'o/ .ttffe.-.. ^<j» i. 
 
 *°^ '"lip fl- 
 
 WV '/, 
 
 
 A»*A 
 
 G* %. *?777* A O *».»* A* % *7f7Z* % A <> •?.»* A* V VET** A ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 A»*\v 
 
 lV«^ 
 
 
 0° 
 
 
 ^>«* A • 
 
 
 ^ A 
 
 ^\vl^\. G°*.«i^l.% 4**\c^/**- G°*.t^l.*°o >*Ci^**. C° 4 -!^I. 
 
 » A **V 
 
 
 
 !*• ^t. jl^ ♦Vs,V/*l° >^ A •* 
 
 
 : S%. 
 
 
 
 ^°^ 
 
 lN 
 
 
 
 ^^•V ^"3^\/ %^-\/ .. V"^\/ %^-*>° ... ^^^' 
 
 
 " c *^« A • 
 
 A«*> o%^^S?» <L^>*^^ - 
 
 # W* 
 
 * *£• <xv * rfCV s» /)u ^n ey * 
 
 r oV 
 
 A 1 ' °^ *" 1 ^ ^ **^° A 
 
 
 A°* 
 
 ^ 'T^vTo* & 
 
 A**« 
 
 '-••_ ^. A* 
 
 
 * o^ v X %1 ^\v v Wtt\r V^^V^ V : « ; \o^ v 55 '^^ < 
 
 r^, 
 
 >* ,0° "* 
 
 
 
 
 '/..... \ /" 
 
 v^ 
 
 V** 
 
 

 
 4<k 
 
 
 
 
 V» * * * At . *u 
 
 % 
 
 
 *\tffc 
 
 ^9 XNN!*_Bfc£2 « ^* 
 
 
 ' ** V % 
 
 
 „;* «r % v 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 r +6 
 
 r t 
 
 «5°<* 
 
 ,••• 
 
 • ■• 
 
 3 v a 
 
 
 
 
 •5^ 
 
 
 
 • .o 
 
 
 c^ ^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 .^^ 
 
 • .A V «^. 
 
 
BUREAU OF MINES 
 INFORMATION CIRCULAR/1988 
 
 Dbof 
 
 Mining and Reclamation of a Central 
 Florida Forested Wetland: A Case 
 Study 
 
 By J. R. Boyle, Jr. 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 
Information Circular 9199 
 u 
 
 Mining and Reclamation of a Central 
 Florida Forested Wetland: A Case 
 Study 
 
 By J. R. Boyle, Jr. 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary 
 
 BUREAU OF MINES 
 T S Ary, Director 
 
 This report is based upon work done under an agreement Letv-. n the University of 
 Alabama and the Bureau of Mines. 
 

 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: 
 
 Boyle, James R. 
 
 Mining and reclamation of a central Florida forested wetland. 
 
 (Bureau of Mines information circular; 9199) 
 
 Bibliography: p. 23 
 
 Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27:9199. 
 
 1. Phosphate mines and mining-Environmental aspects-Florida. 2. 
 Reclamation of land-Florida. 3. Wetland conservation-Florida. I. Title. II. Series: 
 Information circular (United States. Bureau of Mines); 9199. 
 
 TN295.U4 [TN195.P47] 622 s [631'.6'4] 88-600183 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Abstract 1 
 
 Introduction 2 
 
 Acknowledgments 2 
 
 Research approach 2 
 
 Test site 3 
 
 Topography 4 
 
 Ecology 7 
 
 Soils and lithology 8 
 
 Premining monitoring program 8 
 
 Ecology 9 
 
 Water 9 
 
 Lithology and soils 10 
 
 Site preparation and mining 17 
 
 Recontouring and revegetation 19 
 
 Grading 19 
 
 Cover crop establishment 19 
 
 Revegetation 19 
 
 Maintenance 21 
 
 Wildlife 22 
 
 Evaluation of restoration 22 
 
 Cost factors 23 
 
 Summary 23 
 
 References 23 
 
 Appendix.~Permit requirements 24 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 1. Diagram of Federal agency and private cooperator responsibilities 3 
 
 2. Location of Big Four Mine in relation to surrounding area 4 
 
 3. Aerial photograph showing wetlands test site 5 
 
 4. Mining Unit No. 1C and portion covered by test site 6 
 
 5. Area of tributary showing test site, vegetation donor site, stream channel, 25-yr flood plain limits, 
 
 and Department of Environmental Regulation jurisdictional boundary 6 
 
 6. Premine topography of test site and surrounding area 7 
 
 7. Vegetation map showing transects established by AMAX 8 
 
 8. Lithologic cross section of test site showing relationships of overburden, matrix, and bedrock 8 
 
 9. Locations of rain gauges, stream gauges, surface stage gauges, observation wells, continuous recorders, 
 
 and transects established by USGS 9 
 
 10. Network established by USGS to monitor biological and hydrological conditions atcontrol site at 
 
 Brewster Ft. Lonesome Mine 10 
 
 11. Lithologic cores 1 and 2 16 
 
 12. Dike construction during test site preparation 17 
 
 13. Bulldozers clearing overstory before mining 18 
 
 14. Dragline sequence used to mine area containing test site 18 
 
 15. Dragline mining test site 19 
 
 16. Site after completion of grading, with cover crop established 20 
 
 17. Sand tailings pumped into upland areas 20 
 
 18. Postmining topography 21 
 
 19. Transplanted vegetation island 22 
 
TABLES 
 
 Page 
 
 1. USGS vegetative species list and percent coverage at test site, by quadrat . 11 
 
 2. Results of USGS invertebrate sampling at test site 12 
 
 3. USGS vegetative species list and percent coverage at control site, by quadrat 13 
 
 4. Results of USGS invertebrate sampling at control site 13 
 
 5. Results of USGS ground and surface water quality survey for test and control sites 14 
 
 6. Lithologic descriptions of coreholes 1 and 2 14 
 
 7. Analysis of USGS soil samples from test site 15 
 
 
 UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 
 
 ACU 
 
 apparent color unit 
 
 mt 
 
 metric ton 
 
 cm 
 
 centimeter 
 
 m gAg 
 
 milligram per kilogram 
 
 ha 
 
 hectare 
 
 mg/L 
 
 milligram per liter 
 
 kg/ha 
 
 kilogram per hectare 
 
 mmho/cm 
 
 millimho per centimeter 
 
 km 
 
 kilometer 
 
 NTU 
 
 nephelometric turbidity unit 
 
 m 
 
 meter 
 
 pCi/g 
 
 picocurie per gram 
 
 m 2 
 m 
 
 square meter 
 
 pet 
 
 percent 
 
 m 3 
 m 
 
 cubic meter 
 
 wt pet 
 
 weight percent 
 
 m 3 /s 
 
 cubic meter per second 
 
 yr 
 
 year 
 
MINING AND RECLAMATION OF A CENTRAL FLORIDA FORESTED 
 
 WETLAND: A CASE STUDY 
 
 By James R. Boyle, Jr. 1 
 
 ABSTRACT 
 
 The Bureau of Mines initiated a program to address short- and long-term objectives of wetlands 
 restoration as a option for reclamation of lands mined for phosphate. The short-term objectives were 
 to identify a suitable wetland test site, initiate an extensive premining monitoring plan, develop an 
 acceptable mining plan, and recontour and revegetate the test site. These goals were accomplished using 
 a unique combination of expertise provided by Federal and State agencies and private industry. 
 
 A 6.5-ha forested wetland with an associated streambed was offered by private industry as the test 
 site. A premining monitoring program was established and carried out from May 1982 to October 1983. 
 A control site was established to determine ecological changes unrelated to mining. Clearing and mining 
 began in October 1983 and was completed in April 1984. Grading and streambed restoration was 
 completed in February 1986. Revegetation of the site was completed in February 1987. The program 
 to meet the long-term objective of postmining monitoring is described. 
 
 Mining engineer, Tuscaloosa Research Center, Bureau of Mines, Tuscaloosa, AL. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 The Bureau of Mines, in its role to provide technology 
 for minerals and materials related problems, identified a 
 unique problem involved in the mining of phosphates 
 found in Florida wetlands. A key element was the 
 concerns of the State's regulatory agencies in permitting 
 the mining of forested wetlands before the technological 
 ability to restore these wetlands was clearly demonstrated. 
 
 Florida's phosphate industry accounts for over 80 pet of 
 the Nation's phosphate production. Almost 20 pet of the 
 land owned by phosphate companies is land designated as 
 wetlands. These wetlands contain 500 million mt of 
 recoverable phosphate or 17 pet of Florida's phosphate 
 reserve base (1). The State of Florida has restricted, and 
 in many cases prohibited, the mining of wetlands, resulting 
 in an estimated loss of millions of tons of marketable 
 phosphate. 
 
 The importance of phosphate to the Nation's farming 
 industry is clearly documented. The importance of 
 wetlands to water quality enhancement, water detention, 
 ground water recharge-discharge, and wildlife 
 enhancement (2) has gained State and even National 
 attention. The loss of wetlands mainly from urbanization, 
 highway construction, and agriculture (3) has led the State 
 of Florida to pass a Wetlands Preservation Act that is 
 designed to limit the development of wetlands. 
 
 The ability to re-create freshwater marshes and lakes on 
 disturbed land has been proven by the Florida phosphate 
 industry, at least in the short term (4). The re-creation of 
 forested wetlands, because of its diversity, would be much 
 more difficult to accomplish. Regulatory agencies are very 
 reluctant to allow the mining of forested wetlands solely on 
 the results of studies on re-creating freshwater marshes 
 and lakes. Several attempts to meet regulatory standards 
 for forested wetland mining have resulted in insufficient 
 documentation of the premining and postmining 
 
 conditions. Frequently, the lack of baseline data 
 concerning premining hydrology, diversity of wetland 
 biological communities, and standards for restoration of 
 these elements has prevented the development of 
 documentation to justify the disruption of the ecological 
 system, which would be caused by mining. Consequently, 
 forested wetland phosphate deposits are not normally 
 permitted for mining by regulatory authorities. 
 
 To deal with the issue of mining forested wetlands, the 
 Bureau initiated a research program to mine, restore, and 
 monitor a small forested wetland. To achieve this goal, 
 the Bureau coordinated the efforts of the U.S. Geological 
 Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
 (USFWS), the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research 
 (FTPR), and the industry cooperator, AMAX, Inc. 
 
 Because the objective of the project was to demonstrate 
 technology to mine and restore a forested wetland, 
 AMAX, Inc., was required to obtain permits to mine and 
 reclaim the site. Approvals were obtained from the 
 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), 
 the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and 
 the U.S. Corps of Engineers (see appendix). Approval 
 also had to be obtained from the Hillsborough County 
 Commission. County ordinances prohibit mining within 
 the 25-yr flood plain and AMAX, Inc., found that 
 approximately 2.4 ha of the site fell within the 25-yr flood 
 plain. A waiver requested by AMAX, Inc., was denied. 
 The loss of the 2.4 ha affected the project in that this 
 property made up approximately 45 pet of the stream 
 channel (5). 
 
 Since the inception and implementation of this program, 
 several other programs have been initiated to address the 
 reclamation of forested wetlands (5). However, 5 to 10 yr 
 will be needed to determine the success of this and other 
 programs. 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
 The author expresses his appreciation to FTPR (grant 
 83.03.049) for its cooperation and funding in this research 
 effort to develop techniques for mining and restoration of 
 wetlands. 
 
 AMAX, Inc., assistance in site selection and preparation 
 is acknowledged along with the USGS for its monitoring 
 
 programs, the USFWS for its development of a restoration 
 plan, and Brewster Phosphates for the donation of the 
 control site. 
 
 RESEARCH APPROACH 
 
 The Bureau program called for both 
 short- and-long-term objectives. The short-term objectives 
 were to identify a wetland test site, initiate an extensive 
 premining monitoring program, develop and implement a 
 mining plan, and recontour and revegetate the site. The 
 
 ^Underlined numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of 
 references preceding the appendix. 
 
 long-term objective was to develop postmining monitoring 
 program to determine the success of the restored 
 hydrological and biological regimes. 
 
 A closely coordinated, systematic approach was essential 
 for success of this program. Because of the many 
 cooperators, involving both private industry and 
 multiagency participants, close coordination of the task 
 elements was required. Figure 1 shows the relationship of 
 
USGS 
 
 
 BuMines 
 AMAX 
 
 
 USFWS 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 Conduct 
 
 lithological 
 
 survey 
 
 
 
 Review existing 
 biological data 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 i 
 
 Conduct 
 
 biological 
 
 survey 
 
 
 Devise and 
 
 implement 
 
 mining plan 
 
 
 Evaluate data 
 
 on premining 
 
 ecosystem 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 • 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 Conduct 
 
 hydrological 
 
 survey 
 
 
 
 Devise and 
 
 implement grading 
 
 and contouring plan 
 
 
 Recommend 
 
 revegetation 
 
 plan 
 
 
 
 ( 
 
 f 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 ' 
 
 1 
 
 Evaluate data 
 and prepare 
 reports 
 
 
 Assemble and 
 evaluate reports 
 
 
 Prepare postmining 
 monitoring program 
 
 
 
 
 
 _j 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Deliver 
 
 completed 
 
 report 
 
 
 FIGURE 1. -Diagram of Federal agency and private cooperator responsibilities. 
 
 the Federal and private participants, with the Bureau as 
 the lead agency, coordinating the activities of the 
 cooperating company and the participating Federal 
 agencies. A unique feature of this project was the 
 involvement of U.S. Department of the Interior agencies 
 that possess the undisputed expertise required for this 
 project. 
 
 The USGS and USFWS were each responsible for their 
 respective areas of expertise. The USGS was responsible 
 
 for the collection and evaluation of premining hydrological, 
 biological, and geological data at the test site and the 
 establishment of a control site. The USFWS was 
 responsible for the development of a reclamation plan and 
 postmining monitoring program. The Bureau, in 
 cooperation with AMAX, Inc., used the data developed by 
 the agencies to design an acceptable mining and 
 recontouring plan. 
 
 TEST SITE 
 
 The test site was within sec. 25, T 31 S, R 22 E, of 
 Hillsborough County, FL. The property was owned in fee 
 simply by AMAX, Inc., and was part of its Big Four Mine 
 (fig. 2). The test site consisted of approximately 6.5 ha 
 
 (fig. 3) and was part of a 37.2-ha tract of land designated 
 by AMAX, Inc., as Mining Unit No. 1C. The site was in 
 the central portion of No. 1C (fig. 4) and was permitted 
 for mining as a part of this unit. 
 
MANATEE COUNTY 
 
 KEY MAP 
 
 Study 
 area 
 
 LEGEND 
 City, town 
 
 River, stream 
 — (7§)— National interstate highway 
 — (92j— U.S. highway 
 <<5o) — State highway 
 
 20 
 
 Scale, km 
 
 FIGURE 2.-Location of Big Four Mine in relation to surrounding area. 
 
 TOPOGRAPHY 
 
 A small stream channel and its associated wetlands that 
 serves as a primary tributary to Lake Branch makes up 
 the study site. The stream channel is approximately 760 m 
 in length, with 305 m being in the test site (fig. 5). The 
 flow in this stream is listed by the USGS as intermittent. 
 During the dry season base flow is provided by ground 
 water seepage. Streamflow averaged 0.1 m 3 /s in 1983 (6). 
 
 The topography of the site and upland areas is shown 
 in figure 6. Because of the relatively steep gradient 
 adjacent to the channel, ground water seepage contributes 
 a great deal to streamflow. From 1977 to 1982, 
 approximately 85 pet of the watershed for this stream has 
 been affected by mining. 
 
FIGURE 3.-Aerial photograph showing wetlands test site. 
 
Mining limit of 
 No. 1C 
 
 N 
 
 i 
 
 LEGEND 
 Test site 
 
 ^ '"*- Intermittent 
 stream 
 
 
 
 i_ 
 
 250 
 
 I 
 
 Scale, m 
 
 FIGURE 4.-Minlng Unit No. 1C and portion covered by test site. 
 
 Plant site 
 
 Scale, m 
 
 LEGEND 
 
 Y77A Test site 
 
 irTTTTH Vegetation 
 donor site 
 
 Intermittent 
 
 stream 
 
 - 25-yr flood 
 
 plain 
 
 p'-"^ DER jurisdictional 
 boundary 
 
 FIGURE 5.-Area of tributary showing test site, vegetation donor site, stream channel, 25-yr flood 
 plain limits, and Department of Environmental Regulation jurisdictional boundary. 
 
ECOLOGY 
 
 In 1975, AMAX, Inc., proposed three sites for mining. 
 State regulations required a broad ecological evaluation of 
 the sites. In 1980, an evaluation of the three sites was 
 initiated. The wetlands test site was in one of the sites. 
 The information developed was made available as baseline 
 data for this reclamation project. 
 
 The most useful information from the early studies was 
 data from two linear vegetative transects, C-l and C-2, 
 shown in figure 7. The transects were run north-south, 
 with C-l being in the test site and C-2 just east of the site. 
 Four 1-m -quadrats were established along each transect, 
 the placement being random, but not more than 10 m 
 from the transect line. The vegetative conditions can be 
 summarized as follows (7). 
 
 The canopy and understory is dominated by upland 
 hardwoods (60 pet). The remainder of the system is 
 freshwater swamp relative to level III classification. 
 Red maple and sweet gum are the most prevalent 
 canopy species in this area. Understory constituents 
 are not predominantly hydric as expected, but mesic, 
 dominated by wax myrtle and palmetto. Hydric 
 indicators such as chain fern (Woodwardier spp.) are 
 dominant within 3 to 9 m of the well incised creek. 
 Flow was observed throughout the monitoring 
 program in System C (test site area). The system is 
 almost homogenous along its 730 m length. The 
 interior swamp is bordered on both sides by upland 
 hardwoods (fig. 7). Canopy and ground cover 
 diversity is relatively high in this system. 
 
 I i— Property line 
 
 LEGEND 
 
 Land surface, 
 29— 1.5 m contour 
 interval 
 
 Plant site 
 
 
 
 l_ 
 
 250 
 
 Scale, m 
 
 FIGURE 6.-Premine topography of test site and surrounding area. 
 
Plant site 
 
 ': r~Property line 
 
 N 
 
 LEGEND 
 V/A Hardwoods 
 llllll Freshwater swamp 
 -----25~yr flood plain 
 •■-' -^-Intermittent stream 
 
 Scale, m 
 
 250 
 
 I 
 
 FIGURE 7.-Vegetation map showing transects established by AMAX. 
 
 The USGS reestablished C-l and C-2 along with an 
 additional transect. This information is given in detail in 
 the "Premining Monitoring Program" section. 
 
 SOILS AND LITHOLOGY 
 
 As defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the 
 soils beneath the site are classified as alluvial and 
 characteristic of a freshwater swamp. Rutledge Fine Sand 
 type soils are also found on the site and this soil is 
 characteristic of upland hardwood and pine flatwoods 
 vegetation. 
 
 Based on exploratory drilling, the overburden beneath 
 the test site averages 7 m in thickness and the matrix 
 thickness is 3 to 3.4 m. Figure 8 shows a cross section of 
 the site illustrating the overburden and matrix. 
 
 Stream channel 
 
 FIGURE 8.-Lithologic cross section of test site showing 
 relationships of overburden, matrix, and bedrock. 
 
 PREMINING MONITORING PROGRAM 
 
 The USGS in consultation with the Bureau, planned 
 and implemented an extensive premining monitoring 
 program. This program was designed to gather enough 
 baseline data at the test site so that a comprehensive 
 restoration and revegetation plan could be drawn up and 
 implemented. In conjunction with this program, a control 
 site was set up to define any hydrological or biological 
 
 changes that may have occurred in the area unrelated to 
 mining. 
 
 The data collection network at the test site (fig. 9) was 
 started May 27, 1982, and completed August 16, 1982. The 
 network consisted of a continuous recording rain gauge, 
 two stream gauges, a surface stage gauge, 10 observation 
 wells, 2 lithologic core holes, and linear transects A B, and 
 
C; A and B being the reestablished C-l and C-2, where 
 biological and soil samples were collected. This network 
 was used to check premining conditions of rainfall, 
 streamflow, ground water levels, lithologic cores, physical 
 and chemical properties of soils, surface and ground water 
 chemistry, and to gather biological data. 
 
 The USGS, between September 1983 and January 1984, 
 established a control site at the Brewster Phosphates Ft. 
 Lonesome Mine, approximately 5 miles southwest of the 
 test site. The monitoring network consisted of a stream 
 gauge, nine observation wells, and one linear transect with 
 the associated biological monitoring station (fig. 10). 
 
 ECOLOGY 
 
 The USGS established three linear transects in and 
 around the test site area (fig. 9) to observe the vegetative 
 cover and gather benthic invertebrate samples. Transect 
 A was in the test site, B was downstream in an area to be 
 used as a vegetation donor site, and C was to remain 
 undisturbed. Transects A and B each had four vegetative 
 quadrats established. The quadrats were 1-m boxes 
 established just off the transects in areas determined to 
 have typical vegetative cover. The quadrats were observed 
 twice, in January and June of 1983. The species and 
 coverage observed by quadrat is shown in table 1. 
 
 Biological monitoring stations were established at all 
 three transects. Benthic invertebrate sampling was 
 conducted in January and June of 1983. The type of 
 aquatic species sampled and the total counted by transect 
 is shown in table 2. 
 
 The USGS established one control site linear transect 
 AC (fig. 10) and one biological monitoring station to 
 determine any long-term changes in the area. The transect 
 had four 2-m -quadrats established in the same manner as 
 the test site. The quadrats were observed in April and 
 June 1984 and in January 1985. The species observed and 
 coverage by quadrat are shown in table 3. The biological 
 monitoring station was sampled in April 1984. The species 
 and number counted are shown in table 4. 
 
 In general, the area of high ground at the control site 
 was dominated by slash pine, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, 
 and fetterbrush. Vegetation along the tributary was 
 classified as palm oak hammock. The canopy was 
 dominated by water oak, sweet bay, loblolly bay, and some 
 red maple. Ground cover was dominated by saw palmetto, 
 chain fern, swamp azalea, and cinnamon fern (6). 
 
 WATER 
 
 Figure 9 shows the location of the rain, stream, and 
 surface stage gauges at the test site. Total rainfall for 1983 
 
 £ 
 
 Property line 
 
 Transect 
 A 
 
 MS4 (^-Limits of 
 | mining 
 
 MM 4,5,6 
 
 > I , 
 
 Plant site 
 
 LEGEND 
 
 Rain gauge 
 
 a Stream gauge 
 
 v Surface stage gauge 
 
 oo Observation well 
 
 • Observation well 
 with continuous 
 recorder 
 
 ■ Biological monitor- 
 ing station 
 
 ® Corehole 
 
 -,. Intermittent 
 ^ stream 
 
 -''25 - yr flood plain 
 
 FIGURE 9.-Locations of rain gauges, stream gauges, surface stage gauges, observation wells, 
 continuous recorders, and transects established by USGS. 
 
10 
 
 Pasture 
 
 LEGEND 
 
 ■ Quadrat location 
 
 ° Observation well 
 
 • Benthic invertebrate 
 sampling station 
 
 a Stream gauge 
 
 _ — Intermittent stream 
 
 ===Dirt road 
 
 150 
 
 a 
 
 
 Scale, m 
 
 FIGURE 10.-Network established by USGS to monitor biological and hydrological 
 conditions at control site at Brewster Ft Lonesome Mine. 
 
 was 130 cm, with a maximum daily precipitation of 7.4 cm. 
 Rainfall in 1984 was 121 cm, with a maximum daily rainfall 
 of 9.9 cm (6). 
 
 Gauges to monitor streamflow at the test site were 
 established at transect A on May 27, 1982, and at transect 
 B on August 16, 1982. From October 1, 1982, to 
 September 30, 1983, streamflow at B averaged 0.01 m 3 /s; 
 maximum discharge was 0.1 m /s. Streamflow at the 
 control site averaged 0.001 m /s during 1984; maximum 
 discharge during this period was 0.2 nr/s (6). 
 
 Ground water at the test site was monitored using 10 
 observation wells (fig. 9). From October 1, 1982, to 
 September 30, 1983, water levels during dry periods ranged 
 from 0.5 to 2.1 m below land surface and for the wet 
 summer months from at or near land surface to 1.2 m 
 below the land surface. 
 
 Data collection at the site ceased because of the startup 
 of mining operations in October 1983. Ground water at 
 the control site for 1984 was monitored using nine 
 observation wells (fig. 10). Ground water levels for the dry 
 period ranged from 0.7 to 1.3 m below land surface. Wet 
 period levels ranged from at or near land surface to 0.2 m 
 below land surface (6). 
 
 The test site water samples were taken from the 
 tributary at transect B and for ground water from the 
 observation wells MM2 and MM6 (MM designates wells 
 in the test site; MS are wells outside the test site). The 
 control site sample was taken at the tributary. For the 
 month of September 1983, the pH at the test site tributary 
 and the control site was 4.9 and 5.3, respectively. The 
 stream stage for this same period was 0.42 m above the 
 datum at the test site and 0.37 m above at the control site. 
 Analyses for the tributary and ground water samples are 
 shown in table 5 (6). 
 
 UTHOLOGY AND SOILS 
 
 The test site was cored at the north end of transects A 
 and C (fig. 9). The logs of both holes are shown in figure 
 11 and table 6 gives the lithologic description. 
 
 Soil samples for the test site were collected at transects 
 A, B, and C. The analyses for nutrients and Ra 226 are 
 shown in table 7. The upland soils consisted of Ona fine 
 sand and Pomello fine sand. The wetland soils consisted 
 of fine alluvium and Rutledge soil. Similar soils were 
 observed at the control site (6). 
 
TABLE 1. - USGS vegetative species list and percent coverage at test site, by quadrat 
 
 11 
 
 Species list 
 
 TRANSECTA" 
 Quadrat 1: 
 
 Acer rubrum (red maple) 
 
 Liquidambr styraciflua (sweet gum) 
 
 Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 
 
 Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 
 
 Quercus nigra (water oak) 
 
 Saururus cemuus (lizard's tail) 
 
 Smilax waiter! (coral greenbrier) 
 
 ft Toxicondendron (poison ivy) 
 
 Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 
 
 Woodwardia virginiana (chain fern) 
 
 Litter 
 
 Quadrat 2: 
 
 Acer rubrum (red maple) 
 
 Azalea viscosum (swamp azalea) 
 
 Liquidambr styraciflua (sweet gum) . . . 
 
 Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 
 
 Quercus Nigra (water oak) 
 
 Smilax waiter! (coral greenbrier) 
 
 Vitis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) . . . 
 
 Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 
 
 Litter 
 
 Quadrat 3: 
 
 Cephalanthus occidentalis (buttonbush) 
 
 Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 
 
 Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 
 
 Quercus nigra (water oak) 
 
 Quercus pumila (runner oak) 
 
 Serenoa repens (saw palmetto) 
 
 Vitis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) . . . 
 
 Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 
 
 Litter 
 
 Quadrat 4: 
 
 Azalea viscosum (swamp azalea) 
 
 Paspalum sp 
 
 Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 
 
 Quercus nigra (water oak) 
 
 Serenoa repens (saw palmetto) 
 
 Woowardia areolata (chain fern) 
 
 Utter 
 
 Jan. 
 1983 
 
 June 
 1983 
 
 Species list Jan. June 
 
 1983 1983 
 
 TRANSECT B 
 
 Quadrat 1: 
 
 Acer rubrum (ted maple) 1 1 
 
 Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 10 15 
 
 Saururus cemuus (lizard's tail) 5 15 
 
 Smilax sp. (brier) 1 1 
 
 ft Toxicondendron (poison ivy) 1 
 
 Vitis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) 1 5 
 
 Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 10 25 
 
 Litter 72 37 
 
 Quadrat 2: 
 
 Acer rubrum (ted maple) 1 1 
 
 Magnolia virginiana (southern magnolia) 20 40 
 
 Saururus cemuus (lizard's tail) 5 
 
 Smilax waiter! (coral greenbrier) 1 5 
 
 ft Toxicondendron (poison ivy) 1 
 
 Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 1 10 
 
 Utter 77 38 
 
 Quadrat 3: 
 
 Acer rubrum (red maple) 1 1 
 
 Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 5 10 
 
 Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 1 5 
 
 Saururus cemuus (lizard's tail) 5 15 
 
 Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 15 30 
 
 Utter 73 39 
 
 Quadrat 4: 
 
 Acer rubrum (red maple) 1 1 
 
 Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 1 
 
 Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 40 70 
 
 Utter 59 28 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 5 
 1 
 5 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 10 
 5 
 
 66 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 20 
 
 64 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 1 
 
 30 
 
 42 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 58 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 30 
 
 15 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 5 
 
 1 
 10 
 20 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 40 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 20 
 
 5 
 
 40 
 
 7 
 
 20 
 10 
 10 
 5 
 15 
 20 
 20 
 
 Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS 
 
12 
 
 TABLE 2. - Results of USGS invertebrate sampling; species and total counted by transect at test site 
 
 Aquatic species sampled Jan. June 
 
 1983 1983 
 
 TRANSECT A 
 
 Annelida: Hirudinea (leech): Placobdella omata 1 
 
 Arthropoda: 
 Crustacea: 
 
 Amphipoda (scuds): Hyalella azteca 15 
 
 Decopoda (crayfish): 
 
 Juvenile crayfish 14 
 
 Procambarus sp 6 
 
 Isopoda (sow bugs): Unidentified isopod 1 
 
 Insecta: 
 Odonata (dragonflies, damselflies): 
 
 Enallagma sp 3 1 
 
 Gomphus pallidus 10 1 
 
 Pachydiplax longipennis 8 1 
 
 Hemiptera (true bugs): Lethocerus 3 1 
 
 Diptera (true flies): 
 
 Unidentifiable fly larva 1 
 
 Tanypus carinatus 1 
 
 Coleoptera (beetles): 
 
 Bidessus sp 3 2 
 
 Hvdroooous 4 1_ 
 
 TRANSECT B 
 
 Arthropoda: 
 Crustacea: 
 
 Amphipoda (scuds): Hyalella azteca 1 
 
 Decopoda (crayfish): 
 
 Juvenile crayfish 18 10 
 
 Procambarus sp 2 1 
 
 Insecta: 
 Odonata (dragonflies, damselflies) 
 
 Gomphus pallidus 14 4 
 
 Gomphaeschna sp 10 2 
 
 Hemiptera (true bugs): Lethocerus 4 2 
 
 Coleoptera (beetles): 
 
 Bidessus sp 4 3 
 
 Hygrotus 1 2 
 
 Mollusca: Gastropoda (snails): Ferrissia sp 1 0_ 
 
 TRANSECT C 
 
 Arthropoda: Crustacea: Decopoda (shrimp, crayfish): 
 
 Juvenile crayfish 18 10 
 
 Palaemonites palludosus 25 12 
 
 Mollusca: Gastropoda (snails): Ferrissia sp 1 3_ 
 
 Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 
 
13 
 TABLE 3. - USGS vegetative species list and percent coverage at control site, by quadrat 
 
 Species list Apr. June Jan. 
 
 1984 1984 1985 
 
 QUADRAT 1 
 
 Azalea viscosum (swamp azalea) 50 50 
 
 Magnolia virginiana (southern magnolia) 10 20 20 
 
 Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 5 5 
 
 Serenoa repens (saw palmetto) 1 1 1 
 
 Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 5 15 10 
 
 Litter 29 9. 59_ 
 
 QUADRAT 2 
 
 Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 30 30 
 
 Quercus chapmanii (chapman oak) 10 5 5 
 
 Quercus nigra (water oak) 1 5 
 
 Sereona repens (saw palmetto) 10 25 25 
 
 Smilax sp. (brier) 5 5 5 
 
 VHis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) 10 10 
 
 Litter 34 20 65_ 
 
 QUADRAT 3 
 
 Lyonia lucida (fetterbush) 20 20 10 
 
 Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 10 40 
 
 Quercus chapmanii (chapman oak) 10 10 10 
 
 Sereona repens (saw palmetto) 1 1 
 
 Smilax sp. (brier) 10 1 
 
 VHis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) 10 20 
 
 Unidentifiable herb 10 
 
 Litter 34 18 80_ 
 
 QUADRAT 4 
 
 Lyonia lucida (fetterbush) 10 10 
 
 Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 20 40 
 
 Quercus nigra (water oak) 5 5 30 
 
 Sereona repens (saw palmetto) 1 
 
 Smilax sp. (brier) 10 10 
 
 Vitis rotendifolia (muscadine grape) 30 25 
 
 Unidentified herb 1 
 
 Litter 25 10 64_ 
 
 Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 
 
 TABLE 4. - Results of USGS invertebrate sampling at control site, 
 total counted 
 
 Species list Apr. 1984 
 
 Arthropoda: Crustacea: 
 
 Amphipoda (scuds): Hyalella azteca 1 
 
 Isopoda (sow bugs): Unidentified isopod 1 
 
 Insecta: Odonata (dragonflies, damselflies): 
 
 Enallagma sp 1 
 
 Gomphus pallidus 1 
 
 Diptera (true flies): Chironomidae: 
 
 Tanypus carinatus 25 
 
 Unidentifiable fly larv a 5 
 
 Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 
 
14 
 
 TABLE 5. - Results of USGS ground and surface water quality survey for test and control sites 
 
 
 
 Test site 
 
 
 Control 
 
 Samples 
 
 MM2 
 
 MM6 
 
 Tributary 
 
 tributary 
 
 
 Nov. 1982 Sept. 1983 
 
 Nov. 1982 Sept. 1983 
 
 Nov. 1982 Sept. 1983 
 
 Sept. 1983 
 
 Analysis, mg/L: 
 
 Total organic nitrogen 
 
 Dissolved organic nitrogen 
 
 Total ammonia nitrogen 
 
 Dissolved ammonia nitrogen 
 
 Total nitrate nitrogen 
 
 Dissolved orthophosphate (PO A ) .... 
 
 Total phosphorus (P) 
 
 Dissolved phosphorus (P) 
 
 Dissolved orthophosphorus (P) 
 
 Dissolved calcium 
 
 Dissolved magnesium 
 
 Dissolved fluoride 
 
 Total organic carbon 
 
 Dissolved organic carbon 
 
 Hardness 
 
 Alkalinity 
 
 Dissolved oxygen 
 
 Suspended solids 
 
 Specific conductance .... mmho/cm 
 
 PH 
 
 Color ACU 
 
 Turbidity NTU 
 
 Stream flow m /s 
 
 Stream stage m above datum 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 0.28 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 0.06 
 
 ND 
 
 0.02 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 0.15 
 
 ND 
 
 0.28 
 
 0.02 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 0.13 
 
 ND 
 
 0.22 
 
 ND 
 
 0.02 
 
 0.04 
 
 0.03 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 <0.01 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 0.46 
 
 ND 
 
 0.06 
 
 ND 
 
 2.1 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 0.3 
 
 ND 
 
 0.14 
 
 0.74 
 
 1.7 
 
 0.73 
 
 0.16 
 
 ND 
 
 0.02 
 
 ND 
 
 0.68 
 
 1.5 
 
 0.66 
 
 0.15 
 
 ND 
 
 0.02 
 
 ND 
 
 0.68 
 
 1.5 
 
 0.69 
 
 4.2 
 
 ND 
 
 36.0 
 
 ND 
 
 7.80 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 2.80 
 
 ND 
 
 20.0 
 
 ND 
 
 3.10 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 0.20 
 
 ND 
 
 0.50 
 
 ND 
 
 0.60 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 3.90 
 
 ND 
 
 6.70 
 
 ND 
 
 8.20 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 3.90 
 
 ND 
 
 4.60 
 
 ND 
 
 8.20 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 22.0 
 
 ND 
 
 170.0 
 
 ND 
 
 32.0 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 3.00 
 
 ND 
 
 182.0 
 
 ND 
 
 7.00 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 5.30 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 52.0 
 
 ND 
 
 200 
 
 ND 
 
 67 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 98 
 
 93 
 
 355 
 
 367 
 
 100 
 
 102 
 
 86 
 
 4.9 
 
 4.6 
 
 7.4 
 
 6.2 
 
 6.0 
 
 4.9 
 
 5.3 
 
 20 
 
 ND 
 
 30 
 
 ND 
 
 50 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 45 
 
 ND 
 
 3.7 
 
 ND 
 
 1.3 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 0.01 
 
 0.01 
 
 0.001 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 0.41 
 
 0.42 
 
 0.37 
 
 ND Not determined. 
 
 Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 
 
 TABLE 6. - Lithologic description of coreholes 1 and 2 
 
 Hole 
 
 Strata Depth, m Thickness, m 
 
 Material 
 
 A 
 
 - 7.2 
 
 7.2 
 
 B 
 
 7.2-11.0 
 
 3.8 
 
 B 
 
 11.0-12.2 
 
 1.2 
 
 C 
 
 12.2-13.6 
 
 1.4 
 
 D 
 
 13.6-14.9 
 
 1.4 
 
 A 
 
 -.33 
 
 .3 
 
 B 
 
 .3-2.4 
 
 2.1 
 
 C 
 
 2.4- 2.9 
 
 .5 
 
 D 
 
 2.9-4.1 
 
 1.2 
 
 E 
 
 4.1-6.1 
 
 2.0 
 
 F 
 
 6.1-9.6 
 
 3.5 
 
 G 
 
 9.6-10.2 
 
 .6 
 
 H 
 
 10.2-12.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 I 
 
 12.2-16.8 
 
 4.6 
 
 Fine to very fine quartz sand; organic debris 0.3 to 0.6 m. 
 
 Sandy clay with phosphate grains. 
 
 No sample. 
 
 Clay. 
 
 Friable limestone cream with quartz grains. 
 
 Organic debris. 
 
 Fine quartz sand. 
 
 Sand with clay. 
 
 Sandy clay. 
 
 Fine quartz sand. 
 
 Fine quartz sand with phosphate. 
 
 Limestone cream with phosphate. 
 
 Sandy clay with phosphate. 
 
 Soft limestone cream with phosphate. 
 
TABLE 7. - Analysis of USGS soil samples from test site 
 
 15 
 
 Sample 
 
 Sampling 
 
 depth, cm Ca 
 
 Mg 
 
 Na 
 
 Elements, mg/kg 
 
 Al 
 
 Cu 
 
 Fe 
 
 Mn 
 
 Zn 
 
 Transect A: 
 
 A1 0.0-21.6 
 
 A2 35.6-55.9 
 
 A3 61.0-81.3 
 
 B1 5.1-15.2 
 
 B2 40.6-55.9 
 
 33.0 
 39.0 
 25.0 
 330.0 
 26.0 
 
 2.8 
 4.7 
 2.6 
 
 .170 
 5.5 
 
 8.0 
 12.0 
 
 9.0 
 10.0 
 11.0 
 
 3.0 
 2.0 
 2.0 
 70.0 
 2.0 
 
 22.0 
 25.0 
 22.0 
 92.0 
 28.0 
 
 40.0 
 
 80.0 
 
 300.0 
 
 200.0 
 
 50.0 
 
 290.0 
 130.0 
 950.0 
 1,200.0 
 360.0 
 
 <1.6 
 <1.6 
 <1.6 
 <1.6 
 <1.6 
 
 15.0 
 20.0 
 
 5.1 
 99.0 
 
 9.6 
 
 <2.4 
 <2.4 
 <2.4 
 <2.4 
 <2.4 
 
 PH 
 
 Organic 
 matter, 
 wt pet 
 
 Total 
 kjeldohl 
 nitrogen, 
 mg/kg 
 
 Total 
 soluble 
 
 salts, 
 mg/kg 
 
 pH 
 
 Organic 
 matter, 
 wt pet 
 
 C1 10.2-25.4 
 
 C2 30.5-53.3 
 
 C3 53.3-61.0 
 
 D1 0-15.2 
 
 D2 30.5-45.7 
 
 Transect C: 
 
 E1 0-15.2 
 
 E2 25.4-38.1 
 
 E3 45.7-53.3 
 
 E1 0-15.2 
 
 E2 25.4-38.1 
 
 E3 45.7-53.3 
 
 4.05 
 4.71 
 5.20 
 5.12 
 6.32 
 
 2.49 
 
 .89 
 
 .25 
 
 10.26 
 
 1.12 
 
 Total 
 
 kjeldohl 
 
 nitrogen, 
 
 mg/kg 
 
 1,860.0 
 1,260.0 
 
 360.0 
 10,800.0 
 
 650.0 
 
 Total 
 soluble 
 
 salts, 
 mg/kg 
 
 81.0 
 58.0 
 30.0 
 250.0 
 58.0 
 
 71.75 
 79.60 
 80.15 
 32.38 
 69.57 
 
 17.0 
 
 6.9 
 
 2.2 
 
 25.0 
 
 14.0 
 
 78.74 
 96.36 
 95.19 
 70.07 
 95.58 
 
 19.69 
 2.66 
 3.73 
 
 25.85 
 3.11 
 
 1.57 
 .98 
 1.08 
 4.08 
 1.31 
 
 2.46 
 
 .24 
 
 .23 
 
 1.09 
 
 1.85 
 
 5.03 
 5.09 
 5.34 
 
 0.71 
 .84 
 ■30 
 
 110.0 
 720.0 
 740.0 
 
 54.0 85.02 
 
 85.0 86.23 
 
 110.0 86.51 
 
 7.4 
 8.4 
 3.0 
 
 95.63 
 95.48 
 96.76 
 
 3.27 
 3.33 
 2.56 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.19 
 
 .68 
 
 0.73 
 
 2.42 
 
 .59 
 
 1.3 
 1.7 
 1.2 
 3.0 
 2.4 
 
 Total Cation 
 
 solids, exchange Sand, Silt, Clay, Ra 226, pCi/g 
 
 wt pet capacity wt pet wt pet wt pet Ash Dry 
 
 Total Cation 
 
 solids, exchange Sand, Silt, Clay, Ra 226, pCi/g 
 
 wt pet capacity wt pet wt pet wt pet Ash Dry 
 
 1.78 
 .23 
 .22 
 .97 
 
 1.83 
 
 0.75 
 
 2.34 
 
 .59 
 
 55.0 
 25.0 
 50.0 
 40.0 
 40.0 
 
 A1 0-21.6 5.01 0.54 640.0 270.0 89.16 11.0 90.69 6.67 2.64 2.76 2.63 
 
 A2 35.6-55.9 4.33 .28 1,000.0 490.0 86.97 1.6 95.58 3.80 .62 .32 .32 
 
 A3 61.0-81.3 4.67 .85 820.0 30.0 83.51 8.3 93.17 4.96 1.87 .59 .58 
 
 B1 5.1-15.2 3.96 9.60 5,740.0 160.0 37.82 30.0 51.42 41.95 6.63 1.67 1.30 
 
 B2 40.6-55.9 5.22 .43 410.0 38.0 73.20 3.9 97.43 1.05 1.32 .43 .42 
 
 Elements, mg/kg 
 
 Ca Mo P K Na S Al Cu Fe Mn Zn B 
 
 Transect B: 
 
 C1 10.2-25.4 160.0 26.0 11.0 6.0 42.0 100.0 390.0 <1.6 79.0 2.7 2.5 40.0 
 
 C2 30.5-53.3 28.0 7.0 38.0 4.0 34.0 40.0 690.0 <1.6 110.0 8.4 2.3 40.0 
 
 C3 53.3-61.0 18.0 3.8 27.0 2.0 27.0 100.0 350.0 <1.6 21.0 <2.4 1.6 18.0 
 
 D1 0-15.2 2,000.0 790.0 30.0 120.0 190.0 300.0 660.0 <1.6 72.0 <2.4 8.0 29.0 
 
 D2 30.5-45.7 300.0 120.0 17.0 3.0 29.0 50.0 250.0 <1.6 55.0 <2.4 1.9 33.0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Elements, 
 
 mq/kq 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ca 
 
 Mo 
 
 P 
 
 K 
 
 Na 
 
 S 
 
 A1 
 
 Cu 
 
 Fe 
 
 Mn 
 
 Zn 
 
 B 
 
 110.0 
 
 140.0 
 
 47.0 
 
 29.0 
 
 39.0 
 
 8.9 
 
 30.0 
 42.0 
 36.0 
 
 3.0 
 3.0 
 2.0 
 
 30.0 
 30.0 
 41.0 
 
 30.0 
 
 400.0 
 
 30.0 
 
 1,190.0 
 
 1,960.0 
 
 380.0 
 
 <1.6 
 
 <1.6 
 
 1.8 
 
 49.0 
 
 42.0 
 
 108.0 
 
 <2.4 
 <2.4 
 <2.4 
 
 1.7 
 2.3 
 2.8 
 
 14.0 
 31.0 
 10.0 
 
 PH 
 
 Organic 
 matter, 
 wt pet 
 
 Total 
 
 kjeldohl 
 
 nitrogen, 
 
 mo/kq 
 
 Total 
 soluble 
 
 salts, 
 mq/kq 
 
 Total 
 solids, 
 wt pet 
 
 Cation 
 exchange 
 capacity 
 
 Sand, 
 wt pet 
 
 Silt, 
 wt pet 
 
 Clay, 
 wt pet 
 
 Ra 226, 
 Ash 
 
 oCi/o 
 Dry 
 
 
 Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 
 
16 
 
 r 
 
 3.0 
 4.5 
 
 E 6.0 
 
 a> 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 c/> 7.5 
 9.0 
 10.5 
 12.0 
 13.5 
 15.0 
 
 Y AV/ f v . 
 
 L 
 
 PI 
 
 Sand 
 Organic debris 
 
 Sand 
 
 Sandy clay with 
 phosphate 
 
 fTr W 
 
 cz £5 
 
 fyy? ! 
 
 rWTr 
 
 1 1 I I I 
 
 No sample 
 
 Clay 
 
 Limestone 
 
 Core ends at 
 14.9 m 
 
 
 
 3.0 
 
 4.5 
 
 6.0 h 
 
 7.5 
 
 9.0 
 10.5 
 12.0 
 13.5 
 15.0 
 
 ^AV/^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 iii; 
 
 
 \ , 1 , \ , 1 
 
 1' 'J I 1 
 
 RP^ 
 
 ffi?p5 
 
 1,1.1 I 
 
 111,1' 
 
 ,1.1 , 1 ,1 
 
 1 1 11,1, 
 
 £p 
 
 =5* 
 
 I, II 
 
 CO 
 
 1 I, / / 
 
 T^T 
 
 ss 
 
 1,1.1,1,1 
 
 1,1 , 1 1 1 
 
 16.5 
 
 FIGURE 11.-Lithologic cores 1 and 2 
 
 rj; i 
 
 HE 
 
 Organic debris 
 
 Sand 
 
 Sand with clay 
 Sandy clay 
 
 Sand 
 
 Sand with 
 phosphate 
 
 Limestone with 
 phosphate 
 
 Sandy clay with 
 phosphate 
 
 Limestone with 
 phosphate 
 
17 
 
 SITE PREPARATION AND MINING 
 
 In planning for site preparation and mining, Bureau and 
 AMAX, Inc., officials wanted to follow normal operating 
 procedures as closely as possible. With the exception of 
 stockpiling topsoil and ditching and diking to protect the 
 25-yr flood plain from runoff, the mining plan successfully 
 allowed for the mining of the area using standard dragline 
 setup and operating procedures. 
 
 Site preparation began with the surveying of the area 
 and locating the downstream runoff interceptor ditch and 
 dike. A small, 1.1-m dragline was used to excavate the 
 interceptor ditch and construct (fig. 12) the dike. The dike 
 slopes were seeded to prevent erosion. 
 
 After ditching and dike construction, bulldozers were 
 used to clear the overstory from the project site (fig. 13). 
 The downstream limits of the project were separated from 
 the vegetation donor site (fig. 5) so that vegetation was 
 preserved for transplanting. Throughout the clearing of 
 
 overstory, AMAX, Inc., officials were on site to minimize 
 the loss of organic Utter that would be used later for 
 reclamation. 
 
 After clearing, pan scrapers were used to remove 
 humus and topsoil from the site to be stored for later 
 reapplication. The storage piles were graded and sloped 
 for stabilization, but not seeded because of concern over 
 establishing perennial plants that would be difficult to 
 eliminate (5). 
 
 Site preparation and mining began in October 1983 and 
 was completed by April 1984. Mining was accomplished 
 using a 22.9 -m dragline operating through a sequence of 
 cuts as shown in figure 14. Because the area did not 
 include a clay lens or any other hardpan aquiclude, 
 standard overburden spoil placement techniques were used 
 during mining. Figure 15 shows the dragline as it mined 
 the test site. 
 
 FIGURE 12.-Dike construction during test site preparation. 
 
18 
 
 FIGURE 1 3.-Bulldozers clearing overstory before mining. 
 
 Plant site 
 
 
 LEGEND 
 
 ^ Direction of 
 
 mining 
 
 — — Intermittent 
 stream 
 
 250 
 
 I 
 
 Scale, m 
 
 FIGURE 14.-Dragline sequence used to mine area containing test site. 
 
19 
 
 JL 
 
 HHH 
 
 f ' . ■ . I "ft. I ? > 
 
 FIGURE 15.-Dragline mining test site. 
 
 RECONTOURING AND REVEGETATION 
 
 Utilizing information gained during premine monitoring, 
 AMAX, Inc., officials and the USFWS in consultation with 
 the Bureau, drew up a comprehensive recontouring and 
 revegetation plan. This plan details project reclamation 
 from grading to the revegetation plot plan. 
 
 GRADING 
 
 Grading began in June 1985 and was completed (fig. 
 16) in February 1986. Spoil piles were graded using the 
 largest bulldozers available to limit compaction. Spoil 
 piles from adjacent cuts to the north and south of the 
 project site were used to bring the site to grade. Because 
 no aquiclude was present, no special placement of 
 overburden material was necessary. Reestablishment of 
 the upland areas north and south of the test site required 
 the pumping of sand tailings (fig. 17) between the spoil 
 piles and into depressions created by pushing overburden 
 onto the project site. 
 
 The final grade was established using pan scrapers to 
 haul and place the previously stored topsoil. Bulldozers 
 were then used to contour the site back to final grade. A 
 sharp, meandering swale was placed for the original 
 
 channel (fig. 18). The design will result in a channel 
 nearly identical to the original while maintaining water 
 quality by lessening erosion that would be caused by 
 steeper banks. 
 
 COVER CROP ESTABLISHMENT 
 
 When final grading was completed, a cover crop of 
 millet (fig. 16) was sown and 10-10-10 fertilizer was 
 applied at the rate of 500 kg/ha. This planting was 
 initiated to control erosion, provide mulch to limit sunlight, 
 conserve soil moisture, and out compete weed species. 
 
 REVEGETATION 
 
 Revegetation was initiated to restore the existing forest 
 canopy and understory. To accomplish this, the USFWS 
 set up a revegetation plan that consisted of vegetative 
 islands taken from the unmined downstream donor site 
 (fig. 5); trees from this site to be spaded with the islands, 
 and the planting of an assortment of eight tree species 
 identified during the premining monitoring plan as 
 community dominants. 
 
20 
 
 '■ m* : * 
 
 FIGURE 16.-Site after completion of grading, with cover crop established. 
 
 FIGURE 17.-Sand tailings pumped into upland areas. 
 
21 
 
 N 
 
 LEGEND 
 
 -29— Land surface, 
 1.5 m contour 
 interval 
 
 
 
 250 
 
 Plant site 
 
 Scale, m 
 
 FIGURE 18.-Postmining topography. 
 
 During January and February 1987, vegetative islands 
 were transplanted along the reestablished meandering 
 swale (fig. 19). The islands, made up of vegetation and 
 several feet of surface soil, were transplanted using a large 
 front-end loader. Two trees were spaded with each island 
 to provide ground cover shading. 
 
 Hand planting of the community dominants began after 
 the island transplanting. The seedlings planted varied in 
 size from 0.3 m to 1.8 m in height. Large and small 
 seedlings were planted at random to insure a staggered 
 canopy. The number and species planted were 980 red 
 maple, 630 laurel oak, 1,400 loblolly bay, 420 water oak, 
 700 sweet bay, 700 red bay, 350 swamp tupelo, 1,400 wax 
 myrtle, and 350 slash pine. This gave a total of 6,930 trees 
 planted for an average of approximately 1,100 per hectare. 
 
 Color coded flags were placed at each planting location to 
 aid in identification and observation on comparative 
 survival rates. 
 
 MAINTENANCE 
 
 Maintenance activities will consist of supplemental tree 
 seedling plantings, transplanting additional understory 
 plugs where natural species have not out competed 
 invading weed species, mowing around small seedlings to 
 enhance their survival, irrigation, and the use of herbicides. 
 If needed, the herbicides will be applied by hand in a 76- 
 to 91-cm band around each tree. Selection of the 
 herbicide will be based upon the type of vegetation to be 
 controlled and the species of tree. 
 
22 
 
 
 
 FIGURE 19. -Transplanted vegetation island. 
 
 WILDLIFE 
 
 There are no plans to place any type of animal species 
 into the test site. The downstream area that the site 
 
 borders is undisturbed with the exception of the removal 
 of the vegetative islands. It is anticipated that this 
 undisturbed area will furnish wildlife to the test site as the 
 site approaches premining conditions. (5). 
 
 EVALUATION OF RESTORATION 
 
 Restoration of the project site will be evaluated based 
 on the following two criteria: 
 
 1. Tree species are viable and surviving with an average 
 of 990 trees per hectare and no hectare has less than 490 
 trees. Short-term success determined after the first full 
 growing season (spring 1988) as a survival average of 990 
 trees per hectare. Long-term success will be determined 
 after five full growing seasons (spring 1992), as tree cover 
 exceeds 33 pet of the vegetative cover, and no hectare has 
 tree cover of less than 20 pet (5). 
 
 2. Herbaceous layer vegetation is naturally reproducing. 
 In developing permit stipulations, the regulatory agencies 
 involved recognized that it would be unreasonable to 
 expect a postmining condition equal to or even nearly 
 equal to the premining condition within a 5-yr evaluation 
 period. However, if the restoration effort is truly 
 successful, the postmining forest community and other 
 related ecological factors will evolve toward the premining 
 condition with the increasing age of the site (5). 
 
23 
 
 COST FACTORS 
 
 The cost of earthwork was approximately $1.50/m of 
 material moved. Earthwork included all material moving 
 activities such as removal and replacement of overburden, 
 distribution and rough grading of overburden, and the final 
 contouring with stockpiled topsoil. 
 
 Revegetation costs included seeding and overstory 
 planting. Seeding with mulching costs $l,300/ha to 
 $l,500/ha. Costs for overstory planting varied on the type 
 planted. Bareroot seedling cost was $14 to $30 per 
 thousand plus $0.30 per tree for planting. Potted stock 
 
 cost between $3.50 and $20 depending on size, plus an 
 additional $1 per tree for planting. The cost for tree 
 spading was approximately $25 per tree. 
 
 The following are costs per hectare. Monitoring 
 represents premining and postmining combined. 
 
 Earthwork $14,090 
 
 Revegetation $4,950 
 
 Monitoring $9,000 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 The short-term objectives to identify a wetland test site, 
 initiate a premining monitoring program, develop an 
 acceptable mining plan, and recontour and revegetate the 
 mined test site have been achieved. The program of 
 cooperating agencies, each responsible for its area of 
 expertise, worked smoothly and efficiently. This program 
 is recommended to any company or agency that plans any 
 research of this type. The premining monitoring program 
 was a well thought out and executed plan that can be used 
 as a model for similar projects. The mining plan was 
 successfully kept within standard operating procedures. It 
 varied only with stockpiling of topsoil and the diking of the 
 wetland boundary; each of these steps was easily handled 
 by the company. The recontouring of the area used 
 standard procedures and equipment, although careful 
 supervision and a more precise placement of material was 
 required. The revegetation plan was straightforward and 
 easily implemented. The costs for earthwork and 
 revegetation, though high, are fairly standard. Materials 
 handling is always expensive, and because of stockpiling 
 requirements, doubly so for any type of wetland 
 
 reclamation project. Monitoring costs may seem excessive, 
 but it must be realized that the premining program 
 established could be used for a site several times larger 
 than this without additional cost. It was agreed from the 
 outset by the agencies involved that too much monitoring 
 would be better than not enough. 
 
 The long-term objective of postmining monitoring will 
 take several more years to address. The USGS, in 
 conjunction with similar work, will reactivate observation 
 wells and place water level recorders and gauges to 
 monitor ground and surface waters. A program, 
 developed by the USFWS, to monitor vegetative survival 
 will be implemented by AMAX, Inc. The program calls 
 for a survival average of 900 trees per hectare with no 
 hectare having less than 490 trees. Ground cover will be 
 monitored for survival, frequency, and areal expansion to 
 determine when natural reproduction begins. Biological 
 monitoring will continue and records on survival of each 
 tree species will be kept to determine the success of the 
 different types of plantings. 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 1. Balazik, R. F. Costs and Effects of Environmental 
 Protection Controls Regulating U.S. Phosphate Rock 
 Mining. BuMines IC 8932, 1983, 37 pp. 
 
 2. Winchester, B. Assessing Ecological Value of 
 Central Florida Wetlands: A Case Study. Paper in 
 Proceedings of The Eighth Annual Conference on 
 Wetlands Restoration and Creation, ed. by R. H. Stovall. 
 Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL, 1981, 
 pp. 25-38. 
 
 3. U.S. Government Accounting Office. Phosphates: 
 A Case Study of a Valuable, Depleting Mineral in 
 America. 1979, 71 pp. 
 
 4. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest 
 Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
 Environmental Assessment on State of Reclamation 
 Techniques on Phosphate Mined Lands in Florida and 
 
 Their Application to Phosphate M inin g in the Osceola 
 National Forest. U.S. Department of the Interior, Eastern 
 States Office, Bureau of Land Management, Alexandria, 
 VA, 1983, 47 pp. 
 
 5. Haynes, R. J., and F. Crabill. Reestablishment of a 
 Forested Wetland on Phosphate-Mined Land in Central 
 Florida. Paper in Conference on Better Reclamation With 
 Trees. Madisonville Community College, Madisonville, 
 KY, 1984, pp. 1-12. 
 
 6. Thompson, T. H. U.S. Geological Survey. Private 
 Communication, 1984; available upon request from J. R. 
 Boyle, Jr., BuMines, Tuscaloosa, AL. 
 
 7. Biological Research Associates (Tampa, FL). 
 Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Mining Land. 1981, 
 109 pp. 
 
24 
 
 APPENDIX. -PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 
 
 In August 1981, AMAX, Inc., officials contacted the Bureau of Mines proposing a small forested wetland located at 
 the Big Four Mine as the site for the Bureau's reclamation project. At that time, AMAX, Inc., officials urged the active 
 involvement of local, State, and Federal regulatory agencies. The Bureau strongly agreed and immediately sought 
 cooperation and recommendations from these agencies. Even by actively seeking regulatory agency help, permitting of 
 this small site took almost 3 yr to complete. Much of the delay came from apprehension that a project of this type would 
 set a precedent that would open up the mining of wetlands. 
 
 The following is a permitting chronology of the main permitting agencies: the State of Florida's Department of 
 Environmental Regulation (DER), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Hillsborough County Commission, 
 and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. 
 
 DER AND DNR PERMITTING CHRONOLOGY 
 
 May 14, 1982 
 
 June 14, 1982 
 
 August, 6, 1982 . . . 
 August 27, 1982 . . 
 September 3, 1982 . 
 September 8, 1982 . 
 December 1, 1982 . 
 December 8, 1982 . 
 January 14, 1983 . . 
 October 31, 1983 . . 
 
 November 30, 1983 
 January 16, 1984 . . 
 January 24, 1984 . . 
 
 June 7, 1984 
 
 March 6, 1985 
 
 AMAX, Inc., submits Dredge and Fill application to DER. 
 
 DER requests additional information. 
 
 AMAX, Inc., submits additional information. 
 
 DER requests additional information. 
 
 AMAX, Inc., submits additional information. 
 
 DER notifies AMAX, Inc., that application is complete as of September 7, 1982. 
 
 DER forwards an intent to issue public notice. 
 
 Public notice advertisement appears in Tampa Tribune. 
 
 DER issues permit. 
 
 As a permit condition, AMAX, Inc., submits restoration and 
 
 revegetation plan to DER for review and approval. 
 DER requests additional information. 
 AMAX, Inc., submits additional information. 
 DER requests additional information. 
 AMAX, Inc., submits additional information. 
 Governor and cabinet, acting as head of DNR, approve restoration and revegetation 
 
 plan. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PERMITTING CHRONOLOGY 
 
 May 14, 1982 
 
 October 22, 1982 . . 
 
 October 25, 1982 . . 
 January 27, 1983 . . 
 
 February 9, 1983 . . 
 October 3, 1983 . . 
 
 Early 
 
 November 1983 . . . 
 
 November 23, 1983 
 
 AMAX, Inc., submits a copy of DER permit application to Hillsborough County 
 
 for review. 
 Hillsborough County supplies negative comments on the proposed project to the 
 
 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council for an A-95 review. 
 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council approves proposed project. 
 AMAX, Inc., and Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission staff 
 
 discuss a list of criteria to be followed that would allow a permit to be issued 
 
 for the project. 
 Hillsborough County submits a written list of criteria to AMAX Inc. 
 AMAX, Inc., submits Mining Unit No. 1C, which includes project site, to 
 
 Hillsborough County for review and approval. Reclamation plan includes list 
 
 of criteria received earlier. 
 
 Meetings are held with Hillsborough County staff to negotiate problems with project. 
 Mining Unit No. 1C approved by Hillsborough County Commission with negotiated 
 modifications. 
 
 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 
 
 May 14, 1982 
 July 7, 1982 . . 
 
 AMAX, Inc., submits a Works of the District permit application to SWFWMD for 
 
 review and approval. 
 Board of Directors of SWFWMD approves permit. 
 
 INT.-BU.OF MINES,PGH.,PA. 28770 
 
 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 611-012 00.001 
 
DC 
 
 LU 
 
 >- 
 
 o 
 
 _l 
 a. 
 
 uu 
 
 tr 
 O 
 
 Q_ 
 Q_ 
 O 
 _l 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 LU 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 M 
 
 32 ® 
 
 a5 "a 
 
 
 
 
 C/> 
 
 Ui 
 
 LU 
 CA 
 
 3 
 
 receiv 
 emove 
 list. 
 
 ® is 
 
 g' O 
 <0 T3 
 
 sz c 
 
 it 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 Z 
 (0 
 
 UJ 
 
 "- 0) C 
 
 o — 
 
 as 
 
 rtment of 
 Mines-Pr 
 
 "O 
 CO 
 O 
 
 CC 
 
 ii 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 C\J 
 ID 
 
 < 
 
 Q_ 
 
 3 
 OQ 
 
 -J 
 < 
 
 DC 
 
 a. 
 cr 
 o 
 a. 
 
 3 do not wis 
 iterial. Plea 
 m your mai 
 
 en <u 
 
 (0 »- 
 
 i§ 
 
 T3 0) 
 
 CC (0 
 
 ._ « 
 O K 
 
 CO H- 
 
 Q. O 
 
 en 
 
 c 
 
 X 
 
 
 u. 
 
 UL 
 
 fc 
 
 iEl 
 
 CD ^ 
 
 a ca 
 
 CO 
 i_ 
 -C 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 .Q 
 
 O 
 
 _i 
 < 
 
 z 
 
 UJ 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 . CD 
 
 d 
 
 to 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 3 CO O 
 
 Q_ 
 
 Q_ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 305 91 
 

 
 s>*^ 
 
 
 /^•y* \/^Rrj? %J*^^y* \^^V* %/3^y* *V*^^\i 
 
 
 V* ■ 
 
 * 4* ** • 
 
 
 * ,J ife- ^"i c ° ^'-^ V* \&&V'i C °*^|k-X /^^SfrV « i -'^- 
 
 « v 4. • " " A. w 
 
 
 ^0 
 
 • .0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^v 
 
C^v^v* *v^?V* %/^v?V %^^v 
 
 c ° " ° * o 
 
 ,o*..iV..*9, /\.-^.V /.jJ^!.*°o A'ii&r 
 
 <i 
 
 »°v •■ 
 
 ^»* 
 
 V^'«* 
 
 
 * v ^ 
 
 "o 
 
 «5°<* 
 
 ^of 
 
 °4i. 
 
 ••*««;•. V./ .•£&[•. %<** -'$&• ^/ •*' 
 
 
 
 
 ?^ V 
 
 
 HECKMAN l±| 
 HNDERY INC. |H| 
 
 JUN91 
 
 N. MANCHESTER, 
 IN DIANA 46962 J 
 
 J °<* 
 
 
 ■■'■ "■■•■■■•■-•