West Branch Susquehanna River Task Force

Publication 254May 2008

A Report Produced by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission in Partnership with the West Branch

Susquehanna River Task Force.

For More Information, Contact: Thomas Clark, AMD Project Coordinator

(717) 238-0423 ext. 114tclark@srbc.net

■ INTRODUCTION

The West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin, draining a 6,978-square-milearea in northcentral Pennsylvania, is thelargest of the six major subbasins inthe Susquehanna River Basin (Figure 1).

The West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin is one of extreme contrasts. Whileit has some of the Commonwealth’smost pristine and treasured waterways,including 1,249 miles of ExceptionalValue streams and scenic forestlandsand mountains, it also unfortunatelybears the legacy of pastunregulated mining. With1,205 miles of waterwaysimpaired by AMD, it is themost AMD-impaired regionof the entire SusquehannaRiver Basin (Figure 2).

At its most degradedsites, the West BranchSusquehanna River containsacidity concentrations ofnearly 200 milligrams perliter (mg/l), and iron andaluminum concentrations ofmore than 17 and nearly 27 mg/l,respectively. Instream loadings of iron and aluminum downstream of MoshannonCreek – the most AMD-impacted West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin tributary –are more than 7,000 tons/year and nearly 5,000 tons/year, respectively.

M. S

mith

West Branch Susquehanna SubbasinAMD Remediation Strategy:

Background, Data Assessment and Method Development

All the water quality data collected for this project are organized in ageodatabase that allows the user to view the data geographically with a combinationof layers, including abandoned mine land features, impaired stream segments,regional geology, regional land use, political and watershed boundaries, and others.

This geodatabase, in combination with spreadsheet tools, can be manipulatedby the user to simulate treatment for single or clusters of AMD discharges. Thisprocess can be used to calculate instream concentration and loading projectionsfor post-discharge treatment. This technique allows the user to predict potentialimprovements after restoration strategies are completed, which can be helpfulwhen prioritizing projects.

This report contains demonstrations on the use of these tools to determinepotential remediation strategies for the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.

Despite the enormous legacyof pollution from abandoned minedrainage (AMD) in the WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin,there has been mounting supportand enthusiasm for a fully restoredwatershed. Under the leadershipof Governor Edward G. Rendelland with support fromTrout Unlimited, PennsylvaniaDepartment of EnvironmentalProtection Secretary KathleenMcGinty established the WestBranch Susquehanna River TaskForce (Task Force) in 2004.

The goal of the Task Force is toassist and advise the department andits partners as they work towardthe long-term goal to remediate theregion’s AMD.

The Task Force is comprisedof state, federal, and regionalagencies, Trout Unlimited, andother conservation and watershedorganizations (members are identifiedby their logos on the back page).It first convened on September 10,2004, and among its early actions,the Task Force recognized theneed for a comprehensive AMDremediation strategy for the WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin.

Products and Tools of the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin AMD Remediation Strategy

Abandoned mine lands in Clearfield County.

Pristine setting along the West Branch Susquehanna River.

A. G

avin

These pollutants degradethe environment and limit theuse of the river as a resource.These losses are not justlimited to biology, habitat,and recreation, but affecthuman health and the region’ssocioeconomics as well.

A long-term goal of fullyrestoring the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin isextremely challenging andambitious, especially in light offunding limitations. Membersof the Task Force determinedthat a coordinated effort willbe critical, starting with aremediation strategy for theAMD-affected areas.

The Susquehanna RiverBasin Commission (SRBC) wasasked to develop an approach to reviewremediation alternatives and theirimpact on improving water qualityin the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin. Funding was provided byTU and Pennsylvania’s Department ofEnvironmental Protection (PADEP)and Department of Conservation andNatural Resources (PADCNR).

PADEP Bureau of Abandoned MineReclamation (BAMR) has estimated that

the capital cost to treat all sources of AMDimpacting the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin could range from $279 millionto $464 million, not including annualoperation and maintenance associatedwith the necessary treatment systems(West Branch Susquehanna RiverTask Force, 2005). At the funding levelscurrently available for AMD restorationprojects, it would take decadesto address all of the West Branch

Figure 2. Abandoned Mine Land Problem Areas and Abandoned Mine Drainage Impaired Streams in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.

Figure 1. The Six Subbasins of the Susquehanna River Basin.

J. Z

imm

erm

an

In 1998, Trout Unlimited (TU),an organization committed tothe conservation, protection, andrestoration of North America’scoldwater fisheries, embraced thesignificance of AMDproblems in the KettleCreek Watershed in ClintonCounty as a componentof its nationally renownedHome Rivers Initiative. Since then,TU has been the lead catalyst, workingin close partnership with the local KettleCreek Watershed Association to addresssevere AMD problems that plague thelower Kettle Creek Watershed. TU andits partners have conducted numerousassessments and developed restorationplans, completed construction of multiplereclamation and remediation projects, andare currently in the planning phases forseveral more treatment projects and landreclamation projects through remining.

While still actively involved withAMD cleanup in the Kettle CreekWatershed, TU took its AMD remedi-ation work to the next level andestablished the West BranchSusquehanna Restoration Initiative in2004, which is aimed at the restorationof coldwater streams and theultimate recovery of the West BranchSusquehanna River. As the leadnon-profit organization for thisinitiative, TU is working with numerouslocal, state, and federal governmentand non-government organizations ona coordinated, strategic, and cost-effectiveAMD cleanup approach for the entireriver basin. TU is also providingorganizational support to the WestBranch Susquehanna RestorationCoalition, a group that represents thecollective efforts of watershed groups,TU chapters, county conservationdistricts, businesses, and others thatare working to address AMD problemsthroughout the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin.

Amy Wolfe, Abandoned Mine ProgramsDirector, Trout Unlimited

J. Z

imm

erm

an

West Branch Susquehanna RestorationInitiative and Trout Unlimited

2

Susquehanna Subbasin’s AMD problems.Accordingly, SRBC took those factorsinto account and developed theremediation strategy as a guide to helpresource agencies and organizationsachieve comprehensive, region-wideenvironmental results over the long term.

SRBC developed the strategyusing pre-existing (historical) dataand information compiled from awide range of sources to characterizeexisting conditions in the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin. From the outset,the purpose of this strategy was toavoid duplicating the efforts of otheragencies and organizations in theirproblem-identification and problem-prioritization initiatives. Instead, the goalwas to help identify overlapping goalsand opportunities for remediationefforts. To maximize resources, SRBCcoordinated strategy efforts whiledeveloping a Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) assessment for West BranchSusquehanna River AMD impairments.

Scope of the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin

AMD Remediation Strategy

The strategy focuses on water qualityand targets opportunities for improvingexisting conditions. At the outset, SRBCdivided the scope of work into thefollowing three major categories toensure an effective and efficient process:

Formulate Scope of Work -

SRBC was to develop the Scope ofWork based on input from TU, PADEP,PADCNR, Task Force, and West BranchSusquehanna Restoration Coalition(Coalition). Information was gatheredthrough meetings with agency and TUtechnical staff and citizen representativesand SRBC used the input to develop adatabase, model, and prioritizationscheme. SRBC assisted with the coordi-nation and planning process with respect toacquiring Task Force input, either as a groupor with separate meetings of individualentities. At a minimum, SRBC met quarterlywith Task Force members. In addition,SRBC promoted Task Force goals andencouraged additional partnerships with

other relevant entities through-out the process of developingthe West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin AMD RemediationStrategy.

Inventory and AnalyzeWater Quality Data -

SRBC was to compile pre-existing information relatedto water quality using bothinstream data and AMDdischarge data. PADEPBAMR and District MiningOperations were the twoprimary sources of information; however,other relevant datasets were incorporatedas certain data standards were met.SRBC designed and maintained thedatabase, based on input received fromTask Force members. The database containsother subbasin information importantto the project, such as extent of activeand abandoned mining areas, facilitycontact information, and information on thereceiving waters. SRBC used all the infor-mation gathered for the project to formulateoptions when developing the model.

Develop a Database, Model, and Final Report -

SRBC was to develop an integrateddatabase and model that applies thecompiled information to determine existingwater quality conditions. Dependingon scale considerations, instream anddischarge water quality conditions were tobe characterized according to severity andextent of influence. The final model has thecapability to simulate changes to waterquality conditions given a select numberof potential water quality improvementoptions. Input for those options was tobe acquired from Task Force members.In addition, SRBC was responsible fordeveloping a process to maintain andupdate the database and model asconditions change in the watershed.

SRBC participated in several meetingswith stakeholders to gather the informationused to develop the database and model.More than 20 organizations, representinggovernment, industry, and citizen groups,contributed data for the strategy.

■ DESCRIPTION OF THE WEST BRANCH

SUSQUEHANNA SUBBASINThe West Branch Susquehanna

Subbasin drains 6,978 square miles ofall or portions of 22 counties: Blair,Bradford, Cambria, Cameron, Centre,Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Elk,Indiana, Jefferson, Huntingdon, Lycoming,McKean, Montour, Northumberland,Potter, Snyder, Sullivan, Tioga, Union,and Wyoming Counties. The largerdeveloped areas include Bellefonte,Clearfield, Lewisburg, Lock Haven,Montoursville, Renovo, State College,Wellsboro, and Williamsport.

The West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin contains 17 major watersheds.Listed in order from headwaters to theconfluence with the Susquehanna River,they include Chest Creek, Anderson Creek,Clearfield Creek, Moshannon Creek,Mosquito Creek, Sinnemahoning Creek,Kettle Creek, Young Woman’s Creek,Bald Eagle Creek, Pine Creek, Larry’sCreek, Lycoming Creek, Loyalsock Creek,Muncy Creek, White Deer Hole Creek,Buffalo Creek, and Chillisquaque Creek.

The subbasin is dominated byforested land (about 83 percent or

~5,800 square miles) (Figure 3).Agriculture accounts for about 10 percent(~700 square miles) of the subbasin.The remaining seven percent (~500square miles) of land use is developedand disturbed lands, where most of theabandoned mine land (AML) impactsexist. Land use is primarily rural,containing more than 1.4 million acres

3

Winter in the West Branch.

S. B

uda

of state forest land, more than 280,000acres of state game lands, and nearly28,000 acres of state park land.

The average annual precipitationis about 40 inches. The region ischaracterized by warm summers andlong, cold winters. Temperatures changefrequently and sometimes rapidly.

The headwaters of the West BranchSusquehanna River are located in WestCarroll Township, near Carrolltown,Cambria County. This area lies withinthe Appalachian Plateau PhysiographicProvince. From its origins, the riverflows north into Clearfield County,turns northeast to Renovo, ClintonCounty, then turns southeast to LockHaven, Clinton County. At Lock Haven,the West Branch Susquehanna Rivercuts through the Allegheny Front andturns to the northeast to flow along thenorthern flank of Bald Eagle Mountainto Muncy, Lycoming County. At Muncy,the river turns south and flows toward itsconfluence with the Susquehanna Riverat Northumberland, NorthumberlandCounty. The total length of the WestBranch Susquehanna River mainstemfrom headwaters to the confluence withthe Susquehanna River is about 245 miles.

At an average slope of about 0.14percent, the elevation of the river drops1,800 feet from the headwaters to theconfluence with the Susquehanna River.

Coal Geology of the West Branch

Susquehanna Subbasin

About 60 percent (~4,200 squaremiles) of the subbasin is underlain bysandstone rock. The remaining 40 percent(~2,800 square miles) of the subbasin isunderlain by inter-bedded sedimentaryrock, which can include sandstone,shale, limestone, and coal.

Coal in the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin is found in three geologicunits: the Conemaugh, Allegheny, andPottsville (Figure 4).

The Conemaugh Group isstratigraphically defined as the rockslocated between the Upper FreeportCoal horizon (lower elevation) and thePittsburgh Coal (Edmunds et al., 1998).

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI)ARRI is a coalition of groups dedicated to restoring productive forests on

coal mined lands in the Eastern United States. ARRI partners pledge to promotethe three goals of the initiative: (1) planting more high-value hardwood trees onreclaimed surface mines in Appalachia; (2) increasing the survival rates andgrowth rates of trees planted; and (3) expediting the establishment of foresthabitat through natural succession.

Research conducted by several leading universities has confirmed that highlyproductive forestland can be created on reclaimed mine lands when proper sitepreparation and tree species are used. ARRI advocates these techniques with afive-step reclamation process called the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA).The ARRI Team and other state and federal regulators have determined that allfacets of the FRA comply with existing laws and regulations.

The five steps of the FRA are: (1) restoring a suitable rooting medium usingtopsoil and/or the best available material; (2) preventing or minimizingcompaction of the top four feet of backfill material; (3) using vegetative species asground cover compatible with growing trees; (4) planting early successional andcommercially valuable tree species; and (5) using proper tree planting techniques.

Prior to being mined forcoal, the majority of the landin Appalachia was forested.Coal mining activities haveconverted thousands of acresto other habitats, includingcrop land, pasture, andunmanaged wildlife areas.Decades of federal and statemining and reclamationregulations and practices havepromoted site stability anderosion control by compactingthe mine spoil, which is usedto backfill pits and highwalls,

and planting thick grasses and other vegetative species. These traditionalreclamation methods have worked against the successful restoration of forest lands.

The West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin overlies significant deposits ofbituminous coal and continues to be the subject of extensive coal mining activities.In the future, thousands of acres of land will either be newly mined, re-mined orreclaimed through Pennsylvania’s Abandoned Mine Land ReclamationProgram. This represents an enormous opportunity to help assure the return orrestoration of these lands to productive forest use, with the associated benefits ofa healthy and diverse wildlife habitat, improved stream quality and fish habitat,increased recreational and tourism opportunities, and provision of forest products.

ARRI Core Team members in Pennsylvania are David Hamilton of the FederalOffice of Surface Mining, and Doug Saylor of the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection. David can be reached at dhamilton@osmre.gov, (717)782-4036. Doug can be reached at lsaylor@state.pa.us, (814) 342-8200. Contactyour ARRI state representative for any questions or suggestions or visit ARRI’s

web site at http://arri.osmre.gov for further information.

David Hamilton, Program Specialist Molly Sager, Program Specialist Office of Surface Mining

Red oaks growing in an ARRI Forestry ReclamationApproach (FRA) research site in Kentucky.

4

P. A

ngel

The Conemaugh is subdivided intoa lower formation called the Glenshaw,and an upper formation called theCasselman. The division is made at thetop of the Ames Marine Limestone.Economically mineable coals areuncommon in the Conemaugh Group;consequently, so are AMD-related issues.

The Brush Creek Coal, or GallitzinCoal, of the Glenshaw Formation ismineable in portions of the southcentraland southeastern sections of thebituminous coal field; however, thisavailability is rare (Brady, Hornberger,and Fleeger, 1998). Only a few coals of theCasselman Formation are thick enough tomine economically, and they are mainlycentered in the southern and westernportions of Pennsylvania, outside of theWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.

The Allegheny Group contains themajority of economically mineable coalsfound in the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin; consequently, this groupis the source of much of the AMDpollution affecting the subbasin.

The Allegheny Group containsseven important coal seams. Theseseams have been mined to someextent in the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin, and continue to be minedtoday (Table 1). The seams include,from the deepest to shallowest, theBrookville, Clarion, Lower Kittanning,Middle Kittanning, Upper Kittanning,Lower Freeport, and the Upper Freeport(Figure 5) (Reese and Sisler, 1928).

Cambria and Clearfield Countiescontain a majority of the total coalreserves found in the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin, 5,300 and3,920 million short tons, respectively(Table 1) (Dodge and Edmunds, 2003).Two other counties, Indiana andJefferson, also contain large reserves;however, a majority of these twocounties are not in the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin.

Generally, more severe AMD iscreated by the Lower Kittanning,Middle Kittanning, and Clarion seams.While generally less severe and usually

alkaline, AMD also originates from theUpper Kittanning, Upper Freeport, andLower Freeport seams (PennsylvaniaDepartment of Conservation andNatural Resources, 2007).

The Pottsville Formation containsonly one important coal seam, the Mercer,which has been mined in areas of theWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasinand can be very problematic in terms ofAMD production. However, the Mercercoal exhibits lower recoverability thanmost other coal seams, making it lesssignificant in terms of AMD production(Reese and Sisler, 1928).

Clay mining within the WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin isanother source of AMD production,particularly relevant in the ClearfieldCreek and Anderson Creek Watersheds.

Most of the AMD loadingentering the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin is from abandoned undergroundcoal and clay mines.

J. Z

imm

erm

an

Figure 3. Land Use in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.5

J. Z

imm

erm

an

Figure 4. Geologic Units with Extractable Coal in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.6

History of Mining in the West Branch

Susquehanna Subbasin

According to Captain ThomasHutchins, 1760 is the earliest recordof bituminous coal mining inPennsylvania. At that time, a mine wasopened on the Monongahela Riveropposite Fort Pitt, now Pittsburgh(Sisler, 1926).

In the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin, historical records indicatethat in November 1785, Samuel Boydinitiated the idea of furnishing coalto the eastern markets. He purchased atract of land along the West Branch ofthe Susquehanna River about threemiles upstream of Chincleclenoose, nowthe Borough of Clearfield (Sisler, 1926).Samuel's son, William, built an arkin 1803, and in the following spring,loaded this ark with coal andtransported it 260 miles down theWest Branch Susquehanna River andthe Susquehanna River proper toColumbia, Pennsylvania (Sisler, 1926).

In 1813, P. A. Karthaus began miningcoal at the mouth of “Little MoshannonCreek” and in 1828, he commencedsending coal to Philadelphia by way ofPort Deposit, Maryland, through theChesapeake and Delaware Canals(Sisler, 1926). Mr. Karthaus also sentcoal to Baltimore using the Union Canal.This coal sold for 33 cents per bushel.

System Unit Member Character of Member Unit Description

CONE

MAU

GHAL

LEGH

ENY

POTT

SVIL

LE

PENN

SYLV

ANIA

N

LowerMohoning sandstone

Upper Freeport coal

Lower Freeport coal

Freeport s.s.Upper Kittanning coal

Middle Kittanning coal

Lower Kittanning coal

Clarion coal

Brookville coal

Homewood s.s.

Mercer coal

Mercer clay

Sandstone and sandy shale sometimes separated by thin lenses of coal.Red shale occurs - 40' above Upper Freeport.

Widely persistent average thickness 3' to 31/2'.

Variable, average 2' to 21/2' thick.

Thin, about 1' to 11/2' thick.

About 3 seams present at this horizon. Usually 1' to 11/2' thick.

Very persistent. Average thickness 2' to 21/2'.

Thin, variable, about 1' thick.

Thin, variable.

Massive s.s. often separated by shale.

Variable, often several thin bedspresent at this horizon.

Only the upper part of theformation is shown here – about 140'.

A variable sequence of shale,sandstone, limestone, clay, and valuable beds of coal. Average thickness is about 300'.

Only the lower part of theunit is present – about 40'.

Figure 5. A Stratigraphic Column of the Geologic Units Containing Mineable Seams of Coal.

County Coal Mined Out and Lost by 1998 Remaining Coal Reserves by 1998 Total Historic Coal Resource Portion of County in SubbasinMillion Short Tons Million Short Tons Million Short Tons Percent

Indiana 1,200 5,100 6,300 7.5Cambria 1,700 3,600 5,300 40.7Clear f ield 820 3,100 3,920 90.6Jef ferson 510 2,800 3 , 310 0.2Elk 120 430 550 32.7Centre 180 330 510 72.5McKean 1 420 421 2.5Tioga 44 110 154 42.9Clinton 49 65 114 100.0Blair 39 40 79 0.6Lycoming 17 55 72 99.1Cameron 2 59 61 99.7Bradford 21 23 44 2.0Sull ivan 27 8 35 82.9Totals 4,730 16,140 20 ,870

Table 1. Estimated Bituminous and Anthracite In-Place Coal Resources by Counties within the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin (Dodge and Edmunds, 2003).

7

Restoration and conservation efforts over a century in the 12-county northcentral region called the Pennsylvania Wilds havehelped shape the character of the people and the region, and havedefined the region’s legacy of natural resource abundance.

The region has some of the most wild and scenic areas eastof the Rocky Mountains represented by:• More than 1.3 million acres of state forest and 500,000 acres of national forest;• 300,000 acres for hunting and wildlife on more than 50 state game lands;• Twenty-seven state parks and hundreds of miles of recreational trails;• Eight wild areas and 24 natural areas that cover about 150,000 acres;• 16,000 miles of flowing water and three designated Pennsylvania Water Trails

including the 228-mile West Branch;• The largest elk herd in the northeast; and• The darkest skies in the eastern U.S. at Cherry Springs State Park, Potter County.

When the unparalleled and diverse natural resource assets of the region andtheir potential were brought to the attention of Governor Edward G. Rendellback in 2001, the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative was launched as a strategicapproach to protect and conserve these treasured natural resources, enhancevisitor experiences, and revitalize communities in the region.

Today, the vision of the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative is to be well-knownthroughout the country as a region that offers authentic recreational experi-ences, interesting towns, hospitable hosts, and other heritage and culturalattractions in one of the most remote and beautiful settings in the northeast.

The degree of cooperation that is evident in joint funding from multiplestate agencies, combined marketing efforts by tourist promotion agencies,proactive and collaborative planning by counties, and efforts to improve businessdevelopment and support locally-made products is truly refreshing anda national model for how to work together to reap the benefits of nature tourismas an effective economic development strategy.

The West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin, which comprises 48 percent(~ 4,000 square miles) of the Pennsylvania Wilds, is a spectacular natural, scenic, andrecreational resource for the region. Through this first-ever comprehensive cleanupplan to address mine drainage pollution on more than one thousand stream miles inthe subbasin, we are continuing the region’s legacy of restoration and stewardship,ensuring the quality and value of this splendid resource for generations to come.

Michael DiBerardinis, SecretaryPennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative and the West BranchCoal demand in the Pennsylvania

coal fields exploded due to the necessitiesof World War I and the reconstructionof Europe (Figure 6). For instance, thetown of Windber in Somerset Countywas formed by the Berwind-White CoalCompany in 1897. At its height in themid-1900s, the population of Windberswelled to more than 12,000 peoplecomprised mainly of an immigrantworkforce (Clark, 2006). Annual coalproduction in Pennsylvania reached itszenith in 1918, when nearly 276.7 millionshort tons were mined—a record that stooduntil 1996, when Wyoming produced278.4 million short tons (Dodge andEdmunds, 2003). Eventually, however,European countries began to meet theirown production needs and coal pricesfell as world demand for Appalachiancoal declined. This event coincided withthe onset of the Great Depression.

With America’s entry into WorldWar II, coal demand exploded again,and more extensively than the firstboom surrounding World War I. Coalbecame a strategic mineral in winningthe war since it was used to offset fuelneeds due to gas shortages, particularlyfor home heating and transportation.Coal also fueled the steel mills thatsupplied the armaments industry.

Following World War II, Appalachianmining again declined, although not asabruptly as the earlier decline followingWorld War I. The effects, however, werejust as severe. Low coal prices causedcompany owners to use savings from theprevious boom. Those companies notable to update mining equipment couldnot compete with the combination ofincreasing costs and mechanization.With the closing of many of the minesby 1970, people from areas like Windbermigrated to other parts of the countrywhere employment was stable. By the2000 census, the population of Windberhad dropped to 4,200 residents, one-thirdof its peak only several decades before(Clark, 2006).

Over time, advances in the coalextraction process through the use oftechnology allowed companies toincrease or maintain production whiledecreasing their payrolls (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Pennsylvania Coal Productionin Millions of Tons and Numberof Mining Employees inThousands, from 1877 to 2000(Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection,2006).

8

An increase in surface mining activityalso contributed to this trend. In addition,regulatory requirements under Pennsylvania’sClean Streams Law and the Federal SurfaceMining Control and Reclamation Act(SMCRA) in 1977 created additionalcosts that needed to be absorbed bycoal companies. Coupling these newtechnologies and reclamation responsi-bilities with the dramatic decrease inthe price of coal, many coal minerslost their jobs.

At present, both surface and deepmine operations are active throughoutthe West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.Production has increased slightly in the lastdecade as energy demands have increased.In addition, electrical cogeneration plantscan now utilize lower quality coal forenergy production. This lower qualitycoal was commonly discarded as wastein refuse piles, commonly referred to asculm banks in eastern Pennsylvania orgob piles in western Pennsylvania.

The removal of waste coal and theremining of unreclaimed areas haveimproved water quality in many areasof the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin—providing both economic andenvironmental benefits.

9

Impacted headwaters ofthe West Branch

Susquehanna Subbasinin Cambria County.

S. B

uda

PAD

epar

tmen

t of E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n

Tankers hauling alkaline material, which was dumped into Curwensville Lake following the Lancashire #15 (Barnes and Tucker) mine breakout in 1970.

What Exactly is AMD?

AMD is Pennsylvania’s largest source of water impairment.Its actual chemical makeup encompasses a spectrum ofpossibilities, but typically is characterized by high levelsof acids with the presence of dissolved metals, especiallyiron, aluminum, and manganese. Antiquated andunregulated mining practices of the past too often set upthe circumstances for AMD’s formation. A century’s worth ofextensive mining of Pennsylvania’s rich coal reserves hasmade AMD ubiquitous in the coal regions.

At the root of AMD formation is the mineral pyrite,commonly and aptly called fool’s gold for its yellow, lustrousappearance. Pyrite is comprised of the chemical elementssulfur and iron. Usually found in small percentages in coal

seams and surrounding geologicstrata, pyrite undergoes a naturalchemical reaction similar to rustingwhen in contact with both water andoxygen. This reaction produces acidity,dissolved iron, and a dissolved ion

called sulfate. The dissolved iron goes on to further combine withstill more water and oxygen to produce a form of rust called ironhydroxide, with a distinctive rusty yellow to dark orangeappearance. The acids can go on to dissolve other minerals,liberating other metals into the water. Clays, for example, arerich in the element aluminum, and result in dissolvedaluminum when attacked by acids.

Mining activities expose pyrite to water and the oxygenin air, which in turn promote the chain of pyrite reactions atlevels thousands of times greater than would occur naturally,and for very long periods of time. If these reaction-products findtheir way to waterways, they deliver a one-two punch of acidityand dissolved metals to ecosystems ill-equipped to handle theonslaught. What results is a stream seriously compromised inits ability to sustain aquatic life and water not suitable forhuman use or consumption.

Bruce Golden, Regional CoordinatorWestern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation

When studying the impairmentthat AMD creates on waterways, theinvestigation almost always is on theimpacts to fish and macroinvertebrates,not humans. However, AMD does havesome human health implications thatcan be easily overlooked.

It has been documented throughnumerous studies how metals, includingiron, may increase the occurrenceof neurodegenerative disease throughincreases in oxidative stress in thebrain and other mechanisms. However,the correlation between AMD metalsin water and increases in neurodegen-erative diseases is just beginning to beinvestigated.

Abandoned Mine Lands cancontain very dangerous structures suchas highwalls and open shafts, which have contributed to past injuries anddeaths. Another possible area of concern is airborne exposure to contaminantsoriginating from coal waste piles contributing to toxicity and lung disease.

Brian Schwartz, MDGeisinger’s Environmental Health Institute

AMD and AML Impacts on Human Health

Previous StudiesThe Pennsylvania Fish and Boat

Commission (PFBC) first surveyed theWest Branch Susquehanna River in1931-1932 in Clearfield and ClintonCounties. The surveys found that AMDpollution in the river was so intense thatfish could not survive (Sorenson, 1931and 1932). Several tributaries to theriver also were listed as polluted,including Cush Creek, Bear Run,Anderson Creek, Clearfield Creek,Millstone Run, Surveyor Run, BaldHill Run, Moshannon Creek, andSaltlick Run (Sorenson, 1931). The surveyalso indicated that SinnemahoningCreek, Cooks Run, and Kettle Creekwere polluted by AMD (Sorenson, 1932).

The first recorded major fish killon the river occurred in October 1957 inthe vicinity of Williamsport, LycomingCounty. The reports indicate that about500,000 fish were killed due to a slug ofacid created by heavy rains in the coalmining region of the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin. Such an eventwould have normally been neutralizedto an extent by Bald Eagle Creek, dueto its high alkalinity concentration fromlimestone geology. The rain event,however, did not affect the Bald EagleWatershed (Glover, 1957).

During these documented fishkills, the section of the West BranchSusquehanna River near Williamsporthad a pH of 4.5 and elevated concentrationsof sulfate and iron (Wilt, 1958). Periodicchecks of pH in the river at Lock Havenduring 1957 and 1958 also documentedacidic conditions, with pH rangingfrom 4.2 to 4.8. For comparison, the pHof the river near Williamsport rangedfrom 6.2 to 6.8 under normal conditions.Periodic slugs of acid, and associatedfish kills, occurred again in July1958 (Roller, 1958), September 1960(Drupieski, 1960), and October 1962(Hempt, 1962). These acid slugs alloccurred when heavy rains fell to thewest, in the coal-bearing region of thewatershed, without corresponding rainevents in the neutralizing alkalinetributaries further east. The acid slugstypically had a pH ranging from 4.2to 4.8, lasted for three to four days,

Pennsylvania Coal – Fueling the Industrial Revolution

“

“”

10

The Barnes and Watkins Coal Refuse Pile, which is in the process of being removed, will not only improve water quality, but should improve the

health of the surrounding communities.

PAD

epar

tmen

t of E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n

”

“Returns that have come to hand lead one to think that the United Stateshas now acquired a position on a par with that of the first coalproducing country in the world, having during the last year turned outa quantity equal to that of its former rival, Great Britain. By the returnsreceived from the Secretary of Great Britain, it appears that the grandtotal of coal production in that country last year was 220,085,393 grosstons. At the same time the coal production of the United States last yearwas 188,108,012 net tons of bituminous coal and 54,034,224 gross tonsof anthracite coal.”

“It must be understood that the figures in regard to the anthraciteproduction represent that of Pennsylvania alone, there being a smallquantity produced in Colorado. At the same time there were producedin Pennsylvania 73,500,300 net tons of bituminous coal. It will thus beseen that the production of Pennsylvania more than equals that of all theother states, numbering perhaps twenty-six, combined. The next state inpoint of production last year was Illinois, with some 23,500,000 net tons.”

Frederick E. Saward, New York Times, April 8, 1900

and were recorded downstream as faras Lewisburg, Union County.

The Federal Water PollutionControl Administration, now the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), performed a mine drainagestudy of the entire Susquehanna RiverBasin from 1964 to 1967. The studyfound that the headwaters of the WestBranch Susquehanna River were acidicuntil the confluence with Chest Creekin Clearfield County. The major sourcesof acidity were the active Barnes andTucker pumped discharge from theLancashire #20 mine, and tributariesLesle Run and Fox Run. The river wasfound to be essentially neutral belowChest Creek to Anderson Creek withfish and other aquatic life present,although populations were consideredbelow normal (Federal Water PollutionControl Administration, 1968).

The PFBC initiated a program ofcontinual surveillance on the riverin August 1968, to ascertain waterquality conditions (Bradford, 1969).The Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Resources (now PADEP)noted a trend in water qualityimprovement in 1969 at Bower, ClearfieldCounty, due to the Lancashire #20 minedischarge treatment project. In 1969,the PFBC began a sport fish stockingprogram in Curwensville Lake that waslargely successful (Gwin, Dobson, andForeman, 1972).

In 1972, Gwin, Dobson, and Foremancompleted the West Branch SusquehannaRiver Mine Drainage Pollution AbatementScarlift Project for PADEP under theauthority of the Land and WaterConservation and Reclamation Act(Act 443). The goal of this project was to“establish as accurately as possible a basisfor evaluating the conditions and eventsin the Watkins, Cambria County, arealeading to the serious breakout of minedrainage during the summer of 1970, whichcaused major fish kills in CurwensvilleLake and in the West BranchSusquehanna River below Clearfield”(Gwin, Dobson, and Foreman, 1972). Thisproject focused on the West BranchSusquehanna River from its headwatersto Cherry Tree Borough, Indiana County.

Additional Scarlift studies werecompleted on Alder Run, AndersonCreek, Babb Creek, Beech Creek,Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek,Clearfield Creek, Dents Run, KettleCreek, Loyalsock Creek, MoshannonCreek, Muddy Run (Clearfield Creek), andPhilipsburg/Hawk Run and can be founddigitally at www.amrclearinghouse.org,a website created and maintained bythe Western Pennsylvania Coalition forAbandoned Mine Reclamation.

In 1984, the United States GeologicSurvey (USGS) completed a study on the“Water Quality of the Upper WestBranch Susquehanna River and TributaryStreams between Curwensville andRenovo” (Hainly and Barker, 1993).During baseflow conditions in May andJuly 1984, streamflow and water qualitywere measured at four sites on the WestBranch Susquehanna River and near themouths of 94 tributaries between theBoroughs of Curwensville and Renovo.

In general, the USGS found thatMoshannon Creek, SinnemahoningCreek, Clearfield Creek, and KettleCreek were the largest tributary sourcesof acidity and total-recoverable iron tothe river. During the May sampling,Moshannon Creek, SinnemahoningCreek, and Clearfield Creek contributed63 percent of the acidity loading tothe West Branch Susquehanna River(Hainly and Barker, 1993). In addition,Moshannon Creek and Clearfield Creekwere found to contribute a majority ofthe total-recoverable iron at 76 percent.

During the July sampling, MoshannonCreek, Kettle Creek, and ClearfieldCreek contributed 60 percent of theacidity loading, while Moshannon Creekand Kettle Creek contributed 51 percentof the total-recoverable iron loading tothe West Branch Susquehanna River(Hainly and Barker, 1993).

Along the mainstem of the WestBranch Susquehanna River, the leastimpaired site was found at the mostupstream station of the study atCurwensville, Clearfield County, where pHranged between 5.4 to 6.5 and specificconductance ranged between 267 and 310microsiemens per centimeter (μS/cm).The most impaired site was found atKarthaus, Clearfield County, downstreamof the entry of Moshannon Creek, wherepH ranged between 3.9 and 4.1 andspecific conductance ranged from 330and 610 μS/cm (Hainly and Barker, 1993).

More recently, in 1985, 1994, and2002, SRBC completed West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin Surveys, whichassessed water quality, habitat, andbiology at sites (137 in 2002) throughoutthe West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.The findings of the 1994 and 2002 surveysare addressed in detail in the PresentConditions section of this document.

Since the late 1990s and early2000s, there have been numerous effortsto develop assessment and restorationplans focused on AMD problems in theWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.A list of these watershed plans and theirstatus can be found in Table 2. A majorityof these plans have been completedusing funding from the PADEP GrowingGreener Program and/or the USEPA319 Program. Consequently, most of theplans are currently being implementedthrough those same funding sources.

In 2004, SRBC, under contract withPADEP, began developing a draftWest Branch Susquehanna RiverTotal Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)identifying specific river segmentsrequiring load reductions. The TMDLwill be completed and submitted to theUSEPA for approval before April 2009.Other watershed TMDLs completed inthe West Branch Susquehanna Subbasincan be found in Table 3.

“

”

The most impaired site was found at Karthaus,

Clearfield County, downstream of the entry

of Moshannon Creek, where pH ranged

between 3.9 and 4.1… (Hainly and Barker, 1993).

11

Plan Watershed County Year Completed Completed By Completed ForWest Branch Susquehanna River West Branch Cambria 2002 Vapco Engineering West BranchHeadwaters AMD Assessment Susquehanna River Susquehanna Rescueand Restoration PlanWest Branch Susquehanna River West Branch Cambria 2006 Hedin West BranchHeadwaters AMD Assessment Susquehanna River Environmental Susquehanna RescueChest Creek Assessment Chest Creek Cambria, In Progress Cambria County Chest Creekand Restoration Plan Clear f ield Conservation District Watershed All ianceBear Run Restoration Plan West Branch Indiana, 2006 Indiana County Indiana County

Susquehanna River Clear f ield Conservation District Conservation DistrictClear f ield Creek Watershed Clear f ield Creek Cambria, 2004 Melius and Hockenberry Clear f ield CreekAssessment Phase I and II Clear f ield Environmental Services Inc. Watershed AssociationMorgan Run Assessment Clear f ield Creek Clear f ield 2006 New Miles of Clearfield Conservationand Restoration Plan Blue Stream District, Morgan Run

Watershed GroupRestoration Plan for Clear f ield Creek Cambria 2005 Ar thur W. Rose Clear f ield CreekLitt le Laurel Run, Watershed AssociationCambria County, PAAnderson Creek Watershed Anderson Creek Clear f ield 2006 Western Pennsylvania Anderson CreekAssessment, Restoration, Conservancy Watershed Associationand Implementation PlanHar tshorn Run Assessment West Branch Clear f ield In Progress Clear f ield County Clear f ield County

Susquehanna River Conservation District Conservation DistrictMontgomery Creek 319 West Branch Clear f ield In Progress Clear f ield County Clear f ield County Watershed Implementation Plan Susquehanna River Conservation District, Conservation District,

Montgomery Creek Montgomery CreekWatershed Association Watershed Association

Lick Run Cold Water Assessment West Branch Clear f ield 2005 Allegheny Mountain Allegheny Mountainand Restoration Plan Susquehanna River Chapter of Trout Unlimited Chapter of Trout UnlimitedDeer Creek Assessment West Branch Clear f ield In Progress Clear f ield County Clear f ield County

Susquehanna River Conservation District Conservation District, Deer Creek WatershedAssociation

Moravian Run Assessment West Branch Clear f ield In Progress Clear f ield County Clear f ield CountySusquehanna River Conservation District Conservation District

Upper Alder Run Assessment West Branch Clear f ield In Progress Alder Run West BranchSusquehanna River Engineering Inc. Sportsman's Association

Hubler Run West Branch Clear f ield 2007 Alder Run West BranchImplementation Plan Susquehanna River Engineering Inc. Sportsman's AssociationEmigh Run Assessment Moshannon Creek Clear f ield 2004 New Miles of Emigh Run Lakesideand Restoration Plan Blue Stream Watershed AssociationTrout Run Assessment Moshannon Creek Centre 2006 New Miles of Moshannon Creekand Restoration Plan Blue Stream Watershed Coalit ionHeadwaters of Moshannon Moshannon Creek Clear f ield, In Progress New Miles of Moshannon CreekCreek Assessment Centre Blue Stream Watershed Coalit ionShimel Run Restoration Plan Moshannon Creek Centre In Progress New Miles of Moshannon Creek

Blue Stream Watershed Coalit ionMoshannon Creek Water Moshannon Creek Clear f ield, 2006 New Miles of Moshannon CreekQuality Data Clearinghouse Centre Blue Stream Watershed Coalit ionMoshannon Creek Cold Water Moshannon Creek Clear f ield, In Progress Clear f ield County Clear f ield CountyAssessment and Restoration Plan Centre Conservation District Conservation DistrictBennett Branch Watershed Bennett Branch Clear f ield, 2003 Gannett Fleming Inc. Bennett BranchAssessment and Restoration Plan Sinnemahoning Creek Elk, Cameron Watershed AssociationDents Run Watershed Bennett Branch Elk 2001 U.S. Army Corps Bennett BranchEcosystem Restoration Sinnemahoning Creek of Engineers Watershed AssociationSterl ing Run Assessment Drif twood Branch Cameron 2004 Gannett Fleming Inc. Cameron Countyand Restoration Plan Sinnemahoning Creek Conservation District

12

Table 2. AMD-Focused Watershed Restoration Plans in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin from Upstream to Downstream.

Plan Watershed County Year Completed Completed By Completed ForLower Kettle Creek Kettle Creek Clinton 2000 Hedin Environmental Kettle Creek Restoration Plan Watershed Association,

Trout UnlimitedWest Side of Lower Kettle Kettle Creek Clinton 2007 Hedin Environmental Kettle CreekCreek AMD Remediation Watershed Association,Master Plan Trout UnlimitedHuling Branch Mine Complex: Kettle Creek Clinton 2004 Hedin Environmental Kettle CreekInvestigation of AMD and Watershed Association,Recommendations Trout Unlimitedfor RemediationTwomile Run Watershed Kettle Creek Clinton 2007 Hedin Environmental Kettle CreekAMD Remediation Watershed Association,Master Plan Trout UnlimitedRapid Watershed AMD Drury Run Clinton 2006 Hedin Environmental Western PA Coalit ionAssessment for Sandy Run, for Abandoned MineWoodley Draf t, and Stony Run ReclamationLoop Run Restoration Plan West Branch Clinton 2004 New Miles of Rocky Mountain

Susquehanna River Blue Stream Elk FoundationTangascootack Creek West Branch Clinton 1998 PADEP Moshannon Clinton CountyWatershed Assessment Susquehanna River District Mining Of f ice Conservation DistrictAcid Mine Drainage Beech Creek Clinton, 2006 Hedin Environmental Beech CreekRestoration Plan for the Centre Watershed AssociationBeech Creek WatershedJonathon Run Beech Creek Centre 2003 Hedin Environmental Beech CreekRestoration Plan Watershed AssociationJonathon Run Site Evaluation Beech Creek Centre 2006 GAI Consultants Penn DOTContrary Run and Beech Creek Centre 2004 Bucek & Associates Beech CreekButts Run Assessment Watershed AssociationLycoming Acidif ication Lycoming Creek Lycoming 2007 Hedin Environmental Lycoming CreekAssessment Watershed Association

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is the maximum amount of any pollutant that a waterbody can receiveand still meet state water quality standards. Water quality standards are set to protect and maintain aquatic uses suchas drinking, fishing, swimming, irrigation, and others. The Clean Water Act requires states to list all waters that donot meet their water quality standards, as well as the source and cause of the pollution.

A TMDL is a “pollution budget” that calculates the amount of the specific pollutant a stream or river canassimilate without violating the standard identified. It also characterizes the sources of pollution on a watershedbasis, considering seasonal factors and environmental uncertainty, and provides a plan for use in improving andprotecting water quality. Many TMDLs are implemented through the use of best management practices to preventor remediate pollution.

The Clean Water Act requires states to submit their TMDLs to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency forapproval. A complete list of TMDLs completed in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin by 2007 can be found inTable 3. A continuously updated list can be found at www.dep.state.pa.us/watermanagement_apps/tmdl.

A completed TMDL prioritizes a stream or watershed for state and federal funding, with the goal of achievingwater quality standards and removing the stream from the state’s list of polluted waters.

Jennifer Orr, TMDL Program BiologistPennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

TMDLs and the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin

13

Table 2. continued

WATERSHED TRIBUTARY CAUSE STATUSAnderson Creek Mainstem Metals / pH Approved

Kratzer Run Metals ApprovedLitt le Anderson Creek Metals Approved

Beech Creek South Fork Beech Creek Metals / pH Under DevelopmentLogway Run Metals ApprovedMiddle Branch Big Run Metals / pH ApprovedNorth Fork Beech Creek Metals / Other Organics Approved

Chest Creek Rock Run Metals Under DevelopmentNor th Camp Run Metals / Other Organics Approved

Clear f ield Creek Blue Run Metals ApprovedBrubaker Run Metals / pH / Other Organics ApprovedMainstem Metals ApprovedLitt le Muddy Run Metals / pH ApprovedNor th Branch Metals ApprovedUpper Morgan RunSanborn Run Metals / pH / Other Organics Approved

Kettle Creek Mainstem Metals ApprovedTwomile Run Metals / pH Approved

Loyalsock Creek Mainstem Metals ApprovedMoshannon Creek Cold Stream Metals / pH Approved

Laurel Run Metals / pH ApprovedMoshannon Creek Metals / Si ltation Under Development

Mosquito Creek Grimes Run Metals ApprovedCurleys Run Metals Approved

Pine Creek Babb Creek Metals ApprovedWilson Creek Metals ApprovedOtter Run Metals ApprovedRight Fork Otter Run Metals / pH Approved

Sinnemahoning Creek Dents Run pH ApprovedSpring Run Metals / pH / Other Organics ApprovedUNT 24679 to Trout Run Metals / pH ApprovedWest Creek Metals / pH ApprovedBennett Branch Metals / pH / Siltation Under DevelopmentSinnemahoning Creek Metals Under Development

West Branch Susquehanna River Mainstem Metals Under Development

Bear Run Metals ApprovedHar tshorn Run Metals / pH / Other Organics ApprovedMontgomery Creek Metals ApprovedMoose Creek Metals ApprovedUNT 26641 pH ApprovedAlder Run Metals ApprovedDeer Creek Metals ApprovedLick Run Metals / pH ApprovedBig Run pH ApprovedSurveyor Run Metals / pH ApprovedLitt le Surveyor Run Metals / pH ApprovedSandy Creek Metals / Other Organics ApprovedTrout Run

UNT 26041 to Trout Run Metals / pH ApprovedUNT 26053 to Pine Run Metals / pH Approved

Cooks Run Metals / Siltation / pH ApprovedCamp Run Metals ApprovedCrowley Hollow Metals ApprovedRock Run Metals ApprovedCow Hole Run Metals Approved

Drury Run Metals / pH ApprovedMill igan Run Metals ApprovedTangascootack Creek Metals / pH ApprovedBirch Island Run Metals / pH Approved

Litt le Birch Island Run Metals ApprovedSterl ing Run Metals Approved

Present Conditions

In 2005, the Task Force completedthe West Branch Susquehanna RiverState of the Watershed Report. In thereport, the Task Force, citing data fromSRBC’s West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin Surveys of 1994 and 2002,concluded that water quality degradationis the main reason for impairment ofaquatic life throughout most of theWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasin,whereas the physical stream habitat is inrelatively good condition (West BranchSusquehanna River Task Force, 2005).Of all the impaired stream miles in thesubbasin, 1,205 miles are degradedby AMD. This represents 66 percent ofthe total AMD-impaired mileage in theentire Susquehanna River Basin. Inaddition, 42,062 acres of unreclaimedAML features, or nearly 23 percentof the entire Commonwealth’s share,are found within the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin. Nearly 6,462 ofthose acres are considered Priority I or IIHealth and Safety Problem sites, asdesignated by the U.S. Office of SurfaceMining (OSM).

Table 3. AMD TMDL Efforts Within the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin.

14

“

”

Two main stretches of the West BranchSusquehanna River

are significantlyinfluenced by AMD: the headwaters in

Cambria County to about the town of

Mahaffey, ClearfieldCounty, and from

the entry of Clearfield Creek to Williamsport,

Lycoming County.

This impairment causes massivelosses in recreational uses andsignificantly impacts the economicpotential of the region. In addition,PADEP BAMR has estimated that waterquality restoration of the entire WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin willrequire capital costs ranging from$279 million to $464 million, with annualoperation and maintenance costs rangingfrom $22 million to $55 million (WestBranch Susquehanna River Task Force,2005). Reclamation of all AML featuresis estimated at an additional $288million (Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection, 2004).

In 2003, SRBC published its WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin Survey,which was conducted between July andNovember 2002. This effort was similarto surveys completed for the WestBranch Susquehanna Subbasin in 1985and 1994. The study indicated onlyslight improvement in conditionsbetween 1994 and 2002. Of the sectionsof the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin studied, AMD degradationwas documented in the headwatersregion, as well as along the mainstem ofthe West Branch Susquehanna Riverfrom Clearfield Creek in ClearfieldCounty, to Pine Creek in LycomingCounty (LeFevre, 2003). Degradedwatersheds included Muddy Run(Clearfield Creek Watershed), ClearfieldCreek, Moshannon Creek, Beech Creek(Bald Eagle Creek Watershed), TwomileRun (Kettle Creek Watershed), DentsRun (Bennett Branch SinnemahoningCreek Watershed), Cooks Run, Alder

Run, Bear Run, Deer Creek, LittleAnderson Creek (Anderson CreekWatershed), and Montgomery Run. Thehighest quality watersheds documentedincluded Pine Creek, First ForkSinnemahoning Creek, DriftwoodBranch Sinnemahoning Creek, YoungWomen's Creek, Hyner Run, PaddyRun, Lick Run, and White Deer Creek.

In 1994, 47 percent of the sitessampled by SRBC were either classifiedas moderately or severely impaired interms of water quality. The percentage ofimpaired sites decreased to 43 percentin 2002. In addition, of the eight sitesthat showed significant changes from

1994 to 2002, six were improved.Additionally, most of the sites in theWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasinwere classified as having excellent orsupporting habitat; 91 percent in 1994and 88 percent in 2002 (LeFevre, 2003).

During 2004 and 2005, streamflowand water quality data were collected at33 locations along the mainstem of theWest Branch Susquehanna River for thedevelopment of a TMDL assessment formetals pollution, specifically related toiron, aluminum, and manganese. Thisdataset represents the most recentsource of information describing presentwater quality conditions along theWest Branch Susquehanna River.

Two main stretches of the WestBranch Susquehanna River aresignificantly influenced by AMD: theheadwaters in Cambria County toabout the town of Mahaffey, ClearfieldCounty, and from the entry ofClearfield Creek to Williamsport,

When the cleanup of the BabbCreek Watershed was started in1990, more than 13 miles of themainstem and parts or all offour tributaries were severelypolluted due to AMD. The cleanupeffort started with the installationof two limestone diversion wells onLick Creek, near the village ofArnot, Tioga County.

Over the next 15 years, 2 morelimestone diversion wells, 15 verticalflow ponds, 3 limestone cells, 1 anoxiclimestone drain, and a treatmentplant were constructed on AMDdischarges within the watershed.

In 2005, the Pennsylvania Fishand Boat Commission did anintensive survey of the mainstemand found large numbers of fishand aquatic insects in the previouslydead section. Naturally reproducingbrook and brown trout were alsofound in the section upstream fromthe village of Morris. Due to theseresults, more than eight miles ofthe mainstem were reclassified bythe Commission as a “wild troutstream” in July 2006.

After being polluted with AMDfor more than 100 years, Babb Creekis again a productive stream.

William Beacom, PresidentBabb Creek Watershed Association

The Babb Creek Watershed:An AMD Restoration Success Story

The late Bob McCullough, past president of the Babb Creek Watershed Association,

stocking trout into Babb Creek for the first time in 100 years due to the

restoration of AMD impacts.

15

AMD precipitate on Kettle Creek.

S. B

uda

Parameter Criterion Value (mg/l) Total Recoverable/DissolvedAluminum (Al) 0.75 Total Recoverable

1.50 30-Day Average Total Recoverable0.30 Dissolved

Manganese (Mn) 1.00 Total RecoverablepH* 6.0-9.0 NA

*The pH values shown wil l be used when applicable. In the case of freestone streams with l itt leor no buffering capacity, the TMDL endpoint for pH wil l be the natural background water quality.These values are typically as low as 5.4 (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission).

Table 4. Applicable Water Quality Criteria (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2005).

Iron (Fe)

Lycoming County. In between thosesections, the river is still impaired, butin a state of recovery both in terms ofwater quality and biological communities.

In terms of net alkalinityconcentration for the 33 TMDL sites,the West Branch Susquehanna Riveris net acidic from the vicinity ofCarrolltown and Bakerton, CambriaCounty (River Mile (RM) 241.8), to justupstream of the town of NorthernCambria, Cambria County (RM 237.8).The remaining sections of the river arenet alkaline, although just slightly alongcertain reaches. From the entry ofMoshannon Creek (RM 132.6) to theentry of Pine Creek (RM 55.6), the netalkalinity is consistently below 20 mg/l,which is within the range that PFBCconsiders acid sensitive. Acid sensitivestretches account for about 88 river milesof the West Branch Susquehanna River,or nearly 36 percent of the total mileage.

In terms of total iron concentrationfor the 33 TMDL sites, the West BranchSusquehanna River exceeds the 1.50mg/l water quality standard (Table 4)from the extreme headwaters of theWest Branch Susquehanna River inCambria County (RM 242.8) to justdownstream of Cherry Tree, IndianaCounty (RM 228.4), and from the town ofKarthaus, Clearfield County (RM 132.6),to downstream of the entry of KettleCreek in Clinton County (RM 97.7).This represents about 49 river milesnot meeting the designated water qualitystandard for iron, or slightly more than20 percent of the total West BranchSusquehanna River mileage.

In terms of total aluminum forthe 33 TMDL sites, the West BranchSusquehanna River exceeds the 0.75mg/l water quality standard (Table 4)from the very extreme headwaters ofthe West Branch Susquehanna Rivernear Carrolltown, Cambria County(RM 243.4), to downstream of theentry of Pine Creek in Jersey Shore,Lycoming County (RM 55.6). Thisrepresents about 188 river miles notmeeting the designated water qualitystandard for aluminum, or nearly77 percent of the total West BranchSusquehanna River mileage.

W E S T B R A N C H S U S Q U E H A N N A R I V E R S T A T I O N SSample Collection pH Total Fe Total Al

Location Year Agency SU mg/l mg/lCurwensvil le, Clear f ield County 1984 USGS 6.0 0.4 0.2

1994 SRBC 7.7 0.1 0.32004/2005 SRBC 7.3 0.4 1.1

Kar thaus, Clear f ield County 1984 USGS 4.0 1.3 2.41994 SRBC 3.8 0.7 2.9

2004/2005 SRBC 6.6 2.0 1.3Keating, Cl inton County 1984 USGS 4.1 0.8 2.1

1994 SRBC 4.1 0.1 1.02002 SRBC 7.0 0.5 0.4

Renovo, Cl inton County 1984 USGS 4.2 0.5 1.51994 SRBC 4.7 0.2 1.0

2004/2005 SRBC 6.6 0.5 1.4

M A J O R T R I B U T A R Y S T A T I O N SSample Collection pH Total Fe Total Al

Location Year Agency SU mg/l mg/lAnderson Creek 1984 USGS 4.4 0.6 1.5

1994 SRBC 5.1 0.4 0.92004/2005 WPC 6.0 0.3 0.5

Clear f ield Creek 1984 USGS 4.9 2.6 2.41994 SRBC 4.6 0.2 2.0

2003/2004 SRBC 6.4 1.4 0.5Moshannon Creek 1984 USGS 3.5 3.8 3.5

1994 SRBC 3.4 2.9 5.52002 SRBC 3.3 1.0 6.8

Mosquito Creek 1984 USGS 4.8 0.3 0.41994 SRBC 6.2 0.1 1.22002 SRBC 5.4 <0.1 <0.1

Sinnemahoning Creek 1984 USGS 6.3 0.3 0.31994 SRBC 6.0 0.1 0.12002 SRBC 7.2 <0.1 <0.1

Kettle Creek 1984 USGS 5.1 1.5 1.31994 SRBC 6.4 0.2 0.32001 TU 6.8 0.4 0.6

Table 5. Water Quality Trends Over the Last Two Decades at Four Sites Along the West Branch Susquehanna River and at the Mouths of Six Major AMD Impacted Tributaries.

16

In terms of water quality trendsthroughout the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin, most areas haveseen a significant improvement in thelast two decades (Table 5). For instance,at the town of Keating in ClintonCounty, the West Branch SusquehannaRiver has increased nearly three pHunits, while iron and aluminumconcentrations have dropped 38 and

81 percent, respectively. The pH atthe mouth of Clearfield Creek hasincreased two and one-half pH units,while iron and aluminum concentrationshave dropped approximately 46 and79 percent, respectively. MoshannonCreek is an exception, with pHremaining fairly constant and aluminumconcentrations increasing approximately94 percent.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

STR1 STR 1 2003 36,944 5.7 0.6 0.3 0.6

Table 17. Sterling Run MU Endpoint Average Water Quality.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

A majority of the AMD pollutionimpacting the West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin is found in six areas: the WestBranch Susquehanna River Headwaters;multiple MUs within the ClearfieldCreek, Moshannon Creek, and BennettBranch Sinnemahoning Creek Watersheds;and single MUs in the Kettle Creek andBeech Creek Watersheds. In one possibleremediation example, focused effort on theten MUs contributing the largest pollutionloads and yields from each of these areas,along with the other planned restorationprojects, are projected to result in a nearlyrestored West Branch Susquehanna River.Additional sampling of the dischargesnot meeting analytical criteria (nearly60 percent of the total discharges) wouldbe needed for more complete restorationprojections as these discharges were notused in any calculations.

The West Branch SusquehannaRiver Headwaters and Major Tributariesexamples show alkaline conditions forthe length of the mainstem, as well asiron concentrations below water qualitystandards. Aluminum poses a greaterchallenge, but the remediation examplesshow where further efforts are neededto define the problem and proposesolutions, particularly for sourcesgenerating loads between ClearfieldCreek and Bald Eagle Creek. It is alsoimportant to note that with the WestBranch Susquehanna River being netalkaline after the remediation examplesfrom headwaters to mouth, andconsequently containing a circum-neutralpH, aluminum concentrations shouldbe in a precipitated non-toxic state.The dissolved form of aluminum foundin acidic waters is very toxic to aquaticorganisms even at concentrations belowthe 0.75 mg/l water quality standardfor aluminum.

With respect to treatment costs,this document outlines one possibleremediation example with WRAMestimated capital construction costsbetween $43 and $165 million dollars,depending on the selection of passive

or active treatment technologies. Anadditional WRAM estimated $5 - $8million, and possibly more with theaddition of the Lancashire #15 (Barnesand Tucker) Discharge active treatmentplant, would be needed annually foroperation and maintenance of thosesystems. It is important to note that thesecosts are based on the best availabledata, particularly those discharges withwater quality data meeting analytical criteria, and the examples representedin this document do not provide forcomplete restoration of the West BranchSusquehanna River Subbasin. In addi-tion, at sites where remining and mineland reclamation are viable options toeliminate or reduce AMD loading,projected restoration costs couldbe decreased, particularly the annualoperation and maintenance costs.

Cost estimates only address the788 discharges that met the analyticalcriteria defined for this study. Thesedischarges only comprise 40 percent ofthe total discharges compiled for thisproject. Adding in the 60 percent of thedischarges that did not meet analyticalcriteria, total West Branch SusquehannaSubbasin restoration capital constructioncosts could be in the realm of $400 million,which are comparable to PADEP estimates(West Branch Susquehanna River TaskForce, 2005).

The Task Force recognizes that the areascontributing the largest AMD-pollutantloads represent one part of the problem.Other areas can be just as important forrestoring AMD impacts and should beconsidered within the framework of astakeholder's restoration goals, which canvary greatly depending on the intendeduse of the resource and local interest.

In terms of the discharges “adjacent"to Priority I and II sites, there are opportunities to improve conditionswithin eight MUs through reclamationof these hazard sites. Reclamation ofabandoned mine lands often hasproven to be an effective method inimproving water quality conditions.

AML reclamation focused in CLCR4,MOSH1, BENB3, BENB2, and AND1could directly improve the West BranchSusquehanna River since these MUscontain a majority of the dischargeloading that is within one-quarter milefrom a Priority I or II site. Additionally,work in CHST1, CHST2, and WBS6could improve conditions within each ofthese MUs since a large majority of theiranalytical criteria discharges are in closeproximity to Priority I and II hazardsites. If OSM rules allow, Priority I andII funding could be utilized in theseareas to correct a Priority III problem.

Other areas of interest includetributaries containing sections of highquality wild trout fisheries with adjacentsections of stream impaired by AMD oracid deposition. Half of these focuswatersheds (24 out of the 48 document-ed) are found between Anderson Creekand Sinnemahoning Creek along theWest Branch Susquehanna River, whichis arguably the most impaired section ofthe river. In addition, 29 out of the48 focus watersheds are found in the PAWilds designated area. A significantopportunity exists to bolster existingrestoration efforts in these areas with theultimate goal of population reconnectionwith the West Branch Susquehanna River.

Continued water quality monitoringis critically important to support theWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasinrestoration effort. Within areas of theWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasin,water quality monitoring data are stillneeded to properly characterize AMDimpacts (Figure 21). In addition, sitesneed to be monitored as restorationoccurs. Instream monitoring sites, suchas those used in this strategy, helpdocument improvement and supportfuture restoration planning.

Restoration of the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin offers atremendous opportunity to greatlyenhance the subbasin’s resources bycreating considerable environmental,recreational, and socioeconomic benefits.

■ CONCLUSIONS

45

Figure 21. West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Watersheds in Need of Additional Discharge Sampling.46

J. Z

imm

erm

an

Encourage restoration activitieswithin the management unitscontributing to a majority of theAMD-pollutant loads;

Utilize the tools outlined in thisdocument to assist with decisionmaking on restoration planning,including maintaining the waterquality database through periodicupdates;

Develop restoration plans forareas where none currently exist;

Investigate other factorscontributing to aluminum loadingissues in the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin;

Encourage efforts to combine therestoration of Priority I and II Healthand Safety Sites with the elimination/treatment/improvement of “adjacent”AMD discharges (Priority III sites);

Investigate opportunities torestore wild trout streams affectedby AMD for the ultimate goal ofreconnecting populations within theWest Branch Susquehanna Subbasin;

Encourage collection of flowmeasurements when water qualitydata are collected from streamsand discharges;

Complete assessments of areaslacking discharge and instream waterquality data; and,

Continue to monitor instreamwater quality for the 34 managementunit endpoint stations so that anyimprovements can be documented.

West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin

AMD Remediation StrategyRecommendations Summary

Major Highlights of the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin AMD Remediation Strategy

✔ Water quality impairment, mainly from AMD, of the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasinis the only major hindrance to biological expansion since nearly 90 percent of the subbasinhas been documented as containing either excellent or supporting habitat (LeFevre, 2003).

✔ 1,205 stream miles of the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin are impaired by AMD,which is 66 percent of the total AMD-impaired mileage in the entire Susquehanna RiverBasin. However, the subbasin also contains 1,249 of Exceptional Value waters and5,229 stream miles of High Quality Cold Water Fisheries (West Branch Susquehanna RiverTask Force, 2005).

✔ There are approximately 1,964 AMD discharges in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin,however, only 788 (40 percent) contained enough data to meet analytical criteria standards.

✔ 11 Management Units (10 tributary MUs and one West Branch Susquehanna River MU), com-prising only 10 percent of the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin area, contain near-ly 80 percent of the analytical criteria discharge loading.

✔ 8 of the 11 priority Management Units are found within the Clearfield Creek,Moshannon Creek, and Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Watersheds.

✔ The hypothetical examples for West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin remediation wouldallow for a completely net alkaline West Branch Susquehanna River mainstem with ironconcentrations that meet Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection waterquality standards. Aluminum concentrations, however, may still exceed water qualitystandards between the entry of Clearfield Creek and Bald Eagle Creek. The capital costneeded for this remediation has been estimated to be between $43 and $165 million.

✔ Treatment of Cresson #9 discharge, Gallitzin #10 discharge, Gallitzin Shaft Mine Complex,and Dean Clay Mine in Brubaker Run could lead to a majority (~ 86 percent) of theClearfield Creek mainstem attaining water quality standards for iron.

✔ Out of the 788 analytical criteria discharges, 213 (27 percent) are within one-quarter mileof a Priority I or II Health and Safety Problem Site. Land reclamation of these sites could paywater quality dividends, particularly in the Clearfield Creek, Moshannon Creek, BennettBranch Sinnemahoning Creek, Anderson Creek, and Chest Creek Watersheds due topossible hydrologic connections.

✔ 48 focus watersheds in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin contain, at minimum,sections of Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission documented wild trout and sectionsof Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection documented AMD and/oratmospheric deposition (acid deposition) impairment. These 48 focus watersheds contain634 miles of Wild Trout classifications, 99 miles of Class A Wild Trout designations,55 miles of Wilderness Trout designations, but also 438 miles and 89 miles of AMD andacid deposition impairment, respectively. Only 3.7 percent of the subbasin containslarge/strong populations of wild brook trout.

✔ Total capital costs of complete West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin remediation fromAMD impacts could be as high as $400 million; however, true costs ultimately will not beknown until projects are competitively bid.

47

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SRBC wishes to thank the financial providers of the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin AMD Remediation Strategy:

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Trout Unlimited

SRBC wishes to thank all members of the West Branch Susquehanna River Task Force and particularly these members who contributed significantly to the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin AMD Remediation Strategy:

Rick Carlson, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

John Dawes, Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds

Bruce Golden, Western Pennsylvania Coalition of Abandoned Mine Reclamation

David Hamilton, Office of Surface Mining

Mike Hewitt, Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition of Abandoned Mine Reclamation

SRBC also wishes to thank these people who contributed significantly to the West BranchSusquehanna Subbasin AMD Remediation Strategy:

William Beacom, Babb Creek Watershed Association

Mario Carrello, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Rebecca Dunlap, Trout Unlimited

Dr. Robert Hedin, Hedin Environmental

Kevin Hoover, Water's Edge Hydrology

Jennifer Orr, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

SRBC would also like to thank these organizations that contributed water quality data that wasutilized in the construction of the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin AMD Remediation Strategy:

Alder Run Engineering

Cameron County Conservation District

Clean Water Institute

Clearfield Creek Watershed Association

Clearfield County Conservation District

Gannett Fleming

Hedin Environmental

Hess and Fisher Laboratories

Indiana County Conservation District

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

The West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin AMD Remediation Strategy is dedicated to thelate Bob McCullough, restoration pioneer from the Babb Creek Watershed Association.

Mark Killar, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

Brent Means, Office of Surface Mining

Pamela Milavec, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Scott Roberts, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Michael Smith, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Amy Wolfe, Trout Unlimited

Terry Rightnour, Water's Edge Hydrology

Dr. Arthur Rose, Penn State University and the Clearfield Creek Watershed Association

Molly Sager, Office of Surface Mining

Dr. Brian Schwartz, Geisinger's Environmental Health Institute

H.W. (Skip) Wieder, Geisinger's Environmental Health Institute

Mahaffey Laboratories

Melius and Hockenberry Environmental Services Inc.

New Miles of Blue Stream

PADEP Cambria District Mining Office

PADEP Knox District Mining Office

PADEP Moshannon District Mining Office

Pennsylvania Water Quality Network

U.S. Environmental Research Service Inc.

U.S. Geological Survey

West Branch Susquehanna Rescue

48

REFERENCES

Bradford, A. 1969. Stream Survey: West Branch Susquehanna River, Clearfield County. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

Brady, K.B.C., R.J. Hornberger, and G. Fleeger. 1998. Influence of Geology on Postmining Water Quality:Northern Appalachian Basin. In Coal Mine Drainage and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania.Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Publication. 8-1 - 8-92.

Clark, T. 2006. Bear Run Restoration Plan. Indiana County Conservation District. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection Growing Greener Project. SW20538. Document#3521140.

_____. 2006. Paint Creek Restoration Plan. Paint Creek Regional Watershed Association. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection. Growing Greener Project. SW20071. ME #3521094

Clearfield Creek Watershed Association. 2007. Clearfield Creek Watershed Association website.http://www.clearfieldcreekwatershed.org/projects/brubaker.html.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2005. Pennsylvania Code, Title 25. Environmental Protection, Departmentof Environmental Protection, Chapter 93. Water Quality Standards.

Dodge, C. H. and W. E. Edmunds. 2003. Coal Geology of Pennsylvania. In Keystone Coal Industry Manual.Mining and Construction Group. Coal Age, Concrete Products, Engineering and Mining Journal,Rock Products, and Cement Americas. Primedia Business Magazines and Media. Chicago, Illinois.

Drupieski, R. 1960. Letter to Marlin Wilt, Regional Sanitary Engineer, about Fish Kill: West BranchSusquehanna River, Williamsport, Lycoming County. Pennsylvania Department of Health. Divisionof Sanitary Engineering. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection WilliamsportRegional Office.

Earle, J. and T. Callaghan. 1998. Impacts of Mine Drainage on Aquatic Life, Water Uses, and Man MadeStructures. In K. B. C. Brady et al. (eds.). Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Preventionin Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of AbandonedMine Reclamation. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 4-1 - 4-10.

Edmunds, W.E., V.W. Skema, and N.K. Flint. 1998. Pennsylvania Part III: Stratigraphy and SedimentaryTectonics. In Geology of Pennsylvania.

Federal Water Quality Administration. 1968. Mine Drainage Study of the Susquehanna River Basin. UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency.

Glover, C. R. 1957. Letter to Mr. Raymond Schroll, Jr., about a Fish Kill on the West Branch SusquehannaRiver. Pennsylvania Department of Health. Division of Sanitary Engineering. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection Williamsport Regional Office.

Gwin, Dobson, and Foreman, Inc. 1972. West Branch Susquehanna River Mine Drainage PollutionAbatement Project, Operation Scarlift Project Number SL 163-3.

Hainly, R.A. and J.L. Barker. 1993. Water Quality of the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River andTributary Streams between Curwensville and Renovo, Pennsylvania, May and July 1984. WaterResources Investigations Report 90-4011. United States Geological Survey.

Hedin Environmental. 2007. Twomile Run Watershed AMD Remediation Master Plan. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection Moshannon District Mining Office.

49

Hempt, F. 1962. Letter to Mr. Walt V. Kohler, Chief Staff Services Section, about Fish Kill: West BranchSusquehanna River, Williamsport, Lycoming County. Pennsylvania Department of Health. Divisionof Sanitary Engineering. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection WilliamsportRegional Office.

Kimmel, W.G., D.J. Murphey, W.E. Sharpe, and D.R. Dewalle. 1985. Macroinvertebrate CommunityStructure and Detritus Processing Rates in Two Southwestern Pennsylvania Streams Acidified byAtmospheric Deposition. Hydrobiologia. 124. 97-102.

Kirby, C.S., Cravotta III, C.A. 2005. Net Alkalinity and Net Acidity 2: Practical Considerations. AppliedGeochemistry 20 (2005) 1941-1964.

LeFevre, S. 2003. West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: A Water Quality and Biological Assessment.Susquehanna River Basin Commission Publication 226.

Palombo, A.V., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1987. Microbial Communities on Leaf Material Protected from Macroinvertebrate Grazing in Acidic and Circumneutral Streams. Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Science. 44. 1064-1070

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2007. Map Layers.http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfile/acidmaplayers.aspx.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. A Detailed Analysis of Watershed RestorationCosts for the Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek and Kettle Creek Watersheds and a PreliminaryAnalysis of Watershed Restoration and Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation Costs for theentire West Branch Susquehanna River Watershed. Mineral Resources Deputate.

_____. 2006. Pennsylvania Annual Reports on Mining Activities. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/depu-tate/minres/bmr/historicalminingreports/index.html.

Office of Surface Mining. 2006. AMDTreat Version 4.1B. http://amd.osmre.gov.

Reese, J.F. and J.D. Sisler. 1928. Bituminous Coal Fields of Pennsylvania. Part III: Coal Resources. MineralResources Report 6. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Department of Environmental Resources.Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey.

Rightnour, T. 2007. Clarification of WRAM Model Output for the West Branch AMD Remediation Strategy.Water’s Edge Hydrology Inc. Clearfield, Pennsylvania. Susquehanna River Basin Commission Files.Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Roller, M. 1958. Memorandum Report: Fish Killing West Branch Susquehanna River Williamsport toLewisburg. Pennsylvania Department of Health. Division of Sanitary Engineering. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection Williamsport Regional Office.

Sisler, J.D. 1926. Bituminous Coal Fields of Pennsylvania Part II. Detailed Description of Coal Fields.Mineral Resource Report 6. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Department of EnvironmentalResources. Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey.

Smith, M.W., K.B.C. Brady, and J.W. Hawkins. 2002. Effectiveness of Pennsylvania’s Remining Program inAbating Abandoned Mine Drainage: Water Quality Impacts. Transactions of the Society for Mining,Metallurgy, and Exploration. pp. 166 - 170.

Sorenson, D. 1931. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Fish Commissioners Stream Survey Report:West Branch Susquehanna River, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.

_____. 1932. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Fish Commissioners Stream Survey Report: WestBranch Susquehanna River, Clinton County, Pennsylvania.

50

Thompson, P.L. and F. Barlocher. 1989. Effect of pH on Leaf Breakdown in Streams and in the Laboratory.Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8: 203-210.

Vuori, K. 1996. Acid-Induced Acute Toxicity of Aluminum to Three Species of Filter Feeding Caddis Larvae(Trichoptera, Arctopsychidae, and Hydropsychidae). Freshwater Biology. 35: 179-188.

Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation. 2007. Basics of SMCRA Title IV.Informational Document. http://www.wpcamr.org/projects/smcra_reauth.

West Branch Susquehanna River Task Force. 2005. West Branch Susquehanna River Watershed: State of theWatershed Report. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. 2006. Anderson Creek Watershed Assessment, Restoration andImplementation Plan. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Growing GreenerProgram and United States Environmental Protection Agency Section 319 Non-point ManagementProgram Project.

Wilt, M. 1958. Letter to Mr. Walter V. Kohler, Chief Staff Services Section, about Fish Killing-West BranchSusquehanna River Williamsport to Jersey Shore. Pennsylvania Department of Health. Division ofSanitary Engineering. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection WilliamsportRegional Office.

51

West Branch Susquehanna River Task Force

S U S Q U E H A N N A R I V E R B A S I N C O M M I S S I O N1 7 2 1 N o r t h F r o n t S t r e e t • H a r r i s b u r g , P e n n s y l v a n i a 1 7 1 0 2 - 2 3 9 17 1 7. 2 3 8 . 0 4 2 3 • 7 1 7. 2 3 8 . 24 3 6 f a x • s r b c @ s r b c . n e t • w w w. s r b c . n e t

printed on recycled paper

Protecting Your Watershed

for Today and Tomorrow