Laserfiche WebLink
31 <br />• 97 and 122). The results of the analysis on the seven samples are shown <br />in Table 3. The samples from Ennis Draw, on which the analysis were made, <br />were collected after continuously bailing the wells. Those from the <br />coal and overburden were collected from the pump discharge at the end <br />of the pumping period during the aquifer tests. During the pumping period, <br />the electrical conductivity, temperature, and pH were measured in the <br />field at the time of sample collection. The samples collected were <br />filtered through a 0.45 micron filter and one-half of the sample was <br />acidified. The samples were then transported to the laboratory. <br />The data in Table 3 show a striking difference between :he waters <br />in the coal and overburden. The water in the coal is of significantly <br />better quality than that in the overburden, although in neither case can <br />the water be regarded as acceptable for many uses. The large difference <br />betw~n the water quality in the coal and overburden aquifers is further <br />evidence of little or no hydraulic communication between the coal and the <br />overburden. <br />Trace elements concentrations are generally low, the exception being <br />iron in sample 117 and boron in sample 172. The observation that the <br />trace elements in the overburden waters are significantly more concentrated <br />than in the coal waters is probably partially explained by the fact that <br />the overburden waters exhibit a lower pN than the coal waters. The sodium <br />adsorption ratios (SAR) range from 10 to 18. These rather high SAR values, <br />coupled with the high dissolved solid content, cause the waters to be <br />classified barely acceptable to unacceptable for irrigation, although this <br />• depends upon the type of soil and crop to which they would be applied. <br /> <br /> <br />