EPA-600/2-76-128
September 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
FEASIBILITY OF ELK CREEK
ACID MINE DRAINAGE ABATEMENT PROJECT
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-600/2-76-128
September 1976
FEASIBILITY OF ELK CREEK
t
ACID MINE DRAINAGE ABATEMENT PROJECT
by
LeRoy D. Loy, Jr.
John W. Gunnett
Skelly and Loy
Engineers and Consultants
2601 North Front Street
Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania 17110
and
State of West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
Project No. S-801273
Project Officer
Robert B. Scott
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Rivesville, West Virginia 26588
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, 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.
ll
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, and
used, these operations usually pollute our environment. The resultant
air, land, solid waste and other pollutants may adversely impact our
aesthetic and physical well-being. Protection of our environment
requires that we recognize and understand the complex environmental
impacts of these operations and that corrective approaches be applied.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
assesses the environmental, social and economic impacts of industrial
and energy-related activities and identifies, evaluates, develops and
demonstrates alternatives for the protection of the environment.
This report is a product of the above efforts. It presents results
of a detailed feasibility study to determine technical and economic mine
drainage abatement techniques for abandoned underground coal mines. The
methods found to be feasible were slurry trench construction, alkaline
regrading and mine roof collapsing. Slurry trench construction is a
novel approach to dam and direct underground mine water seeping through
surface mine spoils. The acid water is directed to a highly alkaline
backfill material where the acid is neutralized in place. Mine roof
collapsing is another innovative technique for treating acid water in
place. Where an alkaline strata exists above the coal seam, selected
blasting is used to collapse the alkaline material into the acid stream.
This report will be of interest to individuals and control agencies
involved in the design of abatement techniques to control acid mine
drainage from abandoned mines. In some situations, it may have
applications to active mine situations.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
ill
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents results of a detailed feasibility study conducted
within the Elk Creek Watershed, West Virginia. The purpose of this
study was to determine the technical and economic feasibility of three
acid mine drainage abatement techniques. Alkaline regrading and
slurry trench construction were considered technically and economic-
ally feasible at four of the five individual locations, while mine roof
collapse was considered feasible at one of the five sites. Alkaline
regrading consists of reworking existing alkaline spoil material to
improve neutralizing capabilities and facilitate slurry trench construc-
tion. The slurry trench abatement technique involves construction
of an impermeable underground dam in alkaline strip mine spoil to
cause inundation with acid mine drainage and thus prolong neutraliza-
tion. Collapsing abandoned deep mine entries results in partial mine
flooding and exposes mine waters to alkaline roof material.
Project efforts included: field investigations; soil analysis; water
quality and quantity monitoring; bid package preparation and super-
vision of exploratory backhoe excavation; detailed mapping; and pre-
paration of predesign engineering plans and cost estimates.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Grant Project Num-
ber S-801273 by Skelly and Loy, Engineers - Consultants, under the
sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency and West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources. Work was completed on November
11, 1974.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF RGURES vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 2
III INTRODUCTION 3
IV JURISDICTIONAL FRAMEWORK 5
Cognizant Authority 5
Existing and Proposed Standards 6
Mine Drainage Abatement Techniques 6
Site Acquisition 6
Water and Mineral Rights 7
Prevention of Future Pollution 8
V LOCATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION 10
Physiography and Geology 10
Mining 13
Climate 13
VI ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES 18
VII WATER QUALITY MONITORING 21
VIII PRE-DESIGN ENGINEERING 24
Project Site #1 24
Project Site #2 27
Project Site #3 33
Project Site #4 40
Project Site #5 5°
IX REFERENCES 58
X GLOSSARY 59
XI APPENDIX 62
V
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
1. Location Map 11
2. Elk Creek Watershed Map 12
3. Generalized Stratigraphic Column 14
4. Monthly Temperature 15
5. Monthly Precipitation 16
6. Typical Slurry Trench Detail 19
7. Typical Alkaline Regrading 20
8. Typical Rectangular Weir with End Contractions 22
9. Typical Right Angle V-Notch Weir with End
Contractions 22
10. Sample Station Map - Demonstration Project
Site No. 1 25
11. Photograph - Demonstration Project Site No. 1 26
12. Photograph - Demonstration Project Site No. 2 28
13. Aerial View - Demonstration Project Site No. 2 29
14. Sample Station Map - Demonstration Project
Sites No. 2 & 3 30
15. Photograph - Demonstration Project Site No. 3 34
16. Aerial View - Demonstration Project Site No. 3 35
17. Plan - Demonstration Project Site No. 3 37
18. Cross Sections - Demonstration Project Site No. 3 33
19. Profile - Demonstration Project Site No. 3 39
20. Photograph - Demonstration Project Site No. 4 41
21. Aerial View - Demonstration Project Site No. 4 42
22. Breached Deep Mine Entry - Demonstration Project
Site No. 4 43
23. Abandoned Stripping Shovel - Demonstration
Project Site No. 4 44
24. Sample Station Map - Demonstration Project Site No. 4 45
25. Plan - Demonstration Project Site No. 4 46
26. Cross Sections - Demonstration Project Site No. 4 48
27. Profile - Demonstration Project Site No. 4 49
28. Photograph - Demonstration Project Site No. 5 51
29. Aerial View - Demonstration Project Site No. 5 52
30. Sample Station Map - Demonstration Project Site No. 5 53
31. Cross Sections - Demonstration Project Site No. 5 54
32. Profile - Demonstration Project Site No. 5 55
33. Plan - Demonstration Project Site No. 5 56
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appreciation is extended to the following agencies, companies and in-
dividuals for their invaluable assistance toward the successful com-
pletion of this study.
Environmental Protection Agency: Mr. Ernst P. Hall, former Deputy
Director; Mr. Ronald D. Hill, Chief, Mining Pollution Control Branch,
E.P.A.; Mr. Robert B. Scott, Project Officer; and Mr. Donald J.
OfBryan, Deputy Director.
West Virginia, Department of Natural Resources: Mr. Ira S . Latimer,
Jr., Director. Division of Water Resources: Mr. Edgar N. Henry,
Chief; Mr. John H. Hall, Assistant Chief; Mr. Don E. Caldwell, Pro-
ject Coordinator; and Mrs. JoAnn Erwin, Geologist. Division of Re-
clamation: Mr. Benjamin C. Greene, Chief; Mr. Joe L. Beymer,
Assistant Chief; and Mr. Owen L. Carney, District Reclamation In-
spector.
Mining Companies: Barbour Coal Company; Consolidation Coal Com-
pany, Inc.; Garbart Construction Company; Grafton Coal Company;
and King Knob Coal Company.
Special thanks is given to Sandy DeMark and other members of the
Harrison County and Elk Creek Water Pollution Control Committee,
Inc., for their assistance in initiating this study and continued efforts
throughout the project.
Vll
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. Alkaline regrading, slurry trench construction and mine roof col-
lapse are all viable acid mine drainage techniques within the Elk
Creek Watershed.
2. Recorded now data and chemical analyses indicate that Project
Sites #1, 2, 3 and 4 discharge sufficient pollutant loadings to
facilitate demonstration of proposed acid abatement techniques.
3. Based on gross estimates of spoil material surface area and soil
tests, more than adequate alkalinity should be available for neu-
tralization of acid mine drainage via inundation of strip mine spoil.
4 The quality of mine drainage emanating from Project Site #5
changed from net acidity to net alkalinity during this Feasibility
Study. This site does not therefore, lend itself to demonstration
of alkaline regrading and slurry trench construction.
5. An average acid loading of 1290 kg/day, (2844 Ibs/day) is dischar-
ged from the five prospective demonstration sites.
6 The Pittsburgh crop coal must be strip mined and reclaimed in
advance of abatement construction at Project Site #1 to provide
necessary alkaline spoil material.
7. Aerial photography, 100' scale mapping and exploratory backhoe
excavation will be required for Project Sites #1 and 2 following
completion of surface mining.
8. Abatement construction will provide both water quality and aes-
thetic benefits to the Elk Creek Watershed.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The following priorities are recommended in selecting demonstra-
tion project sites:
Project Site (see Section VIII) Estimated Cost
1) Site #4 $ 62,100
2) Site #2 - 173,000
3) Site #1 - 189,700
4) Site #3 - 171,300
2. Selection of demonstration sites and approval to proceed with the
engineering design, construction and monitoring phases of this
project are recommended.
3. Aerial photography, 100' scale mapping and exploratory backhoe
excavation are recommended immediately upon completion of
surface mining and regrading, if Sites #1 and 2 are chosen for
demonstration of abatement techniques.
4. Monitoring of acid discharges and receiving streams should be
continued at those sites selected for design and construction.
5. Settling ponds should be used during construction to control silt
loadings into receiving streams. These ponds will also facilitate
precipitation of ferric iron resulting from oxidation of mine
drainage discharging through alkaline spoil within abatement
construction areas.
6. It is recommended that the King Knob Coal Company be informed
of any decisions concerning Project Site #1. They should also
be encouraged to begin strip mining immediately following approval
of the feasibility study.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Degradation of water quality occurs in varying degrees with any coal
mining operation. Water quality standards imposed upon active coal
mining operations by federal and state legislation have effectively
limited water pollution from these regulated mining activities. How-
ever, many coal mines that were abandoned prior to the imposition of
stringent water quality standards continue to discharge large volumes
of pollutants into receiving streams. Mine drainage pollutants can
significantly degrade the quality of receiving streams, restricting public
use of these waters. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop prac-
tical techniques to eliminate degradation of streams by mine drainage
from abandoned mines.
A feasibility study was conducted to determine the feasibility and de-
sirability of demonstrating a combination of three techniques for
abating acid mine drainage from abandoned underground coal mines
exposed by strip mining. Five individual pollution sources located
within the Elk Creek Watershed near Clarksburg, West Virginia,
were evaluated as potential abatement project construction sites. A
combination of slurry trench construction and alkaline regrading was
considered for four project sites, while mine roof collapse in con-
junction with slurry trench construction and alkaline regrading was
evaluated for the fifth project site.
This feasibility report culminates the first phase of a four phase de-
monstration project. The project phases are as follows: Phase I -
Feasibility Studyj Phase II - Engineering; Phase III - Construction;
Phase IV - Monitoring. Except for the Monitoring, each phase will
begin following approval of work from the preceding phase. The
monitoring was initiated during the Feasibility Study to accumulate
ore-construction water quality data. Bi-monthly monitoring will con-
tinue for one (1) year following completion of project construction.
This will provide for evaluation of the project effectiveness.
The Elk Creek Watershed demonstration projects were funded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources under Section 14 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, following completion of a Pre-Feasibility
Report for the Harrison County and Elk Creek Water Pollution Con-
trol Committee, Inc. Five demonstration project sites were selected
-------
during the Pre-Feasibility Study. To insure investigation of the major
pollution sources potential project site locations were selected from
the Monongahela River Remedial Project Study Report. Field recon-
naissance and water sampling was conducted at each possible location
to determine the present extent of mine drainage pollution and the
adaptability of proposed abatement construction at each particular
locale.
This Feasibility Study was initiated, August 1, 1973, to evaluate imple-
mentation of abatement techniques at the five demonstration project
sites selected during the Pre-Feasibility Study. Detailed field recon-
naissance was conducted at each location with all pertinent information
recorded. Major mine drainage discharges were located and water
samples collected in conjunction with flow estimates. A water quality
monitoring system was devised following evaluation of pollutant load-
ings. Monitoring stations were located on all major mine drainages
emanating from each project site to determine the severity of pollu-
tant production. Stations were also located above and below the con-
fluence of mine discharges with major receiving streams to evaluate
stream degradation from each project site.
Aerial photographs were used to produce detailed mapping of individ-
ual demonstration project areas. Pre-design plans and other per-
tinent features are illustrated on the detailed mapping. In addition to
this site mapping, available mine maps were collected and contacts
were made with persons familiar with the mines. Existing data con-
cerning geology, climatology, coal production, hydrology, property
ownership, the location of gas lines and wells, drilling and blasting
and other information related to the study was collected.
Additional field investigations included backhoe excavation to obtain
geologic data for designing the abatement construction and collecting
samples of highwall and spoil materials. The sampled materials were
analyzed at the West Virginia University soil testing laboratories to
determine the neutralization potential (CaCO3 equivalence).
Pertinent data and conclusions resulting from the Feasibility Study
are included in this report. Pre-design specifications were developed
to determine the construction cost estimates listed with engineering
design discussions in this report.
-------
SECTION IV
JURIS DICTIONAL FRAMEWORK
COGNIZANT AUTHORITY
This study has been conducted under the auspices of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The Agency is 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 14 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 necessary in selecting watersheds for the
purpose of demonstration projects. Such feasibility studies are to
aid the Environmental Protection Agency in selecting not only the mine
drainage pollution control method(s), but also the watershed or drain-
age area for such application. The Act requires that the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency give preference to areas which will have the
greatest public value and uses.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Moni-
toring, issued a Grant for the mine drainage demonstration project,
described herein, to the State of West Virginia, Department of
Natural Resources. Administration of the study has been the res-
ponsibility of the State of West Virginia's Department of Natural
Resources.
The Department of Natural Resources is a statutory unit of the West
Virginia government headed by a Director. The Department has the
authority to exercise all state administrative functions relating to
surface mining, reclamation of surface mined lands, and water pol-
lution control in West Virginia. Such administration is performed
through the Department's Division of Reclamation and the Division
of Water Resources.
Full responsibility for the contractual agreement, administration and
operation of the demonstration project rests with the Department of
Natural Resources of the State of West Virginia; however, the De-
partment may see fit to delegate the performance of some tasks to
competent contractors.
-------
Therefore, the present legal and administrative structure is adequate
for conducting the project since all authority for water pollution con-
trol and reclamation of surface mined lands is now vested in the
Department and its Divisions. This is covered by the foregoing juris-
dictional authority and the pertinent sections of the law.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED STANDARDS
The site of the demonstration project is within the jurisdiction of the
State of West Virginia. The streams involved are considered public
streams of the State and are thereby subject to the most stringent of
all applicable water quality standards imposed by the Federal Gov-
ernment and the State of West Virginia.
Present standards relative to wastewater discharges, including acid
mine drainage to the Elk Creek Watershed, are subject to enforce-
ment by the Division of Water Resources of the State of West Virgin-
ia. The general standards indicate the quality criteria for such
waters, and are delineated in detail in Section 3 and 5 of the West
Virginia Administrative Regulations.
Elk Creek, a tributary of the West Fork River, is subject to the
specific water use and water quality applicable to the West Fork
River, which are delineated in Sections 6 and 13 of Series II of the
State's administrative regulations.
At the present time, the water quality standard for sulfates (see 13.01
b. 9. of the regulations) is not considered binding due to the current
level of technology in sulfate removal and the cost effectiveness of
such removal.
MINE DRAINAGE ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES
This project will demonstrate the use of a slurry trench as a Mine
Drainage Abatement Technique. The primary purpose of the pro-
ject is to determine, by monitoring, what effect the slurry wall will
have on the individual mine discharges. The project will also in-
clude the monitoring of the receiving streams to determine how they
are being affected by this particular technique.
SITE ACQUISITION
The site of the demonstration project is located within the boundaries
-------
of the State of West Virginia. Authority is vested in the Chief of the
Division of Water Resources to acquire land, as required, through the
power of eminent domain as detailed by Section 11a of Article 5A,
Chapter 20 of the Code of West Virginia, 1969.
The demonstration project includes five separate locations within the
Elk Creek Watershed. The land is held in private ownership by sev-
eral individuals and a few coal companies. The property owners for
each of the stream monitor stations and abatement construction loca-
tions have been identified. Each of the stream monitor station pro-
perty owners were contacted and a formal release was obtained for
the installation of the monitor stations and associated structures.
At this time, acquisition of releases for abatement construction has
not been completed, releases from a few more owners are still re-
quired. The owners of the property are under no obligation to par-
ticipate in such a project, except as the Division of Water Resources
may have jurisdiction over the maintenance of the safety, health and
welfare of the citizens of the State. Successful acquisition releases
to perform the project tasks will preclude the necessitating of invoking
the power of eminent domain.
WATER AND MINERAL RIGHTS
Property ownership and the associated title to the water and/or mineral
rights in the Elk Creek Watershed area, designated site of the demon-
stration project, are of major concern with respect to project progress.
Releases will be required from all owners of property upon which recla-
mation work will be performed, because it will involve regrading of spoil
banks, construction of Slurry Wall, and revegetation of areas worked.
Since the project is being conducted under the direction of the regula-
tory bodies of the State, it is anticipated that there will be no problem
in obtaining releases and cooperation for such work, because it relieves
owners and operators from such responsibility under the law.
Surface waters flowing through a property is generally considered as
public water of the State of West Virginia. Ownership of this resource
is, therefore, not a question since the project is being implemented
by an agency of the State, who holds public ownership of same.
The Elk Creek demonstration sites are underlain with two major coal
seams: the Pittsburgh, and the Redstone. Pittsburgh and Redstone
seams are present and have been mined at all sites with the exception
of Project Site #4, where the Redstone seam is not present. Mineral
-------
rights to these coals are generally considered to be owned by the in-
dividual coal company involved.
No purchase of transfer of rights or ownership is expected for any
portion of the project, since active mining operations will not be dis-
turbed. All of the individual project sites represent abandoned drift
and strip mines.
PREVENTION OF FUTURE POLLUTION
The Surface Mining Act and the Water Pollution Control Act of the
State of West Virginia, administered by the Department of Natural
Resources, provide the regulations necessary for land reclamation
and rehabilitation with requisite mine drainage control measures, as
well as the control and reduction of pollution in the State's waters.
The Water Pollution Control Act of the State of West Virginia (Article
5A, Chapter 20 of the Code of West Virginia, 1969, as amended) pro-
vides for pollution control and continuing jurisdiction over same as
indicated by Sections 1,3,5 and 14 of the article.
The Water Resources Division has clear jurisdiction over control
measures applicable to acid mine drainage, as denned within the
Water Pollution Control Act. Therefore, at present and in the future,
all State waters shall be subject to the control measures as given in
Section 5, Series I, of the West Virginia Administrative Regulations
and Chapter 20, Articles 5 and 5A of the Code.
The 1967 Surface Mining Act provides specifically for the prevention
of future pollution and any and all sites in the State because of its
provision governing reclamation procedures and administration.
Specific regulations covering reclamation procedures and revegeta-
tion techniques and standards were established in Article 6, Chapter
20, of the Code of West Virginia in 1967, which are to be adminis-
tered under the provisions of the aforementioned Act. Adminis-
tration of the foregoing rests with the Director of Natural Resources,
the Division of Reclamation and the Reclamation Commission, each
of which has specific areas of responsibility with respect to the law,
which are defined in detail in the Act.
The water infiltration control procedures outlined for implementation
as a part of this project are in keeping with the laws and regulations
established, and are applicable to_any future work which might be re-
-------
quired to overcome deleterious drainage effects upon the Elk Creek
Watershed from adjacent property and workings. Such property and
workings are also subject to the regulations now on the books and
would be required to comply with same; otherwise they would risk the
loss of permits granted, performance bonds posted and all fees paid.
The State of West Virginia assures the Environmental Protection
Agency that it will exercise its authority under State statutes to pro-
vide legal and practical protection to the project area to insure against
any activities which will cause future acid or other water pollution.
-------
SECTION V
LOCATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
The Elk Creek Watershed is 319 square kilometers (123 square miles)
in area and lies east of the West Pork River in northcentral West Vir-
ginia (see Figure 1). Its drainage area includes portions of Harrison,
Barbour and Upshur Counties. The community of Clarksburg is dis-
sected by the northwest corner of the Elk Creek Watershed and rep-
resents the major population center within this watershed.
Elk Creek is augmented by numerous tributary streams as it flows
northwest from Elk City to its confluence with the West Fork River
at Clarksburg. Of these tributary streams, Stewart Run, Gnatty •
Creek, Brushy Fork and Nutter Run are all affected by mine drainage
from proposed demonstration project sites (see Figure 2). Degrada-
tion of water quality in these tributaries is discussed in another poi—
tion of this report with respect to the pollution contributed from each
project site.
The Elk Creek Watershed lies entirely within the Appalachian Pla-
teau Province. A series of broad, low relief, northeasterly trend-
ing anticlines and synclines superimpose a rolling structure upon the
northwesterly regional dip of the beds. This local structure, caused
by the folding, controls ground water flow patterns within the water-
shed.
Most near surface ground water is conveyed via fractures, jointing
and mine entries through overlying strata and mines in the Redstone
coal seam into extensive underground coal mines in the Pittsburgh coal
seam. A relatively impermeable underclay associated with the Pitts-
burgh coal inhibits further infiltration. Thus, ground water is col-
lected in abandoned deep mine workings, and flows from the mines
along synclinal lows. Since the coal seams in this area contain acid
producing iron sulfide minerals, many of the deep mine discharges
are acid. However, large amounts of alkalinity are present in the
overburden and, therefore, the strip mine spoil material has pro-
duced alkaline discharges from regraded strip mines on the perimeter
of deep mine workings.
The Redstone and Pittsburgh coal seams of the Monongahela Series in
10
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
"""WESf"
VIRGINIA
antown
Graftgn
AYLORT /' \
9
Philippi (TUCKER
Figure I. Location map for the Elk Creek project.
11
-------
PROJECT
SITE NO. 2
PROJECT
SITE NO. 1
Scale in Miles
0 246
Scale in Kilometers
Figure 2. Elk Creek watershed map.
12
-------
the Pennsylvania System are the only coals mined in the watershed
with the exception of several local rider seams. The Monongahela
Series has been eroded from two major anticlines in this area (Chest-
nut Hill and Hiram Anticlines), exposing the Conemaugh Series in
northwestern portions of the watershed. Mining activity is thus con-
fined to two northeasterly trending belts where the Monongahela
Series has been preserved within synclinal troughs adjacent to major
anticlines. A generalized stratigraphic column (see Figure 3) record-
ed at Project Site #2 is representative of stratigraphy through much
of the Elk Creek Watershed. Both the Redstone and Pittsburgh coal
seams vary in thickness. Pittsburgh Coal ranges from 1.2 to 3 meters
(4 to 10 feet), and Redstone Coal ranges from 0.3 to 1.8 meters (1
to 6 feet). In addition, in the northwest section of the watershed Red-
stone Coal changes Uthology from coal to a black shale. Limestone
and clay (mudstone) units provide large volumes of alkalinity avail-
able in strip mine spoil for neutralization of acid waters. Specific
geology and neutralization potential of spoil materials present are
detailed in the site descriptions and evaluations.
MINING
Coal mining is one of West Virginia's largest industries with 21% of
the Nation's total bituminous and lignite production in 1971 and 1972.
Preliminary estimates show 112 million metric tons (123 million
tons) of bituminous and lignite produced in West Virginia during
1972. Harrison and Barbour Counties average approximately 8% of
the total coal production in the State. Data for 1971 indicates that
the distribution of the Harrison and Barbour County production was
65% from underground, 34% from surface and 1% from auger mining.
This high percentage contributed from underground mining partially
reflects the existing problem from deep mine discharges.
CLIMATE
The National Weather Service maintains a recording station at Clarks-
burg. Average temperature and total rainfall are recorded daily.
This information is published monthly by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Figures 4 and 5 show monthly average
temperature and total precipitation during the feasibility study in
comparison with a thirty-one year mean temperature and normal
precipitation. Records of this thirty-one year period show an annual
mean temperature of 11.16 degrees centigrade (52.1°F.) and an annual
precipitation normal of 102.08 centimeters (40.19 inches). This nor-
13
-------
SYSTEM
PENNSYLVANIANI
GROUP
CONEMAUGH
COAL
MEMBER
SECTION
'•'.'-•.'.•
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil
Friable to massive, medium grained, light
gray sandstone with tan weathering.
r
Redstone
Pittsburgh
Rider
Pittsburgh
t ' . • . • '• . • . 1
"=" - — ~ -_
~~2^5~,
' • — -
'.&'.-'f.
-*1 — ' l ' i ' r
•*l 'i THr
•'.•.
.' X- •.'•;
V X
g ' •
ffr -B
Gray shale with light gray weathering.
Redstone Coal Seam- variable thickness
metallurgical grade, bituminous coal.
Redstone underclay- dark gray claystone
Very friable, dark gray, interbedded
shale and siltstone
Thin bedded to massive, medium-fine
grained, light tan sandstone with red-
brown weathering.
Pittsburgh Rider Coal- undulating and
inconsistent bituminous coal
Friable, gray alkaline mudstone and
0.9 to 1.2 meters (3 to 4 Feet) of
gray limestone with brown weathering.
Friable, dark gray shale
Massive bedded, medium grained, gray,
micaceous sandstone with brown
weathered color, or gray shale and mud-
stone with sandstone lenses. (Depend-
ing on particular locale).
Pittsburgh Coal Seam- undulating-high
sulfur, bituminous coal
Pittsburgh underclay- gray clay to
claystone
cole in Meters (Vertical)
Figure 3. Generalized stratigraphic column for the Elk Creek area
14
-------
AUG. SEPT OCt NOV. DEC JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY
Average Monthly Temperature - Period of Study (August 1973-July 1974)
•^—«— Average Monthly Temperature - Period of Record (31 Years)
Figure 4.
Monthly temperature as recorded by the Clarksburg
weather station.
15
-------
AUG. SEPT. OCT NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY
Monthly Precipitation - Period of Study (August 1973 - July 1974)
•^•^"^ Mean Monthly Precipitation - Period of Record (31 Years)
Figure 5. Monthly precipitation as recorded by the Clarksburg
weather station.
16
-------
mal precipitation is typical of the general area and is sufficient to replen-
ish ground water storage and produce significant surface drainage. Ex-
amination of the precipitation and temperature charts show that for the
study period monthly temperatures closely corresponded to thirty-one
year normals; but the precipitation sharply deviated from thirty-one
year normals. Total precipitation during the study period was 127.076
centimeters (51.03 inches) or approximately 27.534 centimeters (10.84
inches) above normal. Thus, the stream flows recorded during the
study period are probably slightly greater than might be expected for a
normal year.
17
-------
SECTION VI
ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES
Five sites have been evaluated to determine the feasibility of demon-
strating three abatement methods for elimination of pollution emanat-
ing from abandoned deep mines within the Elk Creek Watershed. Com-
binations of alkaline regrading, slurry trenching and mine roof col-
lapse were considered for each of the project sites. Hydrogeologic
conditions and the nature of coal mining within the watershed provide
an ideal setting for demonstrating these abatement methods.
Each demonstration project site is characterized by polluted discharges
from abandoned deep mine workings in the Pittsburgh coal seam.
These discharges are partly the result of breached crop barriers
during subsequent strip and auger mining. Large volumes of alkaline
overburden provide for neutralization of deep mine discharges within
alkaline rich spoil material. Proposed abatement methods will take
advantage of these existing natural conditions to insure maximum
neutralization is effected.
Slurry trench and alkaline regrading were proposed for all of the
demonstration sites. The slurry trench is a narrow trench exca-
vated in unconsolidated material with the vertical sides maintained
by a very viscous water clay slurry (usually Bentonite) until fill (pre-
ferably mine spoil) can be placed. As the material dries an imper-
meable clay replaces the slurry. The completed slurry trench serves
as an underground dam to inundate the unconsolidated material. Fig-
ure 6 illustrates a typical slurry trench.
Prior to construction of the slurry trench it will be necessary to re-
grade strip mine spoil. Spoil will be regraded by modified contour
orterrace to produce a sufficient depth of material to construct a
4.6 to 7.6 meter (15 to 25 foot) deep slurry trench. Regrading will
also serve to loosen the spoil material and enhance inter-spoil water
flow. Following regrading the slurry trench is excavated through spoil
to the Pittsburgh underclay. The underclay acts to retard water flow
beneath the slurry trench. Exact placement and depth of the slurry
trench is dependent on the dip of the underclay and the volume of avail-
able regradable spoil material. A typical alkaline regraded strip
mine is illustrated in Figure 7.
An in-place slurry trench serves as a dam, causing a rise of mine
18
-------
•Original Ground Surface
Backfilled
Ground
Surface
Slurry Trench
•Inundated Mine Void
Underclay
Figure 6. Typical slurry trench detail.
water level within spoil material prior to discharge at various points
above the trench. This inundation exposes more inter-spoil limestone
and claystone to contact with the acid water. Thus, neutralization is
enhanced due to the increased contact, as well as a longer water
residence time within the alkaline spoil. In addition to added neutra-
lization, a reduction in acid drainage production will occur via deep
mine inundation. Maximum extent of deep mine inundation is deter-
mined by elevation of the slurry trench and angle of rise of the coal
in deep mine workings behind the highwall.
Mine roof collapse was considered in conjunction with alkaline regrad-
ing and slurry trench construction at Project Site #2. Since this site
is an extremely large pollution source, the mine roof collapse will be
performed to provide additional abatement of acid drainage. The
concept involves collapsing the mine roof in the Pittsburgh coal workings
19
-------
to retard water flow in the mines. This will achieve some inundation
and provide access to portions of the alkaline claystone (mudstone)
overlying the mine development. Acid production will be reduced
and neutralization enhanced by mine roof collapse. This technique
is not desirable for areas with acidic roof material, since additional
acid forming material could be exposed to mine waters.
Original Ground Surface
Alkaline Material
•Highwall
Discharge
t
Mine Void
Spoil with Intermixed
Alkaline Material
OPEN STRIP MINE
Spoil with Intermixed
Alkaline Material'
Backfilled Ground
Surface
REGRADEO STRIP MINE
Figure 7 Typical alkaline regrading tor stripped area
20
-------
SECTION VII
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
A water quality monitoring program was conducted as a part of this
feasibility study to determine the extent of pollution emanating from
individual project sites. Results of the monitoring program were used
as an aid for evaluating project feasibility and determining expected
project effectiveness toward eliminating water pollution. Water quality
data recorded during this phase of the study will also be compared with
data collected in Phase IV (Monitoring) following abatement construc-
tion (Phase III). This will provide a basis for determining initial
project effectiveness.
The water quality monitoring program included installation of wooden
V-notch and rectangular weirs to permit accurate flow measure-
ments. Typical rectangular and V-notch weir diagrams are shown
in Figures 8 and 9. The selection of wooden weirs was to eliminate
many of the inherent problems associated with permanent concrete
continuous monitoring stations. Periodic flooding and siltation pro-
blems necessitate regauging and cleaning of continuous monitoring
equipment. In addition, wooden weirs are less expensive to install
and provide required station mobility.
Present monitoring station locations may be antiquated due to reloca-
ted discharge points resulting from abatement construction. It will
be possible to remove these antiquated weirs and install them on the
particular diverted discharge. Although these wooden weirs did al-
leviate equipment gauging and cleaning, there is a problem with
siltation occurring at several of the stations. However, the silt is
easily removed with hand shovels.
A sampling round consisted of visiting each monitoring station once a
month for the initial seven months and bi-monthly for the remaining
months to record the now and collect water samples. Where instal-
lation of weirs was not feasible, the flow was determined by field
cross-^sections and gurley meter recordings. At certain monitoring
stations located on deep main streams, the downstream flows were
calculated by adding the flow from the mine discharge to the flow re-
corded up stream from the discharge point. Since no additional flow
augmentations occur between the two main stream stations, this method
of determining flows provides comparable data for analyzing pollutant
loadings from the acid discharges^
21
-------
L= length of weir opening in feet
(should be 4 to 8 times H)
H= head on weir in feet (to be measured
at least 1.83 meters C6 feet] back
of weir opening)
a= should be at least 3H
Figure 8. Typical rectangular weir with end contractions
L= width of notch in ft. at H
distance above apex.
H= head of water above apex of notch in ft.
a = should not be less than 3/4 L
Figure 9. Typical right angle V-notch weir with end contractions.
22
-------
A one pint water sample and a smaller field acidified sample were col-
lected at each monitoring station. The pint samples taken during
monthly sampling were than analyzed for; pH valuesj acidity — alka-
linity; sulfates; and specific conductivity. The acidified samples were
analyzed for iron. With the initiation of bi-monthly monitoring the
following constituents are analyzed periodically: ferrous iron; mag-
nesium; calcium; manganese; aluminum; suspended solids; and tur-
bidity. Pollutant loadings (kg/day) were calculated from the concen-
trations and flows. All sampling data is averaged and tabulated in
the Appendix.
23
-------
SECTION VIII
PRE-DESIGN ENGINEERING
PROJECT SITE #1
Site #1 is located in the extreme northeast corner of the Elk Creek
Watershed. Geology is typical for this region with both the Redstone
and Pittsburgh Coals present. Since the Redstone and Pittsburgh
seams average 1.5 to 2.7 meters (5 to 9 feet) thick, respectively,
the area was subject to extensive underground mining in the past,
and crop coals are now being extracted by surface mining techniques.
However, crop coal has not been mined at the proposed demonstra-
tion site.
The abandoned Berryburg deep mine with extensive development in the
Pittsburgh seam is the source of mine drainage pollution at this site.
Most of this drainage emanates from three individual points. Two of
these discharges occur along the Pittsburgh coal cropline where under-
ground mine entries were driven through the crop coal, permitting
exit of mine waters. These two flows are collectively monitored at
Sample Station 1B (see Figure 10). A total average flow of 0.012
cu.m/sec. (0.42 cfs) represents a continuous augmentation from fresh
surface runoff in addition to the deep mine discharges. Sample Station
1A (see Figure 10) is the monitoring point for a third discharge that
emanates from the Berryburg Tunnel. This railroad tunnel was ex-
cavated through abandoned deep mine workings, intercepting mine
waters and providing a point for discharge. An average flow of 0.736
x 10~2 cu.m/sec. (0.260 cfs) from the Berryburg Tunnel joins the
two other discharges prior to a confluence with Stewart Run. Total
average pollutant loadings monitored at Sample Stations 1A and 1B
are 477 kg/day (985 Ibs/day) acidity, 69 kg/day (152 Ibs/day) total
iron, and 1577 kg/day (3477 Ibs/day) sulfates (see the Appendix).
Mine drainage pollution emanating from Project Site #1 is a major
reason for the present degraded condition of Stewart Run. In addi-
tion, pollutants in Stewart Run are discharged to Elk Creek, which
at present has marginal water quality capable of supporting aquatic
life. Any efforts to minimize pollution at Project Site #1 will help in-
sure a continued upgrading of water quality in Elk Creek.
This particular source of mine drainage was evaluated during the Feasi-
bility Study to determine both feasibility and desirability of demonstra-
ting alkaline regrading and slurry trench construction as mine drainage
abatement techniques. All construction efforts are dependent on the
24
-------
Information From1 U.S.GS.
Topographic 7 '/2 Minute v
Quadrangle (PHILIPPI) )
Scale in Feet
5 I Kilometer
Figure 10. Sample station map for demonstration project site no. I.
25
-------
scheduled strip mining of crop coal to provide alkaline spoil for regrading
and trench excavation. Following completion of surface mining, the
area should be remapped, and exploratory backhoe excavation should
be conducted. This backhoe excavation will provide information con-
cerning depths of strip mine spoil. Figure 11 shows a major portion
of the proposed construction area.
Figure H. Photograph of demonstration project site no. I.
Assuming surface mining will be completed soon enough to allow map-
ping for detailed construction design, the total estimated cost for aerial
photography, mapping, regrading, revegetation and constructing of
610 meters (2,000 L.F.) of slurry trench is $189,7OO. Profiles and
sections were not prepared during the Feasibility Study since existing
conditions will be altered by strip mining operations.
Implementation of the proposed demonstration project is deemed tech-
26
-------
nically and economically feasible. Abatement construction should ef-
fectively eliminate most of the pollution recorded at Sample Station 1B.
In addition, surface mining is expected to divert flow from the Berry-
burg Tunnel and include these waters within proposed abatement con-
struction. Thus, approximately 477 kg/day (985 Ibs/day) of acid will
be neutralized following project construction. This reduction in acidity
will eliminate acidity loadings recorded at Sample Station 1C (see
Figure 10) and result in alkaline water quality for the upper reaches
of Stewart Run. The estimated cost effectiveness to accrue these
benefits is $398 per kg/day ($180 per Ib/day) acid abated. Quantities
of work were determined through detailed field investigations and
estimates of maximum reworking required for regraded spoil material.
Since the area will be reclaimed following mining, project grading
and revegetation should be minimal.
Estimated Construction Costs Site #1
Grading = 22,938 cu m d> $0.65/cu m =$ 15,000
(30,000 cu yd ® $0.50/cu yd)
Slurry Wall = 0.6 m wide x 6.10 m deep x 609.60 m
(2 ft wide x 20 ft deep x 2,000 L.F.)
3,716 profile sq m @$43.06/sq m = $160,000
(40,000 prdfile sq ft @$4.00/sq ft)
Revegetation = 2.43 ha © $1,235/ha =$ 3,000
(6 ac © $500/ac)
Contingency = 5% = $ 8,900
Aerial Photography and Mapping = lump sum = $ 2,800
Total = $189,700
PROJECT SITE #2
This project site is also located in the northeastern portion of the Elk
Creek Watershed, approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) west of
Site #1. The generalized stratigraphiccolumn (Figure 3) was recorded
at Site #2 and thus, reflects specific local stratigraphy, as well as
general stratigraphy for the watershed. Local topography is illus-
trated by Figures 12 and 13.
27
-------
A steep hillside delineated as the project site was subject to undei—
ground coal mining and subsequent contour strip mining. Apparent
breaches of the coal crop barrier produced numerous acid discharges
Figure 12. Photograph of demonstration project site no. 2.
from underground workings. In addition to past mining, strip mining
of remaining crop coal was initiated while this Feasibility Study was
being conducted. As a result of active mining, flow monitored at
Sample Station 2D was diverted to Sample Station 2D1 (See Figure 14).
Project Site #2 is the largest single pollution source among the five
potential demonstration project sites. Combined major pollutant load-
ings recorded at Sample Stations 2B and 2D' are; 648 kg/day (1429
Ibs/day) acidity, 153 kg/day (337 Ibs/day) total iron, and 1362 kg/day
(3003 Ibs/day) sulfates. A majority of these contaminants will be
eliminated as a result of abatement construction. Results of analyses
28
-------
PROPOSED
-WORK AREA
Figure 13. Aerial view of demonstration project site no. 2
29
-------
Information From U.S.G.S
Topographic 7'/2 Minute
Quadrangle (BROWNTON)
2000
2SES
Scale in Feet
.5
m
Kilometers
Figure 14. Sample station map for demonstration project sites no. 2 S3.
30
-------
of thirteen chemical parameters are listed in the Appendix. Post
construction monitoring will provide data to evaluate changes in con-
centrations and loadings of each constituent. Expected results are a
reduction in acidity, iron, manganese and aluminum with correspond-
ing increases in alkalinity (therefore pH), magnesium, calcium, sus-
pended solids, and turbidity. Other constituents should not be signif-
icantly affected by abatement measures.
Acid flows from this project site discharge to Brushy Fork. Moni-
toring data from Sample Station 2A show that Brushy Fork has a net
alkalinity prior to receiving mine drainage from Project Site #2.
Severe pollution from this site results in an average net acid loading
of approximately 500 kg/day (1102 Ibs/day) monitored at Sample Sta-
tion 2E immediately downstream from the last acid discharge. Brushy
Fork flows northwest until its confluence with Elk Creek. Thus, pol-
lution from Site #2 eventually contributes to further degradation of
Elk Creek, and project abatement efforts will improve both Brushy
Fork and Elk Creek.
Abatement construction proposed for Project Site #2 includes mine
roof collapse in conjunction with alkaline regrading and slurry trench
construction. Each of these abatement measures is predicated on the
assumption that sufficient quantities of alkaline overburden material
are available for dispersion within spoil material to effect neutrali-
zation. Overburden samples were collected and analyzed to deter-
mine neutralization potential. Since active mining at Project Site #2
exposed unweathered overburden rock units, all samples were col-
lected at this site. This also provides excellent correlation with the
stratigraphic column. Sample locations and calcium carbonate
equivalences are listed on the following Table. With the exception of
a shale unit located approximately 4.3 meters (14 feet) above the
Pittsburgh Coal, all materials tested have neutralization potential.
As expected, the mudstone (claystone) and limestone units have the
greatest neutralization capability. In addition, these units are ex-
tremely friable, which will permit fragmentation and expose maximum
reactive surface. These neutralization potentials were used to
estimate the effective life of proposed abatement at Project Sites #3,
4 and 5. Estimates are not provided for Sites #1 and 2 since speci-
fic backfill conditions were not known at the time of this report.
The required amounts of regrading and slurry trench were estimated
for Site #2 by considering existing conditions and surface mining plans.
It is estimated that the total construction cost to demonstrate mine
31
-------
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS TABLE
(All samples were taken at
Demonstration Project Site No. 2)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
Ca CDs Equiv.
(M-tons /
1000 M-tons)
Tons/1000 Tons
Located approximately 0.9m(3ft.)
below Pittsburgh Rider, in al-
kaline mudstone and limestone.
329.47
Located approximately 0.5rn(1.5ft
above Pittsburgh Rider, in me-
dium-fine grained sandstone.
25.02
Located approximately 0.9m(3ft.)
below Redstone, in interbedded
shale and siltstone.
19.99
Located approximately 3.7m
(12ft.) above Pittsburgh, in talus
slope from existing highwall.
23.73
Located approximately 4.3m
(14 ft.) above Pittsburgh, in
friable shale.
-2.06
B
Located stratigraphically in
same general area as Sample
358.43
Located stratigraphically in
same general area as Sample
299.14
Located in talus slope from
existing highwall.
38.44
32
-------
roof collapse, alkaline regrading and slurry trench construction will
be $173,000. This cost includes aerial photography and remapping
because of alterations produced during mining. Although remapping
of the project area is necessary; drainage, geologic and mining para-
meters are ideal for demonstration of proposed abatement techniques.
Therefore, abatement demonstration for Project Site #2 is found to be
technologically feasible. The cost effectiveness to demonstrate
abatement of mine drainage at this site is $318 per kg/day (144 per
Ib/day) acid abated. Quantities of work were estimated with consid-
erations similar to those employed for Site #1.
Estimated Construction Costs Site #2
Grading = 45,876 cu m (§> $0.65/cu m = $ 30,000
(60,000 cu yd $0.50/cu yd)
Slurry Wall = 0.6m wide x 6.10 m deep x 457.20 m
(2 ft. wide x 20 ft. deep x 1500 LF)
2,787 profile sq m d> $43.06/sq m = $120,000
(30,000 profile sq ftd> $4.00/sq ft)
Revegetation « 2.03 ha <§> $1235/ha =$ 2,500
(5 ac ® $500/ac)
Mine Roof Collapse = lump sum1 = $ 10,000
Contingency =5% = $ 8,100
Aerial Photography and Mapping = lump sum = $ 2,4OO
Total =$173,000
PROJECT SITE #3
Located approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) south of Site #2,
Project Site #3 is geologically similar to each of the demonstration
sites previously described. Both the Pittsburgh and Redstone Coals
are present and were in the past subject to underground or strip
mining. An average of 2.1 meters (7 feet) of Pittsburgh coal was
mined by underground methods, followed by strip mining along the
cropline. These stripping operations extracted roughly 1.2 meters
(4 feet) of Redstone in addition to Pittsburgh Coal. Present topo-
graphy reflects past mining efforts with a partially exposed highwall
33
-------
extending above 6.1 to 12.2 meters (20 to 40 feet) of terraced spoil
material (see Figure 15). This spoil material blankets the Pittsburgh
underclay which serves as an impervious barrier to mine drainage
discharged through breached deep mine entries. Much of the deep
mine drainage is transmitted via a local syncline and exists along the
outer spoil slope. Samples are collected and Hows recorded for this
discharge at Sample Station 3B (see Figure 14). The aerial view in
Figure 16 shows several discharge points.
Figure 15. Photograph of demonstration project site no. 3.
34
-------
V
V
\
Jf
PROPOSED
WORK AREA
Figure 16. Aerial view of demonstration project site no. 3.
35
-------
Sampling data presented in the Appendix shows that an average of 26
kg/day (57 Ibs/day) acid, 11 kg/day (24 Ibs/day) total iron, and 251
kg/day (553 Ibs/day) sulfates are discharged directly into Elk Creek.
In addition several smaller seeps contribute pollutant loadings to Elk
Creek. These individual seeps do not have enough flow to facilitate
accurate measurement. However, it is reasonable to assume such
flows do have a quality similar to drainage monitored at Sample
Station 3B. Since Elk Creek has a much larger now, the combined
acid seeps have little affect on water quality in Elk Creek.
However, sufficient pollution is emanating from Site #3 to provide a
control data base for demonstration of mine drainage abatement tech-
niques. With an estimated total acid loading of 52 kg/day (114 Ibs/day),
calculations indicate that with only a twenty-five percent availability
of the neutralizing potential within proposed construction limits, acid
loadings would be abated for more than 60O years. These estimates
and estimates for Site #4 were developed through the following rea-
soning:
. Cross sections and profiles were used to determine the
volume of available spoil material.
. The alkalinities determined for soil analyses at Site #2
and the average thicknesses of individual stratigraphic
units were employed to proportion overburden material
and alkalinity for the entire quantity of spoil.
. A twenty-five percent spoil availability is presented
' for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to
represent actual conditions which would require detailed
field and laboratory testing.
. It was assumed that one pound of alkalinity as indicated
by soil tests could neutralize an equivalent one pound of
acid being discharged from the abandoned deep mine.
Proposed abatement demonstration techniques consist of alkaline
regrading and slurry trench construction. The slurry trench loca-
tion is shown in Figure 17. Cross sections in Figure 18 illustrate
spoil material before and after completion of alkaline regrading.
Figure 19 shows a profile of the proposed slurry trench. This trench
is designed to force discharge at the location of Sample Station 3B.
Thus, flows can be monitored without relocation of the existing V-
notch weir. The slurry trench height at this designed discharge point
fixes a maximum water head of 6.1 meters (20 feet) in spoil material
and deep mine workings. The maximum desired head was established
by considering underelay-elevations at several mine entries shown on
36
-------
--
-
Figure 17 Plan of demonstration project site no. 3.
-------
1360
- 1320
PROPOSED GRADE
LU
1240 Underclay
-PROPOSED SLURRY TRENCH
SECTION A-A'
414
U)
402 |
0)
E
3905
u
378
1360
414
402 £
PROPOSED GRADE
Existing Ground
Underclay
ccrTinw R' '-PROPOSED SLURRY
SECTION B B TRENCH
40
80
Scale in Feet
0 12 24
Scale in Meters
Figure 18. Cross sections of demonstration project site no. 3.
38
-------
u>
VO
1280
!
Existing
r^^^/ . ^T^^S^RRYJSS.NSH-
^^^^^^ ^^^™ l«w '"
1200 L
0
6 8
DISTANCE, hundred feet
Horiz.
0 , 200
••^
0 40
\fert.
Scale in Feet
400
a
80
.390
10 12 14
Horiz.
0 60 120
0 12 24
Vert.
Scale in Meters
366
Figure 19. Profile of demonstration project site no. 3.
-------
mine mapping. A final mine pool elevation was determined to avoid
overflow through these abandoned mine entries.
Approximately 100 percent effectiveness is expected for eliminating
pollution from Project Site #3. The total estimated construction cost
is $171,300 for regrading, slurry trench construction and revegeta-
tion. Cost effectiveness will be $6,590 per kg/day ($2,989 per Ib/day)
acid abated. Considering abatement of mine drainage discharges that
were not recorded, a lower cost effectiveness will be achieved. De-
spite a high cost effectiveness, Project Site #3 is a feasible location
for demonstrating both alkaline regrading and slurry trench mine
drainage abatement techniques. All main stream water quality im-
provement resulting from abatement projects is a supplementary bene-
fit derived during demonstration of abatement techniques.
Estimated Construction Costs Site #3
Grading = 44,347 cu m @ $0.65/cu m = $ 29,000
(58,000 cu yd @ $0.50/cu yd)
Slurry Wall = 0.6 m wide x 6.71 m deep x 457.20 m
(2 ft. wide x 22 ft. deep x 1500 LF)
3,047 profile sq m (§> $43.06/sq rn = $131,200
(32,800 profile sq ft.@ $4.00/sq ft.)
Revegetation = 2.43 ha ® $1235/ha =$ 3,000
(6 ac d> $500/ac)
Contingency = 5% =$ 8,100
Total =$171,300
PROJECT SITE #4
Site #4 is located in the northwest corner of the Elk Creek Watershed.^
Topography is characteristic of this region with steep sloping hillsides
dissected by valleys and streams. Valleys are usually barren of coal
resulting from post-depositional erosion or a void in original deposi-
tion. Geologic conditions resemble other project sites with one
major exception. The Redstone coal seam is not present, and instead
is represented by a dark shale. 2.1 meters (7 feet) of Pittsburgh Coal
is present and has been mined by both underground and surface
mining methods. However, this area has not been subject to recent
40
-------
secondary stripping. Lack of renewed mining efforts may be attrib-
uted to small remaining crop coal barriers and an absence of mine-
able Redstone Coal.
This specific project site is a hill extending from a more persistent
ridge and surrounded on three sides by valleys (see Figures 20 and
21). Strip mining around the hill perimeter has breached underground
workings providing exit points for deep mine waters. Spoil from
surface mining was cast downslope and backfilling was not conducted.
Thus, breached mine workings are exposed as shown in Figure 22,
and Figure 23 shows an abandoned stripping shovel.
Figure 20. Photograph of demonstration project site no. 4.
41
-------
PROPOSED
WORK AREA
Figure 21. Aerial view of demonstration project site no. 4.
42
-------
In addition to drainage from breached openings, an overflow is oc-
curing at an abandoned drift deep mine entry. Combined mine drainage
flows are monitored at Sample Station 4B (see Figure 24). Major
pollutant loadings discharged from Project Site #4 averaged 139 kg/day
(306 Ibs/day) acidity, 38 kg/day (83 Ibs/day) total iron and 55O kg/day
(1213 Ibs/day) sulfates during the Feasibility Study. Analyses of these
and other chemical constituents are listed in the Appendix, along with
calculated loadings. An average acid flow of 0.386 x 10~2 cu m/sec
(0.136 cfs) directly augments the headwaters of Nutter Run. Water
quality in Nutter Run maintains a net alkalinity following confluence
with Site #4 discharge. However, net alkalinity is reduced by acid
Figure 22. Breached deep mine entry at demonstration project site no. 4.
43
-------
loadings. Nutter Run eventually joins Elk Creek at the towns of Nutter
Fort and Stonewood. Contaminants in Nutter Run have little effect
on quality of the large volumes of water in Elk Creek. Data recorded
at Sample Station Composite indicates that mine drainage pollutants
have been diluted by large volumes of good quality waters.
Thus, abatement demonstration measures recommended for Project
Site #4 will be of minimal benefit to Elk Creek. Alkaline regrading
and slurry trench construction are proposed for demonstration at this
particular location. Figure 25 shows the planned slurry trench posi-
tion along existing highwall limits. Trench limits are designed to en-
compass all acid discharges. Abatement construction is hindered by
a lack of available spoil for regrading. This is illustrated by cross-
•
Figure 23. Abandoned stripping shovel at demonstration project site no. 4.
44
-------
Information From U.S.G.S.
Topographic 7 1/2 Minute
Quadrangles (CLARKSBURG
8 MOUNT CLARE)
2000 4000
^B
Scale in Feet
5 I
—^
Kilometers
Figure 24. Sample station map for demonstration project site no. 4.
45
-------
Scale in Feet
60
120
Figure 25.
Scale in Meters
Plan of demonstration project site no. 4.
46
-------
sections in Figure 26. Material will be pushed from the spoil slopes,
graded against the highwall and compacted to facilitate trench con-
struction. Also, the slurry trench is designed to allow a 3.0 meter
(10 foot) maximum water head behind construction (see Figure 27).
This maximum head was determined by considering deep mine devel-
opment and the dip of the Pittsburgh Coal. Greater than 3.0 meters
(10 feet) of head would force mine waters out of the hillside opposite
construction.
Even though alkaline regrading and slurry trench construction are
restricted, sufficient alkalinity is available to successfully demon-
strate these abatement techniques. It is estimated that with total
availability of alkaline material, acid will be neutralized for 200 years.
If only 25 percent availability is assumed for illustrative purposes,
acid reduction could continue for at least 50 years. Effectiveness is
expected to approach 100 percent for reduction of existing acid load-
ings, and iron loadings will be significantly lowered as a result of
oxidation processes. A total estimated construction cost of $62,100
to demonstrate proposed abatement techniques will afford a cost
effectiveness of $450 per kg/day ($204 perib/day) acid abated. All
factors, including a poor quality discharge, no mining projected for
the future, and sufficient amounts of available alkalinity are ideal
for demonstration of proposed abatement techniques. In addition to
water pollution related benefits accrued following construction, the
existing highwall at Site #4 will be eliminated, thus providing aes-
thetic benefits.
Estimated Construction Costs Site #4
Grading = 13,304 cu m @ $0.65/cu m = $ 8,700
(17,400 cu yd $O.50/cu yd)
Slurry Wall = 0.6 m wide x 4.27 m deep x 3688.08 m
(2 ft. wide x 14 ft. deep x 860 LF)
1,124 profile sq m @ $43.06/sq m = $48,400
(12,100 profile sq ft. ® $4.00/sq ft.)
Revegetation «= 1.62 ha @ $1235/ha =$ 2,000
(4 ac d> $500/ac)
Contingency = 5% = $ 3,OOP
Total = $62,100
47
-------
1120
341
! i
_
;> Underclay
uj_l080_ PROPOSED SLURRY TRENCH
1060
1120
1080
SECTION A-A'
Underclay -
PROPOSED SLURRY TRENCH-
SECTION B-B'
20 40
— —
Scale in Feet
6 12
!^^^f
Scale in Meters
323
PROPOSED GRADE
bl
329
Figure 26. Cross sections of demonstration project site no. 4
48
-------
1120
341
MOO
o>
0)
^1080
;TOP_OF__SLURRY TRENCH
Existing Ground
SLURRY TRENCH
1060
UJ
323
LL)
1040
0
0
e
0
Horiz.
100
^s
20
Vert.
Scale in Feet
200
^
40
DISTANCE , hundred feet
Horiz.
0 30
s
0 6
Vert
Scale in meters
8
60
B
12
317
Figure 27. Profile of demonstration project site no. 4.
-------
PROJECT SITE #5
This demonstration project site is located in the south central portion
of the Elk Creek Watershed. Topography is again typical, consisting
of steep sloping hills dissected by valleys and streams. These hills
are stratigraphically composed of geologic rock units similar to those
represented in the generalized stratigraphic column. Abandoned high-
wall exposures show that mudstone and limestone units are present to
provide alkalinity in existing spoil material. Both the Pittsburgh and
Redstone Coals are persistent throughout this portion of the Elk Creek
Watershed. Thus, extensive mining has occurred in the past and ac-
tive mining is presently being conducted in the vicinity of Project Site
#5.
The actual project site is the point of a hill or ridge which is bordered
on three sides by stream valleys (see Figures 28 and 29). Much of the
Pittsburgh Coal seam has been extracted via underground mining, and
subsequent contour stripping has removed deep mine crop barriers in
the Pittsburgh and any overlying Redstone crop coal. Auger mining of
Redstone Coal was a common practice in this area, but augering was
not employed at Site #5. As a result of surface mining, a spoil bench
that ranges from 6. 1 to 12.2 meters (20 to 40 feet) deep exists at this
locale, providing good conditions for excavating a slurry trench,
Mine drainage occurs as widespread seeps along the southern portion
of this undermined hillside. These seeps are collectively monitored
at Sample Station 5B (see Figure 30). Chemical analyses of samples
collected from this discharge during initial sampling rounds indicate
that the flow was acid (see the Appendix). However, all analyses re-
corded following the third sampling round show net alkalinity, with
a subsequent decrease of acidity concentrations to zero. Field inves-
tigation failed to reveal a reason for this drastic change in water
quality. One logical explanation could be that portions of the aban-
doned underground mine roof collapsed, providing available alkaline
roof material. Mine waters flowing through fragmented alkaline roof
falls are being neutralized. Provided this is a correct assumption,
it serves to further support the technical feasibility of mine roof col-
lapse as an acid abatement technique.
Alkaline regrading and slurry trench construction were originally
proposed for demonstration at Project Site #5. Figures 31 and 32
illustrate existing and final spoil contour and the approximate slurry
trench profile. Detailed mapping in Figure 33 also shows the location
50
-------
Figure 28. Photograph of demonstration project site no. 5.
of proposed slurry trench installation. It is estimated that total
abatement construction costs for regrading and slurry trenching would
be $96,100. However, since mine discharges from Site #5 are no
longer acid this project site is not deemed feasible for demonstrating
proposed acid mine drainage abatement techniques.
51
-------
PROPOSED
WORK AREA
Figure 29, Aerial view of demonstration project site no. 5
52
-------
Information From U.S.G.S.
Topographic 7 !£ Minute
Quadrangle (BROWNTON
8 CENTURY)
Kilometers
Figure 30. Sample station map for demonstration project site no. 5.
53
-------
1280
390
PROPOSED GRADE
Ground
1,1
Underclay
PROPOSED SLURRY TRENCH
SECTION A-A'
1280
-mzmmmm
Underclay
PROPOSED SLURRY TRENCH-
390
PROPOSED GRADE
0 40 80
Scale in Feet
0 12 24
Scale in Meters
Figure 31. Cross sections of demonstration project site no. 5.
54
-------
I
•5
f—
o
UJ
Ul
JI80 |
0
0
es
0
,-UNDERCLAY
"BOTTOM" OF" suuRRT TRENCH ^
i i i i i
2 4 6
DISTANCE ,hundred feet
Horiz.
100 200 o
^^sas^^^^^^^a ea
20 40 0
Vert.
Scale in Feet
^^^^•••••^^•^•^^••^^^^^^ ^
366 K
^
UJ
_i
LU
i i i 360i
8 10
Horiz.
30 60
•^^rfS^^^^^M^
6 12
Vert
Scale in Meters
Figure 32. Profile of demonstration project site no. 5,
-------
Scale in Feet
60
120
Figure 33.
Scale in Meters
Plan of demonstration project site no. 5.
56
-------
Estimated Construction Costs Site #5
Grading = 12,081 cu m @ $0.65/eu m = $ 7,900
(15,800 cu yd @ $0.50/cu yd)
Slurry Wall = 0.6 m wide x 6.10 m deep x 307.8 m
(2 ft. wide x 20 ft. deep x 1010 LF)
1,895 profile sq m @ $43.06/sq m = $81,600
(20,400 profile sq ft. @ $4.00/sq ft.)
Revegetation = 1.62 ha <§> $1,235/ha = $ 2,000
(4 ac d> $500/ac)
Contingency = 5% = $ 4,600
Total = $96,100
57
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
1. Council for Surface Mining and Reclamation Research in Appala-
chia, ed. Glossary of Surface Mining and Reclamation Technology.
Washington: National Coal Association, October, 1974.
2. Nielson, George F., ed. Keystone Coal Industry Manual. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.
3. Robins, John D., and Zaval, Frank J. Water Infiltration Control
to Achieve Mine Water Pollution Control. Washington: U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research Series
R2-73-142 (14010 HHGO), 1973.
4. Skelly and Loy, Engineers and Consultants. Processes, Proce-
dures, and Methods to Control Pollution from Mining Activities.
Washington: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-430/
9-73-011, October, 1973.
5. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration. Climatological Data. West Virginia.
Ashville, North Carolina: Environmental Data Service.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Field Inves-
tigation. Summary Report - Monongahela River Mine Drainage
Remedial Project. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1971.
58
-------
SECTION X
G LOSSARY
1. Abatement (Mine Drainage Usage) - The reduction of the pollution
effects on mine drainage.
2. Acid Mine Drainage - Any acid water draining or flowing on, or
having drained or flowed off, any area of land affected by mining.
3. Alkaline Regrading - The technique of loosening and rearranging
existing strip mine spoil material that contains alkaline soil and
rock fragments with the specific purpose of enhancing neutraliza-
tion of acid mine drainage.
4. Auger Mining - Generally practiced but not restricted to hilly coal
bearing regions of the country. Utilizes a machine designed on the
principle of the auger, which bores into an exposed coal seam,
conveying the coal to a storage pile or bin for loading and trans-
porting . May be used alone or in combination with conventional
surface mining. When used alone, a single cut is made sufficient
to expose the coal seam and provide operating space for the ma-
chine. When used in combination with surface mining the last
cut pit provides the operating space.
5< Backfill - The operation of refilling an excavation. Also the ma-
terial placed on an excavation in the process of backfilling.
6. Bench - The surface of an excavated area at some point between
the material being mined and the original surface of the ground
on which equipment can set, move or operate. A working road
or base below a highwall as in contour stripping for coal.
7. Bentonite - A clay formed from the decomposition of volcanic ash.
Also has great ability to absorb water and swell accordingly.
8. Contour Regrading - Movement of earth over a surface or depres-
sion in order to return the land surface to its approximate original
shape.
9. Contour Stripping or Surface Mining - The removal of overburden
and mining from a coal seam that outcrops or approaches the sur-
face at approximately the same elevation, in steep or mountainous
areas.
59
-------
10. Crop Coal - Coal at the outcrop of the seam.
11. Deep Mine - An underground mine.
12. Highwall - The unexcavated face of exposed overburden and coal
in a surface mine, or the face or bank on the uphill side of a con-
tour strip mine excavation.
13. Overburden - The earth, rock, and other materials which lie above
the coal.
14. Mine Roof Collapse - The technique of detonating explosive charges
directly above a deep mine to collapse the immediate roof strata
into mine entries. This can produce partial inundation of mine
workings with mine waters.
15. Receiving Stream - A surface water flow that is augmented by a flow
usually of lesser magnitude.
16. Slurry Trench - A narrow trench excavated in unconsolidated ma-
terial with continuous application of bentonite clay (or a material
with similar properties) slurry and backfilling. When tied into an
underclay this provides an impermeable underground dam.
17. Spoil - The overburden or non-coal material removed in gaining
access to the coal or mineral material in surface mining.
18. Strip Mine - A surface mine where the overburden is removed to
expose the mineable material. Implies that there is a large amount
of overburden with respect to the amount of mineable material.
19. Terrace Regrading - Movement of earth over a surface or depres-
sion to provide a flat bench or benches adjoining a highwall or along
a hillside.
20. Underclay - A bed of clay highly siliceous in some cases and highly
aluminous in many others, occurring immediately beneath a coal
seam. These clays are often impermeable.
60
-------
METRIC TABLE
CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS) by TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
acre ac
acre - feet ac ft
British Thermal
Unit BTU
British Thermal
Unit/pound BTU/lb
cubic feet/minute cfm
cubic feet/second cfs
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic Inches cu 1n
degree Fahrenheit °F
feet ft
gallon gal
gallon/minute gpm
horsepower hp
Inches In
Inches of mercury In Hg
pounds Ib
million gallons/day mgd
mile ml
pound/souare
Inch (gauge) pslg
square feet sq ft
square Inches sq in
ton (short) ton
yard yd
Actual conversion, not a multiplier
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
(0.06805 pslg +1)*
0.0929
6.452
0.907
0.9144
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal/kg
cu m/m1n
cu m/m1n
cu m
1
cu cm
«c
m
1
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
atm
sq m
sq cm
kkg
m
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram - calories
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters
liters/second
kilowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric ton (1000 kilograms)
meter
61
-------
SECTION XI APPENDIX
STA. NO. 1A
DATE
10-16-73
11-19-73
1 -O8-74
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-O8-74
7-22-74
8-04-74
8-21-74
Average
WEATHER
CODE
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
0.283"
0.011
D.016
D.011
).010
5.566'
5.736'
5. 510*
3.013
).453*
5.368*
5.396*
5.227*
0.736*
PH
3
ID
Li.
3.0
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.5
3.2
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
3.4
00
<
_l
2.9
3.2
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.1
2.9
3.6
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.0
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
600
300
268
298
500
500
300
440
14O
600
600
90O
562
462
LOAD
kg /Jay
147
293
36O
291
416
245
191
194
154
235
191
308
110
241
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
0
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
o
0
0
0
o
0
LOAD
kg /day
0
0
O
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
o
o
0
TOTAL IRON
CONC
mg/l
79.9
29.3
26.9
35.7
29.8
49.4
50.8
44.2
20.3
45.3
48.4
51.8
52.6
43.4
LOAD
kg /day
20
29
36
35
25
24
32
20
22
18
15
18
10
23
SAMPLING DATA
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
19
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
3.4
7.5
LOAD
kg /day
4.7
o
-
-
-
_
.
-
-
_
-
0.7
1 .8
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
1,201
950
65O
725
1,025
1 ,O25
700
900
425
1.025
1,450
1 ,475
1,625
1 ,014
LOAD
kg /day
294
929
874
709
852
5O1
445
396
•468
401
461
505
318
550
B*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
STA. NO. IB
SAMPLING DATA
DATE
10-16-73
11-19-73
1 -08-74
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-1 2-74
6-24-74
7-O8-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
8-21-74
Averaqe
"iu
±0
feo
UJO
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
0.011
O.O1E
O.01E
0.02C
0.01
902
1.777
894
1,866
1,086
930
770
1,027
1 ,291
739
954
546
567
1 ,O27
£i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
18
13
STA. NO. 1C
DATE
10-16-73
1 1—^9-73
1 -08-74
e-ia-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-1 2-74
5-24-74
7-08-74
7—22-74
8-Q4-74
8-21-74
WEATHER!
CODE I
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
_
O.O26
0.070
O.O66
0.055
O.O32
0.044
0.035
0.152
0.041
0,052
O.041
0.016
5.053
PH
3
UJ
3.2
4.4
4.7
4.6
4.4
3.8
—
_
_
_
_
4.2
m
4
_)
3.1
3.6
4.4
4.0
3.8
3.4
6.0
3.6
6.2
3.6
3.7-
3.6
3.O
4.0
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
600
20O
50
92
80
116
32
100
20
140
12O
13O
176
143
LOAD
kg /day
_
445
302
524
379
320
123
303
262
5OO
534
464
241
366
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
0
0
8
O
0
0
48
0
42
O
0
0
0
8
LOAD
kg /day
o
0
48
o
0
0
184
0
549
O
O
0
O
6O
TOTAL IRON
CONC
mg/l
22.5
18.9
15.2
22.7
15.1
15.8
23.3
12.9
5.6
12.4
8.2
16.1
9.4
15.2
LOAD
kg /day
-
42
92
129
72
44
89
39
73
44
37
58
13
61
SAMPLING DATA
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
6.72
11.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
8.6
LOAD
Kg /day
-
25
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
11
18
SULF
CONC.
mg/l
1r073
624
450
525
425
600
350
525
325
6OO
1,125
900
1.3OO
. 679
ATES
LOAD
kg /day
-
1,388
2,718
2,991
2,016
1,658
1 ,344
1 ,592
4.251
2.142
5.O06
3.213
1 ,780
2.508
S3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
* MULTIPLY BY I0~*
62
-------
STA. NO. 1A
SAMPLING DATA
is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
dig/ 1
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
93.4
93.4
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
18
18
CALCIUM
CONC.
ma/1
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
96
150
360
78.3
3£0
201
LOAD
kg. /day
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
106
59
114
27
63
74
MANGANESE
CONC.
nng/l
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
_.
3.3
1O
_
9
7.4
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
_
3.6
-
3.2
-
1 .8
2.9
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
11.7
42.4
_
51 .3
35.1
LOAD
kg /day
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
13
-
14
_
10
12
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
137
-
22.8
_
301
154
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
151
-
7.3
_
59
72
SPEC.
COND.
pmhoi
-
3,100
2.500
1.400
2.700
1 ,80O
1.50O
1 ,9OO
750
2.00O
4.550
5,100
8.2QO
2,958
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
59
2
11
12
29
23
STA. NO. IB
SAMPLING DATA
&
1
?
,?
4
R
6
7
R
fl
in
1 1
12
1,1
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
^
_
—
_
11 .6
h.e
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
mf
_
_
4.5
4.5
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
176
137
390
74.8
240
2O4
STA. NO. 1C
u.'o
&
i
2
3
4
5
8
7
R
9
10
1 1
1g
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
12.4
12.4
LOAD
kg /day
•
17
__1Z
LOAD
kg. /day
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
284
104
248
35
94
153
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
96
127
350
84.1
390
2O9
LOAD
kg. /doy
1 gse
453
1.B57
3OO
634
82O
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
3.5
5
5.2
4,6
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
5.7
_
3.2
_
2
3.6
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
68
9
10. 2
29^J_
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
110
5.8
4
40
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
44.2
-
40.4
- '
3.4
29.3
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
71
-
26
1.3
33
SPEC.
COND.
(jmhoi
-
2,791
2.600
1,600
2.200
1.8OO
1.80O
1 ,85O
1.150
2.100
3.900
5.200
6,500
P.701
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
2
0
15
0
8
SAMPLING DATA
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
1 13
4
4.5
3.3
LOAD
kg /day
w
—
_
17
18
_
6.2
14
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
—
_
_
22
_
12.8
13.1
16
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
288
57
-
18
121
SUSP.
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
-
904
34.2
86.2
341
SOLIDS
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11,825
-
152
-
118
4.032
SPEC.
COND.
licnhot
1,100
750
950
1.10O
1.2OO
85O
1.1SO
600
1.400
2.900
4.100
4,800
1 .742
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
42
8
9
33
35
25
63
-------
STA. NO. 2 A
DATE
No Sampli
11-19-73
1 -08-74
2-12-74
3-S7-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-O8-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
8-21-74
Average
uu
S§
So
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
_
0.030
0.108
O.O81
O.O74
0.041
O.O75
O.O32
0.113
O.O24
0.018
O.O18
0.016
0,053
pH
o
_j
u
4.7
5.3
5.0
6.2
5.7
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
5.4
m
<
_l
_
5.4
5.9
5.3
5.6
5.7
6.1
5.9
6.6
6.1
6.4
6.2
6.2
6.0
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
100
18
94
40
10O
24
18
30
42
24
42
28
47
LOAD
kg /day
_
259
169
655
257
352
156
50
293
88
38
66
38
202
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
10
72
40
60
72
96
1O4
123
102
114
114
162
90
LOAD
kg /day
_
26
674
279
386
253
624
287
1 ,252
214
181
178
222
381
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
aig/l
_
24
15.2
35.7
22.4
34.7
9.7
12.4
5.4
7.8
11.1
11 .8
9.9
16.7
LOAD
kg /day
_
62
142
249
144
122
63
34
53
16
18
19
14
78
SAMPLING DATA
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
_
0
_
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
_
4.5
2.3
LOAD
kg /day
-
0
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
3.1
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
_
775
450
675
675
775
675
775
550
850
1,100
95O
1 .375
802
LOAD
kg /day
-
2,009
4.214
4.7O4
4.340
2,729
4.39O
2.141
5,379
1 ,787
1.748
1.487
1,883
3.068
£i
1
2
9
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
13
STA. NO. 2B SAMPLING DATA
DATE
10-16-73
11-19-73
1 -08-74
2-1 2-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-1 2-74
6-24-74
7-O8-74
7-22-74
8-04-74
8-21-74
Average
WEATHER
CODE ]
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MV»
0.850
0.481
0.538
0.42§
0.312
0.25&
11 *
0.368
0.25§
*
0.481
1
0,255
0.255
0.227
0.141
0.3731
PH
3
UJ
u.
2.5
2.5
2.9
3.O
2.7
2.5
—
_
_
_
_
—
2.7
OD
<
_l
2.7
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
800
700
554
642 '
6OO
800
740
8OO
820
9 SO
O2O
1 .100
792
788
LOAD
kg /Joy
587
291
257
235
161
176
235
176
341
216
2O2
215
97
245
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
o
o
0
0
o
LOAD
kg /doy
O
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
o
o
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
164
264
136
178
89
141
94.5
135
94.7
77.9
12O
135
84.7
132
LOAD
kg /day
120
110
63
65
24
31
30
30
39
17
26
26
10
45
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
14.6
7.84
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
2.2
8.2
LOAD
kg /day
11
3.3
_
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
0.3
4.9
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
1,598
1.876
1,225
1,775
1.775
1,825
1.775
1 .950
1.800
1,700
2.050
1,775
2,250
1.798
LOAD
kg /day
1.172
780
569
651
477
402
564
429
748
374
451
347
275
557
&
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_S_
9
10
11
12
13
STA. NO 2C SAMPLING DATA
DATE
10-16-73
11-19-73
1 -08-74
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-O8-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
8-21 -74
Average
"ui
fe§
flu
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MV»
—
0.035
0.114
0.090
0.075
O.O44
0.085
0.033
0.117
0.029
0.021
cmia.
0,018
0.057
pH
3
UJ
4.5
5.4
4.5
4.7
5.3
4.7
—
_
—
_
_
4.9
CD
<
_J
4.1
6.3
5.5
4.7
4.9
4.4
5.7
4.6
6.4
4.7
4.7
4.5
5.2
5,1
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
300
1OO
34
90
54
2OO
38
100
22
6O
64
80
24
90
LOAD
kg /day
—
301
334
698
350
758
280
281
222
153
116
131
38
305
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
50
30
8
10
0
34
10
82
10
10
0
28
23
LOAD
kg /day
—
150
295
62
65
0
250
28
828
25
18
0
44
147
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
23.6
6.9
20.1
39.3
39.6
37.3
19
22.1
8.5
17.5
18.4
28.2
20.5
23.2
LOAD
kg /day
-
21
198
305
257
141
140
62
86
46
33
46
32
114
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
2.24
O
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
2.2
1.5
LOAD
kg /day
-
0
_
_
_
_
-
_
-
-
—
-
3.4
1.7
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
1 .076
673
775
850
650
975
725
850
800
900
1,150
1,075
1.700
938
LOAD
kg /day
-
2.024
7.617
6,588
4,212
3,695
5.336
2.390
8.078
2.289
2.081
1.761
2,660
4,061
&
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
» MULTIPLY BY KT
64
-------
STA. NO. 2A
SAMPLING DATA
ILrj
£*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
g
10
11
12
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
11 .8
11 .8
LOAD
kg /doy
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
16
16
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
_
-
-
_
-
-
149
1O6
390
56.8
390
218
LOAD
kg. /day
-
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
1,457
223
620
. 89
534
585
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
_
-
_
-
-
_
2.3
..
5
_
6
4.4
LOAD
kg /day
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
_
23
_
8
_
8.2
13
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
0.9
-
4.3
4.5
3.2
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
8.8
-
6.8
6.2
7.3
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
13.5
_
135
_
56.2
68.2
LOAD
kg /day
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
132
-
215
-
77
141
SPEC.
CONO.
ymho»
_
1,200
1.900
1 .200
1.5OO
1,450
1 .3OO
1 .550
900
1.6OO
3,300
4,250
5.200
2,113
TURBIDITY
J.T. U.
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
_
5
1
22
2B
51
21
STA. NO. 28 SAMPLING DATA
&
i
2
?
4
IS
fi
7
9
9
1O
11
IP
1,1
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
_
_
118
118
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
„
_
_
—
—
14
14
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
—
„
_
282
93.8
460
94.1
47O
280
LOAD
kg. /day
_
_
_
_
—
117
21
101
18
67
63
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
14.1
18
19. '1
17.1
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
—
_
_
_
5.9
4
2.3
4.1
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
26.2
29.1
31 .3
28.9
LOAD
kg /day
_
-
_
-
_
_
_
—
11
6.4
_
3.8
I 7.1
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
17.1
16.4
18.4
17.3
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
7.1
-
3.6
2.2
4.3
SPEC.
CONO.
litnhos
-
7.500
3,950
2.200
3.200
2.600
2.90O
3.000
2,500
3.20O
7.000
8.000
9.900
4.663
TURBIDITY
J.T. U.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
23
9
98
15
18
STA NO 1C SAMPLING DATA
u.'o
£z
1
3
4
6
7
A
10
11
12
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
—
14,8
14.6
LOAD
kg /day
23
23
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
146
68, g
4OO
64.4
340
204
LOAD
kg. /day
1 .474
173
724
105
632
602
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
2.9
7
6.9
5.6
LOAD
eg
13
11
18
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
16
_
6.7
_
7.6
10.1
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
_
_
162
12
12
62
SUSP.
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
14.1
72.4
108
64.8
SOLIDS
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
_
142
131
169
147
SPEC.
COND.
pmhot
-
1.100
2.200
1.400
1 .800
1.550
J.,450
1r700
1.050
1.800
3,800
4r300
5.200
2.254
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
21
25
24
39
149
52
65
-------
STA. NO. 2D SAMPLING DATA
DATE
10-16-73
11-19-73
1 -08-74
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-08-74
7-22-74
8-04-74
8-21 -74
Average
BUI
io
<°
UJO
F
F
F
F
P
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
M'/l
_
0.085
... t
0.113
0.028*
*
O.OO8
0 OO3
0.028*
I
0.028
O.057
Dry
Drv
Drv
'Drv
0.044"
PH
o
_i
Ul
C
2.5
3.0
3.4
3.0
3.2
2 5
_
_
ff
_
_
_
_
2.9
CD
<
_l
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2 fi
2.8
2.8
3.1
_
_
_
_
2.9
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
70O
60O
544
512
4OO
70O
700
56O
300
_
..
_
_
557
LOAD
kg /day
_
44
53
13
3
2
17
14
15
_
..
_
_
20
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
_
_
_
o
LOAD
kg /day
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
_
_
_
0
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
199
1OO
288
139
39
53.8
54.1
34
16.6
_
_
_
_
103
LOAD
kg /day
-
7.3
SB
3.4
0.3
0.1
1.3
0.8
0.8
_
_
_
_
5.3
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
11.2
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
11 .2
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
_
-
-
-
—
_
..
_
_
_
_
-
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
1 .523
1,448
1,375
1.650
1,300
1 ,475
1,275
1 ,375
1 .100
_
_
_
-
1,391
rLOAD
kg /day
-
106
134
40
9.5
3.6
31
34
54
_
-
_
-
52
Si
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
STA. NO. 2D'
SAMPLING DATA
DATE
No Sample
No Samplf
No Samplt
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-08-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
8-21-74
Average
WEATHEW
CODE 1
..
_
_
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVl
M
_
_
0.821*
0.821
O.878
0.34Q
0.368
O.368
0.34o"
0.283
O.113
0.028*
O.436*
PH
o
_i
Ul
c
_
_
_
3,5
3.2
3.0
„
_
_
_
_
_
3.2
ID
<
_l
_
_
_
3.O
P,7
2.6
2.8
2,7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
1 .700
700
700
1,050
1r080
1,240
1,380
1,000
900
688
1,044
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
1.205
496
531
308
343
394
405
245
88
17
403
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
-
O
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
530
121
298
347
308
186
151
264
238
121
256
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
-
376
86
226
102
98
59
44
65
23
3
108
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
_
_ .
_
408
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
28
218
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
-
289
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
0.7
145
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
2.575
1.735
1.650
2,175
2,750
2,500
1,875
2,450
2,350
2.500
2,256
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
-
1,826
1,230
1,251
638
874
795
550
599
230
61
805
Si
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
STA. N0.2E
SAMPLING DATA
DATE
No Sample
11-19-73
1 -O8-74
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
^-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-O8-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
8-21 -74
TE~~|
£B
So
UJO
_
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVl
_
0.036
0.129
0.098
0.083
0.053
0.089
0.037
0.121
O.033
0.024
0.020
0.018
pH
o
_i
UJ
C
_
4.7
4.8
4.5
4.7
4.0
—
«
—
_
_
_
to
5
_
5.9
5.6
4.3
3.5
3.2
4.4
3.2
5.6
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.4
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
100
20
160
128
20O
44
140
52
26O
200
94
1O4
125
LOAD
kg /day
_
313
223
1,357
920
910
338
442
544
744
411
163
165
544
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
10
26
0
0
0
0
0
28
O
0
0
0
5
LOAD
kg /day
_
31
290
0
0
0
0
0
293
0
0
0
0
51
TOTAL IRON
CONC
mg/l
_
14.3
20. 1
85.1
37.3
54.5
22.2
38
17.4
43.4
42.3
4O.5
3O.6
37.1
LOAD
kg /day
_
45
224
722
268
248
170
120
182
124
87
70
49
192
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
_
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
2.2
1 .1
LOAD
kg /day
_
0
_
-
-
_.
-
_
-
_
_
3.5
1.8
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
_
724
775
1,350
825
1 .450
775
1,075
800
1,125
1,500
1.275
1.500
1.098
LOAD
kg /day
_
2.SRR
8.641
11 ,454
5.930
6,594
5.950
3,391
8,372
3.218
3.081
2,213
2.384
5.891
P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
* MULTIPLY BY 10"'
66
-------
STA. NO. 2D
SAMPLING DATA
Itrj
&
1
g
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
LOAD
kg /day
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
254
-
-
-
-
254
LOAD
kg. /day
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
-
-
12
MANGANESE
CONC.
mfl/l
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
9
-
-
-
-i
9
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
0.4
-
-
_
-
0.4
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
_
16. 8
-
-
_
-
16.8
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
_
0.8
-
-
_
-
0.8
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
20.9
-
-
_
-
20.9
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
_
1
-
-
_
-
1
SPEC.
COND.
timhat
_
2,300
4,600
1 .9OO
2,6OO
2,35O
2f6OO
2.4OO
1 .650
-
-
_
_
2,550
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
„
0
-
_
_
-
0
STA. NO. 20'
SAMPLING DATA
i^b
£z
1
s
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
56.5
56.5
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 .4
1 .4
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
326
95.8
43O
94.7
452
280
LOAD
kg. /day
' -
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
104
28
1O5
9.3
11
51
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
4.4
_
5
_
5.5
5
LOAD
kg /day
-
_
-
_
_
_
-
_
1 .4
_
1 .2
-
0.1
0.9
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
33.4
-
29.9
-
25.5
29.6
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
_
-
_
_
-
_
1 1
_
7.3
0.6
6.3
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
. _
_
-
-
_
_
4.8
-
139
67.2
70.3
LOAD
kg /day
_
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
1 .5
-
34
1 .6
12
SPEC.
COND.
|imho>
_
-
-
2.700
3.0OO
2.75O
3.100
3.050
2,900
3,200
8,100
8.300
8,700
4,580
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
20
29
17
28
0
19
STA. NO. 2E
SAMPLING DATA
&
1
2
3
4
5
fi
7
ft
9
1O
11
12
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
10.7
19.7
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
—
_
_
_
31
31
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
..
_
_
_
_
-
_
169
76.2
360
69.3
270
189
LOAD
kg. /day
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 r769
218
739
120
429
655
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
_
_
—
_
2.9
6
7.1
5.3
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
30
12
_
11
18
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
-
2.4
8.3
7.9
6.2
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
-
25
-
17
_
13
18
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
_
-
_
_
-
-
_
-
77
144
_
157
126
LOAD
kg /day
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
804
-
296
_
250
450
SPEC.
COND.
ymhat
-
1.200
1.150
1^500
1.BOO
1 ,75O
1 ,500
1.950
1.200
2.050
3.800
4.70O
5,900
2.375
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
42
8
24
66
9
30
67
-------
STA. NO. 3 A
DATE
No Sample
11-19-73
1 -O8-74
2-1 2-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-O8-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
B-21 -74
WEATHER
CODE
_
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
_
0.694
1.215
0.952
0.750
0.368
0.742
0.357
3.O87
0.388
0.283
0.137
Q, 194
0.764
PH
o
UJ
_
5.0
5.0
5.8
5.7
6.2
_
_
5.S
CD
_l
_
6.4
6.4
5.8
6.1
6.6
5.9
6.5
6.4
7.0
7.2
J3.5
6.8
6.5
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
200
10
10
14
6
18
4
12
0
0
2O
8
25
LOAD
kg /day
_
11 .981
1,049
822
907
191
1,153
123
3.198
0
0
236
134
1 .650
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
32
70
86
1OO
170
94
138
6O
168
158
152
140
114
LOAD
kg /day
-
1r917
7,342
7,065
6.479
5.403
6.022
4.251
15.990
5.627
3.863
1.795
2r345
5.675
TOTAL IRON
CONC
mg/l
-
2.86
6.44
5.24
4.9
2.5
2.9
3.7
3.2
2
1.5
1.8
2.3
3.3
LOAD
kg /day
-
171
675
430
317
80
186
114
853
67
37
21
39
249
SAMPLING DATA
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
- .
0
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
0
o
LOAD
kg /day
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
o
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
-
426
400
400
350
925
525
725
250
575
850
825
850
592
LOAD
kg /day
-
25,518
41 .956
32 , 861
22,677
29,401
33,631
22.335
66 . 626
19,260
20.783
9,743
14r236
2£*£52_
&
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
_
STA. NO 3ii SAMPLING DATA
DATE
10-17-73
11-19-73
1 -O8-74
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-3O-74
5-23-74
'6-12-74
6-24-74
7-08-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
B-21 -74
WEATHER
CODE ]
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
1 1
0.425
*" 1
0.396
0.198
0.28§
0.22?
0.198
0.19!
0.227
0.312
0.141
0.142
*
O.O8IJ
0.085
0.224
pH
a
_i
u
5.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.5
5.2
_
—
_
..
_
_
_
5.0
01
<
_1
3.7
4.2
5.6
5.5
5.5
6.4
5.3
fl.O
6.3
6.7
4.6
4.8
3,3
5.2
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
4OO
300
106
50
34
1OO
40
12
24
12
38
6O
58
95
LOAD
kg /Joy
147
103
18
12
7
17
7
2
6
1
5
4
4
26
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
0
0
22
60
38
54
12
22
40
24
4
10
o
22
LOAD
kg /day
0
0
4
15
7
9
2
4
11
3
1
1
0
4
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
106
160
62.2
53
32.4
22.6
22.9
21.4
12.9
6
22.4
31 .7
31,2
45
LOAD
kg /day
39
55
11
13
6.3
3.9
3.9
4.2
3.5
0.7
2.7
2,3
2.3
11
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
77.3
93
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31 .4
67.2
LOAD
kg /day
28
32
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
21
SULF
CONC.
mg/l
1.024
1,650
1.175
1.225
1r100
1.550
1P150
1,200
1r425
975
1,375
1.475
1,775
1.315
ATES
LOAD
kg /day
376
565
201
300
215
265
197
235
383
119
168
108
130
251
§'*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
e
10
11
12
13
STA. NO. 3C SAMPLING DATA
DATE
1O-17-73
11-19-73
1 -O8-74
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-OQ-74
7_22_74
B-O4-74
8-21 -74
fin
.0
feo
UJU
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVi
_
0.700
1.218
0.954
0.753
0.371
0.745
0.360
3.087
0.391
0.286
0.138
0.195
0.767
pH
0
_j
UJ
C
5.3
5.0
5,0
5.3
5.7
6.5
—
_
_
_
_
5.6
CD
-------
STA. NO. 3 A
SAMPLING DATA
u.'6
£*
i
8
3
4
5
6
7
8
f?
10
11
12
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
11.3
11.3
LOAD
Kg /day
-
_
_
_
-
' -
-
_
_
-
_
_
189
189
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
-
_
_
-
-
-
_
72
43.6
28O
48.4
290
147
LOAD
kg. /day
_
-
_
_
-
-
-
_
19,188
1,460
6,846
. 572
4,857
6,585
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
0.8
-
2.6
_
2.5
2
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
213
-
64
_
42
106
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
27
-
2,5
1 .7
10
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
22.2
-
19.6
_
1
14.3
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
5.916
-
479
_
17
2.137
SPEC.
COND.
|imhos
_
800
1.250
700
880
1,100
1.O50
1.3OO
450
1,250
2.4OO
3,300
3.600
1.507
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
_
8
9
8
5
0
6
STA. NO. 3B
SAMPLING DATA
u.*o
£*
1
2
3
4
5,
fi
7
R
fl
1°
11
1?
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
mf
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
—
61.4
61.4
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
mm
4.5
4.5
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
232
73.8
450
69,2
430
251
LOAD
kg. /day
-
-
_
_
_
_
-
_
62
9
55
5.1
32
33
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
_
_
„
_
_
_
8.7
-
12
_
11.3
10.7
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
2.3
-
1 .5
_
0.8
1.5
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
0.1
-
O.I
_
0.1
0.1
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
O.O3
-
O.O1
-
0.01
O.02
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
23
-
215
_
67.6
Lfl2
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
-
26
-
5
12
SPEC.
COND.
(imhoi
_
4.7OO
3,650
1 .650
2.400
1.700
2.100
2.000
1.BOO
2.050
4.000
5.600
7,200
3.238
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
58
0
19
51
35
33
STA. NO 3C SAMPLING DATA
UJrJ
&
1
2
3
4
f,
n
7
R
9
10
11
IP
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
«
—
11.2
11-2
LOAD
kg /day
_
«
188
188
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
74
32.5
250
46.4
230
JL22
LOAD
Kg /day
19.721
1,097
6,174
551
3.869
6.282
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
0.9
2.7
_
2.2
1.9
LOAD
kg /day
»
—
_
_
240
_
67
-
37
115
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0.8
_
0.1
_
0.1
0.3
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
213
2.5
1.7
72
SUSP.
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
55.9
-
25.4
-
41.8
41
SOLIDS
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
14.898
-
627
-
703
5.409
SPEC.
COND.
limhat
-
800
900
700
900
1.100
1 .150
1.3OO
500
1,250
2.400
3.100
3.500
1.467
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
0
6
22
0
7
69
-------
STA. NO. 4A SAMPLING DATA
DATE
1 0-1 6-73
1 1-20-73
1-08-74
2-1 2-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-1 2-74
6-24-74
7-08-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
8-21-74
Average
WEATHER
CODE
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVi
0.017
0.013
0.027
0.053
0.064
0.037
0.027
0.033
0.040
n 044
O.O30
0.031
0.025
0.034
pH
o
_i
bj
c
6.5
6 O
5.9
6.2
7.0
7.0
_
-
_
_
„
—
-
6.4
o>
4
_J
6,5
6.7
6.8
6.2
6.4
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.O
6 8
6.9
6.7
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
100
1OO
60
64
46
100
50
22
58
0
0
28
0
48
LOAD
kg /Joy
147
115
138
294
253
320
115
62
203
0
0
76
0
133
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
116
15O
288
360
464
470
45O
456
358
464
49O
524
450
388
LOAD
kg /day
170
172
662
1 ,655
2,553
1 ,505
1,034
1 .293
1 .252
1.758
1,282
1r422
957
1,209
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
38.7
39.1
20.1
23.2
15.1
18.5
19.2
20.3
19.4
21.2
19.3
20.6
16.8
22.4
LOAD
kg /day
57
45
46
107
83
59
44
58
68
80
51
56
36
61
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
30.2
22.4
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
15.4
22.7
LOAD
kg /day
44
26
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
33
34
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
973
1.300
800
650
500
1,050
6OO
600
700
675
B25
750
900
794
LOAD
kg /day
1.427
1.494
1,839
2,988
2,751
3.363
1,379
1,702
2,447
2.558
2.158
2,035
1,914
2,153
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
STA. N0.4B
SAMPLING DATA
DATE
10-16-73
1 1-20-73
1-08-74
2-1 2-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-1 2-74
6-24-74
7-08-74
7-22-74
8-04-74
8-21 -74
Average
WEATHER)
CODE 1
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
0.850*
0.255
0.453*
0.510
0.425
O 170
0.3681
0.340
0.623
0.340
0.255
0.227
0.19$
0.386*
pH
o
_i
UJ
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.5
a 2
_
_
_
-
„
—
-
3.4
CD
<
-1
2.8
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.9
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
300
500
496
500
4OO
3OO
360
340
540
420
42O
500
344
417
LOAD
kg /day
22O
110
194
220
147
44
114
1OO
290
123
92
98
59
139
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LOAD
kg /day
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
134
122
164
155
72.4
92.3
82.2
122
111
66.4
84.7
88.5
69.8
105
LOAD
kg /day
98
27
64
68
27
14
26
36
60
20
19
17
12
38
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
4.48
32.5
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
59.4
32.1
LOAD
kg /day
3.3
7.2
_
_
_
_
-
-
_
-
_
_
10
6.8
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
1,276
1.7OO
1.725
1,575
1.90O
2,250
1.450
.575
.650
.725
.950
.850
,950
1.737
LOAD
kg /day
936
374
675
693
697
330
461
462
888
506
429
362
334
55O
&
1
2
3
4
S
6.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
STA. NO. 4C
SAMPLING DATA
DATE
10-16-73
11-20-73
1-08-74
2-1 2-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-1 2-74
6-24-74
7-08-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
fl-21 -74
Average
WEATHER!
CODE ]
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
0.025
0.016
0.034
0.058
0.068
0.037
0.031
0^036
0.094
0.050
0.036
0.034
O.O27
O.O42
pH
o
_i
u
il
5.9
5.7
5.3
6.2
6.7
7.0
_
..
_
_
_
—
6.1
CD
<
-1
6.5
6.6
6.0
6.1
6.5
6.7
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.7
6.5
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
100
100
84
92
20
100
36
20
94
40
30
3O
22
LOAD
kg /Jay
220
137
246
463
117
323
95
60
765
171
92
88
51
218
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
76
94
132
300
340
384
348
390
296
370
414
402
444
307
LOAD
kg /day
167
129
387
1 .511
1.995
1.239
919
1,173
2,410
1.583
1,275
1,179
1 .020
1-153
TOTAL IRON
CONC
mg/l
47.9
30.2
37.7
34.5
33.9
38.7
24.9
41.5
46.8
34.8
57.8
31.1
20.7
22 1
LOAD
kg /day
105
41
111
174
199
125
66
125
381
149
178
91
48
1.SS
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
11.2
0
_
-
„
-
-
_
_
-
. _
_
11.2
7^_
LOAD
kg /day
25
0
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
_
26
17
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
952
1,277
950
825
725
1,200
775
800
825
775
900
850
1,050
_aofi.
LOAD
kg /day
2.095
1.748
2.787
4.155
4.254
3.873
2.046
2.406
6,717
3.316
2,773
2,494
2,413
a. 160
gs
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
a
10
11
12
13
1 MULTIPLY BY 10"
70
-------
STA. NO. 4 A
SAMPLING DATA
U^o
X*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
1?
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
m
-------
STA. NO. 5A
SAMPLING DATA
DATE
No Sampl
1 1 -1 9-73
1 -08-74
2-1 2-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-1 2-74
6-24-74
7-08-74
7-22-74
8-O4-74
8-21-74
Average
WEATHER
CODE
! _
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
_
0.270
0.835
0.62O
0.544
0.312
0.368
O.419
_
0.326
0.268
0.257
0.176
0.400
pH
a
_i
UJ
u.
-
6.0
5.9
6.0
6.5
7.0
-
_
_
-
-
_
-
6.3
ID
<
_l
-
7.4
7.0
6.6
7.2
7.6
7.3
7.5
7,2
7.1
7,5
7.3
7.4
7.3
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
0
0
12
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
1
LOAD
kg /day
_
O
0
643
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
54
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
128
250
228
3OO
372
308
344
196
364
330
330
344
291
LOAD
Kg /day
_
2,986
18,032
12,208
14.O83
10,005
9.79O
1 2 . 448
-
10.235
7.625
7.334
5,240
9.999
TOTAL IRON
CONC
mg/l
_
2.18
1.2
2.01
O.61
1.1
1 .6
1.3
1.7
1 .7
2
3
2.8
1 .8
LOAD
kg /day
_
51
87
108
29
30
51
47
_
48
46
67
43
55
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
_
0
_
_
-
-
-
_
_
-
_.
_
O
o
LOAD
kg /day
—
0
_
-
_
-
_
_
-
_
_
_
O
o
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
-
623
490
400
425
600
4OO
450
400
475
650
475
725
509
LOAD
kg /day
_
14,523
35,342
21 ,418
19,951
16.137
12,714
16,284
_
13,356
15.O18
1O.557
11 ,O43
1 6 94O
s*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
P.
10
11
1?
1,1
STA. NO. SB
SAMPLING DATA
DATE
10-17-73
11-19-73
1 -08-74
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-3O-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-08-74
7-SS-74
8-O4-74
8-21-74
Average
WEATHER!
CODE 1
F
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
0.856
0.708
0.65.1*
O.O12
O.O12
O.7O8
0.765*
O.5661
0.85O
0.708
0.761
0.625
0.39S
0.769*
pH
0
.j
ui
GL
5.9
5.4
5.3
5.8
5.9
7.0
_
_
-
-
-
_
• -
5.9
m
<
-1
6.2
6.4
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.6
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.3
6.8
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
200
100
96
68
28
200
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
53
LOAD
kg /day
147
61
54
72
29
122
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
136
54
80
110
214
228
212
244
200
270
214
222
224
185
LOAD
kg /day
100
33
45
116
220
139
140
119
147
165
141
119
77
120
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
83.8
57.7
69
56
37.3
44.1
39.9
46
32.5
42.5
41.6
52.4
38.4
49.3
LOAD
kg /day
62
35
39
59
38
27
26
23
24
26
28
28
13
33
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
jng/l
26.9
31,4
_
-
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
1.1
19.8
LOAD
kg /day
20
19
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
0.4
13
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
1.351
1 .575
1,350
1 .375
1 .175
1.450
1,075
1 ,360
1,525
1,475
1,700
1 ,575
1,650
1,433
LOAD
kg /day
991
963
759
1,446
1,207
886
71O
660
1.119
902
1,122
847
565
937
s*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
STA. NO. 5C
SAMPLING DATA
DATE
No Sampl
11_ia-73
1-08-74
2-1 2-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-O8-74
7-22-74
8-04-74
8-21-74
Average
WEATHER!
CODE !
1 —
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MVs
-
0.277
0.841
0.632
0.558
0.320
0.374
0.425
_
0.334
0.275
0.264
0,180
0.407
PH
o
_l
u)
u!
_
5.7
6,0
6.0
6.2
7.0
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
6.2
00
<
_l
-
7,7
7.O
6.7
7,6
7.4
7.2
7.6
7,3
7,4
7.4
6.9
7.5
7.3
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
LOAD
kg /Jay
_
0
0
854
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
55
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
126
256
216
274
330
288
328
210
364
310
294
314
276
LOAD
kg /day
_
3,016
18,590
11,777
13,198
9,117
9.295
12,029
_
10.502
7.367
6.692
4.890
9,679
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
-
3.77
1.84
3.4
3.04
2.1
2.6
2.7
2.7
3.4
3.3
5.7
4.4
3.2
LOAD
kg /day
-
90
134
185
146
58
84
99
_
98
78
130
69
106
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
-
0
_
0
-
-
_
-
_
_
-
_
0
0
LOAD
kg /day
-
0
-
0
_
-
_
-
_
_
-
_
o
0
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
-
551
49O
350
350
475
350
400
425
575
600
600
775
495
LOAD
kg /day
_
13,189
35.582
19.083
16.858
13,124
11,296
14,670
-
16,589
14,259
13,658
18.070
16.398
&
i
2
3
4
5
e
7
8
9
1Q
11
12
13
« MULTIPLY BY KT1
72
-------
STA. NO, 5 A
SAMPLING DATA
^6
£z
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
11.3
11 .3
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
172
172
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
114
51 .5
190
40.2
180
115
LOAD
kg. /day
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
_
1 .448
4,390
893
2,742
2,368
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
0.7
-
0.7
_,
0.5
0.6
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
16
7.6
12
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
-
-
• _
-
_
0.3
-
0.4
-
0.3
0.3
LOAD
kg /day
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
_
_
•-
9.2
-
4.6
6.9
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
11 .5
-
26.6
_
14.4
17.5
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
-
-
615
-
219
417
SPEC.
COND.
pmhot
_
1.0OO
1,650
850
1.0OO
1,050
1.10O
1.20O
800
1,200
2,250
3.000
3,500
1.550
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
3
0
0
5
3
2
STA. NO. SB
SAMPLING DATA
Ss
1
p
3
4
fj
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
26,2
26.2
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
9
g
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
294
104
560
75. £
540
315
LOAD
kg. /day
_
_
-
_
-
-
_
_
216
64
370
41
185
175
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
_
3.3
3,2
2.9
3.1
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
_
2.4
_
2.1
_
1
1 .8
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.3
0.3
O.3
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
_
0.1
0.2
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
761
-
101
_
77.2
313
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
558
-
67
-
26
217
SPEC.
COND.
limhai
_
2,200
3,700
1,700
2.6OO
2.050
2.25O
2.200
2,000
2,3OO
4.350
5,800
5.6OO
3.063
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
320
51
26
123
29
110
STA. NO. 5C SAMPLING DATA
li.*r>
£*
i
2
3
4
R
6
7
8
9
10
11
IP
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
—
11 .3
11 .3
LOAD
kg /day
_
—
_
_
_
_
_
—
176
176
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
_
_
92
60.7
230
41.9
230
131
LOAD
kg. /day
_
_
_
_
1.751
0.466
954
3,582
2,938
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
_
—
_
—
_
_
0.7
_
1
_
0.9
0.9
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ •
24
_
14
19
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
_
_
_
_
_
-
..
0.1
_
0.4
-
0.3
0.3
LOAD
kg /day
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
_
_
9.5
_
4.7
7.1
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
47.4
-
4O
_
22.6
37
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
951
-
352
652
SPEC.
COND.
pmhoi
-
1.1OO
1.900
900
1,400
1.100
1.15O
1.20O
800
1 ,250.
2.400
3,100
4.500
1.733
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
0
0
25
0
5
73
-------
STA. NO. COMPOSITE SAMPLING DATA
DATE
No Sampl
1 1 -20-73
1 -08-74
2-12-74
3-27-74
4-30-74
5-23-74
6-12-74
6-24-74
7-08-74
7-22-74
8-04-74
8-21-74
A ve rape
j£JUJ
< o
Qu
_
F
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
FLOW
MV*
_
2.727
_
_
..
_
-
_
-
—
_
-
-
pH
5
UJ
5.4
6.7
5.3
5.7
7.0
_
_
_
_
_
-
6.0
at
<
_i
_
7.6
6.4
6.0
6.4
7,2
7.0
7.4
6.6
7.2
7,4
6.6
7.2
6.9
ACIDITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
0
12
6
2
O
0
0
16
0
0
6
0
4
LOAD
kg /Joy
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
ALKALINITY
CONC.
mg/l
_
48
102
98
134
156
148
206
80
166
143
182
144
134
LOAD
kg /day
-
1 1 ,301
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
„
_
-
-
-
TOTAL IRON
CONC.
mg/l
-
0.43
2.01
2.18
1.89
0.7
1 .2
1.4
2.5
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.8
1 .5
LOAD
kg /day
-
101
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
..
_
-
-
FERROUS IRON
CONC.
mg/l
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
0
o
LOAD
kg /day
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
SULFATES
CONC.
mg/l
-
200
350
200
275
650
350
425
200
550
475
550
550
398
LOAD
kg /day
-
47.091
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
»i
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
74
-------
STA. NO. COMPOSITE
SAMPLING DATA
u.'6
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
MAGNESIUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
11.2
LOAD
kg /day
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CALCIUM
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
79
54. a
300
40.7
240
143
LOAD
kg. /day
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
MANGANESE
CONC.
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
-
0.3
_
0.2
0.3
LOAD
kg /day
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
_
-
ALUMINUM
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
0.7
-
0.1
_
0.1
, 0.3
LOAD
kg /day
_
.
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
_
_
-
SUSP. SOLIDS
CONC.
mg/l
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
39.6
_
24
_
16
26.5
LOAD
kg /day
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
-
SPEC.
CONO.
(imhai
_
700
1.300
650
790
1.000
900
1.200
5OO
1,100
1.60O
2.600
2.700
1.253
TURBIDITY
J.T.U.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
29
11
1
16
0
11
75
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-128
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOf*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Feasibility of Elk Creek Acid Mine Drainage
Abatement Project
5. REPORT DATE
September 1976 (Issuing date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
LeRoy D. Loy, Jr.; John W. Gunnett
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Skelly and Loy
Engineers and Consultants
2601 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S-801273
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final. 1973 - 1974
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A detailed study was conducted within the Elk Creek Watershed, West
Virginia to determine the technical and economic feasibility of three acid
mine drainage abatement techniques. Alkaline regrading and slurry trench
construction were established as technically and economically viable abate-
ment techniques at four of five potential demonstration project sites, while
mine roof collapse was considered feasible at one location.
Alkaline regrading-reworking existing alkaline spoil material-is a
method for improving neutralizing capabilities and facilitating slurry trench
installation. The slurry trench abatement technique involves construction of
an imperable underground dam in alkaline strip mine spoil to cause inund-
ation with acid mine drainage and thus prolong neutralization. Collapsing
abandoned deep mine entries results in partial mine flooding and exposes
mine waters to alkaline roof material.
Backfilling and regrading practices associated with recent surface min-
ing has produced significant water quality improvement in the Elk Creek Water-
shed. Demonstration of alkaline regrading, slurry trenching and mine roof
collapse as viable abatement techniques will provide the technology for pro-
longing beneficial effects of current surface mining and facilitate elimin-
ation of acid discharge from abandoned mines.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Drainage, Watersheds, Strip mining,
Abatement, Surface mining, Water
quality, Alkalinity, Economics,
Slurrying, Trenching
Acid mine drainage,
Pollution abatement,
drainage, Elk Creek
Virginia), Alkaline
regrading, Slurry
trenching, Mine roof
collapse
Mine
(West
8H
8G
13B
13M
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAQES
84
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
76
*U5GPO: 1976 — 657-695/5500 Region 5-11
------- |