-------
H
a
s
El
0
c
2
—
Bog
H^J
-il
§q.
fi^M
5
«~
o
10
e^T"
IS
2~
•^
si?
H>— •
0)X-N
§1
to
«) H
•§ g)
..^
•P
•H
•H'H
'd H)
13 f%
<'*"'
-p"^
3*
•5
CO
41
O §
03
C
O
<-H •
d) S5
t ^
w
-3- LA
1 • •
1 VO H
LA
1 OoC
I • •
-* H
LA
VO OO
1 • •
i O O
VO H
! OOH
LA
O O VO
* • •
t- O O
oo op oo
ir\
^^
0 0 CM
* • •
8CU t-
oo oo
H OOCM
*
LA
o o o"^
t- VOVO CU
CO CU O VO
O O OO
O l/\ t^-
oo
1°? -*.
|VO LA
H VO
S% > 5%>
s z < s z <
0 H
LA LA
LA LA
o o
* •
H .*
O t-
VO
-sf* VO
• •
00 CU
VO
\f,^
LAH
• *
CUH
O t-
ONW
Co
o'o'
• *
0 t-
LA LA
OOH
C?
o'o'
St*"*
^o
OOH
Co"
o oco"
^vSs!
oco
VO CU
CM
LA
£ —
C X M
SB2<
CU
LA
LA
coco
* •
LA H
LA
t_^- \^
• *
LA OO
LA
\^^
co o
-* oo
o o
P3
LA
cs'o'
8" cu
oo
LA
o'o'
cu cu
fooo
O IA
l~1
LA
ooco'
OCO ON
oo
O LA
O LA
CO, LA
c^-
oo
VO
•SS >
2S<
OO
LA
LA
o
o
ON
cvi
5
s
-d-
LA
LA
• *
t-cu
Co"
O OO
O LA
-rf CU
Co"
VO H
• •
•*•*
O t~-
ON.VO
-d- CU
Co
O oo
o oo
VO LA
VO
o'o'
• •
coco
Co"
0^-
OVO
oo
5 S >?
S 55 < SS<
^ CO
LA LA
LA LA
VO
O'H'
• *
CU CVI
00 rl
VO
^t^—
• •
CO^-
Co"
cOvo
OOH
cq t-
•^°°
VO
OSS'
^5 OO
Co"
ot^
IS
Co"
O O IA
o q cu
rjCO
O H
•£"
^
_-^
(«.
C X M
ss<
o\
LA
LA
.
§
"3
n
a
t
«
o
1
>
ca
1
W
I
5
a
M
!
§
a
^^
*
216
-------
LA
5
i
rH
8
&
3
g
*
•s
a
-I?
i
*
a
C
£
i
s?
i
* w
O Vt
H O
l_
5"--i
11
< I
1)
M
§'H-
P
rH rH
•S O bQ
O ^ a
EH H>5.
0><— »
'S^
§JP
CO '
10
«> (H
is
3
.
5"
S3<^~*
•H H
35
>>^
s^
rrj U
•gJ
<
eg
£°f
W
c
0
-p
CO
H H
W H
IA-*
* •
oo oo
LA 00
0 H
*""*
LA OO
OO H
H -^
0 0
O LA
-* LA
CO IA
0 0
LA 00
O O OO
o ooo
IA
0 O
\2) t—
VO OO
o
VO
o * «>
£l5
O
oo ON oo LA
oo ro O -*
Co" LA
woo ovo
• • • «
oo oo oo LA
-* H W
VO LA
•4" H -* -*
OOH HO
O 00 t-VO
• « • •
VO O H LA
H W oo
H
VO LA
o^vf o^
• * • *
O LA O 00
VO H O 00
-* 00 W H
VO IA
o^ o5"
* • • *
CO C5 ^O ^5
row W W
VO IA
O O OO O O J-
*
2
O LA O t—
CO OO LA-if
y^t w
w
O LA
LA VO
t- VO
5 y 5° c b s?
s!4 Sl4
H W
vo vo
LA IA
OO LA
1 OOVO
IA
00 OO
1 • •
LA
HCO
1 • •
1 OOO
W t- ON
O OOVO
oo
LA
o ovo'
O OO LA
VO 00
LA
o o'o'
• * •
5 ?,§}
LA
o o o w
oo vp o t—
C— O OO LA
H W H
o ooo
O VO H
VO LA
VO VO
H VO
ax ta a y M
•HOJ > -H CO >
SSS < S 2 <
oo -^
vo vo
LT\ IA
LA LA
• • 1 1
ONOO 1 I
LA
o'o'
• • 1 1
O LA 1 1
VO OO
H
LA
-* 00
• • 1 1
OOH I i
LAOO CVI OO
oot— o o
ON H
LA
o of o o
• • • •
CO U*N O O
OOH m
IA
W«^
Ovo O O
• • • •
$§ ^ 3
LA
o o'o' o o
O CVI CU
in
0)
ti.
a
1
§
5
rri
w
%
d
m
q
H
1
W
*
^
1
C
5
•P
M
m
5
o
3
fl
VO
T
217
-------
-------
VICINITY MAP
1080"
MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
REPORT
ENTUCKY RIVER BASIN
10
D DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
'ATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
219
-------
Cumberland River Basin
Description
The Cumberland River is formed by the confluence of the
Poor and Clover Forks near Harlan, Kentucky in Appalachia (Fig. 57).
From that point, it flows southwesternly into Tennessee, leaving
Appalachia at the western border of Smith County, Tennessee. The
total area of the Cumberland basin is 17,91^ square miles about
60 percent of which is in Appalachia. The Cumberland basin is
bounded on the south by the Tennessee River basin and on the north
by the Kentucky and Green River basins.
The upper Cumberland basin, above Lake Cumberland, is in
the Cumberland Mountains, where the Cumberland and its tributaries
flow in deep narrow valleys and have gradients of 10 to 12 feet
per mile. In the remainder of the Cumberland basin in Appalachia,
the terrain is hilly and the streams have gradients of 3 to 5 feet
per mile.
The main coal producing counties in the Kentucky portion
of the Cumberland basin are Harlan, Bell, Khox, McCreary, Whitley,
Laurel, Jackson, Pulaski and Rockcastle. Important coal producing
counties in Tennessee are Clairborne, Campbell, Scott, Fentress
and Overton.
In the Kentucky portion of the Cumberland basin, coal is contained
in the Lee and Breathitt Formations of Pennsylvanian age. The Lilly
coal bed forms the boundary between these geologic units, the Lee
Formation being the older. The Hazard and Harlan coal beds occur
in the Breathitt Formation. In the Tennessee portion of the
Cumberland basin the main coal bearing beds are in Gizzard, Crab
Orchard Mountain, Crooked Fork, Slatestone, Indian Bluff, Gravel
Gap and Redoak Mountain Groups (Luther, 1959)•
Coal mining in the Cumberland basin began in the late
1700's, and has varied in intensity since that time, peak production
periods coming in the period from 1910 through the middle 19^0*s.
Production today is considerably less than during peak periods.
Coal mining in this area has been, much as in the Kentucky
basin, primarily by drift mining. Strip mining has been particularly
important in Bell, Khox, and Laurel Counties, Kentucky, and Fentress
County, Tennessee. Combination strip and auger mining is particularly
important in Harlan County, Kentucky. Contour strip mining has been
widely practiced in preparation for more extensive underground
mining.
221
-------
Mine Drainage Sources and Their
Effect on Stream Quality
No estimate of the number of mine drainage sources in the
Cumberland River basin is available. There are 29,000 acres of
unreclaimed surface mined land in the basin.
An average sulfate load of 225 tons/day was carried by the
Cumberland River at Williamsburg, Kentucky (Sta. 608) during the
years 1952-1959 (Fig. 58). Of this total, 130 tons/day is considered
to have resulted from mine drainage. At least 70 tons/day of sulfate
is estimated to be contributed by mine drainage sources downstream
from Williamsburg on the basis of 1966 stream sampling data. The
minimum total of 200 tons/day of sulfate estimated to originate in
mine drainage indicates the rate of formation of mine drainage
acidity in the Cumberland basin.
Figure 57 and the analyses in Table 25 show that the upper
few miles of the Cumberland River and numerous tributaries as far
downstream as the West Fork of the Obey River in Overton County
are continuously or intermittently polluted by mine drainage
waters. A total of at least 510 miles of streams within the
Appalachian portion of the Cumberland River basin are considered
significantly polluted by mine drainage on the basis of stream
samples obtained during 1966 and on the basis of published reports
and communication with other Federal and State agencies. The
streams considered to be significantly affected by mine drainage
are indicated in Table 2U.
Table 2U - Streams in the Appalachian Portion
of the Cumberland River Basin Determined to be
Significantly Polluted by Coal Mine Drainage
Map Station
Stream County Number (Fig.
Poor Fork Letcher, Ky.
Cumberland River Harlan, Ky. 566, 568
Looney Creek Harlan, Ky. 567
*Cranks Creek Harlan, Ky. 572
Martins Fork Harlan, Ky. 571
Puckett Creek Harlan and Bell, Ky. 575
Stony Fork Bell, Ky. 597, 595
Bennets Fork Clairborne, Tenn. and 596
Bell, Ky.
Yellow Creek Bell, Ky. 594
Cumberland River Ben, Ky. 576, 580
Straight Creek Bell and Harlan, Ky. 579, 577
*I*ft Fork Straight Crk. Bell, Ky. 578
Middle Fork Stinking Crk. 583
-------
Table 2k (confd)
Stream
Brush Creek
Patterson Creek
*Clear Fork
Straight Creek
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Stinking Creek
Hickory Creek
White Oak Creek
Pleasant Run
Jellico Creek
Marsh Creek
*Raccoon Creek
Little Raccoon Creek
Wood Creek
Beaver Creek
Hall Creek
Brimstone Creek
Buffalo Creek
*Flat Creek
*Sulphur Creek
Phillips Creek
New River
Davis Creek
*Rock Creek
South Fork
Wolf Creek
*Meadow Creek
W. Fork Obey River
*Cub Creek
*Little Laurel Creek
*E. Fork Obey River
*0fficer Creek
Knox, Ky.
Whitily, Ky.
Clairborne, Term.
Bell, Ky.
Whitley, Ky.
Clairborne and Campbell, Term.
Campbell, Term.
Campbell, Term.
Campbell, Term.
Whitley, Ky.
Whitley, Ky.
McCreary, Ky.
Laurel, Ky.
Laurel, Ky.
Laurel, Ky.
McCreary, Ky.
Scott, Tenn.
Scott, Tenn.
Scott, Tenn.
Scott, Tenn.
Scott, Tenn.
Scott, Tenn.
Scott, Term.
Fentress and Scott, Tenn.
McCreary, Ky.
McCreary, Ky.
McCreary, Ky.
Putnam, Term.
Overton, Tenn.
Overton, Tenn.
Fentres s, Tenn.
Overton and Fentress, Term.
Putnam, Tenn.
Map Station
number (Fig. 57)
581
607
598
599
606
598, 600
604
603, 602
601
612
611
614
539
538
537
630
642
640
637
636
635
638
639
641
617
615
616
650
645
646
647
648, 649
651
•^Severely Polluted Streams
Beginning in the headwaters area of the Cumberland basin,
significant mine drainage pollution is first found in the Poor Fork
(Sta. 566), where iron concentrations averaged nearly 3 ng/1 and
sulfate concentrations as high as 460 mg/1 were measured.
There has been extensive mining of the Mason coal seam in the
Cranks Creek watershed Harlan County, Kentucky, and the resultant
mine drainage significantly affects Cranks Creek (Sta. 572) and
Martins Fork (Stas. 570 and 571). Values of pH as low as 4.2 were
measured in Cranks Creek.
223
-------
Proceeding downstream the next major damaged area is the
watershed of Yellow Creek, where extensive surface and underground
mining in the Stony Fork (Stas. 597 and 595) and Bennetts Fork
(Sta. 596) watersheds has caused intermittent pollution of these
streams.
In the Straight Creek watershed, Bell and Harlan Counties,
Kentucky, there has been extensive mining of the Crockett coal
seam in the Left Fork drainage (Sta. 578) and of the Hazard No. 9
and Hazard No. 7 coal seams in the Right Fork drainage. Mine
drainage pollution is most severe in the Left Fork, where pH values
as low as 4.2 were measured.
In the Clear Fork drainage basin, Clairborne and Campbell
Counties, Tennessee, and Whitley County, Kentucky, Straight Creek
(Sta. 599), White Oak Creek (Sta. 601) Hickory Creek (Sta».602
and 603), and Stinking Creek (Sta. 604) as well as the Clear Fork
(Stas. 598, 600, and 606) were observed to be significantly
degraded by mine drainage.
Along the Clear Fork, recent mining appears to be underground
mining in Tennessee, but a coal processing plant and several refuse
piles are contributing pollution into the Clear Fork in Kentucky.
In the Hickory Creek watershed, almost the entire rim of
the White Oak Creek drainage basin has been strip mined and the
waste has been cast down the slopes. The measured pH values in
White Oak Creek (Sta. 601) did not fall below 5.8, but the stream
appeared to be devoid of aquatic life. Values of pH as low as
4.2 were measured in Stiakiag Creek (Sta. 604).
Pleasant Run and Jellico Creek in the lower Jellico Creek
basin are severely degraded by mine drainage. In the portion of
Pleasant Run between stations 612 and 613 (Fig. 57) the Stearns
coal seam has been strip mined in the flood plain and across the
stream. The pH at station 612 fell as low as 2.8 and did not
exceed 4.0.
Inactive underground and surface mines that remain after
mining of the Lilly coal seam are the source of mine drainage
pollution in Raccoon Creek (Sta. 538) and Little Raccoon Creek
(Sta. 539). Although extensive mining ceased some time ago, these
streams are still acid most of the time. The pH values in Raccoon
Creek ranged generally between 4.5 and 6.2 and those in Little
Raccoon Creek ranged generally between 4.8 and 5.9.
In the New River drainage basin, Tennessee, many small
streams are severely polluted by mine drainage that originates
chiefly in inactive mines. Data from sampling stations on Flat
Creek (Sta. 636) and Sulphur Creek (Sta. 635) exemplify the
22k
-------
severity of pollution in this area. The pH values measured at
these stations ranged between 2.9 and U.8. Pollution from the
minor tributaries periodically lowers the alkalinity and pH in
the New River (Sta. 639) to below desirable levels and increases
the concentration of iron to above desirable levels.
Relatively serious mine drainage pollution exists in the
Cumberland National Forest, McCreary County, Kentucky. Mining
has been carried on in the Rock Creek drainage area since the
early 1900's and. most of the pollution load is apparently from
refuse piles in this area. Data from sampling station 6l? on
Rock Creek indicate that the pH of this stream is below 6.0 most
of the time and values as low as 3.3 were measured.
The area most severely degraded by mine drainage in Tennessee
is the Obey River basin. In the West Fork watershed, Cub Creek
(Sta. 6W>) is the only highly acid stream. At and .just below the
junction of Cub Creek with the West Fork, damage to the West Fork
is apparent, particularly from iron precipitates.
The East Fork of the Obey River is severely degraded by
mine drainage and is devoid of fish and other aquatic life from
its headwaters to near the point where it enters Dale Hollow
Reservoir, a distance of about 30 miles. Measured pH values in
the East Fork did not exceed 3.^ at station 6kQ and were as low
as h.3 at station 6^3 just above Dale Hollow Reservoir. Highly
polluted tributaries to the East Fork include Meadow Creek (Sta. 650),
Little Laurel Creek (Sta. 64?), and Officer Creek (Sta. 651).
Serious reduction of fish populations in the East Fork of Dale
Hollow have been reported by the Tennessee Department of Fish and
Game.
225
-------
s
3
n
IH
V
5
«
TJ
§
H
h
n
1
«\
OS
"8
i
r-»
•p
H
m
0?
tl
4)
•s
w
i
LA
CVJ
0)
H
1
g^
rH Ol
| I
S *"*
13
0)
to
(U.--S
§<
hO tt)
H "H"
•POM
o ^ s
f- j |_j ^^,
(D'-l
m "^
5 x"*'
CO
Q) H
fl
«""""
>»
•H
•H'H'
^1?
3 v_-
*<
TJ U
•H a
3^
S
on
O Q-i Qi
J3 O &
^ 8
CO
c
o
a-H •
« -p o
2 £S
CO
-*
CO t^ O O
j- cvi on IA
H
UN UN
lf\ ^^ O*V CO
* • • *
H H H H
LA IA
CVJ ro LA j-
CVI H IA CO
•-io' HO
LT\ IA
**-s x.^
O CO O O
• • • •
vO vQ 00 H
0000 CO LTV
H CVJ H
LTV IA
O CO O ^O
O'SJ O LA
CM H CM H
*^
LA
O O 00 O O VO
OO O VO CVIH^-
>--* H
*^
O-* O C~
rovo LA o
\O rH \O LA
H
ON 00
in, x
vD ^D
5 S > 5 S >
2 2 <: 2 2 <
IT- CO
CO ro
LA IA
O CO CVI
IACO 1 ^t LA 1 1
roH H cvi
ON CO
Co
IACO O H
• • 1 • • 1 1
C-CO CVI rH
Co
J ro LA f-
• • 1 • • 1 1
O LA CVJ LA
H CM
rovO O ON t— CVJ cvi
HO rH O ro O O
§
Ocvl O O O O O
VO CM CVJ O O O CO
ONtTv CO VO t— CO CO
VOH -4- H
Co
O O O O O O O
• • * • • • •
-* t- CVI CM H O O
H-d" LA CO O CVI VO
CVI H H H H
^^
vO
v.^
OOro O O O t— O O
O-d"V£> LA J- O t— O\ CVI
H H vO VO LA ON LA
CO H H
OvO O t^O O O
• • • • « • •
VsOOQ CO IA O O O
lAoo co CM
CM
LA H O iH J-
^j* \o \o t^ VO
t- H ^t H H
C X bO CH W3 f3 X tlfl CXU) C X M
S! S *H05>
5jjgj
1
a
•p
1
o
§
w
g,
M
at
5
•s
3
(0
*H
I*
0)
"o
M
^
fl
o
1
a
-P
o
•3
Q
H
LA
-------
CM
^
-P
g
o
3
§
In
£
,. 1
K
ft
8
H
fc<
V
rQ
I
^
(0
•P
£
3
<§
.
0)
"8
1
i
IA
CM
H
^_^
S ,w
O x-x|
"S-^i.
w
(0
n ^-*
0) H
"i I*
flS v— '
*
•rl
•H^H"
"3 u)
**
^"H"
•H^^
•H ^
CJ ^ — ••
<
Pj
CO
O* *H CD P
2 2 < 2 2 <
CM ro
^^ t"™
LA LA
OMD
I I I OMD
CM ON
G
t-o'
f 1 i • •
CM H
G
C— J-*
1 1 1 • •
O O
CO CM LA MD t-
O O* O* HO
G
q o q ocT
t- CO ro co ON
MD O -=f HI>
r~l rH
G
o o o o^~
MD MD O O O
LA H MD -5 H
H H H
G
o o o oooo"
MD ON -a; COMD ON
IA C~ J- HONrO
O O O O-*
* • • • *
t- H O O CM
J" CO LA t— CVJ
ro ON -3- H
* • • •
vQ vO ^O ir\
H H H C^
C X bO CXW X % W CXU)
•H03> •H<0> •H (0 > •rt
X S *s» S3£ ^ 3S S **I SJ 3S *C
-d- Cf% vO C^
C*™ t"™ t*~ t"1"
LA LA IA LA
O LA
O H
LA ro
G
o ~a\
MD CM*
G
-^J" MD
• •
ro H
t- LA
CO CVJ
G
O ro
WCO
LAH
q cT
MD'OO"
LA LA
CVJ H
O O CM
CM-* -*
O\CVJ
O-d-
• •
oO C?
GO -3*
CM
-*
L>-
C X W)
oo
LA
O H
IAH 1
LA CM
LA
O C?
• • 1
CM H
IA
MD O
• • 1
ro H
CMVO -X
t • •
HO 0
£
O MD O
MD t"- -f*
CT\-d" 3"
O CM O
O ^— MD
CO O LA
H H
LA
oo cT o
-*O CM -=f
-* CM 3"
O t- O
• • •
-d; CM OO
MD CO ro
ro t-
LA MD
MD H
c « M e a h£
•H CD f» ^1 Bj >
S 2 < 22 <
ON O
t- CO
LA LA
1
1
1
MD
o'
q
-d-
0
s
o
SN
O
*
CO
ro
ro
MD
H
C X b
H
CO
LA
g
•1
1
•P
1
-P
(H
J8
•g
\j
0)
ID
8>
|
ID
§
•H
T3
w
H
fr
01
0
1
C
Jl
•P
n
0)
o -8
0
3
w
fi
LA
*
227
-------
x-x
T*
«k
1
o
3
CQ
I
h
1
«
Sn
0)
<£
I
4?
<5?
h
0)
•g
w
IS
1
LA
CO
a
•3
H
^—^
§W
Hardness
(mg/1)
£
,:_i
•rt
55
P
a
to
O
rOO
i • • i i i i
m H
co ^^ m m m co
O* co' H o" o' o* o'
O OCvT O O O O
tv VD O* t> o" o" cA
CO CU rH OO CNi C\i rH
o oc? o o o o
• • * • • • »
-* O IA CO -* O
CO VO -^1" LT\ -^ CO -^
*
OOOiAO o O O
OOOJOVO CO O> H in
rocococo en co CM co
o qco o o o o
C~ CO TV O O VO ro
uN H
ITS C^N -4* co ro m
• • « • • •
vO ir\ \O vo vD vo
H IT\ H H i-l H
*H CD ^ *n w r* *H flO ^ *H Co ^ »3 Co J* *o Co ^
s s < ss< aes«a; sae < ss< ss<
cy on -4- IA \.o t-
co co co co co co
IA ir\ ir\ IA IA IA
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
till
CJ CO CO CO |
d o' o' o* J
o o o o ^
a
O 0 O O 3
* * O VO °
m
1
0 0 0 0 £
• * • • t
o t^- oo ^ 5
•g
2
o o o o 3
o o o o S
f~4
m
• • • • G-i
vo VO \O VD o
i
H H H H G
1
CQ
2 s -5 5 SB CJN ^_x
228
-------
^-N
•d
la
o
o
.9
m
•H
K
•d
i
H
1
"
*
•P.
Q
£
•rl
1
&
SH
-P
SB
1
LA
CM
0)
«
EH
^_^
i* (0
O «H
H 0
3 ^""^
S ""*
S 3)
<~
0)
w
OlX-N
s<
CD ^^>«
P
H H?
flS fi' — •
sS^
EH H • — •
>
•p
•H
•H'H'
"3 tti
^
>jy— x
•rt""-i
s-8
A
ca
S 0 |
CO
c
0
ftj »rH •
2 * a
w
O ro
1 1 1 ONO
CMH
LA
00"
1 1 1 • •
CM H
~
1 1 1 • •
OO
CM oo ro O ro
O O O CO ro
LA
O O O O-d-
o* H ^t o'd
CM CM H C^OO
H H H
LA
O O O OJ-
• • • • •
vO ON IA vOcO
H CMH
J-x
LA
O O O OOCM
^f VO H OCM LA
-=J- CM t— CMlAoO
O O O O LA
• • • • •
o
•S S >
2 2 <
CO
CTN
LA
O vO
-a- r-
CM
LA
j- o^
ro H
LA
• *
H H
VO H
OO H
:?
q^
CM H
"LA
O CM^
CM H
^_^
LA
OO CM
CMO C-
OO H
q q
CO* OO
vo ro
LA
*
LA
VO
•5 S >
S 2 <
ON
LTN
O VO
CM O
O oo
LA
H oB'
CO CM
s~*
IA
O b^
H d
CM LA
O\CM
IA
O CO
O OO
CM OO
CM H
LA
O CO
• •
vSS
ro CM
^^
LA
ooU'
OVO H
CMVO-d-
OCO
£a
c~-
LA
VO
fi X M
•33*
22 <
§
vO
OvO
O LA
CM
LA
coc~
LAro
LA
CM 5"
-* rO
LAH
0\ LA
LA
OH'
LAOO
OvO
ooH
LA
OCM
• •
-3- ON
CMC^
CMH
^
LA
O O-d"
CO VO IA
ro H CM
CM H
O LA
• •
LAOO
CVJCM
CO
LA
VO
•H S >
2 2<
O
1
0)
•p
§
a
0)
p
o
q
0)
CO
0)
CO
0)
5
•d
0)
w
•^
CO
CO
4-1
0
^
1
C
i-;
-P
V)
1
O
fi
LA
*
-------
Bw
H^
ll
0)
03
SC?
B * •
^) ^fl
3§|
H H —
w-H
•g^_
P
CO
"S" ^^
I &*
$ £
M Jj
MR ^*
•rt *i
g |l
« •*
•cf
3 ?^^^^
H ^-Ci
*H 3 bd
S -rl S
1 ^""
^
co a
•g ft
&
^» CO
-P 0)
i a' of4
a? W
.
0)
•a
1
i
LA
OJ
C
0) 0
_o gj jj O
w 2£ ci ^5
OO
O O O v£> O ON OCO O OO
3$ °3 3S ' S^ *•*
OJ H H
VO V£) IA J-
LAon OOIA oon onn
1 *• ••! •• •• | |
CO CO 1AH OJ^O OJ H
OJ
VD >JD LA _*
ONiA f-on J-C— -*OJ
1 •• ••! •• •• 1 1
J- CO -* H HO O O
OJ LA H OOO O O\ J- VO O~\ CO
* CO ** ** 1 ** *• • •
O • on H OJ O HOJ HO O H
O H
H IA VO LA J-
qo ooi oon o oo ot- o
O O VO IA O 00 -Jr Q\O IA j- o CO
HH HJ- OJVO O -5o OJON J- C—
H H J" H OJ H H H
H VO VO LA *-^
oo Ofr- oon o oco o^^ o
• • •• •• • •• • •
8O M3 CO CO ON VO O3J3* O C — \D CO
O LA 01 c^- ON on oj O co on LA ON
* ^^
H vO VO LA
O O O O tA OOLA O OOOJ OO -d" O O
LALAOOLA OHLA ON O OOVO J- CO LA CO OJ
on on H H vo H onco co t- on co
^^
oo OH oon o oo OUN o o
• • •• •• • •• •• • *
CO H O H VO H O COVO O OJ O O
o J~ IA m co H H
CO H
COJ- LACOLACO-*-*
I. . ......
VO -d" J" ^O LTN LA VO VO
coc- >-H\OLAHH
q x to q y M c x M ex to c y M c y M q 3 £0 5 b ^
•H fl3 ^ *iH CD P *H flO ^ *H w ^ *H (0 ^ *H flJ P *H CO ^ *H Co P
a s -5 a a < a ss < aa < a a < a a < aa< a a <
!;•§!§!§§§§
LA
1 H \O
on H
LA
OJ J"
1 • •
OJ H
IA
oo m
I • •
0 0
CO J- -=f
• • *
H HO
LA
q o cT
CO CO LA
-* t- on
LA
o o co
VO CO t-
LA ONVO
LA
q q q cT
on cnH
o o co
* • •
CO O-*
H CO OJ
LA ON
VO* -*
H vO
> c x M q x oo
i4 a > -H co >
9 rf
VO vO
i
1
0)
^
1
0)
:p
G
m
n
s
g
•H
•d
m
3
CO
1*
01
0
t<
JQ
"a
C
I
-P
CO
V
u
jH
fl
H
*
w
230
-------
VO
^— ^
•d
S
£
5
pq
M
1
a
•d
S
3
M
|
"
•k
»
S
1
5
M
o>
•8
1
i
in
CM
4>
H
1
^_^
i (0
Is
g I
g H
JJ!
w
c"C^
li
H H
HI
fl»x-s|
•p. .H
d «
w ""*'
to
Q) rH
P
4*
•rt
31
^^
^•j^— «*
11
<
rv
W
. 41
a *S I*
w
c
o
0,-H •
&$&
w
O on r-j-*
Jjon H CM
vD VO
OMTs J" OO
• • • *
H "^^
vO vO
OJ f- VO O
• * • •
HcO C-VO
O vo inco
VO CO H O
vo in
0 cT Ovo"
* • • •
o on o j-
CM m VO H
-sf CM H H
G G"
OcO O O
• • • •
CM r~i CM VO
OJ CM H H
O O -4- OOO
O t™* OJ O-d" 0^
*x-x x->.
vO ^O
O CM O tf\
• * * •
^j* ^\ i—^ ^O
onH H
oo on
• •
CM -3"
t- C-
a S °° c 8 M
IS IS -HCO >
H H
vO vD
VOO
in CM
in
HJ^
CMH
-
CMH
* •
OO
in
t-cvT
do
UN
oco"
Si?
in
Ooo'
* •
23
^
in
oooo'
HCMin
oco
* *
9-*
o
vO
VO
S S <
VO
O ro
O in i i
.3- t-
G
vo on
• • i i
ON.*
G
on c-
• • i i
H 0
O in CM
t . 1 .
in t- O
G
O on O
• • •
3£ ' $
H
G
o on o
• • •
VO fc- 1 4
in o vo
H H
O O t- O
oogm . -J
^^
vo
O^ O
• • •
o on i vo
CM H
on oo vo
on vo vo
t- H H
S2^ S2< a S <
C— oo ON
H H H
vO vO VO
i i
i i
I i
.
CM CM i
• * 9
O O 5
0)
o o 5
• •
O on c
CM in g
•p
0)
O O2
• • o
.* o
^•0 CM c
CM 0)
(Q
V
ttf
Sr
o o «
3 5
•o
0>
o o
• • to
0 0 «
CO
CO m
VO 0 o
^
5
"1
H H C
S
**
n
0)
•H CD ^ *H Co > fj
2
O
CO ON \o
CM CM C--
VO VO *
231
-------
^^
•d
•p
§
o
^
3
«
g
•H
K
•a
s
Co
•H
1
"
*\
o5
O
£>,
•P
•H
r-(
£3
Of
0)
3
1
i
LA
CM
»' — •
•P H
o ^~-
W
ft
00
. 41
z "o i
w
c
o
ft-rl •
aJ -p O
-p
w
CM
II 1 1 H
II III
II III
CM CM CM CVJ IA
do odd
o o o o o
• • • • •
CJ CM CO O CJ
H CJ H ^f CJ
0 0 O O 0
oO O O ^JD CO
VD VO MJ i^~ CO
H
o o o q o
LA CO t*™ CO VO
-3- ro ro t— t—
O O O O O
0 J; 00 0 0
VO lA 0\ CM CM
i • • • • •
t — vO vO CO t^
H H H H H
C X 00 CMU) C X U) CX 6D C X U)
•rH 03 ^ «r4 w ^ *H flS ? *H w > *r< w ^
S2< ss<; SBS< ss < s s <;
OH CM ro -3-
ro ro ro ro oo
vO \O VO vO vO
O H
VO H
G"
0 t^
co'oo*
C- CM
Co"
VO^A
doo
r-\
O H
-* vo'
-3- CM
VO
o o'
• •
o o
ro vo
LA CM
to
o o'
S 8*
-d" CM
O O O
o o o
O H
O ro
CO LA
t- ro
CJ\
•
CM
t-
5 S >
S 2 <
IA
ro
H H
d«
s-
oovo"
C- CO
vo"
H ON
ON LA
O CO
• •
-* H
roH
G;
O CM
SIS
IA H
G"
O CO
-* ro
O co
CM H
O O O
O 0 0
O H
* •
-* H
CM
•
ro
c-
5 S >
2 S <
CO
vO
o-a-
d ro
vO ro
G*
Jf'ifN
* •
CM H
Co
LA CM
d o*
O H
CO H
G
O CO
• •
O C-
CM
G
0 t^
• *
^K ir\
G
o ooT
^3°^
OCO
• *
LA H
H
CO
•
IA
C-
•S S >
s a <
CO
vo
VO
O CM
O ON
G
GO'S"
roH
G
^t O
H H
O CO
H d
G
O C\T
• *
\D ^O
C3 ^O
H
VO
O OO
3£
H
G"
0 0 o"
CMOO J"
0 H
IAIA
CVJCO
ro
•
-*
c-
5 S >
&s:<
CO
CO
vo
o co
is'
LA
CO vO
ro H
LA
•^.^
CM CM
d d
IA H
CM H
LA
o isr
* *
ss
H
IA
O CM
* •
SLA
ON
H
LA
oo vo"
CMCO en
H co cvl
O CM
* •
IAVO
O ro
CM
CO
•
LA
VO
SSI?
S 2 <
ON
ro
VO
i
•3
s^
i
J8
§
•p
ft
-------
00
x-v
•ti
1
o
5
3
PQ
fc
£
ti
.
a
H
>W
g
g
^
aJ
S
-P
,_j
CD
<§>
>H
1
&
i
IA
CM
H
r~l
* w
5 x~.
is "*•••.
OA
\O CO
LA
LAVO
* •
OVO
q^
t^-CM
C^ u\
vo"
O CO
SLA
VO
cot-
vo"
O LA
• •
8 LA
VO
LA CO
q
d
q H
d vo
t~co
LA C—
H
LA
CM
t-
5 a IP
2 2<
1
q CM
LAVO*
OO
vS"
O CM
S3
vS"
O -*
CTNVO
OCO
S^
vo"
q^
O co
O vo
CVjl>-
s
o^
80
VO
J- CM
q q q
odd
Ovo
g-pt
ON ON
H
-*
CM
c-
2 2 <
C-
vS
LA
Ovo'
CO LA
a-*
o q
VO H
1AOO
C-0
• •
COVO
q t^
|gl
o c-
• •
CM
VO
22 <:
3
O H
2 fr>
x— \
LA CO
OO CM
O -*
H 0
^ IA
C— oo
q q
LA vO
ON J"
O CM
• *
83*
rH
o
d
0 CO
• *
"^ CT\
,—{
CM
CO
LA
C X bO
•H 3 >
2 2<
ON
|
1
0
^
§
5
1
o
G
>
09
g
(1)
q
•H
•d
w
3
02
03
0
0)
*a
3
0)
•**
to
ta
o
S
e
233
-------
I
l>
^
1
ft
•&
2.
QJX-N
H g>
CO
m ^->
(0 H
13
W
>,
•H H
£H
%^
s
co
g'si
a
w
o
r/\
m
O -3 H O\
OH CM O I
CO H
CO H O CM
CO CM CO O
C-C~-
?
VO VO C*™QO
HO VO co
*^
x_ O O
COVO • • CO
H
O IA O O O
IAIA Q O CM
OMA O CM CM
IACM
O O O O O
• * • » •
O O"\ O O -d"
co t*- c\j cr\ c\i
i M c x ti R y §p S S "^ 5 S §? .S S s? 5 ;5 t^)a!
« ss< a:x< sz-5 ss< 'ss<: zs:< ss< ss-^^
S
COJ- lAVO t^ COONQ-*
IAIA LfNIA IA lAlfNVO"—
vOvO vovo vO vovovo*
-------
APPALACHIA MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
REPORT
Figure 57
CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
235
-------
-------
TO T3
4-1 eu
o —
»— rs
o o
CO O)
-a aa
TO P3
o c:
~
CuO-a
CO
m
to
I,
AVQ/SNOI
237
-------
-------
Tennessee and Black Warrior River Basins
Description
The Tennessee River is formed by the Holston and French
Broad Rivers which join just above Knoxville, Tennessee. From
this point, the Tennessee River, flows 650 miles through
Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to its confluence with the
Ohio River. The Tennessee River basin has a total drainage area
of U0,900 square miles, about 23,000 square miles of which is
within Appalachia.
Physiographic features differ significantly within the
Tennessee basin, ranging from the mountainous Blue Ridge
physiographic region on the east to the flat-lying Coastal Plain
region on the west. Coal reserves lie mainly within the Appalachian
Plateaus region, which is underlain by nearly flat-lying aandstones,
shales and coals of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age.
The coal reserves of Tennessee are contained in Pottsville
series rocks of Lower Pennsylvanian age. Pennsylvanian rocks in
Tennessee consist almost entirely of sandstone, shale and con-
glomerate, with coal beds and thin limestones comprising a small
percentage of the total. Twenty-two Tennessee counties contain
coal reserves, fifteen of which are wholly or in part in the
Tennessee River basin (Fig. l). The total recoverable coal reserve
in Tennessee is estimated to be about 1 billion tons (Luther, 1959).
Commercial coal mining began in Tennessee in the 1830's. Peak
production was reached in 1956, when 9 million tons were mined.
Some coal mining is done in the upper portion of the Black
Warrior River basin, which lies immediately to the south of the
Tennessee watershed in northern Alabama.
The Warrior, Cahaba, Coosa, and Plateau coal fields of
northern Alabama contain large reserves of bituminous coal in beds
of the Pottsville Formation of Pennsylvanian age. (Culbertson, 196U).
Total minable coal reserve in these fields is estimated to be about
13.7 billion tons. Counties with important coal reserves are
Jefferson, Tuscaloosa, Walker, Bibb, Shelby, and St. Clair. Jefferson,
Tuscaloosa, and Walker Counties together contain 77 percent of the
total reserves. Coal has been commercially mined in Alabama since
1832. Peak production was 21.5 million tons in 1926. Most of the
production has been from Jefferson and Walker Counties, and it is
these Counties in which mine drainage pollution occurs.
239
-------
Mine Drainage Sources and Their
Effect on Stream Quality
Mine drainage causes pollution of streams in the upper
Tennessee River and Black Warrior River basins, but the problem
is small in magnitude in this area as compared to some other
Appalachian Region basins.
Surface mining of coal has left 18,600 acres of disturbed
unreclaimed land in the Tennessee and Black Warrior basins. The
number of underground and surface mine drainage sources is not
known.
Stream quality data indicate that more than 20 tons/day of
unneutralized mine drainage acidity is carried by streams in the
area. However, this acidity is rapidly neutralized by natural
sources of alkalinity and pollution effects **«» therefore, not
generally observable very far from the source. It is estimated
that at least 150 miles of streams are significantly polluted by
mine drainage, most of them only periodically. Streams found to
be significantly polluted are listed in Table 26 and their locations
are shown in Figures 59 > 60» and 6l. Data in Table 2? show the
quality of these streams at the time of study. In addition to the
streams that are presently known to be polluted, streams where mine
drainage pollution may be significant are shown in Figures 60, 6l,
and 62.
Table 26- Streams in the Upper Tennessee River Basin
Found to be Significantly Polluted by Mine Drainage
Map Station
Number
1
2
10
11, 17
18
31
32
38
ko
Ui
U2
U3
51
52
53
Stream
Big Creek
Coal Creek
Russell Creek
Guest River
Powell River
Glade Greek
Callahan Creek
Jones Creek
Reeds Creek
N. Fork Powell River
Big Creek
Cove Creek
Indian Creek
Little Emory River
Crooked Fork
Emory River
Mill Creek
Rock Creek
Big Possum
Woodcock Creek
County
Taeewell, Va.
Tazewell, Va.
Wise, Va.
Wise, Va.
Wise, Va.
Wise, Va.
Wise, Va.
Lee, Va.
Lee, Va.
Lee, Va.
Anderson, Tenn.
Anderson, Tenn.
Morgan, Tenn.
Morgan, Tenn.
Morgan, Tenn.
Morgan, Tenn.
Morgan, Tenn.
Cumberland, Tenn.
Cumberland, Tenn.
Sequatchie, Tenn.
-------
Chemical evidence of coal mine drainage pollution in streams
in the Virginia portion of the Tennessee River basin (Stas. 1-29,
Fig. 60) is expressed "by reduction in natural alkalinity levels
and by above normal concentrations of mine drainage indicators.
Generally, only iron and manganese are present in excessive con-
centrations as mine drainage indicators. High acidity concentrations
and low pH values are not observed, because stream alkalinity and
the limestone and dolomite beds over which the streams flow rapidly
neutralize any acidity that enters the surface waters. Reeds Creek
(Sta. 29) was acid when examined and had a pH of U.2. Pollution
of Reeds Creek is caused by extensive surface and underground mining.
In the Tennessee portion of the Tennessee River basin (Stas.
31-55, Figs. 60 and 6l), Mill Creek, Big Possum Creek, and Woodcock
Creek were found to have pH values below 5.0. No other stream had
pH values of less than 6.2 at the time of examination. Other
significantly polluted streams, as listed in Table 26, had excessive
concentrations of mine drainage indicators and/or the natural
alkalinity was depleted by reaction with mine drainage acidity.
The water quality data in Table 27 do not necessarily reflect
the severity of mine drainage pollution in some streams. The Tennessee
Game and Fish Commission has reported, for example, that Beech Grove
Fork (Sta. 3*0 and Poplar Creek (Sta. 37) axe polluted during periods
of high runoff, when mine drainage pollutants are flushed into these
streams. In addition, what may appear to be minor mine drainage
pollution may actually represent conditions that significantly affect
the biological life in some streams. The Tennessee Game and Fish
Commission reports, for example, that in 1958 Crooked Fork (Sta. 4l,
Fig. 60) was an ideal muskellunge habitat, but that it is no longer
suitable for this purpose due to recent surface mining operations.
The chemical analyses in Table 27 for this stream show a depletion
in alkalinity and slightly high concentrations of other indicators,
but no evidence of severe pollution at the time of sampling.
Through a biological examination of streams in Jefferson and
Walker Counties, Alabama, in the Black Warrior River basin (McClellan
and Zoellner, 1966), it has been determined that Lost Creek, Mill
Creek and Cane Creek (Fig. 62) are likely to be polluted by mine
drainage. The Alabama Geological Survey (written ccnmuAication)
has reported that the Black Branch, Spring Creek, Cane Creek,
Shelton Branch, Hanna Mill, Daniel Creek and tributaries to Short
Creek, Spring Creek, and Black Branch in the Black Warrior River
basin (Fig. 62), were found to have pH values ranging from 3.5 to
^.5. Mine drainage pollution in this area is from active or inactive
surface mines. LuxapallilaCreek is also reportedly polluted by
mine drainage (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1966).
-------
a
M
I
»
V
8
CO
*\
«5
3
Quality D
(H
V
1
1
t-
cu
4!
1
g^ol
V4
rH O
l»< ^-H
Specific
Conductance
(MlRTO-Hb0^
V
to
0) <—s
S<
II"
m sZt*
s
H "H!
38lJ
fiftl
(U/-N
•P H
-------
cvi
^^
•d
4}
§
o
-S
s
m
|
0)
(0
w
0)
§
£
i
a
^^
iy
•H
1
0*
Jj
1*
[—
ttf)
i-l "H"
o5 (3^^
O M B
EH H--J
(U X~NJ
•P H
W^
to
4) H
C"^
sJ?
w
§
•H'H'
a bo
3 J-
-P--H
'o -S-
<^
a
co
O Vi ft
W
C
O
«3 -p O
2 «3 a
-P
w
HOO
t-NO 1
O O 0
OONO ^r
cF\oo 3-
rH
H H J-
do o
IA-* IA
O O CO
o o o
-* CVI H
rn i— 1 CO
00 C3
S*J- <3
(A xj"
0 O 0
CVJ O O
o o o
OO tA t~
^7 w.
NO -*
CVI H
III III
CO ON
CVI CVJ
CO-* IA COO CJN CVJ J* t- CVI
COCO NO 00 NO _d- OO OONO NO 1
co t-^* co
OlAO OO O OOOiA
O O O t— -^" rH CO CVJ -tf CO CU CVI
HH H CVlH CO COCVI C\|H CVIH
COCO H COCVI H VAJ- C- ON IACO
do d o'd d do HO do
IA
COCJNVO CVICO J- HON OOt--*CO
HOO CVlH O H OOOO
<»> O IA O O O O
NO CO l-t 00 CVI IA IANO IA C— CONO
H H CO CVI NO O-sl" NO CO -4" CVI
OO O OO O OO OO OO
• • • • • * • * •* » •
H H H H
O 0 O O 0 O 00
CV1O O CV1-* -& VOIA J"H VOCVI
HH cvj cocvi NO ^co cvicvj HH
O OO OO OOOO
OO-* NO OO O OO CVI H CVI H
O- O\ O Jt ON NO fr—
NO NO t— t>- VO NO NO
CVI H CVI H CVJ CVI CVI
C X U) CX tfl CXt^3 CXU) CMtt) CXbJ9 CXU)
36 2 ^ ^i?*! ^ 22
si*
H
21+3
-------
oo
^.^
•d
4*
g
o
V— '
5
ffl
?
4)
V
0)
CO
S
4?
O
§
•rl
1
Of
In
1
1
C-
CVJ
V
H
•§
E-l
gco
(j_l
rH O
|
!b $
o §
Cu o
V
W
Q) *~^
BI^N
i*
oj > — '
H "H"
-POM
O JH 8
M H-2-
•P'H*
$ 3>
H S
co '
IQ
V H
•S~^3i
M H
cd >— ^
C ^^
ffl M]
3 J
•^<
S is
<""
a
CO
0<*^
CO
c
o
f|a
CO
IA
O t— OO O
O CO IA O
O IA
3 rj
O O IA O
CO t^-t- ^
H
H OOON H
OHO
CM IAIA OO
d do d
O O O O
CVJ -*VO H
CM H
O O O O
VO -^ CO O
oo VO.3F -4-
0 0
CO CVI CM CO
o
O MD IA CM
UN ON IA
| VO -* VO
H CVJ H
HI HI HI
cvj oo ^
t— OVO OON OO PO -*t— OlA
VO O CO OOCM OOCM t— O t— CVI CVI
CM (p ONO IACO POH t— CO
Jt CM H H rH CVJ H
OlA OO OlA OtA O OO
\O ^^ CO CO j-^ p^ ^^ ^5 cQ t"~-cf v^ cO
-^r CO CO ^1 C^ ^~ w^f -"Sh t^ OO t**~ tfN CVJ
UN CO UN UN
CM H HO I>-IA CM CVI H CVJ H HO
OO OO OO OO O OO OO
UN
ON OO UN-* CMOO J-CVJ -4- ^tOO -*OO
HH do CMH do d do do
OO OO OO OUN O OO OUN
VOO ^tCM OOON OOCM OO t—VO t— -*
^n ^1 rH
oooo oo o oooo
• • •• •• • •• ••
CO -4" CO CO -4" CO O -4" VO O O VO *4*
-5CM CMH CMH OO -*OO C— VO
oo oo oo oo o oo oo
6*CO VO1A OO CMH ^* ^H VOO
H CM rH H PO OO
OUN OlA oo oo o oo
OOH vo^i- OUN vo-* d -*CM oo
CM H
VO CM O ON ON PO H
VO VO -4" -4" VO VO t"~
CM CM CVJ CVJ H CM CVJ
) cy to c x M q « «J c « to .gawcxtocxto
"x£< x£% is^ sl^ s£< sl-5 is!*:
yi?l ^ K •*• ^1 »B*^» AA**< *»**•« A*«**1 A!««**I
VO H CM 00 -4" UN VO
-4- UN UN UN UN UN UN
-------
RICHLANDS
STREAMS CONTINUOUSLY
AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE
APPROXIMATE AREA UNDERLAIN
BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS
SAMPLING STATION
APPALACHIA MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
REPORT
Figure 59
TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN
(VIRGINIA)
U.S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
245
-------
r
TENNESSEE
"GEORGIA
VICINITY MAP
.12
STREAMS CONTINUOUSLY
AFFECTED BY MINE DRAINAGE
STREAMS INTERMITTENTLY OR
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY
BY MINE DRAINAGE
APPROXIMATE AREA UNDERLAIN
BY COAL-BEARING DEPOSITS
SAMPLING STATION
10
APPALACHIA
MINE DRAINAGE
REPORT
POLLUTION
Figure 61
TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN
(TENNESSEE, GEORGIA AND ALABAMA)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
249
-------
-------
PROJECTED CONDITIONS
The present problem of mine drainage pollution in Appalachia
can be discussed in terms of various parameters such as miles of
polluted streams, concentrations of mine drainage indicators in
the waters at selected points cat streams, or loads of mine drainage
indicators carried by streams at selected points. The same parameters
could be used to compare the future situation with that of today,
but only a few measurements appear useful for comparing conditions
in the past with those of today.
Acidity concentrations or loads have generally been used
to characterize the problem and, for example, it is estimated in
this report that at least 6,000 tons/day of unneutralized acidity
enters streams in Appalachia. Acidity is, however, a somewhat
difficult and unreliable indicator to use in many cases for several
reasons. Three such reasons are, first, that different laboratory
methods are used that may give greatly different results, second,
that there is no way Of adjusting such results to make them com-
parable, and third, that acidity is often not measurable very far
from where it enters a stream, because it is neutralized by natural
sources of alkalinity.
For the above reasons analyses were made of average sulfate
loads at locations on major streams as listed in Table 28.
The total sulfate loads shown in the figures listed in
Table 28 were computed by water year as time and discharge weighed
daily averages. Data were obtained from the U. S. Geological Survey
Water Supply Papers entitled "Surface Water Quality in the United
States," which have been published annually since
Table 28 - Listing of Streams for Which Average
Yearly Sulfate Loads are Given
Stream Figure Number Page
1. Susquehanna River at 5 51
Danville, Pa.
2. SchuylMll River at k 50
Berne, Pa.
3. Lehigh River at 3 \\.y
Catasauq.ua, Pa.
k. West Branch Suseuqhanna 26 95
River at Lock Haven, Pa.
5. Allegheny River at 38 133
Kittanning, Pa.
6. Kiskiminetas River at 39 13!^
Vander grift, Pa.
7. Monongahela River at ^1 151
Charleroi
253
-------
Table 28 (cont'd)
Stream Figure Number
FIYoughiogheny River 52f
at Sutersvllle, Pa.
9. Hocking River at U6 173
Athens, Ohio
10. Big Sandy River at 52 205
Catlettsburg, Ky.
11. Cumberland River at 58 24?
Williamsburg, Ky.
Sulfate was selected as an indicator because:
1. One molecular weight of sulfate is formed for each
molecular weight of sulfuric acid. The weight ratio is also
nearly identical, being 0.98 tons of sulfate per ton of sulfuric
acid.
2. The sulfate does not disappear when the acidity is
neutralized.
3. Calcium sulfate, the usual form, is soluble in the con-
centrations usually encountered.
k. The analysis for sulfate is reliable.
5. Many sulfate analyses are available.
Available acidity loadings are shown in Figures U, 26, 39,
and hi, for comparison with the sulfate data. The trends in acidity
loads seem generally to be reflected by trends in sulfate loads.
A problem in using sulfate as an indicator of mine drainage
is an interference from industrial wastes that contain sulfates.
This problem prevented use of U. S. Geological Survey data from
the Beaver River and Kanawha River basins. In addition, sulfate
occurs naturally in Appalachian streams. Therefore, in order to
indicate the magnitude of sulfate originating from mine drainage,
measured sulfate concentrations were reduced by an average of 20 mg/1.
An average sulfate concentration of 20 mg/1 was determined to be a
representative natural level in several streams not affected by mine
drainage. Natural concentrations may be lower than 20 mg/1 in some
streams, but were not observed to be higher than this in Appalachian
streams that are unaffected by drainage from coal areas. In general,
it was observed that many of the extreme fluctuations shown in the
figures listed in Table 28 resulted from hydrologic variations.
Years of high precipitation resulted in low average sulfate concen-
trations, but high stream loads. In dry years, concentrations were
high, but loads low. This type of variation could apparently result
in load differences of over 50 percent in two succeeding years.
-------
Data in Figure 5 show that between 1250 and 2000 tons/day
of sulfate originated from mine drainage in the Susquehanna River
basin portion of the Anthracite region during the period 19^6 to
1963. The average amount was about 1500 tons/day. Sulfate loads
at the end of this 17 year period were not greatly different than
at the beginning.
These data may be useful in projecting the pollution
potential from mining in the Anthracite region. Anthracite production
was at its lowest level during this century in 1962 (17 million
tons/year). Coal production for the Susquahanna basin portion of
the Anthracite area is projected as being about the same in 1980
as in 1962. Based on these few data, it might be expected that
mine drainage pollution loads in the Susquehanna portion of the
Anthracite area will remain in the same order of magnitude in 1980
as today, unless abatement measures are applied.
Sulfate loads in the Lehigh River (Fig. 3) remained about
the same during 19^5-1952. No recent data are available. Sulfate
loads in the Schuylkill River (Fig. U) were relatively high during
1951-1953 but were less at the end of the period 19^8-1959 than in
the beginning. Annual anthracite production in 1980 is projected
to be perhaps half that during the period 19^6-19^8- Based on this
projection, mine drainage pollution loads in 1980 will probably not
exceed those shown in Figures 3 and U, but substantial junprovement
is not anticipated without an abatement program.
Sulfate loads carried by the West Branch of the Susquehanna
at Lock Haven, Pennsylvania (Fig. 26) appear to be an excellent
indicator of the amount of mine drainage pollution discharged to
this stream during 19^6-1963. Variation in loads was not extreme
during this period and loads at the end of the period were essentially
the same as in the beginning. Coal production during this
period has been relatively stable, averaging about 9 million tons/year.
Projected production in 1980 is about 8.5 million tons (Wessel, and
others, 196U). It can reasonably be concluded on the basis of past
and present pollution loads and past, present, and projected mining
activity that mine drainage pollution in the West Branch of the
Susquehanna River will continue at the present level until 1980
unless abatement measures are applied.
Sulfate load data for the Allegheny River above the Kiskiminetas
River are given in Figure 38, and sulfate load data for the Kiskiminetas
River are given in Figure 39- Data in both of these figures appear
to indicate some trend toward an overall decrease in pollution loads
in the Allegheny basin, but the combined load of sulfate attributed
to mine drainage in the Allegheny basin was, within the limits of
error, the same in 1962 (1,960 tons/day) as in 19^7 (1,900 tons/day).
255
-------
Chemical data are available for the Allegheny River from as far
back as about 1910 (U. S. Public Health Service, 19^3, p. 1016).
Total sulfate loads were, for example, 1915 - 2,000 tons/day,
1920 - 3,100 tons/day, 1930, 3,100 tons/day, 19^0 - 3,100 tons/day.
The minimum loading since 1915 occurred during 1915 and the maximum
was about U,200 tons/day in 1927* The maximum total sulfate load
during 19^6-1963 was about 4,500 tons/day in 1951 and the minimum
load was about 2,650 tons/day in 1962.
It is not presently known if the fluctuations in mine
drainage pollution in the Allegheny basin can be explained, but
it is clear that the loads since 1915 have fluctuated in the same
general range and it would seem reasonable to expect this to
continue in the foreseeable future unless abatement measures are
taken.
Clark (1965) showed evidence that the Monongahela River
experienced large increases in acidity during the period 1920-193!*
then decreased very gradually in acidity up to 1957- Clark's data
indicate very little change from 19Mf to 1957. Clark's data are
confirmed by data in Figure Ul, which show that acidity and sulfate
loads in the Monongahela River at Charleroi experienced little
permanent change during the period 19^5-1958.
Clark (1965) also showed that acidity concentrations in the
Monongahela River apparently responded somewhat to rates of mining
in the river basin. Coal production in the entire Monongahela
basin was about 100 million tons in 19^5 and about 65 million tons
in 1958 and 1965. Projected production for 1980 is about 90 million
tons (computed from Little, 1964).
On the basis of past and present water quality and past,
present, and projected mining rates, it would be expected that mine
drainage pollution in the Monongahela basin will not be greatly
different in 1980 than today, unless corrective measures are taken.
Data w»ilable for the Big Sandy River basin (Fig. 52) show
that little change in the loads of soLfate originating from mine
drainage pollution occurred between 1957 and 1963. Coal production
in 1980 is expected to be about 85 million tons as compared to
65 million tons in 1965 (computed from Little, 196^). Mine drainage
pollution would not be expected to be substantially different in
1980 than it is today based on past water quality and projected
increases in coal mining rates. A maximum increase of about 20 percent
in pollution loads would be projected if loads responded directly
to mining activity.
256
-------
The total mine drainage pollution load in the Hocking River
as indicated by sulfate loads (Fig. U6) is not great in comparison
to seme other drainage "basins, but it is large in view of the
amount of coal extracted (1.6 million tons in 19&5). Data in
Figure U6 indicate an increase in sulfate loads of about 50 percent
betveen 1955 and 1965. Coal production of about 10 million tons
per year is projected for 1980 (computed from Little, 196U).
Such a large increase in mining activity could lead to substantially
increased mine drainage pollution loads in the Hocking basin, if
corrective measures are not applied.
The previous discussion of seven of the sub-areas included
in this report indicates that while fluctuations have occurred
in mine drainage pollution loads, no substantial permanent increases
or decreases in loads appear to have occurred in recent years. An
exception to this generalization may be the Hocking basin, where
there is a possible trend toward increasing pollution loads. On
the basis of the data from the seven sub-areas, which discharge
about two-thirds of the mine drainage acidity formed in Appalachia,
it is believed that the total quantity of mine drainage pollutants
discharged to streams in Appalachia will remain in the same order
of magnitude in 1980 as today unless corrective measures are applied.
Although the quantity of pollutants discharged to streams
may remain in the same order of magnitude between now and 1980,
it is expected that the mine drainage pollution problem will
become more severe in terms of the number of inactive mines con-
tributing pollution. In addition, unless controls are exercised,
previously unpolluted streams will be degraded as mining advances
into new areas.
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and Water Pollution Control Federation, 1965, Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastevater - 12th edition: American
Public Health Association, 769 p.
Arndt, H. H., Averitt, Paul, Dowd James, Frendzel, D. J., and Gallo
P. A., 1968, Coal, in Mineral Resources of the Appalachian Region,
U. S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 580, p 120.
Brant, R. A., and DeLong, R. M., I960, Coal Resources of Ohio:
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey Bull. 58,
245 p.
Charmbury, H. B., Maneval, D. R., and Girard, Lucien, 196?, Operation
Yellowboy - Design and Economics of a Lime Neutralization Mine
Drainage Treatment Plant, paper presented at the 96th Annual Meeting
of the AIME, Los Angeles, February, 1967.
Clark, C. S., 1965, Some Factors Involved in the Oxidation of Coal
Mine Pyrite and Water Quality Trends in the Monongahela River Basin:
In Papers Presented Before the Symposium on Acid Mine Drainage Re-
search, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 20-21, 1965.
Culbertson, W. C., 1964, Geology and Coal Resources of the Coal Bearing
Rocks of Alabama: U. S. Geological Survey Bull. 1182-B, p B1-B79.
Eavenson, H. N., 1942, The First Century and a Quarter of American Coal
Industry: Waverly Press, Baltimore.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1968, FWPCA Interim
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Surface Waters - September 1968,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Division of Research,
Analytical Quality Control Branch, 1014 Broadway, Cincinnati, Ohio
45202.
Haliburton Company, 1967, Feasibility Study on the Application of
Various Grouting Agents, Techniques and Methods to the Abatement of
Mine Drainage Pollution: Part I Exploration of Mine Sites and
Feasibility Study on Techniques of Materials Application: 226 p.,
August.
Hodge, W., 1938, The Effect of Coal Mine Drainage on West Virginia
Rivers and Water Supplies: West Virginia Engineering Experiment
Station Research Bull. No. 18.
258
-------
REFERENCES (cont'd)
Huddle, J. W., and others, 1963, Coal Reserves of Eastern Kentucky:
U. S. Geological Survey Bull. 1120, 247 p.
Hyland, John, 1966, Handbook of Pollution Control Costs in Mine
Drainage Management: U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, December, 54 p.
Joseph, J. M., 1953- Microbiological study of acid mine waters. Pre-
liminary report: Ohio Jour. Sci., V-53> No. 2, J. 123-127.
lackey, J. B., 1938. The flora and fauna of surface waters polluted
by acid mine drainage: Pub. Health Rep., V-53, No. 34, $. 1499-1507.
Lackey, J. B., 1939- Aquatic life in waters polluted by acid mine
waste: Pub. Health Rep., V-54, No. IS, p.740-746.
Little, A. D., 1964, Projective Economic Study of the Ohio River Basin:
Vol. 3, Appendix B, Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey, U. S. Army,
Corps of Engineers, Cincinnati, Ohio
Lorenz, W. C., 1966, Mineral Industry Water Requirements and Waste
Water in the Susquehanna River Basin: U. S. Bureau of Mines, 116 p.
Luther, E. T., 1959, The Coal Reserves of Tennessee: Tennessee
Department of Conservation and Commerce, Division of Geology Bull. 63,
294 p.
Maryland Department of Water Resources, 1965, Western Maryland Mine
Drainage Survey 1962-1965, Vols. I-III: Maryland Department of Water
Resources, Water Quality Division.
McClellan, H. A., and Ztoellner, D. R., 1966, Final Report of Biological
Investigations in Jefferson and Walker Counties, Alabama: Unpublished
report Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Atlanta, Georgia.
McKee, J. E. and Wolf, H. W., 1963, Water Quality Criteria: California
State Water Quality Control Board, Publication No. 3-A, 548 p.
Ohio Department of Industrial Relations, 1965, Annual Report, Division
of Mines
Parsons, J. D., 1957. Literature pertaining to formation of acid-mine
wastes and their effects on the chemistry and fauna of streams: Trans.
in. State Acad. Sci., V. 50, p. 49-59-
259
-------
REFERENCES (cont'd)
Pennsylvania Department of Health, 1965, Report on Pollution of Slippery
Rock Creek: Division of Sanitary Engineering, Report No. 8, 76 p.
Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board, 1967, Proposed Water Quality Standards
for Pennsylvania's Interstate Streams.
Rainwater, F. H., and Thatcher, L. L., 1960, Methods for Collection and
Analysis of Water Samples : U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper
301 P.
Reese, 'J. F., and Sisler, J. D., 1928, Bituminous Coal Fields in
Pennsylvania: Penn. Topographic and Geologic Survey Bull., 153 P«
Shapiro, M. A., Andelnan, J. B., and Morgan, P. V., 1966, Intensive
Study of the Water at Critical Points on the Monongahela, Allegheny,
and Chio Rivers in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area: University of
Pittsburgh, 126 p.
Sidio, A. D., and Mackenthun, K. M. , 1963, Report on the Pollution of
the Interstate Waters of the Monongahela River System: U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, unpublished
report.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1966,
Investigation Report on Luxapallila Creek Watershed in Alabama:
unpublished report, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
U. 8. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service,
1962 Drinking Water Standards, 61 p.
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1963, Conference
in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Monongahela
River and its Tributaries, Vols. 1, 2 and 3, 662 p.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service - Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Resource Publication 27, 1965,
National Survey of Hunting and Fishing.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1967,
Chio River Basin Comprehensive Survey, Vol. 8, Appendix G:
U. S. ATIHF Corps of Engineers, Cincinnati, Chio
U. S. Department of the Interior, 1967, Interim Report of the National
Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Criteria to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, June 30 .
260
-------
REFERENCES (cont'd)
U. S. Department of the Interior, 1966, Study of Strip and Surface
Mining in Appalachia, an Interim Report by the Secretary of the
Interior to the Appalachian Regional Commission, 78 p.
U. S. Geological Survey and U. S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Resources
of the Appalachian Region, 1968, U. S. Geological Survey Prof.
Paper 580, 492 p.
U. S. Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and Pollution
Control, 1962, Acid Mine Drainage - A Report Prepared for the Committee
on Public Works House of Representatives 87th Congress, 2nd Session,
House Committee Print No. 18, 24 p.
U. S. Public Health Service, 1954, West Pork River Investigation,
Benefits to Pollution Abatement and Improved Water Quality by Flow
Regulations from Stonewall Jackson Reservoir, West Fork River, near
Brownsville, West Virginia: U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, PHS Report.
U. S. Public Health Service, 1943, Chio River Pollution Control:
Report of the U. S. Public Health Service to the 78th Congress,
Part II and Supplements to Part II, Supplement C. Acid Mine Drainage,
p. 973-1024.
Virginia Department of Labor and Industry, 1965, Annual Report of
the Division of Mines.
Wessel, W. F., 1966, Mineral Resources in the Susquehanna River Basin:
U. S. Bureau of Mines, 85 p.
Wessel, W. F., Frendzel, D. J., and Cazell, G. P., 1964, Mineral
Industry, Economics in the Susquehanna River Basin: U. S. Bureau of
Mines, 90 p.
261
-------
-------