Project Name: Brooklyn Mine Restoration Project Project Start Date: July 17, 1995 Project End Date: October 6, 1995 County: Granite State: Montana Latitude: 46° 23' 25" Longitude: 113° 07' 30"

Brooklyn Mine waste dumps about Boulder Creek prior to remediation

Nearest Town and Distance: Maxville, MT. Approximately 7 miles northwest.

Location: The project site is located adjacent to Boulder Creek, a tributary to Flint Creek, in the Philipsburg Ranger District of the Deerlodge National Forest, Granite County, Montana. The site is in the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5, Township 7 North, Range 12 West. To reach the site, turn east off State Highway 1 at Maxville, a small community located 9 miles north of Philipsburg, Montana. Then, travel 7 miles southeast along the Boulder Creek Road (Forest Route 676).

Project Cost: The construction cost for this project was $767,895. The original bid was $728,223 with two change orders issued for an additional $45,208 and a decrease in costs for $5,536. Four qualified bidders responded with bids ranging from $728,220.36 to $1,038,000.00. The Engineer's estimate was $854,787.50. To see a table of construction cost bids broken down by task, click on the link below.

Construction Cost Bids for Brooklyn Mine Restoration Project (Table 1)

The total engineering cost for this project was $236,380. It cost $52,131 to prepare the Work Plan, Field Sampling Plan, and other supporting documents for both the Brooklyn and Nonpareil Sites. The reclamation investigation and risk assessment for the Brooklyn and Nonpareil Sites cost $57,217. Preparation of the Expanded Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Brooklyn Site cost $34,600. Engineering design and bid specification preparation cost $42,372. Construction management including engineering administration and inspection cost $50,060. Construction of the Boulder Creek Stream Diversion Structure cost $25,441.

Costs associated with work plan preparation and site characterization are higher than typically expected due to the inclusion of another site, the Nonpareil Site, during this phase of the project.

The total project cost was $1,029,717.

Project Sponsor(s): Montana Department of Environmental Quality, United States Department of the Interior/Office of Surface Mining

Oversight Agency: Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Project Partners: The United States Forest Service, Pioneer Technical Services, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality/Abandoned Mine Reclamation Bureau, and Environmental Reclamation Northwest, LLC.

Contact Information: (Table 2)

Reasons for Action: Soils, surface waters, and ground water had been contaminated by heavy metals in waste rock dumps and tailings ponds from the Brooklyn and Nonpareil Mines. The concentrations of the following metals are significantly elevated above background at the mine sites: arsenic, silver, barium, cadmium, copper, mercury, molybdenum, lead, antimony, and zinc. The toe of one of the larger waste rock dumps at the Brooklyn Mine was in Boulder Creek, and thus was affecting surface water directly. One of the waste rock dumps and the snow-melt runoff from one of the tailings ponds exceeded the TCLP value of 5.0 mg/l for lead.

Numerous ecologic receptors were identified as potentially affected by site contamination. Fisheries, aquatic life, and wetlands were of concern because the mine site was adjacent to Boulder Creek and was adversely affecting water quality downstream. Boulder Creek was identified by the USFS as a Bull trout and Cutthroat trout fishery. Although information from the USFS indicated that habitat in Boulder Creek was suitable to support a Cutthroat fishery below the mine, the creek below the Brooklyn Mine did not contain Cutthroat trout. It is not clear whether the Cutthroat fishery was impacted because of the toxicity of the water or stream sediments released from the site, or for some other reason. Wetlands of any size were of concern as they can support a diverse ecologic community. Terrestrial wildlife that may use this area as part of their summer range, including mule deer and elk were potential receptors of contamination. There is evidence of use of the upper dump by elk, both for water and possibly for consuming evaporative salts that form on the waste piles. Mine wastes posed a potential for contaminant accumulation and subsequent health effects in the big game populations that visited the site. Native terrestrial plant communities were notably absent on many of the waste sources at the Brooklyn Mine site.

Objectives: The purpose of this reclamation project was to limit human and environmental exposure to the contaminants of concern and reduce the mobility of these contaminants to mitigate impacts to the local surface water and ground water resources.

History of Site: Important hardrock mining discoveries were initially made in the Boulder Creek drainage above the town of Princeton in 1885. The period of greatest prosperity for the area was from 1881 to 1893. The major metal commodities were silver, zinc, lead, and copper (USGS 1913).

The Brooklyn Mine, located on the south slope of Pierre Hill, was initially known as the Pierre Mine. A 600-foot adit was driven northward through limestone and shales at the Brooklyn Mine site to intersect a porphyry dike 500 feet from the portal. The dike trended southeastwardly and was reportedly exposed in two shallow pits located below the mine. The porphyry carried abundant pyrite and locally contained nodules of rich lead ore. The minerals present included quartz, barite, sphalerite, galena, and lead and copper carbonates. Considerable ore was mined from a shaft located above the adit; the ore was presumably a deposit in limestone. Ore from the Brooklyn Mine was usually shipped to Helena for smelting. The main target metal was silver; however, the mine also produced a small amount of gold. An 80-ton shipment from the mine in 1907 averaged 37 ounces of silver, 13 percent zinc, 8 percent lead, and 1.7 percent copper. The Brooklyn Mine was operated briefly from 1913 to 1914 after a 100-ton selective flotation mill was constructed on the property. The mill was reportedly destroyed by fire in 1939.

From 1945 to 1948, Saranac Mining, owned by various Spokane mining interests, operated the Brooklyn Mine property and began actively reworking the mine. In addition to the Brooklyn Mine, Saranac Mining reopened the Nonpareil Mine in 1947 and constructed a mill on the property. The mill reportedly had a capacity of 150 tons-per-day. The mill equipment included a 75 horsepower motor, a 100-ton ball mill, classifiers, two selective flotation batteries of 12 cells each, filters, and other various machinery. The mill was designed to pass ore through automatically by gravity. Although the mill was constructed on the Nonpareil property, historical accounts speculate that most of the ore developments were at the Brooklyn Mine.

USGS 1913 - U.S. Geological Survey, 1913. Geology and Ore Deposits of the Philipsburg Quadrangle, Montana, Professional Paper 78, Written by William Harvey Emmons and Frank Cathcart Calkins, 1913.

Site Description: Seven discrete sources were characterized at the Brooklyn Mine site, including six waste rock dumps and one tailings pond.

Waste rock dump #1 (WR1) actually consisted of two separate dumps located high on the ridge east of Boulder Creek. The two dumps were located in a heavily timbered area within approximately 350 feet of each other. The volume of the two dumps identified collectively as WR1 was estimated at 9,050 cubic yards. The lower, smaller dump had a small pit associated with it, and the upper, larger dump had a 20-feet tall highwall located adjacent to it on the uphill side. Waste rock dump #1 represented the uppermost (highest elevation) waste source associated with the Brooklyn Mine site. The dumps ranged in lateral distance from approximately 1,150 to 1,445 feet east of Boulder Creek; and elevations ranged from 6,410 to 6,490 feet above mean sea level (approximately 435 feet higher in elevation than Boulder Creek at its closest point).

Waste rock dump #2 (WR2) was located lower on the ridge and slightly northwest of WR1. The dump was situated on a steep section of the ridge and appeared to be relatively shallow (probably no more than four or five feet deep at the deepest point). Along with being extremely steep, the surface of WR2 was extremely hard crusted (cemented) due to the abundance of carbonate material (calcite). Abundant wooden debris were also scattered throughout the dump, and a collapsing wooden loadout structure was located on the south side of the dump. Waste rock dump #2 was located approximately 950 feet east of Boulder Creek at an elevation of 6,340 feet (approximately 280 feet higher in elevation than Boulder Creek at its closest point). The volume of WR2 was estimated at 3,900 cubic yards.

Waste rock dump #3 (WR3) was a large dump located directly south of WR2. The top surface of this irregularly shaped dump was quite flat; however, the side slopes break off at sharp angles (angle of repose) on the relatively steep ridge and created a deep accumulation of material (approximately 25 feet deep at the deepest point). Similar to WR1 and WR2, the surface of WR3 was hard crusted. Also, abundant wooden debris was scattered throughout the dump, and a collapsing wooden loadout structure was located on the southeast side. Waste rock dump #3 was located approximately 750 feet east of Boulder Creek at an elevation of 6,280 feet (approximately 215 feet higher in elevation than Boulder Creek at its closest point). The volume of WR3 was estimated at 14,670 cubic yards.

Waste rock dump #4 (WR4) was a small and somewhat indistinct dump located adjacent to a trench approximately 80 feet southeast of WR1 (high on the ridge east of Boulder Creek). The dump was indistinct because vegetation (including grasses, weeds, and abundant young conifers) was well established on most of the dump's surface. Waste rock dump #4 was located approximately 1,450 feet east of Boulder Creek at an elevation of approximately 6,490 feet (435 feet higher in elevation than Boulder Creek at its closest point, and one of the highest waste sources associated with the Brooklyn Mine site).

Waste rock dump #5 (WR5) was a large dump located adjacent to Boulder Creek. The dump was situated on the steep east bank of Boulder Creek, and the toe of WR5 extended into the active section of the stream channel for approximately 250 feet along the bank. The dump was being actively undercut by the stream. The preliminary risk analysis conducted for the Brooklyn Mine site using the Abandoned or Inactive Mine Scoring System (AIMSS) concluded that surface water is the primary pathway of concern at the Brooklyn Mine site (specifically, the Boulder Creek Fishery) and that WR5 was, by far, the primary source area of concern due to its perceived risk of contributing to surface water degradation. The volume of WR5 was estimated at 10,930 cubic yards. The pH of a composite sample of this section of the dump was 7.4. The underlying soil has elevated concentrations of several elements found within the dump that are fairly mobile in the pH regime of WR5, including: cadmium, copper, and zinc. The concentrations of these three elements in the underlying soil were higher than those found in the dump itself, indicating that significant leaching of these more mobile elements had occurred.

Waste rock dump #7 (WR7) was a relatively small and indistinct dump located adjacent to Boulder Creek approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the main Brooklyn Mine. The dump was located approximately 70 feet east of Boulder Creek at an elevation of 5,970 feet, and was discovered while collecting surface water samples in Boulder Creek; the dump was not previously inventoried or mapped. The dump was indistinct because vegetation (including grasses, weeds, and a few young conifers) is well established on most of the surface. The volume of WR7 was estimated at 200 cubic yards.

Tailings pond #1 (TP1) was a constructed tailings impoundment located on a timbered bench halfway between the upper Brooklyn Mine workings and Boulder Creek. The impoundment was positioned near the top edge of the steep east canyon wall which drops off sharply toward Boulder Creek. The elevation of the tailings impoundment was 6,180 feet, which placed it approximately 125 feet higher in elevation than Boulder Creek. At its closest point, Boulder Creek flowed within approximately 200 feet of the tailings. An intermittent drainage, which originated near a breached berm on the northwest edge of the tailings impoundment, provided a direct pathway for tailings-laden runoff to reach Boulder Creek. The volume of TP1 was estimated at 3,700 cubic yards. Cyanide was detected in one of the six composite 0-6" samples at the detection limit; cyanide was not detected in the remaining samples. The soils immediately underlying the tailings had elevated concentrations of several metals found in the tailings. Deeper underlying soils, at a depth of 1.5 feet beneath the tailings, had elevated concentrations of copper and zinc. The elements found in the underlying soils were at a much lower concentration than those found in the tailings.

Metals present in the source materials are presented in the source areas table. To view the source characteristics table for the Brooklyn and Nonpareil Mine sites click on the link below.

Source Characteristics for Brooklyn Mine and Nonpareil Mine Sites: (Table 3)

Metals concentrations were elevated in both the water and sediments in Boulder Creek, below the mine site, and in various surface water samples flowing through, or standing near, the waste materials. The following Montana Numeric Water Quality Standards were exceeded in Boulder Creek during the remedial investigation: the acute aquatic life criteria for silver; the chronic aquatic life criteria for mercury (the chronic aquatic life criteria for mercury may have been exceeded at other sample locations as well, however, since the chronic criteria for mercury is actually less than the detection limit, it is impossible to determine this); and the chronic aquatic life criteria for lead. These exceedences of Water Quality Standards were directly attributable to the Brooklyn Mine. The chronic aquatic life criteria for mercury was exceeded in a small pond located high on the ridge above the Brooklyn Mine, adjacent to WR1. Several federal and state water quality standards were exceeded in a sample, which was taken from an intermittent drainage that originates near a breached berm on the northwest edge of the tailings impoundment and provides a direct pathway for tailings-laden runoff to reach Boulder Creek. The water quality standards exceeded in this runoff sample include: Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) were exceeded for cadmium and antimony; Montana acute aquatic life criteria were exceeded for cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc; and Montana chronic aquatic life criteria were exceeded for cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, antimony, and mercury.

Phase partitioning was determined in the tailings snowmelt runoff. To review this partitioning table for runoff click on the link below.

Phase Partitioning Tailings Snowmelt Runoff for the Brooklyn Mine Site: (Table 4)

The Nonpareil Mine Site was included in the investigation portion of this project, but no remedial activities were performed at this site due to property ownership issues. The Nonpareil Mine Site comprised one waste rock dump and five tailings ponds near Boulder Creek. The volume of the Nonpareil waste rock dump was estimated at 3,500 cubic yards. The volume of tailings pond 1 was estimated at 645 cubic yards. The volume of tailings pond 2 was estimated at 20 cubic yards. The volume of tailings pond 3 was estimated at 35 cubic yards. The volume of tailings pond 4 was estimated at 325 cubic yards. The volume of tailings pond 5 was estimated at 9,060 cubic yards. Metals present in the wastes at the Nonpareil Mine Site are shown in the source areas table.

Waste Rock Dump along Boulder Creek Drainage before restoration

Permitting Narrative: A 124 permit was required for this project.

Construction Narrative: The Brooklyn Mine Reclamation Project consisted of providing all labor, materials, earthwork, and incidentals to construct a waste repository; demolish and dispose of one metal building and miscellaneous debris; excavate, transport, and dispose of approximately 18,300 bank cubic yards of waste rock and mill tailings in the waste repository; recontour, topsoil, and revegetate the excavation areas; recontour, apply soil amendments, topsoil, and revegetate three additional waste rock dumps; and reconstruct approximately 525 feet of stream bank and fish habitat features.

A stream diversion structure was necessary to isolate Boulder Creek from the waste rock excavation activities. Due to the tight time frame associated with this project, the stream diversion structure was procured and installed by Pioneer with the assistance of the Montana Conservation Corp. Construction of the Boulder Creek stream diversion structure was initiated on July 17, 1995; continued on July 18, 19, 20, 24, 25; and was completed on July 28, 1995.

The diversion structure was constructed from half-round 36-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe. The pipe was raised slightly above the creek bed on jack-leg supports at ten foot centers to maintain a constant seven percent grade. A small dam was constructed at the inlet to divert the majority of the flow of Boulder Creek into the pipe.

The reclamation plan involved removing those waste sources, which were the principal sources of concern at the Brooklyn Mine (the tailings pond and waste rock dump #5) and disposing of these wastes in a constructed repository. The repository was constructed on the bench area located directly south of waste rock dump #3. The repository bottom consists of a single geosynthetic clay (GCL) bottom liner with an integral drainage layer and a low maintenance leachate collection and removal system. A secondary layer of B-Grade (off-specification) GCL was installed to protect the primary liner from potential chemical reaction. The total surface area of the repository required to contain the specified wastes is approximately 1.5 acres. Approximately 3.0 acres of timber was removed to accommodate repository construction and removal of tailings dispersed throughout sparsely timbered areas. After the specified wastes were loaded and compacted in the repository, a multi-layered, lined cap was constructed overlying the wastes, and the cap was fertilized, seeded, and mulched. The excavated areas (tailings and waste rock dump #5 locations) were backfilled to contours matching the surrounding topography, fertilized, seeded, and mulched. The stream channel adjacent to waste rock dump #5 was be reconstructed in a step-pool configuration similar to the undisturbed stream channel located upstream of the project. Excess soil originating from the repository excavation was amended with compost and used as cover soil in the excavated areas. In addition, a subsurface limestone french drain was constructed below the adit located at waste rock dump #5 to treat a minor intermittent adit discharge.

The other large waste rock dumps located at the site (waste rock dumps #1, 2, and 3) were graded out to approximately match the surrounding topography. Lime was incorporated into the upper 12-inches of the dump material, as needed. The dumps were covered with soil (previously amended with compost), fertilized, seeded, and mulched in place. Excess soil from the repository excavation was also used to cover the waste rock dumps. Slopes flatter than 2.5:1 were mulched by crimping straw and drill seeded. Slopes steeper than 2.5:1 were hydroseeded with a mixture of wood fiber mulch, seed, fertilizer, and tackifer. Additionally, biodegradable erosion control mat (straw/coconut fiber woven mat) was installed on slopes steeper than 2.5:1 following the hydroseeding procedures.

Trees and shrubs (dogwood, alder, Lodgepole, and willows) were placed along creek, slides off road, and toe of hill at WR5, after which these areas were hydroseeded.

Ditches were constructed to divert run-on away from each of the reclaimed areas and the repository. Temporary fences were constructed to surround each of the reclaimed source areas as well as the repository cap to allow for the establishment of vegetation without interference from livestock or wildlife. Several of the temporary roads constructed at the site were obliterated and reclaimed; however, some of the roads remain intact to allow access for monitoring the progress of the reclaimed areas (and maintenance when necessary) for a period of one to several years.

Brooklyn Mine Site construction along Boulder Creek Drainage. (photo taken by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc., Butte, Montana)

Boulder Creek immediately after coversoil placement. (photo taken by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc., Butte, Montana)

Brooklyn Mine Site construction along Boulder Creek Drainage

Suppliers/Products Used:

A list of heavy machinery used during construction is available here: (Table 5)

Services/Contractors Used: A total of thirty (32) different employees worked on the Brooklyn Project including Environmental Reclamation Northwest, LLC (ERNW address noted above) permanent and temporary employees and subcontractors. The typical daily crew consisted of the foreman, two or three excavator operators, a bulldozer operator, three to five dump truck drivers, and three to ten laborers. Occasionally, appropriately skilled laborers would be used to operate the front-end loader, skid loaders, the vibratory roller, or the motor grader: (Table 6)

Was This Project Successful? Yes

Boulder Creek Drainage at the Brooklyn Mine Site.

Before Restoration

After Restoration

How Was Success Determined?: The Brooklyn Mine Site has been completely reclaimed and the hazards associated with the site have been mitigated. Vegetation was sparse during the first growing season. A reclamation success evaluation was conducted by the Reclamation Research Unit at Montana State University during the summer of 1998 at the request of the Forest Service. Management recommendations were made to enhance the seeded vegetation and control the encroachment of weeds.

Poor vegetation establishment on waste repository following restoration

Good vegetation response in the southeast end of the tailings pond

Boulder Creek Drainage immediately following restoration. (photo taken by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc., Butte, Montana

Evaluation of streambank erosion occurring on the Boulder Creek Drainage near the Brooklyn Mine Site three years after restoration

Supplementary Narrative: A final field inspection was conducted by Jack Yates (MDEQ/AMRB) on October 13, 1995. The Final Completion date is one year from the Substantial Completion date or October 13, 1996.

The project went as scheduled with few modifications. The primary change was the removal of dry tailings from the Nonpareil Site for disposal in the Brooklyn Repository and reclamation of the areas from which tailings were removed.

The site will be checked in the spring of 1996 and periodically thereafter for revegetation success. The USFS has committed to an aggressive program to obliterate spotted knapweed that was present on the site prior to reclamation construction.

Additional planting of riparian vegetation, shrubs, and trees will be conducted in the spring of 1996.

The USFS has also committed to monitoring stream water quality above and below the site and the leachate from the repository.

The following suggestions are intended to help prevent minor problems from recurring on future projects.

The Brooklyn project contract contained one critical milestone date. All WR5 removal and stream reconstruction activities had to be completed by September 15, 1995, in order to comply with the terms of the 124 permit. The bid specifications stated that this work must be completed by September 15, 1995, but there was no penalty if this date was not met. The possibility of writing stipulated penalties on intermediate contract dates into the contract to help motivate contractors to meet these types of deadlines should be evaluated.

The MDEQ/AMRB contract should require that signed copies of the contractor's daily log sheets be provided to the inspector on a daily basis to circumvent the potential for differing interpretations of the daily activities.

Stormwater/temporary erosion control standard specifications need to be improved. Standard drawings are necessary. A requirement that the contractor have someone on-site during precipitation events to maintain BMP's is also necessary. The contractor must have an adequate supply of temporary erosion control materials on-site prior to breaking ground. The weed-free certification requirement for straw bales used for temporary erosion control was not included in the standard language in the specifications package -- this requirement is imperative. In addition, the substitution certified weed-free hay grass bales for certified straw allows the possible introduction of undesirable non-native perennial grass species such as Timothy and Crested wheat grass. Requiring that the contractor identify a source and procure straw, and making it clear the hay grass substitutions will not be allowed should mitigate this problem.

A bid item for run-on/run-off ditches as needed with a standard specification would be helpful. The standard boiler plate storm water language currently in the specifications implies that additional ditches may be required and should be considered incidental. This may not be very fair to the contractor in complex drainage areas.

Pioneer needs to better classify excavation/borrow after a final repository location is selected, for design purposes so that the design engineer can anticipate potential problems and design accordingly. This will require a small amount of additional field work following the EE/CA (approximately six test pits per acre). The USFS and MDT have suggested that this data should not be provided in the bid package or to the prospective contractors and that work of this type should be described simply as "Unclassified Excavation" or "Unclassified Borrow." This may result in bidding higher unit prices, but may balance out in the end by negating any potential for change of condition claims.

Pioneer provided the contractor with consolidation boundary stakes and preliminary cut/fill stakes for the waste rock dumps to be graded out. These stakes did not seem to help the operators and promoted some confusion on the steep grades. Specifying the target slopes and outlining the approximate consolidation boundaries on the plans should supply the contractors with sufficient information to conduct the work.

The GCL specified for the repository was versatile and relatively easy to install. The second layer of GCL on the bottom of the repository specified to mitigate potential chemical compatibility problems was more difficult to install. Alternatives to this approach such as a light synthetic liner should be evaluated in the future.

The "Design Quantity" classification worked very well on the tailings and waste rock excavation bid items as well as the reclamation area bid items. The only conflict resulted from absence of bank and loose designations from the quantities in the bid package. Excavation volumes should be labeled as bank in the plans to avoid claims.

Testing for liming requirements following the grading of dumps was very important to the final product. Waste rock dumps are extremely heterogeneous in nature, making it nearly impossible to characterize the entire contents during the investigation stage of a project.

Liming requirements will be better characterized in the future. Pioneer falsely assumed that average values determined from the investigation would be adequate. Testing after regrading indicated scattered hot spots. The liming rate had to be increased to neutralize the hot spots even though the average rate was lower than specified.

The specification used by Pioneer for organic amendment of soil was lacking in detail. The contractor spent considerable effort trying to find an acceptable "equal" and became frustrated that Pioneer repeatedly turned down his requests based on parameters that were not detailed in the specifications. In the future, Pioneer's specifications will include an acceptable range for the carbon to nitrogen ratio, organic carbon content, allowable metals content, physical parameters, and a weed seed free specification. Additional pre-approved sources may also be helpful.

Compost analyses performed during construction included moisture content on the compost and organic carbon content on the mixed soil. The moisture contents were necessary to verify that the volume of compost supplied to the contractor by EKO Compost of Missoula corresponded to the dry weight Pioneer specified. Compost moisture contents increased by several percentage points following rain events. The organic carbon content analysis was necessary to verify that the compost mix ratio was adequate and that mixing was consistent. A possible modification to Pioneer's specification would be to specify the target organic content of the mixed soil and give an approximate dry weight and volume of compost plus the approximate mix ratio to accomplish the target organic content. This approach would negate the need for conducting moisture content analyses.

The contractor had difficulties obtaining some of the specified native species seeds. Pioneer contacted seed companies prior to finalizing the Bid Package to make sure that seed was available, but by the time the contractor placed an order, some species were sold out. MDEQ/AMRB may want to require that seed is ordered within 10 days following notice to proceed.

Revision of the temporary fence specification provided by the USFS is recommended to make the fence more economical and constructible.

The MDEQ/Air Quality Bureau recently began enforcing a law requiring a permit for burning of all demolition debris. When necessary, the burning permit should be obtained in advance of letting the project, due to the long public comment period required.

Either the contractor or engineer should be required to provide usable communications (cellular or radio phones) on remote project sites. Many difficulties that occurred during the first two weeks of the project could have been easily resolved if there had been a phone on-site.

For more information on this project, contact:

Mr. Jack Yates
MDEQ/AMRB
1520 East Sixth Avenue
Helena, MT 59620

Submitted by: Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Summarized by: Mari Reeves, Reclamation Research Unit, Montana State University

Date: 11/29/00

Case Histories | Photo Tour | Tech Guide