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
------- |