EPA-600/2-76-108
June 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
                     DEBRIS  BASINS FOR CONTROL OF
                       SURFACE  MINE  SEDIMENTATION
                                    Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                                          Office of Research and Development
                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                 Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

-------
                 RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,  have been grouped into five series. These five  broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:

     1.    Environmental Health Effects Research
     2.    Environmental Protection Technology
     3.    Ecological Research
     4.    Environmental Monitoring
     5.    Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

This report  has  been  assigned  to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new  or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                    EPA-600/2-76-108
                                    June 1976
              DEBRIS BASINS FOR
    CONTROL OF SURFACE MINE SEDIMENTATION
                     by

   L. Robert Kimball, Consulting Engineers
       Ebensburg, Pennsylvania  15931
            EPA Grant No. S801276
               Project Officer

               John F. Martin
        Extraction Technology Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
           Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
           CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268

-------
                         DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  and approved for
publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                            11

-------
                          FOREWORD
     When energy and material resources are extracted,
processed, converted, and used, the pollutional impact on
our environment and even on our health often requires that
new and increasingly more efficient pollution control
methods be used.  The Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory - Cincinnati  (IERL-CI) assists in developing
and demonstrating new and improved methodologies that
will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.

     This report discusses the feasibility and effective-
ness of debris basins for controlling suspended solids in
water discharging from surface mine operations.  Two sites
in Eastern Kentucky were selected for study.  These are in
areas where very little erosion-causing activity has occurred
and where surface mining is to be initiated.  The information
contained herein characterizes the study sites and relates
the current water quality.  It is intended as a guide for
future work, and is the planning document for use by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky in continuing the demonstration.
In addition, the information will be of use to other federal
agencies and universities working in the eastern Kentucky
region.  The work repeated here complements other sedimenta-
tion studies of the Extraction Technology Branch of IERL-CI.
                             David G. Stephan
                                 Director
               Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                                Cincinnati
                             111

-------
                            ABSTRACT
This report presents the feasibility for demonstration of
the effectiveness of debris basins in controlling solids in
water discharging from surface mine operations.  Two sites
in Eastern Kentucky were selected for study in areas where
very little erosion-causing activity has occurred and where
surface mining is to be initiated.  Adjacent "virgin" water-
sheds were also selected for each study site to provide
background data on water quality where man's activities have
been very limited.  Pertinent site information including
flow and water quality data were gathered.  Cooperation
agreements were signed by the various mining companies
assuring access and data availability.  Several potential
study areas were eliminated for various reasons, leaving the
remaining two watersheds, Dicks Fork and Rhoades Branch.

These watersheds proved to be acceptable sites for the demon-
stration of the feasibility of debris basins in controlling
water pollution.

This study indicates the necessity for conducting the demon-
stration and develops a recommended procedure.

This report was submitted by the Kentucky Department for
Natural Resources and Conservation in fulfillment of E.P.A.
Project S-801276 under the partial sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  This report of work,
subcontracted to L. Robert Kimball, Consulting Engineers,
Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, was completed as of June 1974.
                              IV

-------
                          CONTENTS



                                                 PAGE NO,



Abstract                                           iv



List of Figures                                    vi



List of Tables                                    vii



Preface                                           viii



Acknowledgements                                   ix



     Sections



       I     Conclusions                            1



       II    Recommendations                        2



       III   Introduction                           4



       IV    Site Selection                         6



       V     Monitoring and Sampling               12



       VI    Discussion                            17



       VIi   Demonstration Format                  30



       VIII  References                            33



       IX    Appendices                            34

-------
                           FIGURES

NUMBER                                               PAGE NO,

  1    Study Sites In Eastern Kentucky                 7

  2    Crescent Coal Company Site                      8

  3    Tackett and Manning Coal Company
       Site                                           10

  4    Stream Bed Shifting For Dicks
       Fork                                           18

  5    Stream Bed Shifting for Rhoades
       Branch                                         19

  6    Total Solids Versus Discharge For
       Dicks Fork                                     20

  7    Total Solids Versus Discharge For ,
       Rhoades Branch                                 21

  8    Grain Size Distribution Curve -
       Dicks Fork Watershed                           23

  9    Grain Size Distribution Curve -
       Rhoades Branch Watershed                       24

 10    Soil Permeability - Dicks Fork
       Watershed                                      25

 11    Soil Permeability - Rhoades
       Branch Watershed                               26
                     i
 12    Variation of Dicks Fork Compared
       to Honey Fork for Total Solids                 28

 13    Variation of Rhoades Branch
       Compared to Dick Branch for
       Total Solids                                   29

-------
                           TABLES

NUMBER                                              PAGE NO.

  1    Laboratory Methodology                         13

  2    Precipitation for February - May               16
       1974

  3    Study Stream Discharge Summary                 17

  4    Comparison of Physical Features of
       Dicks Fork and Honey Forks                     22

  5    Comparison of Physical Features of
       Rhoades Branch and Dick Branch                 22

  6    Water Quality Analysis - Dicks Fork
       Upstream                                       42

  7    Water Quality Analysis - Dicks Fork
       Downstream                                     43

  8    Water Quality Analysis - Honey Fork -
       Control Stream                                 44

  9    Water Quality Analysis - Rhoades
       Branch Upstream                                45

 10    Water Quality Analysis - Rhoades
       Branch Downstream                              46

 11    Water Quality Analysis - Dick Branch -
       Control Stream                                 47
                            vn

-------
                           PREFACE

Subsequent to the preparation of this report/ site number one,
Crescent Coal Company, has been eliminated from consideration
as a demonstration site pending the results of legal proceed-
ings between Crescent Coal Company and the United States Army
Corps of Engineers.

In order to maintain continuity in the report, and should the
site re-enter consideration, all data collected and all refer-
ences made to this site are retained in the report.  However,
consideration of site number one for the demonstration was not
included in the Conclusions and Recommendations reached in
this report.
                             Vlll

-------
                      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The advice and guidance of Messrs. Robert E. Nickel and William
Kelly of the Office of Planning and Research, Kentucky Depart-
ment for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection are
sincerely appreciated.

Mr. Calvin Tackett of the Tackett and Manning Coal Corporation
and Mr. Donald Johnson of the Crescent Coal Company supplied
valuable data and excellent cooperation during the investiga-
tion portion of this study.

The support of the project by Mr. John Martin, Project Officer,
Mining Pollution Control Branch, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Environmental Protection Agency is acknowledged with sin-
cere gratitude.
                               IX

-------
                          SECTION I

                         CONCLUSIONS

The demonstration of debris basin effectiveness is feasible
at the site selected and will yield vital information concern-
ing the adequacy of existing regulations governing discharges
from active surface mining operations.

Demonstration of debris basin feasibility should be conducted
as soon as possible because of increasing surface mining and
the diminishing ability of the local environment to assimi-
late further excessive volumes of sediment.

The extensive stream bottom sediment shifting monitoring dur-
ing this study phase indicates that discharges of the debris
basins during the demonstration phase should be determined by
concrete weir placement to provide long term stability for
accurate measurement as well as uniform sampling conditions.

Precise correlation of precipitation and sediment discharge is
not necessary for the purposes of this demonstration and would
require extensive effort beyond the present scope of work.

-------
                         SECTION II

                       RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that demonstration of the feasibility of de-
bris basins be conducted according to the procedures outlined
below:

   1.  Debris basins should be constructed according to
       existing regulations.  The basins should be in-
       spected continually during construction and all un-
       usual or significant conditions should be noted.

   2.  Concurrent with debris basin construction, automatic
       monitoring stations should be installed, calibrated,
       and checked for proper function.  The debris basin
       construction period, approximately one month, will
       allow time to "de-bug" the monitoring systems as well
       as furnish additional background information.  Con-
       tinuing grab sample collection will also provide
       transitional data.

   3.  During the actual surface mining of the area, visual
       inspections of the study site should be made and ob-
       servations recorded to supplement the automatic mon-
       itoring data.  In addition, functioning of the auto-
       matic monitoring stations should be checked and "grab"
       samples obtained according to the schedule presented
       in the discussion section of this report.

   4.  Monthly inspections during the progress of mining
       should accurately determine areas of active mining,
       backfilling, and revegetation.  This should be sup-
       plemented by yearly aerial photographic reconnais-
       sance .

   5.  Upon completion of surface mining, monitoring of the
       study stream should continue until such a time as
       water quality monitoring and visual inspection of
       the site indicate that water quality stability has
       been achieved.

   6.  The adequacy of existing regulations should be re-
       viewed in terms of the data obtained during the dem-
       onstration.  If necessary, recommendations should be
       developed to improve debris basin designs to achieve
       the desired water quality levels.

-------
It is recommended that the demonstration proceed as quickly
as possible because of the ever  increasing amount of surface
mining caused by the growing demand of coal.  The possibili-
ty of placing a severe strain upon the environment cannot be
evaluated or controlled until effectiveness of debris basins
in controlling sedimentation is established.

In view of the various problems experienced to date in the
site selection, it is recommended that if either or both of
the sites under consideration in this report are not avail-
able for the demonstration, other sites be chosen according to
the site selection criteria contained in this report.  It is
possible to utilize sites which are currently being surface
mined and have debris basins  constructed according to current
regulations.  The sites would be selected in small, relative-
ly undisturbed watersheds where current surface mining is the
only activity.  The efficiency of debris basins in controlling
sedimentation is determined by the difference in water quali-
ty upstream and downstream of the debris basins.  The sampl-
ing station downstream from the debris basins will document
the efficiency when compared to the data obtained at the up-
stream station.  An adjacent, similar "virgin" watershed
would be selected for monitoring as a further control on back-
ground water quality.

The other goals of the demonstration such as determining the
cost and construction methods could be achieved after con-
struction.  Field investigation of the basins will yield suf-
ficient data to develop "as built" construction costs using
standard methods, final capacity, and suitability of con-
struction .

The benefits of the demonstration are too important to abandon
this effort should the preselected sites become unsuitable.
Many more debris basins are being constructed as surface raining
continues to be favored over deep mining and as coal demand
increases.  The effectiveness of debris basins should be estab-
lished, followed by the development of new design and construc-
tion criteria should the existing criteria be found inadequate.

-------
                         SECTION III

                        INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the feasibility of
conducting a demonstration of the effectiveness of debris ba-
sins  in controlling sediment from surface mining using design
regulations currently required by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

This  study is the second step in the demonstration program,
being preceeded by a pre-feasibility study submitted by L.
Robert Kimball, Consulting Engineers, in March 1972, to the
Division of Reclamation, Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection, Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The funding for this study is provided by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, while the administration is the responsibility
of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection, Office of Planning and Research.

A guide for the preparation of such studies was prepared by
the Federal Water Quality Administration titled "Feasibility
Study Manual - Mine Water Pollution Control Demonstrations."

In addition to this project, the Commonwealth is initiating a
study program titled "Research and Demonstration of Improved
Surface Mining Techniques in Eastern Kentucky", in an agreement
with  the Appalachian Regional Commission.  Currently, this
proposed program consists of the following six  (6) tasks:  (1)
Design of Surface Mining Systems;  (2) The Economic, Environ-
mental and Physical Evaluation of Selected Surface Mining
Techniques;  (3) Sediment Control Research;  (4) slope Stability;
(5) Revegetation; and  (6) Water Quality Research.

Upon  receiving grant approval for this study of sediment con-
trol, step  (3) from the above program was deleted to avoid
overlapping study subjects.

BACKGROUND

Kentucky coals occur in two major coal fields—the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field and the Western Kentucky Coal Field.  The
Eastern Coal Field was selected for this study to demonstrate
the effectiveness of sediment control debris basins designed
and constructed in accordance with the engineering standards
developed by the Kentucky Soil Conservation Service.  An  im-
portant factor in selecting the Eastern Coal Field is its
steeply-sloping terrain which causes rapid runoff of  surface
water, intensifying erosion in disturbed areas.

-------
Hilltop elevations range from 305 meters  (1,000 feet) in the
northeast to 1158 meters (3,800 feet) in  the southeast.  Local
relief similarly varies from 152 meters  (500 feet) to greater
than 610 meters  (2,000 feet).  The topography in the western
field however, is composed of more gently rolling terrain
that is less susceptible to erosion.

The Eastern Region is drained by the Big  Sandy River, Little
Sandy River, Tygart's Creek, Licking River, Kentucky River and
Cumberland River.

The jurisdictional framework and authority for this project
lies with Kentucky Division for Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Protection and is presented in Appendix A.

OBJECTIVES

In order to determine if the data to be obtained from the dem-
onstration will be adequate to determine  the efficiency of
debris basins, a five month study was undertaken.  Individual
items addressed in the study were:

     1.  Selection of an alternate site to replace that
         of the Marty Corporation  (proposed in the grant
         application);

     2.  Mapping of the sites by aerial photogrammetric means
         to establish premining topography;

     3.  Collection and testing of soil samples to supplement
         published information;

     4.  Collection and analysis of water samples every two
         weeks and during a significant precipitation
         event to determine background water quality in the
         undisturbed drainage basins;

     5.  Collection of flow and precipitation data every two
         weeks to characterize the natural system hydrology;

     6.  Selection of monitoring equipment and design of the
         monitoring stations and;

     7.  Review of published information  pertinent to all
         phases.

-------
                         SECTION IV

                       SITE SELECTION

The criteria for site selection, in order of importance, are
as follows:

1.  The availability of a control watershed;

2.  Determination that the data collected from the site will
    be adequate for the demonstration;

3.  No previous surface mining within the watershed;

4.  No recent evidence of timbering or other disruption;

5.  Availability of an agreement with the coal operator to
    coordinate the project with mining operations;

6.  Access to the site and its effect on the project; and

7.  Proximity of electrical power for monitoring equipment.

SITE EVALUATION

Two sites were chosen which best satisfy the site selection
criteria:  Dicks fork, located in an area to be surface mined
by the Crescent Coal Company, and Rhoades Branch, located in
an area to be surface mined by the Tackett and Manning Coal
Company  (Figure 1).  Control streams were chosen for each site
in order to provide a reference base for data obtained during
the demonstration.  As a necessary condition of the controls,
no mining or other activities will be conducted on the control
streams during the course of the demonstration.

CRESCENT COAL COMPANY SITE

Dicks Fork

The Dicks Fork watershed is located east of Pikeville in Pike
County in the northwest quadrant of the Lick Creek, Kentucky
7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle  (Figure 2).  Access to the
site is provided by a lane running north from its intersection
with Route 194 on the west side of the Phyllis Post Office.

The watershed consists of approximately 162 hectares  (400
acres) upstream from the proposed downstream monitoring loca-
tion.  Old logging trails are present on the hillsides; and a
sawmill was once present in the upper reaches of Dicks Fork,
as evidenced by wood shavings, slashings and old sawdust piles,
Second growth trees cover ninety  (90) percent of the area.
Five gas wells are also within the watershed.

-------
Figure I.  STUDY SITES IN EASTERN KENTUCKY
                   LETCER  COUNTY
                           NOT TO SCALE

-------
Figure 2.   CRESCENT  COAL CO.  SITE
           A    primary sampling station
           •  secondary sampling station
                 scale l"= 2000'

-------
Ridge top elevations bounding  the watershed range  from 560 m
(1836 feet) to 661 m  (2168  feet).   Hillside slopes range from
30%  (17°) to 65%  (33°).  Dicks Fork,  2970  m (9740  feet)  long,
begins as intermittent  springs at approximate  elevation 495 m
(1625 feet) and flows out of the valley at elevation  268 m
(880 feet).  The overall gradient of  the stream is 7.5%.

Ten coal seams in eight coal zones  are  exposed in  outcrops
within the watershed.   In ascending order  these are the Clint-
wood, elevation 305 m  (1,000 feet); Lower  Elkhorn, elevation
366 m  (1,200 feet); a coal  bed in the Upper Elkhorn No.  3 Coal
zone, elevation 425 m  (1,600 feet); three  coal beds in the
Fire-Clay-Whitesburg coal zone,  elevation  524  m (1,720 feet)
537 m  (1,760 feet), and 595 m  (1,950  feet). The Taylor coal
bed  is exposed on the highest  knobs at  elevation 622  m (2,040).

Honey Fork - Control Stream for  Dicks Fork

Honey Fork is located in the large  hollow  immediately to the
east of Dicks Fork  (Figure  2).  Access  to  the  stream  is pro-
vided by Kentucky Route 194 (old U.S, Route 460) and  a lane to
the north from an intersection with Route  194  to the  west of
the Grapevine Elementary School.

The watershed consists  of approximately 131 hectares  (324
acres) upstream from the proposed monitoring location.   Three
gas wells with their attendant access roads are in the area.
More than ninety  (90) percent  of the  area  is forested.

Ridge top elevations bounding  the watershed range  from 418 m
(1,370 feet) to 670 m  (2,196 feet).  Hillside  slopes  range from
30%  (17°) to 75%  (37°).  Honey Fork,  1951  m (6,400 feet)  long,
begins as intermittent  springs at approximate  elevation 564 m
(1,850 feet) and flows  out  of  the valley at elevation 300 m
(985 feet).  The overall gradient of  the stream is 14%.

Two caved mine entries  are  present  in this area, one  in the
Clintwood seam, elevation 305  m  (1,000  feet) and one  in the
Lower Elkhorn seam, elevation  366 m (1,200 feet).

This area contains the  same coal outcrops  as reported for the
Dicks Fork area.

TACKETT AND MANNING COAL COMPANY SITE

Rhoades Branch

The Rhoades Branch watershed is  located in Letcher County east
of Deane, in the northeast  quadrant of  the Mayking, Kentucky
7.5 Minute Topographic  Quadrange  (Figure 3).  Access  to the
site is provided by Kentucky Route  275  in  the  valley  of Rock-
house Creek and an abandoned country  road  south from  an inter-
section with Route 275  approximately  853 m (2,800  feet)  east
of the intersection  of Kentucky Route  7.   This site  was se-

-------
Figure  3.   TACKETT AND  MANNING  COAL CO.  SITE
            A    primary sampling station
            •  secondary sampling station
                    scale I '= 2000'
                           10

-------
leeted to replace the Marty Corporation  site  (Site  2  in  the
Pre-Feasibility Report).

The watershed consists of approximately  113 hectares  (280
acres) upstream from the proposed monitoring  location.   An
abandoned deep mine is present near the  valley mouth  in  the
Upper Elkhorn No. 3 coal zone.  An abandoned  loading  tipple
is present in the upper reaches of the valley in  the  Amburgy
coal zone.  Second growth trees cover ninety  (90) percent of
the area.

Ridge top elevations bounding the watershed range from 581 m
(1,906 feet) to 683 m  (2,240 feet).  Hillside slopes  range
from 15%  (14°) to 71%  (36°).  Rhoades Branch  1525 m (5,000
feet) long begins as intermittent springs at  approximate
elevation 531 m (1,700 feet) and flows out of the valley at
elevation 390 m (1,280 feet).  The overall gradient of the
stream is 8.6%.

A total of three coal  seams in three coal zones are exposed as
outcrops within the watershed.  In ascending  order  these are a
coal bed in the Upper Elkhorn No. 3 coal zone, elevation 425 m
(1,400 feet); Amburgy coal, elevation 485 m (1,590  feet); and
the Fire Clay coal zone, elevation 549 m (1,800 feet).

Dick Branch - Control Stream for Rhoades Branch

Dick Branch is located in the large hollow immediately to the
west of Rhoades Branch.  Access to the stream is provided by
Kentucky Route 7.

The watershed consists of approximately  95 hectares (324 acres)
upstream from the proposed monitoring location.  More than
ninety (90) percent of the area is forested.  Ridge top  eleva-
tions bounding the watershed range from  604 m (1,980  feet) to
683 m (2,240 feet).

Hillside slopes range from 25% (14°) to  71% (36°).  Dick Branch
1463 m (4,800 feet) long, begins as intermittent  springs at
approximate elevation 482 m (1,280 feet) and  flows  out of the
valley at elevation 298 m (987 feet).  The overall  gradient of
the stream is 6.3%.

This area contains the same coal outcrops as  reported for the
Rhoades Branch watershed.
                               11

-------
                          SECTION V

                   MONITORING AND SAMPLING

MONITORING

Stream discharge monitoring stations were established concur-
rently with the downstream sampling points on Dicks Fork and
Rhoades Branch.  Sampling stations were also established at
upstream points on Dicks Fork and Rhoades Branch relative to
the proposed debris basin locations and near the mouths of
the control streams.  Approximate locations and designations
of sampling and discharge monitoring points are shown on Fig-
ures 2 and 3.

Discharges of the study streams were determined by measuring
the cross ssections of the stream bed, the depth of the water,
and using the "float" method of measuring velocity as described
in the Water Measurement Manual.

Stream discharges were measured at two week intervals and once
during a significant precipitation event.

The study stream discharge measurements are presented in Appen-
dix B, Tables 7 and 9 and a summary is presented in the discus-
sion section.

SAMPLING

Water samples for chemical analysis were taken at the upstream
and downstream sampling stations of the study streams and the
proposed secondary monitoring station locations on the control
streams.  Samples were anaylzed by the.Environmental Engineer-
ing Laboratory of L. Robert Kimball according to the American
Public Health Association's (APHA) methods presented in Stand-
ard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.  The
various parameters, APHA designations, reporting units, and
minimum detectable concentrations are shown in Table 1.
                               12

-------
Table 1.  METHODOLOGY FOR WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Parameter
T-lH
pti
Turbidity
Total
Alkalinity
As CaCO3
Phenolphthalein
Alkalinity
Ca Hardness
CaCO3
Hardness
Magnesium
Iron
Manganese
Sulfate
Total Hot
Acidity
(As CaCO3
Equivalents)
Free Acidity
(As CaCO3
Equivalents )
Conductivity
Settleable
Solids
Suspended
Solids
APHA
Designation
41 fi^
IT .LOO
#144A
#102
#102
#110C
#112B
#112A
(Modified)
#124
#128C
(Modified)
#156C
(Modified)
#101
#101
#154
#224F
#148B
(Modified)
Reporting
Units

Jackson
Turbidity
Units
Milligrams
Per Liter
(mg/1)
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
rag/1
rag/1
rag/1
mg/1
Micromhos/
Centimeter
Milliliters/
Liter (ml/I)
rag/1
Minimum
Detectable
Concentration

10.0 JTU
0 . 0 mg/1
0.0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
1 . 0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.02 mg/1
0.0 mg/1
0.0 mg/1
0.0 mg/1
0 . 0 MHOS/cm
0.5 ml/1
0,0 mg/1
                      13

-------
 Table 1.   (continued)  METHODOLOGY  FOR WATER QUALITY ANALYSES

                                                 Minimum
                     APHA        Reporting       Detectable
 Parameter	Designation	Units	Concentration

 Dissolved         #154          mg/1             0.0  mg/1
   Solids             (Modified)

 Total Solids      #148A         mg/1             0.0  mg/1
                     (Modified)


 The results of the water quality analyses are  presented  in Ap-
 pendix B, Tables 6 through 11 and  a summary is presented in the
 discussion section. Additional  data  was  available for Dicks
 Fork downstream monitoring station and is presented with the
 results of the analyses.

 The loading of .total weight (expressed in kilograms per  day)
 of each parameter carried by the study streams was determined
 according to the equation:

                          L = 1.44  QA
        t                                   ,
 where L = loading, Kg/day

       Q = discharge, m3/min

       A = parameter, mg/1

 The amount of a parameter expressed as loading in kilograms per
 day is used for expression of the  background water quality  ,
 because it is an absolute number which expresses the total
 amount of material passing the measuring  point and may be con-
 verted to the amount of pollutants derived from any disturbed
 land unit.   Loading data for Dicks Fork downstream and Rhoades
 Branch downstream is presented with the results of analyses in
 Appendix  B,  Tables 7 and 10.

 Soil samples were taken in the watersheds using hand driven
 Shelby tube and  analyzed in the  Geotechnical Laboratory  of L.
 Robert Kimball to determine the  soil  permeability and grain
 size distribution.  The results  of the analyses are presented
 in  the discussion section.

 PRECIPITATION

 Two  Belfort recording  rain gauges  were supplied through  the
 Water  Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency.
 These  were  positioned  to supply  detailed  preciptation infor-
mation  for  each  site.   A combination  of equipment failure,
vandalism,  and natural  damage prevented the generation of

                               14

-------
of useful data from these gauges.

Precipitation data was then obtained from the Pikeville and
Fishtrap stations of the United States Departmen of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and is pre-
sented in Table 2.
                             15

-------
                 Table 2.  PRECIPITATION  FOR  FEBRUARY - MAY 1974
                     February
                                     March
                                                   April
CTl
Plehtrap Pikevllla
1
2 .17 .85
3 .38 .01
.02 T
T
.08
.10 T
.20 .60
.22 T
10 T T
11 .06
12
13 .04
14 .15 T
15
16 .13
17 .20
18
19 .03 .31
20 .22 .08
21
22 .22 .40
23 .09
24 .03
25 .14 T
26 .02 T
27
28
29
30
31
TOTAL
2.22 2.53
Plahtrap Pikeville
T



T
.28
1.12
T

.05
1.22
1.00
.60 g
s
o
• 38 £
.27 *
T H
• 07 g
.78
1.05
.30

.12
t


T

.49
.18













7.91
Piahtrap Pikeville












c
•
i
^
i
fl
i
t
*
i
a













.27

1.19
T
.05

.52
.52



I .01
; .12
>
ii
i
«. .14
4
>


T
.94









3.46
Plahtrap Pikeville












c
i
i
<
•
i
•
!












.17
.46
.30

.20


T
.04

.06
1.06
>
i
*
i

i
A
' .06
; .31
\ .32


.02
1.32
T




.10
.40
1.29

6.11



T • Trace
amount ob-
served.



Date obtained
from U.S.
Dept. of
Commerce,
National
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Admlnstratlon
Cllnatologlcal,
Data,
Kentucky















-------
                         SECTION VI

                         DISCUSSION

DISCHARGE MEASUREMENT

Analysis of the  stream cross  section records  shows  the magni-
tude of variation which  has occurred during the  course of  the
study  (Figures 4 and 5).  These results  indicate that it will
be necessary to  utilize  a permanent  flow measuring  device  for
discharge monitoring to  minimize the error resulting from  shif-
ting stream cross sections.

A summary of the study stream discharges is presented in Table 3,

                 Table 3.  DISCHARGE SUMMARY
                           (m3/Min)

Dicks Fork
Maximum
10.1
Rhoades Branch 11.7
Minimum
2.1
2.0
Average
7.0
5.3
Precipitation
Event
186.5
111.5
As can be  seen,  the discharges  for  the  precipitation  event are
extremely  higher than  the  "maximum"  discharge  recorded during
the project.  These "precipitation  event"  discharges  were not
included in the  averaging  since a special  effort was  made to
determine  these  flows  during  a  specific period.  These data in-
dicate the inherent diversity of these  discharges  and provide
the range  of discharge values to be  used in design of weirs.

WATER QUALITY SAMPLING

Loading data indicates that little  erosion is  occurring  in
either watershed and that  both  study streams in their natural
state are  relatively low solids producers.  The relationship
between discharge and  total solids  can  be  seen in  Figures 6 and
7.  The relationship is relatively  well defined for Rhoades
Branch in  0-8 m3/min discharge  range and less  defined for Dick
Fork in the same range indicating slightly different  hydrologi-
cal conditions betwen  the  study streams.   Additional  data gen-
erated during the demonstration will further define this rela-
tionship .

SOILS

Random soil samples taken  in  the study  areas indicate that
residual soils (formed in  place) and alluvial  soils
(deposited) within the area range from  sandy loam  to  loam
to silty loam, all with sandstone and/or shale fragments
(Figures 8 and 9).  It is  assumed that  the high rate  of

                                17

-------
        Figure 4.      STREAM  BED SHIFTING  FOR  DICKS  FORK
00
           0.0
             2.0
3.0
4.0
                                           5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
                                   HORIZONTAL   DISTANCE,  meters

-------
          Figure  5.   STREAM  BED  SHIFTING  FOR  RHOADES BRANCH
                	INITIAL 2-15-74

                	  FINAL  6-7-74
VQ
            0.0
            1.0
          o>
          E
         o.
         UJ
         Q 2.O
             0.0
                          »
0.5
                                                                  f
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
                                                           3.5
                                    HORIZONTAL   DISTANCE,    meters

-------
Figure  6.   TOTAL SOLIDS vs. DISCHARGE FOR

                    DICKS FORK
 IO.OOO.C
  ipoo.o
 o
 •o
 *v
 o>
O
_l
o
   100.0
o
H
   10.01
                     7_
                                                -©-
                2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
                       DISCHARGE,   mVmin
10.0
                             20

-------
Figure 7.  TOTAL SOLIDS vs DISCHARGE FOR

                RHOADES BRANCH
   10,000.0
    ipoo.o
o
TJ
X.
6»
 If)
 Q
 _i
 o
 CO
 <

 O  100.0
                       /
                     Z
                              z
                             0
                                       zr
                 DISCHARGE,   mVmin.
                        21

-------
 runoff  is,  to  a  large  extent,  the  reason for the large amount
 (35  to  40 percent)  of  coarse  fragments  present in the two soil
 samples analyzed since fines  tend  to  be carried off by severe
 runoff.   (See  figures  8 and 9 for  grain size distribution
 curves.) The  coefficients of permeability of both soil samples
 tested  (Figures  10  and 11) averaged 1.1 meters per hour indicat-
 ing  well drained clean sand and  gravel  with very few fines.

 Visual  inspection and  field testing indicated that soils  in the
 Honey Fork watershed,  sandy loam to silty  loam,  are similar to
 those of Dicks Fork.   Table 4  compares  the  physical features  of
 Dicks Fork and Honey Fork.  Although  the Honey Fork watershed is
 smaller in size  and stream length, the  higher stream gradient
 causes  more erosion as evidenced by the higher average  solids
 (suspended, dissolved  and total) when compared to  those of Dicks
 Fork downstream  (Appendix B, Tables 7 and  8).

            Table 4.   COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL FEATURES:
                     DICKS FORK  AND HONEY  FORK
Feature
Watershed Size
Hillside Slopes
Stream Length
Overall Stream
Gradient
Dicks Fork
161 hectares
I7o _ 330
1970 m
7.5%
Honey Fork
131 hectares
17° - 37°
1951 m
14%
Visual inspection indicates that the soils in Dick Branch,  loams
to silty loams, are similar to those of Rhoades Branch.

            Table 5.  COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL FEATURES:
                  RHOADES BRANCH AND DICK BRANCH
Feature
Watershed
Hillside Slopes
Stream Length
Overall Stream
Gradient 	
Rhoades Branch
113 hectares
140 - 36°
1525 m
8.6%
Dick Branch
95 hectares
14° - 36°
1436 m
6.3%
                               22

-------
Figure  a  GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE
              DICKS  FORK WATERSHED

                      6O     80
                  V. PASSING
                       23

-------
Figure 9.
GRAIN  SIZE DISTRIBUTION  CURVE


  RHOADES BRANCH  WATERSHED
  ~T	[--•!•
  0.001
                   PASSING
                     24

-------
Figure 10.   SOIL  PERMEABILITY- DICKS  FORK
                      WATERSHED
        Sample i  Dick's Fork STtl

        Job *  E-74-2	


     Initial container + sample wt.

     Container wt.    1306.3 q

     Sample wt. 	1814.7 g	
                Name

                Date
    KYAPA
    2/28/74
                  3121.0 q
        	 Head (h)  in cm 116.4

Temp of water (°C)     19.0°	
     Initial Moisture Content   11.33 %

     Dry Sample wt. 	1630.0-q
                    Hydraulic  Gradient  (i)
                            h
                           i*LL
                          3.95
     Sample Dimensions:

        Length  (D29.50    cm

        Dia.        7.26   cm
                Area (A)    41.38 cm2
              Volume (V)   1220.71 cm2
Elapsed
Time
(sec)
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Quantity
(cc)
25.0
53.0
79.0
101.0
K T
cm/sec
3.06 x 10~2
3.24 x 10~2
3.22 x 10'2
3.09 x 10~2
K 20
cm/sec
3.06 x 10~2
3.24 x 10~2
3.22 x 10~2
3.09 x 10"2
Remarks
Discharge cloudy
Discharge cloudy
Discharge clear
Discharge clear
                                      iAT
                            3.15 x 10"2 cm/sec = I.Imeters/hr.
        Initial Moisture Content
    Pan #
    Wet wt + tare
    nry wt + tare
    «t' of, water
    Tare wt
    wt of Dry Soil
    % Moisture
165 _
352.1
246.3
      Final Moisture Content

    Pan *
    Wet wt + tare _
    Dry wt + tare   1839.5
    Wt of water     42-1,. 5
    Tar© wt         2X1* ^
    Wt of Dry Soil  1627.7
    % Moisture      25.90%
                                     25

-------
Figure 11.   SOIL  PERMEABILITY -  RHOADES  BRANCH
                         WATERSHED
     Sample  I  Hhoades Branch STf2  Name   Kif-gA

     Job i   B-74-2	  Date   2/28/74
 Initial container + sample wt.

 Container wt.    1582.4 a	

 Sample wt. 	1750.6 q	
    3333.0 q
       	Head (h)  in cm 102.4

Temp of water (°C)    18°C	
 Initial Moisture Content 	

 Drv Sample wt.      1547.5 q
13.20%
       Hydraulic Gradient (i)
                h
              i-L
                         3.16
 Sample Dimensions:

     Length  (L)   32.40 cm

     nia.         7.24 cm
   Area  (A)  45.15 cm2

 Volume  (V)  1333.19 cm2
Elapsed
Time
(sec)
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Quantity
(cc)
23.0
41.5
59.0
75.0
K T
cm/sec
3.52 x 10"2
3.17 x 10~2
3.01 x 10~2
2.87 x 10"2
K 20
cm/sec
3.52 x 10"2
3.19 x 10"2
3.01 x 10"2
2.87 x 10"2
Remarks
Discharge cloudy
Discharge clear
Discharge clear
Discharge clear
                                   Q
                   «•-    3.09 x 10~2 cm/sec = 1.1 meters/hr.
    Initial Moisture Content

"an *            138
Wet wt + tare    354.6
nry wt + tare    322.5
"t o* water      32.1
Tare wt          78.9
Wt of Dry Soil   243.6
% Moisture       13.20%
             Final Moisture Content
                           II
    Pan I          	
    Wet wt + tare   2122.7
    Dry wt + tare   1765.0
    Wt of water
    Tare wt
                           357.7
                           247.8
           Wt of Dry Soil  1517.2
           % Moisture      23.58%
                                   26

-------
AS evidenced by the preceeding comparisons, either  site, toget-
her with its respective control stream, proves to be  satis-
factory for the purpose of this demonstration.  Figures 12
and 13 show the correlation observed between each study stream
and its control for total solids throughout the course of this
study.  This correlation permits valid comparison between the
control streams and the study streams during the demonstration.

PRECIPITATION

An attempt was made to correlate discharges and precipitation
for the study streams but, because of the large number of
variables involved, was abandoned as being beyond the scope
of this project.  It was learned that total precipitation per
time period is not sufficient unless other pertinent  conditions
are noted such as vegetation, slope, etc. and unless  the stream
discharge is being continuously monitored.  Furthermore, it
appears that the benefit of such correlation, the prediction of
solids concentration based on precipitation, is not of suffi-
cient value to merit the additional effort and expense re-
quired .
                               27

-------
Figure 12.  VARIATION OF DICKS FORK COMPARED TO
          HONEY FORK  FOR TOTAL SOLIDS
  400
  300
O

-------
Figure 13.   VARIATION OF  RHOADES BRANCH
          COMPARED TO  DICK BRANCH FOR
                   TOTAL  SOLIDS
  225
  200
  ISO
Q
oioo
H
  50
       2- 74
3-74
4-74
5-74
6-74
                  TIME, months
                        29

-------
                         SECTION VII

                    DEMONSTRATION FORMAT

As  a  result of  this study,  some guidelines are being presented
for conducting  the actual demonstration project.

CONSTRUCTION

The construction of the proposed sediment control structures at
each  site will  be performed by the mine operators at no cost to
the Department  for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.
To  comply with  current mining regulations, it is necessary for
the operator to build these structures in his normal operations.
Each  operator will submit a cost estimate relating to this work.

In  addition to  cost estimates submitted by the operators, cost
analyses will be made from data collected at each site during
the construction monitoring phase.

An  observer in  the field will tabulate man-hours, equipment-
hours, materials and quantities for the following:

      1.  Site preparation, including provision of access
         roads, clearing and grubbing, unsuitable material
         disposal and topsoil stockpiling;

      2.  Excavation, including cut-off trenches, emergency
         spillway, and borrow excavations;

      3.  Principal spillway and discharge installations; and

      4.  Vegetative protection against erosion.

Costs will be computed by using prevailing wage rates and
average equipment operating costs on an hourly basis.  Cost of
materials will  be based on current unit prices for the region.

Method of work  will be evaluated at each site relative to eco-
nomic use of equipment, construction methods, and efficiency
of  the operations.  For economic evaluations, all construction
costs will be computed in terms of 1)  unit cost of each basin;
2)  acres of land disturbed; and 3)  tons of coal produced.

MONITORING AND  SAMPLING

The most important aspect of the demonstration project is use
of reliable monitoring equipment installed so as to provide
reliable data throughout the demonstration.  To achieve this,
automatic equipment to monitor and record turbidity, conductiv-
ity, air temperature, water temperature, pH, and stream flow
should be installed in a primary station located downstream


                                30

-------
from the debris basins.  Secondary  stations  containing  all of
the above automatic equipment except  air  temperature monitors
should also be installed upstream of  the  debris  basins.

In order to account for the effects of weather,  geologic, and
topographic conditions on the demonstration,  control streams
in adjacent watersheds should be monitored using secondary
station automatic monitoring equipment.

Grab samples should be taken at all monitoring stations ten
times per year at sporadic intervals  according to weather and
water quality variations.  These samples, taken  at random
times and flows, will serve as a calibration function for the
monitoring stations to insure generation  of  reliable data as
well as to provide additional water quality  information.

Grab samples should be analyzed in  the laboratory to determine
the nature and grain size distribution of solids present and
for the following parameters:

     pH                       Calcium
     Conductivity             Magnesium
     Turbidity                Manganese
     Hardness                 Suspended Solids
     Acidity - Alkalinity     Settleable  Solids
     Total Iron               Sulfate

Records should be maintained concerning the  progress of mining,
the area of extraction, and the reclamation  progress including
vegetative growth.  Correlation of  water  quality compared to
amount and type of disturbed area should  be  made using  this
information.

The study areas should be aerial photogrammetrically mapped at
the finalization of the mining activity to prepare complete
plans showing total disturbed area, location of  sediment con-
trol structures, and stream courses.

Engineering on the project should include detailed drawings and
specifications for construction of  the monitoring system toget-
her with supervision of construction  of the monitoring  systems
and correlation of efforts by the mining  companies and power
companies.

Cross sections should be taken at each impoundment prior to
mining, at 6 month intervals during the study phase, and at
the completion of the monitoring to determine the rate  and
volume of sediment accumulation.

The final report should include all actions  performed during
the demonstration, their effects, an  interpretation of  the
data obtained,  and a comprehensive  review of  the existing
regulations and practices together  with recommendations, where

                               31

-------
applicable, for improvements in all phases of debris basin
use for sedimentation control.
                              32

-------
                        SECTION VII

                         REFERENCES

1.   Federal Water Quality Administration, Feasibility Study
          Manual Mine Water Pollution Control Demonstrations.
          U.S. Government Printing Office/ 1970.  65 p.

2.   McFarlan, Arthur C. Geology of Kentucky.  Lexington,
          University of Kentucky.  1961.  531 p.

3.   McKay, E.J. and D.C. Alvord.  Geologic Map of the Lick
          Creek Quadrange Pike County, Kentucky.  U.S. Geo-
          logical Survey.  Washington, Map GQ-716. 1969. 1 p.

4.   Rice, Charles L. Geologic Map of the Jenkins West Quad-
          rangle Pike County, Kentucky.  U.S. Geological
          Survey.  Washington, Map GQ-716.  1969.  1 p.

5.   Bureau of Reclamation.  Water Measurement Manual 2nd
          Edition Denver, U.S. Government Printing Office,
          1967. p. 157-159.

6.   Taras, Michael J., Arnold E. Greenberg, R.D. Hoak, and
          M.C. Rand,  (editors). Standard Methods for the Exam-
          ination of Water and Wastewater 13th edition.
          Washington, American Public Health Association,
          February, 1971. pp. 50-52, 178-179, p. 195, pp.
          201-203, p. 206, p. 334.

7.   Chow, Ven Te. Handbook of Applied Hydrology.  New York.
          McGraw Hill, 1964. pp. 14-2 to 14-49.
                              33

-------
                          SECTION IX

                          APPENDICES

 APPENDIX A
 Jurisdictional Framework

 Cognizant Authority

 This study was initiated under the auspices of the Environmen-
 tal Protection Agency subject to the provisions of the Water
 Quality Improvement Act of 1970, PL 91-224.  The Act includes a
 subsection titled "Area Acid and Other Mine Water Pollution
 Control Demonstrations" which became Section 107 of the Federal
 Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.   This section provides
 for the demonstration of techniques for mine drainage pollution
 control and directs that the Environmental Protection Agency
 shall require such feasibility studies as required in selecting
 watersheds for the purpose of the demonstration projects.   Such
 feasibility studies are to aid the Environmental Protection
 Agency in selecting not only the mine drainage pollution con-
 trol method(s),  but also the watershed or drainage area for
 such application.   The Act requires that  the Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency give preference to areas which will have the
 greatest public value and use.

 The United States  Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of
 Research and Development, issued a grant  for the mine drainage
 demonstration project described herein, to the Commonwealth of
 Kentucky,  Department for Natural Resources, and Environmental
 Protection,  Division of Reclamation.   Administration of the
 study has  been the responsibility of  the  Department for Natural
 Resources  and Environmental Protection, Office of Planning and
 Research.

 The Department for Natural Resources  and  Environmental Protec-
 tion is a  statutory unit of the Kentucky  state government.   The
 legislative  basis  for the Department  may  be found in Kentucky
 Revised Statutes  (KRS),  Chapter 224 and in numerous other  chap-
 ters of the  Kentucky Revised Statutes.  The Department has the
 authority  to exercise all State administrative and enforcement
 functions  relating to the management  of the Commonwealth's air,
 water,  and land resources.   (KRS 224,003,  Powers and Duties of
 the  Department).

The  Department is  headed by a  Secretary appointed by the Gov-
ernor.  The  Secretary is assisted by  two  (2)  Commissioners, who
in turn head  two (2)  Bureaus within the Department.   The Bureau
of Land Resources  includes  the  following  Divisions:
                               34

-------
     Reclamation              Special Programs

     Forestry                 Water Resources

     Conservation

The Bureau of Environmental Quality includes the following
Divisions:

     Air Pollution            Plumbing

     Solid Waste              Sanitary Engineering

     Water Quality

The Secretary is advised by a seven (7) member Environmental
Quality Commission.  The Commission is a statutory body com-
prised of lay citizens appointed by the Governor for terms of
four (4) years.  Commission members receive no salary or other
compensation for their service on the Commission.  The Com-
mission has statutory authority to advise the Secretary on any
matter within his responsibility, to serve as a working forum
on the environment, to recommend adoption or rejection, after
public hearing, of rules or regulations proposed by the Depart-
ment.   (KRS 224.045, Powers and Duties of Commission).

The Kentucky General Assembly, under KRS 350, has vested in the
Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Division of Reclamation, the authority to regulate and control
surface mining of coal to minimize or prevent its injurious ef-
fects on the people and resources of the Commonwealth.  The Di-
vision of Reclamation, under the supervision of the Secretary
and the Commissioner of Land Resources, has the following
authority and powers relative to this project  (KRS 350.050,
Powers of Divisions):

     1.  To exercise general supervision and administration
         and enforcement of KRS Chapter 350 and all rules
         regulations, and orders promulgated thereunder;

     2.  To encourage and conduct investigations, research,
         experiments and demonstrations, and to collect and
         disseminate information related to surface mining.

     3.  To adopt, without hearing, rules and regulations
         with respect to the filing of reports, the issuance
         of permits, and other matters of procedure and ad-
         mini stration, and;
                              35

-------
      4.   To examine  and  pass  upon  all  plans and specifications
          submitted by the  operator for the method of operation,
          backfilling, grading,  and for the reclamation of the
          area of land affected  by  his  operations.

 No operator in the Commonwealth of Kentucky may engage in sur-
 face mining without  having first obtained from the Division of
 Reclamation, a permit designating  the  area of land affected by
 the operation.  Permit requirements are described under KRS
 350.060.  (KRS 350.060,  Permit  Required:  Contents of Applica-
 tion; Map;  Fee; Bond).

 An operator is required  by KRS  350.060 (4)  to submit with his
 permit application,  a drainage  plan.   This plan must indicate
 the directional flow of  water,  constructed drainways, natural
 waterways used for drainage and the streams or tributaries re-
 ceiving the discharge.  In addition, the operator is required
 by KRS 350.090 to prepare  and carry out a reclamation plan for
 the area of land affected  by  his operation.  (KRS 350.090,
 Reclamation Plan, requirements, approval - dumping regula-
 tions.)   The reclamation plan must provide for the following:

      1.   Cover the face  of the  coal with compacted non-acid
          bearing and non-toxic  materials to a distance of at
          least four  feet above  the seam being surface mined
          or by a permanent water impoundment;

      2.   Bury under  adequate  fill  all  toxic materials, roof
          coal, pyritic coal,  or shale  determined by the Di-
          vision to be acid producing,  toxic or creating a fire
          hazard;

      3.   Seal off, as directed  by  regulations, any breakthrough
          of acid water creating a  hazard;

      4.   Impound, drain  or treat all runoff water so as to
          reduce soil erosion, damage to agricultural lands and
          pollution of streams and  other waters;

      5.   Remove or bury  all metal,  lumber,  and other refuse
          resulting from  the operations; and

      6.   Revegetate  with suitable  seed or plant mixtures
          after approved  regrading  and  soil preparation.

This  project,  as presented, is  a demonstration of the effec-
tiveness  of  debris basins  for the  control of sedimentation from
surface mining operations  in  steep slope terrain.  The debris
basin design specifications and construction methods will be
those currently used by  surface mine operators in Eastern Ken-
tucky as  required and approved  by  the  Division of Reclamation.
The project  is  in keeping  with  the  foregoing Kentucky Revised
Statutes  and will serve  to demonstrate how well the intent of

                                36

-------
the law is being carried out.  The project will be conducted by
the regulatory agency responsible for the enforcement of all
applicable laws and thereby has all administrative authority
to efficiently carry out the project in compliance with the
existing laws.

Since the Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection, Division of Reclamation, is the grantee for the
performance of the project, the demonstration will be conducted
under authority established in the law  (KRS 350) for the De-
partment to encourage and conduct demonstrations related to the
reclamation of lands and waters affected by surface mining.

Upon completion of the project, the Department is also charged
with the dissemination of information collected during progress
of demonstration.

Existing and Proposed Standards

Requirements for impoundment and treatment of runoff from sur-
face mining operations are contained in two of the Division of
Reclamations' regulations.  SMR-Rg-11 requires that treatment
facilities be constructed by the operator prior to the strip-
ping operation.  SRM-Rg-11 further requires that the treated
discharge have: (1) pH of between 6.0 and 9.0; (2) iron concen-
tration not in excess of 7 mg/1; (3) total alkalinity in ex-
cess of total acidity; (4) no settleable matter; (5) suspended
matter not in excess of 150 JTU's, except during a precipita-
tion event, in which case 1000 JTU's may not be exceeded.  SMR-
Rg-12 requires that a drainage, erosion and silt control plan
for the area to be permitted be prepared by a registered pro-
fessional engineer and submitted with the permit application.
After approval of the drainage plan by the Division of Reclama-
tion, silt dams are to be constructed in the drainage areas to
be immediately affected by the operation.  SMR-Rg-12 further
requires that the height of contour surface mine silt dams not
exceed 20 feet.

The engineering standards for the design of silt control struc-
tures are contained within the Division of Reclamation's "Sur-
face Mining Sediment and Water Quality Control Handbook."

The streams involved in this demonstration are considered pub-
lic waters of the Commonwealth and are, therefore, subject to
the federally approved Kentucky Water Quality Standards for
Interstate Waters.  The water quality of the public streams,
within the confines of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is main-
tained through the authority vested in the Department for Na-
tural Resources and Environmental Protection, Division of Water
Quality, under Kentucky Revised Statute 224.033.  The appli-
cable standards by which said authority is administered are
covered by regulation WP-4-; "Water Quality Standards for
                               37

-------
 Water of the Commonwealth",  adopted July 23,  1971;  and by regu-
 lation WP-6-2 "Use Classification of Waters,  Treatment Require-
 ments and Compliance",  adopted November 5,  1973.   Since the
 streams involved in this demonstration are  not shown on the map
 "Streams of Kentucky" prepared in 1973 by the Kentucky Depart-
 ment of Commerce,  they  must  meet the water  quality standards
 set forth in WP-4-1, only at the point where  they join the
 streams shown on the map.

 It has been the policy  of the Department that in  the case of
 surface coal mining operations, compliance  with the provisions
 of KRS 350, SMR-Rg-11 and SMR-Rg-12 would be  necessary and
 sufficient to constitute compliance with WP-4-1 and WP-6-2.
 Surface mine operators  are not required to  obtain permits from
 the Division of Water Quality.

 Kentucky Revised Statute, Chapter 151.250 states  that no per-
 son shall commence construction of any dam  across any stream or
 in the floodway of any  stream without having  first obtained a
 permit from the Department for Natural Resources  and Environ-
 mental Protection.   (KRS 151.250, Plans for dams, levees, etc.,
 to be approved and permit issued by Division).  The Department
 is authorized by KRS 151-250 to exempt by regulation those
 dams which are not of such size or type as  to require approval
 by the Department in the interest of safety or retention of
 water supply.  The standards by which the requirements of KRS
 151.2 50 are administered, are contained in regulation DOW-Rg-2,
 "Design Criteria for Dams and Associated Structures",  dated
 April 5, 1972.   Regulation DOW-Rg-3, "Exemption of  Non-Hazard-
 ous Sediment Structures Relating to Surface Mining," adopted
 December 4, 1972,  exempts from obtaining a  construction permit
 all sediment structure  designs proposed in  conjunction with
 surface mining,  except  those coming within  the hazard classi-
 fication system contained in Engineering Memorandum No.  3.

 The project is  in  keeping with the laws and regulations con-
 cerning surface  mining  of coal within the Commonwealth,  since
 operators are now  required to prepare a drainage, erosion, and
 silt control plan;  to build  debris basins to  Departmental spec-
 ifications and  to  treat the  drainage from the area  of land af-
 fected  by their  operations to meet Departmental specifications.
 This project will  serve to evaluate the effectiveness of debris
 basins  as presently designed and constructed  in the steep slope
 terrain of Eastern  Kentucky.   If it is found  that the current
 design  and construction methods are not meeting the discharge
 standards spelled out in SMR-Rg-11,  then alternate  design and
 construction methods will be recommended for  implementation.

 Since the project will  be conducted under the direction of the
 Department for Natural  Resources and Environmental  Protection,
 all  aspects  of applicable regulations will  be strictly observed
 as  the  Department is charged with monitoring  and  enforcement of
surface mining operations.

                                38

-------
The project will meet all water quality criteria and water im-
poundment design criteria set by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Site Acquisition

The site chosen for the demonstration project is located within
the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  The authority to acquire, re-
store and reclaim land as required for the project is vested in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky in accordance with Kentucky Re-
vised Statutes relating to surface mining and reclamation, KRS
350.152, 350.154, and 350.156.

Crescent Coal Company has executed lease/royalty arrangements
with the mineral owners at the Dicks Fork site.

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, is the
owner of all surface and mineral rights at the Rhoades Branch
site.  Bethlehem Steel Corporation has contracted with Tackett
and Manning Coal Corporation to surface mine the Rhoades Branch
area.

In the normal progress of the demonstration project presented,
it is not anticipated that transfer of the property will be re-
quired; especially since a formal working agreement for con-
ducting the project has been made among the parties concerned.
Acquisition of the property by purchase or under the power of
eminent domain would only become necessary if severe health or
safety hazards were encountered under the present ownership ar-
rangements, or if the operators defaulted on their responsibil-
ity to restore all surface mined land.

Authority for Funding

Federal funding for this project was provided by way of a grant
to the Commonwealth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under authority of Section 107 of the Federal Water Pollution
Act, as amended.  The grant offer was made to the Commonwealth
of Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection, Division of Reclamation.  The Department for Nat-
ural Resources and Environmental Protection, Division of Rec-
lamat ion, is permitted to accept Federal and other funds in ac-
cordance with Kentucky Revised Statutes  (KRS) 350.150, 350.163.

All sums received through the payment of fees, forfeiture of
bonds, and Federal grants are placed in the State Treasury.
The Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protec-
tion, Division of Reclamation received a general fund appro-
priation on a bi-annual basis as approved by the Kentucky Gen-
eral Assembly.  Funds are expended for the administration and
enforcement of Kentucky Revised Statute 350 and for the reclam-
ation of improperly reclaimed surface mined lands.  Expenditure
of funds is administered by the Director of the Division of

                              39

-------
 Reclamation.

 Water and Mineral Rights

 Property ownership and the associated holding of water and/or
 mineral rights for areas designated as sites for the demonstra-
 tion project presented herein are not of major concern.  A
 working agreement, by mutual affirmation, is in effect bet-
 ween the Commonwealth of Kentucky (grantee)  and the operators
 of the surface mines selected as a site for the demonstration.

 No transfer of property and/or rights is anticipated in the
 performance of the demonstration project.  The working agree-
 ment entered into with each coal operator provides that the
 grantee will conduct the project so as not to interfere with
 the mining operation; likewise the operator will not interfere
 with the performance of the project.  All streams running
 through the properties are considered public waters of the Com-
 monwealth and are subject to all applicable Federal and Ken-
 tucky Water Quality Standards.  The operators of the mines are
 subject to all existing standards concerning water quality and
 regulations for reclamation which apply to the workings and
 adjacent property covered by the boundaries stipulated in the
 property title, lease, permit, etc.

 Crescent Coal Company owns the surface and is leasing the min-
 eral rights at the Dicks Fork site.   Bethlehem Steel Corpora-
 tion owns the surface and the mineral rights at the Rhoades
 Branch site.   No water rights are required for performance of
 the project since the water courses would be maintained during
 the project,  except for the debris basins which will have a
 beneficial effect on the receiving  stream.   This is in keeping
 with Commonwealth of Kentucky water rights laws since surface
 water flowing in a stream of definite channel is not subject
 to ownership,  in accordance with 1954 legislation (KRS 262-670
 to 262.690) which states in part:

      The owner of land contiguous to public water shall
      have the right to such reasonable use of this
      water for other than domestic purposes as will not
      deny the use of such water to other owners for do-
      mestic purposes, or impair existing uses of other
      owners heretofore established,  or unreasonably in-
      terfere  with a beneficial use by other owners. (KRS
      262.690-2).

Prevention of  Future Pollution

The Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protec-
tion, Division of Reclamation, has the authority to regulate
and control the quality of drainage  water emanating from sur-
face-mined operations in the Commonwealth.  The existing stan-
dards and regulations which have been established to protect

                                40

-------
the people and resources of the Commonwealth from the injurious
effects of untreated and uncontrolled surface mine operations
are vested in this agency under Kentucky Revised Statutes  (KRS)
350.

In addition to this regulation/ the Department for Natural Re-
sources and Environmental Protection, Division of Water
Quality, is charged with safeguarding the uncontaminated waters
of the Commonwealth, preventing the creation of new pollution
in the waters of the Commonwealth and abating existing pollu-
tion.

The laws and regulations of the Commonwealth, in conjunction
with the authority to assure compliance of these laws and regu-
lations, as described above, assure the federal goverment that
the area will not be affected by the influx of acid or other
mine water pollution from nearby sources.
                                41

-------

Date
1-27-72
2-^5-74
3-01-74
3-14-74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
3-23-74
5-30-74
6-07-74

Date
1-27-72
7-05-72
2-15-74
3-01-74
3-14-74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
5-30-74
6-07-74
T.lblo f>. WATER QUALITY DATA - DICKS PORK UPSTREAM
Flow
ra3/rain.
HR
— Nfi 	
NR
NR
NR
UR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
pH
6.4
6.2
7.1
6.8
6.6
6'.5
7.1
fi-1
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
Conductivity
Micro MHOS/cm
NR
	 NB 	
46.7
59.4
59.0
60.4
59.0
"J7-1
70.0
530.0
67.9
67.9
Turbidity
J.T.U.
n.n
	 m 	
0.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
0 n
0.0
94.0
o.o
0.0
Settleable
Solids
ml/l

	 OS 	
o.n
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
n *
0.0
1.0
n_n
0.0
Alkalinity as
CaCO'i
m9/l

14 0 	
K.s
8.0
8.0
10.0
2.0
10 A
12.0
12.0
14. n
12.0
Ica/D

•*M^^^H«»M^
««.
— — .
	


	
___

-__
Alkalinity
phenolphthalein)


n.n
n.n
Q Q
o n
o_n
n n
p ^
0.0
0.0
n n
0.0
ka/D

	 	
— w

. '


	
......

	
Hardness
Ca
ny/l
4 n
S fi
4 n
3 2
4 Q
? 4
4 n
4 0
4.0
4.0
4 ^
4.8
Kg/"0

- —
— __


••

—
— m..

	
lardness
Mg
ttS/J^
•> a
7.4
A A
4 4
1 4
•) t
7 Q
2 2
2.4
3.4
1 K
3.9
ktf/D

	
...




	
*.__

-._

Total H
as Ca
mg7l
22.0
24.0
28.0
26.0
20.0
17.0
22.0
20.0
20.0
24 0
18.0
28.0
ardness
cot
Kg/D

...
_»_
*_..
__-
___
— __
___
...
_— _
___
...
F
-ft£W
mq7I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 j
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ree
Jity
kg/B

_«
...
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Total
»eidi
ma/1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
Hot
ty
ka/D

— _
— — _
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Sulfa
mg/1
14.0
13.0
7.0
21.0
18.0
13.0
23.0
27.0
24.0
3.0
17.0
23.0
te
ka/D

...
...
	
	
_— w
	
	
	
_—
	
...
Susper
solid
mg/1
NR
2.0
15.S
55.0
2.0
5.0
11.0
31.0
0.0
6.0
46.6
32.2
ded
a
kg /D

—

___
	
	
...
	
_.-
— .
	
	
Dissol
Soli
mf /I
NR
NR
IB R
23.0
77.0
39.0
69.0
118.0
72.0
312.0
31.4
51.2
ved
ds
kv/D

___

—
	
	
	
	
	
_-_
	
	
Tota
Soli
ma/1
NR
NR
Id 4
78.0
79.0
44.0
80.0
149.0
72.0
318.0
78.0
83.4
1
ds
kg/D

— .—


_--

___
_--
_.-
--_
—
_—
langanesi
ifl/1
NR
0.0
n n
0.0
0,0
P-9
p. 9
0.0
9,0
0.0
OiO
OiO
kg/!

— — .

__.

	
-__
~_
___
___
...
...
Total
^rqn
ma/1
O.J.5
0.11
n in
0.02
0,02
5.03
0,17
U2J
0.11
L.20
).1B
1.32
ty/D

...

-==.
	
-•—
	
— _
— •_
___
___
NOTES:
NR -not- Recorded
kg/D - Kilograms per day
5
^3
W
1
       a
       o
       H
I     "
K

0)

-------
U)

Date
8-17-72
1-16-74
2-15-74
3-01-74
3-14-74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
5-30-74
6-07-74

Date
8-17-72
1-16-74
2-15-74
3-01-74
J-14-/4
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
5-30-74
6-07-74
NOTES:

Flow
mVmin.
NR
HR
2.16
4.15
8.57
10.12
7.49
5.33
8.23
186.52
8.78
8.91
T^ble 7. WATER QUALITY DATA - DICKS FORK DOWNSTREAM
PH
7 1
6.3
6.7
6.4
6.8
6.7
7.0
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
Conductivity
licro MHOS/cm
32.0
14.9
48.8
70.0
59.0
58.3
63.7
57.3
65.8
522.0
57.3
59.4
Turbidity
J.T.U.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120.0
0.0
0.0

Total H
as C.a
28.0
40.0
30.0
26.0
20.0
20.0
24.0
22.0
24.0
20.0
22.0
28.0
ardness
rn,
Vrt /D

	
93.3
105.4
240. a
291.5
238.9
168.9
284.4
5371,8
273.2
359.3
Fr
-Nl
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
ee
ilty
Irrr /n
Ka/u
___
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
Acidi
2.0
4.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
Hot
V*T /n
Kff/D
...
13.7
17.9
37.0
58.3
21.6 _
23.0
23.7
W74.4
12.6
25.7
Settleable
Solids
ml/1
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Sulfate
met /I '- fr*
12.0
10.0
9. A
1R.A
20.0
12.0
»i.n
22-d
23. n
11. n
ifi.n
20. ft _
_«.«.
— — —
28.0
107.6
246.8
174.9
291.2 r
168.9
272.6
3760.2
202.3
256.6'
Alkalir
CaCO
mg/1
20.0
6.3
6.5
14.0
10.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
8.0
li.ty as
kq/D
....
	 	
20.2
83.7
123.4
116.6
8fi.3
76.8
142.2
3223.1
164.4
102.6
Alkalinity
(phenolphthalein)
MJ/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Susper
solie
__ _ /•»
MR
1». 1
in B
*? 0
o.o
n.n
n.n
T) n
1 .0
T> n
1C
"« 7
ided
s

-» — —
33.6
251.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16R.9
11.9
3491.7
58.2
79.5
Disso]
Sol
NR
23,. J.
19.7
NR
92.0
21.0
32.0
44.0
60.0
307.0
13.8
14.0
.ved

-------
Table 8. WATER QUALITY DATA - HONEY FORK
DATE
2-15-74
3-01-74
3-14-74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
5-30-74
6-07-75


Flow
m3/min.
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
HP.
NR
NR
NR


PH
7.0
4.6
6.6
NR
7.1
6.5
8.5
6.9
6.9
6.7


Conductivity
licro MHOS/cm
50.9
91.2
10.0
NR
72.1
61.6
119.0
400.0
86.9
80.5


Turbidity
J.T.O.
0.0
0.0
34 0
NR'
0.0
0.0
0.0
135.0
18.0
0.0


Settleable
Solids
ml/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


•Alkalii
CaCO-

8.7
0.0
12 0
NR
10.0
10.0
32.0
10.0
14.0
1K.O


lity as




	
— — —
....^
— —«
«.___
«.— v
— „.


Alkalinity
(Dheno}.nhthalein

0.0
0.0

NR
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0







— — —
...
...
...
...
....


Hardness
Ca

5.6
4.8
4.8
NR
4.8
4.0
5.6
4.0
5.6
5.6




...

«...
...
...

---
— *
	


Hardness
Mg

3.9
4i«
2.4
NR
3.9
2.9
3.4
7.4
3.9
2.9




...

...
...
_-.
...
...
...
...



Date
2-15-74
3-01-74
3-14-74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
S-30-74
6-07-74


Total Hardness
as CaCOa
mq/l
30.0
31.0
22.0
NR
28.0
22.0
28.0
20.0
30.0
26.0


Kg/D
....
.— .
— .
	 .
...
— _
— .
...
--_
— ..


Free
Acidity
nq/i
0.0
5.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
p.O


JW/D
...
_ ..
...
...
...
...
...
...
	 .
...


Total Hot
Acidity
mq/l
4.0
16.0
3.0
NR
2.0
4.0
0.0
3.0
1.0
4.0


JCd/D
.^.
^^.
•— ..
...
...
...
...
.V.
...
...


Sulfate
ma/1
12.. 0
33.0
24.0
NR
27.0
26.0
28.0
11.0
18.0
23.0


Jca/D
	
	
	
	
	
	
	

	
—


Suspet
SoU
ma/1
10.1
58.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
144.0
100.2
15.8


ided
Ids
ka/D

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
	
...

1
Disst
So
ma/1
20.5
36.8
126.0
NR
63.0
115.0
126.0
L63.0
60.0
14.0


>lved
Lida
kg/D

...
«.w
...
...
-—
...
...
...
••A


Totl
Sol
Bfl/1
30.6
94.8
LZS-0
MB
S3.0
115.0.
126.0
307.0
160.2
30 H


ll
ds
kg/D
— ..
___
...
...
...
...
—-ll—
...
...



langanes
ng/l
n n
n n
o n
UB
o.o
0.0
o.o
a.n
n n
> n


:7/D
••••.
•BUB.
fc —
».
...
	
ww

•H.^.



Total
Iron
113/1
n in
0.00
0.24
Nil
0.25
0.28
0.07
0.49
0.73
D.OO


•'j/O
...
...
...
...
...
...
_•».
...
...
«»


Motes i
NR - -Hot Recorded
kq/D- Kilograms per day

-------
01
Table 9. WATER QUALITY DATA - RHQADBS BRANCH DOWNSTREAM
Data
1-16-74
2-13-74
3-01-74
3-14-74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
5-30-74
6-07-74

Plow
»V»in.
NR
2.28
2.02
7.17
11.72
4.94
5.65
5.31
111.48
4.76
3.83

pH
7.5
743
6.4
7.2
NR
7.3
7.0
7.4
6.8
6.8
6.8

Conductivity
Micro MHOS/cm
731. Q
46.7
NR
89.0
NR
102.0
91.2
163.0
550.0
63.7
65.8

Turbidity
J.T.U.
0.0
0.0
NR
15.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
148.0
0.0
0.0

Settleable
Solids
ml /I
0.0
0.0
NR
0.05
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Alkalir
CaCC
W'l
37.8
26.2
NR
16.2
NR
16.0
20.0
32.0
10.0
12.0
10.0

ilty as
"ka/D
— .—
Rfi 0
...
167.3
...
113.8
162.7
244.7
605.3
32.3
53.2

Alkal
[phenolDh
ma/1
0.0
0.0
NR
0,0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

inity
thalein)
kn/D
0.0
0.0
——
0.0
...
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Hardness
Ca
m9/i

18.4
MR
7.2
NR
8.0
8.0
11.2
4.0
4.8
6.4

kg/D
___
60.4
<•»
74.3
— »
5fi.«
65.1
?s.e
*2.1
32. 'i
35.3

Har<
1
my/1
3.4
5.3
NR
3.4
NR
3.9
3.4
5.8
3.4
3.4
l.S

iness
-)\ n
39.0
29.0

ll
da
k9/D

133.3
• «
147fi.4
___
J69.5
1000-.7
1047.6
35477.*
267.3
159. 1

langanes
ntl^
tJR
tJR
NR
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

tg/D
...
__-
._.
0.0
— -
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

Total
Xjron
i^g/
),3
).07
NR
).ll
NR
).13
)t20
1.32

1.0
).24

kg/n
.— .
•D.2
— «.«.
1.1'
« —
', . 'a}
1.C3
2.45
13"?.'
0.0
1.32

NOTES!
NR -Not Recorded
kg/D - Kilograms per day

-------

Date
2-13-74
3-01-74
3-14-74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
5-30-74
6-07-74



rij» ^*»
2-13-74
3-01-74
3-14 74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
5-30-74
6-07-74



Flow
MVmin.
m
MD
MD
MR
NR
MD
NR
MD
MD
MD
HP
UD
Table 10. WATER QUALITY DATA - RHOADES BRANCH UPSTREAM
PH
6.9
6.6
7.1
NR
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.9


Conductivity
4icro MHOS/cm
57.4
80.5
81.0
NR
86.9
95.4
112.0
522.0
59.4
70.0


TUrbidity
J.T.O.
0.0
d.o
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
151.0
10.0
0.0


Settleable
Solids
ml/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


Alkalinity as
x CaCO,
na/1
B 7
12.0
12 n
NR
24.0
I fi.n
28.0
li.o
I2-O
12. a


ka/D












Alkal
(phenoloh
ma/1
n n
o.n
n n
NR
o.o
n n
0.0
a n
n.n
o.n


inity
thalein)
ka/D












Hardness
Ca
ma/1
6.4
5.6
5.6
NR
6.4
8.4
9.6
3.6
5.6
4.8
















Total Hardnea
as CaCOi
BlCf / 1 Iff* 'I*
26.0
28.0
2H.O
NR
32.0
37.0
54.0
20.0
26.0
22.0














3 Free
Acidity
nn /\ ***• "^
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0














Total Hot
Acidity
inn / 1 1"B '**
4.0
2.0
2.0
NR
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0


ftlf V











Sulfal
M/\
23.0
30.0
28.0
NR
23.0
30.0
33.0
7.0
18.0
23.0


te
ket /n












Suspended
Solids
m— /I l_ /n
11.7
0.0
15.0
NR
7.0
12.0
0.0
1.0
38.8
2.6














Dissoli
Solid
22.3
34.0
74.0
NR
7.2
121.0
100.0
262.0
27.8
3.8


red











.
Total
Solid!
34.0
34.0
89.0
NR
14.2
133.0
100.0
263.0
66.6
6.4















tanganes
O.p
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n .0














Hardness
Ma

2.4
, ^
3.4
NR
3.9
3.9
7.3
2.7
2.9
2.4


ka/H













Tc
Ii
p . o(
n.m
0.01
NR
0.1'
0.11
0.04
n,7<{
Oil!
flj-'l


>tal
on












MOTES I
NR - Not Recorded
kg/D - Kilograms per day

-------
Table 11. WATER QUALITY DATA - DICK BRANCH CONTROL STREAM
Date
2-13-74
3-01-14
3-14-74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
5-30-74
6-7-74


Flow
m3/min
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR


pH
NR
7.6
7.2
NR
7.8
7.2
8.0
6.9
6.7
6.7


Conductivity
Micro MHOS/cm
NR
167.5
112.0
NR
140.0
129.0
178.0
1816.0
72.1
70.0


Turbidity
J.T.O.
NR
0.0
12.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.0
0.0
0.0


Settleable
Solids
ml/1
NR
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


Alkalinity as
CaCO3
mg/1
NR
52.0
26.0
NR
36,0
36.0
52.0
50.0
14.0
16.0


kg/D
	
	



	
	
__-
...
	


Alkalinity
(phenolphthalein)
mg/1
NR
0.0
0.0
NR
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


Kg/D
___
	
	
	
	 •
	
	
—
	
	


Hardness
Ca
mq/1
NR
11.2
8.0
NR
11.2
10.4
12.0
12.8
6.4
6.4


ka/D

	
	
	
	
—
—
	
—
	


Hardness
Hg
mo/1
NR
5.3
2.9
NR
3.9
3.9
5.3
5.3
2.9
2.4


ka/D
	
___
	
	
	
...
	
	
	
	



Date
2-13-74
3-01-74
3-14-74
3-28-74
4-18-74
4-25-74
5-13-74
5-23-74
^-30-74
«_07-74


Total Hardness
as CaCO3
ma/1
NR
50.0
34.0
NR
44.0
42.0
52.0
54.0
28.0
26. 0


K
-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                             (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/2-76-108
                               2.
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

  Debris  Basins for Control of Surface Mine Sedimentation
                                                            5. REPORT DATE
                  June 1976  (Issuing Date)
                                                            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
  L. Robert Kimball,    Consulting Engineers
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Kentucky Dept. for Natural  Resources and Conservation
  Office  of Planning and Research,  Frankfort, KY 40601
  Through subcontract with
  L. Robert Kimball, Consulting Engineers
  615  West Highland Ave., Ebensburg,  PA 15931
             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                  EHE 623; 05-01-08A-02
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                  S 801276
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati
  Office  of Research and Development
  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency
  Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
             	Final Feasibility Report
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

                  EPA-ORD
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
       This  report presents the  feasibility for demonstration of the effectiveness
  of debris  basins in controlling  solids in water discharging from surface mine
  operations.   Two sites in Eastern Kentucky were selected for study in areas where
  very little  erosion-causing activity has occurred and  where surface mining is  to  be
  initiated.   Adjacent "virgin"  watersheds were also selected for each study site to
  provide background data on water quality where man's activities have been very
  limited.   Pertinent site information including flow and  water quality data was
  gathered.

       This  study indicates the  necessity for conducting the demonstration and develops
  a recommended procedure.
 7.
                                 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                   DESCRIPTORS
                                               b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                           :. COS AT I Field/Group
  *Coal, *Surface Mining, *Drainage,
   Erosion Control
  Eastern  Kentucky
  Sediment Control
  Sediment Ponds
  Steep Slope Mining
       08G
       081
       02C
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

   RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
  UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
        58
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                 UNCLASSIFIED
                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                              48
                  AUSGPO: 1976 — 657-695/5449 Region 5-11

-------