Upper Tioga Review Watershed Assessment: PROJECT NO. 126048

UPPER TIOGA REVIEW WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO.
126048
Blossburg Borough; Bloss, Hamilton, & Ward Townships Tioga County, PA
Prepared by:
BioMost, Inc.
USACE BALTIMORE CONTRACT NO. W912DR-06-P-0336 Delivery Order 0001 For:
Baltimore District Army Corps of Engineers

05 January 2007
19301/Report
Upper Tioga Review Watershed Assessment Project No. 126048 Blossburg Boro.; Bloss, Hamilton, & Ward Twps., Tioga Co., PA USACE Contract W912DR-06-P-0336, DO 0001
05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .. 1.0 Scope of Work . 2.0 Background . 3.0 Location ... 4.0 General Areal Geology ... 5.0 Mining History 6.0 Abandoned Mine Drainage Characteristics.. 6.1 General Description ... 6.2 Discharge Characteristics in Subwatersheds . 6.3 Design Criteria for Conceptual Treatment Systems .. 7.0 General Description of AMD Impacts to Major Tributaries . 7.1 Fall Brook ...... 7.2 Johnson Creek ....... 7.3 Morris Run . 7.4 Coal Creek . 7.5 Bear Creek . 8.0 AMD and Non-AMD Acidity in Major Tributaries 8.1 Stream Acidity from Abandoned Mine Drainage . 8.2 Stream Acidity in Headwaters from Non-AMD Sources .. 8.2.1 Acidity Calculated from Metals and pH. 8.2.2 Non-AMD Acidity Contributions... 8.3 Recommended Monitoring for Further Evaluation. .. 9.0 Degradation of the Tioga River by Major Tributaries ... 10.0 Historical and Recent Abandoned Mine Restoration Efforts . 10.1 Historical Reclamation .... 10.2 Selected Recent Land Reclamation and AMD Abatement Efforts . 10.2.1 Fall Brook Subwatershed 10.2.2 Johnson Creek Subwatershed . 10.2.3 AMD Directly Entering the Tioga River 11.0 Review of Proposed Treatment Recommendations and Cost Estimates Using WRAM and AMDTreat Models.... 11.1 General Approach. 11.2 Water Monitoring Data Evaluation...... 11.2.1 BioMost Drainage Evaluation.. 11.2.2 Gannet Fleming Drainage Evaluation.. 11.3 Comparison of WRAM vs. AMDTreat Cost Models... 11.3.1 Active Treatment Sludge Volume Estimates 11.3.2 Active Treatment Sludge Disposal Cost Estimates.. 11.3.3 Passive Treatment Sludge Disposal, Annual & PV Cost Estimates.
1 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 9 9 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 14 14 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 22 22 23
11.4 Review of WRAM and AMDTreat Assumptions 11.4.1 Common Factors.. 11.4.2 Passive Treatment Alternatives 11.4.3 Chemical Treatment Alternatives. 11.4.4 Brief Discussion of Design Considerations.. 12.0 Review of Coal and Bear Creek Treatment Recommendations... 12.1 Active Treatment System DCC005 & DBC101... 12.2 Passive Treatment Alternative for DCC005 & DBC101. 12.3 Potential Alternative Treatment Approaches to DCC005 & DBC101. 12.3.1 DCC005 Hybrid Treatment System Alternative.. 12.3.2 DBC101 Passive Treatment System Alternative.. 13.0 Review of Morris Run Treatment Recommendations... 13.1 Active Treatment System for Morris Run.... 13.2 Passive Treatment Alternatives for Morris Run (DMR001, 003, 004) 13.2.1 Sample Location Discrepancy DMR001 & DMR003.. 13.2.2 DMR004 Passive Treatment System Alternative. 13.2.3 DMR003 Passive Treatment System Alternative. 13.2.4 DMR001 Passive Treatment System Alternative. 14.0 Review of Johnson Creek, Tioga River and Fall Brook Treatment Recommendations. 14.1 Johnson Creek & Tioga River Passive Treatment Systems. 14.2 Upper Fall Brook Active and Passive Treatment Systems... 14.3 Lower Fall Brook Active Treatment System 14.4 Lower Fall Brook Passive Treatment System Alternative... 15.0 Predicted Impact of Alternative Treatment Systems to Receiving Stream. 16.0 Summary and Recommendations Selected References...
23 23 24 25 25 27 27 28 28 28 29 33 33 34 34 35 36 36 38 38 38 39 40 41 43 46
APPENDIX
AMDTREAT CALCULATIONS ATMOSPHERIC DATA Introduction/Explanation Hydrogen Ion Concentration as pH from Measurements made at the Central Analytical Laboratory, 2005 PA Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network Weekly Concentration Data for Hills Creek State Park Sulfate Ion Concentrations 1985-2003
ii
PHOTOGRAPHS MAPS 2003 Gannett Fleming Figure 2. Upper Tioga River Watershed Average Existing Conditions Map. [Copy: Figure 7 (Page 4) Upper Tioga River Watershed AMD Conceptual Treatment and Restoration Plan, Gannett Fleming, Inc., June 12, 2003] 2003 SRB Figure 6. Mining Related Problem Areas in the Upper Tioga River Watershed. [Copy: Page 15, Pub. 230, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 2003] Site Map DISK (Back cover) BioMost Report Files Original Electronic Files PDF Files PDF copy of 2003 Susquehanna River Basin Commission Watershed Assessment and Remediation Strategy for Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Upper Tioga River Watershed PDF copy of 2003 Gannett Fleming Upper Tioga River Watershed Acid Mine Drainage Conceptual Treatment and Restoration Plan
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impacts to the upper Tioga River Watershed from abandoned coal mines continues to be the focus of restoration efforts by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), the PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), and local volunteer groups, including the Tioga County Concerned Citizens Committee (TCCCC), Hillside Rod & Gun Club, Arnot Sportsmens Club and Tioga River Watershed Reclamation Projects Inc., among others. With the impact of abandoned mine drainage continuing downstream about 13 miles to the TiogaHammond Dam Complex, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District has requested a report evaluating the restoration approach described in the October 2003 SRBC Publication 230, Watershed Assessment and Remediation Strategy for Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Upper Tioga River Watershed (2003 SRBC report). Based on a limited review by BioMost, Inc., the 2003 SRBC report appears to be wellconsidered and comprehensive, addressing the 16 AMD discharges currently identified as having the most significant impact to Fall Brook, Morris Run, Coal Creek, Bear Creek, Johnson Creek, and the Tioga River. The acidity of Fall Brook and Morris Run from non-AMD impacts was also briefly discussed. The recommended implementation strategy and cost estimates for 10 treatment systems, that include both active and passive technology, to address the 16 discharges were based on the June 2003 report by Gannett Fleming, Inc., Upper Tioga River Watershed Acid Mine Drainage Conceptual Treatment and Restoration Plan (2003 Gannett Fleming report), that was also reviewed by BioMost during the preparation of the current report. Since completion of the 2003 SRBC report, selected restoration activities have been, or are in the process of being, completed in the following subwatersheds: (1) Fall Brook design and permitting of treatment systems for AMD discharges and acidic non-AMD by the TCCCC through PADEP Growing Greener funding and (2) Johnson Creek two passive treatment systems (one under construction with one in the design phase) by the Arnot Sportsmens Club and surface mine reclamation by the PADEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation. As watershed groups and state agencies are currently working to restore Fall Brook and Johnson Creek and to abate AMD flowing directly into the Tioga River, this report primarily focuses on discharges to Morris Run, Bear Creek, and Coal Creek; however, a brief review of the recommendations included in the 2003 SRBC and Gannett Fleming reports for discharges flowing directly into the Tioga River, Johnson Creek and Fall Brook is also provided. The intent of this report is to review, validate, and complement the 2003 SRBC report and to provide consideration of alternatives/revisions to conceptual treatment designs described in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report. These alternatives include treatment approaches that remove iron at low pH (based on recent efforts by the PADEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation, BioMost, and others), that minimize overall project costs (such as using gravity-based facilities to minimize pumping costs), and that allow for phased installation of abatement options to accommodate funding availability and land access. BioMost believes that the work presented in the two previous reports with consideration of alternative designs and cost information provided in the current report provides sufficient information for the planning and implementation of abandoned mine drainage restoration efforts in the Upper Tioga River Watershed.
During the review, an assumption was noted in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report that may significantly increase the estimated annual costs and/or reduce projected stream quality improvement. This assumption particularly applies to the proposed active treatment systems recommended for the larger AMD discharges. Specifically, the proposed active systems are to provide excess alkalinity in the treated effluent at about 100 mg/L as CaCO3 to help provide much needed alkalinity to the receiving streams. Because of potentially significant increases in chemical consumption and in sludge production rates typically associated with over treatment, titration testing is recommended to assist in confirming the annual cost estimates. These titration tests are relatively simple and can be conducted by qualified public agency or private industry personnel. Likewise, if further consideration is given to the passive and hybrid treatment systems included in this report, sizing and applicability should be confirmed with short-duration bench-scale and other appropriate testing prior to the final design phase. The active treatment systems reviewed as well as the alternative treatment systems proposed in this report are designed to produce effluent that is generally similar in quality to that included in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, with the exception of alkalinity. BioMost assumed a net alkalinity of only about 3-20 mg/L in the treated effluent of both the proposed active and the alternative passive and hybrid systems. This revised projected effluent alkalinity is expected to impact the predicted benefits to overall stream quality provided in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report. As restoration projects have been completed, or are in process, to address not only AMD impacts but also non-AMD impacts to Fall Brook and Johnson Creek, the stream quality improvement predictions are recommended to be revised. Cost estimates generated for the treatment systems proposed in the 2003 SRBC report were compared with those generated using AMDTreat. (See narrative for review of selected assumptions.) In addition to reviewing treatment systems proposed in the 2003 SRBC report for Coal Creek, Bear Creek and Morris Run, alternative conceptual designs and cost estimates were developed by BioMost. Suggested minor revisions to the conceptual designs for the Lower Fall Brook site, not included in the table below, are provided in Sections 14.2 through 14.4 with alternative cost estimates provided in Table 16. COST ESTIMATE REVIEW: SELECT SRBC AND ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS CAPITAL TOTAL ANNUAL 15-YEAR PRESENT VALUE
SRBC Active Proposed Reviewed $3,300,000 $3,600,000+ SRBC Active Proposed Reviewed $1,900,000 $2,200,000 Hybrid/Passive Alternative $4,200,000 Alternative Phased Passive $2,900,000+ SRBC Active Hybrid/Passive Alternative Proposed Reviewed $1,856,416 $647,402 $270,560 SRBC Active Proposed Reviewed $26,000,000 $11,000,000+ SRBC Active Proposed Reviewed $8,300,000 $4,900,000 Hybrid/Passive Alternative $7,500,000 Alternative Phased Passive $3,200,000+
SITE
Coal & Bear Creeks
Morris Run
SRBC Active Alternative Proposed Reviewed Phased Passive $522,212 $222,571 $17,500
TOTAL
$5.2M
$5.8-7.2M
$7.1M+
$2.4M
$0.9-1.3M
$0.3M
$34M
$16-27M
$11M+
2003 SRBC report cost estimates utilized TARCO Technologies, Inc. Watershed Restoration Analysis Model (WRAM v1.2); cost estimates for alternatives and SRBC system review utilized U.S. Dept. of Interior, Office of Surface Mining (AMDTreat v4.0). More detailed cost information for the above noted systems is provided in Tables 10 & 13. Please note that alternative cost information for the Lower Fall Brook (DFB099) discharge is provided in Table 16.
1.0
SCOPE OF WORK (1) The review and validation of the October 2003, Watershed Assessment and Remediation Strategy for Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Upper Tioga River Watershed by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) [2003 SRBC report]. The review is to focus on AMD source characterization, data quality, treatment technologies, and cost estimates. [The 2003 SRBC report included by reference the June 2003, Upper Tioga River Watershed Acid Mine Drainage Conceptual Treatment and Restoration Plan by Gannett Fleming, Inc. (2003 Gannett Fleming report).] (2) The preparation of a validation report discussing the technical approach to water quality restoration for the upper Tioga River. The report is to be written to express comments, second opinions, and recommendations. The report also contains alternative treatment designs, cost estimates, and further data requirements.
As stated in the USACE Contract, the project scope includes the following:
2.0
BACKGROUND
Historical mining of coal in the vicinity of Blossburg has substantially impacted major tributaries to the Tioga River. Even with contributions from non-impacted tributaries downstream of the coal-bearing area, the Tioga River remains acidic for about 13 miles with excessive concentrations of iron, manganese, and aluminum to Tioga Lake. The US Army Corps of Engineers-Baltimore District (CENAB) constructed the Tioga-Hammond Dam Complex (THDC) in 1978 and currently operates and maintains the facility with the primary purpose of flood-control. As part of the THDC, a channel was constructed to convey flow from the net alkaline Hammond Lake to improve the water quality (raise pH) in the Tioga Lake. Incorporating information from numerous studies conducted in the area since 1939, the SRBC completed a plan in 2003 to ameliorate the impacts of abandoned mine drainage to major tributaries and the Tioga River. The 2003 SRBC report further describes acidity contributions to streams from non-AMD sources, citing the following studies: Hughey, 1993; Moase et al, 1999; and as noted in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report. [Hughey (1993) and Moase et al (1999) were not available for review.] 3.0 LOCATION
The project area lies in northcentral Pennsylvania and includes the municipalities of Blossburg Borough and Bloss, Hamilton, and Ward Townships and the communities of Arnot, Blossburg, Morris Run, and Fall Brook in the headwaters of the Tioga River. The 35- to 40-sq. mi. area of interest is depicted on the following 7 USGS topographic maps: Cherry Flats, Blossburg, and Gleason. Many of the abandoned mine discharges and large segments of the receiving streams are located within the Tioga State Forest managed by the PA Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources (PADCNR). (Based on recent PADCNR maps, significant additional acreage has been incorporated into Tioga State Forest from that shown on USGS topographic maps and on maps provided in the 2003 SRBC report. This additional area may provide further opportunities to implement restoration activities on public land.) (See attached maps.)
4.0
GENERAL AREAL GEOLOGY
The geologic setting dictates the location of the coal reserve and influences the layout of the underground mines, the surface and subsurface flow regimes, and the location of the communities which were developed in response to the mining and associated transportation opportunities. The Blossburg coal basin lies within the northeast-southwest trending Blossburg Syncline (doubly-plunging) and is ~16 miles in length along the axial trace and is a total of ~4 miles in width extending up both the southeastern and northwestern flanks. The community of Arnot is near the base of the trough (axial trace) with Johnson Creek on the southeastern flank. The axial trace also crosses the Tioga River and passes through Blossburg with Bear Creek on the northwestern flank. The mouths of Coal Creek, Morris Run, and Fall Brook are located on the southeastern flank with the headwaters on the northwestern flank. (Ashley, 1928) The coalbeds (Allegheny Gp.) are classified as semi-bituminous (~20% volatile matter) and include [bituminous correlations in brackets] the 1- to 2-foot thick Bear Creek [Brookville?], 2- to 5-foot thick Bloss [Lower Kittanning], 1- to 3-foot thick Morgan [Upper Kittanning], and 2- to 3-foot thick Seymour [Lower Freeport], which have interburdens averaging 30, 80, and 40 feet, respectively. (Sisler, 1926; Ashley, 1928) The Bloss coalbed was of sufficient thickness and quality to be extensively mined by underground methods. Where thickness was acceptable, the Morgan and Seymour coalbeds also supported commercial underground mining. As the coalbeds cropout in the area and are relatively closely-spaced, where the topography and other site conditions are conducive, multiple-seam surface operations were conducted. Although the 1968 Gannett Fleming Corddry & Carpenter, Inc. report was not reviewed, the 2003 SRBC report cited this reference stating that All coal seams in the area have associated acid-producing materials. Except for specific discharges in the Johnson Creek Watershed, this is supported by the acidic nature of the mine drainage. In addition, the absence of alkalinity in the abandoned discharges from mining the Bloss coalbed and in the upland, essentially unmined, reaches of Fall Brook, Morris Run, Coal Creek, and Bear Creek also suggests a lack of significant calcareous material (such as limestone) in the recharge area. 5.0 MINING HISTORY
Coal was first documented in the Blossburg area in 1792. According to the 2003 SRBC report, underground mining began in the Bear Creek, Morris Run, Fall Brook, and Johnson Creek Watersheds by 1815, 1853, 1859, and 1865, respectively. By the early 1900s, underground mining had declined with coal primarily produced by surface mining from the 1940s to 1990. The general extent of underground mine workings was identified in the 2003 SRBC report; however, the location and digitization of underground mine maps was listed as a recommendation for future work in the report. WPA mapping, available online, showed more limited mine workings. Additional effort at selected sites to identify the mine layout and attitude of the coalbed may assist in the development of cost-effective, site-specific restoration designs. 6.0 ABANDONDED MINE DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS
6.1 General Description: Through a 2001 Growing Greener Grant, the SRBC conducted a water monitoring program to identify primary sources of AMD and impacts to the receiving streams. (No other primary sources were noted during a very limited field review on 4
02-Oct-06 and 03-Oct-06.) To generally characterize the AMD, the range and average for selected parameters and discharge points listed in Table B2 (2003 SRBC report) and Appendix A (2003 Gannett Fleming report), are provided in the following table. Table 1. Summary of Abandoned Mine Discharge Characteristics [Mean/(min. max.)]
Receiving Stream Sample Point DFB001(1) DFB099 DJC106 DJC900 Events (n) 6 11 6 6 5 5 2 10 10 12 2 12 6 Flow (gpm) pH (lab) Alk (mg/L) Acidity (mg/L) TFe (mg/L) TMn (mg/L) TAl (mg/L)
140
(70-240)
3.5
(3.3-3.6)
0
(0-0)
117
(88-167)
20
(8-49)
15
(9-21)
5
(3-8)
Fall Brook
750
(210-2500)
3.4
(3.3-3.5)
0
(0-0)
186
(131-249)
2
(1-2)
24
(17-34)
17
(13-23)
50
(10-130)
2.9
(2.8-3.0)
0
(0-0)
185
(145-219)
8
(6-17)
3
(1-6)
10
(6-17)
2300
(500-5600)
5.7
(5.3-6.1)
13
(10-16)
42
(38-46)
1
(1-1)
1
(1-1)
1
(<1-1)
Johnson Creek
DJC902 DJC903 DJC904 DMR001
80
(30-150)
2.9
(2.8-3.0)
0
(0-0)
332
(279-392)
24
(8-63)
29
(19-37)
24
(21-27)
50
(10-110)
3.0
(3.0-3.1)
0
(0-0)
274
(242-334)
4
(3-6)
27
(18-35)
24
(21-30)
100
(60-140)
4.6
(4.6-4.7)
2
(1-2)
70
(63-77)
<1
(<1-<1)
3
(3-3)
3
(3-3)
290
(110-480)
2.9
(2.8-3.0)
0
(0-0)
398
(352-443)
10
(8-11)
30
(22-34)
40
(31-47)
Morris Run Tioga River Coal Creek Bear Creek
DMR003 DMR004 DTR003 DCC005 DBC101(2)
190
(60-390)
3.1
(3.1-3.2)
0
(0-0)
232
(184-277)
5
(3-8)
29
(22-36)
20
(16-24)
1300
(460-2500)
3.2
(3.1-3.3)
0
(0-0)
233
(203-278)
8
(6-11)
25
(20-30)
19
(14-24)
20
(20-20)
3.6
(3.6-3.6)
0
(0-0)
264
(247-281)
3
(3-3)
32
(30-35)
28
(24-33)
2400
(1100-5300)
2.8
(2.7-2.9)
0
(0-0)
441
(327-619)
43
(31-64)
10
(6-14)
33
(19-52)
420
3.0
231
11
19
(80-980) (2.8-3.1) (0-0) (131-406) (6-21) (4-17) (9-35) Flow measurement values rounded for clarity; alkalinity and acidity values as reported in Appendix A of the 2003 Gannett Fleming report; total metals rounded to nearest whole number; average laboratory pH as reported in the 2003 SRBC report -- not reviewed as to determination by hydronium ion concentration (1) DFB001 from Appendix A page A-77, also includes DFB002 and DFB004 (2) DBC101 below confluence of discharges DBC100, 102, 103
Comments The field pH was reported in both the 2003 Gannett Fleming and the 2003 SRBC reports. The 2003 Gannett Fleming report also provided the laboratory pH. Comparing the laboratory and field pH enabled spurious readings to be excluded during evaluation of the data. In highly reactive water with significant alkalinity and dissolved ferrous iron, the lab and field pH measurements can vary substantially. With the exception of only a few discharges, based on the dissolved oxygen, ferrous iron, and pH readings, a significant difference between the lab and field pH was not expected and was confirmed by a limited review of selected analyses. (Dissolved oxygen and ferrous iron concentrations were provided in Table B2 of the 2003 SRBC report.) To supplement the data in the 2003 reports, in order to provide a limited evaluation of 5
the measured acidity, calculated acidities based on the laboratory pH and total metals (assumed to be dissolved) concentrations have been provided later in this report for selected points. 6.2 Discharge Characteristics in Subwatersheds: In the Johnson Creek Subwatershed, the discharges have widely-varying characteristics having average values of 2.9 to 5.7 pH with low to moderate acidity (40 to 330 mg/L) and moderate to excessively high flows (50 to 2300 gpm) and low to moderate total iron (<1 to 24 mg/L), manganese (1 to 29 mg/L), and aluminum (1 to 24 mg/L) concentrations. Please note that discharge DJC900 with the highest flow rates (average-2300 gpm; maximum-5600 gpm) has a pH of over 5, a measurable alkalinity (lab) of about 10 mg/L, and consistently low total metal content (1 mg/L) at the point monitored. Field measurements at the source of DJC900 on 03-Oct-06 indicated a pH of 5.4 with an alkalinity of 12 mg/L. Although identification of the conditions responsible for the alkalinity is outside the project scope, hypotheses include flooded (confined) conditions within the underground mine workings, mining of other coalbeds, and the presence of (and weathering of) calcareous material in the recharge area. In the Fall Brook, Morris Run, Coal Creek, and Bear Creek Subwatersheds, the discharges (average values), with pH ranging from 2.8 to 3.4, contain no measurable alkalinity and moderate acidity (120 to 440 mg/L) with low to moderate total iron (2 to 43 mg/L) and low to moderate total manganese (3 to 32 mg/L) and total aluminum (5 to 40 mg/L) concentrations. The average flow rates are moderate to high from 140 to 2400 gpm. There is one discharge (DTR003) that flows directly to the Tioga River. This discharge has a low flow rate (19 gpm), low pH (3.6), and is moderately acidic (~300 mg/L acidity) with low total iron (3 mg/L) and moderate concentrations of total manganese (32 mg/L) and total aluminum (28 mg/L). Note there are only 2 events both in the fall of 2002. As fall is characteristically a low-flow period, in order to more meaningfully evaluate the discharge characteristics, additional monitoring was recommended in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report. 6.3 Design Criteria for Conceptual Treatment Systems: Through the same 2001 Growing Greener Grant that included the water monitoring program, the SRBC retained Gannett Fleming, Inc. to develop a restoration plan based on the monitoring. A statistical analysis was performed by Gannett Fleming to develop the design criteria listed in the Table 2. (Note limited sampling.) In addition to determining the average (mean) to describe the central tendency, the standard deviation and the upper 95% confidence limit for the mean was determined. This indicates that calculation of the mean from future sampling of the population is expected to lie within the 95% confidence interval; i.e., 5% of the mean values would be expected to be greater than the upper 95% confidence limit. In other words, there is a 95% surety that the true mean value for the entire population (not just a sample set) lies between the upper and lower limits of the 95% confidence interval. More than 10% of the individual measurements of any given parameter may exceed the upper and lower 95% confidence limits and still provide a mean that is within the 95% confidence interval. For instance, measurements of very high and very low flows in a sample set may average out to provide a mean that is similar or equivalent to a mean calculated from a sample set with consistently moderate flows.
Table 2. Implementation Stage, Treatment System Design Criteria with Cost Estimates Values: Average/95% flow (See notes.) Design Parameters for Conceptual Designs from 2003 Gannett Fleming, Table 3 Stage, System Type and Costs from 2003 Gannett Fleming, Table 7 and 2003 SRBC, Table 13
Stage 1 Alk Acidity TFe TMn TAl System Const. O&M 15-yr PV Sample Fig. Events Flow pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) ($) ($) ($) (#) (n) (gpm) Type Point DFB001(1) 10 1-6 140/270 3.5/3.6 0/0 117/102 20/22 15/13 5/5 Chemical 220,000 31,000 590,000 Fall Brook DFB099 11 11 750/2000 3.4/3.4 0/0 186/151 2/1 24/18 17/14 Chemical 1,100,000 140,000 2,900,000 DJC106 14 6 50/140 2.8/2.8 0/0 185/158 8/10 3/2 10/6 Passive 61,000 0 61,000 DJC900 13 6 2300/6100 5.7/5.4 13/7 42/48 1/1 1/1 1/1 Passive 450,000 1,300 470,000 Johnson Ck. DJC902 15 5 80/180 2.9/3.0 0/0 332/268 24/6 29/19 24/22 Passive 1,000,000 6,300 1,100,000 DJC903 15 5 50/140 3.0/3.0 0/0 274/264 4/6 27/19 24/20 Passive 710,000 2,200 730,000 DJC904 12 2 100/250 4.6/4.6 2/1 70/54 <1/<1 3/3 3/2 Passive 330,000 <100 330,000 DMR001 17 10 290/530 2.9/2.9 0/0 398/367 10/11 30/28 40/36 Morris Run DMR003 1,900,000 520,000 8,300,000 17 10 190/400 3.1/3.2 0/0 232/206 5/4 29/23 20/18 Chemical DMR004 17 12 1300/2600 3.2/3.2 0/0 233/227 8/7 25/31 19/23 Tioga River DTR003 16 2 20/20 3.6/3.6 0/0 264/333 3/3 32/43 28/48 Passive 240,000 200 240,000 Coal Creek DCC005 18 12 2400/4800 2.8/2.9 0/0 441/317 43/33 10/6 33/21 Chemical 3,300,000 1,900,000 26,000,000 18 6 420/1200 3.0/3.0 0/0 231/121 11/5 9/3 19/9 Bear Creek DBC101(2) Stage - arranged by order of recommended implementation; Fig. (#) - figure number of Treatment Concept Plan/Conceptual Treatment Plan; flow values rounded for clarity; pH rounded to nearest tenth as individual measurements recorded to nearest tenth (accuracy); alkalinity and acidity as reported in Table 3; total metals rounded to nearest whole number; 95% flow - stated on p. 15 of the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, Where a reasonable correlation was observed, the resulting trend equation was used to predict the 95% CI flow concentrations. Otherwise, the 95% CI concentration was assumed to occur at the 95% CI flow. (See the following discussion.) (1) DFB001 from Appendix A page A-77, also includes DFB002 and DFB004 (2) DBC101 below confluence of discharges DBC100, 102, 103 Receiving Stream
3 4
Correlation trends were also examined by plotting flow vs. concentration. Where the r-value was thought to identify a reasonable correlation, the concentration for individual parameters was determined from the trend equation based on the upper 95% confidence limit about the mean for flow rate. This approach, by utilizing concentrations as influenced by flow rate, reflects the impact of natural processes on the specific discharge. If a trend was not identified, the upper 95% confidence limit for a specific parameter was assumed to occur at the upper 95% confidence limit for the flow rate. Please note, the calculated upper 95% confidence limit for a specific parameter is a value that is derived independent of flow conditions, physical setting and other factors that may impact the overall chemical characteristics of the discharge being evaluated. Though only a few of the design criteria use the calculated 95% confidence limit for a given parameter, each of the independently calculated 95% confidence limit values are higher than the maximum measured values, with the exception of pH. In order to verify the design criteria developed by Gannett Fleming, BioMost Inc. attempted to replicate the statistical analysis utilizing the same statistical methods identified on page A-2 of Appendix A in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report. According to the report, the statistics included average, maximum, minimum, standard deviation, and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) determined by using the Microsoft Excel AVERAGE, MAX, MIN, STDEV, and TINV functions respectively. While BioMost was able to replicate the average, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation values, we were not able to immediately replicate the 95% CI values. BioMost therefore began to further investigate in order to duplicate the values. It appears that the 95% Confidence Interval that was reported may have actually been the upper 95% Confidence Limit. A 95% Confidence Interval is a calculated value that is derived by subtracting the 95% Lower Confidence Limit from the 95% Upper Confidence Limit (Heath, 1995). As the 95% CI is similar to a range value it would most likely not be used as a design parameter. However, the 95% Upper Confidence Limit could potentially be used. To calculate a 95% Upper Confidence Limit, the standard deviation is multiplied by the tvalue generated by the TINV function and then added to the average value. To generate a 95% Lower Confidence Limit, the standard deviation is multiplied by the value and then subtracted from the average value. The TINV function in Microsoft Excel returns the t-value of the Students t-distribution as a function of the probability and the degrees of freedom (n-1). The only way BioMost was able to duplicate the 95% CI value reported was to calculate the 95% Upper Confidence Limit using a t-value that was produced by using a single tail, 0.05 probability (95%), and a degrees of freedom value of n instead of (n-1). For example using sample point DMR004 with 12 sampling events, an average flow of 1298 gpm, and a standard deviation of 754 the following results would occur. a. For a single tailed, 0.05 probability and 11 degrees of freedom t-value of 1.796 the 95% Confidence Interval would be calculated as: [1298 + (1.796*754)] - [1298 - (1.796*754)] = 2,708 gpm b. For a single tailed, 0.05 probability and 12 degrees of freedom t-value of 1.782 the 95% Confidence Interval would be calculated as: 8
[1298 + (1.782*754)] - [1298 - (1.782*754)] = 2,687 gpm c. For a single tailed, 0.05 probability and 11 degrees of freedom t-value of 1.796 the Upper 95% Confidence Limit would be calculated as: 1298 + (1.796*754) = 2,652 gpm d. For a single tailed, 0.05 probability and 12 degrees of freedom t-value of 1.782 the Upper 95% Confidence Limit would be calculated as: 1298 + (1.782*754) = 2,642 gpm The value reported as the 95% CI in the 2003 Gannett Fleming was 2,642 gpm. These calculations were then repeated for other sampling points to verify that the same 95% CI value could be replicated which it was. While the difference between values in the above example may not seem overly significant, for other sampling points the difference can be extremely significant. At DBC102, the calculated values would range from 431 gpm as the 95% Upper Confidence Limit with 3 degrees of freedom to 789 gpm as the 95% Confidence Interval with 2 degrees of freedom. Another approach in determining design criteria was utilized for comparison purposes relating to the existing conceptual designs with associated cost estimates and is described later within the letter report. The alternate approach is only for comparison and does not mean that the approach is preferred. 7.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF AMD IMPACTS TO MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
To very generally review and distill the impacts to the receiving streams, the average and range values are described. The 2003 SRBC report provides monitoring information for the receiving stream both above and below the confluences of the degraded flows. The following table provides a side-by-side comparison of selected characteristics of the major tributaries before and after receiving the abandoned mine drainage. 7.1 Fall Brook: The Fall Brook Subwatershed is generally divided into two areas, upper and lower, for discussions regarding water quality and treatment. In the upper Fall Brook area, sampling at FALL2.6 and FALL3.0 (not provided in Table 3), above the AMD discharges of interest, indicates that the stream is perennial with a consistently depressed pH. The upper Fall Brook discharges (DFB001, 002, 003, 004), with an average combined flow rate of 140 gpm, contribute additional proton and metal acidity to the stream. Even though direct comparison is tenuous due to limited concurrent monitoring events, there appears to be substantial contributions to stream flow other than from the upper AMD discharges. The other sources appear to aid in the amelioration of the drainage from the upper discharges. As the upper Fall Brook discharges comprise, on average, only about 4% of the flow in Fall Brook at FALL2.0, the total metal and sulfate concentrations remain low. DFB099 (lower Fall Brook discharge) appears to be the primary source of flow to Fall Brook between the upstream monitoring point at FALL2.0 (below upper AMD discharges) and the downstream monitoring point at FALL1.0. DFB099, with flow rates ranging between 210 to
Table 3. Summary of AMD Impacts to Major Tributaries Values: Mean(minimum-maximum)

Major Tributary Sample Point FALL2.6 DFB001(1) FALL2.0 DFB099 FALL1.0 DJC904 JOHN3.0 DJC900 JOHN2.0 DJC106 BELL1.0 UNT5.0(2) JOHN1.0 MORR3.0 DMR001(3) MORR1.0 COAL2.0 DCC005 COAL1.0 Description In-stream AMD Disc. In-stream AMD Disc. In-stream AMD Disc. In-stream AMD Disc. In-stream AMD Disc. Tributary Tributary In-stream In-stream AMD Disc. In-stream In-stream AMD Disc. In-stream Events (n) 2 1-6 6 11 6 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 11 6 6 12 6 Flow (gpm) pH (lab) Alkalinity (mg/L) Acidity (mg/L) TFe (mg/L) TMn (mg/L) TAl (mg/L) SO4 (mg/L)
Fall Brook
1400 (170-2600) 140 (70-240) 3400 (330-6900) 750 (210-2500) 4100 (400-8500) 100 (59-135) 1400 (110-2900) 2300 (500-5600) 4700 (1400-9600) 50 (10-130) 2300 (220-5300) 290 (0-590) 9100 (1700-20000) 840 (0-2300) 1600 (460-3000) 3200 (1100-8600) 110 (0-410) 2400 (1100-5300) 2100 (1200-3700)
4.6 (4.5-4.6) 3.5 (2.6-3.9) 4.3 (3.9-4.5) 3.4 (3.3-3.5) 4.1 (3.9-4.2) 4.6 (4.6-4.7) 6.3 (6.0-6.5) 5.7 (5.3-6.1) 6.2 (6.1-6.4) 2.8 (2.8-3.0) 6.6 (6.3-70) 3.7 (3.5-4.1) 6.3 (6.2-6.5) 4.7 (4.6-4.8) 3.1 3.3 (3.2-3.4) 5.8 (5.4-6.2) 2.8 (2.7-2.9) 2.8 (2.7-3.0)
6 (6-7) 0 (0-0) 4 (0-8) 0 (0-0) 3 (0-4) 2 (1-2) 16 (7-26) 13 (10-16) 14 (8-20) 0 (0-0) 21 (13-36) 1 (0-5) 17 (9-28) 7 (6-9) 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 10 (6-11) 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0)
52 (44-59) 117 (88-167) 34 (11-51) 186 (131-249) 65 (32-108) 70 (63-77) 13 (0-32) 42 (38-46) 20 (0-41) 185 (145-219) 1 (0-4) 108 (58-168) 19 (0-41) 11 (3-18) 258 (219-302) 166 (96-204) 19 (0-37) 441 (327-619 392 (278-507)
<1 (<1-1) 20 (8-49) 1 (<1-1) 2 (1-2) <1 (<1-1) <1 (<1-<1) 1 (<1-2) 1 (1-1) <1 (<1-1) 8 (6-17) <1 (<1-<1) 1 (<1-1) <1 (<1-<1) <1 (<1-<1) 8 (6-11) 4 (3-5) <1 (<1-1) 43 (31-64) 34 (27-45)
2 (1-3) 15 (10-21) 2 (<1-6) 24 (17-34) 4 (1-8)
1 (<1-1) 5 (3-8) <1 (<1-2) 17 (13-23) 4 (2-8)
23 (<20-27) 267 (194-333) 32 (<20-60) 526 (352-904) 129 (63-235)
Johnson Creek
3 (3-3) 3 (3-4) 220 (199-240) <1 (<1-1) <1 (<1-1) 66 (45-86) 1 (1-1) 1(<1-1) 96 (88-112) <1(<1-<1) <1(<1-<1) 62 (49-76) 3 (1-6) 10 (6-17) 228 (189-267) <1(<1-<1) <1(<1-<1) <20 (<20-22) 9 (7-14) 10 (7-17) 193 (134-326) <1(<1-1) <1 (<1-1) 49 (21-75) <1(<1-<1) <1(<1-<1) <20 (<20-22) 26 (20-31) 22 (17-27) 612 (386-784) 17 (10-23) 16 (10-20) 510 (306-732) <1 (<1-1) 10 (6-14) 8 (5-11) <1(<1-<1) 33 (19-52) 27 (19-40) 30 (<20-42) 536 (128-987) 451 (266-771)
Morris Run Coal Creek Bear Creek
DBC101(4) AMD Disc. 6 420 (80-980) 3.0 (2.8-3.1) 0 (0-0) 231 (131-406) 11 (6-21) 9 (4-17) 19 (9-35) 424 (216-771) BEAR1.0 In-stream 6 290 (48-670) 3.0 (3.0-3.2) 0 (0-0) 195 (120-266) 7 (4-8) 7 (4-11) 16 (9-26) 311 (205-477) Arranged from upstream to downstream; compiled from monitoring data (2003 SRBC; 2003 Gannett Fleming) DTR003 which drains directly to Tioga River not included in above table; flow values rounded for clarity; alkalinity, acidity, and sulfates as reported in Appendix A of 2003 Gannet Fleming report; total metals rounded to nearest whole number; average pH as reported in the 2003 SRBC report -- not reviewed as to determination by hydronium ion concentration; readings at lower detection limit assumed equal to detection limit for average value determination in 2003 Gannett Fleming report (1) DFB001 from Appendix A-7, includes DFB002 and DFB004; (2)UNT5.0 below confluence of DJC901, 2, 3; (3)DMR001 includes DMR003, 4; (4)DBC101 below confluence of discharges DBC100, 102, 103
10
2500 gpm, contributes, on average, about 20% of the flow to Fall Brook. At the downstream monitoring point at FALL1.0 near the confluence with the Tioga River, the pH is further depressed to 4.1 and the acidity is increased to 65 mg/L. On average, the total iron content remains low at <1 mg/L with total manganese increasing to 4 mg/L, total aluminum to 4 mg/L, and sulfates to 130 mg/L. 7.2 Johnson Creek: Johnson Creek at all reported monitoring points DJC1.0, 2.0, 3.0 maintains a pH of 6.0 or greater at all times even though acidic AMD discharges, some with excessive flows, enter the stream. Bellman Run (BELL1.0), averaging 2300 gpm, 6.6 pH, 21 mg/L alkalinity with total metals and sulfates at or near detection limits, confluences with Johnson Creek above the acidic drainage from the mining area on South Mountain (UNT5.0). Through dilution and neutralization capacity, Bellman Run substantially assists in the amelioration of the AMD contributions and at JOHN1.0, prior to entering the Tioga River, the total metals content of Johnson Creek is at or below detection limits with pH ranging between 6.2 and 6.5. Sulfates also remain low, ranging between 21 and 75 mg/L. There is, however, low buffering capacity with respect to acidity as the alkalinity is low, ranging from 9 to 28 mg/L. 7.3 Morris Run: Above the influence of the AMD discharges of interest, Morris Run is mildly acidic and contains essentially no metals and sulfates. The combined influence of DMR001, 003, 004 significantly impacts the stream. At times, ~50% of the flow in Morris Run is the drainage associated with these discharges. (Combined AMD average: 1600 gpm; Morris Run at MORR1.0: 3200 gpm) Near the confluence with the Tioga River, Morris Run (MORR1.0) is consistently acidic with pH ranging from 3.2 to 3.4 and measured acidity ranging from 96 to 200 mg/L. The metal parameters commonly used to identify the impacts of coal mine drainage have also elevated with an average total iron, manganese, and aluminum content of 4 mg/L, 17 mg/L, and 16 mg/L, respectively. The average sulfate content of Morris Run of 510 mg/L also indicates substantial mine drainage impacts. 7.4 Coal Creek: Coal Creek upstream of DCC005 is dry at times, reportedly due, at least in part, to loss into abandoned underground mine workings in the recharge area of DCC005. When flowing, however, the stream is very slightly acidic with total metals and sulfates at or near the detection limit. DCC005, based on the monitoring data, is the main source of flow to Coal Creek. This discharge has excessively high flow rates, ranging from 1100 gpm to 5300 gpm. The pH is low, averaging 2.8, with average total metals concentrations for iron, manganese, and aluminum of 43 mg/L, 10 mg/L, and 33 mg/L, respectively, and with sulfates ranging from 130 mg/L to 990 mg/L. Comparison of the flow rates for the discharge at DCC005 with that of Coal Creek at COAL1.0, near the confluence with the Tioga River, may not reflect actual conditions as monitoring was typically conducted on different days and as the flow rates in Coal Creek may fluctuate rapidly based on precipitation events. On 30-May-02, sampling was conducted at both points and, on that date, the flow rate in the stream at COAL1.0 (2669 gpm) was less than the flow rate reported for the discharge at DCC005 (3207 gpm). The lower flow rates in the stream may also reflect differing accuracy and precision of monitoring methods, loss of flow to the subsurface (losing stream) or other factors. Comparing average values, there also appears to be a decrease in acidity, iron, manganese, aluminum, and sulfates of between 10% and 20% at the downstream monitoring point. When comparing the analyses of samples collected on 30-May-02, the concentrations of these parameters do not appear to reflect a 11
significant change, however. (Even though acidity readings were similar, the total suspended solids in the stream sample taken on this day were the highest reported for the sample set at 54 mg/L which makes comparison of total metals tenuous.) Nonetheless, abandoned mine drainage from DCC005 is the primary contributor to the flow and quality of Coal Creek. (During a limited site inspection of the area on 02-Oct-06 and 03-Oct-06, an additional AMD source with minor flow was noted. Iron minerals precipitating at low pH were also observed to be cementing the substrate; however, decreases in iron and sulfate concentrations were not determined and may not be significant.) 7.5 Bear Creek: The headwaters of Bear Creek appear to be predominately fed by the abandoned mine discharges. (The stream channel above the discharges was dry on 02-Oct06.) Comparing the monitoring of Bear Creek at BEAR1.0 downstream of the discharges, near the confluence of the Tioga River, indicates that the combined discharges monitored at DBC101 are the primary source of flow in Bear Creek. Similar to the monitoring at Coal Creek, DBC101 and BEAR1.0 were monitored on different days and the flow rate of Bear Creek appears to be less than the flow rate of the discharges. The flow rates of Bear Creek at BEAR1.0 average 290 gpm (range - 48 gpm to 670 gpm), and the discharges at DBC101 average 420 gpm (range - 84 gpm to 980 gpm). The average concentration of acidity decreases by 30 mg/L with iron, manganese, and aluminum decreasing by 4 mg/L, 2 mg/L, and 3 mg/L, respectively. Sulfates, on average, also decrease in the downstream monitoring point by 110 mg/L. 8.0 AMD AND NON-AMD ACIDITY IN MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
Acidity measured in streams is not only attributed to abandoned mine drainage but also to other sources. A brief and general discussion of the acidity associated with the AMD discharges and other possible sources of acidity are provided in this section. 8.1 Stream Acidity from Abandoned Mine Drainage: The impact to the streams by abandoned mine drainage is further depicted by determining the calculated acidity from the hydrolyzable (dissolved) metals and the pH. As only total concentrations of iron [total ferrous (Fe+2) reported for some discharge samples], manganese, and aluminum were measured, for the purposes of this review, total and dissolved metal concentrations are assumed equal. Where the pH was >3.5 the iron was assumed to be dissolved ferrous (Fe+2): where the pH was <3.5 the iron was assumed to be dissolved ferric (Fe+3). With these assumptions, a conservative (greater) calculated acidity is provided. The following accepted equation (Watzlaf et al, 2004) is used to calculate acidity associated with standard mine drainage parameters: (1) Acidcalc = 1.79Fe+2 + 2.68Fe+3 + 5.56Al + 1.82Mn + 50,000(10-pH)
Using Equation 1, acidity is calculated from the pH and the sum of the milliequivalents of the dissolved metals. (Note that hydrolysis of other cations not included in the standard analysis for coal mine drainage would also liberate hydrogen ions.) Metal concentrations are in mg/L with the calculated acidity (Acidcalc) reported as equivalent mg/L of CaCO3. The conversion factors in Equation 1 are simplified from the following equation (Watzlaf et al, 2004): (2) Acidcalc = 50 [2Fe+2/56 + 3Fe+3/56 + 3Al/27 + 2Mn/55 + 1000(10-pH)]
12
Pollutant loadings were calculated for the individual sample analyses using Equation 3 and then averaged where the concentration of the pollutant in milligrams per liter (mg/L) is multiplied by the flow rate of the stream or discharge in gallons per minute (gpm) and a conversion factor to express loading in pounds per day: (3) Loading (lbs/day) = flow (gpm) x concentration of pollutant (mg/L) x 0.01202
Equation 3 expresses loading in English units. The conversion factor is derived as follows; Loading (lbs/day) =
# gallons minute 60 min 1 hour 24 hours 1 day # mg L 1 Kg 1,000,000 mg 2.20462 lbs 1 Kg 3.7854 L 1 gallon
To express loading in metric units, see the US DOE publication The Passive Treatment of Coal Mine Drainage (Watzlaf et al, 2004). Table 4. Acidity (Meas. vs. Calc.) and Alkalinity for Major Tributaries near Mouth
Measured Acidity Calculated Acidity Measured Alkalinity mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day Fall Brook FALL1.0 65 2700 46 1900 NA NA Johnson Creek JOHN1.0 19 2500 <4 <500 17 1300 Morris Run MORR1.0 166 5400 185 6400 0 0 (drains to Tioga River) DTR003 264 60 253 58 0 0 Coal Creek COAL1.0 392 9100 427 10000 0 0 Bear Creek BEAR1.0 195 520 222 650 0 0 Values rounded for clarity; measured acidity average as reported in Appendix A of 2003 Gannett Fleming report Tributary Point
As depicted in the table above, the streams that contribute the majority of the acidity to the Tioga River from abandoned mine drainage, based on both the calculated and measured acidities, are Coal Creek and Morris Run. Note that the average calculated acidity loadings are higher than the average measured acidity loadings in Coal Creek, Morris Run, and Bear Creek, which may indicate that some total metals readings include solids and/or dissolved ferrous iron at low pH. As titratable bicarbonate alkalinity (HCO3-) is only present when the pH is >4.5 (procedure described in Standard Methods), measured alkalinity is only shown for Johnson Creek. Note also that the calculated acidity concentration and loading are reported as less than. This designation is to reflect that within the sample set the measured metal concentrations are below detection limits. The actual contributions to acidity loading, therefore, are expected to be significantly less. Alkalinity was reported for Fall Brook even though the pH of the water is always 4.5 or less in the 2003 SRBC report, as the PA State Laboratory titrates to a pH end point of 3.9. At pH 3.9, PCO2 is zero. This procedure is described in ASTM D1067-02. 8.2 Stream Acidity in Headwaters from Non-AMD Sources: As shown in the table, Summary of AMD Impacts to Major Tributaries, some AMD-impacted streams, most notably Fall Brook and Morris Run, have a depressed pH above the confluence with the abandoned mine drainage of interest. 13
Table 5. Acidity (Meas. vs. Calc.) and Alkalinity for Fall Brook & Morris Run Headwaters
Meas. Acidity Calc. Acidity Meas. Alkalinity Main Acidity Events pH Point n Range mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day Contributor mg/L lbs/day Non-AMD FALL3.0 6 4.5-4.8 21 150 <9 <91 7 80 Fall Brook AMD FALL1.0 6 3.9-4.2 65 2700 46 1900 NA NA Non-AMD MORR3.0 6 4.6-4.8 11 91 <4 <56 7 69 Morris Run AMD MORR1.0 6 3.2-3.4 166 5400 185 6400 0 0 Average values except where indicated; arranged from upstream (uppermost monitoring) to downstream (near mouth); values rounded for clarity; lab pH; loading calculated for individual sampling events and then averaged; calculated concentrations determined from average flow rate and average loading Tributary
8.2.1 Acidity Calculated from Metals and pH: Using Equation 1, the calculated acidity from dissolved (hydrolyzable) metals and pH is low at upstream monitoring points. Where the concentration and loading are preceded by < indicates that some metal concentrations were reported to be less than the detection limit. As the value of the detection limit was used in these cases, the calculated acidities shown in Table 5 are, therefore, greater than the actual values. Using Fall Brook as the example, the contribution from proton acidity to the measured acidity, at FALL3.0 (non-AMD) with a pH of 4.5 is 1.6 mg/L and with a pH of 4.7 is 1.0 mg/L. Iron does not contribute significantly to the measured acidity, as total iron is always below the detection limit of <0.3 mg/L. As total manganese ranges from 0.5 mg/L to 2.0 mg/L and total aluminum ranges from below the detection limit (<0.5 mg/L) to 2.0 mg/L, if these metals are in the dissolved form, at the maximum concentrations for both parameters, the contribution to acidity would be about 7 mg/L. 8.2.2 Non-AMD Acidity Contributors: Note, however, that the measured acidity is higher in the non-AMD impacted segments of Fall Brook and Morris Run than the calculated acidity, indicating that other sources or factors are contributing to the measured acidity. Common sources contributing to stream acidification include acidic deposition (acid rain), agricultural runoff (particularly fertilizers high in nitrogen), and natural organic materials. While analytical data were not provided in the 2003 SRBC and 2003 Gannett Fleming reports to specifically identify the cause of the additional measured acidity, several explanations or factors were identified that may be responsible either individually or cumulatively. [See 2003 SRBC report: Executive Summary (p. 1, 2); Water Resource Characterization (p. 9, 11); Results of Investigation (p. 17, 21, 22, 24); Prioritization for Restoration (p. 41, 42); Recommendations (p. 43). See 2003 Gannett Fleming report: Assessment of Other Acidity Sources (p. 31 thru 35); Non-AMD Acidity (p. 40); Conclusions and Recommendations (p. 41).] Acid rain was considered one of the likely sources in the 2003 SRBC report. Based on weekly pH readings of precipitation at the Hills Creek State Park (located in Tioga County <3 miles south of the Tioga-Hammond Dam Complex and ~12 miles north of the area of interest), the pH has been consistently low and similar to or equal to the stream pH measured in the Fall Brook and Morris Run headwaters. [Included in the appendix are data for Hills Creek State Park (1995 to 2004) and a map, Hydrogen ion concentration as pH for measurements made at the Central Analytical Laboratory, 2005, that depicts the pH at ~4.5.] As calcareous material and other sources of alkalinity in the headwaters are reportedly lacking, the low pH precipitation is
14
expected to be reflected by a depressed pH in the streams. The proton acidity associated with acid rain, however, would be reflected in both the calculated and measured acidities. This still does not explain why the measured acidity is greater than the calculated acidity in the headwaters at FALL3.0 and MORR3.0. Another possible explanation or influence is the presence of natural organic acids. These organic acids can be present in streams and are typically associated with wetland environments where organic matter tends to decompose slowly. The 2003 SRBC and 2003 Gannett Fleming reports state that the wetlands in the headwaters of Fall Brook and Morris Run are natural contributors of organic acids, specifically referencing tannin. In addition, citing the same water monitoring data used in the 2003 SRBC and 2003 Gannett Fleming reports, the 22-Mar-02 Tioga River Watershed TMDL (approved 04-Apr-05) also mentions that Fall Brook, Morris Run, and other tributaries are impacted by low pH due to tannic acids produced by extensive wetland areas The TMDL further states that because of the nature of the acidity the headwaters of Fall Brook [and] Morris Run will not be addressed with TMDLs. The 2003 SRBC report states that the hot peroxide acidity method (a.k.a., hot acidity) was utilized for determining measured acidity. (For description of method, see APHA, 1998.) (Note that hydrogen peroxide dissociates to a weak acid: H2O2 = H+ + HO2- and, especially for nonlaboratory grade hydrogen peroxide, an acidic stabilizer may be an ingredient. Nonetheless, as only a few drops are used, the impact to the acidity measurement is considered negligible.) When titrating to a pH 8.3 endpoint with NaOH, the dissociation of hydrolyzable organic acids can contribute to the measurable acidity. In waters impacted by mine drainage, however, the contribution from organic acids is usually considered negligible. While hydrolyzable tannic acid, with an approximate empirical formula of C76H52O46, may be present in the headwater streams being fed by wetlands, other organic acids could also be present. As referenced in the 2003 SRBC report, previous researchers have documented that Total Organic Carbon is elevated in the watershed (Hughey, 1993; Moase et al, 1999). The data, however, was not provided in the 2003 SRBC report and the referenced studies were not readily available for review. In addition, there are potential problems associated with the execution of the test that could produce results with higher acidity values than the true value. For instance, if the sample is not allowed to fully cool to room temperature and/or if titrated too quickly the hydrolysis of dissolved magnesium and calcium can occur resulting in higher acidity values (Means, 2004). For example, the hydrolysis of just 3 mg/L of magnesium would generate approximately 12 mg/L of acidity. Again, while this error may be negligible to a mine discharge that has an acidity value of 500 mg/L, for relatively pure streams with little or no alkalinity, this could be the difference between identifying a net acidic or net alkaline stream. Likewise the use of the data could result in substantial errors when calculating loading especially for a stream or river with large flow rates. For example, just a 1 mg/L difference in acidity at the Tioga River sampling point TIOG1.0 at the maximum measured flow of 181,000 gpm would result in 2,200 lbs/day difference in the acidity load for that sample.
15
8.3 Recommended Monitoring for Further Evaluation; To assist in resolving the non-AMD acidity issues and in evaluating the existing AMD discharges and the stream characteristics, limited additional monitoring with split-sampling (duplicate samples submitted to two or more laboratories in order to compare acidity, etc.) may be advised. Two sampling events at selected established stations with the same field and lab parameters as the 2001 to 2002 monitoring used in the 2003 SRBC and 2003 Gannett Fleming reports would assist in identifying changes in the stream and discharge characteristics which may have occurred within the last 5 to 6 years. Other recommended parameters include the following: (1) dissolved metals [necessary to determine contribution to acidity and general impact of metals to stream quality; For example, aluminum concentrations reported in the non-AMD impacted headwaters are likely to represent solids where the reported pH is >5.]; (2) field alkalinity [Alkalinity may be consumed rapidly in the sample bottle in the presence of hydrolyzable metals. Titrating to a 4.5 pH endpoint determines bicarbonate alkalinity. Comparison of calculated acidity from field pH and dissolved metals with field alkalinity is a well-established approach for determining net acidity or net alkalinity in AMDimpacted waters.]; (3) field ORP [inexpensive measurement of oxidation-reduction potential that assists in geochemical modeling to determine saturation with respect to various mineral phases]. If further sampling is warranted to determine the source of the non-AMD acidity, the monitoring program may be expanded to complement the existing data. In additional laboratory analyses would probably include, at a minimum, Dissolved Organic Carbon, nitrates, and sulfates (to a lower level of detection). It may also be necessary to test for organic acids utilizing Gas Chromatography, High Performance Liquid Chromatography, or other approved method. (Not reviewed at this time is the sulfate concentration and loading attributed to non-AMD sources. Included in the appendix is a map, Sulfate Ion Concentrations 1985-2003. In the area of interest, the sulfate concentration related to acid rain appears to be <3 mg/L.) 9.0 DEGRADATION OF THE TIOGA RIVER BY MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
The Tioga River has been monitored at selected stations that provide a general indication of the degradation to the river by the AMD-impacted streams. As noted in the following Table 6, the Tioga River above the AMD-impacted streams at TIOG5.0 is low in sulfates and total metals with a pH consistently above 6. The bicarbonate alkalinity, however, is also low, averaging 13 mg/L. With the low alkalinity buffering capacity, the acidic streams quickly consume the available alkalinity and the Tioga River becomes acidic. Fall Brook is the most upstream source of acidic AMD and, even though the average flow comprises only about 20% of the Tioga River at the downstream monitoring point TIOG4.0, the river is already starting to show signs of degradation, most notably by a decrease in pH. Below TIOG4.0, Morris Run, DTR003, and Coal Creek enter the Tioga River. At the downstream monitoring point TIOG3.0, the pH is further depressed, ranging from 3.2 to 4.5. With the bicarbonate alkalinity consumed, the Tioga River is now acidic and metal-bearing. Johnson Creek, contributing >20% of the average flow of the Tioga River at TIOG2.0, helps to ameliorate the impact of the degraded streams by
16
dilution and by limited neutralization, even with the influence of the degraded Bear Creek. (Based on a limited review of Figure 4, Use Attainment Status for Stream Reaches, in the 2003 SRBC, there are unimpaired and unassessed streams that also enter the Tioga River above TIOG2.0). TIOG1.0 is located at the upper end of the Tioga Dam about 5 miles downstream of TIOG2.0. Even after intercepting several streams containing good water quality (not listed in the following table), the Tioga River maintains a depressed pH, ranging from 4.0 to 5.8. Total iron is low from <1 to 1 mg/L but total manganese ranges from 1 to 5 mg/L and total aluminum ranges from 1 to 8 mg/L. Table 7 further identifies the impact of the tributaries. In this table, the measured and calculated concentrations and loadings at the mouth of each tributary and at the downstream monitoring points on the Tioga River are compared. Table 7, comparing measured alkalinity and acidity with calculated acidity, shows that at the upstream monitoring point for the Tioga River (TIOG5.0) there is minimal calculated acidity (attributed to pH and metals) and the measured alkalinity exceeds the calculated acidity. Increases in both the calculated and measured acidities are noted in the Tioga River below the confluence of the acidic Fall Brook at TIOG4.0. Below Morris Run, DTR003, and Coal Creek, as previously noted based review of concentrations, the Tioga River at TIOG3.0 is severely degraded with both the calculated and the measured acidity loadings >20,000 lbs/day. While below the confluence of Johnson Creek (average alkalinity loading of 1300 lbs/day), Bear Creek (average calculated acidity loading of 650 lbs/day), and unimpaired and unassessed streams, the Tioga River at TIOG2.0 has a pH and measured acidity concentration that have been slightly improved. Comparing the averages of the measured and calculated acidities at TIOG2.0 indicates that the calculated acidity is ~50% less than the measured acidity. [The accepted procedure, as described by the US Dept. of Energy, for determining the impact of mine drainage is calculated acidity (Watzlaf, et al, 2004). Please note, however, that as previously stated, the hot peroxide acidity measurement could take into account the influence of hydrolyzable organic acids as well as be affected by other factors as discussed above.] Of the six monitoring events provided in the 2003 SRBC and 2003 Gannett Fleming reports, the acidity readings were highest and the pH (both field and lab) lowest during the two lowest flow events, indicating that dilution and neutralization from the downstream tributaries was not sufficient to help to ameliorate the AMD. Again, however, both the measured and calculated acidities indicate that Coal Creek and Morris Run have the greatest impact on the Tioga River.
17
Table 6. Summary of AMD Impacts to the Tioga River Values: Mean (minimum-maximum)
Monitoring Points Tioga River Tributary TIOG5.0 Fall Brook FALL1.0 TIOG4.0 Morris Run MORR1.0 DTR003 Coal Creek COAL1.0 TIOG3.0 Johnson Ck. JOHN1.0 Bear Creek BEAR1.0 TIOG2.0 TIOG1.0 Events (n) 6 6 6 6 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 Flow (gpm) pH (lab) Alk (mg/L) Acidity (mg/L) TFe (mg/L) TMn (mg/L) TAl (mg/L) SO4 (mg/L)
12600 (800-26000) 4100 (400-8500) 20000 (1800-35000) 3200 (1100-8600) 20 (20-20) 2100 (1200-3700) 29000 (4000-55000) 9100 (1700-20000) 290 (50-670) 39000 (6500-72000) 65000 (6700-181000)
6.4 (6.2-6.6) 4.1 (3.9-4.2) 5.2 (4.8-6.0) 3.3 (3.2-3.4) 3.6 (3.6-3.6) 2.8 (2.7-3.0) 3.8 (3.2-4.5) 6.3 (6.2-6.5) 3.0 (3.0-3.2) 4.0 (3.6-4.6) 4.9 (4.0-5.8)
13 (10-16) 3 (0-4) 8 (7-9) 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 1 (0-8) 17 (9-28) 0 (0-0) 2 (0-6) 7 (2-11)
3 (0-15) 65 (32-108) 24 (3-40) 166 (96-204) 264 (247-281) 392 (278-507) 70 (35-145) 19 (0-41)
<1 (<1-<1)
<1 (<1-1) <1 (<1-<1) 4 (3-5) 3 (3-3) 34 (27-45) 3 (<1-7) <1 (<1-<1) 7 (4-8) 1 (1-1) 1 (<1-1)
195 (120-266)
65 (26-109) 47 (7-118)
<1 (<1-<1) <1 (<1-<1) 4 (1-8) 4 (2-8) 1 (<1-2) 1 (<1-1) 17 (10-22) 16 (10-20) 32 (30-35) 28 (24-33) 8 (5-11) 27 (19-40) 4 (2-8) 6 (3-14) <1 (<1-1) <1 (<1-1) 7 (4-11) 16 (9-26) 3 (1-5) 4 (2-9) 2 (1-5) 3 (1-8)
<20 (<20-<20) 129 (63-235) 46 (<20-88) 510 (306-732) 665 (590-739) 451 (266-771) 138 (67-405) 49 (21-75) 311 (205-477) 87 (24-245) 59 (<20-96)
Arranged from upstream to downstream; compiled from monitoring data (2003 SRBC; 2003 Gannett Fleming); flow measurement values rounded for clarity; total metals rounded to nearest whole number; average pH as reported in the 2003 SRBC -- not reviewed as to determination by hydronium ion concentration; alkalinity, acidity, and sulfate as reported in 2003 Gannett Fleming
Table 7. Average Measured vs. Calculated Acidity Contributions to and Acidification of the Tioga River
Monitoring Points Tioga River Tributary TIOG5.0 Fall Brook FALL1.0 TIOG4.0 Morris Run MORR1.0 DTR003 Coal Creek COAL1.0 TIOG3.0 Johnson Ck. JOHN1.0 Bear Creek BEAR1.0 TIOG2.0 TIOG1.0 Events (n) 6 6 6 6 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 Flow (gpm) 12600 (800-26000) 4100 (400-8500) 20000 (1800-35000) 3200 (1100-8600) 20 (20-20) 2100 (1200-3700) 29000 (4000-55000) 9100 (1700-20000) 290 (50-670) 39000 (6500-72000) 65000 (6700-181000) pH (lab) 6.4 (6.2-6.6) 4.1 (3.9-4.2) 5.2 (4.8-6.0) 3.3 (3.2-3.4) 3.6 (3.6-3.6) 2.8 (2.7-3.0) 3.8 (3.2-4.5) 6.3 (6.2-6.5) 3.0 (3.0-3.2) 4.0 (3.6-4.6) 4.9 (4.0-5.8) Measured Acidity mg/L lbs/day 3 860 65 2700 24 6300 166 5400 264 60 392 9100 70 23000 19 2500 195 520 65 29000 47 20000 Calculated Acidity mg/L lbs/day <3 <710 46 1900 7 2100 185 6400 253 58 427 10000 64 29000 <4 <500 222 650 32 14000 23 10000 Measured Alkalinity mg/L lbs/day 13 2400 NA NA 8 2600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 290 17 1300 0 0 2 1500 7 5900
Arranged from upstream to downstream; average values except as indicated; flow values rounded for clarity; < indicate some values in sample set below detection limits; NA indicated for alkalinity when pH <4.5 (no bicarbonate alkalinity); measured acidity reported in Appendix A of 2003 Gannett Fleming report
18
10.0
HISTORICAL AND RECENT ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION EFFORTS
The restoration of abandoned coal mining activities within the Blossburg Coal Basin of the Tioga River Watershed has included assessments by the US Army Corps of Engineers and assessments and land reclamation/abandoned mine drainage treatment projects by the Commonwealth of PA and, more recently, local watershed groups. 10.1 Historical Reclamation: In 1972, Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. completed a report, Mine Drainage Abatement Measures, Tioga River Watershed, through the Commonwealth of PA Operation Scarlift, Project 136-1. As a result of this study, abandoned mine reclamation projects (not reviewed to date) were completed. This report also cited previous investigations, including the 1971 US Army Corps of Engineers report, Investigative Survey -Occurrence and Effects of Mine Drainage in the Tioga River Watershed. Abandoned coal refuse piles were reclaimed, particularly in the Morris Run Subwatershed, reportedly through the Rural Abandoned Mine Lands Program (RAMP) by the US Dept. of Agriculture. Abandoned mine sites have also been restored by active mining operations. 10.2 Selected Recent Land Reclamation and AMD Abatement Efforts: Within about the last decade, grassroots watershed efforts supported by the SRBC have further focused on the abatement/treatment of abandoned mine drainage within the Subwatersheds of interest. 10.2.1 Fall Brook Subwatershed: In 2005, through the Growing Greener program of the PA Department of Environmental Protection, the Tioga Concerned Citizens Committee, Inc. received funding to design and permit a series of passive treatment systems to address the non-AMD impacts to the headwaters and the impacts from abandoned mine discharges. This funding complements the efforts of many volunteers to restore Fall Brook. Although the details of the grant work is not known at this time, please note, in the 2003 SRBC and 2003 Gannett Fleming reports, that implementation with construction, operation, and 15-yr. present value costs were provided for an active system, using pebble quicklime, to treat the lower discharge (DFP099) and an active or passive system to treat the upper discharges (DFB001, 2, 3, 4). The current restoration appears to reflect a revision to the treatment technologies proposed in the 2003 SRBC and 2003 Gannett Fleming reports. The implementation strategy, as provided in both reports, identified the Fall Brook Subwatershed to be Stage 1 in the progressive restoration of the upper Tioga River Watershed. 10.2.2 Johnson Creek Subwatershed: The first passive system to treat abandoned mine drainage in the upper Tioga River Watershed was completed in 2001 by the Arnot Sportsmens Club and the Babb Creek Watershed Association. A coal refuse reprocessing operation is also being conducted through Government-Financed Construction Contract (GFCC 59-01-01) to assist in implementing the passive system (As per our understanding, the design has been submitted to Growing Greener program for construction.) proposed to treat the 2300-gpm (average) DJC900. In addition, a passive system to treat the 100-gpm (average) DJC904 is currently under construction also through funding received through the Growing Greener Program. The PADEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) is planning to reclaim old surface mine operations responsible for DJC901, 2, 3 in an area known as South Mountain. Although the extent of the restoration effort has not been specifically discussed, based on a recent personal communication with Todd Wood (BAMR) the project(s) is in the design phase
19
and the abandoned mine drainage will be monitored for possible future efforts. The implementation strategy, as provided in both reports, identified the Johnson Creek Subwatershed to be Stage 2 in the restoration of the upper Tioga River Watershed. The Hillside Rod & Gun Club included Johnson Creek in the 2006 Trout Stocking Schedule. 10.2.3 AMD Directly Entering the Tioga River: A discharge, known as DTR003, directly drains to the Tioga River. This AMD also issues from old surface mining operations on South Mountain. As noted for the discharges within the Johnson Creek Subwatershed, the PA DEP BAMR is planning to reclaim the old mines. The implementation strategy, as provided in both reports, identified discharge DTR003 to be addressed as part of Stage 3 (also includes Morris Run) in the restoration of the upper Tioga River Watershed. The 2003 Gannett Fleming report provided a conceptual design with costs for a passive system and description with costs of a pebble quicklime system to be installed for this discharge. The 2003 SRBC report listed the active option with cost factors included in the estimate for the Morris Run restoration effort. 11.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES USING WRAM AND AMDTREAT MODELS 11.1 General Approach: Treatment recommendations and cost estimates provided in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report were developed using the Conceptual Design and Conceptual Cost Analysis Modules of the Tarco Technologies Watershed Restoration Analysis Model (WRAM v1.2). The WRAM v1.2 (WRAM) model was developed by private industry and is not readily available for public use. BioMost used the mine drainage treatment cost model AMDTreat (v4.0) developed and distributed by the US Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining to evaluate the treatment recommendations as well as the capital, annual, and 15-year Present Value cost estimates of selected treatment systems included in the 2003 SRBC report and as described in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report. As with all design and cost estimating tools, there is a certain level of professional discretion needed by the user to make site specific adjustments based on the given design criteria, in this case water quality and quantity, site conditions, relevant experience and other factors. Though there is detailed information provided by both the WRAM and AMDTreat models, providing an exhaustive explanation of each decision made during the development of the design recommendations and cost estimates is not practicable for either model at the current conceptual level. Select design and cost estimating considerations are discussed in the following sections in order to provide a general understanding of similarities and differences between the two models as well as treatment approach used. (Please note that page numbers in the 2003 Gannett Fleming Appendix B, are labeled as C-Page#. 2003 Gannett Fleming report Appendix B page numbers are referred to in this report as B-Page#.) 11.2 Water Monitoring Data Evaluation: Below is a brief discussion of assumptions regarding the evaluation of water monitoring data by BioMost and Gannett Fleming. 11.2.1 BioMost Drainage Evaluation: On-going consideration by leading professionals relating to the accuracy and applicability of acidity measurements has resulted in the use of dissolved metal concentrations, field pH and field alkalinity to calculate net acidity
20
during mine drainage characterization (Watzlaf, 2004). Where a more detailed review of the treatment recommendations was completed, BioMost used sample analyses from the 2003 SRBC report that included both total iron and, in many cases, ferrous iron. As the pH was always <4.0 and generally <3.5 for the abandoned mine discharges for the Bear Creek, Coal Creek, Morris Run and Lower Fall Brook Subwatersheds, the difference between total and ferrous iron was assumed to be dissolved ferric. Upon further development of treatment system design, iron speciation should be considered. Though filtered samples were not collected to determine the dissolved metals, the total iron, manganese and aluminum concentrations were assumed to be dissolved. Field pH was used by BioMost for design purposes and the average pH values were calculated from the corresponding hydronium-ion concentrations. (Using hydronium-ion concentrations provides a more accurate representation of the average value due to the logarithmic pH scale.) Because the pH values in this report are typically below 7, the average values calculated from hydronium-ion concentrations are typically lower (more acidic) than those derived by averaging exponents (pH). In addition, the average pollutant values used by BioMost are calculated from the average load of each pollutant. This was completed by calculating the daily load of each pollutant for each sampling event, taking the average of the daily load values and then using the average flow to calculate the average values for pH, iron, aluminum and manganese. Using this method depicts average values that do not tend to overemphasize unusually high or low concentrations that are often associated with low and high flow conditions, respectively. 11.2.2 Gannett Fleming Drainage Evaluation: Gannett Fleming included the laboratory pH (average not from hydronium-ion concentration), laboratory-measured acidity and only total metals (ferrous and ferric iron not noted) concentrations on Figures 10 through 18 where the design recommendations are presented. Though this differs from the parameters used for design by BioMost, it is noted that on page 21 of the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, the conceptual designs and cost estimates are not intended to establish the final design requirements for any particular discharge, but rather to provide an understanding of the potential level of treatment requirements and costs. The report further stated that additional sampling is needed for all discharges prior to final design considerations. BioMost concurs with these recommendations and would suggest that future sampling should include field-filtered samples for laboratory determination of dissolved metals as well as other recommended parameters as discussed in Section 8.2.2. 11.3 Comparison of WRAM vs. AMDTreat Cost Models: Both models are used to estimate capital and annual (operation & maintenance) costs for a given site. Capital and annual cost estimates are then used to calculate the 15-year present value for each site. Annual cost estimates represented the largest variation between the two models. This disparity was most pronounced when alternative design technologies/approaches were compared, but was still significant even when similar technologies were compared. The capital cost estimates generated using the WRAM model are relatively close to those generated using AMDTreat where similar technologies were compared in detail. This is demonstrated in the following sections by the Bear Creek/Coal Creek active (chemical) system and Morris Run active system where the AMDTreat capital cost estimates were only 9% and 16% higher, respectively, than those generated using WRAM. The majority of this cost 21
difference could be attributed to inflation (approx. 10%) realized during the period between the 2003 Gannett Fleming report and the current review. The capital cost estimate developed using AMDTreat for the Lower Fall Brook active system was about 15% lower than the WRAM estimate as the AMDTreat estimate proposed using settling ponds instead of a clarifier. The large differences between the WRAM and AMDTreat cost models were realized when the annual (Operation & Maintenance) cost estimates were mainly attributed to sludge volume and disposal cost projections. An example of these cost differences is found when comparing the very conservative WRAM cost of $15/cubic yard for off-site sludge disposal versus the AMDTreat recommended rough and conservative estimate of only $10/cubic yard. The sludge disposal cost estimates become more disparate due to the differences in projected sludge volumes discussed below. Furthermore, the alternative for consideration is for on-site sludge placement that substantially reduces annual sludge disposal costs. Financial forecasting calculations by Gannett Fleming to determine the 15-year present value included typical inflation and interest rates of 4% and 7%, respectively. These rates are very close to, and slightly more conservative than, rates typically accepted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for long-term management of post-mining discharges (Danehy, 2006). Parameters for present-value calculations in AMDTreat were set to use the same inflation and interest rates for the purposes of this report. 11.3.1 Active Treatment Sludge Volume Estimates: Based on a cursory review of sludge volume projections included in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, it appears that the estimated percent solids values used to calculate sludge volumes is <1%, this results in a relatively high volume of sludge per gallon of water treated. AMDTreat recommends low percent solids sludge be given an approximate value in the range of 1-6% and a higher percent solids value should be used depending on sludge collection, dewatering, and disposal methods. Though initial (fresh) sludge densities could be <1%, the sludge will tend to compact over time if allowed to settle/dewater thus increasing the percent solids value and thereby decreasing the total sludge volume. Dewatering can be readily accomplished through the use of sludge drying beds. These sludge drying beds can be settling ponds constructed to operate in parallel, where one (or more) can be taken off-line to dewater while the other(s) continues to be used for treatment. Please note, that regardless of the model and/or assumptions used, sludge volumes are very difficult to estimate and titration testing is recommended in order to better evaluate expected sludge volumes. 11.3.2 Active Treatment Sludge Disposal Cost Estimates: The cost estimates provided by WRAM are based on using two settling ponds (oxidation and precipitation basins) installed in series; however, the conceptual treatment plans in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report for the larger discharges show dual clarifiers instead of two settling ponds. (Only one small active treatment system, Upper Fall Brook site, included the proposed use of dual ponds; however, the alternative passive treatment system is the recommended approach as discussed in the following section.) Page B-2 of the 2003 Gannett Fleming report includes the assumption that the clarifiers would cost approximately the same as the settling ponds. Though this may be approximately correct in regards to capital costs, the differences in both sludge handling and disposal between pond-type and clarifier-type treatment components can significantly impact 22
annual costs. In addition, only one clarifier is recommended, instead of the two shown on the conceptual treatment plans as there is typically significant additional capital costs associated with the construction of two clarifiers and generally limited benefit realized from operating parallel/redundant components of this type. The sludge disposal cost estimates by Gannett Fleming using WRAM were based on periodic cleaning of two settling ponds operated in series with off-site disposal; however, typically when clarifiers are used, sludge disposal is usually performed on a continuous or semi-continuous basis by pumping the sludge from the clarifier to an on-site or nearby disposal facility. Three typical on-site sludge disposal options are listed in order of preference: 1) pump/inject sludge to abandoned deep mine workings; 2) reconfigure nearby existing surface mine pit(s) for use as sludge drying bed(s); 3) construct large sludge drying beds on reclaimed surface mine areas. 11.3.3 Passive Treatment Sludge Disposal, Annual & PV Cost Estimates: The sludge volume estimates provided by the WRAM model are lower for passive systems than active systems and, based on the experience of the review team, may still be higher than needed. In addition, passive components such as settling ponds and surface flow wetlands usually have about three feet of freeboard included in the design (Hedin, 1994). This freeboard capacity would essentially eliminate the need to clean the settling ponds within the projected 15-year design life, subsequently eliminating the annualized sludge cleaning costs. Though a savings may be realized through reduced annual costs associated with sludge removal and disposal, these savings may be offset by increased capital costs due to higher than estimated permitting and design costs. Please note that in the Executive Summary of the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, the 25% contingency added to construction includes permitting and design expenses, but the 25% contingency only includes unforeseen construction complication costs when discussed on page B-1. Based on an overall cursory review the total projected 15-year present value for the proposed passive systems using the WRAM model seems to be a reasonable and realistic estimate; however, the actual break-down may include higher capital costs which are at least partially offset by lower annual costs. 11.4 Review of WRAM and AMDTreat Assumptions: The following review roughly follows the order of the modeling criteria and assumptions included in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report in Appendix B, pages B-1 through B-3. Assumptions referred to as reasonable are typical, commonly-accepted, and/or realistic based on the experience of the review team and are, for practical purposes, the same as or similar to assumptions included in AMDTreat. Subsection 11.4.4 below provides a brief discussion of selected design considerations typically utilized by BioMost during treatment system development. 11.4.1 Common Factors: The assumptions for clearing and grubbing and earthwork volume estimates used with WRAM appear to be reasonable, though projecting earthwork estimates are difficult at the current conceptual level regardless of the model used. Use of HDPE liners may be eliminated from WRAM and a minor capital savings realized. Clay liners using best on-site material were used in AMDTreat as a lower-cost replacement where anticipated to be needed. The collection/conveyance piping estimate is reasonable. The sludge cleaning and disposal costs seem higher than needed for active treatment systems and revised 23
cost estimates have been provided as part of this review. Passive treatment sludge estimates appear higher than needed, but will be evened out by potentially higher capital costs as discussed in Section 11.2.3. As noted above, the 25% contingency may be low if permitting, design, land acquisition and other costs are included; however, the overall 15-year present value estimate appears to be reasonable. The projection period of 15 years is a reasonable life span for passive treatment systems. The stated treatment goals of decreasing manganese to a maximum of about 4 mg/L and iron and aluminum to less than 1 mg/L are reasonable. Manganese does not appear, however, to have been included in the sludge volume calculations. No projected sludge accumulation rates were provided and cursory sludge volume calculations, using the assumptions in Appendix B, indicate only the volumes for iron and aluminum. 11.4.2 Passive Treatment Alternatives: The sizing assumption provided for VFWs appears to be reasonable and slightly conservative which is prudent at the current conceptual level. A potential design alternative considers the use of limestone-only automatic flushing vertical flow ponds as the mine drainage within the Upper Tioga River Watershed has, typically, a low pH with elevated dissolved (assumed) ferric iron and aluminum. Based on studies by the review team (BioMost, 2005), this type of drainage is expected to react aggressively with the limestone aggregate, enabling the overall footprint and implementation cost to be reduced. Short-term, bench-scale testing is recommended to assist in confirming applicability. Settling pond (OPB) sizing included in WRAM is based on a 24-hour detention time at the maximum design flow plus an additional 40% for long-term sludge storage. Typically, settling ponds designed for the oxidation and precipitation of iron solids would be sized in the same manner as described for the Surface Flow Wetlands (SFWs) using the 10 g/day-m2 criterion. As discussed above, additional depth in the form of freeboard, or deeper ponded areas, should be sufficient for about 15 years or more of passively generated sludge. Settling pond and wetland sizing as applied to the AMDTreat model is discussed in Section 11.4.4. The addition of surface area to surface flow wetlands for the removal of aluminum at a rate of 5 g/day-m2 seems to be unique to the WRAM model, as the majority of aluminum is typically retained within the preceding VFW (Watzlaf, 2000). The cumulative sizing for the OPBs and SFWs in the WRAM model appears to be larger than necessary; however, these are usually the least expensive passive treatment components to build and over-sizing does not typically have a negative impact on water treatment efficacy and tends to extend system life and reduce operation and maintenance costs. If, based on further sampling and system design development, these components are decreased in size then the cost savings would help to offset other potential cost contingencies. The WRAM manganese oxidation bed (MOB) sizing is assumed to be 4 g/day-m2 which is not one of the five sizing criteria in AMDTreat and does not follow the empirical sizing criterion presented in a recent paper published by the national meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation (Means and Rose, 2005). As this is relatively new technology, BioMost typically uses a combination of three methods available in AMDTreat that includes a 12-hour retention time added to the acid neutralized over a given system life and entered as total tons of limestone. Further design development is recommended prior to implementation.
24
The assumption that the local watershed group will be able to perform routine maintenance with only minor periodic sludge cleaning performed by a specialty contractor is reasonable; however, based on the above discussions regarding OPB and SFW sizing and sludge volume projections, the sludge cleaning may not be required for the given 15-year life of the system and the subsequent cost savings may be offset by additional capital costs as well as the potential costs that may include periodic mechanical agitation (stirring) of treatment medium. 11.4.3 Chemical Treatment Alternatives: The costs of the pebble quicklime systems are reasonable. Please see the sludge discussion above regarding OPBs and clarifiers. The delivered reagent costs, as well as silo sizing, are reasonable. The assumption in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report used in both the WRAM Conceptual Cost Analysis Module Results (Appendix B, page B-3) and the WRAM Treatment Analysis Module Results (Appendix C) that impacts the overall watershed restoration plan for all active treatment systems is that: Alkalinity generation is projected at 100 mg/l in excess of neutralization requirements, except for the chemical treatment alternatives for Johnson Creek, which assume a 20 mg/L excess comparable to the passive alternatives for that watershed. It is strongly recommended that this assumption be more closely reviewed. It is the experience of the review team that the effluent of active treatment systems typically contains about 10-20 mg/L of alkalinity. Adding additional chemical alkali will typically cause the pH to increase to a point where other dissolved constituents in the mine drainage such as magnesium will begin to hydrolyze and generate acidity in excess of what is typically measured using the hot peroxide method. This can result in significantly higher rates of chemical consumption as well as drastically increasing sludge volume. Due to the inherent variability of mine drainage characteristics, titration tests are recommended for each of the discharges to be actively treated in order to determine the amount of chemical needed to meet the desired 100 mg/L of alkalinity in the system effluent. These titration tests could also be used to assist in estimating sludge volumes (Means & Hilton, 2004). To summarize, using the assumption that excess alkalinity may be readily generated by over treatment of mine drainage using active techniques is not a recommended approach without additional investigation including titration testing. Where active treatment systems have been reviewed by BioMost using AMDTreat, the estimated chemical consumption is based on the amount of chemical needed to neutralize calculated acidity. Excess alkalinity in the effluent is estimated to be about 10-20 mg/L. Please see the above sludge discussion regarding predicted sludge volumes and disposal costs. The semi-skilled labor estimates are reasonable; however, a minor adjustment was made to the labor cost from the WRAM $30/hour to the AMDTreat typical default value of $35/hour. This additional hourly cost helps to account for vehicle expenses to maintain roads year-round and for use of a four-wheel drive pickup truck. The estimated operational life of 15 years is reasonable. 11.4.4 Brief Discussion of Design Considerations: BioMost Inc. approaches each site individually based upon water quality, flow rates, available construction area, elevation drop (head), assumed design life, and available resources (equipment, personnel, treatment media, and funding). All of these factors have an impact the system design and, therefore, few, if any, design criteria are constants. Usually several criteria are applied to develop any given passive component. These typically include average and maximum flow rates and loading as well as 25
other specific characteristics of the drainage to be treated. Selected design criteria are discussed below as examples only. The former US Bureau of Mines developed an iron removal rate design criteria of 10-20 grams/square-meter/day for the sizing of aerobic (surface flow) wetlands (Hedin, 1994); however, actual results in the field vary due to a number of factors such as dissolved oxygen, iron concentrations and speciation, pH, presence of certain microorganisms, development of preferential pathways, etc.; therefore, when sufficient construction area is available a more conservative criterion may be desired, such as 5 g/m2/day. In general, the more surface area for oxygen transfer and the precipitation of metals the better. This additional surface area coupled with the typically recommended 3 feet of freeboard also helps to reduce sludge removal and disposal costs. Typically, BioMost will use the maximum iron loading and a site-specific removal rate to calculate the wetland size. If, for example, maximum flow and maximum iron concentration (or high-end percentiles such as 95th or 90th) are used, the maximum iron load will generally be overestimated and the wetlands will tend to be over-sized. In addition, even if the wetlands are undersized due to funding constraints, etc., these passive components can still be very effective in terms of overall pollutant load reduction and watershed restoration, though the treatment system effluent may still be degraded. Though these components are typically called wetlands they can be a combination of deeper-water pond areas and planted wetland habitat area. Typically, the total surface area of water of both the pond and wetland areas is included in the overall wetland size. Vertical Flow Pond (VFP), a.k.a. Vertical Flow Wetland (VFW), design can vary significantly based on drainage characteristics. An empirically-developed sizing criterion based on acid load and surface area has been presented by Dr. Arthur Rose, professor emeritus, Penn State (Rose, 2002) and appears to be the basis used for the conceptual designs developed using WRAM. Dr. Roses work provides a very good summary of data collected from numerous VFPs and provides a general sizing basis that can be employed at the conceptual level; however, there are numerous configurations included under the term VFP that should be evaluated and selected based on site specific conditions. In addition to the types of VFPs presented in Rose 2002, that are typically a layer of limestone aggregate overlain by compost (or other organic material), other variations can include limestone/compost mixtures, limestone only, and compost only versions. Typically, a combination of average and maximum (or other high-end percentile) flow measurements and pollutant concentrations and/or calculated loadings are used for design, though these can be adjusted if needed to meet project specific conditions. The limestone-only VFPs recommended by BioMost in this report consider the potentially aggressive nature of the drainage, due to very low pH and assumed dissolved ferric iron and aluminum. These components are conceptually sized using relatively short retention times based on recent research (BioMost, 2005). The total quantity of limestone is based on the desired retention time added to the estimated acid load (from average pollutant loadings) to be neutralized over a given design life. Horizontal Flow Limestone Beds (HFLBs) aka Manganese Oxidation Beds (MOBs) as discussed in Section 11.4.2 are a relatively new type of passive technology. Several approaches are used to design these components. Here again, these components will be typically sized using a selected high flow/high loading as well as average flow/loading.
26
As with any engineering activity applied to real world conditions, there are numerous factors to be considered. Even well-considered designs based on extensive research and planning can be significantly impacted by inherently dynamic natural conditions. In addition, it is difficult to select specific statistical criteria as a standard approach for conceptual designs as data collection and analysis methods vary. A full year of sampling on at least a monthly basis for each discharge, however, is typically recommended. In addition, as precipitation conditions vary from year to year, this also should be considered during design development. Other variables may be based on mine pool fluctuation and other hydrologic factors, surface conditions, etc. 12.0 REVIEW OF COAL & BEAR CREEK TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 Active Treatment System DCC005 & DBC101: As described in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, the DCC005 and DBC101 discharges issue in proximity to or within stream channels located in narrow and steeply sloping valleys. Potential construction area is very limited immediately downgradient of both discharges. The treatment approach that was recommended in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report includes installing pumping stations at each of the two discharge locations and pumping the discharges approximately 200 vertically and 1,500 horizontally to a common treatment system located on a relatively flat, topographic high between the two discharges. The capital and annual costs from information provided on pages B-42, -43 and Figure 18 of the 2003 Gannett Fleming report are summarized below in Table 10. The data used in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report for design purposes are detailed in Appendix A (pages A-6, -7, -10, -11, -81, -82) and are summarized in Table 8. The design values listed for 95% Flow in Table 3, Summary of AMD Discharge Characteristics, in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, may be on the high side for flow rate and the calculated water quality may be on the low side for design purposes; however, the projected high flow has relatively small impact on overall cost estimates for the DCC005/DBC101 active treatment system at the current conceptual level. The majority of the estimated 15-year present value is based on annual costs such as chemical and electrical consumption and especially sludge disposal costs that are calculated from average values. The estimated capital construction cost of the proposed active treatment system for the combined Coal Creek and Bear Creek discharges developed using the WRAM model seems to be reasonable when compared to estimates developed using AMDTreat. Note, however, that as both discharges emanate from drift entries, the proposed pumping stations will likely need to be able to respond to potentially significant flow variability. Although not specifically identified in the conceptual plan developed using the WRAM model, pumping station designs are recommended to include holding tanks or ponds installed near the point of issuance with two or more variable-speed drive pumps at each station. Alternatively, if there is/are mine pool(s) associated with the discharges, these pools may be used instead of holding tanks or ponds. Further geologic and site investigations are required to determine the presence of and/or feasibility of using mine pool(s). No specific capital costs were shown for constructing a long-term sludge disposal facility in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report. As discussed above, all sludge disposal cost estimates are shown as annual costs using $15 for every CY of sludge expected to be produced through chemical
27
treatment. This results in a projected annual sludge disposal cost of about $1,300,000. If, after evaluation of the underground mine workings, sludge disposal is determined to be feasible using the deep mine injection option, the annual sludge disposal costs would be reduced from the WRAM projected $1,300,000 to less than $20,000 (optimum conditions assumed). If the abandoned strip mine pits or constructed drying pond surface disposal options were utilized, the sludge disposal capital and annual costs are likely to be higher than the injection method. Nonetheless, preliminary estimates indicate that annual costs are expected to be less than $500,000 (approximate worst case conditions). This potential variability (not included in Table 10) could increase the total annual cost for the combined DCC005 & DBC101 active treatment system from $647,402 to about $1,000,000 and subsequently increase the estimated 15-year present value from $11,000,000 to $22,000,000. Additionally, some annual costs may potentially be offset by installing small electric turbines on the proposed gravity pipelines. As discussed earlier, the annual chemical consumption as estimated by Gannett Fleming includes over treatment to produce an effluent with 100 mg/L of alkalinity. This will most likely not result in a straightforward increase in chemical consumption based on adding 100 mg/L to the alkalinity needed to neutralize the acidity measured using the Hot Peroxide Method. This over treatment may result in significantly higher than expected chemical consumption rates. In addition, the expected sludge volumes and related disposal costs could increase drastically. The chemical consumption costs listed under the Active as Reviewed (BMI) does not include the over treatment and the projected measurable alkalinity from the active treatment systems is estimated to be about 15 mg/L as CaCO3. 12.2 Passive Treatment Alternative for DCC005 & DBC101: As noted on Figure 18 in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, a passive treatment option did not seem feasible for the combined DCC005 & DBC101 discharges. The total construction cost was listed to be about $27,000,000 with an annual operating cost of approximately $350,000 resulting in an estimated 15-year present value of $30,000,000. The proposed required construction area is listed at 120 acres with the discharges most likely needing to be pumped to about the same location as the active treatment system. The capital and annual costs of the pumping stations do not appear to have been included in the Passive Alternative cost estimates on Figure 18. If pumping was added to the Passive Alternative, the capital cost would be about $28,000,000 and the annual cost would be about $600,000 resulting in a 15-year present value in excess of about $35,000,000. As noted in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, combining these two discharges into a common passive treatment system does not seem reasonable.. 12.3 Potential Alternative Treatment Approaches to DCC005 & DBC101: Regardless of the treatment technology, the pumping cost to the proposed construction area on top of the hill is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the total annual estimated treatment costs and results in a calculated 15-year present value of about $3,000,000. Significant reductions in annual costs may be realized if the discharges are treated without pumping. Topographic constraints appear to prohibit the combining of these two discharges using gravity; however, gravity-flow alternatives to treat discharges DCC005 and DBC101 separately may be viable. 12.3.1 DCC005 Hybrid Treatment System Alternative: There are about 50 wooded acres located south of the DCC005 discharge between the Arbon and the Union/St. 28
Andrews Cemeteries. Dependent upon additional site investigation, it may be possible for the DCC005 discharge to be collected, piped across Coal Creek and conveyed by a rock-lined channel (with culverts installed under White Road) to a relatively gently sloping area that appears to be well-suited for treatment system construction. Though an active treatment system similar in size and cost to the system as proposed on top of the hill could be installed in this location to treat the entire acid load from the DCC005 discharge, recent developments in passive treatment technology indicate that a hybrid passiveactive treatment system could be utilized. The recommended alternative includes using two or more limestone-only, automatic flushing-type vertical flow ponds (AFVFPs), followed by two or more settling ponds (SPs) that discharge to a hydrated lime active treatment system followed by a clarifier. The proposed hybrid system removes pollutants in a step-wise manner. Essentially all of the proton acidity (calculated from the field pH measurements) and iron-generated mineral acidity are neutralized in the AFVFPs with ferric iron solids settling and accumulating in the SPs. Mineral acidity associated with aluminum and any remaining ferrous iron is neutralized with hydrated lime in mixing tanks and the sludge is removed by a clarifier. Some manganese may be removed by this active treatment system; however, the pH typically required to remove manganese chemically may cause additional hydrolyzable metals such as magnesium to precipitate resulting in significantly higher chemical consumption and sludge production. A part- to full-time operator is needed to insure proper operation of the treatment plant, collect water samples, plow roads during winter to facilitate chemical delivery and perform other general operation and maintenance tasks. Please note that any bicarbonate alkalinity remaining in the SP effluent will be consumed upon adding lime. The final net-alkaline, low-metals, circumneutral-pH, treated effluent may be returned via rocklined channel to Coal Creek or may be conveyed to either an unnamed watercourse that flows through the Union Cemetery or to Morris Run. Aluminum sludge from the clarifier would be pumped uphill to injection boreholes in the abandoned underground mine or to sludge drying beds in abandoned strip mine pits or constructed on reclaimed surface mine areas. The SPs that follow the AFVFPs would be designed to hold about 15 years of accumulated iron sludge before needing to be cleaned. The active treatment system could be used to supplement passive treatment during high flow events as the passive treatment system may be able to provide sufficient treatment to reduce or suspend the use of active treatment during low-flow periods. In addition, one system can be used as a back-up for the other if maintenance requires a system to be taken off-line. The treatment facility could be installed in phases to accommodate funding availability. If only the active portion of the gravity-fed system is constructed, the entire acid load from the DCC005 discharge could be treated increasing the annual chemical consumption costs to a level similar to the DCC005 and DBC101 chemical treatment system; however, the annual pumping costs of the gravity-fed DCC005 active system are projected to be only about 5% or less of that system. 12.3.2 DBC101 Passive Treatment System Alternative: The Bear Creek discharges collectively monitored at DBC101 could be passively treated by taking advantage of existing topographic conditions. During a brief field visit on 02-Oct-06, a large channel was observed near but outside the apparent floodway of the stream. It appears that this channel was created by both past and recent logging activities and may have been related to historic mining. 29
Hybrid Treatment System Diagram

Mine Discharge
Automatic Flushing-Type Vertical Flow Pond
Automatic Flushing-Type Vertical Flow Pond
Settling Pond
Settling Pond
Settling Pond/Wetland
Hydrated Lime Active Treatment System
Clarifier
Final Effluent Hybrid Treatment Systems for mine drainage typically have both passive and active components. Designs can vary significantly from site to site depending upon water chemistry, flow, construction area, etc. This diagram depicts a very general layout of components for the proposed alternative treatment systems.
Stream
30
The channel is approximately 600 long, 6-8 deep and has a bottom width of about 10-20. A passive treatment system consisting of a very large Open Limestone Channel (OLC) followed by a Settling Pond (SP) could be installed. The total length of the OLC would be about twice as long as the existing channel, but the length and width could be adjusted as needed based on the topography and other factors. The overall gradient of the proposed channel would be about 10%. Permeable barriers of smaller diameter limestone aggregate could be included in the design to help limit the potential for channelization and to promote longer contact (effective retention) time. (Plugging of the permeable barriers is expected.) A relatively gently-sloping area located above a residential area in Blossburg Borough may be suitable for a settling pond. The low pH DBC101 discharge containing primarily ferric iron (As noted previously, at pH < 3.5 iron assumed to be predominantly dissolved ferric.) is expected to react rapidly with limestone aggregate and require only a relatively short design retention time of about 1-4 hours or less to neutralize the proton and ferric iron mineral acidity. Manganese may also be removed to some degree by the proposed system depending on flow conditions and other factors. Benchscale tests would help to determine an attainable level of treatment and to provide more information needed to estimate the optimum design retention time. This potential design alternative is based on the experience of the review team that has tested water with similar characteristics and found that retention time of about 3 hours is required to raise increase the pH to about 6 and precipitate ferric iron and aluminum. (BioMost, 2005) Based on the available USGS mapping it appears that the settling pond could be sized to include sludge storage for the 15-year design life. Other than periodic inspections to check the system, the only major maintenance expected is the occasional stirring of the limestone aggregate in the channel. This would help to disrupt channelization that may develop, to maintain fresh limestone surfaces, and to encourage removal of accumulated solids. In addition to stirring the limestone, a stream intake system could be installed at the upstream end to divert stream flow (controlled flow rate) to be directed through the limestone channel during high flow events. This washing would help to move the accumulated iron and aluminum solids through the channel to the settling pond. $5,000 was included in the Annual Operation and Maintenance costs for a medium-sized hydraulic excavator (Caterpillar 320 or equivalent) to spend about 2-3 days a year stirring the limestone. Periodic field pH, alkalinity and other test-kit measurements by volunteers should be sufficient to monitor system performance and assess maintenance needs.
31
Table 8. DCC005 & DBC101 Water Characteristics Used for Design Development Combined Combined Single Hybrid Single Passive Active (GF) Active (BMI) (BMI) (BMI) Parameter DCC005 & DBC101 DCC005 & DBC101 DCC005 DBC101
Average
Flow (gpm) pH (s.u.) M. Acid C. Acid T. Fe (mg/L) Fe2+ (mg/L) Fe3+ (mg/L) Mn (mg/L) Al (mg/L)
3316 2.82(3) 420 NR 42.06 NR NR 9.76(3) 32.34
(2)
95% Flow(1)
7325 2.95(3) 276 NR 28.29 NR NR 5.48 19.37
(2)
(Average) 2818 (max 6251)
2.8 367 335 35.3 3.8 31.5 8.1 26.7
2.8 402 365 40.1 4.4 35.7 8.6 29.2
2.9 164 163 7.6 0.4 7.2 5.2 12.4
General Notes - Table 8 Metals - total concentrations (not dissolved); Combined Active (GF) from Figure 18 in 2003 Gannett Fleming report; Combined Active (BMI) derived from individual loadings, including hydronium-ion, calculated using available data from 2003 SRBC report Table B2 except DCC005 11/07/01 apparent spurious 2.0 field pH replaced with 2.7 lab pH as reported on page A-10 2003 Gannett Fleming report; no alkalinity in samples. Key to Abbreviations - Table 8 BMI BioMost, Inc.; C. Acid calculated acidity in mg/L CaCO3; Fe2+ - ferrous iron; Fe3+ - ferric iron; GF Gannett Fleming; M. Acid measured hot acidity in mg/L CaCO3; NR not reported; T. Fe total iron. Specific Notes - Table 8 (1) Reported as 95% Flow, Table 3 2003 Gannett Fleming report; (See earlier discussion for statistical analysis.) (2) GF combined data used only samples from the two discharges during coincident sample events (or within 2-3 days); Using only the 6 sampling events coincident to both DCC005 (n=12) and DBC101 (n=6) resulted in a higher combined average flow compared to that calculated utilizing all available flow measurements. (3) Minor differences noted in the data provided on Figure 18 and on page A-82 in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report.
Table 9. Estimated Expected Average System Effluent Characteristics after Treatment Combined Combined Single Hybrid Single Passive Parameter Active (GF) Active (BMI) (BMI) (BMI) DCC005 & DBC101 DCC005 & DBC101 DCC005 DBC101 3316 2818 2396 422 Flow (gpm) NR ~7 ~7 6-7 pH (s.u.) 100+ 10-20 10-20 30 Alk. NR 9-18 ~9 <9 M. Acid <1 <1 <1 <1 T. Fe (mg/L) 4 5-10 ~5 <5 Mn (mg/L) Al (mg/L) <1 <1 <1 <1
Key to Abbreviations - Table 9 Alk. Alkalinity in mg/L CaCO3; BMI BioMost, Inc.; GF Gannett Fleming; M. Acid measured hot acidity in mg/L CaCO3; NR not reported; T. Fe total iron. General Notes - Table 9 The alkalinity expected by the GF Combined Active treatment system may not be attainable using the current projected chemical consumption rate. Titration tests are recommended to further evaluate this assumption.
32
Table 10. Treatment Options and Costs for the DCC005 & DBC101 Discharges System Review from 2003 Alternative Design Options (BMI) SRBC & Gannett Fleming Costs Active as Active as Hybrid Passive Total DCC005 Reviewed DCCC005 DBC101 & DBC101 Proposed
(WRAM) (AMDTreat) (AMDTreat) (AMDTreat) (AMDTreat)
Capital Chemical Pumping O&M Sludge Disposal Total 15-YR PV Annual
$3,300,000 $255,943 $175,000 $102,360 $1,323,113 $1,856,416 $26,000,000
$3,600,000+ $196,951 $244,381 $206,070

[$20,000*]
$3,500,000 $97,666 $5,363 $162,531

[$5,000*]
$647,402 $11,000,000 +
$265,560 $6,700,000
$700,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $800,000
$4,200,000 $97,666 $5,363 $167,531

[$5,000*]
$270,560 $7,500,000
*Cost included in pumping very approximate.
13.0
REVIEW OF MORRIS RUN TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended treatment approach for the entire Morris Run Watershed, as described in the 2003 SRBC report, proposes using a gravity pipeline to collect and convey the three main discharges (DMR001, DMR003, DMR004) as well as other minor discharges to a common active treatment system located downstream of the town of Morris Run. Given the magnitude of the flow rates and the proximity of relatively populated residential areas, this is a sound and viable approach; however, the estimated annual operation and maintenance costs of over $500,000 and $200,000 presented in the 2003 SRBC report and estimated during the current review, respectively, may prevent a watershed group from implementing active treatment. A passive system for the combined discharges with lower annual O&M costs was noted on Figure 17 in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report but the capital costs were in excess of $12,000,000 and the passive alternative was not deemed feasible. Based on a limited field review and cursory analysis of available topographic and other data, there may be a possibility for three separate passive treatment systems to be constructed for the three largest discharges, DMR004, DMR003 and DMR001. Alternative conceptual designs are presented below. 13.1 Active Treatment System for Morris Run: The capital and annual costs for the Morris Run active treatment system, developed using the WRAM model by Gannett Fleming for the SRBC 2003 report, were compared with estimates generated with the AMDTreat cost model. The capital cost estimates generated by both modeling tools were relatively close but the annual cost estimates using AMDTreat were about 1/2 of that in the 2003 SRBC report. As previously discussed, the greatest disparity is with the sludge handling and disposal cost estimates. Sludge disposal cost estimates from the 2003 Gannett Fleming report appear to be based on periodic offsite sludge disposal using a per yard cost for cleaning sludge from settling ponds. The proposed active treatment system, however, uses a clarifier which typically includes a sludge disposal system that allows continuous or semi-continuous removal by pumping. This sludge is typically conveyed by pipelines to an on-site or nearby sludge disposal facility. Generally, the most cost effective disposal method is to inject the sludge into an abandoned underground mine. A second
33
method for long-term sludge disposal uses sludge drying beds. These sludge drying beds can be constructed in abandoned strip mine pits by installing breastworks and spillways, as needed, or if abandoned strip pits are not readily available, large settling ponds can be constructed on reclaimed or partially reclaimed strip mines. The volume of sludge that needs to be removed from the clarifier is generally less than 2% of the total inflow of untreated water. If underground injection is not used, the sludge is pumped to a drying bed to settle and retain the solids formed in the clarifier and the clarified supernatant is decanted back to the stream. Regardless of the sludge disposal method used, the sludge will need to be pumped upgradient to be either injected into a deep mine or discharged to a sludge drying bed. These pumping costs are included in the annual costs presented in the table below. For the purposes of this review, a portion of a nearby abandoned strip mine pit was assumed to be reconfigured for use as a sludge drying bed with the sludge conveyed via buried pipelines from the clarifier. 13.2 Passive Treatment Alternatives for Morris Run (DMR001, 003, 004): As noted above, a passive treatment system for the combined discharges in Morris Run was not considered a viable option in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report. As the cost of the gravity pipeline needed to combine the discharges is estimated to be in excess of $400,000 and as the phased approach with separate passive systems appears to be more beneficial, the combined passive treatment option for Morris Run provided in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report was not evaluated using the AMDTreat cost model. The passive approach that was explored includes construction of three treatment systems in order to address the DMR004, DMR003 and DMR001 discharges separately. Unmonitored sources of AMD with minimal impacts (DMR100, DMR101, DMR105) would not be addressed by implementation of the three separate systems but would be included in the active treatment system proposed by Gannett Fleming. Benefits associated with using a phased approach in the Morris Run Watershed may include: Landowner cooperation, (Fewer landowners would need to be involved and property access issues may be reduced. In addition, the abatement of one discharge is not dependant on obtaining access to numerous and varied properties needed for discharge collection and pipeline construction.); funding availability, (Several medium- to large-scale projects may have a higher likelihood of being funded versus a single very large project.); additional stream miles improved, (The separate project locations are farther upstream.); capital and O&M cost savings, (The capital costs for installing a gravity pipeline would be eliminated in addition to on-going operation and maintenance costs related to underground utility location costs required under the PA One-Call law and pipe cleaning.) 13.2.1 Sample Location Discrepancy DMR001 & DMR003: Please note that the discrepancy between and within the 2003 SRBC and 2003 Gannett Fleming reports regarding the locations of DMR001 and DMR003. This discrepancy does not impact the combined treatment systems evaluated in the 2003 SRBC report but would impact the implementation of a phased approach using separate treatment systems as discussed below. The 2003 Gannett Fleming report (p. 5) states that DMR001 is located behind St. Josephs Catholic Church and also states that the DMR003 is located behind the church (p. A-1) while the 2003 SRBC report (p. 52 & p. 53) indicates that the discharge behind the church is DMR003. The 2003 Gannett Fleming report shows DMR003 to be near the church on Figure 17 (p. 29) while Figures 6 & 8 in the 2003 SRBC report (p. 15 & 25, respectively) show DMR001 to be closest to the church. In addition, 34
the latitude and longitude provided in the SRBC 2003 report (p. 52) is the same for both discharges but different when reported again on the following page (p. 53). The actual locations of these two discharges have not been confirmed; however, based on the site conditions noted during a single 02-Oct-06 field visit and based on the available data, for the purposes of this report, the larger of the two discharges, as determined by flow data provided in Table B2 of the 2003 SRBC report, DMR001, is assumed to issue near St Josephs Catholic Church with the smaller of the two discharges, DMR003, located near the southern end of Tioga Street. 13.2.2 DMR004 Passive Treatment System Alternative: Evaluation of the DMR004 discharge characteristics indicate that this drainage should be amenable to passive treatment using recently developed technology; namely, limestone-only, automatic-flushing vertical flow ponds (AFVFPs). These AFVFPs typically use much lower design retention times relative to previously established sizing criteria, described in Rose, 2002 and Watzlaf et al, 2004, as maximum alkalinity generation is not the focus. This newer technology requires less treatment media and reduces the overall construction area. Sizing of the proposed components is based on work by BioMost on drainage with similar chemical characteristics (BioMost, 2005). The proposed passive treatment system for DMR004 consists of the following components in series: 5,300-ton AFVFP, 18,000-SF settling pond, 12,000-ton AFVFP, 34,000-SF settling pond and a 7,400-ton (or larger) Horizontal Flow Limestone Bed (HFLB a.k.a. Manganese Removal Bed, Manganese Oxidation Bed). The first AFVFP could be installed at or near the point of issuance with subsequent components installed along the existing channel alignment. The first four components should be able to be installed between the point of issue and the first public road located downstream near the entrance to the pallet factory. The final component, the HFLB would need to be installed downstream of the public road. With the high flow rate (1,298 gpm avg.; 2,520 gpm max.), the HFLB would typically be sized to contain about 25,000 35,000 tons of aggregate. This would result in a single passive component costing about $1,000,000 and requiring about 3-5 acres to build. This HFLB, therefore, is sized based on a very rough estimate of reasonably available construction area while trying to control overall construction costs for the entire system. The elevated manganese content, about 25 mg/L (avg.), is responsible for about 37 mg/L of the reported acid concentration. If the system is constructed without the HFLB, the final effluent would most likely be net-acidic. Additional construction options include installing the second settling pond both upgradient and/or downgradient of the public road in addition to adjusting the sizing of the HFLB based on topographic and budgetary constraints. This report proposes the application of relatively new passive treatment technology to abate one of the largest discharges in the Upper Tioga River Watershed; therefore, bench scale tests for all proposed systems would be strongly recommended prior to proceeding to final design and construction. This passive treatment system alternative would utilize no electricity, employ automatic-flushing devices and be sized to store about 15 years of sludge before needing to be cleaned; therefore, annual operation and maintenance costs would be minimal. Occasional agitation of the limestone treatment medium may be required and $7,500 has been included as an annual cost to utilize a hydraulic excavator or similar equipment as needed to stir the limestone. Only periodic inspections to check the pH, system conditions, alkalinity, etc. would be required which could be completed by volunteers using field test kits.
35
13.2.3 DMR003 Passive Treatment System Alternative: The proposed passive treatment for DMR003 consists of the following components in series: 900-ton AFVFP, 6,000SF settling pond, 1,800-ton AFVFP, 11,400-SF settling pond, and up to a 4,900-ton HFLB. Based on a very limited site investigation and available USGS topographic maps, the first one or two components may be constructed upgradient of Tioga Street; however, there is a possibility that most of the system could be built downgradient of the public road and above Morris Run. The design approach for DMR003 is almost identical to that of DMR004, with the overall treatment system size being about 1/5 of the DMR004 system. A specific difference between the systems is that for the DMR003 HFLB a more commonly accepted sizing criteria for limestonebased systems was used, (i.e. a minimum retention time of 12 hours based on maximum flow plus a projected net acid load for the design life). The capital cost estimates include the maximum recommended size of about 4,900 tons. Here again, like the DMR004 system, the HFLB can be designed and built as large as space and money allow. If the entire system cannot be constructed as recommended, the overall pollutant load reduction and alkaline load production will be reduced. 13.2.4 DMR001 Passive Treatment System Alternative: The proposed passive treatment for DMR001 consists of the following components in series: 2,400-ton AFVFP, 10,400-SF settling pond, 5,500-ton AFVFP, 22,000-SF settling pond, and up to an 11,000-ton HFLB. There appears to be sufficient room to install the first four components of the system upgradient of Tioga Street with the HFLB installed between Tioga Street and Morris Run. The HFLB could be built either west or east of the unnamed tributary that conveys the discharge to the stream and/or could be installed in two or more smaller sections to accommodate topographic conditions. Additional capital was included in the cost estimate to accommodate required excavation. An opportunity to take advantage of economy of scale is the construction of the DMR001 & DMR003 passive treatment systems to share an HFLB. The design approach for DMR001 is almost identical to DMR004 with the overall treatment system size being about 1/2 of that proposed for DMR004. As with DMR003, a specific difference between the DMR001 and DMR004 HFLB was that for the DMR001 system the more commonly accepted sizing criteria for limestone-based systems was used. The capital cost estimate includes the maximum recommended HFLB size of about 11,000 tons. Here again, the HFLB can be designed and built as large as space and funding allow. If the entire system cannot be constructed as recommended, the overall pollutant load reduction and alkaline load production will be decreased.
36
Table 11. Morris Run Water Characteristics Used for Design Development Combined Combined Single Passive Single Passive Active (GF) Active (BMI) (BMI) (BMI) Parameter DMR001, 003, 004 DMR001, 003, 004 DMR001 DMR003
Average
Single Passive (BMI) DMR004

(Average)
Flow (gpm) pH (s.u.) M. Acid C. Acid T.Fe(mg/L) Fe2+ (mg/L) Fe3+ (mg/L) Mn (mg/L) Al (mg/L)
1631 3.11(3) 258 NR 8.27 NR NR 25.93 22.12
(2)
95% Flow(1)
(Average)
(Average)
(Average)
3298 3.13(3) 243 NR 6.86 NR NR 31.65 24.34(3)
(2)
1865 (max. 3767) 2.9 262 259 7.7 2.1 5.6 26.0 23.8
380 (max. 857) 2.8 387 373 9.4 0.7 6.7 28.1 37.5
187 (max. 390) 2.9 223 232 4.9 0.7 4.2 26.6 19.2
1298 (max. 2520) 3.0 231 229 7.7 2.7 5.0 25.3 20.5
General Notes - Table 11 Total metals (not dissolved); Combined Active (GF) from Fig. 17 in 2003 Gannett Fleming report; Combined Active (BMI) from individual loadings calculated using data in 2003 SRBC report Table B2 except DMR004 23-May-02 apparent spurious 2.0 field pH replaced with 3.2 lab pH (p. A-35 2003 Gannett Fleming report) Key to Abbreviations - Table 11 BMI BioMost, Inc.; C. Acid calculated acidity in mg/L CaCO3; Fe2+ - ferrous iron; Fe3+ - ferric iron; GF Gannett Fleming; M. Acid measured hot acidity in mg/L CaCO3; NR not reported; T. Fe total iron. Specific Notes - Table 11 (1) Reported as 95% Flow, Table 3 2003 Gannett Fleming report; (See earlier discussion for statistical analysis.) (2) GF combined data used only samples from the three discharges during coincident sample events (or within 2-3 days); DMR004 sampled on 23-May-02: other two discharges not sampled in May 2002. The 23-May-02 DMR004 data was not used by GF to calculate combined drainage characteristics. Please note that the 23-May-02 DMR004 sample included the second highest flow measurement, the highest reported M. Acid and aluminum loadings and the second highest reported iron and manganese loadings. (3) Minor differences noted in the data provided on Figure 17 and on page A-79 in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report.
Table 12. Estimated Expected Average System Effluent Characteristics after Treatment Combined Combined Single Passive Single Passive Single Passive Parameter Active (GF) Active (BMI) (BMI) (BMI) (BMI) DMR001, 003, 004 DMR001, 003, 004 DMR001 DMR003 DMR004 1631 1865 380 187 1298 Flow (gpm) NR 7 6-7 6-7 6-7 pH (s.u.) 100+ 10-20 30 30 1-30 Alk. NR 9-18 <9 <9 <9-27 M. Acid <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 T. Fe (mg/L) 4 5-10 <5 <5 <5-15 Mn (mg/L) Al (mg/L) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
37
Table 13. Treatment Options and Costs for the DMR001, DMR003 & DMR004 Discharges System Review from 2003 Alternative Passive Treatment Design Options (BMI) SRBC & Gannett Fleming Total Phased Approach Breakdown by Site Passive Costs Passive Passive Active as Passive Active as DMR DMR003 DMR004 Reviewed Proposed DMR001 001, 003, 004
(WRAM) (AMDTreat) (AMDTreat) (AMDTreat) (AMDTreat) (AMDTreat)
$1,900,000 $86,669 $25,000 $99,860 $310,683 $522,212 $8,300,000
$2,200,000 $100,541 $5,148 $116,882

[$5,000*]
$222,571 $4,900,000
$2,900,000+ $1,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,500 $5,000 $0 $0 $17,500 $5,000 $3,200,000+ $1,200,000
$500,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $600,000
$1,300,000+ $0 $0 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $1,400,000+
*Cost included in pumping very approximate.
14.0
REVIEW OF JOHNSON CREEK, TIOGA RIVER AND FALL BROOK TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
14.1 Johnson Creek & Tioga River Passive Treatment Systems: As discussed in previous sections, work is currently being completed by local and state organizations to address the discharges in the Johnson Creek Watershed and that flow directly to the Tioga River. Because of these on-going efforts, only a cursory review of the proposed systems has been completed for the DJC904, DJC900, DJC106, DJC901/903, DJC902 and DTR003 discharges. Groups such as the Arnot Sportsmens Club, Babb Creek Watershed Association, PA DEP BAMR are addressing these discharges and should have more up-to-date information. At the time of report preparation, the passive treatment system for the DJC904 should be complete and actual construction cost information should be available. The 2003 Gannett Fleming report recommended that all discharges in the Johnson Creek and Tioga River Subwatershed areas should be addressed using passive treatment systems. BioMost agrees with this recommendation. Though the specific treatment component sizes and types that are ultimately installed may differ from the conceptual plans because of site conditions and recent developments in passive treatment technology, the overall cost estimates seem reasonable. As noted previously, there may be slightly higher capital costs and lower annual costs, but the 15-year present value estimates appear to be valid. 14.2 Upper Fall Brook Active and Passive Treatment Systems: The Tioga County Concerned Citizens Committee (TCCCC) is currently working to address both headwater acidity issues as well as abandoned mine discharges in the upper Fall Brook Subwatershed. Based on information obtained from the PA DEP, BioMost understands that grants have been awarded to the TCCCC for the design of treatment systems for both the non-AMD headwaters acidity as well as AMD discharges DFB001 through DFB004.
38
The conceptual plan for the Upper Fall Brook AMD discharges DFB001 through DFB004 included on Figure 10 of the 2003 Gannett Fleming report calls for the treatment of the discharges using a pebble quicklime-based active system with a calculated 15-year present value of $590,000. The passive treatment alternative included on the same figure has an estimated 15year present value of $580,000. A cursory evaluation of water quality and site conditions indicates that passive treatment is a reasonable and very viable alternative. Considering the almost identical projected 15-year present values, the passive treatment alternative appears to be the better approach. The cost information presented in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report for both active and passive treatment alternatives appears to be reasonable; however, only a limited review of this cost information was completed as the TCCCC and their partners may have additional and/or more detailed/up-to-date information regarding the treatment plans and projected costs for this site. Contacting the partners would enable a more current cost analysis. 14.3 Lower Fall Brook Active Treatment System: The active treatment system proposed in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report includes a water-powered pebble quicklime unit followed by a water-driven or electrical clarifier and utilizes periodic off-site sludge removal. The water-driven pebble quicklime unit is commonly used and is widely-accepted as an effective and economical method of active alkaline addition and is a sound recommendation. The review team, however, is unfamiliar with the availability of water-driven clarifiers as described on the conceptual treatment plan and would recommend that electrical and associated maintenance costs for an electrically-powered clarifier be added to the annual costs shown on page B-11 of the 2003 Gannett Fleming Report if a clarifier is desired. The active treatment system considered during this review using AMDTreat was designed to include parallel settling ponds installed instead of the clarifier. This slightly-revised active treatment approach also included the construction of a sludge drying bed on the reclaimed surface mine area located upgradient of the discharge. Sludge would be conveyed from the settling ponds to the drying bed on a periodic basis using a floating dredge/electric pump system. This on-site disposal of sludge helps to significantly reduce the projected annual costs. In accordance with to the other treatment systems reviewed in detail, the WRAM and AMDTreat models produced very similar capital cost estimates with the largest disparity observed when comparing annual costs, specifically, annual costs associated with sludge disposal. The sludge volume and cost estimates as well the assumption of over treating to achieve a projected average effluent alkalinity of 100 mg/L are discussed in detail in preceding sections and apply to the WRAM-based system for this site as well. The elevated manganese in the DFB099 discharge may require that about half of the manganese be removed to achieve net alkaline effluent. The cost estimates using AMDTreat provide for sufficient calcium oxide to neutralize the acid that will be generated as manganese hydrolyzes. Flocculent/oxidizer costs have been added to the annual chemical costs for effective manganese removal while avoiding over treatment and excess sludge production. Operation and maintenance labor hours were increased in the AMDTreat-based cost estimate from those provided in the WRAM model in order to allow for more frequent monitoring. Water monitoring, design treatment projections, and detailed cost information are summarized below.
39
14.4 Lower Fall Brook Passive Treatment System Alternative: The TCCCC appears to be actively addressing the DFB099 discharge and may have additional information regarding design approach and cost estimates. BioMost completed a limited review of this site and has provided some additional preliminary recommendations that may be useful in the planning stages of the Upper Tioga River Watershed restoration effort. Based on the limited review of the DFB099 passive system as described in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report, the estimated costs appear to be higher than expected. To consider a viable alternative, BioMost developed a conceptual plan with cost estimates using AMDTreat. This alternative utilizes two AFVFPs that could be operated in series or parallel. Each AFVFP is followed by a settling pond with drainage conveyed to two HFLBs prior to discharge. As noted previously, short-term bench scale testing would be helpful in order to better assess the proposed passive treatment alternative presented in this review and should be completed as part of the design process. Cost information for this potential alternative is presented in Table 16. The passive system alternative shown on Figure 11 of the 2003 Gannett Fleming report includes about 2 acres of surface flow wetlands and two relatively large settling ponds. As the average total iron (probably ferric) content is only about 1-2 mg/L, surface flow wetlands would most likely not be required as the major pollutants are proton acidity, manganese and aluminum. (See Section 11.2.2 regarding aluminum removal and surface flow wetlands.) The low pH drainage should readily react with limestone requiring shorter retention times and subsequently smaller VFPs. HFLBs should be constructed to achieve net-alkaline system effluent. Table 14. DFB099 Discharge Characteristics Used for Design Development Gannett Fleming BioMost Parameter (WRAM) (AMDTreat)
Average 95% Flow(1) (Average)
Flow (gpm) pH (s.u.) M. Acid C. Acid T. Fe (mg/L) Fe2+ (mg/L) Fe3+ (mg/L) Mn (mg/L) Al (mg/L)
752 3.35 186 NR 1.69 NR NR 24.04 17.45
2011 3.50(2) 151 NR 1.24 NR NR 17.53 13.37(2)
752 (max. 2458) 2.9 170 192 1.5 0.5 1.0 20.8 15.6
General Notes - Table 14 Total metal content (not dissolved); Combined Active (GF) from Fig. 11 in 2003 Gannett Fleming report; BioMost used individual loadings and data from 2003 SRBC report Table B2; no alkalinity in samples. Key to Abbreviations - Table 14 BMI BioMost, Inc.; C. Acid calculated acidity in mg/L CaCO3; Fe2+ - ferrous iron; Fe3+ - ferric iron; GF Gannett Fleming; M. Acid measured hot acidity in mg/L CaCO3; NR not reported; T. Fe total iron. Specific Notes - Table 14 (1) Reported as 95% Flow, Table 3 2003 Gannett Fleming report; (See earlier discussion for statistical analysis.) (2) Minor differences noted in the data provided on Figure 11 and on page A-18 in the 2003 Gannett Fleming report.
40
Table 15. Estimated Expected Average DFB099 Effluent Characteristics after Treatment Parameter Active (GF) Active (BMI) Passive (GF) Passive (BMI) 752 752 752 Flow (gpm) 752 8 6-7 6-7 pH (s.u.) NR 10-20 30 30 Alk. 100+ 9-18 <9 <9 M. Acid NR <1 <1 <1 T. Fe (mg/L) <1 5-10 <5 <5 Mn (mg/L) 4 Al (mg/L) <1 <1 <1 <1
Table 16. Treatment Options and Costs for the DFB099 Discharge System Review from 2003 SRBC & Gannett Fleming Costs Active as Active as Passive as Proposed Reviewed Proposed
(WRAM) (AMDTreat) (WRAM)
Potential Alternative Design Passive

(AMDTreat)
$1,100,000 $32,211 None* $14,980 $95,591 $142,782 $2,900,000
$940,000 $27,815 $4,290 $71,922

[$4,290**]
$104,027 $2,200,000
$6,300,000 NA NA $2,835 $9,559 $12,394 $6,400,000
$2,600,000 NA NA $10,000 NA $10,000 $2,800,000
*As mentioned in section 14.3, the review team is unfamiliar with mechanically-driven clarifiers and recommends including pumping/electrical costs associated with an electrically-driven clarifier. **Cost included in pumping very approximate.
15.0 PREDICTED IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS TO RECEIVING STREAMS As requested by the US Army Corps of Engineers, a limited description of Bear Creek, Coal Creek, and Morris Run, upon implementation of the proposed alternative treatment systems, is provided. Bear Creek: For Bear Creek, the predicted effluent from the treatment system was assumed to represent the characteristics of Bear Creek as the discharges are currently located within or near the stream channel and comprise the stream flow. Upstream of these discharges, as provided in
41
the 2003 SRBC report, the existing stream channel is dry due to infiltration into underground mine workings. (Losing reach, B-B, plotted on attached Figure 6 from 2003 SRBC report.) Coal Creek: Coal Creek is also dry directly above discharge DCC005. Further upstream at COAL2.0, however, Coal Creek has an average flow rate of ~130 gpm with a 5 to 6 lab pH, low metal content, and minimal acidity and alkalinity. (Losing reach, C-C, and COAL2.0 plotted on attached Figure 6 from 2003 SRBC report.) In order to implement a gravity-flow treatment system, DCC005 is proposed to be diverted from Coal Creek and treated. The final effluent is then to be redirected to Coal Creek ~ mile downstream of the current discharge location. (Alternatively, the final effluent may be conveyed to an unnamed tributary or Morris Run prior to entering the Tioga River.) Morris Run: In order to predict the water quality of Morris Run below the proposed treatment systems, a different yet simple approach was utilized. Loadings were calculated at the MORR3.0 sample point located upstream of the proposed passive treatment systems as well as for the predicted effluent quality of the three proposed passive treatment systems. The loadings from available monitoring data at MORR3.0 and from the projected effluent of the passive treatment systems were then added to represent the loading of Morris Run downstream of the treatment systems. Predicted average concentrations were then back calculated utilizing the combined loadings and average flow rates. This method provides a conservative approach as potential chemical reactions and natural attenuation of metals are not taken into account. In order to use this method certain basic assumptions were made. The primary assumption is that the flow measurements and water quality data provided are accurate and representative of both the stream and the discharges. While the water quality data is probably relatively accurate, there is a much lesser degree of confidence in the accuracy of flow rates, due to the inherent difficulty in measuring, especially large stream flows. A second assumption is that additional chemical, physical or biological processes do not occur in the stream, which is generally not the case. These processes, however, are generally difficult to quantify. A third assumption is that no other sources of water are entering the stream or treatment system. Again while this may or may not be true, this was a necessary assumption. An additional factor that may impact these calculations is that the public water supply intake for the Morris Run community is located below MORR3.0 and above the AMD discharges to be treated. During a brief field inspection on 02-Oct-06 (a typically low-flow period) it was observed that the stream flow decreased c from upstream to downstream of the intake. Table 17. Predicted Water Quality Downstream of Alternative Treatment Systems Parameter Bear Creek Coal Creek Morris Run 400 2400 3000 Flow (gpm) ~7 ~7 ~6.5 pH (s.u.) 30 15 15 Alkalinity (mg/L) -10 <5 ~0 Acidity (mg/L) <1 <1 <1 Iron (mg/L) <5 5 5 Manganese (mg/L) <1 <1 <1 Aluminum (mg/L)
Average, very approximate, values; total concentrations of metals reported
42
16.0
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Both the 2003 SRBC and 2003 Gannett Fleming reports are well considered and comprehensive and address the 16 AMD discharges identified as having the most significant impact on the Upper Tioga River Watershed. BioMost believes that the work presented in the two previous reports with consideration of alternative designs and cost information provided in this report (outlined in Table 20 below) provides sufficient information for the planning and implementation of abandoned mine drainage restoration efforts in the Upper Tioga River Watershed. If more refined cost estimates and designs are desired, additional data could be gathered from TCCCC, PA DEP, Arnot Sportsmens Club and others, currently working to address specific issues identified in the 2003 SRBC report Based on the data provided, an understanding of the measured acidity that appears to be unrelated to abandoned mine drainage may also need to be addressed. Both the 2003 SRBC and the 2003 Gannett Fleming reports focused on restoration efforts associated with AMD; however, reference was made to existing studies that identified the impact of organic acids from natural wetlands to the streams. Depending on the contents of the studies, which were not reviewed during the preparation of this report, additional data gathering and sampling may be required. The non-AMD acidity loading upstream of MORR3.0 may be substantially decreased by the impact of the public water supply as described in Section 15. (Note that current TCCCC efforts may also provide important information on this topic.) Table 18. Additional Data Recommendations for Stream & Discharge Characterization and Treatment System Design (Section and page numbers refer to discussion in this report.) Consideration Description Sec. Pg. Acquire existing studies in Upper Tioga Watershed relating 8.2.2 15 Pre-system design phase: to organic acidity Organic acid source and Conduct limited additional monitoring; split samples; add 8.2.2 16 contribution to stream field alkalinity, field ORP, dissolved metals to existing 11.2.2 21 acidity; current stream & monitoring parameters discharge characteristics Add DOC, nitrates, sulfates (lower detection limit), etc. if 8.3 16 non-AMD source(s) remains unidentified Conduct iron speciation, as applicable, to determine 11.2.1 21 oxidation state Complete field titrations to better estimate sludge volumes 11.3.1 22 Complete short-term bench-scale tests, as applicable, to assist 11.4.2 24 in determining potential use of recent passive technology *System design phase: Evaluation and revisions Describe potential construction/disposal area, i.e., landowner Site to conceptual designs (acquire permission), topography, impacts to utilities, cultural -Map and environmental features, etc. Describe underground and surface mine workings to assist in 12.1 28 evaluating pumping needs and sludge disposal options, etc. Establish O&M responsibilities 11.4.2 25
*Please note that organizations such as the Tioga County Concerned Citizens Committee, PA DEP, BAMR, Arnot Sportsmens Club, among others, have been actively working to address specific issues in the Johnson Creek, Tioga River and Fall Brook Subwatersheds and may have additional/more up-to-date design and cost estimate information. (Section 14.0, page 38)
43
Table 19. Apparent Disparities (2003 SRBC; 2003 Gannett Fleming reports)
(Section and page numbers refer to discussion in this report.)
Consideration Stream and Discharge Characterization
Description Monitoring data suggest losing streams below major discharges; discrepancy probably related to differing methods of flow measurements; consider same-day monitoring of streams and discharges in future Average pH; consider using hydronium-ion concentrations
Sec. 7.4 7.5 11.2.1 11.2.2 13.2.1 6.3 11.3.2 11.4.3
Page 11 12 21 34 8 22 25
Discrepancy in locations of DMR001 & DMR003 Confidence interval determination; consider confidence limit Two clarifiers on conceptual plans; consider using single clarifier Excess alkalinity generation of 100 mg/L from active treatment systems; experience suggests an excess of about 10-20 mg/L for hydroxide alkalinity; consider additional chemical consumption and sludge generation <1% solids in sludge volume projections; consider use of sludge drying beds; AMDTreat recommends 1-6% solids for sludge with low solids percentage Iron and aluminum sludge volumes; consider contribution from manganese solids Treatment HDPE liners; consider best on-site clay material liners for System decrease (minor) in cost Design Criteria Settling Pond for passive components sized based on 24-hr. detention and increased 40% for long-term sludge storage; consider sizing passive components as for Surface Flow Wetlands Surface Flow Wetlands sized to remove 5 g/day-m2; consider that aluminum retained in preceding Vertical Flow Wetlands 4g/day-m2 sizing criteria for MOB sizing criteria unreferenced; consider other/established sizing criteria Availability of water-driven clarifiers; consider using electricpowered clarifier Cost for passive alternative seems high; consider alternative passive treatment approach/technology $15/CY WRAM cost for sludge disposal; consider $10/CY from AMDTreat cost model O & M Costs All sludge to be disposed off-site; consider various on-site disposal options Consider minor labor rate adjustment from $30 to $35/hour Appendix B page numbers labeled as C-# in 2003 Gannett Fleming report Miscellaneous 25% contingency in Executive Summary includes permitting/design, land acquisition costs etc.; on page B-1 includes only unforeseen construction costs only (2003 Gannett Fleming report)
11.3.1 11.4.1 11.4.1 11.4.2 11.4.2 14.4 11.4.2 14.3 14.4 11.3 11.3 11.3.2 11.4.3 11.1 11.3.3
22 24 23 24 24 40 24 39 40 22 22 22 25 20 23
44
Table 20. Alternative Conceptual Designs and Cost Estimates Provided in this Report
(Section and page numbers refer to discussion in this report.)
Proposed Alternative Treatment of Coal Creek discharge DCC005 with separate gravity-fed hybrid or active system instead of an active system combining DBC101 and DCC005 Alternative cost estimate provided in Table 10 (page 33). Treatment of Bear Creek discharge DBC101 with separate passive system instead of an active system combining DBC101 and DCC005 Alternative cost estimate provided in Table 10 (page 33). Treatment of Morris Run discharges DMR 001, 003, 004 with three separate passive systems instead of single active treatment system Alternative cost estimates provided in Table 13 (page 38). *Treatment of Lower Fall Brook discharges with revised conceptual active or passive system design instead of previously recommended systems Alternative cost estimates provided in Table 16 (page 41).
Sec. 12.3.1 12.3.2 13.2ff 14.3 14.4
Page 28 29 34ff 39 40
*Also note that the alternative passive treatment system (and corresponding cost estimate) included on Figure 10 of the 2003 Gannett Fleming report for the Upper Fall Brook site is preferred instead of the active treatment system recommended and described on the same figure. (Section 14.2, page 39)
45
Selected References Ashley, George H. 1928. Bituminous Coal Fields of Pennsylvania Part I: General Information On Coal. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, Fourth Series, Bulletin M6. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. .p. 149. BioMost, Inc. (unpub. 2005) Bench Scale Tests using Limestone to Treat Low pH, Ferric IronDominated, Mine Drainage. Dunkard Creek Restoration, AMD 04 Discharge. Carson, Gregory A. 2006. Chemical and Biological Impact of Acid Mine Runoff on the Tioga River. Mansfield University, Mansfield, PA. Clesceri, L.S., A. E. Greenberg, A. D. Eaton (eds). 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (20th Edition). APHA, AWWA, WEF. Danehy, Timothy P. et al., 2006. Funding Requirements for Long-Term Post-Mining Discharge Treatment. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, 26-30 March 2006, St. Louis, MO. Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1972. Mine Drainage Abatement Measures: Tioga River Watershed. PA Department of Environmental Resources Project SL-136-1. Heath, David. 1995. An Introduction to Experimental Design and Statistics for Biology. London: UCL Press Limited. 372 pp. Hedin, Robert S. et al., 1994. Passive Treatment of coal Mine Drainage. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Information Circular 9389. Hedin, Robert S. 2006. The Use of Measured and Calculated Acidity Values to Improve the Quality of Mine Drainage Datasets. Mine Water and the Environment 25: 146-152. Hughey, Ronald E. 1993. Aquatic Biological Investigation. Tioga River Headwaters. PA Department of Environmental Resources File 30990. [not available during review] Kirby, Carl S. and Brian McInerney. (undated) Headwater Stream Acidification in the Tuscarora Formation, Valley & Ridge Province, PA. www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/kirby/HWStreamStudy.html Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1999. State of the Stream: 1995 1997 Maryland Biological Stream Survey Results (CBWP-MANTA-EA-99-6). p. 6-1 to -24. Means, Brent and Tiff Hilton. 2004. Comparison of Three Methods to Measure Acidity of CoalMine Drainage. In Proceedings of 2004 National Mtg. Am. Soc. of Mining & Rec. and 25th WV Surface Mine Drainage Task Force, 19-24 April 2004: Morgantown, WV, p. 1249-1277. Means, Brent and Arthur W. Rose, 2005. Rate of Manganese Removal in Limestone Bed Systems. In Proceedings of the 2005 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 18-25 June 2005, Breckenridge, CO, pp. 702-716. Means, Brent, 2006, Personal communications.
46
Moase, Robert, Robert Wnuk, Louis Benzie. 1999. Upper Tioga River Basin (404A), (Upstream from River Mile 31.50 at Mansfield), Fisheries Management Report. Fish and Boat Commission, Bureau of Fisheries Management Div. [not available during review] National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), Central Analytical Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan (NADP CAL QA Plan 2002-1), 2002. http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/qaplans/qapCal2002.pdf. Accessed October 2006. National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), Isopleth Maps. http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/. Accessed October 2006. Orr, Jennifer. 2003. Watershed Assessment and Remediation Strategy for Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Upper Tioga River Watershed (Pub. 230). Susquehanna River Basin Comm. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Loads Tioga River Watershed For Acid Mine Drainage Affected Segments Tioga and Bradford Counties. Dept. of Env. Protection, Harrisburg, PA. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. 2002 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies. Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, Hills Creek, PA90 site, Acid Rain Data, Accessed October 2006. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/acidrain/sites/hillscreek.htm, Rightnour, Terry A. and Kevin L. Hoover. 2003. Upper Tioga River Watershed Acid Mine Drainage Conceptual Treatment and Restoration Plan. Gannett Fleming, Inc., Clearfield, PA. Rose, Arthur W. 2002. Case Studies of Passive Treatment Systems: Vertical Flow Systems. In Proceedings of 2002 National Mtg. of Am. Soc. of Mining & Rec. 9-13 June 2002, Lexington, KY, p. 776-797. Sisler, James D. 1978. Bituminous Coal Fields of Pennsylvania Part II: Detailed Description of Coal Fields. PA Geological Survey, 4th Series, Mineral Resource Report 6. p. 395- 398. Tioga County Conservation District. 2005. Tioga County Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy. Tioga County Conservation District. Tioga County Conservation District. 2005. Annual Report. Tioga County Conservation District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. 2002. Report of the Secretary of the Army on Civil Works Activities for FY 2002. p. 4-25 4-26. Watzlaf, G. R, K. T. Schroeder and C. L. Kairies. 2000. Long Term Performance of AlkalinityProducing passive Systems for the Treatment of Mine Drainage. In Proc. of 2000 Annual Mtg. of Am. Soc. for Surface Mining & Rec. 11-15 June 2000, Tampa, FL, p.262 274. Watzlaf, G. R, K. T. Schroeder, R. L. P. Kleinmann, C. L. Kairies and R. W. Nairn. 2004. The passive treatment of coal mine drainage. US Dept. of Energy Rept., DOE/NETL2004/1202. Springfield, VA: NTIS, 72 p. Available at ftp://ftp.netl.doe.gov/pub/Watzlaf/
47
APPENDIX AMD TREAT CALCULATIONS
Company Name Project
BioMost, Inc. - USACE Upper Tioga
Printed on 10/27/2006
Site Name DCC005 and DBC101 ACTIVE
AMD TREAT
Costs
Passive Treatment Vertical Flow Pond Anoxic Limestone Drain Anaerobic Wetlands Aerobic Wetlands Manganese Removal Bed Oxic Limestone Channel Limestone Bed BIO Reactor Passive Subtotal: Active Treatment Caustic Soda Hydrated Lime Pebble Quick Lime Ammonia Oxidants Soda Ash Active Subtotal: Ancillary Cost Ponds Roads Land Access Ditching Engineering Cost Ancillary Subtotal: Other Cost (Capital Cost) Total Capital Cost: Annual Costs Sampling Labor Maintenance Pumping Chemical Cost Oxidant Chem Cost Sludge Removal Other Cost (Annual Cost) Land Access (Annual Cost) Total Annual Cost: Other Cost 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 $3,509 $101,920 $100,641 $244,381 $176,951 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $647,402 Total Annual Cost: per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated $0.436 1 0 1 1 0 0 $101,916 $81,275 $0 $0 $718,865 $902,056 $1,150,000 $3,594,323 1 0 $0 $1,542,267 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
AMD TREAT MAIN COST FORM

A S $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design Flow Typical Flow Total Iron Aluminum Manganese pH Ferric Iron Ferrous Iron Sulfate Filtered Fe Filtered Al Filtered Mn Specific Conductivity Total Dissolved Solids Dissolved Oxygen 6251.00 2818.00 38.20 30.60 9.50 2.70 35.20 3.00 519.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated Acidity Alkalinity Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 335.00 335.00 0.00
Water Quality mg/L mg/L
mg/L gpm gpm mg/L mg/L mg/L su mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L uS/cm mg/L mg/L
Company Name Project Site Name
AMD TREAT
HYDRATED LIME
Hydrated Lime Name Constructed on top of Hill 1. Annual Hydrated Lime 3,539,018.2 1,769.5 9,695.9 lbs/yr tons/yr lbs/day 23. Mixing Tank (Assumes a Two Cell Mixing Tank) 43. Polymer Feed System Mixing Tank Cost Cost Est based on Volume of Mixing Tank 24. Tank Volume Cost Est. based on Desired Retention Time 25. Mixing Tank Volume 26. Design Flow lbs of hydrated lime /gal of h2o 0.00 $ 27. Retention Time Specifications of Concrete Tank 28. Tank Wall Thickness 29. Tank Bottom Thickness 30. Tank Freeboard 31. Construction Labor Cost 32. Concrete Unit Cost 33. Excavation Unit Cost 34. Number of Motorized Mixers Cost of Clarifier Design Flow 6251.00 Typical Flow 2818.00 Total Iron 0.00 Aluminum 0.00 Manganese 0.00 mg/L mg/L mg/L gpm 16. Cost Muliplier Cost Est based on Flow 17. Design Flow 18. Estimated Diameter 19. Cost Muliplier 20. Vibrator Air Sweep 21. Pneumatic Air Sweep 0.00 gpm 138.20 ft 8000.0 Cost Est. Based on Building Area 0 0 0 40. Building Length 41. Building Width 42. Building Unit Cost 30 ft 30 ft. 10.0 $/ft2 gpm Cost Est based on Clarifier Diameter 15. Diameter ft 36. Number of Slide Gates 37. Unit Cost of Slide Gate 38. Cost of Electric Panel 39. Control Building Cost of Control Building $ 61. Electric Control Panel Cost 62. Building Cost 63. Polymer Feed System 64. Clear and Grub Cost 65. Total Cost 5 qty 1500 $ 10000 $ $ 35. Unit Cost of Motorized Mixer 1.50 ft 1.50 ft 3.00 ft 40000 $ 120 $/yd3 7.00 $/yd3 2 qty 5000 $ 187,542.9 gal 0.00 gpm 30.0 min gal $ 44. Clearing and Grubbing? 45. Clear and Grub Area 46. Clear and Grub Costs 2.00 acres 1500.00 $/acre 1500 $
Opening Screen Water Parameters Influent Water Parameters that Affect Hydrated Lime
Calculated Acidity 335.00 Alkalinity 0.00 mg/L mg/L
2. Annual Hydrated Lime 3. Daily Hydrated Lime 4. Pounds per Hour of Hydrated Lime 5. Purity of Hydrated Lime 6 Mixing Efficency of Hydrated Lime 7. Titration? 8. Titration Amount
403.997518 lbs/hr 96 90 % %
Hydrated Lime Sizing Summaries

47. Tank Length 48. Tank Width 49. Tank Depth 50. Excavation Volume for Mixing Tank 51. Volume of Concrete for Mixing Tank 29.2 ft 29.2 ft 38 ft 1,857.1 yd3 1,938 ft3
Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 335.00 mg/L
9. Mechanical Aeration System Silo Storage Quantity Price System 10. 20 Ton 11. 12. 13. 35 Ton 50 Ton 60 Ton 14. Clarifier 3
Refill Freq. Days $ $ $ 4 7 10 12
Hydrated Lime Cost Summaries

52. Silo(s) Cost 53. Clarifier Cost 54. Mixing Tank Cost 55. Construction Labor (Mixing Tank) 56. Excavation Cost (Mixing Tank) 57. Concrete Cost (MixingTank) 58. Motorized Mixer & Aeration Cost 59. Sweep and Blower Cost 60. Slide Gate Cost 150,000 $ 1,105,668 $ 0 $ 40,000 $ 12,999 $ 232,599 $ 10,000 $ 0 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 9,000 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $ 1,542,267 $
50000 $
Record Number 1 of 1
22. Blower Blocks
AMD TREAT
PONDS
Pond Name Reconfigure Strip Mine Pit(s) for Sludge Drying Be
Pond Design Based On:

Retention Time 1. Desired Retention Time 36.0 hours
23. Revegetation Cost 24. Number of Ponds for this Design 25. Cost of Baffles
1500.00 $/acre 4 number 5000 $
Opening Screen Water Parameters Influent Water Parameters that Affect Ponds
3. Sludge Removal Frequency 4. Titration? 5. Sludge Rate 6. Percent Solids 7.Sludge Density Pond Size 8. Pond Length at Top of Freeboard 9. Pond Width at Top of Freeboard Run
times/year
Calculated Pond Dimensions per Pond

26. Length at Top of Freeboard 158 ft 85 ft 4,020 yd3 2,673 yd3 841 yd3/yr yd3/ 12,026 removal 1.65 acre ft 2,673 yd3 0.46 acres 1,532 yd2 36 hours
gal sludge/ gal H2O % lbs./gal
27. Width at Top of Freeboard 28. Freeboard Volume 29. Water Volume 30. Estimated Annual Sludge 31. Volume of Sludge per Removal 32. Excavation Volume 33. Excavation Volume 34. Clear and Grub Area 35. Liner Area 36. Calculated Retention Time
ft ft Rise 1 3.0 11.0 7.00 100.00 35.00 ft ft $/yd3
Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 0.00 Design Flow 6251.00 Typical Flow 2818.00 Total Iron 38.20 Aluminum 30.60 Manganese 9.50 mg/L mg/L mg/L gpm gpm mg/L
10. Slope Ratio of Pond Sides 11. Freeboard Depth 12. Water Depth 13. Excavation Unit Cost 14. Total Length of Effluent / Influent Pipe 15. Unit Cost of Pipe Liner Cost No Liner Clay Liner 16. Clay Liner Unit Cost 17. Thickness of Clay Liner Synthetic Liner 18. Synthetic Liner Unit Cost
2.0 :
Ponds Sub-Totals per Pond

37. Excavation Cost 38. Pipe Cost 80,965 3,500 8,720 2,797 932 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ $
ft 39. Liner Cost $/ft 40. Clearing and Grubbing Cost 41. Revegetation Cost 42. Baffle Cost
10.00 $/yd3 0.5 ft 43. Estimated Cost 101,916 $
$/yd2
19. Clearing and Grubbing? 20. Land Multiplier 21. Clear/Grub Acres 22. Clear and Grub Unit Cost 1.50 ratio acres 1500.00 $/acre
AMD TREAT
ROADS
Road Name Access Roads 1. Road Length 2. Road Width 3. Road Depth 4. Aggregate Unit Cost 5. GeoTextile Length 6. GeoTextile Unit Cost 7. Length of Silt Fence 8. Unit Cost of Silt Fence 9. Surveying? 10. Survey Rate 11. Survey Unit Cost 12. Clearing and Grubbing? 13. Clear and Grub Cost 1500 $/acre 4000 ft 15 ft 1.00 ft 24.00 $/yd3 3500 ft 2.58 $/yd2 0 ft 1.00 $/ft acres/day $/day 24. Total Cost 81,275 $ 14. Reveg Unit Cost 15. Culvert Unit Cost 16. Culvert Length Roads Sub-Totals 17. Road Surface Cost 18. GeoTextile Cost 19. Silt Fence Cost 20. Culvert Cost 21. Revegetation Cost 22. Survey Cost 23. Clear and Grub Cost 53,333 $ 15,050 $ 0 $ 10,000 $ 413 $ 0 $ 2,479 $ 1500.00 $/acre 10.00 $/ft 1000 ft
AMD TREAT
ENGINEERING COST
1. Capital Cost * 2. Per Cent of Capital Cost 3. Actual Engineering Cost
2,875,458 25.00
$ % $
4. Total Engineering Cost
718,865
* Total Capital Cost minus Engineering and Land Access Capital Cost
BioMost, Inc. - USACE Upper Tioga DCC005 and DBC101 ACTIVE
AMD TREAT
SAMPLING
Sampling Name Water Sample Analysis
Estimate Sampling Cost 1. Unit Labor Cost 2. Collection Time per Sample 3. Travel Time 4. Sample Frequency 5. Lab Cost Per Sample 6. Number of Sample Points 7. Actual Annual Sampling Cost Sampling Sub-Totals 8. Yearly Sample Analysis Cost 9. Yearly Travel Cost 10. Yearly Collection Cost 11. Sampling Cost 2,400 $ 0 $ 1,109 $ 3,509 $ 35.00 $/hr 0.33 hours/sample 0.00 hr 4.00 samples/mo 25.00 $/sample 2 points $
Enter Established Annual Sampling Cost
AMD TREAT
LABOR
Labor Name O&M
Estimate Labor Cost 1. Site Visits per Week 2. Site Labor Time per Visit 3. Travel Time per Visit 4. Unit Labor Cost Enter Established Annual Labor Cost 5. Actual Annual Labor Cost $ 7.00 8.00 0.00 hours hours
35.00 $/hour
6. Total Cost
101,920
AMD TREAT
MAINTANENCE
Estimate Maintenance Cost 1. Percent of Active Cost 2. Percent of Passive Cost 3. Percent of Ancillary Cost * 4. Percent of Other Capital Cost 3.50 % 1.00 % 3.50 % 3.50 %
Enter Established Annual Maintenance Cost 5. Annual Maintenance Cost $
Maintenance Sub-Totals 6 Total Maintenance Active Cost 7. Total Maintenance Passive Cost 8. Total Maintenance Ancillary Cost 9. Total Maintenance Other Capital Cost 10. Total Maintenance Cost * Ancillary Cost does int include Cost for Land Access and Engineering Cost 53,979 $ 0 $ 6,411 $ 40,250 $ 100,641 $
AMD TREAT
PUMPING
Pumping Name Pump Coal Creek to Top of Hill Estimated Fuel Cost for Pumping 12. Fuel Rate 13. Fuel Cost 14. Hours Per Day 15. Days Per Year 16. Pump Maintenance Cost 17. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost 18. Estimated Maintenance Cost ** Percent of Annual Fuel Cost gal/hr $/gal hours days %** $ $
Estimated Electricity Cost for Pumping 1. Pump Rate 2. Total Pump Head 3. Electricity Cost 4. Hours Per Day 5. Days Per Year 6. Pump Efficiency 7. Motor Efficiency 8. Pump Maintenance Cost 9. Est. Annual Electricity Cost 10. Est. Maintenance Cost 2396.00 gal/min 200.00 feet 0.08 $/kwhour 24.00 hours 365 days 75.00 % 85.00 % 18.00 %* 174,233 $ 31,362 $
* Percent of Annual Electricity Cost Enter Established Annual Pumping Cost 11. Actual Annual Pumping Cost $
19. Total Pumping Cost
205,595 $
AMD TREAT
PUMPING
Pumping Name Pump Bear Creek to Top of Hill Estimated Fuel Cost for Pumping 12. Fuel Rate 13. Fuel Cost 14. Hours Per Day 15. Days Per Year 16. Pump Maintenance Cost 17. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost 18. Estimated Maintenance Cost ** Percent of Annual Fuel Cost gal/hr $/gal hours days %** $ $
Estimated Electricity Cost for Pumping 1. Pump Rate 2. Total Pump Head 3. Electricity Cost 4. Hours Per Day 5. Days Per Year 6. Pump Efficiency 7. Motor Efficiency 8. Pump Maintenance Cost 9. Est. Annual Electricity Cost 10. Est. Maintenance Cost * Percent of Annual Electricity Cost Enter Established Annual Pumping Cost 11. Actual Annual Pumping Cost $ 422.00 gal/min 200.00 feet 0.08 $/kwhour 24.00 hours 365 days 75.00 % 85.00 % 18.00 %* 30,687 $ 5,524 $
36,211 $
AMD TREAT
PUMPING
Pumping Name Pump Sludge Estimated Fuel Cost for Pumping 12. Fuel Rate 13. Fuel Cost 14. Hours Per Day 15. Days Per Year 16. Pump Maintenance Cost 17. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost 18. Estimated Maintenance Cost ** Percent of Annual Fuel Cost gal/hr $/gal hours days %** $ $
Estimated Electricity Cost for Pumping 1. Pump Rate 2. Total Pump Head 3. Electricity Cost 4. Hours Per Day 5. Days Per Year 6. Pump Efficiency 7. Motor Efficiency 8. Pump Maintenance Cost 9. Est. Annual Electricity Cost 10. Est. Maintenance Cost * Percent of Annual Electricity Cost Enter Established Annual Pumping Cost 11. Actual Annual Pumping Cost $ 60.00 gal/min 100.00 feet 0.08 $/kwhour 24.00 hours 365 days 75.00 % 85.00 % 18.00 %* 2,182 $ 393 $
2,575 $
AMD TREAT
CHEMICAL COST
Chemical Cost Name: Hydrated Lime System with 1 Clarifier
Opening Screen Water Parameters Influent Water Parameters that Affect Chemical Cost
Calculated Acidity 335.00 mg/L Alkalinity 0.00 mg/L Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 335.00 mg/L C. Caustic Soda ? Design Flow 6251.00 gpm Typical Flow 2818.00 gpm Total Iron 38.20 mg/L Aluminum 30.60 mg/L Manganese 9.50 mg/L Non-Bulk Delivery 16. Caustic Non-Bulk Unit Cost Bulk Delivery 17. Caustic Bulk Unit Cost D. Limestone ? 18. Limestone Purity 19. Limestone Efficiency 20 Limestone Unit Cost $/gal $/gal 12. Titration? 13. Caustic Titration Amount 14. Caustic Purity 15. Mixing Efficiency of Caustic gal ofcaustic / gal H2O purity of 20% caustic solution % G. Known Chemical Cost ? 32. Known Annual Chemical Cost $ A. Hydrated Lime ? 1 Titration? 2. Hydrated Lime Titration Amount 3. Hydrated Lime Purity 4. Mixing Efficiency of Hydrated Lime 5. Hydrated Lime Unit Cost B. Pebble Quick Lime ? 6. Titration? 7. Pebble Lime Titration Amount 8. Pebble Lime Purity 9. Mixing Efficiency of Pebble Lime Delivered in Bags 10. Pebble Lime Bag Unit Cost Bulk Delivery 11. Pebble Lime Bulk Unit Cost $/lb $/lb 30. Mixing Efficiency of Soda Ash 31 Soda Ash Unit Cost lbs of Pebble Lime / gal of H2O % % 28 Soda Ash Titration Amount 29. Soda Ash Purity lbs of hydrated lime / gal of H2O 96.00 % 90.00 % 0.0500 $/lb E. Anhydrous Ammonia ? 21. Titration? 22. AmmoniaTitration Amount 23. Ammonia Purity 24. Mixing Efficiency of Ammonia Non-Bulk Delivery 25. Ammonia Non-Bulk Unit Cost Bulk Delivery 26. Ammonia Bulk Unit Cost F. Soda Ash ? 27. Titration? lbs of soda ash / gal of H2O % % $/lb $/lb $/lb lbs of ammonia / gal H2O % %
Chemical Cost Sub-Totals

33. Total Hydrated Lime Cost 34. Total Pebble Lime Cost 35. Total Caustic Soda Cost 36. Total Limestone Cost 37. Total Anhydrous Ammonia Cost 38. Total Soda Ash Cost 176,951 $ 129,560 $ 843,188 $ 0 $
Annual Amount of Chemicals Consumed

3,539,018 2,591,202 1,686,376 0 0 0 lbs lbs gals tons lbs lbs
0 $ 0 $ 0 $
% % $/ton
39. Total Known Chemical Cost 40. Selected Chemical: HYDRATED LIME Annual Chemical Cost
176,951 $
AMD TREAT
OTHER COST
Oher Cost Name A. Description of Item B. Unit Cost Per Item C. Quantity D. Total Item Cost E. Capital Cost Annual Cost
1. Holding Tank, Pumping Station, Pipelines 2. Holding Tank, Pumping Station, Pipelines 3. Flocculant 4. Boreholes for Sludge Disposal 5. Pipelines for Sludge Disposal 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
500,000.00 300,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 1 1 10 10000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 300,000 20,000 100,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Cost Total Annual Cost 1,150,000 $ 20,000 $
Curent Capital Cost Current Annual Cost
1,150,000 $ 20,000 $
Printed on 10/27/2006 Company Name Project BioMost, Inc. - USACE Upper Tioga
AMD TREAT
FINANCIAL FORECASTING Treatment System 1
GF - Active System 1. Inflation Rate 2. Net Rate of Return 3. Term of Analysis 4. Annual Cost 5. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 3,594,323 $
Treatment System 2
GF - Active System 19. Inflation Rate 20. Net Rate of Return 21. Term of Analysis 22. Annual Cost 23. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 0 $ 0 $
6. Obtain Records from Recapitalization Tool for Replacment Costs
7. Recapitalization Inflation Rate
8. Recapitalization Net Rate of Return 9. Recapitalization Term of Analysis
NO RECAPITALIZATION RECORDS
% % years 0$ 0 $ 3,594,323 $ 7,793,541 $
3,594,323 $
% % years 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
10. Total Capital Cost from Recapitalization Tool 11. Total PV Recapitalization Cost from Recapitalization Tool 12. PV Recapitalization Cost plus Start-Up Captial Cost 13. PV of Future Annual Costs 14. Include One Year of Annual Cost 15. Additional Year of Treatment Cost 16. Investment Volatility Factor 17. Grand Total Net Present Cost 18. Average PV Cost Per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated 0.00 % 11,387,864 $ 0 $
28. Total Capital Cost from Recapitalization Tool 29 Total PV Recapitalization Cost from Recapitalization Tool 30. PV Recapitalization Cost plus Start-Up Captial Cost 31. PV of Future Annual Costs 32. Include One Year of Annual Cost 33. Additional Year of Treatment Cost 34. Investment Volatility Factor 35 Grand Total Net Present Cost 36. Average PV Cost Per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated 0.00 % 0 $ 0 $
$ at a 6251.00 0.230 Typical Flow Rate
0.000 Typical Flow

Rate
$ at a 6251.00
37. Capital Cost Difference 38. PV Cost Difference
3,594,323 $ 11,387,864 $
Site Name Coal Creek (DCC005) - HYBRID
AMD TREAT
Costs
Passive Treatment Vertical Flow Pond Anoxic Limestone Drain Anaerobic Wetlands Aerobic Wetlands Manganese Removal Bed Oxic Limestone Channel Limestone Bed BIO Reactor Passive Subtotal: Active Treatment Caustic Soda Hydrated Lime Pebble Quick Lime Ammonia Oxidants Soda Ash Active Subtotal: Ancillary Cost Ponds Roads Land Access Ditching Engineering Cost Ancillary Subtotal: Other Cost (Capital Cost) Total Capital Cost: Annual Costs Sampling Labor Maintenance Pumping Chemical Cost Oxidant Chem Cost Sludge Removal Other Cost (Annual Cost) Land Access (Annual Cost) Total Annual Cost: Other Cost 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 $7,018 $76,440 $79,073 $5,363 $87,666 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $265,560 Total Annual Cost: per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated $0.210 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 $267,432 $74,248 $0 $161,285 $706,386 $1,209,351 $200,000 $3,531,927 1 0 $0 $1,329,727 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

A 2 S 0 $792,848 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $792,848 Design Flow Typical Flow Total Iron Aluminum Manganese pH Ferric Iron Ferrous Iron Sulfate Filtered Fe Filtered Al Filtered Mn Specific Conductivity Total Dissolved Solids Dissolved Oxygen 5274.00 2396.00 40.10 29.20 8.60 2.80 35.70 4.40 508.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated Acidity Alkalinity Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 365.00 365.00 0.00
Company Name Printed on 10/27/2006 Project Site Name
AMD TREAT VERTICAL FLOW POND (VFP)

VFP Name VFP1A
Opening Screen Water Parameters

1. Tons of Limestone Needed 2. Tons of Limestone Needed 3. Tons of Limestone Needed 4. Tons of Limestone Needed 5. Tons of Limestone Needed 11. % Void Space of LS. Bed mg/L 12. System Life 13. Limestone Purity Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 170.00 Design Flow 2637.00 Typical Flow 0.00 Total Iron 0.00 Aluminum 0.00 Manganese 0.00 mg/L No Liner Clay Liner 11. Clay Liner Unit Cost mg/L 25. Excavation Unit Cost mg/L gpm 22. Organic Matter Unit Cost 23. Organic Matter Spreading Unit Cost 24. Limestone Depth gpm mg/L 14. Limestone Efficiency 15. Density of Loose Limestone 16. Limestone Unit Cost 17. LS Placement Unit Cost Run of Slope 18. Slope of Pond Sides 19. Freeboard Depth 20. Free Standing Water Depth 21. Organic Matter Depth 2.0 :
SIZING METHODS Select One

36,336 41,988 704,924 12,000 5,907 40.00 % years 90.00 % % 99.26 lbs/ft3 20.00 $/ton 5.00 $/yd3 Rise of Slope 1 3.00 ft 0.0 ft 0.0 ft 0.00 $/yd3 0.00 $/yd3 13.5 ft 7.00 $/yd3 VFP Based on Acidity Neutralization VFP Based on Retention Time VFP Based on Alkalinity Generation Rate VFP Based on Tons Limestone Entered VFP Based on Dimensions 29. Clearing and Grubbing? 30a. Land Multiplier 30b. Clear/Grub Acres 31. Clear and Grub Unit Cost 32. Nbr. of Valves 33. Unit Cost of Valves AMDTreat Piping Costs 34. Total Length of Effluent / Influent Pipe 35. Pipe Install Rate 36. Labor Rate 37. Segment Len. of Trunk Pipe 38. Trunk Pipe Cost 39. Trunk Coupler Cost 40. Spur Cost 41. Spur Coupler Cost 42. "T" Connector Cost 43. Segment Len. of Spur Pipe 44. Spur Pipe Spacing Custom Piping Costs 10.00 $/yd3 1.0 ft 45. Pipe #1 46. Pipe #2 $/yd2 47. Pipe #3 Length ft ft ft Diameter in in in Unit Cost $ $ $ 68. Total Cost 396,424 $ 200 ft 100.00 ft/hr 35.00 $/hr 13 ft/pipe seg. 10.00 $/ft 0.00 $/coupler 4.00 $/ft 0.00 $/spur 28.00 $/T coupler 20 ft/pipe seg. 10.0 ft 1.50 ratio acres 1500.00 $/acre 10 nbr 2000.00 $ ea. 6. Retention Time 7. Alkalinity Generation Rate 8. Limestone Needed 9. Length at Top of Freeboard hours g/m2/day 12,000 tons 10. Width at Top ft of Freeboard
Influent Water Parameters that Affect VFP

Calculated Acidity 170.00 Alkalinity 0.00 mg/L
ft
VFP Sizing Summaries

48. Length at Top of Freeboard 49. Width at Top of Freeboard 50. Freeboard Volume 51. Water Surface Area 52. Total Water Volume 53. Organic Matter Volume 54. Limestone Surface Area 55. Limestone Volume 56. Excavation Volume 57. Clear and Grub Area 58. Liner Area 59. Theoretical Retention Time 240.95 ft 126.47 ft 3,146 yd3 26,211 ft2 0 yd3 0 yd3 26,211 ft2 8,955.15 yd3 8,955.1 yd3 1.0 acr. 4,659.0 ft2 4.57 hrs
VFP Cost Summaries

60. Organic Matter Cost 61. Limestone Cost 62. Limestone and Organic Matter Placement Cost 63. Excavation Cost 64. Liner Cost 65. Clear and Grub Cost 66. Valve Cost 67. Pipe Cost 0 $ 240,000 $ 44,776 $ 62,686 $ 12,157 $ 1,574 $ 20,000 $ 15,231 $
Liner Cost
12. Thickness of Clay Liner Synthetic Liner 13. Synthetic Liner Unit Cost

VFP Name VFP1B



ft

VFP Cost Summaries

Liner Cost
AMD TREAT
HYDRATED LIME
Hydrated Lime Name Afer Passive (29.2Al+4.4Fe2+4.0pH+15alk) 1. Annual Hydrated Lime 1,706,622.3 853.3 4,675.6 lbs/yr tons/yr lbs/day 23. Mixing Tank (Assumes a Two Cell Mixing Tank) 43. Polymer Feed System Mixing Tank Cost Cost Est based on Volume of Mixing Tank 24. Tank Volume Cost Est. based on Desired Retention Time 25. Mixing Tank Volume 26. Design Flow lbs of hydrated lime /gal of h2o 0.00 $ 27. Retention Time Specifications of Concrete Tank 28. Tank Wall Thickness 29. Tank Bottom Thickness 30. Tank Freeboard 31. Construction Labor Cost 32. Concrete Unit Cost 33. Excavation Unit Cost 34. Number of Motorized Mixers Cost of Clarifier Design Flow 5274.00 Typical Flow 2396.00 Total Iron 0.00 Aluminum 0.00 Manganese 0.00 mg/L mg/L mg/L gpm 16. Cost Muliplier Cost Est based on Flow 17. Design Flow 18. Estimated Diameter 19. Cost Muliplier 20. Vibrator Air Sweep 21. Pneumatic Air Sweep 0.00 gpm 126.94 ft 8000.0 Cost Est. Based on Building Area 0 0 0 40. Building Length 41. Building Width 42. Building Unit Cost 30 ft 30 ft. 10.0 $/ft2 gpm Cost Est based on Clarifier Diameter 15. Diameter ft 36. Number of Slide Gates 37. Unit Cost of Slide Gate 38. Cost of Electric Panel 39. Control Building Cost of Control Building $ 61. Electric Control Panel Cost 62. Building Cost 63. Polymer Feed System 64. Clear and Grub Cost 65. Total Cost 5 qty 1500 $ 10000 $ $ 35. Unit Cost of Motorized Mixer 1.50 ft 1.50 ft 3.00 ft 35000 $ 120 $/yd3 7.00 $/yd3 2 qty 5000 $ 158,230.9 gal 0.00 gpm 30.0 min gal $ 44. Clearing and Grubbing? 45. Clear and Grub Area 46. Clear and Grub Costs 2.00 acres 1500.00 $/acre 1500 $
194.819900 lbs/hr 96 90 % %


52. Silo(s) Cost 53. Clarifier Cost 54. Mixing Tank Cost 55. Construction Labor (Mixing Tank) 56. Excavation Cost (Mixing Tank) 57. Concrete Cost (MixingTank) 58. Motorized Mixer & Aeration Cost 59. Sweep and Blower Cost 60. Slide Gate Cost 50,000 $ 1,015,594 $ 0 $ 35,000 $ 10,967 $ 212,165 $ 10,000 $ 0 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 9,000 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $ 1,329,727 $
50000 $
22. Blower Blocks
AMD TREAT
PONDS
Pond Name Two Settling Ponds after AVFPs

Retention Time 1. Desired Retention Time hours
1500.00 $/acre 2 number 5000 $
times/year

26. Length at Top of Freeboard 300 ft 146 ft 17,566 yd3 12,992 yd3 0 yd3/yr yd3/ 0 removal 8.05 acre ft 12,992 yd3 1.50 acres 3,280 yd2 7 hours
300.000 146.000 Rise 1 3.0 12.0 7.00 200.00 15.00
ft ft
2.0 :
ft ft $/yd3

37. Excavation Cost 38. Pipe Cost 188,601 3,000 9,590 4,524 1,508 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ $
$/yd2
AMD TREAT
PONDS

1500.00 $/acre 2 number 5000 $
times/year

ft ft Rise 1 3.0 11.0 7.00 100.00 35.00 ft ft $/yd3
2.0 :

$/yd2
AMD TREAT
ROADS
AMD TREAT
DITCHING
Ditching Name From Source to AVFPs 1. Ditch Length Rock 2. Ditch Length Grass 3. Bottom Width of Ditch 4. Ditch Depth 5. Geo Textile Unit Cost 6. Length of Geo Textile 7. Slope Ratio of Ditch Sides 8. Surveying? 9. Survey Rate 10. Survey Unit Cost 11. Clearing and Grubbing? 12. Clear and Grub Cost 1500.00 $/acre acres/day $/day Run 2.00 2400 ft 0 ft 12.0 ft 4.00 ft 2.58 $/yd2 2400 ft 13. Ditch Depth of Rock 14. Cost of Ditch Surface Rock 15. Cost to Place Rock 16. Excavation Unit Cost 17. Length of Silt Fence 18. Unit Cost of Silt Fence 19. Revegetation Unit Cost 1.00 ft 28.00 $/yd3 5.00 $/yd3 7.00 $/yd3 0.00 ft 1.00 $/ft 1500.00 $/acre
Rise 1.00
Ditching Sub-Totals 20. Excavation Cost 21. Survey Cost 22. Clear and Grub Cost 23. Aggregate Cost 24. Filter Fabric Cost 25. Silt Fence Cost 26. Revegetation Cost 49,778 $ 0 $ 2,777 $ 87,673 $ 20,563 $ 0 $ 494 $ 161,285 $
27. Total Cost
AMD TREAT
ENGINEERING COST
2,825,542 25.00
$ % $
706,386
BioMost, Inc. - USACE Upper Tioga Coal Creek (DCC005) - HYBRID
AMD TREAT
SAMPLING
AMD TREAT
LABOR
Labor Name O&M
35.00 $/hour
6. Total Cost
76,440
AMD TREAT
MAINTANENCE
Maintenance Sub-Totals 6 Total Maintenance Active Cost 7. Total Maintenance Passive Cost 8. Total Maintenance Ancillary Cost 9. Total Maintenance Other Capital Cost 10. Total Maintenance Cost * Ancillary Cost does int include Cost for Land Access and Engineering Cost 46,540 $ 7,928 $ 17,603 $ 7,000 $ 79,073 $
AMD TREAT
PUMPING
Pumping Name Pump Sludge from Clarifier to Strip Pit Estimated Fuel Cost for Pumping 12. Fuel Rate 13. Fuel Cost 14. Hours Per Day 15. Days Per Year 16. Pump Maintenance Cost 17. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost 18. Estimated Maintenance Cost ** Percent of Annual Fuel Cost gal/hr $/gal hours days %** $ $
5,363 $
AMD TREAT
CHEMICAL COST
Chemical Cost Name: Afer Passive (29.2Al+4.4Fe2+4.0pH+20alk)


1,753,329 1,283,755 835,478 0 0 0 lbs lbs gals tons lbs lbs
0 $ 0 $ 0 $
% % $/ton
87,666 $
AMD TREAT
OTHER COST
1. Flocculant 2. Boreholes for Sludge Disposal 3. Pipelines for Sludge Disposal 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
10,000.00 10,000.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 5 6000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10,000 50,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Cost Total Annual Cost 200,000 $ 10,000 $
200,000 $ 10,000 $
AMD TREAT
HYBRID SYSTEM 1. Inflation Rate 2. Net Rate of Return 3. Term of Analysis 4. Annual Cost 5. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 3,531,927 $
Treatment System 2
HYBRID SYSTEM 19. Inflation Rate 20. Net Rate of Return 21. Term of Analysis 22. Annual Cost 23. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 0 $ 0 $
% % years 0$ 0 $ 3,531,927 $ 3,196,859 $
3,531,927 $
% % years 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
0.000 Typical Flow

Rate
$ at a 5274.00
3,531,927 $ 6,728,786 $
Site Name Bear Creek (DBC101) - PASSIVE
AMD TREAT
Costs
Passive Treatment Vertical Flow Pond Anoxic Limestone Drain Anaerobic Wetlands Aerobic Wetlands Manganese Removal Bed Oxic Limestone Channel Limestone Bed BIO Reactor Passive Subtotal: Active Treatment Caustic Soda Hydrated Lime Pebble Quick Lime Ammonia Oxidants Soda Ash Active Subtotal: Ancillary Cost Ponds Roads Land Access Ditching Engineering Cost Ancillary Subtotal: Other Cost (Capital Cost) Total Capital Cost: Annual Costs Sampling Labor Maintenance Pumping Chemical Cost Oxidant Chem Cost Sludge Removal Other Cost (Annual Cost) Land Access (Annual Cost) Total Annual Cost: Other Cost 1 0 1 0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Total Annual Cost: per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated $0.022 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 $71,519 $55,891 $0 $13,440 $144,720 $285,570 $45,000 $723,599 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 0

A S $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $393,029 $0 $0 $393,029 Design Flow Typical Flow Total Iron Aluminum Manganese pH Ferric Iron Ferrous Iron Sulfate Filtered Fe Filtered Al Filtered Mn Specific Conductivity Total Dissolved Solids Dissolved Oxygen 977.00 422.00 7.60 12.40 5.20 2.90 7.20 0.40 283.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated Acidity Alkalinity Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 163.00 163.00 0.00
AMD TREAT
Oxic Limestone Channel (OLC)
Oxic Limestone Channel Name OLC in existing channel/road excavation
1. Ditch Length Rock 2. Bottom Width of the Ditch 3. Ditch Depth 4. Geo Textile Unit Cost 5. Length of GeoTextile 6. Slope Ratio of Ditch Sides 7. Surveying? 8. Survey Rate 9. Survey Unit Cost Run 2.00
1324 ft 15.0 ft 6.50 ft 2.58 $/yd2 1324 ft Rise 1.00
12. Ditch Depth of Limestone 13. Cost of Limestone 14. Cost to Place Limestone 15. Excavation Unit Cost 16. Revegetation Unit Cost OLC Sub-Totals 17. Excavation Cost 18. Survey Cost 19. Clear and Grub Cost 20. Limestone Cost 21. Filter Fabric Cost 22. Revegetation Cost 23. Total Cost
4.50 ft 27.00 $/yd3 5.00 $/yd3 7.00 $/yd3 1500.00 $/acre
62,473 $ 0 $ 2,243 $ 311,185 $ 16,726 $ 402 $ 393,029 $
acres/day $/day
10. Clearing and Grubbing? 11. Clear and Grub Cost 1500.00 $/acre
AMD TREAT
PONDS
Pond Name Settling Pond at end of OLC

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 5000 $
0.07
times/year

26. Length at Top of Freeboard 252 ft 132 ft 12,277 yd3 8,816 yd3 129 yd3/yr yd3/ 1,851 removal 5.46 acre ft 8,816 yd3 1.15 acres 0 yd2 24 hours
.0001180
ft ft Rise 1 3.0 11.0 7.00 100.00 25.00 ft ft $/yd3
2.0 :

37. Excavation Cost 38. Pipe Cost 61,718 2,500 0 1,725 575 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ $
ft 39. Liner Cost $/ft 40. Clearing and Grubbing Cost 41. Revegetation Cost 42. Baffle Cost $/yd3 ft 43. Estimated Cost 71,519 $
$/yd2
AMD TREAT
ROADS
AMD TREAT
DITCHING
Ditching Name From Source to AVFPs 1. Ditch Length Rock 2. Ditch Length Grass 3. Bottom Width of Ditch 4. Ditch Depth 5. Geo Textile Unit Cost 6. Length of Geo Textile 7. Slope Ratio of Ditch Sides 8. Surveying? 9. Survey Rate 10. Survey Unit Cost 11. Clearing and Grubbing? 12. Clear and Grub Cost 1500.00 $/acre acres/day $/day Run 2.00 200 ft 0 ft 12.0 ft 4.00 ft 2.58 $/yd2 200 ft 13. Ditch Depth of Rock 14. Cost of Ditch Surface Rock 15. Cost to Place Rock 16. Excavation Unit Cost 17. Length of Silt Fence 18. Unit Cost of Silt Fence 19. Revegetation Unit Cost 1.00 ft 28.00 $/yd3 5.00 $/yd3 7.00 $/yd3 0.00 ft 1.00 $/ft 1500.00 $/acre
Rise 1.00
Ditching Sub-Totals 20. Excavation Cost 21. Survey Cost 22. Clear and Grub Cost 23. Aggregate Cost 24. Filter Fabric Cost 25. Silt Fence Cost 26. Revegetation Cost 4,148 $ 0 $ 231 $ 7,306 $ 1,714 $ 0 $ 41 $ 13,440 $
27. Total Cost
AMD TREAT
ENGINEERING COST
578,879 25.00
$ % $
144,720
BioMost, Inc. - USACE Upper Tioga Bear Creek (DBC101) - PASSIVE
AMD TREAT
MAINTANENCE
Estimate Maintenance Cost 1. Percent of Active Cost 2. Percent of Passive Cost 3. Percent of Ancillary Cost * 4. Percent of Other Capital Cost Enter Established Annual Maintenance Cost 5. Annual Maintenance Cost 5,000 $ % % % %
Maintenance Sub-Totals 6 Total Maintenance Active Cost 7. Total Maintenance Passive Cost 8. Total Maintenance Ancillary Cost 9. Total Maintenance Other Capital Cost 10. Total Maintenance Cost * Ancillary Cost does int include Cost for Land Access and Engineering Cost 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5,000 $
AMD TREAT
OTHER COST
1. Collection Sytems 2. Stream Intake/System Flush System 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
10,000.00 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Cost Total Annual Cost 45,000 $ 0$
45,000 $ 0$
AMD TREAT
HYBRID SYSTEM 1. Inflation Rate 2. Net Rate of Return 3. Term of Analysis 4. Annual Cost 5. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 723,599 $
Treatment System 2
HYBRID SYSTEM 19. Inflation Rate 20. Net Rate of Return 21. Term of Analysis 22. Annual Cost 23. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 0 $ 0 $
% % years 0$ 0 $ 723,599 $ 60,190 $
723,599 $
% % years 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
10. Total Capital Cost from Recapitalization Tool 11. Total PV Recapitalization Cost from Recapitalization Tool 12. PV Recapitalization Cost plus Start-Up Captial Cost 13. PV of Future Annual Costs 14. Include One Year of Annual Cost 15. Additional Year of Treatment Cost 16. Investment Volatility Factor 17. Grand Total Net Present Cost 18. Average PV Cost Per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated 0.00 % 783,789 $ 0 $
$ at a 977.00 g 0.101 Typical Flow Rate
0.000 Typical Flow

Rate
$ at a 977.00 g
723,599 $ 783,789 $
Site Name MORRIS RUN ACTIVE
AMD TREAT
Costs
Passive Treatment Vertical Flow Pond Anoxic Limestone Drain Anaerobic Wetlands Aerobic Wetlands Manganese Removal Bed Oxic Limestone Channel Limestone Bed BIO Reactor Passive Subtotal: Active Treatment Caustic Soda Hydrated Lime Pebble Quick Lime Ammonia Oxidants Soda Ash Active Subtotal: Ancillary Cost Ponds Roads Land Access Ditching Engineering Cost Ancillary Subtotal: Other Cost (Capital Cost) Total Capital Cost: Annual Costs Sampling Labor Maintenance Pumping Chemical Cost Oxidant Chem Cost Sludge Removal Other Cost (Annual Cost) Land Access (Annual Cost) Total Annual Cost: Other Cost 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 $3,509 $50,960 $62,413 $5,148 $90,541 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $222,571 Total Annual Cost: per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated $0.226 1 0 1 1 0 0 $27,855 $28,356 $0 $0 $445,808 $502,019 $592,500 $2,229,039 1 0 $0 $1,134,520 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

AMD TREAT
HYDRATED LIME
Hydrated Lime Name Constructed on top of Hill 1. Annual Hydrated Lime 1,810,821.3 905.4 4,961.1 lbs/yr tons/yr lbs/day 23. Mixing Tank (Assumes a Two Cell Mixing Tank) 43. Polymer Feed System Mixing Tank Cost Cost Est based on Volume of Mixing Tank 24. Tank Volume Cost Est. based on Desired Retention Time 25. Mixing Tank Volume 26. Design Flow lbs of hydrated lime /gal of h2o 0.00 $ 27. Retention Time Specifications of Concrete Tank 28. Tank Wall Thickness 29. Tank Bottom Thickness 30. Tank Freeboard 31. Construction Labor Cost 32. Concrete Unit Cost 33. Excavation Unit Cost 34. Number of Motorized Mixers Cost of Clarifier Design Flow 3767.00 Typical Flow 1865.00 Total Iron 0.00 Aluminum 0.00 Manganese 0.00 mg/L mg/L mg/L gpm 16. Cost Muliplier Cost Est based on Flow 17. Design Flow 18. Estimated Diameter 19. Cost Muliplier 20. Vibrator Air Sweep 21. Pneumatic Air Sweep 0.00 gpm 107.28 ft 8000.0 Cost Est. Based on Building Area 0 0 0 40. Building Length 41. Building Width 42. Building Unit Cost 30 ft 30 ft. 10.0 $/ft2 gpm Cost Est based on Clarifier Diameter 15. Diameter ft 36. Number of Slide Gates 37. Unit Cost of Slide Gate 38. Cost of Electric Panel 39. Control Building Cost of Control Building $ 61. Electric Control Panel Cost 62. Building Cost 63. Polymer Feed System 64. Clear and Grub Cost 65. Total Cost 5 qty 1500 $ 10000 $ $ 35. Unit Cost of Motorized Mixer 1.50 ft 1.50 ft 3.00 ft 40000 $ 120 $/yd3 7.00 $/yd3 2 qty 5000 $ 113,017.8 gal 0.00 gpm 30.0 min gal $ 44. Clearing and Grubbing? 45. Clear and Grub Area 46. Clear and Grub Costs 2.00 acres 1500.00 $/acre 1500 $
206.714766 lbs/hr 96 90 % %


52. Silo(s) Cost 53. Clarifier Cost 54. Mixing Tank Cost 55. Construction Labor (Mixing Tank) 56. Excavation Cost (Mixing Tank) 57. Concrete Cost (MixingTank) 58. Motorized Mixer & Aeration Cost 59. Sweep and Blower Cost 60. Slide Gate Cost 50,000 $ 858,318 $ 0 $ 40,000 $ 7,833 $ 177,368 $ 10,000 $ 0 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 9,000 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $ 1,134,520 $
50000 $
22. Blower Blocks
AMD TREAT
PONDS

1500.00 $/acre 4 number 5000 $
times/year

26. Length at Top of Freeboard 88 ft 50 ft 832 yd3 427 yd3 841 yd3/yr yd3/ 12,026 removal 0.26 acre ft 427 yd3 0.15 acres 673 yd2 36 hours
ft ft Rise 1 3.0 9.2 7.00 100.00 35.00 ft ft $/yd3
2.0 :

37. Excavation Cost 38. Pipe Cost 14,513 3,500 3,622 914 304 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ $
$/yd2
AMD TREAT
ROADS
Road Name Access Roads 1. Road Length 2. Road Width 3. Road Depth 4. Aggregate Unit Cost 5. GeoTextile Length 6. GeoTextile Unit Cost 7. Length of Silt Fence 8. Unit Cost of Silt Fence 9. Surveying? 10. Survey Rate 11. Survey Unit Cost 12. Clearing and Grubbing? 13. Clear and Grub Cost 1500 $/acre 1000 ft 15 ft 1.00 ft 24.00 $/yd3 1000 ft 2.58 $/yd2 0 ft 1.00 $/ft acres/day $/day 24. Total Cost 28,356 $ 14. Reveg Unit Cost 15. Culvert Unit Cost 16. Culvert Length Roads Sub-Totals 17. Road Surface Cost 18. GeoTextile Cost 19. Silt Fence Cost 20. Culvert Cost 21. Revegetation Cost 22. Survey Cost 23. Clear and Grub Cost 13,333 $ 4,300 $ 0 $ 10,000 $ 103 $ 0 $ 620 $ 1500.00 $/acre 10.00 $/ft 1000 ft
AMD TREAT
ENGINEERING COST
1,783,231 25.00
$ % $
445,808
BioMost, Inc. - USACE Upper Tioga MORRIS RUN ACTIVE
AMD TREAT
SAMPLING
AMD TREAT
LABOR
Labor Name O&M
35.00 $/hour
6. Total Cost
50,960
AMD TREAT
MAINTANENCE
AMD TREAT
PUMPING
Pumping Name Pump Sludge to Strip Mine Pit Drying Beds Estimated Fuel Cost for Pumping 12. Fuel Rate 13. Fuel Cost 14. Hours Per Day 15. Days Per Year 16. Pump Maintenance Cost 17. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost 18. Estimated Maintenance Cost ** Percent of Annual Fuel Cost gal/hr $/gal hours days %** $ $
5,148 $
AMD TREAT
CHEMICAL COST


1,810,821 1,325,849 862,873 0 0 0 lbs lbs gals tons lbs lbs
0 $ 0 $ 0 $
% % $/ton
90,541 $
AMD TREAT
OTHER COST
1. Gravity Sewer Collection System 2. Collection of Discharges 3. Flocculant 4. Pipelines for Sludge Disposal 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
12,500.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
35 3 1 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
437,500 30,000 10,000 125,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Cost Total Annual Cost 592,500 $ 10,000 $
592,500 $ 10,000 $
AMD TREAT
GF - Active System 1. Inflation Rate 2. Net Rate of Return 3. Term of Analysis 4. Annual Cost 5. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 2,229,039 $
Treatment System 2
GF - Active System 19. Inflation Rate 20. Net Rate of Return 21. Term of Analysis 22. Annual Cost 23. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 0 $ 0 $
% % years 0$ 0 $ 2,229,039 $ 2,679,349 $
2,229,039 $
% % years 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
0.000 Typical Flow

Rate
$ at a 3767.00
2,229,039 $ 4,908,388 $
Site Name Morris Run (DMR001) - PASSIVE
AMD TREAT
Costs
Passive Treatment Vertical Flow Pond Anoxic Limestone Drain Anaerobic Wetlands Aerobic Wetlands Manganese Removal Bed Oxic Limestone Channel Limestone Bed BIO Reactor Passive Subtotal: Active Treatment Caustic Soda Hydrated Lime Pebble Quick Lime Ammonia Oxidants Soda Ash Active Subtotal: Ancillary Cost Ponds Roads Land Access Ditching Engineering Cost Ancillary Subtotal: Other Cost (Capital Cost) Total Capital Cost: Annual Costs Sampling Labor Maintenance Pumping Chemical Cost Oxidant Chem Cost Sludge Removal Other Cost (Annual Cost) Land Access (Annual Cost) Total Annual Cost: Other Cost 1 0 1 0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Total Annual Cost: per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated $0.025 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 $79,363 $12,442 $0 $68,588 $219,324 $379,717 $101,000 $1,096,619 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 0

A 2 S 0 $303,712 $0 $0 $0 $312,189 $0 $0 $0 $615,902 Design Flow Typical Flow Total Iron Aluminum Manganese pH Ferric Iron Ferrous Iron Sulfate Filtered Fe Filtered Al Filtered Mn Specific Conductivity Total Dissolved Solids Dissolved Oxygen 857.00 380.00 9.40 37.50 28.10 2.80 8.70 0.70 780.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated Acidity Alkalinity Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 373.00 373.00 0.00

VFP Name First AFVFP (2.8pH+8.7 Fe3)



ft

VFP Cost Summaries

60. Organic Matter Cost 61. Limestone Cost 62. Limestone and Organic Matter Placement Cost 63. Excavation Cost 64. Liner Cost 65. Clear and Grub Cost 66. Valve Cost 67. Pipe Cost 0 $ 48,000 $ 9,769 $ 13,677 $ 2,340 $ 600 $ 20,000 $ 8,194 $
Liner Cost

VFP Name Second AFVFP (3.5pH+37.5Al+0.7Fe2)



ft

VFP Cost Summaries

Liner Cost
AMD TREAT
MANGANESE REMOVAL BED
MN Removal Bed Name (HFLB) Build as large as space and funding allows

Tons of Limestone Needed Tons of Limestone Needed Tons of Limestone Needed Tons of Limestone Needed 16,678.72 11,000.00 12,486.73 65,456.33 Based on Retention Time Based on Tons of Limestone Based on Dimensions Based on Kinetics
1. Retention Time 2. Limestone Needed 3. Length at Top of Freeboard 4. Width at Top of Freeboard 5. Rate Constant (k)
days 11000 tons ft ft hr/ft
Opening Screen Water Parameters Influent Water Parameters that Affect MN Removal Bed
6. Stone Diameter 7. Effleunt Mn Concentration 8. % Void Space of Limestone Bed 9 Density of Loose Limestone 10. Limestone Unit Cost 11. Limestone Placement Unit Cost 12. Freeboard Depth 13. Limestone Depth 14. Excavation Unit Cost
1.00 5.00 45.00 90.99 20.00 3.00 3.00 6.00 7.00 Rise 1 2.0 :
inches mg/l % lbs/ft3 $/ton $/yd3 ft ft $/yd3
Manganese Removal Bed Sizing Summaries

23. Top Length at Freeboard 23. Top Width at Freeboard 25. Freeboard Volume 26. Limestone Surface Area 27. Limestone Volume 28. Tons of Limestone 29. Excavation Volume 30. Clear and Grub Area 31. Liner Area 32. Theoretical Retention Time 313.78 ft 162.89 ft 5,366 yd3 45,537.6 ft2 8,954.9 yd3 11,000 tons 8,954 yd3 1.7 acres 0 ft2 0.65 days
Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 0.00 mg/L Design Flow 857.00 Typical Flow 0.00 Total Iron 0.00 Aluminum 0.00 Manganese 28.10 mg/L mg/L mg/L gpm gpm
Run 15. Slope of Pond Sides
Liner Cost
No Liner Clay Liner 16. Clay Liner Unit Cost 17. Thickness of Clay Liner Synthetic Liner 18. Synthetic Liner Unit Cost $/yd2 $/yd3 ft
Manganese Removal Bed Sub-Totals

33. Limestone Cost 34. Limestone Placement Cost 35. Excavation Cost 36. Liner Cost 37. Clear and Grub Cost 220,000 $ 26,864 $ 62,685 $ 0 $ 2,640 $ 312,189 $
19. Clearing and Grubbing? 20. Land Multiplier 21. Clear/Grub Acres 22. Clear and Grub Unit Cost 1.50 ratio acres
38. Total Cost
1500.00 $/acre
AMD TREAT
PONDS
Pond Name SP After First AFVFP

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 5000 $
times/year

140.000 74.000 Rise 1 3.0 10.0 7.00 200.00 25.00
ft ft
2.0 :
ft ft $/yd3

37. Excavation Cost 38. Pipe Cost 13,326 5,000 174 535 178 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ $
$/yd2
AMD TREAT
PONDS
Pond Name SP After Second AFVFP

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 5000 $
times/year

200.000 110.000 Rise 1 3.0 12.0 7.00 200.00 25.00
ft ft
2.0 :
ft ft $/yd3

$/yd2
AMD TREAT
ROADS
Road Name Misc Access Road 1. Road Length 2. Road Width 3. Road Depth 4. Aggregate Unit Cost 5. GeoTextile Length 6. GeoTextile Unit Cost 7. Length of Silt Fence 8. Unit Cost of Silt Fence 9. Surveying? 10. Survey Rate 11. Survey Unit Cost 12. Clearing and Grubbing? 13. Clear and Grub Cost $/acre 600 ft 15 ft 1.00 ft 24.00 $/yd3 600 ft 2.58 $/yd2 0 ft 1.00 $/ft acres/day $/day 24. Total Cost 12,442 $ 14. Reveg Unit Cost 15. Culvert Unit Cost 16. Culvert Length Roads Sub-Totals 17. Road Surface Cost 18. GeoTextile Cost 19. Silt Fence Cost 20. Culvert Cost 21. Revegetation Cost 22. Survey Cost 23. Clear and Grub Cost 8,000 $ 2,580 $ 0 $ 1,800 $ 62 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1500.00 $/acre 30.00 $/ft 60 ft
AMD TREAT
DITCHING
Ditching Name Divert Upland Flow Around PTS 1. Ditch Length Rock 2. Ditch Length Grass 3. Bottom Width of Ditch 4. Ditch Depth 5. Geo Textile Unit Cost 6. Length of Geo Textile 7. Slope Ratio of Ditch Sides 8. Surveying? 9. Survey Rate 10. Survey Unit Cost 11. Clearing and Grubbing? 12. Clear and Grub Cost 1500.00 $/acre acres/day $/day Run 3.00 750 ft 0 ft 10.0 ft 4.00 ft 2.58 $/yd2 750 ft 13. Ditch Depth of Rock 14. Cost of Ditch Surface Rock 15. Cost to Place Rock 16. Excavation Unit Cost 17. Length of Silt Fence 18. Unit Cost of Silt Fence 19. Revegetation Unit Cost 1.50 ft 24.00 $/yd3 5.00 $/yd3 7.00 $/yd3 0.00 ft 0.00 $/ft 1500.00 $/acre
Rise 1.00
27. Total Cost
AMD TREAT
ENGINEERING COST
877,296 25.00
$ % $
219,324
BioMost, Inc. - USACE Upper Tioga Morris Run (DMR001) - PASSIVE
AMD TREAT
MAINTANENCE
AMD TREAT
OTHER COST
1. Pipe Second SP down to HFLB 2. Additional Excavation-AFVFP1&SP1 3. Additional Excavation-AFVFP2&SP2 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Curent Capital Cost Current Annual Cost
35.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
600 10000 10000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21,000 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Cost Total Annual Cost 101,000 $ 0$
101,000 $ 0$
AMD TREAT
DMR001(larger) Passive System 1. Inflation Rate 2. Net Rate of Return 3. Term of Analysis 4. Annual Cost 5. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 1,096,619 $
Treatment System 2
DMR001(larger) Passive System 19. Inflation Rate 20. Net Rate of Return 21. Term of Analysis 22. Annual Cost 23. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 0 $ 0 $
% % years 0$ 0 $ 1,096,619 $ 60,190 $
1,096,619 $
% % years 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
0.000 Typical Flow

Rate
$ at a 857.00 g
1,096,619 $ 1,156,809 $
AMD TREAT
Costs
Passive Treatment Vertical Flow Pond Anoxic Limestone Drain Anaerobic Wetlands Aerobic Wetlands Manganese Removal Bed Oxic Limestone Channel Limestone Bed BIO Reactor Passive Subtotal: Active Treatment Caustic Soda Hydrated Lime Pebble Quick Lime Ammonia Oxidants Soda Ash Active Subtotal: Ancillary Cost Ponds Roads Land Access Ditching Engineering Cost Ancillary Subtotal: Other Cost (Capital Cost) Total Capital Cost: Annual Costs Sampling Labor Maintenance Pumping Chemical Cost Oxidant Chem Cost Sludge Removal Other Cost (Annual Cost) Land Access (Annual Cost) Total Annual Cost: Other Cost 1 0 1 0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Total Annual Cost: per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated $0.050 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 $41,494 $12,442 $0 $68,588 $106,000 $228,524 $25,000 $530,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 0




654 4,743 23,273 900 4,148 45.00 % years 90.00 % % 90.99 lbs/ft3 20.00 $/ton 5.00 $/yd3 Rise of Slope 1 3.00 ft 0.0 ft 0.0 ft 0.00 $/yd3 0.00 $/yd3 8.1 ft 7.00 $/yd3 VFP Based on Acidity Neutralization VFP Based on Retention Time VFP Based on Alkalinity Generation Rate VFP Based on Tons Limestone Entered VFP Based on Dimensions 29. Clearing and Grubbing? 30a. Land Multiplier 30b. Clear/Grub Acres 31. Clear and Grub Unit Cost 32. Nbr. of Valves 33. Unit Cost of Valves AMDTreat Piping Costs 34. Total Length of Effluent / Influent Pipe 35. Pipe Install Rate 36. Labor Rate 37. Segment Len. of Trunk Pipe 38. Trunk Pipe Cost 39. Trunk Coupler Cost 40. Spur Cost 41. Spur Coupler Cost 42. "T" Connector Cost 43. Segment Len. of Spur Pipe 44. Spur Pipe Spacing Custom Piping Costs 10.00 $/yd3 0.5 ft 45. Pipe #1 46. Pipe #2 $/yd2 47. Pipe #3 Length ft ft ft Diameter in in in Unit Cost $ $ $ 68. Total Cost 53,771 $ 200 ft 100.00 ft/hr 35.00 $/hr 13 ft/pipe seg. 10.00 $/ft 0.00 $/coupler 4.00 $/ft 0.00 $/spur 28.00 $/T coupler 20 ft/pipe seg. 10.0 ft 1.50 ratio acres 1500.00 $/acre 10 nbr 2000.00 $ ea. 6. Retention Time 7. Alkalinity Generation Rate 8. Limestone Needed 9. Length at Top of Freeboard hours g/m2/day 900 tons 10. Width at Top ft of Freeboard

ft

48. Length at Top of Freeboard 49. Width at Top of Freeboard 50. Freeboard Volume 51. Water Surface Area 52. Total Water Volume 53. Organic Matter Volume 54. Limestone Surface Area 55. Limestone Volume 56. Excavation Volume 57. Clear and Grub Area 58. Liner Area 59. Theoretical Retention Time 105.40 ft 58.70 ft 583 yd3 4,362 ft2 0 yd3 0 yd3 4,362 ft2 732.68 yd3 732.6 yd3 0.2 acr. 1,226.7 ft2 2.84 hrs
VFP Cost Summaries

Liner Cost




ft

48. Length at Top of Freeboard 49. Width at Top of Freeboard 50. Freeboard Volume 51. Water Surface Area 52. Total Water Volume 53. Organic Matter Volume 54. Limestone Surface Area 55. Limestone Volume 56. Excavation Volume 57. Clear and Grub Area 58. Liner Area 59. Theoretical Retention Time 133.35 ft 72.67 ft 944 yd3 7,364 ft2 0 yd3 0 yd3 7,364 ft2 1,465.36 yd3 1,465.3 yd3 0.3 acr. 1,754.9 ft2 5.69 hrs
VFP Cost Summaries

Liner Cost
AMD TREAT

1.00 5.00 45.00 90.99 20.00 3.00 3.00 6.00 7.00 Rise 1 2.0 :

Liner Cost

38. Total Cost
1500.00 $/acre
AMD TREAT
PONDS

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 5000 $
times/year

26. Length at Top of Freeboard 100 ft 60 ft 1,184 yd3 618 yd3 603 yd3/yr yd3/ 603 removal 0.38 acre ft 618 yd3 0.20 acres 703 yd2 5 hours
100.000 60.000 Rise 1 3.0 6.0 7.00 200.00 25.00
ft ft
2.0 :
ft ft $/yd3

$/yd2
AMD TREAT
PONDS

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 5000 $
times/year

142.000 80.000 Rise 1 3.0 8.0 7.00 200.00 25.00
ft ft
2.0 :
ft ft $/yd3

37. Excavation Cost 38. Pipe Cost 13,607 5,000 1,621 586 195 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ $
$/yd2
AMD TREAT
ROADS
AMD TREAT
DITCHING
Rise 1.00
27. Total Cost
AMD TREAT
ENGINEERING COST
424,000 25.00
$ % $
106,000
AMD TREAT
MAINTANENCE
AMD TREAT
OTHER COST
1. Misc Cost to Cross Public Road 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
25,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Cost Total Annual Cost 25,000 $ 0$
25,000 $ 0$
AMD TREAT
DMR001(larger) Passive System 1. Inflation Rate 2. Net Rate of Return 3. Term of Analysis 4. Annual Cost 5. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 530,000 $
Treatment System 2
DMR001(larger) Passive System 19. Inflation Rate 20. Net Rate of Return 21. Term of Analysis 22. Annual Cost 23. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 0 $ 0 $
% % years 0$ 0 $ 530,000 $ 60,190 $
530,000 $
% % years 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
10. Total Capital Cost from Recapitalization Tool 11. Total PV Recapitalization Cost from Recapitalization Tool 12. PV Recapitalization Cost plus Start-Up Captial Cost 13. PV of Future Annual Costs 14. Include One Year of Annual Cost 15. Additional Year of Treatment Cost 16. Investment Volatility Factor 17. Grand Total Net Present Cost 18. Average PV Cost Per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated 0.00 % 590,190 $ 0 $
0.000 Typical Flow

Rate
$ at a 390.00 g
530,000 $ 590,190 $
AMD TREAT
Costs
Passive Treatment Vertical Flow Pond Anoxic Limestone Drain Anaerobic Wetlands Aerobic Wetlands Manganese Removal Bed Oxic Limestone Channel Limestone Bed BIO Reactor Passive Subtotal: Active Treatment Caustic Soda Hydrated Lime Pebble Quick Lime Ammonia Oxidants Soda Ash Active Subtotal: Ancillary Cost Ponds Roads Land Access Ditching Engineering Cost Ancillary Subtotal: Other Cost (Capital Cost) Total Capital Cost: Annual Costs Sampling Labor Maintenance Pumping Chemical Cost Oxidant Chem Cost Sludge Removal Other Cost (Annual Cost) Land Access (Annual Cost) Total Annual Cost: Other Cost 1 0 $0 $0 $7,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,500 Total Annual Cost: per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated $0.010 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 $118,049 $21,336 $0 $77,429 $251,982 $468,796 $0 $1,259,908 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 0





ft

VFP Cost Summaries

Liner Cost




ft

VFP Cost Summaries

Liner Cost
AMD TREAT

days tons 500.0 ft 120.0 ft hr/ft
1.00 5.00 45.00 90.99 20.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 7.00 Rise 1 2.0 :

Liner Cost

38. Total Cost
1500.00 $/acre
AMD TREAT
PONDS

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 5000 $
times/year

26. Length at Top of Freeboard 190 ft 94 ft 5,855 yd3 4,055 yd3 603 yd3/yr yd3/ 603 removal 2.51 acre ft 4,055 yd3 0.61 acres 0 yd2 5 hours
190.000 94.000 Rise 1 3.0 12.0 7.00 200.00 25.00
ft ft
2.0 :
ft ft $/yd3

$/yd2
AMD TREAT
PONDS

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 5000 $
times/year

260.000 130.000 Rise 1 3.0 12.0 7.00 200.00 25.00
ft ft
2.0 :
ft ft $/yd3

$/yd2
AMD TREAT
ROADS
AMD TREAT
DITCHING
Ditching Name Divert Stream Around HFLB 1. Ditch Length Rock 2. Ditch Length Grass 3. Bottom Width of Ditch 4. Ditch Depth 5. Geo Textile Unit Cost 6. Length of Geo Textile 7. Slope Ratio of Ditch Sides 8. Surveying? 9. Survey Rate 10. Survey Unit Cost 11. Clearing and Grubbing? 12. Clear and Grub Cost 1500.00 $/acre acres/day $/day Run 3.50 750 ft 0 ft 15.0 ft 4.00 ft 0.00 $/yd2 0 ft 13. Ditch Depth of Rock 14. Cost of Ditch Surface Rock 15. Cost to Place Rock 16. Excavation Unit Cost 17. Length of Silt Fence 18. Unit Cost of Silt Fence 19. Revegetation Unit Cost 1.50 ft 24.00 $/yd3 5.00 $/yd3 7.00 $/yd3 0.00 ft 0.00 $/ft 1500.00 $/acre
Rise 1.00
Ditching Sub-Totals 20. Excavation Cost 21. Survey Cost 22. Clear and Grub Cost 23. Aggregate Cost 24. Filter Fabric Cost 25. Silt Fence Cost 26. Revegetation Cost 22,556 $ 0 $ 1,333 $ 53,312 $ 0 $ 0 $ 228 $ 77,429 $
27. Total Cost
AMD TREAT
ENGINEERING COST
1,007,927 25.00
$ % $
251,982
AMD TREAT
MAINTANENCE
AMD TREAT
DMR004 Passive System 1. Inflation Rate 2. Net Rate of Return 3. Term of Analysis 4. Annual Cost 5. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 1,259,908 $
Treatment System 2
DMR004 Passive System 19. Inflation Rate 20. Net Rate of Return 21. Term of Analysis 22. Annual Cost 23. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 0 $ 0 $
% % years 0$ 0 $ 1,259,908 $ 90,286 $
1,259,908 $
% % years 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
0.000 Typical Flow

Rate
$ at a 2520.00
1,259,908 $ 1,350,194 $
Site Name Lower Fall Brook - ACTIVE
AMD TREAT
Costs
Passive Treatment Vertical Flow Pond Anoxic Limestone Drain Anaerobic Wetlands Aerobic Wetlands Manganese Removal Bed Oxic Limestone Channel Limestone Bed BIO Reactor Passive Subtotal: Active Treatment Caustic Soda Hydrated Lime Pebble Quick Lime Ammonia Oxidants Soda Ash Active Subtotal: Ancillary Cost Ponds Roads Land Access Ditching Engineering Cost Ancillary Subtotal: Other Cost (Capital Cost) Total Capital Cost: Annual Costs Sampling Labor Maintenance Pumping Chemical Cost Oxidant Chem Cost Sludge Removal Other Cost (Annual Cost) Land Access (Annual Cost) Total Annual Cost: Other Cost 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 $2,040 $43,680 $26,202 $4,290 $19,815 $0 $0 $8,000 $0 $104,027 Total Annual Cost: per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated $0.263 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 $407,662 $42,414 $0 $10,643 $187,160 $647,879 $170,000 $935,798 1 0 $0 $0 $117,919 $0 $0 $0 $0

AMD TREAT
PEBBLE QUICK LIME
Pebble Quick Lime Name: Water Powered Lime Hopper

Opening Screen Water Parameters Influent Water Parameters that Affect Pebble Quick Lime
Calculated Acidity 192.00 mg/L Alkalinity 0.00 mg/L Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 192.00 mg/L Design Flow 2458.00 gpm Typical Flow 752.00 gpm Total Iron 1.50 mg/L Aluminum 15.60 mg/L Manganese 20.80 mg/L
1. Annual Pebble Quick Lime 2. Pebble Quick Lime 50 Lbs Bags 3. Pounds per Hour of Pebble Quick Lime 4. Refill Frequency for 1 Ton Bin 5. Refill Frequency for 35 Ton Silo 6. Purity of Pebble Quick Lime 7. Mixing Efficency of Pebble Quick Lime 8. Titration? 9. Pebble Quick Lime Titration Amount 10. Excavation Unit Cost 11. Aggregate Unit Cost 12. Aggregate Placement Unit Cost 13. Ditching System Default Ditching System Based on Flow
14. Default Ditch Length 15. Default Ditch Bottom Width 16. Default Ditch Depth
209.1 tons/yr 22.9 per day 47.754209 1.745 days 61.076 days 94.00 % 90.00 %
lbs of Pebble Lime /gal of H2O
23. Clearing and Grubbing? 24a. Land Multiplier 24b. Clear/Grub Acres 25. Clear and Grub Cost ratio acres $/acre
lbs/hr
26. Select One Delivery System 1 Ton Bin System 35 Ton Silo System 27. Electric Mixer ? 28. Electric Mixer System Cost 29. Slaker ? 30. Slaker Cost $ 0.0 acres 85,000 $ 0 $ 27,318 $ 5,599 $ 0 $ 0 $ $ 85000 $ $
4.50 $/yd3 18.00 $/yd3 12.00 $/yd3
Pebble Quick Lime Sub-Totals

700 10 3
ft ft ft
31. Clear Grub Area 32. Storage System Cost 33. Electric Mixer Cost 34. Aggregate Cost 35. Ditch Excavation Cost 36. Clear and Grub Cost 37. Slaker Cost
Custom Ditching System

17. Ditch Length 18. Ditch Bottom Width 19. Ditch Depth
ft ft ft
Run
Rise
20. Slope Ratio of Ditch Sides

21. Rock Depth in Ditch 22. Length of Rock Lined Ditch
:
ft ft
38. Total Cost
117,919 $
AMD TREAT
PONDS
Pond Name 2 Ponds in Parallel

1500.00 $/acre 2 number 5000 $
times/year

26. Length at Top of Freeboard 418 ft 215 ft 35,880 yd3 26,286 yd3 247 yd3/yr yd3/ 3,542 removal 16.29 acre ft 26,286 yd3 3.10 acres 0 yd2 36 hours
ft ft Rise 1 3.0 10.0 7.00 200.00 35.00 ft ft $/yd3
2.0 :

37. Excavation Cost 38. Pipe Cost 368,017 7,000 0 9,307 3,102 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ $
$/yd2
AMD TREAT
PONDS
Pond Name Sludge Drying Bed on Old Strip

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 0 $
times/year

ft ft Rise 1 3.0 6.0 7.00 0.00 0.00 ft ft $/yd3
2.0 :

37. Excavation Cost 38. Pipe Cost 14,972 0 0 0 261 0 $ $ $ $ $ $
$/yd2
19. Clearing and Grubbing? 20. Land Multiplier 21. Clear/Grub Acres 22. Clear and Grub Unit Cost ratio acres $/acre
AMD TREAT
ROADS
AMD TREAT
DITCHING
Ditching Name From Discharge to System 1. Ditch Length Rock 2. Ditch Length Grass 3. Bottom Width of Ditch 4. Ditch Depth 5. Geo Textile Unit Cost 6. Length of Geo Textile 7. Slope Ratio of Ditch Sides 8. Surveying? 9. Survey Rate 10. Survey Unit Cost 11. Clearing and Grubbing? 12. Clear and Grub Cost $/acre acres/day $/day Run 2.00 300 ft 0 ft 10.0 ft 3.00 ft 0.50 $/yd2 300 ft 13. Ditch Depth of Rock 14. Cost of Ditch Surface Rock 15. Cost to Place Rock 16. Excavation Unit Cost 17. Length of Silt Fence 18. Unit Cost of Silt Fence 19. Revegetation Unit Cost 1.00 ft 18.00 $/yd3 12.00 $/yd3 4.50 $/yd3 0.00 ft 1.00 $/ft 1500.00 $/acre
Rise 1.00
Ditching Sub-Totals 20. Excavation Cost 21. Survey Cost 22. Clear and Grub Cost 23. Aggregate Cost 24. Filter Fabric Cost 25. Silt Fence Cost 26. Revegetation Cost 2,400 $ 0 $ 0 $ 7,805 $ 390 $ 0 $ 48 $ 10,643 $
27. Total Cost
AMD TREAT
ENGINEERING COST
748,638 25.00
$ % $
187,160
BioMost, Inc. - USACE Upper Tioga Lower Fall Brook - ACTIVE
AMD TREAT
SAMPLING
Estimate Sampling Cost 1. Unit Labor Cost 2. Collection Time per Sample 3. Travel Time 4. Sample Frequency 5. Lab Cost Per Sample 6. Number of Sample Points 7. Actual Annual Sampling Cost Sampling Sub-Totals 8. Yearly Sample Analysis Cost 9. Yearly Travel Cost 10. Yearly Collection Cost 11. Sampling Cost 1,200 $ 0 $ 840 $ 2,040 $ 35.00 $/hr 0.50 hours/sample 0.00 hr 2.00 samples/mo 25.00 $/sample 2 points $
AMD TREAT
LABOR
Labor Name O&M
35.00 $/hour
6. Total Cost
43,680
AMD TREAT
MAINTANENCE
AMD TREAT
PUMPING
Pumping Name Pump Sludge to Strip Mine Pit Drying Beds Estimated Fuel Cost for Pumping 12. Fuel Rate 13. Fuel Cost 14. Hours Per Day 15. Days Per Year 16. Pump Maintenance Cost 17. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost 18. Estimated Maintenance Cost ** Percent of Annual Fuel Cost gal/hr $/gal hours days %** $ $
4,290 $
AMD TREAT
CHEMICAL COST
Calculated Acidity 192.00 mg/L Alkalinity 0.00 mg/L Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 192.00 mg/L C. Caustic Soda ? Design Flow 2458.00 gpm Typical Flow 752.00 gpm Total Iron 1.50 mg/L Aluminum 15.60 mg/L Manganese 20.80 mg/L Non-Bulk Delivery 16. Caustic Non-Bulk Unit Cost Bulk Delivery 17. Caustic Bulk Unit Cost D. Limestone ? 18. Limestone Purity 19. Limestone Efficiency 20 Limestone Unit Cost $/gal $/gal 12. Titration? 13. Caustic Titration Amount 14. Caustic Purity 15. Mixing Efficiency of Caustic gal ofcaustic / gal H2O purity of 20% caustic solution % G. Known Chemical Cost ? 32. Known Annual Chemical Cost $ A. Hydrated Lime ? 1 Titration? 2. Hydrated Lime Titration Amount 3. Hydrated Lime Purity 4. Mixing Efficiency of Hydrated Lime 5. Hydrated Lime Unit Cost B. Pebble Quick Lime ? 6. Titration? 7. Pebble Lime Titration Amount 8. Pebble Lime Purity 9. Mixing Efficiency of Pebble Lime Delivered in Bags 10. Pebble Lime Bag Unit Cost Bulk Delivery 11. Pebble Lime Bulk Unit Cost 0.0500 $/lb $/lb 30. Mixing Efficiency of Soda Ash 31 Soda Ash Unit Cost lbs of Pebble Lime / gal of H2O 94.00 % 90.00 % 28 Soda Ash Titration Amount 29. Soda Ash Purity lbs of hydrated lime / gal of H2O % % $/lb E. Anhydrous Ammonia ? 21. Titration? 22. AmmoniaTitration Amount 23. Ammonia Purity 24. Mixing Efficiency of Ammonia Non-Bulk Delivery 25. Ammonia Non-Bulk Unit Cost Bulk Delivery 26. Ammonia Bulk Unit Cost F. Soda Ash ? 27. Titration? lbs of soda ash / gal of H2O % % $/lb $/lb $/lb lbs of ammonia / gal H2O % %


541,272 396,309 257,921 0 0 0 lbs lbs gals tons lbs lbs
0 $ 0 $ 0 $
% % $/ton
39. Total Known Chemical Cost
40. Selected Chemical: PEBBLE QUICK LIME Annual Chemical Cost 19,815 $
AMD TREAT
OTHER COST
1. Pipelines for Sludge Disposal 2. Flocculant/Oxidizer 3. Floating Dredge/Sludge Pump 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
4,000.00 8,000.00 70,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100,000 8,000 70,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Cost Total Annual Cost 170,000 $ 8,000 $
170,000 $ 8,000 $
AMD TREAT
Active System 1. Inflation Rate 2. Net Rate of Return 3. Term of Analysis 4. Annual Cost 5. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 940,000 $
Treatment System 2
Active System 19. Inflation Rate 20. Net Rate of Return 21. Term of Analysis 22. Annual Cost 23. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 0 $ 0 $
% % years 0$ 0 $ 940,000 $ 1,252,295 $
940,000 $
% % years 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
0.000 Typical Flow

Rate
$ at a 2458.00
940,000 $ 2,192,295 $
Site Name Lower Fall Brook - PASSIVE
AMD TREAT
Costs
Passive Treatment Vertical Flow Pond Anoxic Limestone Drain Anaerobic Wetlands Aerobic Wetlands Manganese Removal Bed Oxic Limestone Channel Limestone Bed BIO Reactor Passive Subtotal: Active Treatment Caustic Soda Hydrated Lime Pebble Quick Lime Ammonia Oxidants Soda Ash Active Subtotal: Ancillary Cost Ponds Roads Land Access Ditching Engineering Cost Ancillary Subtotal: Other Cost (Capital Cost) Total Capital Cost: Annual Costs Sampling Labor Maintenance Pumping Chemical Cost Oxidant Chem Cost Sludge Removal Other Cost (Annual Cost) Land Access (Annual Cost) Total Annual Cost: Other Cost 1 0 1 0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 Total Annual Cost: per 1000 Gal of H2O Treated $0.025 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 $123,998 $41,774 $0 $104,272 $528,595 $798,639 $420,000 $2,642,976 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 0

A 2 S 0 $573,139 $0 $0 $0 $851,198 $0 $0 $0 $1,424,337 Design Flow Typical Flow Total Iron Aluminum Manganese pH Ferric Iron Ferrous Iron Sulfate Filtered Fe Filtered Al Filtered Mn Specific Conductivity Total Dissolved Solids Dissolved Oxygen 2458.00 752.00 1.50 15.60 20.80 2.90 1.00 0.50 462.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated Acidity Alkalinity Calculate Net Acidity (Acid-Alkalinity) Enter Net Acidity manually Net Acidity (Hot Acidity) 192.00 192.00 0.00

VFP Name First AFVFP (2.9pH+1Fe3)



ft

VFP Cost Summaries

Liner Cost




ft

VFP Cost Summaries

Liner Cost
AMD TREAT
MN Removal Bed Name (HFLB) 1 of 2 in Series

1.00 5.00 45.00 90.99 20.00 3.00 3.00 6.00 7.00 Rise 1 2.0 :

Liner Cost

38. Total Cost
1500.00 $/acre
AMD TREAT
MN Removal Bed Name (HFLB) 2 of 2 in Series

Tons of Limestone Needed Tons of Limestone Needed Tons of Limestone Needed Tons of Limestone Needed 47,836.98 15,000.00 3,664.34 0.00 Based on Retention Time Based on Tons of Limestone Based on Dimensions Based on Kinetics
1.00 5.00 45.00 90.99 20.00 3.00 3.00 6.00 7.00 Rise 1 2.0 :

Liner Cost

38. Total Cost
1500.00 $/acre
AMD TREAT
PONDS

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 5000 $
times/year

200.000 115.000 Rise 1 3.0 10.0 7.00 200.00 25.00
ft ft
2.0 :
ft ft $/yd3

$/yd2
AMD TREAT
PONDS

1500.00 $/acre 1 number 5000 $
times/year

260.000 125.000 Rise 1 3.0 10.0 7.00 200.00 25.00
ft ft
2.0 :
ft ft $/yd3

$/yd2
AMD TREAT
ROADS
AMD TREAT
DITCHING
Rise 1.00
27. Total Cost
AMD TREAT
DITCHING
Ditching Name Ditch To Stream 1. Ditch Length Rock 2. Ditch Length Grass 3. Bottom Width of Ditch 4. Ditch Depth 5. Geo Textile Unit Cost 6. Length of Geo Textile 7. Slope Ratio of Ditch Sides 8. Surveying? 9. Survey Rate 10. Survey Unit Cost 11. Clearing and Grubbing? 12. Clear and Grub Cost $/acre acres/day $/day Run 2.00 500 ft 0 ft 4.0 ft 3.00 ft 0.50 $/yd2 500 ft 13. Ditch Depth of Rock 14. Cost of Ditch Surface Rock 15. Cost to Place Rock 16. Excavation Unit Cost 17. Length of Silt Fence 18. Unit Cost of Silt Fence 19. Revegetation Unit Cost 1.50 ft 24.00 $/yd3 5.00 $/yd3 7.00 $/yd3 0.00 ft 1.00 $/ft 1500.00 $/acre
Rise 1.00
Ditching Sub-Totals 20. Excavation Cost 21. Survey Cost 22. Clear and Grub Cost 23. Aggregate Cost 24. Filter Fabric Cost 25. Silt Fence Cost 26. Revegetation Cost 3,889 $ 0 $ 0 $ 14,030 $ 484 $ 0 $ 60 $ 18,463 $
27. Total Cost
AMD TREAT
ENGINEERING COST
2,114,381 25.00
$ % $
528,595
BioMost, Inc. - USACE Upper Tioga Lower Fall Brook - PASSIVE
AMD TREAT
MAINTANENCE
AMD TREAT
OTHER COST
1. Excess Cut and Fill for VFP1 2. Excess Cut and Fill for SP1 3. Excess Cut and Fill for VFP2 4. Excess Cut and Fill for SP2 5. Excess Cut and Fill for HFLB 1 6. Excess Cut and Fill for HFLB 2 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Curent Capital Cost Current Annual Cost
7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Cost Total Annual Cost 420,000 $ 0$
420,000 $ 0$
AMD TREAT
DFB099 Lower Fall Brook 1. Inflation Rate 2. Net Rate of Return 3. Term of Analysis 4. Annual Cost 5. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 2,642,976 $
Treatment System 2
DFB099 Lower Fall Brook 19. Inflation Rate 20. Net Rate of Return 21. Term of Analysis 22. Annual Cost 23. Start-up Capital Cost 4.000 % 7.000 % 15.0 years 0 $ 0 $
% % years 0$ 0 $ 2,642,976 $ 120,381 $
2,642,976 $
% % years 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
0.000 Typical Flow

Rate
$ at a 2458.00
2,642,976 $ 2,763,357 $
APPENDIX ATMOSPHERIC DATA
Atmospheric Data In the 1970s, the atmospheric deposition of acidic substances (i.e. acid rain) was recognized as a potential threat to the environment, which led to the creation of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN). This network consists of a monitoring program that collects weekly precipitation samples for chemical analyses from monitoring sites located across the country. From the beginning, the monitoring indicated that precipitation over the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Regions of the United States, especially eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania, was very acidic. The very high acidity, nitrate and sulfate concentrations were attributed to sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. Because of the indication that precipitation in Pennsylvania was more acidic than most, if not all of the regions of the eastern United States, and with the presence of numerous acid-sensitive ecosystems in the Commonwealth, the PA Department of Environmental Resources (now the Department of Environmental Protection) established the Pennsylvania Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network (PADMN) under a cooperative agreement with Pennsylvania State University. This monitoring network includes eight sites supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Protection (PA DEP) as well as four NADP/NTN monitoring sites. Three sources of information have been included. The figures labeled Hydrogen ion concentrations as pH for 2005 and Sulfate Ion Concentrations for 2003 were obtained from the NADP/NTN. The Hills Creek State Park data sheets were obtained from the PADMN. The Hydrogen ion concentrations as pH figure depicts the average pH of precipitation at monitoring sites throughout the U.S. in 2005. As a measured value, pH indicates whether a solution is acidic, neutral, or basic and to what degree. This value is defined as the negative logarithm (inverse log) of the molar hydronium-ion (H3O+) [generally referred to as the hydrogen-ion (H+)] concentration. The pH scale (0-14) was developed where 7 indicates neutral (equal concentrations of hydrogen and hydroxide ions) water while values less than 7 are acidic and those greater than 7 are alkaline. As pH is logarithmic, each whole unit difference is a factor of 10. A 5 pH, therefore, is 10x more acidic than a 6 pH and a 4 pH is 100x more acidic than a 6 pH. As can be seen, Pennsylvania and Ohio receives the most acidic precipitation in the nation. The Sulfate Ion Concentrations figure depicts the sulfate (SO4-2) ion concentration in precipitation at the monitoring sites throughout the U.S in 2003. As can be seen by comparing the Hydrogen ion and Sulfate ion maps, a trend can be seen where higher sulfate concentrations are found in the same general region as the areas with lower pH. This indicates that there appears to be a very close relationship between sulfur dioxide emissions of the industrialized Ohio River Valley and the northeastern portion of the United States and acid rain. The included data sheets contain the weekly data (Jan 1995- December 2004) from the closest PADMN monitoring site, located in Hills Creek State Park, Tioga County, PA, which is located about 15 miles from Morris Run and Fall Brook. A review of the data indicates that typically the precipitation has a low pH with high sulfate concentrations. This data along with the two figures provides evidence that acid deposition could be at least partially responsible for the non-AMD acidity referenced in this report and could especially be of significance for streams with little or no buffering capacity. It is beyond the scope of work to determine the extent and impact of acid deposition on the watershed.
Hydrogen ion concentration as pH from measurements made at the Central Analytical Laboratory, 2005
# #
5.3 5.1
# #
5.1
# # #
5.3 5.4
#
5.3
# #
4.8 5.3 5.3 5.8

# #
5.3
# #
5.6
5.3
#
5.2
# #
4.8
# #
5.5
#
# #
5.4
5.3
#
5.3
#
5.3
#
5.6
5.2 5.3
#
5.0 5.1
# # # #
4.8
#
4.9
4.8
5.0
5.3 5.5 5.9

# #
5.3
5.5
#
5.5
#
5.3
5.5
5.6
5.2
# # #
5.6
# #
4.9 # # # 5.2 # 4.9 5.1

#
5.7
6.0
#
5.2 5.2
5.4
#
4.8
#
5.4
# #
5.4
#
6.2 5.7
#
5.4 5.9
#
4.8
# #
6.2
5.3
# #
5.5
#
5.3
#
5.1 5.8
# #
# #
5.2 5.3
5.6 5.1
#
4.9 5.8
#
4.6
#
4.6
#
5.4
5.3
5.1 4.9 #
#
5.2 5.5
#
5.0
6.0
#
5.3 5.0
#
5.0 4.7
# # #
4.6
# #
4.8 # # # 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 # # # 4.6 4.7 4.6 # 4.7 # 4.6 # 4.5 # # 4.5 4.6 # # 4.6 4.6 # # 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.8 # # # # 4.6 # 4.5 # # # 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.5 # # # 4.5 4.5 4.5 #4.5 # # 4.4 4.4 # 4.7 # # 4.5 # # 4.5 4.3 # 4.5 # 4.6 # 4.5 4.5 # # 4.7 4.6 # # 4.5 # 4.7 # # 4.6 # # 4.5 4.4 # # 4.4 4.6 4.7 # 4.5 # 4.5 # # 4.5 4.6 4.5 # # 4.6 4.6 4.6
#
4.7
#
4.8
#
4.7
4.6
5.4
# #
5.3
#
5.2
#
6.1
5.2
5.6
5.2
5.1 4.7
# # #
4.9
4.7
# #
4.6 # 4.5 # 4.7 # 4.7

#
4.6
#
4.7
4.7 4.9
#
4.8
5.1 4.6
#
Lab pH
5.3 5.2 - 5.3 5.1 - 5.2 5.0 - 5.1 4.9 - 5.0 4.8 - 4.9 4.7 - 4.8 4.6 - 4.7 4.5 - 4.6 4.4 - 4.5 4.3 - 4.4 < 4.3
5.4 5.1
# #
4.8
# # #
5.1
#
5.4
# #
5.2
5.2
#
5.7
4.8
#
4.7 4.8 4.8

#
4.7 4.9
# #
4.7 4.7
4.9
#
4.8
#
5.4
4.5 4.7 5.1

# # # #
4.7
# #
Sites not pictured: AK03 5.3 VI01 5.1
4.8 4.9
# #
4.8 4.8
#
5.3
#
4.8
4.7
# #
4.8
4.8
4.9
#
5.1
National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu
Page 1 of 8
Pennsylvania Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network Weekly Concentration Data for Hills Creek State Park =========================================================================================== Concentrations (mg/L) Date ----------------------------------------------------Spec. Cond. Ppt. Off Ca Mg K Na NH4 NO3 Cl SO4 pH (S/cm) (Inches) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------950110 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** 4.55 12.8 0.07 950117 0.07 0.017 0.019 0.081 0.238 1.51 0.204 1.88 4.32 18.4 0.42 950124 0.01 0.004 0.016 0.009 0.013 0.53 0.021 0.33 4.93 5.8 2.47 950131 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** **** **** 0.13 950207 0.06 0.008 0.042 0.051 0.122 2.77 0.151 0.63 4.44 24.6 0.48 950214 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** **** **** 0.00 950221 0.28 0.041 0.045 0.112 1.011 9.75 0.480 3.20 3.74 93.3 0.17 950228 0.08 0.013 0.028 0.086 0.438 3.79 0.158 1.85 4.15 32.9 0.47 950307 0.11 0.015 0.014 0.040 0.399 3.10 0.175 2.84 4.01 32.0 0.22 950314 0.16 0.040 0.021 0.276 0.322 1.88 0.331 1.93 4.39 31.6 0.69 950321 0.25 0.046 0.035 0.163 0.806 3.70 0.263 3.44 4.18 51.5 0.18 950328 0.06 0.018 0.013 0.023 0.656 1.81 0.079 2.06 4.60 19.4 0.20 950404 0.09 0.017 0.003 0.012 0.486 2.52 0.036 1.81 4.44 32.5 0.54 950411 0.07 0.010 0.017 0.017 0.368 2.06 0.092 2.15 4.25 36.6 1.26 950418 0.09 0.022 0.077 0.055 0.313 2.46 0.145 2.09 4.24 21.3 0.25 950425 0.56 0.098 0.141 0.213 0.761 5.91 0.516 5.98 3.96 61.4 0.25 950502 0.41 0.081 0.174 0.080 0.840 5.19 0.496 5.02 3.87 51.2 0.13 950509 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** **** **** 0.05 950516 0.09 0.024 0.039 0.012 0.317 2.22 0.157 2.65 4.10 26.8 0.82 950523 0.06 0.015 0.060 0.028 0.111 0.87 0.089 1.92 4.31 21.9 0.46 950530 0.11 0.032 0.055 0.021 0.703 2.35 0.211 5.27 3.93 46.8 1.23 950606 0.21 0.035 0.122 0.057 0.832 2.54 0.212 3.42 4.13 14.0 0.12 950613 0.09 0.016 0.054 0.014 0.693 2.52 0.169 3.14 4.17 29.0 0.67 950620 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** **** **** 0.00 950627 0.03 0.004 0.040 0.001 0.228 1.57 0.093 1.51 4.44 16.2 1.28 950704 0.07 0.012 0.037 0.034 0.681 2.69 0.155 3.43 4.00 31.0 0.27 950711 0.10 0.018 0.028 0.040 0.353 1.13 0.098 2.11 4.36 13.2 0.85 950718 0.16 0.030 0.050 0.062 0.639 2.38 0.379 6.21 3.77 38.5 0.09 950725 0.17 0.025 0.086 0.069 0.447 5.63 0.298 7.11 3.67 66.3 0.22 950801 0.06 0.015 0.018 0.020 0.323 2.04 0.182 3.09 4.08 82.6 1.22 950808 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** **** **** 1.28 950815 **** ***** ***** ***** 1.039 4.64 0.398 4.60 4.08 18.4 0.04 950822 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** **** **** 0.00 950829 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** **** **** 0.00 950905 0.26 0.066 0.039 0.040 1.450 3.59 0.215 11.30 3.77 85.2 0.22 950912 0.12 0.016 0.006 0.029 0.563 2.68 0.121 4.92 3.88 98.7 1.08 950919 0.12 0.028 0.004 0.034 0.337 1.57 0.172 2.60 4.33 17.2 0.56 950926 0.03 0.007 0.004 0.018 0.249 1.36 0.181 2.44 4.07 25.0 0.79 951003 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** **** **** 0.00 951010 0.06 0.024 0.048 0.036 0.071 0.40 0.067 0.25 5.52 6.9 2.00 951017 0.01 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.071 0.54 0.037 1.01 4.54 12.0 1.18 951024 0.03 0.008 0.030 0.027 0.072 0.20 0.071 0.19 5.25 3.8 3.57 951031 0.12 0.026 0.030 0.049 0.487 3.42 0.163 2.35 4.09 13.4 0.30 951107 0.02 0.004 0.014 0.021 0.180 1.57 0.042 1.34 4.38 18.5 0.67 951114 0.04 0.009 0.022 0.063 0.100 0.73 0.048 0.32 4.74 7.3 1.25 951121 0.03 0.009 0.008 0.024 0.046 0.48 0.038 0.20 4.94 12.8 1.34 951128 **** ***** ***** ***** 1.146 3.75 0.600 2.77 4.52 20.0 0.09 951205 0.08 0.017 0.026 0.054 0.197 1.95 0.139 1.07 4.33 18.4 0.21 951212 0.21 0.042 0.020 0.047 0.180 1.72 0.133 0.76 4.65 12.3 0.14 951219 0.08 0.013 0.017 0.048 0.133 1.96 0.255 0.59 4.34 16.1 0.40 951226 0.03 0.007 0.028 0.025 0.091 0.97 0.082 0.25 4.77 5.8 1.01 960102 **** ***** ***** ***** 0.555 4.96 0.414 5.75 3.85 70.3 0.09 960109 0.07 0.009 0.036 0.059 0.113 1.82 0.241 0.55 4.36 19.7 0.86 960116 0.13 0.020 0.047 0.180 0.152 3.39 0.438 0.60 4.20 29.4 0.20 960123 0.03 0.006 0.013 0.024 0.050 0.40 0.046 0.32 5.17 3.9 1.99 960130 0.05 0.016 0.016 0.094 0.104 0.84 0.165 0.77 4.65 11.3 1.34 960206 **** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** ***** **** **** **** 0.05 960213 0.14 0.017 0.037 0.062 0.281 1.75 0.130 1.19 4.44 18.7 0.25
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/acidrain/historical/conc_hc.txt
10/27/2006
Page 2 of 8
960220 960227 960305 960312 960319 960326 960402 960409 960416 960423 960430 960507 960514 960521 960528 960604 960611 960618 960625 960702 960709 960716 960723 960730 960806 960813 960820 960827 960903 960910 960917 960924 961001 961008 961015 961022 961029 961105 961112 961119 961126 961203 961210 961217 961224 961231 970107 970114 970121 970128 970204 970211 970218 970225 970304 970311 970318 970325 970401 970408 970415 970422 970429 970506 970513 970520 970527
2.94 0.12 0.47 0.34 1.35 0.09 0.56 **** 0.69 **** 0.18 0.09 0.12 **** 0.14 **** 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.29 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.37 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.01 **** 0.15 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.20 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.32 **** 0.24 0.40 0.08 0.02 **** 0.02 0.03 **** 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.05 **** 0.12 0.03 0.10 0.15 0.38 0.13 0.29
0.502 0.014 0.045 0.042 0.142 0.018 0.102 ***** 0.114 ***** 0.029 0.016 0.022 ***** 0.027 ***** 0.028 0.018 0.030 0.030 0.028 0.021 0.032 0.031 0.054 0.005 0.013 0.007 0.035 0.022 0.001 0.010 0.001 ***** 0.046 0.001 0.022 0.030 0.002 0.028 0.010 0.017 0.020 0.011 0.029 ***** 0.036 0.030 0.017 0.006 ***** 0.003 0.006 ***** 0.010 0.003 0.006 0.048 0.010 ***** 0.030 0.011 0.035 0.016 0.068 0.012 0.073
0.460 0.011 0.050 0.034 0.093 0.030 0.077 ***** 0.084 ***** 0.023 0.034 0.047 ***** 0.048 ***** 0.054 0.022 0.008 0.050 0.028 0.050 0.059 0.046 0.076 0.013 0.019 0.013 0.321 0.015 0.005 0.033 0.014 ***** 0.079 0.004 0.022 0.050 0.007 0.037 0.049 0.015 0.033 0.109 0.028 ***** 0.156 0.155 0.018 0.006 ***** 0.001 0.002 ***** 0.003 0.001 0.033 0.052 0.004 ***** 0.086 0.022 0.012 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.018
2.250 0.038 0.096 0.123 0.389 0.075 0.209 ***** 0.138 ***** 0.047 0.039 0.084 ***** 0.038 ***** 0.033 0.022 0.034 0.034 0.032 0.020 0.036 0.035 0.032 0.017 0.009 0.006 0.036 0.131 0.001 0.001 0.013 ***** 0.527 0.008 0.057 0.080 0.025 0.065 0.050 0.011 0.027 0.045 0.053 ***** 0.205 0.244 0.080 0.040 ***** 0.018 0.057 ***** 0.103 0.014 0.010 0.036 0.001 ***** 0.140 0.018 0.049 0.026 0.011 0.016 0.059
1.808 0.228 0.527 0.242 2.293 0.296 0.657 ***** 1.292 ***** 0.440 0.435 0.362 ***** 0.229 0.578 0.417 0.616 0.492 0.904 0.388 0.334 0.144 0.406 0.439 0.336 0.590 0.358 0.670 0.205 0.104 0.296 0.084 0.388 0.255 0.054 0.416 0.764 0.073 0.276 0.316 0.090 0.124 0.081 0.272 ***** 0.362 0.183 0.094 0.028 0.435 0.040 0.061 0.419 0.131 0.164 0.121 0.515 0.156 ***** 0.009 0.431 0.563 0.309 0.514 0.515 0.447
17.86 1.95 3.28 2.63 8.04 1.82 4.88 **** 4.32 **** 2.05 2.64 2.41 **** 1.31 4.82 1.72 3.20 1.73 4.19 2.86 1.38 1.06 2.88 2.91 2.44 1.86 2.15 4.74 1.76 1.00 1.40 0.63 4.92 1.79 0.37 2.15 3.88 0.43 2.91 2.06 0.69 2.21 1.32 4.49 **** 1.86 1.27 1.13 1.30 5.05 0.94 1.63 2.61 1.18 1.91 1.00 4.26 1.58 **** 1.71 2.52 2.41 1.60 1.73 1.78 2.80
3.300 0.131 0.196 0.134 0.542 0.112 0.133 ***** 0.203 ***** 0.149 0.076 0.205 ***** 0.133 0.658 0.187 0.172 0.111 0.177 0.440 0.097 0.081 0.190 0.248 0.178 0.112 0.481 0.375 0.260 0.042 0.109 0.130 0.834 1.248 0.085 0.139 0.189 0.109 0.507 0.123 0.060 0.181 0.469 0.348 ***** 0.283 0.363 0.458 0.141 0.659 0.068 0.140 0.613 0.242 0.204 0.095 0.212 0.028 ***** 0.481 0.162 0.232 0.820 0.526 0.818 0.206
10.10 1.78 1.96 1.37 3.82 0.99 3.14 **** 4.53 **** 1.91 2.10 3.23 **** 1.54 10.56 2.84 5.08 4.00 4.26 5.21 2.50 0.97 5.21 4.11 5.60 4.13 2.79 6.64 1.86 0.99 1.89 0.59 7.39 2.56 0.29 1.83 2.74 0.51 1.01 1.96 0.57 0.61 1.00 1.24 **** 2.62 1.96 0.79 0.89 2.26 0.79 0.55 3.46 1.46 1.45 1.02 2.13 1.23 **** 2.28 1.92 2.45 1.93 1.61 2.87 4.90
3.91 4.30 4.29 4.40 4.60 4.44 4.08 **** 4.20 **** 4.34 4.27 4.08 **** 4.50 3.71 4.19 3.84 3.95 3.91 3.80 4.22 4.60 3.85 4.12 3.87 4.05 4.06 3.77 4.23 4.45 4.39 4.65 **** 4.11 4.93 4.27 4.06 4.77 4.30 4.16 4.83 4.33 4.34 4.16 **** 4.24 4.62 4.41 4.36 3.89 4.56 4.55 4.19 4.39 4.20 4.50 4.07 4.34 **** 4.04 4.22 4.20 4.16 4.59 4.04 4.04
94.5 24.3 29.1 23.4 39.4 15.5 31.4 **** 35.9 **** 23.4 27.8 41.3 **** 18.6 100.8 30.8 62.0 45.9 47.6 50.7 31.0 13.2 62.8 33.1 66.8 43.8 38.1 80.1 29.0 15.5 20.7 9.9 **** 31.3 5.1 23.4 38.6 6.8 24.5 32.0 8.7 17.7 17.7 33.6 **** 30.1 14.7 17.4 16.9 51.3 13.1 14.4 39.1 18.0 29.5 14.3 42.6 18.9 **** 32.8 26.7 30.6 25.6 14.7 34.3 57.1
0.15 1.14 0.85 0.83 0.10 0.83 0.41 0.20 1.21 0.12 1.60 1.21 2.46 0.00 1.08 0.10 0.45 0.22 1.92 0.70 1.34 0.91 0.28 1.19 0.29 0.71 0.91 0.53 0.07 0.81 2.24 1.39 1.16 0.02 0.04 3.73 0.21 0.18 4.20 0.12 0.82 1.48 0.21 1.42 0.20 0.90 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.75 0.12 0.49 0.58 0.10 0.92 0.88 0.56 0.19 0.78 0.04 0.31 0.29 0.43 0.72 0.43 0.92 0.28
10/27/2006
Page 3 of 8
970603 970610 970617 970624 970701 970708 970715 970722 970729 970805 970812 970819 970826 970902 970909 970916 970923 970930 971007 971014 971021 971028 971104 980106 980113 980120 980127 980203 980210 980217 980224 980303 980310 980317 980324 980331 980407 980414 980421 980428 980505 980512 980519 980526 980602 980609 980616 980623 980630 980707 980714 980721 980728 980804 980811 980818 980825 980901 980908 980915 980922 980929 981006 981013 981020 981027 981103
0.08 0.76 0.42 0.20 0.27 0.16 0.09 0.07 0.02 **** 0.63 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.34 **** **** 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 ---0.56 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.01 1.43 0.13 ---0.04 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.24 0.21 0.49 0.52 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.20 0.04 ---0.08 0.85 0.57 0.30 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.13 0.34 0.02 0.29 0.24 0.21
0.019 0.094 0.059 0.025 0.052 0.034 0.009 0.009 0.002 ***** 0.097 0.013 0.009 0.013 0.019 0.008 0.010 0.016 0.021 ***** ***** 0.001 0.002 0.011 0.004 0.005 0.005 ----0.079 0.015 0.012 0.012 0.007 0.045 0.004 0.208 0.011 ----0.005 0.026 0.023 0.008 0.034 0.034 0.080 0.094 0.016 0.046 0.023 0.018 0.006 0.042 0.007 ----0.016 0.163 0.119 0.068 0.033 0.015 0.035 0.017 0.067 0.004 0.048 0.044 0.037
0.001 0.168 0.060 0.001 0.038 0.081 0.048 0.011 0.001 ***** 0.037 0.001 0.013 0.002 0.022 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.046 ***** ***** 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.002 ----0.100 0.001 0.048 0.054 0.091 0.173 0.073 0.362 0.026 ----0.001 0.007 0.033 0.017 0.099 0.052 0.111 0.055 0.016 0.040 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.029 0.003 ----0.057 0.165 0.141 0.049 0.034 0.028 0.052 0.028 0.102 0.045 0.050 0.069 1.404
0.098 0.133 0.165 0.024 0.034 0.137 0.029 0.002 0.002 ***** 0.641 0.265 0.032 0.001 0.006 0.034 0.002 0.004 0.030 ***** ***** 0.004 0.018 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.015 ----0.240 0.066 0.053 0.055 0.036 0.173 0.045 0.998 0.028 ----0.002 0.002 0.043 0.017 0.030 0.048 0.086 0.040 0.001 0.067 0.049 0.032 0.026 0.044 0.015 ----0.068 0.161 0.030 0.044 0.020 0.034 0.046 0.040 0.081 0.009 0.138 0.091 0.094
0.134 0.862 0.097 0.545 0.667 0.394 0.167 0.162 0.109 ***** 0.501 0.194 0.250 0.383 0.134 0.180 0.232 0.070 0.523 ***** ***** 0.061 0.031 0.106 0.131 0.013 0.033 0.270 0.023 0.103 0.165 0.111 0.129 0.381 0.218 0.972 0.076 ----0.098 0.165 0.339 0.137 1.882 0.764 1.140 0.779 0.122 0.313 0.511 0.243 0.076 0.708 0.224 0.859 0.240 0.312 0.939 1.967 0.509 0.086 0.662 0.386 0.112 0.046 0.596 0.252 0.620
1.07 6.58 3.83 3.04 2.75 4.00 1.23 1.06 0.90 **** 3.64 1.61 1.77 1.33 1.03 1.16 2.05 0.55 2.03 **** **** 1.39 0.46 0.86 0.84 1.93 1.08 5.23 2.57 0.63 1.51 1.25 1.16 3.62 1.95 4.37 1.11 ---0.63 0.65 2.02 0.93 4.46 2.87 3.21 3.53 1.40 2.81 2.10 2.06 0.91 2.72 1.26 3.94 1.25 2.88 3.46 5.84 1.53 0.23 3.55 1.29 0.89 0.67 4.21 1.52 3.31
0.231 0.347 0.373 0.189 0.185 0.371 0.101 0.118 0.069 ***** 0.623 0.110 0.267 0.146 0.052 0.149 0.132 0.057 0.163 ***** ***** 0.025 0.057 0.165 0.101 0.121 0.088 0.485 0.372 0.171 0.110 0.144 0.088 0.447 0.087 1.545 0.058 ----0.056 0.052 0.163 0.143 0.230 0.323 0.218 0.348 0.106 0.272 0.146 0.108 0.149 0.199 0.089 0.463 0.219 0.469 0.208 0.301 0.081 0.132 0.296 0.118 0.160 0.046 0.492 0.240 2.243
2.42 4.59 3.38 4.30 3.48 3.92 2.08 1.60 0.74 **** 4.65 2.11 2.46 4.14 1.09 2.36 2.54 0.35 2.96 **** **** 0.91 0.49 0.82 0.94 0.95 0.84 1.26 0.74 1.19 1.21 0.91 1.23 2.35 1.79 6.62 0.65 ---0.89 1.28 2.39 0.85 8.09 5.16 4.87 4.48 2.64 3.13 3.88 2.80 1.21 4.49 2.33 5.45 1.88 2.49 5.94 7.56 2.19 0.51 5.24 2.17 0.77 0.67 5.19 1.35 4.01
4.26 3.97 3.94 4.05 4.16 3.98 4.24 4.26 4.57 **** 4.08 4.24 4.17 3.98 4.48 4.20 4.18 5.05 4.33 **** **** 4.43 4.88 4.58 4.48 4.24 4.51 4.11 4.78 4.61 4.48 4.44 4.37 4.17 4.34 4.46 4.61 ---4.66 4.60 4.16 4.49 3.85 3.97 4.11 4.00 4.10 4.13 4.02 4.12 4.53 4.00 4.27 4.40 4.41 4.49 4.00 3.95 4.68 5.76 4.00 4.43 5.42 4.75 3.85 4.65 4.04
29.7 60.8 52.3 53.4 38.9 58.7 26.7 19.9 12.2 **** 40.8 27.4 30.0 42.5 13.4 28.8 31.4 5.3 27.5 **** **** 18.8 6.8 11.8 13.4 22.1 11.5 35.1 11.0 14.6 16.3 16.1 17.8 44.5 32.5 43.1 13.5 ---10.8 13.6 29.5 11.9 59.7 48.4 41.8 45.3 33.7 39.6 46.3 35.2 15.7 49.5 25.4 32.9 20.1 27.3 58.3 69.9 20.1 3.9 57.7 23.4 5.8 8.3 92.0 15.1 49.6
1.11 0.07 0.13 0.90 1.55 0.09 1.07 0.86 1.02 0.38 0.13 2.07 0.80 1.02 0.20 0.83 0.57 1.59 0.36 0.00 0.01 0.75 2.23 1.29 1.39 0.69 0.53 0.10 0.11 0.53 1.96 0.79 0.92 0.15 1.40 0.08 0.51 1.65 1.93 0.72 0.66 2.87 0.74 0.19 0.63 0.52 1.51 0.21 1.80 0.69 0.61 0.51 1.08 0.04 0.33 0.11 0.18 0.37 0.67 0.18 0.15 0.41 0.17 2.76 0.07 0.17 0.10
10/27/2006
Page 4 of 8
981110 981117 981124 981201 981208 981215 981222 981229 990105 990112 990119 990126 990202 990209 990216 990223 990302 990309 990316 990323 990330 990406 990413 990420 990427 990504 990511 990518 990525 990601 990608 990615 990622 990629 990706 990713 990720 990727 990803 990810 990817 990824 990831 990907 990914 990921 990928 991005 991012 991019 991026 991102 991109 991116 991123 991130 991207 991214 991221 991228 000104 000111 000118 000125 000201 000208 000215
0.24 0.15 0.08 1.04 ---0.11 0.16 ---0.03 ---0.05 0.03 0.54 0.03 0.12 0.24 0.18 0.04 ---0.08 ---0.05 0.08 0.01 0.16 ---0.11 ---0.35 ---0.22 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.19 0.08 0.06 0.27 ---0.07 0.21 0.04 0.03 0.21 0.07 ---0.12 0.09 0.13 0.89 ---0.03 0.63 ---0.01 0.11 0.03 0.04 ---0.15 0.06 0.21 0.05 0.05 ---0.02
0.026 0.035 0.015 0.169 ----0.025 0.022 ----0.006 ----0.011 0.011 0.104 0.012 0.028 0.049 0.140 0.017 ----0.023 ----0.016 0.020 0.012 0.024 ----0.022 ----0.052 ----0.048 0.061 0.018 0.018 0.028 0.055 0.045 0.049 0.058 ----0.033 0.065 0.011 0.013 0.038 0.038 ----0.021 0.025 0.035 0.121 ----0.029 0.092 ----0.036 0.016 0.004 0.006 ----0.028 0.010 0.024 0.011 0.008 ----0.003
0.205 0.138 0.056 0.194 ----0.187 0.187 ----0.140 ----0.215 0.201 0.232 0.027 0.068 0.084 0.122 0.028 ----0.036 ----0.032 0.047 0.020 0.055 ----0.040 ----0.064 ----0.104 0.078 0.018 0.017 0.055 0.084 0.069 0.049 0.140 ----0.042 0.382 0.030 0.030 0.047 0.379 ----0.053 0.069 0.066 0.138 ----0.093 0.173 ----0.002 0.031 0.022 0.050 ----0.059 0.034 0.041 0.021 0.027 ----0.014
0.206 0.132 0.054 0.063 ----0.077 0.120 ----0.061 ----0.065 0.097 0.104 0.041 0.074 0.116 0.076 0.097 ----0.067 ----0.108 0.091 0.069 0.115 ----0.109 ----0.043 ----0.054 0.040 0.001 0.063 0.094 0.084 0.092 0.041 0.067 ----0.040 0.090 0.001 0.021 0.023 0.022 ----0.026 0.061 0.066 0.089 ----0.097 0.187 ----0.084 0.052 0.018 0.158 ----0.136 0.032 0.091 0.056 0.066 ----0.016
0.357 0.573 0.260 0.314 0.698 0.513 0.310 ----0.024 ----0.115 0.134 0.189 0.395 0.352 0.120 0.281 0.130 ----0.098 ----0.107 0.286 0.176 0.327 ----0.188 ----1.072 ----0.317 0.386 0.459 0.310 0.182 0.326 0.303 0.469 0.386 0.737 0.228 0.175 0.031 0.116 0.576 0.334 ----0.657 0.128 0.419 0.877 ----0.094 1.354 0.146 0.024 0.112 0.053 0.223 0.455 0.598 0.167 0.268 0.073 0.175 ----0.070
3.19 2.68 1.66 3.32 6.65 3.23 1.73 ---0.51 ---1.41 1.13 1.82 2.03 2.25 2.07 2.84 1.01 ---1.38 ---0.77 1.31 2.22 1.42 ---1.33 ---4.52 ---1.83 1.77 2.39 0.98 1.10 2.10 1.48 1.77 2.57 8.14 1.27 2.53 0.52 0.63 3.31 0.62 ---3.73 0.55 1.69 3.52 ---0.47 5.00 1.55 0.56 1.12 0.73 1.26 2.02 2.21 0.96 5.38 2.21 2.02 ---0.92
0.576 0.299 0.140 0.175 0.631 0.225 0.521 ----0.101 ----0.096 0.146 0.166 0.200 0.159 0.168 0.284 0.210 ----0.157 ----0.069 0.102 0.077 0.086 ----0.102 ----0.340 ----0.204 0.162 0.149 0.041 0.165 0.238 0.191 0.123 0.177 0.512 0.127 0.211 0.085 0.186 0.244 0.107 ----0.219 0.202 0.072 0.236 ----0.186 0.342 0.536 0.104 0.099 0.029 0.435 ----0.346 0.082 0.275 0.400 0.178 ----0.037
2.48 2.62 1.55 2.44 3.87 2.05 ------1.02 ---1.13 1.33 1.21 1.53 1.79 1.18 2.09 0.92 ---1.43 ---1.78 2.48 1.79 1.80 ---2.12 ---5.38 ---2.22 3.44 4.12 2.03 1.55 2.48 2.84 1.69 3.56 9.47 2.76 2.71 0.53 1.07 5.71 1.21 ---3.61 1.61 1.64 2.68 ---0.68 5.44 1.30 0.56 0.87 0.63 1.61 1.15 2.79 1.17 1.48 0.33 0.54 ---0.86
4.14 4.27 4.47 4.41 3.88 4.37 4.02 ---4.68 ---4.45 4.48 5.09 4.35 4.34 4.39 4.35 4.54 ---4.39 ---4.43 4.29 4.20 4.52 ---4.37 ---3.97 4.48 4.37 4.25 4.01 4.41 4.49 4.18 4.30 4.47 4.04 3.69 4.29 4.20 4.76 4.51 3.95 5.27 ---4.16 4.53 4.59 5.24 ---5.01 4.00 4.51 4.78 4.61 4.75 4.37 5.99 4.33 4.56 4.11 4.42 4.58 ---4.52
36.7 29.0 18.7 22.8 60.3 30.3 77.8 ---7.9 ---18.4 18.2 10.4 22.2 23.9 19.8 30.7 15.0 ---14.9 ---19.0 28.6 28.3 19.6 ---83.6 ---56.1 ---25.0 34.5 49.3 21.7 19.1 29.0 27.2 16.7 37.2 95.8 21.4 22.1 7.2 13.1 56.8 6.6 ---43.1 19.2 15.6 18.2 ---6.8 58.7 18.3 8.8 14.2 8.1 21.7 10.9 32.3 16.9 41.6 20.5 16.7 ---14.0
0.10 0.43 0.26 0.27 0.09 0.17 0.88 0.00 0.90 0.52 2.17 0.98 0.27 0.42 0.17 0.09 0.22 2.66 0.09 0.63 0.00 0.61 1.23 0.63 0.85 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.61 0.01 0.22 0.13 0.52 2.46 0.75 0.66 0.15 0.60 0.37 0.06 0.97 0.59 0.72 2.41 0.26 2.45 0.00 1.72 0.25 0.47 0.20 0.02 0.37 0.10 0.12 2.38 0.20 1.31 0.26 0.04 0.51 0.48 0.42 0.24 0.45 0.05 0.96
10/27/2006
Page 5 of 8
000222 000229 000307 000314 000321 000328 000404 000411 000418 000425 000502 000509 000516 000523 000530 000606 000613 000620 000627 000704 000711 000718 000725 000801 000808 000815 000822 000829 000905 000912 000919 000926 001003 001010 001017 001024 001031 001107 001114 001121 001128 001205 001212 001219 001226 010102 010109 010116 010123 010130 010206 010213 010220 010227 010306 010313 010320 010327 010403 010410 010417 010424 010501 010508 010515 010522 010529
0.12 0.04 0.43 0.15 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.28 0.03 0.03 0.35 0.54 0.81 0.17 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.20 0.25 0.08 0.19 0.36 0.14 0.35 ---0.35 0.17 0.57 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.09 ---0.01 ------0.01 ---0.05 ---0.05 0.10 -------
0.017 0.009 0.052 0.025 0.015 0.015 0.001 0.033 0.001 0.003 0.047 0.129 0.151 0.016 0.009 0.018 0.010 0.012 0.011 0.096 0.033 0.007 0.107 0.059 0.010 0.007 ----0.024 0.038 0.064 0.008 0.014 0.014 0.021 ----0.008 --------0.004 ----0.007 ----0.011 0.034 ---------
0.044 0.019 0.082 0.017 0.034 0.018 0.026 0.045 0.004 0.002 0.031 1.446 0.209 0.012 0.005 0.024 0.020 0.035 0.021 0.034 0.029 0.003 0.081 0.032 0.022 0.031 ----0.014 0.022 0.771 0.007 0.023 0.042 0.042 ----0.009 --------0.003 ----0.005 ----0.027 0.063 ---------
0.072 0.088 0.088 0.039 0.042 0.013 0.066 0.171 0.296 0.282 0.438 0.989 0.153 0.023 0.039 0.001 0.006 0.045 0.016 0.057 0.028 0.006 0.021 0.030 0.003 0.054 ----0.028 0.057 0.889 0.021 0.024 0.030 0.047 ----0.005 --------0.006 ----0.017 ----0.022 0.030 ---------
0.050 0.183 0.420 0.240 0.228 0.258 0.413 0.738 0.287 0.220 1.132 0.956 1.175 0.363 0.337 0.440 0.161 0.272 0.290 0.296 0.424 0.170 0.644 0.376 0.331 0.397 ----0.355 0.533 0.198 0.301 0.225 0.209 0.440 ----0.209 --------0.158 ----0.097 ----0.233 0.032 0.372 ----0.155 0.246 0.229 0.128 0.486 0.202 0.263 0.048 0.372 0.388 0.044 0.079 0.772 0.285 0.488 1.865 0.367 0.368 0.193
1.10 1.33 1.77 1.51 1.44 1.33 0.84 2.18 1.36 1.00 7.09 6.43 4.63 1.53 0.98 2.26 1.04 1.91 1.49 1.75 3.31 2.07 3.86 1.63 1.45 2.08 ---1.60 1.73 1.88 1.74 1.16 0.35 2.55 ---2.21 ------1.07 ---0.87 ---1.80 0.87 4.70 ---2.61 1.11 1.60 0.81 2.38 1.44 1.21 1.43 4.31 3.68 0.49 0.63 3.66 1.21 2.43 6.13 2.52 1.56 1.58
0.264 0.166 0.254 0.145 0.146 0.179 0.592 0.539 0.379 0.077 0.361 2.530 0.542 0.109 0.072 0.199 0.086 0.144 0.149 0.223 0.261 0.119 0.245 0.107 0.173 0.266 ----0.139 0.138 1.254 0.124 0.097 0.132 0.185 ----0.098 --------0.058 ----0.062 ----0.185 0.112 0.779 ----0.604 0.135 0.370 0.153 0.488 0.111 0.373 0.057 0.225 0.127 0.046 0.136 0.384 0.081 0.245 0.465 0.271 0.168 0.085
1.06 1.23 2.38 1.39 1.65 1.14 1.37 1.97 1.55 1.41 4.62 8.48 6.69 2.44 1.20 2.77 1.05 4.74 3.37 1.56 5.56 1.09 1.55 1.97 2.76 2.77 ---3.46 2.53 3.44 2.73 1.49 0.40 3.47 ---2.97 ------1.35 ---0.95 ---1.04 0.86 1.91 ---0.59 1.10 1.43 1.57 3.05 1.70 2.44 0.32 1.16 1.84 0.25 0.31 4.49 1.35 2.57 5.05 2.35 2.47 1.44
0.08 0.06 0.54 0.08 0.41 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.63 0.47 0.32
0.005 0.010 0.027 0.006 0.044 0.018 0.004 0.016 0.020 0.005 0.083 0.078 0.062
0.021 0.063 0.051 0.035 0.020 0.050 0.051 0.044 0.035 0.079 0.076 0.069 0.073
0.027 0.040 0.083 0.036 0.099 0.004 0.064 0.009 0.010 0.002 0.186 0.052 0.107
4.56 4.52 4.55 4.56 4.40 4.64 4.44 4.45 4.37 4.57 3.95 3.85 4.14 4.34 4.80 4.19 4.56 3.93 4.13 4.63 3.91 4.38 4.44 4.61 4.25 4.30 ---4.32 4.44 4.50 4.19 4.57 5.53 4.08 3.89 4.11 ------4.46 4.34 4.65 ---4.47 4.57 4.19 ---4.53 3.84 4.64 4.69 4.49 4.27 4.39 4.43 4.57 4.18 4.14 5.08 4.83 4.11 5.01 4.37 4.06 4.28 4.20 4.47
15.5 15.6 23.5 19.1 20.7 14.4 18.0 23.0 18.8 18.2 66.5 96.5 55.2 25.3 10.8 35.5 14.9 43.0 37.4 17.4 62.4 27.8 33.4 22.1 27.3 32.2 ---32.0 24.0 27.8 31.8 15.9 3.6 42.5 ---35.8 ------20.8 33.1 13.2 ---24.0 11.8 35.3 ---16.2 72.1 12.7 17.7 14.6 30.9 21.5 24.3 12.4 30.9 34.6 4.3 6.6 43.8 10.9 24.9 63.6 23.8 27.7 17.3
0.23 0.04 0.06
0.056 0.019 0.026
0.066 0.072 0.059
0.071 0.022 0.023
1.03 0.58 0.12 0.70 0.85 0.88 1.93 1.18 0.70 1.42 0.26 0.08 0.31 2.45 1.13 0.90 0.82 1.98 0.93 0.18 0.46 0.53 0.15 0.70 1.48 0.24 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.41 1.04 0.68 0.18 1.55 0.06 0.93 0.10 0.07 0.63 0.06 0.49 0.09 0.45 1.02 0.16 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.39 0.05 0.32 0.14 0.47 0.18 1.17 0.81 0.59 0.99 0.96 0.78 0.53 0.88 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.67 1.24
10/27/2006
Page 6 of 8
010605 010612 010619 010626 010703 010710 010717 010724 010731 010807 010814 010821 010828 010904 010911 010918 010925 011002 011009 011016 011023 011030 011106 011113 011120 011127 011204 011211 011218 011225 020101 020108 020115 020122 020129 020205 020212 020219 020226 020305 020312 020319 020326 020402 020409 020416 020423 020430 020507 020514 020521 020528 020604 020611 020618 020625 020702 020709 020716 020723 020730 020806 020813 020820 020827 020903 020910
0.09 0.27 0.03 0.17 0.34 0.15 0.54 0.74 0.20 0.27 0.17 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.22 0.08 0.92 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.04 0.43 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.20 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.21 0.07 0.04 0.23 0.14 0.04 0.33 0.03 0.08 0.21 0.03 0.05
0.012 0.046 0.014 0.031 0.027 0.017 0.102 0.229 0.031 0.054 0.017 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.011 0.020 0.024 0.006 0.012 0.026 0.010 0.094 0.016 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.042 0.008 0.009 0.004 0.022 0.004 0.071 0.022 0.035 0.024 0.072 0.005 0.001 0.068 0.007 0.013 0.011 0.012 0.075 0.012 0.001 0.022 0.021 0.003 0.037 0.011 0.024 0.033 0.010 0.013
0.054 0.062 0.098 0.087 0.047 0.060 0.085 0.244 0.092 0.267 0.088 0.083 0.083 0.001 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.012 0.048 0.023 0.027 0.024 0.071 0.002 0.027 0.013 0.003 0.025 0.031 0.003 0.011 0.030 0.020 0.004 0.002 0.009 0.001 0.009 0.004 0.064 0.061 0.057 0.012 0.029 0.031 0.028 0.049 0.039 0.025 0.058 0.068 0.050 0.112 0.033 0.087 0.101 0.012 0.028
0.037 0.121 0.047 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.087 0.205 0.046 0.026 0.015 0.019 0.023 0.039 0.024 0.019 0.013 0.041 0.116 0.085 0.035 0.137 0.052 0.031 0.028 0.027 0.003 0.094 0.029 0.091 0.054 0.111 0.017 0.244 0.033 0.122 0.062 0.019 0.054 0.045 0.085 0.060 0.061 0.048 0.050 0.134 0.046 0.095 0.068 0.081 0.078 0.305 0.046 0.138 0.169 0.052 0.176
0.551 0.470 0.371 0.355 0.366 0.371 0.687 0.652 0.507 0.732 0.823 0.532 0.197 0.339 0.299 0.286 0.089 0.093 0.290 0.429 0.623 0.180 1.275 0.520 0.061 0.176 0.088 0.155 0.359 0.204 3.163 0.176 0.160 0.526 0.118 0.715 0.233 0.638 0.267 0.393 0.066 0.787 0.142 0.505 0.330 0.401 0.286 0.139 1.820 0.632 0.249 0.147 1.034 0.278 0.318 2.093 0.299 0.753 1.244 0.252 0.219
3.21 2.38 1.26 1.46 1.71 1.45 2.66 4.67 2.44 4.17 2.61 1.51 1.69 2.20 0.96 1.21 1.16 1.31 1.47 0.89 2.09 0.92 4.35 2.63 0.32 1.37 1.35 1.43 2.41 1.76 18.90 2.73 1.15 2.50 0.75 3.85 1.17 1.21 1.52 2.65 0.66 4.43 1.15 1.50 0.69 1.50 1.38 0.51 5.41 2.54 1.26 1.46 5.21 1.77 1.21 2.47 1.33 2.84 4.93 1.40 0.73
0.129 0.286 0.174 0.109 0.089 0.178 0.258 0.579 0.203 1.060 0.174 0.110 0.156 0.276 0.143 0.065 0.052 0.049 0.102 0.207 0.204 0.100 0.273 0.101 0.069 0.071 0.126 0.081 0.217 0.091 2.097 0.136 0.128 0.175 0.063 0.846 0.292 0.240 0.115 0.139 0.097 0.528 0.122 0.170 0.104 0.140 0.098 0.054 0.517 0.180 0.406 0.049 0.319 0.094 0.294 0.407 0.084 0.327 0.431 0.139 0.332
3.92 2.06 1.89 3.00 2.18 3.01 3.78 5.50 5.17 3.03 5.47 3.36 3.08 2.89 2.11 1.80 1.29 1.07 2.16 1.62 2.01 1.36 2.71 2.23 0.44 1.04 0.49 1.24 1.80 0.57 10.03 0.92 2.04 2.72 0.80 2.97 1.16 1.54 2.06 1.97 1.04 2.74 1.79 2.22 1.68 2.10 2.30 0.70 6.71 3.40 3.27 1.40 3.55 2.55 1.62 6.52 2.31 3.98 6.46 2.92 0.45
3.95 4.37 4.42 4.18 4.41 4.17 4.32 4.06 3.94 4.73 3.96 4.12 4.11 4.05 4.37 4.47 4.41 4.40 4.42 4.64 4.57 4.55 4.73 4.32 5.07 4.48 4.63 4.36 4.39 4.54 4.55 4.13 4.28 4.29 4.16 4.62 4.05 4.49 4.91 4.31 4.37 4.63 4.16 4.35 4.54 4.54 4.38 4.30 4.91 4.04 4.15 4.12 4.39 4.20 4.26 4.47 4.26 4.24 4.06 3.96 4.11 5.58
42.7 25.2 21.1 30.7 19.0 31.5 36.2 57.5 52.6 24.3 46.8 32.6 34.6 31.5 19.8 18.2 13.8 15.9 20.3 14.6 20.2 16.4 24.6 28.3 5.3 16.8 10.7 19.3 23.3 28.6 13.1 101.4 23.5 23.8 34.0 10.5 32.4 13.3 11.7 21.4 24.5 10.5 43.2 22.4 20.2 16.4 23.9 24.2 5.7 66.2 28.8 32.8 17.5 40.9 26.3 16.7 42.9 26.9 42.4 58.5 31.9 5.3
0.38 0.17 0.89 2.45 0.89 0.75 0.12 0.05 0.76 0.05 0.35 1.98 0.69 0.70 0.57 1.25 3.17 0.48 0.22 0.62 0.52 0.31 0.08 0.02 0.20 0.91 0.69 0.41 1.26 0.12 0.04 0.52 0.05 0.35 0.12 0.54 0.81 0.00 0.14 0.39 0.12 0.31 0.55 1.08 0.05 0.87 0.24 1.72 0.47 3.10 1.14 0.07 0.82 2.88 1.79 0.05 0.34 0.00 0.50 0.14 2.23 0.45 0.00 0.15 1.10 0.10 0.00
10/27/2006
Page 7 of 8
020917 020924 021001 021008 021015 021022 021029 021105 021112 021119 021126 021203 021210 021217 021224 021231 030107 030114 030121 030128 030204 030211 030218 030225 030304 030311 030318 030325 030401 030408 030415 030422 030429 030506 030513 030520 030527 030603 030610 030617 030624 030701 030708 030715 030722 030729 030805 030812 030819 030826 030902 030909 030916 030923 030930 031007 031014 031021 031028 031104 031111 031118 031125 031202 031209 031216 031223
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.25 0.04 ------0.21 0.22 0.15 0.01 0.10 ---0.21 0.21 0.23 0.05 0.11 ---0.12 0.20 0.26 0.31 0.16 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02 ---0.13 0.10 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.05 ------0.09 0.20 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.23 ---0.03 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.18
0.002 0.003 0.011 0.033 0.016 0.020 0.028 0.043 0.052 0.093 0.027 0.020 0.034 0.036 0.018 --------0.058 0.020 0.037 0.019 0.018 ----0.026 0.026 0.022 0.023 0.031 ----0.045 0.028 0.035 0.057 0.041 0.020 0.019 0.019 0.018 0.021 ----0.025 0.028 0.029 0.010 0.012 0.006 --------0.008 0.034 0.013 0.046 0.012 0.040 ----0.011 0.009 0.001 0.004 0.017 0.007 0.019 0.005 0.002 0.001
0.009 0.022 0.139 0.020 0.164 0.099 0.081 0.050 0.072 0.033 0.039 0.094 0.056 0.091 0.001 --------0.006 0.001 0.053 0.012 0.004 ----0.062 0.099 0.049 0.142 0.119 ----0.098 0.058 0.001 0.143 0.054 0.101 0.069 0.047 0.101 0.003 ----0.099 0.075 0.135 0.039 0.177 0.016 --------0.017 0.014 0.005 0.104 0.080 0.134 ----0.153 0.047 0.056 0.052 0.037 0.033 0.006 0.008 0.002 0.001
0.006 0.029 0.042 0.126 0.028 0.028 0.038 0.021 0.020 0.082 0.022 0.018 0.030 0.036 0.085 --------0.314 0.078 0.089 0.043 0.044 ----0.075 0.029 0.065 0.042 0.067 ----0.292 0.084 0.076 0.163 0.062 0.042 0.023 0.043 0.029 0.031 ----0.057 0.104 0.025 0.023 0.041 0.031 --------0.016 0.057 0.087 0.331 0.056 0.188 ----0.035 0.054 0.065 0.068 0.044 0.063 0.058 0.221 0.061 0.069
0.130 0.135 0.024 0.998 0.167 0.044 0.063 0.482 0.316 0.122 0.325 0.234 0.044 0.146 0.121 0.146 --------0.429 0.198 0.160 0.012 0.004 ----0.079 0.676 0.086 0.296 0.599 0.116 1.221 0.319 0.453 0.670 0.237 0.475 0.289 0.291 0.464 0.160 ----0.439 0.402 0.440 0.720 0.209 0.450 --------0.147 0.353 0.140 0.202 0.173 0.259 ----0.138 0.240 0.013 0.091 0.419 0.129 0.039 0.037 0.001 0.215
0.71 1.04 0.41 3.46 1.76 0.32 0.98 2.27 1.65 1.16 2.96 2.27 0.94 1.23 0.91 1.26 ------3.96 1.54 3.27 0.43 1.05 ---1.81 3.14 0.98 1.25 1.76 0.50 4.91 1.37 2.55 1.88 1.95 1.71 1.29 1.30 1.82 0.83 ---1.56 2.10 1.72 1.24 1.15 1.38 ------0.78 1.95 0.82 0.64 0.80 1.50 ---0.94 0.94 1.26 0.79 1.91 0.60 0.82 1.32 1.01 1.28
0.083 0.142 0.093 0.211 0.070 0.073 0.046 0.122 0.150 0.103 0.228 0.154 0.104 0.236 0.111 0.093 --------0.704 0.194 0.319 0.161 0.092 ----0.140 0.131 0.126 0.113 0.188 1.800 0.650 0.144 0.230 0.316 0.193 0.106 0.075 0.072 0.107 0.060 ----0.247 0.211 0.071 0.668 0.035 0.079 --------0.056 0.124 0.213 0.565 0.080 0.197 ----0.105 0.128 0.109 0.235 0.103 0.121 0.032 0.416 0.106 0.144
1.11 2.31 0.81 4.06 1.06 0.65 0.95 1.44 1.32 1.07 1.86 0.62 0.92 0.98 0.73 0.71 ------0.74 2.00 0.83 0.19 1.33 ---0.76 2.11 0.85 0.96 2.13 1.17 4.90 1.39 4.39 2.56 1.53 2.88 1.70 1.87 3.47 0.68 ---4.24 3.05 2.99 1.32 1.96 5.11 ------1.67 2.47 1.20 1.29 1.32 1.11 ---0.92 1.26 1.29 1.28 1.39 0.86 0.92 0.23 0.65 0.98
4.56 4.27 4.73 4.05 4.42 5.01 4.53 4.46 4.52 4.64 4.35 4.53 4.55 4.62 5.17 4.60 4.40 4.97 4.25 4.28 4.27 5.03 4.42 ---4.49 4.30 4.70 4.67 4.45 5.16 3.94 4.57 4.03 4.42 4.34 4.24 4.40 4.37 4.17 4.72 ---4.14 4.17 4.27 4.51 4.38 3.95 ------4.51 4.33 4.55 4.65 4.56 4.76 ---4.58 4.57 4.40 4.41 4.51 4.71 4.69 4.81 4.60 4.65
14.2 23.1 7.7 46.0 17.7 5.3 14.7 18.2 20.3 11.8 24.7 15.8 12.7 12.2 4.0 11.4 23.4 20.5 29.0 26.4 27.3 3.3 16.1 ---16.6 29.6 10.6 14.9 23.9 6.9 60.9 15.9 44.8 23.1 20.3 27.8 17.8 19.6 33.1 8.4 ---34.5 29.3 26.0 15.0 19.8 46.7 ------15.5 22.1 12.0 13.4 14.6 15.5 ---11.5 14.4 19.1 18.0 18.2 8.7 9.3 9.2 12.0 14.6
1.56 0.82 1.84 0.23 0.34 1.06 0.60 0.23 0.35 1.68 0.25 0.30 0.30 1.34 0.36 0.70 2.10 0.07 0.04 0.15 0.56 0.27 0.93 0.68 0.05 0.38 0.20 1.08 0.87 1.63 0.07 0.22 0.15 0.21 0.82 0.57 1.22 1.41 0.90 0.75 2.19 0.01 0.18 0.79 3.07 1.05 1.48 4.85 0.04 0.00 2.74 0.65 0.72 0.59 2.33 0.38 0.00 0.77 1.57 0.41 0.36 0.19 1.95 0.56 0.32 2.19 0.27
10/27/2006
Page 8 of 8
031230 0.03 0.001 0.001 0.034 0.106 0.55 0.016 0.80 4.73 10.8 0.91 040106 0.06 0.009 0.013 0.059 0.108 0.99 0.079 1.05 4.61 10.9 1.42 040113 0.24 0.032 0.115 0.217 0.382 3.21 0.309 0.84 4.54 19.2 0.21 040120 0.10 0.013 0.001 0.079 0.156 2.21 0.140 0.54 4.60 13.9 0.38 040127 0.05 0.003 0.001 0.046 0.201 1.24 0.097 0.74 4.60 13.9 0.52 040203 0.12 0.055 0.031 0.043 0.160 1.52 0.141 0.63 4.64 12.3 0.45 040210 0.05 0.001 0.010 0.006 0.063 0.58 0.049 0.53 4.76 7.6 1.15 040217 ---- ----- ----- ----- -------- -------- 4.12 42.3 0.02 040224 0.14 0.020 0.025 0.038 0.265 3.43 0.269 1.24 4.20 29.0 0.18 040302 ---- ----- ----- ----- -------- -------- ------0.00 040309 0.20 0.023 0.033 0.097 0.263 2.24 0.248 2.10 4.17 30.7 0.35 040316 0.24 0.033 0.086 0.158 0.856 4.04 0.339 2.17 4.20 36.6 0.11 040323 0.04 0.011 0.124 0.059 0.218 1.33 0.097 1.22 4.49 17.1 1.11 040330 0.16 0.028 0.152 0.101 0.233 1.85 0.231 1.87 4.31 26.8 0.18 040406 0.10 0.028 0.331 0.083 0.398 1.76 0.189 1.44 4.48 18.4 0.73 040413 0.07 0.009 0.011 0.041 0.112 0.76 0.098 0.94 4.62 11.6 0.68 040420 0.09 0.013 0.126 0.057 0.017 0.48 0.087 0.53 5.03 5.8 1.21 040427 0.15 0.036 0.051 0.114 0.527 1.86 0.147 3.09 4.24 32.0 1.33 040504 0.07 0.016 0.016 0.046 0.263 0.50 0.058 0.90 5.00 6.6 1.07 040511 0.19 0.038 0.041 0.083 0.542 1.66 0.136 2.15 4.47 21.7 2.36 040518 0.19 0.050 0.137 0.123 0.601 2.21 0.240 4.62 4.03 42.2 0.32 040525 0.36 0.047 0.192 0.143 0.657 1.85 0.200 2.78 4.43 24.3 0.81 040601 0.16 0.032 0.111 0.079 0.422 1.92 0.122 3.35 4.12 34.5 0.86 040608 0.14 0.027 0.155 0.067 0.171 1.05 0.051 1.36 4.58 14.3 0.99 040615 0.20 0.046 0.108 0.111 0.415 1.77 0.160 2.70 4.45 30.2 0.18 040622 0.14 0.049 0.052 0.131 0.492 1.59 0.114 3.59 4.22 32.9 1.56 040629 0.06 0.018 0.050 0.046 0.336 0.71 0.052 1.48 4.76 12.0 0.50 040706 0.05 0.014 0.074 0.048 0.160 0.57 0.113 1.36 4.74 13.0 0.68 040713 0.10 0.018 0.021 0.054 0.531 1.46 0.115 2.99 4.27 28.2 0.48 040720 0.06 0.013 0.035 0.042 0.900 1.20 0.068 2.95 4.44 19.3 1.60 040727 0.04 0.010 0.023 0.048 0.091 0.90 0.102 1.46 4.52 16.0 3.49 040803 0.08 0.017 0.066 0.082 0.111 0.99 0.114 1.92 4.44 19.5 1.23 040810 ---- ----- ----- ----- -------- -------- ------0.43 040817 0.10 0.011 0.042 0.051 0.525 0.97 0.477 3.60 4.24 27.1 1.52 040824 0.08 0.010 0.015 0.035 0.447 0.61 0.100 1.57 4.69 11.8 2.15 040831 0.11 0.019 0.033 0.071 0.210 0.80 0.117 1.73 4.63 15.6 2.29 040907 ---- ----- ----- ----- -------- -------- ------0.01 040914 0.01 0.011 0.027 0.073 0.046 0.31 0.123 0.52 4.91 6.2 3.93 040921 0.01 0.006 0.018 0.051 0.026 0.06 0.067 0.52 5.11 5.0 4.39 040928 0.16 0.029 0.075 0.097 0.353 1.17 0.138 2.68 4.39 22.3 0.23 041005 ---- ----- ----- ----- -------- -------- 4.06 51.0 0.11 041012 ---- ----- ----- ----- -------- -------- ------0.00 041019 0.04 0.006 0.028 0.043 0.264 1.63 0.077 1.44 4.42 19.0 1.42 041026 0.12 0.014 0.033 0.082 0.362 3.20 0.243 3.71 4.01 45.9 0.41 041102 0.14 0.023 0.097 0.190 0.373 1.73 0.340 2.26 4.36 21.6 0.09 041109 0.06 0.006 0.043 0.051 0.161 1.05 0.075 0.86 4.73 10.4 0.61 041116 0.27 0.032 0.061 0.103 0.558 3.81 0.234 1.27 4.30 26.8 0.25 041123 0.15 0.014 0.031 0.078 0.236 2.17 0.188 1.41 4.32 21.0 0.24 041130 0.04 0.001 0.015 0.057 0.107 0.43 0.110 0.61 4.91 6.6 1.40 041207 0.04 0.007 0.197 0.078 0.126 1.00 0.169 1.02 4.52 13.2 0.81 041214 0.03 0.006 0.234 0.085 0.052 0.97 0.064 0.80 4.61 15.1 1.22 041221 ---- ----- ----- ----- -------- -------- 4.32 38.6 0.07 041228 0.06 0.015 0.278 0.141 0.048 0.58 0.238 0.75 4.80 8.3 0.51 ==========================================================================================
10/27/2006
Sulfate Ion Concentrations 1985-2003
2002
2003 2004
National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu
APPENDIX PHOTOGRAPHS
Coal Creek
Above: Discharge DC005 entering Coal Creek. Streambed dry immediately upstream. Bottom Left: Accumulation of iron solids at small discharge downstream of DC005. Bottom Right: Stainless-steel rectangular weir at DC005 discharge.
Bear Creek
Above: Remains of old mine entry near source of Bear Creek discharges. Left: DBC100 issuing within stream channel with cairn constructed on upstream side.
Right: Existing channel created by timbering/mining, possible use in passive treatment system alternative. Below: Gasline crossing Bear Creek just upgradient of residential area in Blossburg Borough. Bottom: Iron precipitates in stream just below discharges.
Morris Run
Above: DMR004 at weir located immediately below source.
Above: DMR003(?) Near source above southern end of Tioga Street Left: DMR001(?) at piped point of issue near St. Josephs Catholic Church.
Fall Brook
Top: DFB099 discharge at weir installed 7/15/05 by Tioga County Concerned Citizens Committee (TC4) and Hillside Rod & Gun Club. Middle: H-Flume installed by TC4 to monitor DFB002 discharge. Bottom: DFB002 prior to entering Fall Brook.
Johnson Creek
Left: Coal refuse pile near DJC900 discharge. Center: DJC900 discharge near breeched beaver dam.
Right: Passive treatment system for DJC904, funded by PA DEP Growing Greener Grant, nearing completion.
Tioga River
Top Left: Tioga River below Fellows Creek above Fall Brook at TIOG6.0 looking downstream from County Bridge Picnic Area. Middle Right(below): Tioga River below Fall Brook and Morris Run, above Coal Creek looking upstream.
Middle Left(below): Tioga River below Coal Creek above Johnson Creek looking downstream towards TIOG3.0.
Bottom Right: Tioga River below Johnson Creek above Bear Creek looking downstream.
APPENDIX MAPS

Upper Tioga Review Watershed Assessment: PROJECT NO. 126048

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Upper Tioga Review Watershed Assessment: PROJECT NO. 126048

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UPPER TIOGA REVIEW WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO.

Baltimore District Army Corps of Engineers

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

GENERAL AREAL GEOLOGY

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

DJC902 DJC903 DJC904 DMR001

Morris Run Tioga River Coal Creek Bear Creek

DMR003 DMR004 DTR003 DCC005 DBC101(2)

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

Table 3. Summary of AMD Impacts to Major Tributaries Values: Mean(minimum-maximum)

2 (1-3) 15 (10-21) 2 (<1-6) 24 (17-34) 4 (1-8)

1 (<1-1) 5 (3-8) <1 (<1-2) 17 (13-23) 4 (2-8)

23 (<20-27) 267 (194-333) 32 (<20-60) 526 (352-904) 129 (63-235)

Morris Run Coal Creek Bear Creek

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

HISTORICAL AND RECENT ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION EFFORTS

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

Hybrid Treatment System Diagram

Automatic Flushing-Type Vertical Flow Pond

Automatic Flushing-Type Vertical Flow Pond

Hydrated Lime Active Treatment System

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

3316 2.82(3) 420 NR 42.06 NR NR 9.76(3) 32.34

7325 2.95(3) 276 NR 28.29 NR NR 5.48 19.37

(Average) 2818 (max 6251)

(Average) 2396 (max 5274)

(Average) 422 (max 977)

2.8 367 335 35.3 3.8 31.5 8.1 26.7

2.8 402 365 40.1 4.4 35.7 8.6 29.2

2.9 164 163 7.6 0.4 7.2 5.2 12.4

05-Jan-07 BioMost, Inc. 19301/Report

Capital Chemical Pumping O&M Sludge Disposal Total 15-YR PV Annual

$3,300,000 $255,943 $175,000 $102,360 $1,323,113 $1,856,416 $26,000,000

$3,600,000+ $196,951 $244,381 $206,070