EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and
Development
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
EPA-6 00/7-77-068

July 1977
            ONSITE CONTROL OF
            SEDIMENTATION UTILIZING
            THE MODIFIED BLOCK-CUT
            METHOD  OF SURFACE MINING
            Interagency
            Energy-Environment
            Research and Development
            Program Report

-------
                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 INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded  under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to  assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects;  assessments of,  and  development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and  integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                              EPA-600/7-77-068
                                              July 1977
       ONSITE CONTROL OF SEDIMENTATION
      UTILIZING THE MODIFIED BLOCK-CUT
          METHOD OF SURFACE MINING
                      by

      Department of Natural Resources
        and Environmental Protection
          Commonwealth of Kentucky

                   and

        Watkins and Associates, Inc.
               and C. T. Haan
           University of Kentucky
         Lexington, Kentucky  40501
                 Grant 802681
                Project Officer
              S. Jackson Hubbard
   Resource Extraction and Handling Division
  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 Environmental Research
Laboratory-Cincinnati,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
                                    1i

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

     This report describes the results of a feasibility study to show
that the modified block-cut method of surface mining can provide onsite
control of sedimentation.  A site was selected and a detailed site
survey and subsurface investigation was performed.  Preliminary plans
for a demonstration project were developed.  For further information
contact the Resource Extraction and Handling Division.
                                David G. Stephan
                                    Director
                 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                                   Cincinnati

-------
                                 ABSTRACT
     The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of a
demonstration project for onsite control of sedimentation utilizing
the modified block-cut method of surface mining.  A project site on
Lower Lick Fork in Perry and Letcher Counties in Kentucky was selected.
A detailed site survey and subsurface investigation was conducted, and
preliminary plans were developed.

     Calculations indicate the sediment yield from the mining operation
will be within the water quality standards of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky.  All operations proposed in the demonstration project meet
present State regulations for surface mining.

     Based on certain assumptions, a comparison of costs involved in the
modified block-cut method of mining and in a method using the minimum
acceptable requirements as set forth in the present regulations has been
prepared.  The differential in costs of the two methods appears to be
negligible.  The demonstration will prove that the need for sediment
basins with the modified block-cut method of mining will be minimized or
perhaps eliminated, depending on future-State and Federal requirements.

     A water quality monitoring station will be constructed to provide
data before, during, and after the mining operation.  In this manner, the
efficiency of this method of mining in providing onsite control of
sedimentation may be fully evaluated and documented.
                                   IV

-------
                            CONTENTS
Foreword	111
Abstract	iv
Figures	vi
Tables	vii
Acknowledgments	ix
     1.   Introduction	   1
               Scope and Purpose of this Project 	   1
               General Description of the Project	   1
               Effectiveness of the Project	   2
     2.   Conclusions.	  .   5
     3.   Recommendations	   7
     4.   Jurisdictional Framework 	   8
               Cognizant Authority 	   8
               Existing and Proposed Standards 	   9
               Site Acquisition	   9
               Authority for Funding 	   9
               Water and Mineral Rights	   9
               Prevention of Future Pollution	10
     5.   Inventory and Characterization 	  11
               Physical Conditions 	  11
               Water Resources 	  17
               Social and Economic Environment 	  20
               Economy	22
     6.   Preliminary Engineering	23
               Abatement Method Description	23
               Analysis of Additional Operator Costs
                 Due to Proposed Mining Method 	  24
               Preliminary Design	36
                    Drawings	36
                    Specifications 	  36
                    Expected Mine Water Quality and Quantity ...  44
                    Design and Construction Schedule 	  56
                    Program Surveillance Measures	57
                    Program Emergency Procedures 	  58
               Capital and Operating Costs 	  58
                    Site Acquisition Costs . 	  58
                    Construction Costs 	  58
                    Operating Procedures 	  58
                    Personnel Requirements 	  59
                    Operating Costs	60
     7.   Preparation of Implementation and Operation Plans. ...  61
     8.   Effectiveness of Project	64
               Demonstration Value 	  64
               Public Benefits 	  64
References	66
Bibliography 	  68

-------
                               FIGURES

Number                                                       Page
  1    Project Vicinity Map 	 12
  2    Project Location Map 	 13
  3    Selected Project Area Downslopes  and
       Composite Cross Section to Meet Minimum
       Requirements Only	26
  4    Project Area Downslopes and Mining Methods
       to Meet Minimum Requirements Only	30
  5    Watershed Drainage Area	37
  6    Sub-Surface Investigation  Location,  Coal
       Contours and Disturbed Limits	.	38
  7    Typical  Mining Section 	 39
  8    Cross Sections of Modified Block-Cut and
       Conventional Methods of Mining 	 45
  9    Estimated 2-Year Runoff Event for Drainage-
       way Along Coal Haul  Road	47
 10    Two-Year Runoff Hydrograph from Demonstration
       Watershed	 48
 11    One-Hundred Year Runoff Hydrograph from Demon-
       stration Watershed	49
 12    Particle Size Distribution of Material  to  be
       Placed on Top of Spoil	50
 13    Sediment Rating Curve for  Drainage Channel
       Along Coal  Haul  Road	51
 14    Two-Year Storm Flow  at End of 800'  Channel 	  52
 15    Operational  Schedule 	  62

-------
                                  TABLES

Number                                                                Page

  1   Comparison of Land Uses	15

  2   Estimated Point Rainfall Values
      for Perry-Letcher Counties	17

  3   Long-term Averages of Temperature and
      Precipitation in Eastern Kentucky 	  17

  4   Selected Water Quality Data, Cornettsville
      Gauging Station, North Fork of Kentucky River 	  19

  5   Population Trends, Perry and Letcher
      Counties	20

  6   Population Projections, Perry and Letcher
      Counties, 1975 to 2000	21

  7   Operations Performed and Overburden Removal
      Methods to Meet Minimum Requirements Only	31

  8   Overburden Volumes Necessary to Complete
      Proposed Project Mining Meeting Only Minimum
      Requirements 	  31

  9   Equipment Ownership and Operating
      Expense Schedule 	  32

 10   Revegetation and Permit Area Costs Comparison
      for the Demonstration Area	35

 11   Differential Costs of Total End-haul Compared
      to Partial End-haul Mining Method	35

 12   Recommended Amount of Fertilizer for Each
      Soil Sample	43

 13   Recommended Application Rates for
      Seed Mixture	44

 14   Estimated Sediment Production and Sediment
      Delivery to Monitoring Station by Months
      for the First Year	55
                                   vn

-------
Number                                                                Page

  15    Sediment  Delivered  to  Monitoring
       Station	~	    55
                                     vm

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


     The guidance and review of the Resources Extraction and Handling
Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and particularly
Mr. S. Jackson Hubbard, Project Officer, has been highly beneficial.

     The assistance and cooperation of the Office for Planning and
Research, Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protec-
tion, Commonwealth of Kentucky, including Robert E. Nickel, William Kelly,
and Danny McClain is greatly appreciated.

     Dr. C. T.  Haan of the University of Kentucky served as a special
consultant during the preparation of this Feasibility Study, and his
technical assistance is recognized.

     The information and cooperation provided by personnel from Certicoal,
Inc., regarding the mining operation has been greatly appreciated.
L.N. Thomas, Jr., W.M. Breckenridge, Roger Hall, and Estil Taylor nave been
extremely helpful during the investigation.

     The courtesies provided by personnel of the Division of Reclamation,
Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Common-
wealth of Kentucky, and particularly Ken Ratliff and Forrest Roark, have
assured compliance with current regulations.
                                    IX

-------
                               SECTION I

                              INTRODUCTION


     In the past, the  conventional method of strip mining in Eastern
Kentucky involved the placement of overburden on the downs!ope, which
caused significant water pollution problems downstream from the area
being mined.  Recent State legislation pertaining to strip mining
(Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 350) and regulations issuing therefrom
(KAR 1:055 and KAR 1:060) effectively preclude the conventional method of
strip mining since that method frequently causes excessive sedimentation
and polluted water in public streams.  Currently, much effort is being
devoted to not only develop more effective sediment and pollution control
devices, but also to devise alternate methods of conducting surface mining
operations to significantly reduce sediment at the source.  One such method
being tested is the block-cut method, which has not been utilized extensive-
ly in Kentucky, but which has been applied beneficially in other states.

SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT

     This project will demonstrate the ability of a modified block-cut
method of surface mining to reduce the amount of sediment and water
pollution resulting from strip mining for coal in a typical location in
Eastern Kentucky.  The quality of water runoff from a small, isolated,
undisturbed watershed at the head of a small, seasonably flowing stream
will be determined before the mining operation or other disturbances of
the watershed surface or subsurface.  The mining operation will then be
conducted by a modified block-cut method, and the quality and quantity
of water flowing from the mined area will be continuously monitored.
Comparison of the water quality before mining operations will be made with
the quality of water during and after mining to determine the water
pollution effects of the block-cut method.  Cost of mining operations using
the conventional method will be compared with the cost using the block-cut
method to determine the theoretical  cost difference between the two methods
and the cost effectiveness of reducing pollution by the block-cut procedure.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

     The site for the demonstration is located in Perry and Letcher
Counties in southeastern Kentucky at the head of Lower Lick Fork of Bull
Creek, a contributary of the North Fork of the Kentucky River.  There are
15.4 hectares (38 acres) in the site.  Existing terrain is mountainous,
with steep slopes and high ridges on each side of Lower Lick Fork.   Veg-
etation is second growth timber.  There has been no previous surface or
deep-mine activity at the site.

-------
     The company leasing the mineral rights at the project site has
agreed with the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection, Division of Reclamation, to use the block-cut method to extract
coal.  Instead of placing the first block in a head-of-hollow fill, the
operator will modify the method of placing the first block in an orphan
area outside the demonstration project watershed.  The operator will then
continue through the site using the modified block-cut method to mine the
Hazard No. 7 coal seam.

     Analysis of the quality of the water runoff from the site will be
initiated before commencing mining operations.  In fact, tests on water
samples have been conducted since December 1974.  A water monitoring
station will be constructed on the Lower Lick Fork at the site boundary to
continuously measure quantity of flow, temperature, and rainfall, and to
periodically extract samples of water for analysis.  Tests of water quality
will be performed on the samples.  A continuous record of water quality and
quantity before, during, and after mining operations will be prepared and
studied to determine the amount of water pollution resulting from the
modified block-cut method.

     A theoretical determination of time, equipment, sequence of operations,
and cost requirements will be made for the modified block-cut method.  This
determination will be compared with a similar breakdown for the convention-
al strip mining methods so that the methods can be compared.

     To complete the project, a comprehensive report will be prepared
setting forth the findings of the demonstration project.  Specific atten-
tion will be given to the water quality and sedimentation resulting from
the use of the modified block-cut method of strip mining, both during the
mining operation and afterward.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT

     Application of the block-cut method of surface mining at producing
mines has demonstrated the effectiveness of this method as compared to
conventional methods of contour mining.  The following advantages of the
block-cut are reported by the U. S. Environmengal Protection Agency:1

     1.   Spoil on the downs!ope is totally eliminated.  Since no fill
          bench is produced,  landslides have been eliminated.

     2.   Mined area is completely backfilled, and since no highwall
          is left, the area is aesthetically more pleasing.

     3.   Acreage disturbed is approximately 60% less than that
          disturbed by conventional contour mining.

     4.   Reclamation costs are lower, as the overburden is handled
          only once instead of two or three times.

-------
       5.   Slope is not a limiting factor,

       6.   The block-cut  method is applicable to multi-seam mining.

       7.   At present, this method does not require the development
            of new equipment.  As new mining technology develops,
            however, modified or new types of equipment may be needed.

       8.   Regular explosives are used, but blasting techniques had
            to be developed to keep short material on the permit area.

       9.   Bonding amounts and acreage fees have been reduced.

      10.   Size of the disturbed area drainage system is smaller.

      11.   Size and number of sediment control structures have been
            reduced.  Total life of structure usefulness is increased.

      12.   No new safety hazards have been introduced.  However, the
            increased number of pieces  of moving equipment in a more
            confined area may negate this point.

      13.   Revegetatton costs have been considerably reduced and it is
            easier to keep the seeding current with the mining.   Bond
            releases are quicker.

      14.   AMD, silitation, and erosion is significantly reduced and
            more easily controlled because of concurrent reclamation
            with mining.

      15.   Total amount of coal recovered is equal to that recovered
            by conventional methods.

      16.   Overburden is easily segregated, topsoil can be saved,  and
            toxic materials can be deeply buried.

      17.   Equipment, materials, and manpower are concentrated,  making
            for a more efficient operation.

      18.   The method allows for early removal of equipment from the
            operation and placing it back in production at another site.

The disadvantages of the block-cut moethd were reported to be:^

       1.   Complicated and time-consuming methods of drilling and
            blasting to maintain control of the overburden and get
            proper fragmentation for the particular types of equip-
            ment being used in spoil  removal.

       2.   Economics may limit use of this method; i.e., thin seams
            of stream coal cannot be recovered profitably if the
            overburden must be shot.

-------
       3.   Special precautions must be  taken  in scheduling the various
            phases of mining and  reclamation so as to realize the maximum
            recovery of coal and  at the  same time eliminate any dead time
            for equipment.

       4.   It is very important  that the location of the initial box
            cut be properly selected.  In some areas there will be no place
            to back haul the material taken at the beginning of the block-
            cut or to dispose of  the excess spoil at the end of the oper-
            ation.  Head-of-hollow fill  is not always possible, as it can
            only be done in a restricted set of circumstances.

       5.   Long-term environmental sequences  are not known and will
            require a monitor program of a pilot block-cut operation to
            determine if stream siltation and  mineralization can be elim-
            inated.

       6.   Investment costs for  spoil haulage equipment are increased.
            Some small mines cannot afford this additional expense.

       7.   The block-cut method  develops no broad bench that has a high
            land use potential in mountainous  terrain.  No access is left
            for forest fire-fighting crews, timbering operations, or
            recreational purposes.

       8.   Augering must be conducted concurrently with mining.

       It  is  obvious that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and
 that  the block-cut method is an effective mining procedure.  If this proposed
 demonstration project is successful, it  will produce findings that will
 eliminate  disadvantage No. 5 from the above list since  the purpose of this
 project is to set up a monitor program of a pilot block-cut operation.  On
 the basis  of  experience from mining operations using the block-cut method,
 the effectiveness has been stated by Benjamin  C. Greene,2 West Virginia
 Reclamation Chief, to be, "As far as we're concerned it's the way of the
 future if  we  are to continue contour surface mining. .  . The environmental
 effects are very minimal and can  be totally controlled  by this mining
 method".

        Public benefits  ensuing from this project will  be  manifold and  wide
spread.   Pollution  created by contour strip mining and  the cost of meeting
water quality standards  will  generally be reduced.   This will  in  turn  in-
crease the public use of water coming from strip mined  areas  for  recreational,
agricultural and industrial  activity.   The cost of treating  public water will
be reduced.

-------
                                SECTION  II

                                 CONCLUSIONS


1.   The sampling and testing process to date in Lower Lick Fork indicates
     the water quality to be essentially free from man made pollutants.
     The study area is therefore ideal for documenting the effectiveness of
     the modified block-cut method of mining in providing onsite control of
     sedimentation.

2.   Initial calculations presented herein indicate the modified block-cut
     method of mining to meet Commonwealth of Kentucky Water Quality
     Standards for sediment yield without a silt basin.  The fully document-
     ed demonstration project will prove that the need for silt basins will
     be minimized or eliminated assuming State and Federal regulations are
     not more stringent in the future.

3.   The sediment yield from the actual mining operation utilizing the
     modified block-cut method of mining may be less than the sediment yield
     from the construction of a silt basin including access for construction
     equipment.

4.   The disturbed area associated with the modified block-cut mining method
     is considerably less than methods utilized in the past.  A comparison
     with methods utilizing minimum requirements provided by the recently
     approved Commonwealth of Kentucky Mining Regulations is included here-
     with.  Depending upon the slope of the existing terrain, existing
     Kentucky requirements will require that a large percentage of the
     overburden be hauled back rather than placed on the outslope.

5.   The sampling and testing program to be conducted as a portion of the
     demonstration project will document the relationship of disturbed area,
     slope, rainfall, and temperature to the generation of pollutants.
     Although the modified block-cut method of mining has been utilized in
     some states, the documentation of improvement in water quality has  not
     been provided at this time.

6.   The utilization of the modified block-cut method of surface mining will
     result in return of land to approximate original contour with provision
     of access road for fire-fighting, recreation, and wildlife trail.  This
     method is pleasing to critics of surface mining.

-------
 7.     Subsurface investigation of the project area indicated the coal  thick-
       ness in some sections of the project area would not support augering
       operation.  The operator indicated a willingness to strip this coal
       in order to support the goals of the demonstration project.

 8.     The permanent water quality monitoring station will provide all  water
       samples necessary to evaluate the water quality of the upper reach of
       Lower Lick Fork before, during, and after mining.

 9.     One of the disadvantages of the block-cut method of mining listed in
       "Environmental Protection in Surface Mining  of Coal" (EPA-670/2-74-093)
       was "Long-term environmental consequences are not known and will require
       a monitor program of a pilot block-cut operation to determine if stream
       siltation and mineralization can be eliminated".  This demonstration
       project will correct this disadvantage.

10.     Due to the relatively small size of the project area,  calculations in-
       dicate that diversion ditches and vegetated  fan outlet's will not be
       required for onsite control of sedimentation.

11.     The overall production costs utilizing the modified block-cut method
       of mining are comparable with methods meeting the minimum requirements
       of the Commonwealth of Kentucky regulations  for surface mining.

12.     The project will be in conformance with existing State law and will  be
       regulated under the established authority of the Kentucky Department
       for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.

-------
                                SECTION III

                              RECOMMENDATIONS


1.   Detailed pre-nrining plans should be developed and be agreeable to all
     concerned parties and meet the requirements of State laws.  These plans
     should be developed to allow for the most economical coal recovery, yet
     provide for the best control of sedimentation on the site.

2.   Upon all approvals of the pre-mining plans a detailed field stakeout
     should be accomplished which will indicate the maximum area to be
     disturbed.  Onsite inspection of the operation during mining will assure
     compliance with these goals, and will provide documentation of time,
     labor and equipment required to complete the operation.

3.   Composite grab water samples should be tested weekly before, during,
     and for one year after mining.  This will provide for evaluation of the
     effect of the mining and reclamation efforts upon water quality.
     Additionally, pollutographs should be developed based upon discrete
     water samples during rainfall events in order to accurately reflect
     relationship of flow, temperature, and pollutants.

4.   Upon completion of mining, field surveys should be conducted to accur-
     ately define mined areas and drainage systems.  Project pictures will
     be obtained twice monthly to record revegetation progress.

5.   The operation should correct deficiencies in the available topsoil
     as indicated in the results of tests presented herein.  The fertilizer
     and planting recommendations herein meet or exceed present Commonwealth
     of Kentucky regulations.  Quick revegetation will also contribute to
     the effectiveness of onsite control of sedimentation.

-------
                                  SECTION IV

                           JURISDICTION FRAMEWORK
COGNIZANT AUTHORITY

    The authority for this study has been granted under the auspices of the
Environmental Protection Agency by virtue of the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972", PL 92-500.  Section 107 entitled "Mine Water
Pollution Control Demonstrations" provides specific authority to conduct
projects to demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility of mine
water pollution abatement techniques.

    Administration of the study has been the responsibility of the Office of
Planning and Research, an office within the Commonwealth of Kentucky's
Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, a statutory
unit of the Kentucky state government headed by a Secretary appointed by the
Governor.  The Department has the authority to exercise all state functions
providing for the conservation, maintenance and preservation of land and
water resources and the prevention, abatement and control of all water, land
and air pollution.

    Powers of the Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Pro-
tection directly related to this study are authorized in Chapter 350 of the
Kentucky Revised Statutes.  The Department has authority to: adopt general
rules and regulations pertaining to strip mining; to conduct hearings and
investigations; to issue orders requiring remedial measures by mine operators;
and to revoke permits.

    Additional power to exercise general supervision, administration and
enforcement of Chapter 350 are granted to the Secretary of the Department
through the Division of Reclamation.

    The Department's Division of Water Quality, Bureau of Environmental
Quality, is charged with safeguarding the uncontaminated waters of the
Commonwealth, preventing the creation of new pollution, and abating existing
pollution in the waters of the Commonwealth.  Authority, powers and duties of
the Division of Water Quality as set forth in KRS Chapter 240, are adequate
to fulfill the Division's responsibilities toward water quality as required
by this study.

    Legal authority also exists to cooperate with other agencies, including
the Federal Government, to carry out any of the Department's functions and
to receive Federal and other funds as necessary to accomplish the purposes of
the demonstration project.
                                      8

-------
EXISTING AND PROPOSED STANDARDS

    Regulations and Standards have been adopted by the Department for Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection to implement KRS Chapter 224 and
Chapter 350.  The KAR Regulations are administered by the Division of Recla-
mation.  Water Quality Standards are administered by the Division of Water
Quality.  Existing standards insure that water emanating from surface mines
will be of high quality and that sedimentation will be controlled.  Regula-
tions adopted July 2, 1975 are presented in 402 KAR 1:025 through 1:060.
Since the project will be conducted under the direction of the Department for
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, the state agency charged with
the implementation of KRS 350, all applicable regulations will be strictly
observed.  The agency has sufficient capability and authority to accomplish
the surveillance and enforcement required by the project.

SITE ACQUISITION

    The site selected for the project is located entirely within the State
of Kentucky in Perry and Letcher Counties.  Certicoals Incorporated has leased
the surface and mineral rights for the site and has a legal right to conduct
mining operations at the site, to permit the proposed demonstration project
to be undertaken, and to give project personnel access to the site for the
purposes of the demonstration.  A letter setting forth Certicoals1 Incor-
porated agreement to this effect is in the study files.

    No other land, easements, condemnation, leases, or other access control
techniques will be required for the proposed demonstration project, including
the post-mining phase.

AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING

    Federal funding for this project was provided by a grant to the State of
Kentucky by the Environmental Protection Agency under Section 107 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.  The grantee, under authority
of KRS 350.163, is the Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection, Division of Reclamation.  The Department is authorized to receive
and accept Federal and other funds in accordance with KRS 350.163.

WATER AND MINERAL RIGHTS

    Water and mineral rights and property ownership for the area designated
as the site for the demonstration project present no problems for this
project.  No water will be diverted or used by the demonstration project.
Water flowing in the one stream on the site will pass through the monitoring
station with only small samples being periodically extracted for analysis.
Therefore, water rights are not involved in the demonstration project.
Mineral rights are leased by Certicoals Incorporated, the mining operator who
will be cooperating with the Department of Reclamation in the demonstration
project.

-------
PREVENTION OF FUTURE POLLUTION

    Under the KRS 350 the Department has developed standards and regulations
to protect the people of the State from injurious effects of any strip mining
operation.  Water quality standards have been developed and are enforced (WP
4-1, Water Quality Standards for Waters of the Commonwealth of Kentucky).  The
laws and regulations of the State and the authority to enforce the laws and
regulations as described above, stand as assurance that the area will not be
affected adversely by the influx of acid or other mine water pollution from
operations outside the project.
                                     10

-------
                                  SECTION V

                        INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
     An investigation of sites suitable for this demonstration project was
conducted by the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection and a site selected in Perry and Letcher counties in Southeastern
Kentucky, near Cornettsville, Kentucky  at the head of the Lower Lick Fork of
Bull Creek.  It appears on the USGS Vicco, Kentucky quadrangle map at
approximately 37.1667° north latitude and 83.0417° west longitude.  This site
is shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2.

     The existing terrain at the site is mountainous with steep slopes,
averaging 24 degrees, and high ridges on each side of Lower Lick Fork.  Exist-
ing vegetation in the project area is second growth timber, averaging
approximately 250 mm (10 in.) trunk diameter.  A narrow earth and rock access
road links the residences along Bull Creek to Ky. Route 7 at Cornettsville.
A logging trail connects the project site to this access road at the mouth of
Lower Lick Fork.

     A ground survey was made of the project area, and a topographic map was
drawn to determine the physical characteristics of the site.  Although mining
activity is extensive in that area of Perry and Letcher Counties, no evidence
was found of any previous surface or deep mine activity within the project
area.  There are several producing oil wells in the vicinity, the nearest
being some 30 m (100 ft) in elevation below the coal seam.

     Coal seams within the project area include the Hazard No. 7, Francis
No. 8, and Fire-Clay #64 seams.  It is presently anticipated, however, that
only the No. 7 will be mined in this operation.  A narrow "coal prospecting
road" has been cut along the ridge contour to locate the Hazard No. 7 coal
seam throughout the site.  The bottom of this seam follows generally along
the 510 m  (1673 ft) contour and is approximately 1.0 m  (3.4 ft) thick.

     The  site  is  a  confined  drainage  area  in which  the  proposed mining  opera-
 tion will  be primary contributor  to potential  pollution of  the  receiving
 stream.   This  enables all  sampling and testing  of water quality  to  be con-
 ducted  before,  during,  and after  the  mineral  removal.   The  recommended  site
 contains  15.4  hectares  (38 acres)  and all  overland  flow is  directed into
 Lower  Lick Fork.   Except for prospecting  trails,  the  site  is  in  its natural
 state,  and the sedimentation contribution  from  the  prospecting  trails  is
 considered to  be  negligible.   The  project  area  is  geographically  in the path
 of low-pressure atmospheric formations that bear moisture  and move  from the
 western gulf region northeastward  over the Mississippi  and  Ohio Valleys to
                                      11

-------
                                  Covington -Newport
                                                             >KOJECT MCA
Figure  1.  Project vicinity map.

-------
Figure 2.  Project location map.

-------
the Great Lakes and the northern Atlantic coast.  In summer the temperature
generally reaches, or slightly exceeds 38 C (110 F) but rarely for more than
a few days.  Temperatures around -18 C (o F) occur with moderate frequency in
December, Oanuary, and February, but long cold spells are always broken by
intervals of moderate temperatures.  This fluctuation in temperatures re-
sults in continuous freezing and thawing of the topsoil.  The average date
of the last killing frost in spring is about April 24, and that of the first
killing frost in fall is about October 15.  Length of the growing season is
175 to 180 days.  Snowfall varies considerably from year to year, but annual-
ly averages about 510 mm (20 in.).  The ground seldom remains covered with
snow for more than a few days.

     The site is in the Mountain physiographic region and on the western
border of the Appalachian Plateau with underlying rock generally of the
Pennsylvanian geologic age.

     The approximate land area of Letcher County is 83,804 hectares (216,960
acres), and the area of Perry County is approximately 88,840 hectares (219,520
acres).  The predominant land use in these counties is forest.  Selected com-
parative land uses for the two project area counties for 2 years are shown in
Table 1.

     The table indicates approximately 86 percent of the total land area in
Letcher County to be in forest use, with 85 percent of the total in Perry
County similarly  utilized.  The "Other Land"  category includes several
miscellaneous uses, one of which is strip mines.   It is significant that there
was a decrease in area in both counties between 1958 and 1967 in this category.
This indicates that the predominant use of land in Perry and Letcher Counties
has historically been forest.  It is anticipated that this usage will continue
to dominate in future years.  Although there is a considerable amount of
surface mining in these counties, the "Other Land" category and the other
categories do not approach the total area in forest.

     The project area falls within the Shelocta-Jefferson-Weikeft Soil
Association.  A general description of this association is deep to shallow,
well-drained soils on steep mountain sides. The landscape consists of very
steep mountains dissected by the North Fork of the Kentucky River and its
tributaries.  Limitations for uses other than  timber production are severe on
the uplands because of very steep slopes, shallow depth, rock outcrops,  and
surface stone.

     A Soil Conservation Service Survey indicated the Shelocta soils to  com-
prise approximately 60 percent of this association while Jefferson soils and
Weikert soils were 20 and 10 percent respectively.   Other soils in the re-
maining 10 percent included Barbourville, Allegheny, and Cotaco on the foot
slopes and stream terraces; and Stendal, Pope, Philo, and Cuba along the
streams.

     It should be noted that the Shelocta and  Jefferson soils are generally
developed in colluvium, and the depth to rock  is more than 1.2 m (4 ft.).
Colluviurn is soil material  and/or rock fragments moved by creep or slide and
deposited on the lower part of steep slopes.  The subsurface investigation
conducted as a part of this feasibility study  indicates that the project area

                                     H

-------
                                    TABLE 1.  COMPARISON OF LAND USES*
Description
            Letcher County
Perry County
Non-inventory area,
total
Federal Non-cropland
Urban and builtup
Small water areas
Inventory area,
total
Cropland
Pasture
Forest
Other land
1958
Hectares Acres
2,045 5,054
0
1,651
394
85,755
1,722
696
78,385
4,953
0
4,080
974
211,906
4,254
1,719
193,693
12,240
1967
Hectares Acres
2,139 5,286
0
1,745
394
85,664
2,155
5,565
75,654
2,290
0
4,312
974
211,674
5,326
13,751
186,939
5,658
1958
Hectares Acres
2,246 5,551
0
1,744
503
86,590
2,094
1,325
69,825
13,346
0
4,309
1,242
213,969
5,175
3,275
172,540
32,979
1967
Hectares Acres
2,363 2,839
0
1,849
514
86,474
2,560
1,416
75,756
6,740
0
4,569
1,270
213,681
6,326
3,500
187,200
16,655
Total land area
87,801    216,960    87,800    216,960    88,837    219,520    88,884    219,520
*Data selected from Kentucky Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory, 1970, page 24.

-------
soils are generally within the Shelocta group.  This is based upon the depth
to rock and the fragments in the soil coverage.  General geological informa-
tion regarding the project area may be obtained from the "Geology of the
Vicco Quadrangle, Kentucky" developed in 1965 by the Kentucky Geological
Survey.  This document indicates the project area to be in the Pennsylvanian
outcrop, which in Kentucky is similar in both the Eastern and Western Coal
Fields.
     The mining operation associated with this feasibility study will remove
the Hazard No. 7 coal from the project area.  Field surveys indicate the coal
to outcrop at approximate elevation 510 TO (1673 ft) through the area to be
mined, and the top of the ridge within the project area to range from 554 to
587 m (1818 to 1927 ft) in elevation.  The Vicco Quadrangle indicates another
seam, the Francis, to lie above the No. 7 within this vertical range.  This
seam (also known as the No. 8) has not been extensively mined in the general
area reportedly due to erratic thickness and shale partings several feet
thick.  A general geologic description of the project area, taken directly
from the Vicco Quadrangle publication is as follows:

         Sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal:  Sandstone, light-gray,
         weathers yellowish brown; fine-to medium grained; micaceous,
         locally argillaceous; firmly cemented, friable on weathered
         surfaces.  Siltstone and shale, light-gray and medium-
         gray; plant fossils common on bedding planes.  Entire unit
         poorly exposed; forms steep slopes with narrow benches on
         tops of sandstone units.  Coals, generally thin, occur in
         most shale zones but only two are persistent laterally.  The
         Francis coal zone consists of one or more coal beds and black
         shale; shale partings are as much as one meter (several feet)
         thick.  The Hazard No. 7 coal bed is persistent throughout
         the area and commonly has sandstone roof rock; a rider coal
         bed as much as 559 mm (22 in.) thick occurs from 0.3 to 3 m
         (1 to 10 ft) above the Hazard No. 7 coal bed where roof rock
         is shale.

     Logs of the core borings are included in Appendix A.  The mountain slopes
are covered by a soft, brown, silty clay with sandstone fragments throughout.
This overburden extends to depths from 1.5 to 2.0 m (5 to 7 ft) below the
ground surface.  Beneath the overburden is a hard massive sandstone which is
mostly micaceous.  The first 1.5 to 3.0 m (5 to 10 ft) of sandstone is
slightly weathered and characterized by its yellowish-brown color.  Thin
layers of irregularly bedded clay separate the weathered sandstone from a
coarse-grained, light gray sandstone which extends to an approximate depth of
512 m  (1,680 ft).  The rock material beneath the sandstone and overlying the
coal seam varies distinctively throughout the site.  In various locations,
the massive, gray sandstone extends and directly overlies the coal seam.
However, more commonly the stratum above the coal seam is a coarse-grained,
micaceous sandstone changing gradually to a hard, gray, shaley siltstone.
Shale is also found overlying the coal and is characterized by its dark gray,
hard texture.

     Brittle, bituminous coal characterizes the coal seam material which
varies in thickness from 0.9 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft).  Throughout the site, dark
gray underclay and hard shale underly the coal seam.
                                     16

-------
WATER RESOURCES
     The project area is located within the Kentucky River drainage basin.
Activities will be at the head of Lower Lick Fork, a tributary of Bull Creek,
which discharges into the North Fork of the Kentucky River near Cornettsville.
The North Fork joins the main stem of the Kentucky River at Beattyville in
Lee County, and the Kentucky River ultimately discharges into the Ohio River.
Stream flow in the Lower Lick Fork is seasonal and subject to non-flow periods
during dry months.  Data based on U.S. Geological Survey information indicates
that measurable precipitation in the project area may be projected to occur
on approximately 140 days annually, with total annual precipitation averaging
1150 mm (45.28 in.) "Estimated Point Rainfall Values" and "Long-Term Averages
of Temperature and Precipitation in Eastern Kentucky" are shown in Tables 2
and 3 respectively.
                   TABLE 2.   ESTIMATED POINT RAINFALL VALUES
                            FOR PERRY-LETCHER  COUNTIES*
Duration
                  Frequency (Years)
                                      10
                              25
       50
100

30 mln.
1 hr.
2 hr.
3 hr.
6 hr.
12 hr.
24 hr.
2 day
4 day
7 day
10 day
mm
23
31
36
38
48
58
64




in.
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.5




mm in.
28 1.1
36 1.4
43 1.7
48 1.9
58 2.3
69 2.7
76 3.0
86 3.4
101 4.0
117 4.6
132 5.2
mm
36
46
56
58
71
84
97
107
127
147
165
in. mm
1.4 43
1.8 53
2.2 64
2.3 71
2.8 81
3.3 94
3.8 109
4.2 125
5.0 147
5.8 168
6.5 183
in.
1.7
2.1
2.5
2.8
3.2
3.7
4.3
4.9
5.8
6.6
7.2
mm
48
61
74
81
97
109
127
145
170
201
224
in. mm
1.9 53
2.4 69
2.9 81
3.2 86
3.8 104
4.3 122
5.0 140
5.7 163
6.7 191
7.9 216
8.8 241
in.
2.1
2.7
3.2
3.4
4.1
4.8
5.5
6.4
7.5
8.5
9.5
mm
58
76
89
97
117
137
152
178
203
239
264
in.
2.3
3.0
3.5
3.8
4.6
5.4
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.4
10.4
*Data selected from Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, Division of
 Water, Engineering Memorandum No. 2 (4-30-71).

                       TABLE 3.   LONG-TERM AVERAGES OF
                        TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
                             IN EASTERN KENTUCKY*
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Year
Temperature: "C
Precipitation:    mm    in.
3.7
4.3
8.3
13.7
18.4
23.0
24.7
24.0
20.8
14.6
7.8
3.7
13.9
38.6
39.7
46.9
56.6
65.2
73.4
76.4
75.2
69.4
58.3
46.1
38.7
57.1
116.6
97.8
124.7
90.9
101.3
107.6
117.9
98.6
67.1
56.4
80.3
90.9
4.59
3.85
4.91
3.58
3.99
4.24
4.64
3.88
2.64
2.22
3.16
3.58
                                               1150.1 45.28

-------
*Data selected from U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Reconnaissance  Soil Survey,
 Fourteen Counties in Eastern Kentucky, Series 1962, No. 1 (2-65).

The project area is a confined watershed of approximately 15.4 hectares (38
acres.  There are no known existing streamflow data on Lower Lick Fork.
Likewise, no data exist for the Bull Creek drainage area which receives
runoff from Lower Lick Fork.  However, rainfall intensity records do exist
for this section of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  Anticipated streamflows
at the terminus of the study area for 2-year and 100-year peak rainfall
intensities have been calculated.  The results of these calculations utiliz-
ing the Rational Formula indicate a 2-year peak rate of flow of 0.93m3/s
(33 cfs) and a 100-year peak rate of flow of 2.97m3/s (105 cfs).

     The character of the surface water within the project area has been
sampled and tested weekly since the notice to proceed was granted.  Generally,
this mountain stream is clear and virtually free of impurities.  Results of
all of these tests are included in Appendix B of this report.  After testing
the first 64 samples, the range for the various tests is as follows:
               Specific Conductance -------- 24 to 4500 micromhos
               Turbidity ---- ............ -----  2 to 84 NTU
               Hardness (total) ..... ---- — -- 7.4 to 195.0mg/l
               Alkalinity — ................ 2.6 to  30.1 mg/1
               Acidity ----- .......... ------ 2.1 to  15.6 mg/1
               Iron - ...... — ........ - ..... <0.01 to  3.78 ppm
               Calcium ----- ...... - ..... ---- 0.88 to 33.00 mg/1
               Magnesium — .......... ------ 0.96 to 23.00 mg/1
               Manganese ........... -------- <0.01 to  1.82 nig/1
               Suspended Solids ------------ 0.4  to 43.6  mg/1
               Settleable Solids ----- ...... <0.1  to 18.8  mg/1
               Sulfate --------------- ...... <1.Q to 186.0  mg/1

Source:  Project area sampling and testing results, Lower Lick Fork,
         Watkins and Associates, Inc.

     Although there is not a full-record gauging station in the immediate
environs, a partial -record gauging station has been maintained by U.S.6.S.
near Cornettsville.  This station is located at the L & H Railroad Bridge,
85 m (280 ft) downstream from Leatherwood Creek and 960 m (3,150 ft) south-
west of Cornettsville, and gauges a drainage area of 834 knr (322 square
mi 1 es ) .

     Discharge measurements and selected water quality tests are performed
during the water year at low-flow dates.  A comparison of data collected at
this station for selected dates in 1970, 1971, and 1972 is shown in Table 4.

     These data are reported to indicate the variances that have existed on
the dates during which the samples have been obtained at the Cornettsville
gauging station.  The Cornettsville pH factors ranging from 7.5 to 8.4 for
the three dates do not indicate acid water.  The "Kentucky Framework Nater
Plan"  published in October, 1971, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department
for Natural Resources, Division of Water, contains a plate indicating that
                                     18

-------
Cornettsville reach of the North Fork of the Kentucky River is intermittently
affected by mine drainage (Figure 10, in the "Water Plan")3.  Although there
is a potential for acid mine drainage within this area, it does not appear to
be a significant problem at this time.

                 TABLE 4.    SELECTED WATER QUALITY DATA,
                      CORNETTSVILLE GAUGING STATION,
                       NORTH FORK OF KENTUCKY RIVER
     Description                9/17/70          10/19/71        8/17/72

Discharge  (m3/s)                   0.25              1.54           0.67
Bicarbonate (mg/1)               126               120            128
Carbonate  (mg/1)                  —                 05
Dissolved  Sulfate (mg/1)         168               170            200
Dissolved  Chloride (mg/1)         10                 6.3            9.2
Dissolved  Fluoride (mg/1)          0.2
Nitrate (mg/1)                     1.0               0.1            0.2
Total Phosphorus (mg/1)            0                 0.02           0.04
Dissolved  Solids (mg/1)          364               366            424
Hardness (mg/1)                  208               200            230
Non-Carbonate Hardness           105               100            120
Specific Conductance
  (micromhos)                    589               538            638
pH                                 7.5               7.9            8.4
Temperature (°C)                  25                18             25.5

Source:  Water resources data for Kentucky, U.  S. Department of the Interior,
         Geological Survey, 1970, 1971, and 1972.

     The significance of the water quality analyses presented herein may also
be emphasized by the Water Quality Standards for Waters of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky.  The North Fork of the Kentucky River is utilized for public water
supply at Hazard, 24 km (15 miles) downstream from Cornettsville and is class-
ified by the Commonwealth of Kentucky as a public water supply and must meet
their standards.

     The comparison of the analyses obtained at the Cornettsville gauging
station with Kentucky Water Quality Standards and with the criteria recommend-
ed by others for the various tests leads to the conclusion that the North Fork
of the Kentucky River has met and continues to  meet standards for public
water supply.

     Tests on water samples taken at Lower Lick Fork within the project area
have been compared with the recommended criteria for public drinking water
supply.  Based upon this comparison and the test results to date, the existing
water quality in Lower Lick Fork is within the  criteria for public drinking
water supply.

     The major problems associated with the mining operation in the project
area are anticipated to be predominantly erosion and sedimentation.   Sediment
production from strip mined areas has been found to be influenced by many factors.
The most important factors are the location and placement of spoil  material;
amount of disturbed area;  haul  road maintenance; location and

                                     19

-------
drainage; and elapsed time to revegetation. In the proposed demonstration
project, all of these factors will be carefully controlled through preming
planning.  The exposed area will be less than half of that produced by con-
ventional mining.  The spoil placement will be controlled so that the most
fertile and least polluting material is placed on top.  The spoil areas will
be seeded on a two-week schedule when weather permits so that no spoil will
be in place more than two weeks before it is seeded.  Mulching will be prac-
ticed as needed.  All spoil slopes will be much shorter than those resulting
from conventional  surface mining.  They will also have designed drainage so
that gulley formation will be controlled.  All drainage from the spoil will be
collected in drainageways constructed next to the haul road at the point where
the coal outcrops.  These drainageways will outlet under the haul road through
culverts into existing natural draws.  The drainageways themselves and their
outlets will be constructed so as to encourage sediment to deposit before
entering the main water course.  Haul roads will be drained through the same
drainage system as for the spoil material.  Haul road slopes will be minimal
since they will run along the coal outcrop.  Haul roads will be maintained to
prevent gulley erosion.  A minimum of vegetation will be disturbed in the
study area during the mining operation with no disturbance occurring above
the highwall or below the haul road.  A border of vegetation and forest litter
will protect the main stream from sediment by serving as  a sediment filter.

    It is thought that by careful consideration of all of these details, the
sediment that will be produced from the demonstration project will be many
times less than that produced from conventional, contour strip mining.  It is
anticipated that sediment production from annual storms will be nearly com-
pletely controlled.  Only relatively severe rainstorms with return periods
of 5 years or more will produce significant quantities of sediment attribu-
table to surface mining in the project area.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

    The socio-economic history and potential of Eastern Kentucky is deeply
rooted in the coal industry.  Out migration has recently been a primary
problem in these counties as the coal mining industry cannot, in itself,
provide employment to all potential employees.  This fact, along with the lack
of adequate industrial employment in the area, has resulted in many young
people leaving Eastern Kentucky to seek employment elsewhere as seen in the
population trends for Letcher and Perry Counties in Table 5.

                        TABLE 5.   POPULATION TRENDS,
                         PERRY AND LETCHER COUNTIES

                                Population of            Population of
       Year                     Perry County             Letcher County

       1910                       11,255                     10,623
       1920                       26,042                     24,467
       1930                       42,186                     35,702
       1940                       47,828                     40,592
       1950                       46,566                     39,522
       1960                       34,961                     30,102
       1970                       25,714                     23,165
                                      20

-------
     Source:  U.S. Census of Population, 1910-1970.

     Population projections vary considerably for Perry and Letcher Counties.
Improved transportation facilities, the increasing demand for coal, the
recognition of coal as an answer to our national energy problems, and the
possible interest of industry locating in the area should all be considera-
tions in these projections.  Two sources of projections which indicate
variations are the Kentucky Population Projections, 1975-2000, published in
1972 by the Kentucky Program Development Office, and the projections developed
by the Kentucky River Area Development District for use in the Comprehensive
Water and Sewer Program completed in 1971.  These projections, designated as
A and B respectively, are as follows :

                       TABLE 6.  POPULATION PROJECTIONS,
                  PERRY AND LETCHER COUNTIES, 1975 to 2000

                          Perry County                  Letcher County
     Year        Projection A     Projection B    Projection A   Projection B

     1975           25,140           27,110          22,446         23,224
     1980           25,441           28,077          21,627         23,775
     1990           22,405           29,211          19,487         24,598
     2000           20,155           30,743          17,065         25,229

     Sources:  Projection A - Kentucky Population Projections, 1975-2000
               Projection B - Kentucky River ADD Comprehensive Water-Sewer
               Program

     These totals are indicative of the ranges encountered in various projec-
tions of future population in Eastern Kentucky.  (Changing conditions can
result in downtrends or uptrends originally not anticipated.)  Projection B
shows gradual growth in the two counties while Projection A indicates a
gradual decline.  The differential in year 2000 between the two projections
is 18,742 people in the two counties.  Perhaps the best indicator of the
accuracy of the projections may be found in the "provisional" population
estimates for 1974 developed through the Federal-State Cooperative Program.
These estimates indicate 1974 populations of 27,600 in Perry County and
25,100 in Letcher County.  These estimates are well above the anticipated pop-
ulation for 1974 in both projections.  This is apparently indicative of the
high demand for coal and increasing employment opportunities in these
counties.

     Economic forecasts indicate that industrial growth in Kentucky will in-
crease at an accelerated rate during the next several years.  Predominant
factors include the abundant waterways and the accessibility to coal supplies.
Other prevalent conditions which favor industrial  development in Kentucky
include lower land and development costs and availability of labor.  This
increase in industrial development will stimulate increases in urbanization
in Kentucky; therefore a greater demand will evolve from both industry and
municipalities for a higher quality water supply source.  Virtually all
municipal and many industrial water supplies, regardless of their source,  must
be treated in some manner before use.  Increasing costs of treatment of
natural water supplies before use is rapidly becoming a major problem faced
                                     21

-------
by all potential users of Kentucky's water resources.  The continued high
demand for coal to meet current and future energy needs should stimulate great
surface .raining activity within the Kentucky coal fields, thereby increasing
the potential sources of sedimentation and acid pollution from surface mines
to the water resources of the Commonwealth.  Therefore, it is essential that
every feasible means of maintaining or improving the quality of Kentucky's
water resources be advanced so that a sufficient quantity of good quality
water will be available for existing and potential user consumption.  There-
fore, the demonstration of onsite control of surface mine sedimentation will
provide valuable guidelines for the implementation of methods to control
sediment production.

ECONOMY

     The relationship of economic conditions in Perry and Letcher Counties
with the coal industry can best be indicated by total personal income and per
capita income.  Data compiled by the Office of Business Development and
Government Services, University of Kentucky, indicate a steady growth in both
counties even though they are still below the statewide average, but the con-
dition has been improving more rapidly in the study area than statewide.  The
1969 per capita income in Perry County was 62.38% of the statewide average
while in 1973 the per capita income increased to 80.07%.  For the same two
years in Letcher County, the percentages were 64.25 and 74.86 respectively.
Although the 1974 data has not been compiled, it is anticipated that the per
capita income will increase due to the coal demand for that year.

     The U.S. Department of Commerce has compiled data reflecting the total
personal income from the mining industry in all Kentucky counties.  When
this data is compared with the income from all sources in the study counties,
it was determined that in 1972 about one-third of the personal income in
Perry County was attributable to the mining industry while almost one-half
of the personal income in Letcher County came from mining.  The non-mining
employment in professional services, business service, and other related
services, would also be dependent upon mining employment.

     The Kentucky Department of Economic Security publishes annual employ-
ment and unemployment averages for all Kentucky counties.  For the past few
years, the unemployment rate in Perry and Letcher Counties has been above the
statewide average.  These estimates also indicate very few jobs available in
the two counties in agricultural and manufacturing categories.

     The continuation of coal mining activities is obviously extremely im-
portant to the social and economic environment in Perry and Letcher Counties.
This project is expected to demonstrate an improved method of surface mining
that is more compatible with the environment, is economically feasible, and is
conducive to increased coal production.
                                     22

-------
                                SECTION VI

                          PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING


ABATEMENT METHOD DESCRITPION

     This demonstration project will utilize a modified block-cut method of
surface mining for onsite control of sedimentation.  The project area is a
confined watershed with essentially no man-made environmental pollution
characteristics.  The only disturbance presently within the area is trails
developed by bulldozers during prospecting.  The sedimentation increase from
these trails is considered negligible, and base data on the water quality of
Lower Lick Fork has been obtained since commencing the feasibility study.
In this manner, the changes in water quality during and after mining can
readily be obtained.  A monitoring station will be constructed in the project
area prior to commencing mining.

     This project will predominantly address the sedimentation problem
associated with surface mining.  Published reports indicate that the
placement of overburden on the outslope is the largest single source of
sedimentation from surface mining.  The methods of mining primarily utilized
in past years in Eastern Kentucky have resulted in overburden on the down-
slope, and hence sedimentation problems.

     The utilization of the block-cut method of mining has been very limited
in Kentucky to date.  Other states have experienced beneficial results from
this mining method; and West Virginia operators have been utilizing a similar
method called "controlled placement" since 1973.  The mining company which
is cooperating with us on this demonstration, and which will be accomplish-
ing the actual mining and reclamation, has utilized the "controlled place-
ment" method in its work in West Virginia.

     The initial cut in the block-cut method presents problems in some
operations.  The overburden from the first cut is placed on the outslope, in
a head-of-hollow fill, or in some other appropriate location.  In this
demonstration project, this program will not exist as the material  will  be
hauled back to an orphan area outside the demonstration project watershed.
This will provide a desirable situation insofar as the control of overburden
is concerned.

     The first activity in the project area will be cutting a trench along
the coal outcrop line to catch rolling stones.  Timber will then be removed
within the limits of the proposed excavation.  Topsoil will then be stock-
piled along the bench for use in final grading.  There are approximately
                                      23

-------
8.9 hectares (22 acres) of wooded drainage area above the anticipated lo-
cation of the highwall.  Due to the runoff characteristics and size of area,
diversion ditches above the highwall are not deemed necessary.

      After the timber is removed, a drill bench will be excavated with a
bulldozer.  All material from the drill bench will be stored upslope from the
trench, or removed to the previously mined area.  The remaining material will
then be shot in accordance with the blasting plan. The operator's blasting
crews are experienced in maintaining control of overburden and obtaining
proper fragmentation.

      The overburden will be then hauled back to areas previously mined, and
the land returned to approximate original contour.  The final bench width
basically will be the haul road which will be left in place for fire fighting
access.  The final grading plan in the demonstration area is contained else-
where in this feasibility study.

      During the mining operation, a barrier will be maintained at the inter-
section of the top of coal and the existing terrain.  No coal is to be removed
for a distance of 4.6 m (15 ft) toward the highwall from this intersection.
This will minimize the runoff from the mined area, and the area comprising
a portion of the haul road.  The coal will be removed from the open pit and
then augered along the highwall prior to backfilling.  In backfilling areas,
the haul road will be maintained for removal of the mineral.

      Curtis4 observed from measurement of sediment accumulation in debris
basins that post-disturbance sedimentation from areas of strip mining
activities has an approximate half-life of six months.  Most of the resulting
sedimentation due to mining activities occurs during the first six months
following initial disturbance.  By utilizing the modified block-cut method,
the disturbed area is minimized and the time of exposure of the unvegetated
material is shortened.  This concept is therefore anticipated to reduce pro-
duction of sediment load from the mining operation.

ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL OPERATOR COSTS DUE TO PROPOSED MINING METHOD

      Kentucky regulations for the coal mining industry set forth  minimum
requirements which must be met in recovery of coal by strip mining.  Conclu-
sions drawn from the results of this demonstration project must be based
upon not only the degree of sediment control projected by the proposed project
but also the estimated additional costs of implementing those mining methods
which exceed the minimum requirements of the regulations.  Since overburden
removal and regrading is one of the major costs involved in strip mining, it
is desirable to estimate the cost of overburden handling per unit weight of
coal uncovered utilizing the proposed project mining method.  This cost may
then be compared to the estimated cost per unit weight of coal uncovered by
meeting only the minimum requirements for equivalent volumes of overburden
handling and coal recovery.  This comparison may then be expanded to include
costs per unit weight of coal yield  (stripping plus augering).  Permit costs
                                     24

-------
may be estimated for each method based upon requirements specified in the
revised regulations.  Revegetation costs may be estimated and compared based
upon costs per unit over the area disturbed by each method.

      The average downslope (measured at the point of outcrop of the top  of
the coal seam with the original ground line) on this project was determined
to be 24° ±.  This value was obtained in the manner specified by the revised
regulations which is required for permit applications, with the exception
that slopes were computed for each 30 m (100 ft) of outcrop contour.  Based
upon this "average downs!ope" a composite cross-section was selected from
actual survey cross-sections and is shown in Figure 3.  This composite cross
section was utilized for estimating the amounts of overburden to be handled
for this project using minimum regrading and reclamation requirements, and
complying with all maximum bench and slope requirements.

      From this average cross-section it was determined that:

      1.   9% of all overburden material could be left permanently on the
           regraded outslopes.

      2.   22% of all overburden material must be returned to the mined-
           out pit.

      3.   2% of all overburden material (predominantly upper level soils)
           must be stacked on the outs!ope fill bench and then regraded and
           used for "topping out" the backfill regrading.  (double handling)

      4.   87% of all overburden must be "end-hauled" to a suitable permanent
           storage location using methods similar to those employed by the
           proposed project mining method.

      From these percentages a comparative estimate of costs incurred per
cubic yard  of overburden handled was developed.  It was assumed that the
cost per cubic yard of overburden to be end-hauled to a suitable off-bench
location for permanent storage would be the same for both the partial end-
haul method used to satisfy minimum requirements, and the total  end-haul
method to be used in this project.  This cost is based on an average haul
distance of 150 m (500 ft) for each method.  Assuming that an efficient
combination stripping and augering operation requires approximately 150 m
(500 ft) of open bench working length regardless of the overburden handling
method, then it may also be assumed that the average 22% of all  overburden
material required by regulation to be returned to the mined-out pit as back-
fill would also be end-hauled a distance of 150 m (500 ft).

      It was further assumed that the 9% of the overburden to be permanently
depesited on the fill bench and outslopes would be moved by bulldozing down
an average grade of 20%, an average distance of 30 m (100 ft).  Since the
revised regulations require that upper level soils be stockpiled and used
for final grading regardless of the mining method, the 2% regraded from the
                                    25

-------
|
               ORIGINAL GROUND
    1.2 M (4'MIN.)
       REGRADE LINE
                                                   8%1 MAX. TEMPORARY
                                                    STORAGE
I2%±MAX. PERMANENT
                                                                         .TIMBER
                                                                         (  WINDROW
50/ + " 	
COAL SEAM— ^

31 M


	 .1 	 „_ 	 — ,/ \
" 	 -5»f »iii- 	 «"•
BARRIER STRIP — '

( 102' MAX.) ^
a.
0
(T
0
0
4.5 M
>s^vsi

f STORAGE
^"^
21.3 M (70'MAX)
"" (15')
46 M (I5i MAX.) to


                                  19° DOWNSLOPE
                Figure 3a.   Selected project  area downs!opes and
                            a  composite cross section  to meet
                            minimum requirements only.

-------
 ORIGINAL GROUND
                    2% I MAX. TEMPORARY
                      STORAGE
                           8%iMAX. PERMANENT
                              STORAGE
COAL > BARRIER j
SEAM^ STRIP-"



19.8 M (65' MAX.)

S £
O
QC
P
^™
=)
O
4.5M
05')







^ 25.9 M (85' MAX.)

^\ '"'•-.
*°30,^>..> /
^V^-""-^.^ \
^PA-"^.
^**
!5.2M(50'MAX)


                                        TIMBER
                                           WINDROW
              24° DOWNSLOPE
          PROJECT AREA AVERAGE
Figure 3b.   Selected project area downs!opes and
           a composite cross section  to meet
           minimum requirements only.

-------
         -ORIGINAL GROUND
                            I.5%± MAX. TEMPORARY
                             STORAGE
        I5.2M (50'MAX.)
                                     8%t MAX. PERMANENT
                                        STORAGE
                                                 -TIMBER
                                                    WINDROW
152 M (50' MAX)
           20.4 M (67*MAX.)
                 27« DOWNSLOPE
Figure 3c.   Selected project area downs!opes  and
           a composite cross section  to meet
           minimum requirements only.

-------
fill bench would also apply to both methods.  Thus 2% would be bulldozed
down an average grade of 20%, an average distance of 30 m  (100 ft) and
stacked on the fill bench.  For final dressing  this material would be end-
hauled back onto the regraded working bench an  average distance of 150 m
{500 ft).  Figure 4 shows the measured downslopes within the project area.
Also shown are the mining operations permitted  based upon  the slope require-
ments of the revised regulations.  These requirements specify that areas
where the downslope exceeds 27° may only be augered since  no overburden
can safely be stored on slopes steeper than 27°.  However, the regulations
do permit both stripping and augering of slopes over 27° if the total end-
haul method of mining is utilized.  It is assumed, therefore, that small
areas which would ordinarily be deleted from the mining plan due to slope
restrictions would be stripped and augered using total-end-haul methods
since a high percentage of end-haul is required regardless of the method
used.

      Any meaningful comparative cost analysis must be based upon equal
lengths of seam to be stripped, equal volumes of overburden to be moved,
equal tons of coal recovered, and equal overburden-to-coal recovery ratios.
Therefore, the estimated overburden removal and coal recovery volumes from
the proposed project mining method have been used in computing cost estimat-
es for both methods.  The percentages of overburden allowed to be placed on
the outslopes (either temporary or permanent, derived from the average cross
section discussed earlier) were applied to the total-end-haul method volumes
only through the areas having downslopes of 27° or less.   Other areas were
computed using total-end-haul.  Areas too close to the stream bed to be
stripped under the revised regulations were also assumed to be stripped
using total-end-haul.

      The swelled volume of overburden to be removed for the proposed
mining method (total-end-haul) is 127,540 m3 (166,800 cy).  The weight of
coal to be recovered by stripping is 17,690 megagrams (19,500 tons).  These
amounts were estimated utilizing actual surveyed cross sections and drilling
logs within the project area.  The estimated length of highwall to be
augered is 416 meters (1,365 ft).  The expected coal recovery due to auger-
ing (average 28" diameter auger holes extending 46 m (150  ft) into the seam
at the highwall) is 11,700 megagrams (12,900 tons).  Total coal yield for
the project area is estimated to be 29,393 megagrams (32,400 tons),  and the
estimated, overburden to coal  recovery ratio is 5.2 to 1.

      The above volume of overburden removal will be accomplished using
total end-haul for the project mining method.  However, if the revised
regulations are applied to the same volume of overburden and only the
minimum requirements are met, then the mining operations and overburden
volumes corresponding to the areas of Figure 4 are as shown in Tables  7  and
•8.
                                     29

-------
    STRIP S AUGER
  (TOTAL END HAUL)
                                           STRIP 8 AUGER
                                          (PARTIAL END-HAUL)
    STRIP a AUGER
  (PARTIAL END HAUL)

    STRIP S AUGER
  (TOTAL END-HAUL)

  STRIP a AUGER
(PARTIAL END-HAUL)
 STRIP ONLY-
^ SEAM TOO THIN
\TO AUGER
 \  (TOTAL END-
    HAUL)
                                                     STRIP ONLY-
                                                     SEAM TOO
                                                     THIN TO
                                                     AUGER
                                                      (PARTIAL
                                                       END-HAUL)
                Figure 4.  Project area downs lopes and mining methods
                          to meet minimum requirements only.
                                30

-------
TABLE  7.   OPERATIONS PERFORMED AND OVERBURDEN REMOVAL METHODS
            TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ONLY
  Area

   1
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
           Operations performed

              Strip and auger
              Strip and auger
              Strip and auger
              Strip and auger
              Strip and auger
              Strip only*
              Strip only*
Overburden removal method

  Partial end-haul
  Total end-haul
  Partial end-haul
  Total end-haul
  Partial end-haul
  Total end-haul
  Partial end-haul
*The coal seam within areas 6 and 7 is considered by the operator performing
the mining to be too thin to be augered or stripped economically.  However,
the operator has agreed to strip these two areas in order to maintain the
integrity of this demonstration project.
TABLE 8.
OVERBURDEN VOLUMES NECESSARY TO COMPLETE PROPOSED PROJECT
MINING MEETING ONLY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
 Area

  1
Overburden
to remove
27,100
(35,400)*
6,200
(8,100)
13,500
(17,700)
15,200
(19,900)
18,700
(24,400)
6,000
(7,800)
40,900
(53,500)
127,500
(166,800)
Overburden
to be end-
hauled m3
24,600
(32,200)
6,200
(8,100)
12,300
(16,100)
15,200
(19,900)
17,000
(22,200)
6,000
(7,800)
37,200
(48,700)
118,500
(155,000)
Permanent
overburden
storage on
outs lope m3
2,500
(3,200)
0
(0)
1,200
(1,600)
0
(0)
1,700
(2,200)
0
(0)
3,700
(4,800)
9,000
(11,800)
Temporary
overburden
storage on
outs! ope m3
500
(700)
200
(200)
300
(400)
300
(400)
400
(500)
200
(200)
800
(1,100)
2,700
(3,500)
Overburden
to be
bulldozed
2,900
(3,900)
200
(200)
1,500
(2,000)
300
(400)
2,100
(2,700)
200
(200)
4,500
(5,900)
11,700
(15,300)
Total
*Figures in parentheses are  in  cubic yards.
                                     31

-------
    Major excavating equipment normally employed by the operator who will
perform the mining on this demonstration project consists of:
    1- 9 n)3 (12 cy) wheel loader w/articulated steering
    2- 45 Mg (50 ton) off-highway type rear dump trucks
    1- 200 kw (270 bhp) crawler tractor w/universal blade
Hourly Labor and Equipment Costs (Applicable to both methods)
    Equipment cost rates obtained from the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers,
Equipment Ownership and Operating Expense Schedules were used for estimating
costs of equipment requirements and are shown below:
TABLE  9,   EQUIPMENT OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING EXPENSE SCHEDULE
                             Ownership and Operating        Standby
     Equipment               Expense Rate                   Rate
                             (1-shift)    (2-shift)
  200 kw (270 bhp)          $ 37.85/hr   $ 35.08/hr         $ 9.93/hr
  Crawler Tractor with
  Hyd. Universal Blade
  45 Mg (50 ton) Off-       $ 52.37/hr   $ 47.75/hr         $16.37/hr
  Highway Rear Dump Truck
  9 m3 (12 cy) Wheel        $103.02/hr   $ 96.40/hr         $22.58/hr
  Loader with Articulated
  Steering
     End-haul
     Equipment costs
  1-Wheel Loader         @  $103.02/hr = $103.02/hr
  2-Trucks               @  $ 52.37/hr = $104.74/hr
  Total Hourly End-Haul Equipment Costs= $207.76/hr
     End-haul
     Labor costs (1 - 10 hr Shift)
  3- Equipment Operators @ $  7.00/hr + O.T. = $ 21.00/hr + $ 2.10 O.T./hr
                                             = $ 23.10/hr
Total Hourly Expense for End-Hauling Overburden
                     = $207.74 + $ 23.10     = $230.84/hr
                                     32

-------
Bulldozer equipment and labor costs  (1 - 10 hr Shift)

1- Crawler Bulldozer   @  $37.85/hr            =   $37.85/hr
1- Operator            @  $ 7.00/hr + O.T.     =   $ 7.70/hr

Total hourly expense for Bulldozing Overburden =   $45.55/hr

Time Requirements

Total end-haul method

I.    End-Haul time

      Assuming:  127,500 m3 (166,800 cy) overburden
                 1- 9 m3 (12 cy) Wheel loader w/articulated steering
                 2- 45 Mg (50 ton) off-highway rear dump trucks
                 Average haul distance = 150 m (500 ft) (one-way)
                 Overall job efficiency = 75% (45 min/hr)
                 Material mix = loose after blasting, with large chunks
                 10 hr shift
                 No major down time
                 Average productivity = 260 m3 (340 cy)/hr

      For 10 hour shift, daily productivity = 2600 m3 (3400 cy)/day

      Time to complete:  127,500 m3
                          260 nvi/hr   =  490 hours (49 - 10 hr days)
II.   Bulldozer Time

      Assuming:  2700 m3 (3,500 cy) Overburden to be bulldozed average
                                    distance of 100 feet.
                 1- 200 Kw (270 bhp) Crawler Tractor with Universal Blade
                 Base Productivity = 345 m3 (450 cy)/hr. 30 m (100 ft)
                                     level operation
                 Overall job efficiency = 75% (45 min/hour)
                 Material mix = predominantly loose, upper level soils
                 Material mix factor =1.0
                 Downhill grading factor = 1.2 for 20% downhill grade
                 10 hour shift
                 No major down time

      Average   productivity = 345 m3/hr x .75 x 1.0 x 1.2 = 311 m3/hr

      Time to Complete:  2700 m3
                          345 m3/hr  =  8 hours

Partial end-haul method (where applicable)

I.    End-Haul time

      Assuming:  118,500 m3 (155,000 cy) overburden to be moved average 150 m
                 (500 ft) (one-way).  Same equipment and conditions as

                                     33

-------
                 total end-haul method.
      Time to Complete:  118.500 m3
                          260 m-Vhr    =  456 hr (46 - 10 hour days)
II.    Bulldozer Time
      Assuming:  11,700 m3 (15,300 cy) overburden to be moved average
                 30 m (100 ft)
                 Same equipment and conditions as partial end-haul, except
                 0.75 material mix factor.
      Average Productivity:  311 m3/hr x .75 = 233 m3/hr (305 cy/hr)
      Time to Complete:  11,700 m3
                          233 m-Vhr   =    50 hr (5 - 10 hour days)
Differential Costs
Comparative expense for total end-haul method
End-Haul Expense   =  490 hours @ $230.84/hr  =      $113,112.00
Bulldozing Expense =    8 hours @ $ 45.55/hr  =           364.00
Total Expense                                 =      $113,476.00
Comparative expense for partial end-haul method
End-Haul Expense   =  456 hours @ $230.84/hr  =      $105,263.00
Bulldozing Expense =   50 hours @ $ 45.55/hr  =         2,278.00
Total Expense                                 =      $107,541.00
Total Differential Cost to the Operator for Overburden Handling

                      $113,476.00 - $107,541.00 = $5,935.00
Note that the preceeding calculations are based upon only those components
of overburden handling which are considered variable.  Examples of non-
variable costs include management, labor other than heavy equipment
operators, small equipment,  special handling of toxic materials, and haul
road and silt dam construction and maintenance.  Since all end-hauled
material must be dumped and  then spread and/or graded by bulldozing, expenses
for spreading and grading are also considered as non-variable costs.
      Since the disturbed area would  be less using the total end-haul method,
some savings could be realized by the operator in revegetation costs, and
permit  fees (see Table 10).
                                     34

-------
     Revegetation costs are based upon an estimated unit cost of $865 per
hectare ($350.00 per acre).  Partial end-haul would disturb approximately
2.9 hectares (7.2 acres) of the project area, and total end-haul would dis-
turb approximately 1.9 hectares (4.6 acres).  Permit area fees are based
upon $86 per hectare ($35.00 per acre) of disturbed area.  Differential cost
of revegetation and permit area fees is $1,001.00 saved by the operator due
to lower acreage disturbed.  This will serve to partially offset the differ-
ential cost to the operator for overburden handling.  Overall differential
cost to the operator will be $5,935.00 less $1,001.00 equals $4,934.00.

TABLE 10,    REVEGETATION AND PERMIT AREA COSTS COMPARISON FOR
            THE DEMONSTRATION AREA

                                                                 Differential
Cost Item           Partial end-haul        Total end-haul       cost saving

Revegetation Cost     $ 2,520.00             $ 1,610.00           $   910.00

Permit Area Fees          252.00                 161.00                91.00

Total                 $ 2,772.00             $ 1,771.00           $ 1,001.00

     This represents the overall differential cost of mining the project area
utilizing total end-haul instead of merely meeting minimum regulatory require-
ments.  Listed below are overburden removal and reclamation costs for several
parameters:

TABLE 1U    DIFFERENTIAL COSTS OF TOTAL END-HAUL COMPARED TO
            PARTIAL END-HAUL MINING METHOD

                                                            Differential cost
Differential cost per unit      Differential cost per unit  per unit weight of
volume of overburden handled    weight of coal stripped     coal stripped and
                                                            augered

     + $0.04/m3                     + $0.28/Mg                + $0.17/Mg

     + (0.03/cy)                    + (0.25/ton)              + (0.15/ton)

     Based upon this differential cost analysis, the modified block-cut
method of mining, with onsite control of sedimentation is economically
feasible for use within the demonstration project area.  The demonstration
project will document the effectiveness of the modified block-cut (total end-
haul) in providing onsite control of sedimentation within the project area
and will provide a useful reference for applying the modified block-cut
method to larger operations.  The documentation of onsite sediment control
provided by this demonstration project should provide the basis for future
elimination or size reduction of the current requirements for silt dam con-
struction to control sedimentation  "off-site".  Sedimentation due to the
actual construction and maintenance of silt dam fill slopes could be sub-
stantially reduced or eliminated, and incidences of damages due to silt dam
failure could be reduced or eliminated.  Cost savings realized by the opera-
tor  due to future size reductions or elimination of silt dam construction
                                     35

-------
should greatly offset the differential cost increase of utilizing the modi-
fied block-cut method.

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Drawings

     The location and outline of the project area are shown on Figure 5,
Watershed Drainage Area.  Subsurface investigation locations, coal contours,
and disturbed limits are shown on Figure 6.  A typical mining section is in-
cluded as Figure 7 and shows the relationship of existing ground and proposed
regrading.

     All overland flow from the project area will continue to outlet into
Lower Lick Fork which flows into Bull Creek, which then flows into the
Kentucky River.  All treatment methods to be employed in this demonstration
within the project area will be onsite control of sedimentation through the
modified block-cut method of mining.  The water quality monitoring station
is shown on Figures 5 and 6.

     This method of mining will return the ground to its approximate original
contour.  The relationship of the regrading line to original ground is shown
on Figure 7.  This figure further shows the portion of the highwall to re-
main and the road which will stay in place for future access.

     All disturbed areas will be revegetated in accordance with the Common-
wealth of Kentucky mining regulations and with the recommendations contained
herein.

     All work to be accomplished as a portion of this demonstration is gen-
erally shown on Figures 5, 6, and 7.  Preliminary pre-mining plans and cross
sections have been developed on a suitable scale for checks of these general
plans.  Detailed pre-mining plans will be developed as an element of the
demonstration project prior to actual mining.

Specifications

     The abatement measures used in this demonstration project are intrinsic
to the modified block-cut method of mining.  Specifications concerning the
relevant abatement procedures of the mining operation to be demonstrated .are
set forth below.

     1.   All runoff from the project area is channeled into Lower Lick
          Fork passing through the proposed monitoring station.  Minimum
          peak flow in the creek is zero during dry periods.  During mining
          a two-year peak flow is estimated to be 1.22 m^/s (43 cfs) and a
          100-year peak flow is estimated to be 3.62 m3/s  (128 cfs).  Total
          sediment delivered to the monitoring station during the first three
          years is estimated to be 30 Mg (33 tons) at an average concentration
          of 138 mg/1.
                                     36

-------
CO
                                                                                MONITORING
                                                                                 STATION


                                                                                  .  froiL
                                                                                      STORAGE
                                                                                      TANKS
                                   Figure 5.  Watershed drainage area.

-------
OJ
CO
            LEGEND

            Disturbed Area
            Coal contours
            Core hole

            Rotary drill
                                                                                     MONITORING
                                                                                     STATION
                                                                                           STORAGE
                                                                                           TANKS
                                  Figure  6.  Sub-surface, investigation location,
                                            coal contours  and disturbed limits.

-------
CO
VD
                                     •ORIGINAL GROUND
         COAL
         (AUGERED)
           COAL BEHIND THE HI6HWALL WILL BE EXTRACTED  BY AUGERS.
           WIDTH OF PIT VARIES.
           HEIGHT OF HIGHWALL VARIES.
           THICKNESS OF COAL SEAM VARIES FROM .4€M(I8") TO I.OIM(40")
BARRIER
 (NOT EXCAVATED)
                                    Figure 7.  Typical mining section.

-------
2.   Construction of treatment facilities is not proposed as an
     element of this project as the treatment method is a part of
     the actual minfng operation.  The monitoring station will have
     been constructed prior to the actual mining.  This station will
     consist of a parshall flume, thermograph, sampler, flowmeter,
     and rainfall recorder.  The monitoring equipment will be housed
     in a bullet-proof enclosure.  Outline specifications for the
     equipment and construction of this station are as follows:

     Parshall flume--The parshall flume shall be prefabricated of
     fiberglass.  Equipment shall be the same as, or equal to, the
     flumes as manufactured by Plasti-Fab, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon.
     A still well shall be included with the flume in accordance with
     the design details, and the inside surface shall be smooth and
     free from irregularities.  The outside surface will be provided
     with clips suitable for anchoring to concrete and/or rock.

     The flume and still well shall be molded of isophthalic polyester
     resin and fiberglass to form a minimum wall thickness of 3/16
     inch throughout.

     Excavation shall be true to lines and grades indicated on the
     design drawings.  Backfill shall be rock and mortar as approved
     by the Engineer.

     Rainfall recorder—The rainfall recorder shall be capable of
     measuring and recording all forms of precipitation on a rectang*
     ular chart.  The recording rain gauge shall be Universal Rain
     Gauge as manufactured by Bel fort Instrument Company, Baltimore,
     Maryland, or approved equivalent.

     The gauge shall consist of a collector, a bucket, a dust shield,
     and a weighing-recording mechanism.  Accuracy shall be not less
     than one-half of one .percent with a sensitivity of 0.01 inch of
     precipitation.

     Thermograph—The thermograph shall be constructed in accordance
     with U.S. Weather Bureau Specification 450.1201.  The temperature-
     sensitive element shall be a polished chrome-plated, liquid-filled
     bourdon tube attached by a series of linkages to a recording pen
     arm.  The thermograph shall be the same as or equivalent to the
     unit manufactured by Bel fort  Instrument Company, Baltimore,
     Maryland.   It shall be housed in an all metal case with glass
     panels, and mounted on an aluminum base.

     Sampler—The sampler shall be capable of operating on a flow
     proportional basis as controlled by a flowmeter with a contact
     closure output.

     Twenty-four sample bottles shall be capable of storing 500 ml
     (1.1 pt) of sample, with single or multiple samples.  A method
                                 40

-------
shall be provided to  precisely select from 100 to 500 ± 20 ml on
each sample.  It shall  also be capable of pulling a 500 ml sample
up to 6.7 m (22.0 ft) through a 9.525 mm (0.375 in.) inside-diamet-
er tube.  The unit shall  provide alternately for timed samples to
be taken every 3.75 minutes or multiples up to 24 hours.  The
sampler shall be capable  of taking up to five samples in one bottle
or alternately be able  to take four simultaneous samples in four
sequential bottles.

The unit shall be operated on a 12 volt battery.

The time to take a 500  ml (1.1 pt) sample at 3 m (10 ft) of head
shall be no less than 16  seconds to assure a representative sample
including any solids  up to 9.525 mm (0.375 in.) in size.  No
liquid shall pass through any pump.  A positive purge cycle shall
be initiated before the sample is taken to clear the inlet hose.
A second positive purge cycle shall assure that all surplus liquid
is expelled from the  tubing on the completion of a cycle, providing
for a fresh sample on the next cycle.

The sampler shall be  the  same or equivalent to the unit manufactur-
ed by Manning Environmental Corporation, Santa Cruz, California.

Flowmeter--The flowmeter  shall use a sensor which is not required
to float in or otherwise  submerge below the surface of the liquid,
or otherwise interfere  with floating debris.  The sensor shall be
unaffected by chemicals,  abnormal pH levels, or high temperature.

The flowmeter shall provide flow rate data on a dial indication.
A six-digit counter shall provide a continuous totalized display
of total flow.  Multiplying factors shall be supplied as a function
of the type of primary  device.  A switchable channel selector shall
provide three channel configuration options - circular pipes,
Parshall flumes and V-notch weirs.

The instrument shall  record flows over a 0-305 mm (0-12 in.) to
0-1220 mm (0-48 in.)  range of flow and provide a continuous dial
indication of the liquid  level.

All components shall  be made of corrosion-resistant material and
shall be able to withstand surcharges of the measured liquid.

The flowmeter shall be  complete and provided with the following:
a module containing a flow recording dial (and chart) and total-
izing counter; a sensor 38 mm (15 in.) long connected to the module
with an insulating cable; a 12 volt rechargeable battery sufficient
to maintain recordings  for 8 days; carrying case; one year supply
of charts and extra pen,  instruction manual and set of tables for
various primary devices.  The flowmeter shall have a contact
closure output which  shall control  an automatic sampler on a flow-
proportional  basis.
                                41

-------
     The flowmeter shall  be the same as, or equivalent to, the unit
     manufactured by Manning Environmental  Corporation, Santa Cruz,
     California.

     Miscellaneous—The enclosure shall be constructed of one-fourth
     in. thick steel in accordance with the design details.

     Supports shall  be three in.  galvanized pipe anchored into solid
     rock and encased in  concrete.

3.    Soil samples were taken from the overburden at five locations
     in the project area.  The sampling locations were widely spaced
     along the coal  seam.  Three separate subsamples were taken at
     each of the five locations at 0.3 m (1.0 ft) intervals to a depth
     of 1 m (3 'ft) below the surface.  Chemical analyses of the soil
     samples were performed by the University of Kentucky, College of
     Agriculture.

     On the basis of the  chemical analyses, the University recom-
     mended fertilizer supplements for revegetation of the regraded
     mine spoil.  Fertilizer recommendations for each soil sample are
     shown in Table 12 on the following page.

4.    A total of 127,500 m3 (166,800 cy) of overburden will be removed
     by the haul-back method and regraded prior to revegetation.  Two
     (2) percent of the overburden is topsoil as discussed in Item 3
     above.  Topsoil will be temporarily stored on the barrier before
     it is placed back on the regraded overburden.

5.    The methods; arid types of revegetation may well be the key to the
     success of this demonstration.  The operator has utilized a seed
     mixture acceptable to regulations in a nearby area which is pre-
     sently being seeded.  This mixture has been successful in this
     operation and  is recommended in the demonstration due to similar
     types of conditions.  The mixture and application rates are shown
     in Tables 12 and 13.-

     The  seeding  sequence  during  the months  of August  and  September
     will  be controlled  by rainfall  and temperature  during these
     months when  the  actual  mining  is  to be  conducted.   Mulch will  be
     applied  in  accordance with  state  regulations.

     Seedlings will  be applied at a  rate of  1980  per hectare  (800  per
     acre),  and will  be  selected  from  types  which  are  most common  to
     the general  area.

6.   Depending  upon weather  conditions, seeding will  follow  grading
     within  15  days and  be completed for the entire  project within 60
     days  of stripping the overburden.  Soil  preparation will not  be
     necessary  since  seeding will  take place before  the surface crust
     forms.   Fertilizer  will  be  added  as  set forth in  Table  12.  The
                                  42

-------
TABLE 12;   RECOMMENDED AMOUNT OF FERTILIZER FOR EACH SOIL SAMPLE*

                                  Type of Fertilizer

                    N           ?2°5         K2°            Lime

Un1ts          kg/ha   Ib/ac   kg/ha  Ib/ac  kg/ha Ib/ac  Mg/ha Tons/ac
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
34
67
67
34
34
34
0
0
0
34
34
34
67
67
67
30
60
60
30
30
30
0
0
0
30
30
30
60
30
60
4.5
4.5
4.5
6.7
6.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
6.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
 *Average  recommendations  for  the entire  site:

                     N—   67 kg/ha  ( 60   Ib/ac)
                     P205--157 kg/ha (140 Ib/ac)
                     K20-- 34  kg/ha (30 Ib/ac)
                     Lime-- 4.5 Mg/ha  (2.0 Tons/ac)
 +Sample depth:
a = 0.0-0.3 meters (0.0-1.0 feet
b = 0.3-0.6 meters (1.0-2.0 feet
                   (2.0-3.0 feet
                     c  =  0.6-0.9  meters
                                  43

-------
         pH factor ranges from 5.1 to 6.5 and lime will be added to the
         soil to raise the pH factor as specified in the above table.

    7.   Seeds  will be applied by a hydroseeder.  Trees will be planted
         by hand.

TABLE 13,   RECOMMENDED APPLICATION RATES FOR SEED MIXTURE

           Seed                                  Rate
                                Ib/acre                  kg/hectares
        Kentucky 31 fescue       20.0                        22.4
        Perennial rye grass       7.0                         7.8
        Sweet clover              5.0                         5.6
        Red clover                2.0                         2.2
        Alsike clover             1.0                         1.1
        Orchard grass             1.5                         1.7
        Red top                   2.5                         2.8
        Weeping love grass        2.5                         2.8
        Sericea lespedeza         3.0                         3.4

Expected Mine Hater Quality and Quantity

    Procedures for quantitatively estimating erosion and sediment production
from strip-mined watersheds have not been developed.  In the calculations
used in arriving at the estimates shown below, it was necessary to modify
procedures used in estimating soil loss from agricultural areas and sediment
transport relationships for open channels.  The procedures have been verified
in many cases for the conditions under which they were developed; however,
their extrapolation to the present application is somewhat speculative.  In
spite of these drawbacks the procedure used for estimating sediment produc-
tion should yield valid comparisons between the block-cut method of mining
as proposed for this project and the conventionally used methods of mining.
Data collected during the project will aid in verifying the sediment pro-
duction calculations.

    In the calculations that follow, the project area is assumed to have a
final regrade shape as shown schematically in Figure 8 when the block-cut
and conventional methods of mining are used.  For the purpose of these cal-
culations, these cross-sections are assumed to run continuously around the
demonstration site for a total length of approximately 730 meters (2400 ft).
In the block-cut method, a culvert is assumed to exist under the coal haul
road at 244-meter (800 ft) intervals to provide a means for water to leave
the drainage way and enter the natural channel draining the project watershed.
These culverts are located in natural draws in the existing topography.

    Before estimates of sediment production can be made, it is necessary to
estimate runoff hydrographs and rain storms for the return periods to be
considered.  In this work calculations were carried out for a 2-year and 100-
year frequency rain storm.  This enables a comparison on the basis of a
common event (the 2-year storm) and a rare event (the 100-year storm).  The
                                      44

-------
       •UNDISTURBED  FOREST

                  -SPOIL HAUL ROAD
                    rSPOIL - SEEDED TO GRASS
                          .DRAINAGE WAY
                              -COAL HAUL ROAD

                                 -UNDISTURBED  FOREST
          BOTTOM OF COAL-5
NATURAL
   CHANNEL
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION (N.T.S.) OF MODIFIED BLOCK-CUT
         METHOD OF MINING. (AFTER MINING)
        UNDISTURBED  FOREST
                          SPOIL
    BOTTOM OF
                ORIGINAL GROUND LINE
  NATURAL
     CHANNEL-
TYPICAL  CROSS-SECTION (N.T.S.) OF FORMERLY ACCEPTED
     CONVENTIONAL METHOD OF MINING (AFTER MINING)
        Figure 8.  Cross-sections of modified block-cut
                 and conventional methods of mining.
                          45

-------
The rainstorm for these two frequencies was developed in five-minute  incre-
ments from information contained in the Kentucky Department of Highways
11 Manual of Instruction for Drainage .Design" (1971).6

     The Rational equation. (Haan and Barfield, 1972)7 was used to estimate
peak runoff rates.  The time of concentration for the entire demonstration
site was estimated at 5 minutes.  The time of concentration of flow into the
drainageway/ of the modified block-cut mining area would be less than 5
minutes; however, since the shortest duration for which reasonably accurate
rainfall information can be developed is 5 minutes, it was necessary to
consider the time of concentration for this flow as 5 minutes as well.

     The 5-minute, 2-year rainfall intensity for the project site is 115.6
mm (4.55 in.) per hour.  The 5-minute, 100-year rainfall intensity is
224.8 mm (8.85 in.) per hour.  The rational "C" for the forest area was
taken as 0.20 and for the spoil as 0.70.

     Using these factors it was estimated that the peak rate of inflow into
the drainageway/ of the block-cut mined area would be 0.030 m3/s (1.09 cfs)
for 30 meters (100 ft) of length for the 2-year event and 0.059 np/s
(2.13 cfs) for 30 meters (100 ft) of length for the 100-year event.  Consi-
dering a 244-meter (800 ft) drainage way, the peak discharge into the road
culverts are thus estimated at about 0.247 m3/s (8.72 cfs) for the 2-year
event and 0.483 m3/s (17.04 cfs) for the 100-year event.

     The runoff volume for the maximum 2-year, 5-minute rainfall increment
was estimated as 1.8 mm (0.07 in.) using the procedure outlined by the Soil
Conservation Service and discussed by Haan and Barfield (1972).'

     Thus three properties of a 2-year runoff hydrograph have been estimated:

        1.  the peak flow rate of 0.247 m3/s (8.72 cfs)

        2.  the time to peak of 5 minutes

        3.  the volume of runoff due to the 5-minute rainfall of 1.8 mm
            (0.07 in.)

     These three factors are. sufficient to define the shape of a unit hydro-
graph if the procedure proposed by Haan (1972)' is used.  .Once the unit
hydrograph is determined, it can be used to generate a runoff hydrograph
corresponding to the 2-year rainstorm.

     Since unit hydrographs must be used in conjunction with rainfall excess
and not rainfall, it is necessary to determine rainfall excess from the
2-year rainstorm.  Rainfall excess is defined as that portion of the rainfall
that is available for surface runoff.

     Again the rainfall excess was estimated using the Soil Conservation
Service procedure.  The rainfall excess for each 5 minutes of the 2-year
rainstorm was determined.  This rainfall excess was then combined with the
unit hydrograph previously estimated to obtain the estimated runoff hydro-
graph  into any one of the culverts used to remove water from the drainage-
                                     46

-------
way along the coal  haul  road.   The results  of  these calculations are shown in
Figure 9.
0
*
c
1 2
}Q
I 4
E
5 6
* 8
4.0i
3.5
^»
*e 30
«•
£ 2.5
(T
§ 2.0
o:
> 1.5
X

t 1.0
z
0.5
00
— id
—
__
.28
—
.26
~~ .24
~" .22
— .20

.» .16
\ .14
~ I .12
z
— 3 IO
a: >IV

_ .08

.06
—
.04
~~ .02
— .00
—

i —
—
—

—
_
•~m~*
	

	

	

	

	
	
	
                             10  20   30  40  50   60   70  80   90  100
                                RAINFALL
                                                        RAINFALL EXCESS
                               -UNIT
                                 HYDROGRAPH
-RUNOFF
  HYDROGRAPH
                             10   20   30   40  50   60   70  80   90  100
                                             TIME,min.
                Figure 9.  Estimated 2-year runoff event for
                           drainage way along coal haul  road

      The procedures outlined above were repeated for the entire  demonstra-
 tion watershed assuming three conditions:

      1.   natural forest

      2.   block-cut mining

      3.   conventional mining

 The results of these calculations are shown in the form of runoff hydrographs
 in Figures 10 and  11.  From these figures it can be seen that  the block-cut
 mining  will initially  increase the 2-year peak runoff by 30 percent  (1.218
 nvvs  (43 cfs) versus 0.935 nr/s (33 cfs)) while the conventional  method of
                                     47

-------
 mining will  increase the same  event by  100  percent  [1.841  m3/s  (65  cfs)
 versus 0.935 m3/s  (33 cfs)].                                           '
                              CONVENTIONAL  MINED
                                   BLOCK-CUT  MINED
         45    50    55    60    65    79    75    80    85    90    95    100
                                 TIME, min.


                   Figure 10.   Two-year runoff hydrograph  from
                               demonstration watershed.

    The 100-year event will  be  increased 22  percent [from  2.973 m3/s  (105
cfs) to 3.625 m3/s  (128 cfs)j on the  block-cut mined area  whereas  it  would
be increased by 61  percent Cfrom 2.973 m3/s  (105  cfs) to 4.786 m3/s  (169 cfs)]
under conventional  mining practices.   The fact that the  flow rates  from the
block-cut mined area will be considerably less than from the same  area  under
conventional  mining in itself indicates a large decrease in the sediment
carrying capacity of the stream draining the watershed.

    The estimation  of the sediment that would be  produced  from stripming on
the demonstration site was done by (a) using the  Universal  Soil Loss  Equa -
tion (USLE) to estimate gross erosion, (b)  using  sediment  transport  theory
to estimate the sediment carry  capacity of the drainageway  along  the coal
haul road, and by (c) estimating the  fraction of  sediment  trapped  in  moving
into the road culverts and along the  main stream  of the  watershed.

    The channel or drainageway   along the coal haul road (Figure 8)  inter-
cepts all runoff and sediment produced from the mining activity when  the
block-cut method of mining is  used.  This channel will be  about 0.3  m
(1 ft) deep, 1.2 m (4 ft) wide  at the top and triangular in shape.   The
channel will  have about a 1.3%  slope  around the mountain along the coal haul
                                     48

-------
                                     CONVENTIONAL


                                      BLOCK-CUT
                                    70    80    90
                                     TIME, min.
ItO    120    130
               Figure 11.  One-hundred-year runoff hydrograph
                           from demonstration watershed

road.  Its water carrying capacity is about 0.227 m3/s (8 cfs) or equal  to
the expected peak flow from a 2-year rainstorm.

    Based on uniform flow in the channel and equilibrium conditions,  Graf
(1971}%>resents  methods for estimating the capacity of a channel to  trans-
port bed material load.   Since the material that composes the spoil will  be
essentially the same as  the material in the channel  bed, these procedures
in Graf were used to estimate the sediment carrying capacity of the channel
as a function of the water flow rate in the channel.

    The actual calculations involved are too detailed to include in this
report.  Basically the bed material load is broken into several  size  frac-
tions and the sediment transport capacity of the channel for each size
fraction determined.  Then based on the fraction of the bed material  load in
each size fraction, the  total transport capacity of the channel  can be
estimated.  The particle size distribution of the bed material load is shown
in Figure 12.
                                    49

-------
    10
E
E


LU   .1

UJ
   .01
  .001
           0    10   20   30  40   50   60
                             % FINER
70   80   90   100
         Figure 12.  Particle size distribution of material
                     to be placed on top of spoil.
                                50

-------
   500
           THESE FIGURES  REPRESENT THE
           CORRESPONDING SEDIMENT
           CONCENTRATION IN GRAMS OF
           SEDIMENT PER  GRAM OF WATER.
   400
o
0>
w
Q  30X)
Q
z
UJ


§  20.0
   10.0
                         .10        .15        .20

                          WATER FLOW, m*/s
.25
.30
            Figure  13.  Sediment rating curve for drainage
                       channel  along coal haul  road.
                                 51

-------
     Figure 13 is the resulting sediment rating curve for the drainage
channel as a function of water flow rate in the channel.  As can be seen this
channel will carry very high concentrations of sediment.  This is because of
the relatively steep channel slope (1.3 percent), small and easily eroded
particles and high channel velocities (about 1.2 m (4 ft) per second at
bankfull discharge).  Again it must be kept in mind that assumptions have
gone into determining the sediment rating curve.  Some corrections will have
to be applied to the curve to account for some of the assumptions that are
violated.

     If the sediment rating curve (Figure 13) is applied to the 2-year runoff
hydrograpfr (Figure 9) for the 244 m (800 ft) channel, a sediment graph can
be determined as shown in Figure 14.  If the area under the sediment graph is
                                                                  —|5OO
      45
55
65
   75
TIME, mm.
85
95
           Figure 14.  Two-year storm  flow at  end of 800'  channel.
                                     52

-------
measured, the maximum possible amount of sediment that can enter the culverts
under the coal haul roads can be estimated.  The area under the sediment graph
represents 40 Mg (44 tons) of sediment.

     This estimated 40 Mg (44 tons) is now reduced by a factor of 4 to account
for the fact that:

     1.   The channel does not carry the indicated water for its entire
          244 m (800 ft) but only at the very downstream end of the channel;

     2.   Rock filters and small settling areas will be used at the entrance
          to the culverts; and

     3.   A large part of the material is in the sand range.

     Thus, the estimated discharge from each culvert is 10 Mg (11  tons) of
sediment for a 2-year rainstorm.  Since each culvert handles 244 meters
(800 ft) and there is a total of 730 meters (2400 ft) in the basin, 3 culverts
are required for a total sediment production from the culverts of 30 Mg
(33 tons) of sediment.

     Part of the sediment flowing from the culverts will be trapped before
reaching the watershed outlet at the project monitoring station.   It is
assumed here that half of the sediment from the culverts will  be trapped.
This means a 2-year storm might produce 15.0 Mg (16.5 tons) of sediment at
the monitoring station.

     The above calculations of sediment delivery are based mainly on the
sediment transport capacity of the drainage channels along the coal haul
road.  If we estimate the total sediment delivered to this channel  from the
spoil material via the USLE, and estimate of the delivery ratio or that
fraction of the eroded sediment that actually leaves the watershed can be
made.

     The USLE is:

          A = RKLSCP

          Where A is the soil loss in tons/acre

          R is a rainfall  factor based on rainfall  energy and  intensity

          K is an credibility factor

          L is a slope steepness factor

          C is a cover factor,  and

          P is a practice factor.
                                     53

-------
     The estimates for these quantities based on procedures outlined in
Barfield and Haan (1972)y and USDA Forest Service Handbook 3509.21 NA10
are K = 0.3, LS = 20, C = 0.8, and P = 1.0.

     The rainfall factor R was calculated from the 2-year storm to be 26.
Combining these factors along with the area of disturbed spoil, a sediment
production from the 2-year storm of 500 Mg (550 tons) is estimated.

     The watershed delivery ratio is thus estimated by dividing the  estimated
amount of sediment delivered to the monitoring station by the estimated sedi-
ment production.  Thus the delivery ratio is:

                      DR = sediment delivered
                           sediment produced

                         = 15.0 Mg   = 0.03
                           500  Mg

This delivery ratio of 0.03 will now be used along with the USLE to  estimate
the sediment loss from the demonstration project over a 3-year period begin-
ning with the initiation of mining on August 1, 1976.

     From this point, the following conditions are assumed:

     1.   The blasting operation requires 30 m (100 ft);

     2.   Overburden removal requires 30 m (100 ft);

     3.   Coal removal requires 30 m (100 ft);

     4.   Augering of coal requires 30 m (100 ft);

     5.   Spoil placement requires 150 m (500 ft);

     6.   Mine at rate of 20 m (70 ft) per day for 20 days per month;

     7.   Exposed areas are mulched at rate of 450 kg of wood/fiber  mulch
          per hectare (400 Ib/acre); and

     8.   Seeding is done the first of each month, September through December.

     Using these assumptions a month-by-month computation of sediment pro-
duction based on the USLE was made for the period August 1, 1976 through
July 31, 1977.  The results of these calculations are shown in Table 14.
The actual sediment reaching the monitoring station  is  determined by multi-
plying the sediment produced by the delivery ratio of 0.03.  This informa-
tion is also shown in Table 14.  From Table 15 it can be seen that the
estimated first year sediment delivered will  be 25.0 Mg (27.6 tons)  at the
monitoring station.

     Watersheds in this part of Kentucky generally produce 460 mm (18 in.) of run-
off per year.  This amount of runoff along with 25.0 Mg (27.6 tons)  of sediment
represents an average sediment concentration of about 350 mg/liter (20 grains/gal).
                                     54

-------
     For the second year the same procedure was used and an estimated
average sediment concentration of 48 mg/liter {3 grains/gal) was determined.
Similarly for the third year the estimated average sediment concentration is
16 mg/liter (1 grain/gal).
TABLE 14.
    Month
ESTIMATED SEDIMENT PRODUCTION AND SEDIMENT DELIVERY
TO MONITORING STATION BY MONTHS FOR THE FIRST YEAR.
                 Sediment produced
              Megagrams        Tons
                                  Sediment delivered
                                Megagrams        Tons
  August
  September
  October
  November
  December
  January, February
   and March (total)
  April, May, June,
   and July (total)
                 266
                 261
                  93
                  43
                  19

                  62

                  98
                 842
                      294
                      288
                      102
                       47
                       21

                       68

                      108
                      928
                           8.0
                           7.8
                           2.8
                           1.3
                           0.5

                           1.8
                    8.8
                    8.6
                    3.1
                    1.4
                    0.6

                    2.0

                    3.1
                   FT6
TABLE  15.   SEDIMENT DELIVERED TO MONITORING STATION
    Item
    Mg
Tons
    Disturbed
Mg/ha    Tons/acre
m3/ha   Acre-ft/   mg/
        acre dis-  liter
        turbed
  Project Site
    Year 1     25.0
    Year 2      3.5
    Year 3      1.2
  3 yr. period 29.7
  Avg. for 3    9.9
   years
          27.6
           3.8
           1.3
          32.7
          10.9
        14.10
         1.93
         0.67
        16.71
         5.58
            6.30
            0.86
            0.30
            7.46
            2.49
 8.83
 1.22
 0.43
10.48
 3.50
0.0029
0.00040
0.00014
0.00344
0.00115
350
 48
 16

138
     These sediment production figures can be stated in various terms.
Table 15 summarizes them in terms of total sediment production, sediment
production per unit of disturbed area, sediment volume per unit of disturbed
area, and average sediment concentration in the stream at the monitoring site
in mg/liter.

     The sediment production during the year of active mining (Year 1) will
be relatively high but is projected to fall within the current Kentucky
Division of Reclamation regulations.  These regulations state that the
suspended sediment cannot exceed 330 mg/1 (19 grains/qal) except during
precipitation events when it cannot exceed 2200 mg/1 (129 grains/gal)
Thus the average suspended sediment permissible is near or somewhat greater
than is expected from the project site.  The average figure of 350 mg/1
(20 grains/gal) shown in Table 15 for year 1 is made up of low flows when
the concentration will be considerably less than 350 mg/1 (20 grains/gal)
                                     55

-------
and high flows during storm runoff periods when the concentrations will be
somewhat higher than 350 mg/1 (20 grains/gal).  This is in keeping with the
regulations mentioned above.  Obviously sediment production during the second
and third years will be well below the required levels.

     The effectiveness of the block-cut method of mining in controlling sedi-
ment can be seen by comparing the figures in Table 15, with results reported
from other studies on conventional mine sites.  For example Collier, et al
(1970)11 reported that 94 Mg/hectare (42 tons/acre) of sediment were produced
in the disturbed area over a three year period on a conventionally mined area
in Eastern Kentucky.  This compares with an estimated production of only 16.71
Mg/hectare (7.46 tons/acre) of disturbed area using the block-cut method.
This reduction plus the fact that only about one-third as much area is dis-
turbed indicates the total sediment production is reduced by a factor of near-
ly 17 or only about 6% as much sediment is produced with the block-cut method
as compared to the conventional  method.

     Mines (1975)12 and Davis and Mines (1973)13 state that approximately
610 nr/hectare (0.20 acre-feet/acre) of sediment is produced from the disturb-
ed area on strip mines in Eastern Kentucky over a 3-year period.  It is ex-
pected that only a small fraction of this amount,9 nr/hectare (0.003 acre-
feet/acre) will be produced from the demonstration site.

     Curtis  (1971,4 1972,14 197415) reported sediment concentrations of up
to 30,000 mg/1 (1750 grains/gal) from conventionally stripmined areas.  Al-
though projections have not been made for the maximum or peak sediment con-
centrations, it is expected that they will not exceed the 2200 mg/1 (129
grains/gal) required-by Kentucky regulations.

     Thus it is apparent that the block-cut method of mining will greatly
reduce sediment production when compared to conventional stripping methods.
It is expected that sediment basins will not be required to meet current
Kentucky regulations when the modified block-cut method of mining is used.

Design and Construction Schedule

     The overall operation schedule for the project from initial water
quality sampling through preparation of the final  report is set forth in
Figure 15 and in the discussion of implementation and operating plans.

     Detailed plans and specifications for the monitoring station will start
by the first of September 1975 and construction is expected to take place
in  October 1975.  Detailed mining plans will be started in December.1975 and
completed by March 1976.  The plans will be field reviewed and staked out by
the end of March 1976.

     The mining layout and start-up procedure will be completed in April 1976
and mining will start in August and extend through September 1976.

     In the post-mining period, the "As Mined" plans will be prepared in the
fourth quarter of  1976.  Water quality sampling and testing will extend until
the end of August  1977 or 1 year after completion of mining.  After termina-

                                    56

-------
tion of the water sampling the monitoring station will be removed and the
final report prepared.  It is expected that the final report will be comple-
ted by the end of 1977.  The entire project from the initiation of water
sampling to completion of the final report will encompass a span of 3 years.

Program Surveillance Measures

     It is anticipated that this demonstration will provide detailed informa-
tion regarding the water pollution abatement capabilities of the block-cut
method of mining.  Initial calculations indicate the sediment yield to be
substantially less than that associated with methods of mining utilized in
the past.  The calculations as presented herein compare the anticipated yield
with the outslope spoil disposal methods previously utilized.  The recently
approved Commonwealth of Kentucky mining regulations will obviously control
the amount of spoil which can be placed on the outslope.  However, the method
of mining to be demonstrated will apparently meet all the new requirements
and will minimize the disturbed area by virtually eliminating material  on the
outslope.

     A permanent monitoring station will be constructed at the downstream
limit of the project area.  This station will provide up to six months  of
samples prior to the actual mining operation.  The station will consist of
a Parshall flume with stilling well, a flowmeter with recorder, a twenty-
four bottle automatic flow proportion sampler, a thermograph, and a rainfall
recorder.  The station will also be utilized during the mining operation, and
will record data for twelve months after the completion of mining to relate
the effects of the revegetation effort.  Outline specifications for the mater-
ials and equipment to be utilized in this station are presented elsewhere in
this study.

     Weekly samples will be collected prior to mining, during mining, and
after mining.  These samples will be tested for pH, specific conductance,
turbidity, hardness, alkalinity, acidity, iron, calcium, magnesium, manganese,
suspended solids,  sett! eable  sol ids find sulfate.  Additionally, pollutographs
will be developed utilizing up to twenty-four discrete samples for significant
events.  One pollutograph per month during a rainfall event prior to mining,
a pollutograph for each significant  rainfall event during mining, and  one per
month after mining will be developed.  These pollutographs will reflect pH,
suspended solids, flow, iron, manganese, and calcium.  In this manner the
relationship of pollutants during a rainfall event may be established for an
area virtually free of man made pollutants, the effects during mining may be
developed, and the effects of revegetation may be documented.

     Surveillance measures will also include a minimum of weekly checks of
the monitoring station and repairs to the equipment as required.  A register-
ed professional engineer and a resident inspector will be assigned to the
project full time during the actual mining which is anticipated to last two
to three months.  These personnel will evaluate the operation relative  to the
accepted pre-mining plans for conformance with methods and disturbed limits,
will record time for all other personnel and equipment, will estimate amount
of overburden and mineral removed on a daily basis, and will record all signi-
ficant events including revegetation and reclamation efforts.

                                     57

-------
     These surveillance measures will provide all data required to evaluate
the effectiveness of the control of the sedimentation problem utilizing the
block-cut method of mining.

Program Emergency Procedures

     All measures for correcting emergencies which may occur as a result of
the actual mining operation will be provided by the operator.  The monitoring
station has been designed  to measure flows up to 25-year storms.  A 100-year
storm could provide problems, but is not considered to be critical.  Excess
flow should flow over the  flume, but could cause movement.  The corrective
measures in that event would be provided by Watkins and Associates personnel.

     A trained inspector will visit the monitoring station weekly to set
clocks, exchange batteries, pick up charts, pick up samples, and provide
routine maintenance.  His  visits will preferably be during or immediately
after a rainfall event.  Additionally, the consultant intends to contract with
a reputable local person to check the station daily for vandalism.  Although
the equipment is to be housed in a bullet proof container, vandalism could
occur due to the remote location.  The local person will be instructed to
immediately notify the consultant in the event that vandalism occurs.  The
consultant will immediately proceed to provide the necessary repairs.

CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

Site Acquisition Costs

     There will be no costs to this demonstration project for legal fees,
purchase costs, or lease costs.  Certicoals, Incorporated has obtained
surface and mineral rights within the project area, and a letter from this
organization granting access rights and expressing a willingness to cooperate
is included in the study files-.'

Construction Costs

     The only equipment costs directly charged to this project will be for
the permanent monitoring station.  These funds have previously been approved
from a surplus remaining in the feasibility study budget.  This surplus was
available due to a change  in the size of the project area, and the station
will thereby be in place prior to the occurrence of winter weather.  This
will enable the project team to obtain approximately 6 months of water
quality data utilizing the monitoring station prior to actual mining.  Engin-
eering fees associated with the construction of the monitoring station have
been allocated as a portion of the feasibility study.  The basis of the
estimates for design and construction of the monitoring station included
equipment prices for suppliers plus rates for construction, labor, materials
and equipment.

Operating Procedures

     The  administration of the  demonstration project will be the  task of the
                                     58

-------
Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Common-
wealth of Kentucky.  The actual mining will be accomplished by Certicoals,
Incorporated.  Inspection of mining activities, and the sampling and testing
of water quality will be the responsibility of Watkins and Associates, Inc.
and Dr. C.T. Haan.  Materials and supplies presently anticipated for use on
this project include replacement batteries, charts, battery chargers and mis-
cellaneous apparatus for the continuous operation of the monitoring station.
These replacement parts will be directly charged to the project at cost.  All
equipment and parts will become the property of the Environmental Protection
Agency  at the completion of post-mining sampling and testing.

      All chemicals and apparatus required for water quality testing will be
provided by Watkins and Associates, Inc.  Maintenance of the monitoring
station will be provided by Watkins personnel.

Personnel Requirements

      Overall administration of the demonstration project will be provided
by personnel of the Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Pro-
tection, Office of Planning and Research.  This office has administered
several similar contracts, and the personnel are experienced in this type
of effort.

      The administration of the portion of the project to be conducted by
Watkins and Associates, Inc. will be the responsibility of principals of the
firm.  The duties will be shared by the two individuals who were designated
as principal investigators during the feasibility study.  The job description
must include assignment of other personnel, maintaining progress schedule,
report writing, and assuring the quality of all work.

      The individuals must be registered professional engineers with a min-
imum of 15 years experience.  Expected compensation range of these individu-
als is $25 per hour.

      Detailed  preparation of mining plans will be accomplished by principal
engineers of various specialties.  Structural, electrical, environmental,
civil, and hydrologic engineers from the staff of Watkins and Associates, Inc.
will be utilized as their disciplines are required.  A principal resident
engineer experienced in construction inspection will be assigned to the
project full time during mining.  All principal engineers must be registered
in their specialties and must have a minimum of five years experience.  A
compensation range of $15 to $20 per hour is expected for their services.

      A nationally known sedimentation and erosion control specialist will
assist the Watkins staff on this project.  He holds a Ph.D. in Agricultural
Engineering  and will evaluate the monitoring results particularly as related
to actual sediment yield versus anticipated yield.  Expected compensation for
his  services will be at a rate of $25 per hour.

       Field  surveys will be conducted by a survey party including a register-
ed land surveyor.  This work will include detailed layout of mining limits
in accordance with the  pre-mining plan.  As-mined plans will also be prepared-
Rates  for the survey  party  are anticipated to range from $25 to $28 per hour.
                                     59

-------
     Technical support personnel will be employees of Watkins and Associates,
Inc.  These specialists will include a chemist for water quality testing,
designers, draftsmen, secretaries, and a resident inspector for work during
mining.  The anticipated hourly rates for these personnel would range from
$4 to $7 plus overhead.

Operating Costs

     Estimated costs of operation and maintenance on this project are as
follows:
                     Engineering
                     Mining Operation
                     Monitoring of Water Quality
                     Post-Mining Operations
                     General Supervision and
                       Management
                     Final Report
$ 24,722.00
  41,171.00
  55,899.00
  21,095.00
  43,074.00

  22,442.00
                                          TOTAL     $209,543.00

Note:   Administrative costs for the Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection are to be added to this total.
                                     60

-------
                                SECTION VII

             PREPARATION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION PLANS


     Implementation of the demonstration project will be carried out in
accordance with the mining plans presented in the section on Preliminary
Engineering.  Before mining operations begin, however, there will be a
period of pre-mining activities to prepare for observation of the mining
operations and monitoring of the pollution produced by the operations. ~
pre-mining period will run from April 15, 1976, through September 1976.  A
2-month mining period is then anticipated to follow in February and March
1977.  A post-mining period will start immediately upon completion of the
mining operations and run from April 1977 through June 1978.

     Pre-mining activities will include the preparation of detailed design
and engineering specifications for the proposed monitoring station.  Con-
struction of the monitoring station will then follow, to be completed by
December 1975.

     A detailed mining plan will be developed upon completion of development
of the monitoring plans.  After completion, the mining plans will be reviewed
in the field and revised as necessary.  The pre-mining phase will end with
stake-out of the mining plans to guide implementation of the mining operation.

     Mining is scheduled to proceed according to the general plan presented
in the section on Preliminary Engineering and the detailed plan developed
and staked out during the pre-mining phase.  All mining activities will be
under the direct control of Certicoals Incorporated who, as mine operator,
will actually perform the mining work.  The Consultant to the Department of
Reclamation for this project will regularly inspect mining operations to
insure that the mine operator is following the detailed mining plan.

     The post-mining activities will begin at the completion of mining opera-
tions.   An "As Mined" plan will be prepared by the Consultant showing revi-
sions that were made in the original mining plan to account for circumstances
that were unforeseen when the original plan was prepared.  Only minor revi-
sions are anticipated since the plan will  be thoroughly reviewed in the field
before mining is under way.  The monitoring station will then be removed after
it has been in operation for one year after the completion of mining and will
become the property of the Environmental Protection Agency.  A final report
will be prepared by the Consultant after all  monitoring and testing of mine
discharge has been completed.

     The proposed operation schedule is shown on the following page in
Figure 15.
                                     61

-------
       Operation
ro
Hater Quality Sampling & Testing

Feasibility Study

Pre-Mining
   Plans & Specs. Monitor Sta.
   Const. Monitor Sta.
   Detailed Mining Plan
   Field Review of Plan
   Stake-Out

Mining
   Mining Layout
   Insp. Mining Operations

Post-Mining
   Prepare "As Mined" Plans
   Remove Monitor Sta.
   Prepare Final Report
                                            Figure 15.  Operation schedule.

-------
     The project operation and maintenance budget for the demonstration and
post-demonstration periods is presented on page 60.  It is estimated that
the demonstration will cost $209,543 not including the cost of mining which
is to be borne by Certicoals, Inc.  The source of funding for this demonstra-
tion project is a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

     Personnel will be assigned to the project by each organization involved
in accordance with the need for personnel.  The mining operator will assign
his current employees to the mining operations as soon as mining is underway.
The Department for Natural Resources personnel will be those normally work-
ing in the office or the field to supervise mining activities and no new
personnel will be required.  The consultant will assign personnel to his
work from employees currently on his payroll and no new employees will be
required by the consultant either.  Since most of the personnel needed fay
the project are already retained by the organization, personnel will not be
a problem.

     Supervision of the overall project will routinely be conducted by the
Department for Natural Resources using personnel currently supervising
mining activities.  They have a well established, full-staffed organization
of trained and experienced supervisors and inspectors to undertake the
Department's responsibilities in the project.  They will follow the project
through to completion of the final report.  The consultant's personnel are
likewise fully trained and experienced to take on field supervision and
inspection of the demonstration.  (For a further discussion of project
responsibility and personnel see Capital and Operating Costs under Prelimi-
nary Engineering.)

     The consultant will be responsible for the preparation of project inter-
im reports and for the final project evaluation reports.  Trip reports will
not be normally required by the project and will be made only if special
trips to the project site are required for significant reasons.  Likewise
conference reports will be made only if an important meeting occurs during
the life of the project.  Monthly, quarterly, and annual progress reports
will be prepared by the consultant throughout the life of the demonstration
project following the format set forth by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
                                      63

-------
                                SECTION VIII

                          EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT


     This project will provide the documentation which has been lacking
regarding the modified block-cut method of mining.  This method of mining
is termed "controlled placement" or "haul back" in other states and has
proven to be quite successful.  However, full data on disturbed area, sedi-
ment yield, revegetation, costs and other pertinent information have not
previously been assembled.

DEMONSTRATION VALUE

     This project will demonstrate the effectiveness of this mining method
in providing onsite control of sedimentation.  Preliminary calculations
indicate the sediment yield to be very near the existing Commonwealth of
Kentucky water quality criteria.  With some modifications, the requirement
of a sedimentation pond may be eliminated.  ATI of the pollution may be
abated at the project site and therefore would not contribute to the
pollution of the streams within the State.

     The cost of actual pollution control cannot be evaluated in this demon-
stration as the control is onsite and is an integral part of the mining
operation.  Overall operating costs have been developed for comparison with
other methods, but basic assumptions in these comparisons have been made.
The net savings on this project relative to pollution control may be the
future elimination of the silt basins depending upon the results of this
demonstration and the future State and Federal requirements.

     One observation is that the construction of silt basins and the access
roads necessary for construction of these facilities may result in the
creation of more sediment than the actual mining operation.  The sediment
yield associated with the demonstration mining method will be well documented.
A study of the problems associated with silt basin construction may prove
this observation to be correct.

     The widespread use of the block-cut method of mining may prove to be an
environmentally acceptable solution to the sediment problem.  This would
improve the quality of the waters of the Commonwealth by providing onsite
control of the problem as well as potentially eliminating the requirement for
silt basins along with associated problems.

PUBLIC BENEFITS

     Public benefits from the demonstration project will be substantial even
though they primarily will be confined to improved water quality at the site
                                     64

-------
and in the receiving streams.

     In the introduction to this report there was presented a general dis-
cussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the block-cut method of
mining as compared to more conventional methods.  In this comparison it was
concluded that the advantages obviously were superior to the disadvantages,
the block-cut method of mining does produce substantially less pollutants,
and disturbed land is restored more effectively than with conventional
methods.  Reclamation, in the form of regrading and revegetation, 'is accom-
plished in less time and at less cost, which is a secondary public benefit.

     The primary public benefit, improved water quality of the mine runoff,
results from the fact that the disturbed area in the block-cut method is
about 40 percent of the disturbed area in formerly accepted conventional
strip mining methods and that revegetation begins much earlier.  These
characteristics of block-cut mining are envisioned to result in significant
decreases in water pollution from the mined area.  Reduction in pollution
at the site and in the receiving waters enables the waters to remain in
their natural state of quality which thereby enhances recreation opportuni-
ties, industrial and agricultural activity, and aesthetic qualities in the
area adjacent to and downstream from the project site.  By decreasing pollu-
tion the fish and wildlife habitat will be improved, water quality standards
will be complied with, and water sales and costs will not be affected.
                                     65

-------
                                  SECTION IX

                                  REFERENCES


1.  Grim, E.G. and R.D. Hill.  Environmental Protection in Surface Mining of
    Coal.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  National Environmental  Research Center, Office
    of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    October 1974, p. 77.

2.  Green, B.C. and W.B. Raney.  West Virginia's Controlled Placement.  In:
    Papers Presented Before the Second Research and Applied Technology
    Symposiums on Mined-Land Reclamation.  Louisville, Kentucky.   National
    Coal Association, October, 1974, pp.5-17.

3.  Kentucky Framework Water Plan.   Frankfort, Kentucky.   Commonwealth of
    Kentucky, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, October,
    1971, p. 62.

4.  Curtis, W.R., Strip Mining, Erosion and Sedimentation.  Transactions of
    the American Society of Agricultural  Engineers.14(3):  434-436, 1971.

5.  Contracts - Louisville Engineer District Equipment Ownership  and Opera-
    ting Expense Schedule.  U.S. Army Engineer District,  Corps of Engineers.
    Louisville, Kentucky.  ORLP/180-1-5.   Louisville Engineer District.
    May, 1975.  87 p.

6.  Kentucky Department of Highways, Manual of Instruction for Drainage De-
    sign.  Frankfort, Kentucky, Commonwealth of Kentucky,  Department of
    Highways, revised, 1971.

7.  Haan, C.T. and B.J. Barfield.  Rainfall and Runoff in  Urban Areas:
    Theory and Prediction.  In: Proceedings of Urban Rainfall Management
    Short Course, Technical Report UKY- 51-72-CE16.  Lexington, Kentucky,
    University of Kentucky, College of Engineering, 1972.

8.  Graf, W.H.  Hydraulics of Sediment Transport.  New York, McGraw-Hill,
    1971.

9.  Barfield, B.J. and C.T. Haan.  Erosion and Sediment Production.  In:
    Proceedings of Urban Rainfall Management Short Course, Technical Report
    UKY- 51-72-CE16.  Lexington, Kentucky, University of Kentucky, College
    of Engineering, 1972.

10. Forest Land Erosion and Sediment Evaluation Handbook.   In: Forest Service
    Handbook 3509.  21 NA. Washington, D.C., 1972.
                                     66

-------
11. Collier, C.R., J.R. Pickering and O.J.  Musser.   Influence of Strip Mining
    on the Hydro!ogic Environment of Parts  of Beaver Creek Basin, Kentucky,
    1955-66.  U.S. Geological Survey Professional  Paper 427-C.   U.S.  Depart-
    ment of Interior, Washington, D.C., 1970.

12. Mines, B.J., Personal Communication.   U.S. Soil  Conservation Service,
    Lexington, Kentucky, March 27, 1975.

13. Davis, J.R. and B.J. Hines.  Debris Basin Capacity Needs'Based on Measured
    Sediment Accumulation from Strip Mined  Areas in  Eastern Kentucky.  In:
    Proceedings of Research and Applied Technology Symposium on Mined-Land
    Reclamation.  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March  7-8, 1973.

14. Curtis, W.R., Strip Mining Increases  Flood Potential  of Mountain  Water-
    sheds.  In: Proceedings of Conference on Watersheds in Transition.
    Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 19-22, 1972.

15. Curtis, W.R., Sediment Yield from Strip Mined  Watersheds in Eastern
    Kentucky.  In: Proceedings Second Research and Applied Technology Sym-
    posium on Mined-Land Reclamation.  Louisville, Kentucky, National Coal
    Association, October, 1974. pp. 88-100.
                                     67

-------
                                   SECTION X

                                  BIBLIOGRAPHY


Control of Mine Drainage from Coal Mine Mineral Wastes.   Truax-Traer Coal
    Company, Pinckneyvtlle, Illinois.   Water Pollution Control  Research
    Series - 14010 DDH - 08/71.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
    Office of Research and Monitoring, August, 1971.  148 pp.

Demonstration and Evaluation of Five Methods of Secondary Backfilling of
    Strip-Mine Areas.  U.S. Department of the Interior,  Washington, D.C.
    Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 6772.   1966.

Design of Surface Mining Systems in Eastern Kentucky, Volume II.   Mathematica,
    Incorporated and Ford, Bacon and Davis, Incorporated.  Princeton, New
    Jersey. ARC 71-66-T1.  Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department for Natural
    Resources and Appalachian Regional Commission.   January, 1974.  VIII -
    27 pp.

Design of Surface Mining Systems in Eastern Kentucky, Volume III  - Appendix.
    Mathematica, Incorporated and Ford, Bacon, and  Davis, Incorporated,
    Princeton, New Jersey.  ARC 71-66-T1.   Commonwealth  of Kentucky,
    Department for Natural Resources and Appalachian Regional Commission,
    January, 1974.  H-3 p.

Feasibility Study Upper Meander Creek Mine Drainage Abatement Project.
    Stanley Consultants.  Cleveland, Ohio.  Water Pollution Control Research
    Series - 14010 HBQ 09/71.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
    of Research and Monitoring.   September, 1971, 53 pp.

Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Implementation.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and  Monitoring,
    Washington, D.C.  Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-R2-
    72-015, August, 1972.

Investigative Mine Survey of a Small Watershed.  Halliburton Company.  Duncan,
    Oklahoma.  Water Pollution Control Research Series - 14010  DM0 03/70-A.
    U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration.
    March, 1970.  89 pp.

Kirkpatrick, H.N., Annual Report, Kentucky Department of Mines  and Minerals,
    Lexington, Kentucky, December, 1973.
                                      68

-------
Mine Spoils Potential for Water Quality and Controlled Erosion.  West Virginia
    University, College of Agriculture and Forestry, Division of Plant
    Sciences.  Morgantown, West Virginia.  Water Pollution Control Research
    Series - 14010 EJE 12/71.  December, 1971.

Processes, Procedures, and Methods to -Control Pollution from Mining Activi-
    ties.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, D.C. EPA-430/9-
    73-011.  October, 1973.  390 pp.

Rainfall Frequency Values for Kentucky.  Kentucky Department of Natural Re-
    sources, Division of Water, Frankfort, Kentucky.  Engineering Memorandum
    No. 2, April, 1970.

Reconnaissance Soil Survey, Fourteen Counties in Eastern Kentucky.  U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.  Lexington,
    Kentucky.  Series 1962, No. 1.  Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station.
    1962.

Surface Mining and Our Environment: A Special Report to the Nation.  U.S.
    Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.

Surface Mining and Reclamation in Kentucky/1972, Frankfort, Kentucky.
    Kentucky Division of Reclamation.  1972.

Water Resources Data for Kentucky.  Part 1, Surface Water Records.  U.S.
    Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 1973.

Water Resources Data for Kentucky.  Part 2, Water Quality Records.  U.S.
    Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 1973.

White, J.R. and W.T. Plass.  Sediment Control Using Modified Mining and Re-
    grading Systems and Sediment Control Structure.  In: Papers Presented
    Before the Second Research and Applied Technology Symposium on Mined-
    Land Reclamation.  Louisville, Kentucky.  National Coal Association.
    October, 1974.  117 - 123 pp.

Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith.  Rainfall Energy and Its Relation to Soil
    Loss.  Transactions of the American Geological Union 39: 285-29-1, 1958.

Zaval, F.J. and J.D. Robins.  Revegetation Augmentation by Reuse of Treated
    Active Surface Mine Drainage.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Office of Research and Monitoring, Washington, D.C.  Environmental
    Protection Technology Series, EPA-R2-72-119, November, 1972.  147 pp.
                                     69

-------
 APPENDIX A.  LOGS  OF  CORE  BORINGS
      Sandstone
      Clay
      •Soil and weathered rock fragments
Figure 1-A.  Legend for core borings,




            70

-------
1714.6


1710.0
1700.0 —
1690.0 —
1680.0


1675.0
vwv
ww
vwv
xxxxx
X XXXX
   //A
Overburden, broken rock and  sand
          Medium grained,  light brown sandstone


          Plastic clay,  irregularly bedded,gradually changing
          to si Itstone lenses which contain organic remains

          Medium grained,  light gray micaceous sandstone,
          massive bedded
                    Light gray  siltstone with clay lenses, gradually
                    changing to gray clayey siltstone
Coarse grained, gray quartzitic  sandstone

Bituminous coal

Dark gray underclay and shale
                    Figure 2-A. Log. of core boring.
       Core C-l Located 57' Left of Station 0+75, Baseline "C",
                                  71

-------
           vvvv
           VVVV
           vvvv
 1690.0
Overburden, soil  and rock fragments
                     Medium  grained, light brown, micaceous.
                     sandstone  gradually changing to. medium grained,
                     light gray sandstone with clay Tenses
                    Massive bedded clay
                    Light  gray, silty clay gradually changing to
                    siltstone and then to fine sandstone

                    Medium grained, light gray sandstone, firmly
                    cemented, changing to coarse sandstone.
                    Light  gray clay, medium bedded
                    Medium grained, light gray sandstone with
                    clay lenses and streaks of coal
 1680.0 —
 1670.0

1669.8
Bituminous coal
Underclay gradually changing  to  gray siltstone,
irregularly bedded
                  Figure 3-A.  Log  of core  boring.
       Core C-2 Located 53'  Left of Station 2+85, Baseline "C".
                                72

-------
1702.8

1700.0
1690.0 —:	-.
1680.0 —
1670.0 -
1668
Overburden, soil and rock fragments
                    Light brown clay gradually changing to light
                    brown silty clay
Light brown siltstone gradually changing to
medium grained sandstone, thinly bedded
Hedium grained, gray sandstone with coal and
clay lenses

Bituminous coal

Underclay gradually changing to gray siltstone,
irregularly bedded
                   Figure 4-A. Log of core boring.
     Core .C-3 .Located 40' Left of Station 4+87, Baseline "C",
                                73

-------
               Overburden, soil and broken sandstone
               Medium  grained, weathered yellowish-brown
               sandstone

               Dark gray clay, massive bedded, gradually
               changing to shale
               Medium  grained, gray sandstone, spotted with
               clay


               Medium  grained, light gray micaceous sandstone,
               firmly  cemented
               Gray siltstone

               Fine grained, gray sandstone

               Bituminous coal

               Underclay gradually changing to shale
             Figure 5-A.  Log of core boring.
Core C-4 Located 54'  Left of Station 6+75, Baseline "C".
                           74

-------
1711.

 1710.0
1700.0
1690.0 —
1680.0'
1670.0-H


1665.6-
         vvvv
         v wv
         v v vv
               ..J,
         xxxx*
                   Overburden, soil and broken sandstone
                  Medium grained, light gray and yellowish-brown
                  weathered, micaceous sandstone,  plant  fossils
                  throughout
                   Medium grained, light gray sandstone with fire
                   clay lenses

                   Fire clay
                   Medium grained, light gray sandstone

                   Medium grained, yellowish-brown  sandstone
                   changing to fine grained sandstone

                   Dark gray siltstone

                   Medium grained, light gray sandstone,  firmly
                   cemented
                    Bituminous coal

                    Underclay gradually changing to shale
                 Figure 6-A. Log of core boring.
    Core C-5 Located  56' Left of Station 8+89, Baseline  "C".
                              75

-------
1712.2
1700.0
1690.0 —
1680.0'
1670.0 —
1663.6 —
         vv vv
         vvvv
         xxxxx
         xxxxx
Broken sandstone
                   Medium grained, light gray,  broken micaceous
                   sandstone with clay lenses
                   Medium grained, light gray sandstone, firmly
                   cemented
Gray siltstone

Medium grained, gray, micaceous  sandstone
with streaks of coal

Bituminous coal
Underclay changing to shale
                Figure 7-A. Log of core boring.
 Core C-6 Located 210' Ahead of Station 9+87.53, Baseline  "C",
                             76

-------
1717.0
1710.0
1700.0 —
1690.0
1680.0 —
1670.0
1668.8
         VV W
         VV VV
         V V VV
tt
          Overburden,  broken  rock  and  sand
Medium grained, yellowish-brown, weathered
sandstone, very micaceous
                   Medium grained,  light brown,  micaceous
                   sandstone
                   Medium grained,  light brown  sandstone  with
                   streaks of coal
                   Shale
                   Bituminous coal
                   Underclay gradually changing to  shale
              Figure 8-A. Log of core boring.
 Core C-7 Located 82' Left of Station 10+50, Baseline "C",
                             77

-------
1716.0 —
1710.0 —
1700.0 —
1690.0
1680.0 —
1671.8
         vvvv
         vvvv
         VVVV
Overburden, broken  rock and sand
                   Medium to fine grained, light brown
                   weathered sandstone
•V  of brown  clay  gradually changing to gray
si Itstone
                   Gray siltstone gradually changing to  fine
                   grained, gray sandstone, firmly cemented
                  Medium grained, gray sandstone,  firmly
                  cemented
                   Bituminous coal

                   Underclay gradually changing to  shale
               Figure 9-A.  Log of core  boring.
  Core C-8 Located 76' Left of Station  12+42, Baseline "C".
                            78

-------
1719.0'
1710.0 —
1700.0—
1690.0 —
1680.0—
1670.2-
         vvvv
         vv vv
               \
        xxxxx
         XXXXX
Overburden,  broken rock and sand

Medium grained,  gray to light brown sandstone

Medium-fine  grained weathered sandstone
Fine grained,  light brown to gray sandstone

Medium to fine grained, gray/light brown,
micaceous sandstone with carbonaceous lenses
Light gray siltstone with carbonaceous lenses

Medium grained,  light brown sandstone with V
of carbonaceous  light gray siltstone between
elevations 1696' and 1697'


Shale
Bituminous coal
Underclay changing  to shale
              Figure 10-A.  Log of core boring.
  Core C-9 Located 63'  Left of Station 14+45, Baseline "C",
                            79

-------
1719.0 —
1710.0 —
1700.0 —
1690.0 —
1680.0 —
1670.0 —

1667.3 —
XXX XX
         Overburden,  rock  and  sand

         Fine  to medium grained,  light brown  sandstone

         Medium to  coarse  grained,  brown, weathered
         .sandstone

         Medium to  fine grained,,  light brown  to  gray
         sandstone

         Fine  grained,  brown,  carbonaceous  sandstone

         Fine  grained,  brown sandstone
                   Shale
Shale and fine grained, light gray siltstone

Fine grained, light gray sandstone


Bituminous COB!
Underclay changing to shale
                 Figure 11-A. Log of core boring.
    Core C-1Q Located 65' Left of Station 16-1-70, Baseline "C",
                              80

-------
1692.3
1690.0
1680.0 —
1671.0
V V VVl Overburden,  broken  rock  and  sand
VVVV
VV V\/|

         Medium grained, yellowish-brown sandstone
         Medium-fine  grained  light brown sandstone
         Medium-fine  grained, yellowish-brown to gray
         sandstone

         Bituminous coal
         Underclay changing to  shale
               Figure 12-A. Log of core boring.
  Core C-ll Located 56' Left of Station 19+20, Baseline "C",
                            81

-------
1702.4
1700,0
1690.0
1680.0
1670.0


1664.6
— VV
VN
)})

— ))


|
~") ))
	
)

—
XX
555S5?
' V Vj Overburden,
/VY
. .,.-1
////I P.n^r«;p t.n mp
| yellowish-br
ill

1
ffit
)) Fine grained
	 Rr^v siltsto
III
Fine grained
JM
XX Bituminous c
f$fyfc Underclay ch
rock and sandstone
dium grained, light brown to
own sandstone
, gray sandstone
ne
, light gray sandstone
oal
anging to shale
             Figure 13-A. Log of boring.
Core C-12 Located 100' Left of Station 20+90, Baseline "C".

-------
"uo-° Vv
vv
. ill
: I
1700.0— \



1690.0 — "^



1680.0 — "^
	
1.3
X$
X X
ifi7n.4 — tsszz
VV
vv
U? i
u










}}J
*&&
XXX
               Overburden, rock and sand

               Medium grained, yellowish-brown, weathered
               sandstone
               Medium grained, yellowish-brown to light brown,
               micaceous sandstone with clay lenses and
               organic traces

               Medium to fine grained, light brown to gray
               sandstone with traces of organic material
               Medium to  fine grained, gray to light brown
               sandstone
               Medium-fine grained, light gray sandstone with
               coal  "blossoms"
               Gray  siltstone
               Fine  grained, light gray sandstone
               Bituminous coal
               Underclay changing to shale
             Figure 14-A. Log of core boring.
Core C-13 Located 120'  Left of Station 21+85, Baseline "C",
                           83

-------
Parameter
pH units
Conductance,
specific, uS
Turbidity, NTU
(Hach 2100A)
Hardness, total,
mg/1 as CaCOg
Alkalinity,
mg/1 as CaC03
Acidity, tng/1
as CaC03
Iron, total,
mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, rng/1
Suspended
solids, mg/1
Settleable
solids, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
                 APPENDIX  B
  TABLE IB.  RESULTS  OF WATER QUALITY  TESTS.

                Date and Sample  Numbers
            1974             1975
  1       2      3      45      6789
 6-12  13-12  20-12   26-12  10-1  16-1   24-1   31-1   7-2
 6.93   6.67   5.75    5.35   6.8  6.67   6.65   6.55   6.43

  31      32    33.3    34.9    49   39    30    27.9   31.9

 4.6     4.4     3.1     4.3   4.5   3.4    4.0    6.0    7.0

 8.3     8.7     9.1    10.1  9.19  8.48   7.43   8.22    8.3

 6.3     5.8     6.-3     6.8   5.3   4.2   3.88    5.8   7.35

 6.a    4.5     6.3     5.4   5.0   5.0   4.95    6.3   5.85

 0.09   0.23   0.28    0.28  0.23  0.39   0.20   0.35   0.30
 1.18   0.98   1.30    1.80  1.35  1.05   0.88   1.05   1.04
 1.26   1.41   1.29    1.23  1.30  1.25   1.18   1.20   1.23
<:o.oi   0.03  
-------
                             APPENDIX B. CONTINUED
Parameter
pH units
Conductance,
specific, uS
Turbidity, NTU
t-Hach 2100A)      15..0
 10     11
12-2   '20-2
6.49    6.5
30.0   32.0

        4.7
Hardness, total,
mg/1 as
Iron, total,
mg/1
Suspended
solids, mg/1
Settleable
solids, mg/1
SuTfate, mg/1
                                Date and Sample Numbers
                                        1975
                                 12      13   14    15    16     17   18
                                26-2    5-3  11-3  21-3  27-3   4-4  10-4
                                 6.6    6.7   6.6   6.7   6.7   6.6   6.9

                                30.5    36.0  35.5  33.0  32.5  32.5   103

                                 7.1    4.0  14.0   9.0   9.5   7.7  18.0
 8.4    8.7    7.8    7.9   8.3   8.4   8,7   8.9  44.7
Alkalinity,
mg/1 ds CaCOg     2.63   3.15
Acidity, mg/1
as CaCO'3
              3.15    4.2   4.2   4.2   4.7   4.7   7.4
4:50   4.95   4.50    2.7   3.2   4.1   3.2   6.3   7;2
                  0.40   t).43
Gal-cium, mg/^1     1.02   1.12
^Magnesium, mg/1   1.23   1.23
Manganese, mg/1   0.02   -0.02
              0.34   0.24  0.63  0.35  0.43  0.18  "0.23
              1.00   1.06  0.93  1.20  1.20  1.56  8.50
              T.12   1.17  1.17  1.16  T.19  1.14  5.46
              0.02   0.03  0.02  0.02  0.03-  0.02' 0.35
22v4    0.4    8.0    0.4  1.8.8   8.0   7.2   5,2  14,4

18.8   <0.1    7.2   <0.1  10.0   7.2   2.0   1.2  It)-. 8
 9.0    8.9    9.2   14.0  15.0  14.0  15.0    10   39
                                    85

-------
APPENDIX B. CONTINUED





   Date and Sample Numbers




           1975

Parameter
pH units
Conductance ,
specific, uS
Turbidity, NTU
(Hach 2100A)
Hardness, total,
mg/1 as CaC03
A-lkalinity,
mg/1 as CaC03
Acidity, mg/1
as CaC03
Iron, total,
mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Suspended
solids, mg/1
Settleable
solids, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
19
16-4
6.5

38.5

7.3

8.8

6.8

5.0

0.42
1.40
1.09
0.04

.2.4

1.2
10
20
24-4
6.5

36.2

6.7

8.2

5.8

4.5

0.40
1.20
1.08
0.03

8.4

2.0
10
21
1-5
6.3

28

14

8.1

6.8

7.6

0.50
1.00
1.12
0.04

8.4

2.5
4.0
22
8-5
6.9

33

18

9.2

5.8

6.7

0.86
1.10
1.17
0.06

4.0

3.6
6.0
23
13-5
6.6

33

16

10.6

6.3

3.6

0.95
1.30
1.23
0.11

2.4

2.2
2.5
24
21-5
6.5

34

16

10.6

4.2

6.8

0.57
1.35
1.25
0.02

18.0

10.8
3.1
25
27-5
6.5

33

14

14.7

6.3

8.8

1.66
2.00
1.53
0.23

10.0

2.8
2,4
26
5-6
6.4

37

14

12.3

8.4

5.3

1.04
1.65
1.30
0.14

4.4

0.4
4.4
27
13-6
6.5

31

84

13.4

8.7

6.0

3.78
1.90
U37
0.17

43.6

1.2
£1.0
        86

-------
                            APPENDIX B.  CONTINUED


                               Date and  Sample Numbers

                                      1975

                   28     29      30    31    32    33      34     35    36

Parameter         19-6   26-6    3-7   11-7  18-7   25-7    1-8    6-8   15-8

pH units           6.4    6.5    6.4    6.2   5.7    6.5    7.0    6.7    6.5

Conductance,
specific, uS        43     32     51    395   350    470    620    640    590

Turbidity, NTU
(Hach 2100A)        11    8.7     14    9.4   8.7    8.5     23     12     27

Hardness, total,
mg/1 as CaCOg     14.1   15.5   19.3  188.3 175.1   16.9   19.8   24.3   21.1

Alkalinity,
mg/1 as CaC03      8.1   23.6   26.2   14.5   9.6   21.6   22.6   28.1   25.3

Acidity, mg/1
as CaC03           4.6    3.5    8.5    2.5   3.7    9.2    9.0    5.9    8.4

Iron, total,
mg/1              0.51   0.75   3.05   0.16  0.08   0.89   1.29   0.58   0.81

Calcium, mg/1     1.85   2.40   3.05  28.06  33.0   2.50   3.00   3.13   3.93

Magnesium, mg/1   1.53   1.56   1.63  21.0023.00   1.80    2.1   9.7810.14

Manganese, mg/1   0.05   0.22   0.95   1.61  1.09   0.02   0.06   0.53   0.52

Suspended
solids, mg/1       2.4    2.4   18.4   22.8  10.4    8.0    5.2     14   15.2

Settleable
solids, mg/1       2.0    1.2   12.4   14.4   5.2    7.6    1.2    8.8   10.8

Sulfate, mg/1     44.4    4.5    6.2  145.8 186.0   7.5    6.1   13.6   16.5
                                   87

-------
                            APPENDIX B. CONTINUED


                               Date and Sample Numbers

                                      1975

                   37     38      39     40   41     42    43    44      45

Parameter         22-8   29-8    5-9    9-9  18-9  24-9  3-10  10-10  16-10

pH units           6.9    6.5    7.7    6.5   6.6   6.5   6.7   7.3    6.5

Conductance,
specific, uS-      560     490   4500   3900   470   420   460   390    490

Turbidity, NTU
(Hach 2100A)       7.2     24    6.6    8.8   3.9    25   5.7   2.9    4.5

Hardness, total,
tng/1 as CaC03     16.7   24.5  194.5  176.0  19.6  23.6  19.6  18.8   16.0

Alkalinity,
mg/1 as CaC03     20.9   30.1   11.3   24.6  17.0  13.5  19.5  23.3   21.0

Acidity, tng/1
as CaC03           3.4   15.6   13.5    5.5   2.1   4.5   3.3   5.9    8.3

Iron, total,
mg/1              0.30   0.58   1.28   1.26  1.17  1.42  0.29  0.21   0.09

Calcium, mg/1     2.48   3.13  32.22  16.83  4.65  3.05  3.03  3.37   3.05

Magnesium, mg/1   7.25  11.89   2.48   2.73  1.48  1.36  1.65  1.23   1.39

Manganese, mg/1   0.04   0.01   1.82   0.94  0.12  0.25  0.03  0.02   0.03

Suspended
solids, mg/1       4.8   20.4   13.2   18.4   5.2   8.0   1.6   2.4    2.8

Settleable
solids, mg/1       3.6   10.0   10.8    9.6   4.0   1.6   0.8   2.0    2.4

Sulfate, mg/1     17.7   10.4   16.4  145.3   1.2  20.2  27.2   2.2    3.5
                                    88

-------
                            APPENDIX B. CONTINUED


                               Date and Sample Numbers

                                      1975

                    46    47     48    49     50     51      52     53

Parameter         22-10  29-10  6-11  14-11   20-11   26-11   4-12   11-12

PH units           6.5    6.4    6.5   6.8    6.5    6.5    6.5    6.8

Conductance,
specific, uS       440    540    330    34   32.6     33     35     32

Turbidity, NTU
(Hach 2100A)       3.8    2.1    3.4   5.5    3.2    2.9    3.5    3.6

Hardness, total,
mg/1 as CaC03     20.4   16.4   17.2  12.8   10.4   11.6   12.8    9.8

Al kal i ni ty,
mg/1 as CaC03     17.1   14.9   15.0  11.0   15.5    9.3   10.1   11.6

Acidity, mg/1
as CaC03           3.9    4.0    5.9   9.1    7.2    7.5    9.0    3.8

Iron, total,
mg/1              0.04   0.03   0.04  0.01   0.02   0.04   0.02   0.13

Calcium, mg/1     3.21   3.37   3.21  3.01   1.76   2.08   3.05   1.84

Magnesium, mg/1   0.96   1.40   1.47  1.87   1.92   1.40   1.45   1.49

Manganese, mg/1  <0.01   0.02   0.02  0.01   0.03   0.02   0.03  <0.01

Suspended
solids, mg/1       2.4    1.2    2.4   0.6    4.0    3.6    2.8    1.2

Settleable
solids, mg/1       1.6    0.4    1.2   0.1    0.6    3.2    2.0    0.8

Sulfate, mg/1      2.5    3.5    8.9   3.6    3.1    2.8    3.3    8.9
                                 89

-------
APPENDIX B. CONTINUED





   Date and Sample Numbers


Parameter
pH units
Conductance,
specific, uS
Turbidity, NTU
(Hach 2100A)
Hardness, total,
mg/1 as CaCO
w
Alkalinity,
mg/1 as CaCOg
Acidity, mg/1
as CaC03
Iron, total,
mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Suspended
solids, mg/1
Settleable
solids, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1

54
18-12
6.5

25

2.9

11.6

10.2

8.0

0.08
1.60
1.47
0.01

0.4

<0.1
9.7
1975
55
23-12
6.5

27

2.4

10.6

12.2

9.2

0.11
1.20
1.51
<0.01

1.6

0.8
10.8

56
29-12
6.4

28

3.3

9.8

11.4

9.6

0.13
1.52
1.49
<0.01

3.2

0.8
9.4

57
6-1
6.4

28

5.5

9.0

8.0

8.0

0.13
1.60
1.48
0.09

1.0

0.2
13.3
1976
58
14-1
6.2

26.0

3.5

10.2

10.2

8.2

0.09
1.52
1.47
0.07

1.2

.8
9.5

59
20-1
6.8

24.0

3.7

8.0

8.0

6.0

0.02
1.40
1.19
0.01

1.6

1.2
9.2

60
28-1
6.6

29.0

7.1

9.5

10.0

8.0

0.06
1.32
1.38
0.01

9.6

7.6
10.7
      90

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read /ftaaiciions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.

   EPA-60Q/7-77-f)68
                             2.
              3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
   ONSITE CONTROL OF SEDIMENTATION  UTILIZING THE MODI-
   FIED BLOCK-CUT METHOD OF SURFACE MINING
              5. REPORT DATE
                July 1977 issuing date
              6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
  C.  T. Haan*, Department of Natural Resources and
  Environmental Protection,  Lexington, KY
              8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

   Watkins and Associates, Inc.
   P.  0.  Box 951
   Lexington, Kentucky  40501
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                   EHE 623
               11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                                802681
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
    Industrial  Environmental  Research Laboratory-Cin.,QH
    Office of Research and Development
    U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
    Cincinnati, Ohio   45268
               13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PiRIQP.CQye.Rgt
               Feasibility Study-12/74-4/76
               14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  *University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
16. ABSTRA
         The objective of this  study was to determine the  feasibility of a demonstration
    project for onsite control  of sedimentation utilizing  the modified block-cut method
    of  surface mining.  A project site on Lower Lick Fork  in Perry and Letcher Counties
    in  Kentucky was selected.

         Calculations indicate  the sediment yield from the mining  operation will be
    within  the water quality standards of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  All operations
    proposed in the demonstration project meet present State regulations for surface
    mining.

         Based on certain assumptions, a comparison of costs involved in the modified
    block-cut method of mining  and in a method using the minimum acceptable requirements
    as  set  forth in the present regulations has been prepared.  The differential in cost;
    of  the  two methods appears  to be negligible.  The demonstration will prove that the
    need  for sediment basins with the modified block-cut method of mining will be
    minimized or perhaps eliminated, depending on future State and Federal  regulations.

         A  water quality monitoring  station will be constructed to provide data before,
    during,  and after the mining  operation.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
   Sedimentation
   Surface  Mining
   Drainage
   Surface  Water Runoff
   Runoff
   Mining Engineering
 b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI Field/Group
   Mining Methods
   Sediment  Control
   Kentucky
08G
08H
081
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
    RELEASE TO PUBLIC
                                              19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                                UNCLASSIFIED
                            21. NO. OF PAGES
                               101
 20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)

    UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Kj.-m 2220-1 (9-73)
91
                                                              OUSGPO: 1977 — 757-056/6468 Region 5-11

-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
     Office of Research and Development
         Technical Information Staff
            Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

           OFFICIAL BUSINESS
    PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, S3OO
  AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
                                                               POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

                                                      US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                                                       EPA-335


                                                             Special  Fourth-C lass Rate

                                                                       Book
                I
                3D
                o
                \
\
                                          If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label;
                                          tear off; and return to the above address.
                                          If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
                                          series. CHECK HERE d. tear off label, and return it to the
                                          above address.

-------