The Casselman River Watershed Restoration Project CONSTANCE A. LOUCKS DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT – AML FROSTBURG MARYLAND 21532 [email protected]

 In the Ohio River Basin  Tributary of the  Flows North  91 square miles in Maryland and  Maryland portion of the main river is 20 miles in length  MD Drainage area: 62.5 mi2  Listed on the 303(d) for pH and biological impairment U.S. EPA 319 (h) Funding – FFY08 • CVI Priorities Study • Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) • $55,000

U.S. EPA 319 (h) Funding – FFY09 • Phase 1 Treatment Systems Completed • 11 sites constructed 2012-2013 • $644,115

U.S. EPA 319 (h) Funding – FFY13 • Phase 2 Treatment Systems Partially Complete • 3 Sites constructed 2014-2015 • 6 Sites to be constructed 2015-2017 • $401,307 Canaan Valley List of Study Criteria  Water Quality pH Impairment Institute under High and Low Flow Priorities Study Regimes  Biological Impairments A Collaborative Project to Prioritize  Streams for AMD Remediation and Brook Fish IBI Values Trout Restoration  Macro IBI Values  Presence of Brook Trout  Maryland Dept of Environment  Habitat Quality Score  Maryland Dept of Natural Resources  Canaan Valley Institute  Access to Roads  Youghiogheny River Watershed Group  Deep Mine Openings  Funding :  Trust Public Use U.S. EPA 319 (h)  Public Interest  Rare, Endangered, Threatened

CVI Tributary Ranking Worksheet

TRIBUTARY RANKING WORKSHEET P.1 TRIBUTARY RANKING WORKSHEET P.2

pH Indicators Biological Indicators Access Importance of Criteria (3-1) 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 0.25 Importance of Criteria (3-1) 3213210 331 3 Hack pH Lab pH pH Impairment (# miles) pH standards (#pts) Fish IBI MacroInv IBI 2007 (#pts) 2007 (#pts) (# pts) (# pts) high flow low flow high flow low flow Deep Mine Openings (# pts) (# pts) Brook Trout Habitat Score SRSF Shed Tributary poor fair poor fair poor fair poor fair poor poor # in trib watershed Shed Tributary good fair poor good fair poor absent present good fair # Rds Xing TOTAL MSC Little Shade Run Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 1 1 18 MSC Little Shade Run Score 0101001 010 0 27.7 Rank Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 1 1 4.5 Weighted 0203000 030 0 18.2 4 MSC Spiker Run Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 1 1 11 MSC Spiker Run Score 0100100 110 1 21.1 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 1 1 2.75 Weighted 0200200 330 3 20.9 3 NBC2 UnNamed 1 Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 NBC2 UnNamed 1 Score 0010011 001 0 6.5 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 Weighted 0010010 001 0 5.5 13 NBC2 Tarkiln Run Score 2 0 0 0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1 0 1 NBC2 Tarkiln Run Score 0000000 000 1 5.9 Weighted 6 0 0 0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1 0 0.25 Weighted 0000000 000 3 11.1 8 NBC2 UnNamed 2 Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 1 1 1 NBC2 UnNamed 2 Score 0000001 001 1 7.2 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 1 1 0.25 Weighted 0000000 001 3 7.4 11 (tie) NBC2 UnNamed 4 Score 0 0 0 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 NBC2 UnNamed 4 Score 0000000 000 0 2.0 Weighted 0 0 0 0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 Weighted 0000000 000 0 3.0 14 NBC2 Alexander Run Score 0 0 0 0 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 1 1 0 NBC2 Alexander Run Score 0000011 001 1 9.5 Weighted 0 0 0 0 3.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 1 1 0 Weighted 0000010 001 3 13.9 6 NBC2 UnNamed 11 Score 0 0 0 0 2.9 0.0 2.2 0.7 4 4 0 NBC2 UnNamed 11 Score 0000000 000 2 15.8 Weighted 0 0 0 0 5.8 0.0 4.4 0.7 4 4 0 Weighted 0000000 000 6 25.0 2 SBC1 UnNamed 12 Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 SBC1 UnNamed 12 Score 0000000 000 2 3.3 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 Weighted 0000000 000 6 7.3 12 SBC2 UnNamed 7 Score 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 SBC2 UnNamed 7 Score 0000000 000 1 5.1 Weighted 0 0 0 0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 0.25 Weighted 0000000 000 3 7.5 10 SBC2 UnNamed 8, 10 Score 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 1 1 0 SBC2 UnNamed 8, 10 Score 0000000 000 1 4.2 Weighted 0 0 0 0 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1 1 0 Weighted 0000000 000 3 7.4 11 (tie) SBC2 Little Laurel Run Score 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 1 1 20 SBC2 Little Laurel Run Score 0000000 110 0 25.6 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.7 1 1 5 Weighted 0000000 330 0 14.8 5 SBC2 UnNamed 5 Score 0 1 0 1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1 1 0 SBC2 UnNamed 5 Score 0000000 000 1 7.1 Weighted 0 2 0 2 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 1 1 0 Weighted 0000000 000 3 12.1 7 SBC2 UnNamed 6 Score 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 1 1 0 SBC2 UnNamed 6 Score 0000000 000 1 4.6 Weighted 0 0 0 0 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 1 1 0 Weighted 0000000 000 3 8.3 9 SBC2 Big Laurel Run Score 0 0 1 0 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.0 3 2 9 SBC2 Big Laurel Run Score 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 21.4 Weighted 0 0 3 0 0.8 1.1 1.8 0.0 3 2 2.25 Weighted 3000000 330 3 26.0 1 Canaan Valley Institute Study Example: Big Laurel & Little Laurel Runs High Flow Prioritization Data Canaan Valley Institute Priorities Study

Tributary Group Scores

SBC2 1st Little Laurel Run SBC 2 2nd Big Laurel Run NBC2 3rd Unnamed 11 NBC2 4th Tarkiln Run MSC 5th Spiker Run MSC 6th Little Shade Run SBC2 7th Unnamed 7/8 NBC2 8th Alexander Run SBC1 9th Unnamed 2 NBC2 10th Unnamed 1 Canaan Valley Institute - Priorities Study Remediation Potential

Project Rank based on  Public Access  Brook Trout  Lime Dump  Leach Bed

Sites 1- 3 1st Priority  Big Laurel Run  Little Laurel Run  North Branch Casselman Trib

Sites 4-6 2nd Priority  Tarkiln Run  Spiker Run  Little Shade Run CVI Priority Sites for AMD Remediation and Brook Trout Restoration

Casselman Watershed pH Impairment and pH Goals

Model pH CASSELMAN LOCATION & SAMPLE DESIGNATION Baseline FINAL TMDL PH GOALS Previous Current Source of Proposed Water TMDL Station TMDL Study pH – Existing pH pH pH r Impairment Location BMPs Quality Name Station (2001Lo - pHs – pH range Minimum Mean Maximu Station Code 2003Hi) 2008/09 m (Lo to Hi) EA Spiker Run Leach Bed C30u Spiker Run SP10018 6.2 / 6.1 5.6 – 7.7 5.57 – 7.78 6.50 7.10 7.84 CA Unnamed Trib to NBC C03 NB Casselman ZWN0003 7.6 / 6.2 4.85 – 8.07 6.50 7.09 8.11 AMD/AD North Branch Casselman C06 NB Casselman NBC0106 7.0 / 6.3 4.26 –7.73 6.57 7.06 7.82 AMD/AD North Branch Casselman C07 NB Casselman NBC0090 6.4 / 6.3 4.23 – 7.67 6.59 7.06 7.36 CA Unnamed Branch to NBC C15 NB Casselman UNA0015 3.3 / 4.3 4.36 – 6.16 6.51 7.04 7.72 CA Alexander Run Sand Dump C22 Alexander Run ALE0011 5.6 / 4.3 4.4 – 4.9 4.20 – 5.55 6.51 6.99 7.26 AMD/AD Tarkiln Run Sand Dump C25 Tarkiln Run TAR0003 7.0 / 5.0 4.7 – 5.3 4.25 – 5.63 6.51 7.02 7.29 AMD Unnamed Trib 2 2LB,3SD,SSB C27 None None 6.3 / 5.6 5.0 – 5.6 UNK Unnamed Trib 1 SD & LB C28 None None 6.7 / 6.6 5.9 – 7.1 AMD/AD North Branch Casselman C38 NB Casselman NBC0072 6.3 / 7.2 4.41 - 7.50 6.53 7.04 7.80 AMD South Branch Casselman C43 SB Casselman SCA0067 6.9 / 5.6 5.21 – 6.82 6.50 7.06 7.36 UNK South Branch Casselman SD &LB C52 None None 7.3 / 6.4 6.0 – 6.7 UNK Unnamed Trib 12 LB C53 None None 7.2 / 5.3 5.6 – 6.2 AMD? Unnamed 8 2Sand Dumps C56 None None 4.8 / 4.4 4.0 – 4.5 CA Little Laurel Run –UTrib 5 Sand Dump C64 Little Laurel Run LLR0024 5.9 / 3.9 4.4 – 5.2 4.22 – 5.61 6.51 7.02 7.28 AMD? Unnamed 6 SD & LB C65 None None 4.5 / 4.3 4.7 – 5.2 AMD Big Laurel Run Sand Dump C72 None None 4.9 / 4.5 4.2 – 4.8 EA Episodic Acidification CA Chronic Acidification Acid Mine Drainage AMD/AD Acidic Deposition UNK Unknown Source = Only BOM = Only TMDL = Both Project Sites Impaired BOM TMDL Reaches Project Impaired Site & Reaches

TAKEN MONTHLY @ 18 SITES  Closed pH . Total Aluminum (mg/l)  Acid Neutralizing . Total Iron (mg/l) Capacity (ueq/l) . Total Calcium (mg/l)  Alkalinity (mg/l) . Total Magnesium  Chloride (mg/l) (mg/l)  Specific Conductance . Sulfate (mg/l) 11 Limestone Sand Dumps 4 Limestone Leachbeds Cost: $525,000

STREAM INTAKE FLOW CONTROL PIPE FROM INTAKE TO BED OUTFLOW TO STREAM

Experimental Siphon Intake Structure

Casselman Watershed AMD Pre & Post BMP Implementation Water Quality Monitoring CASS017(B): 9 CLOSED pH 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.8 6.5 6 5.4 5.5 5 4.5 4 Closed pH Closed 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 pH Values Before Construction of Treatment Systems ranged from 4.3 to 5.5 All Stations Below Phase 1 Treatment Sites have pH’s from 6.51 to 8.04 in 2015

Comparison of results from Pre (2008) and Post (2014) AMD brook trout population data collected by Maryland Department of Natural Resources for Big Laurel Run, Little Laurel Run, and Spiker Run: •Adult trout standing crops increased: •2.8x in Little Laurel Run •2.2x in Spiker Run •Big Laurel Run stayed the same •Adult trout densities increased: •2.9x in Little Laurel Run •2.2x in Spiker Run •Big Laurel Run stayed the same. •Young of year trout abundance showed an increase in all three streams: • 1.3x in Big Laurel Run, • 3.3x in Little Laurel Run •1.5x in Spiker Run

3 Limestone Sand Dumps Completed 3-4 additional sites planned for next year Both Sand Dumps and Leachbeds Snyder Sand Dump - $12,640

Koch Sand Dump - $8,800

Bowser Sand Dump - $11,810 Phase 2 sites lie above Phase 1 projects Phase 1 treats pH’s TO 6.51 to 8.04 in 2015

Koch Limestone Sand Dump

The Casselman Watershed Remediation Project demonstrates that Limestone Sand and Limestone Leach Beds are useful and powerful tools in the toolbox of AMD and Acid Remediation Efforts.

The Challenge of Funding Our The Reward of Clear and Programs Achievable Goals

The Problem of Limited Staff Support Simple Design

The Specter of EPA NPDES Permits Relatively Easy Construction

The Burden of High Maintenance The Relief of Low Maintenance

The Discouragement of Failing Systems Enjoying Success Questions?