beechcreek final tmdl - pennsylvania dep€¦ · final beech creek watershed tmdl center and...

1

FINAL

Beech Creek Watershed TMDL Center and Clinton Counties, Pennsylvania

Prepared by:

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

January 6, 2009

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 4 Directions to the North Fork Beech Creek and Beech Creek Watershed................................... 7 Directions to the South Fork Beech Creek Watershed ............................................................... 7 Directions to the Logway Run Watershed.................................................................................. 8 Directions to the Middle Branch Big Run Watershed ................................................................ 8 Hydrology and Geology North Fork Beech Creek ..................................................................... 9 Hydrology and Geology of South Fork Beech Creek................................................................. 9 Hydrology and Geology of Logway Run Watershed ............................................................... 10 Hydrology and Geology of Middle Branch Big Run Watershed.............................................. 10 Segments addressed in this TMDL........................................................................................... 11 Clean Water Act Requirements ................................................................................................ 12 303(d) Listing Process .............................................................................................................. 13 Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL...................................................................................... 13 Watershed History .................................................................................................................... 14 North Fork Beech Creek ........................................................................................................... 14 Beech Creek:............................................................................................................................. 15 Logway Run Watershed History............................................................................................... 17 Middle Branch Big Run Watershed History............................................................................. 19 AMD Methodology................................................................................................................... 19 Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load ............................................................... 21 Future TMDL Modifications .................................................................................................... 25 Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval............................................................ 25 Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval..................................................... 25 TMDL Endpoints...................................................................................................................... 25 TMDL Elements (WLA, LA, MOS) ........................................................................................ 26 TMDL Allocations Summary ................................................................................................... 26 Allocation Summary ................................................................................................................. 26 Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 39 Public Participation................................................................................................................... 42

TABLES

Table 1. 303(d) Sub-List Little Juniata River ................................................................................. 4 Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria............................................................................. 26 Table 3A. TMDL Component Summary for the North Fork Beech Creek Watershed........... 28 Table 3B. TMDL Component Summary for the South Fork Beech Creek Watershed........... 29 Table 3C. Summary Table–Beech Creek Watershed............................................................. 30 Table 3D. TMDL Component Summary for the Logway Run Watershed............................... 32 Table 3E. TMDL Component Summary for the Middle Branch Big Run Watershed ............ 33 Table 4. Waste Load Allocation of Permitted Discharges............................................................ 36 Table 5. Waste Load Allocation of Permitted Discharges............................................................ 37 Table 6. Waste Load Allocation of Permitted Discharges............................................................ 38 Table 7. Waste Load Allocation of Permitted Discharge ............................................................ 38

3

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A.............................................................................................................................................. 43 Beech Creek Watershed Maps.................................................................................................. 43

Attachment B.............................................................................................................................................. 54 Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH ........................................................... 54

Attachment C.............................................................................................................................................. 57 TMDLs By Segment................................................................................................................. 57

Attachment D............................................................................................................................................ 106 Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996, 1998, and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated Report/List (2004, 2006)......................................................................................................... 106

Attachment E............................................................................................................................................ 109 Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations .................................................................. 109

Attachment F............................................................................................................................................ 130 Flow Adjusted Mass Balance Method .................................................................................... 130

Attachment G............................................................................................................................................ 132 TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination ....................................................................... 132

Attachment H ........................................................................................................................................... 135 Comment and Response.......................................................................................................... 135

4

FINAL TMDL Beech Creek Watershed

Center and Clinton Counties, Pennsylvania Introduction This Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) calculation has been prepared for segments in the Beech Creek Watershed (Attachment A). It was done to address the impairments noted on the 1996 Pennsylvania 303(d) list, required under the Clean Water Act, and covers the one listed segment shown in Table 1. Metals in acidic discharge water from abandoned coalmines causes the impairment. The TMDL addresses the three primary metals associated with acid mine drainage (iron, manganese, aluminum), and pH.

Table 1. 303(d) Sub-List Little Juniata River HUC 02050204 State Water Plan (SWP) Subbasin: 09C – Bald Eagle

Year Miles Segment ID

DEP Stream Code

Stream Name Desig-nated Use

Data Source

Source EPA 305(b) Cause Code

1996 26 22596 Beech Creek (Basin)

CWF 303(d) List

Resource Extraction

Metals

1996 Previously approved North Fork Beech Creek

CWF 303(d) List

Resource Extraction

Metals & Other

Organics 1996 Not on 1996 303(d) list South Fork Beech

Creek

1996 Previously approved Logway Run CWF 305(b) Report

RE Metals 1996 Previously approved Middle Branch

Big Run CWF 305(b)

Report RE Metals

1996 Previously approved Middle Branch Big Run

CWF 305(b) Report

RE pH 1998 26 22596 Beech Creek

(Basin) CWF SWMP AMD Metals

1998 5.96 7116 22781 North Fork Beech Creek

CWF SWMP AMD Metals & Other

Organics 1998 Not on 1996 303(d) list South Fork Beech

Creek

1998 0.81 7115 22701 Logway Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals 1998 0.85 7112 22662 Middle Branch

Big Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals &

pH 2002 26 980619-

1200-MAF 22596 Beech Creek

(Basin) CWF SWMP AMD Metals

2002 0.4 980901-1300-MAF

22789 Unt. North Fork Beech Creek

CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2002 1.7 980604-1430-MAF

22763 South Fork Beech Creek


2002 6.0 980619-1330-MAF

22763 & 22767

South Fork Beech Creek &

Jonathon Run


5

2002 15.3 980609-1400-MAF

22796, 22791 &

22781

Cherry Run, Little Sandy Run

& North Fork Beech Creek

CWF SWMP AMD Metals,Other

Inorganics & pH

2002 0.81 980624-1530-MAF

22701 Logway Run CWF SWMP AMP Metals & pH

2002 1.2 7112 22662 Middle Branch Big Run

CWF SWMP AMD Metals

2002 5.4 7113 22665 Middle Branch Big Run


2004 0.4 980619-1200-MAF

22754 Unt Beauty Run


2004 27.5 980619-1200-MAF

22596 Beech Creek CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2004 0.2 980619-1200-MAF

980624-1532-MAF

22726 Unt Beech Creek

CWF SWMP AMD Metals, pH

2004 0.6 980619-1200-MAF

980619-1201-MAF



2004 1.0 980619-1200-MAF

980619-1201-MAF



2004 0.4 980619-1200-MAF

980619-1201-MAF



2004 0.6 980619-1200-MAF



2004 3.9 980619-1200-MAF

980625-1301-MAF

22644 Big Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2004 4.6 1.9

980619-1200-MAF

980624-1531-MAF

22691 Council Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2004 1.9 0.4

980619-1200-MAF

980624-1532-MAF

22695 Unt Council Run


2004 0.7

1.6

980605-1300-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22786 Unt North Fork Beech

Creek

HQ SWMP AMD Metals, pH & other

inorganics

2004 3.0 980618-1300-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22742 Sandy Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals, pH

2004 0.9 980618-1300-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22743 Unt Sandy Run


2004 0.7 980618-1300-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22744 Unt Sandy Run


2004 0.9 980918-1300-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22746 Unt Sandy Run


6

2004 0.8 980618-1300-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22747 Unt Sandy Run


2004 0.8 980618-1300-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22748 Unt Sandy Run


2004 0.3 980618-1300-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22749 Unt Sandy Run


2004 4.4 980609-1330-MAF

980609-1330-MAF

980619-1200-MAF



2004 0.8 980604-1430-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22768 Unt South Fork Beech Creek


2004 0.8 980604-1430-MAF

980619-1200-MAF

22769 Unt South Fork Beech Creek


2004 1.5 980619-1200-MAF

22621 Sugar Camp Run


2006 1.2 9024 22750 Beauty Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2006 0.4 9030 22754 Unt Beauty Run


2006 0.4 9030 22754 Unt Beauty Run


2006 27.3 2.1

9030 12859

22596 Beech Creek CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2006 0.4 9066 22716 Unt Beech Creek


2006 0.24 9066 22726 Unt Beech Creek


2006 0.5 9066 22728 Unt Beech Creek


2006 0.5 9031 22741 Unt Beech Creek


2006 0.9 9031 22758 Unt Beech Creek


2006 0.4 9031 22759 Unt Beech Creek


2006 0.01 9030 65012 Unt Beech Creek


2006 4.0 9077 22644 Big Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2006 1.95 9065 22691 Council Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2006 0.4 9066 22695 Unt Council Run


2006 1.3 8991 22767 Jonathan Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2006 0.7 8980 22786 North Fork Beech Creek


2006 0.8 8980 22788 Unt North Fork Beech Creek


2006 3.1 9026 22742 Sandy Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

7

2006 0.9 9026 22743 Unt Sandy Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH







2006 4.5 8991 9030



2006 0.7 8977 22768 Unt South Fork Beech Creek


2006 0.8 8977 22769 Unt South Fork Beech Creek


2006 0.1 9030 22621 Sugar Camp Run


2006 0.6 9030 22623 Unt Sugar Camp Run


2006 1.35 9030 22624 Slide Hollow CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

2006 0.1 9030 22602 Unt Sugar Run CWF SWMP AMD Metals & pH

*Other Inorganics listing is not included on 2006 Integrated List. Cold Water Fishes=CWF Surface Water Monitoring Program = SWMP Abandoned Mine Drainage = AMD Directions to the North Fork Beech Creek and Beech Creek Watershed The Beech Creek Watershed is located in North Central Pennsylvania, occupying a northwestern portion of Centre County in Burnside and Snow Shoe Townships. The watershed area is found on United States Geological Survey maps covering portions of the Snow Shoe, Snow Shoe SE and Karthaus 7.5-Minute Quadrangles. Land uses within the watershed include abandoned mine lands, forestlands, and rural residential properties with small communities scattered throughout the area. The village of Clarence is located near the headwaters of the North Fork of Beech Creek. Clarence can be easily reached by traveling on Interstate 80 to the Snow Shoe exit. The Snow Shoe exit lies 25 miles east of Clearfield and 10 miles west of Bellefonte. Once at the Snow Shoe exit one can travel approximately one mile north on SR144 to Snow Shoe Borough. Clarence can be reached by traveling through Snow Shoe via Clarence Road. The North Fork of Beech Creek passes beneath Clarence Road as you enter Clarence. Directions to the South Fork Beech Creek Watershed The South Fork of Beech Creek Watershed is located in North Central Pennsylvania, occupying a northwestern portion of Centre County in Snow Shoe Township. The watershed area is found on United States Geological Survey maps covering portions of the Snow Shoe, Snow Shoe SE

8

and Bear Knob 7.5-Minute Quadrangles. The area within the watershed consists of 18.5 square miles. Land uses within the watershed include abandoned mine lands, forestlands, and rural residential properties with small communities scattered throughout the area. South Fork of Beech Creek is located near the village of Snow Shoe. Snow Shoe can be easily reached by traveling on Interstate 80 to the Snow Shoe exit. The Snow Shoe exit lies 25 miles east of Clearfield and 10 miles west of Bellefonte. Once at the Snow Shoe exit one can travel approximately one mile south on SR144 where you enter the South Fork Watershed area. The South Fork of Beech Creek passes beneath SR144 one mile before crossing over Interstate 80. Directions to the Logway Run Watershed The Logway Run Watershed is located in North Central Pennsylvania, occupying the north central portion of Centre County in Snow Shoe and Curtin Townships. The watershed area is found on United States Geological Survey map covering the Snow Shoe SE 7.5-Minute Quadrangle. Land uses within the watershed include abandoned mine lands and forestlands. Logway Run is located in an isolated section of Centre County. Most of the roads into the site are dirt and access is limited in the winter months. The watershed can be accessed by traveling on Interstate 80 to the Snow Shoe exit. After exiting the Interstate, travel on SR 144 south for approximately 4.5 miles to Devils Elbow Road. Follow Devils Elbow Road for approximately 1 mile to Hall Road. Follow Hall Road for approximately 8 miles through Sproul State Forest and onto the Keystone Coal Company Mine site. The headwaters of Logway Run are in the southeastern portion of the mine site. The Middle Branch Big Run Watershed is located in North Central Pennsylvania, occupying a southwestern portion of Clinton County in Beech Creek Township. The Watershed area is found on United States Geological Survey maps covering Snow Shoe NE and Howard NW 7.5 minute Quadrangles. Traveling from Renovo south on Route 144 for approximately 13.5 miles to the junction of Beech Creek Road and State Route 144 can access the watershed. Then by traveling on Beech Creek Road southeast for approximately 4.5 miles to the old haul road from the Big Run Mine site. The haul road can then be followed approximately 1 mile onto the Big Run mine site where the Middle Branch Big Run Watershed can be accessed via a jeep trail from the northwest corner of the site. Land use with the watershed is dominated by forestlands. Most of the watershed occupies portions of Sproul State Forest. The Avery Big Run job is the only mining site within the watershed. There are no permanent residences within the watershed. Numerous camps are located within the watershed and used seasonally. Directions to the Middle Branch Big Run Watershed The Middle Branch Big Run Watershed is located in North Central Pennsylvania, occupying a southwestern portion of Clinton County in Beech Creek Township. The watershed area is found

9

on United States Geological Survey maps covering Snow Shoe NE and Howard NW 7.5-Minute Quadrangles. Traveling from Renovo south on State Route 144 for approximately 13.5 miles to the junction of Beech Creek Road and State Route 144 can access the watershed. Then by traveling on Beech Creek Road southeast for approximately 4.5 miles to the old haul road from the Big Run Mine site. The haul road can then be followed approximately 1 mile onto the Big Run mine site where the Middle Branch Big Run Watershed can be accessed via a jeep trail from the northwest corner of the site. Land use within the watershed is dominated by forestlands. Most of the watershed occupies portions of Sproul State Forest. The Avery Big Run job is the only mining site within the watershed. There are no permanent residences within the watershed. Numerous camps are located within the watershed and used seasonally. Hydrology and Geology North Fork Beech Creek The North Fork of Beech Creek exists until the confluence with the South Fork of Beech Creek. The two join to form the main stem of Beech Creek. Named tributaries to North Fork include Cherry Run and Little Sandy Run. The streams drain the area from west to east. North Fork Beech Creek flows from an elevation of 1500 feet above sea level near its headwaters to an elevation 1220 feet above sea level at its confluence with the South Fork. The North Fork Beech Creek Watershed lies within the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province. The watershed area is comprised of Pennsylvanian and Mississipian aged rocks, which are divided into the Pottsville and Allegheny Groups Pennsylvanian period and Mauch Chunck Formation and Burgoon Sandstone of the Mississippian period. The majority of the watershed is located regionally on the southeast limb of the Snow Shoe Syncline with the watershed headwaters lying across the axial plane on the northwest limb of the syncline. The syncline crosses the watershed just north of the Cherry Run and North Fork of Beech Creek confluence. Younger Pennsylvanian aged rocks of the Pottsville and Allegheny Groups are exposed on the hilltops north of North Fork and the older Mississippian rocks of the Mauch Chunk Formation and Burgoon Sandstone are exposed in the valleys of the watershed and south of North Fork on the hilltops. Strata in the watershed are oriented in a SW to NE trend and dip to the northwest with the exception of the headwaters strata which dip to the southeast. The majority of the coal in the watershed area is found to the north of the North Fork of Beech Creek. Coal is also present south of the North Fork of Beech Creek on the hilltops near the headwaters. The coal is deposited in seven seams: the Mercer, Brookville, Clarion, Lower Kittanning, Middle Kittanning, Upper Kittanning and Lower Freeport. Hydrology and Geology of South Fork Beech Creek The South Fork of Beech Creek exists until the confluence with the North Fork of Beech Creek. The two join to form the main stem of Beech Creek. Named tributaries to South Fork include

10

Jonathon Run, Horsehead Run, Stinktown Run, Butz Run and Brushy Hollow. The streams drain the area from west to east. South Fork Beech Creek flows from an elevation of 2300 feet above sea level near its headwaters to an elevation 1220 feet above sea level at its confluence with the North Fork. The South Fork Beech Creek Watershed lies within the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province. The watershed area is comprised of Pennsylvanian and Mississipian aged rocks, which are divided into the Pottsville and Allegheny Groups Pennsylvanian period and Mauch Chunck Formation and Burgoon Sandstone of the Mississpian period. The watershed is located regionally on the southeast limb of the Snow Shoe Syncline. Much of the coal-bearing strata are absent in most of the South Fork Watershed. The younger Pennsylvanian aged rocks of the Pottsville and Allegheny Groups were eroded from the surrounding hilltops leaving the older Mississippian rocks exposed on the ridges and hilltops surrounding the watershed. The coal bearing Allegheny Formation is present near the axial plane of the syncline leaving limited coal reserves in the lower reaches of the watershed. Strata in the watershed are oriented in a SW to NE trend and dip to the northeast. Hydrology and Geology of Logway Run Watershed The area within the watershed consists of 0.57 square miles. Logway Run consists only of a main stem approximately 0.8 miles in length as measured from the mouth to the headwaters. Logway Run flows from an elevation of 1360 feet above sea level in its headwaters to an elevation of 960 feet above sea level at its confluence with Beech Creek. Logway Run flows from the southeast to the northwest. The Logway Run Watershed lies within the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province. The watershed area is comprised of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian aged rocks. The Snow Shoe syncline trends in a northeast-southwest direction across the watershed near the mouth of Logway Run. Older Mississippian rocks of the Mauch Chunck Formation and the Burgoon Sandstone are exposed in the valleys of the watershed and the younger Pennsylvanian aged rocks of the Pottsville and Allegheny Groups are on the hilltops and ridges surrounding the watershed. Minable coals are confined to the Allegheny Group with six such seams spread throughout a startigraphic interval of 250 feet. These seams are the Lower Freeport, Middle Kittanning, Upper Kittanning, Lower Kittanning, Clarion, and Brookville. Strata in the watershed are oriented in a SW to NE trend and dip to the NW. Hydrology and Geology of Middle Branch Big Run Watershed The Middle Branch Big Run watershed lies with the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province. The watershed area is comprised of Pennsylvanian aged rocks, which are divided into the Pottsville and Allegheny Groups and Mississippian aged rocks, which are divided into the Mauch Chunk Formation and Pocono Formation. The Hyner anticline trends in a northeast-southwest direction just outside the watershed in the headwaters.

11

Older Mississippian rocks of the Burgoon sandstone Member of the Pocono Formation are exposed in the valleys and lower side slopes of the watershed and the younger Pennsylvanian rocks of the Pottsville and Allegheny Groups are exposed on the upper side slopes and hilltops surrounding the watershed. Strata in the watershed are oriented in a SW to NE trend and dip to the SE. Segments addressed in this TMDL The Beech Creek Watershed is affected by pollution from AMD. This pollution has caused high levels of metals throughout the Beech Creek Watershed, including Big Run, South Fork Beech Creek, North Fork Beech Creek and the mainstem of Beech Creek. Table 1 and Map 1 give an explanation and locations of the AMD allocation points. There is one Government Financed Construction Contract (GFCC) mining operation in the watershed, GFCC number 14-04-01, CMT Energy Inc. Poorman Side site; however, alternate Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) controls, such as hay bales, are utilized resulting in no NPDES discharge points. There are currently five active surface mining permits issued in the Beech Creek Watershed. Two of these permits (The Poorman Side Operation; Government-Financed Construction Project, GFCC # 14-04-01 and The Morgan Operation GFCC # 14-05-01) are reclamation projects that were not issued NPDES permits and therefore are not required to have Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) assigned to them. The remaining permits issued in the Beech Creek Watershed are currently active and will be assigned WLAs (Amfire Mining Company SMP # 14030101 NPDES PA0243493, River Hill Coal Co. Inc., Morgan #3, SMP # 14040103 NPDES PA0243876 and River Hill Coal Co. Inc., Morgan #4, SMP # 14040102 NPDES PA0243850). All of the remaining discharges in the watershed are from abandoned mines and will be treated as non-point sources. The distinction between non-point and point sources in this case is determined on the basis of whether or not there is a responsible party for the discharge. Each segment on the PA Section 303(d) list will be addressed as a separate TMDL. These TMDLs will be expressed as long-term, average loadings. Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed, expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations. See Attachment C for TMDL calculations. There is one active mining permit in the Logway Run Watershed, the Keystone Coal Company SMP 14743007 (No NPDES). Mining is complete at this site, however; a new discharge was created as a result of the mining. This discharge is treated as a point source and is assigned a waste load allocation. Keystone Coal Company is liable for treatment of this discharge. All of the other discharges in the watershed are from abandoned mines and will be treated as non-point sources. Each segment on the Section 303(d) list will be addressed as a separate TMDL. These TMDLs will be expressed as long-term, average loadings. Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed, expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations. See Attachment C for TMDL calculations.

12

There are no active mining operations in the Middle Branch Big Run watershed. All of the discharges in the watershed are from abandoned mines and will be treated as non-point sources. The distinction between non-point and point sources in this case is determined on the basis of whether or not there is a responsible party for the discharge. Where there is no responsible party the discharge is considered to be a non-point source. Each segment on the Section 303(d) list will be addressed as a separate TMDL. These TMDLs will be expressed as long term, average loadings. Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed, expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations. The designation for this stream segment can be found in PA Title 25 Chapter 93. Clean Water Act Requirements Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires states, territories, and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards. The water quality standards identify the uses for each waterbody and the scientific criteria needed to support that use. Uses can include designations for drinking water supply, contact recreation (swimming), and aquatic life support. Minimum goals set by the Clean Water Act require that all waters be “fishable” and “swimmable.” Additionally, the federal Clean Water Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR 130) require:

• States to develop lists of impaired waters for which current pollution controls are not stringent enough to meet water quality standards (the list is used to determine which streams need TMDLs);

• States to establish priority rankings for waters on the lists based on severity of pollution

and the designated use of the waterbody; states must also identify those waters for which TMDLs will be developed and a schedule for development;

• States to submit the list of waters to USEPA every four years (April 1 of the even

numbered years);

• States to develop TMDLs, specifying a pollutant budget that meets state water quality standards and allocate pollutant loads among pollution sources in a watershed, e.g., point and nonpoint sources; and

• USEPA to approve or disapprove state lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final

submission. Despite these requirements, states, territories, authorized tribes, and USEPA have not developed many TMDLs since 1972. Beginning in 1986, organizations in many states filed lawsuits against the USEPA for failing to meet the TMDL requirements contained in the federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations. While USEPA has entered into consent agreements with the plaintiffs in several states, many lawsuits still are pending across the country.

13

In the cases that have been settled to date, the consent agreements require USEPA to backstop TMDL development, track TMDL development, review state monitoring programs, and fund studies on issues of concern (e.g., AMD, implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs), etc.). 303(d) Listing Process Prior to developing TMDLs for specific waterbodies, there must be sufficient data available to assess which streams are impaired and should be on the Section 303(d) list. With guidance from the USEPA, the states have developed methods for assessing the waters within their respective jurisdictions. The primary method adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Pa. DEP) for evaluating waters changed between the publication of the 1996 and 1998 303(d) lists. Prior to 1998, data used to list streams were in a variety of formats, collected under differing protocols. Information also was gathered through the 305(b) reporting process. Pa. DEP is now using the Unassessed Waters Protocol (UWP), a modification of the USEPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II (RPB-II), as the primary mechanism to assess Pennsylvania’s waters. The UWP provides a more consistent approach to assessing Pennsylvania’s streams. The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses, stream characteristics, surface geology, and point source discharge locations. The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment; the length of the stream segment can vary between sites. All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macro invertebrates, habitat surveys, and measurements of pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and alkalinity. Benthic macro invertebrates are identified to the family level in the field. After the survey is completed, the biologist determines the status of the stream segment. The decision is based on the performance of the segment using a series of biological metrics. If the stream is determined to be impaired, the source and cause of the impairment is documented. An impaired stream must be listed on the state’s 303(d) list with the documented source and cause. A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment. A TMDL is for only one pollutant. If a stream segment is impaired by two pollutants, two TMDLs must be developed for that stream segment. In order for the process to be more effective, adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively, and on a watershed basis. Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs, there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases. They include:

1. Collection and summarization of pre-existing data (watershed characterization, inventory contaminant sources, determination of pollutant loads, etc.);

2. Calculate TMDL for the waterbody using USEPA approved methods and computer models;

14

3. Allocate pollutant loads to various sources; 4. Determine critical and seasonal conditions; 5. Submit draft report for public review and comments; and 6. USEPA approval of the TMDL.

This document will present the information used to develop the Beech Creek Watershed TMDL. Watershed History Coal was first discovered in 1819 by a hunting party in an out-cropping close to a spring on land in the Snow Shoe region. Coal mining was minimal in the early years. All the coal was being used locally up until 1859. In 1859 the Bellefonte and Snow Shoe Railroad was completed enabling the coals of the watershed to be moved to markets in other areas of the east coast. Mining villages sprung up around the mining within the watershed. Early mining involved digging shafts into the coal and mining it. Deep mining later gave way to strip mining of the coal. The deep mining and strip mining of the past have left deep mine entries, refuse piles, subsidence and pooling areas, altered landscapes which were not reclaimed, and the exposure of acid bearing overburden to air and water. These sources have led to the pollution and degradation of the watershed. Recent mining includes the following: North Fork Beech Creek The Betz Strip Mine Operation (MDP 4773SM1) was issued to R. S. Carlin Inc. on February 1, 1973. The total affected area was not to exceed 378 acres. The coal seams mined were the Lower Kittanning (16 acres) and Clarion (286 acres) coals. In October of 1984 the site was repermitted as described below as SMP14733009. The Mine #22 Operation (SMP 14733009, NPDES PA0128341) was issued to R. S. Carlin, Inc. on October 29, 1984. The total permit area was 646 acres with 305 acres affected. The coal seams mined were the Lower Kittanning (102 acres), Clarion 3 (255 acres), Clarion 2 (255 acres), and Clarion 1 (255 acres) coals. Coal removal and backfilling were completed by the fall of 1997 and the site is currently eligible for Stage II Bond Release. The Robinson Operation (SMP 14840103, NPDES PA0610372) was issued to Chews Contracting Company, Inc. on August 1, 1984. The total permit area was 74 acres with 41 acres affected. The coal seam mined was the Clarion (41 acres). Backfilling and reclaiming was completed in September of 1995. This site is located near the village of Fountain on the southern side of the North Fork of Beech Creek. The North Fork Operation (SMP 14820102, NPDES PA0609811) was issued to Johnson and Morgan on October 4, 1984. The total permit area was 392 acres with 235 acres affected. The coal seams mined were the Lower Kittanning (235 acres), Middle Kittanning (135 acres) and Upper Kittanning (51 acres) coals. Mining was completed in June of 1992. The site is located on the hilltop northwest of the village of Snow Shoe.

15

The Morgan Operation (SMP 14960101, NPDES PA0220388) was issued to River Hill Coal Company, Inc. on May 12, 1997. The total permit area was 48.5 acres with 46.3 acres affected. The coal seams mined were the Lower Freeport (1.9 acres), Upper Kittanning Rider (12.8 acres) and Upper Kittanning (15.3 acres) coals. Mining was completed in May of 2003. The mine site is located on the hilltop above the headwaters unnamed tributary to the North Fork of Beech Creek. The C & K (SMP 14880101, NPDES PA0116220) was issued to PAC Coal Company on September 8, 1988. The total permit area was 43.2 acres with 27.4 total acres affected. The coal seams mined were the Mercer #1 and Mercer #2 (17.7 acres) coals. Coal removal was completed in December of 1991 and backfilling was completed in March of 1992. This site is located south of the North Fork of Beech Creek. The CMT Energy Inc., Government Financed Construction Contract (GFCC 14-04-01) was issued in the fall of 2003 and is expected to be active for 3 years. 7.1 total acres are to be affected with reclamation of 2.5 acres. With this GFCC, 22,000 tons of coal refuse will be removed. The permit area will use hay bales as a barrier while excavating refuse, which results in no NPDES discharges. The Morgan 3 Mine (SMP # 14040103; NPDES PA 0243876; 41-02-37/77-59-56) was issued on 8/13/2007 to River Hill Coal Company, Inc. The total permit area is 46.7 acres with 44.5 acres to be affected. The Upper Kittanning Rider, Upper Kittanning and Middle Kittanning coals are permitted at the site. The site is currently active. The Morgan 3 Mine is located 0.75 miles northeast of Moshannon. The Morgan 4 Mine (SMP # 14040102; NPDES PA 0243850; 41-02-42/77-59-22) was issued on 8/13/2007 to River Hill Coal Company, Inc. The total permit area is 60.1 acres with 30.3 acres to be affected. The Upper Kittanning Rider and Upper Kittanning coals are permitted at the site. The site is currently active. The Morgan 4 Mine is located 0.75 miles north of Gillentown. Beech Creek: The Job 121 Operation (SMP # 14030101, NPDES PA#0243493, was issued to AMFIRE Mining Company, LLC on June 2, 2005. The total permit area is 218.9 acres with 134 acres to be affected. The Mercer Coal was permitted (56.0 acres) for mining at this site. As of 6-11-07, this site has not been activated. The Job 121 Operation is located 4.0 miles northeast of Snowshoe, PA. The Mine 28 Operation (SMP # 14980101, NPDES PA0238007) was issued to Sky Haven Coal, Inc. on October 27, 2004. The total permit area was for 207.4 acres with 130.0 acres to be affected. The Brookville-Clarion-LK coals were permitted (74.2 acres) for mining at this site. Backfilling and reclaiming were completed in September, 2006. The Mine 28 Operation is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Poorman Side, PA.

16

Mine No. 26 (Mine Drainage Permit #3166BSM38; no) was issued on 10-18-66 and SMP # 14663010; NPDES PA0128031) was issued on July 27, 1971 to R.S. Carlin, Inc. This site is referenced by two names: Mine No. 27 Operation and Mine No. 26 Operation. Regardless of the mine name, the SMP # remains constant. The total permit area was for 790 acres with 790 acres to be affected. The Clarion 2 (76 acres) and Clarion 1 (309 acres) were permitted but some Lower Kittanning coal was also mined. Backfilling and reclaiming were completed by October 8, 2002. As of April 19, 2006, the site was in bond forfeiture. The Mine 26 Operation is located 2.27 miles northeast of Clarence, PA. The Big Run Operation (SMP # 4675SM13; NPDES PA 0128121) was issued on 10/17/80 to Avery Coal Company. The total permit area was 358.9 acres with 358.9 acres to be affected. The Clarion (115 acres) and Clarion Riders (123.6 acres) were permitted for mining at this site. Backfilling was completed on or around 9/17/84. Bonds were forfeited and collected on 12/16/92. Avery previously constructed a passive treatment system to address the largest of several acid mine drainage (AMD) discharges caused by their mining. That treatment system failed. BAMR put out bids for constructing a new passive treatment system in the same location. The new treatment system will consist of a limestone up-flow pond, sediment ponds, aerobic wetland, flushing basin, and pyrolusite bed. The new treatment system will be designed to treat a flow up to 190 gpm. The Big Run Operation is located 10.9 miles northwest of Beech Creek, PA. The Morgan 2 Mine (SMP # 14000101; NPDES PA 0242829; 41-02-20/77-59-52) was issued on 8/6/01 to River Hill Coal Company, Inc. The total permit area is 53.9 acres with 51.9 acres to be affected. The Upper Kittanning Rider and Upper Kittanning coals were permitted at this site. Coal removal is completed and the site’s status is Stage 1/regraded. The Morgan 2 Mine is located 2.46 miles west of Snow Shoe. The Litke 2 Mine (SMP # 14860103) was issued on 4/14/87 to Keystone Coal Company. The total permit area is 199.0 acres with 93.0 acres to be affected. The Clarion 2 (~10 acres), Clarion 1 (39.0 acres), and Mercer (40.0 acres) coals were permitted for mining at this site. Coal removal is completed and the site reclaimed. The Litke 2 Mine is located 2.27 miles west of Orviston, PA. A passive treatment system at this site treats acid mine drainage from two on-site discharges, TS1 (a.k.a. #8) and TP2, to Chapter 87.102 standards. The treatment system consists of a series of three synthetically-lined VFPs, a 25-foot oxic limestone channel, three gate valves, and a flushing pond. Average flows of TS1 and TP2, respectively, are 24 gpm and 28 gpm. The Litke #6 Mine (SMP # 14880103; NPDES PA 0116572) was issued on 1/26/90 to Lobb Mining Company and transferred to Lobb Mining on 8-9-90. The total permit area was 99.2 acres with 49.9 acres to be affected. The Clarion A Rider (19.0 acres) and Clarion A (49.9 acres) were permitted at this site. Reclamation is completed at this site. The Litke #6 Mine is located 0.76 miles north of Orviston, PA. The Poorman Side Operation (Government-Financed Construction Project [GFCC # 14-04-01]; no NPDES #) was issued 5/9/06 to CMT Energy, Inc. The total permit area is 7.1 acres with

17

2.5 acres of coal-refuse removal. As of 6-15-07, this project is still incomplete. The company has made little progress in the last three months. Reclamation at this project is valued at $14,000. The Poorman Side Operation is located 1.4 miles northeast of Clarence, PA. The Morgan Operation (GFCC Project #14-05-01; no NPDES #) was issued on 7-7-06 to Lee Coal Contracting. The total permit area is 6.5 acres with 6.5 acres of abandoned mine lands and underground mine subsidence being reclaimed. As of 6-15-07, this project is still incomplete. Reclamation value of this project is $46,800. The Morgan Operation is located 1.1 miles west of Snow Shoe, PA. The Forest 1 Mine (MDP # 4777SM7; no NPDES #) was issued on 9-2-77 to Halfway Coal Yard, Inc. The total permit area was 350 acres with 343 acres to be affected. The Brookville (103 acres) and the Lower Kittanning (170 acres) coals were permitted at this site. On 10-17-80, Halfway Coal Yard, Inc. updated/revised their permit whereupon the site became known as the States #1 Mine. On 5/21/92 MDP #4777SM7 changed the permittee name from Halfway Coal Yard, Inc. to Warner Company. Although the permit at that time identifies the site as the Forest #1 Mine, it is entered into eFACTS as the States #1 Mine. This site has been reclaimed since at least 7/11/84. Chemical treatment of acid-mine drainage at this site involves caustic soda, treated to 87.102 standards, and is designed for up to 84 gpm. Inlet A is the raw water and V7 the treated water. The States #1 Mine is located 0.6 miles east of Kato, PA. In addition to mining impacts on South Fork, the road construction on Interstate 80 in the 1960’s has had a significant impact to Jonathon Run. Large cuts were needed to the east and west of Jonathon Run. The fill material used in the Jonathon Run stream valley came from a large cut located to the west. Jonathon Run was rerouted through a box culvert and some 60-80 feet of fill material was placed overtop of the culvert. Excess fill material was crushed and left in piles in the headwaters of Jonathon Run. Three main discharges have developed in the fill area as a result of this construction. Logway Run Watershed History Halfway Coal Yard Incorporated originally applied for the “Cook House Strip Mine” in 1974 as Mine Drainage Permit 4774SM6. This permit would later be transferred to Lobb Mining as the “Hall Job”. This surface mining operation covered 462 acres and permitted the mining of the Brookville and Clarion Coal Formations. The permit was issued in March 1975 and was activated in November of 1975 as a continuation of S & D Trucking Permit 516-11. Prior to the activation of surface mining by S & D Trucking, the Hall site had been previously surface and deep mined on the Clarion and Lower Kittanning coal formations. Pre-law mine workings were extensive. Many of the old deep mines and surface mines were encountered, remined, and reclaimed to modern standards during the mining of the Hall Operation. Halfway Coal Yard changed the name of the site from “Cook House Strip Mine” to the “Hall Job” in 1981. By January of 1985 Halfway Coal yard had permitted 238 total acres, affecting 215 acres of which 20 acres were regraded and 151 acres were reclaimed by the company.

18

In January of 1985, Lobb Mining transferred the Hall Job from Halfway Coal Yard and repermitted the operation under primacy as Surface Mining Permit 1473007. The permit was reconfigured to include 345 acres of which 124 coal acres were to be affected. The Halfway Coal Yard is an active, post mining discharge, chemical treatment plant located on an unnamed tributary to Beech Creek upstream of sample point BC3. The average flow of 127 gpm (0.18 mgd) and is shown in Table 8. This treatment facility does not have an NPDES permit as yet. In January of 1990, Lobb Mining completed backfilling of the final pit having affected 162 acres on the permit of which 25 acres was regraded and 130 acres had been reclaimed. The Hall Operation was approved for Sewage Sludge Disposal in May 1992. During the summer of 1992, sludge was applied to approximately 200 acres of the Hall site to improve post mining vegetation growth. The application of sludge was completed by mid-November 1992. In April 1995 the company re-established tree seedlings disrupted by the application of sludge. On September 27, 1996, SMP 14743007 was reissued pursuant to a Pennsylvania Statutory merger of Lobb Mining Company with Keystone Coal Company and a simple name change of Lobb Mining Company to Keystone Coal Company was conditioned in the Hall permit. Three on-permit discharges developed as a result of this mining. Two of these discharges flow directly to Beech Creek. The third, MD-14, surfaces near the headwaters of Logway Run and subsequently discharges into Logway Run 500 yards from where it surfaces. In addition to MD-14, the abandoned Dry Hollow (DEP1) discharge also contributes to the pollution load of Logway Run. In order to treat the MD-14 discharge Keystone Coal Company hired Damariscotta to design and construct a passive treatment system to treat the MD-14 discharge. A design plan called for two SAPS, two settling basins, and a Manganator to be constructed onsite. A Manganator is a trade name for a manganese removal bed. Manganese removal beds (MRB) are designed to remove manganese from mine drainage. Efficient operation of this bed depends on an influent deficient in iron and aluminum. It's basically a layer of limestone, usually around 4 feet thick. Once the limestone is down the next step is inoculation with bugs. Vertical flow wetlands (VFP), also known as SAPS, are designed to add alkalinity to net acidic discharges. They consist of a pond through which water moves vertically. They are designed to treat water with low dissolved oxygen (2-5 mg/L) and medium to high metal concentrations. The water flows through a compost layer, which creates anoxic conditions. The water is then reduced further in oxygen and metals are primarily in reduced form. This prevents the metal from precipitating and armoring the limestone layer, which is the next substrate the water encounters. The limestone layer then dissolves and increases the alkalinity. These systems are designed to be flushed periodically to remove any accumulated aluminum or iron from the system. The SAP is usually followed by a settling pond to settle out any metals. The treatment system was built and put online in the fall of 2001. The treatment system is currently being evaluated to determine its effectiveness at treating the acid mine discharge.

19

Middle Branch Big Run Watershed History The area within the watershed consists of 6.3 square miles. The streams in the Big Run watershed generally flow in a north to south direction. Middle Branch Big Run is 4.18 miles in length. Most of the AMD impaired waters the Middle Branch via an unnamed tributary that is 0.85 miles in length. Many of the discharges from, the Big Bun mining site flow into this unnamed tributary and then into the Middle Branch of Big Run. Along its 4.18 mile length, the Middle Branch of Big Run flows from an elevation of 1900 feet above sea level in its headwaters to an elevation of 1150 feet above sea level at its confluence with the East Branch Big Run. Eventually after these two streams combine and form Big Run, they meet the West Branch of Big Run and flow into Beech Creek. Beech Creek discharges into Bald Eagle Creek, a tributary of the Susquehanna River. The earliest surface mining at or near the Middle Branch Big Run watershed area occurred in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. During this time the entire perimeter of the Big Run site was mined Rochester and Pittsburgh (R & P) Coal Company. From 1950-1959 Parson Brothers mined the Clarion A-Coal. On July 1, 1975, Swistock and George applied for a permit of 310 acres for mining of the Clarion A-Coal. On March 1, 1976, application was made requesting transfer of Mine Drainage Permit #4675SM13 from Swistock and George to Swistock, Inc. This request was approved on April 14, 1976 and the permit was issued on September 14, 1976, to Swistock Inc. Actual mining commenced in 1977. On March 29, 1978 approval was given for a change in name from Swistiock, Inc. to Avery Coal Company (Avery), Inc. Subsequently on June 6, 1980, Avery Coal Submitted an updated/revised application for mining of the “A” and “A” Rider Coals on 358.9 acres. The Big Run application was approved on October 17, 1980. During active mining by Avery at the Big Run site, multiple Clarion Rider Seams were encountered in addition to the primary Clarion “A” seam. Only the main Clarion seam and the lower most Clarion Rider were segregated for sale. The latter was mined/segregated in only specific sections of the Big Run Operation. In instances when Rider seams were not segregated for sale, those seams were mixed with overburden. Back filling of the site was completed on or around September 17, 1984. There are currently no NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits in the Middle Branch Big Run watershed. AMD Methodology A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments. The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards. This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed. The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed. Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow. The statistical analysis describes below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point

20

sources. The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation; point sources are defined as permitted discharges, non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources. For situations where all of the impact is due to nonpoint sources, the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream. The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point. For situations where there are point-source impacts alone, or in combination with nonpoint sources, the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source. Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems, especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce. Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set. Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point. For each source and pollutant, it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed. Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using @Risk1 by performing 5,000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria, as defined in the Pennsylvania Code. Title 25 Environmental Protection, Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 93, Water Quality Standards, will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time. For each iteration, the required percent reduction is:

PR = maximum {0, (1-Cc/Cd)} where (1) PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mg/l

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mg/l based on the observed

data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean, Standard Deviation) where (1a) Mean = average observed concentration Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5,000 iterations, so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is:

LTA = Mean * (1 – PR99) where (2)

1

@Risk – Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel, Palisade Corporation, Newfield, NY, 1990-1997.

21

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mg/l

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined, mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence. This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below. Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location, as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the @Risk program. There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking; rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated, and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources. The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points, and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point. Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available. The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream. The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream, and in completing the analysis, reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed. Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended, which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed. In Low pH TMDLs, acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B. Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity. Net alkalinity is alkalinity minus acidity, both in units of milligrams per liter (mg/l) CaCO3. Statistical procedures are applied, using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration. By maintaining a net alkaline stream, the pH value will be in the range between six and eight. This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value, which for streams affected by low pH may not a true reflection of acidity. This method assures that Pennsylvania’s standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met. Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the “TMDLs by Segment” section of this report. Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

22

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits. Surface coal mines remove soil and overburden materials to expose the underground coal seams for removal. After removal of the coal, the overburden is replaced as mine spoil and the soil is replaced for revegetation. In a typical surface mining operation the overburden materials are removed and placed in the previous cut where the coal has been removed. In this fashion, an active mining operation has a pit that progresses through the mining site during the life of the mine. The pit may have water reporting to it, as it is a low spot in the local area. Pit water can be the result of limited shallow groundwater seepage, direct precipitation into the pit, and surface runoff from partially regarded areas that have been backfilled but not yet revegetated. Pit water is pumped to nearby treatment ponds where it is treated to the required effluent limits. The standard effluent limits are as follows, although stricter effluent limits may be applied to a mining permit’s effluent limits to insure that the discharge of treated water does not cause instream limits to be exceeded.

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits: Alkalinity > Acidity

6.0 <= pH <= 9.0 Al <= 0.75 mg/l (Criteria)

Fe <= 3.0 mg/l (BAT) Mn <= 2.0 mg/l (BAT)

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events. Measured flow rates are almost never available. If accurate flow data are available, it is used along with the Best Available Technology (BAT) limits to quantify the WLA for one or more of the following: aluminum, iron, and manganese. The following formula is used:

Flow (MGD) X BAT limit (mg/l) X 8.34 = lbs/day The following is an approach that can be used to determine a WLA for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available. The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating WLA using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits. The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources: direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pit’s progression through the site. Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation. In an active mining scenario, a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment. Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature. At the treatment ponds, alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate

23

and settle. Pennsylvania averages 41.4 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center, National Weather Service, State College, PA, 1961-1990, ttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/hotopics/drought/PrecipNorm.htm). A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1,500 feet long by 300 feet wide. Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds, results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area. 41.4 in. precip/yr x 0.95 x 1 ft/12/in. x 1,500’x300’/pit x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 1yr/365days x 1day/24hr

x 1hr/60 min =

= 21.0 gal/min average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area Pit water also can result from runoff from the unregraded and revegetated area following the pit. In the case of roughly backfilled and highly porous spoil, there is very little surface runoff. It is estimated that 80 percent of precipitation on the roughly regraded mine spoil infiltrates, 5 percent evaporates, and 15 percent may run off to the pit for pumping and potential treatment (Jay Hawkins, Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, Personal Communications, 2003). Regrading and revegetation of the mine spoil is conducted as the mining progresses. The PADEP encourages concurrent backfilling and revegetation through its compliance efforts and it is in the interest of the mining operator to minimize the company’s reclamation bond liability by keeping the site reclaimed and revegetated. Experience has shown that reclamation and revegetation is accomplished two to three pit widths behind the active mining pit area. PADEP uses three pit widths as an area representing potential flow to the pit when reviewing the NPDES permit application and calculating effluent limits based on best available treatment technology and insuring that instream limits are met. The same approach is used in the following equation, which represents the average flow reporting to the pit from the unregraded and unrevegetated spoil area.

41.4 in. precip/yr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft/12/in. x 1,500’x300’/pit x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 1yr/365days x 1day/24hr x 1hr/60 min x 15 in. runoff/100 in. precip =

= 9.9 gal/min average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

The total average flow to the pit is represented by the sum of the direct pit precipitation and the water flowing to the pit from the spoil area as follows:

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 21.0 gal/min + 9.9 gal/min = 30.9 gal/min

The resulting average waste load from a permitted treatment pond area is as follows:

Allowable Aluminum WLA: 30.9 gal/min x 0.75 mg/l x 0.01202 = 0.3 lbs/day

24

Allowable Iron WLA: 30.9 gal/min x 3 mg/l x 0.01202 = 1.1 lbs/day

Allowable Manganese WLA:

30.9 gal/min x 2 mg/l x 0.01202 = 0.7 lbs/day

(Note: 0.01202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in gal/min and a concentration in mg/l to a load

in units of lbs/day.) There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds. Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water, creating a large margin of safety (MOS) in the methodology. County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate, although the MOS is greater than differences from individual counties. It is common for many mining sites to have very “dry” pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment. Also, it is the goal of PADEP’s permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment. As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage, it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime, baghouse lime, limestone, etc.) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present. This practice of ‘alkaline addition’ or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone, alkaline shale, or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment. A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 2.2 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996: A Post Mortem Study, March 1999). As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented, most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment.

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard, 1,500 ft x 300 ft pit, most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load. Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present, the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly. Hence, the above calculated WLA is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered. A large MOS is included in the WLA calculations. This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits. This allows for including active mining activities and their associated waste load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve instream limits. When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation. Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed is greater than the current level of mining activity, an additional WLA amount may be included to allow for future mining.

25

Derivation of the flow used in the future mining WLAs:

30.9 gal/min X 2 (assume two pits) X 0.00144 = 0.09 MGD Future TMDL Modifications In the future, the Department may adjust the load and/or wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate. Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation. A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)/reissuances (i.e., permits for revision/reissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDL’s availability for public comment). New information generated during TMDL implementation may include, among other things, monitoring data, BMP effectiveness information, and land use information. All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1% of the total original TMDL allowable load, the TMDL will be revised. The adjusted TMDL, including its LAs and WLAs, will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met. The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters. Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

• Increase in total load capacity. • Transfer of load between point (WLA) and nonpoint (LA) sources. • Modification of the margin of safety (MOS). • Change in water quality standards (WQS). • Non-attainment of WQS with implementation of the TMDL. • Allocations in trading programs.

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

• Total loading shift less than or equal to 1% of the total load. • Increase of WLA results in greater LA reductions provided reasonable assurance of

implementation is demonstrated (a compliance/implementation plan and schedule). • Changes among WLAs with no other changes; TMDL public notice concurrent with

permit public notice. • Removal of a pollutant source that will not be reallocated. • Reallocation between LAs. • Changes in land use.

TMDL Endpoints

26

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint, which is used to evaluate the attainment of acceptable water quality. An instream numeric endpoint, therefore, represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL. The endpoint allows for comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses. The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards. Because of the nature of the pollution sources in the watershed, the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations that are specified above a point in the stream segment. All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations. These long-term average daily concentrations are expected to meet water quality criteria 99 percent of the time. Pennsylvania Title 25 Chapter 96.3(c) specifies that a minimum 99 percent level of protection is required. All metals criteria evaluated in this TMDL are specified as total recoverable. Pennsylvania does have dissolved criteria for iron; however, the data used for this analysis report iron as total recoverable. Table 2 shows the water quality criteria for the selected parameters.

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mg/l) Total

Recoverable/Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 0.75 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 1.50 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 1.00 Total Recoverable

pH * 6.0-9.0 N/A *The pH values shown will be used when applicable. In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity, the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality. These values are typically as low as 5.4 (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission). TMDL Elements (WLA, LA, MOS) A TMDL equation consists of a wasteload allocation, load allocation and a margin of safety. The wasteload allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources. The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to nonpoint sources. The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process. The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load). TMDL Allocations Summary There were not enough samples at any sample point to check for correlation between metals and flow for Scrubgrass Creek. Allocation Summary This TMDL will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed. The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are achieved and take in to account all upstream reductions. Attachment C contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion. As changes occur in the watershed, the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions.

27

An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations. The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously. The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the flow and a conversion factor at each sample point. The allowable load is the TMDL. In some instances, instream processes, such as settling, are taking place within a stream segment. These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points. It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment. The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points. In the instance that the allowable load is equal to the existing load (e.g. manganese point NFUT04, Table 3), the simulation determined that water quality standards are being met instream 99% of the time and no TMDL is necessary for the parameter at that point. Although no TMDL is necessary, the loading at the point is considered at the next downstream point. In the instance that the allowable load is equal to the existing load (e.g. aluminum point SFUT01, Table 3), the simulation determined that water quality standards are being met instream 99% of the time and no TMDL is necessary for the parameter at that point. Although no TMDL is necessary, the loading at the point is considered at the next downstream point.

28

Table 3A. TMDL Component Summary for the North Fork Beech Creek Watershed Station Parameter Existing

Load (lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA

(lbs/day)

LA

(lbs/day)

Load Reduction (lbs/day)

Percent Reduction

%

NFBC03 North Fork Beech Creek upstream of Unnamed Tributary 22797 Al 0.29 0.05 0.0 0.05 0.24 83 Fe 3.54 0.07 0.0 0.07 3.47 98 Mn 1.23 0.05 0.0 0.05 1.18 96 Acidity 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 100

NFUT06 Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22797 Al 78.2 5.5 0.7 + *2.24 2.56 72.7 93 Fe 34.8 11.1 1.04 + *9.0 1.06 23.7 68 Mn 58.8 7.6 0.7 + *6.0 0.9 51.2 87 Acidity 1,152.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,152.7 100

CHRY01 Mouth of Cherry Run Al 31.4 4.1 *1.12 2.98 27.3 87 Fe 130.4 6.5 *4.5 2.0 123.9 95 Mn 50.6 4.0 *3.0 1.0 46.6 92 Acidity 803.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 803.3 100

NFUT05 Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22795 Al 27.7 1.1 0.0 1.1 26.6 96 Fe 28.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 26.0 93 Mn 34.3 1.4 0.0 1.4 32.9 96 Acidity 470.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 470.0 100

NFBC02 North Fork Beech Creek upstream of Little Sandy Run and Unnamed Tributary

22786 Al 16.3 7.2 *2.8 4.4 0.0 0 Fe 31.9 14.7 *11.25 3.45 0.0 0 Mn 20.4 12.8 *7.5 5.3 0.0 0 Acidity 588.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

LSND01 Mouth of Little Sandy Run Al 117.3 10.6 *2.8 7.8 106.7 91 Fe 162.1 27.6 *11.25 16.35 134.5 83 Mn 137.5 13.7 *7.5 6.2 123.8 90 Acidity 1,926.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,926.4 100

NFUT04 Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22786 Al 14.7 2.2 *0.56 1.64 12.5 85 Fe 4.4 2.7 *2.25 0.45 1.7 39 Mn 7.4 7.4 *1.5 5.9 0.0 0 Acidity 70.7 70.7 NA NA 0.0 0

PNCK01 Mouth of Pancake Run Al 3.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 2.3 78 Fe 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.0 0 Mn 0.9 0.9 NA NA 0.0 0

29

Station Parameter Existing Load

(lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA

(lbs/day)

LA

(lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

Acidity 29.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 100 NFUT03 Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22784

Al 6.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 6.6 97 Fe 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 27 Mn 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 3.0 92 Acidity 60.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.8 100

NFUT02 Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22783 Al 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.7 81 Fe 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.0 0 Mn 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 57 Acidity 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 100

NFUT01 Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22782 Al 0.03 0.03 NA NA 0.0 0 Fe 0.05 0.05 NA NA 0.0 0 Mn 0.01 0.01 NA NA 0.0 0 Acidity 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.1 88

NFBC01 Mouth of North Fork Beech Creek Al 226.3 54.3 *2.8 51.5 28.1 34 Fe 121.8 76.7 *11.25 65.45 0.0 0 Mn 236.8 54.5 *7.5 47.0 36.7 40 Acidity 2,914.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 299.3 100

NA, meets WQS. No TMDL necessary. *Values in italics are set aside for future mining operations.

Table 3B. TMDL Component Summary for the South Fork Beech Creek Watershed Station Parameter Existing

Load (lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA

(lbs/day)

LA

(lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

SFUT01 Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22769 Al 0.04 0.04 NA NA 0.0 0 Fe 0.04 0.04 NA NA 0.0 0 Mn 0.03 0.03 NA NA 0.0 0 Acidity 2.5 2.5 NA NA 0.0 0

SFUT02 Unnamed Tributary 22768 upstream of Unnamed Tributary 22768 Al 16.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 16.2 97 Fe 0.3 0.3 NA NA 0.0 0 Mn 4.3 0.9 0.0 0.9 3.4 80 Acidity 114.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 114.2 100

BT-2 Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22768 (Butz Run) Al 19.4 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 70 Fe 0.8 0.8 NA NA 0.0 0

30


(lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA

(lbs/day)

LA

(lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

Mn 5.6 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 49 Acidity 122.2 6.1 0.0 6.1 1.9 24

SFBC02 South Fork Beech Creek 22763 upstream of Unnamed Tributary 22768 Al 11.0 11.0 *1.68 9.32 0.0 0 Fe 9.1 9.1 *6.75 2.35 0.0 0 Mn 5.6 5.6 *4.5 1.1 0.0 0 Acidity 324.9 68.2 0.0 68.2 256.7 79

SFBC01 Mouth of South Fork Beech Creek 22763 Al 55.5 18.3 *2.8 15.5 18.8 51 Fe 35.1 21.0 *11.25 9.75 14.0 40 Mn 21.8 21.8 *7.5 14.3 0.0 0 Acidity 684.0 136.8 0.0 136.8 174.4 56

NA, meets WQS. No TMDL necessary. *Values in italics are set aside for future mining operations. Table 3C. Summary Table–Beech Creek Watershed

Station

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA (lbs/day)

LA (lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

CTRY01 Mouth of Contrary Run (22755) Al 3.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 3.0 82 Fe 0.84 0.76 0.0 0.76 0.08 9 Mn 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.7 46 Acidity 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.3 100

SNDY03 Most Upstream Sample Point on Sandy Run (22742) Al 7.0 7.0 0.14 + *0.56 6.3 0.0 0 Fe 3.4 3.4 0.3 + *2.25 0.85 0.0 0 Mn 3.6 3.6 0.2 + *1.5 1.9 0.0 0 Acidity 179.4 16.1 0.0 16.1 104.9 87

SDUT04 Unt (22748) Sandy Creek Al 10.2 0.5 0.0 0.5 9.7 95 Fe 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.1 18 Mn 3.8 0.9 0.0 0.9 2.9 76 Acidity 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.7 100

BUTY01 Mouth of Beauty Run (22750) Uptream of Confluence with Sandy Run Al 19.7 8.1 *1.68 6.42 11.6 59 Fe 9.1 9.1 *6.75 2.35 0.0 0 Mn 11.5 8.9 *4.5 4.4 2.6 22 Acidity 333.1 3.3 0.0 3.3 329.8 99

SDUT03 Mouth of Unt Sandy Run (22747) Al 116.6 7.0 *2.24 4.76 109.6 94 Fe 122.3 15.9 *9.0 6.9 106.4 87 Mn 144.4 7.2 *6.0 1.2 137.2 95 Acidity 1508.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1508.3 100

SNDY02 Sandy Run Upstream of Confluence with Unt (22746) Sandy Run Al 281.3 36.6 0.04 + *2.24 34.32 113.8 76

31

Station

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA (lbs/day)

LA (lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

Fe 227.0 54.5 0.15 + *11.25 43.1 66.0 55 Mn 302.2 30.2 0.1 + *7.5 22.6 129.3 81 Acidity 3531.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1372.1 100

SDUT02 Mouth of Unt (22746) Sandy Run Upstream of Confluence with Sandy Run Al 58.4 1.2 0.0 1.2 57.2 98 Fe 6.6 0.9 0.0 0.9 5.7 87 Mn 17.7 0.9 0.0 0.9 16.8 95 Acidity 456.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 456.2 100

SDUT01 Mouth of Unt (22742) Sandy Run Upsream of Confluence Sandy Run Al 203.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 202.5 99.5 Fe 38.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 36.2 95 Mn 94.6 0.9 0.0 0.9 93.7 99 Acidity 1736.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

SNDY01 Mouth of Sandy Run (22742) Al 708.3 42.5 *2.8 39.7 161.4 79 Fe 516.5 62.0 *11.25 50.75 240.1 79 Mn 573.8 40.2 *7.5 32.7 151.2 79 Acidity 8243.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2519.7 100

NFBC01 Mouth of North Fork Beech Creek (22781) Al 226.3 54.3 *1.68 + 0.7 51.92 28.1 34 Fe 121.8 76.7 *6.75 + 1.04 68.91 0.0 0 Mn 236.8 54.5 *4.5 + 0.7 49.3 36.7 40 Acidity 2914.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 299.3 100

SFBC01 Mouth of South Fork Beech Creek (22763) Al 55.5 18.3 *2.8 15.5 18.8 51 Fe 35.1 21.0 *11.25 9.75 14.0 40 Mn 21.8 21.8 *7.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 Acidity 648.0 136.8 0.0 136.8 174.4 56

BCUT01 Most Upstream Sample Point on Unt (22758) of Beech Creek Al 2.4 0.6 0.0 0.6 1.8 77 Fe 0.31 0.17 0.0 0.17 0.14 47 Mn 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.1 20 Acidity 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 100

BCUT02 Mouth of Unt (22758) of Beech Creek Al 7.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 7.3 98 Fe 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0 Mn 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.3 92 Acidity 60.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.4 100

BCUT03 Mouth of Unt (22741) Beech Creek Al 6.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 6.1 97 Fe 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0 Mn 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.6 86 Acidity 45.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.7 100

BC4 Beech Creek (22596) Al 2227.5 445.5 *2.8 442.7 904.4 67 Fe 1524.7 914.8 *11.25 903.55 96.3 10 Mn 1975.5 414.9 *7.5 407.4 844.4 67 Acidity 22546.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10806.4 100

BC3 Beech Creek (22596)

32

Station

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA (lbs/day)

LA (lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

Al 2371.5 592.9 1.14 + *2.8 589.0 0.0 0 Fe 936.2 786.4 4.6 + *11.25 770.6 0.0 0 Mn 2530.8 582.1 3.0 + *7.5 571.6 388.0 40 Acidity 24095.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1549.0 100

MP6 Mouth of Unt (22726) of Beech Creek Al ND NA 0.0 NA NA 0 Fe 0.7 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.68 97 Mn 4.5 0.04 0.0 0.04 4.46 99 Acidity 28.9 0.01 0.0 0.01 28.89 99.96

MP5 Mouth of Unt (22716) of Beech Creek Al ND NA 0.0 NA NA 0 Fe 0.005 0.005 0.0 0.005 0.0 0 Mn 0.122 0.006 0.0 0.006 0.116 95 Acidity 0.737 0.007 0.0 0.007 0.73 99

Logway4 Mouth of Logway Run (22701) Al 57.6 1.7 0.8 0.9 22.4 93 Fe 75.6 2.3 1.2 1.1 27.9 92 Mn 296.7 0.9 0.8 0.1 172.9 99 Acidity 1584.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 897.8 100

MP1 Mouth of Unt (22695) of Council Run Al ND ND NA NA 0.0 0 Fe 0.23 0.23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Mn 0.65 0.65 0.0 0.65 0.0 0 Acidity 4.71 4.66 0.0 4.66 0.05 1

MP2 Mouth of Council Run (22691) Al ND ND NA NA 0.0 0 Fe 0.59 0.59 0.0 0.59 0.0 0 Mn 1.03 1.03 0.0 1.03 0.0 0 Acidity 11.48 9.3 0.0 9.3 2.1 19

BC2 Beech Creek (22596) Al 2398.2 695.5 *2.8 692.7 0.0 0 Fe 694.2 694.2 *11.25 682.95 0.0 0 Mn 2440.3 610.1 *7.5 602.6 0.0 0 Acidity 24388.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 100

WQN243 Mouth of Beech Creek Upstream of Confluence with Bald Eagle Creek Al 2894.1 405.2 *2.8 402.4 786.2 66 Fe 632.7 632.7 *11.25 621.45 0.0 0 Mn 4315.7 431.6 *7.5 424.1 2053.9 83 Acidity 3702.9 444.3 0.0 444.3 0.0 0

*Values in italics are set aside for future mining operations.

Table 3D. TMDL Component Summary for the Logway Run Watershed Station Parameter Existing

Load (lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA

(lbs/day)

LA

(lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

4A Logway Run, upstream of discharge MD-14 Al 30.9 0.6 0.0 0.6 30.3 98

33


(lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA

(lbs/day)

LA

(lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

Fe 14.2 0.8 0.0 0.8 13.4 94 Mn 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.7 100 Acidity 450.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 450.1 100

DEP1 Dry Hollow abandoned discharge Al 3.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 3.2 94 Fe 32.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 32.0 99 Mn 37.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.2 100 Acidity 236.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 236.4 100 4 Mouth of Logway Run Al 57.6 1.7 0.8 0.9 22.4 93 Fe 75.6 2.3 1.2 1.1 27.9 92 Mn 296.7 0.9 0.8 0.1 172.9 99 Acidity 1,584.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 897.8 100

Table 3E. TMDL Component Summary for the Middle Branch Big Run Watershed


(lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA

(lbs/day)

LA

(lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

MB08 Al 15.42 0.28 0.0 0.28 15.14 98 Fe 3.17 0.19 0.0 0.19 2.98 94 Mn 24.34 0.24 0.0 0.24 24.10 99 Acidity 155.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 155.36 100




MB05 Al 67.24 1.55 0.0 1.55 18.02 92 Fe 114.20 2.86 0.0 2.86 0.0 0

34


(lbs/day)

TMDL Allowable

Load (lbs/day)

WLA

(lbs/day)

LA

(lbs/day)


Percent Reduction

%

Mn 253.73 2.03 0.0 2.03 34.79 94 Acidity 1452.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.84 100

MB03 Al 12.99 7.38 *0.56 6.82 5.61 43 Fe 8.19 8.19 *2.25 NA NA NA Mn 2.78 2.78 *1.5 NA NA NA Acidity 229.58 51.20 0.0 51.20 178.38 78

MB12 Al 1.04 0.02 0.0 0.02 1.02 98 Fe 0.03 0.03 0.0 NA NA NA Mn 2.41 0.03 0.0 0.03 2.38 99 Acidity 15.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.28 100


MB02 Al 126.54 6.83 *2.8 4.03 46.88 87 Fe 139.04 19.33 *11.25 8.08 8.65 30 Mn 444.07 8.44 *7.5 0.94 180.36 96 Acidity 2978.44 0.0 0.0 0.0 1323.44 100

*Values in italics are set aside for future mining operations. In the instance that the allowable load is equal to the measured load (e.g. iron and manganese MB03, Table 3E), the simulation determined that water quality standards are being met instream and therefore no TMDL is necessary for the parameter at that point. Although no TMDL is necessary, the loading at the point is considered at the next downstream point. All waste load allocations were calculated using the methodology explained previously in the Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load section of the report. Wasteload allocation for the existing mining operation is incorporated into the calculations at SNDY03, for TF1 and TF2 (Aimfire Mining Co. Job 121 Operation, SMP#14030101) treatment system TF3 is incorporated into the calculation at SNDY02. These are the first downstream monitoring points that receive all the potential flow of treated water from the treatment sites. No required reductions of this permit is necessary at this time because there are upstream non-point sources that when reduced will met the TMDL or there is available assimilation capacity. All necessary reductions are assigned to non-point sources.

35

The Aimfire Mining Co. Job121 Operation (SMP#14030101) has a non-standard pit size of 600 feet in length and a width of 100 feet. This pit size was used in the Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load calculation example shown below: 41.4 in. precip/yr x 0.95 x 1 ft/12/in. x 600’x 100’/pit x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 1yr/365days x 1day/24hr x 1hr/60 min = 2.8 gal/min average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area. 41.4 in. precip/yr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft/12/in. x 600’x100’/pit x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 1yr/365days x 1day/24hr x 1hr/60 min x 15 in. runoff/100 in. precip = 1.3 gal/min average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area. The total average flow to the pit is represented by the sum of the direct pit precipitation and the water flowing to the pit from the spoil area as follows:


Total Average Flow = 2.8 gal./min. + 1.3 gal./min. =4.1 gal./min. The resulting average load from a permitted treatment pond area as follows.

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation: 4.1 gal./min. x 0.75 mg/l x 0.01202 = 0.04 lbs./day

Mine drainage treatment facility TF1 has a permit limit of 2 mg/l for aluminum. This WLA is accounted for at sample point SNDY02.

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation: 4.1 gal./min. x 2 mg/l x 0.01202 = 0.1 lbs./day

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation:

4.1 gal./min. x 3 mg/l x 0.01202 = 0.15 lbs./day

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation: 4.1 gal./min. x 2 mg/l x 0.01202 = 0.1 lbs./day

The Aimfire Mining Co., Job 121 Mine (permit SMP#14030101) is actively mining coal. One non-standard pit size of 600 feet in length with a width of 100 feet is permitted. This pit size was used in the Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load calculation and is shown in Table 5. There are three permitted mine drainage treatment facilities – TF1, TF2 and TF3. Only one of the treatment facilities will be discharging at any time. As the mining moves around the permitted area one treatment facility goes online as another goes off line. Treatment facility TF1 has a permit limit of 2 mg/l for aluminum.

36

Table 4. Waste Load Allocation of Permitted Discharges

Parameter Allowable Average Monthly

Conc. (mg/l)

Calculated Average Flow

(MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

TF1 Job 121 Al 2.0 0.0059 0.1 Fe 3.0 0.0059 0.15 Mn 2.0 0.0059 0.1 TF2 Job 121 Al 0.75 0.0059 0.04 Fe 3.0 0.0059 0.15 Mn 2.0 0.0059 0.1 TF3 Job 121 Al 0.75 0.0059 0.04 Fe 3.0 0.0059 0.15 Mn 2.0 0.0059 0.1

Wasteload allocation for the existing mining operations Morgan #3 and Morgan #4 mining operations are incorporated into the calculations at NFUT06; for TF-01, TF-02 and TF-03 (River Hill Coal Co., Inc. Morgan #3 Operation, SMP#14040103). This is the first downstream monitoring point that receive all the potential flow of treated water from the treatment sites. No required reductions of this permit is necessary at this time because there are upstream non-point sources that when reduced will met the TMDL or there is available assimilation capacity. All necessary reductions are assigned to non-point sources. The River Hill Coal Co., Inc. Morgan #3 Operation, SMP#14040103 has a non-standard pit size of 700 feet in length and a width of 300 feet. This pit size was used in the Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load calculation example shown below: 41.4 in. precip/yr x 0.95 x 1 ft/12/in. x 700’x 300’/pit x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 1yr/365days x 1day/24hr x 1hr/60 min = 9.8 gal/min average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area. 41.4 in. precip/yr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft/12/in. x 700’x300’/pit x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 1yr/365days x 1day/24hr x 1hr/60 min x 15 in. runoff/100 in. precip = 4.6 gal/min average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area. The total average flow to the pit is represented by the sum of the direct pit precipitation and the water flowing to the pit from the spoil area as follows:


Total Average Flow = 9.8 gal./min. + 4.6 gal./min. =14.4 gal./min. The resulting average load from a permitted treatment pond area as follows.

37

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation:

14.4 gal./min. x 2.0 mg/l x 0.01202 = 0.35 lbs./day Both of the permits for Morgan #3 and Morgan #4 have a permit limit of 2 mg/l for aluminum.

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation: 14.4 gal./min. x 3 mg/l x 0.01202 = 0.52 lbs./day

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation:

14.4 gal./min. x 2 mg/l x 0.01202 = 0.35 lbs./day The River Hill Coal Co., Inc. Morgan #3 Operation, SMP#14040103 is actively mining coal. One non-standard pit size of 700 feet in length with a width of 300 feet is permitted. This pit size was used in the Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load calculation and is shown in Table 6. There are three permitted mine drainage treatment facilities – TF-01, TF-02 and TF-03. Only one of the treatment facilities will be discharging at any time. As the mining moves around the permitted area one treatment facility goes online as another goes off line.

Table 5. Waste Load Allocation of Permitted Discharges Parameter Allowable

Average Monthly

Conc. (mg/l)


(MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

TF-01 Morgan #3 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-02 Morgan #3 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-03 Morgan #3 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

The River Hill Coal Co., Inc. Morgan #4 Operation, SMP#14040102 is actively mining coal (NFUT06). One non-standard pit size of 700 feet in length with a width of 300 feet is permitted. This pit size was used in the Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load calculation and is shown in Table 7. There are four permitted mine drainage treatment facilities – TF-01, TF-02, TF-03 and TF-04. Only one of the treatment facilities will be discharging at any time. As the mining moves around the permitted area one treatment facility goes online as another goes off line.

38

Table 6. Waste Load Allocation of Permitted Discharges


Conc. (mg/l)


(MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

TF-01 Morgan #4 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-02 Morgan #4 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-03 Morgan #4 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-04 Morgan #4 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

The waste load allocation for the existing mining operation is incorporated into the calculations at point 4, the mouth of Logway Run. This is the first downstream monitoring point that receives all the potential flow of treated water from the site. The waste load allocation is calculated by multiplying the average measured flow and the BAT permit limits for each parameter. No required reductions of this permit are necessary at this time. All necessary reductions are assigned to non-point sources.

Table 7. Waste Load Allocation of Permitted Discharge Parameter Allowable Average

Monthly Conc. (mg/L)


(MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

Keystone Coal Company, SMP 14743007 MD-14

Al 2.0 0.0492 0.8 Fe 3.0 0.0492 1.2 Mn 2.0 0.0492 0.8

The Halfway Coal Yard is an active, post mining discharge, chemical treatment plant located on an unnamed tributary to Beech Creek upstream of sample point BC3. The average flow of 127 gpm (0.18 mgd) and is shown in Table 8. This treatment facility does not have an NPDES permit as yet.

39

Table 8. Waste Load Allocation Parameter Allowable Average

Monthly Conc. (mg/L)


(MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

Halfway Coal Yard Al 0.75 0.18 1.1 Fe 3.0 0.18 4.6 Mn 2.0 0.18 3.0

Recommendations Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources and to provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met exist in Pennsylvania. These methods include PADEP’s primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining). Funding sources available that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 319 grant program and Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener Program. Federal funding is through the Department the Interior, Office of Surface Mining (OSM), for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements. OSM reports that nationally, of the $8.5 billion of high priority (defined as priority 1&2 features or those that threaten public health and safety) coal related AML problems in the AML inventory, $6.6 billion (78%) have yet to be reclaimed; $3.6 billion of this total is attributable to Pennsylvania watershed costs. Almost 83 percent of the $2.3 billion of coal related environmental problems (priority 3) in the AML inventory are not reclaimed.

The Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation, Pennsylvania’s primary bureau in dealing with abandoned mine reclamation (AMR) issues, has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/bamr/complan1.htm). In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation, the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results. The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process:

• Partnerships between the DEP, watershed associations, local governments, environmental groups, other state agencies, federal agencies and other groups organized to reclaim abandoned mine lands are essential to achieving reclamation and abating acid mine drainage in an efficient and effective manner.

• Partnerships between AML interests and active mine operators are important and essential in reclaiming abandoned mine lands.

40

• Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan. (guidance is given in Appendix B to the Comprehensive Plan).

• Preferential consideration for the use of designated reclamation moneys will be given to projects that have obtained other sources or means to partially fund the project or to projects that need the funds to match other sources of funds.

• Preferential consideration for the use of available moneys from federal and other sources will be given to projects where there are institutional arrangements for any necessary long-term operation and maintenance costs.

• Preferential consideration for the use of available moneys from federal and other sources will be given to projects that have the greatest worth.

• Preferential consideration for the development of AML projects will be given to AML problems that impact people over those that impact property.

• No plan is an absolute; occasional deviations are to be expected.

A detailed decision framework is included in the plan that outlines the basis for judging projects for funding, giving high priority to those projects whose cost/benefit ratios are most favorable and those in which stakeholder and landowner involvement is high and secure.

In addition to the abandoned mine reclamation program, regulatory programs also are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvania’s land and water. PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth. This reclamation was done, through the use of remining permits which have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands, at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government. Long-term treatment agreements were initialized for facilities/operators who need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded which will provide for long-term treatment of discharges. According to OSM, “PADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are, with very few exceptions, in compliance with the approved regulatory program”. The Commonwealth is exploring all options to address its abandoned mine problem. During 2000-2006, many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways. These include:

• Project XL - The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) has proposed this XL Project to explore a new approach to encourage the remining and reclamation of abandoned coal mine sites. The approach would be based on compliance with in-stream pollutant concentration limits and implementation of best management practices (“BMPs”), instead of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) numeric effluent limitations measured at individual discharge points. This XL project would provide for a test of this approach in up to eight watersheds with

41

significant acid mine drainage (“AMD”) pollution. The project will collect data to compare in-stream pollutant concentrations versus the loading from individual discharge points and provide for the evaluation of the performance of BMPs and this alternate strategy in PADEP’s efforts to address AMD.

• Awards of grants for 1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water and/or a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards, and 2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that will provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants. Eight contracts totaling $4.075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program.

• Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion, such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania), the Barnes & Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin Commission into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River), and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Excelon Generation in Schuylkill County).

Currently there is a watershed assessment underway for the Beech Creek Watershed. All of the tributaries and sources of acid mine drainage will be evaluated and prioritized based on their severity and flow. The Beech Creek Watershed Association is an active watershed group focusing its efforts in and around the Beech Creek Watershed. This report was completed and a final report submitted on June 30, 2003. The report also recommended remedial actions to abate the acid rock drainage. The group will use the watershed assessment to focus its attention on the top priorities for the watershed. Once the problem areas have been prioritized the group can then apply for funding to begin the process of cleaning up the watershed. The Beech Creek Watershed Association (BCWA) recently applied for and administered a grant for the assessment of the sources of pollution to the headwaters of Jonathon Run. This report was completed and a final report submitted on June 30, 2003. The report also recommends remedial actions to abate the acid rock drainage. As of April 2005, none of the treatment systems have been constructed. Logway Run To date one passive treatment system has been constructed in order to address the affects of abandoned mines and abandoned mine lands in the watershed. The treatment system is currently being evaluated to determine its effectiveness at treating the acid mine drainage onsite. At this time no other projects have been planned for this watershed. Currently the there is a watershed assessment underway for the Beech Creek Watershed. All of the tributaries and sources of acid mine drainage will be evaluated and prioritized based on their severity and flow. The watershed group for Beech Creek will then focus its attention on the top priorities for the watershed. Middle Branch Big Run The PA DEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) is conducting various projects to address the AMD problems in the Middle Branch Big Run Watershed. The objective of this

42

work is to create a high alkaline environment that ground or surface water will come in contact with before it reaches AMD. Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed. While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality, they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species. TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process, in accordance with the Department's policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID# 400-0200-001). Public Participation Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 4, 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated. A public meeting was held on October 20, 2008 beginning at 7:00 pm, at the Beech Creek Borough Building, Beech Creek, PA to discuss the proposed TMDL.

43

Attachment A

Beech Creek Watershed Maps

49

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S#S

#S

#S#S

NFBC01

NFUT01

NFUT02NFUT03

PNCK01

NFUT04NFBC02

NFUT05

CHRY01

NFUT06NFBC03

LSND01

22791

22781

22797

22795

22796

22785

2278

6

2278

2

22789

227 84

2278

3

22781CLARENCECLARENCE

SNOW SHOESNOW SHOE

Sample Point#S

StreamsNonattaining

Attaining

Legend

0.5 0 0.5 Miles

N

North Fork BeechCreek Sampling Stations

50

#S#S#S

#S

#S

"Brushy Hollow"

South Fork Beech Creek

Stinktown Run

Horsehead Run

Jonathan Run

22763

2276

722769

22768

Butz Run

1 0 1 Miles

Sample Point#S

StreamsNonattaining

Attaining

Watershed Boundary


N

CENTRE COUNTY

51

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

BT-2

SFBC02

SFUT02SFUT01

SFBC01

0.5 0 0.5 Miles

Sample Point#S

Watershed Boundary

StreamsNonattaining

Attaining


N

52

#S

#S#S

#S4

4A

DEP1

MD-14

Logway RunWatershed

0.5 0 0.5 Miles

N

Logway Run

Beech Creek

Centre County

Sample Point#S

Streams

Nonattaining

Watershed Boundary

Legend

53

#

# #

#

###

#

#

# #

MIDDLE BRANCH BIG RUN

MB07MB07

xMB06xMB04

MB02

MB03MB05

MB10 MB08MB09

MB12MB13

Sample Points# StreamsNon Attaining

Unassessed

Attaining

Subbasins

Middle Branch Big Run - Clinton CountyN

###########0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles

54

Attachment B

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

55

Method for Addressing 303(d) Listings for pH There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity, acidity, and pH. Research published by the Pa. Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs. pH for 794 mine sample points, the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1). Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero), the pH range is most commonly six to eight, which is within the USEPA’s acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93. The pH, a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm, is not conducive to standard statistics. Additionally, pH does not measure latent acidity. For this reason, and based on the above information, Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH. The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals. For this reason, it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values, which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage. Therefore, net alkalinity will be used to evaluate pH in these TMDL calculations. This methodology assures that the standard for pH will be met because net alkalinity is a measure of the reduction of acidity. When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels, pH will be acceptable. Therefore, the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point. The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron, aluminum, and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria. Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity. Net alkalinity is alkalinity minus acidity, both being in units of milligrams per liter (mg/l) CaCO3. The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied, using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration. By maintaining a net alkaline stream, the pH value will be in the range between six and eight. This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value, which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity. This method assures that Pennsylvania’s standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met. Reference: Rose, Arthur W. and Charles A. Cravotta, III 1998. Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage.

Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania. Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, Pa.

56

Figure 1. Net Alkalinity vs. pH. Taken from Figure 1.2 Graph C, pages 1-5, of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

57

Attachment C

TMDLs By Segment

58

North Fork Beech Creek The TMDL for the North Fork Beech Creek consists of load allocations of nine tributaries and three sampling sites along the stream. There are two permitted discharges in the watershed that were permitted after the North Fork Beech Creek AMD TMDL was published. The permits are added here and WLAs are assigned to sample point NFUT06. The flow adjusted mass balance method was used, the affect of the additional flow and permit limits are also added to sample points NFBC02 and NFBC01 and an example is included in Attachment E. This is an amended version of the North Fork Beech Creek AMD TMDL. North Fork Beech Creek is listed as impaired on the PA Section 303(d) list by both high metals and low pH from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to the stream. For pH, the objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream that will in turn raise the pH to the acceptable range. The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report, Table 3). The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B. An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each point for iron, manganese, aluminum, and acidity. The analysis is designed to produce an average value that, when met, will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99% of the time. An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99% of the time. The simulation was run assuming the data set was lognormally distributed. Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set, 5000 iterations of sampling were completed, and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter. For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated, if necessary, to meet water-quality criteria. A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99% of the time. The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards. TMDL Calculations - Sample Point NFBC03, North Fork Beech Creek upstream of Unnamed Tributary 22797 The TMDL for sample point NFBC03 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point NFBC03. The average flow of 0.054 MGD, calculated at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point NFBC03 shows pH ranging between 2.77 and 3.28; pH is addressed in this TMDL.

Table C1. TMDL Calculations at Point NFBC03

Measured Sample Data

Allowable

Parameter Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 2.17 0.98 0.65 0.29 Fe 9.82 4.4 0.79 0.35 Mn 4.16 1.9 0.58 0.26

Acidity 155.96 16.2 0.00 0.0 Alkalinity 0.00 0.0

59

Table C2. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point

NFBC03 Al

(lbs/day) Fe

(lbs/day) Mn

(lbs/day) Acidity

(lbs/day) Existing Load 0.98 4.4 1.9 16.2 Allowable Load 0.29 0.35 0.26 0.0 Load Reduction 0.69 4.05 1.64 16.2 % Reduction Segment 70 92 86 100

Waste Load Allocations– Permitted Discharge Wasteload allocation for the existing mining operations Morgan #3 and Morgan #4 mining operations are incorporated into the calculations at NFUT06. The River Hill Coal Co., Inc. Morgan #3 Operation, SMP#14040103 has three permitted treatment ponds, TF-01, TF-02 and TF-03 and the River Hill Coal Co., Inc. Morgan #4 Operation, SMP#14040102 Operation has four permitted treatment ponds, TF-01, TF-02, TF-03 and TF-04, that discharge to NFUT06 of North Fork Beech Creek. This is the first downstream monitoring point that receives all the potential flow of treated water from the treatment sites. The waste load allocations for the discharges are calculated with average monthly permit limits and average flows, which are estimated with permitted pit areas and average rainfall. There is one permitted pit in each permit with a total combined pit area of 210,000 square feet. Included in the permits are limits for aluminum, iron and manganese. A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of North Fork Beech Creek (NFUT06) allowing for four operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). See next page.

Table C3. Waste Load Allocations for Permitted Discharges


Conc. (mg/l)


(MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

TF-01 Morgan #3 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-02 Morgan #3 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-03 Morgan #3 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-01 Morgan #4 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-02 Morgan #4 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-03 Morgan #4 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

TF-04 Morgan #4 Al 2.0 0.021 0.35 Fe 3.0 0.021 0.52 Mn 2.0 0.021 0.35

60

Table C4. Waste Load Allocations for future

mining operations Average

Flow Allowable

Load Parameter Monthly Avg.

Allowable Conc. (mg/L) (MGD) (lbs/day)

Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

TMDL Calculations - Sample Point NFUT06, Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22797 The TMDL for sample point NFUT06 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point NFUT06. The average flow of 2.56 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point NFUT06 shows pH ranging between 3.40 and 4.29; pH is addressed in this TMDL.

Table C5. TMDL Calculations at Point NFUT06


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 3.66 78.2 0.26 5.5 Fe 1.63 34.8 0.52 11.1 Mn 2.75 58.8 0.36 7.6

Acidity 53.96 1,152.7 0.00 0.0 Alkalinity 0.00 0.0

61


NFUT06 Al

(lbs/day) Fe

(lbs/day) Mn

(lbs/day) Acidity

(lbs/day) Existing Load 78.2 34.8 58.8 1,152.7 Allowable Load 5.5 11.1 7.6 0.0 Load Reduction 72.7 23.7 51.2 1,152.7 % Reduction Segment 93 68 87 100

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of North Fork Beech Creek (CHRY01) allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). TMDL Calculations - Sample Point CHRY01, Mouth of Cherry Run The TMDL for sample point CHRY01 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point CHRY01. The average flow of 1.32 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point CHRY01 shows pH ranging between 3.13 and 3.66; pH is addressed in this TMDL.

Table C9. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point CHRY01

Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)

Existing Load 31.4 130.4 50.6 803.3 Allowable Load 4.1 6.5 4.0 0.0 Load Reduction 27.3 123.9 46.6 803.3 % Reduction Segment 87 95 92 100

Table C7. Waste Load Allocations for future mining operations

Average Flow

Allowable Load

Parameter Monthly Avg. Allowable Conc.

(mg/L) (MGD) (lbs/day) Future

Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Table C8. TMDL Calculations at Point CHRY01


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 2.85 31.4 0.37 4.1 Fe 11.82 130.4 0.59 6.5 Mn 4.58 50.6 0.37 4.0


62


Table C11. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point NFUT05

Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)


A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of North Fork Beech Creek (NFBC02) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). TMDL Calculation - Sampling Point NFBC02, North Fork Beech Creek upstream of Little Sandy Run The TMDL for sampling point NFBC02 consists of a load allocation of the area between sample points NFBC03, NFUT06, CHRY01, NFUT05 and NFBC02. The load allocation for this stream segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point NFBC02. The average flow of 3.462 MGD, calculated at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point NFBC02 shows pH ranging between 3.93 and 4.69; pH is



Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 5.51 27.7 0.22 1.1 Fe 5.57 28.0 0.39 2.0 Mn 6.82 34.3 0.27 1.4



Average Flow

Allowable Load

Parameter Monthly Avg.


Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

63

addressed in this TMDL. The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point NFBC02 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point NFBC02 shown in Table C14. A comparison of measured loads between points NFBC03, NFUT06, CHRY01, NFUT05 and NFBC02 shows that there is a loss of loading for all parameters. For loss of loading, the percent of load lost within the segment is calculated and applied to the upstream-allocated loads to determine the amount of load that is tracked through the segment.

Table C14. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point NFBC02 Al

(lbs/day) Fe

(lbs/day) Mn

(lbs/day) Acidity

(lbs/day) Existing Load 16.3 31.9 20.4 588.3 Difference in Existing Load between points -121.4 -164.8 -124.5 -1,853.9 Load tracked from upstream 10.7 19.7 13.1 0.0 % Load lost 88 84 86 76 % Load tracked 12 16 14 24 Total Load tracked between points 1.3 3.2 1.8 0.0 Allowable Load at NFBC02 7.2 14.7 12.8 0.0 Load Reduction at NFBC02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Reduction required at NFBC02 0 0 0 0



Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 0.57 16.3 0.25 7.2 Fe 1.12 31.9 0.51 14.7 Mn 0.71 20.4 0.45 12.8


64

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of North Fork Beech Creek (LSND01) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). TMDL Calculations - Sample Point LSND01, Mouth of Little Sandy Run The TMDL for sample point LSND01 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LSND01. The average flow of 3.62 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point LSND01 shows pH ranging between 3.21 and 3.81; pH is addressed in this TMDL.

Table C16. TMDL Calculations at Point LSND01


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 3.88 117.3 0.35 10.6 Fe 5.37 162.1 0.91 27.6 Mn 4.55 137.5 0.46 13.7



LSND01 Al

(lbs/day) Fe

(lbs/day) Mn

(lbs/day) Acidity

(lbs/day) Existing Load 117.3 162.1 137.5 1,926.4 Allowable Load 10.6 27.6 13.7 0.0 Load Reduction 106.7 134.5 123.8 1,926.4 % Reduction Segment 91 83 90 100


Average Flow

Allowable Load

Parameter Monthly Avg. Allowable

Conc. (mg/L) (MGD) (lbs/day)

Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

65

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of North Fork Beech Creek (NFUT04) allowing for one operation with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). TMDL Calculations - Sample Point NFUT04, mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22786 The TMDL for sample point NFUT04 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this tributary was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point NFUT04. The average flow of 1.25 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 2002 PA Section 303(d) list for metals and pH impairments from AMD. Sample data at point NFUT04 shows pH ranging between 6.44 and 7.87; pH is not addressed as part of this TMDL. Water quality analysis determined that the measured manganese load is equal to the allowable manganese load. Because the WQS is met, a TMDL for manganese is not necessary. Although a TMDL is not necessary, the measured load is considered at the next downstream point, NFBC01.


Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)


TMDL Calculations - Sample Point PNCK01, Mouth of Pancake Run The TMDL for sample point PNCK01 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PNCK01. The average flow of 0.17 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations.


Average Flow

Allowable Load



Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50



Allowable

Parameter Conc.(mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 1.41 14.7 0.21 2.2 Fe 0.42 4.4 0.26 2.7 Mn 0.71 7.4 0.71 7.4


66

This segment was included on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point PNCK01 shows pH ranging between 4.03 and 4.42; pH is addressed in this TMDL. Water quality analysis determined that the measured iron and manganese loads are equal to the allowable iron and manganese loads. Because WQS are met, TMDLs for iron and manganese are not necessary. Although TMDLs are not necessary, the loads from PNCK01 are considered at the next downstream point, NFBC01.

Table C22. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point PNCK01

Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)




Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)


Table C21. TMDL Calculations at Point PNCK01


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 2.10 3.0 0.46 0.7 Fe 0.09 0.1 0.09 0.1 Mn 0.62 0.9 0.62 0.9




Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 8.91 6.8 0.27 0.2 Fe 0.70 0.5 0.51 0.4 Mn 4.31 3.3 0.34 0.3


67

TMDL Calculations - Sample Point NFUT02, Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22783 The TMDL for sample point NFUT02 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point NFUT02. The average flow of 0.040 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point NFUT02 shows pH ranging between 3.88 and 4.24; pH is addressed in this TMDL. Water quality analysis determined that the measured iron load is equal to the allowable iron load. Because the WQS is met, a TMDL for iron is not necessary. Although a TMDL is not necessary, the measured load is considered at the next downstream point, NFBC01.


Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)


TMDL Calculations - Sample Point NFUT01, Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22782 The TMDL for sample point NFUT01 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point NFUT01. The average flow of 0.028 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point NFUT01 shows pH ranging between 5.67 and 6.01; pH is addressed in this TMDL. Water quality analysis determined that the measured metals loads are equal to the allowable metals loads. Because the WQS are met, TMDLs



Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 2.63 0.9 0.50 0.2 Fe 0.19 0.1 0.19 0.1 Mn 1.63 0.5 0.70 0.2




Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 0.14 0.03 0.14 0.03 Fe 0.19 0.05 0.19 0.05 Mn 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01


68

for metals are not necessary. Although TMDLs are not necessary, the measured loads are considered at the next downstream point, NFBC01.


Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)


A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of North Fork Beech Creek (NFBC01) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). TMDL Calculation – Sampling Point NFBC01, mouth of North Fork Beech Creek The TMDL for sampling point NFBC01 consists of a load allocation of the area between sample points NFBC02, LSND01, NFUT04, PNCK01, NFUT03, NFUT02, NFUT01 and NFBC01. The load allocation for this stream segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point NFBC01. The average flow of 14.32 MGD, calculated at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point NFBC01 shows pH ranging between 3.68 and 4.89; pH is addressed in this TMDL.



Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 1.90 226.3 0.46 54.3 Fe 1.02 121.8 0.64 76.7 Mn 1.99 236.8 0.46 54.5



Average Flow

Allowable Load



Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

69

The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point NFBC01 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point NFBC01 shown in Table C31. A comparison of measured loads between points NFBC02, LSND01, NFUT04, PNCK01, NFUT03, NFUT02, NFUT01 and NFBC01 shows that there is additional aluminum, manganese, and acidity load entering the segment and a loss in iron load. The total segment aluminum, manganese, and acidity load is the sum of the upstream loads and the additional loading entering the segment. For loss of iron loading, the percent of load lost within the segment is calculated and applied to the upstream loads to determine the amount of load that is tracked through the segment.

Table C31. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point NFBC01

Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)

Existing Load 226.3 121.8 236.8 2,914.0 Difference in Existing Load between points NFBC02, LSND01, NFUT04, PNCK01, NFUT03, NFUT02, NFUT01 and NFBC01 67.6 -77.4 66.9 228.4 Load tracked from upstream NFBC02, LSND01, NFUT04, PNCK01, NFUT03, NFUT02, and NFUT01 21.1 46.7 35.3 70.8 % Load lost - 39 - - % Load tracked - 61 - - Total Load tracked between points NFBC02, LSND01, NFUT04, PNCK01, NFUT03, NFUT02, NFUT01 and NFBC01 88.7 28.6 102.2 299.2 Allowable Load at NFBC01 54.3 76.7 54.5 0.0 Load Reduction at NFBC01 34.4 0.0 47.7 299.2 % Reduction required at NFBC01 39 0 47 100

South Fork Beech Creek The TMDL for the South Fork Beech Creek consists of load allocations of two tributaries and two sampling sites along the stream. Because there are no permitted discharges in the watershed, no WLAs are assigned. South Fork Beech Creek is listed as impaired on the PA Section 303(d) list by both high metals and low pH from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to the stream. For pH, the objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream that will in turn raise the pH to the acceptable range. The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report, Table 3). The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B. An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each point for iron, manganese, aluminum, and acidity. The analysis is designed to produce an average value that, when met, will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99% of the time. An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99% of the time. The simulation was run assuming the data set was lognormally distributed. Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set, 5000 iterations of sampling were completed, and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter. For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated, if

70

necessary, to meet water-quality criteria. A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99% of the time. The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards. TMDL Calculations - Sample Point SFUT02, Unnamed Tributary 22768 upstream of Unnamed Tributary 22769 The TMDL for sample point SFUT02 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SFUT02. The average flow of 0.13 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 2002 PA Section 303(d) list for metals and pH impairments from AMD. Sample data at point SFUT02 shows pH ranging between 3.32 and 3.61; pH is addressed in this TMDL. Water quality analysis determined that the measured iron load is equal to the allowable iron load. Because the WQS is met, a TMDL for iron is not necessary. Although a TMDL is not necessary, the measured load is considered at the next downstream point, BT-2.

Table C33. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point SFUT02

Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)

Existing Load 16.7 0.3 4.3 114.2 Allowable Load 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.0 Load Reduction 16.2 0.0 3.4 114.2 % Reduction 97 0 80 100

TMDL Calculations - Sample Point SFUT01, Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22769 The TMDL for sample point SFUT01 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this tributary was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SFUT01. The average flow of 0.05 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations.

Table C32. TMDL Calculations at Point SFUT02


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 15.48 16.7 0.46 0.5 Fe 0.23 0.3 0.23 0.3 Mn 4.00 4.3 0.80 0.9


71

This segment was included on the 2002 PA Section 303(d) list for metals and pH impairments from AMD. Sample data at point SFUT01 shows pH ranging between 6.31 and 7.72; pH is not addressed in this TMDL. Water quality analysis determined that all allowable metals loads are equal to the existing metals loads. Because WQS are met, TMDLs for iron, aluminum, and manganese are not necessary. Although TMDLs are not necessary, the measured loads are considered at the next downstream point, BT-2.

Table C35. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point SFUT01

Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)

Existing Load 0.04 0.04 0.03 2.5 Allowable Load 0.04 0.04 0.03 2.5 Load Reduction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Reduction 0 0 0 0

TMDL Calculations - Sample Point BT-2, Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 22768 The TMDL for sample point BT-2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between points SFUT01, SFUT02 and BT-2 (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point BT-2. The average flow of 0.31 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 2002 PA Section 303(d) list for metals and pH impairments from AMD. Sample data at point BT-2 shows pH ranging between 4.4 and 4.9; pH is addressed in this TMDL. Water quality analysis determined that the measured iron load is equal to the allowable iron load. Because the WQS is met, a TMDL for iron is not necessary. Although a TMDL is not necessary, the measured load is considered at the next downstream point, SFBC01. The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point BT-2 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at the sample point shown in Table C37. A comparison of measured loads between points BT-2, SFUT01, and SFUT02 shows that there is an increase in loading for all parameters. The total segment load is the sum of the upstream loads and any additional load entering the segment.

Table C34. TMDL Calculations at Point SFUT01


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.04 Fe 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.04 Mn 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03


Table C36. TMDL Calculations at Point BT-2


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 7.48 19.4 0.37 1.0 Fe 0.30 0.8 0.30 0.8 Mn 2.18 5.6 0.44 1.1


72

Table C37. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point BT-2

Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)

Existing Load 19.4 0.8 5.6 122.2 Difference in Existing Load between BT-2, SFUT01 & SFUT02 2.7 0.5 1.3 5.5 Load tracked from SFUT01 & SFUT02 0.5 0.3 0.9 2.5 Total Load tracked between points BT-2, SFUT01 & SFUT02 3.2 0.8 2.2 8.0 Allowable Load at BT-2 1.0 0.8 1.1 6.1 Load Reduction at BT-2 2.2 0.0 1.1 1.9 % Reduction required at BT-2 70 0 49 24

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of South Fork Beech Creek (SFBC02) allowing for three operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). TMDL Calculations - Sample Point SFBC02, South Fork Beech Creek upstream of Unnamed Tributary 22768 The TMDL for sample point SFBC02 consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SFBC02. The average flow of 8.65 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment is not included on the PA Section 303(d) list. The South Fork of Beech Creek above this point is found to be attaining its uses. Sample data at point SFBC02 shows pH ranging between 6.09 and 7.08. Although the WQS for pH is met, water quality analysis determined that an acidity reduction is necessary at SFBC02; therefore, pH is addressed in this TMDL. Water quality analysis determined that all allowable metals loads are equal to the existing metals loads. Because WQS are met, TMDLs for iron, aluminum, and manganese are not necessary. Although TMDLs are not necessary, the measured loads are considered at the next downstream point, SFBC01.


Average Flow

Allowable Load



Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Table C39. TMDL Calculations at Point SFBC02


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 0.15 11.0 0.15 11.0 Fe 0.13 9.1 0.13 9.1 Mn 0.08 5.6 0.08 5.6


73

Table C40. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at

Point SFBC02 Al

(lbs/day) Fe

(lbs/day) Mn

(lbs/day) Acidity

(lbs/day) Existing Load 11.0 9.1 5.6 324.9 Allowable Load 11.0 9.1 5.6 68.2 Load Reduction 0.0 0.0 0.0 256.7 % Reduction 0 0 0 79

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of South Fork Beech Creek (SFBC01) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). TMDL Calculation - Sampling Point SFBC01, Mouth of South Fork Beech Creek The TMDL for sampling point SFBC01 consists of a load allocation of the area between sample points SFBC01, SFBC02 and BT-2. The load allocation for this stream segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SFBC01. The average flow of 14.25 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 2002 PA Section 303(d) list for metals and pH impairments from AMD. Sample data at point SFBC01 shows pH ranging between 5.00 and 6.42; pH is addressed in this TMDL. Water quality analysis determined that the measured manganese load is equal to the allowable manganese load. Because the WQS is met, a TMDL for manganese is not necessary. The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point SFBC01 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at the sample point shown in Table C43. A comparison of measured loads between points SFBC02, SFBC01 and BT-2 shows that there is additional loading entering the segment for all parameters. The total segment load is the sum of the upstream loads plus the additional loading entering the segment.


Average Flow

Allowable Load



Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Table C42. TMDL Calculations at Point SFBC01


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 0.47 55.5 0.15 18.3 Fe 0.30 35.1 0.18 21.0 Mn 0.18 21.8 0.18 21.8


74

Table C43. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point SFBC01

Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)

Existing Load 55.5 35.1 21.8 684.0 Difference in Existing Load between SFBC01, SFBC02 & BT-2 25.1 25.1 10.6 236.9 Load tracked from SFBC02 & BT-2 12.0 9.9 6.7 74.3 Total Load tracked between points SFBC01, SFBC02 & BT-2 37.1 35.0 17.3 311.2 Allowable Load at SFBC01 18.3 21.0 21.8 136.8 Load Reduction at SFBC01 18.8 14.0 0.0 174.4 % Reduction required at SFBC01 51 40 0 56

Beech Creek The TMDL for Beech Creek consists of load allocations for twenty three sampling sites along Beech Creek, South Fork Beech Creek, North Fork Beech Creek, Big Run and various unnamed tributaries. There are two permitted discharges in the North Fork Beech Creek AMD TMDL watershed that were permitted after the original TMDL report was published. The permits were added to the North Fork Beech Creek portion of this report and WLAs were assigned to sample point NFUT06. The flow adjusted mass balance method was used, the affect of the additional flow and permit limits are also added to sample points BC4, BC3, BC2 and WQN243 and an example is included in Attachment E. Beech Creek is listed for metals and pH from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to the stream. The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B. An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at the points below for aluminum, iron, manganese and acidity. The analysis is designed to produce an average value that, when met, will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99% of the time. An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99% of the time. The simulation was run assuming the data set was lognormally distributed. Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set, 5000 iterations of sampling were completed, and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter. For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated, if necessary, to meet water-quality criteria. A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99% of the time. The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards. CTRY01 Mouth of Contrary Run (22755) The TMDL for this sample point on Contrary Run consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the sample point. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-

75

quality sample data collected at point CTRY01. The average flow, measured at the sampling point CTRY01 (0.26 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point CTRY01 shows pH ranging between 3.7 and 4.1; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C44. Load Allocations for Point CTRY01

Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. mg/l

Load Lbs/day

Al 1.70 3.7 0.31 0.7 Fe 0.38 0.84 0.35 0.76 Mn 0.74 1.6 0.40 0.9

Acid 26.48 58.3 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.0 0.0

Table C45. Calculation of Load Reductions Necessary at

Point CTRY01

Al

(lbs/day)Fe

(lbs/day)Mn

(lbs/day)Acidity

(lbs/day)Existing Load 3.7 0.84 1.6 58.3 Allowable Load = TMDL 0.7 0.76 0.9 0.0 Load Reduction 3.0 0.08 0.7 58.3 % Reduction Segment 82% 9% 46% 100%

Waste Load Allocations– Permitted Discharge The Aimfire Mining Co., SMP#14030101, Job 121 Operation has two permitted treatment ponds, TF1 and TF2, that discharge to SNDY03 of Sandy Creek. The waste load allocation for the discharge is calculated with average monthly permit limits and average flow, which is estimated with permitted pit areas and average rainfall. There is one permitted pit in the permit with a total combined pit area of 60,000 square feet. Included in the permit are limits for aluminum, iron and manganese. The WLAs for TF1 and TF2 are evaluated at point SNDY03. A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Beech Creek (SNDY03) allowing for one operation with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load).



Conc. (mg/l)

Calculated Average

Flow (MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

TF1 Job 121 Al 2.0 0.0059 0.1 Fe 3.0 0.0059 0.15 Mn 2.0 0.0059 0.1 TF2 Job 121 Al 0.75 0.0059 0.04 Fe 3.0 0.0059 0.15 Mn 2.0 0.0059 0.1

76



Flow Allowable



Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

SNDY03 Most Upstream Sample Point on Sandy Run (22742) The TMDL for this sample point on Sandy Run consists of a load allocation to all of the area between sample points CTRY01 and SNDY01. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SNDY01. The average flow, measured at the sampling point SNDY01 (3.97 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point SNDY03 shows pH ranging between 4.8 and 5.5; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts. The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point SNDY03 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point SNDY03 shown in Table C49. A comparison of measured loads between points CTRY01 and SDNY03 shows that there is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum iron, manganese and acidity. The total segment aluminum, iron, manganese and acidity loads are the sum of the upstream allocated loads and any additional loading within the segment. SDUT04 Unt (22748) Sandy Creek The TMDL for this sample point on Sandy Run consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of sample point SDUT04. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SDUT04. The average flow, measured at the sampling point SDUT04 (0.18 MGD), is used for these computations.

Table C48. Load Allocations for Point SNDY03

Measured Sample

Data Allowable

ParameterConc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 0.21 7.0 0.21 7.0 Fe 0.10 3.4 0.10 3.4 Mn 0.11 3.6 0.11 3.6

Acid 5.41 179.4 0.49 16.1 Alk 1.20 39.9

Table C49. Calculation of Load Reduction at Point SNDY03 Al Fe Mn Acidity

Existing Load 7.0 3.4 3.6 179.4 Difference in Existing Load between CTRY01 & SNDY01 3.3 2.6 1.9 121.0 Load tracked from CTRU01 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0

Percent loss due to instream process - - - -

Percent load tracked from CTRY01 - - - - Total Load tracked from CTRY01 4.0 3.3 2.8 121.0 Allowable Load at SNDY03 7.0 3.4 3.6 16.1 Load Reduction at SNDY03 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.9 % Reduction required at SNDY03 0 0 0 87

77

There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point SDUT04 shows pH ranging between 3.6 and 3.9; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C51. Calculation of Load Reductions Necessary at Point SDUT04

Al

(lbs/day) Fe

(lbs/day) Mn

(lbs/day)Acidity

(lbs/day)Existing Load 10.2 0.7 3.8 85.7 Allowable Load = TMDL 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.0 Load Reduction 9.7 0.1 2.9 85.7 % Reduction Segment 95% 18% 76% 100% A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Beech Creek (BUTY01) allowing for three operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). BUTY01 Mouth of Beauty Run (22750) Upstream of Confluence with Sandy Run The TMDL for this sample point on Scrubgrass Creek consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of sample point BUTY01. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point BUTY01. The average flow, measured at the sampling point BUTY01 (3.51 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point BUTY01 shows pH ranging between 4.2 and 4.7; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C54. Calculation of Load Reductions Necessary at Point BUTY01

Al

(lbs/day) Fe

(lbs/day)Mn

(lbs/day)Acidity


Table C50. Load Allocations for Point SDUT04

Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. mg/l

Load Lbs/day

Al 6.98 10.2 0.35 0.5 Fe 0.46 0.7 0.38 0.6 Mn 2.60 3.8 0.62 0.9

Acid 58.40 85.7 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.0 0.0


Average Flow

Allowable Load


(mg/L) (MGD) (lbs/day)

Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Table C53. Load Allocations for Point BUTY01

Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc.mg/l

Load Lbs/day

Al 0.67 19.7 0.28 8.1 Fe 0.31 9.1 0.31 9.1 Mn 0.39 11.5 0.31 8.9

Acid 11.39 333.1 0.11 3.3 Alk 0.24 7.1

78

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Beech Creek (SDUT03) allowing for four operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). SDUT03 Mouth of Unt Sandy Run (22747) The TMDL for this unnamed tributary of Sandy Run consists of a load allocation to the watershed area upstream of sample point SDUT03. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SDUT03. The average flow, measured at the sampling point SDUT03 (1.53 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point SDUT03 shows pH ranging between 3.1 and 3.3; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C56. Load Allocations at Point SDUT03

Measured

Sample Data Allowable

ParameterConc.(mg/l)

Load(lbs/da

y) Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 9.13 116.6 0.55 7.0 Fe 9.58 122.3 1.25 15.9 Mn 11.32 144.4 0.57 7.2

Acid 123.83 1580.3 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

Table C57. Calculation of Load Reductions Necessary at

Point SDUT03

Al

(lbs/day)Fe

(lbs/day)Mn

(lbs/day)Acidity



Average Flow

Allowable Load



Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

79

Waste Load Allocations– Permitted Discharge

The Aimfire Mining Co., SMP#14030101, Job 121 Operation has one permitted treatment pond, TF3, that discharge to SNDY02 of Sandy Creek. The waste load allocation for the discharge is calculated with average monthly permit limits and average flow, which is estimated with permitted pit areas and average rainfall. There is one permitted pit in the permit with a total combined pit area of 60,000 square feet. Included in the permit are limits for aluminum, iron and manganese. The WLA for TF3 is evaluated at point SNDY02.

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Beech Creek allowing for four operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load).


Average Flow

Allowable Load



Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50



Conc. (mg/l)

Calculated Average

Flow (MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

TF3 Job 121 Al 0.75 0.0059 0.04 Fe 3.0 0.0059 0.15 Mn 2.0 0.0059 0.1

80

SNDY02 Sandy Run Upstream of Confluence with Unt (22746) Sandy Run The TMDL for sampling point SNDY02 consists of a load allocation to the area upstream of point SNDY02. The load allocation for this tributary was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SNDY02. The average flow, measured at the sampling point SNDY02 (10.02 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point SNDY02 shows pH ranging between 3.3 and 4.0; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point SNDY02 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point SNDY02 shown in Table C61. A comparison of measured loads between points SNDY03, SDUT04, BUTY01, SDUT03 and SDNY02 shows that there is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum iron, manganese and acidity. The total segment aluminum, iron, manganese and acidity loads are the sum of the upstream allocated loads and any additional loading within the segment.


Existing Load 281.3 227.0 302.2 3531.2 Difference in Existing Load between SNDY03, SDUT04, BUTY01, SDUT03 & SDNY02 127.7 91.5 138.9 1352.7 Load tracked from SNDY03, SDUT04, BUTY01 & SDUT03 22.6 29.0 20.6 19.5 Percent loss due to instream process - - - - Percent load tracked from SNDY03, SDUT04, BUTY01 & SDUT03 - - - - Total Load tracked from SNDY03, SDUT04, BUTY01 & SDUT03 150.4 120.4 159.5 1372.1 Allowable Load at SDNY02 36.6 54.5 30.2 0.0 Load Reduction at SDNY02 113.8 66.0 129.3 1372.1 % Reduction required at SDNY02 76 55 81 100

Table C60. Load Allocations at Point SNDY02 Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 3.37 281.3 0.44 36.6 Fe 2.72 227.0 0.65 54.5 Mn 3.62 302.2 0.36 30.2

Acid 42.26 3531.2 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

81

SDUT02 Mouth Unt (22746) Sandy Run Upstream of Confluence with Sandy Run The TMDL for sampling point SDUT02 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of point SDUT02. The load allocation for this tributary was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SDUT02. The average flow, measured at the sampling point SDUT02 (0.27 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point SDUT02 shows pH ranging between 3.1 and 3.5; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C63. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary

at Point SDUT02 Al Fe Mn Acidity (#/day) (#/day) (#/day) (#/day)

Existing Load 58.4 6.6 17.7 456.2

Allowable Load=TMDL 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.0 Load Reduction 57.2 5.7 16.8 456.2Total % Reduction 98 87 95 100

SDUT01 Mouth of Unt (22742) Sandy Run Upstream of Confluence Sandy Run The TMDL for sampling point SDUT01 consists of a load allocation to the all of the area upstream of point SDUT01. The load allocation for this tributary was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SDUT01. The average flow, measured at the sampling point SDUT01 (0.46 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point SDUT01 shows pH ranging between 2.8 and 3.2; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C62 Load Allocations at Point SDUT02 Measured Sample Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 25.83 58.4 0.52 1.2 Fe 2.92 6.6 0.38 0.9 Mn 7.82 17.7 0.39 0.9

Acid 201.92 456.2 0.0 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

Table C64. Load Allocations at Point SDUT01

Measured Sample Data Allowable

ParameterConc.(mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 52.95 203.5 0.26 1.0 Fe 9.91 38.1 0.50 1.9 Mn 24.62 94.6 0.25 0.9

Acid 451.72 1736.0 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

82


SDUT01 Al Fe Mn Acidity (#/day) (#/day) (#/day) (#/day)

Existing Load 203.5 38.1 94.6 1736.0 Allowable Load=TMDL 1.0 1.9 0.9 0.0 Load Reduction 202.5 36.2 93.7 1736.0 Total % Reduction 99.5 95 99 100

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Beech Creek (SNDY01) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load).


Average Flow

Allowable Load



Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

83

SNDY01 Mouth of Sandy Run (22781) The TMDL for this segment of Sandy Creek consists of a load allocation to the area upstream of sample point SNDY01. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point SNDY01. The average flow, measured at the sampling point SNDY01 (11.95 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point SDNY01 shows pH ranging between 3.2 and 3.8; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts. The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point SNDY01 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point SNDY01 shown in Table C68. A comparison of measured loads between points SNDY02, SDUT02, SDUT01 and SDNY01 shows that there is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum iron, manganese and acidity. The total segment aluminum, iron, manganese and acidity loads are the sum of the upstream allocated loads and any additional loading within the segment. BCUT01 Most Upstream Sample Point on Unt (22758) to Beech Creek The TMDL for this segment of Beech Creek consists of a load allocation to the segment upstream of sample point BCUT01. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point BCUT01. The average flow, measured at the sampling point BCUT01 (0.11 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH.

Table C67. Load Allocations at Point SDNY01 Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 7.11 708.3 0.43 42.5 Fe 5.18 516.5 0.62 62.0 Mn 5.76 573.8 0.40 40.2

Acid 82.72 8243.1 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0


Existing Load 708.3 516.5 573.8 8243.1Difference in Existing Load between SNDY02, SDUT02, SDUT01 & SDNY01 165.2 244.9 159.4 2519.7Load tracked from SDNY02, SDUT02 & SDUT01 22.6 57.2 32.0 0.0 Percent loss due to instream process - - - - Percent load tracked from SDNY02, SDUT02 & SDUT01 - - - - Total Load tracked from SDNY02, SDUT02 & SDUT01 203.9 302.1 191.4 2519.7Allowable Load at SNDY01 42.5 62.0 40.2 0.0 Load Reduction at SNDY01 161.4 240.1 151.2 2519.7% Reduction required at SNDY01 79 79 79 100

Table C69. Load Allocations for Point BCUT01Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 2.52 2.4 0.58 0.6 Fe 0.33 0.31 0.17 0.17 Mn 0.77 0.7 0.62 0.6

Acid 21.96 20.9 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

84

Sample data at point BCUT01 shows pH ranging between 4.2 and 4.5; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C70 Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at

Point BCUT01 Al Fe Mn Acidity (#/day) (#/day) (#/day) (#/day)

Existing Load 2.4 0.31 0.7 20.9 Allowable Load=TMDL 0.6 0.17 0.6 0.0 Load Reduction 1.8 0.14 0.1 20.9 Total % Reduction 77 47 20 100

BCUT02 Mouth of Unt (22758) of Beech Creek The TMDL for this unnamed tributary of Beech Creek consists of a load allocation to all of the watershed area upstream of sample point BCUT02. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point BCUT02. The average flow, measured at the sampling point BCUT02 (0.06 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point BCUT02 shows pH ranging between 3.7 and 4.2; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts. Allocations were not calculated for iron because WQS were met. Because WQS were met, TMDLs for iron is not necessary. Although a TMDL is not necessary, the measured load is considered at the next downstream point BC4.

Table C71. Load Allocations at Point BCUT02

Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 14.78 7.4 0.30 0.1 Fe 0.16 0.1 0.16 0.1 Mn 5.01 2.5 0.40 0.2

Acid 120.91 60.4 0.0 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

Table C72. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point BCUT02

Al Fe Mn Acidity (#/day) (#/day) (#/day) (#/day)


85

BCUT03 Mouth of Unt (22741) Beech Creek The TMDL for this unnamed tributary of Beech Creek consists of a load allocation to the entire watershed upstream of sample point BCUT03. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point BCUT03. The average flow, measured at the sampling point BCUT03 (0.05 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point BCUT03 shows pH ranging between 3.6 and 3.8; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts. Allocations were not calculated for iron because WQS were met, TMDLs for iron are not necessary. Although TMDLs are not necessary, the measured loads are considered at the next downstream point BC4.


Point BCUT03



Table C73. Load Allocations at Point BCUT03

Measured



Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 14.75 6.3 0.44 0.2 Fe 0.13 0.1 0.13 0.1 Mn 4.34 1.9 0.61 0.3

Acid 106.30 45.7 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

86

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Beech Creek (BC4) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). BC4 Beech Creek (22596) The TMDL for sampling point BC4 consists of a load allocation to the area upstream of sample point BC4. The load allocation for this tributary was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point BC4. The average flow, measured at the sampling point BC4 (95.43 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point BC4 shows pH ranging between 3.7 and 4.3; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C76. Load Allocations for Point BC4

Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 2.80 2228.0 0.56 445.6 Fe 1.92 1525.9 1.15 915.5 Mn 2.48 1976.3 0.52 415.0

Acid 28.34 22546.4 0.0 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0


Average Flow

Allowable Load



Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

87

The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point BC4 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point BC4 shown in Table C77. A comparison of measured loads between points SDNY01, NFBC01, SFBC01, BCUT01, BCUT02, BCUT03 and BC4 shows that there is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum, iron and manganese. The total segment aluminum, iron and manganese load is the sum of the upstream allocated load and any additional loading within the segment. A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Beech Creek (BC3) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). Wasteload allocation for the post mining discharge Halfway Coal Yard is incorporated into the calculations at BC3. This is the first downstream monitoring point that receives all the potential flow of treated water from the treatment site. The waste load allocations for the discharge is calculated with average monthly permit limits and average flow. Included in the permits are limits for aluminum, iron and manganese.

Table 79. Waste Load Allocation Parameter Allowable

Average Monthly

Conc. (mg/L)

CalculatedAverage

Flow (MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

Halfway Coal Yard Al 0.75 0.18 1.1 Fe 3.0 0.18 4.6 Mn 2.0 0.18 3.0

Table C77. Calculation of Load Reduction at Point BC4 Al Fe Mn Acidity

Existing Load 2228.0 1525.9 1976.3 22546.4 Difference in Existing Load between SDNY01, NFBC01, SFBC01, BCUT01, BCUT02, BCUT03 & BC4 1233.9 851.1 1141.8 10669.7 LOAD TRACKED FROM SDNY01, NFBC01, SFBC01, BCUT01, BCUT02 & BCUT03 116.0 160.0 117.5 136.8

Percent loss due to instream process - - - - Percent load tracked from SDNY01, NFBC01, SFBC01, BCUT01, BCUT02 & BCUT03 - - - - Total Load tracked from SDNY01, NFBC01, SFBC01, BCUT01, BCUT02 & BCUT03 1349.9 1011.1 1259.2 10806.4 Allowable Load at BC4 445.6 915.5 415.0 0.0 Load Reduction at BC4 904.8 96.7 845.0 10806.4 % Reduction required at BC4 67 10 67 100


Average Flow

Allowable Load



Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

88

BC3 Beech Creek (22596) The TMDL for this segment of Beech Creek consists of a load allocation to all of the watershed area between sample points BC4 and BC3. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point BC3. The average flow, measured at the sampling point BC3 (127.36 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point BC3 shows pH ranging between 3.8 and 4.4, pH be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C80. Load Allocations for Point BC3Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc.(mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 2.23 2371.9 0.56 593.0 Fe 0.88 937.3 0.74 787.3 Mn 2.38 2531.5 0.55 582.2

Acid 22.69 24095.3 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point BC3 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point BC3 shown in Table C81. A comparison of measured loads between points BC4 and BC3 shows that there is no additional loading entering the segment for iron. For iron the percent decrease in existing loads are applied to the allowable upstream loads entering the segment. There is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum and manganese. The total segment aluminum and manganese loads are the sum of the upstream allocated loads and any additional loading within the segment.


Existing Load 2371.9 937.3 2531.5 24095.3Difference in Existing Load between BC4 & BC3 143.9 -588.6 555.1 1549.0 Load tracked from BC4 445.6 915.5 415.0 0.0 Percent loss due to instream process - 39 - -

Percent load tracked from BC4 - 61 - - Total Load tracked from BC4 589.5 562.4 970.2 1549.0 Allowable Load at BC3 592.9 787.3 582.2 0.0 Load Reduction at BC3 0.0 0.0 387.9 1549.0 % Reduction required at BC3 0 0 40 100

89

MP6 Mouth of Unt (22726) of Beech Creek The TMDL for this segment of Beech Creek consists of a load allocation to all of the watershed area upstream of sample point MP6. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MP6. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MP6 (0.01 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point MP6 shows pH ranging between 2.9 and 5.0, pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts. Allocations were not calculated for aluminum because WQS were met. Because WQS were met, TMDLs for aluminum are not necessary. Although TMDLs are not necessary, the measured loads are considered at the next downstream point BC2.


MP6 Al Fe Mn Acidity (#/day) (#/day) (#/day) (#/day)

Existing Load ND 0.7 4.5 28.9 Allowable Load=TMDL NA 0.02 0.04 0.01 Load Reduction 0.0 0.68 4.46 28.89Total % Reduction 0 97 99 99.96

MP5 Mouth of Unt (22716) of Beech Creek The TMDL for this segment of Beech Creek consists of a load allocation to all of the watershed area upstream of sample point MP5. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MP5. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MP5 (0.003MGD), is used for these computations.

Table C82. Load Allocations for Point MP6 Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al ND ND NA NA Fe 5.92 0.7 0.18 0.02 Mn 36.21 4.5 0.36 0.04

Acid 235.31 28.9 0.09 0.01 Alk 0.28 0.0

Table C84. Load Allocations for Point MP5Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al ND ND NA NA Fe 0.20 0.005 0.20 0.005 Mn 5.08 0.122 0.25 0.006

Acid 30.67 0.737 0.31 0.007 Alk 2.00 0.05

90

There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point MP5 shows pH ranging between 3.8 and 4.8; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts. The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream, which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range and keep a net alkalinity above zero, 99% of the time. The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report, Table 2). The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B. Allocations were not calculated for aluminum because WQS were met, a TMDL for aluminum is not necessary. Although a TMDL is not necessary, the measured loads are considered at the next downstream point BC2. Logway Run The TMDL for the Logway Run Watershed consists of one waste load allocation and load allocations of one abandoned mine discharge and two sampling sites along the stream. Data was collected in 2002 and 2003 for completion of the TMDL. The data is included in Attachment E. Logway Run is listed as impaired on the PA Section 303(d) list by both high metals and low pH from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to the stream. For pH, the objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream that will in turn raise the pH to the acceptable range. The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report, Table 2). The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B. An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at all sample points for iron, aluminum, manganese, and acidity. The analysis is designed to produce an average value that, when met, will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99% of the time. An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99% of the time. The simulation was run assuming the data set was lognormally distributed. Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set, 5000 iterations of sampling were completed, and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter. For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated, if necessary, to meet water-quality criteria. A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99% of the time. The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards.

Table C85. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at MP5


Existing Load ND 0.005 0.122 0.737 Allowable Load=TMDL NA 0.005 0.006 0.007 Load Reduction 0.0 0.0 0.116 0.73 Total % Reduction 0 0 95 99

91

TMDL Calculations - Sample Point 4A, Logway Run upstream of MD-14 discharge The TMDL for sample point 4A consists of a load allocation to all of the area above the point (Attachment A). The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point 4A. The average flow of 0.23 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. This segment was included on the 1996 and 1998 PA Section 303(d) lists for metals impairments from AMD. In 1998 a new assessment was completed on the segment and pH was added as a cause of impairment. Sample data at point 4A shows pH ranging between 3.2 and 3.7; pH will be addressed as part of this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C87. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point 4A

Al (lbs/day)

Fe (lbs/day)

Mn (lbs/day)

Acidity (lbs/day)


TMDL Calculations - Sample Point DEP1, abandoned mine discharge The TMDL for sample point DEP1 consists of a load allocation to the abandoned discharge (Attachment A). The load allocation was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point DEP1. The average flow of 0.076 MGD, measured at the point, is used for these computations. There is currently an entry for the stream segment to which the discharge drains on the PA Section 303(d) list for metals and pH impairments from AMD. Sample data at point DEP1 shows pH ranging between 2.8 and 3.1; pH will be addressed as part of this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C86. TMDL Calculations at Point 4A


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 16.23 30.9 0.32 0.6 Fe 7.43 14.2 0.45 0.8 Mn 44.93 85.7 0.00 0.0


Table C88. TMDL Calculations at Point DEP1


Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

LTA Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 5.35 3.4 0.32 0.2 Fe 51.23 32.3 0.51 0.3 Mn 59.08 37.2 0.00 0.0


92


Point DEP1 Al

(lbs/day) Fe

(lbs/day) Mn

(lbs/day) Acidity

(lbs/day) Existing Load 3.4 32.3 37.2 236.4 Allowable Load 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Load Reduction 3.2 32.0 37.2 236.4 % Reduction 94 99 100 100

Waste Load Allocations– Permitted Discharge The Keystone Coal Co., SMP#14743007 has one treated discharge MD-14 that discharges to Logway4 of Logway Run. The waste load allocation for the discharge is calculated with average monthly permit limits and average flow. Included in the permit are limits for aluminum, iron and manganese. The WLA for MD-14 is evaluated at point Logway4. Logway4 Mouth of Logway Run (22701) The TMDL for Logway Run consists of a load allocation to all of the watershed area upstream of sample point Logway4. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point Logway4. The average flow, measured at the sampling point Logway4 (0.79 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point Logway4 shows pH ranging between 3.1 and 3.6; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point Logway4 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point Logway4 shown in Table C92. A comparison of measured loads between points 4A, DEP1 and Logway3 show that there is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum, iron and manganese. The total segment aluminum, iron and manganese



Conc. (mg/l)

Calculated Average

Flow (MGD)

WLA (lbs/day)

MD-14 Al 2.0 0.0492 0.8 Fe 3.0 0.0492 1.2 Mn 2.0 0.0492 0.8

Table C91. Load Allocation at Point Logway4Measured

Sample Data Allowable Parameter

Conc.(mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 8.79 57.6 0.26 1.7 Fe 11.53 75.6 0.35 2.3 Mn 42.23 296.7 0.14 0.9

Acid 241.50 1584.3 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

Table C92. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at Point Logway4 Al

(lbs/day) Fe

(lbs/day) Mn

(lbs/day) Acidity

(lbs/day) Existing Load 57.6 75.6 296.7 1584.3 Difference in Existing Load between Logway4, 4A & DEP1 23.3 29.1 173.8 897.8 Load tracked from DEP1 & 4A 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 Total Load tracked between points 4A & DEP1 24.1 30.2 173.8 897.8 Allowable Load at Logway4 1.7 2.3 0.9 0.0 Load Reduction at Logway4 22.4 27.9 172.9 897.8 % Reduction required at Logway4 93 92 99 100

93

loads are the sum of the upstream allocated loads and any additional loading within the segment. Beech Creek MP1 Mouth of Unt (22695) of Council Run The TMDL for this segment of Beech Creek consists of a load allocation to all of the watershed area upstream of sample point MP1. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MP1. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MP1 (0.36 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point MP1 shows pH ranging between 4.8 and 7.3, pH be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts. Allocations were not calculated for aluminum, iron and manganese because WQS were met, TMDLs for aluminum, iron and manganese are not necessary. Although TMDLs are not necessary, the measured loads are considered at the next downstream point BC2.

Table C94. Calculation of Load Reduction Necessary at MP1


Existing Load ND 0.23 0.65 4.71 Allowable Load=TMDL NA 0.23 0.65 4.66 Load Reduction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 Total % Reduction 0 0 0 1

MP2 Mouth of Council Run (22691) The TMDL for this segment of Council Run consists of a load allocation to all of the watershed area between sample points MP1 and MP2. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MP2. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MP2 (0.92 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point MP2 shows pH ranging between 5.6 and 6.8; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts.

Table C93. Load Allocations for Point MP1Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al ND ND NA NA Fe 0.08 0.23 0.08 0.23 Mn 0.22 0.65 0.22 0.65

Acid 1.57 4.71 1.56 4.66 Alk 9.34 27.99

Table C95. Load Allocations for Point MP2 Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al ND ND NA NA Fe 0.08 0.59 0.08 0.59 Mn 0.13 1.03 0.13 1.03

Acid 1.50 11.48 1.22 9.0 Alk 9.97 73.34

94

Allocations were not calculated for aluminum, iron and manganese because WQS were met; TMDLs for aluminum, iron and manganese are not necessary. Although TMDLs are not necessary, the measured loads are considered at the next downstream point BC2. The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point MP2 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point MP2 shown in Table C96. A comparison of measured loads between points MP1 and MP2 shows that there is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum, iron and manganese. The total segment aluminum, iron and manganese load is the sum of the upstream allocated load and any additional loading within the segment. A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Beech Creek (BC2) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). BC2 Beech Creek (22596) The TMDL for this segment of Beech Creek consists of a load allocation to all of the watershed area between sample points BC3, MP2, MP6, MP5 Logway4 and BC2. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point BC2. The average flow, measured at the sampling point BC2 (151.39 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point BC2 shows pH ranging between 3.9 and 4.5; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts. Allocations were not calculated for iron because WQS were met; a TMDL for iron is not necessary. Although a TMDL is not necessary, the measured loads are considered at the next downstream point WQN243.

Table C96. Calculation of Load Reduction at Point MP2 Al Fe Mn Acidity

Existing Load 0.0 0.6 1.0 11.5 Difference in Existing Load between MP1 & MP2 0.0 0.4 0.4 6.8 Load tracked from MP1 0.0 0.2 0.7 4.7

Percent loss due to instream process - - - - Percent load tracked from MP1 - - - - Total Load tracked from MP1 0.0 0.6 1.0 11.4 Allowable Load at MP2 0.0 0.6 1.0 9.3 Load Reduction at MP2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 % Reduction required at MP2 0 0 0 19


Average Flow

Allowable Load



Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

95

Table C98. Load Allocations for Point BC2

Measured Sample

Data Allowable


Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 1.90 2398.9 0.55 695.7 Fe 0.55 695.3 0.55 695.3 Mn 1.93 2441.0 0.48 610.3

Acid 19.32 24388.4 0.00 0.0 Alk 0.00 0.0

The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point BC2 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point BC2 shown in Table C99. A comparison of measured loads between points BC3, MP2, MP6, MP5, Logway4 and BC2 shows that there is no additional loading entering the segment for aluminum, iron and manganese. For aluminum, iron and manganese the percent decrease in existing loads are applied to the allowable upstream loads entering the segment.


Existing Load 2398.9 695.3 2441.0 24388.4 Difference in Existing Load between BC3, MP2, MP6, MP5, Logway4 & BC2 -48.6 -540.0 -153.7 -1332.4 Load tracked from BC3, MP2, MP6, MP5 & Logway4 595.2 788.8 585.0 9.3

Percent loss due to instream process 2 44 6 5 Percent load tracked from BC3, MP2, MP6, MP5 & Logway4 98 56 94 95 Total Load tracked from BC3, MP2, MP6, MP5 & Logway4 583.4 443.9 550.4 8.8 Allowable Load at BC2 695.7 695.3 610.3 0.0 Load Reduction at BC2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 % Reduction required at BC2 0 0 0 100

Middle Branch Big Run The TMDL for Middle Branch Big Run consists of load allocations to three sampling sites along the stream (MB03, MB05 and MB02), four abandoned treatment pond discharges (MB08, MB10, MB09 and MB07) and 2 springs (MB12 and MB13). Two other sample points (MB04 and MB06) were found to be unimpaired and therefore were not included in this TMDL. Data sets include seven or eight samples rounds taken throughout 2002 for each sample point in the Middle Branch Big Run watershed. All sample points are displayed on the maps included in Attachment A. Allowable load values for each sample point are shown on the schematic on the next page. Middle Branch Big Run is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals and pH from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to the stream. The objective of this TMDL is to reduce acid loading to the stream, which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range and keep a net alkalinity above zero, 99% of the time. The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates

96

to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report, Table 2). The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B. An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals as well as acidity. The analysis is designed to produce an average value that, when met, will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99% of the time. An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99% of the time. The simulation was run assuming the data set was lognormally distributed. Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set, 5000 iterations of sampling were completed, and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter. For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated, if necessary, to meet water-quality criteria. A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99% of the time. The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards. Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point. TMDL calculations- MB07 a discharge from a pond near a jeep road The TMDL for sample point MB07 consists of a load allocation to all of the area at and above this point shown in Attachment A. The load allocation for this discharge was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MB07. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MB07 (0.25 MGD), is used for these computations. The allowable load (raw water) at MB07, after passing through an old established treatment system, will contribute directly to the downstream point MB09 (treated water). Sample data at point MB07 shows that this discharge contributing to Middle Branch Big Run has a pH ranging between 3.6 and 3.8. Because of the low pH values, there currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH.

Table C101 Calculation of Load Reductions at Point MB07

Al

(lbs/day)Fe

(lbs/day)Mn

(lbs/day)Acidity

(lbs/day)Existing Load 33.98 418.96 196.48 1354.69Allowable Load 0.95 2.10 1.38 0.00 Load Reduction 33.03 416.86 195.10 1354.69% Reduction required 97% 99% 99% 100%

Table C100 Load Allocations for Point MB07

Measured


Parameter Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Aluminum 16.13 34.0 0.45 1.0

Iron 198.86 419.0 0.99 2.1

Manganese 93.26 196.5 0.65 1.4

Acidity 643.00 1354.7 0.00 0.0

Alkalinity 0.00 0.0

97

TMDL calculations- MB09 discharge after flow through treatment cells The TMDL for sample point MB09 consists of a load allocation to all of the area at and above this point shown in Attachment A. The load allocation for this discharge was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MB09. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MB09 (0.25 MGD), is used for these computations. The allowable load at MB09 will contribute directly to the downstream point MB05. Sample data at point MB09 shows that this discharge contributing to Middle Branch Big Run has a pH ranging between 2.6 and 3.0. Because of the low pH values, there currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point MB09 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point MB09 shown in Table C103. A comparison of measured loads between points MB07 and MB09 shows that there is no additional aluminum, iron, manganese, and acidity load entering the segment. For aluminum, iron, manganese and acidity the percent decrease in existing loads are applied to the allowable upstream loads entering the segment.

Table C103. Allocations MB09

Al

(Lbs/day)Fe

(Lbs/day)Mn

(Lbs/day) Acidity

(Lbs/day) Existing Load @ MB09 32.70 153.67 188.52 1152.12 Difference in measured Loads between the loads that enter and existing MB09 -1.28 -265.29 -7.96 -202.57 Percent loss due calculated at MB09 4% 63% 4% 15% Additional load tracked from above samples 0.95 2.10 1.38 0.00 Percentage of upstream loads that reach the MB09 96% 37% 96% 85% Total load tracked between MB07 and MB09 0.91 0.77 1.32 0.00

Allowable Load @ MB09 0.85 1.69 1.32 0.00 Load Reduction @ MB09 0.06 -0.92 0.00 0.00 % Reduction required at MB09 7% 0% 0% 0%


Measured Sample

Data Allowable

Parameter Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Aluminum 15.55 32.7 0.40 0.9

Iron 73.06 153.7 0.80 1.7

Manganese 89.63 188.5 0.63 1.32

Acidity 547.74 1152.1 0.00 0.0

Alkalinity 0.00 0.0

98

TMDL calculations- MB10-Small discharge from PVC pipe between points MB08 and MB07 The TMDL for sample point MB10 consists of a load allocation to all of the area at and above this point shown in Attachment A. The load allocation for this discharge was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MB10. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MB10 (0.01 MGD), is used for these computations. Because this is one of two discharges that form the most upstream points of this segment, the allowable load allocations calculated at MB10 is equal to the actual load that MB10 will contribute directly to the downstream point MB05. Sample data at point MB10 shows that this discharge contributing to Middle Branch Big Run has a pH ranging between 2.7 and 3.8. Because of the low pH values, there currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH.

Table C105 Calculation of Load ReductionsNecessay at Pooint MB10

Al

(Lbs/day)Fe

(Lbs/day)Mn

(Lbs/day)Acidity

(Lbs/day) Existing Load @ MB10 0.69 5.83 5.65 35.16 Allowable Load @ MB10 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.00 Load Reduction @ MB10 0.68 5.81 5.61 35.16 % Reduction required @ MB10 99% 99.7% 99% 100%

TMDL calculations- MB08-Discharge with settling pond The TMDL for sample point MB08 consists of a load allocation to all of the area at and above this point shown in Attachment A. The load allocation for this discharge was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MB08. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MB08 (0.07 MGD), is used for these computations. Because this is one of four discharges that form the most upstream points of this segment, the allowable load allocations calculated at MB08 is equal to the actual load that MB08 will contribute directly to the downstream point MB05. Sample data at point MB08 shows that this discharge contributing to Middle Branch Big Run has a pH ranging between 3.2 and 3.7. Because of the low pH values, there currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH.


Measured Sample

Data Allowable

ParameterConc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Aluminum 7.62 0.7 0.11 0.01

Iron 64.17 5.8 0.26 0.02

Manganese 62.18 5.7 0.44 0.04

Acidity 387.08 35.2 0.00 0.0

Alkalinity 0.00 0.0


Measured Allowable

ParameterConc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Aluminum 27.01 15.4 0.49 0.3

Iron 5.55 3.2 0.33 0.2

Manganese 42.64 24.3 0.43 0.2

Acidity 272.20 155.4 0.00 0.0

Alkalinity 0.00 0.0

99

Table C107 Allocations MB08

Al

(Lbs/day)Fe

(Lbs/day)Mn

(Lbs/day)Acidity

(Lbs/day) Existing Load @ MB08 15.42 3.17 24.34 155.36 Allowable Load @ MB08 0.28 0.19 0.24 0.00 Load Reduction @ MB08 15.14 2.98 24.10 155.36 % Reduction required @ MB08 98% 94% 99% 100%

TMDL Calculation –MB05- AMD impacted tributary, sample point above confluence with Middle Branch Big Run The TMDL for sampling point MB05 consists of a load allocation to all of the area at and above this point shown in Attachment A. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MB05. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MB05 (0.50 MGD), is used for these computations. The existing load allocations calculated at MB05 will directly affect the downstream point MB02. There currently is an entry for this segment on the Section Pa 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point MB05 shows pH ranging between 2.7 and 3.2; pH will be addressed as part of this TMDL. The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point MB05 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point MB05 shown in Table C109. A comparison of measured loads between point’s MB08, MB10, MB09 and MB05 shows that there is no additional loading entering the segment for iron. For iron the percent decrease in existing loads are applied to the allowable upstream loads entering the segment. There is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum, manganese and acidity. The total segment aluminum, manganese and acidity load is the sum of the upstream allocated load and any additional loading within the segment.

Table C109 Calculation of Load Reductions Necessary at Point MB05

Al

(Lbs/day)Fe

(Lbs/day)Mn

(Lbs/day) Acidity

(Lbs/day)Existing Load @ MB05 67.24 114.20 253.73 1452.48 Difference in measured Loads between the loads that enter and existing MB05 18.43 -48.47 35.22 109.84 Percent loss due calculated at MB05 NA 30% NA NA Additional load tracked from above samples 1.14 1.90 1.60 0.00 Percentage of upstream loads that reach the MB05 NA 70% NA NA Total load tracked between MB08, MB10, MB09 and MB05 19.57 1.33 36.82 109.84 Allowable Load @ MB05 1.55 2.86 2.03 0.00 Load Reduction @ MB05 18.02 -1.53 34.79 109.84 % Reduction required at MB05 92% 0% 94% 100%

Table C108 Load Allocations for Point MB 05

Measured


ParameterConc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Aluminum 16.16 67.2 0.37 1.6

Iron 27.45 114.2 0.69 2.9

Manganese 60.99 253.7 0.49 2.0

Acidity 349.11 1452.5 0.00 0.0

Alkalinity 0.00 0.0

100

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Middle Branch Big Run (MB03) allowing for one operation with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). TMDL calculations- MB03- on mainstream Middle Branch Big Run above confluence with AMD impaired tributary The TMDL for sample point MB03consists of a load allocation to all of the area at and above this point shown in Attachment A. The load allocation for this segment on Middle Branch Big Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MB03. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MB03 (2.48 MGD), is used for these computations. Because this Sample data at point MB03 shows that this segment contributing to Middle Branch Big Run has a pH ranging between 4.7 and 6.7. Because of the low pH values, there currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. TMDL calculations- MB12 Spring along Middle Branch Big Run The TMDL for sample point MB12 consists of a load allocation to all of the area at and above this point shown in Attachment A. The load allocation for this spring that contributes to Middle Branch Big Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MB12. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MB12 (0.01 MGD), is used for these computations. Because this is a spring point of Middle Branch Big Run, the allowable load allocations calculated at MB12 is equal to the actual load that will


Average Flow

Allowable Load


Conc. (mg/L)(MGD) (lbs/day)

Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50


Measured Sample

Data Allowable

ParameterConc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Aluminum 0.63 13.0 0.36 7.4 Iron ND NA

Manganese ND NA Acidity 11.09 229.6 2.47 51.2

Alkalinity 8.83 182.8


Al

(lbs/day)Iron

(lbs/day)Manganese (lbs/day)

Acidity

(lbs/day)Existing Load 12.99 0.0 0.0 229.58 Allowable Load 7.38 0.0 0.0 51.20 Load Reduction 5.61 0.0 0.0 178.38 % Reduction required 43% 0 0 78%

Table C113 Load Allocation for Point MB12

Measured Sample

Data Allowable

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Aluminum 9.84 1.04 0.22 0.02 Iron ND NA

Manganese 22.70 2.4 0.27 0.03 Acidity 144.03 15.3 0.00 0.0

Alkalinity 0.00 0.0

101

directly affect the downstream point MB02. Sample data at point MB12 shows that this segment contributing to Middle Branch Big Run has a pH ranging between 3.6 and 3.8. Because of the low pH values, there currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH.

Table C114 Calculation of Load Reductions Necessary at MB12

Al

(lbs/day)Iron

(lbs/day)Mn

(lbs/day)Acidity

(lbs/day)Existing Load 1.04 2.41 15.28 Allowable Load 0.02 0.03 0.00 Load Reduction 1.02 2.38 15.28 % Reduction required 98% 99% 100%

TMDL calculations- MB13- Spring lower than MB12 along Middle Branch Big Run The TMDL for sample point MB13 consists of a load allocation to all of the area at and above this point shown in Attachment A. The load allocation for this spring that contributes to Middle Branch Big Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MB13. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MB13 (0.01 MGD), is used for these computations. Because this is a spring point of Middle Branch Big Run, the allowable load allocations calculated at MB13 is equal to the actual load that will directly affect the downstream point MB02. Sample data at point MB13 shows that this segment contributing to Middle Branch Big Run has a pH ranging between 3.4 and 3.7. Because of the low pH values, there currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH.


Al

(lbs/day)Fe

(lbs/day)Mn

(lbs/day)Acidity

(lbs/day)Existing Load 0.53 0.05 1.21 8.86 Allowable Load 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 Load Reduction 0.51 0.02 1.19 8.86 % Reduction required 97% 48% 98% 100%

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Middle Branch big Run (MB02) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load).


Measured Sample

Data Allowable

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Aluminum 7.12 0.5 0.25 0.02 Iron 0.68 0.1 0.35 0.03


Alkalinity 0.00 0.0

102



Flow Allowable


Allowable Conc. (mg/L)

(MGD) (lbs/day) Future

Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

TMDL Calculation – MB02- Point closest to the Mouth of Middle Branch Big Run The TMDL for sampling point MB02 on Middle Branch Big Run consists of a load allocation of the area above point MB02 as shown in Attachment A. The load allocation for this stream segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point MB02. The average flow, measured at the sampling point MB02 (3.49 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is an entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point MB02 shows pH ranging between 3.1 and 4.1; pH will be addressed as part of this TMDL. The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point MB02 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point MB02 shown in Table C119. A comparison of measured loads between points MB05. MB03, MB13, MB12 and MB02 show that there is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum, iron, manganese and acidity. The total segment aluminum, iron, manganese and acidity load is the sum of the upstream allocated load and any additional loading within the segment.


Measured


Parameter Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Conc mg/L

Load lbs/day

Aluminum 4.35 126.5 0.24 6.8 Iron 4.78 139.0 0.67 19.3


Alkalinity 0.00 0.0

103


Al

(lbs/day)Fe

(lbs/day)Mn

(lbs/day)Acidity

(lbs/day) Existing Load @ MB02 126.54 139.04 444.07 2978.44 Difference in measured load between MB05, MB03, MB13, MB12 and MB02 44.74 16.58 183.94 1272.24 Additional load tracked from MB02 8.97 11.10 4.86 51.20 Total load tracked between MB05, MB03, MB13, MB12 and MB02 53.71 27.68 188.80 1323.44 Allowable Load @ MB02 6.83 19.33 8.44 0.00 Load Reduction @ MB02 46.88 8.35 180.36 1323.44 % Reduction at MB02 87% 30% 96% 100%

A waste load allocation for future mining was included for this segment of Beech Creek (WQN243) allowing for five operations with two active pits (1500’ x 300’) to be permitted in the future on this segment (see page 23 for the method used to quantify treatment pond load). WQN243 Mouth of Beech Creek Upstream of Confluence with Bald Eagle Creek The TMDL for this segment of Beech Creek consists of a load allocation to all of the watershed area between sample points BC2, and WQN243. The load allocation for this segment was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point WQN243. The average flow, measured at the sampling point WQN243 (188.67 MGD), is used for these computations. There currently is no entry for this segment on the Pa Section 303(d) list for impairment due to pH. Sample data at point WQN243 shows pH ranging between 3.5 and 7.0; pH will be addressed in this TMDL because of the mining impacts. Allocations were not calculated for iron because WQS were met, a TMDL for iron is not necessary.


Average Flow

Allowable Load



Future Operation 1

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 2

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 3

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 4

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

Future Operation 5

Al 0.75 0.090 0.56 Fe 3.0 0.090 2.25 Mn 2.0 0.090 1.50

104

Table C121. Load Allocations at Point WQN243

Measured



Load (lbs/day)

Conc. (mg/l)

Load (lbs/day)

Al 1.84 2894.8 0.26 405.3 Fe 0.40 633.8 0.40 633.8 Mn 2.74 4316.4 0.27 431.6

Acid 2.35 3702.9 0.28 444.3 Alk 0.84 1317.9

The calculated load reductions for all the loads that enter point WQN243 must be accounted for in the calculated reductions at sample point WQN243 shown in Table C122. A comparison of measured loads between point’s BC2 and WQN243 shows that there is no additional loading entering the segment for iron and acidity. For iron and acidity the percent decrease in existing loads are applied to the allowable upstream loads entering the segment. There is additional loading entering the segment for aluminum and manganese. The total segment aluminum and manganese load is the sum of the upstream allocated load and any additional loading within the segment.

Table C122. Calculation of Load Reduction at Point WQN243 Al Fe Mn Acidity

Existing Load 2894.8 633.8 4316.4 3702.9 Difference in Existing Load between BC2 & WQN243 495.9 -61.5 1875.4

-20685.5

Load tracked from 2 695.7 694.3 610.3 0.0 Percent loss due to instream process - 9 - 85 Percent load tracked from BC2 - 91 - 15 Total Load tracked from BC2 1191.6 633.8 2485.6 0.0 Allowable Load at WQN243 405.3 633.7 431.6 444.3 Load Reduction at WQN243 786.2 0.0 2054.0 0.0 % Reduction required at WQN243 66 0 83 0

Margin of Safety (MOS) PADEP used an implicit MOS in these TMDLs derived from the Monte Carlo statistical analysis. The Water-Quality standard states that water-quality criteria must be met at least 99% of the time. All of the @Risk analyses results surpass the minimum 99% level of protection. Another margin of safety used for this TMDL analysis results from: • Effluent variability plays a major role in determining the average value that will meet water-

quality criteria over the long-term. The value that provides this variability in our analysis is the standard deviation of the dataset. The simulation results are based on this variability and the existing stream conditions (an uncontrolled system). The general assumption can be made that a controlled system (one that is controlling and stabilizing the pollution load) would be less variable than an uncontrolled system. This implicitly builds in a margin of safety.

105

• A MOS is added when the calculations were performed with a daily iron average instead of

the 30-day average. Seasonal Variation Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represent all seasons. Critical Conditions The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions. A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis.

106

Attachment D Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996, 1998, and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated Report/List (2004, 2006)

107

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated Report/List (2006). The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list. In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative, strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process. Suggestions included, but were not limited to, a migration to a Global Information System (GIS), improved monitoring and assessment, and greater public input. The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list. As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list. Most common changes included:

1. mileage differences due to recalculation of segment length by the GIS; 2. slight changes in source(s)/cause(s) due to new EPA codes; 3. changes to source(s)/cause(s), and/or miles due to revised assessments; 4. corrections of misnamed streams or streams placed in inappropriate SWP subbasins;

and 5. unnamed tributaries no longer identified as such and placed under the named

watershed listing. Prior to 1998, segment lengths were computed using a map wheel and calculator. The segment lengths listed on the 1998 Section 303(d) list were calculated automatically by the GIS (ArcInfo) using a constant projection and map units (meters) for each watershed. Segment lengths originally calculated by using a map wheel and those calculated by the GIS did not always match closely. This was the case even when physical identifiers (e.g., tributary confluence and road crossings) matching the original segment descriptions were used to define segments on digital quad maps. This occurred to some extent with all segments, but was most noticeable in segments with the greatest potential for human errors using a map wheel for calculating the original segment lengths (e.g., long stream segments or entire basins).

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 1/24,000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer. Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer. Subsequently, the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 1/24,000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards. In 2005, DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD. A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived. Overall, this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format. The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID. The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together. The map in Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations. A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of “dynamic segmentation” to “fixed

108

segments”. The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective. The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem. The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed. It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OIT’s (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles.

109

Attachment E Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

110

North Fork Beech Creek

Date Flow (gpm) pH Alk (mg/L) Acidity (mg/L) Al (mg/l) Fe (mg/l) Mn (mg/l) SO4 (mg/L)

NFBC01 3/18/2000 19833 4.89 1 13 1.35 1.69 1.13 66 4/1/2000 11230 4.17 0 22 1.6 1.1 1.4 117 5/3/2000 12379 3.76 0 28 2.5 1.1 1.8 144 5/21/2000 7362 3.68 0 28 1.95 0.875 2.3 144 6/7/2000 7348 3.81 0 23 1.8 1 2.1 138 7/25/2000 1357 3.94 0 32 2.2 0.37 3.2 Average 9918.16667 4.04167 0.13167 24.46440 1.90000 1.02250 1.98833 121.90400 St Dev 6205.05998 0.44951 0.32252 6.57991 0.41352 0.42558 0.73431 32.95649

NFUT01 3/18/2000 44 5.73 3 2 <0.02 <0.02 <.02 4/1/2000 41 6.01 3 3 0.13 0.15 0.05 5/3/2000 22 5.67 3 2 0.05 0.03 <.02 5/21/2000 7.7 5.72 2 5 0.05 0.14 <0.02 6/7/2000 2 5.85 3 13 0.33 0.45 0.02 7/24/2000 0.8 Average 19.58333 5.79600 2.68275 5.02525 0.14000 0.19250 0.03500 St Dev 19.30745 0.13667 0.16875 4.47661 0.13216 0.18007 0.02121

NFUT02 3/18/2000 89 4.24 0 27 3.33 0.23 2.02 4/1/2000 17 4.17 0 25 2.4 0.14 1.5 5/3/2000 ND 4.01 0 26 2.8 0.24 1.7 5/21/2000 5.08 3.88 0 24 2 <0.02 1.31 6/7/2000 0.61 3.97 0 22 2.6 0.15 1.6 7/24/2000 ND Average 27.92250 4.05400 0.00000 25.02561 2.62600 0.19000 1.62600 St Dev 41.30179 0.14775 0.00000 1.77772 0.49232 0.05228 0.26321

NFUT03 3/18/2000 90 3.89 0 36 0.44 0.02 0.28 4/1/2000 57.8 3.74 0 79 11 0.5 4.1 5/3/2000 55 3.50 0 92 12 0.74 3.89 5/21/2000 87.11 3.35 0 100 12 1.1 5.4 6/7/2000 83.9 3.35 0 95 11 0.83 5.5 7/24/2000 8.1 3.46 0 75 7 1 6.7 Average 63.65167 3.54750 0.00000 79.52478 8.90667 0.69833 4.31167 St Dev 31.14355 0.22104 0.00000 23.54209 4.54360 0.39265 2.22610

PNCK01 3/18/2000 246 4.42 0 16 2.2 0.21 0.6 4/1/2000 119 4.18 0 21 2.2 0.06 0.6 5/3/2000 164 4.03 0 26 2.6 0.07 0.62 5/21/2000 69.28 4.05 0 22 1.4 0.02 0.605 6/7/2000 0.31 4.27 0 20 2.1 <0.02 0.69

111

Date Flow (gpm) pH Alk (mg/L) Acidity (mg/L) Al (mg/l) Fe (mg/l) Mn (mg/l) SO4 (mg/L)

7/24/2000 ND 0 Average 119.71800 4.19000 0.00000 20.72709 2.10000 0.09000 0.62300 St Dev 93.15420 0.16171 0.00000 3.43754 0.43589 0.08287 0.03834

NFUT04 3/18/2000 1967 6.58 22 4 2.2 1.40 0.7 4/1/2000 1116 6.98 16 8 2 0.28 0.66 5/3/2000 1127 6.44 8 0 2.7 0.13 0.82 5/21/2000 420 7.22 25 10 0.82 0.08 0.78 6/7/2000 444 7.87 33 8 0.58 0.07 0.71 7/24/2000 136 7.75 57 11 0.17 0.57 0.56 Average 868.33333 7.14000 26.94428 6.78358 1.41167 0.42167 0.70500 St Dev 671.22118 0.59002 16.82055 4.21870 1.02087 0.51472 0.09160

LSND01 3/18/2000 4295 3.81 0 28 2 3.60 2.3 4/1/2000 3313 3.61 0 53 4.1 5.5 3.6 5/3/2000 3655 3.23 0 78 6 6.1 4.9 5/21/2000 2108 3.29 0 64 3.6 4.8 4.3 6/7/2000 1209 3.41 0 50 2.9 4.9 4.4 7/24/2000 513 3.21 0 109 4.7 7.3 7.8 Average 2515.50000 3.42667 0.00000 63.76729 3.88333 5.36667 4.55000 St Dev 1482.16676 0.23880 0.00000 27.49949 1.39917 1.26122 1.82948

NFBC02 3/18/2000 2254 4.69 1 19 0.06 0.07 <0.02 4/1/2000 2947 4.33 0 12 0.98 1.1 0.62 5/3/2000 4021 3.93 0 14 0.83 0.84 0.52 5/21/2000 2446 4.24 0 15 0.6 1.4 0.65 6/7/2000 2118 4.62 0 7 0.41 1.4 0.58 7/24/2000 476 4.01 0 57 0.54 1.9 1.2 Average 2377.00000 4.30333 0.10833 20.60749 0.57000 1.11833 0.71400 St Dev 1160.03517 0.30982 0.26536 18.09462 0.32348 0.62394 0.27601

CHRY01 3/18/2000 1487 3.66 0 38 2.2 7.00 2.5 4/1/2000 1053 3.46 0 64 2.4 8.6 3.6 5/3/2000 1191 3.23 0 61 2.9 11 4.1 5/21/2000 814 3.28 0 68 2.4 11 4.2 6/7/2000 836 3.43 0 53 2.5 10.3 3.8 7/24/2000 132 3.13 0 152 4.7 23 9.3 Average 918.83333 3.36500 0.00000 72.79478 2.85000 11.81667 4.58333 St Dev 458.66040 0.19024 0.00000 40.44272 0.93541 5.69646 2.38949

112

NFUT05

3/18/2000 224 3.39 0 66 0.49 0.40 0.42 4/1/2000 525 3.25 0 95 5.8 4.1 5.1 5/3/2000 633 3.13 0 102 7.9 4.5 6.8 5/21/2000 758 3.26 0 70 2.4 13 4.3 6/7/2000 277 3.25 0 88 7.15 5.8 9.3 7/24/2000 96 3.25 0 140 9.3 5.6 15 Average 418.83333 3.25500 0.00000 93.43911 5.50667 5.56667 6.82000 St Dev 258.63907 0.08240 0.00000 26.70579 3.39771 4.13021 4.96653

NFUT06 3/18/2000 2879 4.29 0 16 0.16 0.07 0.12 4/1/2000 1881 3.90 0 41 3.9 1.2 2.3 5/3/2000 2789 3.40 0 106 5.3 1.9 3.4 5/21/2000 1541 3.45 0 50 3.8 1.9 2.9 6/7/2000 1326 3.68 0 38 3.3 2.1 3.2 7/24/2000 257 3.49 0 73 5.5 2.6 4.6 Average 1778.83333 3.70167 0.00000 53.95877 3.66000 1.62833 2.75333 St Dev 981.71695 0.34208 0.00000 31.78291 1.92520 0.88612 1.49595

NFBC03 3/18/2000 16 3.28 0 91 2.9 22.00 8 4/1/2000 15.2 3.23 0 112 2.5 25 9.5 5/3/2000 11.3 2.77 0 120 2 19 8.4 5/21/2000 5.54 2.94 0 208 2.8 48 13 6/7/2000 0.13 3.04 0 175 2.7 40 12 7/24/2000 3.8 2.98 0 231 3.8 50 20 Average 8.66167 3.04000 0.00000 155.95833 2.78333 34.00000 11.81667 St Dev 6.47660 0.18984 0.00000 56.86578 0.59133 13.69671 4.47232


Date Flow (gpm) pH Alk (mg/L) Acidity (mg/L) Al (mg/l) Fe (mg/l) Mn (mg/l)

SFBC01 3/18/2000 16478 5.98 4 2 1.4 1.50 0.5 4/1/2000 11884 5.35 5 2 0.39 0.04 0.14 5/3/2000 15320 5.00 7 1 0.43 0.06 0.14 5/21/2000 6535 5.98 6 2 0.18 0.03 0.11 6/7/2000 6846 6.37 8 3 0.27 0.08 0.09 7/25/2000 2315 6.42 4 3 0.13 0.06 0.12 Average 9896.33333 5.85000 5.75489 2.07702 0.46667 0.29500 0.18333 St Dev 5563.54249 0.56597 1.57778 0.82196 0.47171 0.59058 0.15629

SFBC02 3/18/2000 11126 6.22 0 4 0.12 0.16 <0.02 4/1/2000 6903 6.09 3 3 0.16 0.16 0.09 5/3/2000 9264 6.27 4 3 0.06 0.12 0.04

113

Date Flow (gpm) pH Alk (mg/L) Acidity (mg/L) Al (mg/l) Fe (mg/l) Mn (mg/l)

5/21/2000 2672 6.46 5 4 <0.02 0.08 0.02 6/7/2000 4601 7.08 12 5 <0.02 0.07 <0.02 7/24/2000 1457 6.80 3 6 0.27 0.17 0.16 Average 6003.83333 6.48667 4.50611 4.16137 0.15250 0.12667 0.07750 St Dev 3779.32605 0.38114 4.00412 1.21999 0.08846 0.04367 0.06238 BT-2

8/3/2000 100 4.6 45 7 6.59 0.21 2.25 9/27/2001 145 4.4 70 4 9.75 0.24 3.18 12/21/2001 510 4.4 32 4 0.06 1.18 10/30/2002 108 4.9 42 6 6.09 0.70 2.10

Average 215.75000 4.56750 47.15000 5.25000 7.47667 0.30175 2.17750 St Dev 197.14356 0.22262 16.17271 1.50000 1.98457 0.27679 0.81879

SFUT01 3/18/2000 97 6.33 2 11 0.05 0.04 <0.02 4/1/2000 56 6.91 6 12 0.06 0.13 0.06 5/3/2000 6.39 5 13 0.29 0.09 0.16 5/21/2000 22.2 6.71 7 16 0.045 0.125 0.05 6/7/2000 0.095 7.72 7 30 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 7/24/2000 0.4 6.31 8 17 0.05 0.03 0.05 Average 35.13900 6.72833 5.83333 16.47679 0.09900 0.08300 0.08000 St Dev 41.42542 0.54127 2.13698 7.06012 0.10691 0.04658 0.05354

SFUT02 3/18/2000 129 3.61 91 0 16.39 0.16 4.09 4/1/2000 139 3.56 118 0 17 0.16 4.3 5/21/2000 115 3.32 101 0 13 0.19 3.4 6/7/2000 0.46 3.52 102 0 16 0.18 4.1 7/24/2000 64.6 3.52 119 0 15 0.48 4.1

Average 89.61200 3.50600 106.08074 0.00000 15.47800 0.23400 3.99800 St Dev 57.46481 0.11036 11.74845 0.00000 1.56442 0.13813 0.34572

114

Logway Run

4A pH Alkalinity Acidity Iron Manganese Aluminum Flow Date Lab mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l gpm

6/22/2002 3.30 0.0 280.00 5.16 43.70 19.10 200.00 7/22/2002 3.2 0.0 244.00 9.31 66.30 20.20 75

10/29/2002 3.4 0.0 312.80 13.10 56.30 14.80 20 3/19/2003 3.7 0.0 107.60 2.15 13.40 10.80 340

Average 3.40000 0.00000 236.10000 7.43000 44.92500 16.22500 158.75000St Dev 0.21602 0.00000 90.15683 4.78590 22.96089 4.30223 142.38299

DEP1 pH Alkalinity Acidity Iron Manganese Aluminum Flow Date Lab mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l gpm

6/20/2002 2.9 0.0 416.00 49.50 59.60 5.06 50 7/22/2002 2.8 0.0 384.00 54.60 77.30 6.48 50

10/29/2002 3.0 0.0 505.20 75.70 72.30 7.01 35 3/19/2003 3.1 0.0 194.40 25.10 27.10 2.84 75

Average 2.95000 0.00000 374.90000 51.22500 59.07500 5.34750 52.50000St Dev 0.12910 0.00000 130.80566 20.78387 22.58117 1.86339 16.58312

4 pH Alkalinity Acidity Iron Manganese Aluminum Flow

Date Lab mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l gpm 6/20/2002 3.3 0.0 236.00 6.22 39.80 9.25 750 7/22/2002 3.1 0.0 306.00 14.60 72.00 11.40 300

10/29/2002 3.1 0.0 359.20 22.90 56.70 11.10 110 3/19/2003 3.6 0.0 64.80 2.38 12.40 3.40 1025

Average 3.27500 0.00000 241.50000 11.52500 45.22500 8.78750 546.25000St Dev 0.23629 0.00000 128.14924 9.14003 25.53095 3.71537 417.00070

115

Date Flow (gpm)

MD-14 06/01/02 35 06/20/02 50

07/01/02 50 07/22/02 50

08/01/02 <1 09/01/02 <1

10/01/02 No flow 10/29/02 5 11/01/02 5.5

12/01/02 8 01/01/03 18 02/01/03 45 03/19/03 75 Average 34.150 St Dev 23.935 Beech Creek

Site Date Flow (gpm) pH Alk (mg/L) Acidity

(mg/L) Al (mg/l) Fe (mg/l) Mn (mg/l)

CTRY01 3/18/2000 290 4.09 0 22.65 0.21 0.02 0.06 4/1/2000 336 4.04 0 24.44 2.2 0.28 0.89 5/1/2000 226 3.80 0 28.06 2.2 0.23 0.77 5/27/2000 113 3.72 0 28.83 2.0 0.31 0.84 6/7/2000 112 3.66 0 26.05 2.0 0.45 0.88 7/25/2000 23.4 3.71 0 28.83 1.6 1.0 0.97

avg= 183.40 3.84 0.00 26.48 1.70 0.38 0.74 stdev= 2.55 0.76 0.33 0.34



SNDY03 3/18/2000 4899 5.02 1.10 4.07 0.37 0.20 0.12 4/1/2000 2376 4.82 1.30 6.00 0.27 0.18 0.1 5/1/2000 4021 4.72 0.60 7.94 0.22 0.07 0.1 5/27/2000 3202 5.19 1.12 6.48 0.195 0.07 0.125 6/7/2000 1633 5.24 1.64 1.54 0.11 0.02 0.11 7/25/2000 430 5.51 1.47 6.44 0.11 0.08 0.09

avg= 2760.17 5.08 1.20 5.41 0.21 0.10 0.11 stdev= 2.27 0.10 0.07 0.01



SDUT04 3/18/2000 75 3.90 0 38.2 4.9 0.37 1.8 4/1/2000 132 3.89 0 62.4 7.8 0.35 2.7 5/1/2000 226 3.60 0 80.0 11 0.24 2.7 5/27/2000 166 3.65 0 50.4 5.2 0.26 2.2 6/7/2000 125 3.69 0 54.5 6.8 0.34 2.7

116

7/25/2000 9.2 3.66 0 65.0 6.2 1.2 3.5 avg= 122.20 3.73 0.00 58.40 6.98 0.46 2.60 stdev= 14.23 2.23 0.37 0.57



BUTY01 3/18/2000 4430 4.71 0.7 8 0.06 0.02 0.02 4/1/2000 2866 4.58 0.6 10 0.68 0.29 0.35 5/1/2000 3410 4.42 0.0 9 0.69 0.23 0.3 5/27/2000 2584 4.52 0.1 13 0.64 0.23 0.34 6/7/2000 1008 4.50 0.0 12 1.1 0.43 0.63 7/25/2000 317 4.23 0.0 17 0.87 0.67 0.71

avg= 2435.83 4.49 0.24 11.39 0.67 0.31 0.39 stdev= 3.44 0.35 0.22 0.25



SDUT03 3/18/2000 1061 3.22 0 107 9 11.00 10 4/1/2000 1129 3.30 0 110 7.9 10 8.3 5/1/2000 1745 3.08 0 108 7.6 8.1 7.6 5/26/2000 957 3.07 0 129 8.3 7.8 12 6/7/2000 909 3.05 0 132 12 9.6 14 7/24/2000 575 3.14 0 158 10 11 16

avg= 1062.67 3.14 0.00 123.83 9.13 9.58 11.32 stdev= 19.87 1.65 1.38 3.29



SNDY02 3/18/2000 13030 4.01 0 24 3 2.00 2.2 4/1/2000 6569 3.84 0 35 3 2.7 2.6 5/1/2000 8736 3.63 0 37 3.2 2.3 2.7 5/26/2000 7492 3.32 0 31 2.4 1.7 2.6 6/7/2000 4418 3.56 0 48 3.7 2.8 4.6 7/24/2000 1496 3.35 0 79 4.9 4.8 7

avg= 6956.83 3.62 0.00 42.26 3.37 2.72 3.62 stdev= 19.55 0.86 1.10 1.86



SDUT02 3/18/2000 451 3.48 0 173 25 1.50 6.5 4/1/2000 206 3.30 0 208 26 1.4 5.7 5/1/2000 199 3.13 0 207 29 2.2 7.4 5/26/2000 154.35 3.19 0 182 22 2.1 5.7 6/7/2000 98.2 3.26 0 172 22 2.7 6.6 7/24/2000 20.3 3.21 0 269 31 7.6 15

avg= 188.14 3.26 0.00 201.92 25.83 2.92 7.82 stdev= 36.41 3.66 2.34 3.58



117

SDUT01 3/18/2000 465 3.19 0 278 3.7 0.44 1.7 4/1/2000 390 3.02 0 384 44 6 20 5/3/2000 598 2.82 0 412 73 16 32 5/26/2000 253 2.85 0 501 54 10 26 6/7/2000 127 2.91 0 470 62 12 27 7/24/2000 87 3.00 0 666 81 15 41

avg= 320.00 2.97 0.00 451.72 52.95 9.91 24.62 stdev= 130.37 27.49 5.87 13.24



SNDY01 3/18/2000 14881 3.75 0 46 4.8 2.90 3.4 4/1/2000 7473 3.67 0 66 6.8 4.8 4.6 5/1/2000 11601 3.41 0 73 7.7 4 4.6 5/26/2000 9314 3.47 0 64 5.35 3.9 4.15 6/7/2000 4816 3.30 0 97 8 6.4 6.8 7/25/2000 1698 3.22 0 150 10 9.1 11

avg= 8297.17 3.47 0.00 82.72 7.11 5.18 5.76 stdev= 37.15 1.90 2.25 2.81

NFBC01 Date Flow (gpm) pH Alk

(mg/L) Acidity (mg/L) Al (mg/l) Fe (mg/l) Mn (mg/l)

3/18/2000 19833 4.89 1 13 1.35 1.69 1.13 4/1/2000 11230 4.17 0 22 1.6 1.1 1.4

5/3/2000 12379 3.76 0 28 2.5 1.1 1.8 5/21/2000 7362 3.68 0 28 1.95 0.875 2.3

6/7/2000 7348 3.81 0 23 1.8 1 2.1 7/25/2000 1357 3.94 0 32 2.2 0.37 3.2 Average 9918.16667 4.04167 0.13167 24.46440 1.90000 1.02250 1.98833 St Dev 6.57991 0.41352 0.42558 0.73431

SFBC01 Date Flow (gpm) pH Acidity

(mg/L) Alk


3/18/2000 16478 5.98 4 2 1.4 1.50 0.5 4/1/2000 11884 5.35 5 2 0.39 0.04 0.14

5/3/2000 15320 5.00 7 1 0.43 0.06 0.14 5/21/2000 6535 5.98 6 2 0.18 0.03 0.11

6/7/2000 6846 6.37 8 3 0.27 0.08 0.09 7/25/2000 2315 6.42 4 3 0.13 0.06 0.12 Average 9896.33333 5.85000 5.75489 2.07702 0.46667 0.29500 0.18333 St Dev 0.82196 0.47171 0.59058 0.15629



BCUT01 3/19/2000 177 4.48 0 14 2.8 1.70 1 4/1/2000 84 4.28 0 23 2.8 0.13 0.84 5/3/2000 85 4.19 0 22 2.7 0.02 0.79 5/26/2000 99.56 4.25 0 23 2.4 0.02 0.655

118

6/7/2000 26.9 4.22 0 22 2.0 0.02 0.51 7/24/2000 2.5 4.38 0 27 2.4 0.08 0.85

avg= 79.16 4.30 0 21.96 2.52 0.33 0.77 stdev= 4.34 0.31 0.67 0.17



BCUT02 3/19/2000 86 4.08 0.0 96.2 1.7 0.02 0.53 4/1/2000 49 3.92 0.0 123.2 17.0 0.28 5.8 5/3/2000 55 3.72 0.0 169.5 22.0 0.02 7.2 5/26/2000 51.89 3.88 0.0 132.2 18.0 0.03 6.3 6/7/2000 5.96 3.89 0.0 128.2 19.0 0.08 5.9 7/24/2000 1.7 4.23 0.0 76.1 11.0 0.5 4.3

avg= 41.59 3.95 0.00 120.91 14.78 0.16 5.01 stdev= 32.16 7.36 0.20 2.39



BCUT03 3/18/2000 124 3.82 0.0 81.6 12.5 0.39 3.64 4/1/2000 22 3.72 0.0 116.7 18.0 0.06 4.6 5/1/2000 31 3.57 0.0 139.7 18.0 0.04 4.2 5/26/2000 21.43 3.64 0.0 88.1 11.0 0.02 3.5 6/7/2000 14 3.57 0.0 94.4 13.0 0.02 3.9 7/24/2000 2.3 3.72 0.0 117.3 16.0 0.26 6.2

avg= 35.79 3.67 0.00 106.30 14.75 0.13 4.34 stdev= 22.04 3.00 0.16 0.99 BC4

Site Flow (gpm) pH

Acidity (mg/L) Alk (mg/L) Al (ppm) Fe (ppm) Mn (ppm)

1 19933 3.7 37.57 0.0 3.30 2.10 3.60 1 44746 3.9 28.29 0.0 2.80 2.00 2.80 1 47982 3.9 31.05 0.0 3.10 2.00 2.90 1 57874 4.0 23.08 0.0 2.40 2.10 2.10 1 82756 4.3 26.31 0.0 2.60 1.80 1.90 1 144151 4.3 23.75 0.0 2.60 1.50 1.60

avg= 66240.33 4.01 28.34 0.00 2.80 1.92 2.48 stdev= 5.39 0.34 0.23 0.75

119

BC3

Site Flow (gpm) pH

Acidity (mg/L)

Alk (mg/L) Al (ppm) Fe (ppm) Mn (ppm)

2 32331 3.8 28.4 0.00 2.60 0.51 3.20 2 61776 3.9 21.1 0.00 1.90 0.62 2.30 2 64263 3.9 26.6 0.00 2.50 0.76 3.10 2 73881 4.0 18.9 0.00 2.10 1.20 2.20 2 109484 4.3 21.7 0.00 2.30 1.20 2.00 2 188770 4.4 19.5 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 avg= 88417.50 4.05 22.69 0.00 2.23 0.88 2.38

stdev= 3.92 0.28 0.30 0.66

Date Flow pH Alkalinity Acidity Fe Mn Al MP6 gpm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

6/30/1994 1 3.1 0 30 2.54 58.3 9/30/1994 18 3.2 0 320 1.98 44.32 11/25/1994 1 3.3 0 366 2.71 41.95 3/22/1995 35 3.3 0 242 1.78 33.49 6/30/1995 6 3.3 0 160 0.94 22.21 8/7/1995 4 3.1 0 300 2.57 33.26

12/15/1995 18 3.3 0 160 1.33 24.7 3/19/1996 8 3.3 0 288 1.69 37.49 5/23/1996 15 3.3 0 280 1.65 48.92 9/12/1996 12 3.2 0 212 1.71 30.53 10/31/1996 20 3.3 0 232 1.3 28.92 11/6/1996 50 3.1 0 286 8.73 32.7 17 9/22/1997 1 5 0 8 0.26 2.87 12/19/1997 5 3.4 0 216 1.78 27.42 2/3/1998 28 3.4 0 184 1.25 19.73 6/30/1998 1 3.1 0 800 54.03 93 9/18/1998 1 2.9 0 228 14.47 29.54 10/30/1998 1 3.9 0 142 3.26 35.63 3/31/1999 12 3.3 0 138 1.06 21.81 6/4/1999 1 3.2 0 472 47.35 89.96 9/17/1999 1 3.2 0 264 2.69 44.64 11/12/1999 dry 3/9/2000 12 4.7 8 54 0.94 24.38 6/9/2000 8 3.2 0 290 2.55 49.88 7/7/2000 8 3.3 0 270 2.27 45.42 11/2/2000 1 3.3 0 266 3.79 35.62 3/16/2001 12 3.3 0 116 1.23 18.42 5/7/2001 2 3.3 0 116 1.31 21.66 9/20/2001 dry 11/13/2001 dry 3/20/2002 5 3.5 0 132 3.02 23.1 6/21/2002 dry 7/18/2002 dry 11/21/2002 10 3.1 0 252 1.43 30.2

avg= 10.24 3.38 0.28 235.31 5.92 36.21 17.00

120

stdev= 148.32 12.73 19.12 #DIV/0!

Date Flow pH Alkalinity Acidity Fe Mn Al MP5 gpm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

6/30/1994 dry 9/30/1994 dry 11/25/1994 dry 3/22/1995 4 3.8 0 54 0.14 7.68 6/30/1995 dry 8/7/1995 dry

12/15/1995 dry 3/19/1996 dry 5/23/1996 1 3.8 0 38 0.36 7.33 9/12/1996 1 4.76 6 0 0.11 0.22 10/31/1996 dry 9/22/1997 dry 12/19/1997 dry 2/3/1998 dry 6/30/1998 dry 9/18/1998 dry 10/30/1998 dry 3/31/1999 dry 6/4/1999 dry 9/17/1999 dry 11/12/1999 dry 3/9/2000 dry 6/9/2000 dry 7/7/2000 dry 11/2/2000 dry 3/16/2001 dry 5/7/2001 dry 9/20/2001 dry 11/13/2001 dry 3/20/2002 dry 6/21/2002 dry 7/18/2002 dry 11/21/2002 dry

avg= 2.00 4.12 2.00 30.67 0.20 5.08 #DIV/0! stdev= 27.74 0.14 4.21 #DIV/0!

121

Date Flow pH Alkalinity Acidity Fe Mn Al gpm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

MP1 6/30/1994 100 6.1 6 0 0.01 0.07 Council Run 9/30/1994 250 5.8 8 0 0.06 0.42

11/25/1994 250 5.7 8 0 0.01 0.33 3/22/1995 350 6.3 10 0 0.01 0.16 6/30/1995 150 6.2 12 0 0.01 0.33 8/7/1995 200 4.8 8 6 0.01 0.38 12/15/1995 1000 5 6 0 0.05 0.23 3/19/1996 185 5.8 12 0 0.04 0.18 5/23/1996 300 4.9 8 0 0.04 0.19 9/12/1996 150 6.3 10 0 0.05 0.43 10/31/1996 175 6.5 10 0 0.04 0.17 11/6/1996 6.5 11 3 <0.3 <0.05 <0.5 9/22/1997 200 6.5 12 0 0.04 0.44 12/19/1997 250 6.1 14 0 0.04 0.16 12/29/1997 300 6.5 12 6 <0.3 <0.05 <0.5 2/3/1998 350 7.3 18 0 0.04 0.22 6/30/1998 200 5.4 10 4 0.04 0.24 9/18/1998 100 7 20 0 0.04 0.15 10/30/1998 70 4.9 6 6 0.04 0.64 3/31/1999 5.5 8 4 0.1 0.14 6/4/1999 400 6.1 8 4 0.17 0.14 9/17/1999 55 6 6 4 0.17 0.22 11/12/1999 250 6.4 10 0 0.11 0.23 3/9/2000 5.9 8 2 0.22 0.1 6/9/2000 500 6.2 6 2 0.17 0.03 7/7/2000 350 6.2 8 4 0.16 0.17 11/2/2000 75 6.4 8 2 0.14 0.24 3/16/2001 6 8 0 0.06 0.1 5/7/2001 6.3 8 0 0.09 0.1 9/20/2001 75 6.1 8 0 0.11 0.17 11/13/2001 250 6 6 2 0.01 0.23 3/20/2002 6.5 10 2 0.26 0.21 6/21/2002 5.8 6 2 0.09 0.1 7/18/2002 200 6.4 8 2 0.02 0.08 11/21/2002 6.3 10 0 0.03 0.17

avg= 249.44 6.05 9.34 1.57 0.08 0.22 #DIV/0! stdev= 1.99 0.07 0.13 #DIV/0!

122

Date Flow pH Alkalinity Acidity Fe Mn Al gpm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

MP2 6/30/1994 6.6 10 6 0.01 0.01 Council Run 9/30/1994 6.3 12 0 0.23 0.4

11/25/1994 350 5.9 10 0 0.01 0.22 3/22/1995 6.2 8 0 0.01 0.07 6/30/1995 6.4 12 0 0.01 0.22 8/7/1995 1000 6.1 14 0 0.02 0.15 12/15/1995 5.6 8 0 0.01 0.15 3/19/1996 2100 6.2 10 0 0.04 0.15 5/23/1996 6.2 10 0 0.04 0.13 9/12/1996 500 6.3 10 0 0.04 0.43 10/31/1996 6.5 12 0 0.05 0.05 9/22/1997 250 6.7 14 0 0.04 0.12 12/19/1997 6.2 12 0 0.04 0.14 12/29/1997 500 5.9 13 7 0.3 0.147 <0.5 2/3/1998 6.4 12 12 0.04 0.23 6/30/1998 300 6.3 10 0 0.04 0.24 9/18/1998 250 6.3 12 0 0.04 0.18 10/30/1998 200 6.6 10 0 0.04 0.34 3/31/1999 5.8 8 4 0.12 0.08 6/4/1999 6.3 8 6 0.15 0.07 9/17/1999 6.6 10 0 0.16 0.03 11/12/1999 6.7 12 0 0.07 0.03 3/9/2000 6.2 8 2 0.22 0.07 6/9/2000 6.3 8 0 0.12 0.08 7/7/2000 6.4 8 4 0.18 0.07 11/2/2000 500 6.8 12 0 0.03 0.03 3/16/2001 5.9 6 2 0.06 0.11 5/7/2001 6.4 8 0 0.11 0.08 9/20/2001 200 6.4 12 0 0.09 0.06 11/13/2001 1500 6.5 10 0 0.01 0.02 3/20/2002 6.1 6 6 0.21 0.16 6/21/2002 5.9 6 2 0.05 0.1 7/18/2002 6.2 8 0 0.03 0.08 11/21/2002 6.3 10 0 0.02 0.11

avg= 637.50 6.28 9.97 1.50 0.08 0.13 #DIV/0! stdev= 2.85 0.08 0.10 #DIV/0!

123

pH Alkalinity Acidity Iron ManganeseAluminum Flow

Station Date Lab mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l gpm Logway4 6/20/2002 3.3 0.0 236.00 6.22 39.80 9.25 750

7/22/2002 3.1 0.0 306.00 14.60 72.00 11.40 300 10/29/2002 3.1 0.0 359.20 22.90 56.70 11.10 110

3/19/2003 3.6 0.0 64.80 2.38 12.40 3.40 1025

Average 3.27500 0.00000 241.50000 11.52500 45.22500 8.78750 546.25000 St Dev 128.14924 9.14003 25.53095 3.71537 417.00070 BC2

Site date-time-samplerID

Flow (gpm) pH

Acidity (mg/L) Alk (mg/L) Al (ppm) Fe (ppm) Mn (ppm)

4 030828-1400 32219 3.9 24.06 0 2.3 0.3 3 4 030913-1045 72127 4.07 18.63 0 1.6 0.34 2 4 031011-1050 73629 4.05 21.69 0 2.1 0.43 2.4 4 031114-0900 97328 4.06 16.31 0 1.7 0.75 1.6 4 040101-1600 130000 4.38 18.55 0 1.9 0.66 1.4 4 040109-1125 225307.6 4.49 16.69 0 1.8 0.82 1.2 AVG= 105101.76 4.16 19.32 0.00 1.90 0.55 1.93 STDEV= 3.00 0.26 0.22 0.68

WQN243

Date Flow pH Alk Acidity Fe Mn Al cfs mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

1/16/1990 110 4.3 0 0.613 2.55 1.74 2/6/1990 1020 5.4 1 1.05 0.763 1.17 3/14/1990 140 4.4 0 0.288 2.51 2.09 4/23/1990 234 4.52 0 0.326 1.63 1.44 5/22/1990 465 4.42 2 0.513 1.04 1.12 6/12/1990 518 4.53 2 0.698 1.26 1.57 7/23/1990 869 4.46 2 0.605 1.23 1.45 8/21/1990 116 0 2 0.46 4.1 3.51 9/6/1990 148 0 0.22 2.62 2

10/10/1990 106 4.1 0 0.18 3.4 1.93 11/7/1990 202 4.34 0 0.345 2.39 1.83 12/26/1990 625 1 0.546 1.27 1.1 1/29/1991 204 4.55 1 0.872 2.5 1.85 2/4/1991 171 4.56 0 1.11 3.44 2.26 3/11/1991 545 4.81 1 0.642 1.47 1.3 4/8/1991 241 4.15 0 0.324 2.23 1.72 5/15/1991 169 3.54 0 0.428 2.35 1.58 6/4/1991 63 0 2 0.175 3.88 2.45 7/9/1991 46 4.02 0 0.25 6.51 0.396 8/7/1991 12 0 4 0.155 8.56 5 9/9/1991 8.3 3.7 0 5 0.2 9.77 6.56

10/21/1991 16 3.9 0 2 0.518 6.31 4.09 11/13/1991 27 3.7 0 3 0.996 8.09 4.24 12/19/1991 79 4.4 0 0.541 1.97 1.16

124

WQN243 Date Flow pH Alk Acidity Fe Mn Al

cfs mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l 1/28/1992 153 4.7 0 0.68 1.64 1.04 2/3/1992 117 5.3 0 0.971 2.18 1.42 3/25/1992 175 4.9 1 0.557 1.52 1.25 4/29/1992 405 5.18 1 0.432 0.991 0.82 5/11/1992 204 4.55 0 0.309 1.7 1.73 6/3/1992 124 4.25 0 0.192 2.17 1.58 7/20/1992 169 4.24 0 0.241 2.01 1.5 8/31/1992 4.62 0 0.252 1.87 1.18 9/28/1992 5.03 1 0.7 1.63 1.3 10/6/1992 159 4.67 0 0.239 1.79 1.28 10/13/1992 116 0 0.52 4.88 3.1 11/9/1992 304 5.08 0 0.515 1.23 0.981 12/16/1992 180 4.8 0 0.508 2.06 1.68 1/26/1993 271 4.25 0 0.645 1.88 1.52 2/24/1993 121 4.55 0 0.861 3.56 2.62 3/22/1993 197 4.8 0 0.894 1.96 1.4 4/28/1993 1530 5.16 0 0.706 1.08 1.47 5/11/1993 322 4.41 0 0.417 2.56 2.32 6/22/1993 60 3.93 0 2.4 0.185 5.15 3.06 7/12/1993 29 4.09 0 3.2 0.14 5.62 3.25 8/2/1993 68 0 2 0.128 5.74 3.34 9/20/1993 21 3.87 0 2.8 0.27 7.36 5.11 11/29/1993 2260 5.99 34 1.55 0.063 1.49 12/13/1993 690 4.85 0 0.381 1.15 1.25 1/24/1994 74 5.03 0 0.466 3.61 2.59 2/14/1994 186 4.3 0 0.343 2.37 1.79 3/15/1994 511 4.98 1.8 0.684 1.29 1.36 4/18/1994 701 4.92 0 0.691 1.97 2.05 5/23/1994 182 4.34 0 0.244 2.44 1.87 6/14/1994 353 4.57 0 0.261 1.61 0.965 7/7/1994 151 4.12 0 0.181 2.95 1.69 8/23/1994 755 5.12 1.2 0.396 0.987 0.803 9/27/1994 86 4.51 0 0.195 3.86 2.24 10/31/1994 35 4.38 0 0.418 4.82 2.88 11/7/1994 52 4.33 0 0.257 3.56 2.31 12/14/1994 414 5.01 2.6 0.407 0.913 0.834 1/4/1995 125 4.41 0 0.47 1.86 1.363 2/27/1995 125 4.52 0 0.478 2.41 1.68 3/8/1995 337 4.85 1.2 0.78 1.65 1.31 4/26/1995 172 4.89 0 0.194 1.56 1.08 5/22/1995 332 5.08 1.2 0.192 0.923 0.659 6/7/1995 138 4.77 0 0.105 1.49 0.873 7/10/1995 65 4.46 0 0.132 2.85 1.53 8/7/1995 38 4.39 0 0.115 4.08 2.1 9/6/1995 15 3.86 0 2.2 0.139 6.41 3.59 10/3/1995 15 3.87 0 0.212 7.86 4.1 11/13/1995 637 5.08 0.8 0.508 0.979 0.736

125

WQN243 Date Flow pH Alk Acidity Fe Mn Al

cfs mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l 12/18/1995 159 4.29 0 0.346 1.97 1.52 1/30/1996 831 5.88 2 0.63 1.02 1.21 2/22/1996 483 5.86 1.6 0.989 1.58 1.8 3/25/1996 540 5.42 2.4 0.453 1.04 1.18 4/23/1996 272 5.01 1.8 0.151 1.34 1.04 5/20/1996 4.76 0 0.15 1.32 1.04 6/17/1996 4.09 0 0.144 2.5 1.49 7/17/1996 4.35 0 0.111 3.45 1.87 8/19/1996 4.45 0 0.091 3.25 1.68 9/24/1996 5.49 2.2 0.258 1.27 0.946 10/10/1996 5.33 1.8 0.196 2.07 1.51 11/25/1996 7.01 1.6 0.217 2.23 2.05 12/23/1996 4.97 2 0.427 1.66 1.33 1/13/1997 4.87 1.8 0.618 1.98 1.59 2/19/1997 1 0.258 1.85 1.26 3/25/1997 5.15 1.8 0.304 1.09 0.945 4/21/1997 4.85 0 0.409 2.09 1.45 5/12/1997 4.86 0 0.12 1.59 1.02 6/9/1997 4.95 1.4 0.139 1.16 0.78 7/15/1997 4.2 0 0.371 0.016 0.318 8/12/1997 4.33 0 0.088 4.59 2.45 9/3/1997 4.28 0 0.143 4.22 1.96 10/7/1997 4.41 0 0.115 3.13 1.4 11/18/1997 5.81 2.2 0.406 1.28 0.792 12/16/1997 5.65 1.6 0.181 1.33 0.983 1/14/1998 5.11 2.2 0.522 0.801 0.904 2/3/1998 5.04 1.6 0.26 1.77 1.47 3/25/1998 5.41 1.8 0.397 1.09 1.09 4/27/1998 6.45 2.2 0.73 0.872 0.952 5/27/1998 4.06 0 0.173 2.47 1.99 6/22/1998 4.39 0 0.135 3.78 2.23 7/13/1998 4.21 0 0.136 3.92 2.09 8/24/1998 4.29 0 0.126 5.91 2.97 10/6/1998 0 0.259 8.08 4.57 12/9/1998 0 0 0.365 6.99 3.48

avg= 291.8014 4.687917 0.837736 2.353846 0.402208 2.743377 1.839717 stdev= 1.373933 0.270032 2.001464 1.064373

126

236 Monitoring Point MB07

pH* Alkalinity

^ Acidity Flow Aluminu

m Mangane

se Iron Date Lab mg/l mg/l gpm mg/l mg/l mg/l

3/13/2002 3.8 0.0 621.20 146 13.6 99 227

4/11/2002 3.8 0.0 604.40 265 12.1 76.4 178

5/13/2002 3.6 0.0 490.20 265 11.6 69.3 145

6/5/2002 3.8 0.0 585.80 290 17 93.7 184 7/8/2002 3.8 0.0 617.00 157 18.6 98.4 196 9/19/200

2 3.7 0.0 736.00 55 18.8 108 233 10/8/200

2 3.8 0.0 846.40 50 21.2 108 229

average 3.75714

3 0 643 175.428

6 16.1285

7 93.2571

4 198.857

14

st dev 0.07868 0 114.950

3 100.510

1 3.71605

3 15.0135

3 32.7385


pH* Alkalinity


m Mangane


3/13/2002 3.0 0.0 579.0 146 13.1 96.2 117

4/11/2002 2.8 0.0 529.8 265 12.7 83 87.5

5/13/2002 2.9 0.0 419.0 265 8.42 51.2 51

6/5/2002 2.7 0.0 456.6 290 16.2 87 64.3 7/8/2002 2.6 0.0 544.0 157 18.3 102 58.7 9/19/200

2 2.6 0.0 597.6 54 19.1 106 64.3 10/8/200

2 2.6 0.0 708.2 49 21 102 68.6 average 2.7 0.0 547.7 175.1 15.5 89.6 73.1

st dev 0.16183

5 0 95.2426

2 100.918

2 4.38276

5 18.9072

9 22.3810


pH* Alkalinity


m Mangane


9/12/2000 3.4 0.0 236.0 14.2 31.3 52.7 13.3

3/13/2002 3.8 0.0 621.2 6.5 13.6 99 227

4/11/2002 2.9 0.0 376.0 6.8 2.22 57 44.5

5/13/2002 3.3 0.0 77.6 15 0.5 10 6.75

6/5/2002 2.7 0.0 388.8 10 2.81 65 42.5 7/8/2002 2.7 0.0 438.8 3 4.22 70.5 47.8 9/19/200

2 2.8 0.0 475.6 3 2.99 72.7 58.7

127

10/8/2002 2.9 0.0 482.6 2 3.32 70.5 72.8

average 3.0625 0 387.075 7.5625 7.62 62.175 64.1687

5

st dev 0.39618

7 0 166.122

1 5.06527 10.3577

5 25.2197

1 69.3101


pH* Alkalinity


m Mangane


9/12/2000 3.4 0.0 14.2 31.3 52.7 13.3 3/13/200

2 3.7 0.0 257.4 48 30.5 44.6 2.62 4/11/200

2 3.7 0.0 254.6 94 25.2 32.5 1.66 5/13/200

2 3.7 0.0 168.8 100 15.1 21.3 1.32 6/5/2002 3.6 0.0 268 55 31.5 41.1 1.84 7/8/2002 3.5 0.0 283.4 56 28.1 40.2 2.35 9/19/200

2 3.2 0.0 334.2 4 27.8 56 9.8 10/8/200

2 3.2 0.0 375.2 9 26.6 52.7 11.5 average 3.5 0 272.2 47.525 27.0125 42.6375 5.54875

st dev 0.21380

9 0 62.2516

6 36.8987

7 5.3164 11.6574

9 5.05881


pH* Alkalinity


m Mangane


3/13/2002 3.1 0.0 385.2 400 15.3 63.7 42.9

4/10/2002 3.0 0.0 321.4 540 14.8 53.9 34.5

5/13/2002 3.2 0.0 141.0 540 5.63 18.8 8.05

6/5/2002 2.8 0.0 325.2 300 17.3 61.3 26.9 7/8/2002 2.7 0.0 412.4 345 22 73.8 25.5 9/19/200

2 2.7 0.0 353.2 140 18.7 80.4 27 10/8/200

2 2.8 0.0 505.4 160 19.4 75 27.3 average 2.9 0.0 349.1 346.4 16.2 61.0 27.5

st dev 0.2 0 111.355

8 161.934 5.25713 20.7156

5 10.5601


pH* Alkalinity


m Mangane


3/14/2002 5.6 10.6 21.2 2250 0.5 0.097 0.3

4/10/2002 5.9 9.0 6.0 3335 0.5 0.086 0.3

5/13/2002 4.7 6.8 19.6 3335 1.04 0.257 0.965

6/5/2002 5.7 7.6 6.2 2000 0.5 0.1 0.3

128

7/8/2002 6.2 8.2 9.6 830 0.85 0.213 0.3 9/19/200

2 6.3 9.4 15.0 230 0.5 0.132 0.3 10/8/200

2 6.7 10.2 0.0 91 0.5 0.053 0.3 average 5.9 8.8 11.1 1724.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 st dev 0.6 1.4 7.8 1368.8 0.2 0.1 0.3

Monitoring Point Spring MB12

pH* Alkalinity


m Mangane


3/13/200 3.6 0.0 143.40 8.88 22.2 0.21 4/10/200

2 3.7 0.0 98.00 5 5.71 13.1 0.3 5/13/200

2 3.8 0.0 39.80 10 0.942 2.7 0.3 6/5/2002 3.6 0.0 88.80 25 6.2 14.4 0.3 7/8/2002 3.6 0.0 127.20 5 8.15 18.4 0.3 9/19/200

2 3.6 0.0 218.00 3 17.7 44.2 0.3 10/8/200

2 3.6 0.0 293.00 5 21.3 43.9 0.3

average 3.64285

7 0 144.028

68.83333

39.84028

6 22.70.28714

29

st dev 0.07868 0 85.6156

98.25631

17.14574

215.7664

20.03401

68 Monitoring Point Spring MB13

pH* Alkalinity


m Mangane


3/14/2002 3.7 0.0 113.6 6.10 11.90 0.30 4/10/200

2 3.7 0.0 92.2 4 4.2 8.67 0.3 5/13/200

2 3.7 0.0 58.8 4 1.13 3.17 0.3 6/5/2002 3.6 0.0 94.8 25 5.47 10.9 0.3 7/8/2002 3.5 0.0 133.2 2 9.84 15.1 0.494 9/19/200

2 3.4 0.0 139.2 1 10.3 30 1.56 10/8/200

2 3.4 0.0 205.8 1 12.8 34.2 1.48

average 3.57142

9 0 119.657

1 6.16666

7 7.12 16.2771

4 0.67628

57

st dev 0.13801

3 0 46.7225

4 9.32559

2 4.04026

8 11.4649

5 0.58116


pH* Alkalinity


m Mangane


3/14/2002 3.8 0.0 56.6 2850 2.11 7.28 3.18

4/10/2002 3.7 0.0 53.8 4370 2.26 7.88 3.49

5/13/2002 4.1 3.6 49.2 4370 1.11 2.27 2.45

6/5/2002 3.4 0.0 75.4 2500 3.9 14 4.57

129

7/8/2002 3.2 0.0 125.6 1780 6 19.1 5.51 9/19/200

2 3.1 0.0 153.6 452 6.79 26.7 6.71 10/8/200

2 3.2 0.0 203.0 622 8.3 29.7 7.57 average 3.5 0.5 102.5 2420.6 4.4 15.3 4.8

st dev 0.37416

6 1.36067

2 59.5802

81597.48

42.71920

210.3489

41.90345

93 Monitoring Point MB04 not in report found to be unimpaired

pH* Alkalinity


m Manganes

e Iron Date Lab mg/l mg/l gpm mg/l mg/l mg/l

3/14/2002 6.0 10.00 5.8 0.5 0.05 0.3 Monitoring Point MB06 not in report found to be unimpaired

pH* Alkalinity


m Manganes

e Iron Date Lab mg/l mg/l gpm mg/l mg/l mg/l

3/14/2002 4.8 9 14.2 0.5 0.109 0.3

130

Attachment F Flow Adjusted Mass Balance Method

131

NFUT06

Morgan #4 Load Allocation Effluent Limits: Aluminum: 2 mg/l Iron: 3 mg/l Manganese: 2 mg/l Average Flow: 0.021 MGD WLA = effluent limit * average flow * 8.34 Aluminum: 0.35 lbs/day Iron: 0.53 lbs/day Manganese: 0.35 lbs/day

Morgan #3 Load Allocation Effluent Limits: Aluminum: 2 mg/l Iron: 3 mg/l Manganese: 2 mg/l Average Flow: 0.021 MGD WLA = effluent limit * average flow * 8.34 Aluminum: 0.35 lbs/day Iron: 0.53 lbs/day Manganese: 0.35 lbs/day

Total Flow = 0.021 MGD (Morgan #3) + 0.021 MGD (Morgan #4) + 2.56 MGD (Instream flow measured at NFUT06) = 2.6 MGD Flow ratio total: Morgan #3 0.021/2.6 = 0.008 Morgan #4 0.021/2.6 = 0.008 NFUT06 2.56/2.6 = 0.985 For every sample point at NFUT06 Flow adjusted iron concentration at NFUT06 (3/18/2000) = (flow ratio Morgan #3 *iron limit at Morgan #3) + (flow ratio Morgan #4 * iron limit at Morgan #4) + (flow ratio at NFUT06 * iron concentration at NFUT06) = (0.008 * 3) + (0.008 * 3) + (0.985 *0.07) = 0.12 mg/l Flow adjusted total allowable iron load at NFUT06 = allowable iron concentration from @Risk simulation using average flow adjusted iron concentration at NFUT06 * total flow * 8.34 = 0.25 * 2.6 * 8.34 = 5.5 lbs/day TMDL = waste load allocation + load allocation + margin of safety (implicit in model) LA at NFUT06 = TMDL – WLA = 5.5 – (0.53 + 0.53) = 4.44

132

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

133

NPDES permitting is unavoidably linked to TMDLs through waste load allocations and their translation, through the permitting program, to effluent limits. Primary responsibility for NPDES permitting rests with the District Mining Offices (for mining NPDES permits) and the Regional Offices (for industrial NPDES permits). Therefore, the DMOs and Regions will maintain tracking mechanisms of available waste load allocations, etc. in their respective offices. The TMDL program will assist in this effort. However, the primary role of the of the TMDL program is TMDL development and revision/amendment (the necessity for which is as defined in the Future Modifications section) at the request of the respective office. All efforts will be made to coordinate public notice periods for TMDL revisions and permit renewals/reissuances.

Load Tracking Mechanisms The Department has developed tracking mechanisms that will allow for accounting of pollution loads in TMDL watersheds. This will allow permit writers to have information on how allocations have been distributed throughout the watershed in the watershed of interest while making permitting decisions. These tracking mechanisms will allow the Department to make minor changes in WLAs without the need for EPA to review and approve a revised TMDL. Tracking will also allow for the evaluation of loads at downstream points throughout a watershed to ensure no downstream impairments will result from the addition, modification or movement of a permit.

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs.

Options identified

• Build excess WLA into the TMDL for anticipated future mining. This could then be used for a new permit. Permittee must show that there has been actual load reduction in the amount of the proposed permit or must include a schedule to guarantee the reductions using current data referenced to the TMDL prior to permit issuance.

• Use WLA that is freed up from another permit in the watershed when that site is reclaimed. If no permits have been recently reclaimed, it may be necessary to delay permit issuance until additional WLA becomes available.

• Re-allocate the WLA(s) of existing permits. WLAs could be reallocated based on actual flows (as opposed to design flows) or smaller than approved pit/spoil areas (as opposed to default areas). The "freed-up" WLA could be applied to the new permit. This option would require the simultaneous amendment of the permits involved in the reallocation.

• Non-discharge alternative.

Other possible options The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds. However, before recommendation for use as viable implementation options, a thorough regulatory (both

134

state and federal) review must be completed. These options should not be implemented until the completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms.

• Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits. The in-

stream criteria value would represent the monthly average, with the other limits adjusted accordingly (e.g., for Fe, the limits would be 1.5 mg/L monthly average, 3.0 mg/L daily average and 4.0 instantaneous max mg/L).

• The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is

no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved. The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source.

135

Attachment H Comment and Response

136

No comments were received.

beechcreek final tmdl - pennsylvania dep€¦ · final beech creek watershed tmdl center and...

Documents