U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5184

In cooperation with the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas 

Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois
Cover. Photograph of Patrick Mills, U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist, on site near Acid Lake, Fulton County, Illinois.
Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity 

of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with 

Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois

By William S. Morrow

In cooperation with the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5184

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Morrow, W.S., 2007, Ground-water quality in the vicinity of coal-refuse areas reclaimed with biosolids in Fulton 

County, Illinois: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5184, 42 p. with appendixes.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................1

Background............................................................................................................................................3

Study Methods ...............................................................................................................................................3

Well Installations ..................................................................................................................................3

Water-Sample Collection and Analysis.............................................................................................3

Statistical Methods...............................................................................................................................5

Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................................5

Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas...................................................................6

Field Parameters...................................................................................................................................8

Nutrients.................................................................................................................................................8

Dissolved Metals, Total Sulfate, and Acidity....................................................................................8

Dissolved Aluminum....................................................................................................................8

Dissolved Cadmium .....................................................................................................................9

Dissolved Chromium....................................................................................................................9

Dissolved Copper.......................................................................................................................10

Dissolved Iron.............................................................................................................................10

Dissolved Lead ...........................................................................................................................10

Dissolved Manganese ..............................................................................................................10

Dissolved Nickel.........................................................................................................................10

Dissolved Zinc ............................................................................................................................10

Total Sulfate ................................................................................................................................11

Acidity (Base Neutralizing Capacity)......................................................................................11

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................11

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................12

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................12

Appendixes 1–2............................................................................................................................................15

Figures

1–2. Maps showing—

1. Location of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 

property in Fulton County, Illinois......................................................................................2

2. Location of coal-refuse areas in Fulton County, Illinois................................................4

3–4. Graphs showing—

3. Ammonia concentration as a function of the concentration of (A) iron and (B) 

acidity from wells near coal-refuse areas ......................................................................9

4. Sulfate concentration as a function of the concentration of (A) specific 

conductivity and (B) acidity from wells near coal-refuse area .................................11
iv

Tables

1. Field measurements, lab pH, and construction characteristics for shallow 

ground-water wells in coal-refuse areas in Fulton County, Illinois, fall 2006.....................6

2. Acidity, sulfate, and nutrient concentrations for shallow ground-water wells 

in coal-refuse areas in Fulton County, Illinois, fall 2006 .........................................................7

3. Dissolved metals concentrations for shallow ground-water wells in coal-refuse 

areas in Fulton County, Illinois, fall 2006. ..................................................................................7

Appendixes

1. Geologic Boring and Construction Logs .................................................................................16

2. Constituent Concentration Data in Background Wells from 1999–2006............................30

Conversion Factors

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

 °F=(1/8 x °C)+32

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25 °C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2)

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

Application rate

tons per acre 2.25 kilograms per hectare

cubic yard per acre 1.89 cubic meter (m3) per hectare (ha)
Abstract

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 

Chicago has applied biosolids, followed by revegetation, to 

reclaim three coal-refuse areas. Most of the reclamation at the 

three sites was done from 1989 through 1992, and included 

the application of lime, clay, and various loads of biosolids 

up to 1,000 dry tons per acre. Water samples collected from 

12 monitoring wells installed in the vicinity of the three 

reclaimed coal-refuse areas were analyzed to better understand 

the hydrogeology and water-quality effects.

Ground water probably flows along preferential paths in 

the disturbed coal-refuse areas, and is impeded by undisturbed 

glacial till. Most of the samples contained elevated concentrations of sulfate, iron, and manganese, constituents associated 

with ground water in coal-mined areas. Concentrations of 

aluminum, cadmium, nickel, or zinc were somewhat elevated 

in samples from four wells, and greatest in water samples with 

pH less than 5. The smaller nutrient concentrations indicate 

that the applied biosolids are not identifiably affecting nutrients or metal concentrations in shallow ground water near the 

refuse piles. The coal refuse likely is the primary influence on 

the chemical characterization of ground-water in the area.

Introduction

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 

Chicago (MWRD) began operation of the Fulton County site 

in early 1971 to reclaim mine spoil land using biosolids. Sewage and sludge from the greater Chicago area have been transported to the MWRD facility and treated, initially as digested 

liquid biosolids, and later as air-dried biosolids, starting in the 

mid-1980s (Tian and others, 2006). The resulting biosolids 

and supernatant liquid have been applied to agricultural fields, 

former coal mines, and coal-refuse areas on the facility to 

reclaim the land. The application of biosolids to coal-refuse 

areas ceased in 2002, and to the entire site in 2004. Monitoring of surface-water quality and ground-water quality in the 

MWRD-owned area began in the early 1970s and currently 

(2007) continues, but effects on ground-water quality immediately adjacent to the coal-refuse areas are relatively unknown. 

To better understand these effects, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), in cooperation with the MWRD, conducted a study 

of ground-water quality in the vicinity of three coal-refuse 

areas on which biosolids have been applied at the MWRD 

facility. Previous work to characterize the effects of groundwater quality from biosolids applications on formerly mined 

land generally indicate that the leaching potential of nitrate 

and metals is greatest when the biosolids are first applied, but 

long-term effects are not expected (Stehouwer and others, 

2006; Daniels and Haering, 2000; Haering and others, 2000). 

An investigation of the effects of biosolids applied on formerly 

mined land in Pennsylvania (Stehouwer and others, 2006) 

indicated that nutrients and trace-element leaching were greatest during the first year of application, then attenuated. An 

investigation of biosolids effects on ground water in the Colorado area (Yager and others, 2004) indicated that there were 

no significant upward trends in concentrations of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, nickel, or zinc in ground water in biosolids 

application areas. Another recent investigation (McAuley and 

Kozar, 2006) on ground-water quality in unmined areas and 

near surface coal mines in the Appalachian region indicated 

that significantly greater median concentrations of aluminum, 

ammonia, iron, manganese, sulfate, and zinc were present in 

ground water from mined areas than in ground water from 

unmined areas, and that iron and manganese were ubiquitous 

throughout mined areas. Aluminum, manganese, sulfate, 

and zinc had greatest concentrations within 500 feet (ft) of 

coal-mined areas, but decreased to background conditions at 

distances greater than 1,000 ft.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the results of a water-quality investigation at the three coal-refuse areas at the MWRD land reclamation site located in Fulton County, Illinois (fig. 1). Hydrogeologic and water-quality data collected near three coal-refuse 

areas that were reclaimed by biosolids applications are presented and analyzed. Included are data from 12 wells installed 

for the study and sampled during September and November 

2006. Summary statistics of the water-quality data are discussed 

and related to background water-quality conditions. 

Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas 

Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 

By William S. Morrow
2 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 

Figure 1. Location of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago property in Fulton County, Illinois.
Study Methods 3

Background

The study area is in Fulton County of western Illinois 

(fig. 1) within the Galesburg Plain subsection of the Till 

Plains section of the Central Lowland physiographic province (Willman and others, 1975). Before mining, the geology of the area consisted of loess overlying Illinois glacial 

episode, or older, drift. Underlying the glacial drift is the 

Carbondale Formation of the Pennsylvanian System, consisting of alternating layers of coal, limestone, shale, and 

sandstone. Areas in Fulton County have been mined for coal, 

using surface- and underground-mining methods. Surface 

mining began by removing all material overlying the Springfield, Colchester, or other coal seams in the Carbondale 

Formation. The excavated overburden material was redeposited as irregular ridges and valleys, and the resultant excavations often became lakes. The landscape and local drainage 

patterns were rearranged over much of the area (Coupe and 

Macy, 1993; Patterson, 1982; Patterson and others, 1982; 

Zuehls and others, 1981). 

During 1970–71, the MWRD purchased 15,527 acres 

of land in Fulton County roughly bordered by the towns of 

St. David, Canton, Cuba, and Bryant (fig.1) for the purpose 

of disposing of sewage sludge generated by the greater 

Chicago metropolitan area and applying biosolids to reclaim 

those lands. This land was surface mined primarily for 

coal (78 percent of the land) from the 1920s to the 1960s. 

Approximately 4,400 acres were developed into agricultural 

fields for crop production. Biosolids were applied to these 

fields from 1972 through 2004. The average amount of 

cumulative biosolids applied on these agricultural fields was 

approximately 390 tons per acre (Patterson, 1982; Tian and 

others, 2006).

Three primary coal-refuse areas were created adjacent 

to, or on, operating coal mines and areas for cleaning and 

processing coal. They are the United Electric Company, Morgan Mine, and the St. David coal-refuse areas (fig. 1, fig. 2). 

The United Electric Company, Morgan Mine, and St. David 

areas are located in the southwest, south central, and southeast parts of the study area, and are 101, 27, and 120 acres 

in area, respectively. The United Electric Company area was 

operated from 1924 through 1971; the Morgan Mine area 

was used from 1942 through 1955; and the St. David area 

was used from 1936 through 1967. In all three areas, coal 

was processed and cleaned from the Springfield coal seam 

by strip mining (Illinois State Geological Survey, 2006). 

The glacial drift, shale, and residual coal removed were 

displaced, then redeposited unsorted. To reclaim the area, the 

MWRD graded and recontoured the land to decrease erosion. 

Various amounts of lime, clay, and biosolids were applied 

in layers, primarily from 1989 through 1992. Maximum 

application rates were 70 dry tons per acre of lime, 538 cubic 

yards per acre of clay, and 1,000 dry tons per acre of biosolids. The reclaimed areas were then revegetated with a forage 

mixture. 

Study Methods

Well Installations

A direct hydraulic-push rig mounted on a four-wheeldrive truck was used to install 12 wells. Using a 2-in. diameter 

sampler, cores were collected continuously and the geology 

of the unconsolidated deposits was logged down to the first 

water-yielding unit. A 1-in. diameter by 5-ft long polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) well screen with 1-in. diameter PVC casing 

was installed in the core hole. A sand filter pack was added to 

about 1 ft above the top of the screen, and the remainder of the 

annulus was sealed to land surface with fine-granular hydrated 

bentonite. Occasionally, a 1-in. diameter probing rod was used 

to determine depth to bedrock and presence of water-yielding 

deposits before continuous coring was attempted. 

Using this method, 12 wells were installed in September 

2006. Five wells were installed at the United Electric Company area, three wells at the Morgan Mine area, and four wells 

at the St. David area (fig. 2). There also were two bore holes 

that did not yield water. One bore hole was at the west edge of 

the St. David area and the other was south of the coal-refuse 

pile at the United Electric Company area (fig. 2). The well 

construction and boring logs are listed in appendix 1, at the 

back of this report.

Three previously installed wells were selected as background wells. These wells were installed by the MWRD during the 1970s as part of a general monitoring program for the 

entire MWRD facility. These wells are not in coal-refuse or 

biosolids application areas, but may be in areas of former coal 

mining activities, as virtually the entire study area is affected 

by coal mining, based on observed topography. These wells 

(W09, 47 ft deep; W17, 51 ft deep; W25, 31.5 ft deep) are 

deeper than the monitoring wells installed for this study and 

generally are topographically upgradient from the coal-refuse 

areas. Well W09 is approximately 2,000 ft north from the St. 

David area, W17 is approximately 2,900 ft northwest from the 

Morgan Mine area, and W25 is more than 3 miles (mi) generally north of all areas. 

Water-Sample Collection and Analysis

Initial water samples were collected from the installed 

monitoring wells in September 2006, within 1 week of well 

construction; resampling of three wells was completed in 

November 2006. Using a peristaltic pump and Teflon tubing, 

the wells first were developed to maximize water production, reduce turbidity, and remove unrepresentative ground 

water. Before sampling, three well-casing volumes of water 

were purged from the well, and dissolved oxygen, specific 

conductivity, pH, temperature, and turbidity were monitored 

continuously until they stabilized (measurements were made 

with an In-Situ Troll 9000 water-quality meter). Turbidity 

was quantified using a Hach 2100 P instrument that measures 
4 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 

Figure 2. Location of coal-refuse areas in Fulton County, Illinois.
Hydrology 5

scattered light, meeting the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) 180.1 method criteria (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1993). The Hach instrument uses several 

detectors to increase the measurement range, and an algorithm using the multiple detection results is used to calculate 

a final value. Units are in nephelometric turbidity ratio units 

(NTRUs), which are equivalent to nephelometric turbidity 

units (NTUs). One well, SD-1W, did not produce enough 

water to allow continuous monitoring of these parameters during the purge with the peristaltic pump and collect a sample. 

Water from this well was obtained by pumping the well dry 

while monitoring the parameters, and collecting a sample for 

analysis the next day. 

Samples for analyses of dissolved-metals were filtered 

with a 0.45-micrometer (μm) pore size disposable capsule 

filter and preserved with nitric acid. Samples for nutrients 

(nitrogen species) analyses were collected unfiltered and 

preserved with sulfuric acid. Samples for analyses of acidity 

(base neutralizing capacity), pH, and sulfate were collected 

unfiltered and not preserved. All samples were analyzed by 

PDC Laboratories in Peoria, Illinois, for nutrients (ammonia 

and nitrate plus nitrite - as nitrogen), dissolved metals (aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, 

nickel, and zinc), sulfate, and acidity. Nitrate plus nitrite as 

nitrogen was analyzed using the automated cadmium-reduction method; ammonia was analyzed using the distillation/

automated phenate method. Metals were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. Sulfate was analyzed using ion chromatography. Acidity was analyzed using 

the titrimetric method in milligrams per liter (mg/L) as CaCO3 

(John LaPayne, PDC Laboratories; written communication, 

2006). All samples were chilled and analyzed within required 

holding times, except for laboratory pH, which was exceeded 

for all samples.

One set of blank samples and one set of replicate samples 

were included with the samples collected in September for 

quality assurance and quality control. There were no detections in the blank samples at or above the reporting levels. 

Replicate samples were identical for metals, sulfate, and nutrient analyses. Replicate samples differed by 2 percent for lab 

pH and by 20 percent for acidity. Results from these samples 

indicate that the data are of acceptable quality, with the possible exception of acidity.

Three wells were resampled in November 2006 to confirm pH measurements less than 5.0 and/or elevated concentrations of aluminum, cadmium, nickel, and zinc. Metal concentrations were similar for all constituents, generally having less 

than 20 percent variability.

The three background wells (W09, W17, and W25) 

were sampled quarterly by MWRD personnel beginning in 

1972 as part of the environmental monitoring system for the 

site. These samples were filtered for metals analyses. Beginning in 1999, several reporting levels for laboratory analyses 

of metals decreased substantially. Water-quality data from 

these wells indicate that coal mining effects likely affected 

the ground water most in 1972 for several constituents, then 

the effects attenuate over several years. For the purposes of 

this report, the 8 years of historical water-quality data for 

these wells (February 1997 through September 2006) are 

assumed to be representative of background (unaffected 

by applied biosolids) water-quality conditions. Historical 

background results that are below the reporting level for the 

analysis are given as the reporting level for statistical purposes. Data for these background wells are in appendix 2, at 

the back of this report.

Statistical Methods

Concentration ranges and medians were calculated for 

each constituent for samples collected in September 2006. The 

results from the three wells resampled in November 2006 were 

not used, because to include them would skew the statistical 

calculations. The small number of samples (12) and many 

non-detections for these samples limit the interpretation of 

these correlations; therefore, correlations are not included in 

this report.

For the historical background well data, ranges were 

calculated for each constituent. Because of the limited information on reporting levels for analyses of samples from the 

background wells, median values were calculated using the 

reporting level for censored values.

Hydrology

The United Electric Company area is generally bounded 

to the south by Big Creek, the major stream on the MWRD 

property, and bounded to the east by Slug Run, a tributary to 

Big Creek (fig.1). To the west, the United Electric Company 

area is bounded by an unnamed tributary to Big Creek that 

flows approximately parallel to the bed of an abandoned railroad. Five monitoring wells were installed at the United Electric Company area, all in reworked refuse (fig. 2). Well depths 

in the United Electric Company area ranged from 11.0 to 21.9 

ft below land surface (bls). Depth to water ranged from 5.87 

to 14.16 ft bls at time of sampling (table 1). Wells UEC-1W 

and UEC-2W, installed at the south edge of the refuse pile in 

reworked deposits, yielded water at well depths of less than 22 

ft. No water was detected during coring in the UEC-6B bore 

hole to 32 ft deep, approximately 500 ft east of UEC-1W and 

1,600 ft west of UEC-2W. The geology at this bore hole seems 

to be undisturbed glacial till down to shale bedrock at 32 ft 

bls. The fine-grained till deposits consistently are unsaturated 

because of their low permeability, and the coal-refuse materials consistently are saturated. This indicates that ground-water 

flow primarily occurs in the unconsolidated coal refuse and 

spoils at all three coal-refuse areas. 

Well UEC-4W, north from the United Electric Company 

refuse area, is 20.0 ft deep with a water level of 14.04 ft bls 

at time of sampling. Initial probing before installation of well 

UEC-4W indicated a water-yielding zone of coarse material 
6 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 

from 44 to 48 ft with a depth to water of 31 ft bls. Five subsequent attempts to install a well in this deep water-yielding 

zone failed because buried rocks or debris limited penetration 

to 35 ft deep. The absence of water at 35 ft indicates that the 

deeper water-yielding area is confined.

The Morgan Mine area is bounded generally to the south 

and east by Big Creek, and to the north and west by uplands. 

Three wells were installed on the west and southwest side 

of the area in coal-refuse deposits (fig. 2). Well depths in the 

Morgan Mine area ranged from 14.0 to 19.8 ft bls. Depth to 

water ranged from 3.89 to 6.93 ft bls at time of sampling. 

The geology at well W17, an upland monitoring well 

installed in 1971 approximately 2,900 ft north of the Morgan 

Mine area, is 43 ft of undisturbed glacial till, underlain by 

limestone bedrock. The well was screened from 46 to 51 ft bls 

in the limestone. The glacial till at well W17 does not yield 

water, as indicated by driller’s log.

The St. David area generally is bounded by the headwaters of Little Sister Creek to the east and south. Four wells 

were installed in the St. David area, all in coal refuse near the 

perimeter of the main refuse pile on the north, south, and east 

sides (fig. 2). Well depths in the St. David area ranged from 

16.7 to 34.8 ft bls. Depth to water ranged from 4.78 to 18.33 

ft bls at the time of sampling. Well SD-4W (well depth of 24.7 

ft), installed at the north edge of the refuse pile, yielded water 

at 11.73 ft bls. However, no water was present in UEC-6B, a 

33.5 ft deep bore hole, approximately 1,800 ft east of SD-4W. 

The geology at this hole was undisturbed glacial till to 33.5 ft 

deep bls where shale bedrock was encountered. The till deposits seemed unsaturated and poorly permeable.

Borings UEC-6B, at the southern edge of the United 

Electric Company refuse pile and near the tree line, and 

boring SD-5B, several hundred feet west from the St. David 

refuse pile (fig. 2), were beyond the coal-refuse area in 

undisturbed glacial till and yielded no water. The best waterproducing zones, based on the 12 well installations, were the 

coal-refuse deposits. Ground water appears to flow preferentially through the coal refuse and is impeded by undisturbed 

glacial till. Shallow ground-water discharge presumably 

is to the nearby streams and lakes that are topographically 

downgradient of the refuse areas. Ground-water flow at 

the United Electric Company area may discharge into Slug 

Run and Big Creek; the Morgan Mine area ground-water 

flow may discharge into Big Creek; and the St. David area 

ground-water flow may discharge into Little Sister Creek 

(fig. 1).

Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of 

Coal-Refuse Areas

Ground-water samples were collected at the three coalrefuse areas in September 2006. Laboratory water-quality 

analytical results for the samples are listed in tables 2 and 

3. To evaluate the relative concentrations of the constituents 

Table 1. Field measurements, lab pH, and construction characteristics for shallow ground-water wells in coal-refuse areas in Fulton 

County, Illinois, fall 2006.

[μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; NTRU, nephelometric turbidity ratio units; ft bls, feet below land surface; --, no data]

Well Date

Laboratory 

pH

(standard 

units)

Field pH,

(standard 

units)

Specific 

conductivity,

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen,

(mg/L)

Water temperature,

(degrees 

Celsius)

Turbidity

(NTRU)

Well depth,

(ft bls)

Depth to 

water,

(ft bls)

UEC-1W 9/21/06 6.41 6.1 4,120 4.8 12.8 7 21.9 14.16

UEC-2W 9/21/06 4.67 4.4 3,580 2.3 13.8 280 17.7 10.26

UEC-2W 11/1/06 4.76 4.8 3,670 1.9 13.4 101 17.7 10.67

UEC-3W 9/21/06 6.39 6.0 2,890 4.0 14.6 29 13.5 9.95

UEC-4W 9/27/06 5.97 5.8 3,630 8.9 14.5 2 20.0 14.04

UEC-5RW 9/29/06 6.44 6.2 3,900 2.5 16.1 5 11.0 5.87

SD-1W 9/22/06 6.92 6.7 3,160 7.9 16.4 -- 27.6 9.49

SD-2W 9/22/06 6.71 6.3 3,670 7.5 13.7 49 16.7 4.78

SD-3W 9/22/06 6.85 6.3 3,170 1.3 12.2 72 34.8 18.33

SD-4W 9/28/06 6.89 5.3 3,184 3.9 16.1 19 24.7 11.73

SD-4W 11/1/06 7.23 7.2 3,160 10.5 12.0 12 24.7 12.45

MM-1W 9/21/06 6.69 6.6 2,562 6.4 13.0 15 19.5 6.93

MM-2W 9/28/06 7.01 6.5 2,780 8.4 12.5 12 19.8 3.89

MM-3W 9/29/06 4.48 4.4 2,320 5.4 12.1 5 14.0 4.06

MM-3W 11/1/06 3.70 4.6 2,340 6.8 12.3 1 14.0 4.02
Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas 7

Table 2. Acidity, sulfate, and nutrient concentrations for shallow ground-water wells in coal-refuse areas in Fulton County, Illinois, 

fall 2006.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; <, less than]

Well Sampling date

Acidity,

(mg/L as calcium 

carbonate)

Total sulfate,

(mg/L)

Nitrate plus nitrite 

as nitrogen,

(mg/L)

Ammonia as nitrogen,

(mg/L)

UEC-1W 9/21/06 550 2,700 <0.02 2.00

UEC-2W 9/21/06 550 2,900 <.02 0.51

UEC-2W 11/1/06 770 2,900 .02 .54

UEC-3W 9/21/06 200 1,800 <.02 .38

UEC-4W 9/27/06 590 2,500 <.02 2.70

UEC-5RW 9/29/06 460 2,500 <.02 3.20

SD-1W 9/22/06 110 1,800 <.02 .23

SD-2W 9/22/06 130 2,200 .03 .11

SD-3W 9/22/06 140 1,800 .03 .68

SD-4W 9/28/06 110 1,700 <.02 .62

SD-4W 11/1/06 100 1,800 .02 .57

MM-1W 9/21/06 140 1,400 <.02 1.60

MM-2W 9/28/06 82 1,600 <.02 .16

MM-3W 9/29/06 340 1,500 <.02 1.30

MM-3W 11/1/06 390 1,600 .02 1.20

Table 3. Dissolved metals concentrations for shallow ground-water wells in coal-refuse areas in Fulton County, Illinois, fall 2006.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; <, less than]

Well

Sampling 

date

Aluminum,

(mg/L)

Cadmium,

(mg/L)

Chromium,

(mg/L)

Copper,

(mg/L)

Iron,

(mg/L)

Lead,

(mg/L)

Manganese,

(mg/L)

Nickel,

(mg/L)

Zinc,

(mg/L)

UEC-1W 9/21/06 0.02 <0.001 <0.004 <0.003 190 <0.001 1.1 0.02 0.027

UEC-2W 9/21/06 14.0 .38 <.004 .034 20 <.001 150 2.0 40

UEC-2W 11/1/06 12.0 .38 .004 .031 18 .001 150 1.8 38 

UEC-3W 9/21/06 .02 .006 <.004 <.003 0.17 <.001 25 .20 2.0

UEC-4W 9/27/06 .27 <.001 .004 .003 260 <.001 36 .03 .37

UEC-5RW 9/29/06 .03 <.003 .004 .003 170 <.001 3.1 .05 .12

SD-1W 9/22/06 <.01 <.001 <.004 <.003 <.01 <.001 12 .05 .012

SD-2W 9/22/06 <.01 .002 <.004 .004 <.01 <.001 25 .05 .020

SD-3W 9/22/06 <.01 <.001 <.004 <.003 11 <.002 9.9 .06 .032

SD-4W 9/28/06 <.02 <.001 <.004 <.003 18 <.003 9.3 .03 .019

SD-4W 11/1/06 .01 .001 .004 .003 14 .001 12 .03 .032

MM-1W 9/21/06 <.03 <.001 <.004 <.003 68 <.004 12 .02 <.006

MM-2W 9/28/06 <.04 <.001 <.004 <.003 44 <.005 1.5 .02 <.006

MM-3W 9/29/06 7.6 .13 <.004 <.003 64 <.007 34 .77 8.7

MM-3W 11/1/06 9.0 .14 .004 .003 68 .002 38 .70 8.2
8 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 

analyzed, the USEPA drinking water standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006) were used for context; however, these samples are from monitoring wells, which are not 

intended for potable use. Determination of whether or not a 

compound was a likely biosolid contaminant was based on the 

U. S. Environmental Protection Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 503 requirement of monitoring biosolid land applications for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, 

nickel, selenium, and zinc (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1995).

Field Parameters

The September specific conductivity values ranged from 

2,320 to 4,120 microsiemens per centimeter (μS/cm), with 

a median of 3,180 μS/cm for all wells, indicating relatively 

high dissolved solids concentrations compared to undisturbed 

shallow ground water in Illinois. Zuehls and others (1981) 

developed a relation between dissolved solids and specific 

conductivity for surface waters with high sulfate concentrations (generally greater than 500 mg/L) in the Fulton County 

area using the equation:

Dissolved solids in mg/L = 0.77*Specific Conductivity in 

μS/cm (standard error of 128 mg/L). 

As applied to the ground-water data for this study, this 

general relation indicates that dissolved solids in the ground 

water could range from approximately 1,800 to 3,200 mg/L.

The September field pH values ranged from 4.4 to 6.7, 

with a median of 6.2. The field measurements differed with 

laboratory measured values by 0.1–1.6 units (laboratory measurements for pH exceeded holding times for analysis, which 

may account for much of the disparity). 

The laboratory and field pH values from the well 

SD-4W sample differed by 1.6 standard units (field; 5.3; 

laboratory; 6.9). When well SD-4W was resampled, lab and 

field measurements were 7.2. Laboratory pH analysis time 

exceedances may be responsible, or the laboratory or field 

pH meter may have been malfunctioning during the first 

sample, although the field pH meter was calibrated that day 

according to standard procedures (Wilde and others, 2006). 

It also may be possible that pH conditions may become 

more basic with increased pumping because refuse deposits 

immediately surrounding the well may lower the ground 

water pH immediately surrounding the well and drawing in 

water from a larger zone may increase the pH of the water 

withdrawn. 

Dissolved oxygen concentrations from the September 

sampling ranged from 1.3 to 8.9, with a median value of 5.1 

mg/L. These wells are in low-water-yielding deposits. During purging, the water level may have dropped below the top 

of the well screen, causing cascading water flow within the 

screened interval, and thus increased dissolved oxygen. The 

dissolved oxygen concentrations likely are biased high, based 

on evidence of pumping conditions and the relatively high 

concentrations of ammonia in the samples.

Water temperature from the September sampling ranged 

from 12.1 to 16.4 degrees Celsius (°C) , with a median of 

13.8°C. Water temperature may have been affected by solar 

radiation or air temperature during transit time in the flowthrough chamber of the water-quality meter, but are near typical ground-water temperatures for central Illinois. Turbidity 

ranged from 2 to 280, with a median of 15 NTRUs. The water 

from most wells was clear and less than 100 NTRUs, except 

for samples from UEC-2W.

Nutrients

Concentrations of total nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen for 

the September samples ranged from below the reporting level 

of 0.02 to 0.03 mg/L, with a median less than the reporting 

level of 0.02 mg/L; 10 of the 12 results were below the reporting level of 0.02 mg/L. All concentrations were below the 

USEPA drinking-water maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 

10 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2006).

Concentrations of total ammonia as nitrogen for the September samples, ranged from 0.11 to 3.2 mg/L, with a median 

of 0.65 mg/L. All results were below the USEPA drinkingwater lifetime health advisory of 30 mg/L (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). Ammonia with iron and acidity 

generally increased as indicated by visual plots (fig. 3).

In samples from the three background wells, total nitrate 

plus nitrite concentrations ranged from 0.001 to 7.82, with a 

median of 0.08 mg/L (appendix 2). Total ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.009 to 15.6, with a median of 0.10 mg/L. 

Biosolids were not applied near these background wells; however, agricultural chemical applications, such as fertilizer, were 

not documented, but likely. Well W09 and well W17 likely are 

affected by fertilizer applications in the adjacent agricultural 

fields. The relatively low concentrations of nitrate plus nitrite 

and ammonia, and similar background well levels, indicate 

that the biosolids have not increased nutrients in ground water 

in the coal-refuse areas. 

Dissolved Metals, Total Sulfate, and Acidity

Dissolved Aluminum

Aluminum, commonly present in acidic mine-drainage 

waters (Cravotta and Kirby, 2004; Earle and Callaghan, 1998), 

was detected at concentrations above reporting levels in six 

of the 12 September samples, all from the Morgan Mine and 

United Electric Company wells. Aluminum concentrations 

ranged from less than the reporting levels (0.01 to 0.04) to 

14.0, with a median of less than 0.04 mg/L (table 3). The 

USEPA secondary MCL range for aluminum is 0.05–0.2 mg/L 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). All detections 

were from wells 20 ft deep or less, except for the sample from 
Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas 9

UEC-1W. Concentrations of three samples (0.27, 7.6, and 

14.0 mg/L) exceeded the secondary MCL range; two of these 

exceedances were in samples from United Electric Company 

wells; one exceedance was in a sample from a Morgan Mine 

well. 

Dissolved aluminum concentrations from the September 

samples from MM-3W and UEC-2W were greater than 1 mg/L 

(7.6 and 14.0); these samples had a field pH of 4.4. Resampling 

in November confirmed these increased concentrations (9.0 and 

12.0 mg/L). Aluminum is most soluble in acidic or basic water, 

having a minimum solubility at approximately 6.0 pH (Hem, 

1985). Aluminum concentrations above the reporting levels 

occurred in samples with a pH less than 5.0.

In the samples from the three background wells, 

aluminum concentrations ranged from 0.05 to 0.21, with a 

median of 0.09 mg/L (appendix 2), indicating that aluminum 

concentrations in ground water under the refuse areas are 

still being affected, at least in localized zones of low pH, by 

the refuse deposits. It is possible that aluminum is from the 

biosolids, but it is not a required constituent for monitoring 

biosolids land application (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1995).

Dissolved Cadmium

Cadmium, commonly present in acidic mine drainage waters (Cravotta and Kirby, 2004; Earle and Callaghan, 

1998), was detected at concentrations above reporting levels 

in four of 12 September samples. All detections were from 

wells 20 ft deep or less. Cadmium concentrations ranged 

from below reporting levels (0.001 to 0.003) to 0.38 mg/L; 

the median was less than the reporting levels (table 3). The 

USEPA MCL for cadmium is 0.005 mg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). Concentrations in three 

samples exceeded the MCL (0.006, 0.13 and 0.38 mg/L). 

Two of these exceedances were in samples from the United 

Electric Company wells; one exceedance was from a Morgan 

Mine well. The two samples with the greatest concentrations 

(0.13 and 0.38 mg/L) were from MM-3W and UEC-2W, and 

had pH less than 5.0. 

In the three background well samples, cadmium concentrations ranged from 0.0002 to 0.007, with a median of 

0.001 mg/L (appendix 2), indicating that cadmium concentrations in ground water under the refuse areas are still being 

affected, at least in localized zones, by the refuse deposits. 

It is possible that cadmium is from the biosolids, as it is a 

required constituent for biosolids land-application monitoring (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995); however, 

cadmium also is present in coal-mine drainage waters. With 

the corresponding low concentrations of nutrients detected, 

it is likely that cadmium is from the refuse deposits, and not 

the biosolids. 

Dissolved Chromium

Chromium was detected at the reporting level in 2 of 12 

September samples. Chromium concentrations ranged from 

below the reporting level of 0.004 to 0.004 mg/L (table 3); the 

median was less than the reporting level of 0.004 mg/L. Both 

detections were from wells 20 ft deep or less at the United 

Electric Company area. No concentrations exceeded the 

USEPA MCL for chromium of 0.1 mg/L (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2006). Chromium is a required constituent for biosolids land-application monitoring (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995), but with concentrations of 

chromium being detected only at the reporting level of the 

analyses, it is unlikely that biosolids are affecting chromium 

concentrations.

In the three background well samples, chromium concentrations ranged from 0.0007 to 0.016, with a median of 0.002 

mg/L (appendix 2). This indicates that chromium concentrations in ground water under the refuse areas are not being 

affected substantially by the refuse deposits or biosolids. 

Figure 3. Ammonia concentration as a function of the 

concentration of (A) iron and (B) acidity from wells near coalrefuse areas.
10 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 

Dissolved Copper

Copper, which may be present in acidic mine drainage waters (Earle and Callaghan, 1998), was detected at 

concentrations above reporting levels in 4 of 12 September samples. Copper concentrations ranged from below 

the reporting level (0.003) to 0.034 mg/L; the median was 

below the reporting level of 0.003 mg/L (table 3). All 

detections were from wells 20 ft deep or less. Three detections were from samples at United Electric Company wells; 

one detection was from a sample from a St. David well. No 

concentrations exceeded the USEPA drinking-water action 

level for copper of 1.3 mg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). Copper is a required constituent for 

biosolids land-application monitoring (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1995).

Of the samples collected from the three background wells, 

copper concentrations ranged from 0.001 to 0.011, with a median 

of 0.005 mg/L (appendix 2). This indicates that copper concentrations in ground water under the refuse areas are not being affected 

to a substantial extent by the refuse deposits or biosolids.

Dissolved Iron

Iron, commonly present in acidic mine drainage waters 

(Cravotta and Kirby, 2004; Earle and Callaghan, 1998), was 

detected at concentrations above reporting levels in 10 of 12 

September samples. Iron concentrations ranged from less than 

the reporting level of 0.01 to 260 mg/L, with a median of 32 

mg/L (table 3). Samples from SD-1W and SD-2W had no 

detectable iron. The secondary USEPA MCL concentration for 

iron of 0.3 mg/L was exceeded in nine samples (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). 

In the three background well samples, iron concentrations 

ranged from 0.004 to 159, with a median of 0.08 mg/L (appendix 2), indicating that iron concentrations in ground water under 

the refuse areas are still being affected, at least in localized 

zones, by the refuse deposits. Samples from Well W09 have 

increased iron concentrations, resulting in a positively biased 

average. It is possible that iron is from the biosolids, but it is not 

a required constituent for monitoring biosolids land application 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995).

Dissolved Lead

Lead was not detected above reporting levels in any of 

the 12 September samples. Lead was detected in the November samples from UEC-2W, SD-4W and MM-3W wells at 

0.001, 0.001 and 0.002 mg/L, respectively. The reporting levels ranged from 0.001 to 0.007 mg/L (table 3). No concentrations exceeded the USEPA drinking-water action level for lead 

of 0.015 mg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). 

Lead is a required constituent for monitoring biosolids land 

application (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995). 

In the three background well samples, lead concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 0.04, with a median of 0.01 mg/L 

(appendix 2). This indicates that lead concentrations in ground 

water under the refuse areas are not being affected substantially by the refuse deposits or biosolids.

Dissolved Manganese

Manganese, commonly present in acidic mine drainage waters, was detected at concentrations above reporting 

levels in all 12 September samples. Manganese concentrations 

ranged from 1.1 to 150 mg/L, with a median of 12 mg/L (table 

3). All 12 concentrations exceeded the USEPA lifetime health 

advisory for manganese of 0.3 mg/L (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2006). 

In the three background well samples, manganese 

concentrations ranged from 0.03 to 3.9, with a median of 0.3 

mg/L (appendix 2), indicating that manganese concentrations 

in ground water under the refuse areas are still being affected 

by the refuse deposits. It is possible that the manganese is 

from the biosolids, but it is not a required constituent for 

USEPA monitoring of biosolids land application (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995).

Dissolved Nickel

Nickel, commonly present in acidic mine drainage 

waters (Cravotta and Kirby, 2004), was detected at concentrations above reporting levels in all 12 September samples. 

Nickel concentrations ranged from 0.02 to 2.0, with a median 

of 0.05 mg/L (table 3). Three samples exceeded the USEPA 

lifetime health advisory for nickel of 0.1 mg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006); two samples were from 

United Electric Company wells, and one sample was from 

a Morgan Mine well. All three samples with concentrations 

above the lifetime health advisory were in wells less than 18 

ft deep. 

 In the three background well samples, nickel concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 6.4, with a median of 0.01 mg/L 

(appendix 2), indicating that nickel concentrations in ground 

water under the refuse areas are still being affected, at least in 

localized areas, by the refuse deposits. It is possible that nickel 

is from the biosolids, as it is a required constituent for monitoring biosolids land application (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995). Nickel commonly is present in coal-mine 

drainage waters, and because of the low concentrations of 

nutrients detected, it is likely that nickel is from the refuse 

deposits, and not the biosolids. 

Dissolved Zinc

Zinc, commonly present in acidic mine drainage waters 

(Cravotta and Kirby, 2004; Earle and Callaghan, 1998), was 

detected at concentrations above reporting levels in 10 of 12 
Summary and Conclusions 11

September samples. Zinc concentrations ranged from below 

the reporting level of 0.006 to 40, with a median of 0.030 

mg/L (table 3). Two samples exceeded the USEPA lifetime 

health advisory for zinc of 2 mg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006); one sample was from a United Electric 

Company well, and one sample was from a Morgan Mine 

well. The two highest concentrations occurred in samples with 

a pH less than 5.0. The three highest concentrations were from 

wells less than 18 ft deep. 

In the three background well samples, zinc concentrations ranged from 0.007 to 5.7, with a median of 0.37 mg/L 

(appendix 2), indicating that zinc concentrations in ground 

water under the refuse areas are still being affected, at least 

in localized zones, by the refuse deposits. It is possible that 

zinc is from the biosolids, but it is not a required constituent 

for monitoring biosolids land application (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1995),

Total Sulfate

Total sulfate, commonly present in acidic mine drainage waters (Cravotta and Kirby, 2004; Earle and Callaghan, 

1998), was detected at concentrations above reporting 

levels in all 12 September samples. Sulfate concentrations 

ranged from 1,400 to 2,900 mg/L, with a median of 1,800 

mg/L (table 2). Concentrations in all samples exceeded the 

USEPA drinking-water health-based advisory level for sulfate of 500 mg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2006). There were general increasing trends of sulfate with 

specific conductivity and acidity as indicated by visual 

plots (fig.4).

In the three background well samples, sulfate concentrations ranged from 30 to 2,000, with a median of 

160 mg/L (appendix 2), indicating that sulfate concentrations in ground water under the refuse areas are still being 

affected by the refuse deposits. Samples from Well W09 

have increased sulfate concentrations, resulting in a positively biased average. It is possible that sulfate is from the 

biosolids, but it is not a required constituent for monitoring 

biosolids land application (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1995).

Acidity (Base Neutralizing Capacity)

Acidity ranged from 82 to 590, with a median of 170 

mg/L as calcium carbonate (table 2). There were general 

increasing patterns of acidity with ammonia and sulfate as 

indicated by visual plots (figs. 3 and 4). Acidity samples were 

not collected at the background wells.

Summary and Conclusions

During September and November 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Metropolitan 

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD), 

installed and sampled 12 monitoring wells to better understand 

the long-term ground-water-quality effects and hydrogeology 

near three coal-refuse areas that were reclaimed with biosolids 

and revegetation at the MWRD land reclamation site in Fulton 

County, Illinois. Water samples were analyzed for nutrients, 

dissolved metals, total sulfate, and acidity. Most samples had 

elevated concentrations (typically above established drinkingwater standards) of sulfate, iron, and manganese, all of which 

are commonly associated with ground water in coal-mined 

areas. Concentrations of aluminum, cadmium, nickel, or zinc 

were elevated in samples from four wells. The largest aluminum, cadmium, nickel, and zinc concentrations were in the 

two well samples that had pH values less than 5. Aluminum 

(except for one sample), cadmium, chromium, and copper 

were detected only in wells 20 ft deep or less.

The relatively small concentrations of nutrients (nitrate 

plus nitrite, and ammonia) indicate that in 2006, many years 

after cessation of biosolids application to the coal-refuse areas, 

biosolids are not identifiably affecting concentrations of nutriFigure 4. Sulfate concentration as a function of the 

concentration of (A) specific conductivity and (B) acidity from 

wells near coal-refuse area.
12 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 

ent or metals in shallow ground water in those areas. The coal 

refuse likely is the primary contributor of dissolved metals and 

total sulfate to ground-water chemistry in the area, particularly 

with respect to iron, manganese, and sulfate concentrations. 

Ground-water quality does not differ substantially among the 

three coal refuse study areas. The chemical character of the 

ground water is related to the coal refuse around the well, the 

oxidizing-reducing conditions, pH environment in the refuse, 

and potentially complex local ground-water flow paths. 

Shallow ground water probably flows along preferential 

paths in the disturbed coal refuse and spoils and is impeded by 

undisturbed glacial till. This is indicated by the geologic logs, 

and the presence or absence of water in the installed wells and 

borings UEC-6B and SD-5B. The general shallow groundwater flow direction probably is toward the creeks present at 

each area. Ground-water flow at the United Electric Company 

area may discharge into Slug Run and Big Creek; the Morgan 

Mine area ground-water flow may discharge into Big Creek; 

the St. David area ground-water flow may discharge into Little 

Sister Creek.

Ground-water quality in the area probably will continue to be affected by the coal refuse; however, determining 

changes in water-quality conditions with time and distance 

from the refuse pile, as indicated by McAuley and Kozar 

(2006), were beyond the scope of this study. Investigation 

by additional installation and sampling of wells at a distance 

greater than 1,000 ft from the coal-refuse areas, and yearly 

resampling the 12 installed wells would help to further characterize the shallow hydrogeology and water quality, and assess 

the ultimate attenuation or discharge to surface-water bodies 

of coal-refuse and biosolids-related constituents.

Acknowledgments

Albert Cox of the MWRD supported this study, and along 

with Josh DeWees, also of the MWRD, provided historical 

information for the site and water-quality data for previously 

installed wells. Josh DeWees also coordinated field activities 

and participated in data collection. Their assistance is greatly 

appreciated.

References Cited

Coupe, R.H., and Macy, J.A., 1993, Surface-water and 

streambed-sediment quality of streams draining surfacemined land reclaimed with sewage sludge, Fulton County, 

Illinois, 1972–89: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 93–4056, 53 p.

Cravotta, C. A., and Kirby, C. S., 2004, Effects of abandoned 

coal-mine drainage on streamflow and water quality in the 

Shamokin Creek Basin, Northumberland and Columbia 

Counties, Pennsylvania, 1999–2001, US Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4311, 53 p: 

accessed January 23, 2007, at URL http://www.facstaff.

bucknell.edu/kirby/0SCRAnewHome/wrir.03-4311.pdf.

Daniels, W.L., and Haering, K.C., 2000, Protocols for Use of 

Biosolids and Co-Amendments for Mined Land Reclamation. In Proceedings: Mining, Forest & Land Restoration 

Symposium. July 17–19: accessed January 17, 2007, at 

URL http://www.rmwea.org/tech_papers/mine_forest_

land_2000/Daniels.pdf.

Earle, Jane, and Callaghan, Thomas, 1998, Impacts of mine 

drainage on aquatic life, water uses, and man-made structures, in Brady, B.C., Kania, Timothy, Smith, M.W., and 

Hornberger, R.J., eds., Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and 

Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, p. 4.1–4.10: accessed 

January 12, 2007, at URL http://www.ott.wrcc.osmre.gov/

library/pub/cmdpppp.htm.

Haering, K.C., W.L. Daniels and S.E. Feagley. 2000. Reclaiming mined land with biosolids, manures, and papermill 

sludge in: R.I. Barnhisel and others (eds.), Reclamation of 

Drastically Disturbed Lands. American Soc. Of Agronomy. 

Monograph #41, Madison Wis., 1,082 p.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p.

Illinois State Geological Survey, 2006, Directory of coal mines 

in Illinois: Fulton County: Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources, 38 p.

McAuley, S.D., and Kozar, M.D., 2006, Ground-water quality 

in unmined areas and near reclaimed surface coal mines in 

the northern and central Appalachian coal regions, Pennsylvania and West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey ScientificInvestigations Report 06–5059, 57 p.

Patterson, G.L., 1982, Hydrologic effects of storing liquified 

sewage sludge on strip-mine land, Fulton County, Illinois: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 82–4047, 30 p.

Patterson, G.L., Fuentes, R.F., and Toler, L.G., 1982, Hydrologic characteristics of surface-mined land reclaimed by 

sludge irrigation, Fulton County, Illinois: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report Open-File 

Report 82–16, 30 p.

Stehouwer, Richard, Day, R.L., Macneal, K.E., 2006, Nutrient 

and trace element leaching following mine reclamation with 

biosolids: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 35, 

p. 1,118–1,126.

Tian, Guanglong, Granato, T.C., Pietz, R.I., Carlson, C.R., and 

Abedin, Zainul, 2006, Effect of long-term application of 
References Cited 13

biosolids for land reclamation on surface water chemistry: 

Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 35, p. 101–113.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Methods for 

the determination of inorganic substances in environmental 

samples: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication 

EPA/600/R–93/100, 178 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater 

Management, 1995. A guide to the biosolids risk assessments for the EPA Part 503 Rule: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication EPA 832–B–93–005, 144 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 2006, 

2006 Edition of the drinking water standards and health 

advisories: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication EPA 822–R–06–013, 12 p.

Wilde, F.D., Busenberg, E., and Radtke, D.B., 2006, pH (version 1.3): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, section 6.4, 

accessed July 20, 2007, at URL http://water.usgs.gov/owq/

FieldManual/Chapter6/6.4_ver1.3.pdf.

Willman, H.B., Atherton, Elwood, Buschbach, T.C., Collinson, Charles, Frye, J.C., Hopkins, M.E., Lineback, J.A., 

and Simon, J.A., 1975, Handbook of Illinois Stratigraphy: 

Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 95, 261 p.

Yager, T.J.B., Smith, D.B., and Crock, J.G., 2004, Effects 

of surface applications of biosolids on soil, crops, ground 

water, and streambed sediment near Deer Trail, Colorado, 1999–2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific-Investigations Report 04–5289, 93 p.

Zuehls, E.E., Ryan, G.L., Peart, D.B., and Fitzgerald, K.K., 

1981, Hydrology of area 25, eastern region, interior coal 

province, Illinois: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

81–636, 66 p.
14 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 
Appendixes 1–2
16 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois

Appendix 1. Geologic Boring and Construction Logs
Appendix 1. Geologic Boring and Construction Logs 17
18 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois
Appendix 1. Geologic Boring and Construction Logs 19
20 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois
Appendix 1. Geologic Boring and Construction Logs 21
22 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois
Appendix 1. Geologic Boring and Construction Logs 23
24 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois
Appendix 1. Geologic Boring and Construction Logs 25
26 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois
Appendix 1. Geologic Boring and Construction Logs 27
28 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois
Appendix 1. Geologic Boring and Construction Logs 29
30 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 0 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Well W09 Well W17 Well W25 DAT

E OF SAMPLE

N, O ENTRATI CN CO M ALUMINU

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

Aluminum concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5

Appendix 2. Constituent Concentration Data in Background Wells from 

1999–2006
Appendix 2. Constituent Concentration Data in Background Wells from 1999–2006 31 8 6 4 2 0 

16 14 12 10 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Well W09Well W17Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

N, O ENTRATI CN CO EN OG NITR SA NIUM O AMM

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

Ammonium concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
32 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 0 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.0011999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Well W09 Well W17 Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

, CONCENTRATION CADMIUM

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

Cadmium concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
Appendix 2. Constituent Concentration Data in Background Wells from 1999–2006 33 0 

0.0180.0160.0140.0120.0100.0080.0060.0040.002

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Well W09Well W17Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

N, O ENTRATI CN CO MIUM O HR C

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

Chromium concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
34 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 0 0.012 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.0021999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Well W09 Well W17 Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

N, O ENTRATI CN CO PPER CO

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

Copper concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
Appendix 2. Constituent Concentration Data in Background Wells from 1999–2006 35 0 80 60 40 20 

160 140 120 100 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Well W09Well W17Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

LITER PER S M RA G MILLI IN N, O ENTRATI CN CO NO IR

Iron concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
36 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 0 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Well W09 Well W17 Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

LITER PER S M RA G MILLI IN N, O ENTRATI CN CO LEAD

Lead concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
Appendix 2. Constituent Concentration Data in Background Wells from 1999–2006 37 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 

3.5 

4 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Well W09Well W17Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

N, O ENTRATI CN CO ESE AN G MAN

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

Manganese concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
38 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Well W09 Well W17 Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

CONCENTRATION, NICKEL

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

Nickel concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
Appendix 2. Constituent Concentration Data in Background Wells from 1999–2006 39

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Well W09Well W17Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

EN OG NITR SA NITRITE SU PL NITRATE

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN, CONCENTRATION

Nitrate plus nitrate concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
40 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Well W09 Well W17 Well W25 DAT

E OF SAMPLE

S UNIT D TANDAR S IN H, P

pH in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
Appendix 2. Constituent Concentration Data in Background Wells from 1999–2006 41 0 500 

2,5002,0001,5001,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Well W09Well W17Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

N, O ENTRATI CN CO E ULFAT S

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

Sulfate concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
42 Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Well W09 Well W17 Well W25

DAT

E OF SAMPLE

N, O ENTRATI CN CO CNZI

LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

Zinc concentrations in samples from background wells W09, W17, and W2

5
Appendix 2. Constituent Concentration Data in Background Wells from 1999–2006 43

Prepared by: 

USGS Enterprise Publishing Network 

Rolla Publishing Service Center 

1400 Independence Road 

Rolla, MO 65401

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director

U.S. Geological Survey

Illinois Water Science Center

1201 West University Avenue, Suite 100

Urbana, IL 61801–2347

(217) 344–0037

Or visit the Illinois Water Science Center website at:

http://il.water.usgs.gov 
Morrow— Ground-Water Quality in the Vicinity of Coal-Refuse Areas Reclaimed with Biosolids in Fulton County, Illinois—SIR 2007–5184

Printed on recycled paper