Environmental Protection Technology Series
FEASIBILITY  OF SILVER-LEAD MINE
  WASTE MANIPULATION  FOR MINE
                  DRAINAGE CONTROL
                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 nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology.  Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1.   Environmental  Health Effects Research
      2.   Environmental  Protection Technology
      3.   Ecological Research
      4.   Environmental  Monitoring
      5.   Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.   Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.   Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.   "Special" Reports
      9.   Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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-600/2-77-225
                                            November 1977
   FEASIBILITY OF SILVER-LEAD MINE WASTE MANIPULATION
                FOR MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
                           by

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
                   Engineering Bureau
                  Helena, Montana 59601
                    Grant No. S802122
                     Project Officer

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

-------
                           DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmen-
tal 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.
                               XI

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

     This report discusses the feasibility and effectiveness
of mine dump surface sealing for controlling acid mine
drainage.  The Block P Mine dump in north central Montana
was selected for study.  The information contained herein
characterizes the study site/ the current water quality, and
recommendations for control of acid mine drainage.  It is
intended as a guide for future work, and is the planning
document for use by the Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation in continuing the demonstration.  For
further information you may contact the Extraction Tech-
nology Branch of the Resource Extraction and Handling
Division.
                            David G. Stephan
             Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                              Cincinnati
                            ill

-------
                            ABSTRACT


     The purpose of this feasibility study was to examine the
acid mine drainage (AMD) problems of the Dry Fork of Belt Creek
in Montana and recommend abatement methods.  The acidic water
emerging from several old mine-tailings piles has not only de-
stroyed the aquatic life in Galena Creek and the Dry Fork of
Belt Creek but has ruined the overall aesthetic value of both
creeks as well.

     Recommendations to reduce the acidic wastes entering Galena
Creek include a demonstration project to regrade and seal the
surface of the Block P Mine dump and cover it with topsoil to
allow revegetation.  The bypass pipeline around the Block P Mine
dump should be extended to prevent water in Galena Creek from
creating seeps in the toe of the dump.  Silver and Green Creeks
should be rechanneled around the smaller tailings piles to pre-
vent surface runoff from entering the tailings material.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. S802122
by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation under
the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This report covers a period from March 15, 1973, to March 14, 1975,
and work was completed as of September 1, 1976.
                                 IV

-------
                             CONTENTS

Foreword	iii
Abstract	   iv
Figures	   vi
Tables	   vi
Acknowledgments 	  vii
       I.   Introduction	    1
             Scope
             Objectives
             Project Description
      II.   Conclusions and Recommendations  	    4
     III.   Legal Framework   	    6
             Authority
             Site and Mineral Right Acquisition
      IV.   Environmental Inventory   	    7
             Cultural Environment
                  Mining History
                  Current Social and Economic Conditions
             Physical Environment
                  Study Area Location, General
                    Hydrography, and Topography
                  Climate
                  Surface Water Resources
                  Relative Importance of Pollutant Sources
                  Factors Influencing Concentration of
                    Mine Wastes
       V.   Potential Abatement Methods   	   27
             Treatment of Acid Waters
             Neutralization
             Block P Mine Dump Surface Manipulation
             Removal of Block P Mine Dump
             Aeration and Settling
References   	   43
Appendices
       A.   Conversion Factors  	   45
       B.   Water Quality Sampling Sites  	   50
       C.   Flow Versus Concentration Tables for Selected
           Stations	   53
       D.   Concentration and Load Versus Time Tables for
           Selected Stations   	   59
       E.   Daily Streamflow Record for 1973 and 1974   ...   72
       F.   Climatological Data for 1973 and 1974   	   85
       G.   The Chemistry of Acid Mine Drainage and Its Effect
           on Streams	   96

                                v

-------
                             FIGURES

 Number
 1  Galena Creek Drainage Map  	  3
 2  Galena Creek Study Area, Location Map  	  9
 3  Galena Creek Study Area	 10
 4  Plan and Topographic Map #1, Galena Creek and
      Block P Mine Dump	11
 5  Plan and Topographic Map #2, Galena Creek and
      Weather Station  	 12
 6  Plan and Topographic Map #3, Galena Creek and
      Lower Weir	13
 7  Manganese Load from Several Waste Sources Compared
      to Load at Lower Weir	19
 8  Zinc Load from Several Waste Sources Compared to
      Load at Lower Weir	20
 9  Iron Load from Several Waste  Sources Compared to
      Load at Lower Weir	21
10  Neutralization Tests of Acid Mine Wastes from the
      Galena Creek Drainage:  Stations DF 4. and DF 5	31
11  Neutralization Tests of Acid Mine Wastes from the
      Galena Creek Drainage:  Stations DF 1 and DF 2 	 32
12  Block P Mine and Dump—Plan View	35
13  Block P Mine and Dump—Cross Section A-A	36
14  Block P Mine and Dump—Dump Sloping Away from Hillside .  . 38
15  Block P Mine and Dump—Drain and Dump Sloping Toward
      Hillside	39

                              TABLES

 1  Precipitation-Frequency Data 	 15
 2  Typical Water Quality from Waste Sources  in the  Galena
      Creek Drainage	22
 3  Safe Metal Concentrations  in Hard Water	23
 4  Variation  in Acidity  of Acid Mine Waters  in Galena
      Creek	28
 5  Variation  in Flows  from Major Acid Mine Waste Sources   .  . 28
 6  Neutralization  Tests  of Acid  Wastes in  Galena Creek   ... 30
 7  Heavy Metal  Loads in  the Dry  Fork of Belt Creek:
      August 22,  1973	33
 8  Cost of Neutralization  of Acid Mine Waters	34
 9   Effects of Settling and Aeration on Metal Concentrations  . 42
                               VI

-------
                       ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation would
like to thank the following people for their contribution to
the study.

Bondy, Richard L., P.E.      Project Manager
Water Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Botz, Maxwell K., P.E.       Head of Planning and Surveillance
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences

Brown, Michael R.            Project Coordinator
Water Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Crowner, Ann W.              Editor
Special Staff
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Dfeb?ld' F*ank .    .          Research Project
Chemistry Department                     J
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology

Ferris, Orrin A., P.E.       Project Manager
Water Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Hill, Ronald D.              Project Officer
Resource  Extraction & Handling Division
Environmental Protection Agency

Jankowski, Walter A.         Supervisory Water Quality Chemist
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences

Lambert, David W.            Editor
Water Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Martin, John F.              Project Officer
Extraction Technology Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
                              VII

-------
McBeath, Melvin F.           Planner and Stream-Gage Operator
Water Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

McBride, Gwen                Weather Station Observer
Monarch, Montana

Siroky, Laurence J.          Project Coordinator
Water Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Smith, Robert W.             Project Coordinator
Water Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Stevenson, Robert K.         Field Investigator and Stream-Gage
Cascade City-County Health Department                  Operator

Wipperman, Al                Biologist
Department of Fish and Game
                              Vlll

-------
                      PART I.  INTRODUCTION
     This report presents the feasibility of several methods of
abatement for the acid mine drainage (AMD) problem in the Dry
Fork of Belt Creek in Judith Basin and Cascade Counties, Montana.
A general discussion of the chemistry of AMD and its effect on
streams is contained in Appendix G.  The specific scope of the
investigation is:

       1.  Review the history of mining and AMD problems in the
           study area, and evaluate current mine drainage
           abatement measures being employed there.

       2.  Assess the jurisdictional framework through which a
           mine drainage abatement project may be carried out.

       3.  Inventory local topographical features, hydrology,
           water quality, social and environmental factors,
           and other elements influencing the value of AMD
           demonstration projects in the study area.

       4.  Discuss the feasibility of potential abatement
           methods to solve and AMD problem.

       5.  Recommend a course of action for future abatement of
           AMD.

                          Objectives

     The major objective of the AMD feasibility study was to
determine the influences of the acid mine water on the  surface
and ground-water systems in the upper Belt Creek drainage areas
affected by the acid mine water and to formulate an approach to
minimize their adverse effects.

                      Project Description

     The project was divided into  the following collection  and
testing  sections:

       1.  Baseline Data Collection.  The initial  effort of the
           study was to establish  a monitoring  system for

-------
    surveillance of water quality in Galena Creek and its
    tributaries, discharges from springs and seeps, and surface
    runoff; interpretive graphs of these data are presented in
    Appendices C and D.  Complete water quality data may be
    obtained from the Montana Department of Natural Resources
    and Conservation (DNRC).  Thirty-two water sampling sites
    (Appendix B) were established throughout the study area.
    Water samples taken at the stations established the qual-
    ity of both surface and ground water throughout the study
    area.  The complete baseline water-quality studies will
    provide the standards against which the success of
    future demonstration projects can be measured.

         Five stream-gaging stations (Appendix E) were con-
    structed to record flows in Galena Creek above and
    below the project site, on Silver Creek, at Liberty Mine
    seep, and at the Block P Mine seep (see Figure 1).
    Numerous streamflow measurements were made at locations
    throughout the study area.

         A weather station to record daily air temperatures,
    evaporation pan water temperatures, precipitation,
    evaporation, and wind velocity was constructed (Appendix F).

2.  Diversion Pipeline Installation.  A diversion pipeline was
    installed parallel to Galena Creek to transport the uncon-
    taminated main flow of Galena Creek around the Block P
    tailing area.  By bypassing this area the seepages, which
    are the major sources of the pollution problem, were
    isolated.  Another major problem, that of having too
    large a flow to be handled by diversion or other treat-
    ment, was also solved by isolating the seepages.

3.  Neutralization Testing.  The effectiveness of various
    types of lime and limestone to neutralize the acid waters
    in Galena Creek was tested.  The testing results show
    which materials are economically feasible to use in
    abatement of the AMD problem.

4.  Dump Sealant Studies.  Silicate and limestone kiln dust
    were studied to determine their effectiveness as
    surface sealants on the Block P Mine dump.

-------
                      Block  P Mine
                                      Upper Weir
                                   HUGHESVILLE
                                     Liberty  Mine Seep
                    Weather
                  |  Station
                           BARKER
                     Lower Weir
                                          Stream  Gaging Recorder
                                                       2000 Feet
                                                      500 Meters
FIGURE 1. Galena Creek  Drainage Map

                                3

-------
            PART II.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

     Water quality in Galena Creek and the Dry Fork of Belt Creek
is significantly influenced by AMD from old lead and silver mines.
Water quality in this drainage area is extremely poor at the
Liberty Mine seep, a spring at the Block P Mine, and a spring in
Galena Creek near some abandoned mine cars.  The quality is bet-
ter in the Dry Fork of Belt Creek below Galena Creek and in
Galena Creek above the mining area, but the water is still toxic
to most aquatic life.  Concentration of toxic metals in the
streams is not significantly diluted by rainfall or melting snow.

     In spring, the spring at the Block P Mine contributes from
20 to over 80 percent of the total metal load in Galena Creek
leaving the project area.  The spring at the abandoned mine cars
in Galena Creek also contributes from 20 to over 60 percent of
the total metal load leaving the project area.  The total load
in Galena Creek immediately below the Block P Mine dump varies
from less than 40 to over 100 percent of the total load leaving
the project area, which indicates that the Block P Mine dump is
a major source of pollutants.

     Silver Creek normally contributes a small portion of the
total metal load leaving the project area, but at times it con-
tributes in excess of 10 percent of the load.  Liberty Mine
seep, of poor quality but with low, intermittent flow, contrib-
utes a small percentage of the total waste load entering Galena
Creek.

     Several methods were considered for treatment and abatement
of the study area's AMD problem.  Surface manipulation of mine-
waste dumps and streams in the area, one of the investigated
methods, appeared feasible from the points of view of cost,
effectiveness, and adaptability to the hostile climate.

     Based on pilot tests, limestone neutralization reduced con-
centrations of iron and copper, raised pH, but did not signifi-
cantly reduce loads of zinc, manganese, or cadmium in Galena
Creek.  Cottrell dust (a lime waste from cement plants) was
tested for neutralization ability and significantly reduced
loads of all metals investigated.  A combination of limestone
treatment and reaction with Cottrell dust appears to be the most
economical alternative for neutralization.  Neutralization was
not recommended because of the high cost of annual maintenance

-------
and poor accessibility to the site in winter months.

     Other methods of abatement investigated but not recommended
because of high costs were removal of mine-tailings piles, pond-
ing and aeration, evaporation, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis,
ion exchange, and freezing.

     A three-part AMD demonstration project is recommended for
the Galena Creek Drainage in Judith Basin County, Montana.  For
reducing AMD pollution in Galena Creek, sloping the top of the
Block P Mine dump and sealing it with bentonite is recommended.
The bypass pipeline should also be extended from its existing
inlet to the upper weir to prevent Galena Creek flows from re-
charging the spring above the Block P Mine dump.  Rechanneling
of Silver Creek and Green Creek around tailings piles will also
reduce the acidic loads entering Galena Creek.

-------
                   PART  III.   LEGAL FRAMEWORK

                            Authority

     Montana  statutory authority  to conduct  a  feasibility  study
 is  found in Section  89-132, Revised Codes  of Montana  (R.C.M.)  1947.
 Subsections of that  Section, among other things, broadly empower
 the Montana DNRC:

        (d)  To accept from any federal agency  grants  for
        and in aid of the carrying out of the purposes of
        this Act and  any Acts of Congress.
        • • • •

        (t)  To make  investigations and surveys of natural
        resources and of opportunities for  their conser-
        vation and development  and pay the  costs of the
        same either from its own funds or cooperatively
        with the federal government....

     The power of the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation
 to  enter into contracts for studies or investigations with the
 federal government is clear and has been utilized on numerous
 occasions for studies on different problem areas.

               Site  and Mineral Right Acquisition

     The Montana DNRC has statutory authority  to acquire the
 necessary sites for  project construction.  Section 89-104,
 R.C.M.  1947,  provides the power to acquire by purchase, exchange,
 or  condemnation "any land, rights, water rights, easements,
 franchises, and other property considered  necessary for the
 construction, operation and maintenance of works."  Section 89-102,
 R.C.M.  1947,  defines "works" very broadly  and includes therein
 "all means of conserving and distributing water," including those for
 purposes of "irrigation, flood  prevention, drainage, fish and
wildlife,  recreation...."  Therefore, there  is no question that
 the Board of Natural Resources  and Conservation has ample
 authority to  acquire such sites as might become necessary for
project construction.

-------
                PART IV.  ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY

                      Cultural Environment

MINING HISTORY

     Buck Barker and Pat Hughes first discovered the silver-lead
deposits near Barker, Montana, on October 23, 1879.  Hundreds of
claims were soon located, and a feverish mining activity result-
ed.  Several of the mines became important producers of silver,
copper, lead, and zinc.  However, mining operations waned with
the depletion of the rich, near-surface ore bodies.  Lower grade
ores, developed from deeper exploration, could not be mined and
shipped at a profit.  A drop in the market for silver in 1892
forced most of the mines to close.  The only large-scale opera-
tions undertaken at later dates were developments of the Block"P"
Mine between the years 1927 and 1930 and from 1941 to 1943.,  In
recent years only sporadic mining has been conducted; most of
the mines have been idle for many years.

CURRENT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

     The Dry Fork of Belt Creek drainage is located in Cascade
and Judith Basin Counties, Montana, approximately 64 kilometers
(km) (40 miles (mi)) southeast of Great Falls, Montana.  The
project lies in the northeast portion of the Lewis and Clark
National Forest, which encompasses most of the Little Belt
Mountains.  Recreational areas within the national forest in-
clude a ski hill at Kings Pass, eight established camping sites,
hiking trails, and fishing access sites.  In the fall months,
the national forest is heavily used by deer and elk hunters.

     The drainages of Galena Creek and the Dry Fork of Belt
Creek include no year-round residential areas.  Hughesville and
Barker are old mining towns, which presently have a few cabins
occupied only in the summer.

     Within the drainage basin of Belt Creek are the communities
of Neihart, Monarch, and Belt.  Neihart, in the upper drainage
of Belt Creek, has a summer population of 170, many of whom live
in Neihart only during the summer months for the recreation that
the surrounding area offers.  Monarch, located on Belt Creek at
the mouth of the Dry Fork of Belt Creek, has a population of
160, again, many of whom live in Monarch only during the summer
months.  The city of Belt, the hub of farming and ranching

-------
activities to the north of the Little Belt Mountains, lies in
the lower reaches of the Belt Creek drainage and has a popula-
tion of 650.

     The Little Belt Mountains are most heavily used by the
people from Great Falls and Cascade County.  Recent population
trends for Cascade County indicate that the county's 1970
population will increase 32 percent by 1980, bringing the popu-
lation to 108,000.  The 1970 population of Judith Basin County
was 2,667; population projections for the county indicate that
by 1980 the population will be 2,200, a decline of 18 percent
(U.S. Department of Commerce 1970; J. H. Nybo, Lt. Governor's
Office, to M. R. Brown, Engineering Bureau, Water Resources
Division, DNRC, Helena. Personal Communication, January 15, 1976.)

     Considering these population trends, it seems likely that
the recreational needs of Cascade County will increase.  Since
the Little Belt Mountains are the nearest forested recreation
area to Great Falls, most of the increased population may rely
on this area for fishing, hunting, hiking, and camping.  It is
possible that there is a need for more recreation areas in the
Little Belt Mountains, which includes the Dry Fork of Belt Creek.

                      Physical Environment

STUDY AREA LOCATION, GENERAL HYDROGRAPHY, AND TOPOGRAPHY

     Figure 2 shows the Belt Creek drainage basin.  All of the
AMD occurs in the Galena Creek watershed, which drains into the
Dry Fork of Belt Creek.  Galena Creek and the Dry Fork of Belt
Creek below Galena Creek do not support aquatic life.  The Dry
Fork of Belt Creek empties into Belt Creek at the town of Mon-
arch.  Acidic waters of the Dry Fork are diluted by the waters
of Belt Creek to such an extent that fish can thrive in Belt
Creek below the Dry Fork.  Belt Creek flows into the Missouri
River approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast of Great Falls.

     As illustrated in Figure 3, page 10, the entire watershed
of Galena Creek is rugged.  Elevations of the Galena Creek Basin
range from 1,652 meters (m)  (5,420 feet  (ft)) at the mouth of
Galena Creek to 2,423 m (7,952 ft) at Mixes Baldy Mountain.  Most
of the watershed is forested with the exception of the lower
watershed area near the mouth of Galena Creek.

     Figure 4, page 11, is the plan and topographic map of the
Galena Creek mine area at Hughesville.  The map shows the loca-
tion of the mines as well as all mine workings and dump areas.
The Block P Mine dump is the largest mine-tailings pile in the
study area, and is one of the contributors to the AMD problem.
The weather station at Barker and the middle reaches of Galena
Creek are shown in Figure 5, page 12; Figure 6, page 13, shows
the mill tailings pond as well as Galena Creek and its confluence
with the Dry Fork of Belt Creek.
                                8

-------
       ©GREAT  FALLS
                                             GALENA CR.
                                             STUDY AREA
                                             UGHESV/LL
                                   o vNEIHART
            SAL EN A CR.
            STUDY AREA
                                            -1—  —I
                                   6km   12km  18km  24km
FIGURE  2.  Galena Creek Study  Area, Location  Map.

-------
                                            SOURCE:  uses TOPOGRAPHIC  MAP
FIGURE  3.  Galena  Creek Study Area.
                                  10

-------
       Carter
         Mine
                                         Dais
                                          •M*
                                          Harrison
                                          Mine
                    Block P
                   Mine Dump
                 HUGHESVILLE
    r\
  Silver  Creek
                                                  Liberty
                                                 Mme\
       Improved  Road
— — — - Unimproved Road
ramm  Mine Workings
       Block P Mine Dump
       °l    340
                                 Water  Quality  Sampling Point
                                 Stream Gaging Recorder
                                 Underground Diversion  Pipeline
                                 Elevations are Feet (MSL)
 SCALE
            100
       0         200 mittrt
FIGURE 4. Plan and Topographic  Map #1,  Galena  Creek and Block
P Mine Dump.

-------
      — County Line
         Improved Road
  = = — = Unimproved Road
                 Water Quality Sampling Point
                 Wtather  Station
                 Elevations are  Feet (MSL)
 SCALE
             340
             100
660 fttt
 I
200 mtt*r»
FIGURE 5.  Plan and  Topographic Map #2,  Galena  Creek  and
Weather Station.
                                 12

-------
      — County  Line

         Improved  Road

  — -—-  Unimproved Road
Water Quality Sampling Point

Stream Gaging Recorder


Elevations are  Feet  (MSL)
  SCALE
              340  6f°
              100
                   200 mttirs
FIGURE 6.  Plan and  Topographic  Map #3,  Galena  Creek  and Lower
Weir.
                                   13

-------
 CLIMATE

     A weather  station was  installed  at  Barker, Montana,  to
 gather weather  data  for  the study.  Complete  weather  information
 is  shown  in Appendix F.

     The  climate has many features  associated with  the  "conti-
 nental" type.   Daytime temperatures in the  summer are usually
 hot, followed by pleasantly cool  nights.  The hot weather, when
 it  does occur,  is never  accompanied by high humidity.   Daytime
 high temperatures in July average about  24° C (+75° F).

     Arctic air masses usually  invade the area from a few to
 several times each winter.   These cold air  masses remain  only
 for a few days  before being moved aside  by  warm chinooks.
 Temperatures at this time of year may vary  from a low of  -40° C
 (-40° F)  at night to highs  of +7° C (+45° F)  in midafternoon.  In
 the study area, the  chinooks are  not  usually  accompanied  by the
 strong winds that occur  in  the  flatlands to the north and east;
 however,  the warm temperatures  prevail.

     The  study  area  has  considerable  sunshine throughout  the
 year, but there are  some cloudy days  during the May and June wet
 season, and the clouds and  snow generally accompany winter arctic
 air invasions.  Following storms, clearing  is rapid;  wintertime
 chinooks  are almost  always  accompanied by clear or  nearly clear
 skies.  Summer  mornings  are almost  always clear, sometimes
 giving way to large  (cumulus) cloud types near noon,  with
 scattered thunderstorms  from midafternoon to  early  evening.

     Precipitation in the study area  averages about 762 millime-
 ters  (mm)  (30 inches (in))  per  year.  Average annual  snowfall
 for the study area is 7,620 mm  (300 in), with the heavier
 amounts of snow occurring in the  months of  January, February,
 and March.  During the months of  April and  May, heavy wet snow
 showers occur with some  drizzling rains  increasing  the water
 content of the  snow.  The latter  part of May  and early June is
 usually the period of highest precipitation,  coming in the form
 of  rain.  It is during this period  that temperatures  are  warm
 enough to cause snowmelt.   Precipitation throughout the rest of
 the year  (July-December) usually  comes from thunderstorms and
 rain showers, with a few snow flurries occurring in November and
 December.

     Maximum expected rainfall  rates, as listed in  Table  1, have
been published by the National  Weather Service of the U.S.
 Department of Commerce in the 1973  Precipitation-Frequency Atlas
of the Western United States (Miller  et al.).
                                14

-------
              TABLE  1.   PRECIPITATION-FREQUENCY  DATA
           Frequency	Precipitation

    Year           Hour            Millimeters         Inches
2
5
10
25
100
2
5
10
25
50
100
6
6
6
6
6
24
24
24
24
24
24
33.0
40.6
48.3
58.4
68.6
55.9
71.1
81.3
101.6
104.1
119.4
(1.3)
(1.6)
(1.9)
(2.3)
(2.7)
(2.2)
(2.8)
(3.2)
(4.0)
(4.1)
(4.7)
Source:  U.S. Department of Commerce 1973.

     Pan evaporation for the weather station at Barker for the
months from June through September averages 360 mm  (14 in).
However, precipitation for the months from June through September
averages about 250 mm  (10 in) which yields a net evaporation
from any open ponds or dams of 110 mm (4 in).

     Severe storm types other than arctic air invasions include
high winds, blizzards, and heavy rains, but these are not
frequent.  Thunderstorms in the summer may produce high winds
and hail.

SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

     Galena Creek is a perennial stream, getting most of its
water in the springtime from snowmelt.  During the rest of the
year, streamflows come from surfacing ground water and mine
seeps.  Major tributaries to Galena Creek are Green Creek, Daisy
Creek, Silver Creek, and Gold Run Creek, all of which are
perennial streams.  Queen of the Hills Creek and Bend Gulch Creek
only contribute to Galena Creek during spring snowmelt and rain
showers.

Quantity

     Five stream-gaging stations were established at strategic
points in the Galena Creek watershed.  Daily flow values were
gathered on Galena Creek at Hughesville, the Block P Mine seep
at Hughesville, Silver Creek near Hughesville, the Liberty Mine
seep near Hughesville, and Galena Creek near Barker above Gold


                               15

-------
 Run Creek.  Daily streamflow records for each of the five
 stream-gaging stations are listed in Appendix E.

      Streamflow data were gathered from August, 1973 to November,
 1974.  However, data were not gathered during the winter months,
 November through April, when the low flows occurred.  High flows
 from snowmelt in late May and early June of 1974 washed out the
 five recording stations, and high streamflow data was not
 collected.  Before the stations were destroyed, Galena Creek at
 Hughesville recorded a high flow of 223.29 liters per second
 (Ips) (3,539 gallons per minute (gpm)) on April 26, 1974.  Galena
 Creek near Barker recorded 688.18 Ips (10,900 gpm) on April 26,
 1974.  Prior to their washout in the spring, the Block P seep
 station at Hughesville recorded a maximum flow of 5.07 Ips
 (80 gpm) on June 19, 1974, and the Liberty Mine seep station near
 Hughesville recorded a high flow of 7.61 Ips (120 gpm) on
 April 26, 1974.  Silver Creek station near Hughesville recorded
 a maximum flow of 32.11 Ips (508 gpm) on May 9, 1974.

 Quality

      Classification According to State Water Quality Standards.
 The Dry Fork of Belt Creek and its tributaries are classified
 by Montana Water Quality Standards (1974) as a B-D1 stream.  This
 classification states in part:

        Water-use description.  The quality is to be main-
        tained suitable for drinking, culinary and food
        processing purposes after adequate treatment equal
        to coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, disin-
        fection and any additional treatment necessary to
        remove naturally present impurities; bathing,
        swimming and recreation; growth and propagation of
        salmonoid fishes and associated aquatic life,
        waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and
        industrial water supply....

      The Dry Fork of Belt Creek and its tributary, Galena Creek,
do not meet Montana's water quality standards due to the impact
of AMD.  These streams have, therefore, been designated as
"water quality limited" by the State of Montana.  The complete
Montana Water Quality standards are available from the Water
Quality Bureau of the Montana Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences.

      Water Sampling Sites.  A total of 32 stations were establish-
ed in the project area  (Appendix B).  Of these, 17 stations were
sampled quarterly or monthly and the remaining stations sampled
once or twice during the project.  In addition to sampling at
                               16

-------
fixed stations, water quality runs were conducted.  In this
technique, a number of points on the stream were sampled in a
short period of time  (usually one day).  This intensive survey
method showed the stream's chemical dynamics as the water moved
downstream.

     Sampling sites were chosen on the basis of accessibility
and strategic location with respect to pollution loads.  There
were seven major stations, described as follows:

     DF 1.  Galena Creek at Lower Weir.  This station measured
            all pollutants from the mining area except that some
            constituents, such as aluminum and iron, precipitat-
            ed in the stream channel and were gone or partially
            gone before they reached this station.  It was
            sampled monthly when accessible.

     DF 2.  Silver Creek at Road.  This monthly sampling point
            was at the main canyon road until a flume was
            installed 60 m (200 ft) upstream from the road.
            The creek was then sampled monthly at the flume.
            Water quality at these two stations was assumed to
            be identical.

            Upstream, Silver Creek splits into two forks—a
            clean fork and a polluted fork  (see Figure 4,
            page 11 ).  The polluted fork had surface flow during
            spring runoff, and subsurface flow most of the year.
            Station DF 2A was established on the polluted fork
            just above the confluence with the clean fork.  Only
            a few samples were collected at DF 2A.

     DF 3.  Liberty Mine Seep.  A flume located about 30 m
            (100 ft) up a steep hill on the east side of
            Galena Creek served as the sampling point.  The
            water sampled at this station flowed from the
            Liberty Mine tunnel and was augmented by runoff in
            the gulch between the Liberty Mine and Galena Creek.
            The station was sampled monthly when accessible.

     DF 4.  Galena Creek Below the Mine Dump.  This station was
            located in a rocky section just downstream from the
            end of the Block P Mine dump and about 30 m  (100 ft)
            upstream from the road stream crossing.  It was
            designed to measure the pollution contribution of
            the Block P Mine complex.  The steep stream gradient
            and rock bottom made flow  measurements difficult at
            this site.  During high flows, the stream was very
            turbulent and difficult to wade and measure.  The
            station was sampled monthly when accessible.
                                17

-------
     DF 5.  Spring Along Galena Creek at Mine Cars.  After the
            spring runoff in 1973, a small spring was observed
            entering Galena Creek about 30 m  (100 ft) upstream
            from station DF 4.  The perennial spring arose from
            an opening in the rocks on the east creek bank and
            was normally submerged.  Flow was difficult to
            measure due to its nearness to the stream and sub-
            mergence during the runoff period.  It was sampled
            monthly when accessible.

     DF 6.  Spring at Block P Mine.  An ephemeral spring was
            located about 23 m (75 ft) west of Galena Creek and
            just northwest of the old ore-loading facility.  The
            spring was dry during the late fall and winter and
            had maximum flow in the spring.  It was sampled
            monthly when accessible.

     DF 7.  Galena Creek at Upper Weir.  The pollution load of
            the upper portion of Galena Creek was measured at
            this station.  It was sampled when accessible.

     These were the seven major sites.  Others fell into three
categories:

     DF 8.  Streams sampled in the drainage area to determine
      to    the extent of the water pollution problem.  Most
    DF 20.  stations were sampled once; some were sampled several
            times during the project.

    DF 21.  Stations on Dry Fork of Belt Creek sampled to
      to    determine downstream changes in water quality.
    DF 29.  Most stations were sampled once during the project;
            DF 29 was sampled several times.

    DF 30.  Stations on Belt Creek sampled to determine concen-
      to    tration of pollutants above and below confluence
    DF 32.  with Dry Fork.  Stations were sampled once, except
            DF 31, which was sampled several times.

     Results of Water Sampling.  Water quality in Galena Creek
has been significantly influenced by AMD from old metal mines.
The mechanism for producing acid involves interaction of
pyritic minerals, oxygen and water.  The acidic water condition
produced from the reaction apparently causes other metals to
become soluble and enter into the aquatic system.  Toxic metals
entering the Galena Creek system in this way include cadmium,
zinc, iron, manganese, lead, copper, arsenic, and aluminum.  Due
to their toxicity, abundance, and persistence in the system,
zinc, iron, and manganese were selected for detailed evaluation
(see Figures 7, 8, and 9).

     Table 2  (page 22 ) shows typical water quality from various

                               18

-------
 H
 W

 2
 8
 Q
 <
 O
 iJ

 w
 w
 w
 2
 <
 u
 rt!
 EH
 '
 EH

 -
 C
 W
 -
    100-
80-
60^
401
     20-
                  D	-O  Liberty Mine (DF 3)

                  •---Hi  Upper Weir (DF 7)

                          Silver Creek (DF 2)

                          Block P Spring (DF 6)

                          Below Block P Dump (DF 4)

                          Spring in Mine Cars  (DF  5)
                J   A    SON
                                                  M  J

                                                  1974

FIGURE 7.   Manganese Load from Several Waste Sources  Compared  to Load at

Lower Weir

-------
NJ
O
                                             Liberty Mine
                                             Upper Weir  (DF 7
                                             Silver Creek (DF 2)
                                             Block P Spring (DF 6)
                                             Below Block P Dump  (DF 4)
                                             Spring in Mine Cars (DF 5)
                                                                                 •>
         FIGURE 8.   Zinc Load from Several Waste  Sources  Compared to Load at Lower Weir

-------
                                                                  Liberty  .Mine  (DF  3
                                                                  Upper  Weir  (DF  7)
                                                                    Iver Creek  (DF  2)
                                                                  Block  P  Spring  (DF  6)
                                                                  Below  Block P Dump
                                                                    (DF  4)
                                                                  Spring in Mine  Cars
                                                                   ~ (DF  5)
   O-T
     J   A    S   O   N    D
               1973
FIGURE 9.  Iron Load from Several Waste Sources Compared to Load at Lower Weir.

-------
                 TABLE 2.  TOPICAL WATER QUALITY FROM WASTE SOURCES IN THE GALENA. CREEK DRAINAGE
to
to
Station
Date sampled
DF 1
8-21-73
Acidity as CaCCs 94.*
Alkalinity
Hydroxide
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Copper
ii
Flow (lps)ff
0.
0.
0.
0.
.01
.08
80.
1.8
.4
13.
Hardness Total 282.
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
PH
Sodium
Spec. Con.
(
-------
 streams  and  springs  in  the  area.   The  quality  varies  from
 extremely  poor  in  some  of the waste  sources  to fair in  the  Dry
 Fork of  Belt Creek below Galena Creek  and  in Galena Creek above
 the mining area.   Water in  the system  can  be characterized  as
 calcium-bicarbonate  type containing  significant concentrations
 of metal and sulfate ions.

     Table 3 illustrates the concentrations  of metals in  hard
 water that are  thought  to be considered  safe for aquatic  life.

         TABLE 3.   SAFE  METAL CONCENTRATIONS  IN HARD WATER
            Element                       Concentration
	                  (mg/1)

            Arsenic                            1.0a

            Cadmium                            0.003b

            Copper                             0.03C

            Iron                               0.2C

            Lead                               0.03b

            Manganese                          1.0a

            Zinc                               0.003a

Source: aBotz and Pedersen 1976;  U.S. EPA 1972; CMcKee and Wolf.

     When comparing the concentrations of elements found in the
Galena Creek system (Table 2, page 22) with those in Table 3, the
concentrations shown in Table 2 clearly exceed those considered
safe for aquatic life.  Waste sources that are particularly poor
in quality are the Liberty Mine seep, the spring at the Block P
Mine, and the spring at the mine cars.  These waste sources exert
a siginificant influence on the overall quality of water in
Galena Creek.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF POLLUTANT SOURCES

     To compare the contribution of various pollution sources,
the zinc, iron, and manganese loads from each source were
calculated as to their percentage contribution to the total load
at Station DF 1 (lower weir).  It was assumed that the load at
the lower weir was a 100 percent load.  Due to processes of
deposition and erosion of sediment, chemical reaction, and
precipitation, loads at the lower weir seldom equal the sum of
loads from the various waste sources.  Figures 7, 8, and 9
(pages 19-21),however,  do show the relative importance of each
pollution source.
                               23

-------
Sources Upstream from the Upper Weir

     Mine wastes enter Galena Creek from a variety of sources
upstream from the upper weir (measured by stations DF 7 through
DF 15).  The wastes entering the system in the upper weir area
have, in comparison with the load at the lower weir, a small
impact on stream water quality  (Figures 7, 8, and 9, pages 19-21).
During the spring runoff season, some acid waters enter the
system above the upper weir; however, their contribution to the
total pollution load seldom exceeds a few percent.

Sources Between the Upper Weir and the Lower End of the Block P
Mine Dump

     A comparison (Table 2) between the quality of water at
stations DF 4 (Galena Creek below the Block P Mine complex),
DF 1  (Galena Creek at the lower weir), and DF 7  (Galena Creek at
the upper weir)  will reveal that the majority of pollutants in
Galena Creek enter the stream between DF 7 and DF 4.  Station DF 4
measures metal loading in water from the spring at the Block P
Mine, from the spring near the abandoned mine cars, and from
seepage along the dump, in addition to that already in Galena
Creek and measured at DF 7.  This indicates that the dump and the
associated underground works in the mine are the main pollutant
source to Galena Creek.  The waste load at the end of the Block P
Mine dump is at its maximum in the fall, summer, and spring and
at its minimum during the cold-weather months, from October until
April -(Figures 7, 8, and 9).  The contribution of this area to
pollution in Galena Creek varies from less than 40 percent to
well over 100 percent of the load at the lower weir.  The occur-
rance of a load at the end of the Block P Mine dump in excess of
100 percent of the load at the lower weir indicates that, between
the downstream end of the Block P Mine dump and the lower weir,
there is some loss of metals due to precipitation, settling, or
other causes, which is to be expected in an acid mine drainage
system of this type.

     The spring near the Block P Mine, measured by station DF 6,
appears to be ephemeral in that it responds to precipitation,
and goes completely dry during cold winter weather.  When flow-
ing, it is a waste source that contributes metals to Galena
Creek.  The period of peak contribution of this spring is during
the middle of the runoff period in May and June, when the spring
may contribute from 20 to 80 percent of the entire load measured
at the lower weir.

     The spring in Galena Creek near the abandoned mine cars
(DF 5) contributes a significant load to the stream and is one
of the major toxic metal inputs to Galena Creek.  The source of
this spring is unknown, but it  is probably related to water in
the Block P Mine dump or water  from the underground mines.  The


                                24

-------
 spring  is exposed only during  low water in Galena Creek.   In
 the  spring of 1975, the  spring was entirely washed out and could
 be observed only as a bubbling area on one side of Galena  Creek.
 Water flows from this spring year-round; however, the flow is
 difficult to measure because of its proximity to and periodic
 submergence by Galena Creek.   During low streamflow, this  spring
 characteristically contributes from 20 to over 60 percent  of the
 total load at the lower  weir.  Iron loadings from this spring
 contribute an especially large percentage of the stream's  total
 load.   Another significant source of pollution during the  snow-
 melt is seepage along the Block P Mine dump, a result of pre-
 cipitation infiltrating  the dump and dissolving metal-bearing
 materials there before escaping into Galena Creek.  This seepage
 was particularly evident during the spring, when snowmelt  on the
 dump face was observed entering the dump and exiting as springs
 along the west bank of Galena Creek.  Development of rills and
 erosion on the dump face has been minimal, and a number of times
 snow was observed melting on the dump face with no runoff  down
 the face from the snowpack, indicating that the snow was
 infiltrating directly into the dump.  During the heavy snowmelt
 runoff  period of May 1974, substantial snowmelt occurred on the
 dump, and a large seep estimated to be flowing at the rate of
 2.21 Ips (35 gpm) was observed flowing from the toe of the dump
 into Galena Creek.  The  quality of this seep (Table 2, page 22)
 was very poor and contributed a significant load of metals and
 acidity to the stream.

 Sources Between the Block P Mine Dump and the Lower Weir

     During the spring snowmelt, precipitation enters mine
 tailings and mine dumps  on Silver Creek and contributes a  metals
 load to Galena Creek.  The period of maximum loading from  Silver
 Creek is during the spring snowmelt (Figures 7, 8, and 9,
 pages 19-21).  Silver Creek contributes at times in excess of
 10 percent of the load at the lower weir.  Normally, however,
 Silver  Creek contributes a smaller percentage of the total
 pollution in the creek.  After the snowmelt, Silver Creek
 rapidly reduces in flow, particularly the fork containing  the
mine tailings.  This "bad" fork usually  ceases flowing in
 summer  and does not become a significant pollution source  until
 the next spring runoff.

     Acid mine wastes exit the Liberty Mine drift and flow down
a small gully into Galena Creek.  In the gully, there are  also
 tailings from the mines  that react with the acid mine waters.
As shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9, the Liberty Mine seldom
 contributes a significant load to Galena Creek.  The Liberty
Mine is of the most significance in the late spring, summer,
and early fall.   Typically, the flow in the Liberty Mine area
drops to zero during the cold portion of the year.
                               25

-------
FACTORS INFLUENCING CONCENTRATION OF MINE WASTES

     Concentrations and loads in sampled streams (Appendix D)
show considerable variation in time.  Concentrations and loads
of mine wastes are influenced by several factors including:

     1.  Flow.  Generally, higher flows are characterized by
         lower concentrations of dissolved metals.   Spring
         runoff and other runoff events generally dilute the
         base flow and tend to lower metal concentrations.

     2.  Rate of change of flow.  Concentrations of metals tend
         to be greater when streamflow is increasing and less
         when streamflow decreases.  This is attributed to a
         "flush out" of the stream channel.

     3.  Suspended sediment.  Increased flows, streambank dis-
         turbances, and other factors can increase concentra-
         tions of suspended sediment in streams.  This in turn
         increases total metals concentrations due to the pres-
         ence of suspended metal precipitates and adsorbed
         metals or sediment.

     The correlation with flow for iron, manganese, and zinc
concentrations at the spring at the Block P Mine is fairly good,
showing a distinct downward trend of concentration with increased
flow.  The change in concentration, however, is small compared
to the change in flow; consequently, higher flows tend to create
significantly higher loads in the system.  The correlation be-
tween concentration and flow at the upper weir is poor; the data
suggest that the concentration of metals in the water increases
with increasing flow.  From these data it is clear that the
concentration of metals in the streams is not greatly affected
by the dilution effects of melting snow or rainfall.
                               26

-------
             PART V.  POTENTIAL ABATEMENT METHODS

                   Treatment of Acid Waters

     A number of factors should be considered in the comparison
of alternate abatement techniques:

     1.  Galena Creek itself has a fluctuating flow and a
         relatively good water quality.  It would be impractical
         to treat the entire flow of Galena Creek due to the
         large volume of water involved.

     2.  Individual waste sources in some cases have small flows
         of very poor water quality.  Such streams may be
         amenable to some type of treatment.

     3.  The Galena Creek area, a high-mountain area with poor
         accessibility,  is subject to severe problems of
         failures of power and mechanical systems.  Any method
         selected for improvement of water quality must be
         compatible with the hostile climate.

     4.  Water in Galena Creek and the Dry Pork of Belt Creek is
         not used for industrial, domestic, or agricultural
         purposes.   Any  efforts at treatment or pollution
         abatement will  probably not be compensated by a large
         increase in the value of the water.  Abatement of the
         AMD in Galena Creek would result in an improved aquatic
         habitat and a more aesthetically pleasing stream.
         Property in the Dry Fork of Belt Creek and Galena Creek
         canyons would probably increase in value if the stream
         were improved in appearance.

     5.  Treatment alternatives must be considered in view of
         the seasonal variation in pollution flow and quality.
         Variation in the acidity of the water at several
         locations throughout the project is shown in Table 4;
         Table 5 shows the range in flow observed for three
         important waste sources.  It is plain from this data
         that flow and water quality in the study area vary
         widely over time, a factor that increases the difficulty
         of choosing a method of treatment.

     6.  The method of treatment should be as cost-effective as
         possible.

                               27

-------
TABLE 4.  VARIATION IN ACIDITY OF ACID MINE WATERS IN GALENA
          CREEK                     	
                       Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
   Station       (DF 1)  (DF 2)  (DF 3)  (DF 5)  (DF 6)  (DF 7)
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Number of
determinations
126
46
83
15

142
2.1
83
14

2,258
301
1,026
15

2,560
1,040
1,543
9

1,139
545
982
8

25
2
7
5

TABLE 5.  VARIATION IN FLOWS FROM MAJOR ACID MINE WASTE SOURCES


                                           Flows (Ips)

Waste Source                       Maximum   Minimum   Median
Spring in the abandoned mine cars
Bubbling spring at Block P Mine
Liberty Mine seep
1.3
5.1
7.6
.6
0.
0.
1. *
1. *
.6*
*Estimated

     Potential treatment methods or abatement measures include:

     1.  Neutralization using limestone or lime.
     2.  Block P Mine dump surface manipulation.
     3.  Block P Mine dump removal.
     4.  Aeration and settling.
     5.  Evaporation.
     6.  Reverse osmosis.
     7.  Electrodialysis.
     8.  Ion exchange.
     9.  Freezing.

     There are no acceptable sites for major water storage
within the Galena Creek area; therefore, a treatment system must
either partially treat wastes at high flows or handle the
maximum expected waste flow.  The potential treatment methods
involving forced evaporation, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis,
ion exchange, and forced freezing  (methods 5 through 9 above)
all require significant capital investment in a treatment plant,
continuous operation, and disposal of sludge or brine from the
system.  All of these systems are significantly more expensive
than the first four methods listed above.  In view of the high
initial cost, high annual maintenance cost, and waste disposal
problems, these methods were not considered feasible as
treatment or abatement measures.  Methods 1 through 4 above


                               28

-------
 (neutralization using limestone or lime, Block P Mine dump
 surface manipulation, Block P Mine dump removal, and aeration
 and settling) were considered  more extensively and are
 discussed below.

     Recommendations for abatement of AMD in the study area
 resulted from examination of these potential methods and are
 presented in Part II, Conclusions and Recommendations.

 NEUTRALIZATION

     Neutralization of AMD is a widely used technique, commonly
 using lime and limestone either alone or in combination to treat
 acid waters.  Lime/limestone neutralization is often the most
 economical solution to acid mine waste problems.  Due to its
 wide usage and potential for use in the Galena Creek area,
 neutralization was investigated to determine its effectiveness
 and cost.

     On August 21, 1973, a sampling run was made at eight sites
 along Galena Creek.  Duplicate samples were collected at these
 sites, refrigerated, neutralized in the lab, and analyzed for
 selected residual heavy metals (iron, manganese, zinc, and
 copper).  The original and residual concentrations and quantities
 of base required for neutralization are shown in Table 6.  The
 neutralization procedure consisted of titration of a 300 milli-
 liter (ml) aliquot of sample with 0.10 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
 to a pH 11 endpoint.  Samples were stirred continuously; pH
 readings were made 1 minute after adding each increment of base.
 A final reading was made 15 minutes after the last addition of
 base.  An altered procedure was used for the mine-seep samples:
 after pH 11 was reached, 1 ml of 30 percent hydrogen peroxide
 (H202) was added to convert most of the remaining ferrous iron
 to the ferric form.  Additional base was added to return the pH
 to 11, and a final reading made after a 15-minute period.  The
 neutralized samples were filtered, acidified, and run for
 dissolved metals.

     Neutralization curves were prepared from samples collected
 in December, 1973, to determine the response of wastes to
 neutralization.  Due to ease of handling and good correlation
with lime and limestone neutralization, 0.02 N sodium hydroxide
was used to neutralize the wastes.  The results of the tests
 (Figures 10 and 11) confirm the results of other studies; that
 is, neutralization is an effective treatment for acidity.

     In addition to the laboratory neutralization tests, the
 stream system was sampled at eight locations from Galena Creek
 to the mouth of the Dry Fork of Belt Creek.  These tests showed
 the response of metals in the stream system to neutralization
by stream waters.  Loads of metals decreased greatly (Table 7).
Apparently, the metals precipitate from the stream.

                               29

-------
           TABLE 6.   NEUTRALIZATION TESTS OF ACID WASTES IN GALENA CREEK

Test procedure
PH
in field
after H2O2
after last titration
after fifteen minutes
Field Temperature, °C
u> ppm Fe, initial
0 final
ppm Zn, initial
final
ppm Cu, initial
final
ppm Mn, initial
final
NaOH added before H2O2, ml
Equivalence in CaC03 mg/1
NaOH added after H O , ml
Equivalence in CaCO^ of
all NaOH added, mg/1
Sampling Station
DF 1

3.8
9.9
11.2
11.2
19.2
1.4
.05
18.
.02
.32
.01
23.
.01
13.9
231.
3.1
284.
DF

2.
9.
11.
10.
15.
200.
108.
1.
275.
92.
1536.
8.
1676.
3

8
7

8
7
01
01
5
01
01
1

4

DF 4

4.4
NA*
11.
10.9
13.5
15.
.2
14.
.19
.13
20.
.51
13.2
220.
NA
220.
DF

2.
10.
11.
10.
8.
280.
125.
3.
130.
113.
1886.
6.
1988.
5

7
2

9

01
03
3
01
01
1

1

DF

2.
9.
11.
11.
9.
320.
73.
*
210.
103.
1721.
13.
1953.
6

9
4
1

5
01
03
4
01
03
2

9

DF 7

8.2
NA
11.1
11.1
11.
.05
.14
.01
< .01
.13
.01
6.8
113.
NA
113.
DF 8

7.7
NA
11.
11.
9.5
.01
.01
.75
.01
< .01
1.
.01
7.1
118.
NA
118.
DF 16

3.8
NA
11.
11.
10.6
< .01
< .01
1.
.03
.01
.01
.25
.05
4.2
70.
NA
70.
*Not applicable, H202 was added only to the mine-seep samples.

-------
pH  7 -
                            DF 4  (Galena Creek
                                  Below Block P
                                  Dump)
                            Sampled 11/28/73
    Milliequivalent of NaOH Added per Liter of Sample
   12
pH  6
                                 DF 5 (Spring at
                                       Abandoned
                                       Mine Cars)
                                 Sampled 11/28/73
     0       5      10      15      20      25    30

    Milliequivalent of NaOH Added per Liter of Sample

 FIGURE 10.   Neutralization Tests of Acid Mine Wastes from
 the Galena  Creek Drainage: Stations DF 4 and  DF 5.
                            31

-------
   12
   10
PH
                          DF 1 (Lower Weir)
                          Sampled 11/28/73
     01        2        3456

    Milliequivalent of NaOH Added per Liter of Sample
   10
pH
DF 2 (Silver Creek)
Sampled 11/28/73
    0        12       34        56

    Milliequivalent of NaOH Added per Liter of Sample

FIGURE 11.  Neutralization Tests of Acid Mine Wastes from
the Galena Creek Drainage: Stations DF 1 and DF 2.
                            32

-------
       TABLE 7.  HEAVY METAL LOADS  IN THE DRY FORK  OF  BELT  CREEK:   AUGUST  22,  1973
u>
OJ

Sampling Station
Field pH
Metals :
Iron
D*

T*

Manganese
D

T

Zinc
D

T

Cadmium
D

T

Copper
D

T

DF 21
6.6


9.7**
(4.4)
102.
(46.3)

65.
(29.5)
70.
(31.8)

46.
(20.9)
51.
(22.7)

.16
(.07)
.32
(.15)

.05
(.02)
1.5
(.68)
DF 23
7.8


.66
(.3)
66.
(29.9)

105.
(47.6)
115.
(52.2)

32.
(14.5)
69.
(31.3)

< .3
(.09)
< .3
(.09)

< .3
(.09)
1.6
(.73)
DF 24
8.1


< .3
(.09)
25.
(11.3)

78.
(35.4)
81.
(36.7)

19.
(8.6)
29.
(13.2)

< .3
(.09)
< .3
(.09)

.34
(.15)
.68
(.31)
DF 25
8.2


< .3
(.09)
8.
(3.6)

42.
(19.1)
50.
(22.7)

15.
(6.8)
16.
(7.3)

< .3
(.09)
< .3
(.09)

.42
(.19)
.84
(.38)
DF 26
8.4


< .22
(.1)
.22
(.1)

.88
(.4)
.88
(.4)

2.
(.91)
2.8
(1.3)

< .22
(.1)
< .22
(.1)

< .22
(.1)
.22
(.1)
DF 29
7.6


<.03
(.01)
.07
(.03)

< .03
(.01)
.07
(.03)

.1
(.05)
.17
(.08)

< .03
(.09)
.03
(.09)

< .03
(.09)
.03
(.09)
DF 30
7.4


ND*
ND
1.1
(.5)

ND
ND
1.1
(.5)

ND
ND
81.
(36.7)

ND
ND
< 1. 1
(.5)

ND
ND
2.2
(1.)
DF 31
7.4


1.1
(.5)
4.3
(2.)

1.1
(.5)
1.1
(.5)

54.
(24.5)
89.
(40.4)

< 1.1
(.5)
< 1. 1
(-5)

< 1.1
(.5)
1.1
(.5)
     *D=Dissolvedf T=Total
     **Units are pounds/day and, in parentheses, kilograms/day.
     #No data

-------
     Using  limestone  and Cottrell dust  (a  cement waste product
 similar  to  lime) a  field test was conducted  to determine the
 cost  and feasibility of neutralization.   A  continuous flow,
 rotary reactor was  employed  to  test  the neutralization effects
 of  these tested materials on acid mine water from the spring at
 the abandoned mine  cars in Galena Creek.

     Conclusions of this field  test  were that limestone
 treatment   reduced  concentrations of iron  and copper and raised
 pH but did  not significantly reduce  loads  of zinc, manganese, or
 cadmium.  Cottrell  dust significantly reduced loads of all five
 metals investigated.  A combination  of limestone treatment
 followed by reaction  with Cottrell dust appears to be the most
 economical  alternative for neutralization.

     Costs  for neutralization facility, based on pilot tests,
 are shown in Table  8.

     TABLE  8.  COST OF NEUTRALIZATION OF ACID MINE WATERS*	

                          Installation Cost   Maintenance Cost
                          	per year	
Limestone treatment            $26,483           $ 9,818

Cottrell dust treatment         24,133            77,040

Combination treatment           31,083            29,206
   (Limestone followed by
   Cottrell dust)

*Based on a flow of 0.299 million liters per day (0.079 million
gallons per day) of acid water similar in composition to that
of the spring at the abandoned mine cars in Galena Creek.  Cost
estimates are based on January 1, 1975 prices.

BLOCK P MINE DUMP SURFACE MANIPULATION

     The Block P Mine dump, which is situated next to Galena
Creek, is shown in Figure 12.  A major reason that the dump is
one of the main sources of acid discharge to Galena Creek is
that the waters of Galena Creek pass along the toe of the dump
and wash materials from the dump into the creek.  To partially
remedy this problem, in July of 1974, a bypass pipeline was
installed parallel with Galena Creek for the entire length of the
Block P Mine dump.  During the low flows in the fall and
winter, the pipeline diverts all of the flow from Galena Creek
around the toe of the Block P Mine dump.  During high flows in
the springtime, excess flows from the pipeline spill into
Galena Creek.  Figures 12 and 13 show the relative location of
the diversion pipeline, Galena Creek, and the Block P Mine dump.


                               34

-------
           BLOCK P
           MINE
^PIPELINE
TINLET
                     BLOCK P
                      MINE
                      DUMP
FIGURE  12.  Block P Mine and  Dump—Plan  View.

                            35

-------
                     ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
                            h-45METERS (l50Ft.)-»
                                            60 METERS
                                            (200 FEET)
     0   ,  GALENA
      A^  \ CREEK


 DIVERSION \
 PIPELINE

    *LENGTH OF DUMP IS 300 METERS (1000 FEET)

                                       NO SCALE
FIGURE  13.  Block  P Mine and Dump—Cross Section A-A,
                           36

-------
     Many seeps and springs were found along the toe of the
dump and in Galena Creek after the diversion pipeline was
installed;  most of them were caused by water moving down through
the dump and emerging at the toe in Galena Creek.  The top of the
dump, relatively flat with a few concave spots, causes water
from snowmelt and rainfall, as well as any runoff from the hill
above the top of the dump, to pond.  To prevent this ponded
water from seeping into the dump, there are at least three
alternatives:

Alternative 1

     This alternative would involve sloping the top of the dump
away from the existing hillside  (Figure 14).  Precipitation
falling on the top of the dump and runoff coming from the hill-
side would run off into the stream, thus preventing most seepage.
This alternative is an effective means of removing the water
from the top of the dump, however, water would still run over
the toxic dump top, and some would seep into the unsealed dump.
In addition, water running off the dump would create severe
erosion problems on the steep side of the dump next to Galena
Creek so that some of the dump material would still be washed
into Galena Creek.  Cost of this alternative is calculated to be
$16,800.

Alternative 2

     This alternative includes sloping the dump as in alternative
1 and sealing the top of the dump with bentonite.  Topsoil
will be placed on the bentonite  and planted with a grass mixture
suitable to the area.  This alternative effectively removes the
water from the top of the dump and prevents water from seeping
into the dump, but the severe erosion of the steep side of the
dump will still wash toxic material into Galena Creek.  Cost of
this alternative is calculated to be $44,150.

Alternative 3

     This alternative would slope the top of the dump toward the
hillside as shown in Figure 15.  The top of the dump would then
be sealed with bentonite, 0.3 m  (1 ft) of topsoil placed on the
bentonite, and grass planted on  the topsoil.  A gravel drain in
the swale between the hillside and the dump, as shown in Figure
15, would catch all water running off the hillside and dump and
carry it to a pipe that would convey it to Galena Creek.  This
alternative effectively removes  water from the top of the dump
and prevents erosion, as well as prevents water from seeping
through the dump.  Alternative 3 is calculated to cost $50,650.
                                37

-------
         v GALENA
     ^V X  CREEK
 DIVERSION^
 PIPELINE
                                       NO SCALE
FIGURE 14.  Block P Mine and Dump—Dump Sloping Away  from
Hillside.
                            38

-------
                          ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
                 COARSE GRAVEL
      DRAIN  DETAIL
     (DRAIN EXTENDS FULL
     LENGTH OF DUMP.)
                                            SEE DRAIN
                                             DETAIL
 DIVERSION
 PIPELINE
                                   NO  SCALE
FIGURE  15.  Block P Mine and Dump—Drain and Dump Sloping
Toward  Hillside.
                           39

-------
     Manipulating the surface of the Block P Mine dump is
probably not a complete solution to the AMD problems in Galena
Creek because all acidic wastes do not come from the Block P Mine
dump.  Ground water, as well as water seeping from underground
mine workings, contributes to the AMD, as explained in Part IV.

REMOVAL OF BLOCK P MINE DUMP

     One method for solving the AMD problem is to remove the
Block P Mine dump, which is calculated to contain 142,000 cubic
meters (185,000 cubic yards) of mine-tailings material.

     The dump material could be hauled approximately 8 km
(5 mi) south to the mill tailings ponds located near the mouth
of Galena Creek.  Sealing the ponds beforehand would prevent
seepage.   The cost of moving the Block P Mine dump and sealing
the tailings ponds is calculated at $256,340.

     Another alternative for removing the dump is to haul it to
the nearest smelter (Anaconda, Montana), where the minerals
would be removed from the tailings material.  This alternative
solves the present problem of tailings material at Hughesville,
but moves the problem of storing the tailings material to a
different location.  The cost of this alternative, including
only excavation and hauling since smelting costs would be
offset by sale of the minerals, is $3,790,000.

     Removal of the dump, like surface manipulation of the dump,
would be only a partial solution to the AMD problem, since some
of the pollution comes from sources other than the Block P Mine
complex.

AERATION AND SETTLING

     Another treatment option examined was subjection of the
waste-laden water to natural aeration and settling in a pond.
To test this method, a laboratory test of aeration and settling
was conducted on samples from the major waste sources.  Proce-
dures for each of the studies are given below:

     1.  Settling Study.  Two sample bottles from each of the
         five sampling sites were uncapped and loosely covered
         with foil to allow evaporation to occur.  They were
         stored at room temperature in the laboratory  (25° C)
         (77° F).  After one week of settling, water was decanted
         from one of the bottles from each site, filtered
         through a 0.45 micron filter, and analyzed immediately
         for dissolved iron, manganese, zinc, and copper.  After
         standing for four weeks, water from the remaining
         bottles was decanted, filtered, and analyzed for the
         same constituents.
                               40

-------
     2-  Aeration Study.  Air was bubbled through five samples
         for one week at the flow rate of 1.25 liters per minute
         (0.33 gpm).  To minimize the effect of water carryover
         as the air passed from one sample to another, the bottles
         were arranged in ascending order of metal concentrations-
         stations DP 1, DF 1, DP 2, DF 4, DF 5.  After one week
         of aeration, the samples were filtered and run for
         dissolved iron, manganese, zinc, and copper.

     The results, summarized in Table 9, indicate that there
would be some lowering of iron concentrations due to oxidation;
however, zinc, manganese, and copper concentrations were not
significantly affected by either settling or aeration.  The
conclusion of these pilot tests was that ponding and aeration
would probably not be an effective treatment technique for
reducing toxic metal concentrations, nor would they have a
significant impact on acidity.  The aeration and settling option
therefore was not further investigated.
                               41

-------
            TABLE 9.   EFFECTS OF SETTLING AND AERATION ON METAL CONCENTRATIONS
NJ


Initial pH
Iron, dissolved (mg/1)
Original sample
1-week settling
4-week settling
1-week aeration
Zinc, dissolved (mg/1)
Original sample
1-week settling
4-week settling
1-week aeration
Manganese, dissolved (mg/1)
Original sample
1-week settling
4-week settling
1-week aeration
Copper, dissolved (mg/1)
Original sample
1-week settling
4-week settling
1-week aeration
DF 1
4.8

3.3
0.
0.
0.

20.
20.
13.
20.

18.
17.
17.
18.

.32
.31
.25
.28
DF 2
3.6

2.7
2.
2.2
1.8

15.
11.
7.2
11.

7.
6.7
5.8
6.7

.18
.18
.14
.18
Sampling Station
DF 4 DF 5
5.5

16.
0.
0.
10.

15.
13.
8.8
*

9.8
9.8
9.
*

.15
.16
.14
*
2.92

210.
140.
123.
120.

105.
105.
75.
106.

113.
113.
113.
89.

3.2
2.8
3.
1.6
DF 7
7.75

0.
0.
0.
0.

.22
.16
*
.15

.09
.08
.1
.1

<.01
<.01
<_ _
.01
<* -,
.01
    *Rejected data.  Reported values exceeded  those  in  original  sample by a factor of
     three or greater.

-------
                           REFERENCES


Botz, M. K., and R. J. Pedersen.  1976.  Summary of Water Quality
     Criteria.  Unpublished report, Water Quality Bureau, Montana
     Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena.

McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf.  1963.  Water Quality Criteria.
     Publication 3-A.  California State Water Resources Control
     Board, no place.  548 p.

Miller, J. F., R. H. Frederick, and R. J. Tracey.  1973. Precipi-
     tation-Frequency Atlas of the Western United States.
     Volume 1-Montana.  U.S. Department of Commerce, National
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  Silver Spring,
     Maryland.

Montana Water Quality Standards, adopted by the Montana Depart-
     ment of Health and Environmental Sciences.  1974.  Montana
     Administrative Code 16-2.14 (10)-S14480.

Revised Codes of Montana, 1947.

Small, Cooley, and Associates.  1969.  Comprehensive Plan for
     Sewer and Water Systems, Cascade County, Montana.  Billings,
     Montana.  107 pp.

State Engineer's Office.  1961  (June).  Water Resources Survey,
     Cascade County, Montana.  Department of Natural Resources
     and Conservation, Helena.  77 pp.

State Engineer's Office.  1963  (June).  Water Resources Survey,
     Judith Basin County, Montana.  Department of Natural
     Resources and Conservation, Helena.  86 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1971.  Methods for Chemical
     Analysis of Water and Wastes.  EPA National Environmental
     Research Center; Analytical Quality Control Lab.  Cincinnati,
     Ohio.  312 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1972.  Water Quality
     Criteria.  EPA-R3-73-033.  U.S.  Government Printing Office,
     Washington, D.C.
                               43

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1973.  Processes,
     Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution from Mining
     Activities.  EPA-430/9-73-011.  U.S. Government Printing
     Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1975.  Criteria for
     Developing Pollution Abatement Programs for Inactive and
     Abandoned Mine Sites.  EPA-440/9-75-008.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.  1970.  Census
     of Population.  U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
     D.C.

Weed, W. H. 1898.  Geology of the Little Belt Mountains, Montana,
     with Notes on the Mineral Deposits of the Neihart, Barker,
     Yogo, and Other Districts.  In 20th Annual Report, Part III—
     Precious Metal Mining Districts.  U.S. Department of
     Interior, Geological Survey.

Wirth, T. J., and Associates; and Mueller Engineering.  1970
     Comprehensive Area-Wide Water and Sewer Plan, 1970—Choteau,
     Judith Basin, and Fergus Counties.  Billings, Montana.
     108 pp. + 3 appendices.
                               44

-------
                            APPENDIX A

                       CONVERSION FACTORS

                            Contents

Metric System  	   46
Length	46
Area	47
Volume	47
Mass	47
Flow	48
Velocity	48
Temperature	49
                               45

-------
          APPENDIX A:
      CONVERSION FACTORS
megaraeter
myriameter
kilometer*
hectometer
decameter
meter*
decimeter
centimeter*
millimeter*
micrometer
  Metric System

 1,000,000
    10,000
     1,000
       100
        10
         1
          .1
          .01
          .001
          .000001
            meters
            meters
            meters
            meters
            meters
            meters
            meters
            meters
            meters
            meters
* commonly used units
                       Length
 Multiply...

    miles
    yards
    feet
    inches
    inches

    kilometers
    meters
    meters
    centimeters
    millimeters
By. . .
    1.609
     .9144
     .3048
    2.54
   25.4

     .631
    1.094
    3.2809
     .3937
     .03937
To obtain...

    kilometers
    meters
    meters
    centimeters
    millimeters

    miles
    yards
    feet
    inches
    inches
                        46

-------
Multiply...

  square miles
  acres
  acres
  square feet
  square inches

  square miles
  acres

  square kilometers
  square meters
  square meters
  square centimeters
      Area

  By. ..

       2.59
        .004047
   4,047
        .0929
       6.4516

     640
  43,560

        .3861
        .000247
      10.764
        .155
 To obtain...
    square
    square
    square
    square
    square
kilometers
kilometers
meters
meters
centimeters
    acres
    square feet

    square miles
    acres
    square feet
    square inches
Multiply...

  acre-feet
  acre-feet
  cubic feet
  cubic feet
  U.S. gallons

  acre-feet
  cubic feet
  million gallons

  cubic meters
  cubic meters
  liters
  liters
      Volume

 By...

        .001233
   1,233
        .02832
      28.32
       3.785

 358,851
       7.48
       3.07

        .00081
      35.3147
        .0353
        .2642
 To obtain...

    cubic hectometers
    cubic meters
    cubic meters
    liters
    liters

    U.S. gallons
    U.S. gallons
    acre-feet

    acre-feet
    cubic feet
    cubic feet
    U.S. gallons
Multiply...

  pounds
  tons (short)

  kilograms
  tons (metric)
By.
                               Mass
        .4536
        .9072

       2.2046
       1.1023
To obtain...

    kilograms
    tons  (metric)

    pounds
    tons  (short)
                               47

-------
                            Flow
Multiply...

gallons per minute
cubic feet per second
cubic feet per second

gallons per minute
cubic feet per second
cubic feet per second
cubic feet per second
cubic feet per second

liters per second
liters per second
cubic meters per second
By.
      .06309
      .02832
    28.32

      .00223
     1.9835
    40
   448.8
   724

      .03531
    15.85
    35.31
To obtain...

    liters per second
    cubic meters per second
    liters per second

    cubic feet per second
    acre-feet per day
    Montana Miners inches
    U.S. gallons per minute
    acre-feet per year

    cubic feet per second
    gallons per minute
    cubic feet per second
Multiply...

feet per second
feet per second
feet per second

feet per second
miles per hour

meters per second
Velocity

By. ..
To obtain..
      .3048
     1.097
    30.48

      .68
     1.4666
    meters per second
    kilometers per hour
    centimeters per second

    miles per hour
    feet per second
     3.2808      feet per second
                              48

-------
                                 TEMPERATURE

      The values in  the body of  the  table give the equivalent,
 in degrees Fahrenheit, of the  temperatures  indicated  in degrees
 Centigrade at the  top and side.
  °C    0123456789

 100  212.0  213.8  215.6  217.4  219.2  221.0  222.8   224.6  226.4  228.2

  90  194.0  195.8  197.6  199.4  201.2  203.0  204.8   206.6  208.4  210.2

  80  176.0  177.8  179.6  181.4  183.2  185.0  186.8   188.6  190.4  192.2

  70  158.0  159.8  161.6  163.4  165.2  167.0  168.8   170.6  172.4  174.2

  60  140.0  141.8  143.6  145.4  147.2  149.0  150.8   152.6  154.4  156.2

  50  122.0  123.8  125.6  127.4  129.2  131.0  132.8   134.6  136.4  138.2

  40  104.0  105.8  107.6  109.4  111.2  113.0  114.8   116.6  118.4  120.2

  30   86.0   87.8   89.6   91.4   93.2   95.0   96.8    98.6  100.4  102.2

  20   68.0   69.8   71.6   73.4   75.2   77.0   78.8    80.6   82.4   84.2

  10   50.0   51.8   53.6   55.4   57.2   59.0   60.8    62.6   64.4   66.2

   0   32.0   33.8   35.6   37.4   39.2   41.0   42.8    44.6   46.4   48.2

  -0   32.0   30.2   28.4   26.6   24.8   23.0   21.2    19.4   17.6   15.8

 -10   14.0   12.2   10.4    8.6    6.8    5.0    3.2     1.4   -0.4   -2.2

 -20   -4.0   -5.8   -7.6   -9.4  -11.2  -13.0  -14.8   -16.6  -18.4  -20.2

 -30  -22.0  -23.8  -25.6  -27.4  -29.2  -31.0  -32.8   -34.6  -36.4  -38.2

 -40  -40.0  -41.8  -43.6  -45.5  -47.2  -49.0  -50.8   -52.6  -54.4  -56.2

 -50  -58.0  -59.8  -61.6  -63.4  -65.2  -67.0  -68.8   -70.6  -72.4  -74.2

 -60  -76.0  -77.8  -79.6  -81.4  -83.2  -85.0  -86.8   -88.6  -90.4  -92.2

 -70  -94.0  -95.8  -97.6  -99.4 -101.2 -103.0 -104.8  -106.6  -108.4 -110.2

 -80 -112.0 -113.8  -115.6 -117.4 -119.2 -121.0 -122.8  -124.6  -126.4 -128.2

 -90 -130.0 -131.8  -133.6 -135.4 -137.2 -139.0 -140.8  -142.6  -144.4 -146.2

-100 -148.0 -149.9  -151.6 -153.4 -155.2 -157.0 -158.8  -160.6  -162.4 -164.2
                                    49

-------
             APPENDIX B:  WATER QUALITY SAMPLING SITES

      Table B-l lists water quality sampling sites established for
 this project along with their station number and location.  Fol-
 lowing the table is an explanation of the numbering system used
 to designate the geographical location of the stations.  The
 system is illustrated in Figure B-l.

             TABLE B-l.   WATER QUALITY SAMPLING SITES
 Station
 Number
                          Description
                                             Location
 DF  1
 DF  2
 DF  2A
 DF  3
 DF  4
 DF  5

 DF  6
 DF  7
 DF  8

 DF  9

 DF  10
 DF  11
 DF  12

 DF  13

 DF  14
 DF  15
 DF  16

 DF  17
 DF  18
 DF  20

DF  21
DF  22
 Galena  Creek  at  lower weir
 Silver  Creek  at  road  above  mouth
 Mine  seep  above  Silver Creek  (Bad Fork)
 Liberty Mine  seep  at  Galena Creek
 Galena  Creek  just  below mine  dump
 Spring  along  Galena Creek in  middle  of
 mine  cars
 Bubbling spring  at Block P  Mine
 Galena  Creek  at  upper weir
 Galena  Creek  at  Harrison Mine,
 above Green Creek  influx
 Caved tunnel  outflow  (Moulton Mine)  on
 Galena  Creek
 Galena  Creek  above caved tunnel
 Green Creek above  tributary
 Carter  Mine tunnel drainage along
 Green Creek
 Tributary to  Green Creek above mine
 drainage inflow
 Green Creek above mouth  on Galena Creek
 Daisy Creek above Galena Creek
 Queen of the  Hills Creek at mouth
 on Galena Creek
 Silver Creek  above mine  seep  (Good Fork)
 Bend Gulch Creek just above Galena Creek
Gold Run Creek at bridge at Cascade/
Judith Basin County line
Galena Creek 150 m above mouth
Dry Fork Belt Creek above Galena Creek
 15N  09E  18BC
 15N  09E  07BDB
 15N  09E  07BB
 15N  09E  07BDA
 15N  09E  07BAA
 15N  09E  07BAA

 15N  09E  06DCC
 15N  09E  06DCB
 15N  09E  06DB

 15N  09E  06BD

 15N  09E  06DBA
 15N  09E  06BD
 15N  09E  06BD

 15N  09E  06BD

 15N  09E  06DBC
 15N  09E  06DCB
 15N  09E  06DCC

 15N  09E  07BB
 15N  09E  07CAC
 15N  09E  18CBBC

15N  08E  13DCD
15N  08E  13DCD
                               50

-------
                     TABLE B-l   (continued)

Station
Number
DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF
DF

DF

DF
23

24

25

26

27

28

29
30

31

32
Description
Dry Fork by cabin 100 m east of
site 16 km (9.75 mi) from Highway 89
Dry Fork above Finn Creek 13 km
(8 mi) from Highway 89
Dry Fork at bridge-10 km (6 mi) from
Highway 89 (bridge no. 9)
Dry Fork at bridge- 3 km (2 mi) from
Highway 89 (bridge no. 3)
Dry Fork at campground below Caste Rock-
2 km (1 mi) from Highway 89
Dry Fork at bridge-1 km (0.7 mi) from
Highway 89 (bridge no. 2)
Dry Fork 25 m (25 yards ^d)) above mouth
Belt Creek 20 m (20 yd ) below Dry
Fork
Belt Creek 10 m (10 yd ) above
Dry Fork
Belt Creek just above Neihart
Location
15N

15N

15N

15N

15N

15N

15N
16N

15N

13N
08E

08E

08E

07E

07E

07E

07E
07E

07E

08E
23AAB

16DBD

08DBB

02AAA

02 BAG

03ABD

04AAA
33DDD

04AAA

05B
     Features such as water sampling sites, wells, and springs
are assigned a location number that is based on the system of
land subdivision used by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
The number consists of eleven characters and describes the lo-
cation by township, range, section, and position within the sec-
tion.  Figure B-l on the following page illustrates this number-
ing method.  The first three characters of the number give the
township, the next three the range.  The next two numbers give
the section number within the township, and the next three
letters describe the location within the quarter section  (160
acres), and quarter-quarter section (40 acres),.and a quarter-
quarter-quarter section (10 acres).

     These subdivisions of the 640-acre section are designated
as A, B, C, and D in a counterclockwise direction, beginning in
the northeast quadrant. 'If there is more than one feature in a
10-acre tract, consecutive digits beginning with the number 02
are added to the number.  For example, if a water quality sample
was collected in Section 21, T6N, R7E, it would be numbered
06N07E21BDC.  The letters BDC indicate that the well is in the
southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4.
                               51

-------
         POINT
      06N07E2IBDC
                                              1/4  1/4 sec. 40 ac.
                                                  1/4 sec.  160 ac.
10 ac.
                                                   sec. 2 I  640  ac.
                                                    T6N  R7E
FIGURE B-l.  Numbering System for Finding the Geographical  Location
of Sampling  Stations.
                                  52

-------
                            APPENDIX C

                FLOW VERSUS CONCENTRATION TABLES

                       FOR SELECTED STATIONS
                            Contents

Figure

 c~l        Flow versus Concentration at Station
            DF 1 (Galena Creek at Lower Weir)  	54

 c~2        Flow versus Concentration at Station
            DF 2 (Silver Creek)  	55

 c~3        Flow versus Concentration at Station
            DF 4 (Galena Creek Below Block P Mine
            Dump)   	56

 c~4        Flow versus Concentration at Station
            DF 5 (Spring in Galena Creek near
            Abandoned Mine Cars)	57

 c~5        Flow versus Concentration at Station
            DF 7 (Galena Creek at Upper Weir)  	58
                               53

-------
  100.
   10.
O
i i
EH
hi
U
',:
O
I I
  1.
     .1
                01
                   FLOW  (CUBIC METERS  PER  SECOND)

                                  .1                   1.

                   	1	m	T
                                                             Iron
            __  D
            •-D~CT~   "TT
                       1.                   10

                   FLOW  (CUBIC  FEET PER SECOND)

FIGURE C-l.  Flow versus  Concentration at Station DF 1.  (Galena

Creek at Lower Weir).
                                54

-------
100.
              001
FLOW (CUBIC METERS PER SECOND)

             .01
                                        . 1
 10. [
\

2
23

i i
! <
u
2
O
' >
                                                         Iron
   .01
FIGURE 02
Creek).
         .1                  1.                 10.

       FLOW  (CUBIC FEET PER SECOND)

Flow versus Concentration at Station DF  2.  (Silver
                               55

-------
                   FLOW  (CUBIC METERS PER  SECOND)
              .01                  .1
                   1.
 100.
  10.
2
W
u
§
               T
T
                                                         Zinc
                                                         Iron
                                                      Manganese
                    A
                    A
                                  -A--
                                                       Copper
                        1
                              J	1	1	L
    .1                 1.                   10.                100
                    FLOW  (CUBIC FEET  PER  SECOND)
 FIGURE C-3.  Flow versus Concentration at  Station DF 4.  (Galena
 Creek Below Block P Mine Dump).
                               56

-------
 1000
  100
::
i (
i <

s
h
3
W
U
U
   10
    .001
                    FLOW (CUBIC METERS PER SECOND)



              0001                .001
                r
         .01

        —r
                                                           Iron
                                                '	*- Manganese
                                         ._--0-CL
       Q
                                    o
                                                            Zinc
00
                                                      Copper
                                           ,1  A
                       .01                 .1



                      FLOW (CUBIC FEET PER SECOND)
  FIGURE  C-4.   Flow versus Concentration at Station DF 5.

  in  Galena  Creek  near Abandoned Mine Cars).
                  1.
              (Spring
                               57

-------
                   FLOW (CUBIC METERS PER SECOND)
              01
 10. r
          1.

          ~r
O
o
H
i <
w
u
Z
O
I J
                                                      Iron
                                                     ^Manganese
                                                        Zinc
             opper
             AAA A
1
      J	L
   .1                  1.                 10.

                    FLOW  (CUBIC FEET PER SECOND)

 FIGURE C-5.  Flow versus Concentration at Station DF 7.

 Creek at Upper Weir).
                                                           100.
               (Galena
                                58

-------
                           APPENDIX D

                  CONCENTRATION AND LOAD VERSUS

                TIME TABLES FOR SELECTED STATIONS

                            Contents

Figure

 D-l        Concentration versus Time at Station
            DF 1 (Galena Creek at Lower Weir)   	60

 D-2        Load versus Time at Station DF 1   	61

 D-3        Concentration versus Time at Station
            DF 2 (Silver Creek)  	62

 D-4        Load versus Time at Station DF 2	63

 D-5        Concentration versus Time at Station
            DF 3 (Liberty Mine Seep)	64

 D-6        Load versus Time at Station DF 3	65

 D-7        Concentration versus Time at Station
            DF 5 (Spring at Abandoned Mine Cars
            in Galena Creek)	66

 D-8        Load versus Time at Station DF 5	67

 D-9        Concentration versus Time at Station
            DF 6 (Spring at Block P Mine)  	68

 D-10       Load versus Time at Station DF 6	69

 D-ll       Concentration versus Time at Station
            DF 7 (Galena Creek at Upper Weir)   	70

 D-12       Load versus Time at Station DF 7	71
                               59

-------
  60-
  50-
H 30
55
pa
u
  20
  10-
                    K
                    I
    M   J   J   A   SO
                    1973
N   D   J   F   M    A  M   J        A       0
                        1974
    FIGURE D-l.  Concentration versus Time at Station  DF 1 (Galena Creek
    at Lower Weir).

-------
  1000
  100.

£ 10.0
   i.oor*
   o.io
          O— O Zinc
              Manganese


          X - A Iron
        i   i  i        i         i  i
     M  JJ  ASO  NDJ  FMAM  JJ  ASON  DJ

           1973                   1974
                                                        100.0
                                                             •:
                                                             ,
                                                        10.0
. ;
. •
 -

                                                        1.00
                                                        0.10
     FIGURE D-2.   Load versus  Time at  Station  DF 1
                               61

-------
cn
10
             60-
             50-
           B
           —
           2
             40
             30-
             20-
              10-
             00
  I
  I l
  * I

   !
 M
Zinc


Manganese


Iron
;    I
                                                                                     E
                M  ~
                                                                  197A
                 FIGURE D-3.  Concentration versus Time at  Station DF 2  (Silver Creek;

-------
  1000
  100.
w
gio.o
'.'.
1
  1.00
 0.10
          O—O Zinc
               Iron
             X Manganese
        _,_             I
      MJJ ASO  NDJ  FMA  MJJA  S  ONDJ
            1973                  1974
                                                      100.
                                                      10.0
                                                          <
                                                           !
O
H
                                                      1.00
                                                      0.10
      FIGURE  D-4.   Load  versus  Time at  Station  DF 2
                            63

-------
 600'
  500-
  400-

  300-


—
8
ta
L.
Z

8 200.
  100.
   Q
I
 I
 .
 1

                                                    •  1
                                             3 Zinc

                                        X	X Manganese


                                        B	0 Iron
     MJJASONDJFMAM            A

                     1973                              1974
     FIGURE  D-5.   Concentration versus Time at  Station DF  3  (Liberty Mine

     Seep)-

-------
1000
            Iron
        X—X Manganese
0.10
                                               _ 100.
                                               - io.o

                                                     I
                                               -1.00
                                               - o.io
   M  JJA  SOND  JF  MAM  JJAS  OND J
           1973                 1974
    FIGURE  D-6.   Load versus Time  at Station DF 3


                         65

-------
  300 -
  250 -
g
  200
§
  150 •
u
§
  100 '
   50 •
                                                     Zinc
                                              X	X Manganese
                                              B	El Iron
                                                                         E
M   J   J
                  A   S   0   N   D
                     1973
F   M   A
                                                 M    J   J
                                                 1974
S  0
      FIGURE  D-7.   Concentration  versus Time at Station DF 5 (Spring  at  Abandoned
      Mine Cars  in Galena Creek).

-------
  1000
  100.
Q


•/:
B
p 10.0
pL|
o
  1.00
           O	© zinc


           0	Q iron

           *•——-X Manganese
  0.101  '  '
                                      -I	•  •  •
I
                                                     100.
                                                     10.0 §
                                                          3
        I
        , J
                                                     1.00
                                                     0.10
      MJ  JAS  ONDJ  FMAM  JJA  SOND  J

              1973                 1974
      FIGURE D-8.   Load versus Time at Station DF 5
                             67

-------
CO
          H
            500-
            400 -
            300-
          g

          0 200
            100 -
                         x	
                                                        Dry
                                                        •Dry
                                                        Dry
                                                                            Zinc

                                                                      X	X Manganese

                                                                            Iron
                MJ    J   AS    OND    J    FMAMJ    JA   S    0
                               1973                              1974
                FIGURE D-9.   Concentration  versus Time  at Station DF  6  (Spring at  Block
                P  Mine).

-------
 10000
  1000
I
VJ
£ 100.
1
  10.0
  1.00
         (•>—© Zinc


         0—Q Iron


         f<—X Manganese
I                        _L
                                                    1000
                             100.

                                                    10.0
                                                    1.00
      MJJ  ASO  NDJ  FMAM  JJ  ASON  DJ

            1973                  1974
      FIGURE D-10.  Load  versus  Time at  Station  DF 6
                             69

-------
6  -
                                                             •~" Manganese

                                                        B	Q Iron
   "
   FIGURE D-ll.  Concentration  versus Time at Station DF  7  (Galena Creek
   at Upper Weir).

-------
  1000
        o—0 Zinc
        13—Q Iron
        X—X Manganese
  100.

  10.0
1
  1.00
 0.10
                                                     0.10
     M  JJ  ASON  DJFM  AMJ  JAS  OND  J
           1973                   1974
    FIGURE D-12.   Load versus Time  at Station  DF 7
                           71

-------
                             APPENDIX E

            DAILY STREAMFLOW RECORDS FOR 1973 AND 1974

                              Contents
Table E-l.   Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DP 1 (1973)   	,

Table E-2.   Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DF 1 (1974)   	

Table E-3.   Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DF 2 (1973)   	,

Table E-4.   Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DF 2 (1974)   	,

Table E-5.   Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DF 3 (1973)   	,
Table E-6.   Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DF 3 (1974)   	,

Table E-7.   Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DF 6 (1973)   	,
Table E-8.   Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DF 6 (1974)  	82

Table E-9.   Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DF 7 (1973)  	83

Table E-10.  Discharge in Liters per Second at Station
             DF 7 (1974)  	84
                               72

-------
              APPENDIX E:  DAILY STREAMFLOW RECORDS

                Identification of Gaging Stations

Station DF 1  Galena Creek near Barker, Montana

LOCATION:  15N 09E 18BC, Judith Basin County, 150 m (500 ft) up-
           stream from Gold Run Creek, 16 km (10 mi) east of
           Monarch, Montana.

DRAINAGE AREA:  9.07 square km  (3.5 square mi).

PERIOD OF RECORD:  August, 1973 to November, 1974.  Seasonal
           record published by the DNRC.

GAGE:  Water-stage recorder on a 0.91 m  (3 ft)  Cipolleti weir.
       Altitude of gage is 1680 m  (5515 ft), from topographic
       map.


Station DF 2 Silver Creek near Hughesville, Montana

LOCATION:  15N 09E 07BDB, Judith Basin County, on left bank 305m
           (1000 ft) upstream from mouth, 914 m  (3000 ft) south
           of Block P Mine at Hughesville, Montana, 16 km
           (10 mi) east of Monarch, Montana.

DRAINAGE AREA:  0.93 square km  (0.36 square mi).

PERIOD OF RECORD:  September, 1973 to November, 1974.  Seasonal
           record published by the DNRC.

GAGE:  Water-stage recorder on a 7.62 centimeter  (cm) (3 in)
       Parshall flume.  Altitude of gage is 1792 m  (5880 ft),
       from topographic map.
                               73

-------
Station DF 3 Liberty Mine Seep near Hughesville, Montana

LOCATION:  15N 09E 07BDA, Judith Basin County, 122 m  (400 ft)
           upstream from mouth, 914 m  (3000 ft) south of Block P
           Mine at Hughesville, Montana, 16 km (10 mi) east of
           Monarch, Montana.

DRAINAGE AREA:  0.05 square km (0.02 square mi).

PERIOD OF RECORD:  September, 1973 to November, 1974.  Seasonal
           record published by the DNRC.

GAGE:  Water-stage recorder on a 7.62 cm (3 in) Parshall flume.
       Altitude of gage is 1829 m  (6000 ft), from topographic
       map.


Station DF 6  Block P Seep at Hughesville, Montana

LOCATION:  15N 09E 06DCC, Judith Basin County, behind the Block P
           Mine building at Hughesville, Montana, and 16 km
           (10 mi) east of Monarch, Montana.

DRAINAGE AREA:  92.90 square m (1000 square ft).

PERIOD OF RECORD:  September, 1973 to November, 1974.  Seasonal
           record published by the DNRC.

GAGE:  Water-stage recorder on a 7.62 cm (3 in) Parshall flume.
       Altitude of gage is 1814 m  (5950 ft), from topographic
       map.


Station DF 7  Galena Creek at Hughesville, Montana

LOCATION:  15N 09E 06DCB, Judith Basin County on right bank 305m
           (1000 ft) downstream from confluence with Green Creek,
           150 m  (500 ft) north of Block P Mine at Hughesville
           16 km  (10 mi) east of Monarch, Montana.

DRAINAGE AREA:  3.63 square km (1.4 square mi).

PERIOD OF RECORD:  August, 1973 to November, 1974.  Seasonal
                   record published by the DNRC.

GAGE:  Water-stage recorder on a 0.91 m  (3 ft) Cipolleti weir.
       Altitude of gage is 1817 m  (5960 ft), from topographic
       map.
                               74

-------
                           TABLE E-l
      Discharge in Liters per Second at Station DP 1  (1973)

Date  April    May    June    July    Aug.    Sept.    Oct.
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31







16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
9.06
16.7
101.
72.5
47.0
35.7
35.7
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5

25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
35.7
                             75

-------
                            TABLE  E-2
     Discharge  in  Liters  per  Second at  Station  DF  1 (1974)
Date April
May
June
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
35.7
47.0
47.0
47.0
47.0
47.0
47.0
59.2
72.5















205.
205.
205.
205.
224.
205.
205.
186.
168.
168.
150.
150.
150.
133.
117.
101.
101.
101.
101.
47.0
117.
150.
186.
312.
688.





July    Aug.
Sept.
Oct.










72.5
59.2
59.2
59.2
59.2
59.2
47.0
59.2
59.2
47.0
47.0
47.0
47.0
47.0
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
25.5
35.7
35.7
86.4
72.5
47.0
59.2
59.2
72.5
117.
101.
86.4
72.5
59.2
86.4
117.
101.
101.
86.4
72.5
72.5
72.5
59.2
59.2
59.2
59.2
59.2
59.2
47.0
47.0
47.0
47.0
47.0
35.7
47.0
35.7
59.2
59.2
47.0
47.0
47.0
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7

35.7
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
16.7
16.7
16.7
                             76

-------
                           TABLE E-3
    Discharge in Liters per Second at Station DF 2  (1973)

Date  April    May    June    July    Aug.    Sept.    Oct.
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31                                                    1.19





1.50
1.81
1.64
1.33
1.19
1.05
.935
1.05
1.19
1.19
1.33
1.33
1.19
1.05
1.05
.935
.935
.935
.935
1.05
1.05
.935
.793
.793
.793
.793
1.19
1.05
.935
.793
.793
.793
.793
.793
.680
.793
.793
.793
.793
.793
.793
.680
.680
.680
.680
.680
.680
.680
1.19
1.05
.793
.935
1.33
1.33
1.19
                             77

-------
                      TABLE E-4
Discharge in Liters per Second at Station DF 2  (1974)
late
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
April
.935
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.64
2.52
3.71
3.91
3.71
3.31
3.09
3.51
5.07
6.29
10.5
14.1
12.7
9.60
11.1
17.3
21.1
22.7
27.2
27.7
22.7
19.5
17.3

May
18.4
21.1





28.1
32.1
28.1
23.5
19.9
14.4
12.7
9.60
8.18
6.83
6.03
5.07
3.51
5.55
8.18
11.1
16.2
23.5
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.1
22.7
21.5
June


















12.1
13.4
11.1
8.75
8.18
7.62
7.36
7.08
6.83
6.83
6.83
6.83

July
6.54
6.54
6.54
6.54
6.54
6.83
5.55
4.81
3.09
4.36
4.36
3.31
3.31
3.31
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.91
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
Aug.
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.59
4.59
8.18
5.07
4.81
5.30














4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
Sept.
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.36
4.59
4.36
4.14
3.71
3.51
3.09
2.69
2.52
2.32
2.15
2.32
1.81
1.81
1.64
1.50
1.50
1.33
1.19
1.19
1.05
1.05

Oct.
1.05
.935
.935
.935
2.89
3.91
.935
.793
.793
.793
.935
.793
.935
.793
.793
.793
.793
.793
.793
.680
.935
1.05
1.33
1.19
1.05
.935
.935
.793
.793
.793
1.19
                         78

-------

Discharge
Date April
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TABLE E-5
in Liters per Second at Station DF 3
May June July Aug. Sept.







.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.368
.113
.198
.113
.113
.113
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057


(1973)
Oct.
.113
.113
.113
.453
.057
.057
.057
.113
.113
.680
.113
.028
.028
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.113
.057
.057
.028
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
79

-------
                          TABLE E-6
    Discharge in Liters per Second at Station DF 3  (1974)

Date  April    May    June    July    Aug.    Sept.    Oct.
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18    .935
 19   1.64
 20   2.52
 21   3.09
 22   2.89
 23   3.31
 24   4.59
 25   6.83
 26   7.61
 27   6.82
 28   5.30
 29   3.91
 30   3.09
 31
2.32
2.35
2.52
2.52
2.32
2.15
2.15
1.81
1.64
1.50
1.19
1.05
1.05
.935
.935
.793
.793
.793
.793






























.566
.793
.453
.368
.368
.368
.368
.283
.283
.283
.283
.283

.283
.283
.283
.283
.368
1.50
1.50
.283
.198
.113
.057
.198
.198
.198
.283
.198
.198
.283
.113
.113
.283
.198
.113
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.113
.113
.113
.198
.113
.113
.198
.198
.453
.453
.283
.283'














.793
.793
.793
.793
.793
.680
.793
.680
.680
.680
.680
.680
.680
.680
.793
1.05
.680
.453
.453
.453
.453
.368
.368
.368
.368
.283
.283
.283
.283
.283
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.113

.113
.113
.113
.113
.566
.283
.113
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.057
.028
.057
.057
.028
.057
.057
.057
.028
.028
.057
.057
                            80

-------
                          TABLE E-7

    Discharge in Liters per Second at Station DF 6 (1973)

Date  April    May    June    July    Aug.    Sept.    Oct.

  1                                                     0.
  2                                                     0.
  3                                                     0.
  4                                                     0.
  5                                                     0.
  6                                            .113
  7                                            .028
  8                                           0.
  9                                           0.
 10                                           0.
 11                                           0.
 12                                           0.
 13                                           0.
 14                                           0.
 15                                           0.
 16                                           0.
 17                                           0.
 18                                           0.
 19                                           0.
 20                                           0.
 21                                           0.
 22                                           0.
 23                                           0.
 24                                           0.
 25                                           0.
 26                                           0.
 27                                           0.
 28                                           0.
 29                                           0.
 30                                           0.
 31
                             81

-------
                          TABLE E-8
    Discharge in Liters per Second at Station DF 6  (1974)

Date  April    May    June    July    Aug.    Sept.    Oct.
  1            2.52                   1.19    1.33     .566
  2            2.69                   1.05    1.33     .453
  3            3.31                   1.05    1.19     .453
  4            3.31                   1.05    1.19     .453
  5            3.51                   1.05    1.19     .368
  6            4.14                   1.05    1.19     .368
  7            4.59                   1.05    1.05     .368
  8            4.81                   1.33    1.05     .368
  9            5.07                   1.19    1.05     .368
 10            5.07                   1.05    1.05     .368
 11            4.59                    .935   1.05     .283
 12            4.36                   1.05    1.05     .368
 13            4.14                   1.50     .936    .283
 14            3.51                   1.33     .936    .283
 15            2.89                   1.19     .936    .283
 16            2.69                   1.19     .936    .283
 17            2.32                   1.05     .793    .198
 18            2.15                   1.05     .793    .198
 19            2.15   5.07            1.19     .793    .198
 20            1.98   4.59            1.19     .793    .198
 21            2.32   4.14            1.33     .680    .198
 22            2.89   3.91            1.50     .680    .198
 23                   3.71            1.50     .680    .198
 24                   3.51            1.50     .680    .198
 25                   3.31    1.33    1.50     .680    .198
 26                   3.31    1.33    1.50     .566    .198
 27                           1.33    1.33     .566    .198
 28                           1.33    1.33     .566    .113
 29                           1.19    1.33     .566    .057
 30                           1.19    1.33     .566    .057
 31                           1.19    1.33             -113
                            82

-------
     Discharge
Date   April
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
           TABLE E-9

in Liters per Second at Station DF 7  (.1973)

 May    June    July    Aug.    Sept.    Oct.







9.06
16.7
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
35.7
35.7
25.5
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06

16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
                             83

-------
                     TABLE E-10
Discharge in Liters per Second  at  Station DF 7 (1974)
late
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
April
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
25.5
35.7
59.2
72.5
59.2
59.2
86.4
150.
205.
224.
186.
132.
86.4
86.4

May
86.4
86.4
86.4
86.4
86.4
101.
101.
101.
86.4
86.4
72.4
72.4
101.
72.4
59.2
59.2
47.0
47.0
47.0
47.0
101.
86.4
59.2
86.4
168.






June



















72.5
72.5
72.5
59.2
59.2
59.2
47.0
47.0
47.0
35.7
35.7

                             ,7
                              7
                             .7
July
35,
35,
35,
25.5
25.5
25.5
47.0
35.7
25.5
35.7
35.7
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25,
16,
25.5
25.5
25.5
16
16,
16,
16
16
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
                                  Aug.
                             ,5
                             ,7
                             ,7
                             ,7
                             ,7
                             ,7
                             ,7
                             ,7
                             ,7
                             ,1
                             .1
                             ,7
                          16.7
,7
,7
,7
,7
16.
16.
16.
16.
 9.06
16.7
16.7
59.2
47.0
47.0
35.7
35.7
47.0
72.5
59.2
59.2
47.0
35.7
59.2
72.5
72.5
72.5
59.2
47.0
47.0
35.7
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
                                             ,7
                                             ,7
Sept,
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
16
16
16.7
16.7
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
               Oct.
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16
16
16
                9,
                9
                9
                9
                9
                9,
                9
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
      16.7
 9.06
 9.06
 9.06
 9.06
 9.06
   06
   06
   06
   06
 9.06
 9.06
 9.06
 9.06
 9.06
 9.06
 9.06
   .06
   .06
   .06
 9.06
 9.06
 9.06
                          84

-------
Table F-l.
Table F-2.
Table F-3.
Table F-4.
Table F-5.
Table F-6.
Table F-7.
Table F-8.
Table F-9.
Table F-10
             APPENDIX F
CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR 1973 AND 1974
              Contents
 1973 Maximum and Minimum Air Temperature ... 86
 1974 Maximum and Minimum Air Temperature ... 87
 1973 Maximum and Minimum Pan Water Temperature 88
 1974 Maximum and Minimum Pan Water Temperature 89
 1973 Precipitation	90
 1974 Precipitation	91
 1973 Wind Total	92
 1974 Wind Total	93
 1973 Net Evaporation	94
 1974 Net Evaporation	95
                             85

-------
                                             TABLE F-l.

                         1973 MAXIMUM AMD  MINIMUM AIR TEMPERATURE —
oo
DAY
1
2
3
4
«5
6
7
8
p
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
74
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
JAN FF"? MAR APR MAY






23
20
25
15
16
17
26
25
17
9
13
5
4
16
19
24
28
26
20
21
23
23
27
23

JUW






12
Q
3
1
-2
1
5
6
2
0
1
0
0
0
7
2
8
9
11
8
7
7
8
5


70
15
22
? &
28
25
24
23
?7
28
2?
26
23
70
24
27
26
18
24
26
24
14
15
21
22
26
25
27
2"*
24
26
JUL
2
-1
4
7
7
c.
6
2
6
8
9
2
3
7
3
6
5
4
6
9
9
4
7
•a
5
6
7
4
4
4
6

->c
31
29
?4
23
26
18
1°
73
28
24
20
24
31
27
29
31

23
28
31
28
23
26
17
17
24
23
21
24
7.6
AUG
7
8
9
1 1
8
4
1
3
6
7
7
6
6
6
7
8
6
6
2
4
10
10
3
5
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
c
9
5
13


?4
74
19

21
21
23
20


5


20
14
14
11
17


12
13
23
22


•FP
•3,
2
0


4
5
7

6
5
6
0


-6


-5
-4
0
-1
0


0
0
0
0
2



•?"
1
R

17
14


11


16
16



19
19
20




19
4
11
13

16

OCT MOV

0
-6
-6 3-2?

_-a
i


-8 12 -19
13 1

-4
6

12 -3
6 -3
0

5


2 -13
-1 -7
0
-6
-•a
6
7 -12
2 9 -3

DEC


9 -5
0 -5
0 -14
? -7







6 -13
0 -9






P -14









   *  AT  BARKER,  MONTANA, ELEVATION 1737 MET?p
-------
                                             TABLE  F-2.

                          1974 MAXIMUM  AND  MINIMUM AIR TEMPERATURE —
oo
-j
DAY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
?4
25
?6
27
28
29
?0
31
JAN FEP

? -22
0 -6





4 -15
5 -5


5 -36


7 -7
6 -6
C -6
ID -9
3 -6


5 -16
0 -16
? -11


? -9
3 -2


MAR

8-98


6
11
6
11
4 -1*5 1?

11

6

11

12 -13

18



9 -24
20

23


13 -13
1?

APR

-6


-7
0
-6
-•a.
0

0

-4

-5



-6




-3

0



-6



17

14



20


1?


12




10



16

1?
16
17


14
14
MAY

-1

-4



— •a


_ ~


-4




-7



-4

0
2
2


f-
-2

14
20
21
14
11
1?
9
13
14

24
24
25
25
2R
27
28
28
31

24
17
25
27
31
27
22
24
24
21

JUN
-2
1
6
4
3
-2
-1
1
-1

0
4
4
7
6
8
R
9
3

7
6
6
7
8
9
2
6
5
3


27
2?
16
21
26
21
10
19

26
2^
15
">•>
24
28
28
26
?e
27
28
27
26
28
24
26
26
?6
2K
26
28
??
JUL
7
7
1
?
6
7
4
4

4
c;
2
4
7
11
8
6
7
8
11
6
7
6
4
6
3
5
6
c
11
7

23
15
21
?3
26
29
20
1 7
17
14
19


22
12

21
22
25



22
21
23
23
20
22
13
2r.
1?
AUG
6
2
2
6
7
Q
P
5
•2
1
3


1
1

0
4
6



i
6
6
•*
6
£.
0

6

10
9
17
20
23
16
20
19


21
-1

17
22
2?

26
21

13
17

23
2?-
?5

16
13


SEP
0
-4
-2
2
2
2
3
?


_ -a
-6

-4
0
1

1
0

-3
-3

1
6
5

-2
-1



14
16

21
8

11

20
21
15
15
15


18
22
22
22
24

2?


15
18
15

16


OCT
-2
3

-2
-5

-10

-6
2
2
-2
-1


-7
2
2
2
3

-6


—3
0
-2

-1



1?

•a
5
8

9



12

A


5





12



6


3


NCV
-2

-10
-8
-7

-4



-10

-7


-11





-7



-9


-11


OrC


<3 -8
8 -1






8 -11

3 -12
-2 -12





5 -12





7 -21
3 -6




      AT RAOKEPt  MONTANA, ELrVATION  1737  METEPS,  LAT1TUDF  47-04,  LD'JGITUOF 110-3*.
                     DEPARTMENT np NATRUAL 3ESPU°C'=S /'NO CTNSF5V IT TON

-------
                                           TABLE F-3.

                       1973 MAXIMUM ANO MINIMUM  PAN WATER  TEMPFPATURF
          — C
oo
00
DAY
1
2
3
»
4

6
7
8
o
10
11
1M
2
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
?1
JfcN egg MAP APR MAY






12
15
24
14
19
21
25
23
15
12
14
7
4
6
2?
27
24
19
23
21
26
27
26
21

,11 IN






9
11
8
c
4
4
7
11
6
•*
3

2
— *
5
R
9
9
P
10
11
11
11
9


20
q
27
27
26
27
24
24
?7
27
29
26
26
24
26
27
26
22
26
26
26
14
16
25
?6
26
24
26
26

18
III)
P
4
5
9
12
11

7
9
11
11
8
7
7
7
q
1 1
o
9
11
11
8
11
9
c
9
o
9
10
1C
9

23
27
27
19
21
2"
2\
17
24
25
22
21
23
23
26
26
24

22
23
24
21
17
17
19
17
?2
18
21
23
19
AlJG
9
11
11
12
10
9
7
7
6
9
11
9
Q
9
11
11
9
7
6
9
9
o
8
11
8
7
7
6
6
7
8
SED OCT NOV O^C
11 6
7 5
14 3



23 12
23 11

22 ?
2? 5
21 5



















      AT
'KER,  MONTANA
 MONTANA
,  ELEVATION 1737 METEFS
 TMENT OF NATRUAL
     ,  LAT!T'JDF

SESrUPCFS *ND rC
^7-
                                                                    LDNPITUD-  110-^8.

-------
                                             TABLE F-4.
                        1974 MAXIMUM ANH MINIMUM  ps\i WATE°
~ C
oo
DAY
1
2
?
4

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1?
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
?4
25
?6
27
28
29
?0
31
JAN FEP MAO ftpq ^Y



17
14
13
12
16
15

24
26
?7
28
29
29
•ao
?6
2C

27
18
25
27
28
31
27
27
25
24

J'J*



7
c
•5
7
5
4

6
o
9
10
11
12
11
12
14

11
9
9
10
11
11
7
7
8
9


?6
?7
16
22
27
26
22
18

?3
24
21

28
31
26
28
30
23
28
?7
28
28
28
27
26
27
25
31
28
24
JUl
c
11
7
7
R
8

9

Q
10
7
7
0
12
12
12
12
14
11
11
11
11
9
9
o
8
9
9
9
11
* AT *5RKER, MONTANA, FLEVATION 1737 METCPS, lATin
SOURCE: MONTANA OEPAPTMFMT OF NATRUAL RESOURCES AND
AUr- SCP ncr MCV r,=C
27
17
24
24
?a
27
21
17
11
14
17


25
13

e;
23
?2



19
20
23
23
23
24
14
21
16
11
7
7
7
c
11
10
9
7
u
4


K
5

7
8
7



4
Q
9
9
10
10
4
5
5
9
11
17
19
22
21
17
17


17




















3
2
8
2
i
6
7
7


2




















DE 47-04, LCNGITUDF HC-^P.
CONSEPVATION

-------
                                  TABLE F-5.

                       1973 PRECIPITATION — MT LLI MF
}AY
1
2
•a
4
5
6
7
P
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
?.l
22
23
?4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TOTAL
JAM P?R MAO APR MAY JUN
....






























• • * •

• • • *
* • * •
• • • •
* • • •
• * • •
• • • *
• • • •
• • • •

• • • •
• * • •
36
4
2
C
• • • •
29
• • * •
• * * •
* » • •
• • • *
• • • •
• • • •
» • • •
• • • •
• * * •

• • * *
* • * *





H
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
82
31
^3
53
20
0
0
0
n
r>
0
0
3
0
76
0

79.20
JUL
21.
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.
5.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31.
58
n
6
0
r\
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
n
ri
0
0
0
0
n
06
84
0
0
r
o
0
0
0
C
50
AUG
. 0
. C
. 0
1.01
. 0
. 0
. 0
2.53
. 0
. 0
2.28
. 0
. 0
. 0
. C
. 0
. 0
. C
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
2.03
16.50
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
24.35
SFP
37.08
39.62
. 0
•
•
. 0
2.53
5.58
•
.50
. 0
. 0
. 0
•
•
10.66
•
*
. 0
3.55
. C
. 0
. 0
*
•
R.38
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
.
107.90
OCT
•
10.92
. 0
. 0
•
. 0
. 0
*
•
2.79
•
•
. 0
1.77
•
•
•
1.77
. 0
. 0
•
•
•
•
23.62
. 0
. 0
. 0
•
.25
*
41.12
NOW' OEC
•
•
•
. 0
•
•
*
•
•
11.68
. 0
•
•
»
•
^.8?
.50
•
•
•
•
•
3.04
1.01
•
•
^
•
1.01
.50
•
22.56
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
9.
•
*
•
•
•
•
*
15.
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
25.


0
0
0
0







6?
r>






7^









39
* AF BARKER, MONTANA, ELEVATION 1737 METEPS,  LATITUDE 47-04, LONGITUDE 110-38.
SQUR:=:  MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATRUAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

-------
                                  TABLE F-6.

                      1974 PRECIPITATION  —
^AY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
7?
29
'O
31
TOTAL
J












53











9


1

5

59
AN F








17



33





0
0


11

14


26 5
0
58

.31 34.
EB M

0 2
0





77 8
0





0
0 7
0




42 21
3



07
1


26 40
AR APR M
.
03 9I&5
«
*
12.19
1.26
2.03
. 0
12 . 0
*
5.3?
,
8.38 74
27
.50

36
9
. 0 7
.
B
,
58 . 94
. 0
•
. 0
*
*
26
18.03 19
2
.35 57.37 225
AY Jl

0

C 1
5


0 20


so

68
94




11

22

2?

0
0
C


81
03
.80 50
JN JML AUG S
0 . C .06
0 .0 .0
0 2.28 . 0
01 .0 .0
?3 .0 .01
0 9.65 . 0
76 24.38 10.15
57 21.58 11.68
0 . 29.46
. 0 2.28
0 17.52 8.6? 29
0 1.77
0 .0
0 . 0 38.10
0 . 0 2.53
0 •=«. 30
0 .0 .0
0 .0 .0
0 11.17 . 0
.0
85 .0
0 .0
0 . 0 36.57
0 .0 .0
0 .0 , C
0 .0 .0
0 .0 . C
0 .0 .07
0 .0 .0
0 . C ?.<>4
.76 .0
.52 92.41 142.44 45.
EP 0<
35
0
0
0
77 2
0
0
C


71
o

0
0
o

o
0

o
0 16

0
C
0

11
76

11
70 30.
CT N
0
6

0
53

0

0
0
0 4
o
P 2?


0
o
o
0
0

50


o
0
Q

o

42
45 30.
nv D
0

79
;-\
5

o



82

11 18


0



12

o



0 18


0


72 49.
FC


0
o






0

03
o





7«





28
o




01
AT BARKER f  MONTANA,  ELEVATION 1737 KETEPSt  LATUUHE 47-04, LCNGITUHF  110-3P.
U':=: ^ONTANA  DEPARTMENT OF NATRU/JI  ^ESCU"CcS CNO CONSERVATION

-------
                                           TABLE  F-7.

                                  1973 WIND  TOTAL — KILOMETERS
DAY
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2\
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
JAI>






J P = B MAR API
• *
• *
• *
• •
• •
* *
I I
-
* •
• *
• •
• •
• •
1 MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP GCT NOV 0
-------
                                            TABLE  F-8.

                                   1°74 WIND TOTAL — KILOMETERS
OAY
1

3
4
K
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1^
16
17
18
19
20
21
72
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
jaf












289





SD4
615




645


735
359


H CPB *4f
•
979.0 1583
994.3
•
•
•
•
9
1051.9 147
1064.0
•
•
6
O
*
1186.6
1213.? 275
1246.8

6 I
^
•
1343.3 367
1351.5
6
•
•
9
0 . 516
•
•
? APR MAY JUM JUL AUG SEP QCT NOV 0 = C
. 126^.3 1603.2 10B.2 164.7 247.3 360.4
2 537.2 1008. P 128S.2 8.6 109.9 165.7 ?49.7
. 1331.6 9.1 110.3 .0 . 360.7 815.9
. 1040.5 1353.1 17.0 113.5 167.6 .0 361.? 822.1
602. C . 1364.7 ?7.0 116.6 .0 .0 363.3
616.8 . 1377.6 27.9 119.3 1^2.1
635.7 . 1?P7.9 ?9.6 122.2 17ft. c 753. 7 385.1
643.5 1135.4 1394.0 ?1.5 122.6 177.7
2 659.6 . 1400.1 . 124.2 .0
37.8 12^.3 .0
6P2.8 1168.7 1421.5 41.0 125.9 184.0 .0 454.3 851.1
. 1434.1 52.7 . .0 299.2
722.6 . 1448.4 62. 7 . . 306. c 4R2.6 946.4
. 1180.3 1456.6 64.3 .0 .0 . 954.6
740.1 . 1458.7 65.1 .0 .0 .
. 1462.5 65.9 . 187.7 324.3 492.6
9 . . 1467.7 67.2 .0 . .0
. 1471.9 68.7 .0 .0 .0
769.7 1197.2 1477.7 69.3 .0 .0 3?6.6
71.6 . . 337. R . 1037.1
. 1489.4 74.3 . 197.4
. 1489.9 78.0 . 198.2 343. P 643.5
6 . 1198.7 14^1.5 R3. 6 .0 ....
832.6 . 1492.8 P4.1 134.1 .0 .
. 1202.2 1494.1 86.4 151.5 202.2 346.5
867.2 1223.1 1499.4 94.9 155.5 204.9 352.0 797.5 11P1.4
. 1241.3 1515.0 97.3 155.5 . 353.3 . 125R.3
. 1525.3 99.1 157.0 223.0
9 . . 1556.8 102.6 157.1 227.6 357.3 800.9
943.3 1247.7 15°1.3 103.2 164.4 ....
.0 . 104.5 164.9 ....
vo
u>
      Ar RAR«pR,  MONTANA,  CLEVATION  1737  METEFS,  LATITLHE 47-04, LONGITUDE  110-38.
         =: MONTANA  FEPAPTMENT OF NATRUAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

-------
                                          TABLE  F-9.

                              1973 NTT FVA0?RAT TON — M ILL IV
vo
DAY
1
2
pi
4
5
6
7
8
Q
10
11
12
13
14
1K
16
17
18
1 o
26
21
22
23
?4
?5
26
27
28
29
30
?1
TOTAL
J&.N p:rB MAR. APR. MAY JIJM
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.51
3.68
4.06
0.12
4.87
2.71
3.83
?.47
-?5.48
-?.64
1.29
-5.25
-•^.37
1 .82
4.08
6-. 95
2.87
4.97
5.25
2.84
4.52
4.41
2.76
2.23
0.0
-3.50
JUL
4.82
3.47
3.93
4.19
4.74
5.48
5.38
3,80
4.41
3.86
5.63
4.82
3.35
4.82
^.20
5.20
4.31
2.87
3.04
1.52
5.C7
-4.06
-^.06
2.53
4.06
1. 52
5.07
4.06
2.0?
3.25
2.08
104.44
AIJG
3.04
4.5°
4.69
^.48
1.54
1.21
2.64
0.50
2.74
?.53
-r'.20
2.1?
2.76
4.0?
4.24
4.54
4.62
5.13
2.69
?.40
^.55
2.53
-1.67
-1?.05
2.15
1.85
3.07
2.15
3.14
3.09
2.28
67.36
SFP PfT MOV 0CT
0.76
0.0
C.50
c.c
0.0
C .0
1.52
-3.55
c.o
2.28
4.31
1.26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.08
      AT
pAR<=P, MONTANA, cLEVATinN  1737  METFFS,  L/
?: MONTANA DFPARTMFNT  OF  NATRUAL RFsru°CFf
                                                     AND
c 47-04, LCNGITUOE 110-38.

-------
\D
Ol
                                           TABLE F-10.

                               1<=74 NET EVAPORATION — MlLL!y?TPps*
3AY
1
2
•j
It
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
i 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
?0
21
77
?3
24
25
26
27
28
?c
30
31
TOTAL
J4N CFP MAR APR MAY JIJN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.96
-5.07
1.37
-0.05
-18. »4
1 .44
0.0
7.89
5.48
5.35
5.15
*.6C
4.72
4.64
3.78
5.28
•^.n
-16.86
c. sn
2.53
2.64
6.09
4.54
6. 19
7.10
5. CO
4.31
0.0
44.09
JUL
4.47
4.62
-0.71
3.32
5.15
-7.69
-20.31
-19.73
0.0
6.45
-12.62
2.59
3.58
3.78
3.86
-1.16
3.3C
4.59
-8.55
1.14
5.76
5.H2
3.65
?.59
3.25
1.C0
6.27
4.06
^>.55
4.01
0.93
17.07
AUG
?.6?
1.37
2.61
?.97
4.1<3
^.07
-8.30
-11.25
0.0
-0.91
-18.38
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.82
6.60
1.98
0.0
0.0
0.0
-25.40
1.3?
2.08
3.8"
1.4?
3.04
1.29
-1.09
1.42
-22.72
SEP QCT MOV ncr.
-6.29
0.53
1.39
2.87
-0.88
2.08
3.12
1.32
0.0
0.0
0. 0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
c.c
O.f?
c.^
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
4.14
    * AT BARKER, MONTANA,  ELEVATION 1737 METERS, LATITUDE  47-04,  LONGITUDE 110-38.
    SOURCE:  MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND  CONSERVATION.

-------
       APPENDIX G:  THE CHEMISTRY OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE

      Iron disulfides  (FeS2) usually occur naturally in crystal
line  form as pyrite or marcasite, found  in varying amounts  in
many  metal ore and coal deposits.  In spoil piles and mine
shafts,  such as those in the study area, the disulfides are ex
posed to oxygen and water, causing them  to decompose as illus-
trated in equation 1:

         2FeS2 + 2H20 + 702— *• 2FeS04 + 2H2SO4          (1)

         (Pyrite + Water + Oxygen—*. Ferrous Sulfate + Sulfuric
         Acid)

      The ferrous sulfate product of this reaction can be oxi-
dized to ferric sulfate by chemical or biological reactions as
in equations 2 and 3 :
        4FeSO4 + 02 + 2H2S04-»2Fe2(S04)  + 2H20       (2)

        2FeS04 +0-)- H2SO"4 bacterj.a Fe2(S04)  + H2d   (3)


The bacteria referred to in equation 3, Thiobacillus  ferrooxi-
dans, accelerate oxidation of the ferrous ion.

     The ferric sulfate produced by biological or chemical means
in equations 2 and 3 can then contribute further to acid forma-
tion in two ways.  First, it can serve as an oxidizing agent,
oxidizing additional sulfides as in equation 4:
        Fe2(S04)3 + FeS^ 3FeS04 + 2S                 (4)

The elemental sulfur released in this process can be utilized by
the bacteria Thiobacillus thiooxidans as an energy source, pro-
ducing more acid by the reaction illustrated in equation 5 :
            30+ H20          2H+ + SOJ

Second, the ferric sulfate produced in equations 2 and 3, can be
hydrolyzed to form sparingly soluble ferric hydroxide and re-
lease additional sulfuric acid, as shown in equation 6:

        Fe2 (SO4)3 + 6H20-*-2Fe(OH)3 + 3H2S04         (6)

Separately or in combination, chemical or bacterial oxidation
indicated by these reactions produces acidic water, which
                               96

-------
usually flows through geological materials, dissolving minerals
to varying degrees and thereby adding constituents to the stream
load.

               THE EFFECT OF ACID WATERS ON STREAMS

     Although the specific effects of acid mine wastes on any
stream are dependent on the concentration of those wastes, some
generalizations can be made.  Usually, as in Galena Creek, the
acid waste produces a characteristic yellow-orange precipitate
(iron hydroxides), some of which settles.  The alkalinity of
the receiving stream decreases, while the iron and sulfate con-
centration increases.  If the stream contains sufficient alka-
J;?iSy fc° main-^in a PH above 4.5, most of the iron is precipi-
tated,  if sufficient alkalinity is not present in the receiving
to maintain this pH, hydrolysis of ferric sulfate can occur
increasing the acidity.

     The native aquatic plants and animals normally found in
unpolluted streams cannot exist in a stream severely polluted by
acid mine drainage.  The heavy metal loading and acidity of
Galena Creek make the water impotable to the wildlife in the area
                               97

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                             (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/2-77-225
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

 FEASIBILITY OF  SILVER-LEAD MINE WASTE MANIPULATION FOR
 MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL
             5. REPORT DATE
               November  1977 issuing date
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 Montana Department of Natural Resources  and Conservation
 Engineering  Bureau
 32 South Ewing
 Helena, Montana   59601     	    	
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                 1BB610
              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                 S802122
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cin., OH
 Office of Research and Development
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Cincinnati, Ohio   45268	
              13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
              	Final  3/73  -  3/75	
              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                 EPA/600/12
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
       The purpose  of the Feasibility Study Dry Fork of Belt Creek,  Montana is to
       examine  solutions and methods of abatement of acid mine drainage problems and
       recommend  a  solution.  The Galena Creek area in the Dry Fork  of Belt Creek
       drainage contains several old mine  tailings piles from which  acidic waters
       emerge.  The acidic water has destroyed the aquatic life  in Galena Creek and
       the Dry  Fork of Belt Creek as well  as ruined the overall  aesthetic value of
       both creeks.

       Mine dump  surface regrading and sealing are recommended as the method of reduc-
       ing the  acidic wastes entering Galena Creek.   The top of  Block P Mine dump
       should be  sloped so as to allow proper drainage.  The top should also be sealed
       with a bentonite seal, and top soil  added to allow revegation.   The bypass
       pipeline around the Block P dump should be extended to prevent water in
       Galena Creek  from creating seeps in  the toe of the dump.
 7.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                           c. COS AT I Field/Group
        Drainage
        Mine Waters
        Water Pollution
        Water Quality
        Water Chemistry
  Acid Mine  Drainage
  Little  Belt  Mountains
  Cascade County
  Judith  Basin County
  Mine Waste
  Silver  Mines
 13B
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

       RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
  UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
     106
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                 UNCLASSIFIED
                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                            98
                      * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977- 757-140/6609

-------