METHODS - WBSRCClearfield Creek Watershed Assessment and the Anderson Creek Assessment, Restoration, and Implementation Plan. ... focused on data characterization and data gap analysis

CoordinationSRBC began the strategy development

process by first defining the scopeof work. This was completed in closecoordination with the Task Force andCoalition committees. Throughout theprocess, SRBC staff attended severalmeetings with each group. In addition,SRBC staff made presentations on thestrategy at other forums sponsoredby TU, Susquehanna River HeartlandCoalition for Environmental Studies,North Central Regional CitizensRoundtable, PADEP, and PADCNR.

Staff solicited input throughoutthe process and provided opportunitiesto review draft materials associatedwith task objectives. Special effortswere made to ensure that the strategyaddressed core issues needed topromote restoration activities.

Data CollectionThe majority of the effort in

developing the strategy was associatedwith collecting, compiling, and reviewingthe vast amounts of existing data andinformation that are available for the WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin. Given thatone of the main focuses of the strategywas to characterize existing water qualityconditions, SRBC staff concentrated ongathering flow and chemistry informationfrom water samples collected both fromAMD discharges and instream locations.It is important to note that no new waterquality samples were collected as partof the strategy development efforts. Thisdocument is based entirely on existingdata and information.

The two primary sources ofinformation at the regional scale, interms of the number of water qualityand flow observations, were PADEPmining permit information and SRBCmonitoring data. However, there werenumerous other monitoring efforts thatproved invaluable when investigating at thefiner scale. Examples of those include theClearfield Creek Watershed Assessmentand the Anderson Creek Assessment,Restoration, and Implementation Plan.Sources for other datasets included

county conservation districts, watershedgroups, TU chapters, mining companies,water quality laboratories, engineeringconsulting firms, federal water qualitydatabases, and land conservancyorganizations.

Regarding mining permit information,there are more than 1,400 active orcompleted mining permits within theWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.As part of their permit requirements,mining companies are responsible forreporting information relating to anydischarges within the extent of theiraffected areas, whether or not thedischarge was a result of the permittedoperation or existed on the site previously.Basic water quality information commonlyincludes data on metals, alkalinity, andacidity concentration, pH, and either ameasured or estimated flow. SRBC alsocollected information associated withthe discharge location (latitude andlongitude), receiving water, treatmentstatus, date sampled, data source, andother information when available.

Data and information from morethan 400 permits were reviewed by staffand compiled electronically. Additionally,discharge and instream water qualityinformation from more than 450 permitswas acquired from PADEP’s SampleInformation System (SIS). PADEP SIS dataare associated with samples routinelycollected by PADEP personnel. Theremaining permit data with documenteddischarges were compiled from variouswatershed TMDLs that were eithercompleted or under development at thetime of strategy construction. As partof the TMDL process, all permitteddischarges are required to be includedin the TMDL allocations. More than50 TMDLs have been developed withinthe West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin,with most including allocations topermitted discharges (Table 3).

As mentioned previously, manycompleted and ongoing efforts are relatedto monitoring instream water quality andflow. For instream water quality andflow, the strategy relied heavily on datacollected for TMDL monitoring by

PADEP, the Pennsylvania StateUniversity, and SRBC, as well as datacollected by SRBC as part of its WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin Survey(1994 and 2002) and Chesapeake BayMonitoring (1984 to present) programs.

In addition, SRBC requested andacquired discharge and instreamdatasets from numerous sources fora number of watersheds as part ofstakeholder monitoring and restorationefforts. These watersheds includedAnderson Creek, Alder Run, BearRun, Beech Creek (Bald EagleCreek Watershed), Bennett BranchSinnemahoning Creek, ClearfieldCreek, Dents Run (Bennett BranchSinnemahoning Creek Watershed),Kettle Creek, Moshannon Creek,Sterling Run (Driftwood BranchSinnemahoning Creek Watershed),Trout Run, and the West BranchSusquehanna River mainstem. Thesesolicited data were crucial in theanalysis of current conditions andpossible future conditions once AMDimpacts are resolved.

All water quality data collectedprior to 1990 were excluded from thecollection process assuring that the mostrecent water quality data available werebeing utilized for review and analysis.

The following section describes thereview process that staff followed inorder to select the most appropriatedatasets from the wealth of availableinformation.

Data Review and Database Creation

SRBC staff created a database tomanage the vast amount of informationgathered as part of the solicitationand collection process. Datasets wereidentified, compiled, screened for datareliability, and entered into the database.Each AMD discharge and instreamwater quality sample was assigneda unique database and GeographicInformation System (GIS) identifier.

In total, there are nearly 12,000 uniquestations in the database, containingmore than 106,000 individual samples.

■ METHODS

17

The database includes information ondischarges, instream stations, springs,wells, pits, ponds, and impoundments.However, only instream and dischargestations were utilized for the analyses.These datasets represent 8,074 ofthe nearly 12,000 unique stations. SRBChas continued to update informationas appropriate.

Data from these 8,074 uniqueinstream or discharge stations werereviewed to identify those containingfour or more samples collected for metalconcentrations (iron and aluminum inparticular), pH, acidity, and flow. Althougha minimum of four observations is notoptimal from a statistical standpoint,SRBC concluded that analytical criterionrepresents an acceptable representationfor a management-level study of thisscale. When these criteria were appliedto the entire dataset, about 30 percent ofthe data (26 percent of the instreamstations and 40 percent of the dischargestations) remained available for use inthe analyses (Table 6). This analysisidentified a total of 6,110 instreamstations and 1,964 discharges with 1,596instream stations and 788 dischargesmeeting the analytical criteria.

Given attempts to use the bestavailable, existing data that met thespecified analytical criteria, significantdischarges may have been eliminatedfrom analysis. With nearly 60 percentof the discharges in the database notused for analysis (because they didnot meet the analytical criteria),these discharges will require additionalsampling to be included in any futureanalysis.

The three main reasons for notmeeting analytical criteria include samplesites not having a geo-referenced location(no latitude or longitude), samples notcontaining flow measurements, andsamples not containing laboratoryaluminum concentration analyses.

Management Unit Designation and Analysis

After the selection of compiled datathat met the analytical criteria, SRBCfocused on data characterization and datagap analysis. To conduct this phase of theproject, SRBC divided the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin into 34 manage-ment units (MUs) comprising nearly4,663 square miles, or nearly 67 percentof the total West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin (Figure 7 and Table 7).

MUs are named by an alpha numericsystem. The alpha portion consists of theabbreviated name of the watershed wherethe MU is located and the numeric portiondescribes where the MU is located in thewatershed, with “1” being the headwatersand the number sequentially increasingdownstream. For example, the ClearfieldCreek Watershed has been divided intofive MUs, with the headwaters MUbeing named CLCR1 and the furthestdownstream MU being named CLCR5.

MUs were designed to captureclusters of discharges that meet theanalytical criteria and to representchanging conditions in the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin. For example,WBS1, WBS2, and WBS3 in the head-waters of the West Branch SusquehannaRiver mainstem were delineated separatelysince all three capture areas with differingAMD impacts. WBS1 captures a portionof the Victor and Sterling Mine Pooldischarges, representing the main AMDimpacts to the extreme headwaters ofthe West Branch Susquehanna River.WBS2 captures the remaining Victorand Sterling Mine Pool discharges, aswell as inputs from the Barnes andWatkins Coal Refuse Pile and the plannedLancashire #15 (Barnes and TuckerDischarge) Active AMD Treatment Plant.WBS3, on the other hand, capturesthe influence of several net alkalineAMD discharges in the West Branch

Susquehanna River headwaters, which areresponsible for changing river conditionsfrom net acidic to net alkaline. In summary,MUs in other sections of the WestBranch Susquehanna River Subbasinwere delineated based upon suchanalytical criteria discharge clusters andchanges in water quality conditions as well.

Additionally, each MU contains awater quality station at its endpoint tocharacterize the current backgroundwater quality conditions for the entire area.These MU endpoint water quality stationswere also selected for possible use inmonitoring water quality changes onceAMD restoration projects are completed.

MU endpoint water quality stationsare named by their GIS identifier sothat these sites can be searched and foundeasily within the database when needed.

For each MU, four sets of data wereanalyzed and used for characterizingAMD impacts. These data include:1. measured instream water quality for

the MU endpoint station;2. cumulative acidity loading (lbs/day)

and yield (loading/MU area) from allanalytical discharges within the MU;

3. cumulative iron loading and yieldfrom all analytical discharges withinthe MU; and,

4. cumulative aluminum loading andyield from all analytical dischargeswithin the MU.

Discharges “Adjacent” to Federal and State

Priority I and II Health and Safety Problem Sites

A significant funding mechanismfor the remediation of Pennsylvania’slegacy mine land problems resideswithin Title IV of the Federal SMCRAof 1977. The projected $1.4 billionavailable to Pennsylvania through theDecember 2006 SMCRA reauthorizationwill be used primarily to restore sitesdesignated by OSM and PADEP asPriority I or II Health and Safety ProblemSites (i.e., high walls, mine openings,burning coal refuse piles, etc.). These typesof land reclamation activities, however,are often successful at eliminating orreducing impacts from AMD discharges.

18 Continued on page 22Table 6. Instream and Discharge Stations Meeting Analytical Criteria.

Station # of Stations # Stations with % Stations withType Analytical Criteria Analytical Criteria

Instream 6,110 1,596 26Discharge 1,964 788 40Total 8,074 2,384 30

Figure 7. The 34 MUs of the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin, the 788 Analytical Criteria Discharges, and the 34 MU Endpoint Water Quality Stations.

19

J. Z

imm

erm

an

Subw

ater

shed

MU

MU

Area

Anal

ytic

al

Disc

harg

e Di

scha

rge

Disc

harg

ePr

iori

ty I

and

II

Tota

l AM

LsM

ajor

AM

DEn

dpoi

ntM

I2Cr

iteri

aAc

id L

oad

Iron

Loa

dAl

Loa

dAM

Ls(P

I, PI

I, an

d PI

II)

Impa

ired

Stat

ion

Disc

harg

es #

lbs/

day

lbs/

day

lbs/

day

Acre

age

Acre

age

Trib

utar

y

Wes

t Br

anch

Su

sque

hann

a Ri

ver

WBS

1W

BS 2

73.

7014

471

4934

1.8

96

.1N

one

WBS

2W

BS 2

212

.28

132,

863

535

196

108.

540

2.4

Lesl

e Ru

n, F

ox R

un

WBS

3W

BS 1

726

.82

140

8910

145.

153

0.6

Mos

s Cr

eek,

Em

eigh

Run

WBS

4W

BS 1

298

.27

40

30

49.5

1,06

4.1

Cush

Cre

ek

WBS

5W

BS 1

144

.91

2296

332

072

46.5

456.

4Be

ar R

un

WBS

6W

BS 1

7110

6.74

2773

59

259.

62

,124

.6M

ontg

omer

y Ru

n, H

arts

horn

Run

WBS

7W

BS 0

620

3.32

502,

226

675

135

442.

44

,118

.0Al

der

Run,

Dee

r Cr

eek

WBS

8W

BS 1

1022

1.35

827

434

1615

4.8

3,5

19.0

Birc

h Is

land

Run

, Ste

rling

Run

WBS

9W

BS 0

474

1.30

155

,16

298

228

313

6.9

568.

7Co

oks

Run,

Dru

ry R

un

WBS

10W

BS 0

397

5.30

291

810

41.3

263.

3Ta

ngas

coot

ack

Cree

k

Tota

l24

33.9

916

912

,12

32,

700

765

1,38

6.4

13,1

43.

2

Ches

t Cr

eek

CHST

12W

69.9

716

812

1172

294.

957

6.0

Rock

Run

, Bru

bake

r Ru

n

CHST

2CH

ST 1

.059

.19

3118

317

1624

9.2

1,50

6.3

Nor

th C

amp

Run

Tota

l12

9.16

4799

528

885

44

.12,

082.

3

Ande

rson

Cre

ekAN

D1

SMPA

C 2

58.4

89

1,47

216

313

176

.94

60

.1Li

ttle

And

erso

n Cr

eek

AND

2SM

PAC

119

.26

719

221

1987

.82

82

.1Bi

lger

Run

Tota

l77

.74

161,

664

184

150

164.

774

2.2

Clea

rfie

ld C

reek

CLCR

1CL

CR 1

327

.72

184,

943

622

457

16.7

53.2

Brad

ley

Run

CLCR

2CL

CR 1

047

.98

222,

737

460

176

59.3

458.

8Br

ubak

er R

un, L

ittle

Lau

rel R

un

CLCR

3CL

CR 0

872

.61

251,

390

129

117

568.

51,

140.

0Po

wel

l Run

CLCR

4CL

CR 0

410

1.79

5813

,12

33,

049

749

434.

54,

398.

4M

uddy

Run

CLCR

5CL

CR 0

114

2.91

126

8,06

01,

111

482

655.

76,

225.

1M

orga

n Ru

n, L

ong

Run

Tota

l39

3.01

249

30,2

535,

371

1,98

11,

734.

712

,27

5.5

Table 7. General Characteristics of the 34 West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Remediation Strategy MUs.

20

Subw

ater

shed

MU

MU

Area

Anal

ytic

al

Disc

harg

e Di

scha

rge

Disc

harg

ePr

iori

ty I

and

II

Tota

l AM

LsM

ajor

AM

DEn

dpoi

ntM

I2Cr

iteri

aAc

id L

oad

Iron

Loa

dAl

Loa

dAM

Ls(P

I, PI

I, an

d PI

II)

Impa

ired

Stat

ion

Disc

harg

es #

lbs/

day

lbs/

day

lbs/

day

Acre

age

Acre

age

Trib

utar

y

Mos

hann

on C

reek

MO

SH1

MO

SH 3

968

.76

6110

,381

694

905

624.

12,

887.

6Tr

out

Run,

Bea

ver

Run

MO

SH2

MO

SH 1

99

3.4

175

19,8

628,

163

1,06

928

7.5

3,13

2.3

Laur

el R

un, C

old

Stre

am

MO

SH3

MO

SH 0

545

.44

13

00

269.

41,

143.

8Bl

ack

Mos

hann

on C

reek

Tota

l20

7.61

137

30,2

468,

857

1,97

41,

181.

07,

163.

7

Mos

quito

Cre

ekM

QTO

1M

QTO

01

71.2

92

12

120

.665

5.2

Gri

mes

Run

, Cur

ley'

s Ru

n

Ster

ling

Run

(Dri

ftw

ood

Bran

ch)

STR1

STR

0124

.55

1776

816

6316

7.3

432.

9M

ay H

ollo

w R

un, F

inle

y Ru

n

Benn

ett

Bran

chBE

NB1

BBSC

4.0

42.9

77

3,06

790

518

915

4.3

278.

7M

oose

Run

, Bar

k Ca

mp

Run

BEN

B2BB

SC 3

.019

.66

319,

200

1,11

272

923

6.6

392.

6Ch

erry

Run

, Tyl

er R

un

BEN

B3BB

SC 2

.072

.97

101,

819

157

139

207.

753

7.8

Cale

doni

a Ru

n

BEN

B4BB

SC 1

.023

0.52

132,

674

405

183

404.

789

7.7

Den

ts R

un

Tota

l3

66

.12

6116

,760

2,57

91,

240

1,00

3.3

2,10

6.8

Kett

le C

reek

KETL

1KC

PS 5

233.

205

440

7936

35.8

134.

8Sh

ort B

end

Run,

Fiv

e M

ile H

ollo

w

KETL

2KE

TL 0

113

.18

333,

661

453

302

26.6

261.

9Tw

omile

Run

Tota

l 24

6.38

384,

101

532

338

62.4

396.

7

Beec

h Cr

eek

BECH

190

56.4

630

2,40

720

121

915

3.8

2,08

9.2

Nort

h an

d So

uth

Fork

Bee

ch C

reek

BECH

225

114.

9715

3,57

758

716

414

.079

5.8

Big

Run

Tota

l17

1.43

455,

984

788

383

167.

82,

885.

0

Ott

er R

unO

TR1

BR 0

14.

655

251

62.

420

.7Bu

ckey

e Ru

n

Loya

lsoc

k Cr

eek

LOYL

1W

QN

408

436.

862

447

226

.515

7.8

Birc

h Cr

eek

Gran

d To

tal

4,56

2.79

788

102,

964

21,0

656,

991

6,46

1.3

42,0

62.0

21

Table 7. continued

Remediation efforts could beenhanced by focusing attention onpossible links between water infiltrationoccurring on some Priority I and IIsites, and AMD discharges occurring“adjacent” to such sites. If these linkscan be proven, OSM rule makingthrough the SMCRA reauthorizationmay allow for remediation of theseAMD discharges in conjunction withPriority I or II land reclamation.Normally this funding would not beavailable for water quality improvementssince those activities are designatedas Priority III problems (Acid MineDrainage). Priority III problems canonly be addressed using smallerallocations from the Title IV funds,known as “Set-Aside Funds.” Underthe 2006 reauthorization changes toSMCRA, as much as $420 million couldbe requested by Pennsylvania as“Set-Aside-Funds” for Priority III treatment.

In order to assess this possibleopportunity, some initial analyses wereperformed to determine the numberof discharges within an arbitrary

one-quarter mile buffer of a Priority Ior II site using the PADEP AbandonedMine Land Information System (AMLIS)database. Based on the density of AMDdischarges, reclamation activities mayhave the potential for improvingenvironmental conditions beyond theimmediate health and safety concernsassociated with the Priority I and II sites.

Analysis of Wild Trout Streams Impaired by

AMD or Acid Rain

Many miles of good quality streamsin the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin are sometimes overlooked due tothe impairment of adjacent streams. Intotal, there are about 2,400 stream milesdocumented to have wild trout reproduc-tion, 660 miles of Class A trout streams(the highest population class obtained),and 250 miles of Wilderness Trout streamswithin the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin. It is believed that many morestreams with wild trout reproductionhave not yet been documented.

More than 25 percent of thesestreams also contain sections with docu-mented AMD or acid rain impairment.These stream sections may provideunique restoration opportunities forthree main reasons. 1. The streams may offer situations

where minimal treatment may greatlyrestore most of the stream and allowimpaired miles to be removed fromPennsylvania’s list of impaired waters;

2. The streams support biologicalrecolonizers, both in terms ofmacroinvertebrates and fish, andremoval of AMD may promoteresurgence in the populations; and

3. The reconnection of tributaries with theWest Branch Susquehanna River mayproduce enhanced ecological benefits.

Using GIS, SRBC identified streamsthat contained either AMD/acidimpaired segments and either WildTrout, Class A, and Wilderness Troutdesignated waters. These documentedstreams were then mapped with theBrook Trout Population Status GISlayer constructed by the Eastern Brook

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) Reauthorized for Another 15 Years in 2006

22

The reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML)Fund occurred on December 6, 2006, with a provision formandatory spending from 2008 to 2022 projected to be$1.4 billion for Pennsylvania. Grants awarded to the state, fromfees collected from current coal mining to address problemsof past mining practices, previously had to be appropriatedby committees of jurisdiction in Congress, with the resultbeing only a portion of funds going toward the AML problem.

With the reauthorization of SMCRA, reclamationfunding to the state will increase roughly three to four timeswith a built-in ramp-up period to allow for good planning.While this legislation and funding is directed towardPriority I and II sites (health and safety issues such asdangerous high walls, mine openings, acid mine drainagepits), there is a 30 percent set-aside provision for thetreatment of AMD. This is up from a 10 percent set-asideprovision in the past.

With up to 30 percent of a state’s annual grant “set-aside”specifically to implement projects that eliminate sources ofAMD or treat waters degraded by AMD, set-aside funds areplaced in an interest-bearing account, with both principleand interest available for AMD projects. Unlike Priority Iand II funding, which must be spent within 3 to 5 years,AMD set-aside funding has no time restrictions.

Possible use of set-aside funds is to place a portion,perhaps the interest only, in an interest-bearing account forthe operation and maintenance needs of AMD treatmentsystems in perpetuity. The Commonwealth, however, cannotshift its entire emphasis to AMD. Even if a state takes thefull 30 percent, the funding going to Priority I and II siteswill still be considerably greater than the funding going toAMD treatment.

Pennsylvania is estimated to be one of a few states notto have completed reclamation of all of its Priority I and IIsites by 2022. However, although fees on coal mining willnot be collected after this date, it is estimated that the fundwill have more than $1 billion remaining to be spenton “uncertified” states. This could mean as much as$500 million in additional funding for Pennsylvania after 2022.

John Dawes, Executive DirectorFoundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds

Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV). Thisclassification system is designed todesignate watersheds throughout theEBTJV-study area that are eithermaintaining or not maintainingreproducing populations of brook troutbased on the percentage of availablehabitat in each watershed. The classifi-cation scheme can be found in Table 8.

AMD Treatment System Modeling

The Watershed Restoration AnalysisModel (WRAM), developed by Water’sEdge Hydrology Inc., was used tosimulate treatment systems for all788 discharges meeting the analyticalcriteria. The model conceptualizes bothpassive and active (chemical) AMDtreatment system solutions on all 788discharges. The data outputs used forthe strategy include predictions for theavailable acidity, iron, and aluminumloading reductions at each discharge,as well as costs associated with thecapital funding necessary to constructthe adequate passive or active AMDtreatment system. The model alsoestimates the yearly operation andmaintenance (O&M) costs of each of thosesystems. For this study, it is importantto note that predicted available loadingreductions, passive and active treatmentsystem construction capital costs, and

yearly O&M fees were accumulated foreach MU to allow comparison.

It is also important to note thatWRAM cost estimates do not includeany projections on AML reclamationand remining potential in the WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin.

The version of the WRAM modelused for this effort is intended to be awatershed-level planning tool, and notto be used for final design of treatmentsystems. Both passive and activealternatives are included for conceptualcomparison. Conceptual passive systemdesigns are based on best currenttechnologies and sizing criteria. Activesystem designs assume the use of pebblequicklime, which is currently considereda low-cost and low-maintenance formof chemical application that isgaining popularity in both industry and

in the watershed restoration communitywithin the Commonwealth. Specificcriteria are as follows (Rightnour, 2007):

• Vertical Flow Wetlands - 25 grams/meter2/day acidity loadingat the compost surface or 16 hoursdetention time in the limestonesubstrate, whichever produces thegreater sizing.

• Oxidation and Precipitation Basins - 24 hours detention at average flow,plus an additional 40 percent volumefor sludge storage.

• Surface Flow Wetlands - removal rates are set at 5 grams/meter2/day for iron. There is nopublished removal rate for aluminum,but it is assumed to be 2.5 grams/meter2/day as being half the atomicweight of iron. Also, the wetland bedwidth is limited to two feet peraverage influent gallon per minute toprevent soil erosion, resulting in largebed sizing for very large influent flows.

• Manganese Oxidizing Bacteria Beds - manganese was not considered inthis study.

• Pebble Quicklime Systems -are evaluated as simple neutralizationunits based on the WRAM defaultsettings. All values are taken fromOSM’s AMD Treat Version 4.1b(Office of Surface Mining, 2006)or recommendations from themanufacturer of the AquaFix pebblequicklime AMD treatment system.

EBTJV Classifications Summary CharacteristicsUnknown: No Data No data or not enough data to classify fur therExtirpated (Regional Extinction): All historic reproducing populations extirpatedPresent: Qualitative No quantitative data; qualitat ive data

show presencePresent: Large/Strong Population High percentage (>90%) of historic habitat

occupied by reproducing populationsPresent: Depressed Population Between 50% and 90% of historic habitat

occupied by naturally reproducing brook troutPresent: Severely Depressed Between 1% and 50% of historic habitat

occupied by naturally reproducing brook trout

Table 8. Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture Brook Trout Population Status Classifications.

Do Not Let the Bad Always Overshadow the GoodYes, there are many examples of good water quality in the West Branch

Susquehanna Subbasin. So much attention is focused on the impaired regionsthat many times the areas with exceptional water quality are overlooked.According to the PA Code Chapter 93 stream designations, the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin contains 1,249 miles of Exceptional Value streams(the highest classification a stream can obtain), 5,229 miles of High Quality-Cold Water Fisheries, 73 miles of High Quality-Trout Stocked Fisheries, and359 miles of Trout Stocked Fisheries (West Branch Susquehanna River TaskForce, 2005).

These high quality streams hold potential biological “recolonizers.” As waterquality improves within impaired sections, these recolonizers could move intothe restored streams and repopulate, often without needing subsequent restocking.

Thomas ClarkAbandoned Mine Drainage Project CoordinatorSusquehanna River Basin Commission

23

The eastern brook trout(Salvelinus fontinalis), Pennsylvania’sonly native salmonid, has inhabitedeastern coldwater streams forseveral million years. Brook troutare traced back to the retreat ofthe early continental glaciersand populations were known tothrive in the ancient Appalachianvalleys. Prior to colonial times,brook trout were present in nearlyevery coldwater stream and river notonly in Pennsylvania but in all ofthe eastern United States.

Strong brook trout populations,often used as a surrogate forhealthy water, began to decline inthe West Branch Sus-quehanna Subbasinas early agriculture,logging, and miningimpacted our localwaterways. Theseactivities, althougheconomically signifi-cant, instigated thedeterioration ofstreams and rivers with increasedsediment and pollution loads. As a result,many of today’s streams in the WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin nolonger provide the pristine conditionsrequired for sustainable brook troutpopulations. In fact, the EasternBrook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV)estimates that only four percent ofwatersheds in the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin are home tostrong populations of this importantfish. In addition, the EBTJV estimatesthat 77 percent of West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin watershedsare home to depressed or severelydepressed populations, and anadditional nine percent of thewatersheds are believed to haveextirpated populations of the easternbrook trout.

Despite their ominous present-daycondition, hope still remains for thebrook trout of the West Branch

Susquehanna Subbasin. CountlessTrout Unlimited chapters, watershed

groups, and dedicated conservationorganizations have implementedon-the-ground projects to restorebrook trout populations. In addi-tion to these local efforts, severalimportant steps have been taken

on the state and regional level. The EBTJV has completed an

assessment of the status and threats ofthe brook trout, and has published aconservation strategy to improveconditions for these fish on a statewidebasis. The Pennsylvania Fish and BoatCommission and the PennsylvaniaGame Commission have acknowledged

the importance ofprotecting existingpopulations byrecommending thatthe eastern brooktrout be added tothe State WildlifeAction Plan, thedocument that pre-scribes conservation

measures for species and their criticalhabitat before they become more rareand costly to protect and restore.Furthermore, as part of its WestBranch Susquehanna RestorationInitiative, Trout Unlimited is utilizingthe Conservation Success Index,an innovative tool that providesinformation about brook trout atvarious geographic scales that canhelp identify data gaps, analyzethreats to population and habitat,and prioritize conservation actionsfor stakeholders.

For more information on thenative brook trout or to learnmore about protection, enhancement,and restoration strategies visitwww.brookie.org or www.easternbrooktrout.org.

Rebecca Dunlap, Project Manager of the West Branch SusquehannaRestoration Initiative, Trout Unlimited

Restoring Fishable Populations of Brook Trout

Bear Run native brook trout.

A uniform set of defaults wasapplied to all analytical criteriadischarges. Each discharge was treatedwith successive WRAM selected treatmentoptions until all predicted system effluentwater quality defaults were realized.These defaults have been archived andare available upon request from SRBC.

In some cases, the use of the defaultvalues produced unreasonable resultsfor passive treatment system sizesand costs, due to extremes in flowor contaminant loading that wouldnot be normally considered acceptable.Passive treatment sizing and costs aremuch more sensitive to these variablesthan active systems, and outlyingestimates are to be expected whenapplying a single set of design criteria.The model eliminates discharges thatdo not require treatment based ondefault concentration thresholds, butdoes not eliminate passive systems thatmay not be feasible based on size or cost.

System construction costs arebased on unit sizing costs derived fromOSM’s AMDTreat Version 4.1bprogram. Multiple sizes for each typeof system component were run inAMDTreat 4.1b to determine an averageunit cost. Some modifications weremade to round resulting values andaccount for inflation based on recentWaters Edge Hydrology Inc. experiencewith similar systems. The model doesnot account for escalation of costs overtime, and system costs will be greater ifnot implemented in the near future.

O&M costs for passive treatmentsystems are estimated at 3.5 percent of theconstruction cost annually. Generally, thereis little annual maintenance for mostpassive systems, and this annual cost isconsidered more of an accrual value forfuture maintenance or system replacement.The active system cost estimates alsoinclude a 3.5 percent accrual for componentreplacement, plus the annual chemicalconsumption and labor costs.

WRAM was only used to simulatepossible loading reductions from andcosts for AMD treatment systems. WRAMwas not used for instream water qualityconcentration projections followingcompletion of restoration projects.

24

D. H

egge

nsta

ller

Hypothetical Examples for West Branch

Susquehanna River Subbasin Remediation

Utilizing WRAM data outputs forthe 788 analytical criteria discharges,hypothetical examples for remediationwere simulated for the West BranchSusquehanna River headwaters andtributaries contributing a majority ofthe AMD pollution. In addition, onesimulation shows an example for a“focused watershed approach” thatcould apply to any watershed wheresufficient data exists. The ClearfieldCreek Watershed was used for thisparticular example.

All simulations focused on theimpact of reducing available acidity,iron, and aluminum loadings. Theavailable reductions for each selecteddischarge were then subtractedfrom each of the 33 West BranchSusquehanna River TMDL waterquality stations located downstream.This simple mass balance approachwas used to predict changes in waterquality conditions for the West BranchSusquehanna River and Clearfield Creekas a result of the remediation examples.

These examples target areascontributing the most AMD impacts basedon existing data, and do not representthe only options available for proceedingwith remediation activities in the WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin.

WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNARIVER HEADWATERS

The West Branch SusquehannaRiver Headwaters example focuses onthe mainstem of the West Branch fromCambria County to the entry ofClearfield Creek in Clearfield County.This example includes the completionof three headwater projects andrestoration of four headwater MUs.

The three projects include: (1) theBarnes and Watkins Coal Refuse PileRemoval Project, which should becompleted by 2008; (2) the addition oftreated effluent from the Lancashire #15(Barnes and Tucker Discharge) AMDTreatment Plant, which should be online

AMD Impacts on Aquatic Life

“

”

Addressing AMD impacts in the West BranchSusquehanna River Headwaters could restore water quality conditions from the start of the river in Cambria County to the entrance of

Clearfield Creek in Clearfield County.

25

The latest estimates show that 1,205 miles of streams within the WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin are impaired by AMD. Often, thoseimpairments are associated with the biological life usually present inhealthy streams; essentially, the fish and the stream macroinvertebrates(insects, worms, snails, etc.).

Several researchers have shown that the rate of microbial processing ofleaf litter is affected negatively by acidity (Kimmel et al., 1985, Palumbo et al.,1987, and Thompson and Barlocher, 1989). Less food for macroinvertebratesmeans less food for the fish that depend on these organisms for a large portionof their diet.

Gill tissue is considered the primary target organ of acid stress.Low pH water causes a disturbance in the balance of sodium and chlorideions in the blood (Earle and Callaghan, 1998). Both the efflux and activeuptake of sodium are reduced at low pH. This iono-regulation can be theprimary cause of death to stream organisms exposed to acid water. It hasalso been found that oxygen consumption declines at very low pH.

Once AMD enters a healthy stream, chemical reactions occur that oftencause the polluting metals (namely iron, aluminum and manganese) toprecipitate on the bottom substrate of the stream. These metals form a heavycoating that significantly degrades the habitat utilized by macroinvertebrates,consequently causing a reduction in the stream’s productivity. In addition,metal precipitate can smother the eggs of macroinverebrates and fish.

Precipitated metals, particularly iron and aluminum, can also interferewith gas exchange by coating the gill surfaces of fish and macroinvertebrates.This interference can disrupt growth patterns and increase mortality ratesamong aquatic species (Vuori, 1996).

Neutralizing acid and removing aluminum from streams will often allowsome aquatic life to return, even when the polluting iron remains.

Mark Killar, Watershed Manager, Freshwater Conservation Program Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

Thomas Clark, Abandoned Mine Drainage Project CoordinatorSusquehanna River Basin Commission

Continued on page 28

Heavily AMD-impaired stretch of Moshannon Creek.M

. Sm

ith

Watersheds in the West Bra

WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA SUBBASIN FACTS

Drains 6,978 square miles — 25 percent

of the entire Susquehanna basin (SRBC).

Has nearly 1,205 miles of AMD-impaired

waterways — nearly 66 percent of the total

AMD-impaired mileage in the Susquehanna basin

(2006 Draft 303d Listed Streams, PADEP).

Encompasses 2,190 square miles of public

forest lands — 67 percent of the forest lands

in the Susquehanna basin (PA Bureau of Forestry

and NYSDEC).

Encompasses 47 percent (~4,000 square miles)

of the total PA WILDS area (SRBC).

Babb Creek, which has been restored from major AMD impacts.

A. W

olfe

26

anch Susquehanna Subbasin

Excellent

Supporting

Partially Supporting

Non Supporting

No Data

AMD

Agriculture

Acid Rain

Mercury and Other Toxins

Habitat Alteration

Urban Runoff

Point Source and Others

West Branch Instream Habitat ClassificationsWest Branch Subbasin Impairments

AMD Impaired Stream

27

in 2009; and (3) the restoration of the BearRun Watershed, which currently has con-struction funds to treat several dischargesand design funds for several more.

The four MUs to be restoredinclude WBS1, WBS2, AND1, andAND2. WBS1 and WBS2, the two mostheadwater MUs of the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin, are impacted bydischarges from the Sterling and VictorMine Pools. AND1 and AND2 representthe AMD impacts in the AndersonCreek Watershed.

Addressing AMD impacts in theWest Branch Susquehanna RiverHeadwaters could restore water qualityconditions from the start of the river inCambria County to the entrance ofClearfield Creek in Clearfield County.This section equals a distance of about70 river miles, or nearly 30 percent of theWest Branch Susquehanna River, andshould remove nearly 28 river miles fromPennsylvania’s list of impaired waters.

MAJOR TRIBUTARIES

The major tributaries exampleaddresses impacts from the top ten rankedtributary MUs based upon AMD loading

and yields (Table 9). These ten MUscomprise more than 76 percent of theacidity loading, more than 81 percentof the iron loading, and more than76 percent of the aluminum loadingavailable within the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin.

FOCUSED WATERSHED APPROACH — CLEARFIELD

CREEK WATERSHED

The Clearfield Creek Watershedserved as an example for demonstratinghow the approach outlined in this reportcould be used to focus on a smallerscale. It is important to note that theseanalyses were only possible due to theextensive amount of water quality dataavailable for this watershed.

The example simulates potentialimprovements to water quality conditionsfor Clearfield Creek with treatment ofthe Cresson #9 discharge, the Gallitzin#10 discharge, the Gallitzin Shaft MineComplex, and the Dean Clay Mine.The Cresson and Gallitzin sources arelocated in the headwaters of ClearfieldCreek. The Dean Clay Mine is locatedin the Brubaker Run Watershed, atributary to Clearfield Creek.

Instream Improvement Modeling Projections

A simple mass balance approachwas used to predict changes in waterquality conditions for the West BranchSusquehanna River and Clearfield Creekafter completion of each remediationexample. The predicted AMD loadingreduction outputs from WRAM weresubtracted from the West BranchSusquehanna River and the ClearfieldCreek instream stations directly down-stream of the restoration effort, as well asevery mainstem instream point thereafter.

Due to apparent errors in the analysisand reporting of acidity concentrations,net alkalinity was calculated using twodifferent methods for the West BranchSusquehanna River and Clearfield Creekinstream stations (Figure 8). It has beendocumented by Kirby and Cravotta(2005) that “pH, alkalinity, and acidityof mine drainage and associated waterscan be misinterpreted because of thechemical instability of samples andpossible misunderstandings of standardanalytical method results.” Improvementsin the analysis and reporting of thesethree parameters are being implementedby water quality laboratories; however,since this strategy effort is dealing entirelywith historical water quality data, amajority of the samples compiled weresampled prior to these improvements.

As mentioned, calculated netalkalinity values were only completedon the 33 West Branch SusquehannaRiver TMDL instream stations and the15 Clearfield Creek TMDL instreamstations that were utilized to tracksubbasin improvements once areasof AMD impact were hypotheticallyrestored. Completing net alkalinitycalculations on all samples in thedatabase was beyond the scope of thisproject. SRBC also determined that itshould not tamper with historicallyreported results from certified laboratories.

If West Branch Susquehanna River and Clearfield Creek Mainstem pH is > 6.0:

Net Alkalinity = Alkalinity reported – (50 * (Total Manganese concentration * 2 / 55))

If West Branch Susquehanna River and Clearfield Creek Mainstem pH is < 6.0:

Net Alkalinity = Alkalinity reported – (50 * (Total Iron concentration * 2 / 56 + Total Manganese concentration * 2 / 55 + Total Aluminum concentration * 3 / 27 + 10 ^ (3 – pH reported )))

28

Figure 8. The Net Alkalinity Equations Usedon the West Branch Susquehanna River andClearfield Creek Mainstem Instream WaterQuality Stations Used to Predict Improvements.

MU Subbasin Coverage AreaCLCR1 Clear f ield Creek Beaverdam Run to HeadwatersCLCR2 Clear f ield Creek SR 1026 Bridge to Beaverdam RunCLCR4 Clear f ield Creek Muddy Run to Turner RunCLCR5 Clear f ield Creek Mouth to Muddy RunMOSH1 Moshannon Creek SR 970 Bridge to HeadwatersMOSH2 Moshannon Creek Upstream of Six Mile Run to SR 970 BridgeBENB1 Bennett Branch Moose Run to HeadwatersBENB2 Bennett Branch Downstream of Cherry Run to Moose RunKETL2 Kettle Creek Mouth of Upstream of Shor t Bend RunBECH2 Beech Creek Mouth to Wolf Run

Table 9. Tributary MUs with Major AMD Impairments.

In addition, the predicted improvementsto the West Branch Susquehanna Riverand Clearfield Creek mainstems areconsidered conservative estimates forseveral reasons. First, the WRAM modelmay underestimate the extent of acidityloading reduction. Second, mass balancecalculations do not account for instreamprocesses that may allow for theprecipitation of metals before reachingdownstream water quality stations.

The datasets used in the analysesdo not represent all dischargescontributing pollutant loads to theselected MUs, only those meeting theanalytical criteria. For example, thepercentage of unaccounted acidityloads in the Moshannon Creek Watershed

is 52 percent. The additional loadsare from discharges with insufficientdata, undocumented discharges, coalrefuse piles, groundwater upwellings,acid rain impacts, and possibleother sources.

It is also possible that thedischarge and instream sampling eventsoccurred at different times and undervarying hydrologic conditions since onlyhistorical data were utilized for theanalyses. Since loading is correlatedto flow, these factors can result insignificant differences in comparingupstream and downstream conditions.For this reason, focus was placedon characterizing analytical criteriadischarges.

■ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Management Unit Endpoint Water Quality Stations

West Branch Susquehanna RiverMainstem MUs

The West Branch Susquehanna Rivermainstem was divided into ten separateMUs from the extreme headwaters(WBS1) in the vicinity of Carrolltown,Cambria County, to just downstream ofthe confluence with Bald Eagle Creek(WB10), the furthest extent of majorAMD impacts. The average water qualityendpoints for each of those MUs arefound in Table 10. Ninety percent of theseMU endpoints have at least one parameterthat exceeds its water quality standard.

Chest Creek MUsThe Chest Creek Watershed was

divided into two separate MUs: onecapturing conditions from the headwatersto the midpoint of the watershed(CHST1), and the other capturingconditions from the midpoint to the mouth (CHST2). The water quality endpoints for each MU are found in Table 11. All waterquality parameters for both MU endpoints are within the water quality standard of that parameter.

Anderson Creek MUsThe Anderson Creek Watershed

was divided into two separate MUs: onecapturing the first major impairmentarea, Little Anderson Creek (AND1),and the other capturing the secondmajor impairment area, Bilger Run (AND2). The water quality endpoints for each MU are found in Table 12. AND1 exceeds thewater quality standards for pH and aluminum.

MU MU Endpoint Year(s) Flow pH Total Fe Total Mn Total AlStation Sampled GPM Lab mg/l mg/l mg/l

WBS1 WBS 27 2004-2005 1,793 5.5 2.2 1.0 3.1WBS2 WBS 22 2004-2005 7,781 4.2 11.3 1.5 13.6 WBS3 WBS 17 2004-2005 19,359 7.5 2.6 0.6 3.0WBS4 WBS 12 2004-2005 134,037 7.3 0.6 0.2 1.2WBS5 WBS 11 2004-2005 269,299 7.4 0.5 0.2 1.0WBS6 WBS 171 1994 85,725 6.5 0.4 0.5 0.4WBS7 WBS 06 2004-2005 1,208,582 6.8 1.1 0.7 0.9WBS8 WBS 110 2002 374,748 7.0 0.5 1.4 0.4WBS9 WBS 04 2004-2005 3,533,423 6.6 0.4 0.4 1.4

WBS10 WBS 03 2004-2005 3,009,525 6.6 0.5 0.4 0.8

Table 10. West Branch Susquehanna River MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.

* P a r a m e t e r s T h a t E x c e e d W a t e r Q u a l i t y S t a n d a r d s N o t e d I n R e d F o r T a b l e s 1 0 - 2 2


CHST1 2w Unknown 3,239 7.0 0.4 0.4 0.1CHST2 CHST 1.0 2002 9,403 8.3 0.2 0.1 0.3

Table 11. Chest Creek MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.


AND1 SMP-AC2 2004 19,704 4.6 0.2 1.0 0.8AND2 SMP-AC1 2004 23,697 6.0 0.3 0.8 0.5

Table 12. Anderson Creek MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.

29

“

”

The predicted AMD loading reduction outputs

from WRAM were subtracted from the

West Branch SusquehannaRiver and the Clearfield

Creek instream stations directly downstream of therestoration effort, as well

as every mainstem instreampoint thereafter.

Clearfield Creek MUsThe Clearfield Creek Watershed

was divided into five separate MUs dueto the severe impairment found withinthis West Branch Susquehanna Rivertributary. CLCR1 captures from theentry of Beaverdam Run, near thetown of Ashville, Cambria County, tothe headwaters of Clearfield Creek.CLCR2 represents conditions from Frugality, Cambria County,to Beaverdam Run near Ashville and includes Brubaker Run,the largest acid source to Clearfield Creek. CLCR3 captures fromTurner Run to Frugality and includes Powell Run, a major AMDinput to Clearfield Creek. CLCR4 includes from just downstream ofthe Muddy Run confluence, possibly the largest overall AMD inputto Clearfield Creek, to Turner Run. CLCR5 captures from themouth of Clearfield Creek to Muddy Run. The water qualityendpoints for each MU are found in Table 13. Three of the five MUendpoints have at least two parameters that exceed the water qualitystandard of that parameter.

Moshannon Creek MUsThe Moshannon Creek Watershed

was divided into three separate MUsdue to the severe impairment foundwithin this West Branch SusquehannaRiver tributary. MOSH1 captures fromState Highway 970 in Osceola Mills,Clearfield County, to the headwaters ofMoshannon Creek, which includesseveral highly AMD-impaired areas.MOSH2 represents conditions fromjust upstream of Six Mile Run, aboutsix miles downstream of Philipsburg,Centre County, to State Highway 970in Osceola Mills. MOSH2 is the mostAMD-impaired area in the entireWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.MOSH3 captures from the mouth ofMoshannon Creek to the entry of SixMile Run. The water quality endpointsfor each MU are found in Table 14.Each MU endpoint has at least threeparameters that exceed the water qualitystandard for that parameter.

Mosquito Creek MUDue to minor AMD impairment on

Mosquito Creek (primary cause ofimpairment on Mosquito Creek is aciddeposition), the entire subbasin wasrepresented as one MU, MQTO1. Thewater quality endpoint for this MU isfound in Table 15 and exceeds the waterquality standard for pH.


CLCR1 CLCR 13 2003-2004 17,320 7.0 1.5 0.2 1.0CLCR2 CLCR 10 2003-2004 51,955 6.6 2.5 2.0 1.3CLCR3 CLCR 08 2003-2004 91,042 7.1 1.2 1.2 0.8CLCR4 CLCR 04 2003-2004 163,527 6.9 1.8 1.6 0.6CLCR5 CLCR 01 2003-2004 235,819 7.1 1.4 1.9 0.7

Table 13. Clearfield Creek MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.


MOSH1 MOSH 39.9 2002 12,445 3.6 4.1 6.2 4.4MOSH2 MOSH 19.1 2002 24,805 3.3 4.4 5.8 6.4MOSH3 MOSH 5.1 2002 42,048 3.3 1.0 6.2 6.8

Table 14. Moshannon Creek MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.


MQTO1 MQTO 1.0 2002 3,340 5.4 <0.01 0.1 <0.01

Table 15. Mosquito Creek MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.

The wilderness and AMD-impacted character of Clearfield Creek.

M. S

mith

The confluence of “Red” Moshannon Creek with the West Branch Susquehanna River.

“ ”MOSH2 is the most AMD-impaired area in the

entire West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.

M. S

mith

30

Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning MUsDue to major AMD impairment, the

Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creekwas divided into four separate MUs.BENB1 captures everything from theentry of Moose Run to the headwatersof the Bennett Branch, which includesAMD-impaired Moose Run and BarkCamp Run. BENB2 includes from just downstream of Cherry Run’s confluence with the Bennett Branch to Moose Run, one ofthe more AMD-impacted areas in the entire West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin. BENB3 captures from Caledonia Run, a majorAMD input, to just downstream of Cherry Run. BENB4 represents conditions from the Bennett Branch’s confluence with theDriftwood Branch to Caledonia Run, and includes the major AMD input of Dents Run. The water quality endpoints for eachMU are found in Table 16. Each MU endpoint has at least one parameter that exceeds a water quality standard.

Sterling Run (Driftwood Branch) MUDue to Sterling Run's small size

(less than 25 square miles), all impactswere represented by one MU, STR1.Despite its small size, Sterling Run doesimpact the Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek with AMD loading. The water quality endpoint for this MU is found inTable 17 and exceeds the water quality standard for pH.

Kettle Creek MUsFor a majority of its length, Kettle

Creek is a high quality watershed withseveral stretches either classified as EV,or as HQ-CWF. However, Kettle Creekis impaired by AMD near its confluencewith the West Branch Susquehanna River. These impacts aremainly located within the Twomile Run Watershed and justupstream of its confluence with the mainstem of Kettle Creek.Consequently, Kettle Creek was divided into two separate MUs.KETL1 captures all impacts upstream of Twomile Run, andKETL2 captures Twomile Run and adjacent impacts. Thewater quality endpoints for each MU are found in Table 18 andboth are within the water quality standard of each parameter.

Beech Creek MUsBeech Creek is the last major AMD-

impaired subbasin that impacts theWest Branch Susquehanna River. BeechCreek has been divided into two separateMUs that capture the two major areas ofAMD impacts: the headwaters (BECH1),and within and adjacent to the Big RunWatershed (BECH2). The water quality endpoints for each MU are found in Table 19. Each MU endpoint has at least threeparameters that exceed the water quality standard.

Otter Run (Little Pine Creek) MUWith Babb Creek almost completely

restored from AMD impacts, Otter Runrepresents the only other area ofimpairment in the Pine Creek Watershed.Otter Run is a small tributary of Little Pine Creek, and is captured by one MU. The water quality endpoint for this MU is foundin Table 20 and exceeds the water quality standard for manganese.


BENB1 BBSC 4.0 2003-2004 40,623 4.3 0.4 0.8 0.2BENB2 BBSC 3.0 2003-2004 64,619 6.0 2.0 0.1 1.2BENB3 BBSC 2.0 2003-2004 85,144 5.2 0.5 5.5 0.4BENB4 BBSC 1.0 2003-2004 327,572 4.7 0.1 2.0 0.2

Table 16. Bennett Branch MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.


STR1 STR 1 2003 36,944 5.7 0.6 0.3 0.6

Table 17. Sterling Run MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.


KETL1 KCPS 5 2002 93,671 6.7 0.2 0.1 0.2KETL2 KETL 01 2001 100,987 6.8 0.4 0.5 0.6

Tri-colored substrate in Kettle Creek

downstream ofTwomile Run

confluence.

S. B

uda


BECH1 90 2004 29,277 4.2 4.0 2.6 1.8BECH2 25 2004 118,639 4.6 0.4 2.0 1.1

Table 19. Beech Creek MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.


OTR1 BR 01 1999 2,148 6.2 0.3 2.6 0.5

Table 20. Otter Run MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.

31

Table 18. Kettle Creek MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.

Loyalsock Creek MUWater quality conditions in the

Loyalsock Creek Watershed aregenerally very good, and representsome of the best conditions in theWest Branch Susquehanna River Subbasin.However, there are certain areas affected by AMD.The entire Loyalsock Creek Watershed is capturedby one MU. The water quality endpoint for this MUis found in Table 21, and shows the stream meetswater quality standards.

Other Areas of AMD ImpairmentSmall tributaries entering the West Branch

Susquehanna River between Anderson Creek andBald Eagle Creek (contained within the WBS6 -WBS10 MUs) should also be given special attention,although these streams do not contain adequatedischarge and/or instream sampling coverage toconstitute a separate MU (Table 22). The limiteddata available indicates that all but one of thesetributaries contain at least one parameter that doesnot meet water quality standards. Additionally,mainstem tributairies such as Milligan Run andAlder Run exhibit some of the highest concentrationsof metals found in streams within the entireWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.

Minor areas of AMD impairment can be found in other West Branch Susquehanna Subbasins not designated as separate MUs as well,including Larry’s Creek and Lycoming Creek. However, acid deposition impacts these subbasins more than AMD. In addition, thereare still some tributaries to Babb Creek that are impacted by AMD, even though the watershed is considered to be generally restored.


LYOL1 WQN 408 1962 - 1998 313,594 6.6 0.1 <0.1 0.1

S. B

uda

Stream Dates MU Area Flow pH Fe Mn Almi2 GPM Lab mg/l mg/l mg/l

Har tshorn Run 2002-2003 WBS6 4.6 2,187 5.6 <0.30 0.28 <0.50Montgomery Creek 2001-2002 WBS6 16.5 13,465 4.3 0.28 6.1 1 2.47Moose Creek 2003 WBS6 12.3 7,464 5.4 <0.30 1.44 1.08Lick Run 2002-2003 WBS7 27.5 18,885 5.8 0.2 7 0.7 1 0.46Trout Run 2002 WBS7 41.7 1,665 4.9 0.08 0.25 0.34Millstone Run Unknown WBS7 1.4 nd 5.0 <0.30 3.00 <0.50Surveyor Run 2002 WBS7 5.8 3,778 3.9 0.73 6.04 6.66Bald Hil l Run 2002 WBS7 2.7 1,799 5.3 1.22 6.1 1 0.69Moravian Run 2002 WBS7 18.5 7,810 5.3 1.1 9 0.72 0.32Deer Creek 2002-2003 WBS7 23.5 15,978 5.1 2.62 3.20 1.55Big Run 2002-2003 WBS7 3.1 2,168 6.6 14.30 0.60 ndSandy Creek 2002 WBS7 17.3 10,209 4.6 2.1 5 5.12 1.83Alder Run 2002-2004 WBS7 24.0 14,403 3.2 21.4 2 6.72 11.34Roll ing Stone Run 2002 WBS8 1.7 1,043 5.8 7.1 8 0.57 7.98Saltl ick Run 2003 WBS8 4.9 4,889 7.6 2.62 5.1 7 2.45Sterl ing Run 2003 WBS8 15.7 20,348 5.0 0.30 0.40 0.50Birch Island Run 2002 WBS8 15.3 9,266 5.1 0.30 0.20 0.50Cooks Run 2000-2001 WBS9 26.0 7,774 3.4 6.90 1.48 5.64Mill igan Run 2000-2001 WBS9 1.35 485 2.7 13.1 8 8.1 2 19.44Drury Run 2002 WBS9 11.5 534 4.7 0.05 1.00 0.85Tangascootack Creek 2002 WBS10 36.5 1,279 6.3 0.03 1.00 0.04

Table 22. West Branch Susquehanna River Tributaries Entering Between the Entrance of Anderson Creek and Bald Eagle Creek Contained Within WBS6 – WBS10.

Loyalsock Creek near Forksville, Sullivan County.

32

Table 21. Loyalsock Creek MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.

Management Unit AnalysisThe 34 MUs captured discharges

with predicted available loadingreductions of 102,964 lbs/day of acidity,21,065 lbs/day of iron, and 6,991 lbs/dayof aluminum.

The first analyses were completedon AMD-loading yields (lbs/day/area).Figure 9 illustrates that concentratedacidity loading is located primarily inMUs WBS1, WBS2, CLCR1, CLCR4,MOSH1, MOSH2, BENB2, and KETL2,and to a lesser extent in MUs CLCR2,CLCR5, and BENB1.

Figure 10 illustrates that concentratediron loadings are located primarily inMUs WBS2, CLCR4, MOSH2, BENB2,and KETL2, and to a lesser extent inMUs WBS1, CLCR1, MOSH1, andBENB1.

Figure 11 illustrates that concentratedaluminum-loading areas are locatedprimarily in MUs WBS2, CLCR1,MOSH1, MOSH2, BENB2, and KETL2,and to a lesser extent in MUs WBS1and CLCR4.

Upon completion of the final analyses,11 MUs (the 10 top ranked tributaryMUs and one West Branch SusquehannaRiver mainstem MU), covering only10 percent of the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin, contain availableloading reductions of more than79 percent for acidity (81,474 lbs/day),nearly 84 percent for iron (17,691lbs/day), and nearly 78 percent foraluminum (5,418 lbs/day) (Table 23).The remaining 23 MUs, covering 56percent of the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin, only comprise availableloading reductions of 20 percent foracidity (21,490 lbs/day), 16 percentfor iron (3,374 lbs/day), and 23 percent foraluminum (1,573 lbs/day).

However, seven of those remaining23 MUs (WBS7, WBS9, AND1, CLCR3,BENB3, BENB4, and BECH1), coveringnearly 21 percent of the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin, still contributesignificant AMD loading to the WestBranch Susquehanna River Subbasin.These seven MUs contain additional

available loading reductions of 10 percentfor acidity, nearly 13 percent for iron,and more than 17 percent for aluminum.

As shown in Table 23, 8 of the11 priority MUs are located in onlythree watersheds of the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin: Moshannon Creek,Clearfield Creek, and Bennett BranchSinnemahoning Creek. These threewatersheds alone contain more than 69percent of the available acidity loading,more than 76 percent of the availableiron loading, and more than 68 percentof the available aluminum loading.

Discharges “Adjacent”to Federal and State

Priority I and II Health and Safety Problem Sites

Of the 1,964 total discharges locatedin the database, 558 discharges (morethan 28 percent) are within one-quartermile of a Priority I and II site. A majorityof these discharges (70 percent) arelocated in the Clearfield Creek andBennett Branch Sinnemahoning CreekWatersheds, and along the mainstemof the West Branch Susquehanna River.Water quality loads were not calculatedfor these discharges since 345 of the 558within one-quarter mile of a Priority Ior II site, or nearly 62 percent, do notmeet the analytical criteria.

Of the 788 discharges meeting theanalytical criteria, 213 (27 percent) are withinone-quarter mile of a Priority I and II site.These 213 discharges contribute 14,535gallons per minute (gpm) of flow, withpredicted available loading reductions of31,453 lbs/day of acidity, 3,279 lbs/dayiron, and 2,410 lbs/day of aluminum.

A majority of the analytical criteriadischarge flow and loading located within

one-quarter mileof a Priority I orII site are foundin only five ofthe 34 MUs.CLCR4, MOSH1,AND1, BENB2,and BENB3 con-tain 66 percentof the flow, 81

percent of the acidity loading, 87 percentof the iron loading, and 81 percent of

MU Acid Load Percentage Fe Load Percentage Al Load Percentagelbs/day % lbs/day % lbs/day %

CLCR1 4,943 4.80 622 2.95 457 6.54CLCR2 2,737 2.66 460 2.1 8 176 2.52CLCR4 13,12 3 12.75 3,049 14. 47 749 10.71CLCR5 8,060 7.83 1,111 5.27 482 6.89MOSH1 10,381 10.08 694 3.29 905 12.95MOSH2 19,862 19.29 8,163 38.75 1,069 15.29BENB1 3,067 2.98 905 4.30 189 2.70BENB2 9,200 8.94 1,112 5.28 729 10.43KETL2 3,661 3.56 453 2.1 5 302 4.32BECH2 3,577 3.47 587 2.79 164 2.35WBS2 2,863 2.78 535 2.54 196 2.80

Predicted Reductions 81, 4 74 79 .1 3 17,6 91 83. 9 8 5,418 77. 5 0Remaining 23 MUs 21, 4 9 0 20. 87 3,374 16. 0 2 1,573 22. 5 0

Table 23. The Eleven MUs, Covering only Ten Percent of the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin, that Contain Nearly 80 Percent of the AMD Loading.

Table 24. The Five MUs Containing the Majority of the Analytical Criteria Discharge Flow and Loading Within One-Quarter Mile from a Priority I or II Site.

33

MU Watershed Flow Percent Acid Load Percent Fe Load Percent Al Load PercentGPM % lbs/day % lbs/day % lbs/day %

CLCR4 Clear f ield Creek 3,265 22.5 9,745 31.0 1,857 56.6 598 24.8MOSH1 Moshannon Creek 2,072 14.3 8,599 27.3 575 17.5 757 31. 4BENB2 Bennett Branch 3,440 23.7 4,572 14.5 172 5.2 383 15.9AND1 Anderson Creek 447 3.1 1,458 4.6 164 5.0 130 5.4

BENB3 Bennett Branch 3 8 1 2.6 1,077 3.4 76 2.3 77 3.2Total 9 , 6 0 5 66.1 2 5 , 4 51 80.9 2,844 86.7 1,945 80 .7

Remaining 29 MUs 4 , 9 3 0 33.9 6 , 0 0 2 19.1 435 13.3 465 19 .3

Figure 9. Acid Loading Yield in Each West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin MU.

Figure 10. Iron Loading Yield in Each West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin MU.

J. Z

imm

erm

anJ.

Zim

mer

man

34

the aluminum loading within one-quarter mile of a Priority I or II site(Table 24).

The potential exists for three otherMUs to improve with Priority I and IIsite restoration, since a majority of theiranalytical criteria discharges are withinone-quarter mile of a Priority I or II site(Table 25). However, the possibleimprovement of these three MUs throughAML reclamation would not improve the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin substantially since these MUsdo not impact the subbasin with a high percentage ofAMD loading.

The percent land coverage of Priority I and II Healthand Safety Problem Sites in each MU can be found inFigure 12.

In addition, total AML coverage (Priority I, II, and IIIsites) is generally concentrated in the same areas as theAMD loading (Table 7). The Clearfield Creek, MoshannonCreek, and Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning CreekWatersheds contain 51 percent of the total AML acreagein the entire West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin. The11 priority MUs in Table 22, which cover only 10 percent ofthe West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin, contain 46 percentof the AML acreage.

% Total % Total % TotalMU Discharge MU Discharge MU Discharge

MU Watershed Acid Load Within Fe Load Within AL Load WithinOne-Quarter Mile One-Quarter Mile One-Quarter MileMile of PI or PII Mile of PI or PII Mile of PI or PII

CHST1 Chest Creek 74 90 80CHST2 Chest Creek 100 51 70WBS6 West Branch 83 100 83

Table 25. Three West Branch MUs with a Majority of Their Analytical Criteria Discharges Within One-Quarter Mile of a Priority I or II Site.

Figure 11. Aluminum Loading Yield in Each West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin MU.

Hazardous highwall in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.

M. S

mith

J. Z

imm

erm

an

35

Remining is the extraction of remaining coal reservesfrom previously mined areas through surface mining methods.When an area is remined, it must be reclaimed to currentenvironmental standards and completed in such a way thatabandoned mine drainage from previously mined areas willbe abated wherever possible. Because the mining of remainingcoal reserves pays for the cost of remining, the resultingreclamation is done at no cost to the taxpayer and withoutspending any of the Abandoned Mine Land Fund.

Remining will be an important component of any strategyto restore the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin. Since2000, remining permits and contracts issued by thePennsylvania Department of Environmental Protectionprovided for the reclamation of approximately 2,700 acres ofabandoned surface mines, and the elimination of 38 miles ofabandoned highwall. The estimated value of this reclamation,if it were publicly funded, is nearly $17 million.

What does this reclamation equate to in terms of water qualityimprovement? Simply eliminating abandoned pits and regradingand revegetation of the surface can markedly decrease flows

of water into acid bearing rock. Eliminating undergroundmine voids and using lime in backfills are also effective at reducingAMD loads. A recent study of more than 100 remining sites inPennsylvania showed that, on average, remining operationsreduced acidity loading by 61 percent, iron loading by 35 percent,and aluminum loading by 43 percent (Smith et. al., 2002).

In another example, recent studies by Hedin Environmental(2007) in the lower Kettle Creek Watershed have shown thatcontaminated baseflow contributes 30-50 percent of the pollutionloads to the Twomile Run Watershed. As a result, reliance upononly conventional “collect and treat” methods of the point sourcedischarges would not lead to successful stream recovery. Reclamationthrough remining must be part of the overall remediation strategy asit is the only way to effectively address the contaminated baseflow.

Michael Smith, District Mining ManagerPennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Amy Wolfe, Abandoned Mine Programs DirectorTrout Unlimited

Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative and the West Branch

Figure 12. Percent Land Coverage of Priority I and II Health and Safety Problem Sites in Each West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin MU.

J. Z

imm

erm

an

36

Analysis of Wild Trout StreamsImpaired by AMD or Acid

Deposition

Upon analysis, 48 focus watersheds inthe West Branch Susquehanna Subbasinare documented by PFBC as having, at a minimum, sections with Wild Trout designation and sections documented by PADEP as being impaired by AMD or acid deposition. These 48 focus watersheds contain nearly 634 miles ofWild Trout classification, nearly 99 milesof Class A designations, and nearly 55miles of Wilderness Trout designations.However, PADEP has also listed these 48focus watersheds as impaired due toAMD (438 miles) and/or acid deposition (89 miles). The 48 focus watersheds cover nearly 1,540 square miles (22 percent) ofthe West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.The location of these watersheds andtheir EBTJV Brook Trout PopulationStatus classification can be found inFigure 13.

It is important to note that 24 of these48 focus watersheds (50 percent) are located between Anderson Creek andSinnemahoning Creek, generallyconsidered the most impaired section ofthe West Branch Susquehanna River.Biological recolonizers are already presentin these streams. Restoration of AMDand/or acid deposition impairment couldpromote biological reconnection with theWest Branch Susquehanna River mainstem.

In addition, 29 of these 48 focus watersheds (60 percent) are located in thePA WILDS section of the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin. Many of thesestreams may be located within publiclands, which may allow restoration tooccur more easily in order to promoterecreation.

According to the EBTJV Brook TroutPopulation Status classifications, brooktrout have been extirpated in 6.5 percentof the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin. Only 3.7 percent of the subbasin is classified as containing alarge/strong population, with 29.5 percentand 54.7 percent of the subbasin classifiedas containing depressed and severelydepressed populations, respectively. Theremaining 5.6 percent is either classifiedas containing only qualitative presence ofbrook trout populations or no data.

Hypothetical Examples for West Branch Susquehanna River

Subbasin Remediation

The results using the approachoutlined in this document targetedthe largest AMD sources in the WestBranch Susquehanna River Subbasin.The examples represent only one set ofpotential options for water qualityrestoration. As described in the methodssection, the examples included theWest Branch Susquehanna RiverHeadwaters, select MUs within themajor contributing tributaries, and theClearfield Creek Watershed.

The analysis of treatment costs onlyconsidered active or passive technologyapplied to discharges meeting theanalytical criteria. The projected costsfor the Barnes and Watkins Coal RefuseRemoval Project and the Lancashire #15(Barnes and Tucker) Active AMDTreatment Plant were provided byPADEP BAMR. Land reclamation andremining that would lead to possiblewater quality improvements were notconsidered in the cost estimates.Treatment costs displayed are notintended to represent costs for completeWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasinrestoration, since there are data gapsfor parts of the subbasin.

WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNARIVER HEADWATERS

Load reductions from the removalof the Barnes and Watkins coal refusepile were estimated using waterquality samples collected upstreamand downstream of the pile. Predictedloading reductions are 9,217 lbs/day ofacidity, 594 lbs/day of iron, and 1,143lbs/day of aluminum. The $4.8 millioncost for this effort has already been fundedby the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Acidity-load reductions from theaddition of the Lancashire #15 (Barnes andTucker Discharge) AMD Treatment Plantwere estimated based on informationprovided by PADEP BAMR. The predictedacidity-loading reductions are 16,695 lbs/day.Iron and aluminum concentrationswill also be reduced with the additionof about 5,000 gpm of treated effluentto the West Branch. Just downstreamof the entry of the future planteffluent near Watkins, Cambria County(RM 238.1), iron and aluminumconcentrations are predicted to bereduced by nearly 77 percent and49 percent, respectively. The projectedcost of this active AMD treatment plant atthe time of this publication is between$8-11 million, with SRBC providing anadditional $3.9 million for the 10 milliongallons per day that will be added to theWest Branch Susquehanna River for aportion of the agricultural consumptiveuse mitigation. This $3.9 million willbe used to establish a trust fund toprovide assistance for continued O&M.

Load reductions from the restorationof the Bear Run Watershed werecalculated by adding the reductionsof all eight AMD treatment systemconstruction phases recommended bythe Bear Run Restoration Plan (Clark,2006). Completion of these eight phasescould lead to loading reductions of2,052 lbs/day of acidity, 298 lbs/day ofiron, and 62 lbs/day of aluminum.

Load reductions from the restorationof WBS1 were calculated by adding thereductions of all 14 discharges meetinganalytical criteria. Treatment of these14 discharges could lead to loadingreductions of 471 lbs/day of acidity, 49 lbs/day of iron, and 34 lbs/day of aluminum.

“

”

Only 3.7 percent of the subbasin is classified as containing a large/

strong population [of trout],with 29.5 percent and

54.7 percent of the subbasin classified as containing depressed

and severely depressed populations, respectively.

37

Figure 13. Watersheds with Documented Acid/AMD Impairment and Wild Trout in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.

J. Z

imm

erm

an

38

Load reductions from the restorationof WBS2 were calculated by adding thereductions of all 13 discharges meetinganalytical criteria. Treatment of these 13discharges could lead to loading reductionsof 2,863 lbs/day of acidity, 535 lbs/dayof iron, and 196 lbs/day of aluminum.

Load reductions from the completerestoration of Anderson Creek (AND1and AND2) were calculated by addingthe reductions of all 16 dischargesmeeting analytical criteria. Treatmentof these 16 discharges could lead toloading reductions of 1,664 lbs/dayof acidity, 184 lbs/day of iron, and150 lbs/day of aluminum.

All projected construction andO&M costs can be found in Table 26.

WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNARIVER HEADWATERS – WATER

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

The West Branch SusquehannaRiver Headwaters example shows

approximately four river miles shiftingfrom net acidic to net alkaline. Netacidic sections are limited in the head-waters due to the acidity bufferingcapacity of several large alkalinedischarges entering the West BranchSusquehanna River in the vicinity of thetown of Northern Cambria, CambriaCounty. However, a generous surplus ofalkalinity would greatly improve about58 additional river miles prior to theconfluence of Clearfield Creek. Forexample, near Cherry Tree, IndianaCounty (RM 228.4), the predictednet alkalinity of the West BranchSusquehanna River could be increasedby nearly 73 percent after completion ofrestoration activities in the headwaters(Table 26 and Figures 14 and 15).However, significant sections of the WestBranch Susquehanna River, particularlybetween Moshannon Creek and BaldEagle Creek, would still be consideredacid sensitive (net alkalinity < 20 mg/l).

For example, after restoration of theheadwaters, the predicted net alkalinitydownstream of Moshannon Creek(RM 132.6) could be only 12 mg/l.

Iron concentrations are predicted todrop below the water quality standard(1.50 mg/l) for approximately 13 rivermiles of the West Branch SusquehannaRiver. The headwaters example showsthat nearly 86 percent (more than210 river miles) of the West BranchSusquehanna River could meet thewater quality standard for iron(Table 26 and Figures 16 and 17).

Aluminum concentrations arepredicted to drop below the waterquality standard (0.75 mg/l) for about79 river miles of the West BranchSusquehanna River. The headwatersexample shows that more than 32 percentof the West Branch Susquehanna Rivercould meet the water quality standardfor aluminum (Table 26 and Figures 18and 19).

West Branch Susquehanna River HeadwatersProject Watershed Acid Load Fe Load Al Load Removal Cost Construction Capital O&M Costs

lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day Million $ Million $ Million $/YearBarnes and Watkins West Branch 9 , 217 594 1 , 1 4 3 4.80Lancashire #15 West Branch 16,695 - - 8.00 - 11.00 na*Bear Run West Branch 2,052 298 62 0.77 - 1.67 0.08 - 0.12WBS1 West Branch 471 49 34 0.55 - 0.73 0.03 - 0.11WBS2 West Branch 2,863 535 196 1.05 - 4.24 0.19 - 0.20AND1 Anderson Creek 1, 472 163 131 0.63 - 2.26 0.11 - 0.12AND2 Anderson Creek 192 21 19 0.34 - 0.40 0.02 - 0.06Total 3 2 , 9 6 2 1,660 1 , 5 8 5 4.80 11.34 - 20.30 0.43 - 0.61+

Major TributariesProject Watershed Acid Load Fe Load Al Load Removal Cost Construction Capital O&M Costs

lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day Million $ Million $ Million $/YearCLCR1 Clear f ield Creek 4 , 9 4 3 622 457 2.57 - 11.06 0.40 - 0.53CLCR2 Clear f ield Creek 2 , 737 460 176 1.36 - 4.18 0.20 - 0.25CLCR4 Clear f ield Creek 13 ,12 3 3,049 749 3.32 - 23.06 0.72 - 1.10CLCR5 Clear f ield Creek 8 , 0 6 0 1 ,111 482 6.29 - 12.68 0.60 - 1.18MOSH1 Moshannon Creek 10 , 3 81 694 905 3.28 - 15.87 0.72 - 0.75MOSH2 Moshannon Creek 19 , 8 6 2 8 ,16 3 1,069 4.39 - 41.76 1.05 - 1.98BENB1 Bennett Branch 3 , 0 67 905 189 0.71 - 4.42 0.16 - 0.21BENB2 Bennett Branch 9 , 2 0 0 1 ,112 729 2.65 - 15.93 0.53 - 0.76KETL2 Kettle Creek 3 , 6 61 453 302 1.67 - 5.43 0.25 - 0.34BECH2 Beech Creek 3 , 57 7 587 164 1.06 - 5.24 0.22 - 0.25Total 7 8 , 6 1 1 17 ,1 5 6 5 , 2 2 2 0.00 27.30 - 139.63 4.85 - 7.35

Complete Total 111 , 5 7 3 18 , 816 6 , 8 0 7 4.80 38.64 - 159.93 5.28 - 7.96+

Table 26. Description of the Headwaters and Major Tributaries Remediation Examples with Predicted Load Reductions, Capital Cost Ranges, and Yearly Operation and Maintenance Cost Ranges.

* Exact operation and maintenance costs for the Lancashire #15 (Barnes and Tucker)Discharge Active Treatment Plant are not known at the time of drafting this remediation strategy publication.

39

40

Figure 14. Map Showing Changes in Net Alkalinity Concentration from Present Conditions to Completion of Headwaters and Major Tributaries Remediation Examples.

Figure 15. The Predicted Alkalinity Concentration and Loading Improvement for the West BranchSusquehanna River at a Station Just Upstream of the Entry of Bald Eagle Creek After Completion of Headwaters and Major Tributaries Remediation Examples.

J. Z

imm

erm

an

MAJOR TRIBUTARIES

As mentioned previously, the examplefor the major tributaries focuses on thetop ranked tributary MUs based uponAMD loading and loading yields.This example attempts restoration alongthe section of the West BranchSusquehanna River from the entry ofClearfield Creek to Pine Creek nearWilliamsport, Lycoming County. Massbalance projections indicate this sectionwould still be considered acid sensitive,and would contain sections that haveiron and aluminum concentrationsgreater than the water quality standardfor each, even after the completion ofrestoration activities in the headwatersof the West Branch. Projected loadingreductions and costs for each of theseMUs can be found in Table 26.

Although the tributaries examplewould increase net alkalinity loadingssignificantly from the entry of ClearfieldCreek to the mouth of the West BranchSusquehanna River, the extent of theAMD loading contributed throughoutthis section prevents an acceptablelevel of water quality restoration to beachieved, especially in terms of convertingacid sensitive stretches into alkaline“rich” stretches (Figure 14). However,iron and aluminum loadings are greatlyreduced, and in some cases would dropbelow water quality standards for manymiles of the West Branch.

MAJOR TRIBUTARIES — WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

With the West Branch SusquehannaRiver predicted to have net alkalineconcentrations throughout its entirelength after completion of the headwatersexample, the major tributaries exampleattempts to demonstrate the potentialfor increasing the buffering capacity forthe acid sensitive stretches of riverbetween Alder Run (RM 143.5) and PineCreek (RM 55.6). The goal for thisexample was to achieve alkalinityconcentrations greater than 20 mg/l.The mass balance projections fall

short of this target, but still improveconditions significantly. For example,predicted alkalinity concentrations at astation upstream of Bald Eagle Creek(RM 68.7) could be increased by more than23 percent from conditions under theheadwaters example. A 23 percent increasein net alkalinity in this section of theWest Branch is extremely significantconsidering the volume of flow (Figure 15).

Iron concentrations are predicted todrop below the water quality standard(1.50 mg/l) for nearly 36 additionalriver miles. After completing thetributaries example, the entire WestBranch Susquehanna River shouldmeet the water quality standard foriron (Figures 16 and 17).

Aluminum concentrations arepredicted to drop below the water qualitystandard (0.75 mg/l) for an additional16 river miles. After completing thetributaries example, nearly 55 percent(more than 134 river miles) of the WestBranch Susquehanna River shouldmeet the water quality standard foraluminum (Figures 18 and 19).

FOCUSED WATERSHEDAPPROACH — CLEARFIELD

CREEK WATERSHED

As mentioned in the methodssection, the Clearfield Creek exampledemonstrates potential improvementstargeting AMD sources at a smallerscale. Results focus on treatment ofthe Cresson #9 discharge, the Gallitzin#10 discharge, the Gallitzin Shaft MineComplex, and the Dean Clay Mine.

The Cresson and Gallitzin dischargesare all located within the headwatersof Clearfield Creek. Using treatmenteffluent projections based upon loadingof the current discharges and effluentprojections of a similar style activetreatment plant that will be built to treatthe Lancashire #15 (Barnes and Tucker)Discharge, the treatment of the Cressonand Gallitzin discharges has thecapability of removing nearly 1,200 lbs/dayof acidity, more than 200 lbs/day ofiron, and 90 lbs/day of aluminum. Inaddition, the treated effluent could addup to 1,400 lbs/day of alkalinity.

Brubaker Run enters ClearfieldCreek at Dean, Cambria County, andrepresents the largest acid source enteringthe southern half of Clearfield Creek.Three abandoned clay mines are themajor sources of acid to Brubaker Run.One of these major abandoned claymine discharges, the Dean Mine,enters untreated into Brubaker Run.Watershed volunteers have monitoredthe Dean Clay Mine discharge since2002. The flow from the abandonedclay mine averages around 250 gpm.The pH of the water is 3.1 withconcentrations of 180 mg/l of iron,13-25 mg/l of aluminum, and an acidityof 400-700 mg/l (Clearfield CreekWatershed Association, 2007).

Studies completed by the ClearfieldCreek Watershed Association recommendsome additional study to verify thesource of water fueling the DeanClay Mine discharge, followed by acombination of mine sealing, grouting,and treatment of the remaining flow.

CLEARFIELD CREEKWATERSHED — WATER

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Even though the Clearfield CreekWatershed is one of the most AMD-impaired tributaries of the West BranchSusquehanna River, it is able toassimilate the entering acidity loading,remaining net alkaline from headwatersto mouth. However, the treatment of theCresson #9, Gallitzin #10, Gallitzin Shaft,and Dean AMD discharges does improvethe net alkalinity greatly since there arestretches of Clearfield Creek consideredto be acid sensitive (alkalinities less than20 mg/l). For example, the net alkalinityof instream station CLCR 14, which isdownstream of the Cresson and Gallitzindischarges, may increase 34 percent (32 mg/lto 43 mg/l). In addition, the net alkalinityof CLCR 10, collected below the confluencewith Brubaker Run, may increase by asmuch as 40 percent (15 mg/l to 21 mg/l).

The projected iron concentrationalong the Clearfield Creek mainstemafter completion of the headwaters andBrubaker examples shows the mostsignificant improvement. Currently,

41Continued on page 44

Figure 16. Map Showing Changes in IronConcentration from Present Conditions to Completion of Headwaters and Major Tributaries Remediation Examples.

Figure 17. The Predicted Iron Concentration and Loading Improvement for the West Branch Susquehanna River at a Station Just Upstream of the Entry of Bald Eagle Creek After Completion of Headwaters and Major Tributaries Remediation Examples.

42

J. Z

imm

erm

an

43

Figure 18. Map Showing Changes in Aluminum Concentration from Present Conditions to Completion of Headwaters and Major Tributaries Remediation Examples.

Figure 19. The Predicted Aluminum Concentration and Loading Improvement for the West BranchSusquehanna River at a Station Just Upstream of the Entry of Bald Eagle Creek After Completion of Headwaters and Major Tributaries Remediation Examples.

J. Z

imm

erm

an

29 miles of Clearfield Creek (~ 45 percent)exceed the 1.5 mg/l water quality standardfor iron. The restoration of those areaswould result in slightly more than ninestream miles exceeding the water qualitystandard, or a reduction of impairedmiles by 31 percent (Figure 20).

The most significant improvementmay be found at CLCR 09, near FallenTimber, Cambria County, where iron

concentrations may decrease nearly78 percent (1.43 mg/l to 0.32 mg/l).

Currently, the first 24 miles(~37 percent) of the Clearfield Creekmainstem contain aluminum concen-trations above the PADEP waterquality standard of 0.75 mg/l. Aftercompletion of the two restorationexamples, the length of the mainstemwith concentrations above the water

quality standard for aluminum decreasesto 16 stream miles, or a reduction of12 percent.

The most significant improvementmay be found at CLCR 13, at theState Route 53 Bridge near Ashville,Cambria County, where aluminumconcentrations could decrease nearly38 percent from 1.09 mg/l to 0.68 mg/l.

Figure 20. Map Showing Potential Improvements in Iron Concentration for Clearfield Creek.

J. Z

imm

erm

an

44

Documents

METHODS - WBSRCClearfield Creek Watershed Assessment and the Anderson Creek Assessment, Restoration, and Implementation Plan. ... focused on data characterization and data gap analysis