The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA3015PLACER MINING W ASTEW )~ TER SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJE ~CT REPORT Prepared For: State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, AK. 99811 June, 1982 [M]&,Jru~~of§[ID&,®@@ Susitna Joint Venture Document Number Please Return To DOCUMENT CONTROL PLACER MINING WASTEWATER SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT REPORT Prepared For: State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 'Pouch 0 Juneau, AK. 99811 June, 1982 PLACER MINING WASTEWATER SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Prepared Fo~: State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation June, 1982 Prepared By: R & M Consultants, Inc. 711 Gaffney Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Although this investigation described herein has been partially funded by the U. s. Environmental Protection Agency through Grant No P-000179-01-0 to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, it has not been subjected to the Agencyrs peer and administrative review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. TABLE OF <XNIENTS Page No. SEcriON ONE -INI'R:IXJC!'IC!l 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.3 2.4 2 .• 5 .... 1 _,., 4 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 Progrant Objectives and Goals ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ! Scope of Study ••••••••••••••••••••• ~······•••••••••••Q•••••••••••2 Background and Histo~··•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••4 Characteristics of Placer Mines ••••••••••••.• 0 e ••••• iii •••••• II •••••• 6 Previous Studies •••••• $ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7 State cu"'ld Federal Watf!r Quality Standards and Effluent Guide1ines ••• Q•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••9 Settling Column Test Procedures and Objectives •••••• ~···········l2 Porc~ine Creek Settling Column Test ••••••••••••••• Q •••••••••••• l3 Settling CoJ.umn Tests for Individual Mine Sites ••••••••••••••••• 13 Results ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l4 Conclusions ••••••••••••.• G ••••• " ••••••••• "' •••••••••••••••••••••• !17 General Objectives •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Q ••••••••••••••••••• l9 Field Investigation~··••e••••o••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••l9 Pol1c1 Ilesign ....................................... 1J •••••••••••••• 21 PQ~ Construction And Maintenance~·········~····················23 Mine Operations •••• ~············································24 Pond Modification ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26 Data Coll~-tion ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 27 Results ••••••• ., ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 28 s~ of Data ••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 28 Natural Water Quality •••••••••••••••••••• Q •••••••••••••••••••••• 29 Pond Flow Measurements ........................................ r •• 30 Effect of Mine Operatians~··••••••••••••••••••••••s•••••••••••••30 Effectiveness of Tailrace and Pond •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 31 Pond Modifications •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 33 Corlclusioos .................................................. e ••• 34 SECI'IOO FOOR-INDIVIIXTAL MINE SURVEY 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 General•s••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••o•••••••••••••••••••••37 (JI:)jectives ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37 Mirle O};'erations ••••••••••••••• !t •••••••••••••• c-•••••••••••••••e•••38 sampling and Testing ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~·········40 Resu1ts ••••••••••••••••••• ~••••••••••••••••••o•••••••••••••••••••42 Natural Water Quali~···•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••42 Effects of Placer Mining on Natural Water Quality ••••••••••••• ~ •• 43 Effects of SUrface I:Alacilg of Settling Ponds on Sedimentation ••••• 46 Effects of Particle Sizes on Sedimentation ••••••••••••••••••••••• 47 i t f Hater Use •••• ~··••••••••••••••••••••••••a•••··~~·-··~··••••••••••52 4.6 Ca'lcl.usi()l'18 ....................................................... 54 SECri<E FIVE -SU!ti4ARY 5.1 5.2 Catpliance Wi tll St:anc!ards .......................................... 57 Sedilnentation Efficiency ••• " ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• sa ii Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Drawing 1 Drawing 2 Drawing 3 Drawing 4 Drawing 5 Drawing 6 Drawing 7 Drawing 8 Drawing 9 Drawing 10 Drawing 11 Drawing 12 Drawing 13 Drawing 14 Drawing 15 Drawing 16 Drawing 17 Drawing 18 Drawing 19 LIS!' OF TABLES Average Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity Values Settling Colunn Tests Water Quality Data Collected August 14, 1980 Water Quality Data From Sampling Sites Located Upstream of Mine 16 Water Quality Data Fran Mine 16 Sampling Sites Mine Site Locations Equipnent at Selected Placer ~line Sites SUmmary of Mine Operations Water Use and Settling Pond Characteristics Ranges and Means of Measured Parameters Above, Wit~n and Below Placer Mines Arsenic Concentrations at 15 Mine Sites Arsenic Conditions for Various Conditions at Placer Mine Sites Dissolved and Suspended Arsenic Mean Coocentrations and Standard Deviation For Various Conditions at Placer Mines Sedimentation Effectivness at Surveyed Placer Mines Particle Size Analysis of Material From Paydirt Distribution of Particle Sizes of Fraction Passing No. 50 Sieve .Sedfmentation Characteristics of Settling Ponds at surveyed Placer Mines Manning's 11 n fj( Value For Selected Sluice Box Lisr OF DFAW:Q~;S Location of Project Areas Location of Placer Mines Sampled Settling CollJlU'l Data Percent Ranoval of Suspended Solids Relationship Between ntrbidity and Total Suspended Solids Demonstration Sett!ling Pond and Benn Sampling Sites, Denonstration Settling Pond Effect of Benn Placenent on Settleable Solids Grain Size CUrves, Porcupine Creek Site Grain Size CUtves, z.t..ine Sites 1-5 Grain Size curves, Mine Sites 6-10 Grain Size CUrves, Mine Sites 11-14 Effect of Particle Size on Settling Pond Efficienqy Particle Settling Velocites Relationshi~ Between Settling Velocity and Renoval of Total Suspended Solids Mines 1 and 2 RelationshiiE Between Settling Velocity and Refnoval of Total Suspended Solids Mines 3 and 4 Relationships Between Settling Velocity and Ranoval of Total Suspended Solids Mines 5 and 6 Relationshii=S Between Settling Velocity and Removal of Total Suspended Solids, Mines 7 and 8 Relationshi};S Between Settling Velocity and Ranoval of Total Suspended Solids, Mine 9 and 10 - iii Drawing 20 Drawing 2l Drawin.g 22 Drawing 23 Drawing 24 Drawinq 2!5 Drawing 2(:; Drawing ZJ' Appendi.x I ~dix II Appendix III ~dix rv Relationshipa Setween Settling Velocity and Ranoval. of Total suspended Solids, Mine 11 and 12 Relatioo~!l=t Between Settling Velocity and Renoval of TOtal suspended Solids, r-tine 13 and 14· Relationshite Between settling . -.elocity and Removal of Total Suspended Solids, Mine 15 and 16 Placer Mine Water Usage, Mines 1 through 4 Placer Mine Water Usage, Mines 5 and 6 Placer Mine Water Usage, Mines 7 through lOA Placer Mine Water Usage, Mines lOB through 12 Placer Mine Water Usage, Mines 13 and l4 Settling CollJIU'l Data, Individual Mine Sites Sample Site Descriptions and Methods of Data Collection Porcupine Creek 50 Day Sampling Data Individual Mine Site Data iv SEcriON ONE IN'J.R)D{Jcr'ION 1.1 .FJ.INRAM QPJECriVES AW ro&8 This report presents the results of a study conducted by R & M Consultants, me. on the effectiveness of settling ponds for treatment of effluent water from AJ.aska placer gold mines.. As part of this study, a demonstration settling pond was designed, constructed at an operating mine on Porcupine creek (near Central, Alaska), and monitored for SO days during the 1981 mining season. In addition, the water quality at fifteen other mine sites, including a mine above the demonstration site, was periodically sampled during the 1981 mining season. The data collected in these efforts are presented in thi~ report, together with the evaluation and conclusions that have been derived from these data. This study had as its objectives:: 1. Design and construction of a demonstration settling pond that could provide a high level of treatment of placer mining discharges. 2. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the demonstration settling pond in improving the quality of placer mining discharges, including comparison of actual water quality to EPA effluent guidelines and state water quality standards for turbidity, suspended solids and settleable solids, I;ii, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and chemical o.xygen demand. 3. Evaluation of the economics of construction, operation, l maintenance, and closeout of the demonstration settling p:>oo. 4. Collection of information to compare settling pond performance at a number of different placer mines having differing methods of mining operations and differing characteristics of the material being mined, relative to the demonstration :pond. 5. Definition of the water quality of the discharge of placer mines that do not use settling pooos for ranoval of suspended materials. t5. Measurement of water used by placer mining operations to provide infon~ation for defining water u$age and for evaluating water use permit cq;:plications. 7. Preparation a sediment control handbook from the information gathered by this study for use by to the mining iooustry. 1.2 .~'IDPE QE gmpx The iuitial scope of this study, as defined by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, ("ADEC") included the design, construction, monit:oring and evaluation of effectiveness of a settling pond that would theor4!tically provide the best achievable sediment control treatment possible using a conventional settling pond. The settling pond effluent was to be monit:ored for dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, settleable solids, total suspended solids, turbidity and chemicc.l oxygen demand at selected flows .. The s:cope of this study specifically did not include the evaluation of 2 partial recyclin~hemical flocculants or mechanical methods in treating placer min i.ng effluents • .Becac e few mines in the Circle Mining District used settling ponds, the Distri' 't was chosen for the demonstration project. After solicitation, only two mir.~. "'rs volunteered their operations, and the Porcupine Creek site was therefore selectea by the D.E.C. The scope of the study was amended after a public meeting with interested parties. The general consensus was that studying one site would define conditions at only one mine in a highly variable industry and that the effectiveness of sediment control at a number of mi~e sites should be ,evaluated. To meet these concerns, the study was amended to reduce sampling at the Porcupine Creek site from 100 days,· as initially planned, to 50 days and to .include fifteen additional mine sites to be sampled on three separate occasions. The revised scope included: 1 e Rep:>rting the following for each mine site: type of equipment used, volume of material moved, the size and distribution of soil :r;articles in the p:tydirt, the method used to process paydirt, and the quanti~ of water used to process a given volume of materialo 2. Reporting the type of wastewater treatment used by each miner, including size of settling pond, if any, and extent of water reuse. 3. Monitoring water quality during each visit, including measurement o:f: -t:lissol ved oxygen, water temperature, pH, settleable solids, total suspended solids and turbidity. Tbtal and dissolved arsenic was to be sampled during one visit at each mine. 3 4. Performing settling column tests on materia.! collected from the sluice b.")x discharge at each mine site. The scope was further enlarged to obtain data requested by the Alaska Depart- mEa"'lt of Natural Resources to use in evaluation of water permit applications submitted by minerso This included collection of data for computation of Manning's roughness coefficient "n 11 for the sluice boxes of each miner. Also, flow measurements of the stream and mine operation were to be made to permit the computation of the water bR!ance of each mine site to determine consumptive use, if any. The sixteen mine sites, including the demonstration settling pond site, were ctosen by the ADEC based on their location, type of operation and willingness to participate in the study. Although seventeen mines were initially sampled, only sixteen sites were sampled throughout the 1981 mining seas~ Dr.awings 1 and 2 show the locations of the mine sites studied. 1.3 BACXC;BXJNP Mil HISJDRY Gold m.ining was the cornerstone of the economy in Interior Alaska, beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century through the 1930"s. Gold mining decreased after ~Jorld War II until, by the early 1970's, there were fewer than 200 active placer mines in the State.. The subsequent increase in the price of gold caused a significant resurga1ce in the n~~ber of active placer operations in Alaska in the past few years. This increase in activity has 4 t'lt}• . r . , ··-· -1 \ ·. C l>lu-,.... ~r I lileru, • ., I E A OftAWtN~ I LOCATION ~ ,.,_,ECT AIEAS ( PlltOM U S6S AI..AIKA ... C ) ...... • DRAWI~G 2 POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT N NOTE: LOCATION OF PLACER MINES SAMPLED ~ ----"'·---~· ·--------. been paralleled by a gr01wing concern about the effects of placer mining on water quality and the corresponding effects on fish and other aquatic life and on commercial and ptiJlic uses of surface waters. Gold is typically located in relatively thin layers of gravel covered by a few feet to many tens of feet of overburden, depending on the area. OVer- burderi is removed and the g1~ld-bearing strata is washed through a sluice box to separate the gold. The major cause of water quality degradation by placer gold mining is the discharge of sediment-laden water from mining operations into a stream. Seconda~ causes of water quality degradation include strip- ping operations for removing overburden, erosion of tail.inqs, and, in some areas, leaching from the tailings pile~ Stream sedimentation and the associated turbidity caused by placer mining is the most visible concern related to water quality. Sedimentation and turbidity are usually not confined to the immediate area or reach of the stream where mining occurs, but can persist for some distance downstream. Sedimentation and turbidity can affect fish and other aquatic biota by smothering aquatic life such as fish eggs and the benthic organisms on which fish fee(L Cordone and Kelley (1960) reviewed a fairly voluminous amount of literature showir~ that seCimentation and turbidity can not only affect fish and other aqua·tic biota by smothering of fish eggs and the benthic organisms on which fish feed, but also can affect growth rates and feeding habits of fish. &1en if turbidity levels are not so high as to clog the gills of fish, evidence exists that silt-sized particles of hardness greater than one can cause gill damage through abrasive or matting actioo. 5 The same authors endorse the statement that N_ adequate data are not available on the amounts of inorganic materials which can be added to a stream without significant harm to its productive capacity," and conclude that while ftsediment problems---related to gravel and mining operations are often spectacular, they are probably less important than gradual deposition due to erosioo" o Turbidity can also affect the recreation use of stream and river waters. 1.4 QiAPACl'ERISTICS Of PLN:fiR MINES Placer mining operations are so variable that one could state that the only constant among operations is that each mine site has site specific coooitions. The variability results from a number of factors, including, but not necessarily limited to: physical location, size of operatioo, amotmt and type of overoorden, width of gold-bearing strata, -equipoent and type of material processing, water availability and use, degree of water reuse or recycling, degree of wastewater treatment, and condition (clear vs. glacial) and size of source water and receiving stream. All of the above factors may in some way be related to the potential for water quality degradation below the mine site. M~ny of these factors are 6 The same authors endorse the statement that "-adequate data are not available on the amounts of inorganic materials which can be added to a stream without significant harm to its productive capacity," and conclude that while "sediment problems---related to gravel and mining operations are often spectacular~ they are probably less important than gradual deposition due to erosioo". Turbidity can also affect the recreation use of stream and river waters~~ Placer mi.."ling operations are so variable tha't one coUld state that the only constant among operations is that each mine site has site speciflc conditions. The variability results from a number of factors, including, but . not necessarily limited to: - ·- physical location, size of operaticn, amount and t~ of overoorde.n, width of gol~ring strata, equipnent and type of material processing, water availability and use, degree of water reuse or recycling, degree of wastewatex; treatment, and condition (clear vs. glacial) and size of source water and receiving stream. All of the above factors may in some way be related to the {X>tential for water quality degradation below the mine site. MS!nY of these factors. are· 6 interrelated and some may dictate the type of mining operation. For example, size of operation may be a function of the availability of water anq/or the type of equipment used by the miner. Wate.c availability may also influence the method of overburden removal, i.e., hydraulic or mechanical, an~ the specific operating mode of the mine. For example, the removal of ov~~size material prior to sluicing results in less water being required to move the gold-bearing material through the sluice box. Full or partial reuse of sluice water is another common method of reducing water use. Primary equipmE.'nt for moving material may consist of one type, or a combina- tion of many types, such as hydraulic giants, front-end· loaders, backhoes, dozers, scrapers, draglinea, or dredges. Consequently, it "!ould be difficult to find two identical placer gold mining operations in Alaska. The effects of placer mining on water quality has been a topic of few in- depth studies. Generally these studies are classified into two groups: short term (one mining season) studies of a number of mine sites, or reviews of the state of the art. Two u.s. Environmental Protection Agency studies collected data during one visit each to 10 and 11 mine sites, respectively. Each mine site was sampled . at three to five locations. These studies fotmd that settling ponds do improve water quality, but the effect of the type of mining operation anq/or type of overburden on water quality could not be correlated. The studies also determined that 1) estimating costs associated with mining, for 7 comparison of costs of improving water quality, is difficult at best, and 2) a study measuring the effects of placer mining through an entire mining season was needed (see Cal~ 1976 and 1979). Mahc~ l l<=t ¥1 ) A Bureau of Land Managemen repor published in August, 1981 examined the existing literature. It also proplses methodology for a short term (one to two year) office study and a short term (one to two mining season) field stuqy measur.ing river channel characteristics and geometry and bed-material size and bank material size. It stresses the need for collecting data over a full mining season rather than one visit sampling. '!be Department of In.iian a."'ld Northern Affaire; Canada published a report in August, 1981 on control of placer mining effluent. The conclusions of this study are tt~t: 1) Treatment of mine effluent must be handled on a site specific basis. 2) Although settling p::mds can I(\~Uce the concentration of suspended solids, in most cases ponds cannot limit suspended solids concentrations to the permitted 25-75 mg/1 rang(: \*Jithout the addition of chemical coagulants or 3) Existing mine sites require modification of operation prior to successful implementation of waste treatment; 4) To be effective, site specific characteristics must be determined prior to the use of coagulants. In summary, previous stt.ldies oonfirm that plaa~r mining operations are highly variable and require site specific evaluation over a full mining f)eason. 8 This section presents a discussion of State and Federal water quality stan- dards that apply to placer mining wastewater and receiving streams bel0\\1 placer mines. The Environmental Protection Agency has both effluent and receiving water standards, and Alaska's water quality standards are essentially the same as the Federal receiving water standards for most types of discharges. Consequently, Federal permit condtt:f~ons for placer mining apply to the effluent, whereas State standards apply to receiving water. Specific Federal and State requirements have been presented in petmits issued to placer miners by the u.s. &"'1vironrnental Protection .Agency in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conser' ation.. These specific criteria are: Is The permittee must not cause an increase in tt.'tbidity level greater than 25 JTU (Jackson Turbidity Units) above natural turbidity in the receiving stream at a p:>int measured 500 feet downstream of the final dioohr,trge. 2. The petmittee must as a minimum meet one of the follow:...:~g corxlitions: A. Pro~tide settling pond(s) which ~e design.ed to rontain the maximum vol1.1ne of process water used during any one day's operation. B. Provid•: treatment of process wastes such that the· ;~~::cgimum daily concentratioh of settleable solids from the miriing of)eration shall be 0.2 milliliter of solids per liter of effluent. These permits also contain general provisions for effluent limitations, 9 schedule of oompliance, monitoring and reportiDJ, management requirements, and responsibilities. These permit conditions are temporar~ pending the outoome of an adjudicatory hearing process. Alaska Hatet Quality Standords (ADEC 1979) must be met in addition to the above permit requirements, and would be applied in the receiving strea.m at a point measured 500 feet downstream of the final discharge (Brossia 1981). 'lbe following receiving water standards are presented by AD~ (1979) for the growth and propagation of fish and other aquatic life for the parameters measured during this study. Dissolved r.a5. Dissolved oxygen shall be greater than 7 mg/1 in waters used by anadromous and resident fish. For waters not used by anadromous or resident fish, dissolved oxygen shall be greater than or equal to 5 mg/1. In l'lO case shall dissol~ oxygen above 17 mg/1 be permitted. The concentration of total dissolved gas shall not exceed 110 percent of saturation at ~lY point of· saupl~ collect! at. IlB· Shall not be less than 6.5 or greater 'than 9.0. Shall not vary more than 0.5 :tB unit ftcm natlll'al condition. ~~ TurbiditYJ. Shall not exceed 25 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) above natural condition level. It ~hould be noted that the permit criterion for turbidity i~ 25 JTU. Although NTU and JTU are not directly comparable, 25 N'lU and 25 J'"ID represent roughly the same anolUlt of turbidity. Temperature. Shall not exceed 20 °C at any time. The following maximum 10 ta'llperatures shall not be exceeded, where applicable: migration routes and rearing areas; l5°C and spawning areas and egg fry incubation areas; l3°C. Sediment. Tm percent accumulation of fine sediment in the range of 0.1 mm to 4.0 nun in the gravel bed of waters utilized by· anadromous or resident fish for spawning may not be increased more than 5% by weight over natural conditioo (as shown from grain size accwnulation gr.aph). In no case may the 0.1 mm to 4.0 mm fine sediment range in the gravel bed of waters utilized by anadromous or resident fish for spawning exceed a maximum of 30% by weight. In all other surface waters no sediment loads (suspended or deposited) "'hich can cause adverse effects on aquatic animal or plant life, their reproduction or habitat. . Toxic ~ Other Deleterious Organic ~ Inorganic Substances CArsenicl& Substances shall not individually or in combination exceed 0.01 times the lowest measured 96 hour Lc50 for life stages of species identified by the department as being the most sensitive, biologically important to the location, or e~ceed criteria cited in EPA Oqality Criteria ~ Water or AJ,a§ka Drin.Ung Water St;a@raa, whi.chever ooncentration is less. EPA (1976} states that the drinking water standard for arsenic is 0.050 mg/1. 11 SEC!'~ 'B«> SE'l'JLOO CDLDI'fi TmTS One of the principal objective~ of this study was to eva1uate tbe sedimentation rat:es of material from placer mine sluice discha.rges., This evaluation was pe·rformed, in part, by conducting .laboratory tests usin.g settling COl\IDllS. The settlil'¥1 column apt:aratus consisted of 12 inch diamewr pipes ten feet in height. sampling p>rts were located at various d~pth intervals, beginning at a P>int one and one half feet below the top of the column. A bulk sample of material fran the sluice box discharge was placed in the column, thoroughly mixed, and then allowed to settle, with sample specimens taken from the sampling ports at various time intervals over the teriod of the test. 'nlese samples were tested :for settleable solids, suS};ellded soli,ds, and turbidity in accordance with thte procedures specified in standar(l Metbocm La.I. .the. Examination .Qf Water ,aDd 1{£;stewabu., 14th edition. Settling column tests were conducted with material ootained from the sluice box discharge at Porc~upine Cl~eek, as well as from the 14 other mines that were surveyed in this study. The oojectives an'd prcx::edures u~ in the test of the material from Porcupir.te Creek differed somewhat from those of the tests of material from the other mine sites, as described below. 12 'lbe settling column test of material from Porcupine Creek was coooucted in January and February of 1981, prior to the design of the demonstration settling p:>m. The purpose of this test w'as to define a general relationship between pond size and resultant levels of sediment and turbidity within the pond effluent. Testing was conducted at the O'lntrolled room temperature of the laboratory. Temperature stratification was avoided by maintaining a continuous flow· of air aroWld the column in the direction of the column axis. Samples fran the column Tflits were d:ltained at geometrically increasing time intervals over a 22 day test pe~iod. The total volume of material obtained for suspended solids and turbidity testings, (five ports) caused a drop in th~' water level in the column of about 1/4 inch (during each sampling pedod). The total volum~ material sampled from three ports for settleable solids tests caused the water surface to drop about two inches each time that these samples were ct>ta.ined. Evaporation occurred at a rate of about 1/4 inch per day. A large sample taken from the column after five days for determination of the sizes of suspended particles caused the water surfaa~ to drop by an additional twelve inches. '!he objectives and methods of settling column tests that were conducted with the material obtained from the 14 mines that were surveyed in this study 13 (other than Porcupine Creek) differed from the test of the material from Porcupine Creek in several respects. The objective of this testing was to determine if settling column test results l'lOuld serve as a reliable indicator of the sedimentation rates and turbidity reductions that could be achieved within placer mine settling ponds. These tests, conducted during the summer of 1982, were performed in an outdoor environment to approximate typical ambie.11t air corXiitions during mine operations. Samples from the column parts were obtained after the initial mixing and at 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 t10urs after mixing. Testing was terminated after 72 hours of sedimentation. Samples were analyzed only for total suspended solids and turbidity. 2 .4 .BfSlLTS Settling colwnn test results are presented in AJ;pmdix I. Turbidity values at 1 l/2 feet am 5 l/2 feet below the initial surface of the settling colwnn test of material from Porcupine Creek are plotted versus time in Drawing No. 3. During the first 24 lx:urs of the test the turbidity data does not show a consistant pattern, probably because of differences in turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations with depth at the beginning of the teste I After 24 hours, however, the turbidity values decrease linearly with time when plotted on a semi logarithmic scale. .~l( vJe~ J ......-b"l '!be _percentage of suspended solids that was removed by sedimentation in the settling column is shown by time am depth in Drawing No. 4. T.he efficienqy of settling ponds at the individual mine sites was estimated 14 r ·~ ----------~~------..1l I r--· • &M CONIIULTA..,..,INC· 1: I I f I. 400 I~ ,... %300 .,.. I i ~ ~! l ii • • - L • ~ I I 2000 1000 ----~--~~~~rM~--~--~~~rTTTr---~--~-r-r~~~--~ • I 1/2' Below Surface •10 ..,_ to reach 2 5 flfTU SklrWard TIM£, Hours MGS SETTLtNt COL DATA PORCUPtNE CREEK SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT .,...- ~ I ( _________ ~£'fi'IA--~ I I I~ •~M;;N~~lc. J I I I~ 'I I' I I i l.il I I ,i ~~ • ' [: rl L • ~ .. % .... Q. ~ 95-v. 41 34 30 10% 70°/o 80°/o 12 ______ ._ ________ ~ 0 10 100 T•ME, Hours PEfltCENT REMOVAL OF SUSft£ND£D SOLIDS SETTLtNG COLUMN DATA, PORCUPINE CREEK SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ., 2 •• 950fo [ __ 4_~_9_"':._i_·?_·. _ _...j_A_;_•_t_.~~-g·_~_N _ _.l_•_~--::_a_. _$i __ •_v_ .... r a_ ... _·•_•_j_r_w_· _._ .... ·_ '-•-~~~o.t_o_. ,_3_to'_,~._:·J ::W4~• -·) ... « 0 A. ~----------------------------------------~------~-' --~--~----------'-----------------------------~----~----------·--------~----------------- from the settling colmnn data by· the following procedure: 1. The fraction of p:..1rticles remaining in suspension, relative to the average initial total suspended solids concentration in the column, was calculated for each sample that was collected during the tests. 2. The maximum settlin1 velocity of each sample collected during the test was calculated by di'!Jiding the port depth below the initial water surface in the column by the time after test startup that each sample was oollected. 3. Ploti3 of settling velocity vs. the fraction of particles remaining in suspension were prepared, and a least squares line in the form P= a + b Log V was computed to fit 'the data, where P is the percent of particles remaining in suspension, v is the settling velocity , and a and b are regression coefficients. These plots are included in Apperxlix I. Data associated with settling column velocities of more than one foot per hour were not used in computing t..he least squares equation because of the relatively large effect on these data of initial non uniform conditioos with depth in the column. 4. 'nle percent removal of s~nded solids can be predicted from the I settling column data as a function of settling veloci~ according to the following equation: R = 1 -~sPiN where R = total fraction removed V = settling velocity (corresponding to a given surface 15 overflow rate) P = the fraction of particles remaining in suspension By substituting the relationship between P and V described in step (3) above, the equation becomes: R = 1 -~ r (a + b Log V) CN This equation was solved to predict the percentage removal of suspended material that would occur at the individual mine sites under different overflow rate conditions. These predictions a1:e presented in Section Four on Drawings 15 through 22. These drawings also show the percentage removal of susr.ended material that would be computed to occur by use of the empirical relationship developed directly from field data, as discussed in Section Four. The percentage removal of suspended material as predicted from the settling column data is compared on Table 13 (See Section Four) with the actual percentages of re:noval that were measured in the field at the settling ponds of the individual mine sites. Average turbidity values and total suspended solid concentrations in the settling columns are tabulated with time for each of the surveyed mine site in Table 1. A plot of this data in Drawing No. 5 indicates the relationship of turbidity to the concentration of total suspended solids. The relationship has been quantitatively defined by a least squares fit of the data, as indicated in Drawing No. 5. 16 TABLE 1 AVERJ'.GE 'IDrAL SUSPENJED OOLIDS 1\ND 'IURBIDITY VALUES SE'l'rLIK2 CDLUMN 'lmiS 0 BOOR 6 HOOR 12 HOUR 24 HOUR 48 HOUR 72 lkXlR MINE TSS '1\lrb TSS '1\l.rb TSS Turb TSS Turb TSS Turb TSS Turb srm ng/1 NlU mg/1 NltJ 11Q/l NIU ~1 NID ng/1 NlU m:v'l NlU 1 6,280 3,200 2,310 2,900 2,060 2,.200 1,260 1,900 1,240 1,500 780 1,500 2 53,800 14,200 15,300 7,100 4,100 5,400 1,800 2,900 800 1,700 620 1,200 31 11,200 6,700 3,410 6,500 4,080 5,300 3,600 5,200 3,400 4,700 2v800 3,700 4 33,500 10,700 5,310 6,800 2,690 4,000 1,430 2,300 540 1,300 190 1,400 5 5,480 5,300 3,990 4,200 Zl,260 2,900 1,8'40 2,900 1,280 2,300 1,000 1,.700 6 8,100 3,100 4,250 2,300 1,850 1,600 1,410 1,300 1,130 1,100 810 1,-200 7 17,200 6,300 2,760 2,800 1,730 2,20'0 1,320 2,000 1,030 1,600 1,160 1,980 8 13,.700 6,100 2,900 3,600 2,290 2,500 1.,850 2,500 1,590 1,900 1,130 1,200 9 12,700 7,900 2,710 4,800 1,110 2,100. 700 1,280 330 600 180 420 10 18,100 7,400 4,950 5,600 3,770 5,100 3,480 5,100 2,430 3,600 2,290 3,000 11 3,030 2,700 1,780 2,400 1,470 1,700 1,280 2,,000 1,350 2,600 1,170 2,000 12 20,700 8,500 6,550 6,800 4,180 5,300 2,180 4,300 1,840 3,100 1,110 2,400 13 27,900 10,200 1,470 1,800 490 680 200 3JO 52.3 180 42.9 110 14 25,600 11,100 10,400 6,800 534 630 232 370 68*8 130 35.2 45 Porcu-8,610 4,300 2,830 2,800 1,630 2,300 873 1,500 740 1,400 651 1,300 pine lbte: Tb:· values listed above are average values of the column :IX>rts sampled. Average values for Porcupine Creek listed under 6 hour. and 12 hour were sampled at 4 and 7 hours, respectively. 'lbtal suspended Solids and Turbidity values for Porcupine Creek after 528 hours (22 days) are 120 ng/1 and 390 mu, respectively. ·---------· • ( •ll •I jJ . IJ l ; 11 I ~ ' . I I ' .\ I • &l'tl c;-.IIU&..TANT11 1 1P:i.C· I I I I I I I I l • • 10,000 -...... I ... _.,:-.. fJ) m .... -.. en Q ~ 1,000 Q i • ~ • fJ) :::> (/) ..J "' • ...., ~ 100 • • i 10 ~~~~~~~----~·--· -L~.~· ~~-~~· ~·J~~----~_._._..,.,.,~"--------1 100 1,000 10,000 TURBIDITY (T), NTU A£LA110NSHF BIETWEEN 1\Jft!IDITf .~ND TOTAL SUSPENOID. SOLIDS l ! SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT l 1 2 .s gmr:wsroNS It was concluded from the turbidity data for the Porcupine Creek settling column test, as plotted by time on Drawing 3, that reductions in turbidity to the Alaska standard of 25 NitJ al:::ove natu:r.al conditions could probably not be obtained in a practical manner by sedimentation alone. Extrapolation of these data indicated that approximately 60 days of sedimentation would be necessary to achieve the 25 NTU standard under the laboratory conditions of the test, .. . ,r~~ assuming negligible turbidit-.t of th~ under na.tural corxlitions. From this test it was concluded that it would not be practical to design the demonstration settling pond at Porcupine Creek to achi~ve State standards, due to the lack of large quantities of clean water for dilution of the pond effluent and limitations on the size of ·the pond as impos~d by the dimensional and topograii·lic constraints of the site. The settling column test data suggest that the settling ponds at the nine mines with ponds that were surveyed in this study would exhibit an average 85 percent efficiency of removal of suspended sediments. Actual field measurements of suspended material in the influent and effluent of the ponds at these sites, however, indicated that an average of only 79.1 percent of the suspended sediments was removed.. 'lhus, the settling column tests tended t.o predict, on the average, a substantially better perfoz·mance of the settling ponds in removing sediments than was actually observed in the field zreasuranents. The following are suggested as perhaps the two most likely reasons for the difference between the field measurements and t.he settling column on test 17 • results: 1. The samples used in the settling column tests were collected directly from the discharges of the sluice boxes at the individual mines. The material entering the settling ponds (which were usually located from several hundred to several thousand feet downstream of the sluice boxes) may therefore have differed somewhat in ~ie distribution of sizes of suspended particles from the material that was used in the settling column tests. The possibility of variations of the test sample material from material of the settling pond influent locations is indicated by large difference in the total suspended solids concentrations and turbidity values recorded at the beginning of each settling column test compared to the total suspended solids and turbidity data obtained directly from field tests of the infuent to the settling r:onds. 2. Wind, rainfall, short circuiting of flow through the settling ponds, convection, and other normal operational factors would be ~cted to reduce the degree of sedimentation that would occur under field conditions, relative to a more controlled laboratory enviromnent • 18 SECI'ION 'llmEE DEM:>NSI'RATION PRQJECI'-IDROJPINE amEK 3 .1 GENEJW, O'BlECl'IVES The site ?f the demonstration settling pond on Porcupine Creek, designated in this study as Mine Site 16, is located in the Crooked Creek drainage of the Circle Mining District, Alaska, as. indicated on Drawing Numbers 1 and 2. Since the first discovery of gold in 1895 the area has been worked periodi.cal1;c.. During 1981, three mines were active within the immediate area of the demonstration settling pond site. Several other mines were operating downstream from the settling pond on Porcupine Creek or its tributaries. Many other mines were operating on Crooked Creek and its tributaries during the 1981 season. The demonstration settling pond was designed, constructed, and monitored for the primary purp:>se of providing information with regard to the reduction in levels of suspended sediments and turbidity that could actually be achieved under field conditions of typical placer mining operations in Alaska. Secondary objectives for the demonstration tx>nd study were to evaluate the effects of settling pond on other water quality parameters, such as pH, temp:!rature, dissolved oxygen and chemical oxygen denand. 3 .2 FIETD JNYE$TtGs\TIONS Two field trips were conducted during the 1980 mining sea~on to collect information for the design of the demonstrative settling pond. The first trip on July 24, 1980, was a reconnaissance of the site to determine the type 19 of operation, equipnent used, the areas the miner would work the following season and space available for the settling pond. The second trip was conducted on August 14, 1980. The purpose of this trip was to collect information required for the design of the proposed settling pond and entailed collection of: 1. water quality and flow data from above and below the sluice, 2~ soil samples of the material being sluiced, 3. a water sample fran the oownstream em of the sluice box, and, 4. top:>graphy data in the area downstream from the sluice box and up- stream from the claim boundacy. Flow, dissolved oxygen, pi, temperature, and settleable solids were measured in Porcupine Creek ~;~H-~ mine site and 100 feet downstream from the end of the sluice box as~ety considerations would allow. Samples for laboratory· analyses of suspended solids and turbidity were also collected from the two sample site& The field and laboratory data collected during this visit are presented in Table 2~t Samples were collected fran the gold bearing strata in the mine cut and from the sluice box discharge to define the distribution of the sizes of the particles of the material being mined and the suspended sediments in the sluice discharg~. These particle size distributions are shown in Table 13. A bulk sample of the slui~ box discharge was collected during the· August 14 field investigation for a settling column test (See Section Two). 20 TABLE 2 WATER QUALM DATA CDLLECIED AOOUST 14, 1980 Porcypine Creek Aboye Mining Qperatign Flow Dissolved Oxygen D.O. % Saturation pH Temperature Settleable Solids Suspended Solids Turbidity 5.6 cfs 13.0 ng/1 lOS 6.4 8.,0°C 0.1 ml/1 o.a ng,/1 0.20 NlU Below Sluice Box Flow * Dissolved Ozygen D.O. % Saturation pH Temperature Settleable Solids Suspended Solids Turbidity 11.3 cfs 12.6 mg/1 106 6.6 9.6°C 16 ml/1 5910 trg/1 1400 Nro * Note: Sluioe water was impounded prior to using it in the sluice Topographic data of the area were also obtained to provide data for the design of the settling pond and for calculation of the amount of material that \~ould have to be moved during pond construction. 3 ~3 row DEaiGN The rate of sedimentation and removal of turbidity that could be obtained in a settling pond was evaluated in the laboratory, prior to the design of the demonstration settling pond, by .conttucting a settling test of the collecteQ sluice box discharge in a settling column. The procedure and results of this test have been presented in the preceding sect:j.on. Where waters are used for growth and propagation of aquatic life and wildlife, ADEC water quality regulations require that tlle turbidity of a stream not be increased above the background le'Jel by more than 25 NTU as measured at a point 500 feet downstream from the point of discharge to the stream. During the design of the settling pond the data presented in Drawing 3 were reviewed to aid in the determination of pond size requirements to conform with the requirements of the ADEC regulations. These data indicated that, under laboratory corditions, a settling period of about 60 days would be required to reduce turbidity levels to 25 NTIJ. Although dilution by the parent stream and any natural c;:leansing processes within the stream would be expected to reduce the turbidity of the stream at the point of downstream measurenent to a lower level than that occurring at the settling pond out- fall, it seemed unlikely from the settling oolumn data that the proposed site would penmit construction of a settlL~ pond of sufficient size to meet the State turbidity standards. 21 The pond was therefore deSigned for the maximum size permitted by the topo- graphic and claim boundary constraints of the site. From the expected dis- charge from mining operations it was anticipated that the pond as designed would provide a detention time of approximately two days. The geometric configuration of the proposed pond was devt~loped to provide uniform flow velocities throughout the pond to the maximum practical extent. The depth of the pond was not considered to be critical in the design; however, a minimum five foot depth was felt t~' be desirable for storage of sediment and to limit the effects of wind, rainfall, convection, etc. in hindering sedimentation. The settling pond design included a filtration system, consisting of a perforated outlet pi:I;e that was wrapped with a filter fabric material and buried in the containment dike of the pond. 'lbis provi- sion was included to allow measurement of any effect of filtering action of the fill material in reducing the turbidity level and to peritlit evaluation of the expected reduction in the permeability of the fill during the operation of the pond. '1~ settling !X)nd was designed ~ contain only wastettJater from the sluicing ope!:ation. Strea~'n flows were de~dgned to bypass the settling p:;nd to avoid interference by stream r1.11ot;f with sEdimEmtation and to limit th(:! I=Qtent:ial for flood damage. The outlet from the· settling pond was designed to be a 24 inch diameter corrugated culvert pipe buried in the earth fill dike that contained the settling pond. A 24 inch diameter ver:tical standpipe was connected to the culvert pipe with a fabricated elbow section, Cutoff collars W@I'e provided 22 along the culvert pipe to limit seepage and erosion at the contact face between the earth fill of the dike and the cW.vert. The standpife confi9Uration for tbe settling ~oo outlet was includt..~ in thf~ design rather than an overflow weir type {}f outlet. because of the ease of construction of the standpi~ and culvert systera ana to avoid the potential problems of erosion associated with overflow weir designs. It was planned that some alt~rations to the I=Ord ~sign would be ma:de during the mining season. No specific alterations were planned or studied during the design phase of the work. The nature of such alterations were to be determined after evaluating the performance of the pond relative to the expected results. Pond construction took place in June, 1981. Because of a change in the miner's work plan, it was necessary to change the pond location from that identified in the 1980 field investigation to a new site, approximately 4000 feet downstream. The porx1 design was modified in the field to conform to the topographic and claim boundary conClitions at the new location. The pond was constructed using a D-9 Cat dozer. Mine tailings were mixed with fine grained soils by the dozer to form a relatively impervious core of the earth fill containment dike. Standard culvert sections were used in construction of overflow standpipes and the filter culvert. Woven fiberglass fabric was wrapped around the perforated culvert section to prevent loss of 23 dike material through the culvert perforations. Drawing 6 shows a plan and profile of the Demonstration Settling Pond, as ronstructed. Because of the change in pond geometry associated with the revised site location it was dr..ACided during construction to install two culvert standpipe f.)utlets rather -than the single outlet that was originally planned.. This ch(ill~e was made to enhance uniform flow velocities through the pond. The added GUtlet was constructed of 18 inch diameter culvert pipe. 'l'h~ ~$t of the settling pond construction was $12,000.00. Additional costs included $5,600,,!;90 for the materials for the standpipes and filter system. Tbe construction was com~eted in four working days. A :period of intense rainfall occurred as cx:>nstruction of the I:X>nd was being completed, with associated high runoff in Porcupine Creek. To avoid flooding of some equipment in an area that was adjacent to the stream bypass around the pond, the stream was temporarily diverted through the pond as an emergency measure during the peak rtmoff. Since only the 18 inch standpi:f.e outlet had been completed at that time, the pond containment dike was overtopped by this unexpectedly high flow, washing out a forty foot section of the containment dike. Repair of this washout, costing $2,200.00 was the only maintenance that was performed on the dike during the 50 day monitoring period. 3 .5 MINE OPERATJ:Ot§ '!he miner immediately upstream from the demonstration settling J;X>rxl utilized 24 [··. i ' l.I lJ l~ i,' I~ L~~ ,.-., '! ' !'·' "':.;. -- ----------------------~-~&MCON~~~~~. 170'± 400't DEMONSlMT!ON .SETTUNG POND AND BERM SECTION A-A 2 -, I I ---"~ FiiNCul.-1 18"0/o. PORCUPINE CREEK ClftCLE DISTRICT SETTLtNI POND OEMON-STR.-noN PfiK>JECT l DAT. •aAL. Gts Ill-8M" MOo ·~ 12-2-81 NONE LDS * Ol!f04 ~t ___ l---~~.~----------------------' ' ' a trommel (a re-J'ol ving screen app:tl!'atus) to reraove oversized material prior to slUicingo Water for the sluice and trommel operation was pumped from a nearby pump pond. The mine, designated in this study· as Mine Site~\~ operated 38 days of the 50 day sampling period. The equipm.ent used in the operation included one or two dozers piling paydirt, a dragline to load the hopper which fed the trammel, and either a dozer or front end loader to remove tailings. Mine Site 16 operated an average of 7.4 hours on days worked. The hours worked per day varied from 2 to 11 hours. The average quantity of material moved was estimated to be between 560 and 700 cubic yards per day. The absolute range was estimated to be 150 to 1050 cubic yards per day. Between Days 14 and 15, the sluice and trommel unit was moved upstream approximately 400 feet. At this time the pump pond was r~located upstream. Originally Porcupine Creek flowed into the pump pond. In the new location upstream, it was off the stream course with a byt;:ess diverting water from the creek. The quality of water in Porc~pine Creek at Mine Site 16 was affected by operations of a mine designated in this study ~'U) Mine Site 15, located approximately one mile upstream from Mine 16. The miner at Mine Site 15 sluiced during 21 days of the 50 day sampling period. During high flows water would be routed around Mine Site 15 by means of a bypass channel. During low flows water was stor~d in a reservoir to be. released for sluicing. Porcupine Creek flowed into a containment area formerly used for a water 25 reservoir in a previous mining season, located approximately midway between Mine 15 and Mine 16. The resultant r.ond allowed some sedimentation of waste- water from Mine 15 to occur prior to the use of the water at Mine Site 16. '.ttle mining operations and sampling sites in the vicinity of the demonstration settling porXi are shown in Draw iJl9 i. 3 • 6 .BJ.W lQllFIC'ATION Approximately halfway through the 50 day sampling period, various modifications to .increase pond efficiency were evaluated. The principal settling pond modifications that were considered included the installation of baffles and ener.gy dissipater& Baffles consist of placing curtain walls of plywood or other materials or gravel berms in the pond to increase the path length of water flow from the pond inlet to pond outlet. Properly placed baffles can decrease the reach over which wind can create surface turbulence. 'lbey also help preve.nt short circuiting. It was decided, however, that it would not be feasible to in- stall baffles in the pond as a design modification without draining the r:ond and substantially altering the pond configuration. Further,·gravel berms would take up a considerable amount of the volume and surface area of the pond. 'Itle most app;trent effect of the continued mining operations on the pooo, was the accumulation of sediment at the upper end of the pond. It was therefore 26 , I' I l I I ~~ J I NOTE: 0~&~ ~• .... Hew u .... ":t .-&-. 1 DA1'. ..ALS . 1 . g .. 2:5-81 NONE _ : SITE -I. Above Sluice 2. Daily 8ypou 3. u,_r PcwcupiM Creek 4. hlow Sluice ~. YoHM Creek 6. S.ttl"'t Pond Dam I.Aak 7. Abot11 Peftd 8. Below Pond 9. Pump Pend 10. Below Slul<:e 11. Pond Influent 12. Pond Effluent A. Confh~Met ~·Pond Efflutnts B. Ritht Outlet Pipe C. Lift Outlet Pipe D. Filter Outl•t Pipe 1~. 500' Downstream 14. By~s NOTE: !i&Jice at MiM IS was mo'Mtd 40d .,.. tNt•• doys 14 oftd t5. S-1• wt.s 9, iO Clfltd 14 were roloc.tu accordifttly. Old Pond. Detnonstroti90 S«tfing Poftd 30,000 ... ft. 56,200 sq. ft. !J£MONS7RATION SETTLING PONO LOS PORCUPINE CREEK CIRCLE DfSTRlCT SETTliNG FOND D£MONSTMTION PROJECT ' I I -~---· ------------~------.... ---..; decided that the pond modification should consist of the installation of a berm at the entrance to the pond to decrease the inflow water velocity, and thUS settle out some of the s~nded sediment. On Day 36 a gravel be.rm was constructed across the pond influent stream, approximately 60 feet upstream from the p:lnd. The berm was 3' high, 40' wide at its base and 70' long. See Drawing No. 8. This created a small settling pond with an area of approximately 10,000 square feet. The cost of this modification was $400.00. 3 • 7 DATA QJI.I.Eljl'ION The water quality sampling program included 14 sampling sites with 8 sites sampled once daily, four sites (designated as Sites 10-13) sampled twice dail~ :md two sites (designated as Sites 3 and 5) sampled periodically. Daily sampling at the two mines concentrated on the days that they were operating. Drawing 7 shows the location of the 14 sample sites. The sample sites are described in Appendix II. The following parameters were collected at each sample site: Dissolved Oxygen Water 'l'emperature Air Temperature pH Settleable SOlids Flow Total Suspended Solids Turbidity Chemical oxygen demand wa~i .sampled during high and medium flows. Arsenic was sampled onc;:e durir..g the 50 c.tay sample period at the following three loca- tions: 27 San1ple Site No. 1 (Above Sluice t2), Mine 15 sample Site No. 11 (At Pond Influent) , Mine 16 Sample Site No. 12A (At Confluence of Pond Effluent), Mine 16 The method of collection of water quality ~ples is described in Appendix II. Field data collected over t.he 50 day sampling period are presented in Appendix III. 3.8 BESQLTS Surrmacy ,gf Data Mine 16, whose discharge was received by the demonstration settling ~nd, did not utilize water in its natural condition for its sluicing operations, due to the effect of upstream mining operations, principally Mine 15. The means, standard deviations and ranges of water quality data collected upstream from Mine 16 are presented in Table 3. Data collected \qhile Mine 15 was operating is tabulated separately from data collected while Mine 15 was not OI;:erating. The means; standard deviations and ranges of water quality data collected from the demonstration settling pond and Mine 16 sampling stations are presented in Table 4. Data collected while Mine 16 was operating is tabulated separately from data tha.t was collected during periods when Mine 16 was not operating. 28 TABLE 3 WATER QUALITY mTA FRCt-1 SAMPLIN:i SITES IDCA'reD UPSTRFAM OF MINE 16 While Mine 15 While Mine 15 .waa~ ~ .Nat Operating SamPling N Mean Standard Range N Mean Standard Range Site~. Deviation Deviation AIB .mMPERATURE • ~ 1 Above Sluice 25 13 6 2-23 20 13 5 1.,.24 2 Daily BypaSS 8 10 6 2-20 12 12 5 0<-16 4 Below Sluice 20 13 6 2-23 Not Sampled 7 f;bcNe Pond 5 7 2 3-9 2 5 5 1-8 8 Below Pooo 5 6 3 1-9 2 6 4 3-8 DISS)LVED QXYGEN, uw'l 1 N:Jove Sluice 25 11.3 1.1 8 .. 5-13.3 20 11.8 0 .. 8 10.4-13.2 2 Daily Bypass 9 10.7 1.5 8 .. 0-13.3 12 11 .. 0 0.98 10.3-12.8 4 Below Sluice 20 11.5 1.4 8.1-13.5 Not Sampled 7 Pbove Pond 5 10.0 2 .. 0 8.3-13.0 2 10.7 2.1 9.2-12.2 8 Below Pond 5 10.1 1.2 9.1-11 .. 7 2 11.4 1.4 10.4-12.4 WATER~~ 1 Above Sluice 25 8 2 1-12 19 8 2 5-11 2 Daily Bypass 9 7 4 1-12 11 10 1 8-11 4 Bela\': Sluice 20 8 3 1-12 Not Sampled 7 N:x:Ne Pond 5 5 2 1-7 1 6 8 Below Pond 5 5 3 Ooc•8 1 8 liiL. iii UNITS 1 Above Sluice 21 6.7 0.2 6.1-7.1 11 6 .. 6 0.2 6.3-6.9 2 Daily Bypass 7 6.5 0.3 6.0-7.1 1 6.3 4 Belor.N Sluice 17 6.5 0.3 6.0-7.0 Not Sampled 7 Above Pond 6 6.6 0.3 6.0-6.9 4 6.4 0.2 6.1-6.5 8 Below Pond 6 6.5 0 .. 3 6.0-6.9 4 6.4 0.2 6 .. 1-6.6 SETI'I JWY.E SOLIDS, ml/1 1 Above Sluice 26 Oe7 1.3 0.0-2.5 24 0.7 1.0 0-4.1 2 Daily Bypass 10 0.2 0.6 0 .. 0-2.0 12 0.2 0.5 0-1.8 4 Below Sluice 21 22.1 8.7 5 .. 5-32.0 Not sampled 7 'PJ.x:Ne Pond 6 4.4 2.8 0.4-8.0 4 0.6 0.5 0.1-1.,0 8 Below Pood 6 0.8 0.6 0.2-1.5 4 0.3 0.4 o-o.a FUM • .W 1 Alx>ve Sluice 23 10 8.3 2-34 20 15 .. 4 16.,2 3.4-58 2 Daily Bypass a 9.8 7.2 0.8··"18 11 3.2 1.4 1.5-6.0 4 Below Sluice 19 11.1 1.2 1.2-13 Not sampled 7 Above Pond 1 26 1 35 8 Below Pond 1 21 1 37 SaJl1?ling N Mean Site No. 'IUPBIDir!a mY 1 Above Sluice 26 330 2 Daily Bypass 10 29 4 Below Sluice 21 3366 7 Above 1\ond 6 789 8 Below Pond 6 645 .mt. ~~.m mr,mc;;, m/1 I }bove Sluice 26 449 2 Daily Bypass 10 29 4 Below Sluice 21 6516 7 Above Pond 6 844 8 Below Pond 6 502 qiEMICAL QX¥GEN DOON) •. ~~- 1 Above Sluice 1 51 2 Daily Bypass 1 67 4 Below Sluice 1 270 7 Above Pond 1 97 8 Below Pond 1 ~'F'" l""" ...... ~ TABLE 3 (a::m'IWED) While Mine 15 liaa cpratJ.rs Standard Range Deviation 444 3.2-1600 26 6-80 1765 1500-7200 652 31-2000 252 170-900 599 1.5-2070 26 2.2-74 4728 1770-22200 835 16.5-2440 244 171-805 While Mine 15 Baa &t Operating N Mean Standard Range Deviation 24 468 616 1.8-2200 12 187 171 6-500 Not Sampled 4 1499 2868 30-5800 4 172 162 32-400 24 608 884 0.1-3770 12 4r17 401 5.6-1310 Not Sampled 4 203 3579 95-7390 4 115 98 36-240 49 TABLE 4 WATER (JJALI'lY 1l1\'m FROM MINE 16 SAMPLIR; srrrES While Mine 16 While Mine 16 BAa '"rating ~ lQt e&eratjm N Mean Standard Range N Mean Standard Range sampling Deviation Deviation Site No. AlB IFJWfUWIVRE' ~ 29 13 6 2-25 6 14 7 3-22 14 sypass 32 13 5 6-25 6 14 9 3-22 9 Plll1P Pond 52 14 .. 6-25 Not Sampled Bel~ Trorrmel :> 10 Pond Influent 60 13 6 1-24 17 14 5 3-21 11 Pond Effluent 43 14 5 2-23 15 14 5 3-22 12 Filter OUtlet 12 13 5 2-20 3 12 7 •1-18 12D PoJXi Dan Leak 16 14 4 6-20 8 14 3 11-18 6 soo' oownstream 60 13 5 2-23 18 14 5 3-22 13 i>I®LVED OXYGEN, m»/1 14 BypaSS 29 11.4 1.0 9.3-13.4 6 12.1 0.7 11~2-12.09 9 PllnP Pond 32 10.8 1.1 8.5-13.5 6 11.0 0.9 9.4-11.7 10 Below Trammel 53 11.6 1.0 8 .. 5-13.3 Not Sampled 11 Pond Influent 61 11.0 1.0 8.6-13a5 18 10.8 1.0 9.2-12.5 12 Pond Effluent 44 11.7 0.7 10.2-13.1 15 11.3 0.9 9.5-12.8 120 Filter OUtlet 12 10.8 0.8 9.7-12.1 3 10.5 1.3 9 .. 5-12.0 6 Pond Dan Leak 16 10 .. 8 0.6 9.7-12.1 8 10.2 0.7 9.1-11.1 13 500 • Downstream 62 11.1 1.1 8.6-12.6 18 11.0 0.9 9.3-12.5 WATER .TF.MPERATPRE' ~ 14 BypaSS 29 9 3 2-14 5 11 2 8-12 9 PlJnp Pond 32 10 2 6-14 4 11 1.0 7-12 10 Below Trcmnel 53 10 6 6-14 Not .Sampled 11 Pond Influent 61 9 3 1-13 16 11 2 8-15 12 Pond Effluent 44 11 7 2-14 13 11 2 9-14 120 Filter OUtlet 12 9 3 1-11 3 11 1 10-12 6 Pond Dam Leak 17 11 1 8-13 8 11 2 6-13 13 soo' Downstream 61 10 2 2-18 16 l2 2 9-14 ~. J;ii UNITS 14 Bypass 19 6.6 0.2 6.1-7 c;o 2 6.2 0.2 6.0-6.3 9 Ptmlp Pond 23 6.6 0.2 6.2-7.0 2 6.2 0.1 6 .. 1-6.3 10 Below Trcmnel 38 6.3 0.4 5.4-7.4 Not Sampled 11 Pond Influent 42 6.2 0.3 5.2-6.7 10 6.0 0.3 5.5-6.3 12 Pond Effluent 31 6.3 0.3 5.6-6.8 9 6 .. 0 o.s 5.1-t;.5 120 Filter Outlet 6 5~8 0.4 5.3-6.5 1 6.J. 6 Pond Dan Leak 6 6.4 0.2 6~0-6.6 4 6.2 0.1 6.1-6.4. 13 500 • Downstream 42 6.3 0.3 5.5-6.8 10 6~~1 0.4 5.4-6.3 Sampling N Mean Site ~. Sttl"l't.E'.M~ SQI.IDS, ml/1 14 Bypass 34 2.5 9 P\Jnp 1:\!>nd 37 0.2 10 Below Tramel 62 51 11 Pond Influent 70 12.1 12 Pond Effluent 51 o.s 12D Filter Outlet 15 0.6 6 Pond Dam Leak 18 1 .. 3 13 500 • Downstream 71 Oo4 fUM, .w 14 Bypass 23 11 9 Pllnp Pond 10 Below Trarmel 60 7 4 ' . 11 Pond Influent 65 8.2 12 Pond Effluent 52 6.3 12D Filter OUtlet 19 0.1 6 Pond Dam Leak 18 0.02 13 500' Downstream 54 5 .. 3 WRBIQITY I .mu 14 Bypass 33 560 9 Pt.rnp Pond 37 477 10 Below Trcmrel 62 6531 11 Pond Influent 70 2989 12 Pond Effluent 51 1807 12D Filter Outlet 15 2273 6 Pond Dam Leak 14 1593 13 500' Downstream 71 1616 r;rorAL SUSPEWED SOLIDS 1 ug/1 14 Bypass 34 1366 9 Plnp Pond 37 486 10 Below Trcmoel 6215450 11 Pond Influent 70 4212 12 Pond Effluent 51 1397 120 Filter Outlet 15 1746 6 Pond Dan Leak 13 1832 13 500 • Downstream 71 1284 i. TABLE 4 (a:Nr!WED) While Mine 16 .WSW cprating Stand':lrd Range Deviation 3.8 0.0-17 o.s Oo0_,2.8 34 0.2-130 10.8 0.0-48 0.4 0.0-1.5 0.7 0 .. 0-1.5 1.8 0.0-i .o 0.4 Oa0-2.0 14 0.2-60 2.0 5.6-7.8 2.7 0.5-13 5 .. 3 0.9-37.1 .03 o .. o-o.1 .04 o.o-o .. 1 2.8 0.9-11 556 70-2400 322 45-1600 4016 180-15000 1838 110-8000 857 45-4600 1729 650-7500 623 180-2900 883 650-5400 3441 44-19700 533 44-2780 14000 160-59800 3202 155-16500 711 285-2540 2254 180-9380 1082 370-4600 738 200-4560 N 6 6 17 15 1 8 18 5 16 17 7 7 15 6 6 18 14 3 7 18 6 6 18 14 3 8 18 While Mine 16 lYaa ~ Qperating Mean Standard Range Deviation 1.7 1.4 0.0-3.7 0.2 0.4 0.0-1.0 ~t Sampled 0.8 1.8 0.0-7.5 0.1 0.1 o.o-o.2 0.1 0.1 0 .. 4 0.1 0.0-0.3 0.1 0.4 0.0-1.0 4.5 1 .. 7 1.8-6~0 Not Sampled 2.9 4.1 0.4-18 2 .. 3 3 .. 3 0 .. 2-15 O:Jl 0.04 0.0-0.1 0.1 0.2 o.o-o.s 2.2 3.6 0.3-15 380 351 60-1000 243 226 100-700 Not Sampled 224 274 20-900 443 254 45-800 410 135 280-550 503 437 140-1400 602 781 50-3500 514 468 104-1410 572 709 96-1990 ax Sampled 402 440 13-1550 1124 2686 26-1070 455 169 345-600 582 214 215-920 509 308 40-1100 While Mine 16 While Mine 16 Baa ~rating ~ lilt <&erating N Mean Standard Range N Mean S~ndard Rang a ~lin9 Deviation Daviation site ttl. SJffiMICAL .QXYGfiN PEMANl· ng/l sypass 2 54 54.5 15-92 14 1 26 9 PU\1P Pond 1 620 -10 BelOW Tratmel 3 119 52.5 89-180 Pond Influent .... 11 2 72· 19.1 58-85 12 POD:3 Effluent 1 100 Filter OUtlet ... 120 6 POnd r.an r..e3k 2 8~ 38.2 55-110 500 • !')oWJ'lstream v- 13 fAT~ te.t amli~ BJttlral .u.ua ... _ - _,.,~,ity upstream of Mine 15 uas affected by the discharge of a small water \:.i~ . ne that began op!rations on Day 21. Data collected from sample site placer nu. . to Day 21 represented the "natural" water quality of Po~;cupine Creek. 1 pr1or mk following tabulation presents water quality data for Porcupine Creek in :.u .. e its natural condition~ and at Sampling Site 8, between Mines 15 and 16. 'lllese dat-.a at·e compared to water quality values ootained from the discharge of Mine 16 {wh.ile operating) at Sampling Site 10, immediately below the trommel and sluice: Water Temperature°C PI Dissolved ~..<.ygen 1D3/l Total Suspended Solids mg/1 Turbidity 1.\"'IU Setteable Solids ml/1 ChEmical Oxygen Demand mq/1 Sample Site 1 Sample Site 8 Sample Site 10 Above Mine 15 Between Mines 15 & 16 Below Tramnel Mine 15 Mine 15 Mine 16 {Days 1-20) Working Not Working O};erating 6.9 5 8 10 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.3 11.0 10.1 11.4 11.6 13 .. 2 502 115 15,450 8.6 645 172 6,531 0.03 o.a 0.3 51 15 65 620 As indicated in the above tabulatioo, the levels of settleable solids, total suspended solids, turbidity, and chanical oxygen demand, as measured below the trommel and sluice, differ from values of the waters of Porcupine Creek as measured between Mines 15 and 16 by more tl'um one order of magnitude. For this reason the efficiency of the demonstration settling pond in removing 29 suspended and settlable solids and chemical oxygen demand was not considered to be affected by the noted differences in the quality of water received from Porcupine Creek, compared to natural conditions. Pond .fi<zw Measurements Flows from the p:>nd were measured at four locations, i.e. at each of the two pond outfall pipes (sampling sites 12B and 12C "Pond Effluentn) at the outlet of the perforated pipe wrapped in filter cloth that was buried in the upstream side of the containment of the pond (sampling site 120, "~"'ilt~r OUtlet") and at a small leak through the fill of the con~ent dam~ (Sample I Site 6, "Pond Dam Leak"). As indicated in Table 3, the flows at these latter _ two locations were negligible compared with the pond effluent for the two outfall pipes. When the trammel and sluice at Mine 16 were not operating, an average flow into the pond of 2.9 cfs was still recorded, due to surface and groundwater inflow between the pump pond and the tailrace .. .Eff~ ~ Mine e&eralions When Mine 16 was not operating the mean levels of total suspended solids, settleable solids and turbidi~ at the pond influent were only 10, 7, and 8 percent, respectively, of the meanlevels that were measured at the pond influent while the mine was working. Dissolved oxygen, pH and water tem:perature data did not show appreciable change at the pond influent between operating and non-operating cases. 30 suspended and settlable solids and chemical oxygen demand was not considered to be affected by the noted differences in the quality of water received from Porcupine Creek, compared to natural conditions. Pond Flow Measurement:; Flows from the p:>nd were measured at four locations, i.e. at each of the two pond outfall pipes (sampling sites 12B and l2C "Pond Effluent") at the outlet of the perforated pipe wrapped in filter cloth that was buried in the upstream side of the containment of the pond (sampling site 12D, "Filter Outlet") and at a small leak through the fill of the con~ent dam~ (Sample I Site 6, "Pond Dam Leak"). As indicated in '!'"able 3, the flows at these latter. two locations were negligible compared with the pond effluent for the two outfall pipes. When the trommel and sluice at Mine 16 were not operating, an average flow into the pond of 2 .. 9 cfs was still recorded, due to surface and groundwater inflOW' between the pump pond and the tailrace$ Effect .Qf M;Lne Ogerations When Mine 16 was not operating the mean levels of total suspended solids, settleable solids and turbidity at the p::>nd influent were only 10, 7, and 8 percent, res:pectively, of the meanlevels that were measured at the pond influent while the mine was working. Dissolved oxygen, pH and water temperature data did not show appreciable change at the pond influent between operating and non-o~rating cases. 30 h mine was not working, an increase in the turbidity and total when t e ded solids was noted across the pond, from 224 to 443 N'IU, ana from 402 susp:!Il to 1124 mg/1 resp!ctively w 'lbe reason for this increase is unknowno _Effgctiveness .Qf. Tailrace .and Pond The tailrace between the trommel and the pond influent was about 250' long during the first 2 weeks of sampling and about 650 1 long during the last 5 weeks of ~pling. The mean levels of settleable solids and total suspended solids were reduced by about. 75 peJ:cent in the tailrace, and mean turbidity level at the pord influent was reduced to ab:.>ut half a-te level measured below ~ trommel. Comparison of the pr;nd effluent to the influent indicates that the percentage removal of mean settleable solids, total suspended solids, and turbidity was 97 percent, 60 percent, and 38 percent, respectively. Temperature, til and dissc1ved oxygen exhibited no significant change across the pond. The chemical oxygen demand decreased from 119 mg/1 at the influent to 72 mg,/1 at the effluent. The average 60 percP-nt removal of total suspended solids measured across the pond compared with a predicted 87.4 percent removal as predicted by the settling column test of material obtained from the sluice discharge at Porcupine Creek. Application of Stoke's Law of settling velocities in a fluid indicates that a removal efficiency of 78 J;ercent would be attained. (See more detailed discussion in Section Fpur) Comparison of the levels of turbidity, total suspended solids and settleable e;olids in the pond effluent to the percentage of the pond volume that was 31 occuppied by sediments indicated little or no correlation between these parameters. Water quality at the 500 1 downstream sample location was similar to the pond effluen~ However, the mean turbidity and TSS levels displayed slight increases over the pond effluent levels, probably due to erosion of exposed surface soils in the outfall channel. Because sampling 500 ft. below the point of discharge into the receiving stream (Porcupine Creek) was impractical, and because the creek water quality was itself influenced by the activity of f.1ine 15, water quality at a poing 500 feet downstream of the p:>nd effluent at Mine 15 was used to approximate the conditions for compliance with the State Standard. The mean levels of total suspmded solids, dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH of the pond effluent, as measured 500 feet downstream of the pond while Mine 16 was operating, were within ten percent of the mean values of these parameters as measured in Porcupine Creek at Sapling Station 14, in the creek bypass around fo\ine 16. Settleable solids at the 500 foot downstream location averaged 0.4 ml/1 compared with a average of 2.5 ml/1 at Sampling Station 14o Although mean levels of total suspended solids at the 500 foot downstream location were ~ightly lower than in the Porcupine Creek BypaSS, the mean turbidity levels were swstantially higher, averaging 1616 NlU while the mine was operating, compared with 560 NTU in the bypass. Chemical oxygen demand in the bypass averaged 54 mg/l compared with an a'verage of 83 mg/1 in the pond effluent measured 500 feet downstream of the outfall. 32 d effluent measured 500 feet downstream, the minimum State 'l'he pon . nts for dissolved oxygen concentrations of 7 mg/1 in all cases. requ 1 reme t mperature exceeded the 13°C standard on five occasions, all between water e JulY 20 and July 27. On four of these occasions temperatures of 14 °C were ed with l8°C measured once. measur , The pH level, measured 500 feet below the pond discharged was less than 0.5 pH units from the pH value measured above the sluice in 36 of 54 measurements. water samples for total and dissolved arsenic analyses were collected at three locations on one occasion. Results of these analyses, in mg/1, are presented below. ~ LDcation per..ne Sluice (1) Pond Influent (11) Pond Effluent (12) Disso1ved Arsenic 0.0012 0.0042 0.0045 SU§Pellded Arsenic 0.0015 1.026 0.166 The conca~trations of both fractions of ar$enic increase below the sluice at Mine 15 and the suspended fraction has higher concentratons than the disJolved fraction. Dissolved arsenic concentrations remained essentially unchanged between the pond influent and effluent, but suspended arsenic oocreased by about 84 percent in the pond. Drawing 8 shows the concentration of settleable solids at the pond influent and p:>nd effluent before cu"'ld after placement of the berm. Immediately after • 33 DA,.a 11-23-lf 20 ll It ...... i 14 ! -t2 5 fA LU 10 ..J 2 I.AJ ~ 8 ..... ~ 4 2 HJitM ADD£0 --.J .e.AL8 AS SHOMI POND INFL.UIWT • aM ODNIIU&.TANTti,INC· ,..POND EFP't.U£NT 48 .. TROMMEL DOWN EFFECT OF BERM PLACEMEN1 ON SETTLEABLE SOLI OS SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ·c:n•e11-•v 11.....,8CT NO. a.AWINa NC WA 013104 8 . -·--------------- placement of the berm the settleable solids in the pond influent were reduced by 95%. Between Day 37 and 38 total suspended solids decreased by 86% and turbidity decreased by 77% at the J.X>OO influent. Within 10 days settleable solids had increased to 32% of the pre-berm value and showed continual increase. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study of demonstration settling pond: 1. sedimentation Effectiveness The efficiency of the settl~ pond in removin1 suspended ~diments was substantially leas than the prediction developed from the settling column test, as well as the removal efficiency calculated from Stoke's Law. 'Ibis lower effieiency is believed to be largely due to the less favorable conditions for sedimentation in a field environment in canparison to controlled laboratory conditions. ' . . ~-JVZ~t'"~ o...e-v Turbidity levels of the pond effluent at the outfall, oner aging 1593 NTU, was sllbstantially higher than the State standard of 25 Nru above natural levels, measured at a point 500 feet downstream from the point .of discharge into the receiving stream. The pond was generally ~~fective in limiting settleable solids to State standards of 0.2 ml/1 ,above natural oonditions, with 56 of 89 measurements meeting this standard. 34 • 4.1 GfiNEBAL SECT!OO FOUR INDIVIDUAL MINE SURVEY Fourteen placer mines,in the Fairbanks and Circle mining districts (in addition to the two on Porcupine Creek) were surveyed to gather representative information regarding the effectiveness of settling ponds and information on water use. The Alaska Department of Conservation selected sites based on geographic location, access, and willingness of the miner to participate in the study. The mines were selected both with and without sediment control and with varying types of sluices an~ water use for comparative purposes. Table 5 lists the 16 mine sites, the creeks they are on and the numbers that have been assigned to the mines for reference purposes in presenting the data. These locations are also shown in Drawings 1 and 2. 4 .2 OP.JECI'IVES The fourteen mine sites (in addition to the two at Porcupine Creek) were selected for study in res};Onse to public comment regarding conclusions that might be reached in studying only a single site, given the high degree of variability from site to site in terms of the material worked, methods of working, topographic or other constraints and natural conditions of water quality. 'Ihese comments reflected a general concern that the results of the studies of the demonstration settling pond might not be applicable to other creeks or mining districts. 37 .. TABLE 5 SE,..l'It.rm PCH> DEltDBl'RATICE PRlJEcr MINE SITE LOCATIONS f1ining Site Nunjler Creek Mining· Pistrict 1 Fish Fairbanl\s 2 Fairbanks Fairbanks 3 Gilmore Fairbanks 4 Fagle Circle 5 Eagle Circle 6 Faith Circle 7 Mastodon Circle 8 Miller Circle 9 Mastodon Circle 10 Manmoth ·; Circle 11 Crooked Circle 12 Deadwood Circle 13 Chena River Fairbanks 14 Fllllle Fairbanks 15 Porcupine Circle 16 Porcupine Circle The study of sedimentation at these additional mine sites was designed to allow a more general application and interpretation of the re.sul ts of the intensive study of the demonstration settling pooo, and to further define the relative efficiencies of various mining methods for achieving State and Federal water quality standards. 4. 3 Mimi QEERATIONS Table 6 summarizes the mining equipment used, method of classifying paydirt, methods of processing paydirt, number of ponds used, if any, and whether the mine operates instream or not. A mine is classified instream if the stream is routed through the settling pond. For mines without ponds, it is classified as instrearo if the sluice box is fed directly by the stream or if the sluice oox empties directly into the receiving stream. n>zers were the predominant earth moving equi.t:'ruQ1t used. W!'i le ~ery mine had at least one dozer, seven mines had two or more. Eight of the sixteen mines used dozers to load the sluice box, five used them to strip overburden, two used them to remove tailings from below the sluice box and one mine used_ a dozen for miscellaneous work. Thirteen of 16 mines used a front end loader. Five mines used two or more. Tailings were removed by front end loaders at nine of the thirteen mines. Five used them to load the sluice box and one used a frontend loader to feed the dragline. Three of the five mines using draglines used them to feed the sluice box or trommel. The remainin3 two mines used draglines to remove tailings from below the sluice box. A hydraulic giant was used at only one of the mines studied. Six of the sixteen miners used single channel sluice boxes ·while one used a double 38 TABLE 6 BJUIPMENr AT SELEcrED PLACER MINE SITES MINE SI'm i PORQ]piNE .cR.. Jl. Jl J5. .tit J2 J.8. .D JlO. .Ill ID. .Ill Jl.4. .115. .11§. EQuignent Used Dozer 1 1 2 2 1 2; 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 Loader 1 1 0 0 1 2. 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 0 1 1 Conveyor 0 1 0 0 0 ()4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Drag1ine 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 1 Backhoe 0 0 0 0 0 (l 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Giant 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pump 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 Sluice Box 1 1 3 3 3 3. 1 2 1 5 3 1 3 3 1 3 (nlllltJer of channels) Trommel N N N N N N N N N N N N y N N y Stationary N N N N N :c N N N N N N N N N N Screen Vibrating N N N N N N y N y N N y y N N N Screen Recycle N y y N N N N y y N N N N y N N Settling 6 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 Pond (&:>. of Ponds) Instream N y y N N N N y N N N N N y y N R>te: Numbers indicate the quantities of items at each site. Y or N indicate Yes the miner has that piece of equipnent or No they do not. channel, eight used a triple channel and one used a five channel sluiee oox. Methods of material classification included stationary screens (grizzlies), vibrating screens, and revolving screens {tromrnels). Of the t'A'O miners using trommels, one used it in conjunction with a. conveyor and vibrating screen. The other used a hopper, without a screen, to feed the trommel. Vibrating screens were used at four ()f the five other mines using screens. Table 7 shows ranges of piydirt sluiced ·per bou.r and hours worked by the 16 mines that were surveyed in this study. The avf:rage range of paydirt moved was 95-130 cubic yards per hour sluicing.. These sixteen operations averaged 9 hours sluicing on days sampled. For purposes of comparison, multiple p>oos were grouJ;.ed with single ponds. Only one of the four mines with multiple ponds was sampled between ponds. (See Mine Site #3). Mine Sites 1, 2~ 3, and 13 had multiple s~ttling ponds in series, while mine sites 6, 8, 9, 14,15 and 16 each had a single settling pord. The remaining S\ites did not have ponds. Mine Sites 1 and 2 had ponds which were only being utilized on the first monitoring trip, and only on trip 3 to Mine 8 was the I;Orrl at this site beirx} used. Tables utilizing this data are annotated accordingly. Surface loading, as indicated in Table 8, is a measure of the flow rate from the pond per Wlit surface area of the p:md. Mine sites il and 19 had surface loading values signficantly larger than the remaining eight mines with settling tonds, i.e., the flow rates through the settling ponds at these two · sites, relative to pond surface area, is significantly larger than at the 39 TABLE 7 SUI91ARY OF MINE OPERATIONS Water Material Required Water Use ~ Type of Material ~ved, Hours to Sluice Gal/min site creek Processing Yd./Hour Worked One Cu.Yd. Sluicing I Fish Elevated Sluice Box, Gia'lt 75-100 8 Not Avail. 3680* l FairbankS Dragline Loading Sluice Box 25 9 1600 280 2 cat J..oadinq Sluice Box 90-100 8 1900-2100 3100 3 GilJnOre cat Loading Sluice Box 90-100 9 1800-2000 3000 4 Eagle Cat Loadii'l9 Sluice Box 80-100 2/lOhr 2900-3700 4900 5 Eagle Shifts r<1a,th Sluice Box with Grizzly 175 11 1300 3800 6 . ... Vibrating Screen Conveyor 60 11 300 300 i MaStodon cat Loading Sluice Box 150-200 8 1500-2000 1886 8 Miller Mastodon Vibrating Screens 150 8 560(E) 1800 9 80% Recycle 10 MarrmOth Loader Feeding Sluice Box 150-170 8 1200-1300 3300 erooked cat Loading Sluice Box 150-200 8 1200-2000 4500 11 oeadwood· Loader Feeding Washing Bin 60-80 8 2900-3900 3900 12 13 Qlena Vibrating Screen to Con-150-200 8 390-520 1300 veyor to Trarrne1 14 FltJDe cat Loading Sluice Box 40-50 10 2600~3300 2200 80% Recycle 15 Porcupine Sluice 2 cat Loading Sluice Box 90-115 8 .. 3 2700-3500 5400 16 Porcupine Tronrne1 75-100 7.4 2000-2500 3300 Sluice 1 '12\BLE 8 WA'JER USE 1\R) ~~sE=-n•rnw11JIR2 RH> CIJARACl'ERISTICS MINE WA'lER FiltlRATE FU.liRM'E JniD ARFA KIID SJRFl\CE RliD OVEmUJi SI'JE USE WHm INIO J.QI) FlO! RH> (ACRES) VOUJE IllADIR2 DETENI'IOO VErDCl'lY SLUICIN3 mm mm ArnE-Fr WHILE Tlfa!E WHILE. nuv'aec xl0-3 GAl/MIN SUJICIH; SllJICIK; SWICIR2 SLUICI~ GM/MIN GAI/MIN :rNFUli (IDJRS) G.P.M. ACRE 1 3680* 4490* 2870* 0.31* 1.6 14,500* 2 225* 2 280 270* 404* 0.37* 1.5 750* 30 12* 3 3100 3100 2000 2.57 18.0 1,200 32 19 4 3000 ""' 5 4900 ,_ 6 3800 6733 3500 4.25 8.6 1600 7 25 7 300 8 1886 1886** 2100** 0.49** 2 .. 0 3850** 6 60** 9 1800 1886 1500 0.08 0.2 23,500 0.6 364 10 3300 11 4500 12 3900 13 1300 1436 1500 1.89 7.6 760 29 12 14 2200 1661 490 0.48 1 .. 9 3460 6 54 15 5000 16 3300 3667 2830 1.29 3.36 2840 5 44 * TRIP 1 ONLY ** 'IRIP 3 OOLY ... ~,en mines with ponds. other J:l'liii" The overflow velocity indicated in Table 8 is determined by dimensional conversion of the surface loading. According to sedimen·tation theory1 for . dirnentation to occur within the pooo, soil particles must be large enough se to have a downward settling velocity that is equal to, or greater, than the overflow velocity. Smaller particles (that settle at a lower rate of velocity) will pass through the pond and remain as suspended sediments within the f.Oil.i effluent. sampling started June 11th and finished Se~tember 15th. Each site was sampled on three different days, allow ... :lg data to be ootained Wlder different creek flow conditions. For those mine sites having settling ponds, the following minimum locations were sampled: the miner's water source or pump pond; below the sluice box; the pond influent; the pond effluent; and 500' downstream in the receiving stream from the point of discharge of the mining oteration into the stream. Mine sites without ~nds were sampled at t."'lese minimum locations: at the water source or pump pond1 below the sluice box; at the end of the tailrace or bypass; and 500' downstream of the point of discharge of the tailrace into the main stream. Water quality tests were the same as previously described for Porcupine Creek except that C.O.D. tests were not conducted and arsenic was sam~led only in the pump pond and at the pond effluent or end of tailrace. 'rhe method of collection and analysis ·of water quality samples was the same as for 40 Porcupine Creek. See Appendix II for descriptions of methods used. IOOividual mine site maps, descriptions of method of operation and sununary of field data are presented in Appendix rv. Bulk (60 gallon) water samples were collected at a point 10-30 feet below the sluice bo~ at each mine site. Paydirt was collected from the mine cut at each site. Settling column tests and particle size analyses were conducted on this material. The results of the settling column tests have been discussed in Section TWo. Particle size analyses were run on the paydirt using ASTM Test Procedure D422~ Flows were determined by use of a staff-mounted pigmy current meter to determine current velocities across the cross section of the stream. These velocities were integrated with the depths and incremental widths of flow across the stream to define the total stream discharge. To compute the hydraulic flow parameters of the sluice boxes at each mine the slope of the sluice boxes were measured with a clinometer the depth of flow in the sluice box was determined by averaging measurement between and over the riffles. Since flow measurement could not be taken in side channels of sluice boxes the flow was assumed to be divided equally in each channel. Flow measurements used in these calculations were measured 20-40 feet downstream of the sluice box. 41 4 .5 BEffilLTS t ural water condition could be determined ty the quality water from The na les taken at the above sluice location was at those mine sites where samP · other upstream mining operations or disturbances did not affected the upstream water quality. Data from mine sites tl, 2, 3, 6, 8, 13 and 14 were ~ to compile the above sluice data presented in Table 9, representing the natural water quality. Sample Site 1 between days 1-20 was used for the natural quality of Porcupine Creek. oissol ved oxyg~n levels and the natural percentage saturation of dissolved oxygen as measured in the above sluice sampling locations, were relatively high, which is typical in clear upland, streams of interior Alaska. It should be noted, however, that the high end of the range for percent saturation, 111, is unusually high. The next highest percent saturation was 105. The is close t(."' being typical, but it is uncommon to measure pH values as low as 6.0, the low end of the measured range. The next highest pH value was 6.1, and a range from 6.5 to 7.7 would be more typical. Settleable solids were consistently 0.1 ml/1 or less, which is characteristic of undisturbed, clear water streams in interior Alaska. The Above Sluice ranges for total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity were somewhat wider than expected for natural conditions. The highest TSS concentration, 67 mg/1, was followed by concentrations of 40, 32, 28, and 25 mg/1, and the four highest turbidity levels were 55, 50, 45, and 26 NTU. Also, ·the standard deviation for these parameters indicates a large amount of variability. Therefore, natural 42 values of TSS ranging up to about 40 mg/1 and turbidity ranging up to about 26 NTU apJ;ear to be more realistic. Effects ,gf Placer Mining ,gn Natural water Oualicy The Below Sluice ranges and means presented in Table 9 were compiled from data collected at all of the surveyed mine sites. Comparison of the below sluice water quality to natural conditions demonstrates placer mining has a detrimental effect on water qualityo Below sluice dissolved oxygen concentrations and pH levels decrease to 95% and 96% of the above sluice levels, whereas temperature increases by 14%. Settleable solids, TSS, and turbidity increase to many hundred times natural conditions. Data from those mine sites having a IX>nd or ponds during at least one of the site visits were used to compile the means and ranges of the various parameters for the Pond Influent and Pond Effluent categories presented in Table 9. Water quality between the Below Sluice and Pond Influent sample locations changed. Dissolved oxygen and pH continued to decline from natural conditions and temperature continued to increase. However, these changes were slight. Settleable solids, TSS, and turbidity levels~ although significantly higher than natural conditions, demonstrated decreases between the sluice and pond(s). Water quality also changed between the Pond Influent and Effluent locations. The major chan,ge was the decrease in settleable solids, TSS, and turbidity levels. Nevertheless, these levels were still significantly higher than the natural condition levels for these parameter~ Dissolved oxygen continued to decrease slightly and temperature increased slightly. 43 TABLE 9 RAN3~ AND MEANS OF MEASU:RED PARAMETERS 1\BO'IE, WI'llliN, AND BE.I.al PLACER MI~'ES Total Dissolved D.O., Settleable Suspended Oxygen, Percent Temperature IiJ, Solids, Solids '1\lrbidity, IDeation DQ/~ Saturatiw ~ a! Units ml/1 IIQI'1 Bm 14.0 111 11 7.7 0.1 67 55 Maxirnllll Above 11.8 97 7 7.1 0.1 17 15 Mean Sluice 9.8 86 3 6.0 0.1 1.1 1.0 Minimlln, 1.0 7 2.0 0.5 o.o 15 16 Stan.Dev. 13.0 106 12 8.2 240 69400 18800 Maximum Be1CM 11.2 95 8 6.8 42 17500 7700 Mean Sluice 8.2 73 5 5.6 4.0 1160 1800 Mininn.Jn 1.1 8 2 0.6 54 19700 4200 Stan.Dev. 12.5 105 12 7.5 160 33200 13400 Maximllll Pond 10 .. 6 92 9 6.7 28 14700 6700 Mean Influent 8.5 77 5 5.7 2.0 2230 1200 Minimum 1.1 8 2 0.6 37 9870 3500 Stan.Dev. 11.9 100 12 1.8 32 25700 8200 Maximum lOOd 10.3 90 10 6.9 5.0 3940 3000 Mean Effluent 7.9 75 5 5.6 0.1 410 160 Minimum 1.1 7 2 0.6 9~0 6660 2600 Stan.Dev. 12.2 98 12 7.6 4.0 6020 6400 Maximum soo• 10.7 92 9 6.9 1.1 1400 1700 Mean Downstream 9.5 80 4 6.0 0 .. 1 2.2 7 .. 8 Minimum 0.8 5 2 0.6 1.4 1630 1400 Stan.Dev. 12.2 100 12 8.3 40 28000 10800 Maximum Tailrace 10.7 91 8 7.1 10.3 7310 4000 Mean 8.3 75 5 6.3 1.5 500 1600 Minimum 0.9 6 2 0.6 10.7 7480 2900 Stan.Dev. Data for two downstream locations are presented in Table 9, 500 • Downstream and Tailrace. Data for the 500 1 Downstream sample location were compiled from the sarne mine sites used to compile the means and ranges of the various parameters at the pond influent and effluent locations. Data for the Tail- race location were oompiled from the ranaining mine sites and these data were measured at the farthest downstrecun sample site which was either the end of tailrace or 500' oownstream from the tailrace. Data from the 500' Downstream and Tailrace sample locations represent the quality of water that is returned to the environment below placer mines. Also, these two locations can be used to compare the water quality leaving mining operations having ponds as opposed to those without !X)nds Relative to the "tailrace" samples, water quality at the 500 1 Downstream location displays a decrease in settJ eable solids, TSS, and turbidity, but the levels of these parameters still remain markedly higher than natural conditio~ Water quality at the Tailrace location, as judged by settleable solids, TSS, and turbidity, was much worse than at the 500' Downstream station. The Tailrace sample location levels of these parameters were comparable to levels found between the pond influent and pond effluent iocations • .Effects .Qf P1acer Mining ,gn Arsenic Levels Water samples for the laboratocy analyses of total and dissolved arsenic were collected once, above and below, each of 15 mine sites. One mine site at Livengood was intended to be one of the mine sites studied. HoNever, operational problems at this site required that it be eliminated from the 44 study. The arsenic values are presented because they add to the relatively small data base. Note that there is no data for Mine Site 15 on Porcupir1e creek. Dissolved and susp:nded arsenic concentrations measured at the 15 mine sites are presented in Table 10. Furthermore, this table presents the range, mean, number of observations, and standard deviation for these data divided into four groups: + dissolved arsenic above t:iluice, + suspended arsenic above sluice, + dissolve:d arsenic below sluice, a1.1d 7 + suspended arsenic below sluice. '!be information in Table 10 indicates that the dispersion or variability of arsenic concentrations, both dissolved and suspended, is quite high. Also, arsenic appaars in higher concentrations in the susp:mded fraction than in the dissolved fraction, and the below sluice levels of both fractions of arsenic are generally higher than their res~ctive fractions above slui~. 'Tile data in Table 10 were s~jivided into a number of conditions that are a better representation of arsenic corx:entrations at placer mines (Table 11). First, data were separated into Natural Conditions and Disturbed Conditions. This was necessary because a number of mine sites were operating on streams where other operations were upstream or where there were other factors that had changed the water quality from the natural condition at the arove slui~ sample location. It is worthy to note that the above sluice natural condition is the only condition where dissolved arsenic concentrations 45 TA'SLE 10 Mine Site Sugnded Arsenic.mg/1 1 Above Sluice 0.0040 0.0026 250 • Below Pond 5 0.0033 0.0469 2 Above Sluice 0.0509 0.0027 At Washed Out Pond 0.127 11.0 3 Tom Creek 0.0038 0.0046 Gilmore Creek 0.0028 0.0061 Pond Effluent 0.0031 0.113 4 Above Sluice 01.0031 0.328 End of Tailrace 0.0002 0.425 5 Above Sluice 0.0002 1.54 End of Tailrace 0 .. 0063 0.823 6 Above Sluice 0,.0165 0.0109 Pond Effluent 0 .. 0060 0.339 7 Above Sluice 0.0041 0.338 End of Tailrace 0.0062 3.49 8 Above Sluice 0.0030 0.0004 500 w D<:Mlstream 0.0110 9.12 9 Above Sluice 0.0044 0.0365 Pond Effluent 0.0319 .1.12 10 Above Sluice 0.0026 0.556 500 • Downstream 0.0053 1.86 11 Above Sluice 0.0050 0.0225 500' Downstream 0.0060 0,.366 12 Above Sluice 0.0131 0.215 End of Tailrace 0.0089 0.541 13 Above Sluice 0.0002 0.0014 Pond Effluent 0.0002 0 .. 0016 14 Above Sluice 0.0083 0.0217 Pond Effluent 0.0017 0.990 15 Above Sluice 0.0002 o.o In Pond Near Effluent 0.0002 0.0462 TABLE 10 (continued) !hove Sluice Below Sluice DiSsolved SUspended Dissolved Suapended Maximum 0.0509 1~4 0.127 11.0 Mean 0.0076 0.193 0.0145 2.02 Minim \.It\ 0.0002 o.o 0.0002 0.0016 No. Ci:>servations 16 16 15 15 Standard Deviation 0.0124 0.396 0.0321 3.40 ~~te: (1) Values presented as less than 0.0002 were calculated as 0.0002 mg/1. (2) Dissolved and total arsenic concentrations were determined. Suspended arsenic is the difference between those values. Suspended arsenic at mine site 15 is 0.0 because both the total and dissolved fractions were 0.0002. TABLE 11 (continued) SQSPOOED ARSENIC. rw/~ Natural Qmditians -Belcar Sluice -CUt-of-stream -With pgndQ MaXimllt\ Mean Minimt.Jn standard Deviation ~. Cbservati.ons 0.0060 0.339 0.0032 0.1440 0.0002 0.0462 0.0029 0.1688 3 3 Note: Values presented as less than 0.0002 were calculated as 0.0002 mg,/1. The mine sites from which data were compiled for the various conditions appear below. Natural Cooditions: 1,2,3,6,8,13,14 and 15~ Disturbed Conditions: 4,5,7 ,9,10,11 and 12. With Pcll'lds: 1,3 ,6 ,13 ,14 ard 15. Without Ponds: 2 and 8. Instream with Ponds: 3 and 14. OUt-of-Stream with Ponds: 1,6 and 13. TABLE 11 ARSENIC <DNDITI~ E'OR VARlCUS LOCATIONS AT PlACER MINE SITES Maximum Mean Minimum Standard 0.:1~viation No. CbseiVations Maximum ~an Minimum Standard Deviation No. CbseiVations Maximum Mean Minimum Standard Deviation No. Cbservations Maximum Mean Minimum Standard Deviation No. Cl:>servations Maxi.1'[lum Mean Minimum Standard Deviation No. (]:)servations Maximum Mean Minimum Standard Deviation No. CbseiVations Natural ~ -Above .S.l.u.~ o.oso9 · o~o2.17 0.0100 0.0063 0.0002 o.o 0.0161 0~0070 8 8 Natural Conditions -.Be~ .Sluice 0.127 11.0 0.0191 2.71 0.0002 Oo0016 0.0438 4.58 8 8 Disturbed Conditions --~ Sluice 0.0131 1.54 0.0046 0.434 0.0002 0.0225 0.0040 0.522 7 7 .Disturbed Conditions -Below Sluice 0.0319 3.49 0.0093 1.23 0.0002 0.366 0.0103 1.12 7 7 Natural Conditions --Below Sluice -With Ponds 0~0060 0.990 0.0024 0.256 0.0002 0.0016 0.0022 0.379 6 6 Natural Conditio®--Below Sluice -H.ithout Ponds 0.127 11.0 0.0690 10.06 0.0110 9.12 0.0820 1.33 2 2 Natural Conditions --Below Sluice -Instream -With Ponds Maximum Mean Minimum Standard Deviation No. Cbservations 0.0031 0.990 0.0024 0.552 0.0017 0.113 0.0010 0.620 2 2 typically exceed the sus}?ended arsenic concentrations. Also, the above sluice natural condition suspended arsenic concentrations were significant~y lower than the suspended arset1ic levels for the other conditions. Second, the below sluice natural condition (data compiled from those mine sites exhibiting undisturbed conditions above the mine but where arsenic samples were collected downstream from the sluice) was divided into four groups: with ponds, without ponds, instream with ponds, and out-of-stream with ponds. Consequently, there are eight groups, 2 with disturbed conditions above the sluice and 6 with natural conditions above the sluice. The means and standard deviations of dissolved and suspended arsenic for the various coooitions are noteworthy, and are presented below in Table 12. The means and standard deviations of dissolved arsenic for four oondi tions, including both disturbed conditions, are less than the above sluice natural condition. Also, the standard deviation is less than the mean in each of the first three conditions, one of which is disturbed. The mean and standard deviation of suspended arsenic is lowest for the above sluice condition, but the downstream from sluice natural condition had a higher mean and standard deviation that all the conditions except the downstream from sluice without ponds condition. Effects .Qf _Surfa~ Loading .of Settling Ponds .on sedilrentation An examination of the efficiencies of the settling ~1nds at the surveyed mine sites in ranoving total sus~;ended solids indicates that only Mine Numbers 3, 6 and 13 achieved 90 fercent removal, or more, of suspended solids, see Table 46 TABLE 12 DISSOLVED AND SUSPENDED ARSENIC NEAN ~EN.I:RATIONS AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR VARIOUS OONDITIONS AT PLACER MINES Downstream from sluice, instream, with ponds Downs.tream fran sluice, with ponds ])a.mstream, out-of-stream, with ponds Above Sluice, disturbed ~rnstream from sluice, disturbed Above Sluice, natural Downstream from sluice, natural Downstream from sluice, without ponds Above Sluice, natural Downstream from sluice, out-of-stream, with ponds Downstream fran sluice, with ponds Above Sluice, disturbed Downstream fran sluice, in stream, with ponds Downstream fran sluice, disturbed IkMnstream from sluice, natural Downstream from sluice, without ponds DISSOLVED ARSENIC, mg/ 1 Standard Mean Deviation 0.0024 0.0024 0.0032 0.0046 0.0093 0.0100 0.0191 0.0690 0.0010 0.0022 0.0029 0.0040 0.0103 0.0161 0.0439 0.0820 SUSPENDED ARSENIC,rng/1 Standard Mean Deviation 0.0063 0.1140 0.256 0.434 0"522 1.23 2.71 10.06 0 .. 0070 0.1688 0.379 0 .. 522 0.620 1.12 4 .. 58 1.33 !3. The range of surface loading of the p:>oos at these mines,as presented in Table s, was between 760 and 1600 gpm per acre. Five mines had settling p:mds that -~chieved removal efficiencies of total su9t=ended solids wit.llin a range of 12 to 78 percent. The ponds at these mines had surface loadings of between ·so and 23,500 gpm per acre. The demonstration settling pond at POrcupine Creek achieved a removal efficienc:J of total suspended solids, of only 60 percent,. the lowest of any of the ponds that were surveyed, and had a surface loading of 2840 gpn per acre. Despite a general parallel between total suspended solids and turbidity values as measured in individual water samples, Drawing No. 5, no significant relationship was detected between the efficiency of the settling porrls at the surveyed mine sites in removing turbidity and the surface loading of these ponds. The computed least squares linear relationships of the pond efficien~cies, in terms of percent removal of turbidity, total suspended solids and settleable solids to the :pond surface loadings had correlation coefficients of 0.17 r 0.15 and 0.7 respectively. This suggests that other factors affecting turbidity removal may be more significant then surface loading, such as the Shape or grain size of the suspended particles. Effects .Qf Particle Sizea ,gn sedinl;ntation Gradation curves of paydirt sampled at the 16 mine sites are presented in Drawings 9 through 11. Only one sample was obtained from Mine sites 15 and 16 on Porcupine Creek. The data is presented in tabular form on Table 13. Notice only three mines have paydirt with more than 10% by weight of particles having a grain size smaller than 0.02 mm. 47 • Mi1ne Site TABLE 13 SEDIMENrATIOO EFlF'ECI'IVENF..SS AT S\ORVEYED PLACER MINES % Removal of Solids. Predicted ·% Frcw less than Settling % 0.002 mm Columns Recyc:le (';Clay compound) (T.S.S.} Actual % Ranoval of Solids Setteabl~ TSS Solids Surface Loading gpm/acre Daily Discharge of Soils While Sluicing Setteable TSS Solids {tons) (cu. yds.} Canpliance With Standards .2ml/l Setteable 25NTU Solids Turbidity Mines. With. Sett.llng Ponds 1·* I() 2.7 66.7 72 86 14500 15.1 6.5 NYN N 2* 0-:SO 0.1 98.5 78 100 750 12.7 18.3 Ylti N 3 :90 1.5 71.1 91 99 1200 2.6 0.4 y N 6 0 0.4 84.4 90 99 1600 9.6 0.8 y N B** 0 1.9 84.6 74 98 3850 46.8 49.7 N N 91 80 1.4 84.2 73 81 23500 4.8 31.4 N N 13 0 0.4 99.6 98 100 760 1.6 0.4 y YN 14 80 3.0 97.0 76 85 3460 0.3 0.1 YNN N 16 0 &/A 87.4 60 97 2840 7.3 3.1 56Y33N N Mines Without Settling Ponds 4 5 7 10 11 12 15 * ** Notes: 0 0.6 60 38 77 68 N N 0 0.6 -24 38 192 272 N N 0 (~ .3 65 33 85 222 N N 0 ().9 33 0 100 357 N N 0 0.4 71 69 196 298 N N 0 0.8 30 13 80 87 N N 0 WA 41 82 20 122 Trip 1 only Trip 3 only 1) % Removal of solids measured across p:>nd, where present. Where no settling p:>nd was present the indicated % removal is determined for tailrace. 2) "Y" indicates the standard was met and "N" indicates the standard was not met. One Y or one N means the standard was met every time the parameter was measured. For Mine Sites 1-14 three characters are used to indicate whether the stand was met during all or only one or two site visits (Mine Site 13 was only visited \ twice). At Porcupin·e Creek, settleable solids met the standards part of the time during the 50-day sample }·· period. :rhe numbers of times the standards were and were not met are presented for those ..P3ramete.cs. j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ··~u••J:~~~·~~•~~~~~~~•r. -~-~ ~ pa~·-~•IMt•~;•~ ~-·~c¥n~ut~~-lQM~t·J·tJIIU~Jf~ A strong relationship was found between the amount of small sized particles in the material being mined and the effectiveness of settling ponds in reducing the levels of turbidity and total suspended solids in the sluice box discharge. This relationship is illustrated in Drawing 13 in which the percentage removal of turbidity and suspended solids in the settling ponds is plotted with respect to the percentage, by weight, of particles smaller than 0.02 mm in the material being mined. Similar relationships were found when the percentage of other particle sizes, between 0.002 mm and that passing a No. 200 sieve, was used in the compariso~ The strength of the relationship between the relative amount of fine grained particles in the material being mined and the ob.served efficiencies of the settling pond suggests that, as might be expected, the efficiency of a settling pond is more sensitive to the particle size distribution of the material being mined than to the size of the p:>nd, the flow rate throu,Jh the-· pond, or any of the other variables that have been considered in this study. By sedimentation theory, suspended solids in a settling basin that have a downward settling velocity that is equal to or greater than the surface .loadng of the basin (i.e., the ratio of the flow rate through the basin to the basin surface area) will be retained in the basin as sediment. Suspended particles having a lesser settling velocity will remain in suspension in the basn discharge, The settling velocities of the smallest particles retained in the ponds of 48 TABLE 14 SETrLitti POW DEK>NSTRATIOO PIDJECI' PARI'ICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF f.'IA'l'ERI1\L Fla-t PAYDIRT u.s. Standard Sieve Q;2enings, .Ina. u.s.~, Standard Sieve Nunbers Grain Size, nm Mining Site ~lL2. ~ U! .l.L2 UB. ~ 1.0_ 2.0. .4D. .5.0. 100 2D.O. 0.02 0.005 0.002 1 89.1 P.t: ,. ~;;J.4 83.6 80.5 78.8 73.9 64.7 54.3 44.3 42 .. 6 37.0 13.0 12.2 4.5 2.7 2 93.5 87.4 80.5 69.1 62 .. 9 49.6 39.5 29.9 22.8 19.4 14.2 10.1 1.3 0.3 0.1 3 93.7 87.4 83.6 78 .. 5 75.1 67.4 60.9 54.1 48.1 43.4 33.6 27.5 7.7 2.4 1.5 4 95.1 88.4 83.2 77.4 73.1 65.8 59.2 53.6 47.0 42 .. 1 32 .. 2 23.0 5.7 1.8 0.6 5 98.5 94.1 89.0 79.6 74.4 60.1 45.8 35.7 24.4 17.5 9.4 5.7 2.6 1.2 o.,6 6 93.3 93.3 88.8 81.7 77.6 67.7 56.3 42.9 31.5 26.5 21.0 16.4 3.5 0.8 0.4 7 96.0 96.0 89.8 77.7 70 .. 1 52.8 40 .. 5 29 .. 2 20.1 15.6 10.0 6.4 1.2 0.4 0.3 8 95.5 91.4 87.3 82.9 79.5 74.8 71.6 69.2 63.8 60.5 55.8 52 .. 1 14.8 4.3 1.9 9 100 95.5 91.9 90.2 89.5 87.8 86.6 85.2 83 .. 2 79.4 60 .. 0 34.9 5.9 2.0 1.4 10 92.8 84.7 79.4 69.8 < 62.5 49.1 39.7 31.8 26.5 24.2 21.1 18.6 3.8 1.5 0.9 1"" .~ 84.0 69.8 61.6 51.5 46.8 35.6 25.9 17 .o 10.9 8.6 8.1 5.3 2.9 0.9 0.4 12 99.0 87.1 81.2 73.0 69.0 60.5 53.4 46.0 39.6 35.8 28.6 22.0 5 .. 5 1.9 0.8 13 92.1 83 .. 3 78.7 70.7 63.8 48.2 37.2 28.5 22.6 19.8 15.7 12.4 2.6 0.9 0.4 14 97.1 93.4 88.8 84.6 81.5 75.1 69.3 63.3 58.0 54.7 47.6 41.1 14.0 5.1 3.0 16 90.0 80.0 57.0 39.0 25.0 14.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.2 lbte: Data indicated for sieve analyses are percent passing, by weight. Data indicated by grain size are the percentage smaller than the indicated size, by weight. r DraWUlc..J 9 ....... t~ J::t • 1J ••• •. • t. I l:: ~ 40 ,_ Q) a.. l I • • i I : " I l i ! j ! '\. 3 ~ r:-~~ . I! r-H·. -~ ---ft·--1 r Tt~--r-·-: \ ' p..:.-1--i -· . . ........... ~ . ~ t-+---P~.._H~-+-+-tl--+---t--+-----l • • I ! ' t I I' L: I . ' I i ; I . I ' 20 ri-r-r ~ . . --· --. ' -·;·· -. ---.......... I -r...-·-r-·t--· . I I -+----r-f--t-:l'k-r'\-t-1~--!1---+----1 ! I i ; ' l ! U· . : ! : . "io..l : : : I I I • : I I Hi ~-:-: · --··-· --,! 1--r .... -"7 ·-··r -~------· ! r... -r-r---r-·-j--···--r;,.---r+-+-t---t-·· ~ ', IQ ma:. I • j_ ___ .. -... -+J-tl ,--7-+-+--7-·· . ._.:. ---++-,l 1'-~~·::,:--r-· , I -r--- • • I I l: 1 l I . i ... I-... I, I ['.... o 1 ~----=:UJ.~l~~-1~----~~~~-~~m+l~~-~~~~-~~~ -- 40 50 60 70 eo 90 100 100 5J 10 5 I 0.5 C I 005 0.01 0.005 0001 Gratn S1ze tn Millimeters I -GRAVIT'"--=r_=------SAND I SILT or CLAY CoQill_--=-.r. Ft n e .. ~~L~Q.o"'O;~·-r-._··:_~-M'.!!-.::::.:e-a~::u:m~~~,...I~....-_-_-_-_-....:.--F....:.i~n-e=-------~~-L-----·--------·--=-_] SAMPLE NO. MOISTURE DRY CON1 ENT OENSJ'";"'T ?t LL CLASSIFICATION a DESCRIPTION ... QJ en ... 0 0 l.) -c: Cl) (.) \.. <U a.. ~-------r-----r-----T--------------------+------------------------------------------------------·----~ 1----------1------t-----t-----t-· ---·-1----t------------------------------------------·---1 I------1-----+---T---·---.------·-~----+-------------------------------------------------------~ ~--------~-----+------~-----4------4-----~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------~ ~---··------~·-----+------;------------------+--·-----------------------------------------··-· - 1-------1-------+-------r------r-------f-·---r--------··-··--·-·-----------·-·-··--·---------------- I Ft $ ~L----~C~O~N~S_U __ L_T_A_N_T __ S_~_•_N_C_. __ __ PORCUPINE CREEK SITE SETTUNG POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT DRAWN BY LOS . ··--·-----11 APPROVED BY WA t--·----·-------1 ~'-ti --11/24/81 PROJECT NO. 013104 Drawing 10 IJ S Standard Sieve Openmgs m Inch liS U.S. Stondcud Sutvt Numbers 3 2 11/l I l/4 112 3/8 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 506070 100 140 200 270 roo I i". I I' I 'I I I I I I I' I ! I I I' 90 I ! I ! 80 'l 70 -.s= Cll c; :r: 60 I >. .Q '-., !::: 50 u.. -c • 40 u ... CD a.. 30 • I ; . ~ ! I I 20 I l . I ! 10 Gram S1z ~ in Millimeters SILT or CLAY SAMPLE NO CLASSIF,CATI.JN a DESCR1PTtON ---t---·--·. ----· ----·---·-----·-· _______________ , __ ·-.. ----··-· ···- ----+----------· --· -· -·--·--··-- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 I I' ., +---· 80 i 90 roo 0001 .... .s::. 1:. ., :r: >. ..0 ... CLI rn .... 0 0 (.) -c CD u ... q) a. ------- 1----·--4-----t----·-t-------· ~ .. ----·-----" ----... -.. -·-~ ·--· ... -·- ft $ ~----c_o __ N_s __ u_L_T_A __ N_T_s_. __ rN __ c_. __ _ --··--. ·-.. ---... --------------1 GRAIN SIZE CURVES SETTLING POND DEMONSciRATION PROJECT :::::-- -----------------------------------------------,, . . ' Ut...Wlnq 11 "l".i-·J~ .~.·~ I sc 70 -I .c ::n Q; ~ 60 >.. .0 ... Q) : 50 lL -c ., 40 u .... Q) Cl. 30 20 10 .. f ":t • II' • >f. •• ·: f' ... l 2.0 30 I 40 I 60 70 90 IOC 0001 c. fl', .... c c '' -c (!;) u ... <V Cl. --GRAVEL ' I SAND _ __,__--.::Co:::::.arse l Ftne ·-•..• _ Course.__._ __ "'""M;...;:;;e..;;;;..a·;..:;:u;...;.;;m.;...____._l ___ ....;F:....:i~n.:..e ___ __.. _______ s_u_.::r_o_r_r_,L_A_Y _______ __, ,.., SAMPLE NO MOtST•JRE DRY \..OI'<TENT DEI\J'liTY -L 11-------i'-----t---·---- R $ M....._ __ c_o_N_s_uLTANTS, INC. CLASSIFICATiuN a DESCRIPTION ~···---· -------------------· --·-·---·--·-·---·------------ ·------· -·--·------------·-------------·---· -------·----·. ··-·--------·--·-·-·---------t -·-------------------------------------,-----------~~--~ DRAWN BY LOS SIZE CURVES SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT APPROVED BY .WA DAT~------11/24/81 PROJECT NO. 013104 '! 100 9C 80 70 -.s::. t:l' iii ~ 60 >. .0 ..... ell c:: 50 IL ... c 4D 40 0 ... 4P a.. 30 20 10 Drqwing 12 U S Standard S•eve OptninQI .n lnchn v S Standard S1e11e N;Jm"!l•r• litdromehr 3 2 I 1/l I ~ 1/2 3/6 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 506070 IOU i40 200 2.70 0 I i I II . I j . I I I l \_ ·~~ i-+-t-1--t-+-- \ '·" '!o.. :._' I' r-\, /Site r·~ I I I 10 20 -30 .s::. 01 Q) ~ 40 >. .0 ... tU ., 50 ... 0 0 CJ ... c i I -,~ ! '·r-. ~'--..... I I\ so. ., 0 .... Q) :•PY oc.:~5·T t 0.. 70 I --' r _j 80 l I 90 --100 0001 J Gratn S1ze m Millimeters_ _ __ ~M::..:..;e:...:o:..:..:u=~=A-~~ L Finc ___ -_~-]_ ____ .. _____ _:~LT_ o_r_c_LA_Y ___________ _, C~...ASSlFiCAT ,;,. a JESCRIPTION --------------~------------------·---------1 •• _ .... --· ·--·,---.. --· __ ..... ,.. •• <>~ ----·--.. ···-·""'·'"- --..... -.... ... ___ .. _"" .. ·-.. -~ --.. -.. --....... -... _.. ---··~ .. --,.··-.. ~----,., __ ... ..._ __ ...,. ~--· ... --....... - R ¢ M.___ __ c_o_N_s_u_L_T_A_N_T_s_,_, N_c __ _ GRAIN SIZE CURVES SETTLING POND ~-, I' I r I t ' . LA . ' • 15 10 1-5 X (,!) w ~ >-Ill Total Suspended Solids • aM CDNIIUL.TANTII,INC. 2 • E 0 '------'----,.,....j'-----~----'----_. e o 20 40 so eo 100 C\1 0 d z 4 :t:l5 1- a: UJ ..J ..J <t ~ en ~10 0 0 Turbidity 0 20 Numbers indicate assigned mine site numbers. 9 0 40 80 'Yo REDUCTION !00 EFFECT OF PARTICLE SIZE ON SETTLING POND EFF1CI.ENCY SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT l --==~------------------------------------~--------------------__; rve"ed mine sites can therefore be determined by dimensional conversion the su... '.l of the surface loading of each pond, to velocity units (a surface loading lOOO gallons per minute per acre of pond surface is equal to a settling l l·ty of 0.184 feet t:er hour, or 0.0156 mm/sec). ve oc r.lbe size of the smallest p3.rticle :-etained by sedimentation in the p:>oos is that size at which the proportion by weight of particles larger than this size in the su~ded solids entering the r:ooo is equal to the efficiency of the pond in removing total suspended solids. In this report, the pond removal efficiency is defined as the ratio of the difference in concentration -of total suspended solids entering and leaving the pond to the concentration gf total sustended solids in the pond influent. Thus, if the pond. removal efficiency and the distribution of particle sizes in a fX'nd influent are known, the size of the smallest tarticle retained by sedimentation in the pond can be determined. In this study, the determination of the particle size distribution of sus:p=nded solids in the mab~rial ent~ring the settling ponds was rr;t directly included as part of the collected daca. This size distribution was approximated, hc·wever 1 by the assumption that the sust:ended material entering the settling J;X>nd '1lould be represented by ~~e distribution of the particle sizes included in that traction of the material being mined that passed a No. 50 sieve. The particle s:ize distribution of the -No. 50 fraction of the mat"c';r~.l'l being mined is presented in Table 15 each mine site. When these distr1uutions are plotted on semi logarithmic scale, similar to Drawings 9 through 12, the size Qf the Srn(tllest particle retained by the pond can be _determined by interpolation, according to the rationale described above. The particle 49 TABLE 15 Distribution of Particle Sizes of Fraction Passing No. 50 Sieve (Percentage STna.ller Than Indicated Size, By Weight) Grain Size, nm Mine lQ.,. .300 .150 .075 ..Jl2. .illl5 .002 1 100 87 31 29 11 6 2 .. 73 52 7 2 l 3 n 77 63 18 6 3 4 II 76 55 14 4 1 5 It 54 33 15 7 3 6 n 79 62 13 3 2 7 n 64 41 8 3 2 8 n 92 86 24 7 3 9 n 76 44 7 3 2 10" II 87 77 16 6 4 11 II 94 62 34 10 5 12 " 80 61 15 5 2 13 If 79 63 13 5 2 14 n 87 75 26 9 5 15/16 " 96 77 43 13 6 Note: Particle size distributions are for Nos 50 fractions of material from paydirt. l sizes thus determined for each of the mines having settling ponds are tabulated in Table 16. Also tabulated is the surface loading of each pond. This is defined as the ratio of the flow through the pond, in gallons per minute, to the surface area of the {X>nd, in acres. It is noted that the pond surface, loading, its overflow velocity, and the settling velocity of the smallest particle retained by the p:>nd are equivalent parameters, expressed in different units. For refermce, each are shown on Table 16. •' The theoretical velocity of small spheres in a fluid, according to Stokea Law, is as follc1ws: V = g(P-Pi)d2 -RM where v = relative velocity batween the particle and the fluid g = gr~avitational acceleration M = kinematic viscosity P a\!ld J?i = specific gravities of particle and fluid respectively d = particle diameter K = a constant When the particle sizes and overflow rates presented in Table 15 are subjected to a. least squares fit, a semi-empirical relationship between the particle size.s and settling velocities determined in this study can be defined by m~)ifying the above equation to the form where a and b are regression coefficient~ v = a + g(P=Pil g2. bM Data from Mines 1 and 2 were not included in the least squares analysis since the indicated re:lationships between particle size and settling velocity at these two mines differed stbstantially from those of the other mines. This 50 Percent of Total Suspended Solids Ranoved by Pond Mine Site (See Table 12) 1* 72 2* 78 3 91 6 90 8 74 9* 73 13 98 14 76 15/16 60 TABLE 16 SEDIMENTATICE CHARACTERI8.riCS OF ~ ~QUi AT SURVEYID PLN.'ER Mll£8 Percent of Total Diameter of Suspended Solids Smallest Particle Remaining in Retained by Effluent ~"'iJ, mm 28 0.018 22 0,032 9 0.007 10 0.012 26 0.021 Z7 0.042 2 0.002 24 0.016 40 ().018 ; Surface Loading POnd (Overflow Rate) (See Table) mm/sec ft/hr .226 2.67 .012 0.14 .019 0.22 .025 0.30 .060 0.71 .367 4.34 .012 0 .. 18 .054 0.64 .. 044 0.52 * Data not used in lea,st squares regression of particle size and surface loading values gpm/acre 14,500 760 1,200 1,600 3,900 24,000 760 3,500 2,800 r l J difference may have been the result of differences in the distribution of particle sizes in the material samples from the mine cuts at these mines, compared with the normal distribution of particle sizes in material placed in the sluices boxes at these sites. Although data from Mine 9 were in general agreement with the other data, this data were also excluded from the least squares computation because the extremely small settling pond at this site (0.08 acres) resulted in a settling velocity that averaged alx>ut an order of magnitude greater than the other mines. As such, it was felt that this one da.ta set would unduly affect the least squares fit of the rest of the data., The semi empirical relationsip between settling velicity and particle diameter, as determined by the least squares fit of the data from the six mines having ponds (exclusive of Mines 1, 2 and 9 for the reasons described above) is as follows: Vs = 0.013 + g(P.-Pil d2. 115 'M Where the paraneters are expressed in the following tmits: Vs -Millimeters per second g -Millil'reters per second per second d -Millilreters M -Centipoises This semi empitical relationship, together with that of Stokes Law, is presented on Drawing 14. Using this semi empirical relationsip and the distribution of particle sizes presented in Table 15 the percent of total suspended solids that would be expected to be removed by a settling pooo was computed for different settling S.l I I I I I ' . ' .. , J . ·~ •aM CaNeULTANTe.INC. Semi Empiricgl Btlationshio Vs = 0.013 + g (P-Pj) d2 115M 100,000 Stokes Lgw ~ Vs=g(P-Pj)d2___ ~ ~ 18M 10.000 g e,o-' ~--------~~--------~~--~----~ ~ E Colloidal Ra e LIJ 1- 1,000 ~ 100 ~ ~ a:: w > 0 to-3 t-------r---+-----lf---------1.. Specific Gravity= 2.70 10 1o·4 -... ............. ...-.............. .____.__.__,_......,.......,......_.....~.__. ....... ~......,. JQ-4 to-3 to-2 PARTICLE DIAMETER, d, in mm Vs = settling velocity, m m/sec g =gravitational acceleration, mm/sec2 P = specific gravity of particle P; = specific gravity of the fluid M =kinematic viscosity of the fluid d = particle diameter, mm .timJ. r Data points are numbered according to mine I ocotion. DAT• 12-7-8.1 •c:•&..• AS SHOWN PARTICLE SETTLING VELOCITIES SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT CH.CK•a •v ... a..a.C:T ND• DIIAWINCI Na • WA 013104 14 ' . I I ' I • I. I , ' .. I I I I I I I i IJ I I I I I I I I I ' l • i l .. velocities. This is plotted on Drawings 15 through 22, together with the data ,points for field measurements in this study, and removal efficiencies that were predicted from settling column test results. From these relationsips, one could predict the efficienqy of sediment removal at each mine site if the size of the surface area of the ponds or flow rates were changed. Hater !hie Drawings 23 through 27 schematically present the results of flow measuranents within E?ach mine site. Minor losses and infl()WS are not shown. Significant inflows that could be estimated but nO't measured are shown. A few sites show an increase in flow in the downstream direction, this is attributed to groundwater. inflow. For comparison, water use· and settling pond characteristics are presented u1 Table 8. The average water use dut'ing sluicing at mines having settling p:mds was 2,600 gallons p:r minute (1.17 million gallons per day of 7.4 oours working)while mines without ponds used an average of 3,600 gallons per minute or 1.62 rng/day with the same average workday. This difference can be attributed to the use of material classification equipment at many of the mines that have settling ponds. The removal of the coarser material front the paydirt with such equipment allows the remaning material in the paydirt to be processed throught the sluice box. using a lower water flow. Table 7 lists the range in gallons required to sluice one cubic yard for each mine site. Mine sites #7, t9 and 113 had the lowest water use: 300, 560 and 52 I l J l I I. I I 1 fl ,$, lj r L 00 :;u:1 r:: 1:1 7'-3 6 [1 5 (1 40 3 ~3 t l.:) -~ '1LZ1 ::0 ~':' ~~ .; t:1 50 •t (1 .3 (1 i I ·.-.! I ~~1 a1j 'B a~ CI)OJ !:::3U en~ ~~ tU MINE 1 Relationship fron1 Settling Column T~sts Semi empirical relationship from field measurements ~ ~-r---r---+-·-+-~+--+----i---+ 0 1 2 ? 4 Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr a a:~·•····•····'····'··i·• o ·s,ooo 1o,ooo 1s,ooo 2o,ooo 2s,ooo .. .. I C/) ~ t ..... ..... ~ ~ ~: r· rg ! 'B T ~~, , ~r tr.l ~ 3 a!l ~ -r ~- J !- 0 Surface Loading, gpmVacre r:u~ 2, Relationship from Settling Column Teets _,..,._, ______ ------r ................. __ ----+ Semi empirical relationship from field measurements Field Data t--·t---+----t-·--+--··-t-. ·-~ 1 2 3 ·~ Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr f q I ~ d 0 I I I l ~ f e ~ b I r , ~ I ~~ • ~ ~ 0,0 1616 0 l,000,02rOOO SUrface t;,ading, 9pt\lacre RELATIONSHIPS~ SET11JIN3 VEI.DCI'l.Y AID REMJVAL OF 'lOTAL SUSPEWEO SOLIDS SETTLIN; FOND DEK>N8l'RATION PinJECr : . : I aCA&..• . : ·I ~-----------------------------------------~ l J I I I l I I I 1 ~ ~I l I 0 MINE 3 "'ield Data ;'Relationship from Settling Column Tests ----,.,. ... ------... ~ ·~~--~ ..... .., __ "+ Semi empirical relationship from field measurements +----·+--+--+----1---+ 1 2 3 4 Settling VelOCity, Ft/Hr I I I • • t I I , t , I I I ' ' I ' I 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Surface Loading, gpm{acre MINE 4 25,000 Relationship from Settling Column Tests __ _.. __ ....., ___ --+ ~------... + Semi empirical relationship from field measurements +----<+----+---+ ----+·---t ---+ 1 .. : :. 4 Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr I I I I I I • I I I I I l I I I I l I I I I J 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 surface Loading, gpm(acre RELATIONSHIPS BE'IWEEN SE'ITLIOO VEIOCITY AND REK>VAL OF 'IDTAL SUSPENDED OOLIDS SErrTLING OON:> DEK>NSI'RATION PPaJECr 0 ~ 11 , ___ a_A_T_·---'---·-C_A_L_·.__.l__a_A_A_W_N_•_v_.J_C_H_•_c_K_•_a __ ._v__J_ .. _A_a.J __ ·.,C--T-N_a_ . ...,L_a_A_A.='f~6~1 N_Q_N_a_. ~; [ < < I' ( t (1 (1 9 (1 ·:: •3 7 l:1 6 ~3 5 ~3 40 3 (1 40 MINE 5 I ... t1l Relationship from Settling Column Tests '0 ·~ 1 ....-tr-4 ~~ ~Jt a~+ ~ § t ~~ fl gi- 'Semi empirical relationship from field measurements ~-~--+--+--+--~--~--1 0 1 ~ 3 4 Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr l1 J•ltltal liiLIII!tlt!lli 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 I Surface Loading, gpm(acre MINE§ Relationship from Settling Column Tests ...... -... -.... --.. ----_, .. ~~ ----- ~~ empirical relationship from field measurements Field Ot3.ta ~----+---+--· t- 1 +t --4f ---+---;--·-~ -. -=~ Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I l J 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 surface Loading, 9IltV acre REf.ATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SETI'LIOO VELOCITY AND REIDVAL OF TOrAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS SE'.rl'LI:OO rom DEM:>NSTRATION PIDJECT CIAT. 8CA&.• DIIIAWN DV ------------------------------------------------------------------~, - - 1-~ ! j li [l ~ l I ' ~ [ [ (, ~ "aM CON •uLTANT.,INC. MINE 7 1 t1 0 .... ~ I Relationship from Settling Column Tests til I ~ t r-lr-4! ~~~ rg)i 'B I <J>+l: 0.. c ..:. tll<ll' ::JUJ Ul lo.l I ------------+ ------~ Semi a~pirical relationship from field measurements .-t~T .s l ~o r ~ I 30 .; --1--·-t-__,-+---l----~1----t---·-+--f. (t 1 2 3 4 0 Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Surface Leading, gpn/acre MINE 8 1 o (1 r ~ f Relationship from Settling Column Tests til ' '0 1 ·r-f l"""ir-1; ~ ~ + '0 ~ l w~· ~) rg ! ------------------+ Semi empirical ~elationship from field measurements :;.) ~@ f( :; ::. ~ & -r Field Data ~o ~ r ....... ........ -..... I ~+ --1---1--+-·--+---+--+---t---+ I) 1 2 3 ·~ Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr I -1 I I I I I I I I I I t ' I I I I I I I I I I I 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Surface Loading, gpm{acre RELATIONSHIPS BE'IWEEN SETTLIOO VEIDCITY AND REMJVAL OF 'roTAL SUSPEIDED SOLIDS Sm'rLIOO row DEMJNSI'RATION PRlJECT l l'--__ a_A_T_·_-"'--l __ ._c_A_L_. _ __.~l.__D_R_A_W_N_._v_"'--C-H_•_c_K_•_a __ •_v__.._P_R_a.J_•_c_T_N_a_ • ..._a_iii_A_W,;;;,lS,;..I_N_ca_N_O-J.) ~-··--· ~ IJ ,_ fJ ~l t ' l IJ ' ' ' ~ ' j IJ' ' ! ~ ' I ~ ' ' 101.) ... ::n::1 ~ ~ r-tr-tj ::: ~ J t .;.o ~~I :::) C) r ens..+ so 3~ I Ill S. M CON 8ULTANT.,I NC. MINE 9 Relationship from Settling CoJ L~H·r~ 'f<~st~~ _-"'11111_......, ____ ..., -1- ~ield Data empirical relationship frou. fic-·ld measurements 40 e3 t l---~---+---+--I ~-+--i--+ 30 I I 0 I I 0 1 2 1 4 Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr 's!obo' ilb}o~ '1~,boo' 2o,doo I 2s',cloo Surface Loading, gprn(acre MINE 10 Relationship from Settling Colunn Te.sts --......... -.. --. ..... _ ---+ Semi Empirical relationship from field w~asurements I I I I I t \ I I • I I l f I ' I I I ' I t ' 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 RELATIONSHIPS BE:lWEEN SE"I•J.'LIN:; VEI.DCI'lY AND REMJV.AL OF 'lOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS EE:rl'LlR3 R'JND DEKJNSTRATION PROJECt' L.__-__ a_A_T_· __ _._ __ ·_~. A~~--' ] . D Aa:'_N_a_Y-.a-..C_H_•_c_M_._a __ lli_Y__.._ ...... A_G_._~ •_c_T_N __ O_ • ......_O_R_A_f_g_•_N_Q_N_a. l -----------------------------·-----------------------------------------------------'-------~-------------------·~---------------------------------------- .l ~ : l •; f.) IJ ' ' . [ ! ' '...) II j •. ) [1 ~ ~" I L R&M CQN8ULTANT.1 fNC. MINE 11 Semi empirical relationship from field measurements ------+ -----............. Relationship front Settling Column Tests ~--~~~-4---+---~~~--~ 0 I I 0 t ~_1 o ... r ~ L ·.-t I r-ir-ij ·:: (1 ~~r ro ~ ! ?:j ~ ~ ! c : .:; (1 1 ~ 3 4 Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 surface Loading, gpm(acre MINE 12 Relationship from Settling Column Tests --..... --.......... ----~ ... -..... -+ a -:5 L Ul ~ I 05 ..., 1- r-i~: ItS I Semi empirical relationship from field measurements ~ ~·) .u l _o i ~ I . f-. --r---+--+---·+---+---+----·-f---+ 0 1 ..::: ;. ··t Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Surface Loading, gpm{acre RElATIONSHIPS BE'IWEEN SETI'LIN:; VEI.OCI'n ANa REr-DVJ\L OF 'lOTAL SUSPENDED &:>LIDS SET.ILIOO rom DEIDNSTRATION PmJEC'l' •cA &.• OIIIAWINQ NQ. 20 -------'------~'-------.....a-------'--···-,__ ____ ,...__..:.;::;...._ __ _. ~----------~----------------------~~ j I I] I! ,, ') 11 ; ' J 1?,,· .t r ~ [ ' ' 0 AAM CONSULTANT.,INC. tUNE 13 Relationship from Settling Column Tests --... _ ---+ Semi empirical relationship from field measurements ..__-+-1 +---+--~--+----i---+ 1 ~ 4 SettlintJ vcl.ocity, Ft/Hr I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I l 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Surface Loading, gpm(acre MINE 14 . ~Relationship from Settling Column Tests .. T~~. ~ nl ~ Semi empi;~;:el:ti~n~hi~ • from field measurements ~ :> l r:-i i ...... ' QJ I ;-' .-1 "0 ... a~l Ul ~ I bS 1-1 I '5(1 ~t 4D r· + I Field Da.ta '"' ~ ------.... +---1---+·--·+---+--+--· -+---t--···-\- l) t 2 ? •l Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr l I . L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Surface Loading, gpm(acre R.EIATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SET.l."'LIOO VElOCITY AND REIDVAL OF 'rol'AL SUSPENDED SOLIDS Smw!LI:OO roND DEIDNSTRATION PRQJECr ( '----~---------.--1)·. l 1~--------------------~ " & M CQN 8UL.TANT8.1NC. I~ l ; , (' ' I ·' F1 ' ; (: ; I l ) ' \ ) ~ MINE 15/16 Relationship from Settling Cblumn Tests Semi empirical relationship from field measurements --------+ . t---+---+--' +-__ ..,.__-1---4------{ (I 1 2 3 4 Settling Velocity, Ft/Hr l I'' 1,.,,1, ,,,,,,,,(,,,,I 0 5;000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 surface wading, 9PlV' acre ~ (..__ __ a,_A_T_• __ ~_· _•_c_A_L._._---c~.&..~-a----~~~-A_w_N_-_•_v--JI.._c_H_•_~_IC_--._G_· __ •_v......~.l_•_"_a..a_. a_c_T_N_a_ • ..~.l_a_ ... _ .. -'2;=~~·-N_a.,_J] L-----------~---------------~----------------~---------------J ~~--------------------------~ I ~· ' _: t;; _; 1 .. E~) J:.' IL ~;~ ~. lJ" l: ~~ l ~~ Mine Site I. Fl SH CR£EK TRIP THREE ONLY. NO MAP FOR TRIPS ONE AND TWO PfJIId EHiuMt • 4.$ Cf$ , r $(){)~, 4./cfs • . t Mine Stt. 3. GlLMORE CREEK AVERAGE FLOW OF THREE TRIPS NOTE: Minor Jo•• and minor inflowa not shown ... ,. .. ..... If -9-81 NONE ... M CONIIULTANT.,CNC. j AboiM Sl;ic. • 0.? cfs a Pt:Jnd lnflu•nt /. J'Cf$ 500' lJownsttWim I 1.8 cfs l ~ Billow S/UiCII 11.5 cfs Mine Site 2. FAIABANKS CREEK AVERAGE FLDW OF THREE TRIPS \ Mine Site 4. EAGLE CREEK TRIP THREE ONLY. NO MAP FOR TRIPS ONE AND TWO Pl..ACER MINE WATER USAGE SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT a WA 2'3 h ~~ ..___ _______________________ ..., ·~: lu f., ·'I 1-. '' ; ' ..... :--" ~·, ' ; -~· ... : t., ' ' _ ..... t ~~ ~ £ag/tl CrHk \ A/JtNI Pump • N.S. _....\\ \----\a Below Sluit~ \ /'2cls \ A-.... L~s to /)" Tailings -,/ "" \,~"' E'nri of Ta!lraetl ~ II cis 500' Oownstream l 78 cis , Mine Site 5. EAGLE CREEK TRIP TWO ONLY. NO MAP FOR TRIP ONE " Faith CrHk / ·l A/Jove Pump ( '-N.S. B.YIXi» /"\. 9.0cls i / \ r-J Fl \! ~Below \ OYiriC/fl(/ IDW \ • Sluice J 9.3 cis / \ Faii/J Pond lnllutlnt ./ ) CrHk 19cfs ) w: .. -r : Pond Efflut1nt I I I I t II cis [~.·~ :, Mine Site 6. FAITH CREEK J! TRIP ONE ONLY. i~ NOTE: Minor losses and minor inflows not shown. l I 1·9·81 •aAL.8 NONE .. aM C:DN.ULTANT8,1NC. Eag!B C,_k \ Abov' $~ 1---~ &low SluiM ~ 7.8 cfs ~ ,\ ( \ \') \ . /End of Tal/roc. (• 13 c.fs I 500 DownstrtJOm \ N.S. ' Mine Site 5. EAGLE CREEK TRIP THREE ONLY. \ Faith Cr!Mk By Pump • 160 cfs (EJ /~ lhlow Sluice ~ ) ?.i'cfs • !%,• \ J/ t Pond lnflutlflf i \ II cfs t Foltll Crtl•k Pond Effluent 5.7cls I ) j Mine Site 6. FAITH CREEK TRIP TWO ONL~ NO MV' FOR TRIP THREE PLACER MINE WATER USAGE SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PAOJECT CHIIOIC8D WA ••wttweN& 24 I ! I I II I I 1] L~· ------~~~================~ ,, I~_: [; (:j 1,: '' _, ,_ r· f!.:i l L~ M,lne Site 7. MAs·roooN CREEK TRIPS TVJO AND THREE ONLY. NO MAP FOR TRIP ONE. 16 cfs • '=-} 500' Oownstr•om -Mine Sit~ 7' 28c~ f Mine Site 9. MASTODON CREEK AVERAGE FLOW OF THREE TRIPS ~, I NOTE: Minor Iones and minor inflows not shown. IICIAt.• NONE I l I I ~ \V > Prmtf Effii!Mf \ • I 4.7 cfs ~~ 5001 t:Jt:Jwnslream \ 5.1 cfs \ Mi n\l Site 8. MILLER CREEK TRIP THREE ONLY. NO MAPS FOR TRIPS ONE AND TWO \ \ Above Pump R:¥1d rr;;./ \ 3/ cfs &bwSiuic.J-e:s, I 6.7'cfs } 29cfs) \ f Mammoth ~:: \ 1 Crt~Bit 7.7cfs 400' Oowns7r;;, \y on Bypass 38cfs · Mine Site 10. MAMMOTH CREEK TR! P ONE ONLY. PLACER MINE WATER USAGE SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT CMIICICIID •v lltt~~ew•crr NO. a.AWINe Na. WA 013104 25 I I I i -----------~--------------------------- f, ~~ ~~ !. ~J ~ ~-----------------------------~------------ \ A/1ov. Slui~ • 23 en Mine Site 10. MAMMOTH CREEK TRIPS TWO AND THREE O«KKwood CrMJk l'!cfs Btl/ow SluicfJ 10 cfs l 500' Oownstnam • 26 cfs \ Mine Site 12. DEADWOOD CREEK TRIP TWO NO MAP FOR TRIP ONE NOTE: Minor losses and minor inflows not sMwn. • aM C:GNIIULTANTII,INC. {u--~ tooo'~srua) f \ Abow Sluic. 29cfs 13cfs ~ ( \ . ;;rooMd CrHk v---24cfs / 500' Oownstr«rm I .J8cfs Mine Site II. CROOKED CREEK TRIPS TWO AND THREE NO MAP FOR TRIP ONE 8.4 cfs Dt10rlwootl CrHk f s.sm~ II cfs 500' Oownslr.am \ 19cfs ' Mine Site 12. DEADWOOD CREEK TRIP THREE PLACER MINE WATER USAGE SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 11-9·81 NONE WA 013104 26 -------L-_:.:=.:.:.::..__L__.=:__..L_....:.:::.__....L_~:.:.:::..___Jl-_.,,, ____ _, ----- I I I . ------------------------------------------------~~~ :~~----------------------.~&MC~~~~.IN~C-.---~ ~ \ ilyJKu$ Abov~ Sluice J "'•~4 cfs ,..,; ~ \ / ~ B.tow Sluics f: ., _. [., ' .~ ... } · -....... 3.2 cfs ~ r ~ ... Pond £fflufJnf 3.3 cfs Mine Site 13. CHENA RIVER ALL TRIPS '-Flume~: Crs.k .......... a 4 crs ....,.,-, / \\ ' c ) Abo.,. Slulc• / J j Q2cls ,/'' · ·· -•,.../Pond Influent ~ a?c~ f \ Pond Effluent ~ 1.1 cfs f ' / l "--'--"" 500' Down!ifftl(lm \f); Q9cfs " \ Mine Site 14. FLUME CREEK ALL TRIPS NOTE: Minor 1~1 and minor inflows not shown. PLACER M! N E. WATER USAGE SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT DAT• II-9-81 •eA&.• NONE .. j 1 1 l gallonS per cubic yard sluiced, respectively. Mine site 47 u~~ an 39{)..:.520 nt of "Atley Bowl" centrifugal classifiers to reduce water use. a.r.rangeme tl3 used a vibrating screen a.nd trammel to presort ~ydi.rt prior:-to Mine site A vibrating screen was used b.y ~ine site #9 to redur;~ water use. sluicing .. 'f rm flow in natural and artificial chann~ls is commonly repre.sent~d by Unl o Manlling' 5 equation in the form: _ l s~o D.33 8 0 .. 5 Q -., l'U';, n in which Q is the volume of flow per ~Jnit time A is the cross sectional area of flow R is the hydraulic radius, deferred as the area A divided by the wetted permeter s is the slope that the channel bot tan makes with the horizontal v and n is .Manning's coeffieient, an empirlcal coefficient having the dimensions of L 1/6 that remans relatively constant for a given boundary condition, regardless of depth of flow or channel size or slope. Measurements of sluice box slopes and dimensions and depths of flow were included in this study, as well as the flow through the sluice boxes. Thus, the empirical rouglmess coefficient "n" in Manning's equation can be computed for flows thro~Jgh sluice boxes. Table 17 presents the results of sluice box measurements. Since flow measurement could not be taken in side channels of sluice boxes the flow was assumed to be divided equally in each channel~ Also flow measurements used in these calculation were measured 2-40 feet downstream of the sluice box. 53 Mine Site tb. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Creek Fish Fairbanks Gilmore Eagle Eagle Faith Mastodon Miller Mastodon ~1arrmoth Crooked Deadwood Chena Piver Flume Porcupine Sluice i2 (old box) (new box) Water 1 Depth In coos 4 2 1,3,1 1,4,1 4,4,4 ~,1~,~ 3,8 3,3,3,3,3 4,6,4 3~ 3,3,3 6 2,5,2 TABLE 17 MANNIN;'S n VALUE FOR SELECTED SLUICE BOXES Sluice box =l Inches 36 18 24,33,24 26,26,26 18,33,18 72,48,72 48cf62 24,31,34,31,24 48,48,48 24 10,17,10 36 18,36118 Nl.IIlber of Channels in Sluice- box 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 5 3 1 3 1 3 Flowr cfs Q 1.2 6.8 6.8 7.8 8.8 8.2 8.0 4.3 12 12 0.25 1.00 1.08 1.92 1.00 4.44 3.00 4.67 0.58 0.77 1.50 1.75 Hydraulic Radius, ft. R .137 .136 .. 144 .248 .061 .404 .207 .327 .225 .168 .375 .233 Slope, Pet s 0.1584 0.1405 0.1405 0.1584 0.2679 0.1584 0 .. 1405 0.2309 0.0612 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 Manning's Roughness Coefficient n .033 .022 .024 .058 .014 .072 .010 .029 .034 .029 N:>te 1: Multiple listing of water depth and width are the depth and width in the side channel, center channel and side channel of the sluice box. Sites with dashes indicate value was not measured. Sluice box measurements were taken at the flows listed. The equation for computing Manning's rouglmess coefficient is: n = 1.4.9. A R 2/3 s 1/2 Q ' ' I ' -- " "value was determined to be 0.032, with a standard deviation of The mean n The relatively large variation in "n" values is prc,bably the result o.o19· . h ighlY tur:bulant flow through the sluice boxes. Manning's equation of the · e s uniform flow, which sluice boxes do not have, due to riffles and as sum rocks in the channels .. 4.6 ~IONS The following conclusions are drawn from the data collected from the mine sites that were sutveyed in this study: 1 .. The effluent from placer mine sites typically does ·not meet all State and Federal water quality standards. The standards for turbidity and arsenic were almost never met and the standard for settleable solids was only met about half the time. The pH and temperature standards were met most of the time, and the standard for dissolved oxygen was met all the time. 2. Only one of the mining operations studied met essentially all State and Federal water quality standards, as measured 500' downstream from the point of discharge into the receiving stream. This site was located off-stream, had less than 3% of material smaller than 0.02mm in the parent material, utilized material classification, a long tailrace, multiple ponds with baffles in the final pond, and had or approx~ately thr~fold a of dilution in the receiving stream. 3. Wi~h respect to water quality, it was shown that mining operations having settling ponds released higher quality water than operations without ponds. However, even with ponds, settleable solids values were usually 10 times higher, and turbidity and total suspended 54 solids levels were· usually about one hundred times higher than natural oondi tions-: 4. Arsenic concentrations appear in higher concentrations in the suspended fraction 'than in the dissolved fraction below the sluice and downstream from the sluice. Concentrati0ns of both fractions below and downstream f+om the sluice are higher than their respective fractions above the sluice. 5. Mines that do not use screens or other material classification apparatus to remove oversize material prior to sluicing typically require about 50 percent more water than mines having classification S¥Stems. This higher water usa results in a requirement for larger sedimentation p:>oos to achieve a given quality of effluent discharge. Also, a correspondingly larger volume of flow in the receiving stream is required to achieve a gl~;en level of dilution of the discharge. The effectiveness of a sluice in gold recovery is generally improved by pre-sluice classificatio~ 6. Manning's equation can be used to provide a general approximation of flows through a sluice box. Field measurements of sluice box flows indicate a mean roughness coeffici,ent of n = 0.,032 with a standard 7. Consumptive use of water by placer miners is slight. The majority of water diverted for use is returned for use by miners downstreameither directly through overland flow r or indirectly through groundwater infiltration Be Turbidity values, in NTU, have been found to be typically about 140 percent of total suspended solid concentrations, in mg/1, up to a concentration of about 3500 mg/1. Above this value, turbidity levels 55 increase by about 200 NTtJ for each 1000 mg/1 increase in the concentration of total suspended solids. 9 • The relative frac::tion of clay and. silt sized particles in the material being mined is the most critical parameter affecting the efficiency of sedimentation in settling ponds. A good correlation between sedimentation efficiency and the amount of fine grained soil in the paydirt can be obtained without consideration of pond size, discharge flows and other variables. 56 SEcriON FI'\,;r.: SUMMARY State receiving water btandards and the standards presented in placer mining permits have been com~'red to levels of the various parameters measured downstream from each mine site that was surveyed in this study. Of these above standards, dissolved oxygen was the only parameter that was within the standard at all mine sites and at all times that dissolved oxygen was n-easured. The pH sm"ldard was met at 12 of 15 mine sites and met part of the time at the other three sites. Settleable solids also exhibited variability where some sites met the standard (3 of 15~, others did not (8), and some met the stand~rd part of the time (4). Seven of the nine mines having settling ponds met the standard at least part of the time~ No mines without settling ponds rnet the standard. Turbidity and arsenic standards were not met at 14 of the 15 sites. Only one mine site (13) can be considered as having met all of the above standards. Although turbidity at Mine Site 13 exceeded the standard during the second site visit, the diffE!rence between the standard (natural condition ~?f 8.4 N1U plus the allowed increase of 25 NID, or 33.4 Nr.U) and the measured turbidit·· level (34 NTU) is too small to be significant.. The site had the least water use, the greatest degree of classification of the material being mined by particle size, ptior to sluicing, one of the lowest clay contents of the material being sluiced, and a high receiving stream dilution factor. 57 ' ,, ' ,' . ' h the turbidity that would result from a given concentration of AlthOU9 . nd ed solids is quite variable at low concentrations and would be suspe Cted to be substantially affected by particle size, color, and other expe variables, the relationship between the concentration of total suspended solids and turbidity that was developed in this study indicates that the following concentrations of total suspended solids would result in the approximate turbidity levels as indicated below: Total Suspended SOlids I fil/1 2.5 7 19 Turbidity, Nm 25 50 100 Thus, very high sedimentation efficiencies are required in order to meet turbidity standards or permit conditions. The data obtained in this .study indicate that the amount of small soil particles in the material being mined (in the silt, clay and colloid size ranges} is the most import~nt single factor affecting settling pond sedimentation rates. From these data it has been determined that suspended particles of the sizes given below would be de};X)si ted as sediment in settling ponds having overflow rates that are equal to or less than t~ following: ?article Size, nm .00.2 .oos .010 .020 (1050 .010 58 ~ Bate· gpn/acre 860 1,000 1,500 3,700 19,000 65,000 This would suggest that, for maximum sedim~~tation efficiency, placer mine settling ponds should have a surface area and discharge rate that would resUlt in overflow rates of not more than 860 gpm per acre$ 59 SECI'ION Sl.X REF~ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (1979). Placer Mining and Water Quality. Jtmeau, Alaska, Noverri:>er, 100 W• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (1979). Water Quality Stan- dards. Juneau, Alaska, 34 pp. Alaska Water Laboratory (1969). Effects of placer mining on water quality in Alaska.. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, College, Alaska, 91 pp. American Public Health Association, et al. (1971). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 13th Edition. American Public Health Association, New York, 874 w. Clark, J.W.; w. Viessman Jr; and M.J. Hammer (1971). Water Supply and Pollution Control. International Textbook Company, New York, 661 pp. calspan Corporation {1976). Final Report: Water quality data at selected placer mines in Alaska .. calspan CorpJration. Buffalo, New York, 49 H?• Calspan Corporation (1979). Evaluation of wastewater treatment» practices employed at Alaskan gold placer mining operations. Contract. No. 6 8-01- 4845, u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division. Washington, D.C., July, 44 pp. * Cordova, A.J. and Kelley, DW (1960). The influences of inorganic sediment on the Aquatic Life of Shearrs. California Fish & Game, 1960, H? 189-229. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (1981). Water use technology fo~ placer mining effluent control. QS-Y006-000-EE-Al .. Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, 71 pp. Madison, R.J. {1981). Effects of placer mining on hydrologic systems in Alaska. u.s Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Technical Report No. 7. Anchorage, Alaska, August, 32 W· Mineral Industry Research Laboratory {1979). Effect of placer mining on the environment. Contract No. J0177134, u.s. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines~ Washington, D.C., June, 33 R?· u.s. Environmental Protection Agency {1976}. Erosion and sediment control - surface mining in the eastern u.s., 2 volumes. EPA 625/3-76-006, Washington, D.C., October, 102 w. and 136 pp. u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (1976). Quality criteria for water. u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 255 R?· Webber Jr., W.J. (1972). Physiochemical processes for water quality control. John Wiley and Sons. New York, 640 J;P. Zemailsky, G.M.; T.Tilsworth; and D.J. Cook (1976). Alaska mining and water quality. University of Alaska. Institute of Water Resources. Report IWR-- 74 113 W· 60 APmti>IX I , .. ~--j h~.) . . ' . ' [• ~ t ·, ~ 0 MINE 1 P=33.466+16.251 Log v -2 (I LoglO Settling Velocity (V), Ft/Hr •· MINE 2 ~r ~ + ;1 .~ I c + -~ t P=l2.698+9 .. 208 Log v ~ + -.,.-·~:-:s::r+-r::+. + +-·--11'--~....... -t~ +-+---+---lt---: -~--1 e LoglO Settling Velocity (V) , Ft/Hr SE'ITLIID Q)LUMN DATA SETI'LIOO OOND DEIDNSTRATION PROJECT I =:::::---_________________ j -L DAT• •CAL. DIIIAWN •v cH•cK•a •v IIIAD..I•CT NO. DII'AWING NQ.J . . 1 (1 (1 50 t t_1l) -~ - g' •r-f c •r-f '50 J +I c ~ ~ ~ 0 ~·•. ' -· ( I .CAl... III&M CQN.ULTANT.,INC. MINE 3 LoglO Settling Veiocity (V), Ft/Hr r r + !. I ... I ' I T r· MINE 4 P=ll.Q53+8e03Q Log V WglO Settling Velocity ( V) Ft/Hr SlliTLI~ COLUMN DATA SEn'I'LI~ IDND DEMJNS'mATION ProJECT PRa.JSCT NO~' DAAWINQ NQ. 1 fh! 1:-; , , it r.: '.1 (1 ,,,,, f ' ' ., ,:~ 1 ~~ , r ~.!- r· I ~. l~ ! l 1 I I 1 :1 (1 i r l I I ., t~ ' I i ' r b~ l (. I ~- ! ~ .;1, -p.. - g' ..... s:: .,..j J -g Q) () ~ & r I . + I ·I- I .L I A AM CoNaULTANTa.tNC. MINE .5. + + (P:66.532+38.4~5 ~:..: ~ ~-· ~ / \ .-.r ., .. -1 ++ I ' I + 1 · .. - ~---+...:..:: 1-··--+--+· ~-·--+--+---+--+---~ ..;' -·· -1 (1 tog10 Settling Velocity (V) r Ft/Hr MINE 6 r -I ~ I -t g' l •,..j I + s:: "j P=36. 768+22.208 Log v +J @ ! ~ .... & l I -t +--+--2---·-- Log10 Settling Velocity (V) , Ft/Hr SE'IT.LIN3 CDLUM.N DATA SETI'LI?{; :OOND DEMJNS'I'RATION ProJEcr a.-AWN •v CH.CK•a •v IIIIIID.I.CT ND· DIIIAWINCI NO • . L____ (1: ~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~'-............ l 1 I I I I [· 1 k'l 1 'i (1 :) III&M CCIN.ULTANT.,INC. •.. MINE· 7 f .. -~ - g' ·r-1 T t:: ~ i P=l3.426+6.125 Log v c: ' ~ -.. ~ I + a:! tT + --r-~-+-- -~ -m c: ·r-1 c: •r-1 J +J c: ~ ~ a! • I ---::r ,. + .J...r--~~·'1~ + ~ -::-.::r. 1-·-+ --+---+--+---+-+---+-1- -2 -L 0 -!-· 1 I r } l ' I ~ r I Log10 Settling Velocity (V), Ft/Hr MINES P=20.812+9.435 Log v +-·'-t F ~. -• -J:---r -t-·-t----"t'- ... ol ·--ft--"'f;.l-~-1-~-·r-L~---, t:: l _____ ....., • ·,-· i--·+----1--+----l--t---i---+ --· -+ -4:~ -L Ct r.og 10 Settling Velocity (V), Ft/Hr SETI'Lir-13 CDLUMN DATA SETI'Liro OOND DFX>NSTRATION PROJECr ,~ 1:1 .. '· . ' 1: ... · r .,, I ~ r lP 1,· ~:" r . I hi I r ' ~.~ ~ I !!>, ! I I Fi j!rl( I r,. ~' I ~·' r r I-'. l. l, \" f ~ ..1 !'I h !;< ... H: hi 1 (1 ._1 -~ - Ol s::::: •c-i c: •c-i 5 ~=1 i +.1 s::::: Q) C) 4 & 0 t l1 • 1 -~ - Ol s::::: ·c-l C! •c-i ... .' ·-· i +.1 c: (1) C) ~ & •• t QAT. f I r I ~- I . i- 1 l l I t r ... & M CQN3ULTANT.,INC. MINE 9 P=l3a944+9.829 Log V + + I + - I -:r-=F-f r + --r:-t:f+ +~ l __ ..J ••• -*'~l..±r--+-..:1-:::=t:rt:-.,;;o::.. ·I I I -i __ ·,;:....--.. ~----I lt ·-LoglO Settling V~locity (V), Ft/Hr r ' ,. I l I 1" • -~ + I t .. I . I I" MINE 10 P=27o846+1J.413 Log V J. ..t +--;.. .J,- ± -~ . ...:. ,_ ~ + .... J.;:--.=-+ 1 ' ~ ... -l·t-• + t •.. ;~ •• ::.::::; .:.... ..:.~.. f< ., ··!--··-+ ---1.--+-----+-·-·-! ·· .:: Log 10 Settling Velocity (V), Ft/H/1 SE'ITLIOO CDLUMN Dl-\TA SEn"''LI~ POND DEIDNSTRATION PIDJECI' ------~------------~-----------------------------------------------~--·-- ~ ' . .. & M CON 8ULTANT8,1NC. 1 (1 1~1 MD£ ll. ~ r 30 ll -j~ t + + ---t-+ + t..:.----~t-+ +_-t_----~ + ~ t i ___ .. --~++--+ ~ " + ... ~=f-+ 8 1 ___ ...-. + ~l }1111:58. 299-4 :,-, ~ 269 Wg v j ' +--+--+---+--+----+---1--+--+ --+ -:;· -1 0 U)glO Settling Velocity (V), Ft/Hr MitE 12 I ~-! !ei'I'LIN; CDL~ DATA [ DA.T. acAL• DII&WN •v C:t4DCIC8D av .. ,_a-, aCT NO· I a•AWINQ NO"J ~-~"~· .. ~.)!;~;,:-"·" .. ! . .;,, ... _,< ._J:··~.~~·~:.. __ ,. ~-' '6 }'.~-~~ "-· '" ----~ . f ·---____________ __.C) l~N /A Vi .-~\Yl ~ r l t-~ ,'1 ... ' [. L (1 !'1 .-. 'I ~· MINE 13 ........ l p.. -+ 0" ~ c: ·.-i I c: I .,...; J l : .l. P=3.105+2.583 Log v +J c ' <l) C) ~ & .j. ' ~ ·~ ~=:=:i:-_L_ 1J I I I -¥.-++-t•i-Ti~=r-=-t::t:!"·~·+•!t-~--~: ~- r § 1 ~I ·a I j t @ i ,_, . -J •J LoglO Settling Velocity (V), Ft/Hr f\UNE 14 ~5o723+4.769 Log V & L-+-:!::::!1=!=> I ... I I -.W-4fF ..::. ...----- 1 ~1 + --.: LoglO Settling Velocity (V) , Ft/Hr - SE:I'I'LIN3 CDLUMN DATA SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROUECT -l I I t l I I i l If' rt· ~. ,, ' l ' ' ----------------~~~~--------~ ·~ .. , t A C. M CONaULTANTa,INC. MINE 15/16 P=l9 .998+10 .168 I.,og V SE'ITLIN; COLUMN DATA SETTLIOO RJND DEMJNSI'RATION PRQJECr '--______ .._. ______ ..._._..,._, ___ --J!.---=-----"--------..._ _____ _ S~IR; OOLUMN DATA MINIOO SITE 1 0 HOUR 6 HOUR 12 HOUR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet rrq/1 NIU ng/1 Nru rrg/1 NIU 1.5 Port 6 3680 3000 930 4300 1240 1600 3.5 5 6060 2700 1270 2700 1640 2000 5.5 4 5980 3800 1530 2000 1850 2300 7.5 3 9390 3800 3120 2400 2000 1900 9.5 1 6310 2800 4720 2900 3570 3400 24 HCUR 48 HCUR 72 HOOR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet ng/l NlU rrg/1 NlU ng/1 NIU 1.5 Port 6 730 1300 680 1100 450 1000 3.5 5 910 1800 1560 1600 800 1500 5 .. 5 4 1380 1900 1600 1700 730 1400 7.5 3 1440 2200 1060 1500 1020 2000 9.5 1 1840 2200 1280 1600 890 1400 Corrrnents: r t ; ... L .. L. SETI'LOO OOLUMN DATA MINII-13 SI'l'E 2 0 HOOR 6 HOUR 12 HOUR Depth, TSS,. Turb, TSS, 'l.urb, TSS, Turb, Feet mg/1 NlU Irg/1 NlU rrg/1 NIU 1 .. 5 Port 6 43800 10600 7490 6200 3000 4500 3.5 5 40000 15600 9920 6700 4130 5800 5.5 4 64500 17300 9920 7900 4100 5000 7.5 3 66800 13100 33700 7400 5300 6100 ·9.5 1 72900 17200 382000 23000 442000 7400 24 HOOR 48 HOOR 72 HOOR Depth, TSS, Turb, T'"'...,S, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet ttg,/1 mu ng/1 NIU rrg/1 NIU 1 .. 5 Port 6 1380 2500 660 1500 450 1000 3.5 5 1780 2900 840 1800 490 1200 5.5 4 1910 3100 890 1700 910 1200 7.5 3 2110 3200 800 1700 630 1300 9.5 1 455000 23000 424000 23200 263000 24000 Comments: The total suspended soils and turbidity values for the 9 .. 5 foot depth are considered to be a non representative sample. Sediment accumulating in the bottom of the column was drawn off with the sample. Compaction occurring. between 24 and 72 hours is the likely reason that the 48-hour and 72-hour TSS and Turb levels decreased. 1 1 1 . " t I . SETrLOO CDLDm DATA MININJ SITE 3 0 HOUR 6 OOUR 12 HOUR Depth, TSS, '1\lrb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet mq/1 NIU rrg/1 NIU nq/1 Nru 1.5 Port 6 7440 5600 4660 5400 3600 6900 3.5 5 11700 7400 2300 6400 4210 5100 5 ~-·~., 4 9150 6700 3360 7200 3800 4800 7.5 3 14000 6200 3050 7700 4690 4800 9.5 1 13700 7500 3690 5900 4100 5000 24 HOOR 48 HOUR 72 HOOR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet ng,/1 NlU ng/1 NlU ng/1 NIU '" 1.5 Port 6 3140 4000 3260 4300 1960 3400 3.5 5 3300 5000 3910 5400 2610 3900 5.5 4 4240 6200 2910 4300 3140 3800 \.vi 7.5 "l 3430 4800 3290 4500 3160 3900 ~ 9.5 1 3870 6100 3630 5000 3150 3600 ,, ;' ~ .. --, Ccmrnents: ·) SE':MLI~ OOLUMN DATA MINI~ SITE 4 0 HOOR 6 IDUR 12 HCXJR Depth, TSS, Turb, 1~S, TUrb, TSS, Turb, Feet ng/1 NIU ~n;V'1 .N!'U lll:Vl NIU 1.5 Port 6 29100 11500 3260 6200 1780 4300 3 .. 5 5 28400 11300 4970 5900 3450 4000 5.5 4 34600 11800 4590 5900 2440 5100 7.5 3 37000 9600 6050 7500 2830 2700 8.5 2 7680 8300 2960 3900 9.5 1 38400 9300 24 Hcr.JR 48 fDJR 72 HOOR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, .Feet mg/1 mu mg/1 NllJ nq/1 ~Y]ll 1.5 Port 6 1000 1500 510 1300 170 1300 3.5 5 1430 3200 580 1700 150 1300 5.5 4 1180 2200 430 1300 110 1300 7.5 3 1720 2900 560 1500 190 1500 8.5 2" 1820 1800 640 1900 350 1600 9.5 1 Comrrents: SETrLIOO <.DLUMN DATA MINIR; SITE 5 OHOUR 6 HOUR 12 HOUR oepth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet rrg/1 mu ng/1 N1U mg/1 Nl'U 1.5 Port 6 3370 3000 2700 2700 2240 2200 3.5 5 4320 3400 2690 2500 3070 3400 5.5 4 6080 5900 4070 4300 3260 2600 7.5 3 7150 7400 5270 5300 4410 2500 8.5 1 6480 6700 5200 6400 3300 3200 24 HOOR 48 HOUR 72 HOUR Depth, TSS, 'furb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet ~l !:I""'U mg/1 NrU rr":l/1 Nlt1 1.5 Port 6 1240 2600 1050 2000 610 1400 3 .. 5 5 1760 2900 1190 2600 860 1400 5.5 4 1700 2600 1240 2700 980 1900 7.5 3 2370 3800 1460 1800 1050 1700 8.5 2 2110 2600 1440 2500 1530 2000 Cooments: S&1!1'Lrm OOLUMN DATA MINI!G SITE 6 0 HOOR 6 fiJUR 12 BJUR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, '1\lrb, TSS, Turb, Feet rng/1 N1U ng/1 NlU ng/1 NllJ 1.5 Port 6 4580 2400 1870 2100 1860 1400 3 .. 5 5 5060 3700 2990 2600 1830 1600 5~5 4 6080 2500 5630 2000 1610 1400 7.5 3 8590 3900 5010 2500 1680 1900 8.5 2 16200 3000 5760 2200 2290 1700 24 IDJR 48 IIXlR 72 HOUR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet mg/1 N1U nq/1 Nru Il¥311 NIU 1.5 Port 6 880 1100 630 900 480 850 3.5 5 1220 1100 820 900 860 1400 ·s.s 4 1330 1200 1140 800 1020 1300 7 .. 5 3 1470 1500 1170 1300 990 1400 8.5 2 2130 1400 1900 1600 710 1100 Catroents: • "' 'I Depth, r, if Feet 1.5 Port 6 [;' 3.5 5 :t, 5.5 4 •' 7.5 3 9.5 1 ~{ ,l [i i Comments: i I ~}- ' ~-.l SE'l'lLOO <DLUMN MTA MININ3 SITE 7 0 HOOR 6 HOUR 12 BOOR TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, rrg/1 ng/1 NIU rrg,/1 NIU Nr'J 17200 6700 2710 3000 116J 2300 21800 6100 3040 2600 lP~O 2700 14300 5900 2260 2900 1670 1900 15800 5800 2950 3000 1890 1700 17100 6900 2850 2600 2090 2400 SE'tiLitG CXUJf9l DATA .. MIHilG SITE a 0 HOOR 6 HOUR 12 HOUR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet Dlg./1 HIU lg/1 NrU mg/1 mu l .. S Port 6 11.100 ,,00 2550 34CO 1870 2000 3.5 5 -ll.SQO 7100 2830 2400 22.:SO 2500 5.5 4· 15400 5800 2930 2800 2380 1800 7.5 3 11600 4500 3010 3000 2450 2300 8.5 2 19100 5800 ll.60 3300 2510 2800 24 fiXJR 48 HCXJR 72 HOOR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet 8111·. lliU 111]/1 NIU ng/1 N1U 1.:5 Port' 1390 2.00 970 1600 615 800 3 •. • !) 5 2020 1900 1420 2200 1100 750 5.5 4 200C 2100 1710 2100 1220 850 7.5 3 1640 20GD 2050 1800 1350 2000 8.5 2 2210 :2,00 1"180 1800 1380 1700 Carments: MINIR; SITE 9 0 HOOR 6 BJUR 12 HOUR oepthr TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, rrg/1 Nl'U ng/1 NlU rrg/l NIU peet POrt 6 11300 7900 1610 2400 760 1500 1.5 5 12300 10600 2450 3900 9'\0 1600 ).5 4 9240 7200 2850 5300 1180 2600 s.s 3 14700 7400 3130 7000 1330 2100 7 .5. 2 16000 6200 3520 5300 1440" 2500 8.5 24 HOOR 48 HOOR 72 HOUR oepth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet ng,/1 N1U rrg/1 NIU mg/1 NIU 1.5 Port 6 670 1100 300 500 160 300 3.5 5 660 1200 300 400 180 500 5.5 4 730 1300 290 500 170 400 7.5 3 720 1700 380 850 100 550 8.5 2 730 1100 400 750 270 360 ~nts: SET'l'LIN:; COLUMN DATA MINIM; SI'IE 10 0 BOOR 6 HCXJR 12 HOUR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet nq,/1 NlU mg/1 NIU ng/1 m.u 1.5 Port 6 16700 7400 2930 5000 1730 4000 3.5 5 18000 7700 4810 4000 3620 5800 5.5 4 17900 6900 5020 5900 4190 4800 7.5 3 17000 7000 5600 6200 4460 4300 9.5 1 21000 8200 6400 6700 4850 6600 24 BOOR 48 HOUR 72 BOOR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, :rurb, Feet ng/1 mu m;v'1 NIU ng/1 l\"'IU 1.5 Port 6 1940 4000 1440 2200 1230 2300 3.5 5 3180 5000 2280 2800 1910 2600 5.5 4 3760 5300 2770 4200 2250 3200 7.5 3 4010 5300 2960 5600 3230 2900 9.5 1 4500 6100 2710 3000 2840 3800 Carments: SE'l'ILIN:; CDLUMN DATA MINIOO SITE 11 0 HOOR 6 HOUR 12 HOOR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, 'Iurb, TSS1 Turb, Feet mg/1 Nru ng/1 tm.J Iif3/1 Nl'U 1.5 Port 6 2400 2700 1530 2100 1270 1800 3~5 5 3040 3000 1610 2500 1480 1600 5.5 4 2890 2900 1860 2400 1410 1700 7.5 3 3250 3000 1750 2100 1600 1600 8.5 2 3560 1800 2125 3000 1590 1700 24 HOUR 48 HOUR 72 HOUR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet I00_/1 NlU n~/1 NIU mg/1 .mu 1.5 Port 6 1100 1700 940 3000 750 1600 3.5 5 1130 1700 1040 2000 930 1600 5.5 4 1360 2000 1530 3800 1030 2400 7.5 3 1590 2100 1680 2600 1420 2400 8.5 2 1240 2600 1560 1500 1720 2100 Corrments: SET!'LIN:; <DUJMN DATA MDITR; SITE 12 0 HCXJR 6 HOUR 12 HOUR Depth, 'l'SS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet ng/1 NlU rrg/1 NIU rrg/1 mu 1.5 Port 6 19900 9600 5120 6400 3000 5400 3.5 5 25100 9400 5020 5900 3740 3900 5.5 4 13800 8600 8220 7500 4300 3800 7.5 3 21300 8900 6980 6600 4580 7000 8.5 2 7410 7500 5260 6400 9.5 1 23400 7900 24 HCXJR 48 HOUR 72 HOOR Depth, TSS, '1\Irb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet m;/1 NlU n-q/1 NIU rrg/1 NIU 1.5 Port 6 1170 4200 1420 2500 610 1600 3.5 5 2010 6600 2240 3000 1380 2200 5.5 4 2040 4800 1890 3900 1090 2600 7.5 3 2860 3600 1930 3700 1370 3000 8.5 2 2820 2300 1730 2600 1110 2800 9.5 1 Contnents: SEITI'LI~ <DLDm DATA MININ3 SITE 13 0 HOOR 6 HOUR 12 HOOR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet mg/1 Nl'U rrg/1 Nru nq/1 NIU 1.5 Port 6 23900 9400 360 1000 290 750 3.5 5 27000 9600 770 1200 330 800 5.5 4 27000 8400 2000 1600 390 500 7.5 3 29000 12000 :<100 2000 410 500 8.5 2 3.2600 11500 22:t.: 3100 1020 850 24 HCXJR 48 HOOR 72 HOUR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, . Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet rng/1 NlU rrg/1 NlU rng,/1' NlU 1.5 Port 6 70.0 400 50.0 140 10.0 100 3.5 5 190 320 40.0 170 36.0 85 5.5 4 210 240 44.0 150 48.6 120 7 .. 5 3 300 320 76.0 280 44.0 160 8.5 2 220 360 51.5 140 76.0 80 Colrarents: I '· • ·' MINI!~; SI'fE 14 0 HCXJR 6 HOOR 12 HOOR Depth, TSS, 'l'urb, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, Feet mg/1 !ftU ug/1 NIU rrg/1 mu 1.5 Port 6 21,00 10900 1840 1900 352 500 ' 3.5 5 26700 8300 2390 2500 380 450 . J. 5.5 4 29400 10900 3310 7200 310 500 I 1 7.5 3 25000 12500 11900 10200 640 800 :j. 8.5 2 25700 13100 32500 12000 990 900 J 24 IDJR 48 HOUR 72 HOUR Depth, TSS, Turb, TSS, Turb, 'I'SS, Turb, Feet llg/1 N!U -.11 NnJ Jrg/1 mu 1.5 Port 6 180 450 68.0 100 12.0 60 3.5 5 100 400 64.0 120 20.0 40 5.5 4 250 360 84.0 130 24.0 45 7.5 3 320 320 68.0 110 52.0 45 a.5 2. 310 320 60.0 170 68.0 34 Catments: APPENDIX II sample Site Descriptions and Methods of Data Collection 1te foll~ing are descriptions of samples sites shown on Drawing No. 1. ~luice - A staff gauge was established 40' above the influent to 1. ~ater reservoir. When the miner working sluice f2 moved upstream ~e staff gauge was relocated approximately 150' above the water 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. B. s. eservoir. After a cat ran over the staff gauge, it was relocated a r . rd and final time approximately 500' above the water reservoir. This ~e was sampled all fifty days. Water quality samples were taken in the center of the channel near the staff gauge. 12a,il!l ~ss -This site was sampled on days when the water reservoir overtlowed, a total of 22 visits. A staff gauge was installed 20' downstream frcm the crest of the darn. The staff gauge was re- established twice due to pond modification and heavy rains. The water quality samp1es were taken in the center of the bypass near the staff gauge. ueger pqrcypL1e Creek -Water quality samples were taken approximately 500' above sluice tl. antis is the only "natural conditions" sample site on Porcupine Creek. The site was sampled twice a week starting on Day 29 for a total of 7 visits. aelQH Sluice -Water quality samples were taken approximately 10 seconds after the loader dumped paydirt on the slickplcte and approximately 5' to the left sida facing the sluicebox outfall.. Flows were recorded 40 to 100' downstream depending on a suitable channel. This site was sampled for 20 visits. Ianl<ee Creek -Water qUc'llity samples were taken approximately 20' above the influent to Porcupine Creek. Flow measurements were taken at the same loca.tion as the water quality samples. This site was sampled twice a week starting on Day 23 for a total of 9 visits. Settling fond .o.a.m Leak - A leak developed in the settling pond darn on the right side looking downstream. WeLter quality samples were taken from this leak starting on Day 16 for a total of 24 visits Flows for this sample si.te were estinated. Aboye Pond-A staff gauge was established and water quality samples were tak-en 100• abo,le pond #1. This site wa.s discontinued after Day 15 due to high flows. A total of 10 sample visits were made .• Below Bmd -A staff gauge was established and water quality samples were taken 100' below the t:Ond. 'rhe pooo was built by the miner working the trammel to settle out the suspended sediment added by the two miners upstre~11. ~hls site was discontinued after 15 days due to high flows. A total of 10 sample visits were made~ ~.fond -· Water quality sample.:> were taken at the surface of the pond next to the pump. No flow measurements were taken at the site. The sampie site changed when the pump pond was moved upstream between Days 14 and 15. A total of 43 sample visits were made. Sample sites 10-14 were sampled twice daily. 10. Below Trammel -Water quality samples were taken 20' below the end of the sluicebox and awroximately 10 seconds after paydirt was added to the hopper. Flow measurements were taken 300' downstream. A staff gauge was·established but removed due to sediment deposition. The sample site was relocated upstream when the trommel was moved upstream between Days 14 and 15. '!he site was sampled for a total of 62 visits. 11. Pond In£luent -Water quality samples were taken 15' above the settling pond. Flow measurements were made between 15 1 and 50 1 above the set- tling pond depending on the best channel section. A staff gauge was established but was discontinued due to sediment build-up. After Day 15, minor inflows from rainfall and pump pond leakage entered the channel between sample site 10 and 11. This site was sampled for a total of 88 visits. 12. Pond Effluent -Water quality samples \.Jere taken at four locations to measure the effect of cifferent effluent filtering methods. All flow measurements were taken at one location, the Confluence of Pond Effluents, site nUiri:>er 12A. 12A. QonfJueoce ~ Pond Effluerit3 - A staff gauge was established 300' below the settling pond and was maintained for the entire sampling period. Water quality measurements were made next to the staff gauge.. Water quality mea\sureme~nts were taken for a total of 6 visits. Flow measuremen.ts were taken for a total of 73 visits. 12B. Right OUtlet CUlyert -Water quality samples were collected from the culvert outlet. The standpipe for this culvert would overflow only when the trommel was operating. This site was sampled .for a total of 35 visits. 12C. teft OUtlet CUlvert -Water quality samples were collected from the culvert outlet. '!he standpi:Pe for this culvert was set lower than the right culvert standpipe. Therefore this culvert always dis- charged water. This site was sampled for a total of 31 visits. 12D. Filter .OUtlet CU1vert -Water quality samples were collected from the culvert outlet. As the filter fabric clogged with silt the discharge from this culvert decreased. This descrease was deter- mined by visual estimates. This site was sampled for a total of 18 visits. 13. 5.0.0.!. Downstream -Water quality samples were taken 500' downstream from the settling pond dam. A staff gauge was established and maintained for the entire sampling period. There were no additional inflows to the stream between sample si.tes 12A and 13. The site was sampled for a total of 89 visits. ... . 14. 13.l-rpass -For the pump fX'nd used between Day 1 and Day 14, water quality samples were taken 25' below the effluent of the pond. Flow measurements were taken at this site. Due to high water conditions, a staff gauge could not be maintaine<L The sample site was moved when the pump pond was moved. The new site was on a bypass that carried water only when the pump rand was full. Flow measurements and water quality samples from the bypass were taken 10' downstream from the junction of the pump pond diversion and the bypass. This site was sampled for a total of 40 visits. DESCRIPI'ION OF 'WATER QUALI'IY 51\MPLI:tli ME'lliCDS Method .Qf Collection Water quality samples were collected at the water surface in one liter polyethylene bottles, for settleable solids, total suspended solids and turbidity. Samples to be tested in Fairbanks were ship:p=d in 60, 125, 2~0, 500 or 1000 ml polyethylene sample bottles, depending upon the amount of sediment. Dissolyed OXygen, rrg/1 All D.O. measurements were made with a Hach Model16046. Calibration values were determined each morning and re-determined each afternoon. The probe was placed approximately 3" below the water surface facing upstream until a stable reading was reached. This took !~ to 1 minute. Results were recorded to the nearest 0.1 mg/1. pH was determined using a ~ Scientific Digital mini-pH meter Model 55. Standardization was done each morning using 4.0 and 9.0 pH buffers. The probe was placed approximately 3" below the water surface facing up- stream until a stable reading was reached. This took approximately 1 minute.. pH values were recorded to the nearest 0.1 pH unit. Water Tam?erature, ~ All temperature measurements were made with a Taylor field thermometer. It had a range of -15 to +105°C, graduated in l°C increments. The thermometer was placed 3" below the water surface. It took approximate- ly 15 seconds to stabilize before measurements were taken. Temperatures were read to the nearest 1 degree. Settleable Solids, mUl A one liter sample was collected at each sample site to be tested later in the day using an Imhoff cone. The procedure used is described in ''Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, n 14th edition, page 95. Results below 0.1 ml/1 were recorded as 0 .. 1 ml/1. Values between 0.1 and 19.9 w,:re recorded to the nearest 0 .. 1 ml/1. Results greater than 20 were recorded to the nearest whole number. I, Flow,~ All flow measurements were made using a Scientific Instruments pygmy flow meter Model 1205. The stream cross section was divided into approximately 20 sectional areas for velocity measurements and area calculations. Depending on creek conditions, flow values were deter- mined using one of three methods. The first was actual field measure- ments using the pygmy flow meter. The second was using a stage-dis- charge curve determined by actual measurements. The third method was visual estirnatas based on previous measurements at that site. Flow measurements were taken at the best channel section nearest the sample site. Flows less than 10 cfs were recorded to the nearest 0.1 cfs and values 10 or greater were recorded to the nearest whole number. Total auapended SOlids, ng/1 Water samples collected at each sample site were shipp:d to Fairbanks for analysis. '!he procedure used in testing is described in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 14th edition, page 94. Turbidity. NW Water samples collected at each ~ple site were shipped to Fairbru1ks for analysis. The procedure used in testing is described in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 14th edition, page 132. AU. TeiJBrature, ~ All temperature measurements were made with a Taylor field thermometer. It had a range of -l5°C to +105°C, graduated in l°C increments. Measurements wer.e made at each site.. The thermometer was hand held until a stable reading was reached, approximately 1 minute. Temperatures were read to the nearest 1 degree. ClQqd Coyer, .1 Percent cloud cover was bar~ on visual inspection of the sky for a full 360°. The thickness of the clouds was not distinguish~ Rainfall, incbes A rain gauge was installed on flat ground approximately 10' from the nothwest corner of the tecr~~ician's cabin. The gauge was not shieldea The gauge was read at 8:00 a.m., noon and at 5:00 p.m. Each time the gauge was read, it was emptied. Arsenic, ns/1 Water samples were collected for analysis of dissolved and total arsenic at the following sites: Above Sluice, Pond Influent and Pond Effluent. Samples for the dissolved fraction were filtered in the field through filters having 0.45 micron pore spaces. Analyses were performed at a l=:tboratory in Fairbanks following 11 Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste," 1979, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency using Method 206.2. Chanical Ox~en Demand, ns/1 Water samples were collected at high and medium flow conditions and shipped to Fairbanks for testing. The analytical procedures used are presented in the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency publication "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste," 1979, Method 410.1 and 410.2. I u APPENDIX ZII " .,,.~ .. ..__ .. ~ ... ,., ..... ~.·"'' ...... -..-... -~.--.--.--..·......llh..,""'""' ... .-, ______ ,.,.._.,_ •>"'•~·-·-~---...... , June 26, 1981 Tirne: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C fil, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs TUrbidity, ~mJ T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Olem. Oxygen Demand, mg/ 1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pi, til Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NID T .. SUSJ::ended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, m;Vl Ternp:rature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, rnu T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chern. OXygen Demand, mg/1 Conments: DEC DEM:>N.-~TION PRQJECI' FIELD DA.TA SAMPLE UX'ATIO~ ~ 2. l ~ 17:05 17:10 WJ 17:15 17 Dry Sample 17 0 Not 0 90 Taken 90 10.5 12.1 8 9 7.1 7.0 .(0.1 19.0 23 2400 63.8 6250 2 .a ~ lQ. No No 15:15 15:45 sample sample 16 16 Taken Taken 0 0 90 90. 12.0 11.7 11 10 7.0 7.0 1.0 60 7.0 (E) 800 1400 1490 2830 ll .l4. l.Q. ll No 15:10 Tr~l WJ Overflow 16 Not Sample 0 Operat~ng Not 90 Taken 10.2 11 6.6 0.7 650 712 1. CUbic yards moveq/day: Warner: 900-1125; Haskins: 300-375. Day 1 5_ W'J Sample Not Taken ll 15:35 16 0 90 12.0 11 6.5 11.0 7 .5 (E) 5300 10000 l2. ~ OVerflow 2. WJ Sample Not Taken l2. No OVert low ll No OVerflow 2. Equipnent used 9 hours/day: Warner: D-8, 988, D-9/9 hrs; Haskins: D-8, dragline/4 hrs. 3 • Problems: St:r.tong winds slowed operations for both Warner & Haskins. 4. Other Conments :· Warner Clean-up 0700-1200. Flow calculated without tramnel ot;erating. At settling J:?Ond influent santple site. Warner begins double shift. They hope to sluice 15-18 hrs/day. j/ DEC DEK>~TION PROJECI' PIELD mTA June 28, 1981 Day 2 !' SAMPLE lOCATION ~ 2. J. .4. 5. .6_ Time: 18:21 19:21 WJ 19:30 WJ Vl.J Air ;remp, °C 8 6 Sample 6 Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 0.04 0.04 Not 0.04 Not Not Cloud Cover, % 75 75 Taken 75 Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 11.4 11.0 10.4 Temperature, °C 6 6 6 pH, E;fl Units 7.0 7.1 7.0 Settleable SOlids, ml/1 <.0.1 ~0.1 23 Flow, cfs 16 12 Turbidity, NIU 4.4 24 3700 T. Sus~ed Solids, ~1 8.4 7.9 3440 Olern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 2 lt ~ lO. ll. l2.(A) Time: 21:30 21:40 21:15 16:35 16:29 16:20 Air Temp, °C 6 6 6 9 9 9 Precipitation, inches 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Cloud Cover, % 75 75 75 90 90 90 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 8.5 9.1 9~5 94 9.7 8.5 Temperature, °C 7 7 6 9 9 10 pH, pi units 6.8 6.5 6.8 6.9 6.6 6.8 Settleable Solids, ml/ 1 4:.5 0.7 ~0.1 15.0 16.0 0.1 Flow, cfs 7.0 (E) 7 .5 {E) 5.0 {E) Turbidity, mu 700 900 1000 1300 2800 1800 T. Suspended Solids, mg/ 1 465 410 635 1090 7460 1460 Clem. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 ll .a J.D. ll ll(A) ll Time: 16:12 21:10 20:41 21:56 21:05 Air Temp, °C 9 6 Tromnel 6 5 6 Precipitation, inches 0 .. 04 0.04 ~t 0.04 0.04 0 .. 04 Cloud Cover, % 90 75 Operating 75 75 75 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 8.6 10.2 9.9 9.4 9 .. 5 Temperature, °C 10 7 5 8 6 pH, pH Units 6.5 6.5 6.3 6 .. 7 6.5 Settleable SOlids, ml/1 0.1 0 .. 1 < 0.1 0.9 0.4 Fl<:M, cfs 0.5 (E) TUrbidity, NlU 2000 900 1200 5900 2600 T. Sus~nded Solids, ng/1 1200 725 740 5780 2150 Olen. Oxygen Demand, nq/1 - carments: 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 1100-1700; Haskins: 700-900. 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: 944 loader, D-8, D-9/18 hrs.; Haskins: drag1ine, D-8/9 .5 hours. 3. Problems: Flat tire on loader at 21:00 (Warnet·) o 4. Other Comnents: Settling p:lnd overflowing. L DEC .DEMJNSTRATION PRQJECr FIEID ll\TA June 29, 1981 Time: Air Temp, 01 ~ Precioitat.:on, inches Cloud Cov{;r, % ~ 19:31 6 0.04 100 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 8 .5 Tanpera.ture, oc 5 pH, pH Units 6.6 Settleable Solids, rnl/1 <. 0.1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU 5.0 T. Suspended Solids~ rng/1 7.8 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 •rime: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 Tem~rature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, mU/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, mu T. Sus~nded Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Do--mand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 Temperature, °C pH, ~ Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, N'lU T. suspended Solids, m;/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 Comnents: 2 15:45 8 0 75 8.3 7 6.9 3 .. 5 25 650 564 ll 09:48 8 0 60 9.4 8 6.0 {. 0.1 1.6 1900 1460 2. 19:42 6 0.04 100 8.0 5 6 .. 6 <0.1 6.0 6.6 .a 14:50 9 0 75 9.2 8 6.6 0.6 21 800 778 ll 10:35 10 0 60 11.2 6 6.8 0.1 450 354 SZ\MPLE LOCATION ~ .4. ~~ Sample Not Taken .2. 10:45 10 0 60 8.5 8 6.7 0.1 340 314 .lQ. 18:20 6 0 .. 04 100 8.5 8 6.4 5.0 7 .0 (E) 1300 1200 20:00 6 0.04 100 8.1 6 6.7 20 12(E) 4200 5270 J.D. 13:45 7 0 75 9.3 8 7.4 9.0 7.0 1300 2330 ll 18:31 6 0.04 100 7.7 7 6.3 31 7.5 (E) 6900 11500 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 1100-17001 Haskins: 600-750. Day3 .i WJ Sample Not Taken ll. 12:45 7 0 75 8.6 9 6 •. 2 23 7.4 2700 8210 l2.(A) 18:39 6 0.04 100 7.8 8 6.2 0.4 5.0(E) 2000 1870 2.. Equipnent used,. hours/day: Warner: D-9, 944 loader/18 brs.1 Haskins: Dragline, D-8/8 hrs. 3. Problems: .6. WJ Sample Not Taken l2JA) 10:25 13 0 60 10.6 8 6.2 <0.1 2400 1750 .ll 18:46 6 0 .. 04 100 7.0 8 6.2 0.1 1800 1560 4 • other Corrurents ~ warners plan on mining down on claim 5 below in approximately 3 0 days. This might interfere with acquiring the needed 50 sample days. June 30 , 1981 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, ng/1 TEmperature, °C pH, til Units Settleable Solids, m.Vl Flow,~ cfs TUrbidity, N1U T. Suspended Solids, m;v'l Chan. oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches O.oud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pi, til Units Settleable Solids, mVl Flow, cfs Turbidity, Nru T. Suspended Solids, mg/ 1 Cllem. OXygen Demand, ng,/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, ~1 Temperature, °C Iii, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbiai ty, mu T. Susp~:nded SOlids, ng,/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Comnents: DEC DEK>NSTRATION PROJECT FIEID Di\TA l 1.2~38 8 0.02 100 9 .. 3 6 6.9 LO.l 10 6.8 26.2 2 08:24 7 0 90 9.1 5 6.5 0.4 31 16.5 .ll. 10:05 6 0 90 7.9 7 6.2 ~0.1 1.6 9§0 584 2. 13:25 8 0.02 100 9.0 6 6.6 <::0.1 15 16 18.6 B. 08:35 7 0 90 9.4 5 6.9 0.3 170 171 li. 10:17 7 0 90 9.3 6 6.6 1.0 18 360 304 SAMPLE IJJCATION l J. WJ Sample Not Taken .2. 10:25 7 0 90 8.8 6 6.9 0.1 320 178 l.Q. 16:20 8 0.02 100 9.3 8 6.4 0.4 7.0{E) 180 1900 20:15 5 0.25 100 8.5 5 6.3 16.0 12 1900 3300 lQ. 10:43 7 0 90 9.6 6 6.5 32 7.0 (E) 2200 1610 16:10 8 0.02 100 8.8 8 6.2 41 7.5 (E) 3800 2790 1. Cubic yards moved/day: warner: 900-1000 J Haskins: 700-900 Day4 WJ Sample Not Taken ll 10:32 7 0 90 9.0 7 6.4 13.5 7 .5 (E) 1700 600 l2.(A) 16:00 8 0.02 100 9.2 8 6.2 0.1 6 .. 5 1000 396 .6. WJ Sample Not Taken l2.{A) 09:06 6 0 90 8.0 7 6.2 <O.l 1.4 1100 508 ll 14:53 8 0.02 100 8.7 9 6 .. 4 0.4 950 564 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-8, D-9/10 hrs. ~ Haskins: dragline, D-8/9.5 hrs .. 3. Problems: Warner1? 944 and 988 loaders broken dcWI' .. The D-8 is p1shing pa.y dirt into the slick plate. 4. other Cooments: Warner: cleanup fran 0700-1000. Haskins total sluice hours for June = 31 hours (Day 1-4). Warners total sluice hours for June= 55 hours {Day 1-4). ........ ~¥· ,. ...... ~ • ..-.-.~~-... ·--· ---rl f ' DEC DEMJNSI'RATION PRQJECr FIELD DA.TA July 1, 1981 DayS I -SAMPLE lOCATION ' ' ' l 2. .l J. .5. .2. Time: 08:40 08:30 WJ 08:16 WJ WJ r ~ Air Temp, oc 8 8 Sample 8 Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 0 0 Not 0 Not Not Cloud Cover, % 80 80 Taken 80 Taken Taken I ; I F Dissolved Oxygen, rrg/1 11.6 11.2 11.9 Tanperature, oc 4 5 5 pH, ~I Units 6.4 6.5 6.4 f ·I Settleable Solids, ml/1 ~0.1 <0.1 16.5 I Flow, cfs 15(E) 18(E) 12{E) Turbidity, NIU 5.4 5 .. 8 2200 ''· T. Sus~nded Solids, m:Vl 12.8 11.8 1580 Olem. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 ' . I .a .2. l.Q. ll. ll(D) Time: 09:07 09:20 13:58 10:55 10:44 10:34 Air Temp, . °C 9 9 8 10 10 10 Precipitation, inches 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % 70 70 75 75 75 75 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 11.0 11.0 9.0 11.2 10.5 9.8 Temperature, °C 4 4 8 ,. 8 6 0 pH, pH Units 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.1 6.1 5.3 settleable Solids, n0/l 7.0 1.5 o.8 31 16.5 <.0 .1 Flow, cfs 7.0 (E) 7.5 (E) 1.3 Turbidity, NlU 2000 700 500 1900 3600 2600 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 2440 440 408 2870 3290 1600 Cllern. Oxygen Denand, mg/1 l.l li JJl. ll. l2.(C) J.l Time: 09:50 10:30 19:14 14:09 13:49 13:39 Air Temp, °C 10 9 6 8 8 9 Precipitation, inches 0 0 0.21 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % 75 75 100 60 60 60 Dissolved Oxygen, m;/1 10.3 10.8 11.0 10.4 10.5 9o9 Temperature, °C 6 5 6 8 7 8 pH, pH Units 6.0 6.8 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.3 Settleable SOlids, ml/ 1 <0.1 2.0 38 11.0 0.5 0.6 Flow, cfs 3.4 7 .. 0 (E) 7.5 (E) 6.5 Turbidity, mu 800 1000 2900 2100 1900 1400 T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 444 716 1170 870 1140 1010 ' Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 l..· Corrrnents: 1. Cubic yards rnoveQ/day: warner: 1450-1600; Haskins: 500-600. I, 2. Equi,tnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-8, 988/16 hrs.; Haskins: dragline, D-8/6.5 hrs. 3. Problems: Tronrrel broke down for 1 hour. 4. Other Comnents: .... July 2, 1981 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Tanperature, °C };fi, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, N1tJ T. Suspended Solids, rrg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Tanp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, I;ii Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flaw, cfs Turbidity, NlU T. Suspended Solids, mg,/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, Itg/1 Time: Air Temp, ot.:; Precipitation,, inches Cloud Cover, ~ Dissolved Oxygen, m;/1 Tenperature,-9 C pi, pH Units Settleable SOlids, ml/1 Flew, cfs Turbidity, N'1U • T. Suspended SOlids, ng/1 Olem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Corrrtents: DEC DEK>NSIRATION PROJECT FIEID MTA l 09:10 2 0.12 100 13.3 1 6.1 0.6 26 22 51 1 07:35 3 0.12 100 13.0 1 6.0 8.0 550 680 97 ll 09:55 2 0.12 100 12.4 2 6.5 0.4 650 200 110 2. 09:00 2 0.12 100 13.3 1 6.0 2.0 80 74 67 .a 15:15 1 0.22 100 11.7 0 6.0 0.2 650 805 65 .1! 10:10 2 0.12 100 13.0 2 6.0 2.5 340 270 92 SAMPLE ux;ATION 3. .4. WJ Sample Not Taken .2. Pmlp Pond Draining lO. TrOilliOOl Not ~rating 08:40 2 0.12 100 13.5 1 6.0 12.5 12(E) 2600 3070 270 l!l Trarmel Not Operating ll 15:30 1 0.22 100 10.6 2 5.6 2.0 13 160 530 89 1. CUbic yards moved/day: warner: 900-1125; Haskins: 150-200. Day 6 5. WJ Sample Not Taken ll 10:40 2 0.12 100 13.5 1 5.2 20 170 155 89 ll{D) 14:00 2 0.22 100 11.9 1 5.6 0.2 12 900 410 100 .2. W'J Sample Not Taken 12.( B} 10:17 2 0.12 100 12.3 2 5.6 0.2 600 285 85 ll Flooded out By Pump Pond 2. Equipnent used, hour1'3/day: Warner: 944 loader, D-8, D-9/9 hr.s1 Haskins: drag1ine., D-8/2 hrs. 3.. Problems: Tramel dc'J\m almost all day -problens with the recycle pump. 4. other Coornents: Flood conditions all over, flew impossible to measure at most sites. CDD sample taken for high flow. Haskins draining their pump p:lro. Discharge flocx1ing the 500 1 below sample site. WJ sample taken 200 1 below at sample site 13. Warner cleanup and carmencenent of moving the sluice box, pipes, etc. upstream. • f l ·! f i j j • I nEC DEK>NSl'R.l\TION PRClJECI' FIEID DA.TA Day7 July 3, 1981 SAMPLE LOCATION l 2. l J. Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % 08:10 1 0.01 100 08:20 0 0 .. 01 100 Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 12.6 12.5 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units 6.3 6.3 Settleable Solids, ml/1 ,0.1 <.0.1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU 10 6.0 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 4.0 5.6 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg,/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % ]_ 09:30 1 0.01 100 Dissolved cr~gen, rng/1 12.2 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units 6.5 Settleable Solids, rnJ/1 1.0 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU 65 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 640 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % ll 10:25 3 0.01 100 Dissolved Oxygen, ID:3/l 12.5 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units 5.4 Settleable SOlids, mJ/1 l..O.l Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU 60 T.·Suspended Solids, mg/1 40 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Conments: .a. 09:40 3 0.01 100 12.4 6.1 0.8 170 240 l.i 10:22 3 0.01 100 12.4 6.0 3.7 250 313 1. Cubic yards movedVday: Warner: 0; Haskins: 0 WJ Sample Not Taken ~ 10:36 3 0.01 100 11•5 6.1 1.0 160 180 lO. Trorranel Not Operating 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: N:> one sluiced today. 3. Problems: Not WJ Sluicing Sample Not Taken l.O. Trc:mtel Not Operating ll 15:13 10 0 100 11.2 5.5 20 13 ll 10:50 3 0.01 100 12.1 5.5 1.5 120 100 ll(B) 15:00 10 0 100 11.1 5.2 t..O.l 1.5 45 42 ~ WJ Sample Not Taken ll(C) 10:15 3 0.01 100 12.8 5.1 (0.1 50 26 ll 14:55 10 0 100 11.9 5.6 40.1 50 45 4. other O:>mments: Haskins draining their pump J:X>nd. Discharge flooding the 500' below sample site. WQ sample taken 2 jQ' below at sample site 13. · July 6, 1981 DEC DEM:>NSr.RATION PRQJECT FIEID DA.TA Day 8 SAMPLE UJCATION Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % ~ 20:30 6 0 40 Dissolved Oxygen, nq/1 12 .2 Temperature, °C 5 pH, pH Units 6.5 Settleable Solids, ml/1 J.. 0 .1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, N'lU 1' T. Susp!nded Solids, mg/1 7.8 Chern. Oxygen Demal'xl, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % 2 18:35 8 0 50 Dissolved Oxygen, ~1 9.2 Temperature, °C 6 pH, Pi Units 6.1 Settleable Solids, mJ/1 0 .1 Flow, cfs TUrbidity, NTU 100 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 95.0 Clem. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 Time~ Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C Iii, pH Units Settleable SOlids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, Nl'U T. Suspended Solids, Rk31'1 Chen. Oxygen DEmand, rrg,l+ Comnents: ll 16:52 9 0 50 11.7 8 5.8 1.0 2900 1160 2. Dry .8. 18:28 8 0 50 10.4 8 6.5 0.1 80 145 li 19:20 7 0 30 11.4 7 6.3 40.1 160 165 - .l J. WJ Sample ~t Taken i 19:13 8 0 30 10.6 8 6.4 {0.1 130 90.0 lQ. 18:58 7 0 30 11.8 7 6.2 50 550 160 Not WJ Sluicing Sample lO. 16:38 8 0 so 12 .. 2 8 5 .. 9 9.5 900 400 ll 19:05 7 0 30 11.1 7 6.0 2000 4720 Not Taken ll 16:31 8 0 so 11.8 8 5.6 14.0 3400 4140 l2.{C) 19:36 8 0 30 11.2 8 5.9 0.8 3400 1240 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 825-1025. 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: 0~ Haskins: drag1ine, D-8, 983/11 hrs. 3. Problems: .6.. WJ. Sample Not Taken l2.(B) 16:4S 8 0 so 11.8 7 5.9 0.5 2200 1690 ll 19:26 7 0 30 11.6 7 6.0 0.9 400 2470 4. Other Carments: Warner nearly finished with moving the sluice box, setting pipes and canpleting the water pond &mi. f - l ' DEC DEMJNSTRATION PRQJECI' FIEID DA.TA -.~LilY 7; 1981 SAMPLE I.DCATION Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover r % ~ 13:00 6 0.05 100 Dissolved o.x-ygen, mg/1 11 (lo Temperature, °C 5 pa, pH Units 6.6 settleable Solids, mJ/1 <. 0.1 Flow, cfs 19 TUrbidity, N'ID 2 .6 T. suspended Solids, mg/1 3 0)9 Chan. Oxygen Demand, rnr;Vl Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pi, pH Units ·ettleable Solids, ml/1 .&:'low, cfs Turbidity, NTU T. Susp:nded Solidsr ng/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Tenp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs 'I'urbidi ty, NlU T. Suspended SOlids, mg/1 Chem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Comments: ]_ WJ Sample Not Taken1 Warner Is Not Sluicing ll 10:20 8 0.05 100 10.5 7 5.9 < 0.1 1600 1050 2. Dry .a WJ Sample Not Taken, Warner Is Not Sluicing l.4. 10:44 8 0.05 100 11.0 6 6.1 1.5 600 405 J. .i WJ Sample Not Taken 3. 10:50 7 0.05 100 10.3 6 6.2 0.1 500 332 lQ. Tramne1 Not ~rating Not Sluicing lO. 14:20 7 0.05 100 12.0 6 6.4 14.0 5.7 2500 2830 ll Wj Sample Not Taken, Trornmel Not Operat1ng 1. Cubic yards moveQ/day: Warner: 0; Haskins~ 675-850. Day9 .5. Wj Sample Not Taken ll 14:30 7 o.os 100 11.4 7 6.2 25 3000 5770 l2,{B) ].4:40 7 0.05 75 11.6 7 5.8 0.5 2400 1610 .2. W,J Sample Not Taken l2.(D) 10:42 8 0.05 100 11.4 r: ..... 2000 ),090 ll 14:50 8 0.05 75 10.3 7 6.0 0.8 2200 940 . 2. Equipnent used, hourS/day: Haskins: Dragline, D-88, 988/9 hrs. ' -3.. Problems: Most of the joints in the pipe that feeds Warner's sluice burst. Water pond had to be drained to repair it. l . 4. other C.QITUlents: Warner probably will not be sluicing tmtil Thursday by the time ... hey repar the pipes. Flcrw into P..ask:lns pump pond essentially clean water. l i i i ! t· .: j \ 1 ··' DEC DEMJNS'mATION PRQJECl' FIEW Di\TA ' ' July 8, 1981 Day 10 ' SAMPUj IDCATIQN ~ 2. l .4. .5. ~ Time: 16:45 Dry ~ ~t WJ WJ Air 'rE!q;), ° C sample Sluicing Samplt~ Sample Precipitatioo, inches 0 .. 20 Not Not Not Cloud Cover, % 100 Taken Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, ng/1 ~rature, oc pi, pH Units Settleable SOlids, ml/1 ~0 .. 1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NI\J 4.6 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 9.1 2 .a s. JJL ll. J.2.(C) Time: WJ W'J 15:17 Trcmnel 1\Q 10:40 Air Temp, °C Sample Banple Not Sample Precipitation, inches Not Not Oe20 Oferating Not 0.09 Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 100 Taken 100 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 ~rature, °C };1i, };ii Uni.ts Settleabl~ Solids, ml/1 0.6 <-0.1 FlCN, cfs '1\u:bidi ty, NIU 450 :aoo T.' Suspended Solids, mg/1 190 930 l ) Olen. Oxygen Demand., rrg/1 13. a lO. ll. l2.(B) ll Time: 10:30 15:12 16:25 16:15 16:00 15:30 , Air Temp, °C ; ' Precipitatioo, inches 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Cloud COVer, % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Dissolved Oxygen, mg,/1 11.0 ~rature, °C I=Hr ~Units 5.5 Settleable Solids, ml/1 0.4 1.0 18.0 26 0.8 1.5 Flow, cfs -21 7.0 (E) 6.3 6 ~o (E) Turbidity, N.l'U l900 500 5200 8000 2200 1900 T. Suspended Solids, mg,/1 1070 265 928D 16500 1240 1380 Clem. Oxygen Demand, nq/1 Catments: ,. 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 01Haskins: 675-850. i ' Ek)uipnent used, hours/day: Haskins: Dragline, D-8, 988/9 hrs. 2. J ... Problems: 00 and PI meters malfunctioning; broke thennaneter$ Warner w/crushed t.- pipe, drained pone. 4. other Carments: Haskins cleaned up one sluice box this morning. ,, DEC DEMJNmRATION PROJEcr FIEID Dl\TA 1 July 9, 1981 Da:y 11 I 1 SAMPLE IDC'ATION ! l 2. .l i. 5. .2. Time: 19:36 Dry WJ Not WJ w:2 Air Temp, oc Sample Sluicing Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 0.02 NOt Not Not Cloud Cover, % 100 Taken Taken Taken Dis sol ve<l Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units 6.8 Settleable Solids, ml/1 <{0.1 Flow, cfs TUrbidity, N'lU 5.4 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 8.6 Chan. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 1 .a .9. lQ. ll l2.{D) Time: WJ WJ 10:44 11:00 10:25 10:35 Air Temp, oc Sample Sample Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 50 60 50 50 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, J:;ii Units 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.1 Settleable Solids, ml/1 0 .. 2 64 16.0 {0 .1 Flow, cfs 7 .0\E) 9.5 (E) f ~· Turbidity, NIU 45 8900 3800 2100 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 44.0 30700 5830 1290 Chern. OXygen Demand, rrg/1 ' ll l4. .lQ. ll ll(B} ll I -~·' Time: 10~48 10:39 15:27 15:19 15:07 14:35 Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches 0 0 0.02 0.02 0 .. 02 0.,02 t ·-· f Cloud Cover, % 50 50 100 100 100 100 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C I;f{, pH Units 6.2 6.4 5.9 6.1 6.0 6,4 Settleable Solids, ml/1 0.1 3.5 70 44 1.5 0.7 Flow, cfs 7 .O{E) 9.5 6>1'7 Turbidity, NIU 1700 140 10600 6200 2600 2500 T. Suspended Solids, rng/1 1210 179 25900 7790 1840 1660 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Comments: la Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 700-900. 2. Equipment used, hour$/day: Haskins: Dragline, D-8, 988/9.5 hrs. C .... 3. Problans: 4. Other Cat!Irents: Warner acquired the pipe needed from Dave Underwood. {_ .;.: \ \ - DEC DEMJNSTRATION PRQJECl' FIEID DA.TA July 10, 1981 ~IDeATION Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C ~ 15:10 0 100 };ii, pH Units 6.4 Settleable Solids, ml/1 <.0 .1 Flow, cfs 36 Turbidity, NTU 7.4 T. Sus~nded Solids, ma_./1 3 .2 Clem .. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved OXygen, rng/1 Temperature, °C 2 10:15 0 100 pH, pH units 6.4 Settleable Sol ids, ml/ 1 0 .1 Flow, cfs 35 Turbi~ity, NTU 30 To Sust-~nded Solids, mg/1 25 Clem. OX}"gen Demand, mg/1 - Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C ll 14:10 0 100 I1'Ir pH Units 6 .. 3 Settleable Solids, ml/1 0 .. 8 Flow, cf~ - TulJ~lidity, N'IU 2200 T. Suspended Solids, ng,/1 1830 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 •\< Ccmnents: 2. Dry .a 10:55 0 100 6.2 ~0.1 37 36 36 l! 14:33 0 100 6.5 <O.l 70 66 .l .i WJ Sample Not Taken .2. 14:28 0 100 -· 6.4 <0.1 flO 80 10. 18:49 0.1 100 61 7.0 (E) 10600 22000 Not Sluicing JJl 13:35 0 100 6.3 57 7.0 (E) 7500 15000 ll. 18:54 0.1 100 23 S .5 (E) 7500 7170 1. CUbic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 825-1050;; 2. P.quipnent t!sed, hours/day: Haskins: Dragline, D-8, 988/11 hrs. 3. Problems: pH meter broke in the afternoon. 4 • Other Corrrnents: Day 12 5. WJ Sample Not Taken ll. 13:28 Q 100 6.1 42 9.5 (E) 6600 14500 l.2.(B) 19:06 0_.1 100 1.0 ... ,oo· . .: ~ ~870 WJ Sample Not Taken l2.{C) 14:21 0 100 6.0 0.6 1900 1840 ll 19:01 0.1 100 1.0 3800 2660 l j I ~ DEC DEM>NSI'RATION PRQJEcr FIELD DA.TA July 11, 1981 Day 13 SAMPLE lOCATION l. 2. J. J. .5. .6. Time: 16:40 Dry WJ Not ~ WJ Air Temp, oc Sample Sluicing Sample Sample Precipitation,-inches 0.09 Not Not Not Cloud COver, % 100 Taken Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygenf mg/1 I, Temperature, °C J_:if, £if Units 6.8 Settleable Solids,. ml/1 ~0.1 Flaw, cfs 37(E) TUrbidity, Nru 3.4 T. Sust:ended Solids, mg/1 0.1 OJ.ern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 2 B. .2. lQ ll ll(D) Time: 10:53 12:51 14:24 10:32 10:53 10:36 Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches 0.09 0.09 Oo09 0.21 0.21 0.21 Cloud Cover, % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Tempeit'ature, °C pH, pH Units 6.4 6.6 6 .. 5 6.0 6.0 5.7 3ettleable Solide, ml/1 1.0 ~0.1 1.5 0.2 24 1.5 Flow, cfs 7.0 (E) 9.5 (E) Turbidity, NIU 5800 400 500 3100 5800 2600 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 7390 38 .. 0 158 4990 7390 990 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 ll li. l!t ll. ll{C) ll Time: 10~32 13~21 14:40 14:48 14:17 14:05 ld.r Temp~ °C Precipitation, inches 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Cloud Cover, % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 Temperature, °C J.:*I, pH Units 6.0 6.4 6.1 '1.9 5.8 6.0 Settleable Solids, inl/1 0.2 0.1 13.0 24 0.3 1.0 Flow, cfs 28 5.6 9.5 6.7 Turbidity, NTU 1900 110 1800 6700 3100 3400 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 870 44.0 1730 6320 2860 1990 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 { - Comments: 1. Cub.: .. c yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 825-1050. 2. Equipment used, hour~day: Haskins: Dragline, D-8, 988/11 hrs. ' \.,._, 3~ Problems: 4. other Comrrents: Haskins plan on moving upstream approximately 400' to a new mine cut within a tew days. l_,. ! DEC DEMJNSTRATION PROJECr FIEID Dt\TA July 12, 1981 Day 14 SAMPLE I.QC'ATION l 2. J. j_ .5. .6. Time~ 12:52 13:01 WJ 14:09 Vl.J W,) Air Temp, °C Sample Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 0 0 Not 0 Not Not Cloud Cover, % 50 50 Taken 50 Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 TemJ:."Erature, °C pH, pH Units 6.6 6 .. 5 6.1 Settleable SOlids, ml/1 <:..0.1 <O.l 8.5 Flow, cfs 34{E) 16 14 Turbidity, N'IU 14 7.4 2300 T. Suspended Solids, rng/1 20.8 2.2 1770 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ]_ .a .2. lO. ll l2.(B) Time: 10:03 10:00 10:37 10:47 10:42 10:32 PJ.ir Temp, °C Precipitation, inches 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % 75 75 75 75 75 75 Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units 6.5 6.4 6.5 5.7 5.6 5.7 Settleable Solids, ml/1 3.0 1.5 0.5 90 48 1.0 Flow, cfs 7 .0 (E) 9.5 (E) Turbidity, :mu 800 650 650 11800 1200 4600 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 900 410 250 1000 880 4380 Olem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ll li. lO. ll ll(D) ll Time: 10:26 10:21 16:15 16:09 15:40 14.:58 Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % 75 75 60 60 60 60 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units 6.0 6.5 5.7 6.1 5.8 5.8 Settleable Solids, ml/1 0.7 0.2 27 18.0 1.0 2.0 Flow, cfs 7.0 {E) 9.5 {E) 6.0 5.0 Turbidity, mu 3400 200 7200 3900 7500 5400 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 2600 120 15000 4200 9380 4560 Clem. Oxygen Danand, mg,/1 Comments: j 1. CUbic yards moveQ/day: Warner: 500-625; Haskins: 800-1000. l 2. Equipment used, hour~day: Haskins: D-8, drag1ine, 988/10.5 hrs; Warner: D-9r 988/5 hrs. 3. Problems: 4. Other Canments: Haskins plans on moving Monday. Flow at sample site 2 includes ~"--~ estimated flow from dam and pipe leaks (5.0 cfs). t .. ·. - DEC DFX>NSTRATION PROJEcr FIElD IY\TA July 18, 1981 SAMPLE I.DCATION Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, t-m:J T. SusJ;Ended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dfssol ved Oxygen, mg/ 1 Ten)I)erature, °C pH,· pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, mu T. Suspended Solids, rng/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/ 1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable SOlids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 Coourents: l. 13:26 18 0.03 90 10.6 10 6.4 <..0 .. 1 6.9\ 3.2 1.5 1 w:J Sample Not Taken ll 16:26 22 0.03 75 10.3 13 6.2. (0.1 2.0(E) 550 345 2. J. Dry WJ Sample Not ~ken Ji i w.2 No sample Recycle Not Water Taken ~4. 10. ~ Troti'ClOO 1 Sample Not Not Operating '1aJten -"'. 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 800-1000; Haskins: 0 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-8,988/8 hrs 3. Problems: .4. 14:23 20 0.03 90 10.8 10 6.2 s.s 13(E) 1600 2370 lQ. Tranmel Not Operating ll WJ Sample Not Taken Day 15 .5. ;~ V.Q \\Q Sample Sample Not Not Taken Taken ll ll(B) 15:07 16:10 20 21 0.03 0.03 90 90 10.1 10.4 13 12 6.{) 6 .. 1 (0.1 <.O .1 0.4 (E) 1.4 (E) 110 190 l2. ll WJ W;J Sample Sample Not Not Taken Taken 4. other COmrrents: Porcupine CreE;k flow reduced 75\'t from 7/12. Nearly 100 ft. of the settling J;X>nd influent end is filled in with sedi.m:!nt. Haskins new pump p::>nd not built yet, therefore no recycle water. f • ( . ,, ( . DEC DEfwDNS.mATION PRQJEcr FIELD DATA July 19, 1981 SAMPLE IDC.ATION l 2. 3.. Time: 10:00 Dry WJ Air Temp, °C 14 Sample Precipitation, inches 0 Not Cloud Cover, % 75 Taken Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 10.4 Temperature, °C 9 pH, pH Units 6.5 Settleable Solids, ml/1 <.0.1 Flow, cfs 8.0 (E) Turbidity, NTU 3.6 T. Sus:penoed Solids, mg/1 5.8 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 1 .a .9. Time: WJ WJ No Air Temp, °C Sample Sample Recycle Precipitation, inches Not Not Water Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cf.s Turbidi t:y, mu T. SUSl?ended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 ll li. lQ. Time: 13:51 rtJ Tremmel Air Temp)' °C 15 Sample Not Precipitation17 inches 0 ~t Operating Cloud Cover, % 75 Taken Dissolved Oxygen, ng/1 9.3 Temperaturt~, °C 13 pH, pH Units 6.3 Settleable SOlids, rnl/1 <.0.1 Flow, cfs 0.4 Turbidity, mu 3500 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 240 Chern. Oxygen. .Demand, mg/1 Corrments: 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 600-750; Haskins: 0 2.. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9,988/6 hrs J. Not Sluicing .10. Tranmel Not Operating ll WJ Sample Not Taken Day 16 .5.. .6.. WJ 15:17 Sample 15 Not 0 Taken 75 9.1 12 6 .. 1 < 0.1 <O.l(E} 200 215 ll l2.(C) 15:55 14:20 14 15 0 0 50 50 9.2 9.5 12 12 5.7 6.1 2.0 (0.1 1.3 0.8 160 320 1550 340 l2. ll WJ WJ Sample Sample Not Not Taken Taken 3. Problems: Warner: D-8,944 broken down. Not enough water to ~~luice more than 6 hrs. 4. Other Conments: Warner clean-up. Warner water pond cut in half to eliminate two major leaks~~ DEC DEftDNS['AATION PROJEcr FIEW MTA July 20, 19 81 Day 17 SAMPLE IDCATION ~ 2. .l .4. .5. .2. Time: 19:20 Dry ~ Not WJ 14:40 Air Temp, °C 11 Sample Sluicing Sample 18 Precipitation, inches 0 Not Not 0 Cloud Cover, % 75 Taken Taken 75 Dissolved Oxygen, rrg/1 10.8 9.5 Temperature, °C 10 11 pH, pH Units 6.7 6.2 Settleable Solids, ml/1 <0.1 40.1 Flow, cfs 7.1 0.5 TUrbidity, l-.1TU 4.4 200 T. Suspended Solids, rrg/1 5.5 480 Cllem. Oxygen Demand, m9/l 2 .a .9.. JJl ll l2.(D) Time: WJ WJ No Tramrel 13:37 14:25 Air Tanp, °C Sample Sample Recycle Not 18 18 Precipitation, inches Not Not Water Operating 0 0 Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 75 75 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 9.4 9.5 Temperature, °C 15 12 pH, pH Units 6.0 6.1 3ettleable Solids, rnl/1 "0 .1 < 0.1 Flow, cfs 1.3 {E) Turbidity, .Nru 60 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 405 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ll l.4. JJl ll. .l2. Time: 14:00 h"Q Trcmnel WJ w:2 Air Temp, °C 18 &mtple Not Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 0 Not Of;erating Not Not Cloud Cover, % 75 Taken Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 9.6 Temperature, °C 14 pH, pH Units 6.0 Settleable Solids, ml/1 <0.1 r"'low, cfs 0.4 Turbidity, NID 190 T. Suspended Solids, ~1 560 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Comments: 1. Cubic yards moveq/day: Warner: 100-125; Haskins~ 0 2. Equipment used, hours/day: Warner: D-9,988/1 hr. 3.. Problems: Not enough water to sluice more than 6 hrs. straight. 988 broke down. 4. Other camnents: Not taking WJ samples at sample sites 10, 11, 12, 13 twice/day since Haskins hasn't sluiced in 8 days. Warner stripping down on claim 5 below. 0.8 400 650 ll ~ Sample Not Taken DEC DEM>NSI'RATION PRQJECl' FIELD CATA July 21, 1981 SAMPLE LOCATION Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud cove~, % Dissolved Oxyg·en, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended S()lids, mg/1 Olen. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time; Air Temp, °C Precipi tati,:>n, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved <Ar;ygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Sol.i.ds, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, N1U T. Suspended SOlids, mg/1 Clem. Oxygen Demant1, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Urdts Settleable Solids, rnl/l Flow, cfs Turbidity, N'IU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Camnents: ~ 2. 18:30 Dry 14 0 90 10.4 9 6.4 (0.1 6.0 (E) 1.8 7.2 1. .a w:J w:l sample Sample Not Not Taken 'Taken ll li 13:54 w:.l 16 Sample 0 Not 60 Taken 10.0 13 6.0 0.6 0.3 (E) 850 1100 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner & Haskins: 0 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: l .4. WJ Not sample Sluicing Not Taken .9. lO. No Tranmel Recycle Not Water Op:!rating l.O. ll Tronmel WJ Not Sample Operating Not Taken Day 18 .5. W'J Sample Not Taken .ll 16:05 18 0 60 9.7 14 6.2 <0 .. 1 1$0 (E) 100 590 12. WJ Sample Not Taken 3 • Problans: Warner does not have equipnent available. They have all broken down .. 4. Other Corrments: WJ sample for 200 • bel~ contaminated •r~i th test hole washings. ' •. ,,_ --~·-----.. ____,..._._:; ~ W'J Sample Not Taken l2.{C) 14:10 18 0 60 10.4 12 6.2 (0 .. 1 0.5 (E) 500 420 ll ~ Sample Not Taken DEC DEM:>NSTRATION PR<lJ~cr FIEID MTA JUlY 22, 1981 Day 19 SAMPLE LOCATIOB ~ 2. ~ .4. 5. ~ I I Time: 12:50 Dry WJ 14:01 WJ 16:00 : Air Temp, oc 18 Sample 18 sample 17 Precipitation, inches 0 Not 0 Not 0.,01 J Cloud Cover, % 50 Taken 75 Taken 100 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 10.6 11 .. 4 9.8 Temperature, 0 e 9 12 13 I pH, pH Units 6 .. 5 6 .. 4 6.4 Settleable Solids, ml/1 <.0.1 24 0.1 Flow, cfs 4.9 12 - Turbidity, NIU 7 .. 0 1500 550 T. suspended Solids, mg/1 16 3300 530 Chan. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 1 .a Q .-!. lQ. ll l2.{B) Time: WJ WJ No Trorranel 15:00 15:45 Air Temp, °C Bample sample Recycle Not 18 17 Precipitation, inches Not Not Water O{:erating 0.01 0.01 Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 100 100 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 9.5 10.4 Temperature, °C 12 14 pH, Iii Units 5.9 6.1 ·ettleable Solids, ml/1 7.5 0.2 t'low, cfs 18{E) 15(E) Turbidity, NIU 900 600 T. suspended Solids, mg/1 1390 640 Chern. Oxygen Demand~ ng/1 ll l! lQ. ll l2. ll Time: 16:20 ~ Trornmel WJ w.:l W'J Air Temp, oc 17 Sample Not Sample Sample sample Precipitation, inches 0.01 Not Operating Not Not Not Cloud Cover, % 100 Taken Taken Taken Taken Dissolved O~gen, rng/1 10.3 Temperature, °C 14 pH, pH UnitS 6;,2 Settleable Solids, ml/1 1.0 Flow, cfs 15(E) Turbidity, N'ID 350 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 960 Che11. Oxygen Demandy mg/1 .,. COmments: 1. Cubic yards moveq/day: Warner: 300-375; Haskins:O. 2. Equipnent used, h<..,urs/day: Warner: D-9 ,988/J hrs. 3. Problems: Haskins has trouble holding water in their new pUlllp pond due to tailings. J?robably delay sluicing for a few days more. Warner cannot sluict.~ more than 5 hour~ due to low water. -4 Other canments: • DEC DEmNS"mATION PROJECt' FIEID ~TA July 23, 1981 Day 20 ~· .t)JCATION l 2. ~ ! .5_ .6. Time: 13·~05 Dry WJ 12~45 WJ 15:25 Air Temp, °C 12 Sample 12 Sample 11 Precipitation, inches 1.5 !i:>t 1.5 Not 1.5 Cloud Cover, % 100 Taken 100 Taken 100 Dissolved Oxygen 1 mg/1 11.8 9.8 10.7 Temperature, °C 10 10 12 pH, fH Units 6.9 6.4 6.2 Settleable Solids, m]/1 -'0.1 26.0 0.2 Flow, cfs 8.5 (E) lO.O(E) <.O.l(E) Turbidity, N.ru 20 3100 600 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chern. OXygen Dei;!land, m:J,./1 29.0 5350 760 2 .a i l.Q. ll J.2.(B) Time: W.l WJ No Tramnel 15:50 15:23 Air Temo °C -, Sample Sample Recycle Not 11 11 Precipitation, inches Not Not Water Operating 1.5 1.5 Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 100 100 Dissolved OXygen, mg/1 10.8 ll.l Temperature, °C 10 11 pH, pH Units 6.2 6.0 Settleable Solids, ml/1 0.3 <. 0.1 Flow, cfs 2. 0 {E) 2.7 Turbidity, Nru 800 600 ~ T. SUSJ,:ended Solids, mg/1 480 880 .I Chern. OXygen Demand, mg/1 ll li lO. ll l2. ll Time: 14:00 ~ Trommel w:l WJ vJJ Air Temp, °C 11 Sample Not Sample Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 1.5 Not Operating Not Not Not Cloud Cover, % 100 Taken Taken Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 10.6 Temperature, °C 11 pH, pH Units 6.3 ' Settleable Solids, ml/1 !0.1 j Flow, cfs 2.3 i ~ Turbidity, NlU 500 T. Suspended Solids, rng/1 550 Chern·. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Con'ments: 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 300-375. Haskins: 0. 2. Equipnent used, hours/ day: Warner: D-9, 944/5 hrs. 3. Problems: 4. Other COmments: Creek water level on the rise. This should increase sluice hours. July 24, 1981 Time: Air Tenp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % oisso1 ved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pi, ~ Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs TUrbidity, Nlt1 T. Suspended Solids, m:y'l Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, mu T .. Suspended Solids, rng/1 Chern. Oxygen Danand, ng/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pfl, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, N'IU T. Suspended Solids, nq/1 Chan. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Ccm'oonts: DEC D~TION PRQJECI' FIELD MTA l 10:36 23 0 30 11.2 9 6.6 40.1 22.0 50 95.5 2 w;J Sample Not Taken ll 15:01 23 0 50 10.8 13 6.5 0~4 lO(E) 850 630 2. 10:25 23 0 30 11.1 10 6.3 <0.1 13.0 18 10.0 .a ~ Sample Not Taken li 12:35 25 0 40 10.4 12 7 .. 0 0.4 12(E) 320 300 SAMPLE lOCATION ·3. .4. WJ Sample Not Taken S!. 12:48 25 0 40 10.8 14 6 .. 7 < 0.1 550 255 ln. Trommel Not Operating 09:50 23 0 30 11.2 9 6.5 11.0 9.1 1500 4450 ln. 13:00 25 0 40 11.0 10 6.0 85 7.6 7700 14700 ll WJ Sample Not Taken 1. CUbic yards moved/day: Warner: 500-625; Haskins: 500-600. Day 21 .5. WJ Sample Not Taken ll 13:40 24 0 50 10.3 12 6.1 13.0 12 2300 1930 ll WJ Sample Not Taken \c') Sample Not Taken ll(B) 14:30 23 0 50 10.8 12 6.3 0.4 12 2100 1250 ll WJ Sample Not Taken 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-8, 988/5 nrs; Haskins: dragline, D-8/6.5 hrs. 3 • Problet'lS: 4. Other Camnents: Haskins sluicing for the first time since Day 14. • DEC DEMJNS".LRATION PROJECr FIEID DM'A July 25, 1981 Day 22 SAMPLE LOCATION ~ .2. .l .4. 5. .6. Time: 16:01 16:11 WJ 16:18 w.J 14:17 Air Temp, °C 17 17 sample 17 Sample 20 Precipitation, inches 0 0 &:>t 0 Not 0 Cloud Cover, % 75 75 Taken 75 Taken 75 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 11.9 11.6 13.3 10.5 Tanperature, oc 10 10 10 12 pi, pH Units Settleable Solids, rnl/1 <.0.1 <.O.l 29 1.0 Flow, cfs 17 (E) 2.5 (E) 9.0(E) <.O.l(E) Turbidity, Nru 110 40 7200 1900 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 125 44.0 10700 1850 Chern. .. Oxygen De!rra"'ld, mg/1 1 .a .9. l.O.. ll l2.(D) Time: WJ ~ 12:55 13:01 13:40 14:39 Air Temp, °C Sample Sample 20 20 20 20 Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 75 75 75 75 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 9.9 12.3 11.6 10.6 'Ienperature, oc 12 11 12 10 pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 0.5 100 10.0 1.5 Flow, cfs 6.8 12 7.9 Turbidity, NltJ 600 11800 3300 1500 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 490 41400 3360 1930 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rrg/1 ll u. 1.0. ll l2. ll Time: 15:15 12:45 Trorranel WJ W'J WJ Air Temp, °C 20 20 Not Sample Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 0 0 Operating Not Not Not Cloud Cover, % 75 75 Taken Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 11.2 11.9 Temperature, °C 13 12 til, pH !.!nits Settleable Solids, ml/1 0.3 3.5 Flow, cfs 5.7 12(E) Turbidity, NTU 1600 550 T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 1570 335 1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 . Canments: ~ 1. CUbic yards moveq(day: Warner: 1500-1875; Haskins: 675-850. 2. Equipnen.t used, hourS/day: Warner: D-8, 988/15 hrs.; Haskins: Dragline, D-8, 988/9 hrs. 3. Problems: 4. other Catanents: Trammel broke down in the afternoon so no second samples were taken. DEC DE.PrDNS'J.'RATION PROJECT FIET.D MTA JulY 26, 1981 Day 23 ~.ux;ATION l 2. l .i .5. .2. Time: 13:30 Dry Wj Not 13:15 WJ ,rJ.r '1\:!nP, o c 15 Sam:ole Sluicing 15 Sample Precipitation, inches 0 Not 0 Not Cloud cover, % 30 Taken 60 Taken oissol ved Oxygen, mg/1 11.3 11.8 Tanperature, oc 12 13 p1, Iii Units . o.a settleable So1~ds, ml/1 (. 0.1 Flow, cfs 8.5 (E) 3.0 (E) rurbidi ty, N'1U 1200 20 T. suspended SolidsH rrg/1 910 53.0 Qlem. OXygen Demand, mg/1 49 10 1 .a 3. ~ ll l2.(B) Time: WJ WJ 10:34 10:42 10:48 10:22 Air •remp, oc Sample Sample 17 17 17 16 Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % Taken 'Taken 30 30 30 30 Dis:5o1 ved Oxygen, mg/ 1 9.2 11.7 11.1 11.2 Temperature, ()c 12 12 12 12 pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 0 .. 1 83 9.0 ~0.1 Flow, cfs 7.0 (E) 10.0 (E) 4.0{E) Turbidity, mu 650 5800 16U0 2800 T. Suspended SOlids, mg/1 660 4630 2770 670 01em.. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 26 620 180 58 ll l:1 J.D. ll ll(C) ll Time: 10:11 10:29 14:05 14:48 15:13 15:45 Air Temp, °C 15 17 16 16 15 15 Precipitation, inches 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover r ~s 30 30 60 60 60 60 Dissolved Q<-..(}'gen, mg,/1 10.8 10.9 11.1 10.8 12.2 11.5 Tenperature, °C 12 13 13 12 13 14 I=Hr pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 l_O.l 1.5 3.0 10.0 0.4 0 .. 5 Flcrt¥, cfs 4.0(E) 7.0 (E) 6.6 10 12 6.7 '1\lrbidity, NID 1900 75 400 2800 3000 1400 T. Sus~nded Solids, ng/1 790 114 620 3900 1470 1290 Clem. Ox-ygen Demand, mg/1. 56 15 Corrments: 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Ha.r;kins: 675-850; Warner:O. 2. F.quipnent used, hour.t"/dc.-y: Ha~*ins: drag1ins, D-8, 988/9 hrs. 3. P.r.ob1ans: Warner: 988 brcke down again. 4. Other Ccmnents: <DD sample taken at nooerate flow level. Warner cleanup. DEC DEM)NSI'RATION PRQJECI' FIEID Ill\TA July 27, 1981 Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % ~ 13:23 21 0 75 Dissolved OXygen, mg/1 11.3 Temperature, °C 12 J;fl, pH Units Settleable Solids, mJ/1 0 .5 Flow, cfs 8.9 Turbidity, NID 900 T. Suspended So1idst rna_/1 620 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mq/1 Temperature, °C pH, :til Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flaw, cfs Turbidity, mu T. Suspended SOlids, mg/1 Olem. Oxygen Demand, mg/l Time: Air Te:np, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen; mg/1 Temperature, · °C pi, pH Units Settleable SOlids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg,/1 Conrnents: 2 WJ Sample Not Taken ll 10:37 18 0 75 10.5 18 (0.,1 2.5(E) 650 220 2. 14:09 20 0 75 10.7 12 (0.1 1.0 (E) 70 50.0 .a W2 sample Not Taken l! 10:52 18 0 75 10.7 14 0.6 1.5(E) 650 310 SAMPLE LOCATION 3.. .4. WJ Sample Not Taken ~ 10:55 18 0 75 9.7 13 {0.1 650 410 .lO. 15:34 17 0 75 11.8 13 18.0 7.7 3000 1390 14:00 20 0 75 11.8 11 16.5 ll.O(E) 2600 5090 JJl 11:02 18 p 75 11.3 12 51 7 .O(E) 5600 11200 ll 14:40 17 0 75 11.3 13 6.5 9.5 2000 1540 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 1500-1875; Haskins: 675-85.0. Day 24 .5. WJ Sample Not Taken ll 11:09 18 0 75 10.8 13 16 lO(E) 3100 4690 ll(B) 16:48 18 0 75 11.7 14 0.4 7.9 1900 1110 .6. 15:57 18 0 75 10.7 13 0 .. 8 <. 0.1 (E) 1600 1400 ll_(D) 10:45 18 0 75 9.7 11 ( 0.1 3 .S(E) 500 190 ll 16:06 18 0 75 11.3 14 0.2 9.7 1500 1150 2. Equi~nt used, hours/day: Warner: D---8, 988/15 hrs; Haskins: dragline,I>-8, 9t!8/9 brs. 3. Prob1ans: 4. other Carments: Both operations running smoothly. .• I f • . DEC DFJt'DNSTRATION PRQJECT I ! FIEID Df\TA I . July 28, 1981 I Day 25 . SAMPLE IDCATION ~ 2. 3. .4. 5.. 2. Time: 13:17 Dry WJ Warner WJ 15:35 Air Temp, oc 20 Sample Not Sample 18 Precipitation, inches 0 Not Sluicing Not 0 Cloud Cover, % 75 Taken Taken 75 Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 12.3 10.5 Temperature, oc 12 13 pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, rnJ/1 0.6 t. 0.1 Flow, cfs 7.5 (E) <.O.l(E) Turbidity, NW 650 l400 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Olem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 860 670 ]_ .a .2. JJL ll ll(C) Time: WJ WJ 10:49 Tratmel 10:55 10:36 Air Temp, oc Sample Sample 22 r.bt 21 22 Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 O};erating 0 0 Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 40 40 40 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 9.4 11 .. 6 12.4 Temperature, °C 12 12 12 pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, rnl/ 1 40.1 0.9 ~0.1 Flow, cfs 2.8 (E) 2.2 (E) Turbidity, NlU 700 550 700 T. Sus:pended Solids, mg/1 390 650 290 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 ll li 10.. ll ll(B) ll Time: 10:26 10:44 Trormnel 15:41 15:30 14:25 Air Temp, °C 19 22 Not 19 18 18 Precipitation, inches 0 0 Operatir19 0 0 0 Cloud Cover! % 40 40 75 75 75 Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 11.3 12.1 10.9 11.1 11.7 Tem_perature, °C 13 11 12 13 13 pHI! pH Units Settleable SOlids, ml/1 t.O.l 1.5 0.3 <.0.1 <0.1 Flow, cfs 2.3 1.8(E} 2.8 2.2 2.1 Turbidity, N1U 950 1000 550 800 800 T~ susp:nded Solids, m]/1 410 1410 290 10400 390 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 Conments: 1. CUbic yards moved/day: Warner: 500-625; Haskins: 0 2. F.quipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-8,988/5 hrs. 3. Problens: Trorrrne1 down all day. 4. Other camrents: warner clean-up in the afternoon. Night shift moving the sluice box 150' toward the dam. Sluicing set for 'nlurs 7/30: ~ve down on claim 5 belCM by 8/5/81. DEC DEM:>NSIRATION PROJECI' FIEID I.lf\TA ,July .29, 1981 Day 26 SAMPLE lOCATION l. 2. .l !. 5. .6. Time: 14:20 14:31 WJ Not w:l WJ Air Tern;_:.:, °C 12 10 Sample Sluicing Sample Sample Precipitation.~ inches 1 1 Not Not Not Cloud Cover, % 100 100 Taken Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, ng/1 11 .. 3 10.4 Temperature, °C 10 10 pi, pH Units Settleab1~ Solids, ml/1 0.4 (. 0.1 Flow, cfs 4.9 6.0 Turbidity, N1tJ 500 360 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 340 1030 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ll l2.(D) 2 .a. ~ lO. Time.: WJ WJ 12:51 Tremmel 13:05 13:40 Air Temp, °C sample Sample 14 ~t 14 14 Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 Operating 0 0 Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 50 60 60 . Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 11.3 12.2 10.0 Temperature, °C 12 12 11 pH,· pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 ~0 .. 1 (0.1 '0.1 Flow, cfs 2.8 2.2 Turbidity, Nru 550 280 650 T. Suspended Solids, rng,/1 250 197 180 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rrg/1 ll li. JJl ll ll(C) ll Time: 14:00 12:45 16:00 16:25 16:33 16:41 Air Temp, °C 12 14 11 12 12 12 Precipitation, inches 1 0 1 1 1 1 Cloud Cover, % 100 50 100 100 75 75 Disso1 ved Oxygen, rng/1 10.5 10.6 11.3 10.8 11.5 11 .. 2 Temperature, °C 12 13 12 11 12 12 Pit pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 40.1 2.5 72 9.0 <:.0.1 0.1 Flow, cfs 2.1 8.0 {E) 7.4 10.0 (E) 7.5 (E) 8.6 Turbidity, N.ru 500 190 7200 1800 700 800. T. SusJ;ended Solids, rng/1 220 237 13300 2490 340 340 Chem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Comments: 1. CUbic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 375-470. 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Haskins: dragline, D-8, 988/5 hrs. 3. Problens: Haskins has sane welding to do on the trorrmel; repair leaks in pipe. 4. Other Contnents: Warne~ still in the process of tooving. I DEC DEM>Ns.mATION PROJECI' FIEID DA.TA July 29, 1981 Day 26 SAMPLE IDCATION l. 2. .l J. 5. .6. Time: 14:20 14:31 WJ Not w:! WJ Air Temp, °C 12 10 Sample Sluicing Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 1 1 Not Not Not Cloud Cover, % 100 100 Taken Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, m;/1 11.3 10.4 Temperature, °C 10 10 p:I, pH Units settleable Solids, ml/1 0.4 ~0.1 Flow, cfs 4.9 6.0 Turbidity, NlU 500 360 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 340 1030 Chen. Oxygen Demand, m9/l : 2 .a ~ JJl ll ll(D) I Time: WJ V(2 12:51 Tranmel 13:05 13:40 Air Temp, oc sample Sample 14 '&>t 14 14 Precipitation;o inches Not Not 0 Operating 0 0 Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 50 60 60 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 11.3 12.2 10 .. 0 Temperature, °C 12 12 11 pH, pH units Settleable Solids, ml/1 ~0.1 {0.1 <.. 0.1 Flow, cfs 2.8 2.2 Turbidity, Nru 550 280 650 T. Suspended Solids, mg,/1 250 197 180 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ll Jj_ lQ. ll. l2.(C) ll Time: 14:00 12:45 16:00 16:25 16:33 16:41 Air Temp, °C 12 14 11 12 12 12 Precipitation, inches 1 0 1 1 1 1 Cloud Cover, % 100 50 100 lOO 75 75 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 10.5 10.6 11.3 10.8 11.5 11.2 Tenperature, °C 12 13 12 11 12 12 til, pH Units Settleable Solids, m.l/1 t.O.l 2.5 72 9.0 .(.0.1 0.1 Flow, cfs 2.1 8.0 {E) 7.4 lO.O(E) 7.5 (E) 8.6 Turbidity, NTU 500 190 7200 1800 700 800. T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 220 237 13300 2490 340 340 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Comments: 1. CUbic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 375-470 .. 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Haskins~ drag line, D-8, 988/5 hrs. 3. Problans: Haskins has sane welding to do on the tronmel; repair leaks in pi~. 4. Other Conments: Warner still in the process of 100ving. tJ (J t:. 1'1 July 30, 1981 'time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 Temperature, °C fii, pH Units Settleable Solids, rna;1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, mtJ T. suspended Solids, mg/1 Chan. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dis~olved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, :til Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, rrg/1 Temperature, °C pi, pH Units Settleable Solids, rnl/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 Cbem. Oxygen Denand, m;/1 Corrments: DEC DEMJNSTRATION PRQJECI' FIEID MTA l 12:49 10 0.6 100 12.6 10 ~0.1 4.9 75 151 2 ~ Sample Not Taken ll 10:40 11 0 100 12.0 10 <.0.1 2.0 (E) 450 230 2. 12:59 10 0.6 100 11.0 10 ~0.1 1.5 80 58.0 .a WJ sample Not Taken l.4. 10:10 11 0 100 11.7 10 0.2 5.0 {E) 95 900 WJ Sample Not Taken ~ 10:15 11 0 100 10.4 10 <.0.1 500 210 lO.. 16:40 13 0 50 12.2 12 48 7.5 {E) 6200 8460 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 525-650. 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Haskins: dragline, 988/7 hrs. 3. Problems: Not Sluicing l.Q. 11:00 11 0 100 12.6 10 43 7.5 (E) 7500 17800 ll. 16:03 15 0.6 50 12.1 12 7.5 9.8 800 5330 Day 27 5. 12:42 10 0 100 12.8 9 .(0 .1 1.0 (E) 6.8 8.8 ll 10:47 1.1 0 100 11.4 10 9,,5 lO(E) 2600 1830 ll(B) 14:54 13 0.6 75 12.6 11 1.5 3.5 2100 640 4. other Canments: Warner waiting for their new sluice box to be completed. ~ ~ Sample Not Taken l2.(D) 10:24 11 0 100 10.9 10 <0.1 2.2 850 520 ll 13:55 12 0.6 75 12.4 ll 1.5 4.4 850 380 DEC DEM>NSTRATION PRQJECT FIEID Dl\TA July 31, 1981 Day 28 SAMPLE U?CATION ~ 2. J. ! 5. .2. Time: 15:50 16:00 WJ Warner w:J 15:12 Air Temp, °C 13 12 Sample Not Sample i3 ~ Precipitation, inches 0 0 Not Sluicing Not 0 f Cloud Cover, % 100 100 Taken Taken 75 t ~ Dissolved Oxygen, ng/1 12.2 10.5 10.8 I Temperature, °C 10 10 11 f :ffl, pH Units t .:-j Settleable Solids, rnl/1 1.5 ~0.1 0.5 t Flow, cfs 4.2 (E) 4.0{E) <.0.1(E) TUrbidity, Nl.l1 1300 500 1200 i ~ T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 961 283 1230 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 l 2 .a. ~ .JJl. ll J.2.(C} Time: ~ J!JJ 12:41 12:35 13:20 15:07 Air Temp, °C Sample Saitple 14 14 14 13 Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % Taken 'l'aken 75 75 75 75 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 10.4 11.3 11.0 11.6 Temperature, °C 11 11 12 11 pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 (0.1 61 7 .s 0.1 Flow, cfs 7.6 10 3.0 Turbidity, NlU 110 10800 1400 45 T. Sm;pended SOlids1 mg/1 70 32800 1720 620 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ll 1.4. 1.0. ll .J.2.(B} ll Time: 14:15 12:46 18:41 18:50 19:04 19:15 Air Tenp, °C 13 14 13 13 12 12 Precipitation, inches 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % 75 75 100 100 100 100 Disso1 ved <YJCYgen, :{~'-..:·J. 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.1 10.9 11.2 . ., ;• 11 Temperaturr~, °C · 11 11 10 12 11 ];H, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 (0.1 0.6 47 5.0 0.2 0.1 Flow, cfs 3.3 2.0 (E) i .5 (E) lO(E) 5.6(E) 4.9 TUrbidity, N'1'U 1200 130 10800 110 1100 1200 T. S~nded Solids, mg/1 680 134 269~0 2220 670 750 Olem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Carrnents: 1. CUbic yards moved/day: Warner: 0~ Haskins: 600-750. · 2e Equipnent used, hours/day: Haskins: dragline, 988/8 hrs. 3. Problems: All of Haskins' cats are broken down. 4. Other Comments: Warner still working on the new sluice box -sluicing possible by 8/2. Haskins total sluice hours for July: 149.5 hrs. (Days 5-28) • Warner total sluice hours for July: 83 hrs. (Days 5-28) .. August 1, 1981 Time: r1 Air Temp, °C ~, Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % n ~, i Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 !!>i Temperature, °C pH, pH Units 11.. Settleable Solids, ml/1 l" Flow, cfs .J Turbidity, ~"''U ~~ T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 I! Olan. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ~.! Time: r;,., Air Temp, ° C U Precipitation, Cloud Cover, % inches F~ i · Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 l; Temperature, °C pH, pH Units t~ ...• ;··~. ~ettleable Solids, rn]/1 ~ elow;. cfs Turbidity, NIU T. Suspended Solids, rng/1 r[·i Chern. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 -f Time: r;•. Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches u Cloud Cover, % t1.· Dissolved Oxygen, mg,/1 •: Temperature, °C pH, pH Units ·-· Settleable Solids, ml/1 ( Flow, cfs Turbidity, mu .,, T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 ~, Chan. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ~ Comrrents: DEC DFIDNSl'RATION PROJECl' FIEID ~TA l 14:26 13 0 100 13.4 10 0.9 6.9 800 870 2 W'J sample Not Taken ll 12:44 14 0 100 12.3 12 (0.1 1.5 600 750 2. 15:00 14 0 100 12.8 11 1.'.0.1 4.0(E) 500 1310 .a WJ Sample Not Taken li. 14:14 13 0 100 12.9 12 1.2 6.0 400 610 15:40 14 0 100 13.6 9 t. 0 .l 3.0 (E) 3.0 19 .2. 14:08 13 0 100 11.3 11 (. 0.1 170 1990 10. Trorranel Not Operating ~., 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 0 ~· 2. Equipment used, hours/day: = 3. Problems: Warner~ A gear broke in Haskins dr.agline. Warner Not Sluicing l.Q. Tranmel Not Operating ll 20:52 13 0.50 100 10.6 1~ <.O .1 2.4 (E) 90 448 Day 29 5.. i5:10 14 0 100 13.5 12 ~0.1 1.0 (E) 14 14 ll. 13:40 14 0 100 12.5 11 0.3 2.4 160 545 ll(C) 20:58 13 0.50 100 11.3 12 ~0.1 1.7 650 1070 21:03 13 0.5 100 10.3 12 ~0.1 <.O.l(E) 450 920 .l2. (D) 13:30 14 0 100 12.0 10 <. 0.1 1.7 550 370 ll 21:09 13 0.50 100 10.6 11 ~0.1 1.4(E) 700 990 4. Oti1er Cotrrnents: Warner: new sluice box should be canpleted by tanorrCM. Warner will ',:~ pr~bably not move down to claim 5 below-will stay near camp. Took late night WJ sample ~ ~Day 29, 30 and 31 for different pond characteristics at sample sites 11, 12 and 13. [ [ [ l l August 2, 1981 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxy~en, mg/1 Tenperature, C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, m.l/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Tenperature, °C pH, pH tJnits Settleable Solids, ml/ 1 ~,low, cfs Turbidity, NllJ T. SUspFAlded SOlids, mg/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, rrg/1 Ti1t1e: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Clot..td O:>ver: ,. % Dissolved Oxygen, m:J/1 Tenper~'ture, °C fti, Iii Units Settlea!Jle Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T. Suspended Solids, m:Vl Chern. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 Colr.Tents: DEC DEMJNSmATION PROJECT FIEID MTA l 15:20 12 0.1 100 11.4 9 1.5 7 .2(E} 600 1060 1 WJ 5anple Not Taken ll 13:30 10 0~1 100 1l.4 11 40.1 1.5 160 490 .2. 14:34 12 0.1 100 10.3 10 ~0.1 3 .. 1 65 292 .a WJ Sample Not Taken l.4. 12:23. 12 0 .. 1 100 11.2 11 "'~0 .1 3.9 60 356 SAMPLE LOCATION .l .4. W,J Sample Not Taken ~ 12:28 12 0.1 100 10 .. 5 12 .(0.1 130 490 Warner Not Sluicing lO. Tratmel Not OJ;:erating lO. ll 'l'rOI\'Ilel 22:49 Not 4 C)J;et:ating 0 0 10.2 9 < 0.1 2 .,4 (E) 80 200 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 0 2. Equi~..nt used, hourS/day: Day 30 5. WJ Sample Not Taken ll 13:06 12 0.1 100 11.1 10 <0.1 2.4 (E) 65 75.0 l2.(D) 23:00 4 0 0 10 .. 1 10 <0.1 1.7 280 345 .6. 13:16 11 0.1 100 10.8 10 ~ 0.1 4( 0.1 180 630 ll(B) 13:20 11 0.1 100 11.1 10 <: 0.1 1.7 280 355 ll 22:55 4 0 0 10.4 9 <0.1 1.5 190 840 3. .Problems: Haskins: putting new gear in dragline. Warner: still waiting for their new sluice box to be completed. 4. Other Ccmnents: Took late night WJ samples on Days 29, 30 and 31 for different pond characteristics at ~e sites 11, 12 and 13. j '1 L, ( 1 ,) r [ r DEC DEIDNSTRATION PRQJECJ.1 FIELD IY\TA August 3, 1981 SM~ IDl;ATION Time: Air 'l'emp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, my'l Temperature, oc pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, n:J/1 Flow, cfs TUrbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 Chan. Oxygen Denand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, oc pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ma/1 b .. low, cf:s Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, ~1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Comments: l 2. 14:05 13:45 12 12 0 0 10 10 11.6 10.€ 8 8 1.0 40.1 8.1 3.8 (E) 650 160 1100 336 ]_ .a WJ WJ Sample Sample Not Not Taken Taken ll li. 12:30 13:00 11 11 0 0 20 20 11.2 11.4 11 11 40.1 0.8 1.5 5.8 (E) 120 70 355 104 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Basins: 0 2. Equi~nt used, hours/day: J. .4.. WJ Not SC1.mple Sluicing Not Taken .2. .. !"\ .JJ.L 13:20 Trooa--ne1 11 Not 0 Operating 20 11.5 10 (.0.1 100 96.0 lO. ll Tronmel 22:00 Not 7 Operating 0 0 10~9 8 ~ 0.1 2.4(E} 70 72 Day 31 5. .6.. WJ 12:51 ~ ..... 1 11 o~e ""'ot · 0 (,~ Taken 20 11))1 10 4G .~1 <0.1 140 450 ll ll(C} 13:21 12:39 11 11 0 0 20 20 11.2 12.1 9 9 < 0.1 <0.1 2~4(E) 1.7 50 360 54 404 ll(B) ll 22:10. 22:18 7 7 0 0 0 0 11.6 11.7 9 9 ~0.1 L.O .1 1~7 1.5 100 120 430 430 3. Problems: Haskins: still fixing dragline. Should be sluicing by 8/4 afternoon. 4. Other Comnents: Warner: stripping with the D-9/18 hrs/day on cla:iln 5 below. Might be sluicing by 8/4 afternoon,. Took late night WJ samples at sites 11, 12 and 13. [~ ~ ... ' ... ! f ') llj [ r [ [ AUgust 4, 1981 Time: Air Tenp, °C Precipi tatial, inches Cloud Cover, % Disool ved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pi, ~Units Set~leable Solids, m.l/1 FlO"SJr cfs TUrl?irlity, mu T. SU$pended Solids, mg/1 Olen. Oxygen Demanc.l, nq/1 iJ.~: Ait Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, rag/1 Tenperature, °C pi, Iii Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, Nru T. Sus~ded SOlids, 11¥}1'1 Chern. Oxygen Deland, n.)/1 Time: Air Tertp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud ~er, % Dissolved OXygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C tfl, Iii Units Settleable SOlids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, lD!J/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Ccmnents: DEC DF..rOlS'ml\TION PRQJECl' FIEIDI o.\TA ~ 12:23 14 0 0 11.8 9 2.8 7.8 1200 2140 1 WJ s.ple Not Ta.l(en ll 15:00 14 0 0 11.8 11 0.4 9.2 850 1110 SAMPLE IOCATJ:ON 2. .l .4. 10:33 12 0 0 10.2 8 1.8 4.2 180 512 .a. W'J sanpl.e Not Taken JJ. 13~26 14 0 0 11.0 12 2.1 1.8 800 920 i(l sample t«:>t Taken ~ 13:20 14 0 0 10.6 12 (0.1 140 550 lD. 18:32 14 0 0 11.2 12 35 7.5 6900 12800 !«>t Sluicing lQ. 13:15 14 0 0 11.6 9 34 7.7 3700 10600 ll. 18:40 14 0 0 11.4 12 8.0 lO{E) 2900 4090 1. CUbic yards moved/day: Warner: 01 Haskins: 475-600. Day 32 .5. WJ Sample Not Taken ll 14:08 14 0 0 11.2 12 12 10 2800 4490 J.2.(C) 18:50 14 0 0 10.9 12 0.7 8.4 800 1820 2. F.quipnent used, hours/day: Haskins: Dragline, 988 loa.der/6 .5 hrs. 3 • Problenis: Haskins: replaced worn-out sprockets in the trarrrel in the morning. 14:40 14 0 0 10 .. 9 10 0.2 ~ 0 .l{E) ll(D) 14:45 14 0 0 10 .. 6 10 0.8 8.4 3500 1510 ll 18:45 14 0 0 11.6 12 0.8 8.,5(E) 1200 1380 4. Other Ccmnents: Warner: JOOVed their new sluic~ box dan to the mine cut. Should be in by tanorrow afternoon. · [ [ l l ·~·: [ 1·. August 5, 1981 DEC D~T.ION PRQJECI' FIEID DA.TA SAMPLE. I.OC'ATLOO Day 33 .5. l 13:05 16 2. .l .4. Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud COver, % Dissolved Oxygen, rno_/1 Tanperature, °C -Iii, ~ Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU T. S~nde;.~ Solids, mg/1 Olen. Oxyger .. Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C {:fl, pi Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, Nru T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chan. Oxygen Demand, nq/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 ~rature, °C I=flr pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs TUrbidity, NIU T. suspeooed Solids, ng/1 Clem. Oxygen Danand, mg/1 Conments: 0 10 11.2 9 4.1 6 .S(E) 2200 3770 2 WJ Sample Not Taken ll 10:33 14 0 10 12.6 12 <: 0.1 1.4 900 1250 12:39 16 0 10 12 .. 5 9 0.1 4.0(E) 160 528 B. ·W'J sample Not Taken li. 10:53 14 0 10 13.3 11 .t.0.1 6.5 (E) 190 428 13:25 16 0 30 11.8 7 {0.1 5.8(E) 8.0 24 .. 0 9.. 10:56 14 0 10 12.1 11 ~0.1 700 1340 lO. 14:02 15 0 75 11.8 10 45 7.6 3900 9490 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 450-550. 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Haskins: Dragline, 988/6 hrs .. 3. Problems: Not 12:58 Sluicing 16 lQ. Trarmel Not Operating ll 15:10 15 0 75 9.8 11 14.0 10 3000 3560 0 10 13.3 11 <O.l 1.0(E) 7.8 10.0 ll 11:01 14 0 10 11.9 10 1.8 2 .2(E) 2200 1810 ll(B) 15:46 14 0 75 11.7 12 0.9 8 .. 4 2300 1550 .6. 15:50 14 0 75 10.3 11 2.8 < 0.1 (E) 1900 2240 U(C) 10:43 14 0 10 13.6 10 <O.l 1.8(E) 1200 1570 ll 16:00 14 0 75 l0 .. 7 12 0.7 9.2 1800 2240 4. other Carments: warner new' sluice box in place, waiting for bolts to· finish sluice box before they can start sluicing. ' ' ~' '' August 6, 1981 Time: Air .. Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud COVer, % Dissolved Oxygen~ mg/1 Temperature, °C fH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, Nl'U T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NitT T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud COVer, % Dissolved Oxygen, ~1 Tanperature, °C pH, pH Units Settle.able Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs 'l.Urbidi ty, NTU T. Suspended Solids, m;/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Camlents: DEC DEM:>NSIFATION' PRQJE.'C1' FIEilD ~TA l 10:00 15 0 50 12.0 8 1.4 7.5 {E) 500 1330 1 WJ &np1e Not Taken ll 15:05 19 0 60 12.2 12 0.2 7.8 1400 1820 10:20 16 0 so 10.5 8 <.0.1 3 .,0 (E) 120 369 .a WJ Sall\ple Not Taken li. 13:25 20 0 50 12.0 12 0.6 1.1 120 204 ~~ I.DCATTON .. . ~ Day 34 5. .l .i ~ Sartple Nq·t Taken ~ 13:48 19 0 so 10.5 12 - ~0.1 190 420 lO. 18:36 16 0.20 75 13.0 12 125 7 s5 {E) 13:\00 22200 Not w;J Sluicing Sample JJl 13:5S 19 0. 50 12.4 11 27 7.2 3400 9300 ll 18:30 16 0.20 75 12 .. 0 12 9.0 lO(E) 2SOO 4940 Not Taken ll. 12:SO 17 0 50 11.6 11 7.5 9.6 2300 3860 ll(C) 18:57 16 0.20 75 13 .. 0 11 0.2 8.4 1800 2230 1. Cubic yards movecl,lday: Warner: 0; Haskins: 550-7uO. 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Haskins: Dragline, 988/7.5 hrs. 3. Problems: Warner repairing D-9, 988. Haskins repairing their old D-8. 14:47 20 0 60 11.7 11 2.0 ~O .. l(E) 1300 2410 l2.(D) 14:52 20 0 60 12.1 10 1.3 8.4 2000 2330 ll 18:46 16 0.20 75 12.6 11 0.1 7.H 1300 2450 4. Other COOUnents: By the time Warner cc.n sluice there will be little water since it hasn•t rained steady in over a week. Haskins preparing slickplate/sluice box for their other mine cut below Warner. l 1 [i : [ DEC DEMJNSTRATION PRQJECl' ' FIEID MTA ' .-\ugust 7 , 19 81 Day 35 SAMPLE IDCATION [ l 2. J. .i 5. .6.. '' ·.-: ,, Time: 09:20 13:52 WJ Not WJ 10:55 r Air Temp, oc 14 16 Sctnple Sluicing Sample 15 :: Precipitation, inches 0 0 Not Not 0 ,. Cloud Cover, % 50 100 Taken Taken 50 f' Dissol vea Oxygen, rng/1 10.8 10.s 9.7 [ Temperature, oc 7 10 12 J..,'J ~~ til Units (' Settleable SOlids, rnl/1 ~0 .. 1 ~0.1 1.0 -·~ Flow, cfs 3.4 1.8 (E) t.O.l(E) Turbidity, mu 40 60 T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 132 125 [ Chem. OXygen Demand, mg/1 2 .a ~ JJl ll. ll.{B) Time: WJ WJ 10:35 15:05 14:15 11:02 [' Air Temp, °C Sample Sample 14 17 16 14 ~:: Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, t Taken 'Iaken 50 100 100 50 f' Dissolved Oxygen, mj/'1 10.3 11.4 10.1 10.2 . ~' Temperature, oc 12 12 12 10 pH, Iii Units r Settleable Solids, ml/1 <0.1 75 15.0 0.8 Flow, cfs 7.5 10 1.7 ~,..o;f/ Turbidity, NIU 140 8600 5100 3300 T. susrended SOlids, mg/1 500 28200 7840 2330 ~· Chern. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 ,, --;,1~.} ll li JJl ll. l2.(D) ll Time: 11:06 10:29 18:23 18:15 15:58 16:45 ~~ Air Tenp, oc 14 14 16 16 17 17 Precipitation, inches 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,...,..,.<! Cloud Cover, % 50 50 75 75 100 100 r,r· Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 9.9 10.7 10.8 9.9 10.4 10.5 ~: Tanperature, °C 12 11 12 12 11 12 pH, Iii Units [ Settleable SOlids, ml/1 <..O.l ~0 .. 1 32 8.5 2.0 0.2 Flow, cfs 1.5(E) 3.0 (E) 7.5 (E) lO(E) 8.,3 8.2 '1\lrbidi ty, NI'U 1400 6700 2800 3600 3200 T. suspended Solids, ng/1 1990 1450 13000 5170 2980 1770 ~' Olem. Oxygen Derand, mcVl Ccmnents: r,, 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 450-550. . ' 2 .. Fquipnent used, hours/day: Haskins: Drag1ine, 988/6 hrs • ~ 3. Problems: 4. other Comments: Trammel will operate at its present location for at least 2 weeks ~··· therefore giving us our 50 sample days. Low water conditions have limited sluicing k to 6-7 hours/day. [' . • .;> ~: \ I· ~' Cooments: 1. l"'!ubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 375-470. 2~ ~ipnent used, hours/day: Haskins: Dragline, 988/5 hrs; D-8 stripping for both Haskins and Wa.tner. 3. Problans: 4. Ot.'l~r Caments: J. Wel.lrnan arrived from Fairbank-s. Decided to have ta1lings pushed into th~ pond influent area in cul effort to incr~ase settling pond efficiency. --·· ~ugust 9 , 19 81 Time: Air Tanp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, m:Vl Temperature, °C fi:l , Iii Units Settle~1e Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidl ty, Nltf · T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 Olem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settl#\;~·-?le Solids, m.l/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, Nru T. Suspended SOlids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 Time: A..i.r Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloucl Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Tenperature, oc f:B, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, :mu T. Suspended Solids, nq/1 ~ ::n::en Demnd, nq/1 DEC DEMJNSTRATION PROJECT FIEW mTA l 09:30 12 0 75 10.8 9 ( 0.1 3.4 4.6 35.5 1 WJ sample Not Taken ll 12:31 14 0 100 10.8 12 <0.1 1.5 750 520 2. 10:27 12 0 60 10.0 12 (0.1 0.8{E} 24.0 62.0 .a ~ sample Not Taken 14. 13:16 13 0 100 10.8 11 0 .. 6 0.2 (E) 600 19700 SAMPLE I.QCATION l .4. 09:03 10:10 12 12 0 0 75 60 10.7 8 .(0.1 3.5 (E) 1.6 4.6 .2. 1:..:.:21 13 0 100 11.3 11 . (0.1 150 ao.o JJl Tr~l Not Operating 11 .. 8 11 29 12(E) 6600 11700 lO. 13:26 14 0 100 11.2 11 130 7 .. 5(E) 15000 40000 ll. 15:28 16 0 50 10.6 11 0.8 2.2(E) 1000 540 1. Cubic yards rooved/day: Warner: 500-625~ Haskins: 300-375. Day 37 5.. 09:36 12 0 75 11.8 9 ~ 0.1 l.O{E) 1.6 8 .. 1 .ll, 13:35 14 0 100 10.6 11 22 10(E) 6600 8570 ll(C) 15:10 16 0 50 11.7 12 0.1 2.8 1000 880 12:17 14 0 100 10.2 12 < 0.1 <O.l(E) BOO 370 l2.(D) 12:22 14 0 100 10.4 11 <. 0.1 1.6 2300 720 ll 15:18 16 0 50 10.9 12 0.2 2.7 900 530 f, ·2. Equi~nt usedv hours/~li\Y: Warner: D-8 chasing tailings, pushing pa.}-rlirt. 988 loader/ ~ 5 hrs .. 3 • Problems: 4. Other Caments: warner sluicing for the first time i.a"l 2 weeks~ using new sluice box. 11 rj ' i r ~ ~·- f r 'f ~l l l August 12, 1981 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud <.:over, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/ 1 Temperature, °C pi, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, m:u T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 Chern. Oxygen De!Pand, rng/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, J:i1 Units Settleable Solids, tnl/1 Flow, cfs '!Urbidi ty, NIU T. susp:ilded SOlids, rng/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, rrg,/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Disso1 ved Oxygen, m:J/1 Temperature, °C Fi!f pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 FlCM, cfs Turbidity, N'ID T. Suspended Solids, ug/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Comme:nts: DEC DEM:>NSTRATION PRQJECr FIELD :Dtt\TA l 21:17 10 0 100 10.3 7 6.7 <0.1 2.0(E) 450 490 2 WJ Sample Not Taken ll 16:18 20 0 100 10.1 13 6.4 0.10 6.0 1200 1070 2. Dry .B. WJ Sample Not Taken .a Dry SAMPLE WCATION .l A. WJ Sample Not Taken .2. 16:00 20 0 100 10.7 13 6.5 0.2 360 355 lQ. 16:42 20 0 100 11.1 14 5.9 110 7 .. 5 (E) 2500 2770 l'k>t Sluicing l.Q. 15:51 20 0 100 11.0 14 5.9 15.0 7 .5 (E) 10~00 880 ll 16:10 20 0 100 10.6 12 6.3 1.0 9.0 (E) 2000 1740 Day 38 5. WJ Sample Not Taken ll 15:38 20 0 100 10.7 13 6.0 1 .. 0 9.0 (E) 1500 1220 l2.(D) 21:45 10 0 100 11.8 10 6.5 <.0.1 0.9 1500 1070 .2. 21:37 10 0 100 11.2 10 6 .. 0 <.0.1 <.0.1 1400 1220 ll(B) 16:29 20 0 100 10.7 13 6.2 0.1 6.2 1400 1360 ll 21:54 10 0 100 12.3 9 c ") u .... G. 0.1 0.9 1500 880 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 400-500; Haskins: 675-850. 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9 pusr.d.ng tailings, 988 loading slick plate/ 4 hrs; Haskins: Dragline, D-8 pushing,paydirt and tailings/9 hrs. 3 • Problems: 4. other Ccrnroonts: The settling pond modifications is in place. A berm of tailings approximately 3' high, 72' long, and 31' wide was put in at the influent end of the settling pond creating a small pond approximately 100 1 above t~e settling pond. August 13, 1981 'rime: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, ~/1 Temperature, °C tfl, Ffl Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 F].ow, cfs '1\J.rbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Olem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp: °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen,, rng/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, mall Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T. SUS:FEnded Solids, mg/1 C1em. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud-Cover 1 % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbid~ty, NTU T .. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Danand, mg/1 Comments: DEC DEMJNSTRATION J::::xnECT .1-"IEID MTA SAMPLE .I.QCATION .l 13:24 13 0 100 10.7 8 6~8 1 .. 2 2 .. 1 700 650 2 WJ Sample Not Taken ll 11:03 12 0.01 100 12.1 9 6.2 "0.1 3.5 1400 720 2. l ~ Dry .a ~ sample Not Taken li Dry 12:52 13 0 100 11.0 7 6.4 <.0.1 2.0 {E) 24 42.4 2. 14:16 13 0 100 11.8 10 7.0 < 0.1 360 515 lO. 14:38 13 0 75 12.0 10 6.4 75 7.4 7700 31400 19:05 11 0 50 12.0 8 6.9 27 12(E) 6200 5210 l.Q. 10:37 12 0.01 100 " 12.8 9 5.9 26 7 .5 (E) 5000 9900 ll. 15~39 14 0 75 10.8 10 6.6 1.8 8.2 2300 2010 1.. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 400-5007 Haskins: 525-650. Day 39 5. 13:15 14 0 100 11.6 9 7.0 <.0 .1 0.2(E) 3.0 1.2 ll. 10:46 12 0.01 100 12.1 10 6.1 0.1 1.0(E) 1400 1750 ll(B) 16:19 15 0 60 11.3 12 6.6 <.O.l 6.8 1200 660 .2. 16:12 14 0 60 10.3 11 6.5 0.2 0.1 1200 770 ll(C) 10:55 12 0 .. 01 100 12.3 10 6.5 ,0.1 3.8 1100 970 ll 16:25 15 0 60 10.7 11 6.7 <.0.,1 6.6 900 990 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9, 988/4 hrs~ Haskins: Dragline, D-8/7 hts. 3. Problems: Haskins 988 loader broken down. 4. Other Corrrnents: Warner laid off 4 people today due to low water condi.tions .. ~- '• " ,, ;l ,. "; DEC DEM:>NSTRATION PRQJECr FIEI:D MTA ~1 August 14, 1981 Day 40 d ~~ ' SAMPLE IOC.\TION l 2. J. .4. .5. .6. p Time: 12:21 D:cy WJ 18:15 WJ 13:04 Air Temp, °C is Sample 13 Sample 18 Precipitation, inches 0 Not 0 .. 02 Not 0 ~ Cloud Cover, % 75 Taken 100 Taken 75" ~ i Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 11.0 12.2 10.7 ~"' Temperature, oc 8 8 11 ~ !i1, pH Units 6.6 6.8 6.5 l= Settleable Solids, rnl/1 2.5 32 0.3 Flow, cfs 3.8 12(E) <0.1 ·-· Turbidity, Nr"J 1200 6400 1800 .'f!' "-T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 2070 9090 1250 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 rr 2 .a .9. lO. ll l2.(B) .i TL11e: ~ w:l 13:30 13:37 14:15 12:47 i. { Air ~remp, oc Sample S'.:tmp1e 17 17 17 18 Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 0 0 0 "~ Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 75 75 75 75 ... Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 11.0 11.6 10.0 10.9 Temperature, oc 10 10 10 10 1 pH, FH Units 7.0 6.5 6.6 6 .. 4 Settleable Solids, ml/1 <0.1 75 2.0 0.5 Flow, cfs 7.8 7.7 3.7 f-t Turbidity, ~--ro 500 7900 1800 1600 r· ' T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 270 29900 2130 1370 ~ 1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 ll ll .l.Q. ll. ll(C) ll :( Time: 12:56 Dry 16:15 16:26 16:34 16:40 !~ Air Tanp, °C 18 14 14 14 12 Precipitation, inches 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ~f > Cloud Cover, % 7§ 100 100 100 100 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 10.9 11.4 11.2 11.3 11.3 'I'E!mperature, °C 10 10 10 10 ' 10 fil, pH Units 6.6 6.8 6 .. 6 6.5 6.6 ,'l Settleable Solids, ml/1 <O.l 14.0 3.7 0.4 0.3 ·-· Flow, cfs 3.5 7.5 (E) 7 .. B(E) 6.5 6.2 Turbidity, Nn.l 1000 2300 2600 1600 1000 T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 950 3690 2450 1340 1230 ~·I Clem. OXygen Demand" mg/1 Cooments: ,. 1. Cubic yards mcveq(day: Warner: 200-250; Haskins: 415-515. ·-,., Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9, 988/2 hrs sluicing; Haskins: Dragline, D-8/ -'• 5.5 hrs .. 3. Problems: Constant problens with the flow meter. ~;. 4. Other Conments: '!be rnoc:lification to the settling pond appears to be reducing the settleable solids entering and exiting the pond. Warner will not be going down to claim 5 below ~~s season. • August 15, 1981 Time: F; Air Tanp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % - ! ··, [ Dissolv~ Oxygen, mg/1 Temperatt.. ... e, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ITU/1 FlC'ft\1, cfs Turbid! ty, NIU T. Suspended Solids, rrg,/1 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Disso1 ved Oxygen., mg/ 1 Temperature, °C pH, Iii Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chem. ~gen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Tenp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Tanperature, °C r;H, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NrU T. Suspended Solids, rrg/1 Clan. Oxygen ]Jgnand, ng,/1 Corcments: DEC I>EX.'fiSTRATION PRC\JECT FIEID Df\TA l 15:50 13 0.58 100 12.2 8 6.6 0(18 2.1 1600 1600 2 rJJ Sanple Not Taken ll 10:49 12 0 50 11o6 10 6.6 0.2 3.5 1000 840 Dry .a NJ Sanple Not Taken .a Dry WJ Sample Not Taken .i 14:51 13 0 100 10.9 11 6.7 2.8 1200 2780 JJl 15:36 13 0.58 100 11.9 10 6.5 50 7.5 {E) 8400 20900 13:25 14 0 75 12.3 8 7.0 40 12 7000 22200 lO. 14:,-!1 14 0 100 11.7 10 6.7 35 7.5 (E) 2900 11700 .ll 15:02 14 0.58 100 11.4 10 6 .. 6 3.0 8.0 {E) 1600 2880 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner.: -400-500; Haskins: 640-800. Day 41 5. WJ Sample Not Taken ll 10:25 12 0 50 11.9 8 6.5 2.3 3.8(E) 1500 1910 ll{C) 15:11 14 0.58 100 12.1 10 6.6 0.2 5.6 1200 1330 .2. 10:40 12 0 50 11.0 10 6.6 0.6 <..0 .. 1 1200 1140 ll{B) 10:36 12 0 50 11.6 9 6.5 1.0 3.7 1400 1280 ll 15:23 13 0.58 100 11.7 10 6.6 0.2 5.6 1200 990 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9, 988/ 4 hrs7 Haskins: Dragline, D-8/8.5 hrs. 3. Problans: Haskins 988 loader sti:;.l broken dawn. Warner D-8 going back to NC cat. 4. Other canments: . f > l' '' DEC DEK>NS!i<ATION PRQJECr FIEID DATA August 16, 1981 Day 42 SAMPLE LOCATION ~ 2. J. .4. 5. 2. Time: l0:30 Dry WJ 9:30 WJ \~ Air Temp, °C 9 Sample 10 Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 0 Not 0 Not Not Cloud Cover, % 75 Taken 75 Taken Taken Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1. 12.1 12 .. 2 Temperature, °C 6 8 r:H, pH Units 6.7 6.4 Settleable Solids, ml/1 1.3 21 Flow, cfs g·.o 12 Turbidity, N'IU 600 1700 T. Suspended Solids, ma_/1 615 8230 Chen. OXygen Demand, ~1 2 .8. i lll ll ll(C) Time: WJ tiQ 10:06 16:11 16~50 15:00 Air Temp, °C Sample sample 10 12 ll 12 Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % s-l'aken Taken 75 75 75 75 Dissolved Oxygen, ng/1 11.1 11.7 10.8 11.3 Temperature, °C 8 8 9 10 pH, pH Units 6.6 5.7 6.4 6.7 Settleable Solida, ml/1 ~0.1 ]~15 3.0 <.0.1 Plow, cfs 7.6 8.5(E) 1.4 Turbidity, Nru 550 9600 1500 950 T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 740 26900 2900 1050 Clem. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 ll l! lQ. ll l2.(B) ll Time: 14:45 10:11 Trorrmel 18:24 18:30 18:38 Air Tanp, °C 12 10 Not 11 11 10 Precipitation, inches 0 0 Operat~ng 0 0 0 Cloud Cover, % 75 75 50 50 50 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 10.4 11.8 10.9 11.1 10.7 Temperature, °C 10 7 9 10 10 Pf, pH Units 6.8 6.7 6.3 6.6 6.6 Settleable Solids, ml/1 LO.l 9.0 1.5 0.1 4 0.1 Flow, cfs 1.4 lO(E) 5.0 (E) 4.6 4.4 Turbidity, NlU 1200 2400 1300 1100 1100 T. Suspended Solids, nw'l 720 4150 1600 1260 1160 Clem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 O:>nrnents: 1. CUbic yards moved/day: Warner: 700-875; Haskins: 150-200. 2. Equipoont used, hours/day: Warner: D-9, 988/7 hrs: Haskins: Drag1ine, 988/2 hrs .. 3. Problems: Tratrnel needed welding. Haskins D-8 needs new tracks. 4. Other Gomments: Warner gets a full shift sluicing. Creek water level dropping rapidly. r i. '; ~ fJ )' I ~,, p I, ~? ~ . L August 17, 1981 Time: Air Tanp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, ng,/1 rrcemperature, oc J:fi, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 FlO\v, cfs TUrbidity, NID T. SusJ;ended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, rng/1 Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, rng/1 TemJ;erature, °C pH, fii Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NlU T. suspended SOlids, mg/1 Chan. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, m1/ 1 Flow, cfs 'li.lrbidity, NIU To Suspended Sol.lds, m3/l Clem. Oxygen Demci.nd, mg/1 Cormnents: DEC DFX.>NSTRATION PRQJEcr FIEID DA.TA l 14:05 20 0 20 11.6 8 6.9 1.9 7.8 ,550 1010 2 WJ Sample Not Taken ll 14:34 20 0 50 10.4 9 6.7 <0.1 1.2 900 870 2. Dry .a ~~ Sample Not Taken .a 10:05 15 0 20 11.6 7 6.7 8.0 7.0 {E) 900 2720 SAMPLE IDCA~lQB .l 13:15 20 0 20 11.7 6 6 .. 9 < 0.1 6.5 (E) 5 .. 6 1 .. 1 .9. 10:12 15 0 20 10.8 7 6.6 <0.1 700 380 lQ. 17:55 18 0 10 11.7 8 6.4 78 7.5 (E) 11800 35600 !. 10:44 15 0 20 11.8 6 6.5 26 12(E). 3900 8960 lQ. 14:51 20 0 50 12 8 6.7 125 7.6 13100 49200 ll 18:03 18 0 10 10 .. 8 9 6.5 7.0 8.5 {E) 3400 5270 1. Cubic yards rnovedVday: Warner: 850-1075; Haskins: 250-325. Day 43 5. 13:55 20 0 20 11.7 18 7.0 ~0.1 1.5 (E) 6.0 6.2 ll 15:44 20 0 50 10.6 10 6.7 5.0 8.5 (E) 1800 4270 l.2,(C) 18:12 17 0 10 11.2 10 6 .. 5 0.4 6.5 1400 1620 .6. ~ Sample Not Taken l2.(B) 14:20 20 0 20 11 .. 5 8 6.8 <0.1 1.2 900 840 ll 18:19 18 0 10 10 .. 7 10 6.8 0.4 6.2 1200 1630 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9, 988/8.5 nrs; Haskins: Dragline, 988/3.5 hrs. 3. Problems: Drive line broke on the tronmel. 4. Ot.'1.er Comments: August 18, 1981 Time: Ait Tenp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, c.fs Turbidi.ty, NW T~ Suspended Solids, rrg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg,/1 Time; Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C I=fi, pi Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NlU T .. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 Time: Air Tenp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissol voo Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, m:v'l Clem. Oxygen DEmand, m;/1 Comments: DEC DEM:>Nsr.mATION PROJECT FIEID DA.TA ~ 12:11 20 0 40 12.8 7 6.8 1.1 lO(E) 150 472 ]_ WJ sample Not Taken ll. 14:15 21 0 50 11.0 8 6.5 0.4 6.6 3000 1890 2. Dry .a WJ Sample Not Taken l! 12:55 21 0 50 10.4 10 7.0 10 0.5 (E} 1500 1960 SAMPLE lOCATION J. .4. WJ Sample Not Taken i 12:48 21 0 50 10.9 8 6.7 <0.1 1600 990 l.Q. 16:09 20 0 60 11.7 8 6.4 72 7.5 (E) 8600 30000 12:22 20 0 40 12.5 7 6.2 32 12(E) 3500 11000 l.Q. 12:39 21 0 50 12.2 7 6.3 37 7.0 7700 13600 ll 16:17 20 0 60 10.8 9 6.6 9 ... 5 8.0(E) 2800 6210 1. Cubic yards moveq(day: Warner: 800-1000; Haskins: 750-940. Day 44 5. WJ Sample ~t Taken ll 13:31 22 0 50 11.0 9 6.6 5 .. 5 7.9 3200 4400 ll(C) 16:36 20 0 60 11.6 10 6.6 0.7 6.5 2900 2540 ~ w:2 Sample Not Taken l2.(B) 14:25 21 0 50 11.4 9 6.6 0.2 6.5 1900 1720 ll 16:27 20 0 60 10.7 10 6.6 0.7 6.6 2900 2320 2. Fquipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9, 988/8 hrs; Haskins: Dragline, 988/10 hrs. 3. Problems: 4. Other Comments: Both operations ran smoothly with no problems. August 19, 1981 Time: ~/ Air TsnPr oc Precipitation, inches· cloud cover, % ·r oissol ved Oxygen, mg/1 ianoerature, oc fH,~pH Units '? Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs -Turbidity, NTU T. suspended Solids, rng/1 Chan. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: "? Air Temp, oc ·, Precipitation, inches Cloud Coverr % ·;. Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units ~ett1eable Solids, ml/1 _low, cfs ·~· Turbidity, NIU T. SUSf:Ended Solids, mg/1 ·· Chan. Oxygen Demand, ng/1 Time: . Air Tenp, °C Precipitation, inches .J Cloud Cover, % ·; Dissolved Oxygen., rng/1 Temperature, °C ~'. pH, pH lJni ts Settlee.ble Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs ., Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 · Olem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ·· Comnents: DEC DEMlNSTRATION PROJECT FIEID MTA l 10:05 13 0 75 12.3 6 2.0 7.8 700 1400 ]_ WJ Sample Not Taken ll 14:27 14 0 100 11.4 9 0.6 6.3 1600 1980 2. Dry .a WJ Sclnple Not Taken l4. 12:55 14 0 75 11 .. 3 9 17 1.1 1900 4950 SAMPLE I.DCATION J. .4. WJ Sample Not Taken ~ 13:00 14 0 75 11.1 9 <0.1 550 196 lQ. 16:20 14 0.2 100 12.2 8 42 7.8 9600 6200 09:54 13 0 75 12.3 6 29 12(E) 2600 4500 lQ. 13:05 14 0 75 12.1 9 100 7.8 11200 19500 ll 16:26 14 0.2 100 11.6 8 5.0 8.0 (E) 3100 2710 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 700-875; Haskins: 525-650. Day 45 5.. WJ Sample Not Taken ll 13:45 15 0 75 11.5 9 8.0 8 .. 0 6600 4540 ll(C) 16:41 13 0 .. 2 100 12.3 9 0116 6oS 1800 470 ~ 14:35 14 0 100 10 .. 8 10 2.8 < 0.1 2900 2980 l2.(B) 14:40 14 0 100 11.6 9 0.4 6.5 1900 1210 ll 16:34 13 0.2 100 11.8 9 0.6 6.3 1800 910 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9, 988/7 hrs; Haskins: drag1ine, 988/7 hrs. :_~ 3. Problem~; pH meter will not calibrate or stabilize its read-outs. '' ..1 4. Other,· Conments: Warner partial clean-up in the afternoon. Haskins D-8 rwming-first time they· have had tractor running in a week. (3 others down). August 20, 1981 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, rnl/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chern. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, I;B Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs '1\lrbidi ty, NlU T .. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Chen. Oxygen Demand, tn3/l Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 TE!nperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, m1/ 1 Flow, ·cfs Turbidity, NTU T. Suspended Solids, ng/1 <llem. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Ccmnents: DEC D~TION PROJEcr FIEID rATA Day 46 SAMPLE IDeATION l 13:07 7 o.os 100 13.2 6 6.6 1.4 12(E) 1800 1060 2 V{J Sample Not Taken ll 10:47 7 0.01 100 12.1 8 6.4 0.4 5,7 2000 1600 Dry .a WJ Sample Not Taken l! 13:54 7 0.08 100 13.2 7 6.8 2.0 7.9 500 465 J. .4. WJ Sample Not Taken i 13:49 7 0.08 100 13.5 8 6.7 <0.1 3'i0 80.0 .10. 13:43 7 0.08 100 13.2 7 6.4 30 6.7 2500 6700 Not WJ Sluicing Sample lQ. 10:34 7 0.01 100 12.7 7 5.9 79 7.5 (E) 7400 28300 ll 14:56 6 0.08 100 12.5 8 6.4 6.0 7.8 3400 4780 Not Taken ll 10:40 7 0.01 100 12.0 8 6.3 7.0 8.0 (E) 3200 4060 ll(C) 15:51 6 0.08 100 13.0 8 6.4 o.8 6.5 2200 2530 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 700-900 .. 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: Dragline, 988/9.5 hrs. 3 • Problems: 15:56 6 0.08 100 11.9 9 6.4 2.9 <'0 .. 1 1000 2150 J.2.(B) 10:57 7 0.01 100 12.5 8 6.4 0.4 5 .. 8 1600 1160 ll 15:44 6 0.08 100 12.5 8 6.6 0.7 6.4 2300 2050 4. Other Corrments: Warner clean-up and corrmencement of moving sluice oox, pipes, and slick plate up the creek 300'. ..-· F ., - r DEC DE'M)NSTRATION PRQJECr '· FIEID DATA '·· t 21, 1981 Day 47 Aug us SAMPLE I.QCATION ;·~ ~ 2. ~ !. .5. .2. 12:26 Dry 10:06 Not 12:37 13:50 .. TiJne: oc 11 9 Sluicing 11 11 r· Al! TE!OP' . inches 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.01 precipitatlon, 100 100 100 lOO cloud cover, % Dissolved Oxy~en, rrg/1 12.9 13.1 13.0 12.1 Temperatu:e, C 6 4 5 8 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.2 I, fiJ UnltS . ~ttleable SOllds, ml/1 6.0 ~0 .. 1 <.0 .1 7.0 26(E) 18(E) 4.5 {E) < 0.], Flo,.;, cfs TUrbidity, NIU . 800 7.2 14 2800 T suspended Sollds, mg/1 1400 1.4 27.6 4600 ciem. oxygen oemand, mg/1 2 .a .9. JJl. ll ll(B) Time: WJ w;J 13:07 10:36 10:45 11:02 AJ.r Tanp, oc Sample Sample 11 10 11 11 ''i Precipitation, inches Not Not 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.02 cloud cover, % Taken Taken 100 100 100 100 J Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 12.0 13.3 12.1 12.5 Temperature, oc 6 7 8 8 FiJ, r:£ Units . , 6.5 5.7 6.4 6.5 Settleable Sol1oa! ml/1 0.~2 95 7.0 0.5 Flow, cfs 7.5 (E) 8.0 (E) 8.7 Turbidity, NIU 450 9900 3800 1800 T. SUSt:€nded Solids, rng/1 1410 37600 9110 1290 -~ 01an. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ll li lO. ll ll(C) ll Time: 10:52 13:13 13:00 13:35 13:45 13:55 Air Temp, °C 11 11 11 11 11 11 ,, !'n:~cipitation, inches 0 .. 02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 " 0.1 ! a A .. ' _) Cloud Cover, % 100 100 100 100 100 100 ··~ Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 12.1 12.8 13.0 13.1 13.1 12.6 Temperature, °C 8 6 7 8 8 8 ,.;t [:li, pH Units 6.5 6.4 5.4 6.2 6.2 6.4 Settleable Solids, ml/1 0.5 9.0 45 9.0 0.7 0.6 ~ Flaw, cfs 8.6 30(E) 7.5 (E) f3.0(E) 1l(E) 11(E) Turbidity, NIU 2300 1400 7800 3400 1600 1500 _j T. sus~nded Solids, ID3/1 1390 2510 12200 4700 2080 1890 ') Cllem~ Oxygen Danand, 11¥311 ,_r Cormlents: l. Cubic yards moved! day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 600-7 50. 2. ~uipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9, 988 to move pipes, etc./9 hrs; Haskins: i Dragllne, 988/8 hrs. ·~· 3 • Problems: 4. Other Caranents: Warner moving sluicing operation upstream. ' .:1' 1> r\ L r·· I \ DEC D~TION PRQJECI' r· FIEW Dt\TA !'' August 22, 19 81 Day 48 i 1 SAMPLE IDC'ATION ~ 2. J. !. .5. .[ ""' r Time: 12:25 Dey WJ Not ~ W,J r ! Air Tenp, oc 12 Sample Sluicing Sample Sample Precipitation, inches 0 Not Not Not ..... Cloud Cover, % 85 Taken Taken ic Taken ~' \ ! Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 12.6 p Temperature, oc 6 ' pi, fil Units 6.5 I, Settleable SOlids, ml/ 1 1.0 FlOW', cfs 58 rl TUrbidity, NIU 85 T. Suspended Solids, m;/1 136 Chern. OXygen Demand, mg}l r: 1 .a. .9. l.O.. ll. l2.(B) Time: WJ WJ 10:41 09:53 10:04 10:27 [' Air Tenp, oc Sample Sample 8 8 8 8 Precipitation, inches Not Not 0 0 0 0 f, f Cloud Cover, % Taken Taken 75 100 100 90 ' Dissolved Oxygenr mg/1 12.1 12,5 12.0 12.5 r. Temperature, oc 6 6 6 7 I J:ii, Iii Dni ts 6.3 5.8 5.9 6.3 Settleable Solids, ml/1 0.2 77 10.5 0.6 Flow, cfs 7.5 (E) 8.0 (E) 7.5 r· Turbidity, NJlJ 500 11800 3500 1500 ' i T. Suspended Solids, mg/ 1 "''35 59800 2400 990 I ~ :3 Chan. Oxygen Demand, rrg,/1 f') ll li lQ. ll ll(C) u Time: 10:17 10:46 14:11 14:26 14:43 14:31 r· Air Temp, oc 8 8 12 12 12 12 Precipitation, inches 0 0 0 0 0 0 r, Cloud Cover, % 100 75 75 75 75 75 ,, l Dissolved Oxygen, m:;Vl 12.3 13.4 12.5 12 .. 0 12.4 11.9 Temperature, °C 7 6 6 7 8 8 ! : J:ii, til Units 6.2 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.3 6 .. 3 ! ~ttleable SOlids, ml/1 0.3 2.5 2·~ 7.5 1.0 0"9 •.. ,_} Fl~~,. cfs 7.5 60(E) 7.5 (E) B.G{E) 7.5 7.5 I., Turbidity, Nro 1900 500 1600 2500 2100 1800 k T. Suspended Solids, rrg/1 800 190 5020 3440 1740 1920 .. _l Olen. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 Carrnents: 1. Cul'ic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 675-850. 2. &;!uipnent used, hours/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: D-8 stripping, Dragline, 988/9 hrs. ~ ! r· 3. Problems: One of the cups on the flCM meter broke off; glued it on. ' I 4ti Other Oaroments: Haskins operation running smoothly. Warner moving sluicing 9peration f·, l upstream. ~ ~ ~: . .; r: p I ' [ . !, ~ August 23, 1981 Time: Air Temp, oc Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, oc pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, rnl/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T .. Suspended Solids, ng/1 Chan. Oxygen Demand, mg/1 ~rime: Air Temp, oc Pr-ecipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T. Sus~nded SOlids, mg,/1 Olem. Qxljgen Demand, mg/1 Time: Air Tenp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, % Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pH, pH Units Settleable SOlids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T. Suspended Solids, mg/1 Olem. Oxygen Darland, mg/l C.ontm6nts: DEC DEMJNSTRATION PRQJECT FIELD MTA l 13:20 19 0 10 12.3 6 6.5 <0.1 45 170 325 2 WJ sample Not Taken ll 15:24 20 0 10 11.9 9 6.6 <.O.l 1.7 750 295 Dry .8. ~ Sample Not Taken .l.4. 13:45 20 0 10 12.5 8 6.3 3.2 4.8(E) 500 290 ,SAMfi£ I.DC'ATION 1 J. WJ Sample Not Taken .2. 13:52 20 0 10 11.7 7 6.3 <.0.1 ... 200 285 lO. Tronm=l Not O};erating Not Sluicing lQ. Tranmel Not Operating ll 19:15 l5 0 5 11 .. 8 8 6.3 (0.1 1.5(E) 60 72 1. Cubic yards moved/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 0. Day 49 5. Wj Sample Not Taken ll. 15:40 21 0 10 11.2 10 6.3 <.O.l 1.5 100 105 ll{B) 19:10 15 0 5 12.2 9 6.3 "0.1 1.8 700 265 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: stripping new mine cut with D-9/9 hrs. 3. Problems: Flow m;ter broken. Tronunel down all day-needed sane welding. 4. Other Comnents: rond created by berm awroximately l/2 full of sediment. .6. WJ Sample Not Taken .J.2.( C) 15:~33 21 0 10 12.4 9 6.5 c(.0.1 1.8 500 170 ll 18:58 17 0 5 llo8 10 6.8 < 0.1 1.7 400 365 August 24, 1981 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Clol.'d COVer, % Dissolved Oxygen, m;/1 Temperature, •c ~' pH Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, Nro T. SuspeMed Solids, mg/1 Clem. OXygen Demand, mg/l Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud Cover, ' Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 Temperature, °C pi, J:ii Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NIU T. SUS{:ellded Solids, .Yl Chem. OXygen Denand, ng,/1 Time: Air Temp, °C Precipitation, inches Cloud COVer, % Dissolved Oxygen, m:l/1 Temperature, °C pi, Pi Units Settleable Solids, ml/1 Flow, cfs Turbidity, NTO T. ~nded Solids, Kq/1 <llem. Oxygen~, ng./1 ) Catments: ; DEC DEX>NS'l'.RATION PROJEC'i' FIEID Dt\TA l 14:24 24 0 5 11.4 8 6.9 0.6 25(!) 60 70.5 1. i(l Simple Not Taken ll 10:•6 20 0 5 10.9 8 6.:~ 0.4 7.5(E) 700 680 Dry .a. WJ Sanple Not Taken li 15:16 25 0 5 11.1 9 6.8 0.4 27 (E) 120 46.0 SAMPLE UX'ATION J, .i 12:38 24 0 5 11.7 6 6.9 <.0.1 20(E) 3.2 15.9 1! 15:2.4 14 0 5 10.8 8 6.7 .( {) .1 <0.1 160 144 lLl Trarmel Not Operating Not Sluicing JJl. 10:20 19 0 5 11.9 7 6.,1 70 7.5 (E) 12800 36200 ll 17:52 22 0 5 10.2 10 6e3 <O.l 2.0 (E) 800 875 1. Cubic ya~ moveq/day: Warner: 0; Haskins: 340-425. Day 50 .5. 14:15 24 0 5 11.6 7 6.9 ~ 0.1 3.5 (E) 2.8 5.9 ll. 10:36 20 0 5 10.7 8 6.2 11.0 S.O{E) 3300 1990 ll(C) 18:20 21 0 5 11.0 10 6.1 <0.1 1.8 1100 880 .6. WJ Sample Not Taken ll(B) 10:55 21 0 5 11.4 8 6.4 0.2 7.5 700 1070 ll 18:08 22 0 5 10.5 11 6.2 <0.1 1.7 1200 790 2. Equipnent used, hours/day: Warner: D-9 strig;>ing. Haskins: Dragline, 988/4.5 hrs. 3. Problems: Tramel down in the aftemoon-~lding to be done. 4. other Oooments: lOQ-125' of settling pond filled in with sediment. Haskins total sluice hours for August: 135.5 hrs (Days 29-50); Warner total sluice hours for August: 49.5 hrs. (Days 29-50) • APPENDIX IV To Giani al a Fulur• Min• Cui -Ditch #I _....-1---Sample ~ (Trips r and 2) Gialll { ,~ \ / ump I tl\h I ~'f \, '~III~! ... ~J Sluice ---'r~ fso· /Runoff \ \ \ r::~/(. ~ (Trip3) \ Pond #I ""' "" I \. IG \ \ \ This Flow Occurrtld ' i {Trip 1) Dvring Flnl Trip Only \ csooo' J l H \ (Trips 2 and*) • --- Wat.r Fill•rs Through , " / Toiling Pil•s \ v / . , / . / Fish ' ""' ,. CrHir ,"" / ~ :> ~ ::; l / J \ ,,.....//I I (Trips 2and 3) \ / I 1 ALL TRIPS f I 1 t NOTE: Distances shown are alon9 flow linea. ~ J ) Pond #2 Pond #3 Pond #4 Pond#5 Pond #6 ,_AM CGNitULTANT8,1NC. A. Ditch I 8. Ditch 2 SITE C. Below Sluice and Giant D. Runoff Entering Tailrace E. Pond Influent F. Pond I Effluent G. 500' Below Pond I Effluent H. Fish Creek Above Pond 2 J. Fish Creek 250' Below Pond 5 POND AREA I. 13,300 sq. ft. 2. 18,400 sq. ft. 3. 3,800 sq. ft. 4. 3,100 sq. ft ~-12,900 sq. ft. 6. 10,700 sq. ft. Total 62,200 sq. ft. MINE SITE I FISH CREEK FAIRBANKS DISTRICT SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT DAT. 9-25-81 .CAL. CHIII~:uc•a •v ...... •cw NO• DRAW IN. NO. NONE RTW 013104 ~-1 -- Hours Sluiced per day: 8 FISH CREEK MINE SITE tl FAIRBANKS DISTRICI' CUbic yards moved per hour: 75-100 Water used: 7.4 cfs 3300 gpm (For sluice and giant) Water required to sluice 1 cubic yard: Not available. Equipment used: Giant, dragline, front end loader, elevated sluice box, IJ-8 cat, pump Wastewater Treatment Method: Multiple ponds built in existing tailings. Manning Ro~hness Coefficient: - Dates Sampled: 7/1/81, 7/16/81 and 8/3/6:&. Description of Operation: Water is collected :!&:"om the upper part of the watershed in two ditches. Ditch 1 feeds the sluicebox and Ditch 2 feeds the giant. The giant washes the mine cut to clear overburden while a loader feeds paydirt to the dragline which loads the elevated sluice box. To treat watewater the miner built 6 ponds in existi119 tailings The tailings filter the water as it percolated towards Fish Creek. When the first pond was full of silt, the wastewater spilled over into the second pond and so on to the sixth pond. During the first trip pond one was full,. however the water .had yet to be directed into the second pond •. On the second trip ponds one through four were full while pond five was filtering water. During the third trip pond five was still filtering water. The miner cleaned out each pond at the beginning of the season and disposed of the silt off site. On the third trip the miner was stripping overburden from a new mine cut using the giant and was not sluicing. This site was offstream and important to the study because of the U$e of existing tailings as a filter medium. FISH mEEK , MINE SITE 1 SAMPLE SITE Dissolved Water pi Flow, Settleable Total Turbidity Date SampleCl Oxygen mg/1 Temp oc cfs Solids, ml/1 Suspended Nru SOlids,ml/1 Trip 1 7/1/81 Ditch 1 12.2 8 6.8 <O.l 17 12 Ditch 2 12.3 10 6.9 <0.1 15 8.2 Below Sluice & Giant 11.3 9 7.2 8.2 4.0 2680 1500 R>nd Influent 10.3 12 7.2 10 7.0 9390 2700 Pond 1 Effluent 10.8 9 7.0 6.4 1.0 2620 2200 500' Below Pond 1 Effluent 10.3 9 6.9 7.1 2.0 2890 2500 Trip 2 7/16/81 Ditch 1 11.7 8 <O.l 13 26 Ditch 2 11.9 8 <O.l 6 5.8 Below Sluice & Giant 12.5 8 8.5 5.5 6870 2900 Pond Influent 9.8 12 9.8 11.5 13800 5600 Fish Creek Above Pond 2 10.7 8 1.5 (0 .. 1 82 40 Fish Cr.. 250 • BelCM Pond 5 10.9 9 6.6 0.2 275 1200 'Jrip 3 8/3/81 Ditch 2 12.2 7 7.1 <O.l 14 45 Below Sluice & Giant 8.2 10 6.3 6.5 70 52600 10800 Runoff Entering Tailrace 11.5 7 6.5 3.2 ( i'!} <.O.l 11 16 R>nd Influent 10.6 10 6.6 10 6.5 5180 1200 Fish Cr. Above Pond 2 10.6 7 7.0 1.9 <0.1 220 700 Fish Cr. 250' Below Pond 5 9.5 8 6.9 6.2 0-8 12 900 Carments: During Trip 2 FH meter was not working. During Trip 3 the Giant was the only machine operating .. It was washing overburden fran a new. mine cut. •aM CDN.UL.TANT.,INC. Foir/Jan!rs Small FI()W ( CrHK (Trips2and3) ---.......... ~A~- ~ Storage Pond ~ -Xate ~r----, A~· I \\ I 1w1ne 1 Soil 130 Cut ~~~I Pump Sluiu SITE A. Above Sluice B. Below Sluice C. Pond Influent l,~_,_,, ,. -SmtJII F/tJw ~l_.. fd (rrtps 2 a11d 3) D. Pond Effluent E. 500' Down~tream Pumps tT' Cu~v•rt Ov.r Tailrace (Trips 2 ond3) (Trip$ 2 tJnd 3) \ Pumps ' (rrip I) 1300' Pond# I Pond#2 Pond #3 ALL TRIPS NOTE: Distances shown are alono flow linn. POND AREA I. 5,890 sq. ft. 2. 7, 800 sq. ft. 3. 8, 400 sq. ft. Total 22,000 sq. ft. NOTES: I. Two small flOW$ Introduced due to heavy rains on ucond and third trip. 2. Operotion 80°/o recycle on first trip. 0°/o recycle on second 000 third trips. 3. On second and third trips ponds washed out due to heavy rains. 4. Pond #I fu II of sediment on all visits. MINE SITE 2 FAIRBANKS CREEK FAIRBANKS DISTRICT SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PRO" ECT DAT. 9-28-81 y a..,..ec• •v -ti"...,•CT Na.l DltAWINe NaJ RTW 013104 3-2 Hours Sluiced per day: 9 FAIRBANKS CREEK MINE SITE ·t2 FAIRBANKS DISTRICT Cubic yards moved per hour: 25 Water used: 1.5 cfs 670 gpl'l Water required to sluice 1 cubic yard: 1,600 gallo~yd3 Equipmen~. used: Dragline, ~rD 444 front end loader, JD 35,0C c;at, sluice box with conveyor to remove large rock, four pumps. Wastewate',r Treatment Method: Used three ponds with 80% recycle (miner's estimate) during first tt:iP. There were· no ponds on the second and third trips. Manning Roughness Coefficient: 0.033 Dates Sampled: 6/26/81, 7/14/81, 7/23/81 Description of Operation: The miner collects water in a storage pond above the site. During sluicing hours water is released from the storage pond. '!his site uses three IX'nds in series. During the first trip p;:>nd one was full of silt.. On the second and third trips all of the ponds were washed out due to heavy rains. The operation u.ses a dragline to load the sluice box, a front end loader to remove tailings and a cat for miscellaneous work. The sluice box is on wheels so it is easily moved as the dragline '~orks up the mine cut. This site was instream, does not use a grizzly, but does use a conveyor to remove large rock. FAIRBANKS mEEK MINE SITE 2 SAMPLE SI'IE Dissolved Water I1J Flow, Settleable 'lbtal Turbidity Date Sant>led Oxygen mg/1 Temp oc cfs Solids, ml/1 Sus~nded mu Soli<JS 1 ml/ 1 Trip 1 6/26/81 Above Sluice 9.8 11 0.4 <.' 0 .1 32 13 Below Sluice 10.9 12 1.2 48 5640 7800 Pond Influent 11.0 11 0.6 55 3600 6600 Ebnd Effluent 9.8 12 0.9 <0.1 776 1100 500; Downstream 9.8 12 0.9 ~0.1 844 1200 Trip 2 7/14/81 Above Sluice 11.2 5 0.7 <:0.1 14 1.0 Below Sluice 10.8 8 1.3 60 24500 1440!1 Pond Influent 10.2 10 2.3 25 23200 8200 Pond Effluent 10.2 10 .2.2 19.0 14800 5600 500' Inmstrearn 10.0 11 2.0 20 15200 7900 Trip 3 7/23/81 '#:x)ve Sluice 10.7 6 6.7 0.9 < 0.1 10 4.6 Below Sluice 8.6 9 6.6 2.0 75 64400 9600 Pond Influent 8.5 11 6.6 2.3 47 33200 9800 Pond Effluent 8.5 12 6 .. 5 2.6 32 25700 8200 500 ' L'ownstream 8.3 11 6.4 2.5 25 26300 7200 Comments: Between first and second trip heavy rains washed the ponds out .• During Trips 1 and 2 pH meter was not working. ALL TRIPS Pond#2 Gilmore Creek NOTE: Distunces shown are along flow lines. ( DAT. 9-24-81 •cAL. NONE \ \ ~ I • ' Pond #I !5001 Ill aM CON aULTANTII,INC'. SITE A. Gilmore Creek B. Tom Creek C. Below Sluice 0. Pond Influent E. Pond 1-.. Pond 2 F: Pond 2~ Pond 3 G. Pond 3 Effluent H. 500' !Jownstream POND AREA I. 73,000 sq. ft. 2. 23,900 sq. ft. 3. 15,300 sq. ft. Total 112,200 sq.ft. NOTE: Operation is approximately 90 °/o recycle on all tripe. MINE SITE 6 Gl LMORE CREEK FAIR BANKS DISTRICT SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------~;~ Hours Sluiced per day: 8 GILM:>RE CREEK MINE SITE i3 FAIRBANKS .DISTRicr Cubic yards moved per hour: 90-100 Water used: 6.9 cfs 3100 9}.'E Water required to sluice 1 cubic yard: 1,900 -2,100 gallons/yd3 Equipnent used: D-8 cat, D-9 cat, nragline, sluice box, pump Wastewater Treatment Method: Used three pooos, the first one as a pump :f:Ond. Approximately 90% recycle (miner's estimate) .• Manning Roughness Coefficit.mt: 0. 022 Dates Sampled: 6/ll/81, 6/30/81, 7/21/81 Description of Operation: The water collection system is the first J;Orrl, from which water is pumP?d to the sluicebox. The D-8 and D-9 strip overburden and load the sluicebox. A dragline removes tailin~s from the sluice b~o~ outfall. There is no classification of material prior to loading the· sluice. This site used three ponds, the first pond double.s as a pump pond. The current year's settling pond is constructed in the previous years mine cuto This is the only site at which water quality samples were taken between settling ponds. However, the results show Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity increased going downstream through ponds one, two and three on trips one and three and decreased going downstream between the ponds on trip two.. This in- crease i:S attributed to short circuiting of the pond. The mine was in- stream and the miner's operation changed remarkably little during the sampling period. GniDRE CREEK MINE SITE 3 SAMPLE SITE Dissolved Water PI FlCM, Settleable 1btal Turbidity Date Sampled Oxygen mg/1 Tanp oc cfs Solids, ml/1 Suspended mu S01ids,ml/1 Trip 1 6/11/81. ' Tan Creek 12.3 4 7.6 1.0 <0.1 9 .. 8 55 GilJOOre Creek 12.2 9 .., ~ •• l 0.6 o.o 67 50 Below Sluice 9.4 8 6.6 7.0 14.0 1620 36UO lUnd Influent 9.5 8 6.7 7.0 12.0 2230 3600 First POnd Effluent 428 1700 Seoond R>nd Effluent 580 1100 Third Pond Effluent 9.4 10 7.3 1.8 <: 0.1 812 1400 500 • Downstream 10.3 9 7.3 1.5 <.0.1 732 1200 Trip 2 6/30/81 Tom Creek 12.2 4 7.7 2.0 <: 0.1 19 7.8 Gilmore Creek 12.4 6 7.4 1.4 <0.,1 5.9 2.3 Below Sluice 12.2 6 7.2 6.8 5.0 2230 6000 ~nd Influent 12.1 6 7.0 6.8 4.0 9340 3800 First Fond Effluent 844 2400 Second Bond Effluent 558 1100 Third Pond Effluent 11.9 8 7.8 3.5 < 0.1 468 850 500 • Downstream 11.2 8 7.6 3.4 <0.1 494 700 Trip 3 7/21/81 'Ian creek 12.4 4 6.0 5.3 <0.1 16 3.8 Gil.Ioore Creek 12.9 5 6.5 2.2 <0.1 40 18 Below Sluice 12.5 6 6.0 6.8 7.5 8390 3900 R'>nd Influent 12 .. 2 6 6.0 6.9 8 .. 5 9980 3800 First Pond Effluent 600 840 Second Pond Effluent 1670 2300 Third Pond Effluent 11.9 6 6.0 8.2 0 .. 1 660 1300 500' Downstream 12.2 6 6.2 7.4 <0.1 360 1600 Ccmnentb. ~or the second trip only Gilmore Creek was redirected to enter the tailrace before the first pond. r Eagle Cree.t TRIP I Bypass 1000' NOTE: Dlstoncn shown are alono flow lines. DAT. 9-29-81 SIT,S A. Above Sluice B. Below Sluice C. Below Tailrace D. 500' Below Tailrace E. End of Bypass MINE SITE 4 EAGLE CREEK CIRCLE DISTRICT SETILING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT CNtiGIC.a •v llti!HWBCT NC. a-.WIN. NQ. RTW 013104 3-4 l I f J I t I I I ' I . I II I . I I I f II I f ll l { t i l Eagle Creek TRIP 2 ) ~ I \Bypass I )~ Pump I (---~ / . Sluice \ I ---r- ' .... ' •so~' __ _, / Mine 1 H·\f Cut ( ~ l ~noff[ \ \ / \ l~aoo' \ l 1-\· .., Mine Site 1 1 t l Not Studied \ ~ I I (No! OpMJ!Ing 1 L--J .J on Date of 7iip) \l J r 1 G! I/ l fl Bypass Wid~ns B~fore Enmring Et1gl~ CrHk NOTE: Distances shown are along flow lines. •aM CDN8U'-TANT8,1NC. SITE - F. Above Sluice G. Ea~le Creek Above End of Bypass H. Below Sluice I. End of Bypass J. 500' Below Bypau MINE SITE 4 EAGLE CREEK Cl RCLE Df STRICr SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT DAT. 9-29-81 8CAI.. DlltAW LOS CN.OIC.D 8V IIIIIICW.GT .NO. .._WINe Na. NONE RTW 013104 3-e l l .._ ____ '""' 1 IIIAM CCN.ULTANT.,INC. SITE K. Eaole Creek Above Sluice L. Below Sluice M. Bypass Before Tai I race N. End of Tai trace 0. Eaote Creek 500' Below Tailrace Min• Sittt Not Slud.~-.d (OfJ*rtJftd on Dot• of Trip Bul Did Not Aff«t Sample S!~ts) MINE SITE 4 NOTE: Distances shown are alono flow lines. EAGLE CREEK CIRCLE DISTRiCT l DAT. 9-29-81 SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT .CAL. NONE ----------------------------------------------------------·~~--------------. ... Hours Sluiced per day: 9 E.PQ..E CREEI< MI~ SITE 14 CIRcr.E DIS'IRICT CUbic yards moved per hour: 90-100 Water used: 6 .a cfs 3000 gpn Water required to sluice 1 cubic yard: 1,800-2,000 gallons/yd3 Equipnent used: D-6 cat, D-8 cat, dragline, sluice box, panp Wastewater Treatluent Method: Tailrace Manning Roll(lhness Coefficient: 0.024 Dates Sampled: 7/2/81, 7/17/81, 7/31/81 Description of Operation: The miner collects water in a pump pond but does not use it as a settling pond. The D-6 and D-8 remove overburden from the mine cut and load the sluice box. Tailings are removed from below the sluice box with the drag- line. There is no grizzly on the sluice. 'j,lhis operation changed layouts between each trip, therefore no site averages were made. The mine cut was moved between the first and second trips. During the third trip water was p~ped directly from Eagle Creek and the D-~ was removing tailings since the dragline was not operating. During the second and third trips a miner tlas set up below this site, r..owever the miner did not affect the sampling of this site. 'Ibis was an off stream mine. F..AGLE mEEK MINE SITE 4 SAMPLE SI'm Dissolved Water PI Flow, Settleable Total 'furbidity ~te Sampled Oxygen mg/1 Tel1p oc cfs Solids, ml/1 Suspended NIU Solids,ml/1 Trip 1 7/2/81 Above Sluice 11.9 5 12 950 1200 BelON Sluice 12.3 5 37 6350 13400 Below Tailrace 12.5 5 3.0 2870 8600 500 • Bel<M Tailrace 11.9 5 17 4.5 5940 5600 End of Bypass 11.5 6 4.0 6780 6100 Trip 2 7/17/81 Above Sluice 9.4 10 7.0 9.7 0.3 890 1700 Eagle Cr. Above End of Bypass 9.9 12 7.0 1.0 2630 2300 Be1CM Sluice 12.0 3 6.4 15 .. 0 End cf Bypiss 10.0 12 6.9 12 0.5 500' Be1<M Bypass 9.6 12 7.0 1.5 3750 1800 Trip 3 7/31/81 Eagle Cr. Above Sluice 10.8 7 7.2 25{E) 4.0 3940 2400 Bel~ Sluice 11.7 6 6.9 6.8 14.0 18800 3400 B¥Pass Before Tailrace 10.9 8 7 .. 3 9{E) 3.0 4090 3700 End of Tailrace 10.5 7 7.1 18(E) 7.0 3390 2300 Eagle Cr. -500' Below Tailrace 10.8 7 7.2 48(E) 5.0 5010 3100 Comments: During first trip, the pH meter was not working. During the second trip the operation shut down before sampling could be canpleted. A miner (not included in this stu~J) set up on the bypass during the second trip but was not operating. During the third trip they were operating but did not affect sampling. During the th1rd trip the flow meter broke after the belCM sluice measurement, the ranainder of the flaws are estimates. ~ \ I ~ \ /""',.,.,_.,._.--------, ( \ \ ) I 1 I j~. I I mine ~ 1 Cui \ I Eagle\ \ o./ Cr«rk "\ \ ~ ALL TRIPS ' / A ...._ __ ..,.. ' 40'~8 )~m;---~;k;-·\-------- ) . . J ( ) \ 1 C (Trip I Onii) \ ( Tflilroce """ ) , I 500' 500' \ lo '\------+201 \ \ ) 500' ·------'- ' E ~ •aM CDNIIULTANTa,INC. SITE A. Above Sluice B. Below Sluice C. 500' Below Sluice D. End of Tailrace E. 500' Downstream MINE SITE 5 EAGLE CREEK Cl RCLE DISTRICT NOTE: Distances shown are alono flow lines. SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT DAT. 10· I-81 .CAL. NONE CH.aiC•D •v 1111110.1.11'1' NU. DIIAWINB ND· RTW 013104 3-7 EAGLE~ MI~ SITE IS CIRCLE DISTRICT Hours Sluiced per day: 2 10 hr. shifts Cubic yards moved per hour: 80-100 Water used; 11 cfs 4900 gpn Wa.ter required to sluice 1 cubic yard: 2900-3700 gallons/yd3 Equipnent used: Ir-8 cat, 955 loader, sluice box, PJillP Wastewater Treatment ~thod: Tailrace Manning Rouglmess Coefficient: 0.058 Dates Sampled: 7/12/81, 8/4/81, 8/17/81 Description of Operation: '!his site is downstream of mine site 4. Water is pu~ from Eagle Creek. ~e D-8 cat strips overburden and loads the sluice box while the 955 loader removes tailings. The operation moved.slightly between trips one and two, but did not affect the sample sites. The only wastewater treatment was a 1000' tailrace before the effluent re-enters Eagle Creek. EAGLE CREEK MINE SITE 5 SAMPLE SITE Dissolved Water Iii Flow, Settleable 'lbtal '1\lrbidity Date Sampled Oxygen rng/1 Temp °C cfs Solids, ml/1 Sus~nded NlU Solids,ml./1 Trip 1 7/12/81 Above Sluice 11.6 6 0.4 446 960 Below Sluice 11.5 7 12 15.0 2570 3000 500' Below Sluice 5480 2600 End of Tailrace 11.5 7 11 5.5 5540 3800 500' Downstream 11 .. 8 6 2.8 2500 1800 Trip 2 8/4/81 Above Sluice 10.3 8 7.9 7.0 7460 9100 Below Sluice 10.8 8 7.8 12 15.0 8500 7400 End of Tailrace 9.7 10 7.7 11 9.0 8360 7700 500 • Downstream 11.1 11 7.7 78 alto 5340 7200 Trip 3 8/17/81 Above Sluice 11.& 5 7.4 55 2.5 1560 1900 Below Sluice 11.3 9 7 .. 2 7.8 11.0 7130 1800 End of Tailrace 10.9 10 7.6 13 11.0 7430 5400 500' Downstream 10.9 9 7.4 2.0 2390 2100 COmments: During the first trip the pH meter was not working. \ \ f-...-t Bypass/ ""' / /---,t!-~ I. " 'i \ ~a ( Mine l Pump ~ 1 Cut 1 1200' . ...-j, Washed out lf-" Pond ,...-----'0 5611/ing Pond \ Faith Creek l ~ I I I j \ •E \ Prmd Elf/ulnl \ J Flows f,}v•rland \ 5000 t S.ltJr• R••nlflring Faith " I CrHk ' ""---------l TRIP SITE A. Faith Creek Above Pump B. Bypass to Pond C. Below Sluice D. Pond lf'lf I usnt E. Pond Effluent Pond Area = ! 85,000 sq. ft. MINE SITE 6 FAITH CREEK CIRCLE DISTRICT NOTE: Distancet~ shown are alono flow linea.""\ SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT DAT. 9-29-81 I ! ' I ! • I I ! ll I i I : I l I I I I I I I I I ;=;!~ ----------------------------------~----------1\:/----------~ r TRIP 2 Settling Pond NOTE: Distances shOwn Cire along flow lines. DAT. 9-29-81 8CAL!I NONE SITE C. Below Sluice D. Pond Influent E. Pond Effluent F. Fqith Creak By Pump Pond .Area= 185,000 sq. ft. MINE SITE 6 Fj~ITH CREEK Cl RCLE DISTRICT SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ·:~ot•atc•D •v •~~~a.~•crr NO• DMWSN• NO· RTW 013104 3-.9 ----------------------------------~~~-----~------------------------------~ TRIP 3 Setlling Pond NOTE: Olatancea shown are alonc;a flow lin•. GAT. 10-6-81 \ -~- \ SITE G. Diversion to Pump H. Below Sluice J. Pond Effluent I K. 300 Downstream Pond Area = 185,000 sq. ft. MINE SITE 6 FAITH CREEK CIRCLE DISTRICT SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ••o..t•CT NO· 013104 .... H" 1rs Sluiced per day: 11 t Jbic yards IOOved pet hour: 175 FAI'lH CREEX MINE SITE 16 CIRClE DismiC'I' Water used: 8.5 cfs 3800 9fltl Water req.lired to sluice 1 cubic yard: 13 00 gallons/yd3 Equipment used: 0..,..7 cat, D-9 cat, 988 front end loader, 2213 £ront end loader, pOmp, sluice box with grizzly. , Wastewater Treatment Method: Qle settling tx>nd with baffles. Mcuming Roughness Coefficient: 0.014 Dntes Sampled: 7/6/81, 7/22/81, 8/13/81 Description of Operation: Water is pumped to the sluice from a pump p:>rd next to Faith Creek. During the first trip the D-7 and D-9 were loading·the sluice box and the loader was removing tailings. A new sluice box with a grizzly was installed between the first and seoond trips. With the new box the 988 loader loaded the box while the .2213 loader removed tailings. A bypass was routed, on the first trip only, from Faith Creek into the tailrace below the sluice. Between the secooo and third trips the mine cut was relocated approximately 1200' downstream. In the new location the sluiee box fed directly into the p::>nd. The pond has gravel baffles in it to reduce mixing in the pond. The pond effluent flows approximately 5000' overland before re-entering Faith Cre-ek. This mine was offstream and was one of two mines to use gravel baf :les in the settling pond. FAI'lli CREEK MINE SITE 6 SAMPLE srre Dissolved water Iii Flow, Settleable 'lbtal 'furbidity ~te Sanpled Oxygen mg/1 Tenp oc cfs Solids, ml/1 Suspended NlU Solids,ml/1 Trip 1 7/6/81 Faith Cr. Above PLitt> 13.1 7 1.1 ~ 0.1 28 18 Bypass to Pond 12.5 8 7.6 9.0 <.0.1 101 45 Bel~ Sluice 12.4 9 8.2 8.8 12.0 13600 7400 lbnd Influent 12.5 8 7.5 19 s.o 5000 3100 Pond Effluent 11.6 9 7.2 11 0.1 910 1400 Trip 2 7/22/81 Faith Cr. by Plllp 11.5 8 6.7 160(E) <.0.1 12 8.4 Below Sluice 12.0 8 6.3 7o7 16.0 1450 7000 R:>nd Influent 11.0 9 6.3 11 20 14600 6600 lbnd Effluent 10.0 12 6.3 t; 7 "J. < 0.1 870 1500 Trip 3 8/13/81 Diversion to Pump 11.0 7 7.3 5.2 -'0.1 47 45 Below Sluice 10.6 9 6.9 200 15910 ~100 Pond Effluent 10.3 10 6.9 6.9 <: 0.1 1180 1100 300' Downstream 10.2 10 6.8 <. 0.1 1090 2200 Carments: During the third trip the Below Sluice sample site aril Pond Influent sample site were the ~ .. \ Pump Pond/ S.lfling Pond !"or MiM SiM 9 ~ .tJrAp;idl '"\ Qwlt ,,. ~ ALL TRIPS NOTE: Distancn shown are atono flow II,.. • & M ._,_,._.,.,.N'f'll. INCl. ' -·- ' SITE - A. ,.._.ion CrMk Parotfef tc Ptm •. flaM ly Pwmp C . ..._ Sluice D. EMI af TCJitrace E. Moetoden CrMk ADeM Tailrace F. Mc.todon CrM 10' ~ TotlrCIOI MINE StTE 7 MASTODON CA£EK Cl RCLE DIS'mtCT SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION P"OJECT ( .AT8 5·29-81 ,. Hours Sluiced ter day: 11 Cubic yards moved per hour: 60 MAS'ltlX>N <::RED MINE SITE t7 CIRCLE DismiCT Water used: 0.7 cfs 300 gpn (miner's estimate) Water required to sluice 1 cubic yard: 300 ga.llons/yd3 Equipment used: D-8 cat, 275 front end loader, 977 front end loader, vibrating screen, conveyor, sluice box, •Atley Bowls" Wastewater Tr~bnent Method: Tailrace Manning Roughness Coefficient: - Dates Sanpled: 7/10/81, 7/18/81, 7/24/81 Description of Operation: The pump for this mine is located approximately 200' downstream of mine site 19. The 977 loader feeds a hopper which loads the conveyor. The conveyor dumps material onto a vibrating screen which passes 1• minus material. '!he material p!S&ing the screen is fed into an agitating chamber and from there fed into 6 111 Atley Bowls•. On the second and third trips material passing the screen was fed through a sluice box prior to being fed into tlle •Atley Bowls." The mine cut was moved between trip t.')ne and two but did not affect sa•pling. The "Atley Bowls• did not make a marked difference in the effluent quality. This site was offstr~ The advan- tage of this method is the low water requirements, as shown by the Below Sluice flow reading on the RCOnd trip. MAS'J:(IX)N CREEK MINE SITE 7 SAMPLE srm Dissolved water PI Flow, Settleable Total '1\Irbidity Date Sanpled Oxygen mg/1 Tet1p oc cfs Solids, ml/1 SUspended NllJ Solids,ml/1 Trip 1 7/10/81 Mastodon Cr. Parallel to Pond 10.4 7 63 0.9 Pond by Ptmt> 11.2 8 325 1200 Be].QW Sluice 12.0 7 19.0 19300 6900 End of Tailrace 10.0 6 6.4 4.5 3670 2000 • Mastodon Cr. 50' BelCM le;l Tailrace 10.3 7 21 1.3 2680 440 Trip 2 7/18/81 Pond By Pllnp 10.4 12 7.,6 o.a 2180 2600 Below Sluice 11.3 12 6.6 0.8(E) 44 7750 13800 &ld of Tailrace 10.2 7 6.3 5.7 34 3800 10800 Mastodon Cr. Above Tailrace 10.3 11 7.8 2o1 3.0 2180 2800 Mastodon Cr. 50 • BelCM '!ail race 10.3 9 8.2 14.0 2520 6500 Trip 3 7/24/81 Pond By PlJnp 10.9 10 6.3 0.7 (E) 1.5 1720 3300 Below Sluice 10.1 12 6.5 60 69400 13800 End of Tailrace 9.6 8 6.3 5.2 40 28000 10300 Mastodon Cr. Above Tailrace 10.3 11 6.3 5.5 5.0 4990 2500 Mastodon Cr. 50 • Below Tailrace 10.6 9 6.4 11 19"0 10900 7800 Comments: For all trips awroximately 80% of the 'flow at End of Tailrace was due to groundwater inflow. During first trip the pH meter was not working. n r ; r .. r,.--.-.-----__ ____. 1 •aM CONIIU~TANT.,INC. f. f l . . ~ -.., ,,. f-.' 1 t· r> [' f -, r, t:_ L' t". r~· ,!ii . ......!1 L . 1 ,.,. ...,. ..... -------~ / \ I I $tll'l )L_ l Stlmp'-®1 ~ I (2d I ) I I ""'-._ I I 100' -.../ I I ~ ~-----Cui _ _) ) ted\ TRiP I NOTE.: Diatonce shown ore alon9 flow 1"'-. ( IINi . I iiX~· 10-2-81 -NON£ ) lo \ ~ ) ( ) Milltlr c~ SITE A. AbcM Sluice B. Below S4uice C. Tailrace GAd CrMk Junction D. 500' OowrAtream MINE SITE 8 MILLER CREEK CIRCLE DISTRICT S£TTLING POND D£MONSTRATI~ Pf'OJ£CT [Y MihiJ Cut _,......,.,.--------~-----........ /"'-\ I I I I \ I \ J I I \ I \ I .__ / Pump Ponti -------------. ___ ._,../ Sluic. J 3od ~ ~ { ) / TRIP 2 / Ll NOTE: Distances shown ore along flow lines. IJ l c ~~~;, A w Ar' i / Smiling Pond •aM •• NI*L.-IIft'8.MIIII. SITE - A. AMI Shti.oe B. 140'. IM<'MJ Sllttint Jitoftd. C. PoM ly ...... D. a,._ E. 500• Downetreem Pond Area= 2,400 1q. ft. MINE SITE 8 MILLER CREEK Cl RCLE DtST~CT SETTLING POND DEMONSTIItATION PfltOJECT r: ! i t ; f -.1 t . r· r r· r~ r l t! JJ . Milltl Cut I""_,. - -.._ -._, -· .... ,--. -~-" f I I I I I ~~ ., ... 7flllllf,. Pump/ St1Hiing Pond Pond ooo' • aM CIINiiULTANTII,INC. SITE A. Above Sluice a B.tow Sluice C. Old Pump Pond D. Pond By Pump E. Pond Effluent F. 500' Downatream Pond Area = 21, ~50 sq. ft. MINE SITE 8 MILLER CREEK CIRCLE DtSTRICT NOTE: DJttancet shown art along flow linea. SETTLING POND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ..., ... RTW 01!104 .l 1 ' . 1 Hours Sluiced per day: 8 MILLER OlEEX MINE SITE 18 CIRCLE orsnu:cr CUbic yards moved per oour: 150-200 Water used: 11 cfs 5,000 gpn (miner• s estimate) Water required to sluice 1 cubic yard: 1,500-2~000 gallonsVyd3 Equipnent used: D-9 cat, 966 front end loader, slltice box, pump Wastewater Treabnent ~thod: Tailrace or pond ( depeniing on trip) Manning Roughness Coefficient: - Dates Sampled: 7/11/81, 8/16/81, 9/3/81 Description of Operation: This operation changed layouts between each trip, therefore no site averages were made. During the first trip water was collected in an offstream pump pond, pumped to the sluice b6x and returned to the creek through a 100' tailrace. The D-9 was loading the sluice while the loader was removing tailings. During the second ·trip a ne~.~ ;pump pond was used, while the sluice discharged into a small instream ponc:..i. The same mine cut was being worked using the same equipnent operation described atove. There was recycle on the second trip, however the perce."1.tage 'Alas not known. By the third trip the pump pond and settling pond were connected into one instream horseshoe-shaped pond. '.Ihe percent recycle on th..~ third trip was not known. The effluent from the pond filters through tailings" 'nle mine cut and method of loading the sluice box are the same as during the first trip. MILLER <llEF..X MINE SITE 8 SAMPLE SITE Dissolved water Iii Flow, Settleable 'lbtal Turbidity rate Banpled Oxygen mg/1 Temp DC cfs SOlidsv ml/1 Suspended mu Solids,w.J/1 Trip 1 7/ll/81 Above Sluice 11.3 7 1.a < 0.1 1.4 5 .. 4 Below Sluice 7 10.5 8450 3100 Tailrace & Creek Jt.mction 11.2 7 3.7 3600 2200 500 • Downstream 11.4 7 30 5.0 4720 1600 Trip 2 8/16/81 Above Sluice 10.7 9 7.6 5.0 .l 0.1 13 6.4 140' Below Settling Pooo 11.2 9 7.0 15 18 19900 5000 Plm1p Pond 10.8 9 6.8 27 21500 7700 Byp:lss 10.8 9 6,,g 23 21500 5500 500 • ,JX>wnstream 9.8 8 6.6 3.0 36 18200 8600 Trip 3 9/3/81 Above Sluice 10.7 .., 7.6 4.2 ~0.1 3.8 4.4 f Below Sluice 11.4 '8 7.0 115 8800 2900 Old PtDp Pond 10.6 7 7.6 ,0.1 3.0 320 Ibnd By Pll1lp 11.0 a 7.0 1.6 790 2600 Pond Effluent 12.2 5 7.0 4.7 2.0 2310 2100 500 1 Downstream 11.9 4 7.2 5.1 1.5 1500 1000 Cooments: l L \ \ \ \ I \ \ Pond £fflutlflt (Trip$ 2 and 3) eoo· H! ALL TRIPS Min. Cut Pond £Hiut1nt (Trip I) Pump/ S~ffling PrJnd Pond Pump Pond lor MiM Sit. 7 .. - A. RUMff In Cut 8. Mestoton CNI4( C. ln••,•nienet Ctelk 0. ~ ly PuMp E. Below Sluice F. Peftcl lftflutllt G. Ptnd Eff I uent H. MaiN.III C,_. ~· htow Effluettt flleM Arta = 3, 400 aq. ft. ftCTE: On oH m,_ ~t:aticn is opflf Cllif'Mittfy ~ recydl. MINE StTE 9 MASTOOON CHEEK CI..CLE OtSTIIOCT I NOTE: Dis to,_ shown are along flow liftll. SETTLI. IIONO D£MC*ITfitATION ~JECT ( I ausz.TWim M' l 2 Pi~ W: J 2 . " 013f!4- Iaiit& --:J 3-15 l Hours Sluiced per day: 8 MAS'roOON O<EEX MINE SITE 49 CIRCLE DISl'RICI' Cubic yards rooved per hour: 150 Water used: 3.2 cfs 1400 gpm (estimated from trip 2) Water required to sluice 1 cubic yard: 560(E) gallonsVyd3 Equipment used: TWo D-9 cats, two JD 544. front end loaders, a TROJAM loader, Koering 466 backhoe, vibrating screen, sluice box, pl1Jlp Wastewater Treatment Method: Settling pond with approximately 80% recycle (miner•s estimate). Manning Roughness Coefficient: - Dates sampled: 7/8/81, 7/25/81, 7/30/81 Description of Operation: This mine site uses the pump p?nd as a settling pond. Water was diverted from Mastodon Creek. During the first trip two loaders are loading the vibrating screen while one D-9 is piling the paydirt for the loaders. The tailings are removed by the seoond D-9. For the second and third trips the Koering 466 backhoe was working in the mine cut instead of the cat while the other machines are in the same places. By the third trip the pump pond/settling pond was partially filled with silt~ This operation re- cycles, presorts material and is an example of an efficient use of space. The effluent from this mine is returned to Ir..dependence and Mastooon Creeks just above the pump pond for mine site #7. MAS'ltJX)N amEX . MINE SITE 19 SAMPLE sr.m Dissolved Water Iii Flow, Settleable '.lbtal Turbidity Date Sampled Oxygen ng/1 Temp oc cfs Solids, ml/1 Suspended mu Solids,ml/1 Trip 1 7/8/81 Mastodon Cr. 11.~9 6 24 1.7 1980 1400 Independence Cr. 11.5 7 25 <.0.,.1 36 20 Below Sluice 10.8 5 15.0 6270 4000 a>nd Influent 10.3 5 5.9 6.5 5440 3400 a>nd Effluent 10.8 6 l_S(E) 1.7 1090 1800 Mastodon Cr. 500' Below Effluent 11.7 6 50 1.0 890 960 Trip 2 7/25/81 Runoff in Cut 9.0 5 0.5(E) ~ 0.1 128 90 f!bstadon Cr .. 10.5 10 6.5 13 1.5 705 900 Independence C:r. 11.1 10 6.5 15 <..0 .1 71 40 lbnd by Pull> 10.0 10 6.6 1.5 3120 3800 Below Sluice 10.8 8 6.5 '35 8890 10800 amd Influent 9.8 8 6.5 3.7 35 6170 8600 R>nd Effluent 9~5 10 6.6 6.3 (E) 5.5 2070 4000 Mastcdon Cr. -500' Below Effluent 10 .. 4 10 6.7 23 2.5 2520 1900 Trip 3 7/30/81 Runoff in Olt 9.9 3 6.9 0.5 0.1 720 50 Mastodon Cr. 11.3 8 7.7 6.6 0.1 ~111"' J ~ 80 Independence Cr. 10.6 8 7.7 6.·8 (0.1 65 45 l«ld by Pmlp 10.1 9 7.3 1.0 1320 3800 Below Sluice 10.0 9 7.0 240 44900 18800 l R>nd Influent 10.1 9 '7 .1 3.0 160 23500 9900 a>nd Effluent 10.3 8 7.3 2.3 (E) 19 .. 5 l Mastodon Cr. -500 • I Below Effluent 10.1 8 7.5 9,_7 0.5 129 1300 I I Cooments: On all trips operation was approximately 80% recycle. Mine S.ite 7 was diverting awrox.imately 1 cfs on the I I second trip above Station Mastadon Cr. -500 • Below Effluent. P' l l ~---------------.-----------~,_-... ,..'""\. I, f lt.;.,.l . p: ,..,.. __________________ _ i "·· •aM CeNIIUI.'I'ANT.,INC. L~ \ l '•' ' L L l~ L L ,..-i. ....... .._ ... I ' I \ I I I I ! I I I I I llliH I I ~/ I ~I I StJil I f s.. .. l I ~~I \ I \ I ' I -----.1 ALL TRIPS F (Trrp I) '\ """'A (Trips 2 and 3) ., \ \ Dj ~· l) 2tll' () j (AM:....,_. ,c,.. 1000' \ ) ~ \ ~rn;,. \ • 2and3) \ *-) } ' n ""'-\ H (-I)\ SITe; A. Above Sf u ice B. Abet~~ PYm p Pond C. Pond By Pump D. lypass E. ~· Bl&ow Sluice F. Below SkJice G. soo' DownltrMf'ft on Bypass H. End of Tailrace J. 400' Downatream on Bypass MINE SITE 10 MAMMOTH CREEK Ct~LE DtSTRICT L SETl\.ING ftONO DEMONSTRATION ~ t l I •~· Hours SlUiced per day: 8 ~CREEK MINE SITE tlO CIRa.E DIS'm!Cl' CUbic yards moved per hour: 150-17 0 Water used: 7.4 cfs 3300 gpn water required to sluice 1 cubic yard: 1,200-1,300 gallo~ya3 Equipment used: D-8 cat, two 988 front end loaders, 966 front end loader, sluioo box, PJI'l'P Wasta-ater Treatment Method: Tailrace. Manning Roughness Coefficient: 0. 072 Dates Sampled: 7/9/81, 8/15/81, 8/28/81 Description of Operation: An offstream pump pond was used to store water. Surplus water and high flows.are routed through a bypass to protect the pumps and dilute the sluice box effluent. '!be D-8 cat clears overblrden and piles J:8ydirt for one of the 988 loaders to feed the sluice box. The other 988 loader removes tailings. '!be tailrace was relocated between the first and second trips. '!his was an offstream mine site. MAMftUlli mEEK MINE SITE 10 SAMPLE ·srm Dissolved Water :Iii F1Cfi11,. Settleable Total Turbidity D:lte Sanp1ed Oxygen m;}/1 Temp oc cfs Solids, ml/1 SUs~r.ded mu SOlids,ml/1 Trip 1 7/9/81 Above Pt:lnp Pond 11.1 9 31 0.5 300 520 Ibnd By 1?\:llp .. 1.0 1240 880 Byp.tss 11.4 9 29 0.3 272 180 Below Sluice 11.8 8 6.7 12.0 1800 3400 &ld of Tailrace 9.7 9 1.1 35 4000 7200 400 • Downstream on Byp&s 10.9 9 38 3.0 .2280 2200 Trip 2 8/15/81 N:Jove Sluice 11.7 7 7.1 11 3.5 2880 1700 Pond By P\ltp 10.8 8 6.9 3.5 6300 33.00 40' Below Sluice 11.1 9 6 .. 0 8.2 18.0 24500 7000 Bypass 10.8 8 6.8 6.0 4.5 4500 5900 500' Downstream on Bypass 10.6 9 6.3 15 14.0 10400 2600 Trip 3 8/28/81 Above Sluice 11.1 8 8.0 35 9.0 6000 3500 R>nd By Ptl1p 10,.8 8 7.8 1.3 2230 2600 40 • Below Sluice 11.0 8 7.6 7.2 27 3180 7400 BypaSs 11.2 9 8.4 19 5.0 1680 2400 500 • Ila«lstream on Bypass 11.0 9 8.3 27 10.0 5320 3100 Catments: During first trip pi meter was not working. ' l: i L r ,, 'I :; u ) t,_.---------------- t l .[ [ L [ ~·· IL [ t, [ [ t ~ ' ~ I I~ ' I ( ,.,.--------------.~""' ,~ l \ ~ ,.. cw J \ I .o. I \ '0' I '--------------""' 10-1-81 NOTE: Dittances shown art okwil f tow lint~. ••• •••s..,L'Mr .... ._. A.t.iow91uioe ......... ~ c. aalaw Sfuiol D. K)O' la•w SOui• E. 1000' .low Stulle F. 100' .,tPtJ.n ""-" Eftlill Tef"- G. c .... CIWil N. 100• Dz snits zan MtN€ ~TE II ~~ED CJIIIEI( Ct..Cl..E r. 1Wit1 .... cia-.· Hours Sluiced per day: 8 G(X)KED CREEK MINE SITE ill CIRCLE DISI'RICT Cubic yards moved per hour: 150-200 Water used: 8.9-11 cfs 4,000-S,OQO gpn {miner's estimate) Water required to sluice l cubic yard: 1,200-2,000 gallonsVyd3 Equipuent. used: Two D-9 cats, 988 front end loader, sluice box, pump Wastewater Treatment Method: Tailrace Manning Roughness Goefficient: - Oates ,Sa-npled: 8/27/81, 9/4/81, 9/15/81 Description of Operation: This site pumps from an offstream pump pond. The two D-9 cats load the sluice box while the 988 loader removes tailings. The ground in this area is flat, therefore the miner does not have room on his claim to get sufficient drop to build a pond. This was a\"l offstream mine. CKXJ(ID' <ma: MitE SI'JE 11 SAMPLE srre Dissolved Water Ill Flow, Settleable it> tal '1\lrbidity ~te 5aupled Oxygen mg/1 Tenp oc cfs Solids, ml/1 SUspended tmJ Trip 1 8/21/81 So1ids,ml/l Above Sluice 11a6 9 1.1 74 0.3 165 140 Puq;> Pond 10.2 13 7.,8 1.0 630 1000 100 • Below Sluice 10.0 12 6.9 18 4730 4300 100 • t.Jpetream fran &ld of Tailrace 9.8 13 6.9 21 6070 6700 500 • Downstream 10.4 13 7.4 7o0 3660 2600 Trip 2 9/4/81 Above Sluice 13.4 2 7.6 34 1.5 1180 1300 Plllp Pond 13.4 3 7.6 1.0 1360 1200 Below Sluice 13.0 5 6.9 80 32300 10800 100 1 Below Sluice 13.2 4 7.0 18.0 11100 5400 1000 • Below Sluice 12.4 6 7 .. 0 12 22 8670 7400 Crooked Creek 12.2 6 7.6 31 0.8 500 400 500 1 bnstream 12.2 6 7.3 49 7.0 3240 2000 Trip 3 9/15/81 Above Sluice 12.6 4 7.2 25 1 .. 0 1210 800 Plmp lbnd 12.4 5 7.3 0 .. 7 995 800 Below Sluice 13.0 6 6 .. 7 50 76700 8600 100' Below Sluice 11.5 6 6.5 14 10500 4500 1000 1 Below Sluice 12.0 6 6.7 15 18 22600 11000 Crooked Creek 11.8 5 7.3 17 0.5 786 2000 500 • lbmstream 11.8 6 7.3 28 5.0 5800 2700 Coxments: ' ' l~ --------------~----~------------- tr L l l • IL ' [ f, IJ [' ' u l F. Ltt. AU. TRIPS .... •aM a-..eua....,..,e-=. SITE A. ~ influent ( Above Sluice) B. Peftd tty PUMP C. D•••• C,.. Above Tailrace D. lelow Sluice E. EM of T.tlNCI F. Deadwood Cteek soo' BlkM TaiiMCt MINE SITE 12 DEADY«XX> CREEK CIRCLE DISTIIttC"f IIT'r\Jtlll faOND DIMONI'TMTION ~CT - t I I f I L Hours Sluiced per day: 8 DP.NXXJ) acE&. MIE srm tl2 CIRaE DISTRICT CUbic yards moved per hour: 60-80 Water used: 8.8 cfs 3900 gpn Mater required to sluice 1 cubic yard: 2,900-3,900 gallonaVya3 . Equipment used: D-8 cat, two JD 544-B front end loaders, sluice box, vibrating screen, Plii'P Wastewter Treatment Method: Tailrace Manning Roughness Coefficient: 0.010 Jlites Sampled: 7/3/81, 7/19/fJl, 7/26/81 Description of Operation: The miner u~~es an instream pond for a. pump pond. The D-8 cat pushes p!lydirt fran the mine cut towards the sluice· tox. One Jlli44-B loader feeds the washing bin. The paydirt was washed through a vibrating screen into the sluice box. The other JD544-B loader reaoves t-.ilings. Between the second and third trip a channel was made diverting water from Deadwood Creek into the tailrace. turing the sampling period two additional miners were working Deadwood Creek, cme upstream and one downstream. Neither miner wu studied nor uaed aettling px1d8. 1bis was an offstream opera- tion. DFAIHXD QUE{ MDE SI'l'E 12 SAMPLE sr.n:: Di&SOlved water pi Flow, Settleable Total i\trbidity Dste Baq>led Oxygen JIQfl 'l'elll? oc cfa Solid&, ml/1 Suspended tmJ Solida,ml/1 Trip! 7/3/81 Nxwe Sluice 12.2 5 "'0.1 485 48U Below Sluice 11.9 5 8.0 i,.O 8210 4800 End of 'lailrace 11.5 6 8.0 i.O 500 ssoo Trip 2 7/19/81 Pond By P\lllp 10.8 g 1.2 2080 1900 Below Sluice ll.7 8 10 13.0 17200 8200 Deadwood Cr. Above Tailrace 10.7 8 17 3.0 6020 1600 &ld of ~ilraoe 10.,6 8 10.0 15100 4200 Deadwood Cr. 500' Below Tailrace 10.7 8 2.0 2980 1800 Trip 3 7/26/81 Pond By lUip 11.0 10 6.3 0.8 1770 1900 Deadwood Cr. Abwe iailrace 10.1 11 6.4 8.9 1.0 2420 2200 Below Sluice 10.5 11 6.3 8~4 11.0 14900 0000 &ld of Tailr~ce 10.6 12 6.4 11 9.0 12700 6700 Deadwood Cr. 500 1 Below ~ilrace 9.5 12 6.4 19 6.5 7480 5800 Otmmantsz For all tirst and second trips PI meter was not working. During second trip flOW' measurement for Deadwood Cr. -500' Below Tailrace was taken 400 1 Below Tailrace. Between the second and third trips tart of Deadwood Cr. was diverted into the tailraceo ~) 1,. ~,. I rl m· I I m I t ll 11 I rl ~: L It = \ ) I \ &!X) I l r%* I .. .,. ;I' \ ,..../ ALL TRIPS ........................... A.. ., Ill IJ~I.. SktMie I. llllst htict c.,.. tftftMIIt D.,._. ltn..t E: ...... a.. ....... II: toO' DeanaJaealli ~ 1. "·• -..n. 2. 7,JGO ... ft. 3. 1'llOOO ~ ft. '!lltJ' ToMe t1,410-.ft. NOTE: Oft tM 1111.-d Nit ,_.#I .. fwl fl ••••••t. MiM S"-ltW S1uditltl (~at t111 DtJt• of Trip 2 IIIII 11M Mill Mllcl $(») .. -..w; MfNE SITE 13 CHENA RIVER FAtRUNKS Dt! r'ttCT SETTLINif POND D£MONITM110N fiiiROJECT NOTE: Olstanoes shown are tiofto flew n ... 1~-----------------~------------------------------~-------J 11 - Houts Sluiced per day: 8 QlENA ru:VER MINE sm tl3 FADUWES DISDUCT CUbic yar.ds rooved per hour: 150-200 water used: 2 c.S cfs 1300 gpm water required to }lluice 1 cubic yard~ 390-52& gal.l;@fUVlJd3 Equipment used: D-8 cat, D-9 cat, 988 front end loader, baekhoe, vibr:ating screen, conveyor, tramel, sluice box, ptmp - Wastewater Treatment Metmd: ~ee settling ponds, the largest one has gravel baffles. Manning Rouglmess Coefficient: - Dates Saq>led: 7/15/81, 7/28./81 Description of Operation: Water is collected in a pump pond adjacent to a bypass from the Chena River. A D-8 and D-9 cat remove overburden and pile paydirt for the backhoe to feed the vibrating screen. The material passin1 was carried by a conveyor to the trommel. '!he trommel sorts the fines into 4 to 8 sluice boxes while the coarse fraction passes through. The tailings are removed by the 988 loader. i~e use of a 900' tailrace and two ponds reduces settleable solids and total suspended solids before the effluent enters pond t3. The bypass is routed into pond 13 to dilute the effluent prior to re-entering the Chena River. This was an offstream mine. QIENA RIVER MINE .SITE 13 SAMPLE srre Dissolved Water pi Flow, Settleable 'I\) tal '1\lrbidity rete 5anpled Oxygen m:J/1 Tenl> oc cfs Solids, ml/1 SUspended N.lU . So1ids,ml/1 Trip 1 7/15/81 Bypass Above Sluice 10.6 9 4.1 < 0.1 1.1 2.6 Below Sluice 11.4 9 2.9 175 44900 16800 Pond Influent 9.2 11 3.0 2.0 24900 13400 Pond Effluent 7.9 13 4.2 ~0.1 660 1800 Before CMma River 8.5 13 2.0 <0.1 25 600 Qlena River 500 • Downstream 2.2 7.8 Trip 2 7/28/81 Bypass Above Sluice 11.3 8 7.4 6.7 ~0.1 25.4 6.4 Below Sluice 12.3 9 7.6 2t.7 40 1160 8900 ~nd Influent 9.8 10 7.5 3.4 60 28500 7000 lbnd Efr~luent 9.1 12 7.3 2.5 .(. 0.1 410 160 Before Olena River 9.1 14 7.4 0.1 440 650 Qlena River 500' Downstream 10.7 10 7.4 .(. 0.1 31.0 34.0 Coomstts: 'lbi.s site was sampled only twice. Pond 11 was full of silt during t..~ second trip. •• I' 11 I I I 11 I I f I ~ I [ f 11 NOTE: Dtat 1111• lliowft .. 0'-1 f.. liMe. )w.. RaM a•N-U..1"A.,..,lNC. ' l illi A. Flu.~ CrHk B. AiM Sluice C. PoNf by Pu.p. 0. leiow Sluice E. PaM lnfiUMt F. POftd EHiut~tt G. 500• OownMttom H. tooo• Dowrwtream Pad. MN:I = 21,000 eq. ft. NOTE: O,.et4., is QWWOKir.-.ty so-/o ~.oil tripe. MtNE SITE l4 flllflMJKS DtSTRtCT MTYI.IIM ftOND DIMONIT"ATMIN Pfta.I!CT l I t 1 Hours Sluiced per day: l.O FLUME CREEK M.!NE SITE ll4 FAmBANKS DIS'DUCT CUbic yards IOOVed per hour: 40-50 Water used: 4.8 cfs 2200 gpn Water required to sluice l cubic yard: 2,600-3,300 gallons/yd3 Equipnent used: D-6 cat, 2 panps, sluice box Wastewater Treatment Method: Pump pond used as settling pond Manning Roughness Coefficient: 0.029 Dates Sampled: 7 /Zl /81, 8/20/81, 8/28/81 Description of Operation: This site uses the pump pond as a settling pond. The pond was built to include bushes to filter the water. '!be miner uses the D-6 cat to load the sluice box and remove tailings.;, This was an instream mine. '!be percentage recycle was estimated at 800 (m.U'ler's estimate). FLUME mEEK MINE SITE 14 SAMPLE srm Dissolved Water PI F1C1tt, Settleable 'lbtal '1\lrbidity Date Sanpled Oxygen mg/1 Telp oc cfs Solids, ml/1 Suspended NJlJ Solids,lll/1 Trip 1 7/27/81 Fl\De Cr. 11.0 10 7.0 0.4 1.0 860 500 Pond by Punp 9.4 10 6.~ 0.1 300 600 13elow Sluice 11.0 11 6.9 5 .. 4 10.0 20HOO lObOO R>nd Influent 11.2 10 6.7 j' .a 10.0 20300 8600 Pond Effluent 10.9 10 6.9 0,.8 0.1 2960 4500 1000 1 Downstrec111 10.7 11 6.9 0.7 (E) 0.1 2300 3900 Trip 2 8/20/81 Above Sluice 14.0 3 6.8 0.2 < 0.1 3.0 4.2 Pond By Ptmq;> 11.6 6 6.8 <0.1 100 150 Below Sluice 11.6 8 5.,9 11.0 15700 8400 Pond Influent 11.6 8 6.0 3.6 33 29400 13400 Pond Effluent 11.6 8 6.0 1.4 4.5 5160 1900 500 1 Downstream 11.5 8 6.0 1.2 4.0 6020 6200 Trip 3 8/28/81 Flune Creek 11.6 10 6.6 0.5 0.2 92 80 Above Sluice 13!92 8 7.0 0.2 <0.1 22 22 Pond By PtJnp 9.4 12 6.1 <Ool 680 1200 Below Sluice 11.5 11 6.2 4.3 40 11600 7700 Pond Influent 11.3 11 5.7 3.8 33 10700 7500 R>nd Effluent 10.2 12 5.6 1.1 6.5 6470 6900 500 1 Downstream 10.3 12 6.0 0.9 4.0 3680 6400 Qmnents: en all trips operation was approximately 80% recycle.