EPA-600/2-76-111 June 1976 Environmental Protection Technology Series EVALUATION OF SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION TECHNIQUES Campbell's Run Watershed, Pennsylvania Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 ------- RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad categories were established to facilitate further development and application of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The five series are: 1. Environmental Health Effects Research 2. Environmental Protection Technology 3. Ecological Research 4. Environmental Monitoring 5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa- tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. ------- EPA-600/2-76-111 June 1976 EVALUATION OF SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION TECHNIQUES Campbell's Run Watershed Pennsylvania by Murray T. Dougherty and Hans H. Holzen A. C. Ackenheil § Associates, Inc. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15216 Grant No. 14010 GCM Project Officer Ronald D. Hill Resource Extraction and Handling Division Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268 ------- DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 11 ------- FOREWORD When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, and used, these operations usually pollute our environment. The resultant air, land, solid waste and other pollutants may adversely impact our aesthetic and physical well-being. Protection of our environment requires that we recognize and understand the complex environmental impacts of these operations and that corrective approaches be applied. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati assesses the environmental, social and economic impacts of industrial and energy-related activities and identifies, evaluates, develops and demonstrates alternatives for the protection of the environment. This report is a product of the above efforts. It describes a study performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of surface mine reclamation upon water quality in streams receiving mine drainage from abandoned underground mines. The results of the study indicated a 43 percent decrease in acid load in the stream. However, this improve- ment could not be directly attributed to the surface reclamation projects because of residential, commercial, and interstate construction in the study area. The recommendations have many worthwhile suggestions for those individuals attempting to monitor the effectiveness of reclamation projects. In addition, this report should be of value to state and federal agencies conducting coal mine reclamation projects. David G. Stephan Director Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Cincinnati 111 ------- ABSTRACT A study was performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of surface recla- mation of strip mined land upon water quality in streams receiving mine drainage pollution from abandoned underground mines. The water quality was monitored-in three phases, prior to the surface reclamation, during reclamation, and after reclamation. The results were then evaluated to determine any improvement in water quality resulting from the construction of the abatement facilities. Fifty-two acres (21 hectares) of abandoned strip mined land were regraded and revegetated to reduce infiltration to the spoil zone and to the deep mine complex. The reclamation was completed at a cost of $131,650. The results of the collection and sampling of stream samples over a three year period indicated that the pH and acidity of Campbell's Run had improved and that the acid load had decreased 43% at the mouth of Campbell's Run. However, this improvement could not be directly attributed to the surface reclamation projects. The improvement was determined to be more directly related to the construction of residential and commercial establishments, to the construction of U. S. Interstate 79, and to natural fluctuations in mine pool levels and runoff rates. This report was submitted by the Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in fulfillment of Grant Number 14010 GCM under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report of work, subcontracted to A. C. Ackenheil § Associates, Inc., covers the period November 1970 through October 1975, and work was completed as of October 1975. IV ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE • • • FOREWORD • X11 ABSTRACT iv LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • ix CHAPTER I CONCLUSIONS 1 II RECOMMENDATIONS 2 III INTRODUCTION 3 Location 3 Topography and Surface Drainage 3 Geology. 3 Mining History 6 IV PURPOSE AND SCOPE 8 Reclamation Projects 8 Study Methods 14 V DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 18 Presentation of Data I8 Effectiveness of the Project 21 Factors Influencing Water Quality 23 REFERENCES 26 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED PAGE APPENDIX A 27 Summary of Laboratory Testing Procedures Appendix B 28 Laboratory Analysis and Material Load Summary VI ------- TABLE NO. LIST OF TABLES PAGE Average Water Quality Characteristics Of Major Acid Mine Drainage Discharges . . II Schedule of Total Quantities And Prices 14 For Reclamation Areas Ill Sampling Schedule • • 15 IV Acid Load Production Rates 22 vn ------- LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NO. PAGE 1 Location Map 4 2 Generalized Geologic Section 5 3 Deep Mine Map 7 4 Major Acid Mine Drainage Discharges 9 5 Reclamation Areas . 11 6 Relationship of Work Areas to Deep Mines . . 12 7 Stream Monitoring Stations 16 8 Water Quality Data - Station 5 19 9 Summary of Stream Flow, Groundwater and 20 Precipitation 10 Recent Construction, 1970-1975 24 Vlll ------- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. John Demchalk, Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, served as Project Director during this project. All technical and administrative assistance received during this project, especially that of Messers. Ronald D. Hill and Elmore C. Grim of the Environmental Protection Agency, is gratefully acknowledged. ------- I. CONCLUSIONS Based on the available data, pH, net acid concentration and net acid load have improved throughout the Campbell's Run Watershed since the construc- tion of acid mine drainage abatement facilities designated as Common- wealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources (DER) Project SL 102-3-6. The net acid load of Campbell's Run at the confluence with Chartiers Creek has decreased from 13,945 Ibs/day to 8,009 Ibs/day or a 43% improve- ment from 1971 to 1975. The Campbell's Run Watershed has undergone extensive urban land develop- ment from 1970 to the present day. This development, plus the construc- tion of U. S. Interstate 79 has altered the surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of the area. The results of the sampling data indicate that a causal relationship between the strip mine reclamation areas and the improvement in the stream water quality of the Campbell's Run Watershed would require extensive sampling far beyond the original scope of this project. The specific effect of the strip mine reclamation upon water quality improvement could not be accurately quantified because of the ratio between the small drainage areas directly affected by the work areas to the larger drainage areas contributing runoff to the stream sampling stations. No degradation in stream quality as a direct result of the construction facility was observed. The reduction in flow at monitoring Station 4 on Campbell's Run is not totally the results of the construction of acid mine drainage facilities, but rather related to the result of the collection and diversion of upstream wastewater to a new treatment facility located downstream of Station 4. ------- II. RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations apply to projects which are expected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the construction of abatement facilities upon receiving stream quality. Future projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of abatement facilities upon water quality should not be conducted in an area expected to undergo urbanization during the project. duration. Whenever strip mine reclamation is expected to improve streams which receive deep mine discharges, the monitoring project should include sampling at both the deep mine discharge point to be affected and at the receiving stream. Stream monitoring stations should be instituted as close as possible to the abatement facilities and the affected pollution discharge sources so as to eliminate extraneous background water which reduces the accuracy of the data. Sampling frequency should be flexible enough to provide sufficient data that yields characteristic relationships . between water quality and controlling factors such as precipitation, ground water or mine pool level, temperature, and vegetation. Samples should be collected with sufficient frequency and of sufficient duration (namely, weekly sampling with continuous flow measurement for one water year before and after construction), to insure that their relationships correlate positively and are statistically significant. Demonstration watersheds should be as small as possible to eliminate or keep to a minimum.confusing variables. ------- III. INTRODUCTION LOCATION The Campbell's Run study area is located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, approximately five miles southwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Campbell's Run is the northernmost major tributary to Chartiers Creek and joins Chartiers Creek at the town of Carnegie, Pennsylvania. It is composed of two major tributaries, both of which are severely degraded by acid mine drainage (AMD). The southernmost fork flows through the heavily developed area along Campbell's Run Road. The northernmost fork drains the region in the vicinity of U. S. Route 1-79. This region is, for the most part, sparsely populated. See Figure 1 for the location map of the area. TOPOGRAPHY AND SURFACE DRAINAGE Campbell's Run is located within the Allegheny Plateaus Physiographic Province. The valley of the main stream is U-shaped with a narrow flood plain averaging about 500 feet (152.4 meters) in width. The gradient of the main stream is approximately 50 feet per mile (9.5 meters per kilometer). The tributary valleys to Campbell's Run are generally V-shaped with steep to moderately steep valley walls and rounded hilltops. The gradient of these streams is between 150 feet and 175 feet per mile (28.4 meters and 33.1 meters per kilometer). The overall relief of the watershed is approximately 500 feet (152.4 meters), rising from a low of 775 feet (236.2 meters) where Campbell's Run enters Chartiers Creek, to a high of approximately 1275 feet (388.6 meters) on the north central portion of the watershed. The area has a local relief which varies from 150 feet to 300 feet (45.7 meters to 91.4 meters). GEOLOGY The rocks exposed in the Campbell's Run Watershed area are all of sedimentary origin and of Pennsylvanian age. The structure is composed of gentle to moderately dipping strata. The rock units exposed in the study area are divided into two groups, the Conemaugh and the Monongahela. Figure 2 is a generalized columnar section showing the rock units exposed in the watershed. ------- COLLIER TWP SOUTH F A Y E LOCATION MAP SCALE r.».,,.. I CM « 1.23 Kllomttirt Figure I ------- PERMIAN z < z ^ J to z z UJ a DUNKAR 0 MONONGAHELA CONEMAUGH WAYNESBURG UNIONTOWN PITTSBURGH CASSELMAN GLEN SHAW too- Om 100 - 500- yy>~>^ .•••::"'~s=SE ;•. •.-.'•'•'.•: '~^.~ :;v:-A^jis= •.'••• ••'. ^•'-•t 1 'i",T ."^H^ P¥^^ — ~-7-7r';i ". . . ' i * .,"""" rt'-'^-SS ;-V:-'£i--5::-:-sj iv-T^J^-^a •.•.•.JH7A^4^^ ^tt Waynesburg Coal Benwood Limestone Redstone Coal Pittsburgh Cool Morgantown Sandstone Duquesne Coal Ames Limestone Pittsburgh Red Beds GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC SECTION Figure 2 REFERENCE (7) ------- The Conemugh Group, the lowest unit outcropping in the watershed is exposed only in the valleys of the main stream and its larger tributaries The Conemaugh Group is composed of an interbedded series of sandstone, siltstone, shale and limestone. No workable coal seams are found in this group. The Monongahela Group, which overlies the Conemaugh Group has been totally eroded from the stream valleys and is now exposed only on the hillsides and hilltops The Monongahela Group is composed of interbedded sandstone, shale, limestone and coal. The Pittsburgh Coal seam, which has been extensively mined throughout the study area, is located at the base of the Monongahela Group. The geologic structure of the Campbell's Run area is influenced by the Ninevah Syricline whose axis is located immediately south of the water- shed. The strata in the study area dip southeast toward the synclinal axis. The angle of dip varies from between 10 feet per mile (1.9 meters/ kilometer) in the northern portion of the area to 90 feet per mile (17.0 meters/kilometer) in the southern portion.** MINING HISTORY The Pittsburgh Coal seam has been extensively mined for years throughout the watershed area. The seam is now in its final stages of depletion with the only remaining recoverable reserves being pillars left in-place from earlier mining. Mining operations in the area were done for the most part, under shallow cover, causing localized subsidence and the subsequent disruption of surface and subsurface drainage patterns. Numerous mine openings were improperly sealed allowing water and air to enter the mines compounding the effects of acid mine drainage.* The extent of mined out areas in the Campbell's Run Watershed is shown on Figure 3. No active strip or deep mining operations are currently in operation within the watershed boundary, One active strip mine is in operation immediately adjacent to, and east of, the watershed boundary. ------- 940- Originol • Pittsburgh Cool Outcrop i Structure Contour At Bate Of Pitttburgh Cool *••••• > Watershed Boundary o .*••* ' *"Lt I KILOMETER * Minid Out Arta RCFERCNCE ( Mln.« Out Ar«M ) (t) ------- RECLAMATION PROJECTS IV. PURPOSE AND SCOPE Chartiers Creek Mine Drainage Pollution Abatement Project.1 published & 1970, reported that 4 major and 28 minor AMD pollution sources entered Campbell's Run. A major AMD source was defined as one which discharged at least 1000 pounds (553.6 kilograms) per day of net acidity at the time of its maximum measured discharge. The four major sources all originated from deep mines and were found to contribute, on the average 14% of the stream flow and 63% of the acid load of the Campbell's Run Watershed. The locations of these four major sources are shown on Figure 4 and a summary of their characteristics as known in 1970 is presented in Table I. From the information provided in that report, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania planned the construction of abatement projects under Project Number SL 102-3-4; which were designed to reduce the AMD problems in the watershed. The original scope of these reclamation projects called for the restoration of natural drainage through surface reclamation of strip mined areas and for the sealing of various deep mine openings. TABLE I. AVERAGE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ACID MINE DRAINAGE DISCHARGES Major Sources (1970 Data) 6001 6002 6005 6022 Flow (gpm) 31 45 158 70 PH 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.0 Acidity (mg/1) 776 820 888 600 Iron (mg/1) 46.6 46.5 48.0 16.5 Manganese (mg/1) 3.3 6.4 5.4 2.7 Sulfate (mg/1) 1530 1790 1790 1500 Hardness (mg/1) 912 1010 1218 980 Acid Load (Ibs/day) 313 466 1810 550 Reference: (1) ------- •z »-i 52 f » o CJ •-3 n O 25 o ------- Scope of Abatement Construction: The basic objectives of the ZS^^VSSK te J= m the•reclamation projects were numerous. Ihey included surface reeradin SS0115' Jac\filling of subsidence areas, the instaSatioJ of dlvSsto ditches, earth channels, bituminous flumes and riprap, as weir as soil '•ESTEr?* f66^ *"• VaTi°US methods> ^ a^lfeS selStJveiy to the particular problem areas, were intended to help relieve the water problems arising from deep and strip mining. relieve tne water Seven work areas were designed and reclaimed in the Campbell's Run-area and their locations are shown on;Figure 5. Their relationship to the deep mine complex is shown on Figure 6. A total of 52 acres (21 hectares) of .strip mined land were reclaimed which restored approximately 230 acres £«« f f S} 2fd t0 ?°Sitive drainage- A description of the work areas and the resultant abatement facilities is discussed below for the seven reclamation areas. Reclamation areas PGW-12W and PGW-12E were a portion of the 46 acres (19 hectares) of unreclaimed strip mine classified in the Chartiers Creek Report as PGW-12. The original PGW-12 was divided into three areas with two areas becoming PGW-12W and PGW-12E and the remaining 24 acre (10 hectare) section was reclaimed as a consequence of the construction of U. S. Inter- state 79. As shown on Figure 6, PGW-12W lies updip of major AMD discharge 6005, and PGW-12E is updip of major discharge 6002 Both reclamation areas were terraced to provide for positive drainage. Flumes were installed on both areas to convey runoff from the undisturbed area above the strip mine to below the strip mine area. The regrading and flume placement plus a vegetative cover were designed to reduce infiltration to the regraded spoil zone and hence to major AMD discharges 6002 and 6005. An added benefit of this project and similar reclamation projects was the neutralization of acid streams with augmented alkaline storm runoff. Reclamation areas PGW-15 and PGW-20 are beyond the Campbell's Run Watershed boundary yet both strip mined areas were connected to the underground mine complex responsible for deep mine discharges 6001, 6002 and 6005, as shown on Figure 6. These two reclamation areas were regraded and revegetated to reduce infil- tration to the adjacent underground mine complex. Work area OAK 42 consisted of regrading spoils, improving the existing channel and backfilling subsidence areas to reduce infiltration to the deep mine complex contributing to maior AMD discharge 6022. 10 ------- Rt c-lomo tion Arto Major AMD OTschorg* • I'VJOOO1- Icm s 36OO m«ter ------- ts> 940 Originol Pittsburgh Cool Outcrop Structure Contour At BOM Of Pittsburgh Cool * Mintd Out Arto I/IMILE • Mo,or AMD Di»chorg« • i RILOHITM O ,*;:•., ....... ------- Work Area OAK 47 lies to the west of the Campbell's Run Watershed. The area consisted of an unreclaimed strip mine with ponded water in the depressions. The area lies updip of the headwaters of Campbell's Run and was believed to be contribu- ting to the quality of the headwaters via a deep mined area as shown on Figure 6. The headwaters received several small AMD seepages from this mine complex. Reclamation of OAK 47 consisted of dewatering the ponded areas, terrace backfilling and regrading to promote drainage away from the highwall, revegetating and constructing an earth channel through the reclaimed area. All of the foregoing methods were designed to minimize infiltration to the deep mine complex which was believed to be conveying subsurface drainage downdip to the Pittsburgh coal outcrop at the headwaters of Campbell's Run. Reclamation area PGW-13 lies to the west of major source 6005 and was a portion of a 17 acre (6.9 hectare) unreclaimed strip mine associated with two minor AMD sources. (Not shown on Figures). Seven acres (2.8 hectares) were terraced and sevegetated to promote positive drainage and to limit infiltration to the adjacent deep mine complex. Demonstration Project; As an outgrowth of the planned construction of abatement projects, a program was devised to gauge the effectiveness of the reclamation projects in improving stream quality. The plan of this operation was as follows: Choose stream sampling stations in the study area originally composed of Miller's Run and Campbell's Run Watersheds. Obtain periodic stream samples and flow measurements for three periods or phases; Phase I prior to construction, Phase II during construction, and Phase III after construction. Collect the samples and analyze them for pH, acidity, alkalinity, total iron, manganese, aluminum, and sulfates. Calculate the pollutant load passing the sample stations. Evaluate all available data to determine the effect of the reclamation projects upon stream quality. Quantities and Costs: The seven areas were reclaimed for a total bid price o£ $131,650 and the quantities and unit prices for all the work areas are described in Table II. 13 ------- TABLE II. SCHEDULE OF TOTAL QUANTITIES AND PRICES FOR RECLAMATION AREAS Item Description Clearing and Grubbing Regrading Backfill Sinkholes Flume Headwall or Endwall Diversion Ditch Riprap Soil Treatment § Seeding Anti- Pollution Measures Completed Quantity 52 Acres 148,000 C.Y; 60 C.Y. 2,160 L.F. 16 3,400 L.F. 70 S.Y. 52 Acres Job Unit Price $450.00/Ac. Lump Sum $ 2.50/C.Y. $ 7.50/L.F. $300.00/Ea. $ .50/L.F. $ 15.00/S.Y. $350.00/Ac. Lump Sum Total Amount $23,400.00 $66,000.00 $ 150.00 $16,200.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,050.00 $18,200.00 $ 150.00 Total Amount: $131,650.00 Metric Equivalents : Acre Cubic Yard Lineal Foot Square Yard = 0.4047 Hectare 0.7646 Cubic Meter 3.048 Decimeter 0.8361 Square Meter STUDY METHODS Deletion of Miller's Run Area: In addition to Campbell's Run, the demonstration project was to encompass Miller's Run, another major Chartiers Creek tributary. Fifteen stream sampling stations were selected, of which ten were located in Miller's Run Watershed and the remaining five in the Campbell's Run Watershed. Samples at the ten Miller's Run stations were collected for the preconstruction phase of the project; however, the difficulty in obtaining the property easements necessary for abatement construction in the Miller's Run area prompted the postponement of the monitoring program. Finally, the Miller's Run portion was officially deleted from the demonstration project in June, 1974. The reclamation projects for the Campbell's Run area were completed and for the purposes of this report, the water monitoring program and the subsequent evaluation of results will be limited to the Campbells Run area. 14 ------- Stations 1 Through 5, Campbell's Run; The Chartiers Creek Report1 indicated four major AMD deep mine discharges in the Campbell's Run Watershed. The reclamation projects originally planned for Campbell's Run were predicted to affect, either directly or indirectly, the four major AMD sources and the resultant water quality of the receiving streams. To monitor any improvement, five stream sampling stations, numbered 1 through 5 were selected for Campbell's Run and its major unnamed tributary. These five stations were sampled periodically during the first two phases, i.e., preconstruction and during construction. When the construction was completed in September, 1974, seven additional stations, labeled A through G were added, resulting in a total of twelve postconstruction gauging stations. The twelve stations are shown on Figure 7 together with their relationship to the four major AMD discharges and the seven reclamation areas. Sampling Schedule: Phase I samples and discharge measurements were obtained weekly at stations 1 through 5 for the fifteen month period, March, 1971 through May, 1972; and once a month until October, 1972. At this time the entire project was postponed due to delays encountered in obtaining property easements necessary for the commencement of abate- ment construction. Consequently, sampling activity ceased for one year and resumed again in November, 1973 with the beginning of construction, (Phase II). Samples were collected once per month during construction. The post-construction monitoring (Phase III), included seven additional stations, A through G, which were intended to provide more reliable analysis of stream quality. The complete sampling schedule for the project is shown in Table III. The water quality data for each of the stations is included in Appendix B of this report. TABLE III. SAMPLING SCHEDULE Phase I Phase II Phase III Before During After Construction Construction Construction Stations 5/71-10/72 11/75-8/74 9/74-8/75 1-5 Once Per Week Once Per Month Twice Per Month 3/71 - 5/72 Once Per Month 6/72 - 10/72 B D,E Once Per Month A,C,F,G Once Per Quarter 15 ------- Monitoring Station • Major AMD Discharge Reclamation Arto I". 3000' ------- Testing Procedures: All samples were analyzed in the laboratory for pH, acidity, alkalinity, total iron, manganese and aluminum. A summary of the testing procedures is included in Appendix A of this report. All test results were multiplied by the corresponding discharge rates and the resultant mean material loads were compared by months, quarters and years to measure any changes in water quality. Analysis of Results: For simplicity, net acid load was used as the primary variable to determine if any change in water quality resulted from the reclamation projects. To effectively compare mean acid loads requires analysis of consistent data. This was accomplished by narrowing the data to that of two corresponding water years, September, 1971 through August, 1972, and September, 1974 through August, 1975. The data from the former of these water years represents the base line data before construction, while the latter water year data represents the corresponding period for one year immediately following reclamation. Moreover, the comparison of preconstruction water quality with post-construction water quality necessitated isolating the effect of the reclamation projects from natural occurrences. This was done because natural occurrences such as precipitation, groundwater, temperature, and degree of vegetation were much more capable of changing water quality than were the reclamation projects. For these reasons, the ratio of monthly mean acid load in pounds per day to total monthly precipitation was calculated and the results from Phase I and Phase III compared. 17 ------- V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS PRESENTATION OF DATA Goals of Analysis: The intent of the abatement work and monitoring program in the Campbell's Run area was to enable an evaluation of the effectiveness of surface reclamation methods in reducing acid mine drainage, through monitoring water quality before, during, and after reclamation. Analysis Considerations: Several variables which affected acid load were" listed and studied for significance. Some of the variables were natural phenomenon, such as rainfall, snowfall, snow melt, tempera- ture, vegetation and groundwater levels. The other variables were man made, such as residential and commercial construction, sanitary sewage collection and treatment, and mine drainage abatement facilities. Of all the above variables, stream flow was found to be the most significant factor affecting the acid load in Campbell's Run, while the reclamation projects were judged to be the least significant. The reclamation areas (52 acres or 21 hectares) had only a small affect upon water quality because: The amount of restored surface drainage area was small compared to the total watershed (230 acres vs. 3,600 acres or 93 hectares vs. 1460 hectares of watershed). Augmented storm runoff to Campbell's Run was a benefit of only 4 of the 7 reclamation areas. The work areas changed a very small amount of subsurface flow when comparing their area to the area of the deep mine complex. Some assumptions have been made as to certain causal relationships between variables other than the reclamation projects to acid load. The basis for these assumptions were derived from an evaluation of the graphs shown on Figures 8 and 9, from water quality data shown in the Appendix, and from statistical tests of correlation between variables. These assumptions are provided as follows: 18 ------- L E 6 E N P PHASE I (SEPT. 1971-AUG.I9721 NET ACID LOAD Ibs/day Metric Equivalent i I Pound * 0.454 Kilograms (SEPT 1974-AUG. 1975] NET ACID CONCENTRATION mg/l NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAT JUNE JULY AUG K>Q WATER QUALITY DATA STATION 5 Figure 8 19 ------- KJ o o -n 3) m o 2) O c o n s> 33 5o PI 3 SI0- 2 T) 2m * Q * 2 ------- 1. The acid concentration of mine effluents varies directly with the depth of the mine pool. 2. When the groundwater level is higher than the yearly average, mine water constitutes a greater proportionate part of stream flow than during the period when ground- water is lower than the yearly average. 3. The greatest daily fluctuations in water quality occur in late fall and early winter when groundwater and mine discharges are lower than normal and the lack of vegetation promotes storm runoff. An example of items 1 and 2 occurred in March, 1975. According to Figure 9, groundwater was near its peak for the water year cycle and from Appendix B, the March, 1975 samples correspond to the peak flow or near peak flow for Stations 1 through 5. Thus, the combination of near-peak groundwater levels (assuming near-peak mine pool levels and corresponding higher than average acid concentration) coupled with the maximum measured flow of March, 1975, yielded the peak monthly acid load for Phase III. The effect of item 3 can be illustrated by water quality at Station 5 for December, 1974. In this case groundwater (and the assumed mine pool level) was closer to the yearly average but the December, 1974 samples were obtained at Station 5 concurrently with the maximum monthly flow for Phase III. The assumption is that the moderate acid concentration of the mine effluent was effectively neutralized by higher than average watershed runoff. In this case the neutralization capacity of the augmented runoff was sufficient to render the water net alkaline at Station 5. Physical changes in the study area that alter water infiltration rates and drainage patterns, and rob water that would normally influence acid mine drainage are variables that must be considered. Since the study program began, several areas have been sewered, extensive residential and commercial developments have been constructed and a major four lane highway (1-79) with two major interchanges now intersects the area. Ultimately, any specific determination of water quality improvement must be considered in the light of the highly variable conditions which influence that quality at the time of each sample collection. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT For the purpose of this report, conclusions were made regarding changes and trends in water quality over the duration of the demonstration project. As shown in Table IV, the tendency is toward the reduction in flow, which in turn reduces acid load. More significantly, the ratio of acid load to precipitation is also reduced while acid concentration has decreased slightly. This estimated reduction shows a general improvement between Phase I sampling and Phase III sampling. 21 ------- TABLE IV. ACID LOAD PRODUCTION RATES Average Average Mean Net Acid Net Acid Flow Concentration Load (gpm) (mg/1) (Ibs/day) Acid Load2 Production Rate Clbs/day/in) Improve- ment STATION 1 Phase I1 Phase III STATION 2 Phase I Phase III STATION 3 Phase I Phase III STATION 4 Phase I Phase III STATION 5 Phase I Phase III 1,230 792 1,318 966 1,619 1,070 1,280 648 5,278 3,624 629 457 481 470 664 448 223 145 220 184 9,292 4,347 7,614 5,453 12,911 5,757 3,397 1,128 13,945 8,009 2,244 1,345 2,267 1,809 4,067 1,809 1,085 405 4,655 2,682 401 20% 56% 63% 42% 1Phase I data on this table applies to the months, September, 1971 - August, 1972 inclusive Phase III data is from September, 1974 - August, 1975 inclusive 2Acid load production rate was determined by dividing the mean monthly net acid load by the total monthly precipitation for each month, then deter- mining the mean for Phases I and III. Precipitation data is from the National Climatic Center, Pittsburgh International Airport WSO. Metric Equivalents: Gallon Pound Inch 3.785 Liters 0.454 Kilograms 2.54 Centimeters 22 ------- There is a noticable difference between the concentrations of dissolved metals from Phase 1 and Phase 3. The Phase 3 results show higher concentrations than those of Phase 1 because Phase 1 samples were not ingested with acid to maintain the solubility of the dissolved metals. Metals in non-acidified samples are subject to alterations in chemical structure due to organic material and other interfering elements and compounds, thus yielding lower concentrations of dissolved metals. Beginning in January, 1974, a separate sample was Collected for metal tests and acidified in the field. This method would yield a higher dissolved metal content than if the sample were allowed to sit before being tested without additional acid. The practice of acidifying a sample sto preserve the dissolved metal content was not a uniform practice of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until 1972 in their Cincinnati Laboratory. FACTORS INFLUENCING WATER QUALITY Recent Construction: Since the beginning of the Campbell's Run project, the area has experienced a rapid growth in population and industry, coupled with an extensive amount of new construction. In numerous cases, this construction has come in contact with the deep mines of the area. This quite often compounds the problem of AMD, since it allows easier entry and exit for water from the deep mines. In the Campbell's Run Watershed, as much as three miles of coal outcrop may have been disturbed by new construction in the past few years. Figure 10 shows the extent of this recent construction. Numerous industrial and residential buildings have also been built along the valleys in close proximity to the coal outcrop. The exact effect of these structures on the AMD problem of the area is unknown. Any construction activity, however, which intersects the deep mines can be expected to change the potential of AMD pollution. The Campbell's Run area has, in the past few years been the site of a comprehensive sewer installation project.5 In many instances, these sewer lines have been laid on the sites of abandoned strip mines and have cut across lines of coal outcrop. All of the above construction features have increased the likelihood of disturbing the surface and subsurface drainage patterns of the area. The section of U. S. Interstate 79 through the study area was completed in 1973 during the period in which the demonstration project was dormant. Interstate 79 was built through the valley of the unnamed tributary to Campbell's Run on which are located sampling stations 1, 2 and 3 and which receives major AMD sources 6001, 6002 and 6005. The highway construction cut and fill limits encroached upon abandoned deep mines, original and existing Pittsburgh coal outcrops and dissected an unreclaimed strip mine (formerly PGW-12, See Figure 5).l The ensuing alterations to subsurface drainage were assumed to significantly affect the discharge rates and water quality of both the mine effluents and the receiving tributary. One observed effect of the highway construction was to consolidate and increase the discharge rates of major AMD sources 23 ------- NJ — • = Sewer Lines - Construction Ar«o . Originol Limits Of Pittsburgh Cool Outcrop M - Wotershed Boundary Scale l"=3000' lcm= 3600 meter ------- 6002 and 6005. Ihe average discharges were noted to increase from 45 gal- lons per minute to 91 gallons per minute for source 6002 and from 158 gal- lons per minute to 193 gallons per minute for source 6005. To sufficiently assess the causes of water quality changes caused by 1-79 construction would require detailed analysis of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation design and as-built specifications, and was considered beyond the scope of this project. Nevertheless, the highway construction project must be considered a significant factor in evaluating the demonstration project. 25 ------- REFERENCES 1. A. C. Ackenheil § Associates, Inc., Chartiers Creek Mine Drainage Pollution Abatement Project, SL 102, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Mines and Mineral Industries, 1970 2. Bureau of Land Protection, Division of Mine Subsidence Regula- tion, Mine Map of Allegheny County prepared by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, October, 1970 3. Telephone Conversation With Mr. McFarren, Chemist at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Water Supply, Cincinnati, Ohio on October 7, 1975. 4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Local Climatological Data/1 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1970-1975, National Weather Service Office, Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, U. S. Department of Commerce 5. Newell, James, Robinson Township Official, Interview on July 2, 1975. 6. U. S. Geological Survey, Groundwater Hydrograph Prepared Prom Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Observation Well AG-700 7. U. 'S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Pennsylvania, Data from Chartiers Creek Streamflow Gauge at Grafton, Pennsylvania, Water Years 1972-1975, and at Carnegie, Pennsylvania Water Year 1971 8. Wagner, Walter R., and Others, Geology of The Pittsburgh Area, General Geology Report G-59, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 1970 26 ------- APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES 1: Determined in the laboratory on a Beckman Chem-Mate Model 72 " meter. Acidity: Determined in the laboratory according to Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition, 1971, Sect ion 201, Page 37 0. All samples were titrated hot in order to enhance oxidation and hydrolysis of acid producing components. Alkalinity: Determined in the laboratory according to Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition, 1971, Section 102, Page 52.All samples were titrated cold. gulfates: Determined in the laboratory according to the Hach Turbidimetric Method in "Hach DR Colorimeter Methods Manual," 9th Edition, 1973, Page 137. A calibration curve was generated in order to obtain sample sulfate concentrations. Total Iron: Determined in the laboratory according to two methods. Initially, a Hach 1,10-Pehnanthrpline Method in "Hach DR Colorimeter Methods Manual," 9th Edition, 1973, p. 137 was used. Later, total iron was determined according to an atomic absorption method in EPA "Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," 1974, p. 78. Manganese: Determined in the laboratory according to two methods. Initially, a Hach Cold Periodate Oxidation Method in "Hach DR Colorimeter Methods Manual, 9th Edition, 1973, p. 70 was used. Later, manganese was determined according to an atomic absorption method in EPA "Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," 1974, p. 78. Aluminum: Determined in the laboratory according to two methods. Initially a Hach Eriochrome Cyanine R Method in "Hach DR Colorimeter Methods Manual," 9th Edition, 1973, was used. Later, aluminum was determined according to an atomic absorption method in EPA "Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," 1974, p. 78. 27 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWARY The tables on the following pages summarize the water quality data for the three phases of the Campbell's Run Demonstration Project: Phase 1, before construction; Phase 2, during construction; and Phase 3, after construction. For those instances where weekly samples were collected, (refer to Table III), only the monthly means of the weekly samples are presented. All concentrations except pH are expressed in milligrams per liter and material loads are expressed in pounds per day (one pound per day equals .454 kilograms per day). Mean concentrations are arithmetic averages except for pH which is a logarithmic average. All mean constituent loads are the product of the mean flow and mean concentration. 28 ------- tv) APPBvIDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUNMARY PHASE 1 - BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STATION NO. 1 Date 9-71 10-71 11-71 12-71 1-72 2-72 3-72 4-72 S-72 6-72 7-72 8-72 pH 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.1 2.4 Flow (gpm) 302 109 330 461 436 4804 1919 3582 970 591 874 385 Acidity Cone. 2307 534 443 374 331 258 434 523 576 492 694 578 Load 8367 699 1756 2071 1773 14885 10002 22499 6710 3492 7285 2673 Alkalinity Aluminum Cone. Load Cone. 41 31 37 28 9 7 29 32 35 ---- -•--- 70 — . 43 24 Load 149 41 147 155 47 404 668 1337 408 256 451 111 Sulfate Cone. 1020 2360 940 780 700 700 780 910 830 1000 920 1170 Load 3700 3090 3720 4320 3660 40390 17980 39150 9670 7100 9660 5410 Iron Cone. 9 4 4 18 4 2 24 22 28 10 24 30 Load 33 5 16 100 21 1-15 553 946 326 71 252 139 Manganese Cone. 4 4 . 2 4 3 2 5 6 5 4 6 4 Load 14 5 8 22 16 115 115 258 58 28 63 19 Mean 2.5 1230 629 9292 32 473 1010 14920 15 222 59 ------- STATION NO. 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWVRY PHASE 2 - DURING CCNSTRUCTICN Date 11-73 12-73 1-74 2-74 3-74 4-74 5-74 6-74 7-74 8-74 Mean: pH 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 Flow (gpm) 858 1092 1281 514 1145 828 878 424 424 220 766 Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum Cone. 166 240 435 365 480 400 460 420 314 440 372 Load Cone. 1710 3148 6692 2253 6601 3978 4850 2139 1603 - — 1162 3422 Load Cone. 62 83 43 --- 36 41 44 31 21 34 .... 24 42 Load 639 1088 662 222 564 438 327 107 174 63 386 Sulfate Cone. 670 780 1260 1000 1100 1230 1100 1140 1Q60 1060 1040 Load 6900 10230 19380 6170 15130 12230 11600 5800 5410 2800 9570 Iron Cone. 16 13 28 24 29 25 18 19 8 5 19 Load 165 170 431 148 399 249 190 97 41 13 175. Manganese Cone. 4 4 7 4 4 5 6 6 6 8 .5 Load 41 52 108 25 55 50 63 31 31 21 16 ------- STATION NO. 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SLW/VRY PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION Date 9-74 10-74 11-74 12-74 1-75 2-75 3-75 4-75 5-75 6-75 7-75 8-75 Mean pH 3.6 3.2 3.2 4.4 2.9 3,2 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.1 Flow (gpm) 728 378 343 1524 935 1664 1842 672 642 440 187 156 792 Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum Cone. 242 392 338 147 276 342 987 680 550 464 556 506 457 Load Cone. 2116 1780 1615 2690 - — 3099 6835 21894 5488 4241 — - 2452 ---- 1249 948 4347 Load Cone. 24 30 20 ---- 12 39 38 ---- 100 49 -— 55 — -- 51 46 42 42 Load 210 136 82 220 438 759 2218 395 424 270 103 79 399 Sulfate Cone. 820 1000 990 560 1000 950 1820 1510 1200 1110 1260 1300 1020 Load 7170 4540 4080 10250 11230 18980 40370 12190 9250 5860 2830 2440 9740 Iron Cone. 6 10 8 8 23 23 138 68 44 38 37 18 35 Load 52 45 33 146 258 460 3061 549 339 201 83 34 333 Manganese Cone. 5 6 6 3 4 2 2 2 5 8 8 7 5 Load 44 27 25 55 45 40 44 16 38 42 18 13 48 ------- ISJ APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUNMARY PHASE 1 - BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STATION NO. 2 Date 9-71 10-71^ 11-71 12-71 1-72 2-72 3-72 4-72 5-72 6-72 7-72 8-72 pH 2.4 2.4 2;4 2.5 2.6 2;6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.2 Flow (gpm) 329 133 443 464 406 5161 2487 3402 998 654 905 439 Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum Cone. 655 478 390 312 327 292 445 475 575 516 710 592 Load Cone. 2588 764 2075 1739 -— 1594 18099 -— 13291 19407 6892 4053 7717 - — 3121 Load Ccnc. ---^ 46 ----- 36 37 24 13 .... 16 24 34 31 — - 40 48 31 Load 182 58 197 134 63 992 717 1389 372 707 522 163 Sulfate Cone. 1050 2720 890 720 750 770 780 930 850 1000 880 1200 Load 4150 4340 4740 4010 3660 47730 23297 38000 10200 7850 9560 6330 Iron Cone. 9 6 3 14 4 4 24 27 31 14 24 28 Load 37 10 16 78 20 248 717 1103 372 110 261 148 Manganese Cone. 4 5 3 5 3 4 7 6 4 4 4 4 Load 16 8 16 28 15 248 .209 245 48 31 44 21 Mean: 2.4 1318 481 7614 36 570 1040 16540 10 253 63 ------- t/4 APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWARY PHASE 2--DURING CONSTRUCTION Date 11-73 12-73 l-:74 2-74 •3^74 4-74 5-74 6-74 7-74 8-74 PH 2.9 3.1 3.2 3;3 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 Flew (gP"0 1232 726 1430 744 974 691 771 469 559 359 Aciditv Alkalinity Aluminum Cone. 201 238 440 330 430 440 430 440 312 310 Load Cone . 2974 2075 ------ 7 557 - — 2949 ----- 5030 3652 3982 ----- 2478 2095 1337 Load Cone. 3 1 ..... 46 37 40 46 -•-•-•- 31 .... 34 40 .... 30 Load 4 9 790 331 468 382 287 192 268 129 Sulfate Cone. 660 780 1270 1040 1130 1230 1100 1190 1060 1010 Load 9760 6800 21800 9290 13220 10200 10180 6700 7120 4350 Iron Cone. 13 20 28 25 26 23 19 23 7 4 Load 192 174 481 223 304 191 176 130 47 17 Manganese Cone. 4 4 8 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 Load 59 35 137 36 58 42 56 34 40 J6 Mean 3.2 796 357 3413 30 287 1050 10040 19 182 ------- STATION NO. 2 APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION Date 9-74 10-74 11-74 12-74 1-75 2-7S 3*75 4.-7S 5-75 6-75 7-75 8-75 pH 3.6 3.2 3.2 4.4 2.8 3.1- 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2,8 Flow (gpm) 831 390 388 1986 ssr 1751 2386 927 828 573 352 324 Acidity Alkalinity Cone. 243 398 357 128 294 346 974 729 564 510 574 526 Load Cone. Load 2425 1864 ---- 1664 — - ---- 3053 3005 -•--•- 7276 27910 8116 5608 ' 3510 — - 2427 -— 2047 Aluminum Cone. 22 32 22 10 41 38 90 73 70 42 42 40 Load 220 150 102 238 419 799 2579 813 696 289 178 156 Sulfate Cone. 780 990 980 530 980 960 1700 1560 1260 1100 1260 1220 Load 7780 4640 4570 12640 10020 20190 48710 17370 12530 7570 5330 4750 Iron .Cone. 5 11 10 8 22 22 122 80 46 36 46 17 Load 50 52 47 191 225 463 3496 891 457 248 194 66 Manganese Cone. 5 5 6 2 4 4 3 2 2 8 8 6 Load 50 23 28 48 41 84 86 22 20 55 34 23 Mean 3.1 966 470 5453 57 661 1110 12880 35 406 46 ------- On STATION NO. 3 APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY PHASE 1 - BEFORE CONSTRUCTION Date 9-71 10-71 11-71 12-71 1-72 2-72 3-72 4-72 5-72 6-72 7-72 8-27 pH 2.3 2.2 2.1 •2!2 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 Flow 374 167 496 574 672 5570 2683 4882 1041 1460 1010 499 Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum Cone. 630 578 684 520 672 414 632 795 1046 .602 718 672 Load Cone . 2830 1159 ---- 4074 3585 5423 27694 20364 46612 13077 10556 •:.---- 8709 ---- 4027 Load Cone. 36 43 58 48 35 ---- 27 36 .... 47 46 — - 80 — - 40 ---- 35 Load 162 86 346 331 282 1806 1160 2756 575 1403 485 210 Sulfate Cone. 1110 1040 1000 910 950 670 850 1130 1000 1000 950 1130 Load 4980 2086 5960 6270 7670 44820 27390 66250 12500 17530 11520 6770 Iron Cone. 11 '5 17 30 ;47 24 40 50 55 17 29 30 Load 49 10 101 207 379 1606 1289 2932 688 298 352 180 Manganese Cone. 5 4 2 2 2 3 6 5 4 3 5 7 Load 22 8 12 14 16 201 193 293 50 53 61 42 Mean: 2.2 1619 664 12911 46 856 980 19060 30 583 78 ------- 1/4 APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY PHASE 2 - -DURING CONSTRUCTION STATION NO. 3 Date 11-73 1 0 It 1.6-7 o 1-74 X /*r 2-74 ff /H 3-74 /H 47/1 •/I 57>i ~/4 67/1 " ~/4 7-74 / /H 874 /*? pH 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 Flow (gpm) 1516 795 1409 808 1085 686 828 564 645 402 Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum Cone. 214 300 435 365 415 450 430 460 295 338 Load Cone. 3896 2864 ---- 7361' 3542 5408 3707 4276 3116 2285 1632 Load Cone. ---- 0.4 v 0.8 ---- 42 32 — - 40 50 28 — - 28 40 -.--- 25 Load 7 8 711 310 521 412 278 190 310 121 Sulfate Cone. 670 660 1290 1040 1130 1230 1020 1000 920 920 Load 12200 6300 21830 10100 14720 10130 10140 6770 7130 4440 Iron Cone. 13 24 26 24 28 29 19 14 8 7 Load 237 229 440 233 365 239 189 95 62 34 Manganese Cone. 4 4 8 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 Load 73 38 135 48 78 41 50 34 39 29 Mean 5.2 874 370 3884 29 304 990 10500 19 220 52 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION STATION'NO. 3 Data 9-74 10-74 11-74 12-74 1-75 2-75 3-75 4-75 5-75 6-75 7-75 8-75 PH 3.4 3.2 3.3 4.4 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 Flow 974 362 440 2140 972 1944 2636 1076 922 636 368 367 Acidity Alkalinity Cone. 262 409 354 122 282 333 940 694 547 468 501 470 Load Cone. Load 3065 1778 - — 1871 3136 3292 7775 29758 8968 6057 3575 --•- 2214 ---- 2072 Aluminum Cone. 22 27 22 11 39 38 92 72 68 44 32 36 Load 257 117 116 283 455 887 2912 930 753 336 141 159 Sulfate Cone. 780 940 940 520 980 940 1680 1320 1180 1080 1140 1120 Load 9120 4090 4970 13360 11440 21950 53180 17060 13070 8250 5038 4940 Iron Cone. 9 42 8 9 22 23 114 66 42 34 32 17 Load 105 183 42 231 257 537 3609 853 465 260 141 75 Manganese Cone. 5 4 5 2 3 4 2 1 2 6 8 6 Load 58 17 26 51 35 93 63 13 22 46 35 26 Mean 3.1 1070 448 5757 42 540 1050 13490 35 450 51 ------- 00 APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY STATION NO. 4 PHASE 1 ' BBFDRE CONSTRUCTION Date 9-71 10-71 11-71 12-71 1-72 2-72 3-72 4-72 5-72 6-72 7-72 8-72 pH 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.4 2.8 2.9 Flow (gpm) 568 91 284 416 376 5416 2208 2932 1190 775 735 371 Acidity Cone. Load 196 207 177 145 192 122 264 282 303 148 330 306 1337 226 604 724 867 7936 7001 9930 4330 1378 2913 1363 Alkalinity Cone. Load 4 12 4 4 4 41 20 260 Aluminum Crmr" I no/1 i - , i-< « to co o >o to o> is) o oo ro | i-l i-l rH rH iH fH rf iH iH 75 7 51 40 45 390 345 669 214 372 159 58 Sulfate PnnV* T«**tJ 420 1340 450 450 560 450 500 650 530 550 510 600 LjUOU 2860 1460 1540 2250 2530 29270 13260 22890 7580 5120 4500 2670 Iron (Jonc. 1 1.6 2 9 8 2 6 5 9 4 4 8 Loaa. 6 2 6 45 36 130 159 176 129 37 35 36 Manganese Cone. 1 3 2 2 1 1 6 3 1 1 2 4 Load 7 3 7 10 4 65 159 106 14 9 * 18 18 Mean 3.2 1280 223 3428 2 31 15 231 580 8920 5 77 2 31 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION STATION NO. Date 11-73 12-73 1-74 2-74 3-74 4-74 5-74 6-74 7-74 8-74 Mean pH 5.0 5.3 4.4 4.1 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.6 5.2 4.3 Flow (gpn>) 576 595 3395 720 769 609 444 242 248 223 782 Acidity Cone. 70 108 150 175 185 170 210 200 162 96 153 Load 484 772 6116 1513 1709 1243 1120 581 482 257 1437 Alkalinity Cone. 26 10 .... -- - - ... - 4 13 Load 180 71 .... .... . ._ - 11 122 Aluminum Cone. 1 1 15 20 18 18 15 12 18 9 13 Load 4 6 612 173 166 132 80 35 54 24 122 Sulfate Cone. 420 520 680 700 700 700 680 650 590 620 630 Load 2900 3720 27720 6050 6460 5120 3626 1890 1760 1660 5920 Iron Cone. 6 4 4 7 5 4 4 6 3 0.8 4 Load 42 29 163 60 46 29 21 17 9 2 38 Manganese Cone. 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Load 21 21 163 17 18 15 11 6 6 5 19 ------- STATION NO. 4 APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY PHASE 3 --AFTER CONSTRUCTION Date 9-74 10-74 11-74 12-74 1-75 2-75 3-75 4-75 5-75 6-75 7-75 8-75 Mean pH 5.1 3.9 4.8 5.9 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.7 3.? 4.5 4.1 4.2 3.8 Flow (gpm) 558 341 264 1543 710 928 1574 604 583 338 244 92 648 Acidity Cone. 100 188 128 20 116 176 425 256 164 90 149 119 161 Load 670 770 406 368 989 1962 8034 1857 1148 365 437 132 1253 Alkalinity Cone. 26 6 32 2 16 Load 174 .... 19 590 .... .... _ . — * 8 125 Aluminum Cone. 6 12 8 6 20 21 50 47 42 12 16 12 21 Load 40 49 25 110 170 234 945 341 294 49 47 13 163 Sulfate Cone. 520 700 560 340 690 660 1020 790 620 520 610 600 640 Load 3480 2870 1780 6260 5880 7360 19280 5730 4341 2110 1790 660 4Q«n Iron Cone. 1 2 2 2 4 5 18 7 5 6 3 2 5 Load 7 8 6 37 34 56 340 51 35 24 9 2 70 Manganese Cone. 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 Load 13 8 6 18 17 22 38 0 0 8 6 2 '16 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY PHASE 1 - BEFORE CONSTRUCTION Date 9-71 10-71 11-71 12-71 1-72 2-72 3-72 4-72 5-72 6-72 7-72 8-72 pH 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.7 2.7 3.1 Flow 1301 876 1555 2468 3300 19162 10014 13113 3822 1895 4030 1800 Acidity Cone. 228 141 118 147 108 112 310 279 315 198 396 334 Load 3562 1483 2204 4357 4280 25775 37282 43938 14459 4506 19166 7220 Alkalinity Cone. 6 15 14 6 4 Load 94 158 261 238 920 Aluminum Cone. 12 6 6 6 5 5 17 21 15 30 20 14 Load 188 63 112 178 198 1151 2044 3307 688 683 968 303 Sulfate Cone. 600 540 530 530 540 450 600 700 580 80 640 620 Load 9370 5681 9900 15710 21400 103560 72160 110240 26620 1820 30980 13400 Iron Cone. 0.5 0.2 0.1 4 2 1 8 10 22 1.5 8 3 Load 8 2 2 118 79 230 962 1575 1010 ,34 387 65 Manganese Cone. 3 3 2 2 4 2 8 9 3 2 2 4 Load 47 32 37 59 158 460 962 '1417 138 46 97 86 Mean 3.3 5278 224 14199 254 13 824 530 33600 317 254 ------- t-0 STATION NO. 5 APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION Date 11-73 12-73 1-74 •2-74 3-74 4-74 5-74 6-74 7-74 8-74 pH 4.8 5.2 4.4 4,2 3.6 4.1 4.5 5.4 4.7 5.1 Flow (gpm) 4104, 3784 6681 2938 3388 3658 3270 1765 1494 1602 Acidity Cone. 63 105 175 185 250 1§0 190 180 121 70 Load 3105 4772 14042 6528 10172 8347 7462 3816 2171 1347 Alkalinity Cone. 30 8 .... .... .... 10 1 6 Load 1479 364 ._.. ---- .... 212 18 115 Aluminum Cone. i i 18 22 25 22 15 13 5 7 Load 30 32 1444 776 1017 966 589 276 90 135 Sulfate Cone. 550 600 710 720 820 840 760 760 640 700 Load 27110 27270 56970 25400 33360 36900 29850 16110 11480 13470 Iron Cone. 6 5 8 8 10 7 5 7 3 1 Load 296 227 642 282 407 308 196 148 54 19 Manganese Cone. 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 5 2 2 Load ' 197 136 321 70 81 132 118 106 36 38 Mean 4.3 3268 153 6005 11 432 13 510 710 27870 235 118 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION STATION NO. 5 Date 9-74 10-74 Ilr74 12-74 1-75 2-75 3-75 4-75 5-75 6-75 7-75 8-75 pH 5.2 4.5 4.5 6.S 4.0 3.7 3.1 3.6 3.6 4.3 3.9 4.2 Flow (gpm) 2932 1655 1410 8616 3466 6189 7972 3324 3 213 1998 1336 1376 .. Acidity Cone. 113 182 168 16 120 190 498 356 225 151 190 142 Load 3979 3618 2845 1656 4995 14122 47680 14212 8682 3623 3049 2347 Alkalinity Cone. 8 2 1 39 .... . ..... . . Load 282 40 17 4035 .... .... .... .... .... Aluminum Cone. 10 10 9 6 21 24 57 54 51 16 18 13 Load 352 199 152 621 874 1784 5457 2156 1968 384 289 215 Sulfate Cone. 610 710 680 350 760 750 1140 900 700 580 750 750 Load 21480 14110 11520 36220 31640 55750 109150 35930 27010 13920 12030 12390 Iron Cone. 2 2 3 3 8 10 42 20 10 8 6 3 Load 70 40 51 310 333 743 4021 798 386 192 96 50 Manganese Cone. 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 4 4 3 Load 141 40 34 104 83 149 192 0 0 96 64 50 Mean 3.8 3624 196 8531 12 522 24 1045 720 31340 10 435 87 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY STATION NO. A - SAMPLED ONCE PERiQUARTER DURING PHASE 3 Date pH Flow Acidity ' Alkalinity Cone. Load Cone. Load Aluminum Cone. Load Sulfate Cone. Load Iron Cone. Load Manganese Cone. Load PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION 5-74 4.3 6=-74 4.6 Mean 4.4 208 122 165 200 230 215 500 ---- 337 426 21 13 17 52 19 34 1350 925 1140 3370 1355 2260 4 2 3 11 3 6 6 7 6 16 10 12 PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION 9-74 4.6 12-74 6.8 3-75 2.9 6-75 4.2 207 360 608 146 148 51 717 231 368 2 5 220 29 125 5231 405 12 4 77 20 30 17 562 35 700 560 1520 820 1740 2421 11090 1440 4 4 48 9 10 17 350 16 2 3 6 6 5 13 44 '10 Mean 3.5 330 287 1137 32 28 111 900 3570 16 63 16 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY STATION NO. B - SAMPLED ONCE PER MONTH DURING PHASE 3 Acidity Flew Date pH (gpm) Cone. Load Cone. Alkalinity Aluminum Sulfate Iron Manganese Load Gone. Load Cone. Load Cone. Load Cone. Load on PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION 5-74 6-74 Mean 3.5 3.6 3.5 400 193 296 330 320 PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION Mean 3.3 400 1585 742 325 1155 9-74 10-74 11-74 12-74 1-75 2-75 3-75 4-75 5-75 6-75 7-75 8-75 4.2 3.3 3.6 5.0 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.0 494 218 259 524 419 817 818 357 328 211 169 188 154 375 302 83 235 327 705 602 388 330 364 423 914 982 939 522 1183 3205 6920 2581 1528 836 739 955 25 357 1715 21 16 18 34 101 37 64 168 1100 1100 5284 2550 1100 3910 12 10 11 58 23 39 1070 5116 23 106 8 7 40 17 28 12 26 18 7 31 41 72 68 61 25 26 25 71 68 56 44 156 402 707 292 240 63 53 56 760 1040 960 650 980 1020 1520 1520 1150 980 1200 1080 4510 2720 2990 4090 4930 10000 14920 6520 4530 2480 2440 2440 6 9 5 4 15 30 62 62 26 24 20 8 37 24 16 25 75 244 609 266 102 61 41 19 6 7 6 4 5 3 7 2 5 7 12 7 36 18 19 25 25 29 69 9 20 18 24 16 29 ------- ON APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWARY STATION NO. C - (MAJOR POLLUTION SOURCE 6005) SAMPLED ONCE PER QUARTER DURING PHASE 3 Date pH Flow Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum Cone. Load Cone. Load Cone. Load Sulfate Cone. Load Iron Cone. Load Manganese Cone. Load PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION 5-74 2.9 ' 6-74 3.0 Mean 2.9 150 180 115 770 710 740 1387 682 ---- 1022 ---- 55 51 53 99 49 73 1410 1410 1410 2540 1360 1950 88 74 81 159 71 11.2 5 5 5 9 5 7 PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION 9-74 2.8 12-74 3.1 3-75 2.8 6-75 3.0 145 108 400 120 644 549 2236 1130 1121 ---- 712 ---- 10733 1628 48 40 191 56 84 39 917 81 1160 1010 3200 1750 2020 1310 15360 2520 50 48 446 180 87 62 2141 259 5 2 5 6 9 3 24 9 Mean 2.9 193 1140 2642 81 209 1780 4130 181 420 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY STATION NO. D - SAMPLED ONCE PER MONTH Flow Acidity Date PHASE 2 S-74 6-74 pH. (gpm) Cone. - DURING CONSTRUCTION 3.2 577 430 3.3 289 400 Load 2980 1388 DURING PHASE 3 Alkalinity Cone. Load Aluminum Cone. 32 29 Load 222 101 Sulfate Cone. 1100 1140 Load 7620 3960 Iron Cone. 26 19 Manganese Load 180 66 Cone. 7 7 Load 49 24 Mean 3.2 433 420 2184 30 156 1120 5820 22 114 PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION 9-74 10-74 11-74 12-74 1-75 2-75 3-75 4-75 5-75 6-75 7^75 .8-75 3.7 3.1 3.2 4.7 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.1 3'. 2 3.2 3.0 2.8 699 505 412 932 469 1244 1473 592 605 464 195 179 240 473 394 193 307 352 1173 844 596 535 560 472 2015 2869 1950 2160 1696 5255 20734 6001 4330 2981 1311 1015 11 Mean 3.1 647 512 3978 41 319 1200 9320 43 334 36 21 33 22 9 42 42 109 32 78 29 39 39 176 200 109 101 232 627 1927 227 567 162 91 84 760 1020 1010 620 1100 1020 2100 1800 1280 1080 1400 1250 6380 6190 5000 6940 6080 15230 37120 12800 9300 6020 3280 2690 7 14 7 8 22 30 191 95 55 36 38 18 61 85 35 90 122 448 3376 675 400 201 89 37 5 6 6 3 4 4 3 1 2 6 9 7 42 36 30 34 22 60 53 7 14 33 21 15 39 ------- oo APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWARY STATION NO. E - SAMPLED ONCE PER MONTH DURING PHASE 3 Date pH Flow (gpm) Acidity Cone. Load Alkalinity Cone. Load Aluminum Cone. Load Sulfate Cone. Load Iron Cone. Load PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION 5-74 3.4 6-75 3.4 52 29 560 350 470 164 39 36 24 13 1140 1190 710 410 9 8 12 4 Manganese Cone. Loa 3 5 H 2 2 Mean 3.4 40 520 PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION 250 38 18 1160 560 11 9-74 10-74 11-74 12-74 1-75 2-75 3-75 4-75 5-75 6-75 7-75 8-75 4.3 3.3 3.1 4.7 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.6" 4.0 37 21 6 34 60 64 108 36 46 22 4 2 370 571 558 224 364 457 645 658 490 434 454 324 164 144 40 91 262 351 836 284 271 115 22 8 26 36 28 10 31 55 68 22 82 33 32 33 12 9 2 4 22 42 88 10 45 9 2 1 1010 1250 1120 750 1190 1180 1400 1400 1150 1050 1250 1150 450 315 80 310 860 910 1810 600 635 280 60 30 2 7 4 3 11 16 26 24 12 4 1.8 1.6 1 2 e 1 8 12 34 10 7 1 0 0 5 7 6 3 5 5 1 1 3 5 8 5 2 2 0 1 4 4 1 0 2 1 0 0 Mean 3.2 37 462 205 38 17 1160 520 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY <£> Date pH Flow feonO Aciditv Alkalinity Aluminum Cone. Load Cone . Load Cone. Load Sulfate Cone. Load Iron Cone. Load Manganese Cone. Load PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION 5-74 2.8 6-74 2.8 Mean 2.8 57 37 47 820 860 840 561 382 474 54 62 58 37 28 33 1290 1490 1390 880 660 780 75 86 78 51 38 44 5 5 5 3 2 3 PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION 9-74 2.9 12-74 3.2 3-75 2.6 6-75 2.8 47 110 158 48 458 319 1551 1367 259 421 2941 793 ----- 36 -.--- 21 134 62 20 28 254 36 850 560 2200 1750 480 740 4170 1010 24 26 178 156 14 34 337 90 5 2 2 4 3 3 4 2 Mean 2.8 91 924 1010 63 69 1340 1460 96 105 ------- APPENDIX B LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY en o Date _pH Flow (gpm) Acidity Alkalinity Cone. Load Cone. Load Aluminum Cone. Load Sulfate Cone. Load Iron Cone. Load PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION 5-74 3.3 6-74 3.5 Mean 3.4 75 95 85 300 170 235 270 194 240 24 12 18 22 14 18 700 360 530 630 410 540 19 6 12 17 6 12 Manganese Cone. 2 1 2 Load 2 1 2 PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION 9-74 2.8 12-74 5.8 3-75 3.0 6-75 3.8 206 156 200 80 432 46 416 190 1069 86 10 19 998 182 31 7 43 17 77 13 103 16 780 440 850 350 1930 820 2040 340 42 9 31 15 104 17 74 14 2 1 2 1 5 2 5 1 Mean 3.2 160 271 521 24 40 610 1170 24 46 ------- TECHNICAL REPORT DATA (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing) 1. REPORT NO. EPA-600/2-76-111 2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO. 4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE Evaluation of Surface Mine Reclamation Techniques Campbell's Run Watershed, Pennsylvania 5. REPORT DATE June 1976 (Issuing Date) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE '. AUTHOR(S) Murray T. Dougherty and Hans H. Holzen 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS A.C. Ackenheil & Associates, Inc. 1000 Banksville Road Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15216 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. EHE 623 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. Grant 14010 GCM 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Office Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED Final-Nov. 1970 - Oct. 197 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE EPA - ORD 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 16. ABSTRACT ~ A study was performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of surface reclamation of strip mined land upon water quality in streams receiving mine drainage pollution from abandoned underground mines. The water quality was monitored in three phases, prior to the surface reclamation, during reclamation, and after reclamation. The results were then evaluated to determine any improvement in water quality resulting from the construction of the abatement facilities. Fifty-two acres (21 hectares) of abandoned strip mined land were regraded and revegetated to reduce infiltration to the spoil zone and to the deep mine complex. The reclamation was completed at a cost of $131,650. The results of the collection and' sampling of stream samples over a three year period indicated that the pH and acidity of Campbell's Run had improved and that the acid load had decreased 43% at the mouth of Campbells Run. However, this improvement could not be directly attributed to the surface reclamation projects. The improvement was determined to be more directly related to the construction of residential and commercial establishments, to the construction of U. S. Interstate 79, and to natural fluctuations in mine pool levels and runoff rates. 7. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group Mining* Reclamation* Water Quality Coal Mining Underground Mining Surface Mining Acid Mine Drainage* Pennsylvania Campbell's Run 08H, 08G 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Release to Public 19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport) Unclassified 21. NO. OF PAGES 61 20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) Unclassified 22. PRICE EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) 51 OUSGPO: 1976 — 657-695/5446 Region 5- ------- |