MINE DRAINAGE
Susquehanna River Basin
\
-------
A
Regional Center for Environmental Information
US EPA Region III
1650 Arch St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I ":
I
I
MINE DRAINAGE IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
I
Ralph L. Rhodes, Chief of Streams
I and Special Studies Unit
Robert S. Davis, Technical Publications
Writer-Editor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Middle Atlantic Region
I
I U. ^P^iinoulll
:=!-.T;i ir.yjl Mr,:.u.'V for Environmental
I 'vlV^ ,:,;.:.':;:
J-j'iO .',"-': Stree-(SPM52)
iMiltirie^hiJi, PA 19103
I
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Middle Atlantic Region
Charlottesville, Vireinia 22901
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FOREWORD
This mine drainage study was undertaken by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) in 1962 in cooperation with
State and other Federal agencies and was completed in 1968. The work
was done by the staff of the Susquehanna Field Station, an arm of the
comprehensive program of the Middle Atlantic Region. It was carried
out in conjunction with comprehensive survey of water quality and
pollution problems throughout the Susquehanna Basin, initiated by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1*66 et seq.).
The reason for creating a separate report concerning mine
drainage alone is because mine drainage is the major pollution prob-
lem of the Susquehanna River Basin both in terms of water quality
degradation and in terms of costs of cleaning it up. Abatement
measures, according to the priority system, will cost approximately
226 million dollars for initial measures including both preventive
measures, such as stream diversion, and chemical treatment of the
acid flows unaffected by preventive measures. It is estimated that
the annual maintenance costs of all measures to control mine drainage
pollution will amount to 35 million dollars. These figures are enor-
mous in comparison with the tangible damages resulting from mine
drainage. It is estimated that there are at least four million dollars
in damages to water uses every year. The intangible damages, such as
losses of recreation potential, are difficult if not impossible to
assess.
During the study, mine drainage sources were located through-
out the Susquehanna Basin generally. Each discharge was sampled for
volume and quality. In addition, the biological and chemical quality
of the receiving streams were also determined.
Cooperating agencies:
1. Bureau of Mines
2. Geological Survey
3. Soil Conservation Service
k. Fish and Wildlife Service
5. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
6. Corps of Engineers
7. Forest Service
8. Pennsylvania Department of Health
9. Department of Forests and Waters of Pennsylvania
10. Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries
11. Pennsylvania Fish Commission
-------
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................... 1
Summary and Conclusion ..................... 3
Formation and Source of Mine Drainage ... .... ...... 6
am Effect on Water Uses 11
Abatement Measures lit
Abatement Costs and Priorities ...... 18
Pennsylvania Abatement Program ......... ........ 23
| Study Procedures . . . .............. 25
_ Area Discussions ........ 30
West Branch Susquehanna River 30
fl Juniata River '. . 50
Tioga River . . . 55
f Anthracite Region . . ......... 59
_ References ...................... 74
Appendices ........................... 76
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
INTRODUCTION
The water pollution problems associated with mine drainage
pollution are not new. They are associated not only with coal opera-
tions but arise as a difficult problem in mining for other minerals
as well. Moreover, mine drainage constituents are occasionally found
in ground water flowing from mineral deposits to the surface through
natural faults and fissures and undoubtedly have always displayed
mine drainage characteristics. Long before the first commercial coal
mine was opened, the Indians of Pennsylvania were aware of the "black
stone" that burned, and they used the many-hued mud deposits of streams
carrying mine drainage as a source of pigment.
Although mine drainage occurs naturally, the growth of the
commercial mining industry has greatly accelerated the production of
mine drainage discharges that are deleterious to receiving streams.
Since the first coal mine was opened more than 150 years ago, the
harmful effects of mine drainage have become increasingly significant*
What was a localized problem in the early days of the industry is now
widespread., Today, after the production of over one billion tons of
bituminous coal and five billion tons of anthracite, more than 1200
miles of streams in the Susquehanna River Basin are rendered acid by
mine drainage and many more miles are unfit for some uses
Increasingly stringent regulatory control has been placed on
the mining industry by the state water pollution control agencies
and, due to this, pollution caused by active mines is expected to
diminish. Most of the mine drainage entering the streams of the
study area, however, originates in abandoned mines. Responsibility
for abating pollution from this source has fallen to state, local,
and federal agencies. A rational and efficient approach to the solu-
tion of the problem as a basin-wide effort involves identifying pollu-
tion sources, assessing their effect on stream quality, and developing
a comprehensive abatement program based upon costs and benefits. This
report is intended as a first step toward developing such a plan.
The coal fields to be discussed are shown in Appendix A,
Figures 1-A through 1-D.
Areas containing coal and allied deposits in the basin are
listed here.
Anthracite - Northern Field, Western Middle Field,
Eastern Middle Field and Southern Field ...... kQk sq mi
Semi-anthracite - Mehoopany, Towanda, Pine, and
Loyalsock Creek Basins .................». . 55 sq mi
Bituminous - Broad Top-Juniata Basin ............. 81 sq mi
West Branch Susquehanna River Basin .......... 3606 sq mi
Tioga River Basin ...........a................. 59 sq mi
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Purpose and Scope
This report provides background to be used in developing a
program for eliminating or reducing mine drainage pollution in the
Susquehanna River Basin. The principal objective is to identify and
characterize the watersheds in the sub-basins responsible for mine
drainage pollution and to suggest measures to abate or alleviate the
effects. To do this, the quality and flow volume of each located
discharge were characterized, as well as the relationship of each to
the quality of the main stem of the receiving stream. Estimates of
pollution abatement costs and damages associated with mine drainage
pollution were also developed.
Significant pollution is caused by silt from coal mining and
processing operations in the basin. However, silt pollution is not
peculiar to mining, and its solutions are not necessarily related to
the mine drainage problem; therefore, it will not be thoroughly
discussed in this report.
Although most of the pollution problems are still very much
as described here, it should be kept in mind that some of the situa-
tions may have gone through changes since the study was completed.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
From 1962 through 1968, the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
Basins Project (CB-SRBP) conducted a comprehensive water pollution
control study in the Susquehanna River Basin. Studies designed to
find sources of mine drainage and to assess the stream quality effects
and the estimated costs of pollution abatement were carried out as a
part of the study. At the same time, the FWPCA chaired the Mine
Drainage Work Group, a part of the Corps of Engineers' Interagency
Water Resources Study on the Susquehanna River Basin.
Data have been compiled on the extent and causes of mine drain-
age pollution in the Susquehanna Valley. For this report, the basin
has been divided into subareas: the West Branch of the Susquehanna
River, the Juniata River Basin, the Tioga River Basin, and the portion
of the Susquehanna itself that lies in the anthracite coal region.
Sub-basins within these areas are described on a hydrologic basis,
beginning in the headwaters.
An estimated 5,000 mining operations have been active in the
bituminous coal fields in the period from 1800 to the present. About
one billion tons of coal have been produced. About 1,000 major mining
operations in the anthracite region have produced five billion tons
of coal.
Of the 1,150 major mine drainage discharges located in the
entire basin, 970 (about 85 percent) were found to originate at in-
active mines. These mines release 820,000 Ib/day, or 75 percent of
the total acid loading. About 71^»000 Ib/day come from deep mines.
Discharges from inactive deep mines in the anthracite area are res-
ponsible for about 387,000 Ib/day total acidity coming from that
region.
Mine drainage causes gross water quality degradation in 715
miles of major streams in the basin; the water area affected is esti-
mated at 20,000 acres Another 500 miles of tributaries are perenni-
ally degraded by drainage. There is also less severe and intermittent
damage on many more miles of streams.
Conclusions
Abandoned mines are a more significant source of acid than
active mines in both the anthracite and bituminous coal fields.
Strip mines in the anthracite field are not a significant, direct
source of pollution, but in the bituminous region they are. Dis-
charges from deep mines in both areas constitute by far the greater
source. Strip mines can augment the discharge volume from deep mines
by serving as a reservoir for seepage through the ground into the
deep mines.
In small watersheds, discharges from coal refuse piles may
be extremely significant, but information is not available to make a
general statement on their effect upon an entire basin.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
State agencies as well as the mining industry have done a
great deal of work to seek and apply methods for abating and prevent-
ing mine drainage pollution. Funds are not available at the state
level to complete abatement from inactive mines on a comprehensive
basis. A bond issue recently passed in Pennsylvania will make ap-
proximately 150 million dollars available for abatement and control
activities over a ten-year period.
The restoration of surface drainage patterns disturbed by
mining, as well as other activities to prevent mine drainage, will
improve stream quality. It is doubtful, however, that such work
alone will completely abate mine drainage pollution. A private con-
sultant (13) studied five areas representative of portions subject
to mine drainage. Preventive measures considered to be economically
feasible effected an acid reduction of 20 to TO percent. The reduc-
tion methods were applied to the extent considered to be economically
feasible. Mine drainage treatment facilities and/or flow regulation
for water quality control will be needed in most if not all areas.
Additional studies for each basin are needed to evaluate the most
economically feasible approach.
It is possible to develop meaningful priority rankings for
mine drainage pollution abatement based upon available estimates of
costs and benefits associated with pollution abatement. Rankings
vary greatly depending upon the method of estimating benefits, avail-
ability of funds for construction and operation, and other constraints.
Comparison of several alternate ranking methods indicate, however,
that particular sub-basins fall near the top of the list and others
fall near the bottom under all ranking methods. The first steps in
pollution abatement should be taken on the ten watersheds listed below.
In all the ranking systems used, these ten consistently fell near the
top; however, the order of undertaking pollution abatement projects
should be determined after considering constraints operating when the
project is to be undertaken.
Based on 1967 dollars, it is estimated that acid mine drain-
age costs four million dollars annually in damages to water uses.
Basic data are not adequate to quantitatively describe pollution
abatement benefits in monetary terms for all water uses and all streams
influenced by mine drainage.
Restoration of streams polluted with mine drainage will cost
226 million dollars initially and 35 million dollars annually. The
costs are based on a pollution abatement program that employs preven-
tive measures to the greatest extent considered economically feasible
and then providing lime neutralization to meet water quality objectives,
Benefits will be counted in terms of money saved to all users
of mine drainage waters. Waters from this source corrode water pipe-
lines and disrupt all kinds of municipal and industrial uses, as well
as interfering with waste treatment processes. Many benefits are at-
tributable to savings in treatment costs necessary to ameliorate the
low pH and other adverse chemical constituents of mine drainage water,
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
in restoring the quality of the water desirable uses. Other benefits
will be realized in waste treatment system economies as well. These
operations presently suffer from the inhibition of biological treat-
ment due to the adversely low pH.
The benefits to recreation are not presently definable. It
is suspected that many small streams that are presently devoid of a
desirable ecology will once again be able to support a thriving sport
fishery environment Water contact recreation also suffers. The low
pH is far below the desirable 6.5 recommended for swimming. Further-
more, boating is not possible on waters of low pH because of corrosion
possibilities. Altogether, the intangible benefits to be realized
from mine drainage abatement will far exceed the tangible ones.
First Cost Annual Cost
Sub-basin (millions ) (millions )
Sinnemahoning Creek 5-5 0.8
Lackawanna River ik.Q 2.3
Wyoming Valley 12.0 2.1
Upper West Branch 18.3 2.0
Chest Creek 2.8 0.1*
Tioga River 6.8 0.7
Clearfield Creek 10.0 1.6
Swatara Creek U.7 0.7
Mahantango Creek 2.3 0.3
Beech Creek k.O 0.5
Total 80. U 11.1+
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FORMATION AND SOURCES OF MINE DRAINAGE
Formation
Over the past 20 years, researchers have studied the formation
and chemistry of acid drainage; however, areas of disagreement and un-
certainty still exist. A detailed treatment of the subject is beyond
the scope of this report. The material presented here is intended to
describe briefly the mechanics of acid formation as it relates to the
mine drainage pollution problem and its solutions.
During coal mining, iron sulfide minerals are oxidized through
exposure to air and water. Water flowing through the mine leaches
away the oxidation products and aids in the formation of acid mine
waters. One of the more common systems yielding ferrous hydroxide
and acid is represented by the following reactions:
2FeS2 + 702 + 2HOH * 2FeSOu + 2H2SO^;
FeSO^ + 2HOH t Fe(OH)2 + S0^= + 2H*;
Fe(OH)2 + HOH Z Fe(OH)3 + H+
The concentration of soluble metallic salts in mine drainage
is a function of the amount of minerals, air, and water present.
Other factors are the length of contact time among precursors, tem-
perature, and catalytic agents present,' Also, the crystallography,
particle size, and purity of the iron sulfide minerals have been
found to play a very important role in reactivity.
Geology also plays an important part in acid mine formation.
Formations vary significantly from place to place even within a given
coal seam; and this variation is due, in part, to differences in the
occurrence and form of iron sulfide minerals associated with the
coal. These minerals occur in varying amounts both in the seam and
in the strata above and below the coal. They occur in distinctly
different forms which are commonly described as sulfur balls, lenses,
veins, and finely divided particles or crystals.
When the coal is mined, some of the iron sulfide minerals
are separated from the coal and deposited inside the mine or on the
ground surface in refuse piles. Thus, the sulfides are exposed to
oxidation and natural leaching by ground or surface water.
Iron sulfide minerals found in the strata above and below
the coal are exposed during the course of mining and, when the loca-
tion is depleted of coal, the acid forming minerals remain in the
roof and sides. Additional oxidation surfaces may continue to be
exposed through upheaving, spalling, and roof falls after the mine
has been abandoned.
In addition to vertical variations in occurrence through geo-
logic formations containing coal, the amount of iron sulfide minerals
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
present also varies horizontally within a formation. Investigations
at the Pennsylvania State University (8, 9) determined a definite
correlation between the amount of iron sulfide minerals present and
the paleoenvironmento It was shown that coals associated with marine
(saline water) deposits had greater iron sulfide content than coals
associated with continental (fresh water) deposits. Since the amount
of acid mine drainage produced depends in part upon the amount of
iron sulfide minerals present, it was concluded that mines in the bi-
tuminous coal field extracting coals from strata of a marine paleo-
environment should present a more serious mine drainage pollution
threat than those extracting coal from strata of a continental
paleoenvironment. Summaries of records maintained by the Pennsylvania
Department of Health (10) support this conclusion. One of the most
clear-cut examples of this phenomenon is the tendency of mines in the
portion of the Lower Freeport coal seam, which underlies the head-
waters of the West Branch Susquehanna River, to produce alkaline
drainage. The tendency for mines in this seam to produce acid dis-
charges increases to the southwest and northwest. Some seams, notably
Clarion and Brookville, are considered much more likely to have
significant acid discharges than other seams in the basin.
It is suspected that bacteria act as catalysts in the forma-
tion of acid mine drainage. Three specific organisms that have been
associated with mine drainage are: Thiobacillus thiooxidans, Ferro-
bacillus ferroxidans (sulfur-oxidizing bacteria), and Thiobacillus
ferrooxidans (ferrous-oxidizing bacteria). The extent to which they
play a significant role is not known; however, research is being
continued in this area.
Sources
Coal mining operations are carried out in a variety of ways,
depending upon the location and configuration of the coal deposit.
Development and operation of the mine has a profound effect on the
quality and quantity of mine drainage produced
Mine development. Mines are developed either as "deep mines"
or "surface mines." Deep mines are further classified as "shaft,"
"slope," or "drift" mines. A shaft mine is driven downward vertically
into a coal seam which may not outcrop at the point of development.
Coal mined by this method often lies beneath the ground-water table.
Coal is removed from a slope mine through an entry which slopes down-
ward to intercept the coal seam. A drift mine has its opening driven
into the outcropping of a coal seam that is essentially flat-lying.
While shaft and slope mines are active, water that seeps in
must be pumped out. Drainage from a drift mine, on the other hand,
is accomplished by gravity through open channels. Occasional pools,
caused by dips in the strata, may, however, be dewatered by siphon-
ing or pumping. Drift mines are a major source of mine drainage in
the basin because, when abandoned, they do not fill with water and
tend to continue discharging mine drainage with a quality equal to or
worse than that discharged while the mine was active.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
When shaft and slope mines are abandoned, infiltrating ground
water fills the mines to the natural level of the ground-water table
in the area or to a level in the mine at which the water can find its
way to the surface by gravity. In some cases, this "natural" inunda-
tion of iron sulfide minerals has been beneficial to the quality of
drainage from mines.
Surface mines may be drained either by gravity or pumping,
depending upon the elevation of surface drainage in the area. In
addition to removing ground water which enters surface mines, steps
must be taken to divert surface drainage so that it does not enter
the mine workings. Surface mines may be sub-divided into "strip"
and "auger" mines.
A strip mine is an open pit where the coal is mined after
the overlying strata have been removed. Auger mining is usually as-
sociated with some form of strip mining. The coal is extracted by
boring horizontally into the exposed coal seam0 This method is also
used to extract coal near the outcrop left behind by previous deep
mine operations or where underground mining is not feasible.
Over the years, most of the basin's coal production has been
from deep mines. Since 19^5, however, use of strip mining techniques
has steadily increased until today it accounts for approximately 60
percent of the total annual production.
Mine drainage production. The quality and quantity of mine
drainage depends upon a number of factors:
l) Hydrologic and geologic features of the surrounding
terrain.
2) Availability of acid precursors (air, water, and iron
sulfide minerals)
3) Length of contact time of the required precursors.
k) The type of mining methods used.
5) The operating status of the mine, i.e., active or inactive.
The production of mine drainage from a mining operation may
be either continuous or intermittent. Underground mines developed
below the ground-water table usually "make" mine drainage on a con-
tinuous basis. The concentration of the pollutants varies as a func-
tion of the volume of water entering the mine, contact time, and
available minerals; underground mines are generally continuous
producers. The quality and quantity of the discharge may vary greatly
in cases where the water table is below the mine level for only a
portion of the time. Quality and quantity will also vary when the
mine receives direct surface water contribution Discharges from
surface mines are often intermittent, generally occurring during and
immediately after periods of precipitation. In areas disturbed by
surface mining, runoff may be trapped by inadequately restored trenches
or pits formed during the stripping operation. These pools contain
high concentrations of mine drainage indicators and are reservoirs of
potential mine drainage pollution During periods of high runoff,
they may overflow and release concentrated "slugs" of mine drainage
pollution to receiving streams. Many drain slowly into the bottom
-------
and sides of the pool to emerge as mine drainage seepages down the
slope from the stripping operation,, They may also drain into deep
mines underlying the stripped area, thus increasing the mine drainage
flow.
Mine drainage may continue to flow from mines long after they
have been "worked out" and abandoned. As long as air, water, and iron
sulfide minerals are present, the mine will produce acid mine drainage.
Pollution with mine drainage characteristics may also origi-
nate at refuse piles associated with mining operations. The refuse
piles are made up of impurities removed from the mined coal. Mine
refuse piles are subject to the same mechanisms of acid water forma-
tion as mines. The pollution coming from these piles is usually
intermittent, occurring only during and immediately after periods of
precipitation. Several cases exist in the basin, however, where the
piles interrupt surface drainage. The water passing through the refuse
thus constitutes a vehicle for transport of soluble salts, thereby
forming a continuous mine drainage discharge. Although discharges
from refuse piles may be extremely significant, particularly in small
watersheds, no information is available to permit a general statement
on the effect of spoil piles on water quality over an entire basin.
Both surface and deep mining operations contribute to the
heavy silt load carried by many of the streams in the basin. During
surface mining operations, large tracts of land are completely denuded,
exposing the soil to erosion by surface runoff and wind. Coal silt
from processing operations and runoff from piles of refuse are a
significant source of suspended solids in many streams, particularly
in the anthracite area* Silt pollution, although associated with
mining, is not peculiar to mining and is not directly related to the
mine drainage pollution problem or its solutions. It will not be
thoroughly discussed in this report.
From 196U through 1968, studies were conducted by the FWPCA
to locate major mine drainage discharges. The number of discharges
located was considerably smaller than the total number of mining
operations reported within the basin area. Some of the reasons for
this difference are:
1. Studies were conducted during summer low-flow periods
when mine drainage flow is expected to be at a minimum.
Thus, mines that discharge only during wet weather
periods were not located*
2. In many cases, interconnection of mine workings, both
intentionally and unintentionally, has consolidated
drainage from many mines into one discharge. In the
anthracite area particularly, many shaft and slope mines
are kept dewatered by a system of drainage tunnels
driven expressly for this purpose.
3. Problems in identifying mine drainage discharges arose
from mine sealing which results from (a) intentional
efforts by man; (b) from the natural deterioration of
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
mine supports; and (c) from the disruption of drainage
patterns by surface mining. These sealings handicapped
the inventory process because the quality of discharge
vater was often improved; another problem arose as a
result of mine flooding which often eliminates discrete
discharges. All these occurrences make it more difficult
to locate and characterize specific discharges.
k. Some abandoned mines do not produce discharge water with
the characteristics of mine drainage. There are two
reasons for this: first, when a mine is filled with
water, the flooding interrupts interaction among the acid
precursors; and, secondly, some mines simply have naturally
alkaline discharges.
The number of major mine drainage sources located through
1968, as well as the acid contribution of each, are summarized by
source category in the following table. Data in the table were
developed from records of discharge location-characterization studies
conducted during summer low-flow periods. In some cases, the high
flow contribution could be many times that recorded. Neither table
includes data for discharges to a number of small tributaries to the
West Branch which have not as yet been surveyed.
Although the data in the tables do not represent a complete
inventory of all basin mine drainage discharges under average flow
conditions, they can be used as the basis for several general
conclusions.
1. Discharges in the anthracite field are much less numerous,
but contribute a much larger acid loading than those in
the bituminous field.
2, In both fields, abandoned mines are a more significant
source of acid than active mines.
3. In the anthracite field, strip mines are not a signifi-
cant, primary source of acid mine drainage.
k. In the bituminous field, strip mines are a significant
source of acid, but are not collectively as significant
as deep mines.
These conclusions are made in the basin-wide context to pro-
vide the reader with a better appreciation for the relative influence
on various types of mines. They do not necessarily hold true in
specific sub-basins. A detailed discussion of sources of mine drain-
age and their effects on stream quality may be found in the section
concerning the individual sub-basins.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
M
CO
<
PQ
W
f£)
^"
M
«
Is5
J2J
w
IV]
5
0?
B
CO
H
at
-P
o
EH
-d
(U
H
Vl
H
to
H
0
a
to
fl
o
H
-P
aS
(U
P
8
o
«
o
CO
H
O
^»
a
M
s
Q
w
a
2n
K
O
rf
S
O
0)
rl
-P
O
as
a
M
H
O
H
-P
CO
08
P
(U
0)
d
H
O
P
to
ft
o
OJ
b>
H
P
o
<^
W
I)
a
H
S
ft
H
rH
-P
CO
r^
H
O
co
0)
(3
S
ft
0)
0)
P
0
iH
O
«3j
(D
3
VH
o
o
0
at
a
S1_
tte
f«
O
to
H
Q
at
=»t
_£<
O
to
H
Q
I
"**^
"t
.
c*
0
03
-H
Q
o
o
UA
OO
LA
CM
rH
O
O
o
CM
t-
O
O
ON
H
H
00
o
o
LA
CM
CM
t
ON
0
O
rH
O
O
o\
CO
^t
co
o
o
H
O
O
rH
rH
00
CM
O
O
H
t-
CO
"^
O
o
U"\
o
0
t
o
oo
o
0
CM
-4"
rH
O
O
t-
CM
OO
rH
O
O
O
0
ON
oo
LA
O\
O
O
CM
CM
CM
O
O
O
H
O
CM
O
0
CM
ON
H
O
O
0
CM
0
O
S
oo
rH
00
H
o
s
-d"
O
CM
O
O
VO
O
LA
ON
0
O
O
CO
ON
CO
O
0
O
OO
OO
O
O
H
O
O
H
oo
o
O
CM
CM
CM
H
O
O
H
t-
CM
CM
CO
O
O
0
CM
CM
00
H
O
O
OO
H
CM
O
0
O
CM
H
rH
O
O
O
co
UA
00
o
o
CM
H
O
0
-=f-
H
^
CM
O
O
OO
o
o
H
rH
CM
CM
CM
O
O
O
l/N
UA
O
o
oo
CM
O
O
O
O
oo
oo
o
o
CO
UA
CM
CM
OO
O
O
oo
o
CO
CM
VO
CM
O
O
CM
OJ
t
LA
O
O
oo
ON
CM
UA
O
O
o
o
o
ON
o
vo
o
o
o
o
ON
o\
t-
M)
ON
O
O
UA
CM
H
o
o
oo
CM
O
O
CO
UA
O
t
o
o
o
H
t-
VO
CM
O
O
MD
CM
O
MD
UA
O
O
UA
CM
O
O
oo
CM
H
ON
a
H
CO
^
PQ
I
CO
»
PS
^t
a
a
M
}~^
&
B
CO
»
«
pp
EH
CO
O
to
(U
43
O
0
rH
fj ^~(
O
§§
rH (U
« rH
P
P IQ
to ft
1)
rH
O
+»
to
0)
r*
O
J4
V
0)
^-<
o
a
o
2
0)
d
8
^
0)
rH
O
TJ
rH
0)
H
-P (U
PP rH tO G
o
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O 0 O O 0 O
d
.p
o
EH
^>
<^ *^ gj
H aj T(
00^--
< iJ =fc
4-4 *
0 X!
O
W
O -H
a o
T3
0)
H
VH
H
10
to
03
H
O
£3
ft
H
J^
-P
CO
=8
ft
CO
Q
T> T} Cd
H 03 *&
0 O "^
'"O T3 Cw
H cd t)
0 O ~-«
< J =*
^
< J =fe
VH Q
O X!
O
o CO
O -H
a Q
W
a
o
H
-P
J^
4)
ft
o
4
M cc; rH h h co co
« rH 0 0 k 0)
jrf cd o
WC u co c!
EH 03 W) CD co -H >>
M 1* (3 ft -H J4 O
CJ> Cd -rl O > O C
> CO cd xl cd
EH ^ :* a u co s
o
o
H
LA
OJ
OO
0
0
OJ
OJ
o
rH
o
o
ON
OJ
Oj
OJ
M
CO
(0
u
Q
ef
K
-p
c
OS
a
S
o
o
vo
oo
LA
o
o
vo
OO
LA
^
CO
co
o
o
o
CO
H
n
o
a
;x
o
o
oo
rH
H
0 0
o o
VO C7N
LA t
H 00
LA
rH
OJ
oo ^t
H -*
H
o
0
H
o
o
H
H
rH
o
o
t
o
0
ON
OJ
oo
0
o
t
t-
o o
O 0
-H/ ON
c t
oo oo
oo
oo
oo j-
t -=!
o
o
CO
OJ
o
o
OJ
t~
OJ
rH
LA
VO
oo
CO i-z3
co >
rl M
0 H K
cd -P -rl 0
cd -p o1
X! 3 CO
0 X)
CO -H CO
"H ^) $-*
Q -P S
C -P
1 0 3
CO O
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
11
EFFECT ON WATER USES
When mine drainage enters natural waters, the value of the
water for many beneficial uses is reduced. Although the pollutional
effects of mine drainage are generally associated with surface waters,
there is evidence that the quality of ground water is degraded by
mine drainage in some portions of the basin. Data are not available
to quantitatively evaluate the effects of mine drainage pollution on
ground water. The following discussion is, therefore, limited to
mine drainage effects on surface streams.
Significant water quality degradation attributable to mine
drainage has been measured in approximately 715 miles of major streams
and in 500 miles of small tributaries in the basin. The surface area
of the major streams affected is an estimated 20,000 acres. The
following table gives the miles of streams in each sub-basin polluted
by mine drainage.
The discharge of acid mine drainage to surface water changes
its quality by lowering the pH, reducing the alkalinity, increasing
the total hardness, and adding varying amounts of iron, manganese,
aluminum sulfates, as well as other elements and suspended material.
Water quality parameters and uses influenced by mine drainage are
discussed in the chapter describing problems in each sub-basin.
Estimates of the dollar value of damages attributable to mine
drainage pollution influence on various uses of these streams are
listed in Table 1. These data constitute the best estimates of
federal and state agencies cooperating on the Susquehanna River Basin
Comprehensive Water Resources Study. It does not, as explained in
the section describing individual sub-basins, represent all real
damages attributable to mine drainage pollution abatement. A detailed
breakdown of estimated damages in each sub-basin is in Table 1.
One of the most significant sources of error in estimating
damages is the failure to consider the effect of mine drainage on
uses of more than 500 miles of tributaries to the "major" streams
(Table l). Analysis of samples collected from these streams, in the
course of field survey activities, indicates significant water quality
degradation. Data on these streams were not, however, adequate to
permit estimation of water use damages. The estimates, however, are
utilized in the following calculable damages to various water uses in
the basino
The most pollution-sensitive water use is fishing. Damage to
fish and fish food organisms is usually caused by high concentrations
of acid, iron, sulfate, and the deposition of a smothering blanket of
precipitated iron salts in the streambed. In addition, zinc, copper,
and aluminum have been measured in lethal concentrations in some
discharges. The toxicities of these elements are compounded by syn-
ergism among several of them. Because of the complex nature of mine
drainage, it is impossible to accurately measure the toxicity to
aquatic life of any single chemical constituent.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CO EH
H
CO
-p
O
EH
cu
p
CO
CO
p
43
H
EH
O
CO
CU
H
H
s
-p
CO
a
r-l
ct)
S
0
CO
cu
H
S
a
H
CO
*
pq
I
p3
CO
C
H
[Q
a3
pq
-3-ov£>aoONCMLr\o\co LTN .3-
t rH i 1 ^ O i 1 l^N OJ ^O CO
H H H H
H
oo t vo c t H LTN on o o -4t
-a- co ir\ vo CM H c H
HonoHCMHO\r>co ir\ o
on H^DLfNUAonrH ON t
o
t>C 43
» (3 -P
M -H ZS
CU GO
MO O M)
£ .XCUCU CUC3OJ3C3
O <0 t-i CU (50 CU TH -p vH -H
h CUU^tG ^S SS
«Mj«jVl U-rHX O O
CQ CUOT3 GCU^! o8ho843
kB-P-PV(koJCU43 H CU C
'OCQ CQ CU 1043 G O43 Cd-P43+^-H
CO ft CU 13 CU CO G CU 43 t*^ CO O CO CQ
CUD43GHO-HCUe6O(U CU
33 - o t3 ^ O t!D
CO h CU O -H CQ
CU H -P >
> -P CQ 43
Oi -P !>, bC
0) -H ct! 2
pq i-3 PC <
M
p*
^
EH
M
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--^
cy
£j
S3
H
P
a
>H 0
EH 0
M. _
V-'
M S
M a
w
^j s
135 M Q
a w
W W K
CO CO Q
CO fc >H
O i-H1
EH
i-q 0
M M
*? pE,
M
a
M
CO
CO
M
H
(D
-p
O
EH
CO
OS
CO r^ ^ CO ^ 9>
>COCOAj COCO -H
H CO <0 COJkj ^H CO^KtO
CC>-l>-lCOCOOhCU ^3
OOJntt) OOJCS-H
Ofl CJ »-i O S-i C »H
CJ^ai ObDOOQEH
(3 o co c! Co a)
o) CO cO'r-i £>>ctf co cdrO^i
> p, i-l ,«<{ O -P -H h (DO
aJO^OCGCIaJ^C
XOOjga5o3O-PD<'H
OCO-PCO^HrCO 05CO^
atcOa)^3a3co°i-i^^
i-5E;ocoSSSroco
<
K
w w
> EH
M M
« O
^jj fy»
o nc
O EH
M K
EH c
O
-p
CO
O
a
o
H
-P
a
o
o
a>
bO
O
CO
rH
Q
I
CO
-p
co
o
a
M
H
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12
It was estimated in 1967 that a total of 600,000 fishermen
days, with a value of about 9^2,000 dollars, would be gained annually
by mine drainage pollution abatement. The greatest benefit would
come from pollution abatement in the West Branch Susquehanna River,
Sinnemahoning Creek, Clearfield Creek, and Moshannon Creek.
The destruction of aquatic life and the discoloration of the
water and bottom by precipitates combine to make the streams and im-
poundments aesthetically unappealing. Effects of mine drainage make
streams and impoundments unattractive for boating, water skiing,
bathing, and other forms of recreation. The low pH caused by mine
drainage has been associated with bathers' eye irritation (11) and
discoloration of the water may present a safety hazard to swimmers
by concealing underwater objects.
Loss of recreational value due to mine drainage is estimated
to total 2,5 million dollars annually. The greatest damages in mone-
tary terms occur in the West Branch Susquehanna River, Swarata Creek,
Clearfield Creek, Moshannon Creek, and the Susquehanna River (Table 1).
By altering the ecology, the stream's ability to stabilize
sewage and organic industrial wastes may be retarded. The organic
material may thus be at least partially preserved until it is carried
to a stream or reach of stream where the mine drainage influence is
not significant. Data are not presently available to estimate the
monetary value of this effect,,
Substantial corrosion may occur to unprotected structures and
navigation equipment located in streams polluted by mine drainage.
The effect may be minimized by using special concrete mixes for in-
stream structures and frequent maintenance of metal exposed to mine
drainage; however, the additional cost of providing this protection
cannot be accurately estimated.
Mine drainage has a definite, adverse effect on the use of
streams for industrial, municipal, and agricultural water supply.
The principal sources of the adverse effect are sulfuric acid, iron,
manganese, aluminum, calcium, and magnesium salts.
In water treatment plants, high acidity and low pH may result
in adverse effects on chemical coagulation, softening, and corrosion
control. Corrosion control is the major problem of most industrial
users.
Both iron and manganese create serious problems in public and
in some industrial water supplies. Iron and manganese salts stain
plumbing fixtures and laundry and interfere with some industrial
processes. Iron also supports the growth of filamentous iron bacteria
which restrict or even completely stop the flow of water in distribution
lines.
Some sulfate compounds and the end products of their reaction
with calcium and magnesium carbonate (the principal constituents of
the alkalinity of many streams) produce permanent hardness in water.
Hardness is objectionable in public supplies, particularly because
consumers are forced to use more soap for cleaning purposes. Permanent
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13
hardness in boiler feed water forms scale, which cuts down the heat
exchange efficiency of boilers
The undesirable characteristics of mine water can be removed
by modern and adequately designed water treatment plants. These addi-
tional treatment costs, however, can be a very important consideration
to a community developing a new public water supply or to an industry
seeking a new location. The estimated monetary damage to municipal
and industrial water supply use in the basin is 1,106,000 dollars
annually.
The use of mine drainage for crop irrigation tends to increase
the acidity of the normally acid soils in the basin. It may also
cause a chemical reaction in the soil, adversely affecting its
physical properties.
Livestock and wildlife use is also impaired by mine drainage
effects,, Milk production is reported to decrease when cows are
limited to drinking water bearing mine drainage indicators (ll).
Mine drainage damages to agricultural water use in the basin
total an estimated 65,300 dollars annually. This estimate is based
solely on irrigation use and would be slightly higher if stock
watering damage were considered.
Calculable Damages from Mine Drainage Pollution
(Thousands of Dollars)
Mun, &
Area Recreation Fishing Indus, Agric. Corrosion Total
Anthracite
West Branch
Juniata
Tioga
TOTAL
UlU
1875
3
210
2502
207
717
I
17
91*2
693
336
77
0
1106
13
23
0
29
66
ko
ko
1327
2951
81
296
1+656
Susquehanna River Basin Water Resource Report. Interagency Study
on Susquehanna River Basin Water Resources (Type II).
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ABATEMENT MEASURES
Over the many years that mine drainage pollution has been
recognized as a problem, numerous methods have been advanced as pos-
sible solutions. The methods are categorized as either "preventive"
or "control" measures. Prevention measures are intended to reduce
the amount of pollutants at the source Control measures are in-
tended to eliminate or reduce the polluting effects of mine drainage
after the pollutants have been formed and have entered the mine
discharge or the surface stream.
Studies by Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter (GFCC) (13)
for the FWPCA concluded that prevention measures have a high first
cost, but a low annual cost compared with treatment measures. Pre-
vention measures are a feasible measure in all the recommended pollu-
tion abatement plans in each of the five areas investigated. The
amount of prevention work recommended for each area varied as did
the estimated pollution abatement benefit, The acidity reduction
that is expected from these prevention procedures ranges from 20 per-
cent to TO percent among the five areas.
The least-cost solution to a given problem could involve any
or a combination of available methods. A more thorough treatment of
this subject may be found in reports of Stephen and Lorenz (12) and
GFCC (13).
The most successful prevention measures are those which pre-
clude the simultaneous contact among the three precursors,, Some of
these are described here.
(l) Inundation utilizes the technique of immersing iron
sulfide in water, which keeps it out of contact with
the air, and oxidation is pr^n-entedo To be successful
the minerals must lie below the level of the pool formed.
The ideal inundation situation is where the entire cross-
section of the mine is covered by water,
(2) Water control and diversion can significantly reduce the
amount of pollutants discharged from both deep and strip
mines. Although soluble metallic salts may be formed,
flowing water is needed to dissolve and carry the salts
from the mine. Reduction in the volume of water entering
a mine or reducing the time of contact between the water
and the soluble salts may reduce the polluting effect of
mine drainage reaching the receiving stream. While the
mines are active, water that enters may be conveyed back
to a surface water course quickly so that chances for
contact among the acid-forming ingredients are minimized.
In abandoned mines, where this kind of control is not
possible, emphasis must be placed upon preserving surface
drainage patterns and minimizing the introduction of
surface water to the mines«
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15
Regrading and planting selected areas disturbed by
surface mines or deep mine subsidence promotes surface
runoff, minimizes percolation of impounded water, and
reduces the introduction of water to underground mines
which may underlie the area. Restoration of the land to
a configuration which makes it more suitable to new uses
is an important secondary benefit.
Lining stream channels has been cited (13) as an
important measure for control of surface water contribu-
tion to deep mines. Interconnections between surface
streams and deep mine workings are provided by surface
subsidence areas, boreholes, and by cracks and fissures
in the strata lying between the streambed and the mine
workings.
In cases where it is not possible to locate the plug
individual interconnections, it is sometimes necessary
to construct an impermeable channel liner of wood, con-
crete, asphalt, or other material to maintain the stream
flow on the surface. Some work of this type has been
carried out in the anthracite fields under the provisions
of a joint federal-state mine water control program
established in 1955 (l^). Although some of these liners
are in bad condition because of inadequate maintenance
and disturbance by surface mining activity, they success-
fully convey surface water across areas offering access
for water to the mine workings.
(3) In some cases, air sealing may prevent oxidation of iron
sulfide minerals. The planned collapse of deep mines,
called retreat mining, prevents the free movement of both
air and water. Unrestored surface mines and refuse piles
can be covered with an impervious layer of clay to pre-
vent the iron sulfide minerals from coming into contact
with water and air. Unrestored strip mines can be filled
with coal mine refuse and the surface regraded; this
serves the dual purpose of burying the refuse so that the
air and water contact is minimized as well as reducing
mine drainage production and erosion on the banks of the
strip mine.
It is not always feasible or possible to abate mine drainage
pollution with preventive measures above. In these cases, a variety
of control measures may be used to eliminate or reduce the adverse
effect upon stream quality. Some of these are:
(l) Many types of treament measures have been proposed to
remove the pollutants from mine drainage discharges (12).
Probably the most widely practiced is the addition of
lime, limestone soda ash, caustic soda, or some other
alkaline materials to neutralize the acid and induce
precipitation of metallic salts. A major disadvantage
of this process is the operating costs: it has been
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16
reported to range as high as 1.30 dollars per 1,000
gallons. These large operating expenditures include the
chemical costs and the costs of removing the sludge.
The precipitate formed in the course of treatment is
frequently difficult to dewater to the point where land-
fill disposal can be used,, A second disadvantage is its
failure to remove some dissolved mineral constituents
and only a portion of the suspended material. Materials
added during the process may themselves cause pollution.
The hardness of mine drainage, for example, may be raised
by lime neutralization.
Other treatment measures proposed involve removal
and concentration of pollutants in the water. Some of
the processes are also being investigated in conjunction
with the federal government's desalination program.
These include ion exchange, distillation, reverse osmosis,
and electrodialysis. Major problems associated with
these methods, however, are high operating costs and dis-
posal of the separate pollutants. No full-scale treatment
plants using these principles have as yet been constructed
in the basin. The Pennsylvania Coal Research Board, how-
ever, has sponsored the design of experimental treatment
plants which use evaporation and ion exchange techniques.
There is a need for reliable information on the cost
of constructing and operating the various types of treat-
ment facilities under a variety of conditions. Cost data
have been derived mainly from bench-scale and pilot plant
studies and may not be applicable to many field situations.
Research and development programs in progress, as well as
operating data from full-sea]a plants in operation should
provide more reliable data on which to base evaluations
of alternatives to treatment.
An important consideration in an abatement program
utilizing treatment is the cost of conveying the mine
drainage from the discharge point to the treatment plant.
Development of a least-cost program involves balancing
the scaled economies of a large plant against the cost
of conveying the mine drainage from remote sources to a
treatment plant. Since the range of flows encountered
is likely to be great, flow equalization basins will
probably be required in most collection systems to mini-
mize the design capacity of both the collection system
and treatment plant.
(2) In some situations, benefits may be realized from impound-
ing mine drainage for release at a time when its adverse
effect upon water quality will be minimal. The objective
here is to utilize the assimilative capacity of the stream
to the greatest possible extent. Impoundment per se has
no appreciable effect upon the quality of mine drainage (15)
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IT
(3) Streamflow regulation is closely related to impoundment
and the controlled release of mine drainage. The objec-
tive here is to impound good quality water for release
during periods of minimum stream assimilative capacity.
This increases the assimilative capacity; however, the
impounded water should be high in alkalinity and low in
mine drainage, so that the release will have the dual
value of neutralizing acid while diluting concentrations
of other mine drainage indicators.
Streamflow regulation is applicable only in situations
where the stream's natural assimilative capacity is ade-
quate to prevent pollution under most conditions. The
releases act simply as loans of good quality water which
are drawn from the stream's total assets. A stream pe-
rennially polluted by mine drainage cannot be reclaimed
by flow regulation alone.
A technique has been developed for predicting net
alkalinity. It is based on the analysis of blends of
mine drainage with natural waters of varying qualities
from widely separated geographic locations. By using
this technique in a river basin where the acid and alka-
line loading of input streams can be determined, it
should be possible to predict the net residual alkalinity
of the river at any point (15). This technique should
be particularly useful to control water quality on streams
influenced by mine drainage where it is possible to
regulate the flow by using impoundments.
In a few cases, conveyance or diversion of either
mine drainage or unpolluted water between adjacent water-
sheds can play a role in poJ,lution abatement. Diversion
of good quality water between watersheds may be feasible
in some cases to increase the assimilative capacity of
the receiving stream. In contrast to Streamflow regula-
tion, inter-watershed diversion could result in a peren-
nial benefit to the quality of a stream regardless of the
alkalinity of its watershed.
As in the case of Streamflow regulation, it is neces-
sary to predict the quality resulting from mixing mine
drainage water with unpolluted water.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
18
ABATEMENT COSTS AND PRIORITIES
Estimation of Mine Drainage Pollution Abatement Costs
Limitation prevented a detailed consideration of each source
in estimating abatement costs for the entire basin. Some of these
limitations were a lack of detailed, long-term study data on all
mine drainage sources, the lack of completely reliable information
on the costs of construction and operation, and the lack of costs
for pollution abatement measures in general.
To overcome some of these limitations and to develop basic
data for estimating costs in the entire basin, the firm of Gannett
Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Incorporated (GFCC) conducted feasi-
bility type investigations in five small watersheds. Each watershed
chosen was representative of some portion of the Susquehanna River
Basin influenced by mine drainage. In each area, a number of alter-
nate abatement plans were studied. Each plan involves various combi-
nations of abatement measures, and all are intended to meet the same
objective: compliance with the requirements presently imposed by the
Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board on active coal mines. These require-
ments are intended to insure that no polluting discharges enter
surface streams.
Although each plan differs from every other plan, each has
the following elements. (l) Prevention measures: reclamation mea-
sures such as restoration of surface drainage courses, mine sealing,
etc., which are intended to reduce the flow or polluting character-
istics of the mine drainage,, (2) Collection and impoundment: these
facilities are designed to collect the mine drainage escaping, after
preventive measures are operating, and to convey it to a treatment
plant. Their capacity is the difference between the design capacity
of the treatment plant and the flow of mine drainage following the
one day of maximum rainfall occurring once every 20 years. (3) Treat-
ment: facilities for lime neutralization treatment were designed to
treat the mine drainage remaining after recommended preventive mea-
sures were completed. Plants were designed to produce an effluent
that conforms to the requirements of the Sanitary Water Board for
mine drainage discharges.
From each set of alternate plans developed, one recommended
plan was chosen. Major considerations in choosing the plan were
long-term annual cost, first cost, and technical feasibility. Addi-
tional details may be found in "Acid Mine Drainage Abatement Measures
for Selected Areas Within the Susquehanna River Basin" (13).
To use the results of the GFCC study, a number of assumptions
are made. The most important is the assumption that each watershed
influenced by mine drainage can be categorized and equated to one of
the five model areas studied by GFCC. That is, the mine drainage
abatement plan and associated costs applicable to one of the model
GFCC areas can be adjusted and applied to a watershed with similar
characteristics. The second assumption is that the mine drainage
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
19
flow data for the GFCC model areas can be used to establish flow
trend lines in the watersheds of the basin affected by mine drainage.
This assumption is necessary since most of the FWPCA mine drainage
discharge inventory and stream quality studies were conducted during
low flow periods. Using observed low flow discharges as a base line,
average and high flow values are estimated for all basin watersheds
by applying the appropriate model area trend line. Quality variations
for averaging high flow conditions are estimated the same way.
The first cost of preventive measures is estimated for each
watershed by first expressing the cost in dollars per ton of acidity
abated in each GFCC area. This figure is then multiplied by the tons
of acid abated per day in the similar watershed. Estimates using
this procedure are found in Table U at the end of the text. This
assumes that if the watersheds are similar, then the type of preven-
tive measures applied and the degree of success expected will be
similar. The amount of construction work, and thus the cost, will
be proportional to the amount of acidity reduced.
The costs for collection and impoundment are estimated by
expressing the cost for these facilities in each GFCC area in dollars
per mgd of mine drainage entering the stream under high flow condi-
tions after all applicable preventive measures are operative. These
figures are then multiplied by the corresponding flow in each similar
watershed. The effect of these deficiencies is minimized by main-
taining the size of each watershed at approximately the same size as
the corresponding GFCC area. It is then assumed that the collection
systems are of equal length. The lack of maximum flow data is over-
come by assuming high flow to be proportional to maximum flows.
The cost of treatment facilities is estimated using prelimi-
nary design curves developed by GFCC relating the cost of facilities
to flow, acid, and iron content of the mine drainage to be treated.
The annual cost of mine drainage pollution abatement work
includes amortization of the first cost over 30 years at four percent
interest, replacement of major facilities periodically as a result of
normal wear, as well as operating and maintenance costs. The annual
cost of amortization and maintenance of pollution abatement facilities
was based on a ratio of the annual cost to the first cost for areas
studied by GFCC. The estimated operating cost of treatment facilities
is based on curves developed by GFCC relating operating cost to flow,
acid, and iron content of the mine drainage to be treated. A summary
of estimated abatement costs for each sub-basin significantly
influenced by mine drainage is included in Table k°
It should be noted that the first cost constitutes only a
fraction of the sum of the total annual costs for each year of a
project with a life of about 30 years. Operation, maintenance, and
amortization costs greatly exceed the first cost over the minimum
life of a project.
If the recommended work is undertaken under the provisions
of a grant, the amortization costs will not apply.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
20
Regardless of the method of financing, however, it may be
seen that the annual cost for the entire basin constitutes a very
significant sum; one that should be considered in planning any future
mine drainage pollution abatement program.
Water Use Damages Resulting from Mine Drainage Pollution
Mine drainage pollution abatement is costly. Although future
technological advances may substantially reduce the costs, it is
probable that for the immediate future only those projects with high
pollution abatement benefit potential can be undertaken. Determining
the order of projects to be undertaken involves consideration of:
(l) the first cost of the necessary construction work and (2) the
benefits to be realized from each unit of work. No quantitative esti-
mate of all the potential benefits associated with mine drainage abate-
ment has ever been made for the Susquehanna River Basin.
In the absence of existing data for all benefits, procedures
were developed to estimate present damages throughout the basin.
Estimates were made in two ways based on: (l) the dollar value of
damages, and (2) a point system weighted to reflect the stream area
to benefit from mine drainage pollution abatement. Dollar estimates
are the total of estimates made under four categories: recreation
and aesthetics, municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wild-
life, and agricultural water use. They were made by the federal
agency members of the work group considered to be best qualified to
make estimates for specific water use categories. The estimates were
modified slightly in accordance with the consensus of opinion among
members of the Mine Drainage Work Group. Factors considered in making
the estimates were the natural, physical, and chemical characteristics
of the streams; the geographic location; and the extent and degree of
pollution (Table l).
In making dollar estimates of damages, it was recognized that
the procedure does not adequately consider all significant benefits.
Some of the shortcomings of the dollar estimates are: (l) all poten-
tial water uses were not considered; (2) secondary benefits associated
with water quality improvement were not considered (these are such
benefits as increase in property value or stimulation of service-type
enterprises); (3) value factors assigned to the various water uses
may not be accurate; and (k) increases in land values resulting from
completing reclamation measures intended to prevent formation of
mine .drainage were not considered.
A procedure involving assignment of dimensionless value points
was developed to include damages assignable to all significant water
uses. The basis for this procedure is the assignment of value point
totals for each water use to reflect the degree of damage attributable
to mine drainage in the stream or reach in question. The point totals
from which a "value point" assignment was made for each water use
category are listed here.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21
Damages Attributable to Mine Drainage Pollution
Point Assignment
1.
2.
3.
U.
5.
6.
Water Uses
Water-oriented recreation
and aesthetics
Municipal and industrial
water supply
Fish and wildlife
Agriculture
Treated waste assimilation
and transport
In-stream corrosion
Slight
8
10
8
8
1
I
Moderate
16
20
16
9
2
3
Great
2U
30
21+
12
3
5
To reflect the extent to which pollution abatement affects
water uses, the value points assigned were weighted by multiplying
the area of stream in acres and the streamflow in cfs. "Best judg-
ment" was used, therefore, in the weighted value point totals for
the six water uses in the table. The weighted value totals for all
water uses were then totaled to give a measure of the total benefit
to be enjoyed in the streams or reaches influenced by mine drainage.
The totals developed by both methods, i.e., estimated dollar
value and weighted points did not, in many cases, reflect the poten-
tial benefits to be realized from a comprehensive pollution abatement
program. Such a program would involve abatement in more than one
tributary and would result in pollution abatement in a significant
reach of the main stream. This effect is particularly significant
in the West Branch Susquehanna River Basin. Damages calculated in
the main streams were related to tributary watersheds. Thus, it was
possible to estimate the value of pollution abatement in a given
watershed as a part of a comprehensive, basin-wide pollution abate-
ment program. There are four steps to the procedure used:
(l) The influence of acid loading from each tributary was
calculated for its affect on the receiving reach of the
main stream (Table 2).
(2) Estimated damages for the main streams were developed
following the procedure described previously for
tributary streams {Table I}.
(3) Damages on the main stream were related back to the
tributary streams using the ratios shown in Table 2«
(h) The proportioned main stream damages were added to the
damages within individual tributary watersheds to get a
measure of total benefits expected from a comprehensive
program (Table 3).
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22
Pollution Abatement Priority Ranking
Using the damages and cost estimates previously described,
benefit-cost ratios have been calculated«, Estimated annual dollar
benefits to be realized from both individual sub-basin programs and
a comprehensive program vere divided by estimated annual pollution
abatement costs to get an indication of the economic feasibility of
pollution abatement. Under the two conditions, projects with a benefit-
cost ratio of greater than 1,0 are generally considered to be
economically feasible.
Another measure of pollution abatement desirability was
obtained by dividing the annual cost by the weighted value points
assigned as described previously. This was done for both an individ-
ual program and a comprehensive program. The smaller the ratio
obtained, the more desirable the program.
The benefit-cost ratios, computed considering all four condi-
tions, and rankings computed for each condition are listed in Table 3.
It may be seen that the dollar benefit-cost ratio in most cases does
not approach 1.0, This, however, is considered to be an indication
of the inability to accurately estimate dollar benefits and not a
direct reflection of the economic feasibility of the project. Despite
the apparent limitations concerning benefits, estimates are considered
consistent among the sub-basins; thus, comparisons are valid. Utiliz-
ing these ratios, then it is possible to rank, in a rough way, the
watersheds in order of "pollution abatement desirability."
The four rankings , shown on Table 3, differ for various rea-
sons but indicate particular watersheds which have a high benefit-
cost ratio under all ranking methods and those which have a low
benefit-cost ratio under all ranking methods. Others have a fairly
wide range of potential ranking positions. The order in which pollu-
tion abatement work is finally carried out may well be influenced by
factors not considered in this analysis. Strong social, political,
or economic forces in individual watersheds may cause significant
changes within the priority framework developed here.
The most significant determinant of the final priority rank-
ing is, of course, the type of pollution abatement program plan to
be implemented,, Rankings listed under "individual program" (Table 3)
would be most applicable in a program in which funds were limited
and a comprehensive program could not be undertaken Rankings listed
under "comprehensive program" I Table 3) would apply to a basin-wide
pollution abatement program.
-------
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
23
PENNSYLVANIA ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Pennsylvania's program to control pollution from active mines
began in 19^5 with an amendment to the state "Clean Streams Law" giv-
ing the State Sanitary Water Board limited authority over acid mine
drainage. Coal mine operators were required to obtain Board approval
of a plan of drainage before a mine could be opened, reopened, or con-
tinued in operation. The Act prohibited the discharge of acid mine
drainage into "clean waters." They were defined as waters which were
unpolluted and free from industrial waste and authorized sewage dis-
charges at the effective date of the Acto The Act also authorized
the Board to provide the necessary diversion works to carry acid mine
drainage away from clean waters for discharge to polluted or "unclean
waters."
Provisions of this 19^5 amendment tended to prevent pollution
of streams which were unpolluted on the effective date of the Act.
They did not, however, provide for effective control of discharges
to streams which did not fall within the rather narrow definition of
streams to be protected.
In 1965 the "Clean Streams Law" was again amended, removing
all exemptions in the law relating to mine drainage. Under the pro-
visions of the 1965 amendment which became effective on January 1,
1966, mine drainage is subject to the same controls as sewage and
industrial waste. Discharges may not cause pollution. The intent
of the amended law is to "restore to a clean, unpolluted condition
all waters of the Commonwealth" Regulations adopted by the Board
to implement the most recent amendment to the Law include the pro-
vision that discharges from active mines have residual alkalinity
and a maximum of 7 mg/1 iron«
In addition to making water pollution control laws more
stringent, the Pennsylvania Legislature has, over the years, progres-
sively increased requirements concerning the backfilling and restora-
tion of areas disturbed by surface mining. Present requirements,
which are administered by the Department of Mines and Mineral Indus-
tries, demand prompt and, in some cases, complete restoration of the
disturbed area. Regulations have been adopted to prevent acid drain-
age and soil erosion from areas disturbed by strip mining, both during
and following the active mining phase,,
State mine drainage pollution control and strip mining recla-
mation regulatory authority appears to be adequate to prevent addi-
tional stream quality degradation resulting from future mining
activities. Stream quality degradation from future mining will
depend largely upon the extent, to which the existing legislation can
be enforced in the face of technical and economic obstacles.
In addition to the enforcement activities described above,
considerable effort is expended to discover and demonstrate new
methods of abating mine drainage pollution Both the Sanitary Water
Board and the Coal Research Board, an administrative arm of the
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Department of Mines and Mineral Industries, are involved in these
activities. The work is intended to demonstrate ways of preventing
pollution from active operations as well as determining methods of
abating pollution from the thousands of abandoned mines already
causing pollution.
In early 196j, the Pennsylvania Legislature adopted a 500
million dollar conservation bond issue which will make approximately
100 million dollars available to the Department of Mines and Mineral
Industries for the reclamation of areas disturbed by mining and for
the abatement of mine drainage pollution. The funds are to be
expended over a ten-year period.
-------
I
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
STUDY PROCEDURES
Field investigations, sampling programs, and laboratory
analyses were conducted by personnel of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna
River Basins Project primarily during the periods of June through
October in the years 196k through 196?=
The field investigations were conducted in two phases
"reconnaissance" and "control sampling." During the reconnaissance
phase of the survey, primary effort was directed toward identifying
watersheds which contribute significant amounts of mine drainage
pollution. Existing federal, state, and industry data were reviewed.
To the extent possible, streams affected by mine drainage pollution
and sources of the pollution were identified and located. Where the
existing data were inadequate to characterize mine drainage pollution,
survey crews made field determinations on pH, alkalinity, acidity,
conductivity, and flow. The crews also located and identified point
sources of mine drainage pollution not recorded by other agencies.
Results of stream biological surveys conducted during the
course of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project study
were used as an aid in determining the streams affected by mine
drainage pollution.
Based on existing data and results of the reconnaissance
survey, control sampling stations were established on all streams
significantly affected by mine drainage pollution. Six to eight
samples were normally taken at each station ever a six- to ten-week
period. Samples taken were iced and transported to the laboratory
for physical and chemical analyses. Time in transit from the field
to the laboratory usually varied from six to 2k hours. At the time
of the sampling, field determinations wero made of the flow, pH, and
specific conductivity, During this phase of the study, every effort
was made to locate and characterize every significant discharge.
Detailed Investigations in watersheds of some minor tributaries to
the West Branch Susquehanna River Basin, as well as in minor water-
sheds in the anthracite and semi-anthracite areas, are yet to be
completed.
Field sampling activities were generally conducted only dur-
ing the summer months; therefore, data presented here represent, for
the most part, summer low flow conditions Limited sampling over a
range of flow conditions in several sub-basins indicates that mine
drainage indicator loadings may vary as much as two orders of magni-
tude or more in response to variations in surface runoff and ground
water flow. Loadings quoted in the descriptive sections of this
report are thus utilized for comparative purposes only and should
not be considered to represent a static or a statistically significant
value.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
26
Considerable information on major mine drainage discharges
and their effects on stream quality is still needed Activities
planned and in progress by several state and federal agencies should
add significantly to the basic data presently available.
Mine drainage pollution is generally characterized by in-
creased concentrations of specific indicators above usually accepted
levels or by the, presence of ions of elements considered unique to
mine drainage discharges.
In the course of the Mine Drainage Study efforts, samples of
both discharges and receiving streams were analyzed for the following
indicators:
Physical Chemical
1. pH 1. Acidity
2. Conductivity 2. Alkalinity
3. Solids 3. Iron (Ferrous and Total)
k. Temperature k. Hardness
5. Calcium
6. Magnet, ium
7. Manganese
8, Aluminum
9. Sulfate
Methods used and significance of the individual analyses are
discussed below.
pji in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 is usually exhibited by natural waters.
Generally, acid mine drainage will vary from pH 2.5 to 6.0. Alkaline
mine drainage occurs with pH in the order of 6.0 to 8.0. The pH of
the receiving stream varies according to the amount of pollution and
the buffering capacity of the stream waters.
Conductivity is measured by Conductivity Bridge in both laboratory
and field. It is expressed in mhos, the reciprocal of resistance,
and is a measure of the electrical conducting power of the system
and is related to the dissolved matter (dissolved solids) in solution.
Waters uncontaminated by mine drainage exhibit conductivities in the
order of 100 micromho. The conductivity of mine drainage discharges
varies generally from 500 to 8,000 micromho.
Nonfilterable (suspended) solids were determined by filtration of a
standard volume (250 ml) and dried to constant weight at 105° C
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
f
27
(Standard Methods, 12th Edition). This measurement determines the
fraction of suspended matter in the sample.
Filterable (dissolved) solids were measured by evaporating the
filtrate from the nonfilterable solids test and drying the residue
to constant weight at 105° C. Measurement of filterable solids indi-
cates the concentration of dissolved materials. The total solids
measure is the sum of the nonfilterable and filterable solids.
Cold Acidity is measured by titration to pH 8.3 (modification of
Standard Methods, 12th Edition). Laboratory analyses were conducted
potentiometrically. Field analyses were conducted either potentio-
metrically or colorimetrically. This procedure measures the titrat-
able acidity, including volatile acidity which can be made to combine
with a base. It is a measure of the uncombined hydrogen ion immed-
iately present and that which can be available from all potential
sources under the titration conditions. In samples containing high
concentrations of acid precursors, the total potential acidity may
not become available under test conditions. Therefore, pre-oxidation
by addition of ozone, peroxide, or by heating is required to measure
total acidity.
Hot Acidity is determined by potentiometric titration to a pH 8.3
end point (modification of Standard Methods, 12th Edition). This
procedure measures the titratable acidity (hydrogen ion) which is
available in the sample and that which is made available by heating
the sample to boiling with the addition of hydrogen peroxide. The
method determines the acidity made available from the potential
sources. It does not measure any contribution to acidity of volatile
constituents either present initially or produced by subsequent
reactions. This determination is applicable to relative measurements
such as the effect of an abatement procedure or the characterization
of a discharge- However, it may not be useful in stream analysis,
since it does not measure all of the acidity originally present;
results are reported in mg/1, CaCO .
Alkalinity is also measured by the potentiometric method of titra-
tion to pH J+.5 (Standard Methods, 12th Edition). Field analyses were
conducted potentiometrically or colorimetrically. These procedures
measure the titratable alkalinity of a system which, in most waters
of this Basin, is essentially bicarbonate or carbonate in origin.
Under the conditions of the determination, alkaline mine drainage
exhibits a final, positive alkalinity when the acidity produced in
the course of the titration does not exceed the available alkalinity.
It is, therefore, essential that reactions yielding acidity be
completed before the alkalinity determination is attempted.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
28
Net or residual alkalinity is determined by calculation. It is the
difference between the alkalinity and acidity determined by cold
titration on a given sample. For purposes of calculation, acidity
is considered to be equivalent to negative alkalinity.
Sulfate is measured by precipitation with benzidine-dihydrochloride.
This procedure measures the concentration of sulfate in the sample
and is an indicator of mine drainage pollution. Unpolluted waters of
the Basin contain low levels of the indicator, being derived from
leaching of soils, rock, etc.
Whereas relatively unpolluted waters contain concentrations normally
below 50 mg/1, mine drainage discharges often exhibit concentrations
in the range of 300 to 10,000 mg/1.
Hardness is determined by EDTA titration with hydroxy napthol blue
indicator. This procedure measures the total concentration of such
ions as calcium, magnesium, lithium, etc. It does not differentiate
among species. Unpolluted waters in the portion of the Basin influ-
enced by mine drainage usually exhibit hardness concentrations less
than 100 mg/1 as CaCO . Concentrations of 500 to 2,000 mg/1 as CaCO
are common in mine drainage.
Calcium is determined either by EDTA titration with Eriochrome Black
T Indicator or by atomic adsorption spectrophotometry. This procedure
measures only the concentration of calcium, a component of hardness.
Concentrations of this indicator in unpolluted waters are from 15 to
30 mg/1.
Magnesium is done by atomic adsorption spactrophotometry. Only the
concentration of magnesium is measured, which is also a component of
hardness. Concentrations of this indicator in unpolluted water are
in the order to 10 to 20 mg/1.
Manganese is also measured by atomic adsorption spectrophotometry.
This procedure measures the concentration of manganese, normally an
acidic precursor. Concentrations in natural streams do not usually
exceed 0.05 mg/1. Concentrations in the order of 5 mg/1 to 20 mg/1
are not uncommon in mine drainage.
Aluminum is done by atomic adsorption. This indicator, a potential
acidic precursor, is usually present in rather low concentrations in
unpolluted water. High concentrations are usually found as a result
of acid mine drainage leaching clay deposits associated with the coal
bearing strata.
Iron is measured in both the ferrous and total states by 1.10 phenan-
throline (Standard Methods, 12th Edition) or by atomic adsorption.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
29
Generally, mine drainage pollution contains iron in both the ferrous
and ferric states. Ferric iron does not contribute to acidity.
Ferrous iron, a major contributor to acidity, is usually present in
high concentrations in deep mine discharges, and its presence in a
receiving stream usually indicates recent mine drainage discharges.
Unpolluted streams in the Basin have total iron concentra-
tions of frequently less than 0.3 mg/1. Mine drainage influence may
raise iron to concentrations in excess of 100 mg/1.
-------
I
I
1
-------
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
30
WEST BRANCH
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
-------
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
31
AREA DESCRIPTION
The West Branch Susquehanna River drains an area of 6900
square miles in the west central portion of the Susquehanna River
Basin. The sub-basin lies entirely within Pennsylvania and is
bounded on the north by the Genesee and Chemung River Basins, on
the south by the Juniata River Basin, on the east by the Susquehanna
River Basin, and on the west by the Allegheny River Basin.
The West Branch Susquehanna River has its source in northwest-
ern Cambria County and flows a distance of 2kO miles to its confluence
with the Susquehanna River at Northumberland, 123.5 miles upstream
from the Chesapeake Bay. The upper portion of the sub-basin lies
within the high tablelands of the Appalachian Plateau Province. At
Lock Haven, the river breaks through the Allegheny Front, the escarp-
ment which divides the Appalachian Plateau Province from the Ridge
and Valley Province, then flows approximately TO miles through the
Ridge and Valley Province to its confluence with the Susquehanna
River. The sub-basin is approximately equally divided between the
Appalachian Plateau and the Ridge and Valley Provinces. In the Ap-
palachian Plateau Province, stream valleys are narrow and flanked by
high, steep hills. In the Ridge and Valley Province, valleys are
generally broad and fertile and bounded by rugged, forested mountains.
Moderate to steep gradients of streams in the Appalachian Plateau
Province provide considerable turbulence and excellent mixing. The
combination of low gradient and a wide, shallow channel configuration
combine to produce poor mixing in the Ridge and Valley Province.
Major tributaries of the West Branch, their drainage area,
and the mile points of confluence with the main stream are tabulated
in the following table. (Also see Figure 1-A, a map of the West
Branch Susquehanna River sub-basin, illustrating major tributaries
and other pertinent physical features.)
Drainage Area Mile Point of
jtame (square miles) Confluence
Loyalsock Creek k93 35
Lycoming Creek 276 hi
Pine Creek 973 67
North Bald Eagle Creek 782 68
Kettle Creek 239 10^
Sinnemahoning Creek 1033 - 110
Moshannon Creek 288 136
Clearfield Creek 396 172
Chest Creek 132 205
Geology: Consolidated rocks which outcrop in the area are
all of the Paleozoic era and generally of the Pennsylvanian and Mis-
sissippian systems. In descending order from youngest to oldest,
-------
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
32
the specific rock formations are identified as Conemaugh, Allegheny,
Pottsville, Mauch Chunk Shale, Pocono, Oswago, and Catskill. Of
these, only the Conemaugh and the Allegheny formations contain coal
beds of economic significance.
A portion of the main Pennsylvania bituminous field lies with-
in the basin beneath all or a portion of Clearfield, Cameron, Clinton,
Centre, Lycoming, Potter, Cambria, Indiana, McKean, and Elk Counties.
The bituminous coal beds lie within the Appalachian Plateau Province
in the western part of the basin (see Figure 1-A). Other coal
deposits underlie portions of Bradford, Tioga, and Sullivan Counties.
Economy: The rich bituminous coal deposits of the Pennsyl-
vanian system have played a dominant role in the area's economy. It
is estimated that approximately kkOO mines have been opened in the
basin, most of which have long since been abandoned. Estimates by
watershed as of 1962 indicate the opening of about 830 mines in the
Moshannon Creek watershed, 1150 in the Clearfield Creek watershed,
330 in the Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek watershed, and 180 in
the Beech Creek watershed (2). The remaining mines were opened in
the watersheds of minor tributaries to the West Branch upstream from
the mouth of Loyalsock Creek.
Of the original bituminous coal reserves in the West Branch
sub-basin, estimated to be ^lUO- million tons in 1928 (3), about 2535
million tons still remained as "recoverable reserves" in January
1963 (^). About **31 million tons of the depletion of the reserves
is attributable to production (5). The remainder is considered "loss
in mining" (pillers, fines, unminable coal, etc.). An estimated 133^
million tons, more than half of the recoverable reserves, underlie
Clearfield County (k). Coal production in the sub-basin has been
relatively stable, averaging about nine million tons per year since
19^5. Within the last decade, Clearfield and Centre Counties have
accounted for about 80 percent of the production in the basin (6).
Prior to 19^5, deep mines accounted for most of the coal
production in the basin; however, development of large earth-moving
equipment during World War II greatly stimulated surface mining
activity. Strip mining accounted for ^5 percent of the Susquehanna
River Basin's production in 19^5 and 77 percent in 1955 (6). Of the
8,650,000 tons of coal produced in 1962, about Qk percent was mined
at strip operations. Clearfield County produced 83 percent of its
total from strip mines (2). Strip mine production exceeded 90 per-
cent of the total production in the remaining coal producing counties.
Coal production for 1970 is projected at about 8,01*0,000
short tons. A gradual increase in production to 13,380,000 short
tons in 2020 is expected. The following table lists projected
bituminous coal production for the West Branch Susquehanna River
Basin.
-------
-------
33
Projected Production of Bituminous Coal
by Economic Subregion (6)
Economic
Subregion
Clinton
Centre }
Lycoming
Cameron ,
Clearfield
Total
(thousands of short tons)
1970
960
7080
801*0
1985
530
8610
91^0
2020
1*50
12,930
13,380
In this sub-basin description as well as in those following,
the presentation is organized by minor watersheds and arranged in
order of hydrological sequence. Each contains summaries of the data
collected on mine drainage sources, the effects on stream quality,
and the potential abatement measures.
West Branch Susquehanna RiverUpstream from Chest Creek
A total of 166 mine drainage discharges have been located in
this watershed, contributing approximately 5^,000 Ib/day net acidity.
Most of the mine drainage originates in abandoned deep mines dis-
charging into a nine-mile portion at the head of the 35-mile reach
of the West Branch within this watershed. In the downstream portion
of the sub-basin, considerable mining has been carried out, and
numerous mine drainage discharges exist. For reasons described in
the Chapter on Formation and Sources of Mine Drainage, most of the
discharges are alkaline and contribute to the neutralization of acid
mine drainage discharged to the extreme headwaters.
The first major addition of mine drainage in this watershed
is a pumped discharge from an active, deep mine operated by the Barnes
and Tucker Coal Company. The discharge contributes a loading of HlOO
Ib/day net acidity. This is primarily responsible for the mean
acidity concentration of 1+50 mg/1 and an associated loading of 1*800
Ib/day net acidity at a sampling point about two miles downstream
(Figures 2A and 2B).
Within the next seven miles, the river gains an additional
ll*,000 Ib/day net acidity; however, the net acidity declines to 200
mg/1. Major mine drainage contributors to the reach include two
spoil piles and four abandoned deep mines. Their total contribution
is 26,000 Ib/day net acidity, or about 82 percent of the total acid
loading in the reach. The spoil piles are responsible for about 30
percent of this total.
Between Mile 229 and 220, the acid load in the West Branch
is reduced by about 10,000 Ib/day, and the acidity concentration
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
declines to 50 mg/1. This reduction is the result of the neutraliz-
ing effect of naturally alkaline tributaries and alkaline mine
drainage discharges.
Several of the tributaries have alkalinities in excess of
150 mg/1. A major source of alkalinity to the West Branch is Beaver
Run which contributes 7600 Ib/day net alkalinity. About half of this
originates in a discharge from the abandoned Barnes and Tucker #12
deep mine.
From Mile 220 to the confluence with Chest Creek, at mile 205,
the West Branch does not exhibit a significant change in alkalinity,
although a slight increase in other mine drainage indicators is noted.
One discharge to Cush Creek, originating from a coal refuse
pile near Hooverhurst, contributes almost 12,000 Ib/day net acidity.
Although this discharge constitutes the largest single acid contribu-
tor to the sub-basin, the alkalinity resources of Cush Creek are
adequate to overcome the acidity to the extent that Cush Creek
contributes 350 Ib/day net alkalinity to the West Branch.
In general, concentrations of mine drainage indicators decline
throughout the length of the reach from the headwaters to Chest Creek.
Mean iron and manganese concentrations, which are 120 and 3.6 mg/1,
respectively, at the head of the reach, decline to 1.1 and 2.5 mg/1,
respectively. Sulfates decline from 1300 mg/1 to 350 mg/1 (Figure
Abatement of mine drainage pollution in the sub-basin will
involve three primary efforts: (l) measures intended to minimize
surface water contribution to deep mine discharges; (2) restoration
of drainage presently impeded by refuse banks and areas disturbed by
surface mining; and (3) treatment of the residual mine drainage
remaining after preventive measures are carried out.
Diversion of streams presently seeping through refuse, or
otherwise preventing mine drainage-type discharges from refuse piles,
appears to be the most immediately effective and least costly abate-
ment activity in this sub-basin. This could be expected to reduce
the acid loading in this reach by almost 50 percent.
A comprehensive program to abate mine drainage pollution in
the entire sub-basin is estimated to cost 18 million dollars initially
and have an annual cost of two million. Considerable benefit could
be realized at a reduced cost by completing applicable prevention
measures in the entire sub-basin and by treating the residual mine
drainage loading from one active and four abandoned deep mines in
the headwaters.
The initial cost referred to hereafter in the text is the construc-
tion cost. Annual costs account for amortization, maintenance, and
operation.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
35
Chest Creek
Chest Creek contributes approximately 2500 Ib/day net alka-
linity to the West Branch. Although the stream is alkaline at its
mouth (Figures UA and Ufi), a three-mile reach about 11 miles from
the mouth is degraded by mine drainage originating in the watershed
of Brubaker Run. Acid loads are on the order of ^,000 Ib/day and
degrade the quality of Chest Creek from its confluence with Brubaker
Run to Westover. At Westover, a large alkaline discharge from a
tannery overcomes the acid and renders the stream alkaline.
Surface mining has created a number of acid discharges in
watersheds of tributaries of Chest Creek downstream from Brubaker
Run. Most of the discharges are neutralized by lime neutralization
facilities in accordance with Sanitary Water Board regulations.
Although Chest Creek is alkaline downstream from Westover, signifi-
cantly high levels of other mine drainage indicators are present.
A total of 83 mile drainage discharges were located in the
Chest Creek watershed, contributing a total of 8300 Ib/day net
acidity. As in the case of the watershed in the West Branch upstream
from Chest Creek, many of the discharges are alkaline. Of the 29
discharges that are alkaline, most are located in the portion of the
sub-basin downstream from Brubaker Run. One discharge contributes
3200 Ib/day net alkalinity to Kings Run, a tributary of Chest Creek,
downstream from Westover.
Substantial curtailment of mining operations in the Brubaker
Run watershed during the time field operations were in progress may
have influenced the location and quality of some discharges; however,
the data collected indicate U2 discharges contribute 6UOO Ib/day net
acidity. This loading constitutes about 75 percent of the acid load-
ing to the Chest Creek watershed. About 85 percent of the acid load-
ing to Brubaker Run originates in five discharges. Most of the mine
drainage originates from inactive deep mines; however, surface mines
and coal refuse piles also contribute significant quantities of mine
drainage. Although the tannery discharge limits acid conditions in
Chest Creek to a three-mile reach, elimination of this source of
alkalinity would extend the acid zone downstream probably an additional
three miles to the mouth of Pine Run.
The ultimate effect of mine drainage discharges on stream
quality cannot be precisely assessed. This is due to extensive sur-
face mining activity in the portion of the sub-basin downstream from
Brubaker Run and attendant neutralization of mine drainage discharges.
There is a strong possibility, however, that if operation of all lime
neutralization plants were suspended and the alkaline tannery dis-
charge abated, acid conditions would prevail throughout most of the
length of Chest Creek. A detailed study of this watershed is pres-
ently being conducted by personnel in the Pennsylvania Department of
Mines to determine the effect of mine drainage discharges.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
36
It is conservatively estimated that a comprehensive mine
drainage pollution abatement program in the Chest Creek watershed
would cost 2.9 million dollars initially and U00,000 dollars annually.
About two-thirds of this cost would be required in the Brubaker Run
watershed. Uncertainty concerning locations and strengths of sources
and their effects on stream quality, however, makes the estimation of
abatement costs difficult.
Pollution abatement in the Brubaker Run watershed will pri-
marily involve reducing surface water contribution to mine water
flows, possibly the flooding of deep mines, burial of acid-forming
refuse, and back filling of some surface mines. The watershed in-
volved is small (12 square miles) compared with the 132 square-mile
watershed of Chest Creek. It would, therefore, appear that pollution
abatement in the small watershed to prevent pollution in the main
stream is feasibleo Pollution abatement in the remainder of the
watershed will involve restoration of surface mines and possibly
collecting and treating residual mine drainage.
The state regulatory agencies should give careful considera-
tion to future applications for mine drainage discharge permits in
this watershed. Additional surface mining without proper safeguards
could result in extensive stream quality degradation.
West Branch Susquehanna RiverChest Creek to Clearfield Creek
This part of the discussion considers all of the tributaries
of the West Branch except Anderson Creek,, This Creek is left out
because it constitutes a major mine drainage problem in itself and
is handled later in a section of its own.
A total of 50 mine drainage discharges contribute a total of
7,000 Ib/day net acidity in this watershed. Although discharges are
distributed rather uniformly throughout the watershed, the large dis-
charges are located in the portion of the watershed downstream from
Anderson Creek. Seven of the discharges, all abandoned deep mines,
contribute about 70 percent of the acid loading. Most of the remain-
ing discharges release less than 100 lb,-*day net acidity,
The West Branch Susquehanna River is essentially neutral in
the reach from Chest Creek to Anderson Creek. The reach varies be-
tween weakly acid to weakly alkaline, depending upon the hydrologic
conditions that prevail. The minor tributaries to this reach are
influenced by mine drainage, but for the most part contribute alka-
linity. Acid contributions originating primarily in the watersheds
of Anderson Creek, Montgomery Creek, and Wolf Creek total about 3100
Ib/day, but are outweighed by alkaline contributions within the reach
(Figure 2A).
Biweekly sampling during the summers of 1966 and 1967 in the
Curwensville Reservoir indicate no water quality stratification.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
37
Relatively frequent fluctuations between net acidity and net alkalin-
ity occur in the reservoir as a whole in response to variations in
the upstream quality of the West Branch.
The pH of the reach within the sub-basin ranged from 3.1 to
7.6 (Figure 2B). The mean total iron concentration declines from 1.1
mg/1 to 0.25 mg/1 through the reach Manganese and sulfate concen-
trations decline from 2.5 mg/1 and 553 mg/1, respectively, to 0.05
mg/1 and 270 mg/1, respectively,, Fish and other aquatic life have
been observed in this reach, most frequently downstream from Curwens-
ville Dam. The aquatic population, however, is somewhat depressed
by residual amounts of mine drainage»
Pollution abatement measures, such as surface water control
and diversion, would appear to be most appropriate since most of the
mine drainage originates in abandoned deep mines. Residual mine
drainage loadings could even then be significant, however, and require
treatment.
The estimated cost of abatement in the watershed is 2.8 mil-
lion dollars, with an annual cost of 500,000 dollars. Measures which
might be applied to increase water quality at lower cost might include
conveying residual mine drainage directly to the West Branch or to
adjacent watersheds so that some or all of the tributary streams will
be protected.
The Curwensville Dam can impound water for quality control
and might be utilized in a basin-wide pollution abatement program.
The impoundment would be particularly valuable if pollution abatement
measures were carried out upstream from the reservoir to assure that
the impounded water is alkaline at all times.
Anderson Creek
Anderson Creek contributes an average of 1750 Ib/day net
acidity to the West Branch. Most mining activity has been confined
to the lower reaches of the watershed, and stream quality is not
seriously impaired by mine drainage upstream from the confluence with
Little Anderson Creek. Mine drainage contributed by Little Anderson
Creek and minor tributaries downstream combine to render Anderson
Creek acid. Mean total iron, manganese, and sulfate concentrations
measured at- the mouth were 3.9 mg/1, 3.U mg/1, and 150 mg/1,
respectively.
Most of the mine drainage in the watershed originates in
abandoned surface clay mines, some of which have intercepted deep
mines. Although 30 discharges were observed, about 70 percent of
the acid load measured originates at six discharges.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
38
Abatement will involve primarily surface reclamation measures
such as surface water diversion and control and back filling of sur-
face mines. Treatment of residual mine drainage will probably be
necessary particularly in the Little Anderson Creek watershed where
most of the mine drainage originates. Concentrating abatement in the
Little Anderson Creek watershed would be particularly desirable since
abatement in a six-mile reach of Little Anderson Creek would probably
abate pollution in a ten-mile reach of Anderson Creek when accompanied
by relatively minor work at other discharge points.
The estimated first cost of pollution abatement in the sub-
basin is 1.1 million dollars. The annual cost of the program would
be 160,000 dollars.
Clearfield Creek
Clearfield Creek is rendered acid by mine drainage from source
to mouth. During an eight-week intensive survey in 1966, the stream
contributed an average of 57»000 Ib/day acidity to the West Branch.
At the mouth, mean net acidity concentrations of 115 mg/1 were measured.
Total iron concentrations were relatively low (l.U mg/l); however,
other mine drainage indicators were present in high concentrations.
As indicated by the results of sampling and analysis conducted
in 1967 (Figures 5A and 5B), acidity concentrations upstream from
Mile 31 are relatively low. Mine drainage is discharging directly
to Clearfield Creek as well as to several tributaries, and severely
degrades stream quality from Mile 25 to the mouth.
Although mining activity has been very extensive throughout
most of the watershed, about ^5 percent of the acid load in Clear-
field Creek originates in ten tributaries These have a combined
drainage area of 95 square miles which is about 25 percent of the
area within the Clearfield Creek watershed.
The streams responsible for most of the acid load in Clear-
field Creek are shown in the following schematic diagram and
tabulation.
Ninety-seven major mine drainage discharges were located in
the watershed, and their total contribution is about 1+5,000 Ib/day
acidity. Discharges were found to be scattered rather uniformly over
the watershed, with the number of discharges found upstream from
Muddy Creek about equal to the number found downstream. Discharges
found in the lower part of the watershed, however, contribute about
three times as much acid as those located upstream from Muddy Creek.
As shown on the schematic diagram, all of the streams responsible
for major mine drainage discharges enter Clearfield Creek from the
east, except Potts Run and Lost Run. Little Clearfield Creek is the
largest tributary of Clearfield Creek and drains ^5 square miles in
the western part of the watershed It is stocked by the Pennsylvania
Fish Commission and maintains relatively good quality despite strip
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
00.0 INDICATES RIVER MILES
CLEARFIELD CREEK
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF STREAMS AFFECTED BY
MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
39
Principal Mine Drainage Contributors - Clearfield Creek
Streams
Roaring Run
Long Run
Potts Run
Upper Morgan Run
Lost Run
Japling Run
Muddy Run
Powell Run
Bluebaker Run
Trap Run
Stream Mile
(on Clearfield
Creek)
1.3
U.2
18.2
19.6
22.1
2k, 9
25.5
1*5.7
U9.7
61.6
Drainage
Area
( sq. mi . )
12.2
U.O
15. U
12.2
2.5
3.2
30.6
11.2
2.5
1.5
Net Acid
Contribution
(Ib/day)
2,000
2,000
3,200
2,900
it, 000
5,000
27,000
2,600
1,500
2,500
mining and several deep mine discharges in the watershed. The con-
centration of major mine drainage sources in the lower portion of
the basin is primarily^the result of geologic conditions discussed
in the chapter on Formations and Sources of Mine Drainage.
As in the case with other watersheds studied, a small number
of large discharges contribute most of the acid loading. Ten dis-
charges contribute more than half of the acid discharges in the sub-
basin. Most of the major discharges are recorded as discharges from
strip mine areas; however, in many cases they are a combination of
drainage from both deep and strip mines, It is particularly difficult
in this sub-basin to differentiate between deep and strip mine drain-
age because so many strip mines have intercepted shallow, deep mines
or have crossed deep mine portals. Essentially, all the acid drain-
age located in the sub-basin is discharged from abandoned mines.
Extensive disturbed areas, large numbers and varieties of
mine drainage sources, and heavy acid loadings combine to make Clear-
field Creek one of the most difficult streams in the West Branch
Susquehanna River Basin to reclaim. It is estimated that a program
of pollution abatement at the source, supplemented by treatment of
the residual mine drainage loadings, would have a construction cost
of 11 million dollars and an annual cost of 1.6 million. Most of
the major mine drainage sources are concentrated in the northeastern
portion of the sub-basin, and this may have a significant effect on
final pollution abatement costs. This distribution would make it
possible to realize considerable benefits from relatively low cost
pollution abatement activities in the southern and western portions
of the sub-basin. Complete abatement might be accomplished more
cheaply than estimated if in-stream impoundments and, possibly facili-
ties to convey mine drainage between sub-basins were provided.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1*0
West Branch Susquehanna RiverClearfield Creek to Moshannon Creek
The quality of the West Branch in this reach is seriously de-
graded by mine drainage from Clearfield Creek and from several minor
tributaries within the reach. Acid loadings increase from about
4,000 Ib/day net alkalinity at Mile 173, which is upstream from Clear-
field Creek, to 53,000 Ib/day net acidity at Mile 163, about nine
miles downstream from Clearfield Creek. In the vicinity of Mile 144,
the acidity increases to 108,000 Ib/day as the result of acid tribu-
taries in that portion of the reach. Iron and manganese concentra-
tions are about 6 and 7 rag/1, respectively (Figures 2A and 2B).
The total acid contribution by 13 tributaries is about 53,000
Ib/day. Location and characterization of mine drainage discharges
in these stream basins have not been completed, but to date, about
25 percent of the area has been covered, and 50 discharges have been
located with a total acid contribution of 51,000 Ib/day. It is be-
lieved that most of the drainage originates in abandoned deep mines,
with a lesser amount originating in abandoned strip mines. Comple-
tion of field work in this sub-basin may show that it is a source of
acidity to the West Branch second only to Moshannon Creek.
Principal Mine Drainage Contributors - West Branch Susquehanna
RiverClearfield Creek to Moshannon Creek
Streams
Lick Run
Trout Run
Millstone Run
Surveyor Run
Murray Run
Congress Run
Deer Creek
Sandy Creek
Alder Run
Rolling Stone Run
Basin Run
Rock Run
Potter Run
Unnamed Tributary
Stream Mile
(on West
Branch )
165
163
l6l
158
154
153
148
144
1M
143
142
140
139
138
Drainage
Area
(sq. mi.)
31
40
4
5
1
1
19
19
22
4
5
3
1*
2
Met Acid
Loading
(Ib/day)
1,000
2,000
4,000
2,000
1,200
11,300
4,400
4,200
9,400
2,000
1,000
5,000
4,600
1,100
Since source location in this watershed has not been completed,
no definite statement on abatement methods can be made. A total
abatement cost of 19 million dollars and an annual cost of approxi-
mately 2.5 million is inferred from data of the area surveyed to date.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
41
While basic data are incomplete for the watershed, it is
certain that the watershed contributes a very significant portion of
the mine drainage load to the West Branch. It definitely should be
considered in any comprehensive mine drainage pollution abatement
program for the West Branch area.
Moshannon Creek
Moshannon Creek is the largest contributor of mine drainage
to the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. It brings an average
of about 130,000 Ib/day net acidity to the river. It is considerably
smaller in drainage area than most of the major watersheds mentioned
in this report, but intense mining combined with geologic and other
conditions have joined to give Moshannon Creek the dubious distinc-
tion of being the largest single source of mine drainage to the West
Branch.
A total of l60 mine drainage discharges have been located,
and they contributed a total of 135,000 Ib/day net acidity. Most of
the mine drainage originates at inactive mines; in many cases, how-
ever, strip mines intersect portals of abandoned deep mines, which
means that a significant portion of the acidity attributed to strip
mines may also come from deep mines. Possibly a problem in ascertain-
ing the source of mine drainage is its tendency to follow bedding
planes to where they outcrop on hillsides and stream banks. This
has created large seepage swamps for which it is difficult to charac-
terize flow, quality, and source of water.
As in the case with most of the sub-basins studied, a large
proportion of the acid originates in a small percentage of the
discharges. Twenty-six discharges contribute more than three-quarters
of the total acid loading introduced to the Moshannon Creek.
Stream quality in most of the watershed is influenced by mine
drainage. The 11 streams listed in the following table are considered
the most significant contributors of mine drainage.
Principal Mine Drainage Contributors - Moshannon Creek
Streams
Moravian Run
Grass Flat Run
Sulphur Run
a,wK Run
One Mile Run
Cold Stream
Laurel Run
Trout Run
Big Run
Beaver Run
Bear Run
Stream Mile
(on Moshannon
Creek)
11.6
13.5
22.2
29.9
30.5
31.8
32.3
40.0
Ul.O
41.5
44.2
Drainage
Area
( sq. mi . )
2
1
2
2
1
24
20
11
3
19
4
Net Acid
Loading
(Ib/day)
23,000
65,000
20,000
16,500
6,100
12,400
4,300
8,000
3,300
13,000
5,500
-------
000 INDICATES RIVER MILES
MOSHANNON CREEK
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF STREAMS AFFECTED BY
MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1+2
A notable exception to the list of tributaries contributing
mine drainage is Black Moshannon Creek, It drains a 56 square-mile
area outside the coal measures and contributes about 1,000 Ib/day
net alkalinity and, under some flow conditions, effects a significant
improvement in the quality of Moshannon Creek
Stream quality varies greatly with flow. There is, however,
a. normal pattern of weak acidity in the headwaters which rapidly
increases in concentration downstream from Bear Run (Figures 6A and
6B). It improves gradually to the 150-250 mg/1 net acidity range at
the mouth. Other mine drainage indicators follow essentially the
same pattern. Iron concentrations are normally quite high, ranging
from 20-^40 mg/1.
In addition to the obvious problem involved in abating a
large number of highly acid mine drainage discharges, other factors
combine to make mine drainage pollution abatement in this watershed
more difficult and thus more costly than in any other watershed tribu-
tary to the West Branch. The factor which influences abatement costs
to the greatest extent is the shallow depth of the coal seams below
the ground surface. Extensive deep mining in these seams has created
cracks and fissures which make for easy entry of water into the mines.
Abatement must include costly surface sealing techniques or be
supplemented with high capacity treatment plants.
The shallow cover of the coal has also made surface mining
very popular. These operations contribute to mine drainage discharges;
inadequately restored strip mines offer another avenue of entry by
surface water to deep mines.
Abatement in the watershed will Involve back filling unre-
stored strip mines, diverting surface water, sealing surface fissures,
and treating discharges. The estimated first cost of such a wide
program is 52,6 million dollars, with an annual cost of more than
11.5 million dollars.
Mine drainage sources are quite evenly distributed over the
sub-basin, and only one major tributary '"Black Moshannon Creek) con-
tains a significant amount of alkalinity, For this reason, flow
regulation or conveyance do not appear to be applicable measures.
Concentration of pollution abatement efforts on the relatively
small number of large sources could result in a significant improve-
ment in the quality of the Moshannon and abate pollution in the West
Branch at a lower cost than that estimated for a complete abatement
program in the Moshannon Creek watershed
West Branch Susquehanna RiverMoshannon Creek to
Sinnemahoning Creek
Severe water quality degradation is evident in this reach of
the West Branch. Discharges within the reach as well as from upstream
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
are responsible. Variations in both acid loadings and concentrations
within the reach are slight and not considered signifleant0 Mean net
acidity is about 130 mg/1 (Figures 3A and 3B), Sulfate concentrations
range from 800 to 1,000 mg/1, while iron and manganese concentrations
average 3 mg/1 and 7 mg/1, respectively,, Most of the tributaries are
mildly acid or mildly alkaline and have no significant effect on the
quality of the West Branch,
The work on mine drainage location and characterization has
not been completed in this watershed. It is known, however, that
only a limited amount of mining has been done, and that most of the
acid drainage originates in abandoned deep mines.
Minor tributaries in this reach lie in a remote, almost inac-
cessible area. Abatement would have very little effect on any streams
that are of significant public use or on the quality of the West
Branch. Estimates of pollution abatement costs are based primarily
on stream quality data and information collected by other agencies.
The first cost of a complete mine drainage pollution program would
be about three million dollars, with an annual, cost of about 500,000
dollars.
Sinnemahoning Creek
The Sinnemahoning Creek contributed about 36,000 Ib/day net
acidity to the West Branch, The stream, with its drainage area of
1032 square miles, has the largest watershed area of any tributary
to the West Branch, It is two-thirds as large as all the area up-
stream from the point where the Sinnemahoning meets the West Branch
Major tributaries include the First, ForK, Bennett Branch, and
Driftwood Branch.
Although the stream tias a large watershed area, topographic
and geologic conditions combine to produce "flash" flow characteris-
tics with low drought flows and low natural alkalinity reserves in
the stream. These characteristics interact to give it a very poor
capacity to assimilate mine drainage discharges.
Although most of the watershed is underlain by coal bearing
deposits, mining activity has been restricted almost exclusively to
the watersheds of the Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning and Sterling Run,
a minor tributary to the Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning (See Figure
1A). The Bennett Branch is acid essentially from its source to its
mouth. In turn, it renders Sinnemahoning Creek acid from their con-
fluence to the point where the Sinnemahoning Joins the West Branch<,
Sterling Run does not overcome the alkalinity reserve in the Drift-
wood Branch but does add mine drainage indicators,
Water quality in the Bennett Branch varies considerably
throughout its length and is weakly alKaxine in its headwaters
(Figures 7A and JB), Discharges from Mouse Run and Mill Creek raise
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
kk
the acidity concentration to 350 mg/1 at Mile 32. The acidity con-
centration gradually declines at successive stations, but the acid
loading remains essentially constant. Concentrations of other indi-
cators vary from station to station, but are generally high except
at the mouth.
Although quite acid (136 mg/1 net acidity), the Bennett Branch
is relatively low in concentrations of other mine drainage indicators
at its mouth., The mean total iron and manganese concentrations are,
for example, only 1.0 mg/1 and U.I mg/1, respectively. Concentrations
of most indicators at the mouth of the Sinnemahoning Creek are about
half of Bennett Branch concentrations, reflecting the diluting effect
of water contributed by other tributaries of Sinnemahoning Creek (see
following table and schematic).
Principal Mine Drainage Contributors to Bennett Branch
Sinnemahoning Creek
Streams
Dents Run
Trout Run
Unnamed Tributary
at Caledonia
Kersey Run
Cherry Run
Tyler Run
Mill Run
Moose Run
Stream Mile
(on Bennett
Branch )
11
17
2h
27
29
31
32
3k
Drainage
Area
(sq. mi . )
36
55
k
27
5
8
2
2
Net Acid
Loading
(Ib/day)
3800
1500
7300
1200
1000
1200
5800
2300
A total of 110 discharges have been located in the Bennett
Branch watershed, most of which originate at abandoned deep mines.
Strip mining is being carried out on a limited basis. Although few
mine drainage discharges are attributable directly to strip mines,
they do in a number of cases contribute to the flow of discharges
from underground mines. Mine discharges from deep mines (all of
which are inactive except one) contribute a total of more than 24,000
Ib/day net acidity. This is more than three-quarters of the acid
loading contributed by all discharges.
Work on location and characterization of mine drainage dis-
charges has not been completed in the Sterling Run watershed. Most
of the mine drainage apparently originates in abandoned deep mines.
The flow from the mines, however, is significantly influenced by
strip mining operations.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
''*
00.0 INDICATES RIVER MILES
BENNETT BRANCH
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF STREAMS AFFECTED BY
MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1*5
A pollution abatement program would probably be centered
around treatment measures similar to those used in other watersheds
of the West Branch area. This is for two reasons: (l) the way the
mines were developed makes abatement at the source difficult; and
(2) the streams have low natural alkalinity which limits assimilative
capacity. The estimated cost of a complete mine drainage pollution
abatement program is 5«5 million dollars initially, with an annual
cost of 800,000 dollars thereafter. There are some measures to con-
sider for supplementing the pollution abatement methods discussed
here. Facilities could be constructed to supply flow augmentation
during low-flow periods for streams or for streams with excessive
mine drainage discharges entering them. The George B. Stevenson Dam,
which was constructed for flood control purposes, could serve as a
flow augmentation facility as well. The impounded water, however, is
low in natural alkalinity, which restricts its usefulness.
West Branch Susquehanna RiverSinnemahoning Creek to
Bald Eagle Creek
The quality of the West Branch remains essentially constant
in this reach from Sinnemahoning Creek to Bald Eagle Creek. Alkalin-
ity added by numerous small tributaries is offset by mine drainage
from a small area of intense mining activity near the mouths of Cooks
Run, Milligan Run, and Kettle Creek. Crooks Creek receives mine
drainage from Crawley Hollow Run, a major tributary of Cooks Run,
about one mile from its mouth. The weak natural alkalinity of Cooks
Run is overcome, and it is rendered acid so that about 8,000 Ib/day
net acidity is brought to the West Branch. Iron and manganese con-
centrations in Cooks Run are raised from essentially zero to the 20
to 30 mg/1 range.
Milligan Run is highly acid (more than 1*00 mg/l) and bears
high concentrations of other mine drainage indicators but has a rela-
tively insignificant effect on the quality of West Branch. This is
due to its low flow, which is less than 0.1 cfs during low-flow
periods, Mine drainage originating in this watershed probably finds
its way underground to the Cooks Run or Kettle Creek watersheds
through abandoned deep mines
Kettle Creek is the largest tributary to the West Branch in
this reach, and it is the last downstream, direct source of mine
drainage on the West Branch. Throughout most of its length, Kettle
Creek flows through heavily forested land and is considered an excel-
lent trout stream. In its lower two miles, its quality is degraded
by mine drainage originating in the Two Mile Run watershed and
discharges which enter directly.
The mine drainage renders the stream acid, overcoming a net
alkalinity of frequently less than 15 mg/1, to produce a net acidity
of about 25 mg/1 at the mouth. Although this is a low concentration
of acidity, it amounts to a loading of more than 30,000 Ib/day net
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
acidity under average flow conditions. Iron and manganese concentra-
tions at the mouth are relatively low, which is partially the result
of dilution.
A total of 66 discharges were located in the watersheds of
the three streams. The area has been extensively mined by deep and
surface mining methods. Due to disturbance of the surface by surface
mining, it is difficult to determine the exact source of a number of
mine drainage discharges and in some cases almost impossible to ac-
curately measure the flow volume. It is probable, however, that most
discharges originate in deep mines influenced by surface water diverted
underground by surface mines.
The size and distribution of discharges in the area are slight-
ly more uniform than for other sub-basins. Fourteen discharges of
more than 1,000 Ib/day net acidity each account for almost 30,000 lb/
day net acidity, three-fourths of the total acidity from the sub-basin.
Since only a short reach of accessible tributary is involved,
the greatest benefits would be realized if abatement were carried out
in conjunction with comprehensive mine drainage abatement throughout
the West Branch sub-basin.
The estimated cost of a complete pollution abatement program
in the area is H.I million dollars initially, and 0.6 million annually,
Because of the method in which the mines were developed, a completely
effective program will probably include treatment.
The Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters is carrying
out a limited surface mine restoration program on state forest land
in the area. This program, however, will not have a significant
effect on the total mine drainage contribution from the area.
North Bald Eagle Creek
North Bald Eagle Creek is responsible for neutralizing most
of the acid load in the West Branch. Its contribution of 132,000
Ib/day alkalinity is the largest single source of alkalinity; but
the lower reaches of North Bald Eagle Creek are influenced by mine
drainage from Beech Creek, a major tributary. Beech Creek is acid
from its source to its mouth and contributes about 10,000 Ib/day net
acidity to North Bald Eagle Creek. Analysis of samples collected in
1967 shows dramatically the water quality effect felt from the geo-
graphic distribution of major discharges (Figures 8A and 8fi). Mine
drainage contributed to the North Branch of Beech Creek is partially
assimilated by flows from the South Branch of Beech Creek and other
smaller tributaries upstream from Sandy Run. Mine drainage originat-
ing in the Sandy Run watershed severely degrades stream quality.
Downstream tributaries then gradually improve stream quality through
the remaining distance to the mouth.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Under most natural flow conditions, the alkalinity in North
Bald Eagle Creek is adequate to neutralize the acid contributed by
Beech Creek. During periods of unbalanced rainfall and runoff in
the sub-basin, high flows from Beech Creek have significantly reduced
the alkalinity in North Bald Eagle Creek. Flow regulation by Blaneh-
ard Dam (a multi-purpose structure upstream from Beech Creek, to be
in operation by the end of 1969) may worsen this condition. Flood
control regulation by this dam will impound the high alkalinity water
of North Bald Eagle Creek, while the acid-laden water from Beech
Creek flows unrestrained into Bald Eagle Creek,
Mining conditions in the Beech Creek watershed are very simi-
lar to those in the nearby Clearfield and Moshannon Creek watersheds.
Much of the watershed has been mined, both by surface and sub-surface
methods. A total of 115 mine drainage discharges have been located
in the watershed. Most add relatively small acid loads. Only four
discharges with contributions greater than 1,000 Ib/day net acidity
were located. These discharges accounted for about 6200 Ib/day net
acidity, which is only about one-fourth of the acid contribution by
all discharges located. The total acid contribution is 22,000 lb/
day net acidity.
A combination of almost all abatement methods will probably
be applicable in this sub-basin« Abatement work should have a high
priority, since the reduction of acid loadings is needed to protect
the quality of Worth Bald Eagle Creek during periods of unbalanced
stream flow caused by natural conditions and by flow regulation by
the Blanchard Dam.
It is estimated that a complete pollution abatement program
in the watershed will cost four million dollars and will have an
annual cost thereafter of about 500,000 dollars.
The Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries
is presently sponsoring a study to develop a least-cost program for
pollution abatement in the sub-basin. The Beech Creek watershed is
the largest one studied in this detail to date in Pennsylvania. Com-
pletion of the work will make the sub-basin a Likely site for
pollution abatement under the state conservation bond issue.
Blanchard Dam will probably be the key to any program of flow
regulation for water quality control in the lower West Branch Susque-
hanna River, if it is used for this purpose. The high alkalinity of
the impounded water (110 mg/1) makes it by far the most promising
source of "stored alkalinity" in the basin.
West Branch Susquehanna River*North Bald Eagle Creek
to the Mouth of the West Branch
The quality of the West Branch changes significantly in this
reach, primarily in response to the alkalinity brought to it by the
North Bald Eagle Creek (Figures 3A and 3B). Its 132,000 Ib/day net
alkalinity loading enters the West Brancn at Mile 68 and contributes
most of the alkalinity required to neutralize the acid load. Other
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1*8
major alkaline tributaries in the reach between Mile 68 and Mile kO
(Williamsport) include Pine Creek, Larry's Creek, Lycoming Creek,
and Antes Creek. There has been some mining on Pine Creek and Loyal-
sock Creek, but these operations cause only localized pollution
problems.
During unusual flow conditions, i.e., when acid loadings in
the West Branch are proportionately greater than the alkalinity load-
ings in North Bald Eagle Creek, acid conditions extend downstream
from Williamsport even as far as the mouth. This is frequently asso-
ciated with heavy autumn rains in the Clearfield and Moshannon water-
sheds while correspondingly little rain is falling in the North Bald
Eagle Creek watershed.
In the Pine Creek watershed, intense mining in the headwaters
of Babb Creek has produced drainage which degrades the quality of
Babb Creek from source to mouth. Twenty-eight discharges have been
located in the watershed, and the total acidity contributed is 1^,800
Ib/day. Essentially, all of the significant discharges originate in
abandoned deep mines. Six of these discharges are responsible for
about three-quarters of the total acidity, and all but one of the
discharges originate in deep mines.
Babb Creek is weakly acid at its confluence with Wilson Creek,
which adds an acid loading of about U,000 Ib/day. Despite alkalinity
from Stony Fork and other tributaries, Babb Creek remains mildly acid
from Wilson Creek to its mouth. Because of its relatively small flow
and low acid loading, it has no significant effect on the quality of
Pine Creek.
Concentrations of other mine drainage indicators in the
streams of the Pine Creek sub-basin are not significantly affected
by mine drainage. Iron and manganese concentrations in Babb Creek,
for example, are less than 1.0 mg/1 throughout its length.
Loyalsock Creek is an alkaline stream at its mouth and bears
no significant evidence of mine drainage indicators throughout most
of its length. It does, however, receive mine drainage from abandoned
mines in an isolated, semi-anthracite deposit in its headwaters.
Two drainage tunnels near the Village of Lopez (Figure 1A)
discharge a total of 6 cfs of mine drainage with a net acidity load-
ing of 2,000 Ib/day. The addition of this acidity to the stream,
which has a low, natural alkalinity, causes degradation for
approximately eight miles downstream.
Pollution abatement in the Babb Creek watershed will require
the same methods as those discussed for areas where drainage origi-
nates in deep mines. Two principal factors, however, indicate
emphasis on treatment: (l) the abandoned mines range from 100 feet
to less than 50 feet below the ground surface. This will make it
extremely difficult to limit surface water infiltration to the mine;
(2) the significant discharges are generally low in iron, manganese,
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1*9
and other mine drainage indicators. Thus, neutralization can be
carried out with low sludge-handling costs. In-stream neutralization
might even be feasible. The estimated cost of a complete pollution
abatement program is 1.7 million dollars initially, with an annual
cost of 300,000 dollars.
In the Loyalsock Creek watershed, low concentrations of mine
drainage indicators and a tunnel system which conveys all mine drain-
age to one location make it probable that treatment will be used
extensively. Since all of the mining has been abandoned, inundation
might be applicable in addition to the more universally used measures
discussed previously. Another method that might be considered is
removal of all the remaining coal by surface mining. Restoration of
the stripped area would probable abate the discharges. Pollution
abatement in the watershed is estimated at 1+00,000 dollars initially,
and at about 100,000 dollars annually.
A relatively low cost program to abate the small acid loadings
would have a great effect upon stream quality in both the Pine and
Loyalsock watersheds.
-------
I
I
50
JUNIATA RIVER BASIN
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
51
AREA DESCRIPTION
The Juniata River Is 86 miles long, with a drainage area of
3^06 square miles. It is formed by the junction of the Little Juniata
River and Frankstown Branch Juniata River in Huntingdon County, 3.5
miles southeast of Huntingdon, Pennsylvania The stream meanders
easterly to its confluence with the Susquehanna River (Figure IB).
Virtually the entire Juniata River Basin lies within the
Ridge and Valley Province. This area is characterized by alternate
long ridges and valleys which generally run southwest to northeast.
The ridges in the western part of the basin are steep and rugged,
while the eastern part is considerably more rolling in character. A
small area of the western edge of the basin drains a part of the Ap-
palachian Plateau Province., Extremes in elevation range from 3^0 to
2900 feet above mean sea level.
Forests cover approximately two-thirds of the watershed, with
the remainder devoted to farming which is restricted mostly to the
lower, more fertile valleys. Coal fields influencing stream quality
are located in the southwestern portion of the watershed in Blair,
Huntingdon, Bedford, and Fulton Counties. The largest coal deposit
in the watershed is the Broad Top Coal Field, located in portions of
Bedford, Huntingdon, and Fulton Counties~ This field, which is ap-
proximately 81 square miles in area, lies in a highly dissected
plateau known as Broad Top Mountain, east of the Allegheny Mountains.
It is totally isolated from the main bituminous coal fields. The
largest portion of the coal deposit and major coal producing area
lies in the northeast corner of Bedford County. The remainder of
the field lies in the southern end of Huntingdon County with an exten-
sion into the northwest corner of Fulton County A small portion of
the main bituminous coal field lies within the watershed on the west-
ern edge of Blair County along the eastern slope of Allegheny Mountain.
The production of bituminous coal is an important industry
in the Juniata Basin, although no longer a major one,, The first min-
ing in the area occurred during the Revolutionary War when coal was
mined for home use, The first commercial shipments were made in 1853,
reaching a peak production of approximately 2.7 million short tons in
1918. By 1.96k, coal production had diminished to about UOO,OQO short
tons.
Projections of production in the Juniata Basin are as follows:
1970 - U90
1985 - 780
2020 - 1520
(In thousand short tons) (6)
Reserves of coal have been estimated at 215 million short
tons, of which approximately 129 million short tons are recoverable.
Data collected in August 1965 indicate that mine drainage is discharged
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
into four major tributaries of the Juniata River. The Little Juniata
and Frankstovn Branch are influenced primarily by active and abandoned
mining operations along the eastern slope of Allegheny Mountain in
western Blair County. The Raystown Branch and Aughwick Creek receive
mine drainage originating in the Broad Top Coal Field.
Little Juniata River
Mining activity in the sub-basin has been limited almost ex-
clusively to the Bells Gap Run watershed which has been extensively
deep and strip mined.
Samples of the Little Juniata River upstream from its conflu-
ence with Bells Gap Run indicate an initial net alkalinity of 100 mg/1.
This is accompanied by a low level of mine drainage indicators, Bells
Gap Run, despite mine drainage contributions, exhibits very little evi-
dence of mine drainage indicators at its mouth and contributes an alka-
line loading of approximately 170 Ib/day to the Little Juniata River.
Pollution abatement in this watershed will require extensive
restoration of the areas disturbed by surface mining. Since the
stream is used as a source of public water supply, it may prove eco-
nomically feasible to provide demineralization treatment facilities,
which will produce a high quality water suitable for use as a public
water supply.
The Frankstown Branch exhibits an alkaline reserve of about
110 mg/1 at its confluence with the Little Juniata. However, it con-
tains significant levels of iron and hardness which are mine drainage
indicators.
The major recipient of mine drainage contributors is the
Beaver Dam Branch. Despite this influence, it contributes approxi-
mately 3,000 Ib/day net alkalinity. The major sources of mine drain-
age to the Beaver Dam Branch are Burgoon Run and Sugar Run.
Burgoon Run receives mine drainage from Kittanning Run and
Glenwhite Run, small streams whose watersheds have been almost com-
pletely disturbed by surface mining. Ki'otanning Run is diverted
around a public water supply reservoir serving the City of Altoona
and enters Burgoon Run downstream from the reservoir. The flow of
the upper reaches of Burgoon Run and the normal flow of Glenwhite
Run form the reservoir supply During periods of high runoff, how-
ever, the flow of Glenwhite Run is also diverted to the by-pass.
Sugar Run has an acid loading at its mouth of 1,000 Ib/day.
Most of the acid originates in the discharge from one abandoned deep
mine.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
53
Pollution abatement activities should be directed toward pro-
ducing suitable water for public use. Altoona is in serious need of
additional water, and treatment of the mine drainage normally diverted
around the reservoir would add appreciably to the City's supply. Ion
exchange, or some other process which produces a high quality product,
would be the most desirable treatment process.
Since one discharge is the primary source of pollution in
Sugar Run, surface water control and treatment appear to be the most
applicable abatement methods.
Pollution abatement costs are estimated at five million dollars
initially, with an annual cost of 500,000 dollars.
Raystown Branch Sub-basinJuniata River
Mine drainage in the Raystown Branch originates in the Broad
Top Coal Field and is conveyed to the Raystown Branch by Longs Run,
Six Mile Run, Shoups Run, and Great Trough Creek. East of the first
three is acid from source to mouth Great Trough Creek is weakly
acid throughout its length in the coal fields, but tributaries neu-
tralize the acid load and provide an alkaline reserve of 200 Ib/day
at the mouth. Concentrations of iron, manganese, and other mine
drainage indicators are extremely low throughout its length.
The three acid streams contribute the following acid loading
to the Raystown Branch:
Longs Run - 5600 Ib/day net acidity
Six Mile Run - 2800 Ib/day net acidity
Shoups Run - 3200 Ib/day net acidity
Despite the sizable acid contributions, the alkaline reserve
of Raystown Branch upstream (H2,000 Ib/day) is more than ample to as-
similate the acid (Figures 9A and 9B)0 The Raystown Branch downstream
from the coal fields exhibits essentially no evidence of the mine
drainage loading.
Water quality in the three acid streams is generally similar.
They have a pH less than 4.5 and elevated concentrations of manganese,
sulfate, hardness, and other mine drainage indicators. Iron concentra-
tions in Shoups Run are normally less than 1.0 mg/1; while in Longs
Run and in Six Mile Run, mean concentrations exceed 10 mg/1.
Most of the discharges located in the tributary watersheds
originate in deep mines. A significant amount of surface mining has
taken place in the basin; however, and its major influence is diver-
sion of surface water into deep mines.
Thirty-nine discharges totaling 16,000 Ib/day net acidity
have been located so far, but location and characterization have not
been completed. One discharge to Soups Run at Dudley contributes
almost one-third of the total acid discharged into the watershed.
The discharge receives drainage from an extensively mined area in
the Trough Creek watershed. This inter-vratershed diversion accounts
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in part for the relatively good quality of Great Trough Creek despite
the extensive deep and strip mining carried out in the watershed.
In view of the slight damage to water quality in the Raystown
Branch, resulting from discharges to these creeks, abatement programs
might include conveying a portion of the mine drainage directly to the
Raystown Branch itself. In addition, conventional methods such as
treatment and surface reclamation might also be used.
Aughwick Creek
A small percentage of the Broad Top Coal Fields lies in the
Aughwick Creek watershed. Roaring Run, a tributary of Sideline Hill
Creek, which in turn is tributary to Aughwick Creek, is the only con-
tributor of mine drainage in the watershed. With its acid loading
of about 750 Ib/day, Roaring Run degrades with quality of Sideling
Hill Creek. Alkalinity contributed by other tributaries enables Side-
ling Hill Creek to recover from the acid loading and have an alkaline
reserve at its mouth.
Most of the mine drainage to Roaring Run originates in one
discharge, and abatement of pollution at this source would reclaim
several miles of otherwise unpolluted streams. Pollution abatement
is estimated to cost UOO,000 dollars initially, and 70,000 annually.
-------
-------
55
TIOGA RIVER
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
56
AREA DESCRIPTION
The Tioga River originates in Armenia Township in western
Bradford County. Its drainage area (within Pennsylvania) covers 690
square miles and lies in portions of Potter, Tioga, and Bradford
Counties. The stream is 58 miles long, H5 miles of which are in
Pennsylvania. It flows in a southwesterly direction into Tioga County
near Blossburg, Pennsylvania, and thence in a northerly direction to
join the Chemung River in New York State (Figure 1C).
Located within the Allegheny Plateau physiographic province,
the basin is characterized by broad valleys and steep, rounded hills.
Shale and sandstone, along with coal in the upper portion of the area,
are the dominant geologic formations. Most of the stream channels
are bordered by wide, alluvial flood plains containing deposits of
glacially derived boulders and gravel. Coal deposits are located in
the extreme headwaters of the stream and are contained in a canoe-
shaped, synclinal basin, underlying the watersheds of Morris Run,
Coal Creek, Bear Creek, and Johnson Creek.
Historically, bituminous coal mining was the primary industry
in the area. Mining activity began in the l8Ho's, reaching a maximum
production of approximately l.U million tons in 1886. Production has
since declined to a level of approximately 1*00,000 tons in 1961*.
Prior to World War II, all mining was conducted by deep mining methods.
During and after the war, strip mining became dominant. Approximately
80 percent of the coal is now mined by this method. Projections of
bituminous coal production for the Tioga River Basin are:
1970 - 360
1985 - 1+60
2020 - 660
(In thousand short tons) (6)
Reserves of coal have been estimated at a total of 1*1 million
short tons, with approximately l6 million short tons considered
recoverable (5).
A reconnaissance and sampling program was conducted during
September and October 1965, and supplementary sampling has been done
since that time. The results indicate that the quality of the Tioga
River above its confluence with Morris Run is not significantly af-
fected by mine drainage. In fact, the stream is classified as a
trout stream by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission,, Below this point,
however, and for a distance of more than 30 miles, the stream is
rendered acid by mine drainage from the watersheds of Morris Run,
Coal Creek, Johnson Creek, and Bear Creek. Tributaries succeed in
neutralizing the acid load downstream from the Cowanesque River.
Biological studies indicate mine drainage inhibits aquatic life down-
stream to its confluence with the Canisteo River, an additional nine
miles.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
57
The Corps of Engineers is planning two multi-purpose dams at
the confluence of Crooked Creek and the Tioga River. The dams vill
impound both streams in separate reservoirs. Mine drainage into the
Tioga River will limit uses of the Tioga impoundment. The mean net
acidity at the dam sites is 100 mg/1. Iron and manganese concentra-
tions are 2.1 and 3.7 mg/1, respectively; the pH ranges from 2.9 to
5.7.
Johnson Creek
Although Johnson Creek contributes a weakly alkaline loading
to the Tioga River, it receives mine drainage from abandoned surface
and sub-surface mines near the Village of Arnot, about four miles
from its mouth. Mine drainage in the Arnot area overcomes the stream's
alkalinity for a short distance. Concentrations of mine drainage
indicators are low, however. Two discharges with a total acid load-
ing of 300 Ib/day are the major mine drainage sources.
A limited program of treatment and surface reclamation would
probably improve water quality substantially. Cost and benefits as-
sociated with abatement are insignificant when compared with those
for abatement in other sources in the Tioga River Basin.
Morris Run, Coal Creek, and Bear Creek
Although these three streams constitute individual sources
of mine drainage to the Tioga River, they overlie a common coal
deposit. Underground and surface mining diverts surface and ground
water from one watershed to another; for this reason, they are
discussed together.
The total acidity from the three streams exhausts the Tioga
River's rather weakly alkaline reserve and produces an acid residual
of 15,500 Ib/day downstream from Bear Creek (Figures IDA and 10B).
The mean net acidity concentration downstream from Bear Creek is 180
mg/1; mean iron and manganese concentrations are 16 and ^09 mg/1,
respectively. Other mine drainage indicators are proportionately high,
The quality of each stream is essentially uniform from source
to mouth. All have acidity concentrations of 500 to 1,000 mg/1, iron
concentrations of 20 to 100 mg/1, and manganese concentrations of 20
to 50 mg/1. Morris Run receives mine drainage from two major as well
as approximately 20 minor sources. Most of the drainage originates
in abandoned, deep mines; however, their flow is influenced by drain-
age from strip mines, some of which lie in the Coal Creek and Bear
Creek watersheds. Mine drainage in the Coal Creek and Bear Creek
watersheds comes from many major discharges draining abandoned
surface and sub-surface mines.
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Abatement work will involve an extensive program of surface
reclamation and treatment. The estimated initial cost is 6.8 million
dollars, and the annual cost will be about 700,000 dollars.
Since the streams will not have a continuous flow if mine
drainage discharges are abated, abatement should be directed towards
protecting the quality of the Tioga,,
The coal measures are isolated from the main bituminous field
and cover an area of only about ten square miles. Abatement here
could be done without involving a large geographical area. The exten-
sive degradation of the Tioga River and the effect on uses of water
to be impounded by the Tioga River Dam should give the area a high
priority for future abatement
Since the Tioga River joins Crooked Creek downstream from the
Tioga River Dam, discharges from the two dams should be scheduled to
take full advantage of the neutralizing capacity of Crooked Creek.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
59
ANTHRACITE REGION
-------
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
i
i
i
i
60
AREA DESCRIPTION
Anthracite coal deposits in Pennsylvania lie in four individ-
ual fields in Northeastern Pennsylvania (Figure ID). The coal fields
underlie an area of 48U square miles and are designated as the North-
ern Field, Western Middle Field, Eastern Middle Field, and Southern
Field. All of the Northern Field lies within the Susquehanna River
Basin. Approximately 50 percent of the Eastern Middle Field, 90 per-
cent of the Western Middle Field, and hO percent of the Southern
Field drain into the Susquehanna River Basin. The remainder of the
fields drain to the Delaware River
Major streams in the Susquehanna River Basin draining the
anthracite area are listed below.
Drainage Area Mile Point of
Name
Lackawanna River
Nescopeck Creek
Catawissa Creek
Shamokin Creek
Mahanoy Creek
Mahantango Creek
Wiconisco Creek
Swatara Creek
(square miles )
3W
172
155
138
155
16k
116
567
Confluence
195
159
1^3
122
112
102
96
60
The anthracite area lies entirely within the Ridge and Valley
Province of the Appalachian Highlands, the principal feature of which
is a series of canoe-shaped valleys where the coal deposits are
located. The ridges trend generally northeast to southwest with
elevations varying from 1400 to 2700 feef =
All the rocks of the area are of sedimentary origin and are,
more specifically, of the Paleozoic Era. They belong to the Carbo-
niferous, Devonian, and Silurian Systems except one formation of the
Ordovician System. The Carboniferous System is subdivided into the
Lewellyn (Post-Pottsville) and Pottsville Formations.
While several anthracite beds are found in the Pottsville
Formation, the major production is in the Lewellyn Formations. These
formations consist of sandstone, shale, fireclay, black carbonaceous
slate, and beds of coal ranging from seams several inches thick to
the Great Mammoth bed which has a thickness, in some places, exceed-
ing 60 feet. The anthracite-bearing formations contain 12 to 26
potentially productive coal beds separated by intervening shale, sand-
stone, and conglomerate.
In the Northern Field, coal deposits are in a canoe-shaped
syncline with a flat bottom and steep sides outcropping along the
mountain ridges. The field is about 62 miles long and five miles
wide at its broadest point and covers an area of approximately 176
square miles.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
61
At Ashley, south of Wilkes-Barre, the coal measures reach a
depth of 2100 feet and contain 18 workable strata with a combined
thickness of about 100 feeto A structural saddle, called the Moosic
Saddle near Old Forge, PennsylYania, separates the Northern Field
into two coal basins: the Lackawanna and the Wyoming.
The Eastern Middle Field is approximately 33 square miles in
area and consists of a number of long, narrow coal basins that trend east
and west. These coal basins are separated by members of the Potts-
ville conglomerate which contains no anthracite. Most of the deposits
lie above surface drainage level and are drained by tunnels driven
expressly to provide gravity drainage to surface streams. Numerous
mine openings, slopes, drifts, and short tunnels also provide drainage
The Western Middle Field is a series of parallel, irregularly
shaped coal basins covering an area of approximately 120 square miles.
The Field, about 42 miles long and from two to five miles wide, con-
tains strata which lie nearly horizontal or pitch steeply according
to the location. Deposits resemble those in the Eastern Middle Field,
except that most of the deposits lie below surface drainage level and
are now flooded.
The Southern Field, about 70 miles long and from one to six
miles wide, covers an area of about 200 square miles The Field is
a series of basins extending from the Lehigh River Valley on the east
almost to the Susquehanna River on the westc The geologic structure
here is more complicated than in the other fields. Dips of the syn-
clines and anticlines are much steeper than elsewhere and mining
conditions are difficult. The largest tonnage of anthracite reserve
lies in this field.
Approximately 95 percent of the Nation's true anthracite lies
in the watersheds of the Susquehanna and Delaware Rivers. This is
the "hard coal" of commerce which has found its greatest use as a
domestic and industrial fuel,. Since 1808, the anthracite industry
has shipped over five billion tons of clvan coal, Peak production
was slightly more than 100 million tons i2!0 Production has decreased
gradually to a low of about 16.5 million tons in 1964. Production
during the period 1962-64 was only 75 percent of that during the
1946-48 period Strip and underground mining production declined by
33 percent and 83 percent, respectively,,
Projected Anthracite Production
(thousands of short tons)
1970__ ,____I9 8__5 , 2020
Susquehanna Basin 5900 3200 2500
Delaware Basin 5300 4200 9500
Anthracite coal reserves within the Susquehanna River Basin
have been estimated at 8.2 billion short tons. Economically recover-
able reserves are estimated at 1,6 billion short tons (5),
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
62
Lackawanna River
Changes in mining activity and mine drainage discharge points
have greatly altered the quality of the Lackawanna River within the
past ten years. Prior to I960, extensive mining with associated mine
drainage discharges severely degraded stream quality. Declines in
demand for anthracite coal, the cost of pumping the high volumes of
water encountered, and other circumstances gradually forced the aban-
donment of most of the deep mines. Cessation of mine water pumping
results in a very significant increase in stream alkalinity although
some mine drainage influence persists.
In January 196l, the pools of water developing in the aban-
doned underground workings broke through to the surface in a gravity
discharge to the Lackawanna River at Duryea, approximately two miles
from its mouth This was the largest discharge in the Anthracite
Field and has been since separated into two parts; the "Duryea Grav-
ity Discharge" and the discharge from a borehole at Old Forge. The
borehole was drilled one mile upstream from Duryea to stabilize the
level of the underground pools. The combined discharges have an
average flow of 58 mgd, a net acid load of approximately 132,000 lb/
day, and an iron load of approximately 62,000 Ib/day.
Most of the mine water in the Lackawanna River comes to the
surface through the Duryea and Old Forge discharge points. Water
quality in the river is also influenced, however, by other mine
drainage discharges (Figures 11A and 11B).
The initial effect of mine drainage is felt immediately above
Carbondale and downstream from Elk Creek, Based on an acidity-
alkalinity balance, this reach of the Lackawanna River receives a
net acid loading of at least 1,000 ib/day from two deep mines on Elk
Creek. Between Carbondale and Old Forge, the river receives mine
drainage from the Jermyn Water Tunnel, w'oich contributes approximately
5500 Ib/day net acidity
Between the entry of the Jermyn discharge and the confluence
with the Susquehanna River, the Lackawanna River receives the Duryea
and Old Forge discharges as well as a number of smaller discharges.
These overcome the stream's residual alkalinity and are primarily
responsible for the acid loading of 1*7,OCG Ib/day net acidity. The
Lackawanna River discharge does not deplete the Susquehanna River's
alkalinity reserve; however, iron loadings originating in the Duryea
and Old Forge discharges are responsible for substantial degradation
of the Susquehanna River
At its mouth, the pK of the Lackawanna River is generally
between k and 6. The acidity concentration is about 150 mg/1, and
iron and manganese concentrations are normally in the 50 mg/1 and 10
mg/1 range, respectively (Figures ilA and 11B).
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
63
Because of the vastness of the underground workings and the
large area disturbed by surface mining in the sub-basin, reclamation
work alone will not make for a completely effective abatement program.
This work is needed, however, to reduce the amount of surface water
diverted to the underground mine workings. Other measures such as
treatment or conveyance are also needed.
A preliminary study has been made on the feasibility of com-
bining the Duryea and Old Forge discharges and providing lime neutral-
ization treatment. The cost of collection and treatment is estimated
to be U.3 million dollars initially, with annual costs of 760,000.
Surface reclamation to limit infiltration of water to mine
pools would reduce treatment costs. Maintaining surface flow would
have the added advantage of assuring high stream flows and increas-
ing the capacity to assimilate mine drainage and other potential
discharges. It is not likely that a significant amount of additional
flow augmentation can be provided by surface impoundments, since most
of the available sites are used to capacity for public water supplies.
Susquehanna RiverLackawanna River to Nescopeck Creek
During the sampling period the quality of the Susquehanna
River was degraded from the Lackawanna River to the Nescopeck by the
poor quality of the water from the Lackawanna and discharges in the
Wyoming Valley portion of the Northern Anthracite Field. Streams
carrying mine drainage from the Wyoming Valley include Mill Creek,
Solomons Creek, Warrior Run, Nanticoke Creek, and Newport Creek.
They conveyed discharges from pumping stations at active deep mines
and abandoned ones in which the surfaces were maintained at constant
levels to prevent the water from entering the active mines. The
active operations pumping significant amounts of acid to the Susque-
hanna are operated by the Blue Coal Company, Pumps stabilizing the
pool levels in abandoned mines were purchased with funds provided in
conjunction with an 8.5 million dollar Joint Federal-State Anthracite
Mine Water Control Program in 1955-
Total flows of pumped discharges averaged 62 mgd; the net
acid averaged 361,000 Ib/day; and the iron loading averaged 13^,000
Ib/day.
Although the river received sizable acid from the pumped dis-
charges, its alkaline reserve was not seriously threatened (Figure
12A). Other indicators, particularly manganese and sulfates, were
present, however, in relatively high concentrations.
From Mile 196, upstream from the Lackawanna, to Mile 179>
which is downstream from all significant sources in the Northern
Anthracite Field, there was a significant reduction in alkalinity
and increases in other indicators. Alkalinity dropped from about
81+ mg/1 to 38 mg/1. Iron, manganese, and sulfates increased from
0.1, 0.09, and 30 mg/1 to about 0.3, 1.5, and 190 mg/1, respectively.
Iron concentrations in this reach were aonormally low. Other data
indicate that the increase in iron concentrations and other mine
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6k
drainage indicators through the reach is considerably more dramatic
under other flow conditions,
In October 196?, the Blue Coal Company began to phase out
pumping operations at most of its operations, and by December 1967
only the pumps serving its Wanamie mining complex were operating.
These pumps discharge an average of 86,700 Ib/day net acidity and
17,600 Ib/day total iron to Newport Creek, Discontinuation of pump-
ing which abated about three-quarters of the acid discharged and
almost 90 percent of the iron loading is not a permanent solution to
the area's mine drainage problem,, The mines are gradually filling
with water and, when the water reaches a level higher than normal
river elevation, gravity discharges are likely to occur,, When equi-
librium conditions prevail in the water pools of the mine, the dis-
charge volumes are likely to be only about 70 to 80 percent of the
volume formerly pumped. The initial quality will be considerably
poorer than when the mines were kept dewatered. The loading of mine
drainage indicators discharged to the Susquehanna, therefore, may be
even greater than during the survey periods The discharge points
are likely to be near the Susquehanna River: probably Mill Creek,
Solomons Creek, or even directly to the River in the Plains area
north of Wilkes-Barre,
The last regularly sampled discharge in this reach is a grav-
ity discharge from an isolated mine water pool at Mocananqua. It
contributes approximately 6,000 Ib/day net acidity and has no observ-
able effects on the alkaline reserve of the Susquehanna River«
Downstream from the Nescopeck, stream quality rapidly improves.
Other tributaries draining the anthracite area contribute mine drain-
age indicators, but do not significantly affect stream quality. Bio-
logical surveys show significant degradation of aquatic life in the
reach from the Lackawanna to the Nescopeck and slight effect further
downstream. Periodic degradation of stream quality downstream from
the Nescopeck has occurred during periods of high stream flow follow-
ing extended low flow periods, Iron salts which precipitate during
low flow periods to form sludge upstream from Berwick are scoured out
by the increased stream velocity and are evident all the way to the
confluence with the West Branch of the Susquehanna River,
Pollution abatement will involve treating the equilibrium
discharge from the pools as well as treating the discharge from the
Wanamie complex, if it continues operating. Mine drainage flow can
probably be reduced by surface reclamation. Some stream bed lining
and flume construction across areas disturbed by subsidence or sur-
face mines has been done with funds allocated to the Federal-State
Mine Water Control Program; however, much remains to be done.
State agencies are developing pl«»ns to stabilize pool eleva-
tions at a specified level by pumping at strategic locations and
providing for at least one gravity overflow. This method will prevent
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
65
property damage which might otherwise result from flooding and sur-
face subsidence which would occur if the mine pools reach equilibrium
by themselves. It will also provide water of uniform quality and
quantity, minimizing treatment costs. The plan, however, has the
disadvantage of high pumping costs and of inundating less of the acid-
forming material than if gravity discharges were permitted. The cost
of a program to completely abate mine drainage pollution is about 12
million dollars initially and two million annually.
Since iron and not acidity is the most critical pollutant,
flow regulation cannot be relied upon to reduce abatement costs. The
cost of flow augmentation to dilute low flow iron concentrations
would probably be more costly than abating iron to comparable levels
by treatment facilities.
Nescopeck Creek
The results of a sampling program conducted during August
and September 1965 indicate that the quality of Nescopeck Creek above
its confluence with Little Nescopeck Creek is not significantly de-
graded by mine drainage. In fact, this ten-mile reach is classified
as a trout stream by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Below the
confluence, however, stream quality is degraded by mine drainage from
Little Nescopeck Creek and Black Creek.
Initial water quality degradation is caused by mine drainage
from Little Nescopeck Creek (Figures ISA and 13B). Approximately
7,000 Ib/day net acidity from Little Nescopeck Creek overcomes Nesco-
peck Creek's natural alkaline reserve and renders it acid.
The Jeddo Tunnel is the only source of pollution to Little
Nescopeck Creek: it is a gravity discharge point for a large area
of abandoned deep mines in the Black Creek coal basin of the Western
Middle Field. The tunnel discharges an average of 20 mgd with a net
acid loading of 98,000 Ib/day.
The mean acidity in Nescopeck Creek is 2kO mg/1, and the mean
iron and manganese concentrations are 6.5 and 8 mg/1, respectively,
immediately downstream from the confluence with Little Nescopeck
Creek. Stream quality improves through the 18 miles to the mouth.
However, stream quality is still poor at the mouth. Although Black
Creek brings sizable loadings of mine drainage indicators (acid load
of ll4,000 Ib/day), the concentrations are less than those in Nesco-
peck Creek. The mixture of the two streams thus slightly improves
the quality of Nescopeck Creek.
Black Creek receives essentially all of its mine drainage
from the Gowan and Derringer Drainage Tunnels. In addition to mine
drainage pollution, Little Nescopeck Creek and Black Creek receive
coal silt from coal processing operations as well as surface runoff
from piles of coal fines.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
66
Three drainage tunnels that collect mine drainage from an
extensive area are the primary sources of pollution,, Treatment, there-
fore, will probably play a major role in pollution abatement. The
structural stability of the tunnels may be such that seals can be
constructed to inundate at least a portion of the abandoned mine
vorkings to improve discharge quality. Seals would also make it un-
necessary to provide surface facilities to convey and impound mine
drainage flows which are greater than the treatment plant capacity.
Surface reclamation in the area overlying the workings drained
by the Jeddo Tunnel would reduce significantly the surface water con-
tribution to mine drainage flows The estimated pollution abatement
cost is 7.8 million dollars initially and 1.3 million dollars annually.
Pollution abatement benefit might be accomplished at a lower
cost by conveying the mine drainage to a point further down on the
Nescopeck or even to the Susquehanna River itself Since most of the
mine drainage originates in Black Creek watershed and is drained to
Little Nescopeck Creek by the Jeddo Tunnel, pollution could be abated
in Little Nescopeck Creek and eight miles of Nescopeck Creek by seal-
ing Jeddo Tunnel and diverting the discharge to Black Creek. These
measures, while perhaps slightly less costly than a program involving
collection and treatment, would have no value in a comprehensive,
basin-wide pollution abatement program and, consequently, should
probably not be utilized.
Catawissa Creek
Catawissa Creek is an acid stream throughout most of its
length. At a point approximately 38 miles from its mouth, the stream
is normally alkaline, although bearing evidence of mine drainage,
and it is diverted underground by an abandoned surface mining complex;
this diversion completely disrupts surface drainage patterns. The
stream then apparently flows through abandoned deep mine workings
for a distance of approximately ^,000 feet, emerging at the Green
Mountain Water Level Tunnel discharge., The stream bears a net acid
load of about 150 Ib/day and Is further degraded, about three miles
downstream, by about 24,000 Ib-'day net acidity from two drainage
tunnels, Audenreid and Green Mountain, The stream never recovers
from this heavy acid loading (Figures LkA and 1^B)0
Iron, manganese, and net alkalinity concentrations at most
places are essentially equivalent to those in Wescopeck Creek, Sul-
fate concentrations are, however, about twice as great in Catawissa
Creek as in Nescopeck Creek,
Tomhicken Creek, with its contribution of 1700 Ib/day net
acidity, constitutes the only other significant source of acid and
mine drainage indicators. It does not, however, significantly de-
grade the quality of Catawissa Creek, since indicator concentrations
are somewhat lower than those in the receiving stream.. Most of the
acid from Tomhicken Creek originates in uhe Cox #3 drainage tunnel,
which contributes about 1200 Ib/day net acidity.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
67
Some active deep mining is being carried out in the sub-basin;
however, most of the drainage originates in abandoned mines. Deep
mining activity is expected to decline. No surface mine discharges
were located, but surface mining has interrupted surface drainage in
large areas and adds appreciably to the mine drainage flow.
Although all of the known discharges enter the Catawissa in
the upper third of its length, the weak natural alkalinity and rela-
tively small flow of downstream tributaries are not adequate to neu-
tralize the heavy acid loadings entering at the headwaters. Catawissa
Creek brings approximately 18,500 Ib/day net acidity to the Susque-
hanna River. This loading is about 80 percent of the largest single
source, the Audenreid Drainage Tunnel,
Unlike many of the streams In the anthracite area, Catawissa
Creek is not significantly influenced by coal silt. This is probably
because there are no active coal processing operations in the sub-basin.
A comprehensive pollution abatement program in the sub-basin
will involve restoration of surface drainage, reclamation, mine flood-
ing, and probably treatment. Treatment of the Audenreid discharge
would provide an immediate benefit by restoring the alkalinity in
Catawissa Creek to an alkaline condition, although its quality would
be degraded by other mine drainage and sewage discharges.
Pollution abatement methods and costs for the drainage orig-
inating in Green Mountain Water Level Tunnel and the Cox #3 drainage
tunnel were studied by the consultant. The recommended program in-
volves inundating the entire coal deposit by sealing the three drain-
age tunnels, then treating the overflow at a new discharge point.
Surface reclamation measures in the extensively disturbed area over-
lying the coal deposit is not considered feasible from an economic
standpoint. The recommended program did include restoration of surface
flow in Catawissa Creek upstream from the Green Mountain Water Level
Tunnel. The first cost of the program in the area studied by the
consultant is an estimated 1.6 million dollars. The annual cost
would be 300,000 dollars.
Conditions in the remainder of the sub-basin are somewhat
different, and complete inundation of the mine workings probably will
not be possible. Surface reclamation measures and treatment will be
the basis of pollution abatement at the Cox #1 and Audenreid Tunnels.
The total pollution abatement cost for the watershed is an estimated
6.2 million dollars initially and 900,000 dollars annually.
Shamokin Creek
Shamokin Creek is an acid stream throughout 28 miles of its
35-mile length. The remaining seven miles (the extreme headwaters)
are alkaline, but have high concentrations of mine drainage indicators,
particularly iron and manganese. Downstream from Mile 29, the stream
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
68
is rendered acid by mine drainage from the North Branch Shamokin
Creek and the Excelsior Drainage Tunnel (Figures 15A and 15B).
Although the stream's acidity decreases uniformly from about 200 mg/1,
at this point, to about 100 mg/1 at the mouth, the acid loading in-
creases from about 9,000 Ib/day net acidity to about 35,000 Ib/day.
During the survey period, iron concentrations reached a peak of ikj
mg/1 at Mile 23 and then declined to less than 20 mg/1 at the mouth.
Mean manganese concentrations ranged from 6 mg/1 to 3 mg/1, and sul-
fate concentrations ranged from kjQ mg/1 at Mile 22 to ^30 mg/1 at
the mouth.
In the Shamokin Creek sub-basin, all seven major discharges
enter in the upper one-third of the stream. All discharges originate
in underground mines, although they are undoubtedly influenced by
surface water diverted underground in areas disturbed by surface
mining. The seven major discharges contribute 28,000 Ib/day net
acidity.
Discharges that originate from both active and inactive mines
reach the surface by gravity or pumping. One of the largest dis-
charges is a pumped discharge from the Glen Burn Colliery which
contributes more than 5200 Ib/day net acidity. Two large discharges
were found bringing more than 5500 Ib/day net acidity to the North
Branch Shamokin Creek. The stream disappears underground a short
distance downstream, however, and is believed to be a source of the
Excelsior discharge.
In addition to mine drainage indicators, the stream is heavily
laden with coal silt, much of which apparently originates at cleaning
and processing operations in the sub-basin.
Because of the way in which mines were developed in the sub-
basin, and because a significant amount of drainage originates in
active operations, sealing will probably not play a significant role
in abatement. Treatment and reclamation measures aimed at surface
water control will probably be most effective in this sub-basin. The
estimated cost of this program is 8.7 million dollars initially and
1.2 million annually.
The first step should be construction of surface water control
measures to limit mine drainage flow,, Restoration of flow in the
North Branch Shamokin Creek should have high priority. Extensive
surface disturbance upstream from the Excelsior discharge makes it
unlikely that appreciable benefit can be realized from abatement in
the foreseeable future. Treatment of the discharges downstream from
this point, possibly supplemented by some in-stream treatment, will
produce most of the water use benefits in the sub-basin. Treatment
in the upstream portion could be undertaken in conjunction with a
reclamation program designed to restore usefulness of the land.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
69
Mahanoy Creek
Mahanoy Creek discharges a load of approximately 1,000 Ib/day
net alkalinity to the Susquehanna River but is one of the most severe-
ly degraded streams draining the anthracite area. A study carried out
in July, August, and September of 1965 determined the source of pollu-
tion to be alkaline discharges containing high concentrations of iron,
manganese, and other mine drainage indicators. Severely degraded
quality was observed throughout the entire 52-mile length of the
stream.
Mine drainage reaches Mahanoy Creek through the following
tributaries: North Branch Mahanoy Creek, Waste House Run, Shenandoah
Creek, Big Mine Run, and Zerbe Run. In addition, five large, deep
mine discharges enter the creek directly.
The stream's natural alkalinity is overcome in its upper
reaches (Figures 16A and l6B). This is primarily the result of an
800 Ib/day net acidity from the East Barrier gravity discharge, a
discharge of 4200 Ib/day that is intermittently pumped from the
Springdale tunnel, and by a 10,500 Ib/day net acidity discharge from
Waste House Run which originates predominately in pumped discharges.
Alkalinity from the combined Girardville discharges (drainage
tunnels numbers one and two) and the Big Mine Run overcome the acid
residual and increase the stream's alkaline reserve to a peak of ap-
proximately 15,000 Ib/day downstream from Big Mine Run. This reserve
steadily decays to a minimum of 1,000 Ib/day at the mouth. Reductions
in the alkaline reserves occur in response to acid contribution and
to the oxidation of acid precursors from the large alkaline discharges,
The largest acid contribution in the portion of the sub-basin down-
stream from Big Mine Run is Zerbe Run with its loading of 7900 Ib/day
net acidity. Zerbe Run receives essentially all of its acid loading
from the Trevortown tunnel which discharges 12,000 Ib/day.
Concentrations of mine drainage indicators vary along the
length of the stream (Figure l6B). Mean manganese concentrations
range from 3.0 mg/1 to 110 mg/1. Sulfate concentrations range from
10^0 mg/1 to 1500 mg/1 in nearly the entire length of the stream.
Coal silt discolors the stream and practically chokes the channel in
some places.
This sub-basin will be one of the most difficult in the an-
thracite area to provide with an abatement program. The reasons for
this are the large area involved, the large number and variety of
discharges to handle, as well as the quality differences among these
dischargeso Since a number of the major discharges originate in
active mines, treatment will probably play a major role in a pollu-
tion abatement program. Mine drainage conveyance facilities may be
applicable in combining acid and alkaline discharges. Surface water
control should be utilized to the maximum.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
70
Either ion exchange or distillation appears to be the most
applicable for reducing the pollution characteristics of the alkaline
discharges which also have high concentrations of other drainage
constituents.
Since cost data are not available for the facilities to remove
dissolved solids, only very rough estimates of abatement costs can be
made. Capital and annual costs might be about nine million dollars
and 2.5 million, respectively.
Mahantango Creek
Mahantango Creek is an acid stream through approximately 17
miles of its 32-mile length and contributes approximately 3500 Ib/day
net acidity to the Susquehanna River.
Essentially all of the mine drainage discharged in the Mahan-
tango Creek sub-basin comes from the Rausch Creek watershed. This is
a small tributary of Pine Creek which in turn is a tributary of
Mahantango Creek.
Rausch Creek, with its acid loading of 5,000 Ib/day net acid-
ity, exhausts the alkaline reserve of Pine Creek at their confluence
and renders it an acid stream for 13 miles to its mouth. The quality
of Pine Creek is slightly improved by water from alkaline tributaries,
the largest of which is Deep Creek. Although influenced by mine
drainage from the Hans Yost Creek watershed, Deep Creek contributes a
net alkaline loading of about 70 Ib/day.
The residual acid loading of about 3,000 Ib/day which reaches
Mahantango Creek easily overcomes its weak alkaline reserve and renders
it an acid stream to its mouth (Figure 17A). The portion of Mahan-
tango Creek upstream from Pine Creek, although low in alkalinity, is
generally of good quality. A biological reconnaissance in 1964 showed
that this reach supports normal aquatic life.
Upstream from Pine Creek, Mahantango Creek is almost free of
all mine drainage indicators and, in fact, has surprisingly low
mineral content. For example, its mean sulfate concentration is 7
mg/'I.. Mean iron concentration is Q.k mg/1, while no trace of manga-
nese was found. Downstream from Pine Creek, stream quality is rela-
tively constant. Iron and manganese concentrations are slightly less
than 0.6 mg/1. Mean net acidity ranged between 35 and 45 mg/1
(Figure 17B).
Mine drainage sources in the Mahantango Creek watersheds are
not collected by drainage tunnels, although they are clustered in a
relatively small area of the Rausch Creek watershed. Mine drainage
in Rausch Creek comes from 22 known pumped discharges and ten gravity
discharges. The largest gravity discharges are the Markson and
Valley View. These two discharges are responsible for a total of
1600 Ib/day net acidity. *
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
71
Because of the large number of discharges and the large per-
centage of active operations in the sub-basin, pollution abatement
in the immediate future can probably be done most cheaply by treatment.
A treatment plant for the entire Rausch Creek flow would have been
called upon to treat approximately 5 mgd during July of 1965. Although
this was a low flow period, it indicates that the treatment plant
required would not be exceptionally large. Low acidity concentrations
and the generally low mineralization of the water indicate treatment
will be relatively inexpensive because alkaline reagent needs will be
modest and sludge volumes will be low. The estimated first cost of
a pollution abatement program is 2.3 million dollars, and the annual
cost is estimated at 200,000 dollars. A significant percentage of
the mine drainage originates in active mines; therefore, public funds
would not be required to finance the entire program.
This sub-basin should receive high priority in any limited
abatement program,, This is due to the ^reat length of stream influ-
enced by drainage from the Rausch Creek watershed, as well as to the
low cost of treatment and the ease of collecting the polluted waters.
Wiconisco Creek
Wiconisco Creek contributes approximately 6,000 lb/day net
alkalinity to the Susquehanna River. The major mine drainage sources
are the Porter and Keefer drainage tunnels and Bear Creek which re-
ceives its mine drainage from two tunnels. All of the major discharges
are located in the upper one-third of the stream's length. Alkalinity
reserves in Bear Creek of 6,000 lb/day net alkalinity overcomes the
effect of 900 lb/day net acidity from the Porter and Keefer tunnels
(Figure 18A). Although iron, manganese, and sulfate concentrations
in Wiconisco Creek are temporarily elevated by loadings from Bear
Creek, about 25 miles of stream downstream from Bear Creek are of
relatively good quality (Figure 18B). The summary of a biological
survey of the stream reports essentially no aquatic life upstream
from Bear Creek. Several species of clean water organisms were col-
lected at the mouth, indicating at least partial recovery from the
upstream loadings. Coal silt loadings in the Wiconisco are heavy.
These apparently originate in coal washeries in the sub-basin.
Abatement work can be accomplished at relatively low cost
because of the relatively small number, low volume, and low strength
of major discharges. As in the Mahantango Creek sub-basin, low dis-
solved solids in the major mine drainage source suggest that treatment
can be accomplished with minimum utilization of costly sludge disposal
facilities. An abatement program using both surface water control
and treatment would cost an estimated 3.2 million dollars initially
and 500,000 annually. These costs might be reduced by providing an
out-of-stream impoundment for blending acid and alkaline discharges
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
72
to neutralize acid and precipitate iron salts. A parallel program
aimed at abating sewage and coal silt pollution should also be
undertaken.
Swatara Creek
Mine drainage renders this stream acid from its headwaters
to its point of confluence with Mill Run, a distance of approximately
2k miles. Streams bringing significant amounts of drainage to it are
Panther Creek, Good Spring Creek, and Lower Rausch Creek. Panther
Creek contributes only 13 Ib/day net acidity and does not significantly
affect the alkalinity reserve of Swatara Creek (Figure 19A). It does,
however, carry other mine drainage indicators.
The alkalinity reserve of Swatara Creek is affected by the
contribution of 2,000 Ib/day net acidity from Good Spring Creek, Most
of the mine drainage in the Good Spring Creek watershed originates in
the watershed of Middle Creek, a tributary which enters Good Spring
Creek about one mile from its mouth. Lower Rausch Creek yields a. net
acid loading of 1300 Ib/day, most of which originates in three drainage
tunnel discharges.
The acid load in Swatara Creek reaches a peak of 3600 Ib/day
at Mile 58, immediately downstream from Lower Rausch Creek, and then
declines in response to the influence of alkalinity in tributary
streams.
Stream quality of the headwaters fluctuates rather weakly in
response to small additions of mine drainage; mean iron and manganese
concentrations are about 3.5 mg/1. Sulfate concentrations are
normally less than 250 ing/I. Downstream from Mile 60, concentrations
of all mine drainage indicators decline.
Considerable mining is being carried on throughout the sub-
basin; however, most of the significant discharges originate in
abandoned mines.
Pollution abatement in the sub-basin will involve essentially
the same measures as those described for other sub-basins in the an-
thracite area. Inundation will probably be impractical because of
the way the mines were developed and because some of the mines are
still in operation. Mine drainage from an isolated coal deposit near
Tremont and discharging to Good Spring Creek and Middle Creek was
studied by a consultant (13)» This area is responsible for about
two-thirds of the acid entering Swatara Creek, and mining conditions
are representative of the conditions in the remainder of the watershed.
An abatement program based on the study recommends restoration and
diversion of surface water at some of the unrestored strip mines;
stream channel restoration and treatment are also recommended. It
is estimated that the preventive measures could effect a 20 percent
reduction In the acidity, iron loadings, and flow. The estimated
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
73
cost of the area is 2.1+ million dollars initially, with an annual
cost of 300,000 dollars. Pollution abatement in the entire Swatara
watershed will cost an estimated U.7 million dollars initially and
700,000 annually.
The Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries
is carrying out a reclamation program on a portion of the Middle
Creek watershed. Work recently completed prevents a small tributary
of Coal Run from entering the underground mines and eventually emerg-
ing as a mine drainage discharge. The project will involve other
areas disturbed by surface mining and will probably reduce signifi-
cantly the loadings to Middle Creek by a large margin.
Plans are being developed by the Pennsylvania Department of
Forests and Waters for a multi-purpose dam on Swatara Creek at
Swatara Gap in a reach degraded by upstream drainage discharges.
Abatement of most, if not all, of the major discharges will be nec-
essary to assure that water quality in the impoundment will be
consistent with the planned uses.
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
71*
REFERENCES
1. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife. Draft Report to District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer
District, Baltimore, Maryland, August IT, 1966.
2. Lorenz, W. C., Mineral Industry Water Requirements and Waste
Water in the Susquehanna River Basin. U. S. Bureau of Mines,
1966, 116 pp.
3. Reese, J. F., and J. D. Sisler. Bituminous Coal Fields in
Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey
Bullegin MG pt 3, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1928, 153 pp.
U. Central Pennsylvania Coal Producers Association. Estimate for
January 1963.
5. Wessel, W. F., Mineral Resources in the Susquehanna River Basin.
U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1966, 85 pp.
6. Wessel, W. F., D. J. Frendzel, and G. F. Cazell. Mineral Indus-
try Economics in the Susquehanna River Basin. U. S. Bureau of
Mines, 196k, 90 pp.
7. Thomson, R. D., U. S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Private Communication, December 1966.
8. Caruccio, F. T., and R. R. Parizek. An Evaluation of Factors
Influencing Acid Mine Drainage Production from Various Strata of
the Allegheny Group and the Ground Water Interactions in Selected
Areas of Western Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Coal Research Board,
1967, 213 pp.
9- Williams, E. G., and M. L. Keith. Relationship Between Sulfur
in Coals and Occurrence of Marine Reef Beds. Economic Geology
Vol. 58, pp. 720-729, 1963.
10. Emrich, G. H., and D. R. Thompson Characteristics of Drainage
from Deep Bituminous Coal Mines in Pennsylvania. Second Sympos-
ium on Coal Mine Drainage Research, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1968.
11. McKee^ J. E., and H. W. Wolf. Water Quality Criteria. California
State Water Quality Control Board, 1963, 5^8 pp.
12. Stephan, R. W., and W. C. Lorenz. Survey of Costs on Methods
for Control of Acid Mine Drainage Pollution. U. S. Bureau of
Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1968, 33 pp.
-------
75
13. Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., Acid Mine Drainage
Abatement Measures for Selected Areas within the Susquehanna
River Basin. Contract No. WA 66-21, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, 1968.
Ik. Dierks, H. A., W. L. Eaton, R. H. Whaite, and F. T. Mayer.
Mine Water Control Program Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania,
July 1955-December 196l. U. S. Bureau of Mines 1C 8115, 1962,
63 pp.
15. Rozelle, R. B., Studies on the Kinetics of Iron (II) Oxidation
in Mine Drainage. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Contract No. PH 86-65-113, 1968.
-------
76
APPENDICES
-------
m
Dl -P
«.H
o
3
-p
£r*
*s
a|^j
O 1) co
H -P -P
w ,d fl
o bO-H
VH -rH O
^ 0) CL,
0 ^
0
na
E -p -P
H ^ C
CO t&.H
CO 'H O
< V to
TJ
(L) W
a> -p -p
S£.S
-P -H O
H B
-fe-
E
<
T3
p -p
ft C
w tr-H
O >H O
H CD P-
-P S
O CO LA ON O O CM
<*"* vo -=r i~( IA o co
OJ CO VO ON LA CM
J- H ro t-
H rH IA CO
CM
O O O O O O O
O O LA LA O O O
ON VD H CO \O O O
VD J- CM H -^ ^O ON
OJ H oo h- ^t
VO H
rH C7\ O H O O CO
-^ LA LA O O O -3"
t-~ ro o H
ON LA c\J
rH
t O f H O O VO
-3- CM H O IA O H
CM CO O C
CO H
_* CO CO O CM
^O ON aO o O\
ON CO LA
CM ON oo
H
O 1 O
O 1 O
IA 1 ft
r. | <
OJ 1 ON
O -3- O CM O O O
-3- ON CO H O O CM
ON OJ CO o O CO
-3- t LA ^r
t H H
O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o
CO O OJ rH MD O -^T
LA CO t H ^ CO OJ
CO ON
CO VC O
C\ CT\ O
CO H LA
OJ
H
O
O
o
LA
CO
O VD LA LA O O 'O
_=! ON VO O O O LA
O\ H H LA O ~
_zf 04^ O^ H
; o, cj H
O ro o ^O CM C
CO CO U\ CO r-t C
co m o eo n J*
O CM CO -* OO fr-
og H H O H
CM CM ir\
§o o o o c
O O O O V
ON t o co -3- a
LA CO O H CO CC
"^O OJ LA VO t
rH H H H
O ^£> O LA H
VO C IA \O CO C
O co LA ro ON u
LA t- -=r
o o o o o c
3 O O LA O O C
3 ro o\ m oj o c
3 VO O\ *J3 LA LA if
IA vo CM c r-
VO rH 0
r o -=r o j- o c
3 _d- H CM O O C
N -* cn co c
°i. °i c
LA -^t C
C1
D O CO t- rH O C
3 00 O O O O C
4 -* H H C
t- J C
1 »
rH rH C
O LTN CO t O C
1 O LA t- O O C
1 -3- OJ LA C
t t H O C
1 * *
1 CO t C
1 U
1 1 O O
1 100
» i ca j-
i i ** «
1 1 VO OJ
3 o CM o co o c
3 O ON CO CM O C
O CM O fH O C
O OJ CM OJ C
VO CO C
CM CM C
3 O O O O O C
r\ O O O O O c
M O -=t OJ H O C
r\ O t-- -3- CO H u
t co H ro c
o
o
j~
ON
H
O
O
o
o
CO
CM
3 o oj o ^r o c
D CM ON CO CO O C
O LA O rH O C
O ON CM 00 C
rH CO" C
-=) OJ C
> t-
1 £
» "i
3* LA
>N r-
Vj IA
3
3
3
-\
O
3 ro
3 H
3 t-
3 M
3" M3
0 -X
3 -=r
D LA
3 VO
D O
D LA
H H
D rH
} OJ*
D OJ
^ CO
D CO
N t
3
2i C
D -=)
D VO
D t
3 O
H CM
3
D
r>
r\
y
H
(^
ON
_J
vo^
J-
3 CO
> i |
5 J-
3 OJ
> CO
> CM
\
-------
oJ
H
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
§
H
-
5
I
H
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S|S
0) H|
6. . , I
O u>|
H «-,
g
d
v,l CO CJ
8
IX
£
1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PrH
89
O V
fi£
,0 O
H d
££
4-1 <]
O J>
Sin
in
a 4>
So
o
rH ^
^
a no
o c
H x;
-p > o
O -H «J ^
4> 0) 4)
V. O K
Vt U
W K
'O xJ S
«J G a)
o aJ 4) Q
v-5 w o
H 4>
al u
H 3
O O
P4
O
ro H ir\ ir\ t co H
ir\ oo
ro co
OJ OJ O -* -3" O VO
vi) ir\ o H lAcO ON
fr _3- rH rH rH rH -3~
OJ O\ O O O
OJ OJ^JD ON rH
M £
t) 4)
a i. h
V (U O
P5 ft
£ 0
8°
d a
4) O
K (0
B^
O Tf J3
h C p
fc < 0
1j
a
£
S
£
rH 4)
41 rH 10
-HUM
S^E
4) G C
H 08 O
U CO O
8C
4> h
6°
^ IH
^ 4) 4)
d> T3 X!
4) r-j -P
Q < O
43
CJ C
a) o
«s
3 ^
6 X! 4)
O U X!
h 0 -P
fc S O
U O
a g
4)
a c
p c
£ *H
P^ CO
g £
3 o
01
CO rH FH
0 -P 43
O 4> p
o w o
43 0)
§ £
£°
43
6 CJ
0 4)
(H 4>
fc M
4>
41
CJ
x>
rO
aJ
«
i
£
43
n
a)
rt
i
s
^
^
"3
to
g
s
*
o
41 (0
^ C
0 4)
O O
H
0
flj iH
h a
o o
"1
| g
to co
i
s-3
s m
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0) r
OS
o o
CD O
O
tf
a
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t-l
M
g
Of
CO
C -P
ca V to
a ii ^
5 8 **
iir
c
» E
S 1
"? b
f* O
CO P-i
d
*£) In
rl 0)
13"
C s
M
M
b£
Q
PH
0)
H
C
0)
to X3
H a>
en t+
31
0) 0
M
o
5 |
1 CO
ID J~t
0 a
* 'c!
h ^
a. -H
& >
8 5
0 -g
« M
1
1 1
BO ^
1
m
rH
«J
E-<
3-P B
10 -rl
4, 0
g « -^
3 O PS
4J ~^. P
3-P C
in -H
4) 0 0
% 0 PU
ft) -P O
Si tfl -rt
05 o -P
a o a)
03 P to
8 ^ £
^3 "--.
5 ^* "-^
^.
4) ^_-
ttf -P
oJ w m
BOP
Q £
-p ro - -
in p w
o ^ £
CJ PH
§ £2
-~v
4> ^
he p
s o -p
Q 'n
:=>
o
W rH O
+> a) o
CO -P rH
O O
~
en
J-i -P ' *
W) PH O
2 -d o
PM -P rH
£*~
rl
CO
q
(U '--
.CJ O
o
P. H
S C
O -5 *3-
O
E -P -^
|^§
ps
r-t
Oj
3
H O
rj O
fl C
Watershed
MD ON
CM LA
-^f tA
ON O
H on
0 0
o o
ON ON
-=r on
o o
00 ,H
o on
rH rH
O O
LA rH
O LA
ro oj
0 O
O ON
-=f t
o on
OJ
.3- -j
rH rH
VO LA
CO CM
O rH
rH
ON ON
LA on
t- -a-
ON rH
on rH
CM CO
CO CO
ON CM
rH
PS
ft] ON CM
M O LA
K CM O\
g ^
I *
0> o
B §
CO rt
«
gx
-P (U
ia to
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PL,
S-P O
CO iH
CD O O
.-] u a,
M -P C
0) M -H
CU O O
J O PL,
P
CO CU -P O
CU bC CO .H
P CO
CO -P
...OA, .
tdo a,
I
q p -f
-3 3
I O .H
I £
o p
0 .H
H CO H O
CO -p OJ o
3 CO p O
C O O H
d O EH«3-
vo
VD
0
g -3
H O O
bO
d
anok
Si
0
CO
O
o
g
o
-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S
8
o
M
EH
3
§
H
OM3
3 O
M
H (U
P rl P
S3 3 ra
01 M O
> a o
C> O) PVO
f-i s; MO
H ><
h-ce-
o
"o
CM
^
g |
O
r-l
CM
CO
OA
r-l
o
^
VO
CM
^
VO
ro
O
To
-*
£
0
CM
,_!
r-l
0
O
ro
OJ
8
co
UA
UA
r-l
t-
OJ
H
Si
V
C
CO
£
Is
rl
#
ON
ro
O
O
CJ
CM
O
o\
t-
CM
CM
ro
CM
O
VQ
O
co
o
o
VO
o
OA
0
3
r-l
8
OJ
OJ
o
UA
VO
UA
1 i
rH
UA
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
OJ
H
"5
o
o
j.
cu
J^
1
co
EH
S
o
C-4
fe
V
H
1
rr.
0
H
£§
g
g
g
g
H
P
1
H
tH
a
oS
c
o
rl
-P
O
r*
rl
-P
C
cu -p
El W
-P O
go
-PVO
r< CO O
£J
rH
£- £ rH
g «§-»
'O -P
C 01
3 0
0 0
g -HO
id 4
1-t
3%
C! rH
C i-H S
g £
It-
go
d
r?
ro
0
S
Q
CO
o
UN
"°.
0
^
Q
d
OJ
rH
H"
ro
rH
d
ON
rH
OJ
8
UN
8
CO
ON
ro
UN
CO
OJ
vO
CVJ
o
rH
0
r-
VO
rH
ro
VO
rH
o
o
CO
o
o
d
ON
VO
d
OJ
o
d
co
vo
d
8
OJ
rH
8
OJ
rH
OJ
UN
r7 £
rH VO
O rH
OJ
_a- ON
ON UN
O ON
O CO
en o
-3- 5
o t
rH
rH
O
rH
O
t-
rH
d
1
1
1
VD
rH
O
d
VO
OJ
0*
*\
_-j-
._-{-
o
rH
O
rH
t-
o
co
-3-
(T)
O
£:
VO
_.,.
OJ
ro
d
OJ
0
rH
^
VO
r-l
d
ON
ON
r-l
OJ
d
UN
t-
ro
8
OJ
c^
8
o
VO
UN
O
r-t
OJ
o
s
i-H
d
vo
t-
rH
ro
O
i-H
0
UN
OJ
d
c-
CO
0
d
0
rH
rH
VD
O
rH
O
8
CO
o
g
».
VO
ON
OJ
8
0
i-H
r-H
d
ON
UN
OJ
OJ
OJ
o
o
ON
ro
d
o
rH
d
CO
t
r-l
VD
g
0
r-f
.3-
0
8
t~
8
ITN
\
t>-
UN
r^i
OJ
rH
UN
O
o!
d
0
ro
UN
CO
OJ
rH
0
ro
d
OJ
UN
ro
d
^P
-3-
-3-
OJ
S1
0
rH
O
1
vo
o
d
-d-
r-H
O
1
d
CO
OJ
rH
o
o
0
«
d
ON
Q
d
ro
rH
rH
OJ
8
o
o
o
o
UN
8
CO
CO
OJ
t-
0
f-
-3-
O
d
t-
co
o
OJ
-d-
o
o
OJ
0
d
UN
rH
o
d
ON
r-l
O
o
rH
O
0
vO
H
O
o
o
rH
\
OJ
o
0
00
rH
UN
0
rH
ro
OJ
d
-3-
OJ
UN
CO
rH
O
UN
ro
d
UN
rH
ro
d
ON
ON
ro
UN
0
O
O
ON
O
8
VO
«\
r-l
8
OJ
\
VO
i-H
ON
ON
t-
r-H
-3-
rH
CO
d
ON
VO
r-l
s
-p
CO
s
CO
K
-------
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
H
CO
P
o
EH
.p
C
e
p
a
Q)
£
ra 08 -P
EH C
8C (1)
o g
O -H T)
"^ §
fe C> O
1 ^
!H o
H
S O
UN ,4 iH oj
g-J *fl J"* *§
s p7
i
1
M Cj
S bD
,
*>
^
&
(t|!
^^
ir°'
< 0-49-
-«O
ra o
S4J
rH I
3 C?
C wl
-p <;-wJ
CO
0
o
"d
ri,*^
do
<-»]
-p
ra
O
° 1
-PVO
ca o
H^l
rH
COVD
go
0 O .0
< 1-^ rH
1^3
r-l M
^
S >,
o "d at
O"5.
1^5
"S
Watersh
g
s
K
g
CO
f
r-J
CT\
OA
rn
r-H
OJ
^^
-j-
r-H
CM
UN
-d-'
rn
d
t-
o
rn
CM
VO
ITN
*
O
o\
CO
VO
8
^
CM
VD
8
i
rn
UN
Q
O
CO
H
(0
g
g
S
|
ro
CM
rH
cvi
UN
rH
CM
r-H
f£
H
rH
^
UN
rH
ON
UN
*
VO
CM
rH
d
CM
rH
00
rn
UN
O
CM
r-4
VO
8
rn
cv?
VO
\
rH
CO
CO
UN
0
o
o?
H
Wyoming
Valley
cS
CM
rH
O
CO
r-
d
^
*"
CM
rH
t--
O
r-H
tfN
r-4
r-H
O
rH
UN
rH
J±
d
CO
t*~
j
8
rH
UN
8
VO
8"
rH
O
rn
g
CO
S
CM
d
t-
m
cvi
8
UN
UN
CVI
g
ON
s
O
LT\
vD
-d"
OJ
g
CO
CVI
rn
£
rl
v< t^
O
rH
rn
cvi
§
CM
rH
CM
rH
rH
O
ON
O
VO
CM
m
ON
-H
8
o"
rH
CM
m
d
VO
vo
m
g
-^
rn
rn
*
CVI
VO
UN
rn
vo
0
o
"3
Mahanoy
Creek
o
r-l
rn
d
00
t-
d
rn
CM
CO
CM
O
rH
d
o-
rH
O
CD
J-
H
CO
rn
o
o
-H-
-3*
o
8
CM
V
CM
8
^
ON
CVI
ON
g
O
VO*
o
S1
Mahanta
Creek
o
d
CM
vo
CM
d
n
rH
rn
Q
CVI
O
d
CO
8
d
*
cvi
UN
rn
O
d
o
,3-
O
8
v
CO
8
^D
v
CO
^
cn
rH
g
Cvl
CM
O
O
Wiconis
Creek
m
p.
d
§
d
o\
vo
o
rH
-4-
o
ro
CM
4
rH
t-
CVI
d
ON
VD
CM
rH
8
O
t"~
c*~
o
8
rn
-j-
g
f
UN
r-H
CO
VO
rH
g
^t
O\
Swatara
Creek
oS SN
UN VO
H UN
rH CO
H CVI
rH CO
CO O\
vo vo
£9, -*
CO H
UN VO
*- CM
K
P Hi
o H
to B
-------
I
I
1
I \\ '
\ z \ \ > <
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. j
\
o
>
CL
O
y> 2 z S
O UJ t UJ UJ
2 Z 2 U_ O
tz S-
CO CL CD
Z
4
5U
ui i-
o
525
*
op
II
do
.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0-
<
2 I-
< o
UJ UJ
-------
-------
1
6
1,
:~
Ii
is 2
* 0
_> CJ I
<
|Si ,
£*
3 2
Z> 0
1- ~
4
|6_
1
-9n
150 -1
s. ° 0
1- D
5 °
-1 S ~ 5°
1* >- 100
:! ,so
z
1
Io 5°°
", ,00-
5 "-
cr
|B « 200
1
1
1
1
-f
a z
n
^ K *
^ ^ S 5 1 z
^ ^ Z 1 ° ^" 3 ^ ? §J
_ g vi ? 1 o -"" ^ o j a a 2 a J ZQ
a iu z1 o-i _ cr - => zioo m < _j
m _i <
1 1 1 M 1 IF
£ I'll1
5
1
56,900 1 ,3OO
I 1 I L I II 1 - 1 1
1 1 \- r H - -- M- t ^-^
~~*
^ .
h-4H~-- 1 f^l "T
ill III 1
10 ^32 2?1 ' 6 208 ?00 19? 184 176 168 160 152 144
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
JULY -SEPTEMBER, 1966
FIGURE 2-A
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-200-
-3OO-
-400-
-500-
-6OO-
- 7OO-
1750
- I55O
1350
- I 150
-95O
750
-550
- 350
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON S SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
WEST BRANCH, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
JULY - S EPTEMBER, 1966
FIGURE
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
600-
700 -
60 O -
500-
40O -
30O -
200 -
100 -
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY .CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
JULY - SEPTEMBER, 1966
FIGURE 3-A
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o S
^
O to
-200-
- 300-
- I6OO
- MOO
I20O
IOOO
800
6OO
400
200
0
PROFILE OF PH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
WEST BRANCH, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
JULY - SEPTEMBER, 1966
FIGURE 3-B
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STREAM M'LE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF CHEST CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
JULY -AUGUST, 1967
FIGURE 4-A
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o 5
z
0
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF CLEARFIELD CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
JULY - AUGUST, 1967
FIGURE V*
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
450-
400-
350 -
300-
25O-
2OO-
I 50-
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON S SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
CLEARFIELD CREEK
JULY - AUGUST, 1957
FIGURE 5-B
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF MOSHANNON CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
JULY -AUGUST, 1967
FIGURE 6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON & SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
MOSHANNON CREEK
JULY - AUGUST, 1967
FIGURE 6-B
-------
1
|5
..
Ill '^
* ° \
<
1- ° 0 -
1 I! -
2. -a-
r> o
1ST
' .
4
1-.-
,
1 ".'-
m
|,J
s-i
>.° oJ
z o
I< o
* > m-
:! I.
LJ
Z,o
I1H
H
>
r
s ?=
Ig
" Jo
,2
< ° l<
m '5
(r
1 ;-
i 5
1
1
1
1
y.
ft
t-
D
1 «
E Z 0 Z> t- 2 ^
3 ff IT 33
£ * Q a: 01
^ s. £ S S
10 . uj a & < ^ t-
Oi^tun: z o z
o^^ruj ^ ft uj
55HUX 3 (- Q
1 1
-j ni |
\
\
^\
^ -^
"*^--^
~^\ ^^^
"\^"^
^^^~^^
/'
,/
/
S
,^
^^^
*^
6 32 26 24 2O 16 12 6 40
STREAM MILE
'ROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF BENNETT BR. SINNEMAHONING CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
SEPTEMBER 1967
FIGURE 7-A
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
z z
UJ 4
OS
Z
00
o
z
zo
< cr
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON S SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
BENNETT BR. SINNEMAHONING CREEK
SEPTEMBER, 1967
FIGURE 7-B
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OP FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF BEECH CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
JULY -AUGUST, 1967
FIGURE 8->
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h- o
z z
UJ <
O 2
z
0(0
410
370
330
290
250
2IO
6
z
o
RIVER MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON ft SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
BEECH CREEK
JULY - AUGUST, 1967
FIGURE 8-1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>-
Z
< s
X. 0
j_ 0
Z $
0
K 5
1-
200O-
- 2000-
- 4000-
-6COO-
t.
c
1
! ^ m
> t D
> ^f i
j w t/i
I i
1
i-
UJ
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
O
50'
40-
30-
20-
10-
o-
/
~ / RAYSTOWN BRANCH J UN IATA
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
RAYSTOWN BRANCH JUNIATA
MEAN FLOW
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW. NET ALKALINITY OF RAYSTOWN BRANCH JUNIATA RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
AUGUST- 1965
FIGURE 9-A
-------
1
1
*
Is ,-l
-- :__
UJ
5 5^
IH ^
2 ^
1 ]
1 1
36
Is
- f * J_^^~
/ * ^^ IT ~~~*
^^~~»
II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
h - "~"~ -^ ^oK--"-"" ' //
^^ xx
$
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i «f 1 1 1- 1 ' 1 1 1 '
*~- E
/ "-"--^ar,. ' i
^*" ~~ 1° l
,-^ 50 >j
-JC -40 S
/ 2
i 3O J
01
20 ^
Ul
III ill 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 | (- (-- f I ill 1 ( il " 1 1 I I 1 t
a 50 45 10 35 30 25 20 '5 10 5 0
RIVER MILEG
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
RAYSTOWN BRANCH, JUNIATA RIVER
AUGUST - 1965
FIGURE 9-B
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oo-
0-
-2000-
-4 000-
-6000-
-8000-
-IO,OOO-
°- _j2"- O
EC <(X< 0;
O Q OUJ u
1 1 i 1 ll 1 I l
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
TIOGA RIVER
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
TIOGA RIVER
MEAN FLOW
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF TIOGA RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER, 1965
FIGURE 10-i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UJ <
o S
z
O 06
50 -
0 -
-50 -
- ICO -
-150-
-200 -
- 25O -
- 30O -
T.
\\
450
400
350
3OO
250
200
150
100
50
0
E
z
O
RIVER
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
TIOGA RIVER
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER, 1965
FIGURE 10-B
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
30
t 20
Z
3s" »
* a
-i O
t- °
!£> - 10
0
^ -30
03
K "a0
-50
OOO
000-
000-
00 0-
000-
000-
000-
000-
TRIBUTART COH TNI BUT IONS u
MEAN MET ALKALINITY g I
_
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--M-4- 4- 1-
H I V E R
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
LACKAWANNA RIVER
JULY - OCTOBER, 1965
FIGURE II-B
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I 20,000 -
1 00,000 -
80,000 -
60,000 -
40,0 00
20,000
- 20,000 -
- 40, 0 00
- 60, 000-
- 80, 000-
- 1 00, 0 CO -
i
u
D
1.
I J |"
U * H
Ul W £ '
J i
J ° O a |
1 3 «z* i
1 L. 1 1
| |l
t
C 0 »
i ? 5
3 5 *
i 1*1 i
1
TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
^
(T
Z
O
5
I
1
1
450
400
O I 350
(J '
° 300
a °
: 250
° 2&0
- .Q
Zr°o I5°
100
50
2000
[ 500
f OOO
500
0
SUbQJENANNA R'VER
MEAN FLOW
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF SUSOUEHANNA RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
AUGUST- 1965
FIGURE 12-A
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e*
Is
f- UJ
< Z
u <
ul
RIVER
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
AUGUST- 1965
FTGURE 12-t
-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jl
n
~J
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
NESCOPECK CREEK
MEAN FLOW
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF NESCOPECK CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
AUGUST - SEPTEMBER, 1965
FIGURE 13-A
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
o 5
z
O cC
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
NESCOPECK CREEK
AUGUST - SEPTEMBER, 1965
FIGURE
-------
1
1
1
^^ 10000-
>
2 5 000 -
15°
^ O n .
55
u> - 5 000 -
j_ 0
^ S rf - 1 0000 -
I -
^H a -° »- 15000 -
2
^ -20000-
cr
I1" -25000-
- 3 0000
1,,
J
£
>s -*°^
I o
z° -800-
|<:s
is "2°°'
i- i - e°°-
|"0 -P.OOO-
-? 400 -
1 :l
*
o
- -1 -' 5 -
::
BP uj °
a:
H
tn
I
1
1
1
1
1
z>
a
or
- a ^
5
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-roo
GOO
- 5OO
400
30C
200
I 00
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON & SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
CATAWISSA CREEK
AUGUST - SEPTEMBER, 1965
FIGURE t4-C
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Z<* Z 2
«," UJ 3. Z 3
£z -S 2 ^
2000-
1000-
0-
K> - IOOD-
^ -2OOO-
0 -3OOO-
<
O -4000-
- 5 O OO -
- 6000-
- 70OO-
- 8000-
-9000-
5000-
o
-5OOO-
fO
O
-16,000-
>^ -20.OOO-
<
Cl
^ -25,000-
-30.000-1
-35,000-
- «a a: z
~£! £.5 S 12 S
_§o ^5 oS2
1 it I I I 1 I II i
I'
i 1 1 i i i i i i || i
-^
i i i i i i i - i 1 1 1 i
i i i i i i i i i-i | t
-- SHAMOKI^ CREEK
^^v^
\-
\
\
\
\
\
>w___ _ _
^VA.
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF SHAMOKIN CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
OCTOBER - NOVEMBER , 1966
FIGURE 15-A
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 200 -
- 300-
V
4-4-4
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
SHAMOKIN CREEK
OCTOBER - NOVEMBER , 1965
140
-120
- 700
-6OO
- 500
- 400
- 300
- 2OO
- IOO
FIGURE 15-B
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<0
X o
-I U
6000
4000 -
2000 -
0-
-2000 -
-4OOO -
-6000 -
-8000 -
- I 0000 -
-12000-
Su.
<0
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
MAHANOY CREEK
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF MAHANOY CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
JULY - SEPTEMBER, 1965
FIGURE I6-/S
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
25 -
20 -
\/V
20
10-
0-
,--.
-4-
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
MAHANOY CREEK
52
2"
-2250
- 2000
- 1500
- I 250
- 1000
- 750
- 500
- 250
FIGURE 16-B
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- ^ 4000
-t O
< 0
K ° 0
zs
O - 2000
£s
< -4000
13
OD
- -6000
Z
(L
1 1
- 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
-O -20-
j ~ 1
"o -25-
-30-
-3 5-
M.. -fiN TflNGO LHEEK
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF MAHANTANGO CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
JULY - 1965
FIGURE 17-A
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 5-
3,0-
RIVER
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IHON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
MAHANTANGO CREEK
JULY - 1965
-07
0 6
0 5
0 4
0 3
0 2
FIGURE 17-B
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8000 -\
6000-
4000 J
2000-
TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
WICONISCO CREEK
MEAN F[OW
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF WICONISCO CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
JULY - 1965
FIGURE 18-A
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
So
J
4-
600
500
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
WICONISCO CREEK
JULY - 1965
FIGURE 18-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
* 0
J_ 0
UJ ^_
D
t
CO
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Is
« z
act
-L-H-I
- 350
- 30U
250
-200
- I 50
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
SWATARA CREEK
OCTOBER - NOVEMBER, 1965
FIGURE 19-8
-------
------- |