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 fieldsthe 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
------- |