United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA '9 035
February 1!)
Research and Development
Tioga River
Mine Drainage
Abatement Project
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-79-035
February 1979
TIOGA RIVER MINE DRAINAGE
ABATEMENT PROJECT
by
A. F. Miorin
R. S. Klingensmith
R. E. Heizer
J. R. Saliunas
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Grant No. S805784 (14010 HIN)
Project Officer
Edward R. Bates
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
This study was conducted in cooperation with the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
Tliis report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does men-
tion of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommen-
dation for use.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
REVIEW NOTICE
This report, prepared by outside consultants, has been reviewed by the
Department of Environmental Resources and approved for publication. The con-
tents indicate the conditions that are existing as determined by the consul-
tant, and the consultant's recommendations for correction of the problems.
The foregoing does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the pol-
icies, views, or approval of the Department.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution con-
trol methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved
methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
This project demonstrated effective techniques for mine drainage abate-
ment, reduced a specific mine drainage problem, and restored portions of a
strip mined area to their approximate original surface grades. Techniques
demonstrated included: restoration of strip pits utilizing agricultural lime-
stone and wastewater sludge as soil conditioners; burial of acid-forming ma-
terials within strip mines that were restored; and reconstruction and lining
of a stream channel. Effectiveness of these preventive measures and their
costs were determined. The data presented in this study will aid government
and private companies to evaluate mine drainage abatement measures. The Ex-
traction Technology Branch, Resource Extraction and Handling Division, may be
contacted for further information.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The Tioga River Demonstration Project in southeastern Tioga County, Penn-
sylvania, is located in an area essentially defined by an isolated pocket of
coal that has been extensively deep and strip mined within the Pennsylvania
Bituminous Coal Field. Acid mine drainage from abandoned mines is discharged
into Morris Run, and Coal and Bear Creeks before they enter the Tioga River
near Blossburg Borough. Water in these three streams generally has a pH of
about 3.0 with a net acidity ranging from 200 to 1,000 milligrams per liter.
This project demonstrated effective techniques for mine drainage abate-
ment, reduced a specific mine drainage problem, and restored portions of a
strip mined area to their approximate original surface grades. Techniques dem-
onstrated included restoration of strip pits utilizing agricultural limestone
and wastewater sludge as soil conditioners, burial of acid-forming materials
within strip mines that were restored, and reconstruction and lining of a
stream channel. Effectiveness of these preventive measures and their costs
were determined.
Project implementation resulted in an estimated acid reduction of 862
kilograms per day under average groundwater conditions from one of the two
project sites. Reductions in flows and loadings from the other project site
could not be confirmed because of gaps in the monitoring data and the rela-
tively small size of the site when compared to the total mined area contrib-
uting to the discharges. However, large volumes of surface water now flow off
the restored area to Fall Brook during and following significant rainfalls,
rather than continuing to enter the underground mine workings. In addition,
16 and 1? percent reductions in acidity concentrations from the associated
mine drainage discharges were documented.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for Grant
No. 14010 HIN by Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., under the spon-
sorship of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the
period November 1971 to October 1977, and work was completed as of August
1978.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgments viii
Conversion Table i*
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 6
3. Recommendations 8
4. Site Restoration 9
5. Monitoring Program 28
6. Project Evaluation 34
References 57
Appendices
A. Project Information and Data 58
B. Water Quality and Flow Data at Monitoring
Stations 71
-------
FIGURES
Number
Page
1 Location of Morris Run study area 2
2 Mine-related features of Morris Run study area ... 4
3 Site I strip mine before restoration, looking
southwest (1967) H
4 Site II strip mine before restoration (1974) .... 11
5 Site I unrestored strip mine 12
6 Site I strip mine final restoration plan 13
7 Site I cross section 300 14
8 Site I cross section 700 15
9 Site I cross section 1200 16
10 Site I cross section 1500 I7
11 Site I reconstructed stream channel profile 19
12 Site I reconstructed stream channel cross
9fl
section ^u
13 Site II unrestored strip mine 21,22
14 Site II final restoration plan 23,24
15 Monitoring Station MS-1 31
16 Monitoring Station MS-3 31
17 Monitoring Station MS-2 32
18 Monitoring Station MS-4 32
19 Monitoring Station MS-5 33
20 Monitoring Station MS-6 33
21 Comparison of daily flow at MS-1 and MS-2 vs.
rainfall before construction 36
22 Comparison of daily flow at MS-3 vs. rainfall
before construction 37
23 Site I after restoration (1975) 44
24 Site I after restoration (1976) 44
25 Comparison of daily flow at MS-4, MS-5, and
MS-6 vs. rainfall before construction 46
26 Erosion in swale at Site II (1976) 52
27 Site II after restoration with sludge plot
in background (1975) 54
28 Vegetative growth on sludge plot (1975) 54
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Average Monthly Flows at MS-1, MS-2, and MS-3 Before
and After Construction 38
2 Estimated Seasonal Flow Contribution to MS-3 from
Site I Seepage Before Construction 39
3 Average Acid Concentrations at MS-3 Before and After
Construction at Site I 41
4 Summary of Flow and Acid Load Reduction at MS-3 42
5 Average Monthly Flows and Acid Concentrations at MS-4,
MS-5, and MS-6 Prior to Site II Construction 47
6 Average Monthly Flows and Acid Concentrations at MS-4,
MS-5, and MS-6 After Site II Construction 49
7 Summary of Flow and Acid Loadings at MS-4, MS-5, and MS-6 ... 50
A-l Wastewater Sludge Characteristics 58
A-2 Abstract of Engineer's Estimate and Low Bid 59
A-3 Complete Analyses of Samples Taken Before and After
Construction 60
A-4 Sampling and Analytical Schedule 61
A-5 Normal Monthly Precipitation at English Center and
Towanda, Pennsylvania 62
A-6 Rainfall Frequency-Duration Tabulation for Southeastern
Tioga County, Pennsylvania in Centimeters of Water 63
A-7 Monthly Rainfall Data 64
A-8 Monitoring Station Design Considerations 65
A-9 Average Monthly Flows 66
A-10 Comparison of Annual Rainfall Before and After
Construction 67
A-ll Weight of Vegetation: Adjacent Area vs. Test Plot 68
A-12 Summary Breakdown of Project Construction Costs 69
A-13 Unit Construction Costs 70
B-l Water Quality and Flow Data at Monitoring Stations 71
Vll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The helpful suggestions and comments of Henry R. Thacker, Ernst P. Hall,
Ronald D. Hill, and Eugene F. Harris, of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency were greatly appreciated.
The technical and administrative assistance provided during this project
by Messrs. A. W. Bartlett, Robert Buhrman, John J. Buscavage, John J. Demchalk,
Michael R. Ferko, Donald E. Fowler, Andrew E. Friedrich, Karl Hoover, C. H.
McConnell, A. E. Molinski, D. W. Perrego, A. A. Ranieri, George Single, and
Andrew Wasko of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources is
gratefully acknowledged. Special recognition is given for the significant di-
rection provided to the project by Edward R. Bates, who was employed by the
Department but subsequently joined the Environmental Protection Agency staff.
Robert M. Jones and Raymond F. Brague of Jones and Brague Mining Co.,
Blossburg, Pennsylvania, rendered valuable assistance by supplying information
concerning various aspects of the study area.
Richard W. Condon, Chairman of the Department of History, Mansfield State
College, Mansfield, Pennsylvania, provided material aid by loaning study area
deep mine maps.
Recognition is given for the significant contribution to success of the
project made by Allegheny Mountain Company's Jerome J. Eckert, who installed
the monitoring station weirs, hauled the wastewater sludge, and constructed
the abatement measures on the two demonstration sites.
Acknowledgement is also made of the information and advice provided by
W. W. Hinish of The Pennsylvania State University and Ralph Donald Lindsey of
the Soil Conservation Service relative to seeding and soil supplements for
the project.
The support and assistance given by Jerrald R. Hollowell of the Susque-
hanna River Basin Commission and Janice R. Ward of the United States Geologi-
cal Survey in connection with the project monitoring program were greatly ap-
preciated.
Finally, special recognition is gratefully given for the outstanding ef-
fort provided by Larry Haynes in maintaining the flow recorders, securing
precipitation data, and collecting grab samples at the monitoring stations in
all kinds of weather.
Vlll
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
Metric Equivalents
English Equivalents
Measurement
Length
Area
Volume
Mass
Flow
Divide
Unit
centimeter
meter
kilometer
square meter
hectare
square kilometer
cubic meter
cubic meter
liter
kilogram
tonne
liter per second
cubic meter per second
cubic meter per second
Symbol
By
To Obtain
Unit
cm
m
km
m2
ha
km2
m3
1
kg
t
1/s
m-Vs
m^/s
2.54
0.3048
1.61
0.836
0U405
2.59
0.0283
0.7645
3.785
0.4536
0.9074
0.06309
0.02832
0.0438
inch
foot
mile
square yard
acre
square mile
cubic foot
cubic yard
gallon
pound
ton
gallons per minute
cubic foot per second
million gallons per day
Symbol
in
ft
mi
sy
ac
cf
cy
gal
Ib
gpm
cfs
mgd
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
This report evaluates the information and data derived from implementa-
tion of a mine drainage abatement demonstration project consisting of two
small portions of a mined area in the vicinity of Morris Run Village, Tioga
County, Pennsylvania.
The Morris Run Study Area (Figure 1) constitutes a portion of the Penn-
sylvania Bituminous Coal Field in the upper reaches of the Tioga River Water-
shed. Although coal was mined in local areas within this watershed, the 35-
square-kilometer study area is the prime source of significant acid mine
drainage in the watershed. This mined area was further described in a 1968 re-
port prepared by Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., entitled "Acid
Mine Drainage Abatement Measures for Selected Areas Within the Susquehanna
River Basin," referred to hereafter as the FWPCA Report.'- '
In May 1971, an application was submitted by the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency re-
questing a demonstration grant in the amount of $450,000 to construct preven-
tive measures as part of the recommended abatement plan described in the FWPCA
Report. This approved grant, together with $226,500 from the Department, made
$676,500 available for the project. The Department then entered into a ser-
vice contract with Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., effective
November 30, 1971, to perform engineering work and services related to the
project.
The initial phase of the project culminated in a report( ' establishing
the feasibility of the proposed demonstration project. Feasibility was es-
tablished by:
1. Reviewing the history of mining, mine drainage problems, and
potentially effective mine drainage abatement measures in the
study area.
2. Determining the jurisdictional framework (legal authority)
through which the demonstration proj ect could be carried out.
3. Inventorying the interrelationship of geology, topography
and geomorphology, hydrology, water quality, social and eco-
nomic factors, and environmental features that would affect
-------
OHIO
WEST
VIRGINIA
N
MORRIS RUN
STUDY ARE
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
50 0
50 IOO
SCALE IN KILOMETERS
Figure I. Location of Morris Run study area.
-------
the value of a demonstration project in the study area.
4. Developing in sufficient detail a possible abatement program.
5. Assessing the potential effectiveness and stream quality im-
provement resulting from construction of the proposed project.
6. Determining possible benefits resulting from construction of
the proposed project.
7. Developing proposed schedule and budget to assure satisfactory
completion of the proposed project.
8. Recommending a surveillance program for the project area to
enable assessment of actual versus estimated effectiveness.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Abatement measures at the following sites were determined to be feasible
and the following were recommended for construction (See Figure 2):
Site I.
Replace and line approximately 358 meters of stream channel. Re-
store strip mine S-26, consisting of approximately 5.7 hectares and
128,000 cubic meters of fill,. Place agricultural limestone, fertil-
izer, and grass seed on the restored area. Construct monitoring
station MS-1 and MS-2 upstream and downstream, respectively, of S-26.
Construct monitoring station MS-3 on an underground mine drainage
discharge.
These measures would (1) prevent a stream from flowing directly into un-
derground mine workings, (2) limit water flow into underground mine workings
with a comparable reduction in pollution from mine watercourse MS-3, and (3)
restore the watercourse as one of the headwaters of Morris Run.
Site II.
Restore portions of improperly restored strip mines S-37 and S-39,
consisting of approximately 24.3 hectares and 323,000 cubic meters
of fill. Establish a 1.74 hectare test plot on the restored site
and place sewage sludge and seed on the test plot to demonstrate
effectiveness in establishing and maintaining vegetative growth.
Place agricultural limestone, fertilizer, and grass seed on the re-
mainder of the restored site. Construct monitoring stations MS-4,
MS-5, and MS-6 on the affected deep mine discharges.
Deep mine maps for the Lower Kittanning seam were secured for the general
area encompassing Site II as well as monitoring stations MS-4, MS-5, and MS-6.
A review of these maps revealed that the three mines involved, which are
drained by these three discharges, have been interconnected so extensively
-------
LEGEND
HIGHWAY
STREAM
SWAMP
STREAM IMPOUNDMENT
MUNCIWL BOUNDARY
UNDISTURBED SURFACE CONTOUR
SHAFT ENTRY
DRIFT OR SLOPE ENTRY
PROJECT SITE LIMITS
REFUSE AREA
SUBSIDENCE AREA
STRIP MINE
SITE OF CONSTRUCTION
MONITORING STATION
PROBABLE EXTENT OF LOWER KITTANNINB DEEP MINlNB
J5 O 0.5
"
SCALE IN KILOMETERS
i-igure 2. Mine- related features of Morris Run study area.
-------
that the entire mined area can be considered as having one mine drainage pat-
tern. Very little specific coal pavement elevation information was available
for two of these three mines. Therefore, it was not possible to delineate
where the water presently entering the mines via Site II actually emerges at
specific discharge points. From these maps and available geologic informa-
tion, it was estimated that 90 percent of u.,3 water infiltration via Site II
flows to monitoring station MS-5 and 10 percent flows to monitoring station
MS-4. Because of the lack of this o^cific information, monitoring station
MS-6 was also monitored.
The proposed construction at the two sites shown on Figure 2 would pre-
vent considerable volumes of surface water from entering deep mine workings,
via interconnected strip mines in the Lower Kittanning seam, and contributing
to deep mine discharges.
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
The primary objective of this project was to demonstrate the effective-
ness of replacing a stream channel, restoring strip mines, and using waste-
water sludge as a soil amendment in eliminating or reducing acid mine drain-
age discharges. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the project, it
was necessary to (1) monitor acid mine drainage sources before, during, and
after construction, and (2) maintain complete cost records relative to con-
struction and maintenance of the preventive measures implemented.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT
Implementation of this demonstration project reduced acid mine drainage
at two or more discharge points. Effectiveness of the demonstration project
was determined by a gauging, sampling, and analytical program carried out at
the six monitoring stations. Monitoring of these acid mine drainage dis-
charges and the affected stream before, during, and after construction con-
firmed mine drainage flow reductions resulting from construction. The ac-
curate construction cost records compiled will enable estimation of abatement
costs on similar areas in the future.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The strip mine restoration and stream channel reconstruction at Site I
has proved to be effective in achieving project objectives.
The monitoring program demonstrated that before construction a loss of
flow occurred in the tributary of Morris Run as it passed through Site I. This
loss contributed to the discharge draining the underlying deep mine workings
(MS-3). This water loss (and its subsequent contribution to MS-3) was as fol-
lows :
Preconstruction MS-1 To Preconstruction MS-1 To
MS-2 Channel Loss In MS-2 Channel Stream Flow
Seasonal Stream Flow Contribution To MS-3
Conditions (m^/s) (Percent)
High Groundwater 0.018 10.5
Low Groundwater 0.012 19.3
Yearly Average 0.014 11.8
After construction, there was no measurable loss in stream flow between
MS-1 and MS-2. Furthermore, when monitoring data were adjusted for normal an-
nual rainfall, flow from MS-3 had been reduced approximately 15 percent. Al-
though there was no measurable change in acidity at MS-3, the postconstruction
reduction in flow has resulted in a daily reduction of approximately 862 kilo-
grams of acid at MS-3.
Based upon a two-year site evaluation, a successful vegetative growth had
been established on the restored strip mine acreage, and the stream channel
had been successfully restored to handle design flows. No maintenance of the
site appeared to be required.
Site I construction was accomplished at a total cost of $156,565. This
amounted to approximately $166/meter for channel reconstruction and $14,789/
hectare for strip mine restoration.
Results of construction at Site II were not as clear-cut as demonstrated
at Site I. No permanent flow reduction could be confirmed because of gaps in
the monitoring data and because construction at Site II reaffected only a very
small portion of the mined area contributing to the discharges draining the
underground mine complex. Flows at MS-4 and MS-5 when adjusted to normal
-------
precipitation appeared to be slightly reduced during the first postconstruc-
tion year but appeared to be slightly increased during the second postcon-
struction year. However, it was apparent that large volumes of surface run-
off flowed off the restored area whenever significant rainfall occurred. In
addition, after Site II construction, acidity concentrations gradually and
consistently decreased at the two discharges draining the reaffected area.
By the end of the second postconstruction year, there were 16 percent and 13
percent reductions in acidity, respectively at MS-4 and MS-5. The causes of
this water quality improvement were not clear.
Excellent results were achieved in demonstrating the use of municipal
wastewater sludge as a soil conditioner. Grasses grown on the sludge plot
were thicker and more luxurious than grasses grown on the remainder of the re-
stored area. The average air-dried weight of grasses cut from random 1-
square-meter areas within the test plot was about three times that from ad-
jacent 1-square-meter areas where the grasses were growing the best. Further-
more, based on bacteriological analyses of samples obtained from the infiltra-
tion ditch below the sludge plot, no significant health hazard existed.
As in the case of Site I, it appeared that restoration at Site II was
successful and no maintenance would be required. This restoration was accom-
plished at a total cost of $303,577 or $9,370/hectare. Several factors, such
as surface slope, volume of earth, and surface area affected, enter into the
cost of restoring an abandoned strip mine. The Pennsylvania Department of En-
vironmental Resources' recent experience indicated that such restoration con-
struction costs have ranged from $7,400 to $14,800/hectare in the Bituminous
Field, and from $7,400 to $24,700/hectare in the Anthracite Field. The con-
struction costs at Sites I and II, therefore, can be considered as top-of-the-
range and mid-range, respectively. One contribution to the higher unit cost
at Site I was the greater volume of earth moved per hectare when compared to
Site II. However, in the final analysis, the responsible person must weigh
the costs against the benefits in deciding whether to restore abandoned strip
mines.
During construction, Hurricane Eloise dropped more than 12.7 centimeters
of rain as it passed through the project area. The runoff from this signifi-
cant rainfall caused damage at both Sites I and II. Some $20,967 of the total
construction cost of $460,142 was spent to repair this storm-related damage.
It is believed, however, that no significant future maintenance will be re-
quired on this project.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information developed during this project, the following
recommendations are made:
1. Since both technical and economic feasibility of using strip
mine restoration to the approximate original contour, burial
of acid-forming material, replacement of a stream channel, and
use of clay as an impermeable membrane in the restored stream
channel for mine drainage abatement have been successfully
demonstrated, these methods should be utilized, where ap-
plicable, to reduce or eliminate acid mine drainage.
2. Where mine drainage abatement projects are being undertaken,
monitoring programs should be established on the affected mine
drainage discharges and receiving streams to:
a. Determine site-specific effectiveness of these abate-
ment measures;
b. Document acid load reductions;
c. Verify resultant stream quality improvements; and
d. Establish priorities for additional abatement, if
needed to achieve water quality objectives.
3. The validity of conclusions drawn from a monitoring program is
primarily based on the reliability of the data collected.
Therefore, in establishing such programs, care must be exer-
cised to provide:
a. Proper quality control over analytical results; and
b. Sufficient back-up monitoring equipment to minimize
information gaps.
4. The use of wastewater sludge as a soil conditioner is a viable
means of disposing of wastewater sludge, which is being pro-
duced at an ever increasing rate. Therefore, additional such
demonstration projects should be performed. Sufficient funds
should be made available to determine methods of transporting,
storing, and applying various types of wastewater sludge and
their optimum application rates.
-------
SECTION 4
SITE RESTORATION
ABATEMENT METHOD DESCRIPTION
Site I
This site included strip mine S-26; monitoring stations MS-1 and
MS-2 located on Morris Run upstream and downstream, respectively, from S-26;
the underlying deep mine workings cut into by S-26 lying west of Morris Run;
and monitoring station MS-3 established on the discharge draining these deep
mine workings. Site I is delineated on Figure 2 (Page 4).
Two abatement methods were utilized on this project site:
restoration of a strip mine, and replacement and lining of a stream channel.
Both of these measures served the same purpose - to minimize the volume of
water coming in contact with acid-forming material. Two advantages resulted:
the water prevented from contacting the acid-forming material did not become
acid, and that water was available to augment a downstream public water
supply and to dilute any remaining acid mine drainage discharges.
In addition, agricultural limestone and fertilizer were applied
to the restored strip mine. The effectiveness of these soil conditioners
in establishing and maintaining vegetation on the restored strip mine was
demonstrated.
Site II
This site included a portion of an extensive inadequately restored
strip mine along the outcrop of the Lower Kittanning seam overlooking Fall
Brook; the down dip deep mine workings in this same coal seam extending
under the crest of the ridge and extending toward Morris Run; and monitoring
stations MS-4, MS-5, and MS-6 established on the discharges draining these
deep mine workings. Site II is shown on Figure 2 (Page 4).
Similar to the one abatement method proposed for Site I, a portion
of a strip mine interconnected with deep mine workings was restored in order
to reduce the volume of acid mine drainage being discharged. In addition,
municipal wastewater sludge was applied to a test plot on the regraded strip
mine to demonstrate the effectiveness of the sludge as a soil conditioner
in establishing and maintaining vegetative growth.
-------
PREDESIGN CONDITIONS
Site I
The 5.7 hectare strip mine portion of Site I cuts essentially
perpendicularly across a tributary of Morris Run. During the active stripping
operation, this stream was diverted by cutting into the underlying Lower
Kittanning seam deep mine workings. The stripping operations ceased after
the operations had intercepted the deep mine workings. Figure 3 depicts the
condition of the strip pit before restoration.
Site II
Approximately 3,660 meters of the outcrop of the Lower Kittanning
coal seam overlooking Fall Brook was strip mined. The strip mining inter-
cepted the deep mine workings and, as a result of poor restoration, allowed
surface runoff to flow into the deep mine workings and emerge down dip along
Morris Run as part of the acid mine drainage at monitoring stations MS-4,
MS-5, and MS-6. A typical portion of the 24.3 hectares selected for restor-
ation is pictured in Figure 4.
DESIGN PHASE
The locations and outlines of the two project sites are shown on
Figure 2. Photogrammetric maps had been previously obtained for both sites
on an approximate horizontal scale of one centimeter equals 24 meters with
a contour interval of approximately 1.5 meters. These maps were used for
both preliminary and final design. As design was finalized, the areas to
be restored were expanded: Site I was increased from 5.7 to 6.5 hectares
to accommodate reclamation of the entire affected area; and Site II was in-
creased from 24.3 to 28.8 hectares to allow reclamation of a portion of the
unrestored strip mine lying immediately adjacent to, and considered as a unit
with, a previously reclaimed strip mined area.
Site I
Strip Mine Restoration
The 6.5 hectare strip mine as it appeared in its unrestored state
is shown in Figure 5, with the heavy dashed line indicating the extent of the
area that was reaffected. Figure 6 shows the final restoration plan. This plan
consisted of regrading the strip mine to near original contour using approxi-
mately 108,000 cubic meters of spoil material to meet partial fill require-
ments. As a final step, fill obtained from within the affected area from
specific spoil piles that contained a minimum amount of acid-forming material
was spread to a 0.3 meter depth over specific portions of the graded area
containing excessive acid-forming material. Approximately 9,400 cubic meters
of this select fill was used. Selected typical project cross sections de-
picting the unrestored and restored ground elevations are shown on Figures
7, 8, 9, and 10.
Based upon analyses of soil samples obtained from the site, the
10
-------
Figure 3. Site I strip mine before
restoration, looking southwest (1967).
strip mine before
Figure 4. Site II
restoration (1974). Picture was taken looking
northward. Vehicle parked near southern
end of area that was later restored.
-------
'
200 30O 400 S 500
CROSS SECTION BASE LINE
800 900 1000 1100 I2OO
INTERCONNECTIONS WITH DEEP MINE WORKINGS
Note: The English system of measurement was
required in the plans and specifications and,-
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on pag
EXTENT OF /
STRIP WINE /
Figure 5. Site I unrestored strip mine
(From construction plans, Department of Environmental Resources ).
-------
300
800
CA!
CROSS SECTION BASE LINE
1200 1300
e-.. ^-SECTION DESIGNATION
^%G
EXTENT OF
STRIP MINE
RESTORED
STREAM CHANNEL
M.S. 2
Note1 The English system of measurement was
required in the plans and specifications and,
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on page ix.
500
LEGEND
- 1850 FINAL CONTOURS
(^STREAM CHANNEL
M.S.I MONITORING STATION
800
1200
SCALED |": 200'
1500
Figure 6. Site I strip mine final restoration plan.
-------
I9OO
1900
1880
1880
I860
EXISTING GROUND
I860
LKMAL FINISHED
GROUND
1840
1840
1820
1820
I
0
T
200
Note: The English system of measurement wot
(quired in the plans and specifications and,
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on page Ix.
400 600
SCALE: HORIZ.l"= 200'
VERT. :|"=20'
800
1000
1200
SECTION 300
Figure 7. Site I cross section 300.
-------
1880
1880
EXISTING GROUND
I860
1840
1820
1800
I860
FINAL FINISHED
GROUND
1840
1820
1800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Note: The English system of measurement was
required In the plans and specifications and,
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on page ix.
SCALE
HORIZ
VERT
I" = 200'
l" = 20'
1200
SECTION 700
Figure 8. Site I cross section 700.
-------
1900
1900
1880
I860
1880
FINAL FINISHED
GROUND
I860
1840
1840
1820
1820
I
0
I
200
Note' Tht English system of measurement was
required in the plans and specifications and,
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on page ix.
400 600
800
1000 1200
SCALE:HORIZ..I =200
VERT. :|" = 20'
SECTION 1200
Figure 9. Site I cross section 1200.
-------
1910
1910
1890
1870
1890
FINAL FINISHED
GROUND
1870
1850
\
\_J
I860
1830
1830
I
0
T
200
Note: The English system of measurement was
required in the plans and specifications and,
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on page \*.
400 600
800
1000 1200
SCALE :HORIZ.:I= 200
VERT. :|"=20'
SECTION 1500
Figure 10. Site I cross section 1500.
-------
soil cover on the restored project site was conditioned with agricultural
limestone and fertilizer prior to seeding and mulching. Specified materials
and application rates were as follows:
Material
Agricultural ground limestone
(minimum of 4 percent MgO)
Fertilizer
(N - P205 - K2 0)
Seed (pre-mixed)
Kentucky 31 Tall Fescue
Birdsfoot Trefoil (Empire Type)
Common Rye Grass
Mulch (old straw or hay)
Application Rate
4.48 tonnes per hectare worked
into a depth of 10 centimeters
or less
134-224-224 kilograms per hectare
(112 kilograms of nitrogen to be
supplied from a slow release source,
such as ureaform)
39 kilograms per hectare
8 kilograms per hectare
6 kilograms per hectare
4.48 tonnes per hectare
Channel Reconstruction
This part of the project consisted of designing and constructing
363 meters of new stream channel across the restored strip pit to connect
the headwaters channel to the existing downstream Morris Run channel (see
Figures 6 and 11). The specifications required placing a 30.5-centimeter
layer of nonrigid impervious material in the channel bottom, topped by a
15.2-centimeter layer of filter blanket and a 30.5-centimeter protective
cover of quarry stone. A typical cross section of the restored stream channel
is shown on Figure 12.
The restored streambed was designed to accommodate flows up to
approximately 9.4 nr/s. Based upon rainfall frequency and duration tables
for the area, together with measurements obtained at MS-1, this design
flow is approximately 20 percent greater than the flow anticipated from a
one-in-ten-year, 24-hour duration rainfall. Rainfall and flow data are
discussed in Section 6, Project Evaluation.
Site II
The unrestored 28.8 hectare strip mine is shown on Figure 13, and
Figure 14 shows the final restoration plan. The plan consisted of grading
the strip mine to near original contour using approximately 478,000 cubic
meters of fill.
The graded site was divided into demonstration areas. One was a
18
-------
Limit of Construction
1870
1850
1840
1830
1870
I860
1850
1840
1830
1620
Note' The English system of measurement was
required in the plant and specification* and,
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on page ix.
SCALED Horiz.
Vert.
1= 200'
l"=20'
Figure II. Site I reconstructed stream channel profile.
-------
12 Dumped
Quarry Stone
6 Filter Blanket
12 Layer of Impervious
Material
Grade Application
SCALE-HORIZ. l"=5'
VERT. l"=5'
The English tyttem of measurement wot
required in the plont and specifications and,
thtr«for«, it u»*d on figure*. A metric
conversion tobi* it included on page ix.
Figure 12. Site I reconstructed stream channel cross section.
-------
I I I I I
20O
40O
600
eoo
IOOO
120O
EXTENT OF
STRIP MINE
RESTORED
\
Note: The English system of measurement was
required in the plans and specifications and,
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on page ix.
SCALE: l"= 300'
o
o
en
200
400
600
8OO
KXX)
I20O
Figure 13. Site n unrestored strip mine.
-------
I I I I
I60O 1800 2OOO 2200
o
o
CO
UJ
I
o
EXTENT OF
STRIP MINE
RESTORED
Note: The English system of measurement was
required in the plans and specifications and,
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on page ix.
SCALE: l"=300'
I6OO
000
20OO
2 ZOO
24OO
26OO
2800
Figure 13 (continued). Site n unrestored strip mine.
-------
Note: This area used for disposal of
approximately 261,500 cubic
yards of excess material from
within the limit of grading.
Additional soil supplements
and seeding on 9 acres
t
EXTENT OF
STRIP MINE
RESTORED
SCALE'l" -400'
Note- The English system of measurement wo*
required in the plans and specifications and,
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
conversion table is included on page ix.
Figure 14. Site II final restoration plan.
23
-------
-EXTENT OF
STRIP MINE
RESTORED
\\
\\
WASTEWATER SLUDGE
TEST PLOT
^EXISTING
V / ACCESS ROAD
\\\
SCALED |"r 400'
Note^
The English system of measurement was
required m the plane and specifications ond|
therefore, is used on figures. A metric
i table is included on page ix.
Figure 14 (continued). Site H final restoration plan.
24
-------
1.74 hectare plot on which 1,270 tonnes of municipal wastewater sludge were
spread to a depth of 7.6 centimeters and worked into the top 10 centimeters
of final soil cover. No other soil conditioner was used on the sludge test
plot. The remaining graded area was conditioned with limestone and fertilizer
at the same rates of application as those required for Site I. The entire
strip was then revegetated using the same seed mixture and rate of application
as specified for Site I (See page 18].
To minimize a potential health hazard, an infiltration ditch was
constructed immediately downhill from the sludge test plot. This ditch pre-
vented surface runoff from the test plot from entering Fall Brook until a
vegetative cover was established. This ditch, the location of which is shown
on Figure 14, was designed to hold the runoff from the sludge test plot that
might occur from a one-in-ten-year, 24-hour duration rainfall.
PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE
Wastewater Sludge
In order to demonstrate the use of wastewater sludge as a soil
conditioner in lieu of conventional liming and fertilizing, approvals were
required from the Department, the Tioga County Commissioners, and the Ward
Township Commissioners. Approval was granted by the Department after a review
of the potential effects on both surface waters and groundwaters. The Tioga
County Planning Commission was instrumental in securing permission for using
the wastewater sludge from these two local governmental agencies.
Source and Associated Costs of the Sludge
Several potential sources of wastewater sludge were investigated.
These included Blossburg, Wellsboro, Mansfield, Canton, and Williamsport,
Pennsylvania, as well as Elmira, New York, wastewater treatment plants. All
were willing to provide the sludge at no cost. After considering availability
of adequate volumes of sludge, proximity and accessibility, the Williamsport
plant was selected to provide the sludge.
Sludge Characteristics
The sludge transported to the project site had been vacuum filtered,
and stored on the ground surface for some time adjacent to the wastewater
treatment plant. Accordingly, this partially dewatered sludge contained about
38.8 percent total solids.
The sludge was subjected to laboratory analyses. These analyses were
performed on supernatant obtained from leaching 250 grams of the sludge in
1,250 milliliters of distilled water at room temperature for 48 hours. Results
of these analyses are shown in Appendix A.
Bidding and Awarding of Construction Contract
It was decided that all construction work at both sites should be
2-5
-------
accomplished under one contract. Accordingly, the construction work was
advertised and 14 bids were opened on January 2, 1975. Bids ranged from a
high of $1,466,067 to a low of $429,996. This low bid by Allegheny Mountain
Company compared favorably with the engineer's estimate of $428,217. This
company was awarded the contract on January 21, 1975 (See Appendix A).
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
The contractor started work at Site II in February 1975. Work at
Site I was delayed until May 1975 due to problems in securing the necessary
stream encroachment permits and approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan. Work at both sites was completed in October 1975 with the final
on-site inspection being held October 6.
Seven change orders in the contract were authorized which ultimately
raised the total construction cost from $429,996 to $460,142. These change
orders were as follows:
Change Order No. 1
Approved February 24, 1975, required an additional entity
to be named as an insured party on the contractor's public liability
and property damage insurance policy; no additional cost.
Change Order No. 2
Approved June 27, 1975, required the 3.6 hectare disposal
site for Site II excess fill to be treated with soil amendments and
seeded in accordance with the technical specifications; added
$5,101.20 to the contract cost.
Change Order No. 3
Approved September 3, 1975, authorized the placing of jute
matting on 366 meters of a swale on Site II to reduce continued soil
erosion that resulted from heavy rainfall before a vegetative cover
had been established; added $4,700 to the contract cost.
Change Order No. 4
Approved December 14, 1975, authorized increases from
field measurements in the quantities of impervious material, filter
blanket and quarry stone used in the channel lining on Site I;
added $3,678 to the contract cost.
Change Order No. 5
Approved December 7, 1976, authorized the contractor to
repair Hurricane Eloise flood damages; added $5,209.03 to the
contract cost.
26
-------
Change Order No. 6
Approved March 1, 1977, authorized placing 165 meters of
mulch blanket and 91 meters of riprap in a Site II swale to control
continuing erosion; added $11,058 to the contract cost.
Change Order No. 7
Approved July 27, 1977, this change order reflects
authorized revegetation of 0.1 hectare following the completed
repair work on the Site II swale; added $400 to the contract cost.
Total construction cost for the project is summarized in the
following:
Original Contract $429,996.00
Change Order No. 1 None
Change Order No. 2 5,101.20
Change Order No. 3 4,700.00
Change Order No. 4 3,678.00
Change Order No. 5 5,209.03
Change Order No. 6 11,058.00
Change Order No. 7 400.00
Total Construction Cost $460,142.23
27
-------
SECTION 5
MONITORING PROGRAM
PURPOSE
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the abatement work at Sites I
and II, it was necessary to establish a monitoring program to determine mine
drainage loadings before, during, and after construction.
To accomplish this, a gaging, sampling, and analytical program
involving six monitoring stations was undertaken. Two of these six monitoring
stations (MS-1 and 2) were located upstream and downstream, respectively, from
the Site I strip mine to establish the water loss from the headwaters of
Morris Run into underlying deep mine workings. The third monitoring station
(MS-3) was established to monitor the mine drainage discharge that would be
affected by the work accomplished at the Site I strip mine. The other three
monitoring stations (MS-4, 5, and 6) were established to monitor the related
mine drainage discharges, some or all of which would be affected by construc-
tion work at the Site II strip mine. These monitoring stations are shown on
Figure 2 (See page 4).
A continuous recording rain gage was installed in the study area
to provide supplementary precipitation data.
SCHEDULE
The monitoring program began on June 13, 1973 by taking grab samples
for analysis and instantaneous flow measurements at all of the monitoring
station sites. This method of monitoring was scheduled to continue through
September 13, 1973, during which time it was planned to construct the
monitoring stations and install continuous flow recorders. However, install-
ation of the continuous flow recorders at MS-1 through MS-5 was not completed
until March 18, 1974, and the continuous flow recorder at MS-6 was not placed
into operation until May 14, 1974. Accordingly, during this interim period,
grab samples and instantaneous flow measurements were obtained at two-week
intervals.
After installation of the continuous flow recorders, sampling and
analytical monitoring program schedules were established and continued through
October 21, 1976. However, the Department in cooperation with other entities
continued the monitoring program at MS-3, 4, and 5 with the final water
sample collection occurring on October 6, 1977 and final flow data collection
on October 15, 1977. These additional monitoring data have been integrated
28
-------
into the evaluation portion of this project.
ANALYTICAL DETERMINATIONS
Initial analyses of grab samples collected at the six monitoring
stations included pH, acidity, alkalinity, total iron, manganese, aluminum,
sulfate, and total solids. Once an initial data base was established,routine
analyses for manganese, aluminum, and total solids were substantially re-
duced. Additional analyses of these constituents, along with zinc concen-
trations, were limited to once prior to, and after, construction at the
two strip mine sites.
Following the spreading of the wastewater sludge on the test plot
at Site II, samples from MS-4, 5, and 6 were analyzed for zinc, copper, and
lead on a quarterly basis.
In addition, "complete" analyses were performed on samples
collected at each monitoring station before and after construction at both
strip mine sites. These "complete" analyses consisted: acidity, alkalinity,
aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, iron (total and
ferrous), lead, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, zinc, mercury, COD,
chloride, cyanide, fluoride, hardness, nitrate, pH, specific conductivity,
sulfate, temperature, turbidity, and residue (total and filterable). Results
of these "complete" analyses before and after construction are reported in
Appendix A.
The sampling and analytical schedule for all six monitoring
stations for all phases of this project is summarized in Appendix A. Complete
analytical results are shown in Appendix B.
RAINFALL
Published precipitation data were obtained for two National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration stations located near the study area. These
stations, namely, English Center and Towanda located 32 kilometers southeast
and 47 kilometers east-northeast, respectively, from the study area, were
selected as being the closest stations with sufficient years of record to
establish a standard of comparison. Normal monthly rainfall for these
stations from 1940 through 1970 are shown in Appendix A.
Rainfall duration and frequency data for the study area are also
shown in Appendix A. These data, as well as actually recorded rainfall, were
used in design and in evaluating the effectiveness of the project.
To supplement rainfall data from the selected stations, a con-
tinuous recording rain gage was installed in the study area. Actual monthly
rainfall measured at this gage and at the two selected stations is summarized
in Appendix A.
29
-------
FLOW MONITORING
Each monitoring station site facilities consisted of an artificial
impoundment and a weir over which the flow was continuously recorded by a
Model 61R, Stevens Total Flow Meter equipped with a spring-wound clock. The
measuring capacity of the continuous flow recorder installed at each monitor-
ing station was based upon the following criteria:
1. Capability to measure wet weather flows related to spring
high groundwater levels and substantiated by instantaneous
flow measurements taken prior to monitoring station con-
struction.
2. Sensitivity to water level changes throughout the required
flow range.
3. Flexibility to permit the interchanging of component parts
of the manufacturer's standardized equipment if required.
The impoundments at MS-1, 2, and 3 were constructed of concrete,,
whereas those at MS-4 and 5 were constructed of timber made impermeable by an
asphalt coating and polyethylene liner. Initial efforts to install a timber
type impoundment at MS-6 were unsuccessful due to leakage through porous fill.
Eventually, the monitoring site was moved about 15 meters downstream to a
point where the discharge passed through a culvert under a public road. This
flow was directed into a 6.1-meter long, 183-centimeter diameter, half-round,
asphalt-coated corrugated steel tank with baffle plates to still current
eddies. A V-notch weir was also installed in the downstream end of the tank.
The size and type of weir plate installed at each monitoring site
were selected to provide sufficient fluctuation in water levels to meet the
requirements of the continuous water-level recorders. Two types of weir
plates were used: a sharp-edged rectangular weir was installed at MS-3; and
90° V-notch weirs were placed in the other five monitoring stations. General
design considerations for the monitoring stations are presented in Appendix A.
Average monthly flows measured at each of the monitoring stations
are summarized in Appendix A.
Figures 15 through 20 show each monitoring station installation.
30
-------
Figure 15. Monitoring Station MS-1.
Figure 16. Monitoring Station MS-3,
::
-------
'
I
Figure 17. Monitoring Station MS-2,
Figure 18. Monitoring Station MS-4.
-------
* ''J^.*'
& ,'.*";
i*t i
-
Figure 19. Monitoring Station MS-5.
Figure 20. Monitoring Station MS-6.
33
-------
SECTION 6
PROJECT EVALUATION
METHODOLOGY
Three criteria and their interrelationships were evaluated to de-
termine project performance and to document achievement of project objectives:
1. The effectiveness of project site improvement
in abating or reducing acid mine drainage discharges.
2. Effectiveness of design and construction methods for
each project site.
3. Associated costs related to construction and maintenance
of the abatement measures.
The effectiveness of project site improvement in reducing mine
drainage discharges was determined using monitoring program data to compare
associated flows and loadings during specific time periods before and after
construction. These included average yearly conditions adjusted for normal
rainfall, seasonal variations, and storm occurrences. Effectiveness of
design and construction methods was documented through on-site inspections,
precipitation and flow measurements, and photography during project evaluation.
Finally, the abatement measures demonstrated were evaluated on the basis of
economic feasibility.
SITE I EVALUATION
Abatement Effectiveness
The general relationships between MS-1, 2, and 3 at Site I were
discussed in the Introduction. MS-1 and 2 were located immediately upstream
and downstream, respectively, from the unrestored Site I strip mine. This
strip mine underlaid Morris Run whose flow was diverted into the underground
mine workings. MS-3 was located at the mine drainage discharge affected by
Site I stream channel construction and open pit restoration work.
Flow data obtained from these stations before construction at the
Site I strip mine were evaluated to determine:
1. The relative time response to precipitation events
in order to compare flows in Morris Run with the mine
drainage flows over comparable time periods.
34
-------
2. The estimated stream flow loss to the underground mine
workings.
3. The estimated contribution of stream flow to the mine
drainage discharge.
A one-year period, from June 1974 through May 1975, was selected
to determine preconstruction flow patterns. This period was selected because
gaps in flow information were minimal. Furthermore, near-normal yearly pre-
cipitation for this period was recorded at the established weather stations
near English Center and Towanda. Consequently, it was felt that the rainfall
measured by the project area rain gage could be considered normal.
The relationship during this preconstruction period between MS-1 and
MS-2 with rainfall measured at the rain gage installed in the project area is
shown in Figure 21. The relationship during the same period between MS-3 and
project area rainfall is shown in Figure 22. As can be seen in Figure 22, in-
creased flow rates at MS-1 from rainfall during the warm seasons and vegeta-
tive growing periods were not significant until rainfall events of 2.54 centi-
meters or more occurred in a 24-hour period. During these same periods, there
was noticeably less flow recorded at MS-2 than at MS-1. On several occasions,
in fact, the rate of infiltration into the underground workings and the evapo-
ration rate for the pool in the unrestored strip mine between MS-1 and MS-2
equalled or exceeded the flow entering the pit as recorded at MS-1. Conse-
quently, no flow whatsoever was recorded at MS-2.
As might be expected, flows recorded at MS-3 were even less sensi-
tive to rainfall events during the warm weather seasons. However, during
early spring, similar rainfall events caused noticeable increases in flow from
MS-3.
In comparing peak flow periods that were recorded at both MS-1 and
MS-3 as a result of a significant rainfall event (2.54 centimeters or more in
a 24-hour period) there appeared to be a lag of approximately 72 hours. Con-
sequently, in comparing and evaluating flows as recorded at all three monitor-
ing stations, time periods and their related flows were not used where flows
were not recorded for all three stations. Despite this restriction, 353 out
of 365 days of flow data from all three monitoring stations were used.
Average monthly flow rates at all three monitoring stations before
and after construction are shown in Table 1. Based upon the data compiled be-
fore construction, there was an average loss over the year of 0.014 nP/s be-
tween MS-1 and MS-2. Assuming that this loss was caused primarily by infiltra-
tion and seepage into the underground mine workings, approximately 11.8 percent
of the average flow of 0.115 m3/s at MS-3 was contributed by Morris Run, which
flowed into the strip pit located between MS-1 and^MS-2. During periods of
high groundwater conditions, approximately 0.018 m-Ys was lost between MS-1
and MS-2. This was approximately 10.5 percent of the seasonal average flow of
0.171 m3/s from MS-3. Flow contributions between MS-1 and MS-2 during low
groundwater conditions averaged 0.012 m3/s, or 19.3 percent of the seasonal
average flow of 0.061 m3/s at MS-3. These data are summarized in Table 2.
-------
LEGEND
MS-I
NOTE: Ms-2 WAS DRY JUNE 1-15 AND SEPTEMBER i-NOVEMBER 20
U-L
Figure 21. Comparison of daily flow at MS-1 and MS-2 vs. rainfall before construction.
-------
OJ
""""" """"'
Figure 22. Comparison of daily Tlow at MS-3 vs. rainfall before construction.
-------
TABLE 1. AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS AT
MS-1, MS-2, AND MS-3 BEFORE AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION
MS-2
MS-3
Before
Construction
Month Year
June 1974
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1975
February
March
April
May
After
Construction
June 1975
July
\j «*--/
August
September
October
November
December
January 1976
February
March
April
May
j
June
July
*' ***- J
August
September
October
L'*l_S
Average
Flow
(m3/s)
0.010
0.015
0.003
0.007
0.005
0.033
0.064
0.069
0.062
0.064
0.043
0.064
0.035
0.013
0.004
0.010
0.059
0,046
0.044**
**
**
0.061
0.048
0.048
0.060
0.025
0.028
0.008
0.037
Days
of
Record
30
31
31
30
31
21
20
29
21
31
30
28
30
31
31
15
11
30
9
0
0
16
30
28
30
31
26
30
19
* Flow bypassed MS-2 during Site
** MS-1 and MS-2 frozen - few flov
Average
Flow
O3/s)
0.001
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.050
0.045
0.032
0.057
0.027
0.046
*
*
__*
0.012
0.065
0.048
0.046**
**
**
0.059
0.045
0.045
0.061
0.026
0.030
0.007
0.035
Days
of
Record
30
3.1
31
30
31
21
20
29
21
31
30
28
0
0
0
15
11
30
9
0
0
16
30
28
30
31
26
30
19
Average
Flow
(m-Vs)
Oo096
0.105
0.070
0.057
0.057
0.066
0.180
0.184
0.175
0.206
0.145
0.149
0.118
0.079
0.061
0.114
0.171
0.127
0.127
0.118
0.210
0.201
0.136
0.140
0.145
0.101
0.118
0.074
0.088
I strip mine reclamation.
tfs recorded as indicated before
Days
of
Record
30
31
31
30
31
21
o r\
20
O f\
29
21
31
30
28
30
31
31
30
31
30
31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
20
freeze.
38
-------
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED SEASONAL FLOW CONTRIBUTION
TO MS-3 FROM SITE I SEEPAGE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION
Average Flows (in^/s) Contribution to MS-3
Seasonal Conditions MS-1 MS-2 MS-T m5/sPercent
High Groundwater
(Feb., Mar., Apr.,
and May) 1.33 0.92 0,171 0.018 10.5
Low Groundwater
(Aug., Sept., Oct.,
and Nov.) 0.27 0.00 0.061 0.012 19.3
Average
(June through May) 0.84 0.51 0.123 0.014 11.8
-------
It was concluded, therefore, that if design and construction were
properly accomplished, similar reductions in flow could be expected at MS-3,
and no significant water loss would be recorded between MS-1 and MS-2.
On May 28, 1975, the contractor diverted stream flow around and back
into the stream channel downstream from MS-2 so he could proceed with con-
struction. Consequently, no flow was recorded at MS-2 until September 8, 1975.
when the contractor returned stream flow into the newly restored stream chan-
nel. Only very limited data were available for comparison at these two moni-
toring stations until March 1976 because both monitoring stations were frozen
due to the extremely cold winter months. However, subsequent flows recorded
at these stations from March 1976 until the monitoring program ended on Octo-
ber 21, 1976 correlate excellently with little (if any) measurable loss be-
tween the two stations. Monthly average flows for this period are also sum-
marized in Table 1.
To determine the estimated reduction in flow from the underground
mine workings monitored at MS-3, a postconstruction period from June 1975
through May 1976 was selected. As described previously, a preconstruction
monitoring period had been selected since near-normal amounts of rainfall had
been recorded at nearby, long-established weather stations. An assumption was
made that normal rainfall occurred in the project area as well. Annual rain-
fall during the selected postconstruction period averaged about 28 percent
above normal for the project area gaging station. These data are summarized
in Appendix A.
For purposes of estimating the differences in flow at MS-3 resulting
from a departure from normal rainfall during the postconstruction period, it
was assumed that the flow from MS-3 during the postconstruction period was 28
percent above normal. As shown in Table 1, actual average monthly flow at MS-3
during this postconstruction period was 0.134 nrVs. Therefore, under normal
rainfall conditions, it would be expected that the flow at MS-3 would be ap-
proximately 0.104 m^/s. Based upon an average annual flow of 0.123 m^/s prior
to construction at Site I, there was an average annual flow reduction of ap-
proximately 15 percent.
To establish actual pollution load reductions, it was also necessary
to determine if any noticeable changes in water quality had occurred as a re-
sult of construction at the Site I strip mine. The most common parameter
found in acid mine drainage, and the most sensitive to changes, is acidity.
Based upon a summary of the sampling and analytical data for MS-3 as shown in
Table 3, seasonal fluctuation occurred as expected in both the preconstruction
and postconstruction periods, but average acid concentrations remained essen-
tially the same: 800 mg/1 for the preconstruction period and 795 mg/1 for the
postconstruction period. However, it is estimated that, if average annual
flow of 0.104 m-Vs had been measured at MS-3, average acid concentrations
would have been in the order of 845 mg/1. Using this estimate, this acid load
reduction amounted to approximately 862 kilograms per day and was attributable
solely to construction at the Site I strip mine. A summary of flow and acid
load reduction at MS-3 due to Site I improvement is shown in Table 4.
40
-------
TABLE 5. AVERAGE ACID CONCENTRATIONS
AT MS-3 BEFORE AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION AT SITE I
Preconstruction Period
(June 1974 through May 1975)
Postconstruction Period
(June 1975 through May 1976)
Avg. Acid
No. of as CaC03
Month Determinations Og/1)
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
2
2
2
3
2
0
L.
2
2
2
3
2
1
710
785
850
990
1,018
925
805
735
750
703
705
630
Avg. Acid
No. of as CaC03
Determinations (mg/1)
3
2
3
2
3
5
1
2
3
2
2
2
692
805
1,057
1,190
877
814
750
680
637
605
730
700
Average
800
795
41
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF FLOW AND
ACID LOAD REDUCTION AT MS-3 AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Period
-p-
Average Annual
Flow*, nvVs
Percentage Flow
Reduction
Average Acidity
as CaCOv mg/1
Average Acid
Load, Kg/day
Average Acid Load
Reduction, Kg/day
Percentage Acid
Load Reduction
Preconstruction Postconstruction
(June 1974 through May 1975) (June 1975 through May 1976)
0.123
800 0
8,480.0
0.104
1S.O
845.0
7,620.0
862.0
10.0
* Adjusted to normal rainfall
-------
Effectivess of Design and Construction
One of the key considerations in using preventive measures as a
means of abating acid mine drainage is that little maintenance should be
required after construction. Permanent improvement should result despite
the vagaries of nature. In evaluating Site I, there were three critical
tests applied to determine effectiveness of design and construction:
1. Initial performance to insure that there was little
(if any) loss in streamflow between MS-1 and MS-2
as a result of stream channel restoration.
2. The effect of unusual rainfall events on stability
of strip mine restoration and sizing and construction
of the restored stream channel considering its ability
to handle unusually high stream flow.
3. Determination of soil stability of the restored strip
mine as indicated by vegetative growth, especially
during the critical second growing season.
Initial performance very clearly met anticipated flow and acid
reductions. It was estimated initially that with normal annual rainfall,
stream infiltration and seepage at the Site I strip mine contributed
approximately 11 percent of the flow and acid loading from the underground
mine workings as measured at MS-3. Subsequent data collected after construc-
tion at Site I verified that reductions of that order of magnitude had, in
fact, been realized.
During a 37-hour rain storm (Hurricane Eloise) occurring between
10:00 P.M. September 24, 1975 through 11:00 A.M. September 26, 1975, there
were 13.8 centimeters of rainfall recorded on the project area rain gage.
As verified by field observations after the storm, no damage resulted to the
reconstructed stream channel, nor was there any evidence that streamflow
exceeded channel design capacity. A minor amount of erosion in the newly
regraded and seeded area had occurred. This eroded section was subsequently
regraded, reseeded, and mulched. Figure 23 shows the Site I strip mine with
its restored stream channel near MS-2 and the newly established vegetation
on the regraded area.
The condition of the restored strip pit at Site I in October 1976
after the second growing season is shown in Figure 24. There was an excellent
growth of vegetation on the regraded area and little evidence of further
erosion. The restored area had been used extensively by wildlife, including
deer and bear. Seedings from species indigenous to the surrounding area were
encroaching upon, and had become reestablished on, the periphery of the
restored area.
43
-------
Figure 25. Site I after restoration (1975)
Figure 24. Site I after restoration (1976)
- I
-------
SITE II EVALUATION
Abatement Effectiveness
The general relationships between MS-4, 5, and 6 and the Site II
strip mine were established as described in the Introduction (See page 3).
All three monitoring stations draining interconnected portions of extensive
underground mine workings were located on the Morris Run watershed. The
Site II strip mine, located on the opposite side of the ridge on the Fall
Brook watershed, intercepted uphill surface runoff and directed this runoff
into these underground mine workings where it flowed downdip to the
monitoring stations. Consequently, the monitoring program covering all three
stations was geared to provide an initial data base on flow and water quality
from each monitored discharge. This program would also provide additional
data after construction at the Site II strip mine to determine flow and acid
load reductions at each station.
Although Site II strip pit regrading started on February 25, 1975,
it was not until the end of May 1975 that substantial regrading had been
accomplished. Accordingly, the same one-year period from June 1974 through
May 1975 was selected as a basis to determine preconstruction flows in
accordance with the reasoning established for Site I evaluation (See
page 35). The relationship during the preconstruction period between the
three monitoring station flows and the rainfall as measured at the project
area rain gage is shown in Figure 25. It was noted that increased flow rates
from MS-5 and MS-6 during the warm seasons and vegetative growing periods
were not significant until rainfall accumulations reached 2.54 centimeters
or more in a 24-hour period, or an extended period of rainfall occurred.
Peak flow rates measured at MS-6 as a result of a rainfall event of 2.54
centimeters or more exhibited a time lag of approximately 48 hours.
Flow rate increases measured at MS-4 were even less sensitive to
these rainfall events. Peak flows that were recorded exhibited a time lag
of 8 to 10 days. Consequently, in evaluating flows as recorded at the three
monitoring stations, each flow was evaluated separately.
Average flows at all three monitoring stations are shown in Table
5. Based upon the data compiled during this period, average flows for MS-4,
MS-5, and MS-6 were 0.050, 0.024, and 0.014 iaS/s, respectively. Data
summarizing average, high groundwater, and low groundwater flows prior to
construction from these three monitoring stations are as follows:
45
-------
ON
J^ Jl|lllt Jj
-HIP'" J*NUAJ»
Figure 25. Comparison of daily flow at MS -4,MS-5,and MS-6 vs. rainfall before construction.
-------
TABLE 5. AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS AND ACID CONCENTRATIONS
AT MS-4, MS-5, AND MS-6 PRIOR TO SITE II CONSTRUCTION
Month Year
June 1974
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1975
February
March
April
May
Days of
Record
30
31
31
30
31
19
20
18
3
22
30
31
MS-4
Avg. Flow
(m3/s)
0.051
0.046
0.032
0.027
0.028
0.026
0.059
0.060
0.064
0.071
0.070
0.064
Acidity as
CaCO.s (mg/1)
280
405
405
487
580
525
565
630
565
527
385
360
Days of
Record
30
24
31
30
31
30
31
31
28
31
21
14
MS-5
Avg. Flow
(m3/s)
0.015
0.022
0.010
0.017
0.014
0.012
0.031
0.037
0.044
0.046
0.025
0.017
Acidity as
CaCO.s (mg/1)
1,185
1,425
1,450
1,583
1,508
1,513
1,500
1,470
1,410
1,183
1,235
1,140
Days of
Record
30
31
31
30
31
30
31
31
27
31
30
31
MS-6
Avg. Flow
(m3/s)
0.007
0.014
0.005
0,007
0.005
0.002
0.017
0.023
0.022
0.041
0.011
0.011
Acidity as
CaC03 (mg/1)
885
900
970
997
1,058
1,005
920
960
1,010
845
875
900
Average
0.050
476
0.024
1,384
0.014
944
-------
Average Flows
Seasonal Conditions MS-4 MS -5 MS-6
High Groundwater
(Feb., Mar.,
Apr., and May) 0.067 0.033 0.021
Low Groundwater
(Aug., Sept.,
Oct., and Nov.) 0.028 0.013 0.005
Average
(June through May) 0.050 0.024 0.014
Using acid concentration as a sensitive water quality parameter,
a summary of the sampling and analytical data during this preconstruction
period is also shown in Table 5.
It was concluded that if design and construction were accomplished
properly, reductions in flow at MS-4 and MS-5 could be expected. However,
it was further concluded that these reductions might not be measurable
because only a very small part (about one percent) of the mined area drained
by these discharges was to be restored. It was also felt that MS-6 should
be maintained even though Site II strip mine restoration would probably not
reduce MS-6 flows.
The contractor began strip pit restoration work at Site II on
February 25, 1975. By the end of May 1975, he had substantially changed the
surface drainage pattern so that virtually all runoff was directed to Fall
Brook. Remaining work on the site until its completion on October 6, 1975
consisted of grading to final contour, seeding, and mulching. The monitoring
after May 1975 can, therefore, be considered as postconstruction. The extent
of data collected allowed compilation and evaluation of flow and quality data
at MS-4 and MS-5 for two full one-year periods following construction. A
summary of average flows and acid concentrations of the discharges from each
of the three monitoring stations for the two postconstruction periods is
shown in Table 6. Average acidity concentrations for these two postconstruc-
tion periods are also summarized in Table 6.
Applying the same rationale for flow adjustment as was applied to
MS-3 in determining abatement effectiveness for Site I, flows at MS-4, MS-5,
and MS-6 were adjusted to reflect annual precipitation approximately 28 per-
cent above normal for June 1975 through May 1976, and 14 percent above normal
for June 1976 through May 1977, based upon precipitation recorded on the
project area rain gage.
A summary of flow and acid loadings from MS-4, MS-5, and MS-6 before
and after construction is presented in Table 7. Based upon these monitoring
data, little or no flow reduction was detected. This may be due in part to
construction at the Site II strip mine having reaffected only a very small
portion of the mined area, as well as in part to gaps in the flow monitoring
data. Further, it was evident that no flow reduction occurred at MS-6 in the
48
-------
TABLE 6. AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS AND ACID CONCENTRATIONS
AT MS-4, MS-5, AND MS-6 AFTER SITE II CONSTRUCTION
Month Year
June 1975
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1976
February
March
April
May
Average
Average scaled to
normal rainfall
June 1976
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1977
February
March
April
May
Average
Average scaled to
normal rainfall
Days of
Record
23
31
31
21
12
--
--
--
14
31
29
31
30
26
26
26
15
3
--
21
26
31
29
23
MS-4
Avg. Flow
(m3/s)
0.062
0.048
0.035
0.036
0.086
--
--
0.077
0.090
0.063
0.058
0.062
0.049
0.066
0.070
0.062
0.050
0.038
0.052
_-
0.045
0.036
0.061
0.107
0.073
0.061
0.054
Acidity as
CaCOs (mg/1)
388
405
430
695
640
464
380
405
437
365
370
345
444
480
325
388
475
405
390
304
335
330
349
273
460
331
364
400
Days of
Record
22
2
30
28
31
30
31
8
20
28
23
29
30
31
31
30
31
20
27
24
20
31
30
31
MS-5
Avg. Flow
(mVs)
0.033
0.020
0.015
0.024
0.034
0.024
0.028
0.027
0.056
0.041
0.027
0.030
0.030
0.023
0.032
0.028
0.039
0.020
0.033
0.028
0.022
0.012
0.025
0.040
0.049
0.041
0.031
0.027
Acidity as
CaCO, (mg/1)
1,237
1,480
1,713
1,621
1,327
1,244
1,310
1,325
983
855
1,090
1,110
1,275
1,350
1,200
1,070
1,180
1,300
1,320
964
1,265
1,578
695
800
765
1,103
1,200
MS-6
Days of
Record
30
31
31
28
31
30
11
28
29
31
30
23
Avg. Flow
(m3/s)
0.016
0.009
0.007
0.021
0.034
0.023
0.030
0.026
0.027
0.025
0.014
0.018
Acidity as
CaCO^ (mg/1)
908
1,095
1,333
1,100
980
904
915
935
727
735
835
850
6
20
7
0.021
0.016
0.013
0.014
0.023
0.010
943
1.000
975
773
871
1,060
1,025
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF FLOW AND ACID LOADINGS
AT MS-4, MS-5, AND MS-6
MS-4
MS-5
MS-6
Ol
o
Period
Preconst ruction
(June 1974
through
May 1975)
Post const ruction
(June 1975
Average
Annual
Flow* Acidity
(m3/s) mg/1 Kg/ day
0.050 476 2,040
Average
Annual
Flow* Acidity.
(m3/s) mg/1 Kg/ day
0.024 1,384 2,860
Average
Annual
Flow*
O3/s)
0.014
Acidity
mg/ 1 Kg/day
944 1,090
through
May 1976)
0.049** 480* 2,000 0.023 1,3.50* 2,720 0.016 1,000* 1,410
Postconstruction
(June 1976
through
May 1977)
0.054*** 400* 1,860 0.027 1,200* 2,770
* Adjusted to normal rainfall.
** Based on 9 months data only. Data for November 1975 through January 1976 missing.
*** Based on 11 months data only. Data for December 1976 missing.
+ Monitoring program concluded October 1976.
-------
first year after construction. This confirmed the previous judgment that
MS-6 flow would be unaffected by Site II construction.
When flows were adjusted to normal rainfall for the first year
after construction, very slight decreases in flow were noted at MS-4 and MS-5,
with acidity remaining about the same at MS-4 but slightly decreasing at MS-5.
However, by the end of the second postconstruction year, there were 16 per-
cent and 13 percent reductions in acidity, respectively, accompanied by and
adjusted for slight flow increases at MS-4 and MS-5. The causes of this
water quality improvement at MS-4 and MS-5 are not clear. Site II improve-
ments could not be the sole cause since the area reaffected at this site is
only a very small portion of the mined area contributing to these two dis-
charges. This improvement may be the result of extensive continued strip
mining and restoration along the outcrop of the Lower Kittanning seam and in
several overlying coal seams on the ridge during the last several years up-
dip from these monitoring stations.
Effectiveness of Design and Construction
Similar to the rationale developed for evaluating the effectiveness
of design and construction at Site I, the key consideration is the permanent
abatement or reduction of acid mine drainage by construction of preventive
measures with little or no subsequent maintenance required. In evaluating
Site II, there were three critical tests applied to determine the effective-
ness of design and construction:
1. Initial performance to determine if a reduction in
acid loadings at MS-4 and MS-5 occurred as a result
of strip mine restoration at Site II.
2. The effect of unusual rainfall events on stability
of the restored strip mine slopes and their ability
to withstand erosion.
3. Evaluation of vegetative growth on a test plot using
digested sludge as a soil conditioner in lieu of
limestone and commercial fertilizers.
Effect of Rainfall Events on Regraded Areas
As the strip mine restoration at Site II neared completion, erosion
occurred in the downhill end of a swale located in the southern portion of the
restored strip pit. The swale was regraded, reseeded, and jute matting was
placed on the lower 366 meters of the swale to prevent further erosion
problems. This repair work had just been completed, but vegetation had not
yet sprouted, when a 13 centimeter rainstorm occurred between September 24
and September 26, 1975. Figure 26 shows the erosional effect this rainfall
had on the downhill end of this swale. Ultimately, the downhill end of this
swale was repaired by filling, lining 165 meters with a mulch blanket,
placing riprap in the last 91 meters of the swale, and reseeding the filled
area. No further erosion resulted after this repair work was accomplished.
In retrospect, the significant erosion that occurred in this swale during and
51
-------
Figure 26. Erosion in
swale at Site II (1976)
52
-------
following construction certainly indicated that considerable volumes of sur-
face water were no longer entering the underground mine workings through this
site.
Effectiveness of Wastewater Sludge as a Soil Conditioner
To assess the effectiveness of the wastewater sludge in establishing
vegetation on the test plot, on August 4, 1976, the vegetation from 12 one-
square-meter areas was cut, air-dried, and weighed. Six sites were for areas
where the vegetation was growing the best surrounding the sludge test plot,
and the last six were representative areas within the sludge test plot. The
results of this program are shown in Appendix A. The average weight of grass-
es cut from areas within the sludge test plot was nearly three times that
from adjacent areas. However, it is recognized that considerably greater
quantities of nutrients were applied to the sludge test plot when compared
to the remainder of the site. Figures 27 and 28 are photographs showing the
sludge treated area.
Samples of water from the infiltration ditch were collected on
February 24 and August 4, 1976 for bacteriologic analysis. Total coliform
organisms of 230 and 75 per 100 milliliters, respectively, were reported.
Consequently, since no significant public health hazard existed and because
the wildlife was extensively using the water in the ditch, it was decided to
leave the infiltration ditch in place.
MONITORING PROGRAM EVALUATION
There were three separate but interrelated phases associated with
the monitoring program: measuring precipitation, measuring flow, and
collecting and analyzing grab samples.
There were no apparent difficulties in gathering project area
precipitation information. Rainfall data collected at the project area rain
gage appeared to correlate reasonably well with the published data from the
two closest established weather stations.
Some difficulties were encountered during continuous flow monitor-
ing at the six constructed monitoring stations. The most serious problems
were associated with extremely cold weather and high humidity. The clock
mechanisms in the installed flow recorders had a tendency to freeze until a
low temperature lubricant was found that could withstand extremely cold
temperatures and additional venting was provided for moisture control. In
addition, the water in the stilling wells of MS-1 and MS-2 froze and remained
frozen for three months during the winter of 1975-1976 despite the addition
of copious amounts of lubricating oil.
The seams of floats in the stilling wells at MS-3, 4, 5, and 6 were
etched by the acid water causing these floats to develop holes, fill with
water, and sink. Some erroneous flow measurements resulted. The affected
floats were repaired as necessary throughout the flow monitoring program.
Coating the floats with an acid-resistant epoxy or providing floats resistant
53
-------
Figure 27. Site II after restoration
with sludge plot in background (1975).
Figure 28. Vegetative growth on sludge
plot (1975).
54
-------
to attack by acid would solve this problem.
Silting behind the weirs was also a problem, resulting in a ten-
dency for the feed lines to the stilling wells to become clogged. This
problem was corrected by preventive maintenance. During periods of high
flows, there was a tendency for the beaded cable running from the float to
the recorder to stick causing the recording mechanism to be thrown out of
calibration.
For future programs of this nature, it is desirable that back-up
units be available at all times to enable prompt replacement of any malfunc-
tioning recorder. Furthermore, experience has shown that a substantial
amount of maintenance is associated with an "automatic" monitoring system.
The magnitude of the planned monitoring program should be critically reviewed,
and adequate funding for the program should be provided.
In reviewing and evaluating the sampling and analytical phase of
the monitoring program, it became evident that direct control of the analyti-
cal program should be vested with the entity responsible for evaluating the
analytical results. During the formal monitoring phase of this project,
analytical quality control was firmly established. Analytical results were
reviewed immediately, and, as inconsistencies were noted, these inconsisten-
cies were resolved. After the formal program had ended, analytical data were
provided by the Department for an additional year. These additional data
were comprised of pH, acidity, total iron, and sulfate on grab samples
collected biweekly at MS-3, 4, and 5. The 307 determinations run on the 77
samples delivered to the laboratory were critically reviewed, and 28
determinations were not used because they were not compatible with other
constituents.
COST EVALUATION
Costs (See Appendix A) were derived for three separate portions of
the construction work accomplished for this project based upon a breakdown
of actual construction costs incurred, namely:
Channel restoration at Site I $ 60,437.03
Strip mine restoration at Site I 96,128.00
Strip mine restoration at Site II 303,577.20
Unit costs, also summarized in Appendix A, indicate that the unit
cost for channel reconstruction was $166/meter. Strip mine restoration at
Site I was $14,789/hectare while similar restoration at Site II was $9,370/
hectare. The significant differences in these strip mine restoration unit
costs were attributed to grading. Unit grading costs for Site I were
$10,769/hectare compared to $6,759/hectare for Site II.
The Department's recent experience with similar projects indicated
that construction costs have ranged from $7,400 to $14,800/hectare in the
55
-------
Bituminous Field, and from $7,400 to $24,700/hectare in the Anthracite Field,
These 1975 construction costs can be considered as top-of-the-range and mid-
range, respectively. One contribution to the higher unit cost at Site I was
the greater volume of earth moved per hectare when compared to Site II
($10,769/hectare versus $6,759/hectare).
56
-------
REFERENCES
1. Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. Acid Mine Drainage Abate-
ment Measures for Selected Areas Within the Susquehanna River Basin.
U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, Washington, D. C., 1968. 99 pp.
2. Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., Tioga River Mine Drainage
Abatement Project. EPA-600/2-76-106, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 63 pp.
3. Climatological Data, Pennsylvania Annual Summary 1974. Volume 79 No.
13, U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, Asheville, North Carolina, 1974. p.4.
4. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 Min-
utes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years. Technical Pa-
per No. 40, U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Washington,
D. C., 1961. pp. 9-105.
57
-------
APPENDIX A
PROJECT INFORMATION AND DATA
TABLE A-l. WASTEWATER SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
Analysis
Acidity
Alkalinity
BOD5
COD
Cadmium
Chloride
Color
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nitrogen-Ammonia
Nitrogen-Nitrate
Nitrogen-Nitrite
Odor (Threshold)
pH
Specific Conductivity
Zinc
Milligrams/liter
(unless otherwise noted)
0.
220.
73.
368.
< 0.001
1.8
240. Chloroplatinate Units
0.2
< 0.1
4.5
0.2
0.005
21.0
2.11
None Detected
8. TON
7.8 Units
446. nicromhos/cm
1.3
58
-------
TABLE A-2. ABSTRACT OF ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AND LOW BID
Item
No.
1
(a)
(b)
2
3
4
5
(a)
(b)
6
(a)
(b)
7
(a)
(b)
Description
Clearing and Grubbing
Site I
Site II
Excavation and Backfill -
Site I
Grading - Site II
Infiltration Ditch - Site II
Channel Lining
Impervious Lining - Site I
Filter Blanket and Quarry
Stone - Site I
Seeding and Soil Supplements
Site I
Site II
Anti-Pollution Measures
Site I
Site II
Appro x.
Quantities
Job
Job
Job
Job
Job
2,600
2,310
Job
Job
Job
Job
Engineer's
Unit Unit Price
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
S.Y.* 8.00
S.Y.* 15.00
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Estimate
Total
$ 3,500.00
12,425.00
57,590.00
218,995.00
1,500.00
20,800.00
34,650.00
9,600.00
44,157.00
12,500.00
12,500.00
Low
Unit Price
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
4.00
12.60
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Bid
Total
$ 16,000.00
14,800.00
77,000.00
218.990.00
1,400.00
10,400.00
29,106.00
6,000.00
40,300.00
11,000.00
5,000.00
Total
428,217.00
429,996.00
* English measurement system required in bidding documents.
Metric conversion table is found on page ix.
-------
TABLfi A-3. COMPLETE ANALYSES OF SAMPLES TAKEN BEFORE AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION
MS-1
MS-2
US-3
MS-4
MS-5
MS-6
ON
O
Constituents
Acidity, mg/1 as CaC03
Alkalinity, mg/1 as CaCOj
Aluminum, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Iron (Total), mg/1
Iron (Ferrous) mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
COD, mg/1
Chlorides, mg/1 Cl
Cyanide, mg/1 CN
Fluoride, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1 as CaC03
Nitrate, mg/1 N
PH
Specific Conductivity, umhos/cm
Sulfate, mg/1
Temperature, °C (field)
Turbidity, J.T.U.
Residue, mg/1 (Total)
Residue, mg/1 (Filterable)
Date sample collected
Flow on that date, m^/s
Before
3.0
0.0
0.09
<0.3
<0.1
5.3
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.01
-------
TABLE A-4. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE
SITE I
Phase
Precon-
struction
Construc-
tion
Postcon-
struction
Phase
Precon-
struction
Construc-
tion
Postcon-
struction
Sampl ing
Frequency
Weekly
Biweekly
Every 8 wks
Other
Biweekly
Every 8 wks
Weekly
Biweekly
Every 8 wks
Other
Sampling
Frequency
Weekly
Biweekly
Other
Biweekly
Other
Weekly
Biweekly
Other
litv. alkalini
MS-1
Sampling Period
6/13/73-9/19/73
10/4/73-12/26/73
-
2/20/74-5/9/75
8/8/73
-
-
7/1/75-8/28/75
10/19/75-12/7/75
-
-
2/1/76-10/21/76
11/30/75
5/24/76
MS-4
Sampling Period
6/14/73-9/19/73
10/4/73-12/26/73
1/10/74-2/15/75
' 8/8/73
2/20/74
3/7/75-9/28/75
8/28/75
10/12/75-12/7/75
12/21/75-10/21/76
11/9/76-10/6/77
11/30/75
2/26/76
5/24/76
8/25/76
Ltv. total iron, man;
MS- 2
Analyses* Sampling Period Analyses*
A 6/13/73-9/19/73 A
A 10/4/73-12/26/73 A
-
B 2/20/74-5/9/75 B
E 11/1/73 E
-
-
B 7/1/75-8/28/75 B
B 10/19/75-12/7/75 B
-
-
B 2/1/76-10/21/76 B
A 6 C 11/30/75 A 6 C
E 5/24/76 E
SITE 11
MS- 5
Analyses* Sampling Period Anajlyses*
A 6/14/73-9/19/73 A
A 10/4/73-12/26/73 A
B 1/10/74-2/15/75 B
E 8/8/73 E
A 5 C 2/20/74 A S C
B 3/7/75-9/28/75 B
B & D 8/28/75 B § D
B 10/12/75-12/7/75 B
B 12/21/75-10/21/76 B
B** 11/9/76-10/6/77 B**
A 6 C 11/30/75 A S C
BSD 2/26/76 BSD
E 5/24/76 E
B & D 8/25/76 BSD
ganese, aluminum, sulfate, total solids.
MS- 3
Sampling Period
6/13/73-9/19/73
10/4/73-12/26/73
1/10/74-5/11/75
-
8/8/73
2/20/74
6/3/75-9/28/75
-
10/12/75-12/7/75
12/21/75-10/21/76
11/9/76-10/6/77
-
11/30/75
5/24/76
MS-6
Sampling Period
6/14/73-9/19/73
10/4/73-12/26/73
1/10/74-2/15/75
8/8/73
2/20/74
3/7/75-9/28/75
8/28/75
10/12/75-12/7/75
12/21/75-10/21/76
-
11/30/75
2/26/76
5/24/76
8/25/76
Analyses*
A
A
B
-
E
A 6 C
B
-
B
B
B**
-
A 6 C
E
Analyses*
A
A
B
E
A (, C
B
B & D
B
B
-
A § C
BSD
E
BSD
B - pH^ acidity, alkalinity, total iron, sulfate.
C - zinc.
D - zinc, copper, lead.
E - complete. See Table 4.
« Collected and analyzed by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
61
-------
TABLE A-5. NORMAL MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT
ENGLISH CENTER AND TOWANDA, PENNSYLVANIA^)
Precipitation (centimeters)
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL
English Center
5.51
5.49
8.41
8.28
10.41
8.53
9.45
8.28
7.24
7.75
8.'92
6.55
94.82
Towanda
4.67
4.65
6.81
7.87
10.08
7.52
8.86
7.70
7.90
6.96
7.59
5.69
86.30
62
-------
TABLE A-6. RAINFALL FREQUENCY - DURATION TABULATION FOR
SOUTHEASTERN TIOGA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN CENTIMETERS OF WATER C4)
Hours 125 10 25 50 100
0.5
1
2
3
6
12
24
1.91
2.41
3.00
3.30
4.32
4.83
5.89
2.29
2.84
3.56
4.32
4.83
6.10
6.96
3.05
3.81
4.70
5.08
6.35
7.62
8.89
3.51
4.37
5.59
6.10
7.37
8.64
10.39
4.01
5.08
6.22
7.11
8.64
10.16
12.04
4.52
5.72
7.11
7.62
9.65
11.18
12.95
4.83
6.22
7.62
8.64
10.16
12.45
14.55
63
-------
TABLE A-7. MONTHLY RAINFALL DATA
Month Year
April 1974
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1975
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1976
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1977
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Precipitation (centimeters)
Study Area
6.71
7.09
13.23
3.45
3.86
9.32
2.06
6.83
9.09
7.11
7.42
6.48
2.49
9.37
9.70
7.14
6.20
22.86
6.73
6.10
8.76
5.84
4.83
9.78
4.83
10.64
16.59
11.63
7.95
6.15
13.79
0.84
4.39
3.94
3.30
11.33
7.37
4.95
11.81
5.21
5.33
11.05
English Center^
4.11
8.51
9.12
8.18
5.74
15.70
1.98
6.50
10.85
6.63
8.86
6.55
2.31
10.11
13.67
9.17
8.86
18.24
6.68
5.89
8.46
7.34
5.61
7.24
3.68
17.75
15.27
8.13
6.27
7.75
15.49
1.02
4.57
2.84
5.77
15.14
9.78
3.05
11.73
10.80
7.77
13.54
Towanda
5.28
7.77
10.52
7.82
7.06
12.07
2.34
7.75
8.00
6.27
8.31
4.37
2.03
9.53
11.15
6.96
9.91
27.76
7.26
5.33
5.49
8.18
4.24
6.15
5.31
5.54
9.78
11.81
9.42
6.27
15.54
2.13
3.40
2.92
4.78
10.74
9.65
4.01
7.85
10.67
8.56
15.70
64
-------
TABLE A-8. MONITORING STATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
On
Monitoring
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
Type
Weir
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
Timber
Timber
Half-round
Weir Plate
Stainless steel,
90° V-notch
Stainless steel,
90° V-notch
Stainless steel,
90° rectangular
Stainless steel,
90° V-notch
Stainless steel,
90° V-notch
Stainless steel,
Estimated We
Weather Flow (n
0.096
0.096
0.499
0.149
0.083
0.039
;t Maximum Measu:
i-Vs) Weir Plate
0.193
0.193
0.639
0.193
0.193
0.070
rable Flow (m /s)
Flow Recorder
0.153
0.153
0.613
0.153
0.153
0.077
tank, baffle 90° V-notch
plated
-------
TABLE A-9. AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS
ON
Month Year
March 1974*
April
May**
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1975
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1976
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October**
November
December
January 1977
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Octobcr+++
SITE I
MS-1
Avg. Flow
(m^/s)
0.049
0.092
0.045
0.010
0.015
0.003
0.007
0.005
0.036
0.066
0.069
0.061
0.064
0,043
0.060
0.035
0.013
0.004
0.029
0.046
0.046
0.062
0.037
0.116
0.078
0.048
0.048
0.060
0.025
0.028
0.008
0.037
--
__
--
--
--
--
--
--
Days of
Record
14
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
31
29
28
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
31
18
6
31
30
28
30
31
26
30
19
--
_-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
MS-2
Avg. Flow
(m3/s)
0.044
0.089
0.036
0.001
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.050
0.047
0.046
0.057
0.027
0.046
--
--
--
0.025
0.040
0.048
0.033
0.008
--
0.057
0.045
0.451
0.061
0.026
0.032
0.007
O.OSI
--
--
--
--
--
-.
--
--
--
--
Days of
Record
14
28
31
30
31
31
30
31
21
20
31
25
31
30
31
--
23
31
30
31
12
21
30
28
30
31
28
30
29
--
__
--
--
-,-
--
--
MS-3
Avg. Flow
(m3/s)
0.193
0.267
0.131
0.096
0.105
0.070
0.057
0.057
0.074
0.158
0.184
0.184
0.206
0.145
0.145
0.118
0.079
0.061
0.114
0.171
0.127
0.127
0.118
0.210
0.201
0.136
0.140
0.145
0.101
0.118
0.074
0.088
0.096
0.307
0.074
0.074
0.228
0.241
0.162
0.096
0.101
0.083
0.118
0.118
Days of
Record
14
27
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
31
31
28
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
20
9
13
27
23
31
29
30
29
30
19
15
9
MS-4
Avg. Flow
0.083
0.092
0.073
0.051
0.046
0.032
0.027
0.028
0.026
0.059
0.060
0.064
0.071
0.070
0.064
0.062
0.048
0.035
0.036
0.086
--
--
__
0.077
0.090
0.068
0.058
0.066
0.070
0.062
0.050
0.038
0.052
--
0.045
0.036
0.061
0.107
0.073
0.064
--
0.032
0.029
0.043
Days of
Record
14
30
29
30
31
31
30
31
19
20
18
6+
22
30
31
23
31
31
21
12
--
--
__
14
31
29
31
30
26
26
26
15
3
--
21
26
31
29
23
4
21
30
15
SITE
II
MS-5
Avg. Flow
0.031
0.046
0.029
0.015
0.022
0.010
0.017
0.014
0.012
0.031
0.037
0.044
0.046
0.025
0.017
0.033
0.020
0.015
0.024
0.034
0.024
0.028
0.027
0.056
0.041
0.027
0.030
0.032
0.028
0.039
0.020
0.033
0.028
0.022
0.012
0.025
0.040
0.049
0.041
0.018
0.033
0.018
0.036
0.052
Days of
Record
13
30
3'
30
24
31
30
31
30
31
31
28
31
21
14
22
2
30
28
31
30
30
8
20
28
23
29
30
31
31
30
31
20
27
24
20
31
30
31
27
31
31
30
15
MS-6
Avg. Flow
(ltl5/5)
0.016
0.007
0.014
0.005
0.007
0.005
0.002
0.017
0.023
0.022
0.041
0.011
0.011
0.016
0.009
0.007
0.021
0.034
0.023
0.030
0.026
0.027
0.025
0.014
0.018
0.013
0.014
0.023
0.010
__
--
__
--
--
--
--
Days of
Record
__
18
30
31
31
30
31
30
31
31
26
31
30
31
30
31
31
28
31
30
11
28
29
31
30
23
2
6
20
7
--
__
_-
--
--
--
--
Recorder installed at MS-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on March 18, 1974.
Recorder installed at MS-6 on May 4, 1974
Average calculated on the basis of six instantaneous readings.
Responsibility for operating and maintaining monitoring stations assumed by HER on October 21, 1976.
Last flow data coHectcd on October 15, 1977.
-------
TABU- A-10. COMPARISON OF ANNUAL RAINFALL
BEFORE AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Recording Station
Period
P reconstruct ion
(June 1974
through
May 1975)
English
Annual
Rainfall
Center-*
Departure*
(centimeters) (centimeters) (percent)
92.53
- 2.29 - 2.4
Annual
Rainfall
(centimeters)
86.06
TowandaS
Departure*
(centimeters) (percent)
- 0.25 - 0.3
Project Area
Annual
Rainfall
(centimeters)
80.72
Departure*
(centimeters)
(percent)
Postconstruction
(June 1975
through
May 1976)
112.60
+17.78 +18.8 103.28
+16.97 +19.7 103.40
+22.68 +28.0
Postconstruction
(June 1976
through
May 1977)
92.15
+11.43 +14.2
* Assumes preconstruction rainfall was normal.
-------
TABLE A-ll. WEIGHT OF VEGETATION:
ADJACENT AREA VS. TEST PLOT
Air-dried weight
Sample Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
Location (grains/square meter)
Adjacent Area
Adjacent Area
Adjacent Area
Adjacent Area
Adjacent Area
Adjacent Area
Adjacent Area
Test Plot
Test Plot
Test Plot
Test Plot
Test Plot
Test Plot
Test Plot
765.
1,531.
1,162.
1,191.
794.
425.
978.
2,608.
3,742.
2,608.
2,495.
3,062.
2,835.
2,892.
68
-------
TABLE A-12. SUMMARY BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION COSTS*
Item Cost
Channel restoration at Site I:
Clear and grub $ 3,200.00
(assumed 20% of total cost for Site I)
Excavation and grading 7,000.00
(assumed 10% of total cost for Site I)
Channel lining 39,506.00
Anti-pollution measures 5,500.00
(assumed 50% of total cost for Site I)
Change Order No. 4 3,678.00
Change Order No. 5 1,553.03
Total $ 60,437.03
Strip mine restoration at Site I:
Clear and grub $ 12,800.00
(assumed 80% of total cost for Site I)
Grading 70,000.00
(assumed 90% of total cost for Site I)
Seeding and soil supplements 6,000.00
Anti-pollution measures 5,500.00
(assumed 50% of total cost for Site I)
Change Order No. 5 1,828.00
Total $ 96,128.00
Strip mine restoration at Site II:
Clear and grub $ 14,800.00
Grading 218,990.00
Infiltration ditch 1,400.00
Seeding and soil supplements 40,300.00
Anti-pollution measures 5,000.00
Change Order No. 2 5,101.20
Change Order No. 3 4,700.00
Change Order No. 5 1,828.00
Change Order No. 6 11,058.00
Change Order No. 7 400.00
Total $303,577.20
* Work accomplished in 1975.
69
-------
TABLE A-13. UNIT CONSTRUCTION COSTS*
Activity
Channel restoration, Site I
Strip mine restoration, Site I
Grading, Site I
Strip mine restoration, Site II
Grading, Site II
Total
Cost ($)
60,437.03
96,128.00
70,000.00
303,577.20
218,990.00
Quantity Unit Cost ($)
363 meters 166.49/meter
6.5 hectares 14,788.92/hectare
6.5 hectares 10,769.23/hectare
32.4 hectares** 9,369.67/hectare
32.4 hectares** 6,758.95/hectare
* Work accomplished in 1975.
** Includes 3.6 hectares on which excess fill was placed and graded
to blend with the surrounding terrain, after which this area was
also limed, fertilized, and seeded.
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY AND FLOW DATA AT MONITORING STATIONS
TABLE li-1. WATER QUALITY AND FLOW DATA AT MONITORING STATIONS
Date Collected
MS-1
pll
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (rag/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/I)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-2
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (rag/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-3
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m^/s)
MS-4
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (mVs)
MS-5
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-6
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/ 1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
»>/. jf , .-,
6.0
0.
5.
16.1
0.6
0.06
<0.10
31.
0.166
5.5
0.
5.
14.1
0.8
O.)0
<0.10
--
35.
0.115
2.8
0.
550.
1,059
39.8
39.0
12.5
--
1,465.
0.423
3.1
0.
363.
1,085.
16.4
__
--
27.2
45.1
1,663.
0.166
2.8
0.
1,280.
2,860.
46.1
--
150.2
53.4
3,851.
0.087
2.9
0.
626.
1,840.
13.2
--
--
67.9
50.1
2,748.
0.043
tv -1. 3
6.0
0.
6.
10.9
0.2
0.06
<0.10
--
34.
0.071
5.9
0.
5.
19.5
0.4
0.05
0.2
--
60.
0.
2.8
0.
736.
1,300.
49.5
22.5
13.9
--
1,612.
0.290
3.1
0.
428.
1,100.
18.1
__
--
__
15.0
50.0
1,576.
0.145
2.8
0.
1,508.
3,310.
50.8
--
--
--
75.9
65.8
3,975.
0.064
2.9
0.
1,036.
2,650.
20.0
--
56.0
70.3
3,449.
0.031
fj/2~/7:>
4.7
0.
6.
9.8
0.2
0.09
<0.1
-_
10.
0.039
dry
2.8
0.
700.
1,310.
44.3
26.9
12.0
--
1,634.
0.272
3.1
0.
400.
1,210.
15.4
-_
--
__
18.7
45.9
1,581.
0.136
2.7
0.
1,685.
3,470.
47.1
--
--
93.2
54.7
4,079.
0.085
2.9
0.
905.
2,690.
13.9
--
52.1
52.3
3,110.
0.031
75/73
5.9
0.
3.
10.
<0.1
0.09
<0.1
__
48.
0.104
5.1
0.
5.
14.
0.7
0.13
<0.1
__
54.
0.057
2.8
0.
690.
1.2JO.
37.9
26.0
9.7
--
1,605.
0.329
3.0
0.
420.
1,230.
13.2
__
--
-_
19.9
45.1
1,839.
0.131
2.8
0.
1.560.
3,420.
38.2
--
7r ^
48.4
4,011.
0.103
2.9
0.
760.
2,280.
10.1
--
39.8
44.8
2,737.
0.050
7/12/73
5.8
0.
5.
12.
0.2
0.05
0.1
--
25.
0.023
dry
2.8
0.
730.
1,496.
53.0
29.8
16.2
1,670.
0.252
3.0
0.
410.
1,288.
20.1
--
--
--
19.9
54.9
1,648.
0.115
2.7
0.
1,520.
3,190.
53.0
--
--
--
70.0
63.3
3,820.
0.070
2.9
0.
785.
2,210.
18.5
~~
~~
44.1
59.1
2,802.
0.025
Date Collected
7/1-1/73
6.4
0.
5 .
11.
0.8
0.08
0.2
--
28.
0.019
dry
2.7
0.
710.
1,200.
42.0
46.9
12.1
--
1,784.
0.197
3.0
0.
390.
1,100.
12.9
--
27.9
40.0
1,632.
0.110
2.7
0.
1,640.
2,860.
39.6
--
--
--
144.0
48.3
4,531.
0.067
2.9
0.
950.
2,080.
13.0
""
"
74.8
46.9
3,106.
0.025
7/26/73
5.0
0.
9.
13.
0.1
0.33
0.2
-_
53.
0.020
dry
2.8
0.
780.
1,180.
42.5
42.7
12.0
--
1,784.
0.212
3.0
0.
410.
1,060.
13.0
--
--
--
23.6
39.7
1,632.
0.100
2.7
0.
1,650.
2,980.
40.1
--
~~
-~
131.0
48.2
4,094.
0.060
2.9
0.
990.
2,180.
13.3
74.7
47.0
3,119.
0.018
8/2/^3
~~
6.5
0.
2.
10.
1.0
0.04
<0.1
__
16.
0.025
dry
2.8
0.
790.
1,230.
45.6
40.1
12.2
--
1,871.
0.201
3.1
0.
410.
1,140.
13.6
--
--
--
22.1
43.7
1,689.
0.114
2.7
0.
1,660.
2,820.
43.7
--
~~
~~
96.7
49.9
4,174.
0.084
2.9
0.
850.
2,000.
13.0
49. S
3,018.
0.030
71
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
Date Collected
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCO;
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
8/8/
5 .
s) o.
3.
12.
0.
0.
<0.
__
26.
0.
75
6
1
09
1
005
8/16
6
0
3
11
0
0
<0
_
16
0
/73
.4
.
.1
.08
.1
_
.'049
8/23
6
0
3
11
0
0
<0
_
44
0
/73
.6
2
.07
_1
_
.'03S
8/30/73
5.9
0.
5.
11.
0.2
0.05
<0.1
__
43.
0.012
9/6/73
5.8
0.
6.
12.
0.1
0.08
0.1
--
81.
0.041
Date Collected
9/13
5
0
3
12
0
0
0
-
38
0
/73
.2
.3
.07
.07
-
.005
9/19/73
5.9
0.
3.
10.
0.2
0.06
<0.1
--
15.
0.031
10/4/73
5.8
0.
4.
11.
0.1
0.05
<0.1
--
85.
0.024
MS-2
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
dry
dry
dry
dry
dry-
dry
dry
MS-3
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS -4
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (ng/1)
Lead (ng/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (ra3/s)
MS-S
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/ 1 )
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-6
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (03/s)
2.8
0.
840.
1,240.
68.3
45.2
16.2
__
1,970.
0.168
3.0
0.
420.
1,140.
14.0
--
26.1
57.0
1,720.
0.084
2.7
0.
1,730.
2,880.
50.6
112.5
71.9
4,137.
0.050
2.9
0.
930.
2,180.
17.8
70.1
64.2
3,055.
0.017
2.8
0.
870.
1,670.
71.2
50.5
17.5
__
2,092.
0.243
3.0
0.
410.
1,300.
16.8
--
26.5
57.1
1,712.
0.102
2.8
0.
1,440.
2,830.
44.6
--
123.1
62.9
3,578.
0.163
3.0
0.
800.
2,010.
18.0
68.8
55.3
2,697.
0.143
2.8
0.
850.
1,460.
69.8
52.0
15.8
__
1,803.
0.278
3.1
0.
630.
1,480.
46.6
--
--
55.5
62.5
2,153.
0.123
2.8
0.
1,630.
2,860.
22.9
--
--
131.2
59.7
3,687.
0.110
3.0
0.
730.
1,730.
11.9
--
64.0
46.7
2,356.
0.057
2.8
0.
820.
1,310.
Sb.l
51.5
12.8
__
1,858.
0.195
3.0
0.
550.
1,460.
21.0
--
--
38.9
50.4
2,081.
0.08S
T 7
0.
1,425.
2,720.
43.1
--
--
--
59.8
45.9
3,565.
0.058
2.9
0.
760.
1,850.
13.7
--
--
--
64.6
40.4
2,530.
0.022
2.8
0.
860.
1,480.
52.1
56.9
14.9
--
1,945.
a. 163
3.1
0.
530.
1,510.
20.9
--
37.8
48.4
1,959.
0.090
2.8
0.
1,380.
2,720.
31.5
123.7
42.2
3,271.
0.058
2.9
0.
840.
2,370.
14.1
--
--
77.9
43.9
2,779.
0.023
2.8
0.
870.
1,510.
63.0
54.1
18.3
--
2,041.
0.150
3.1
0.
510.
1,430.
22.6
--
32.6
62.7
1,968.
0.105
2.8
0.
1,690.
3,030.
39.1
135.5
67.2
3,889.
0.054
3.0
0.
880.
2,190.
14.0
74.9
60.5
2,930.
0.024
2.8
0.
800.
1,520.
69.5
46.8
16.8
--
1,927.
0.1S9
o.l
0.
430.
1,410.
23.9
--
--
--
27.3
57.7
1,921.
0.072
2.7
0.
1,220.
2,920.
54.2
--
--
107.1
68.4
3,628.
0.063
2.8
0.
640.
2,070.
18.4
--
--
65.3
59.7
2,795.
0.029
2.8
0.
790.
1,370.
75.2
38.3
17.5
--
1,901.
0.223
3.0
0.
440.
1,420.
24. -1
--
--
26.3
69.5
2,048.
0.095
2.8
0.
1,420.
2,750.
56.9
--
84.8
74.2
3,718.
0.054
3.0
0.
770.
1,690.
19.7
--
--
--
48.4
62.2
2,718.
0.021
72
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
Date Collected
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-2
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-3
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-4
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-5
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-6
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
10/16/73
No
Sampl e
dry
2.8
0.
860.
1,420.
84.5
57.5
18.7
--
1,948.
0.141
0.
480.
1,410.
34.8
--
--
33.8
76.2
1,912.
0.085
0.
1,490.
2,910.
65.2
--
135.2
81.6
3,687.
0.043
3.0
0.
830.
2,000.
22.6
--
78.9
71.8
2,860.
0.016
11/1/75
5.7
0.
7 _
12.
0.2
0.24
0.1
__
62.
0.155
5.7
0.
7 f
17.
0.7
1.7
0.43
--
78 .
0.143
2.9
0.
830.
1,370.
78.6
52.4
17.4
--
1,815.
0.2S5
3.2
0.
450.
1,280.
56.5
--
--
50.4
66.5
1,768.
0.075
2.8
0.
1,580.
2,970.
67.6
--
--
132.7
78.3
3,672.
0.106
? n
J . U
0.
780.
2,170.
25.4
--
74.4
67.0
2,777.
0.065
11/15/75
5.8
0.
8.
11.
0.1
0.25
<0.1
-_
24.
0.051
5.2
0.
9.
16.
0.2
1.4
0.36
--
27.
0.018
2.9
0.
830.
1,350.
72.8
48.5
16.1
--
1,774.
0.216
3.2
0.
450.
1,160.
28.4
--
--
26.8
61.2
1,667.
0.092
2.9
0.
1,430.
2,820.
53.0
~~
~~
117.9
72.7
5,468.
0.059
5.0
0 .
790.
1,970.
18.3
"~
""
66.1
61.9
2,596.
0.019
11/29/75
5.7
0.
10.
13.
0.4
0.16
0.2
__
42.
0.181
5.6
0.
10.
12.
0.2
0.19
0.2
--
47.
0.157
2.9
0.
700.
1,100.
75.1
42.6
14.9
--
1,636.
0.327
3.1
0.
390.
1,020.
28.9
~~
~~
26.1
62". 2
1,610.
0.095
2.9
0.
1,350.
2,330.
58.4
105.5
75.1
3,225.
0.074
3.0
Q
780.
1,950.
26.6
68.9
71.6
2,825.
0.046
12/12/73
6.0
0.
5.
12.
0.2
0.15
0.1
__
35.
0. 188
5.9
0.
5.
11.
0.1
0.14
0.1
--
37.
0.167
2.9
0.
680.
1,090.
66.0
42.1
14.1
--
1,540.
0.461
3.2
0.
480.
1,160.
33.4
34.2
67.0
1,908.
0.159
2.9
0.
1,335.
2,400.
56.6
104.4
73.6
3,373.
0.141
3.1
0.
570.
1,420.
15.8
46.4
51.8
2,093.
0.096
Date Collected
12/26/73
5.7
0.
6.
10.
0.2
0.24
0.1
__
31.
0.346
5.4
0.
5.
11.
0.1
0.37
0.1
--
29.
0.276
2.9
0.
564.
950.
75.2
41.5
13.2
--
1,406.
0.448
3.2
0.
500.
1,540.
45.6
37.9
86.8
2,115.
0.198
2.9
0.
1,160.
2,210.
67.4
105.2
75.1
3,157.
0.145
3.1
0.
580.
1,600.
19.3
53.7
59.7
2,193.
0.070
1/10/74
No
Sample
No
Sample
2.9
0.
660.
1,150.
82.6
--
--
--
--
0.270
3.2
0.
500.
1,320.
38.4
0.153
2.9
0.
1,400.
2,700.
72.6
0.087
3.1
0.
900.
2,470.
29.2
__
__
0.045
1/23/74
No
Sample
No
Sample
2.9
0.
670.
1,090.
64.9
--
--
0.270
3.2
0.
420.
1,090.
26.7
0.157
2.9
0.
1,210.
2,360.
46.4
__
0.127
3.0
0.
890.
2,270.
22.6
__
__
0.068
73
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCO
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCO$)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
No
Sample
Date Collected
2/20/74 3/6/74
6.3
0.
6. No
12. Sample
0.1
0.051
No No
Sample Sample
Date Collected
4/15/74
4/29/74
5.5
0.
5. No
14. Sample
1.25
0.1S3
5/13/74
No
Sample
MS-2
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
No
Sample
6.3
0.
6. No
14. Sample
0.1
0.029
No No
Sample Sample
5.6
0.
11.
14.
0.07
0.153
No
Sample
No
Sample
MS-3
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (ra3/s)
2.9
0.
600.
850.
69.7
2.9
0.
690.
1,150.
88.6
38.1
15.0
2.9
0.
630.
1,060.
50.3
1,562.
0.196 0.204
2.8
0.
590.
920.
40.1
0.201
2.8
0.
590.
850.
50.3
2.8 2.8
0. 0.
570. 590.
820. 1,050.
47.6 56.2
0.
630.
1,040.
49.6
MS-4
pH 3.0
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOs) 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 470.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,150.
Total Iron (mg/1) 36.4
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m-Vs) 0.069
MS-5
pH 2.8
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03) 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 990.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,880.
Total Iron (mg/1) 50.0
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (nP/s) 0.052
MS-6
pH 3.0
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOs) 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj) 630.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,370.
Total Iron (mg/1) 18.7
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (n3/s) 0.051
3.2 3.2
0. 0.
400. 460.
950. 1,060.
32.5 22.3
2.9 2.9
0. 0.
1,180. 1,040.
2,340. 2,000.
60.0 31.8
0.012
3.0
0.
920.
2,520.
31.5
0.024
3.0
0.
1,020.
2,130.
19.1
0.049
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
0. 0. 0. 0.
410. 330. 540. 350.
1,000. 920. 1,070. 1,000.
17.1 16.7 25.6 17.8
0.091
2.8 2.8
0. 0.
1,020. 1,050.
1,780. 1,380.
29.7 40.1
0.032
0.028
2.8
0.
1,190.
2,120.
38.3
0.053
2.9 3.1 3.1
0. 0. 0.
850. 840. 790.
2,170. 2,580. 2,050.
26.8 18.9 19.7
3.0
0.
340.
960.
16.6
2.8 2.8
0. 0.
1,260. 1,170.
2,520. 2,350.
49.4 38.7
0.031
2.9 3.0
0. 0.
1,110. 900.
2,850. 2,470.
30.9 22.1
74
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued!
Date Collected
5/27/74
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCC>3)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) No
Sulfate (mg/1) Sample
Total Iron (mg/1)
6/10/74
6.0
0.
11.
<0.05
6/24/74
No
Sample
7/11/74
No
Sample
7/29/74
No
Sample
Date Collected
8/5/74
4.5
0.
7.
12.
0.05
8/19/74
No
Sample
9/2/74
No
Sample
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total So_lids (mg/1)
Flow (nrVs)
MS-2
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (rag/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (mj/s)
No
Sample
5.8
4.
0.
15.
0.26
No
Sample
No
Sample
No
Sample
4.7
0.
6.
24.
0.51
<0.001
No No
Sample Sample
MS-3
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m-Ys)
2.8
0.
620.
1,050.
49.4
2.8
0.
650.
1,200.
60.0
2.8
0.
770.
1,290.
64.4
2.8
0.
790.
1,260.
69.8
2.8
0.
780.
1,310.
73.3
0.
860.
1,500.
77 .
2.9
0.
840.
1,350.
75.0
0.
960.
1,700.
100.
0.110
0.074 0.071
0.074 0.053
MS-4
pH 3.1
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCC^; 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 340.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,060.
Total Iron (mg/1) 19.3
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s) 0.067
MS-5
pH 2.8
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03) 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj) 1,220.
Sulfate (mg/1) 2,470.
Total Iron (mg/1) 42.4
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s) 0.026
MS-6
pH 3.0
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCC>3) 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as Caa>3) 740.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,800.
Total Iron (mg/1) IS.5
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (n3/s) 0.011
3.0
0.
260.
950.
11.0
3.0
0.
300.
1,090.
13.1
3.0
0.
440.
1,150.
20.6
3.0
0.
370.
1,100.
18.6
3.0
0.
400.
1,170.
17.0
3.1
0.
410.
1,170.
19.4
3.0
0.
410.
1,150.
22.5
0.055
2.8
0.
,060.
,650.
44.7
3.0
0.
920.
2,470.
18.8
0.007
2.8
0.
1,310.
3,070.
33.1
3.0
0.
850.
2,670.
17.0
0.006
0.051
2.8
0.
1,470.
2,740.
58.9
0.024
3.0
0.
940.
2,300.
25.5
0.012
0.
1,380.
51.7
3.0
0.
900.
,470.
25.3
0.006
0.037
1,400.
2,870.
41.2
0.012
3.0
0.
930.
2,720.
27.1
0.006
2.8
0.
1,500.
54.4
0.009
3.0
0.
1,010.
2,740.
28.2
0.005
0.026
2.8
0.
1,420.
3,000.
58.4
0.009
3.0
0.
950.
2,820.
30.8
75
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
MS-1
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
No
Saraple
Date Collected ^_ Date Collected
9/30/7410/13/7410/27/74 11/10/74 11/25/74 12/9/74 12/21/74
5.5
0.
11.
15.
0.02
0.007
No
Sample
No
Sample
No
Sample
6.0
0.
4. No No
12. Saraple Sample
0.16
0.041
MS-2
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1
Acidity (mg/1 as
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
as
CaC03)
CaCO.O
No
Sample
5.3
0.
5.
60.
2.43
--
--
--
No
Sample
No
Sample
No
Sample
5.8
0.
5.
15.8
0.37
--
No
Sample
No
Sample
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-3
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1
Acidity (mg/1 as
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
as
CaC03)
CaCO.,) "
2.8
0.
990.
1,700.
34.9
0.
2.8
0.
1,020.
1,960.
81.1
2.8
0.
1,065.
2,130.
84. 3
2.8
0.
970.
1,650.
115.0
2.8
0.
1,060.
1,660.
99.4
2.9
0.
790.
1,260.
75.6
2.8
0.
840.
1,240.
77.8
2.9
0.
770.
1,320.
87.8
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
0.053
0.057
0.053
0.101
0.145
0.184
MS-4
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow
MS-S
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCC>3)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (»g/l)
line (»g/l)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (IB-YS)
MS-6
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (ag/1)
Zinc (ng/1)
Lead (»g/l)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
3.0
0.
470.
1,350.
17.3
3.0
0.
580.
1,480.
22.6
3.1
0.
600.
1,980.
20.0
3.0
0.
560.
1,570.
53.2
3.1
0.
540.
1,570.
36.0
3.0
0.
S10.
1,640.
50.5
3.0
0.
490.
1,460.
30.2
3.1
0.
640.
1,670.
46.3
0.028
0.014
0.028
0.028
0.026
0.025
0.021
0.014
0.010
0.009
0.015
0.03
0.007
0.008
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.027
0.061
2.8
0.
1,630.
3,140.
51.5
2.8
0.
1,700.
2,990.
42.5
2.8
0.
1,565.
3,150.
42.4
2.8
0.
1,450.
3,200.
62.0
2.8
0.
1,555.
5,200.
57.1
2.9
0.
1,470.
3,130.
51.0
2.8
0.
1,570.
5,050.
58.1
2.9
0.
1,430.
2,720.
74.4
0.035
2.9
0.
1,070.
2,750.
22.2
3.0
0.
970.
2,630.
21.6
3.0
0.
1,055.
3,050.
20.4
3.0
0.
1,060.
2,830.
36.5
5.0
0.
1,000.
2,950.
35.4
3.0
0.
1,010.
2,920.
33.5
3.0
0.
910.
2,400.
33.1
3.0
0.
930.
2,170.
38.4
0.020
76
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
No
Samplc
Date Collected
5.2
0.
9.
11.
0.37
0.073
No
Sample
No No
Sample Sample
Date Collected
3/14/75
5.9
0.
4. No
11. Sample
0.08
4/13/75
No
Sample
MS-2
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (nP/s)
No
Sample
5.8
0.
6.
11.
0.13
No
Sample
Sample Sample
5.9
0.
4.
11.
0.07
0.024
No
Sample
No
Sample
MS-3
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
3.0
0.
760.
1,070.
67.6
3.0
0.
710.
940.
65.7
2.9
0.
690.
1,000.
61.1
2.9
0.
810.
1,040.
60. ~
3.0
0.
810.
1,120.
S3.:7
3.1
0.
700.
950.
62.7
2.9
0.
600.
850.
58.1
2.9
0.
680.
1,050.
62.7
0.140
0.228
0.127
0.193
0.149
0.197
0.149
MS-4
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-5
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (np/s)
MS-6
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
3.1
0.
570.
1,450.
31.2
3.1
0.
690.
1,650.
40.2
3.1
0.
630.
1,570.
34.2
3.1
0.
500.
1,170.
20.3
3.2
0.
770.
2,040.
42.9
3.2
0.
430.
1,080.
23.8
3.1
0.
380.
1,150.
15.8
3.2
0.
380.
1,200.
22.2
O.OS8
2.9
0.
1,530.
2,470.
56.
0.021
3.0
0.
1,000.
2,380.
30.4
0.011
2.9
0.
1,410.
2,700.
56.8
0.041
3.0
0.
920.
2,390.
29.4
0.027
0.071
2.9
0.
1,410.
2,750.
58.0
0.052
3.1
0.
1,000.
2,550.
33.6
0.030
2.9
0.
50.1
0.023
2.9
0.
3.1
0.
2.9
0.
55.9
0.056
3.1
0.
890.
2,120.
29.7
36.5
34.0
No
Sample
2.9
0.
1,410. 1,350. 1,170. 1,030. 1,180.
2,630. 2,270. 1,880. 2,350. 2,700.
38.4
0.024
0.012
0.052 0.010
-------
(Continued)
_£/25/75
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) No
Sulfate (mg/1) Sample
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (n3/s)
Date Collected
5/9/75 6/3/75 6/7/75
4.5
0.
9 . No No
11.8 Sample Sample
0.10
--
--
--
__
0.083
Date Collected
6/23/75 7/1/75 7/16/7S
5.0
0.
No 4 . No
Sample 10. Sample
0.10
--
--
--
0.009
8/1/75
No
Sample
MS-2
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
No
Sajnple
5.5
0.
6. No
13.3 Sample
0.17
0.068
No
Sample
No No No No
Sajnple Sample Sample Sample
MS-3
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9
0. 0. 0. 0.
730. 630. 650. 670.
1,070. 980. 900. 1,180.
66.1 60.6 61.5 71.4
0.206 0.096 0.136
2.8
0.
755.
1,140.
71.2
2.8
0.
790.
1,350.
92.8
2.8
0.
820.
1,350.
79.5
2.8
0.
960.
1,650.
80.7
0.110
0.088
0.079
0.070
MS-4
pH
Alkalinity (n>g/l as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-5
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m5/s)
MS-6
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluainum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
2.9
0.
390.
1,010.
17.8
--
__
0.064
2.7
0.
1,290.
2,470.
44.6
--
--
__
0.018
2.8
0.
930.
2,570.
31.3
__
__
0.009
3.1
0.
360.
1,080.
16.6
--
--
--
--
--
0.062
2.9
0.
1,140.
2,530.
47.7
--
--
--
--
--
__
--
3.0
0.
900.
2,130.
29.4
--
--
--
--
_-
0.012
3.1
0.
340.
940.
16.1
--
0.061
2.9
0.
1,280.
2,350.
44.4
--
--
--
--
--
0.018
3.0
0.
800.
2,350.
31.4
--
--
0.007
3.1
0.
38S.
1,170.
19.5
--
0.060
2.9
0.
1,080.
2,430.
42.4
--
--
--
--
--
0.039
3.0
0.
985.
3,020.
41.1
--
--
0.024
3.1
0.
440.
1,080.
12. <
--
--
--
_-
-
2.9
0.
1 , 350.
2,670.
50.5
--
--
--
--
--
__
0.028
3.0
0.
940.
2,620.
36.5
--
--
_-
.-
--
0.014
3.0
0.
440.
1,150.
14.9
--
0.057
2.8
0.
1,510.
3,040.
57.1
--
--
__
0.020
3.0
0.
1,130.
2,930.
33.2
0.010
3.0
0.
370.
1,100.
16.8
--
--
--
0.046
2.8
0.
1,450.
2,870.
54.6
--
--
--
__
2.9
0.
1,060.
3,090.
37.0
--
--
--
__
0.008
3.0
0.
410.
1,300.
15.8
--
0.039
2.8
0.
1,630.
2,820.
55.2
2.9
0.
1,230.
2,700.
38.0
--
--
0.009
78
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (nVs)
Date Collected
Date Collected
S/14/75
No
Sample
8/28/75
5.2
0.
5.
12.
1.26
9/12/75
No
Sample
3/28/75
No
Sample
10/12/75
No
Sampl e
10/19/75
5.4
0.
4.
11.
<0.05
10/25/75
5.6
0.
4.
11.
0.06
11/2/7S
5.3
0.
5.
11.
0.13
0.062
0.028
MS-2
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (rag/1)
Flow (rivVs)
No No No No No
Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample
5.8 5.9
0. 0.
9. 4.
12. 11.
0.89 <0.05
0.148 0.069
6.2
0.
5.
11.
<0.05
MS-3
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (ra3/s)
0. 0. 0.
1,080. 1,150. 1,140.
1,690. 2,000. 1,850.
86.8 124.0 98.4
2.7
0.
1,240.
1,820.
181.
0.057
0.050
2.8
0.
930.
1,300.
0.136
2.8 2.8 2.8
0. 0. 0.
850. 850. 820.
1,200. 1,320. 1,130.
92.0 65.6 63.0
0.215
0.153
MS-4
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Prow (m3/s)
MS-5
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-6
pH
Alkalinity (og/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
1,
1
2
1
3
3.0
0.
440.
,300.
13.1
__
--
0.035
2.8
0.
,760.
,900.
53.9
__
__
__
0.016
2.9
0.
,430.
,100.
45.1
__
__
-_
3.
0.
440.
1,120.
->"1
0.
1.
<0.
0.
-,
0.
1,750.
3,300.
62.
0.
11.
<0.
0.
.,
0
1,340
3,120
50
0
13
0
0
7
07
56
05
031
S
.7
90
.6
,05
013
.9
.2
.89
. 3
.05
3.0
0.
490.
1,260.
20.0
--
::
0.028
2.8
0.
1,700.
2,660.
50.4
--
0.020
2.9
0.
1,360.
2,760.
56.6
2.9
0.
900.
2,860.
72.0
--
--
--
0.075
2.8
0.
1,541.
2,580.
78.0
--
--
--
0.057
3.0
0.
840.
2,200.
51.3
--
--
--
3.0
0.
760.
1,920.
24.3
--
--
--
0.078
2.8
0.
1,390.
2,660.
36.7
--
--
--
0.034
3.0
0.
1,070.
2,760.
25.3
--
--
--
3.0
0.
560.
1,580.
30.4
--
-
-
2.8
0.
1,270.
2,360.
42.0
--
--
--
0.040
2.9
0.
1,000.
2,820.
37.7
--
--
3.0
0.
600.
1,650.
24.2
--
--
--
-
2.8
0.
1,320.
2,650.
38.1
--
--
0.039
2.9
0.
870.
2,470.
29.4
--
3.
0.
510.
1,420.
17.
--
--
--
2.
0.
1,290.
2,570.
35.
--
-
0.
2.
0.
940.
2,750.
27.
--
"
0
1
8
7
028
9
4
0.007 0.004 0.014 0.076 °-024
0.021
0.026
79
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
Date Collected
HS-1
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/l as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
line (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (mVs)
MS- 2
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Sglids (mg/1)
Flow (mj/s)
MS-3
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-4
pH
Alkalinity ;mg/l as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-5
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/10
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS- 6
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
11/9/75
5.9
0.
4.
11.
0.20
--
_-
--
__
0.021
6.3
0.
4.
11.
0.07
--
_-
0.023
2.7
0.
8SO.
1,250.
104.0
--
--
0.127
3.0
0.
500.
1,300.
28.4
__
--
2.9
0.
1,150.
2,750.
50.8
__
--
--
__
0.023
3.0
0.
860.
2,710.
45. 5
0.027
11/16/75
5.6
0.
6.
10.
<0.05
0.070
5.4
0.
7.
14.
0.35
--
--
0.070
2.8
0.
840.
1,200.
92.0
--
--
0.118
3.0
0.
470.
1,250.
29.7
--
__
2.8
0.
1,310.
2,710.
50.7
--
--
0.025
3.0
0.
980.
2,710.
46.7
--
0.026
11/23/75
8.8
17.
0.
11.
<0.05
0.037
5.9
0.
7.
11.
<0.05
--
0.035
2.9
0.
800.
1,340.
80.7
--
--
0.118
3.2
0.
410.
1,350.
24.0
--
--
--
2.9
0.
1,240.
2,950.
44.4
--
--
--
--
0.022
3.0
0.
870.
2,800.
38.7
--
--
0.020
11/30/75
4.4
0.
11.
13.
0.1
<0.5
0.06
0.02
51.
0.038
6.0
0.
7.
14.
<0.05
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
Date Collected _ Date Collected _
2/1/76 2/15/7b 2/27/76 3/11/76 5/25/76 4/8/76 -1/23/76 5/7/76
MS-1 - - - -
PH 5.0 5.5
Alkalinity (ntg/1 as CaC03) o. 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 10. No No No 12. No No No
Sulfate (mg/1) n. Sample Sample Sample 10. Sample Sample Sample
Total Iron (mg/1) 0.09 0.13
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s) .. 0.066
MS-2
PH 5.3 4.6
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj) 0. 0. No No No
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj) 6. No No No 15. Sample Sample Sample
Sulfate (mg/1) 10. Sample Sample Sample 12.
Total Iron (mg/1) 0.06 0.09
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s) _- 0.060
MS-5
pH 2.8 5.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 700. 650. 560. 590. 620. 690. 770. 720.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,090. 990. 870. 870. 940. 950. 1,170. 1,510.
Total Iron (mg/1) 79.5 74.7 61.6 69.7 68.5 66.4 77.8 70.7
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m-Vs) 0.192 0.105 0.265 0.228 0.149 0.175 0.101 0.101
MS -4
pH 5.0 3.2 5.1 5.1 3.1 5.1 5.1 3.0
Alkalinitv (mg/1 as CaCOs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 450. 410. 450. 590. 540. 420. 320. 290.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,310. 1,080. 1,290. 1,100. 900. 950. 1,020. 950.
Total Iron (mg/1) 22.4 26.4 21.5 19.5 12.4 14.5 12.8 11.2
Copper (mg/1) -- -- 0.14
Zinc (mg/1) -- 2.05
Lead (mg/1) -- <°-°5
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
How'cSJsf tmg/1) --" ^064 0~092 o'.WO o'.OSl o'.OM o"064 o"oS8
MS-5
pH 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 1,150. 1,020. 780. 850. 860. 1,070. 1,110. 1,100.
Sulfate (me/1) 2,320. 2,320. 1,540. 1,800. 1,820. 2,080. 2,440. 2,600.
Total iron (mg/1) 42.6 41.7 29.7 52.7 29.8 50.9 28.9 31.4
Copper (mg/1) °-63
Zinc (mg/1) " " *~*
Lead (mg/1) -- " <0-os
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
" "
mVs)5 mg " «041 0049 OSO oo28 0052 0o21 O.o
~* 7 9 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 2.9
S"1m jlg/as Sc$°3) 78«: 76°: 64?,: 68°: 79°: 82«: 85o: 94«:
SuJfate mg/1) 2,150. 2,470. 1,780. 2,020. 2,510. 2,150. 2,750. 2,970.
Total Iron (mg/1) 25.5 34.5 22.4 25.7 25.5 28.8 50.1 35.7
Copper (mg/1) - ~
Zinc tmg/1) " ""
Lead (mg/1) -- "
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1) -- ~" "" "" ""
'S tm£/1) " ' 0."052 O.'oSl O.'oM oVoi8 oVflll
81
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
MS-1
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-2
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-3
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (ng/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-4
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
HS-S
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-6
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
5/24/76
5.6
0.
8.
9.6
<0.05
<0.5
0.05
0.03
52.
0.053
5 . 3
0.
6.
10.
<0.05
<0.5
0.04
<0.01
56.
0.054
2.9
0.
680.
950.
67.5
38.5
9.8
1.29
1,652.
0.201
3.2
0.
400.
950.
17.9
0.08
1.34
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (riVs)
Date Collected
9/8/76 9/22/76 10/6/76
5.8
0.
4 . No No
9. Sample Sample
<0.05
--
--
0.005
Date Collected
10/21/76 11/9/76 11/21/76 12/5/76
5.4
0.
7 . No No No
10. Sample Sample Sample
0.12
__
__
-_
__
0.153
12/19/76
No
Sample
MS-2
pH 5.4 5.1
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj) 0. No No 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj) 5. Sample Sample 8. No No No No
Sulfate (mg/1) 13. 11. Sample Sample Sample Sample
Total Iron (mg/1) 0.07 0.33
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (n5/s) 0.005 0.153
MS-3
pH 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj) 0. 0. 0. 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 810. 940. 970. 790. -- 820. -- 710.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,420. 1,480. 1,550. 1,300. 1,000. 950. 1,320. 900.
Total Iron (mg/1) 93.4 95.7 103.0 97.3 70.5 80.0 86.0 74.75
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s) 0.083 0.066 0.066 0.104 -- 0.094 0.350
MS-4
pH 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.1! 2.8 2.8 3.0
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 410. 400. 380. 400. 202. 406. 340. 314.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,110. 1,160. 1,120. 1,100. 1,400. 1,050. 1,220. 1,150.
Total Iron (mg/1) 20.3 15.2 17.3 17.6 27.75 22.S 21.2 23.25
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (ra-Ys) 0.056 0.044 0.035 -- " 0.052
MS-5
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Salids (mg/1)
Flow (m^/s)
MS-6
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCC^)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
2.9
0.
1,260.
2,550.
45.7
--
--
--
0.022
3.0
0.
1,030.
2,870.
38.4
2.9
0.
1,340.
2,900.
45.3
--
--
--
--
0.018
3.1
0.
1,090.
3,170.
39.2
2.9
0.
1,340.
2,800.
50.1
--
0.018
3.0
0.
1,130.
3,350.
46.4
2.9
0.
1,300.
2,720.
49.0
--
--
0.024
3.0
0.
920.
2,930.
44.4
2.6
--
--
1,800.
43.0
--
0.032
No
Sample
2.6
--
964.
1,780.
40.0
0.027
No
Sample
2.7
--
No
Sample 1,900.
--
--
--
--
--
0.022
No No
Sample Sample
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (mj/s) 0.011 0.007
83
-------
TABLE 3-1. (Continued)
Date Collected __ Date Collected _
12/29/76 - 1/9/77 1/25/77 - '2/6/7? 2/20/77 3/6/77 3/17/77 3/30/77
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj) No No No No No No No No
Sulfate (mg/1) Sample Sanple Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-2
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) No No No No No No No No
Sulfate (mg/1) Sanple Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
pH 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.b 2.K 2.8 2.8 2.9
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj) -- 880. 780. -- 850. 760. - 400.
Sulfate (mg/1) 900. 1,090. 1,280. 1,480. 1,350. 1,220. 1,360. 460.
Total Iron (mg/1) 89.0 81.0 88.0 99.0 - 82.0 - 57.0
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (ra3/s) 0.090 0.077 0.070 -- 0.233 0.294 0.270
MS-4
pH 3.0 3.0 5.1 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.1
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCCh) 350. 400. 260. 358. 340. 304. 206. 310.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,020. 880. 1,020. 1,200. 860. 1,300. 980. 780.
Total Iron (mg/1) 18.20 20.40 20.75 19.75 21.50 22.50 16.65 21.00
Copper (mg/1) -- ""
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s) - 0.045 - 0.036 " °-047 °-0b6 °-075
^ 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as, CaC03) -- 1,500.
Sulfate (mg/1) 2,205. 2,688.
Total Iron (mg/1) 53.0 44.5
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
HotumS/sf ("'8/1) o"o21
MS-6
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) No No
Sulfate (mg/1) Sample Sample
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (mVs)
1,030. 1,856. 1,300. 880.
2',604. 2,940. 2,562. 1,740.
45.75 48.0 54.00 32.00
--
__
__
__
0.010 0.008 0.057
No No No No
Sample Sample Sample Sample
510.
1,300. 1,050.
26.25 27.25
0.037 0.058
No No
Sample Sample
84
-------
(Continued)
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCC>3)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (cp/s)
No
Sample
Date Collected
No
Sample
S/10/77
No
Sample
5/24/77
No
Sample
No
Sample
Date Collected
No
Sample
No
Sample
No
Sample
MS-2
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (rP/5)
No
Sample
No No No
Sample Sample Sample
No No No No
Sample Sample Sample Sample
MS-3
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (mj/s)
520.
55.5
640.
54.0
2.9
2.6
610.
"20. 840.
56.0 65.5
0.13
2.5
2.7
750. 850. 870.
800. 920. 1,020. 1,000.
76.50 83.12 83.1
MS-4
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCC>3)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m-Vs)
MS-5
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC05)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-6
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (mj/s)
3.1
460.
860.
15.40
2.9
800.
1,380.
40.50
0.049
No
Sample
5.2 3.2 2.8
322. 340.
840. 980. 820.
18.50 16.60 17.50
0/073 0.071
2.9 3.0 2.6
880. 650.
1,400. 1,480. 1,420.
29.75 29.75 35.00
No
Sample
0.035
0.029
No No
Sample Sample
3.1
400.
800.
18.50
3.1
3.0
330. -- 456.
850. 900. 1,020.
18.25 15.15 19.90
590.
1,050. 1,260.
1,700. 1,800. 2,310. 2,000.
42.0
0.021
No
Sample
42.0
0.014
No
Sample
37.5
0.048
No
Sample
46.5
No
Sample
85
-------
TABLE B-l. (Continued)
MS-1
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOs)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
8/3/77
No
Sample
Date
Collected
8/14/77 8/28/77
No No
Sample Sample
Date rollBrteci
9/8/77
No
Sample
9/22/77
No
Sample
10/6/77
No
Sample
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
MS-2
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (=g/l)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
No
Sample
No No No
Sample Sample Sample
No No
Sample Sample
MS- 3
pH 2.0
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj) 870.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,100.
Total Iron (mg/1) 100.0
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s) 0.086
2.8
2.8
2.6
1,360. 920.
1,920. 870. 940.
42.0 49.5 103.0
0.074
2.7 2.7
736.
800.
97.0 82.5
0.128
426. 528.
1,040. 1,140.
23.9 26.5
930. 1,450. 1,030.
1,740. 1,840.
44.8 44.0 48.0
MS-4
pH 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 408. 460. 256.
Sulfate (mg/1) 850. 1,090. 840. 780.
Total Iron (mg/1) 19.5 19.0 19.4 17.9
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (Q3/s) ' -- 0.034 0.031 0.028 0.026 0.044
MS-5
pH 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOj) 1,180.
Sulfate (mg/1) 1,900.
Total Iron (mg/1) 46.0
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (n3/s) 0.020 0.018 0.016 0.011
MS-6
pH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaC03)
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) No No No No No No
Sulfate (mg/1) Sample Sanple Sample Sample Sample Sample
Total Iron (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (ng/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Flow (m3/s)
1,100. 984.
1,740. 1,500.
57.00 42.75
0.071
86
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-035
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Tioga River Mine Drainage Abatement Project
5. REPORT DATE
February L979-
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
A. F. Miorin, R. S. Klingensmith, R. E. Heizer and
J. R. Saliunas
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1NE826
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
(S805784)
14010 HIN
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab,
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
- Cinn, OH
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 11/71 - 7/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Tioga River Demonstration Project in southeastern Tioga County, Pennsylvania,
is essentially defined by an isolated pocket of coal that has been extensively deep
and strip mined within the Pennsylvania Bituminous Coal Field. The Tioga River
watershed is subjected to acid mine drainage from abandoned mines in the vicinity
of the Borough of Blossburg and the Village of Morris Run.
The project demonstrated effective techniques for mine drainage abatement,
reduced a specific mine drainage problem, and restored portions of a strip mined
area to their approximate original surface grades. Techniques demonstrated included:
restoration of strip pits utilizing agricultural limestone and wastewater sludge as
soil conditioners; burial of acid-forming materials within strip mines that were
restored; and reconstruction and lining of a stream channel. Effectiveness of these
preventive measures and their costs were determined.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Reclamation
Coal Mines
Surface Mining
Underground Mining
Water Quality
Economic Analyses
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Abandoned Mines
Pennsylvania
Demonstration Project
Revegetation
Acid Mine Drainage
Pollution Abatement
Stream Bed Relocation
COSATI Field/Group
08/H
08/G
08/1
13/B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
97
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
87
i- U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE-1979-657-060/1599
------- |