the hydrologic balance” is not defined in SMCRA or at 30 C.F.R. § 947.701.5. The 

intent of not developing a programmatic definition for “material damage to the hydrologic balance” was 

to provide the Regulatory Authority the ability to develop a definition based on regional environmental 

and regulatory conditions. Although the definition of material damage as it pertains to surface water and 

groundwater in the CIA is at the discretion of the regulatory agency, some generally accepted 

interpretations will be outlined and following this a working definition will be stated for use in this 

evaluation. 

There are performance standards located in 30 C.F.R. § 947.816.41 that protect against coal mining 

impacts to water resources, specifically impacts that would preclude an existing water use associated with 

a water right or render a water supply unable to support the post-mining land use. It is stated in 30 C.F.R. 

§ 947.816.42 that “discharges of water from areas disturbed by surface mining activities shall be made in 

compliance with all applicable State and Federal water quality laws and regulations and with the effluent 

limitations for coal mining promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set forth in 40 

C.F.R. § 434.” Water quality standards are developed and implemented by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and applicable State regulatory authorities in order to protect water bodies from 

degradation that could potentially impact designated uses of that water (EPA, 1993). These water quality 

standards are designed to prevent impacts to water bodies that could occur from discharges, runoff, or 

other water migration from point sources and non-point sources of pollutants.

Therefore, for the purpose of this CHIA;

Material Damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area means 

any quantifiable adverse impact from surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations on the quality or quantity of surface water or groundwater that would 

preclude any existing or reasonably foreseeable use of surface water or 

groundwater outside the permit area.
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 3

 

1.1.3 Material Damage Criteria

Except for water quality standards and effluent limitations established at 30 C.F.R. § 947.816.42, the 

determination of material damage criteria is at the discretion of the regulatory authority (48 FR 43972-

43973, 1983 and 48 FR 43956, 1983). Material damage criteria for both groundwater and surface water 

quality should be related to existing standards that generally are based on the maintenance and protection 

of specified water uses such as public and domestic water supply, agriculture, industry, aquatic life, and 

recreation. A CHIA also can include material damage standards for parameters of local significance to 

water use (OSM, 2007). 

1.2 CHIA Revision Rationale

This 2014 CHIA for John Henry No. 1 Mine provides an update to the 1984 John Henry CHIA and 

reflects a current hydrologic assessment of the mine operation and reclamation plan provided as part of a 

significant permit revision submitted by PCCC on April 18, 2011. The Federal regulations at 30 C.F.R. §

947.773.15 state that no permit application or application for a significant revision of a permit shall be 

approved until the regulatory authority makes an assessment of all anticipated mining within the CIA and 

makes a finding that the coal mining operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the 

hydrologic balance outside the permit area. The finding that the proposed operation has been designed to 

prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area is supported by an evaluation 

of potential impacts due to coal mining operations in the CIA, and impact minimization techniques taken 

by the coal operator within the permit area.

The 2014 CHIA for John Henry No. 1 Mine:

1) Evaluates phosphorous loading impacts from the mine to Lake Sawyer;

2) Identifies material damage thresholds and limits;

3) Expands the 1984 CIA to include Lake Sawyer and the associated HUC 12 watershed;

4) Considers information provided in the April 2011 significant permit revision submitted by PCCC;

5) Considers water quality and quantity datasets that have been collected at the mine since 1993.

1.3 Cumulative Impact Area Delineation

The John Henry No. 1 Mine CIA is modified from the previous CHIA to assess potential hydrologic 

impacts within a larger watershed area than was delineated for the 1984 CHIA. The extent of the 

expanded CIA for the mine is the same as that of the Ravensdale Creek HUC 12 watershed. The 

watershed is approximately 21,743 acres, and includes Ravensdale Creek, Covington Creek, Ginder 

Creek, Rock Creek, Lake Sawyer, and Lake No. 12. Although there are no neighboring or proposed 

mining operations within the CIA, downstream impacts could potentially exist on a larger scale and are 

evaluated accordingly. The 2014 John Henry No. 1 Mine CIA is illustrated in Figure 1. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 4

Figure 1: 2014 John Henry No. 1 Mine Cumulative Impact Area
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 5

1.4 Background

PCCC proposes to resume surface coal mining and reclamation at the John Henry No. 1 Mine in King 

County, Washington, located west of Kent Washington near the City of Black Diamond (Figure 2). Coal 

production began to taper down in the late 90’s, eventually ceasing after 1999. Proposed mining will 

occur to a small extent in Pit 1 and predominantly in Pit 2, where an estimated 440,000 tons of coal 

reserves are projected for removal over a 6-year period. PCCC projects the coal reserves are economically 

recoverable due to changes in market conditions. PCCC submitted a significant permit revision 

application for the John Henry No. 1 Mine, Federal Permit No. WA-0007D, dated April 18, 2011. OSM 

determined that the application was administratively complete on April 28, 2011. 

The John Henry No. 1 Mine consists of approximately 480 acres located in south King County, 

Washington. It was first permitted in 1986 and operated through the late 1990’s. The permit was 

successively renewed in five year intervals with the most recent renewal approved December 7, 2006. To 

date, approximately 1.9 million tons have been removed from the mine area (PCCC, John Henry No. 1 

Permit). The general location of the property is shown on Figure 2.

The approved mining permit contains a mining and reclamation plan that PCCC followed during active 

mining and reclamation. The permit details a mining and reclamation plan that serves to assist in 

calculating the amount of the reclamation bond necessary to achieve final reclamation. In April 2009,

OSM issued a permit revision order requiring PCCC to either resume mining or take measures toward

final reclamation of all operations. OSM also required PCCC to demonstrate a market for its coal existed 

through documentation of a sales contract. In December 2009, PCCC notified OSM of its intent to

resume mining, but had not secured a contract to sell the coal. OSM determined that a contract was 

required, and through a series of administrative actions required PCCC to revise its permit to stop mining 

and proceed with final reclamation.

PCCC negotiated and signed a coal supply contract with Lehigh Hanson Cement in April 2011 and 

submitted a permit revision application and a copy of the signed coal supply contract. The revision 

application proposed an estimated extraction of 84,000 tons of coal per year.

The following assessment includes information from the previous 1984 John Henry CHIA, the final 

Environmental Impact Statement, and documents prepared under the initial Small Operators Assistance

Program (SOAP) (Geoengineers, 1983)(Systems Architects Engineers, 1983)(US Dept. of the Interior, 

1985)(OSM, 1984). The updated PHC determination prepared by PCCC and surface and groundwater 

quality data collected since 1993 were also used to make this assessment of hydrologic impacts.
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 6

Figure 2: Location of the John Henry Mine Site

1.4.1 History

Underground coal mining and logging were historically the major land uses within the CIA. Residential 

development and forestry are the major land uses in the area surrounding the CIA today. To facilitate 

land development, Mud Lake was created in the early 1900’s as a fresh water source for the town of 

Black Diamond. In 1968, Mud Lake was a shallow reservoir, with plant growth in and around the edge of 

the water body. Wetlands were established in the lake area after an upstream dam washed out following a 

large rain event in 1971. The resultant wetland area is dominated by typical western Washington wetland 

plant species, and there is no open water remaining in Mud Lake today. Ginder Lake, a man-enlarged 

lake at the northwest corner of the permit area, is within approximately 300 feet of a spoil rock disposal 

area, and approximately 1,000 feet from the pit operations area. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 7

1.4.2 Geology

The coal beds mined at John Henry No. 1 Mine are within the sedimentary bedrock of the Puget Group, 

deposited during the late Eocene, approximately 40 million years ago. The strata were faulted and folded 

during Oligocene and late Eocene. The main structural feature in the area is the Black Diamond 

Anticline, which exhibits an axis that trends southwest to northeast across the area. The dip range on the 

southeast limb of the asymmetrical anticline is steeper than the northwest limb, trending at 45-60 degrees 

and 20-45 degrees respectively. This anticline is truncated on the north by the east-west trending Ginder 

Lake Fault. The rock strata area approximately 55 percent sandstone, 35 percent siltstone, and 10 percent 

shale, carbonaceous claystone, and coal. Overlying the Puget Group are Pleistocene age glacial drift 

deposits ranging from 0 feet to 70 feet in thickness. Depressions in the drift form lakes and marshy 

sections within the permit area. Coal seams mined at the John Henry No. 1 Mine include the Big Dirty 

and Franklins No. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 (Vine, 1979). An illustration of the stratigraphic sequence at the 

John Henry No. 1 Mine is shown in Figure 3.
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 8

Figure 3: Stratigraphic Section of the John Henry No. 1 Mine (US Dept of the Interior, 1985)
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 9

1.4.3 Groundwater

Groundwater flow in the Puget formation occurs as a combination of inter-granular flow that results from 

primary permeability and fractured flow that results from secondary permeability. Due to the high clay 

and silt content of the overburden, fracturing controls most of the flow of the groundwater in the 

subsurface. Permeability from field tests in the upper zone (base of glacial till to about 135 feet) of the 

overburden range from about 9.2 to 149 feet/year, with an average of 57 feet/year. The lower 

permeability zone (135 feet to approximately 260 feet below ground surface) has very low values, with a 

range of 0.4 to 6.6 feet per year with an average of 2.6 feet/year (OSM, 1984) (Geoengineers, 1983). 

The glacial till, averaging less than 40 feet thick in the permit area, can be subdivided into two zones. In 

the lower zone, it is dense and poorly sorted and is known as lodgement till. The upper zone is oxidized 

to a brown color, is less dense, and has interbedded lenses of sand and gravel. Permeability testing 

produced values of 18 feet/year and 31 feet/year, respectively. These low values are due to the poorly 

sorted, dense nature of the material. Vertical permeability is estimated to be at least one order of 

magnitude less than the horizontal values. This anisotropy results in reduced water infiltration into the 

Puget group, and the till cannot be considered an aquifer since it cannot yield enough to provide for a 

significant water use (Vine, 1979). 

1.4.4 Climate

The area around Black Diamond receives an average of 48 inches of rainfall a year. Runoff is estimated 

at 20 inches per year and evapotranspiration is 23 inches per year. The months of October through March 

have the highest mean total precipitation, with November through March having four or more inches. 

July and August are usually the driest months. The rainfall patterns in the area affect surface water runoff 

volumes throughout the year (PCCC, John Henry No. 1 Permit). 

1.4.5 Surface Water

The permit area is located in three sub-watersheds: Ginder Lake, Mud Lake, and Lake No. 12. Ginder 

Lake and Mud Lake both drain to the west via Ginder and Mud Lake Creeks, eventually flowing to Lake 

Sawyer. Lake No. 12 is situated just east of the permit area and discharges to the east through a wetland 

area, eventually flowing to the Green River. Lake No. 12 Creek originates on the permit area and flows 

east into Lake 12. Ginder Creek and Mud Lake Creek originate at the outflow points of Ginder Lake and 

Mud Lake and flow west from the permit area. The surface water regime in the area is dominated by the 

effects of the Pacific Northwest climate. 

 

1.4.6 Vegetation

Thirteen plant associations have been identified within the permit area. Eleven of these 13 are the result 

of timber harvesting or clearing for farming in what would otherwise be a community consisting of 

western hemlock, salmonberry, swordfern. Historically, much of the area supported Douglas fir, western 

red cedar, and possibly Sitka spruce as well as western hemlock. The site was initially logged in the 

1880's for Douglas fir timbers. Logging continued on the site until 1971, when the last of the timber 

harvesting was done. Today, bigleaf maple and red alder dominate most of the areas previously 

dominated by conifer (US Dept of the Interior, 1985). 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 10

2 Water Resource Uses and Applicable Water Quality Criteria

2.1 Significant Water Uses

2.1.1 Black Diamond Water Supply

The City of Black Diamond obtains water for its residents from three sources. The primary source is a 

series of natural springs known as the Black Diamond Spring Field, located approximately two miles 

southeast of the city, on both the north and south sides of the Green River just east of SR-169. The water 

is pumped to a reservoir tank constructed in 2006, located on Lawson Road near the city limits. This 

location also provides access a secondary source of water, through an intertie with the adjacent City of 

Tacoma Second Supply Pipe Line. This pipeline was completed in 2005 and is used to transport water for 

the City of Tacoma from its source on the Green River. The residents of the Lake Sawyer area, located 

northwest of the original city and annexed by Black Diamond in 1998, continue to be served by the 

Covington Water District. The Covington Water District serves a large area north and west of Black 

Diamond, including the cities of Covington, Maple Valley and unincorporated King County (PacWest 

Engineering, 2008).

2.1.2 Lake Sawyer

Lake Sawyer is within the HUC12 watershed where John Henry No. 1 Mine is located, adjacent to the 

city of Black Diamond. It has a surface area of approximately 280 acres and an upstream watershed area 

of 8130 acres. The lake’s main inlets are Ravensdale and Rock Creek which enter from the south and the 

main outlet is Covington Creek which drains to the west. 

Lake Sawyer has had water quality problems since the 1970s related to eutrophication, with phosphorous 

the primary cause of the water quality problem. After an initial problem with poorly designed septic 

systems in the area, a wastewater treatment plant was installed to mitigate the increased phosphorous 

loads to the lake. Unfortunately, the plant was subject to design flaws, dismantled shortly after 

construction, and the wastewater re-routed to another watershed. Although phosphorous flux is no longer 

occurring from the waste water treatment plant, a significant amount phosphorous continues to the lake

from natural conditions in the surrounding area. 

This natural loading of phosphorous, in addition to the gradual urbanization of the area, prompted the 

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) to conduct a study on Lake Sawyer and institute a Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for phosphorous on the incoming streams in 1991 (Shoblom, 2009). A 

loading model was developed to gain an understanding of the mechanisms controlling phosphorous 

loading in the lake, and a TMDL with a concentration no greater than 16 μg/L of phosphate as P was 

instituted for Lake Sawyer. 

2.1.3 Other Water Users

The following private wells and small public water systems were identified in the City of Black Diamond 

Water System Comprehensive Plan: 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 11

Table 1: Additional Water Systems in the Black Diamond Area

Water System Name Type No. Connections Source

Diamond Springs Water Association A 43 Groundwater

Sawyerwood Estates Water System A 22 Well

Sawyerwood Water System A 11 Well

Aqua Dolce Water System B 6 Well

Beadle Freshwater Water System B 3 Well

Boondocks Tavern B 2 Well

Britton/Lenton Water System B 2 Well

Callero, A B 4 Well

Diamond Acres B 4 Well

Diamond Ridge B 5 Well

Henry Community WS B 2 Well

Joyce Water System B 1 Well

Maier/Brazier Water System B 7 Groundwater

Oosterink Water System B 2 Well

Pacific Coast Coal Company B 1 Well

Palmer Spring B 9 Groundwater

Smith, Claude B 3 Well

Stuth Company B 3 Well

W. & S. #1 B 5 Groundwater

Williams, C. (Comm.) Water System B 4 Well

Database searches and neighborhood surveys were conducted to identify wells and water users in the 

vicinity of the permit area during preparation of the original PHC and 1984 CHIA. Table 2 provides 

results of an updated WDOE database search of registered wells conducted in February 2012 for Sections 

11, 12, 13, & 14, T21N, R6E; and Section 7, T21N, R7E. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 12

Table 2: Registered Wells near the John Henry No. 1 Mine

Well 

Log ID

Well Tag 

No.

Well 

Depth Diam Well Owner Twp Rng Sct

Qtr 

Sect

QtrQtr 

Sect

Compl. 

Date

90592 240 6 Don Fisher 21N 6E 11 NE SE 11/20/86

190722 AFA730 100 6 B & M Investments 21N 6E 11 NE SW 8/24/99

96501 127 6 Ray Cheathour (sic – Cheatham) 21N 6E 11 NE SW 3/11/81

109289 ABE831 Sammamish Plateau Wtr & Swr 

Dist. Test Well Program 21N 6E 11 NW NE 11/17/94

94056 300 6 Ken Marshall 21N 6E 11 SE SW 4/13/92

94589 240 6 Lee Riechert (sic - Reichert) 21N 6E 11 SE SW 2/4/80

93015 243 6 Jerry Carstems 21N 6E 12 NE NE 8/28/90

98276 180 6 Tim Buckley 21N 6E 12 NE NE 5/19/80

98277 240 6 Tim Buckley 21N 6E 12 NE NE 7/30/80

88630 300 6

Bob Morris/Pacific Ceast Conl (sic 

- Pacific Coast Coal) 21N 6E 12 NE NW 10/9/84

95122 300 6 Mary Lee 21N 6E 12 NE NW 9/24/85

91193 318 6 Esko Café (sic - Cate) 21N 6E 12 NE SE 1/7/93

96843 96 6 Rick Schultz 21N 6E 12 NE SE 1/15/93

89297 200 6 Cheryl & Randy Gramley 21N 6E 12 SE NE 12/2/91

91462 80 6 Fred Brown 21N 6E 12 SE NE 10/6/80

713181 BCB374 209 6 Terry Hildebrand 21N 6E 12 SE NE 3/22/11

445451 AKG058 137 6 Gregory Stichney 21N 6E 12 SW SE 11/22/04

664510 BBK350 6

BD Lawson Partners | Golder 

Associates 21N 6E 13 NW NW 6/22/10

105569 Mining Exproration (sic -

Exploration) 21N 6E 14 NW NE

589554 BAA642 148 6 Claire Ashton 21N 7E 7 NW NW 5/28/09

96821 200 6 Rick Kelly 21N 7E 7 NW NW 9/19/83

304334 AFJ832 220 6 Quad C LLC 21N 7E 7 NW SW 10/24/00

304336 AFJ833 155 6 Quad C LLC 21N 7E 7 NW SW 9/18/00

314607 AFJ834 620 6 Quad C LLC 21N 7E 7 NW SW 9/14/01

304367 AFJ828 400 6 Quad LLC 21N 7E 7 NW SW 10/31/00

* Wells are located by Qtr-Qtr Section only.
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 13

2.1.4 Designated Uses

WDOE divided the state into different Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) to delineate the state’s 

major watersheds. All streams within the City of Black Diamond area are part of WRIA 9 – DuwamishGreen River Watershed. As unnamed surface waters, they are to be protected for the following 

designated uses: salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration; primary contact recreation; domestic, 

industrial, and agricultural water supply; stock watering; wildlife habitat; harvesting; commerce and 

navigation; boating; and aesthetic values. Because they are lakes and feeder streams to lakes they are also 

protected for the designated uses of core summer salmonid habitat and extraordinary primary contact 

recreation (PCCC, 2012). 

Table 3: Designated Uses of Tributaries to the Green River

Use Designations for 

Fresh Waters by Water 

Resource Inventory Area 

(WRIA)

Green River above 

junction with unnamed 

tributary to Flaming 

Geyser State Park

Green River 

above Flaming 

Geyser State 

Park

Aquatic Life

Char Spawning/Rearing

Core Summer Habitat X X

Spawning/Rearing

Rearing/Migration Only

Redband Trout

Warm Water Species

Recreation

Ex Primary Cont X

Primary Cont X

Secondary Cont

Water Supply

Domestic Water X X

Industrial Water X X

Agricultural Water X X

Stock Water X X

Miscellaneous

Wildlife Habitat X X

Harvesting X X

Commerce/Navigation X X

Boating X X

Aesthetics X X
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 14

2.2 Water Monitoring Program

Surface water quality is monitored under sampling programs established by both OSM and WDOE 

through NPDES permit No. WA-003083-0. Figure 4 shows surface and groundwater monitoring 

locations. From June 1992 through February 2008, the OSM and WDOE programs both monitored 

surface water discharges at the same monitoring points, and according to the following schedules.

Discharge Locations

(001) – Ginder Lake (Ponds B, F & G)

(002) – Mud Lake Creek (Ponds H1, H2 & I)

(003) – Unnamed tributary to Lake 12 (Pond A)

(008/010) – Unnamed tributary to Lake 12 (Pond A’)
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment Page 15

Figure 4: Water Monitoring Locations (PCCC, John Henry No. 1 Permit, Ch 6)
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment Page 16

Table 4; OSM Surface Water Monitoring 

Discharge Point 001 002 003 008/010 OSM Reference

Parameter

Flow Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly

pH Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly

Specific Conduct. Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly

Iron Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly

Manganese Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly

Phosphorous Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly

Zinc Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Arsenic Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Chromium Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Copper Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Calcium Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Sodium Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Magnesium Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Potassium Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Chloride Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Sulfate Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Nitrate Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Carbonate Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Bicarbonate Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 17

Table 5: 1992-2008 WDOE Surface Water Monitoring

Discharge Point 001 002 003 008/010

Parameter

Flow Daily Daily Monthly Monthly

PH Daily Daily Monthly Monthly

Specific Conduct. Daily Daily Monthly Monthly

TSS Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly

Phosphorous Monthly Monthly Quarterly Quarterly

Hardness Quarterly Quarterly 2/year 2/year

Iron Quarterly Quarterly 2/year 2/year

Zinc Quarterly Quarterly 2/year 2/year

Arsenic Quarterly Quarterly N/A N/A

Chromium Quarterly Quarterly N/A N/A

Copper Quarterly Quarterly N/A N/A

In March 2008 WDOE implemented a new NPDES permit which mandated an event-driven program 

(first two storm events of greater than 0.5” rainfall each month) directly sampling the discharge from each 

sediment pond on the active portion of the permit.
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 18

Table 6: 2008 – Current WDOE Surface Water Monitoring

Discharge Point Pond B (001) Pond F&G

(001)

Pond H1 (002) Pond H2 (002) Pond I (002)

Parameter

Flow 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

PH 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Specific Conduct. 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Turbidity 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Dissolved Oxy. 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Oil Sheen 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Phosphorous 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Lead* 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Zinc* 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Arsenic* 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Chromium* 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

Copper* 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall 0.5”Rainfall

* Maximum of one sample per month
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 19

Table 7: NPDES Effluent Limitations Permit No. WA-003083-0

Parameter Effluent Limitations

Phosphorous

Monthly Average Maximum Daily

41 μg/L 82 μg/L

pH 6.5-8.5

Turbidity

Turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 5 NTU over 

background when background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, and 

shall not exceed background turbidity by more than 10% when 

background turbidity exceeds 50 NTU

Dissolved Oxygen Minimum 9.5 mg/L

Total Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons (TPH) 5 mg/L

Hexavalent Chromium

Copper

1 The limit on Hexavalent Chromium and Copper was 16 μg/L until September 30, 2010
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 20

2.2.1.1 Groundwater Monitoring Program

Groundwater is monitored under sampling programs established by both OSM and WDOE through 

NPDES permit No. WA-003083-0.

Table 8: OSM Groundwater Monitoring

STATION NAME> REICHERT WELL PCCC WELL 12-4

parameter

WATER level QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

SPECIFIC COND. QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

HARDNESS QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

pH QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

ARSENIC QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

IRON QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

MANGANESE QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

LEAD ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

MERCURY ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

CHROMIUM ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

CALCIUM ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

SODIUM ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

MAGNESIUM ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

POTASSIUM ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

CHLORIDE ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

SULFATE ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

NITRATE ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

CARBONATE ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL

BICARBONATE ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 21

Table 9: WDOE Groundwater Monitoring

STATION NAME REICHERT WELL PCCC WELL 12-4 PIT 2

parameter

WATER LEVEL MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY N/A

SPECIFIC COND. MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY

HARDNESS QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

pH MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY

ARSENIC QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

IRON QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

MANGANESE QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY

LEAD 2/YEAR 2/YEAR 2/YEAR QUARTERLY

MERCURY 2/YEAR 2/YEAR 2/YEAR QUARTERLY

CHROMIUM 2/YEAR 2/YEAR 2/YEAR QUARTERLY

WDOE requires monitoring of Pit 2 water under the NPDES permit. The monitoring regime for 

groundwater established in NPDES permit No. WA-003083-0 is one where regular samples are taken 

according to the schedule in the table above. Exceedence of the triggering limits in two consecutive 

samples causes the monitoring frequency to be increased to one sample per week until the limit drops 

below the triggering limit for four consecutive samples or PCCC can provide an explanation for the cause 

which demonstrates that PCCC’s discharge is not the cause of the exceedance. Four consecutive 

exceedances of the triggering limit is considered a permit violation. There has been no change in 

groundwater monitoring requirements or limits from the old 1992 NPDES permit to the new 2008 permit.
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 22

Table 10: Triggering Limits for Groundwater Monitoring

Triggering Limits for Additional Groundwater Monitoring

Parameter Reichert Well PCCC Well 12-4 Well Pit 2

pH 6.5 to 8.5

Arsenic 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.122 mg/L 0.05 mg/L

Lead 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L

Chromium 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L

Mercury 0.002 mg/L 0.002 mg/L 0.002 mg/L 0.002 mg/L

Manganese 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L

Visible Sheen No Sheen No Sheen No Sheen No Sheen

2.2.2 EPA, WDOE, and OSM Water Quality Criteria

Table 11: New Source Coal Mining Water Quality Standards (40 CFR § 434.35)

Pollutant

Maximum for any 

1 day

Average of daily values 

for 30 consecutive days

 Concentration in mg/L

Iron, total 6 3

Manganese, total 4 2

TSS 70 35

pH 6.0 - 9.0 6.0 - 9.0
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 23

Table 12: USEPA and WDOE Groundwater Standards

Parameters

(units in mg/L unless otherwise specified)

Groundwater Quality Guidelines (mg/L)

USEPA (MCL) State of Washington

pH 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5

Field Conductivity (μmho/cm)

Specific Conductance (μS/cm)

Total Dissolved Solids 500 500

Total Hardness

Alkalinity

Total Alkalinity (CaCO3)

Carbonate (CO3)

Bicarbonate (HCO3)

Hydroxide (OH)

Cyanide 0.2

Dissolved Chloride 250 250

Nitrate (N) 10 10

Nitrite (N) 1

Nitrate + Nitrite (N)

Ortho Phosphorus (P)

Total Dissolved Phosphorus (P)

Total Phosphorus (P)

Sulfate 250 250

Dissolved Aluminum 0.05-0.2

Dissolved Arsenic 0.010

Dissolved Barium 2 1

Dissolved Beryllium 0.004

Dissolved Boron

Dissolved Cadmium 0.005 0.01
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 24

Dissolved Calcium

Dissolved Chromium 0.1 0.05

Dissolved Copper 1.3 1

Dissolved Iron 0.3 0.3

Dissolved Lead 0.015 0.05

Dissolved Magnesium

Dissolved Manganese 0.05 0.05

Dissolved Mercury 0.002 0.002

Dissolved Molybdenum

Dissolved Nickel

Dissolved Potassium

Dissolved Selenium 0.05 0.01

Dissolved Silver 0.10 0.05

Dissolved Sodium

Dissolved Zinc 5 5
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 25

3 Characterization of Baseline Hydrologic Conditions

3.1 Surface Water

Data representative of baseline conditions was provided in the 1984 CHIA for the John Henry No. 1 Mine

(OSM, 1984). Surface and groundwater conditions in the permit area are similar to other areas in central 

Washington: very little total dissolved solids, low concentrations of iron and manganese, low trace 

metals, and low alkalinity. Table 13 provides the baseline surface water quality condition in the vicinity 

of the mine. 

Table 13: Baseline Water Quality Averages for the John Henry No. 1 Mine

Average Values for Select Baseline Stations

Parameter

Ginder Creek 

(Outlet of Ginder 

Lake)

Mud Lake 

Creek 

(Outlet of 

Mud Lake)

Inlet to 

Lake No. 

12

Average 

for Entire 

Mine

pH 7.4 7.1 6.5 7

Conductivity 

(μmhos/cm) 138 87 63 96

Total Iron (mg/L) 0.82 0.78 0.29 0.63

Dissolved Iron 

(mg/L) 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.24

Total Manganese 

(mg/L) 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.05

Dissolved 

Manganese (mg/L) 0.02 0.019 0.015 0.018

Alkalinity (mg/L 

as CaCO3) 66 27 13 35.3

Total Suspended 

Solids (mg/L) 7 17 35 19.6

Total Dissolved 

Solids (mg/L) 108 58 52 72.6

Arsenic (mg/L) 0.0025 0.001 0.0025 0.002
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 26

The water quantity varies seasonally at the John Henry No. 1 Mine due to the precipitation patterns in the 

area. The highest average runoff occurs in January whereas the lowest tends to occur in September 

towards the end of summer (PCCC, John Henry No. 1 Permit). 

The acreages for the three sub-watersheds at the mine, Ginder Lake, Mud Lake, and Lake No. 12, have 

been modified from their original layout due to earth movement activities associated with surface mining. 

Calculations were made in the original PHC to ascertain the differences between pre-mine and post-mine 

acreages, and they are shown in Table 14. 

Table 14: Pre Mine and Post Mine Drainage Basin Acreages

Drainage Basin Pre-Mining Acres Post-Mining Acres

Lake 12 382 372

Grinder Creek 923 920

Mud Creek - Lake 401 188

Final Cut Lake NA 226

Total 1706 1706

3.2 Groundwater

The dominant groundwater system within the CIA is the Puget Group which contains interbedded 

sandstone, shale, siltstone, and coal. Water movement is mainly due to secondary permeability within the 

rock. Nine domestic wells were identified in the baseline inventory in the original CHIA. Groundwater 

gradients are generally towards the major drainages in the CIA. Recharge to the groundwater is estimated 

at 5 inches per year, about ten percent of the precipitation. The hydraulic conductivities of test holes and 

monitoring wells range from 4 to 660 feet/year, demonstrating the wide variability in water yields and 

flow rates that occurs in a fracture-controlled system (Geoengineers, 1983). 

The baseline studies indicate no regional aquifer exists and the glacial drift deposits overlying the area

limit groundwater movement and recharge. The Puget Group bedrock is characterized as having poor

water-bearing characteristics due to the generally poor permeability. Groundwater quality in the area has 

a variable pH (6.5-9.0), presumably due to differences in bicarbonate concentrations (140 – 640 ppm),

and also variable iron and manganese concentrations (0.05-13 ppm and 0.02-0.18 ppm, respectively)

(Systems Architects Engineers, 1983). Given the stratigraphy and structure of the Puget Group, 

considerable heterogeneity and variable water quality are typical occurrences in the groundwater 

surrounding the permit area due to the lack of continuity within the aquifer. Highly localized conditions 

exist within the Puget Group that make it irrelevant to associate the aquifer with a “typical” water flow 

and water quality condition. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 27

4 Hydrologic Impact Assessment

To evaluate the potential hydrologic impacts of the mining operation within the permit and adjacent area, 

impacts are described in both duration (short-term and long-term) and magnitude (negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major). These impacts are defined as follows for the purpose of the CHIA:

Short-term impact -- Impact occurs during or after the activity or action, but not projected to persist after 

the reclamation liability period. 

Long-term impact -- Impact projected to persist after the reclamation liability period. 

Negligible, Minor, Moderate, Major Impact – These impact categories are defined quantitatively and 

qualitatively based on water quantity and water quality assessment approaches for groundwater 

and surface water described in Table 15. 

Groundwater and surface water quantity and quality are evaluated based on metrics developed 

specifically for this CHIA. These metrics are defined for each water resource and the type of potential 

impact (i.e. water quality or quantity) as well as for the impact designation; negligible, minor, moderate, 

or major. Assessment depends on considerations such as the feasibility of the assessment method, the 

inclusiveness of the assessment method to determine a wide range of possible impacts, and the 

availability of data to determine impacts according to the assessment method. Impacts are determined by 

evaluating the available dataset that covers 1993-2011 and making reasonable assumptions based on these 

evaluations. The assessment approaches, impact designation metrics, impact minimization techniques, 

and coal operator responsibilities are describe in Table 15. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 28

Table 15: Impact Intensity Designation and Minimization Techniques for Preventing Material Damage

Water Resource Groundwater Quantity Surface Water 

Quantity

Surface Water

Quality

Groundwater

Quality

Assessment Approach

Water level trend data at 

PCCC well, 12-4 well, 

and Reichert wells

Comparison of 

surface water 

discharge quantity at 

NPDES points in 

the permit area

during active and 

inactive mining 

periods

Comparison of 

baseline (non-mining 

impacted) water 

quality to nonbaseline (NPDES 

outfalls) water 

quality and 

comparison to 

NPDES, WDOE, and 

OSM water quality 

standards.

Comparison of 

water quality at 

individual wells to 

NPDES and other 

WDOE water 

quality standards

Impact Intensity Designation

Major

Mining related aquifer 

drawdown that precludes 

the use of a water supply 

well

Changes in yearly 

average flow from 

NPDES discharges 

which preclude a 

designated use in 

downstream 

watersheds

Changes in water 

quality at NPDES 

outfalls that 

consistently (>66%)

exceed applicable 

water quality 

standards

Changes in water 

quality that 

consistently (>66%) 

exceed applicable 

water quality 

standards and are 

attributable to 

mining

Moderate

Mining related drawdown

compromises the water 

supply well yield as 

designed

Changes in yearly 

average flow from 

NPDES discharges 

which diminish or 

effect a designated 

use in downstream 

watersheds

Changes in water 

quality at NPDES 

outfalls that regularly 

(33-66%) exceed 

applicable water 

quality standards

Changes in water 

quality that 

regularly (33-66%) 

exceed applicable 

water quality 

standards and are 

attributable to 

mining

Minor

Mining related drawdown 

which can be quantified at 

water supply wells outside 

the permit area

Changes in yearly 

average flow from 

NPDES discharges 

which have a 

measurable effect on 

downstream 

watersheds

Changes in water 

quality at NPDES 

outfalls that 

sometimes (0-33%) 

exceed applicable 

water quality 

standards

Changes in water 

quality that 

occasionally (0%-

33%) exceed 

applicable water 

quality standards 

and are attributable 

to mining

Negligible 

Mining related drawdown 

does not occur outside the 

permit area

Changes in yearly 

average flow which 

have no 

measureable effect 

on downstream 

watersheds

NPDES outfalls 

never exceed 

applicable water 

quality standards 

No documented 

changes in water 

quality that are 

attributable to 

mining
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 29

Impact Minimization 

Techniques

Contemporaneous Reclamation; reclamation to approximate original contour (AOC); use of 

sediment control structures, application of flocculants to aid in sediment settling, following coal 

processing waste and spoil handling plan

Coal Operator 

Responsibilities to 

Prevent Material Damage

Replacement of water rights, maintenance of sedimentation structures, proper handling of spoil, 

topsoil, and coal processing waste materials, continued water monitoring, meeting the 

requirements of the NPDES permit and subsequent water quality standards, and timely 

revegetation/stabilization of disturbed areas

4.1 Surface Water

4.1.1 Lake Sawyer

4.1.1.1 Total Maximum Daily Load

In 1991, a study was conducted by WDOE to determine appropriate implementation and development of 

a TMDL in order to protect and improve water quality within the Lake Sawyer. In 1993, the TMDL 

listing was approved for Lake Sawyer by the EPA (Onwumere, 2002). The target concentration for 

phosphorous within Lake Sawyer was set at 16 μg/L, and this concentration has a corresponding loading 

value of 1.94 kg total phosphorous per day (King County Surface Water Management, 2000). Therefore, 

if a steady state loading of 1.94 kg/day total phosphorous is maintained, the target concentration will be 

achieved. Of the loading, 1.4 kg/day was assumed to originate from external loading (i.e. streamflow) 

and 0.54 kg/day assumed to originate from internal loading within the lake sediments. 

In 2002, WDOE concluded that continued phosphorous control was needed in the Lake Sawyer watershed 

to assure the lake could meet water quality standards in the future. Storm water runoff in the winter 

months, aquatic plant decay, and resuspension of phosphorous-laden sediment within the lake itself in the 

fall were identified as the primary sources of phosphorous for the lake. 

Based on the initial study conducted in 1991, it was determined that the diversion of a wastewater 

treatment discharge for the city of Black Diamond from the natural wetland above Lake Sawyer to a 

sewer line could significantly improve the eutrophication issues within the lake. This determination was 

confirmed in the years following the action, although urban growth in the Lake Sawyer watershed could 

potentially reverse the improvements that have been achieved. 

A TMDL implementation plan has since been developed by WDOE as result of the 1991 study, which 

characterized the nature of the problem. The implementation plan provides a list of corrective actions in 

order to address phosphorous loading to Lake Sawyer from the surrounding watershed and also considers 

recommendations from the initial Lake Sawyer Management Plan and other documents developed for 

Lake Sawyer. Phosphorous concentrations within the lake itself are monitored through the King County 

Lake Stewardship Program, a volunteer program that has a goal of tracking trends in lake quality 

(Shoblom, 2009). 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 30

4.1.1.2 TMDL Modeling of Phosphorous into Lake Sawyer

An analytical modeling effort was conducted to evaluate the effect coal mining and reclamation at the 

John Henry No. 1 Mine has had on the phosphorous concentrations in nearby Lake Sawyer. The surface 

area of the watershed for Lake Sawyer is 8,130 acres, of which the John Henry permit area encompasses 

480 acres, or 6-percent of the total area (King County Surface Water Management, 2000). 

The model is used to estimate input loading from all sources, changes in concentration in Lake Sawyer 

over time, attenuation rates within the lake, and the effect activities at the John Henry No. 1 Mine have on 

the phosphorous concentrations in the lake. The model is not empirical in nature; rather it is based on 

physical relationships between inflows, outflows, degradation and re-suspension rates, and other 

parameters specific to Lake Sawyer. The model uses a step loading derivation and a loading function to 

determine how different inputs of phosphorous affect the concentration over time. The loading function 

is found in “Surface Water Quality Modeling”, by Steven Chapra (2008) and is derived from the 

continuity equation. A step loading function assumes that for a given time period (each year in this case), 

loading remains constant until the next time period. Therefore, yearly averages for in-lake 

concentrations, in-stream concentrations, and in-stream flow rates were used as input parameters in the 

model. Although this simplification results in the model not demonstrating seasonal variations in 

phosphorous loading/attenuation mechanisms, it reasonably portrays the effect of the John Henry No. 1 

Mine on the phosphorous loading issue. The model results indicate that the model is an appropriate tool 

as part of OSM’s decision making process. The relevant equations for the model are as follows:

Masss Balance and Equations

 VdC/dt = QCin – QCout – vsCoutAs + vrCsedimentsAs

o V = Volume of Lake Sawyer

o C = Concentration

o Q = Flow (volume/time)

o As = Surface Area of Lake Sawyer

o vs = Settleing Velocity

o vr = Resuspension Velocity (length/time)

o λ = Q/V + vs/H (1/time)

 H = average lake depth

 The mass balance converts to dC/dt + λC = W(t)/V

o W(t) is the mass loading function

Step Function Solution

o Cp = concentration as a function of the variables

o W = loading in mass/time

o V = volume 

o t = time

The majority of the input parameters for the model were derived from the Lake Sawyer Management Plan 

compiled by the Washington Department of Ecology, USEPA, and King County Surface Water 

Management Division (Shoblom, 2009). Studies conducted by these organizations have determined that a 

phosphorous load of 1.94 kilograms per day should yield a steady state concentration of 16 micrograms 

per liter of phosphorous in Lake Sawyer. This loading rate and concentration data from the King County 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 31

monitoring program were used to calibrate the model to steady state conditions within the lake, and model 

calculated concentrations in the lake were derived from adjusting the loading rate. This derivation of the 

input loads to the lake was necessary because of the lack of flow and phosphorous concentration data for 

Rock Creek and Ravensdale Creek, which provide the bulk of the inflow to the lake. 

Data from the John Henry No. 1 Mine hydrologic monitoring program was used to estimate loading rates 

from the two NPDES outfalls that flow into Rock Creek; point 1 and point 2. Yearly average stream flow 

rates from background point 7 were subtracted from the flow rates at NPDES point 2 to account for flow 

from the watershed outside of the influence of the John Henry No. 1 Mine. The two NPDES outfalls flow 

into Ginder Lake, which turns into Ginder Creek, and Mud Lake Creek, respectively, before flowing into 

Rock Creek. Under the previous NPDES permit that was effective from 1992-2008, phosphorous 

samples were collected monthly from the two outfalls. The phosphorous concentration and flow data 

were averaged for each individual year of interest from 1993-2010 and used to estimate the loading 

impacts to Lake Sawyer. 

One challenge with processing the data collected since 2008 is a stipulation in the new NPDES permit 

that states a sample will only be collected following a 0.5-inch rainfall event, or greater. Since the 

monitoring program at the OSM reference point was unchanged after 2008, the loading rates from the two 

points were compared. A coefficient of determination (R squared) value of 0.4 was produced when 

comparing the dataset up to 2007, whereas a value of 0.69 was produced when comparing all but the 2008 

and later data. 

A number of results were determined from the model that are important factors in making an assessment 

of the potential hydrologic impacts of the John Henry No. 1 Mine. Of particular importance is the 

percentage of phosphorous loading that the mine contributes to Lake Sawyer relative to the total mass 

input into the lake on an annual basis. Although the permit area of the John Henry No. 1 Mine comprises 

approximately 6-percent of the Lake Sawyer Watershed, it was determined from the model that it may 

contribute as much as 15-percent of the yearly phosphorous loading to the lake. The calibrated model is 

shown in Figure 5.

The primary conclusion drawn from the phosphorous loading model is that a high natural variability 

associated with the phosphorous levels in Lake Sawyer exists. The total loading percentage from the 

mine operation has tended to be higher when the mine is operating, and a decline in loading can be 

observed in the years from 2000 to 2010 (Table 16). Therefore, phosphorous loading contributions are 

expected to increase slightly from the resumption of mining at the John Henry No. 1 Mine. Although 

phosphorous loading from mining could potentially have an effect on Lake Sawyer, the outfalls are 

regulated by an NPDES permit which limits the maximum concentration to 82 μg/L. Additionally, 

sediment-laden phosphorous loading is minimized through the Sediment Control Plan and through water 

quality management practices such as flocculation in the sedimentation ponds. Finally, it should be noted 

that since no water quality/quantity monitoring data is available at the inflow points to the lake, possible 

attenuation of phosphorous through wetlands present south of Lake Sawyer cannot be accounted for in the 

model. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 32

Table 16: Percentage of Phosphate Loading to Lake Sawyer from John Henry Mine

Year

Monitoring Points 001 

and 002 (g/day)

Total loading for Lake 

Sawyer (g/day)

Percentage of 

loading from John 

Henry No. 1 Mine

1993 92.8 2175 4.3

1994 145 2825 5.1

1995 178.5 2025 8.8

1996 238.3 1925 12.4

1997 212.7 2600 8.2

1998 174 1175 14.8

1999 134.4 1100 12.2

2000 66.5 1150 5.8

2001 99.7 1750 5.7

2002 91.9 1100 8.3

2003 119 1250 9.5

2004 31.5 1475 2.1

2005 10.3 NA NA

2006 54.2 1650 3.3

2007 12.2 1550 0.8

2008 24.9 1100 2.3

2009 121.8 1050 11.6

2010 127.9 1350 9.5
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 33

Figure 5: Calibrated Phosphate Model of Lake Sawyer

Other contributions of phosphorous to Lake Sawyer may occur through a 220 acre sand and gravel pit 

mine located near the south end of the Lake. It is operated by Palmer Coking Coal Company and does 

not have an industrial NPDES permit. Rather, it is covered under the Sand and Gravel General Permit, 

NPDES Permit No. 50-0000, issued by WDOE which manages it and other similar operations throughout 

the state. Consequently, no NPDES data is collected from the sand and gravel mine, but turbidity is 

limited to 50 nephelometric turbidity units which should likely reduce phosphorous loading to Lake 

Sawyer. 

4.1.2 Surface Water Quality

Mining activities may alter the chemical characteristics of the surface water runoff and baseflow

discharge from a disturbed area. Elevated concentrations of TDS and some changes in pH have been 

observed at John Henry No. 1 Mine through the monitoring program. Concentrations of arsenic, iron, and 

manganese, are parameters of water quality concern in the mine area. Sediment loading is also a primary 

water quality concern, especially during the active mining and reclamation phases when spoil material 

comes into contact with precipitation prior to vegetation establishment. Water quality monitoring has 

been required since mining began to track changes in these parameters, and the dataset being evaluated in 

this document is from 1993 to 2011. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 34

At the John Henry No. 1 Mine, disturbed runoff is managed through a system of constructed 

sedimentation ponds prior to discharge. In addition to surface water runoff, groundwater inflow to the 

pits is also routed through the sediment ponds when necessary. These ponds are designed to contain the 

10-year, 24-hour storm event, and to reduce the sediment load by providing sufficient detention time and 

storage capacity to allow the sediment to settle. The drainage control plan map is shown in Figure 15. 

The treatment capabilities of the sedimentation ponds have been improved by adopting a variety of 

additional enhancements including constructing sumps just before the ponds, adding polymers to aid in 

settling the sediment, placing gravel packs around the discharge standpipes to capture suspended solids, 

and equipping the discharge pipes with valves to help control the outflow volumes. The NPDES permit 

includes limits on the parameters pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, chromium, copper, and phosphate as P

which are listed in Section 2.2.1.1. 

Surface water quality data covering monitoring points 001, 002, 003, and 008 was evaluated to determine 

the performance of the PCCC in reducing surface water impacts over the life of mine. Comparison of 

monitoring data from 1993 to 2011 to applicable water quality standards and baseline data collected in the 

1984 CHIA is summarized in tables provided in Appendix A. Applicable water quality criteria used for 

comparison was from the NPDES permit, OSM regulations located at 30 C.F.R. § 947.816.42 regarding 

iron and manganese, and WDOE criteria listed in WAC-173-201A-240 regarding toxic constituents. The 

NPDES water quality standards are especially important at John Henry No. 1 Mine since all surface water 

exits the mine through a number of NPDES outfalls. Monitoring point 001 is located at the outfall of 

Pond B and flows into Ginder Lake, which in turn flows into Ginder Creek. Monitoring point 002 is 

located below the I-pond series along Mud Lake Creek, which flows into Ginder Creek and ultimately 

into Rock Creek. Monitoring points 003 and 008 are located at the eastern end of the permit area on 

respective NPDES outfalls that flow into Lake No. 12. 

Ginder Creek/Mud Lake Creek Watershed

Water quality impacts have been limited principally to sediment load increases, measured as turbidity. 

Although the potential effects of resumed surface mining activities on surface water will be increased 

compared to the recent period of inactivity, hydrologic effects are anticipated to be less than those

experienced during prior periods of active mining. Predicted reduction in impact potential is due both to 

the limited scope of mining area proposed, and the experience gained in controlling and treating the 

surface water runoff during periods of previous operation. Additionally, no new external spoil piles will

be created and all mine overburden will be directly backfilled into the mining pits, which provide physical 

techniques to manage the impact potential.

Phosphate concentrations indicate a negative trend at monitoring points 001 and 002 (Figures 6 and 7). 

Mining ceased in 1999, and phosphate concentrations have trended lower since that time. Lower 

concentrations with the same volumetric discharge rate will result in reduced phosphate loading. 

Therefore, it’s anticipated that loading will increase as mining resumes, but not likely to the levels 

observed during the pre-1999 period of mining. John Henry No. 1 Mine is the only operation within the 

Lake Sawyer basin that has specific limits set for phosphate; however, the rest of the watershed is under a 

general mandate to reduce phosphorous levels by 50-percent. Additionally, a requirement exists in the 

NPDES permit stating that four consecutive exceedances of 41 μg/L for phosphate concentrations is 

considered a violation, which helps to protect the watershed for extended phosphate loading impacts. 

Comparing surface water monitoring point 001 water quality data to baseline data (data collected before 

mining commenced) resulted in the identification of numerous constituent exceedances. The 

concentrations in water quality data from 1993-2011 are greater than the concentrations in the baseline 

dataset for iron in 4.7 percent of all samples, for manganese in 44 percent of all samples, and for specific 

conductivity in 100 percent of all samples. The increase in specific conductivity relative to baseline is 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 35

consistent with increases in total dissolved solids due to exposed reactive surface area of the spoil 

material. The average measured concentrations of sodium, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and bicarbonate

in the 1993-2011 dataset compared to the baseline dataset indicate increases in total dissolved solids 

occur during periods of mine operation. Average concentrations of sodium, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, 

and bicarbonate of 66, 39, 43, 124, and 269 mg/L respectively, were observed in the 1993-2011 dataset. 

However, no water quality criteria were exceeded for the aforementioned water quality parameters. 

Exceedances of applicable water quality criteria at monitoring point 001 from 1993-2011 were limited to 

copper in 3.5 percent of samples, and phosphorous in 1.2 percent of samples. For the purposes of this 

assessment, water quality conditions at monitoring point 001 from 1993-2011 constitute a minor impact 

to the hydrologic balance based on the impact intensity designation on Table 15. As such, a short-term 

minor impact to the hydrologic balance is predicted when mining resumes at the John Henry No. 1 Mine. 

Comparing surface water monitoring point 002 water quality data to baseline data (data collected before

mining commenced) resulted in the identification of numerous constituent exceedances. The 

concentrations in water quality data from 1993-2011 are greater than the concentrations in the baseline 

dataset for iron in 15.5 percent of all samples, for manganese in 49 percent of all samples, and for specific 

conductivity in 100 percent of all samples. Similar to water quality conditions at point 001, point 002 

exhibited an increase in specific conductivity and TDS attributable to increase in bicarbonate, calcium, 

magnesium, sulfate, and sodium concentrations. Exceedances of applicable water quality criteria at 

monitoring point 002 from 1993-2011 were limited to copper in 3.8 percent of samples, and phosphorous 

in 2.2 percent of samples. For the purposes of this assessment, water quality conditions at monitoring 

point 002 from 1993-2011 constitute a minor impact to the hydrologic balance based on the impact 

intensity designation on Table 15. As such, a short-term minor impact to the hydrologic balance is 

predicted when mining resumes at the John Henry No. 1 Mine. 

Figure 6: Phosphate Concentration at Monitoring Point 001
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 36

Figure 7: Phosphate Concentration at Monitoring Point 002

Lake No. 12 Watershed

The proposed John Henry No. 1 Mine operations will occur entirely within the Rock Creek/Lake Sawyer 

watershed. Since additional surface area will not be disturbed by the resumed mining activity within the 

Lake 12 watershed, water quality impacts are not anticipated. 

Historically, water quality impacts have been limited principally to increases in sediment load as 

measured by turbidity. Phosphate levels have occasionally exceeded NPDES limits, but indicate a 

negative trend since coal production tapered down at the mine in the late 90s, illustrated in Figure 8. 

Comparing surface water monitoring point 003 water quality data to baseline data (data collected before 

mining commenced) resulted in the identification of numerous constituent exceedances. The 

concentrations in water quality data from 1993-2011 are greater than the concentrations in the baseline 

dataset for iron in 3.8 percent of all samples, for manganese in 87 percent of all samples, and for specific 

conductivity in 100 percent of all samples. Iron concentrations seem to have increased within this

watershed much less than manganese, although concentrations of both parameters are still within the 

range of compliance related to water quality standards. Similar to water quality conditions at point 001 

and point 002, point 003 exhibited an increase in specific conductivity and TDS attributable to increase in 

bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and sodium concentrations. Exceedances of applicable water 

quality criteria at monitoring point 003 from 1993-2011 were limited to copper in 5 percent of samples, 

and phosphorous in 3.8 percent of samples. For the purposes of this assessment, water quality conditions 

at monitoring point 003 from 1993-2011 constitute a minor impact to the hydrologic balance based on the 

impact intensity designation on Table 15. However, since additional surface area will not be disturbed by 

the resumed mining activity within the Lake 12 watershed, future water quality impacts are anticipated to 

diminish from minor to negligible. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 37

Monitoring point 008 shows similar trends to others. The concentrations in water quality data from 1993-

2011 are greater than the concentrations in the baseline dataset for iron in 6 percent of all samples, for 

manganese in 64 percent of all samples, and for specific conductivity in 100 percent of all samples. The 

only water quality criterion that was exceeded at point 008 in the 1993-2011 dataset was for copper in 5.2 

percent of all samples. For the purposes of this assessment, water quality conditions at monitoring point 

008 from 1993-2011 constitute a minor impact to the hydrologic balance based on the impact intensity 

designation on Table 15. However, since additional surface area will not be disturbed by the resumed 

mining activity within the Lake 12 watershed, future water quality impacts are anticipated to diminish 

from minor to negligible. 

Figure 8: Phosphate Concentration at Monitoring Point 003

4.1.3 Surface Water Quantity

Impacts to surface water quantity are estimated to be minor, attributable to the dewatering of Pit 1 and Pit 

2 as mining resumes. Removal of vegetation and mining-related disturbance of the land may result in 

local changes in transpiration, infiltration, and runoff, but the effect is anticipated to be minor given the 

limited area of disturbance proposed and the positive net water balance in the area. Impact minimization

measures include limiting vegetation clearing and removal to only those areas immediately required for 

mining, re-establishing vegetative cover on disturbed areas as quickly as possible by grass seeding and 

planting trees, and controlling runoff through the sediment and drainage control plan. 

The original PHC and SOAP reports projected that mining activities at the John Henry No. 1 Mine would 

have some impacts on surface water quantity. Water quantity impacts due to changes in drainage areas 

have been negligible and have not adversely impacted water uses in the Rock Creek/Lake Sawyer 

watershed. The Ginder Lake and Mud Lake sub-drainages combine just beyond the permit boundary, and 

local precipitation is sufficiently high to ensure consistent water flow throughout much of the year. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 38

Since no mining is projected to occur in the Lake No. 12 watershed and the area has been reclaimed, no

disturbances to the hydrologic balance are predicted. Impacts to water quantity in the Lake No. 12 

watershed due to mining have been minor based on the impact intensity designation on Table 15, and 

have not adversely affected the uses in the Lake 12 watershed (Figure 11). Consequently, it is anticipated 

that there will be negligible impacts to the hydrologic balance in this area when mining resumes at the 

John Henry No. 1 Mine. 

The de-watering of mine pits and pumping of water throughout the mine site had an observed effect on 

discharge in the Mud Lake and Ginder Lake sub-watersheds (Figure 9 and 10). Both of these 

subwatersheds discharge into Ginder Creek, which in turn discharges into Rock Creek and Lake Sawyer. 

Figures 9 and 10 illustrate that discharge was higher during the mining years (up to 1999), compared to 

the 2000-2011 timeframe when mining was limited or not occurring. Recorded flow at the OSM 

reference point at Ginder Creek just outside of the permit area has averaged 8.9 CFS from 2002-2010. 

Flow contributions in the Ginder Creek watershed from the John Henry No. 1 Mine discharges average 

17-34 percent of the total flow, as measured at the OSM reference point, depending on whether the mine 

is active. Because the large scale effects of runoff variations at the John Henry No. 1 Mine are minimal

when evaluated for their effect in the entire CIA, let alone in the local area, the observed trends for

maximum and average flow in the 1993-2011 dataset constitute a short-term minor impact based on the 

impact intensity designation on Table 15. The proposed resumption of mining at the John Henry No. 1 

Mine will likely result in a similar surface water quantity impact conditions observed during the previous 

mining period. 

Figure 9: Discharge at Monitoring Point 001
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 39

Figure 10: Discharge at Monitoring Point 002

Figure 11: Discharge at Monitoring Point 003
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 40

4.2 Groundwater

4.2.1 Groundwater Quality

The quality of groundwater in an area adjacent to mining activity may be affected due to the addition of 

various chemical constituents from exposed surface area of the spoil material, and is dependent on the 

solubility of the minerals in the disturbed overburden. The majority of the strata in the John Henry No. 1 

Mine area are alkaline, which limits the potential for additional dissolved metals in the groundwater. 

Groundwater monitoring of wells within the permit and adjacent area has been conducted at the mine 

since it was permitted in 1986. The dataset is evaluated from the year 1993 to 2011 in this assessment. 

Groundwater quality data from Reichert Well, PCCC Well, 12-4 Well, and Pit 2 was evaluated to 

determine whether the John Henry No. 1 Mine operation has been designed to minimize groundwater 

quality impacts to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. Comparison of monitoring data from 

1993 to 2011 to applicable water quality standards is summarized in tables provided in Appendix A. 

Applicable water quality criteria used for comparison was based on NPDES permit and WDOE criteria 

listed in WAC-173-200-040 regarding groundwater quality guidelines for drinking water supplies. These 

drinking water standards adequately protect the designated use of the groundwater resource in the area. 

The current NPDES permit for the John Henry No.1 Mine indicates that exceedances of water quality 

criteria will result in increased monitoring until such time as the standards are met. The NPDES 

standards are utilized to determine whether negligible, minor, moderate, or major impacts have occurred 

and can be expected to occur at the John Henry No. 1 Mine. 

The data collected at the Reichert Well, PCCC Well, and the 12-4 Well was compared to water quality 

criteria to determine impact designations. Exceedances of water quality criteria at the Reichert well from 

1993-2011 were limited to iron in 2.9 percent of samples, mercury in 2.6 percent of samples, and for

manganese in 4.2 percent of samples. For the purposes of this assessment, groundwater quality 

conditions at the Reichert Well from 1993-2011 constitute a minor impact to the hydrologic balance 

based on the impact intensity designation on Table 15. As such, a minor impact to the hydrologic balance 

is predicted when mining resumes at the John Henry No. 1 Mine. 

Exceedances of water quality criteria at the PCCC well from 1993-2011 occurred with iron in 14.5 

percent of samples, mercury in 2.6 percent of samples, and in manganese in 1.4 percent of samples. For 

the purposes of this assessment, groundwater quality conditions at the PCCC Well from 1993-2011

constitute a minor impact to the hydrologic balance based on the impact intensity designation on Table 

15. As such, a minor impact to the hydrologic balance is predicted when mining resumes at the John 

Henry No. 1 Mine. 

Exceedances of water quality criteria at the 12-4 well from 1993-2011 occurred with iron in 25.7 percent 

of samples, mercury in 2.56 percent of samples, and in manganese in 1.4 percent of samples. For the 

purposes of this assessment, groundwater quality conditions at the 12-4 Well from 1993-2011 constitute a 

minor impact to the hydrologic balance based on the impact intensity designation on Table 15. As such, a 

minor impact to the hydrologic balance is predicted when mining resumes at the John Henry No. 1 Mine. 

Overall, the measured impacts to groundwater quality in the area surrounding the John Henry No. 1 Mine 

have been minor. In the baseline study conducted for the 1984 CHIA, it was demonstrated that the 

groundwater conditions within the Puget Group are highly heterogeneous and a high degree of natural 

variability is present in terms of water quality parameter concentrations. To date, only short-term minor

impacts regarding groundwater quality have been observed in wells listed in the OSM and NPDES 

monitoring programs. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 41

4.2.2 Groundwater Quantity

Due to low hydraulic conductivity of saturated portions of the Puget Group, minimal impact on 

groundwater quantity has been observed throughout the life of the John Henry No. 1 Mine. The 1984

CHIA predicted small temporary drawdown of local wells in the adjacent area could occur due to mine 

dewatering activities as mining progressed through potential recharge areas. The proposed resumption of 

mining may result in a small localized impact on water levels in wells at residences on SE 310th Street, 

based on a report prepared by GeoEngineers in 1983. The report estimated that water levels in these 

wells could drop 5 to 15 feet as mining in Pit 2 advances through the recharge area. Original estimates 

indicated seepage into the mining pits was projected to be between 3 and 5 gallon per minute; however, 

during actual mining of the two pits visual observation indicates that the projections were overstated. Pit 

1 was excavated to a depth of over 325 feet with only a few minor wet spots apparent on the pit walls and 

no measurable groundwater discharge into the mine pit. Figures 12, 13, and 14 illustrate the trends of 

water levels in the Reichert, PCCC, and 12-4 wells. 

The 1984 CHIA predicted that after 19 years of mining there would be up to 200 feet of drawdown within 

the CIA area. However, data from the monitoring program indicates the impact to the potentiometric 

surface in the area is less than predicted. The depth of the Reichert well is 240 feet, and water level 

measurements in Figure 12 illustrate the groundwater levels at the location are seasonally lowest during 

August through October, and otherwise stable from 1993 – 2011. It is possible that the Reichert well may

be affected by mine operations at the John Henry No. 1 Mine and will continue to be monitored; however,

the projected impact for the Puget Group and groundwater resource outside the permit area is considered

negligible. 

Depth to water in the 12-4 well near Mud Lake has been consistent from 1993 to 2011, fluctuating less 

than 5-feet both seasonally and during the period of record. The water level in this area was originally 

predicted to be the most impacted by mining operations based on the 1984 CHIA, which assumed that 

mining would commence in the Mud Lake Wetlands. However, no mining occurred in this area. The 

resumption of mining operations at John Henry No. 1 Mine may impact water level at well 12-4, but to 

date, the observed impacts have been negligible. 

During mining operations, the PCCC well is used for drinking water and mine water supply. The water 

level in the PCCC well has been as low as 270 feet below ground surface during periods of active mining, 

and has recovered to within 10 feet below ground surface after mining. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 42

Figure 12: Reichert Well Water Depth

Figure 13: PCCC Well Water Depth
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 43

Figure 14: 12-4 Well Water Depth
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 44

Figure 15: Drainage Control Plan (PCCC, John Henry No. 1 Permit)
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 45

5 Material Damage Criteria

5.1 Material Damage Definitions

OSM has identified both material damage thresholds and material damage limits for the John Henry No. 1 

Mine. A material damage limit is an impact on the hydrologic balance by the mining operation which 

permanently precludes a beneficial or designated use outside of the permit area or a water use associated 

with the designated post-mining land use, which cannot be effectively mitigated by the coal operator. 

Material damage limits are also designated as major or long-term impacts with respect to the impact 

intensity designations in Table 15.

Material damage thresholds constitute long-term (i.e. beyond the reclamation liability period) changes to 

the hydrologic balance caused by the mining operation that are indicative of potential permanent changes. 

The purpose of material damage thresholds is to provide a mechanism for PCCC and OSM address areas 

of potential concern prior to the occurrence of material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the 

permit area. If a material damage water resource threshold is reached, then measures will be taken to 

ensure material damage to the hydrologic balance outside of the permit area is prevented. Material 

damage thresholds are designated as moderate impacts in Table 15. Material damage thresholds and 

limits are defined in Table 17.

Table 17: Material Damage Criteria for the John Henry No. 1 Mine

Material Damage Criteria

Limit

irretrievable loss or degradation of a water resource such that it is incapable of supporting an 

existing or reasonably foreseeable use that cannot be provided by alternate water supplies

Threshold

any loss or degradation of a water resource that renders the water unsuitable for its current use or 

any modorate impacts to the hydrologic balance, as defined in Table 15

5.2 Material Damage Summary Statement

After review of the available hydrologic information, OSM finds that the PCCC John Henry No. 1 Mine 

has been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. It is 

anticipated that short-term minor impacts will occur to surface water quality, surface water quantity, and 

groundwater quality (Table 18). Negligible impacts to groundwater quantity resources are anticipated. 

The mine operator will continue the approved hydrologic monitoring program, and provide data necessary 

information to ensure the prevention of material damage. 
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 46

Table 18: Material Damage Summary

Water 

Resource

Impact Intensity 

Designation

Impact Duration 

Designation

Material 

Damage 

Threshold 

Reached

Material 

Damage Limit 

Reached

Surface Water 

Quality Minor Short-term No No

Surface Water 

Quantity Minor Short-term No No

Groundwater 

Quality Minor Short-term No No

Groundwater 

Quantity Negligible Short-term No No
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 47

6 References

Black Diamond, City of Black Diamond Comprehensive Plan, 1996.

Chapra, Steven., Surface Water Quality Modeling, 2008.

EPA., Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition, 1993.

Fuste, Luis A. and Packard, Frank A., Quality of Coal Mine Drainage In Washington, unpublished report, 

United States Geological Survey, Department of Interior, 1983.

Gavenda, Robert., King County Conservation District. Unpublished field survey, 1981.

GeoEngineers, Inc., Report of the Hydrogeological Services, Proposed Open Pit Coal Mine Development, 

Near Black Diamond, Washington For Pacific Coast Coal Company, 1983.

GeoEngineers, Inc., Estimate of Groundwater Seepage Intro Open Pit Mines, 1983.

Gresham Environmental Services., John Henry No. 1 Coal Mine Wetland Study, 2011.

HartCrowser, Inc., Evaluation of Projected Water Quality and Quantity in the Proposed Impoundment 

(Final Cut Lake), John Henry No. 1 Mine, 1997.

King County Lake Stewardship Program., Lake Sawyer Water Quality, 2011.

King County Surface Water Management., Lake Sawyer Management Plan, 2000.

Onwumere, George., Effectiveness Monitoring for Total Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Loads in 

Fenwick and Sawyer Lakes, Washington Department of Ecology Publication No. 02-03-054., 2002.

PCCC., Permit No. WA-0007-D, Permit Application Package (PAP) for John Henry No. 1 Mine. , Office 

of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Western Region Mine Plan Reference Center, Denver, 

Colorado, 2014. Note: Technical updates to the PAP are ongoing. Since the permit is complete and up to 

date at the publication of this CHIA, 2014 is used as the reference year.

PacWest Engineering, LLC., City of Black Diamond Water System Comprehensive Plan, 2008.

Shoblom, Tricia., Lake Sawyer Water Quality Implementation Plan, Washington Department of Ecology

Publication No. 09-10-053, 2009.

Systems Architects Engineers, Inc. P.S., Determination of the Probable Hydrologic Consequences, Black 

Diamond Coal Study, 1983.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service., Soil Survey. King County Area, Washington, 1981.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office of Surface Mining., Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment, 1984.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office of Surface Mining., Proposed John Henry No. 1 Mine, King County, 

Washington – Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1985.

Vine, J. D., Geology and Coal Resources of the Cumberland, Hobart, and Maple Valley Quadrangles, 

King County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 624, 67 p., 1979.
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 48

7 Appendix A

Discharge Point 

001

(B, F, and G 

Ponds)

[1993 - 2011]

Units Min Avg Max Std.

Dev. Count Baseline Criteria Criteria Source

Number 

Exceedances 

of Baseline

Percent 

Exceedance

of Baseline

Number

Exceedances

of Criteria

Percent 

Exceedance

of Criteria

Alkalinity, 

Bicarb (as 

CaCO3)

mg/L 72 268.750 420 93.52 16

Alkalinity, Carb 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 3.143 24 6.72 14

Arsenic, Total 

Recoverable μg/L 2.5 9.193 50 10.62 57 190 WDOE

Cadmium mg/L 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.00 2

Calcium μg/L 13000 39411 88000 15053 34

Chloride mg/L 1.4 4.306 14 3.30 16

Chromium, 

Total 

Recoverable

μg/L 0.5 2.667 14 2.46 57 16 NPDES

Copper μg/L 0.5 4.325 25 5.08 57 16 NPDES 2 3.5

Flow, Ave. cfs 0 0.536 2.72 0.58 176

Flow, Max. cfs 0.01 1.431 5.16 1.28 175

Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L 68 262.286 500 97.04 56

Iron mg/L 0.0025 0.221 1.5 0.23 64 0.63 6 30 CFR 816.42 3 4.7

Lead mg/L 0.005 0.009 0.0125 0.00 3

Magnesium μg/L 8400 43411 87000 17120 35

Manganese μg/L 0.5 225.383 2200 345.59 60 53 4000 30 CFR 816.42 44 73.3

Mercury mg/L 0.0005 0.001 0.0005 0.00 2

Nitrate + Nitrite 

(as N) mg/L 0.06 0.595 3 0.80 17

Oil & Grease mg/L 0.25 2.320 19 2.41 161

DO, Min. mg/L 8.5 9.979 11.9 0.49 166

DO, Ave. mg/L 8.6 10.226 12.4 0.57 159
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 49

DO, Max. mg/L 8.8 10.583 12.8 0.71 166

pH, Min. S.U. 6.9 7.866 8.5 0.32 175

pH, Max. S.U. 7.4 8.235 8.5 0.18 175

Phosphate, Total 

(as P) μg/L 2.5 26.473 170 23.39 164 82 NPDES 2 1.2

Potassium μg/L 1400 3870.588 7400 1443.85 17

Selenium mg/L 0.0025 0.003 0.0025 0.00 2

Sodium μg/L 15000 65882 200000 46354 17

Solids, 

Settleable, 

Average

ml/L 0.25 0.250 0.25 0.00 164

Solids, 

Settleable, 

Maximum

ml/L 0.25 0.250 0.25 0.00 164

Solids, Total 

Suspended mg/L 0.5 5.355 70 7.02 163 20 2 1.2

Sp.Cond., Ave. μmho/cm 436 726.543 954 98.01 164 96 164 100

Sp.Cond., Max. μmho/cm 575 795.531 1089 104.75 175 96 175 100

Sulfate (SO4) mg/L 6.6 123.979 260 73.36 19

Discharge Turb, 

Ave. N.T.U. 1 10 26 6.93 154

Discharge Turb, 

Max. N.T.U. 1 16.907 64 11.61 173

Zinc mg/L 0.0005 0.0212 0.38 0.05 57
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 50

Discharge Point 

002

(H1, H2, and I 

Ponds) 

[1993 - 2011]

Units Min Avg Max Std.

Dev. Count Baseline Criteria Criteria Source

Number

Exceedances 

of Baseline

Percent 

Exceedance

of Baseline

Number

Exceedances 

of Criteria

Percent 

Exceedance 

of Criteria

Alkalinity, 

Bicarb (as 

CaCO3)

mg/L 64 163.176 260 58.55 17

Alkalinity, Carb 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 17.269 200 55.09 13

Arsenic, Total 

Recoverable μg/L 2.5 8.923 50 10.89 52 190 WDOE

Cadmium mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 2

Calcium μg/L 12000 24566 41000 6683 30

Chloride mg/L 0.5 2.624 5.1 1.07 17

Chromium, 

Total 

Recoverable

μg/L 0.5 2.663 13 2.79 52 16 NPDES

Copper μg/L 0.5 5.577 82 13.64 52 16 NPDES 2 3.8

Flow, Ave. cfs 0 1.591 8.26 1.76 157

Flow, Max. cfs 0.09 7.336 60 10.29 148

Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L 68 161.843 280 47.74 51

Iron mg/L 0.104 0.441 1.6 0.32 58 0.63 6 30 CFR 816.42 9 15.5

Lead mg/L 0.005 0.009 0.0125 0.00 4

Magnesium μg/L 9300 24267 47000 9174 31

Manganese μg/L 4.5 63.792 197 44.69 53 53 4000 30 CFR 816.42 26 49.1

Mercury mg/L 0.0005 0.001 0.0005 0.00 2

Nitrate + Nitrite 

(as N) mg/L 0.005 0.451 0.96 0.29 17
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 51

Oil & Grease mg/L

DO, Min. mg/L

9 10.181 11.5 0.45 143

DO, Ave. mg/L 9.1 10.493 12.4 0.55 136

DO, Max. mg/L 9.5 10.88 13.3 0.69 143

pH, Min. S.U.

7 7.904 8.3 0.25 148

pH, Max. S.U. 7.8 8.264 8.8 0.12 148

Phosphate, Total 

(as P) μg/L 2.5 25.169 140 20.85 139 82 NPDES

3 2.2

Potassium μg/L 1400 2500 3700 664.27 17

Selenium mg/L 0.0025 0.003 0.0025 0.00

2

Sodium μg/L 11000 45705 81000 19826 17

Solids, 

Settleable, 

Average

ml/L 0.25 0.250 0.25 0.00 138

Solids, 

Settleable, 

Maximum

ml/L 0.25 0.250 0.25 0.00 138

Solids, Total 

Suspended mg/L 0.5 3.812 21 3.93 137 20

1 0.7

Sp.Cond., Ave. μmho/cm 255 508.754 982 135.11 138 96 138 100

Sp.Cond., Max. μmho/cm 290 581.480 1041 143.27 148

Sulfate (SO4) mg/L 19 68.211 140 39.22 19

Discharge Turb, 

Ave. N.T.U.

2 7.594 20 4.54 128

Discharge Turb, 

Max. N.T.U.

2 13.158 68 10.32 146

Zinc mg/L 0.0005 0.016 0.34 0.05 52
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 52

Discharge Point 

003

(Pond A)

[1993 - 2011]

Units Min Avg Max Std.Dev. Count Baseline Criteria Criteria 

Source

Number 

Exceedances 

of Baseline

Percent 

Exceedance

of Baseline

Number 

Exceedances 

of Criteria

Percent 

Exceedance

of Criteria

Alkalinity, 

Bicarb (as 

CaCO3)

mg/L 152 263.647 340 61.51 17

Alkalinity, Carb 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 26.346 320 88.32 13

Arsenic, Total 

Recoverable μg/L 2.5 6.125 25 6.56 20 190 WDOE

Cadmium mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 2

Calcium μg/L 29000 42428 52000 7365 21

Chloride mg/L 1 3.013 5.7 1.34 16

Chromium, 

Total 

Recoverable

μg/L 0.5 2.05 13 2.75 20 16 NPDES

Copper μg/L 0.5 4.4 40 8.69 20 16 NPDES 1 5

Flow, Ave. cfs 0.01 0.675 1 0.41 17

Flow, Max. cfs 0.005 0.07 2.44 0.22 136

Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L 140 274 460 64.63 35

Iron mg/L 0.0025 0.259 3.6 0.53 52 0.63 6

30 CFR 

816.42 2 3.8

Lead mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.00 3

Magnesium μg/L 26000 42695 68000 9669 23

Manganese μg/L 0.37 246.81 3300 496.83 49 53 4000 30 CFR 

816.42 43 87.8

Mercury mg/L 0.0005 0.001 0.0005 0.00 2

Nitrate + Nitrite 

(as N) mg/L 0.042 0.613 2.6 0.65 16

Oil & Grease mg/L

DO, Min. mg/L 9.5 10.015 11.4 0.37 132

DO, Ave. mg/L 9.6 9.8 10.2 0.21 6

DO, Max. mg/L 9.5 10.026 11.4 0.36 132
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 53

pH, Min. S.U. 6.6 7.599 8.1 0.24 136

pH, Max. S.U. 6.6 7.608 8.1 0.23 136

Phosphate, Total 

(as P) μg/L 2.5 22.33 110 22.27 53 82 NPDES 2 3.8

Potassium μg/L 1200 2164.706 3900 705.28 17

Selenium mg/L 0.0025 0.003 0.0025 0.00 2

Sodium μg/L 19000 40941 120000 24757 17

Solids, 

Settleable, 

Average

ml/L

Solids, 

Settleable, 

Maximum

ml/L

Solids, Total 

Suspended mg/L 0.5 3.72 28 3.98 127 20 1 0.8

Sp.Cond., Ave. μmho/cm 96

Sp.Cond., Max. μmho/cm 280 663.044 1170 129.88 136 96 136 100

Sulfate (SO4) mg/L 29 85.632 170 39.92 19

Discharge Turb, 

Ave. N.T.U.

Discharge Turb, 

Max. N.T.U. 1 4.963 17 3.58 134

Zinc mg/L 0.0005 0.017 0.32 0.05 35

Discharge Point 

008

(Pond A’)

[1993 - 2011]

Units Min Avg Max Std.

Dev. Count Baseline Criteria Criteria Source

Number

Exceedances 

of Baseline

Percent 

Exceedance

of Baseline

Number

Exceedances 

of Criteria

Percent 

Exceedance

of Criteria

Alkalinity, 

Bicarb (as 

CaCO3)

mg/L 60 160.438 350 84.16 16

Alkalinity, Carb 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 0.667 1 0.25 12

Arsenic, Total 

Recoverable μg/L 2.5 6.316 25 6.69 19 190 WDOE

Cadmium mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 2

Calcium μg/L 14000 33095 74000 15668 21

Chloride mg/L 0.9 2.013 5 1.18 15

Chromium, 

Total μg/L 0.5 1.711 4 1.16 19 16 NPDES
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 54

Recoverable

Copper μg/L 0.5 3.974 21 4.87 19 16 NPDES 1 5.3

Flow, Ave. cfs 0.01 0.086 0.21 0.08 7

Flow, Max. cfs 0.005 0.037 1.55 0.14 128

Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L 76 188.618 420 78.74 34

Iron mg/L 0.025 0.321 1.5 0.25 50 0.63 6

30 CFR 

816.42 3 6

Lead mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.00 3

Magnesium μg/L 10000 26000 59000 11968 22

Manganese μg/L 1.5 232.747 2000 386.69 47 53 4000 30 CFR 

816.42 30 63.8

Mercury mg/L 0.0005 0.001 0.0005 0.00 2

Nitrate + Nitrite 

(as N) mg/L 0.005 0.598 1.7 0.53 16

pH, Min. S.U. 6.5 7.536 8.3 0.28 128

pH, Max. S.U. 6.5 7.545 8.3 0.27 128

Potassium μg/L 930 1768.125 2700 543.22 16

Selenium mg/L 0.0025 0.003 0.0025 0.00 2

Sodium μg/L 4500 9968 24000 4845 16

Solids, Total 

Suspended mg/L 0.5 3.828 40 4.72 119 20 2 1.7

Sp.Cond., Ave. μmho/cm 11 96 7 63.6

Sp.Cond., Max. μmho/cm 149 460.591 906 150.00 127 96 127 100

Sulfate (SO4) mg/L 3.6 31.661 94 30.64 18

Zinc mg/L 0.0005 0.019 0.34 0.06 34
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 55

Reichert Well [1993 – 2011]

Analyte Units Min Avg Max Std.

Dev. Count Criteria Criteria Source

Number 

Exceedances 

of Criteria

Percent 

Exceedance

of Criteria

Water Depth feet 52.1 89.537 173.4 22.93 216

pH S.U. 7 7.376 8 0.14 216

Specific Conductance μmho/cm 460 595.185 683 36.92 216

Temperature deg F 35 53.686 72.6 6.12 215

Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 270 350.299 470 33.39 67

Arsenic mg/L 0.0025 0.009 0.05 0.01 71 0.05 NPDES

Iron mg/L 0.0025 0.056 0.53 0.09 69 0.3 WAC 173-

200-040 2 2.9

Lead mg/L 0.0025 0.011 0.04 0.01 37 0.05 NPDES

Chromium mg/L 0.0005 0.004 0.031 0.01 37 0.05 NPDES

Mercury mg/L 0.00005 0.005 0.00 38 0.002 NPDES 1 2.6

Manganese mg/L 0.00025 0.018 0.101 0.02 71 0.05 NPDES 3 4.2

Calcium mg/L 35 81.95 130 13.68 40

Sodium mg/L 6.8 19.573 180 44.39 15

Magnesium mg/L 29 36.049 43 2.72 41

Potassium mg/L 1.1 1.593 5.3 1.04 15

Chloride mg/L 0.5 2.644 6.5 1.42 16 250 WAC 173-

200-040

Sulfate mg/L 11 16.556 33 5.52 18 250 WAC 173-

200-040

Nitrate (+Nitrite) mg/L 0.025 0.089 0.3 0.06 16

Carbonate (C-Alk.) mg/L 0.5 0.75 2 0.45 12

Bicarbonate mg/L 180 323.846 400 59.1 13

TDS mg/L 320 346.667 390 37.86 3

TSS mg/L 2 2.333 3 0.58 3

Barium mg/L 0.34 0.34 0.34 N.A. 1
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 56

Cadmium mg/L 0.002 0.002 0.002 N.A. 1

Selenium mg/L 0.0025 0.003 0.0025 N.A. 1

Copper mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.005 N.A. 1
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 57

PCCC Well [1993 – 2011]

Analyte Units Min Avg Max Std.

Dev. Count Criteria Criteria Source

Number 

Exceedances 

of Criteria

Percent 

Exceedance

of Criteria

Water Depth feet 11.5 95.666 273.2 59.1 216

pH S.U. 7.3 7.92 8.5 0.18 216

Specific Conductance μmho/cm 336 426.5 578 35.21 216

Temperature deg F 43.3 52.787 71 4.18 216

Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 87.831 180 38.06 68

Arsenic mg/L 0.0025 0.009 0.05 0.01 71 0.05 NPDES

Iron mg/L 0.0125 0.318 4.04 0.73 69 0.3 WAC 173-

200-040 10 14.5

Lead mg/L 0.0025 0.008 0.025 0.01 37 0.05 NPDES

Chromium mg/L 0.0005 0.003 0.025 37 0.05 NPDES

Mercury mg/L 0.00005 0.005 38 0.002 NPDES 1 2.6

Manganese mg/L 0.00025 0.009 0.07 0.01 70 0.05 NPDES 1 1.4

Calcium mg/L 9.1 20.678 37 7.96 40

Sodium mg/L 50 68.333 95 13.46 15

Magnesium mg/L 5 11.285 21 4.54 41

Potassium mg/L 1.1 1.493 2.1 0.31 15

Chloride mg/L 0.5 1.906 4.7 1 16 250 WAC 173-

200-040

Sulfate mg/L 0.5 5.122 11 3.98 18 250 WAC 173-

200-040

Nitrate (+Nitrite) mg/L 0.005 0.04 0.11 0.04 16

Carbonate (C-Alk.) mg/L 0.5 2.792 21 5.94 12

Bicarbonate mg/L 210 228.462 260 14.05 13

TDS mg/L 230 276.667 360 72.34 3
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 58

TSS mg/L 2 2.667 4 1.15 3

Barium mg/L 0.05 0.05 0.05 N.A. 1

Cadmium mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 N.A. 1

Selenium mg/L 0.0025 0.003 0.0025 N.A. 1

Copper mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 N.A. 1
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 59

12 - 4 Well [1993 – 2011]

Analyte Units Min Avg Max Std.

Dev. Count Criteria Criteria Source

Number 

Exceedances 

of Criteria

Percent 

Exceedance

of Criteria

Water Depth feet 6.1 7.98 10.4 0.77 216

pH S.U. 8.3 8.784 9 0.1 216

Specific Conductance μmho/cm 350 452.833 944 98.3 216

Temperature deg F 38.8 53.254 73.4 5.13 216

Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 15.6 140 27.08 68

Arsenic mg/L 0.0025 0.026 0.058 0.01 72 0.122 NPDES

Iron mg/L 0.025 0.360 3.8 0.63 70 0.3 WAC 173-

200-040 18 25.7

Lead mg/L 0.0025 0.008 0.025 0.01 38 0.05 NPDES

Chromium mg/L 0.000025 0.003 0.025 38 0.05 NPDES

Mercury mg/L 0.00005 0.005 39 0.002 NPDES 1 2.6

Manganese mg/L 0.00025 0.007 0.086 0.01 71 0.05 NPDES 1 1.4

Calcium mg/L 1.3 2.427 19 3.31 41

Sodium mg/L 82.1 104.569 140 15.82 16

Magnesium mg/L 0.006 1.151 15 2.57 42

Potassium mg/L 1.2 2.25 10.5 2.28 16

Chloride mg/L 0.5 8.341 54 12.02 17 250 WAC 173-

200-040

Sulfate mg/L 0.25 8.261 110 26.01 19 250 WAC 173-

200-040

Nitrate (+Nitrite) mg/L 0.005 0.162 1.7 0.42 17
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 60

Carbonate (C-Alk.) mg/L 0.5 19.2 58 18.89 15

Bicarbonate mg/L 170 219.286 280 28.41 14

TDS mg/L 220 266 314 38.61 4

TSS mg/L 1 3 6 2.65 3

Cadmium mg/L 0.0005 0.001 0.001 2

Selenium mg/L 0.0005 0.002 0.0025 2
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 61

Pit 2 [1993 – 2011]

Analyte Units Min Avg Max Std.

Dev. Count Criteria Criteria Source

Number 

Exceedances 

of Criteria

Percent 

Exceedance

of Criteria

pH S.U. 7.6 8.5 8.8 0.19 216

Specific Conductance μmho/cm 442 820.796 1200 145.07 216

Temperature deg F 37 55.454 76.5 10.25 203

Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 249 400 91.15 68

T.D.S. mg/L

Arsenic mg/L 0.0025 0.009 0.05 0.01 71 0.05 NPDES

Iron mg/L 0.0025 0.119 0.65 0.15 71 0.3 WAC 173-

200-040 9 12.6

Lead mg/L 0.0025 0.012 0.04 0.01 70 0.05 NPDES

Chromium mg/L 0.00025 0.002 0.025 70 0.05 NPDES

Mercury mg/L 0.00005 0.005 71 0.002 NPDES 2 2.8

Manganese mg/L 0.00025 0.008 0.07 0.01 71 0.05 NPDES 2 2.8

Calcium mg/L 13 27.65 69 9.84 40

Sodium mg/L 8 87.5 200 57.23 14

Magnesium mg/L 11 53.659 73 15.69 41

Potassium mg/L 1.6 4.357 7.7 1.38 14

Chloride mg/L 0.05 1.683 4 1.05 15 250 WAC 173-

200-040

Sulfate mg/L 100 185.333 310 66.85 15 250 WAC 173-

200-040 3 20

Nitrate (+Nitrite) mg/L 0.015 0.984 3.9 1.53 15

Carbonate (C-Alk.) mg/L

0.5 17.846 48 16.79 13

Bicarbonate mg/L 200 271.538 340 42.4 13
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 62
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 63
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 64
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 65
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 66
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 67
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 68
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 69
John Henry No. 1 Mine

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 70